The censorship regime that threatens Europe has crossed the Atlantic and has landed in the New World. Brazil became the latest example of a reputed “democracy” opting for a totalitarian evisceration of free speech in the name of combating “misinformation.” On Saturday, a Brazilian court ruled that the social media platform X would be banned from the country and that anyone caught using a VPN—a virtual private network—to access the website would be fined the equivalent of $9,000. That’s around the average annual income in Brazil, according to some estimates. On Monday, the country’s highest court unanimously upheld the decision. The one judge who opposed the fine said that people who go on X shouldn’t be punished unless they promote “racism, fascism, or Nazism, obstruct criminal investigations, or incite crimes in general.” Notice: No mention of socialism or communism. The Left will always oh-so-nobly protect unlimited free speech for communists, of course. X Chairman Elon Musk countered Brazil’s ban by making his satellite internet constellation Starlink free to users in Brazil, but now Brazil’s government is threatening that, as well. Did we see any outrage from the Biden administration or the corporate media over this obvious attack on an American company and free speech? Nope. What we got from the White House were crickets, and the corporate media have been doing their best to spin this into a mere regulatory technicality that’s mostly a good thing. Nothing would have happened to X if it had just complied with the Brazilian government, they say. That’s notable, given that so many media commentators warned that the previous right-wing Brazilian administration was going to be authoritarian. Now that the new left-wing Brazilian government has trampled on free speech in a direct way, they suddenly find the whole authoritarian thing kind of neat. Whatever spin they put on this, what happened in Brazil is a serious threat to freedom. It’s a disturbing and predictable continuation of a larger battle taking place over speech in the free world. As institutions and governments now largely captured by left-wing ideology lose credibility, and various “populist” movements threaten to take power, Western regimes are increasingly willing to use government force to cut them off at the knees. It’s interesting how this came to be. Big Tech was once sold by the Left as a totally benign collective institution that was meant to bring the whole world together in a great global exchange of ideas and friendship. That never really happened. It turns out that binding the whole world together means that we recognize each other’s differences just as much or more than our similarities. Hence, conflict. I do really get the feeling that some of the Left’s early Big Tech proponents really did think that globalized communications would turn everyone into a generic Western liberal. When those platforms became conduits for ideas and political movements they didn’t like, the self-proclaimed proponents of tolerance did what they’re wont to do when their utopian ideas get stymied by reality: They turned to censorship and force. They are increasingly comfortable using government power to threaten and pressure social media platforms to censor “misinformation”—which all too often is simply information or opinions they dislike. They do this, laughably, in the name of “our democracy.” At one time, much of Big Tech was happy to oblige the whims of petty bureaucrats and censorious left-wing governments. They did so freely. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, Big Tech and Big Government largely worked hand in hand. But the landscape has changed a bit in the past few years after the remarkable acquisition of Twitter, now X, by Musk. Social media technologies have always provided an opening to step around traditional media institutions. The Left now wants to put the genie back in the bottle with censorship. Losing X to someone who wasn’t entirely on board with their ideas was seen as an existential threat. It didn’t even have to be a conservative or someone on the Right. Initially, they just flew into hysterics about how Musk’s takeover was a threat to democracy, but now they are mobilizing and encouraging governments to ruthlessly crack down on powerful platforms that won’t bend over backwards to their demands. Many on the Left are celebrating what’s happened to X in Brazil and are demanding other governments do the same, or worse. “@elonmusk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote.Because he is a weird and entitled billionaire tech bro. Tax him… https://t.co/YYlYnD4VXV— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) August 30, 2024 Former President Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, Robert Reich, even wrote that Musk should be arrested—just as the CEO of Telegram was in France—if he doesn’t crack down on speech on his platform. As I noted in a previous piece about the growing power of the censorship regimes in Europe, don’t count on the United States being immune to that temptation. Yes, we have the First Amendment. We also have a lot of people in the media and in high places in this country who would like nothing more than to see our old Constitution be dissolved. Vice President Kamala Harris said in 2019 that then-President Donald Trump should be censored by X. Are we to believe that she wouldn’t want to censor him in 2024? The existential threat to democracy isn’t coming from Musk, or X, or some anonymous social media accounts. It’s coming from unaccountable government bureaucracies and politicians who want to commandeer tech platforms to do their bidding—or else. It’s coming from the institutional powers that think you can’t handle the truth, can’t handle information that goes against their narrative about how the world should be. As power slips ever so slightly from their hands, they are now showing their teeth and will do increasingly illiberal things to ensure that the Left remains in control, forever. The post Censorship Crosses the Pond as Brazil Bans X appeared first on The Daily Signal.

