BitChute

@lsanger Larry Sanger (@Wikipedia co-founder): "How is it possible that the most powerful people on Wikipedia, which is itself one of the most powerful media properties in the world, could be completely anonymous? They wield so much power yet take no real-world responsibility at all." Full interview released today on The Corbett Report → bitchute.com/video/MpPjF6tt…

It looks like there is an issue with Rumble video at the moment.  You can watch on bitchute. bitchute.com/channel/1uDxpD…

07/20 12pm ET | The Fein Print - The Truth is in The Fein Print x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Digital ID scrapped by Burnham - great. They didn't scrap it on principle. They just couldn't afford it yet. This surveillance tool will be back the second they can pay for it.

If you’re elected, you serve the people who elected you. There’s no other way around it. So why do American politicians sell out the people who put them in office? A senator should treat his community like family. Instead, too many put every lobby imaginable ahead of their own people. As a result we have War in Iran that does not help Americans, but hurts them instead. Watch FULL here: bitchute.com/video/6LCKdPF3…

Trump personally declassified the refutation of his own speech thirteen days before delivering it. I read the White House election release against the speech, claim by claim, all four document pillars. Every check is one you can perform yourself. jeffreywernick1.substack.com/p/more-real-no…

Half a million Brits just ditched the BBC licence fee, biggest drop in years as trust collapses. Yet the Government’s response? Force-feed more BBC 'trusted' content on YouTube & TikTok via algorithm boosts to 'fight misinformation'. People are voting with their wallets. You can't regulate your way back to relevance.

🎙️ New Episode of The Fein Print: Live Monday at 12:00 PM ET on X, BitChute and YouTube! Join host Jeffrey Wernick with constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein and former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich as they tackle: *Can Trump strike without Congress? *Can he unilaterally leave NATO? *Can he end all trade with Spain? *What are our war powers? The truth is in The Fein Print.

If one exception is justified, why not all of them?

Wikipedia article about BitChute is a travesty.

The True Total U.S. Military Budget // Good Talk bitchute.com/video/MamGUFRa…

06/30 12pm ET | Watergate Would Be a 12-Hour News Story x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

The Threat Is Backwards scheerpost.com/2026/06/28/the… via @Scheer_Post

🚨 TOMORROW | The Fein Print with Bruce Fein, Dennis Kucinich & Jeffrey Wernick “Watergate would be a 12-HOUR NEWS STORY.” — said the Vice President at the Nixon Library Nixon’s own Justice Department. The current rewrite. And the Alito immigration rulings that just gutted judicial review. MONDAY, JUNE 29 • 12 NOON ET • LIVE Don’t miss this one. Links in the comments #TheFeinPrint #BruceFein

What "Overtly Racial" Means Now In ruling that Haitians may be stripped of protected status and removed, the Court rejected the claim that the decision was racially motivated. The statements cited against the government, it held, were "not overtly racial," and "all expressed policy views that could rest on race neutral justifications." One of the statements was the President's claim that Haitians were eating their neighbors' pets. Not a few Haitians. Not particular individuals. Haitians as a people, a national group named and assigned degrading conduct as a class. The policy then withdrew protection from that same group. If a statement that names the very people later stripped of protection, and attributes subhuman conduct to them as a class, is not "overtly racial," then nothing is. The bar has not been set high. It has been set where no statement can reach it, because the most explicit form animus can take has been ruled insufficient. And Justice Samuel Alito is not an inexperienced lawyer or an overmatched judge. He is among the most capable jurists of his generation. He knows exactly what a generalization about a people is. He knows exactly what the law asks when it inquires into discriminatory purpose. That is what makes this opinion damning. The deficiency cannot be charged to inability. When reasoning this capable produces a justification this thin, the thinness is the evidence, evidence not of what the judge privately believes, which is his own, but of the position itself. It is what an argument looks like when there is no better one to be had. So the failure cannot be excused as a mistake of intellect. It must be judged as a failure of the office. A judge entrusted with guarding constitutional limits instead adopted a standard built so that it cannot recognize the very abuse it exists to catch. That is the precise charge. Not that he reached a result, but that he installed a test designed to see nothing. The rule of law is supposed to discipline power. Here the standard is not applied to test the desired result. It is reshaped until the result can pass through it. Whatever the judge intended, the opinion does the work of advocacy while keeping the form of judgment. That is how the rule of law gives way to the rule of will. Not by abandoning legal reasoning, but by making legal reasoning serve the conclusions it was meant to test.