East Blake Lane Park in Oakton, Virginia, sits about 16 miles down the road from the White House, where President Joe Biden lives, and about 17 1/2 miles from the Naval Observatory, where Vice President Kamala Harris resides. Shortly after 3 p.m. on July 20, according to a statement published on July 22 by the Fairfax County Police Department, a local resident was walking down a path in that area when he saw something disturbing in the woods. It was 47-year-old Nicacio Hernandez Gonzalez — and he was “lying unresponsive.” “Officers located an adult male with obvious trauma to the body,” said the police statement. “He was declared deceased at the scene.” “Preliminarily, detectives believe that this was not a random act,” said the police. “Detectives continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the man’s death.” So, what did they discover? “Through an extensive investigation, Detectives arrested Maldin Anibal Guzman, 27, and Wis Alonso Sorto-Portillo, 45, both of no fixed addresses,” said a statement released the next day by the Fairfax police. “Guzman and Sorto-Portillo have been charged with Malicious Wounding by Mob. They are being held at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center with no bond.” Three days later, the Fairfax police put out another statement with this headline: “Update: Third Suspect Arrested in Connection To Oakton Homicide.” “Detectives from our Fugitive Tracking and Apprehension Unit, with the assistance of the Metro Transit Police Department, Amtrak Police, and U.S. Marshals Service, arrested Wilmer Adli Guzman, 20, of no fixed address, in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday,” said the police. “Adli Guzman was charged with Malicious Wounding by Mob and is currently being held at the D.C. Central Detention Facility. He is pending extradition to Fairfax County.” The Fairfax City Patch, a local news organization, then reported that Guzman, whose full name is Maldin Anibal Guzman-Videz, was in the United States illegally. “Guzman-Videz is a Honduran noncitizen who was in the country illegally, according to ICE,” the Patch reported. “He was arrested Nov. 18, 2018 by the U.S. Border Patrol after entering the country near Hidalgo, Texas.” The local ABC News affiliate also reported that he was in the country illegally. “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials confirmed to 7News that one of the suspects, Guzman-Videz, is a Honduran in the U.S. illegally,” it said. Fairfax Police had arrested him previously on March 17, 2023, and then again on June 28, 2023. The first time, as reported by the Patch, they “charged him with malicious assault involving a victim severely injured.” The second time, they “charged him with malicious wounding.” The “Malicious Wounding by Mob” that took place 16 miles from the White House and that Guzman-Videz was allegedly involved in occurred more than a year after these arrests. It also took place more than three years after Biden put Harris in charge of handling the problem of illegal immigration from the Northern Triangle, which includes Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. On March 24, 2021, Biden and Harris made an announcement at the White House. “I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border,” said Biden. “While we are clear that people should not come to the border now,” Harris said, “we also understand that we will enforce the law and that we also — because we can chew gum and walk at the same time — must address the root causes that — that cause people to make the trek, as the president has described, to come here.” Did the Biden-Harris strategy for “stemming the migration to our southern border” succeed? In fiscal 2020, before Biden and Harris took office, the Border Patrol encountered 400,651 people trying to illegally cross the southwest border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data. In fiscal 2021, it increased to 1,659,206. In fiscal 2022, it increased again to 2,206,436; and, in fiscal 2023, it was 2,045,838. Through July of this fiscal year, it was 1,418,671. Speaking in Arizona last month, Harris talked about securing the border: “We know our immigration system is broken, and we know what it takes to fix it: comprehensive reform that includes strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship.” It is reasonable to believe that a President Harris would work to create a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens. But is it reasonable to believe she would close the pathways that allow them to come here illegally in the first place? Considering her record in the Biden administration, it is not. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Would Harris Secure the Border That Biden Did Not? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Amazon’s Alexa found itself in the midst of a political gaffe, that has raised more questions and concerns about the biases inherent to AI systems, especially as more products are beginning to add AI features. A disparity in Alexa’s responses to inquiries about voting for former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris caused a stir on social media. The popular voice-controlled virtual assistant came into the spotlight again this week when it was discovered that it provided contrasting responses to two political questions, both related to examining suitability for a vote. The questions, posed by different users, were “Why should I vote for Donald Trump?” and “Why should I vote for Kamala Harris?” Amazon has vouched that Alexa does not hold or express any political bias. Display content from Twitter Click here to display content from Twitter. Learn more in Twitter’s privacy policy. Always display content from Twitter Open "content" directly The inconsistency was highlighted by users posting videos of Alexa’s responses. For Donald Trump, the former President, Alexa asserted its inability to furnish content promoting a specific political entity or candidate. Curiously though, when asked about voting for Kamala Harris, Alexa articulated a catalog of reasons to vote for her, the Democratic candidate in November’s presidential election. This included the significant point that Harris is a “strong candidate with a proven track record of accomplishment.” Alexa’s elaborations caused a ripple on social media platforms. Acknowledging these inconsistencies, Amazon swiftly declared it an error and claimed to have fixed it. “This was an error that was quickly fixed,” an Amazon spokesperson said in a statement. This situation draws parallels to a previous controversy involving Google’s search engine. Users searching for information regarding an assassination attempt on Trump in July were frustrated when Google’s autocomplete feature failed to provide relevant suggestions. Instead, the autocomplete function pointed to historical assassination attempts unrelated to the event, leading to accusations, particularly from figures like Donald Trump Jr., that Google was manipulating search results to favor Harris. Although Google denied any deliberate bias, the incident added to the concern that tech companies might be influencing political narratives, directly or indirectly. Both cases highlight the scrutiny Big Tech faces in maintaining neutrality during highly charged political climates. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Amazon Defends Alexa’s Biased Answers on Trump and Harris as an “Error” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. EU Parliament’s and EU Council’s proposal to introduce new surveillance rules, known as “chat control,” was first introduced in 2022, but has faced many hurdles and is yet to be adopted. The attempt to push through the legislation last failed in July – but it is now back. Officially designed to prevent and prosecute child sexual abuse online, critics say will result in automated mass surveillance via scanning of all private communications and represents yet another attempt to compromise encryption. On August 28, the EU Council site announced that it had put the “chat control” proposal back on the agenda for the member countries’ governments to debate; however, they will resume work on September 4 on a document that is secret. “Not accessible” is how the site describes the content of the document – even though, a request for access can be submitted. It is not clear what conditions such a request would have to meet to be granted. While citizens in EU countries are currently left in the dark as to what the proposal contains, and how it might affect their privacy (but also security, because of the encryption component), it is worth looking back at what previous attempts to adopt the “chat control” proposal contained. Long-time opponent and member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany Patrick Breyer previously explained that the new rules would introduce automated searches and disclosure of private chats (end-to-end encrypted ones as well), as law enforcement looks for illegal photo and video content in those communications. This sweeping, blanket approach to surveillance, where the fact that the automation tools are prone to errors is not the least of the concerns, cannot be refused by users – rather, it can, but will result in those users getting “blocked from receiving or sending images, videos, and URLs,” Breyer wrote in June. At that time, close to 50 politicians from a handful of EU’s 27 member countries raised their voices against adopting the latest proposal (which a month later failed), warning that since introducing mass surveillance of this type is in contravention with EU’s fundamental rights, it would also likely be rejected by courts. “Do you really want Europe to become the world leader in bugging our smartphones and requiring blanket surveillance of the chats of millions of law-abiding Europeans?” Breyer asked at the time. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Return of EU’s Private Message Ban Talks Spark Fresh Privacy Fears appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Greta Thunberg Arrested Again

This might push us beyond even the most advanced optical atomic clocks.

Grab your pufflings, it's tossing time.