Keeping the Republic By Jeffrey Wernick Three decisions came down the same day. Read together, they describe more than a series of legal rulings. They describe a method. In the first, the Court held that a person fleeing for their life who walks up to a United States port of entry and is physically prevented from stepping across the line has not "arrived in the United States," and so is owed none of the protections Congress guaranteed those who arrive. The government may place an officer at the boundary, turn the person back, and the statutory duty to inspect them or hear their asylum claim never attaches. The majority called the blocking a "mere delay" adopted to improve conditions. The government's own Inspector General had already found that officers invoked capacity limits regardless of actual capacity, while facilities sat empty much of the time, and that officers were instructed to tell people the port was full when it was not. The characterization was delay. The documented effect was denial. It is worth remembering what the modern asylum system was built to prevent. It emerged after the world watched governments evade their obligations by keeping desperate people from ever reaching the place where those obligations attached. The point was to prevent form from defeating substance. The reading adopted here restores the maneuver the law was designed to foreclose. The second decision earned a name. After the Court allowed it to stand, observers began calling them Kavanaugh stops after the concurrence that approved them. Stops justified by a collection of individually lawful facts that together describe a vast number of innocent people. Apparent ethnicity. Speaking Spanish. The kind of work someone performs. The neighborhood where they happen to be. A profile that fits half the innocent population identifies no one in particular. The assurance that made the result acceptable was that anyone lawfully present would be free to leave after the brief encounter. Yet the record in that very case describes United States citizens who said they were citizens and were detained anyway, including one man forced against a fence with his arm twisted behind his back. The characterization was a brief encounter. The documented effect was a seizure. A word about the term before I extend it. Kavanaugh stop was coined by Professor Anil Kalhan to describe a particular category of immigration stop associated with Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence. I use it more broadly, not as the accepted legal definition, but as an analytical shorthand for something I believe these three decisions share. A genuine legal hook that authorizes a result while minimizing or characterizing away the human cost of reaching it. By that measure, the asylum decision is a Kavanaugh stop performed on a statute. The hook is a preposition. The characterization is that a person turned away has merely been delayed. The documented consequence is people returned to rape, assault, torture, or drowning. The third decision is a Kavanaugh stop performed on judicial review itself. There the Court held that when the government strips protected status from people who have lived and worked lawfully in the United States for years, courts may not review whether the government complied with statutory requirements in doing so. Lower courts had concluded that required procedures were likely skipped. The Court did not hold that those procedures had been followed. It held that no court may ask whether they had. One justice put the consequence plainly during argument. Congress wrote requirements that no court may enforce. The requirement remains on the page. The means of compelling compliance disappears. The remaining constitutional claim alleged racial targeting. The Court rejected it in a few sentences. The statements were not overtly racial. The policy affected every country receiving protected status. Therefore the explanation was race neutral. Breadth became its own defense. The same reasoning that transforms a profile covering countless innocent people into individualized suspicion transforms a policy affecting broad classes into evidence against discriminatory intent. That is the through line. It is worth separating it into two claims. The descriptive claim is that each case turns on a legal characterization. Whether someone has arrived. Whether a collection of facts amounts to reasonable suspicion. Whether Congress intended judicial review. The normative claim is that each characterization reduces or removes legal protection for people facing concrete and documented harm. I do not ask the reader to conclude that any justice first chose the outcome and only later supplied the reasoning. I ask only that the reasoning be read alongside its consequences. Delay rather than denial. A brief encounter rather than a seizure. No review rather than no remedy. The law does not operate only through commands. It also operates through characterization. What we choose to call a thing often determines whether the law recognizes it at all. None of this requires coordination between the Court and the executive. Institutions need not conspire when they move in the same direction. Judicial opinions announce what kinds of governmental action the Constitution or statutes will tolerate. Executive lawyers naturally litigate within those boundaries. Alignment produces many of the same practical effects as coordination without requiring anyone to exchange a single message. It is fair to ask whether those who draw these lines regard themselves as neutral arbiters or as participants in a contest. The Court's own members do not all answer alike. Pressed at a public event to agree that one side must prevail and that the country should be returned to a place of godliness, the Chief Justice declined. It is not the Court's role, he said, to decide whether the nation should be put on a more moral path. Its role is to decide the cases as best it can. That is a description of the office, offered from its center chair, and it stands in quiet contrast to the conception of judging these three decisions reflect. The larger question is not whether individual judges act in good faith. It is whether they understand the office they hold. The deepest cost is not any single ruling. It is what happens to a republic when the institution designed to restrain power becomes increasingly willing to explain why power need not be restrained. The apparatus remains. Briefs are filed. Arguments are heard. Opinions are issued. Dissents are written. Every visible form of constitutional government continues. What gradually disappears is the thing those forms were created to produce. An independent check on power. The Framers never believed they could draft a Constitution that made virtue unnecessary. They built separated powers because they knew ambition would always exist. They did not trust rulers to be good. They expected institutions to restrain the abuse of power because they understood human nature better than most modern political theorists. And they built it to do more than catch ambition after the fact. The separation of powers and the system of checks were not only a net beneath the tightrope. They were the discipline that taught the walker to keep his balance. An officeholder who knows a coordinate branch can check him, that his reasoning will be tested by a dissent the public will read, that the boundary of his office is patrolled and his trespasses named, is pressed by that exposure toward the restraint the office demands. The checks do not merely catch the vice. They cultivate the virtue. They are imperfect, and they were meant to be. They were never meant to be removed. But they also understood something equally important. Institutions alone could never keep the republic. They expected constitutional virtue. They expected officeholders to understand that they were custodians of constitutional limits, not advocates for preferred outcomes. They expected judges to regard themselves not as allies of one branch or another, but as guardians of the boundary between them. They expected public office to carry obligations that outweighed partisan victory. This is why the erosion runs deeper than three outcomes. When the Court reads a statute so that no court may review it, it does not only fail to restrain power in the case before it. It wears away the mechanism by which restraint was supposed to become a habit, in the branch it empowers and in itself. Remove the check and you lose more than a safeguard. You lose the pressure that was forming the character whose absence is the whole subject of this essay. The vice and the dismantling of its remedy are the same act. And yet the remedy is not gone. The Chief Justice declining to treat the bench as a weapon is the protocol still working, which means its absence elsewhere is a choice, not a fate. That is why Benjamin Franklin's answer has endured. A republic, if you can keep it. Keeping it was never only about elections. It was never only about written constitutions. It was never only about checks and balances. Those were protections against imperfect human beings. They were never substitutes for constitutional character. Virtue has become an unfashionable word. The Founders used it without apology because they understood that no constitutional design can survive its complete absence. Checks and balances restrain ambition. They do not replace virtue. They cannot make constitutional government endure when those entrusted with preserving it increasingly view constitutional limits as obstacles to be explained away rather than duties to be honored. That is why these decisions matter together. They are not simply disagreements over immigration law or administrative law. They reflect a conception of judicial office in which expanding executive discretion repeatedly becomes easier than preserving constitutional restraint, and where the human consequences of that expansion are increasingly absorbed into legal characterization rather than constitutional concern. The greatest danger is not that the Constitution will be openly discarded. It is that its language remains, its ceremonies continue, its institutions endure, while the habits of mind that gave them life quietly disappear. A Constitution cannot save a people from that. It can only delay the day they discover they are no longer keeping the republic.

The US will now tell you it’s sending “relief” to Venezuela. The richest country in the history of the world is reportedly 33rd when it comes to humanitarian relief for people in need. But when “aid” means weapons for Ukraine or Israel, Washington is right at the top. America is always ready to fund killing — rescuing people seems to come much lower on the list. Watch FULL here: bitchute.com/video/Mx3uWewW…

Full video on BitChute bitchute.com/video/4Frn63rZ…

Our videos are also on @Bitchute.