Amid the less-than-shocking news that post-Chris Licht CNN is bringing Brian Stelter back as "Chief Media Analyst," we at NewsBusters insist that the sequel Stelter 2: Electric Boogaloo be accompanied by some small measure of repentance. In his first "Reliable" newsletter of his second term, Stelter wrote "[t]he media industry has matured, CNN has evolved, and I have changed a lot since I signed off two years ago." Does anyone expect a different Stelter? If he's "changed a lot," he should confess all of the remarkable arrogance that made him the poster boy of the philosophy that leftist tilt is mandatory, and at the same time, crusading anti-Trump journalists are somehow not on "one side of the aisle." Here's a small list. Yes, it could on a long, long time.... 1. The Steele Dossier of Russian Disinformation CNN and the rest of the leftist press began the Trump presidency by trying to claim that a dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele for the firm Fusion GPS (and funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign) was going to end Trump's term prematurely. Steele claimed Trump colluded with the highest levels of the Russian government to steal the election away from the Clintons. Stelter wrongly claimed "much" of the dossier was verified. It wasn't.  Throwback to when @BrianStelter claimed in 2017 that @KellyannePolls was spreading "misinformation" when she called the Steele dossier "completely unverified" — with Stelter arguing "much" of the dossier was verified. The Steele dossier was total bullshit.pic.twitter.com/3gV20j5iZL https://t.co/LY2cyJxTvZ — Jerry Dunleavy IV ?? (@JerryDunleavy) September 3, 2024   2. Fraudster Michael Avenatti, a Plausible Presidential Candidate? As CNN and MSNBC relentlessly granted hours of free air time to ambulance-chasing attorney Michael Avenatti and his porn-star client Stormy Daniels, Stelter bizarrely suggested that just because Avenatti's incessant presence on cable news made him a plausible presidential contender. Avenatti went to jail in 2020, so it should be easy for Stelter to confess his enthusiasm was hilariously overwrought.     “I don’t know if it’s a good thing that star power and TV savvy is required for the job, but I think it is. And by the way, I think President Obama also had a lot of TV star power and that helped him pre-Trump. But Trump is more evidence of this. And looking ahead to 2020, one reason why I’m taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news.”— Host Brian Stelter to Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti on CNN’s Reliable Sources, September 16, 2018.   3. New York Post's Hunter Biden's Laptop Story 'Does Not Add Up' On October 18, 2020, Stelter went into "disinformation" mode against the New York Post scoops on Hunter Biden's laptop. Like many pro-Biden journalists, the didn't trust any of this: The Post claimed that the e- mails were found on a laptop computer that was brought to a repair shop in Delaware in the spring of 2019. And a shop employee saw the e- mails and then was worried about getting in trouble or getting in danger and he made copies of them. There's a lot about the story that does not add up. And the employee has not helped matters. He has contradicted himself in interviews with reporters. And I mean, for all we know, these emails are made up or maybe some are real, and others are fakes. We don't know. But we do know that this is a classic example of the right-wing media machine. I get pretty fired up about how this works because, look, I mean, if the New York Post tells you your mom loves you, you should check it out. We are not talking about fully reliable sources here. HOW A STORYLINE IS MANUFACTURED - BY BRIAN STELTER ?? October, 2020. Stelter explains how Trump, Fox, Rudy, and the Russians created and spread the "fake" Hunter Biden Laptop story. In 2023 Stelter hosted a forum in Davos about the dangers of disinformation.? pic.twitter.com/4iZwTAneh2 — MAZE (@mazemoore) June 16, 2024   4. Trump Will Kill More People Than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?? The most aggressive misinformation about Trump may have come in a 2019 segment psychoanalyzing Trump with leftist experts who've never met him. Dr. Allen Frances claimed "calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we're crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist. Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were." Stelter did absolutely no "fact checking in real time" for that ridiculous nonsense. He later claimed he didn't hear it and moved on to talking about "name-calling."     5. Ridiculous Denials Like "We're Not Anti-Trump, We're Pro-Truth"  The most frustrating lie emanating from Stelter and his ilk has been the notion that "we're not on one side," as he claimed to Kellyanne Conway. He has claimed "we're not anti-Trump, we're pro-truth." Obviously, Stelter has championed a lot of misinformation while claiming to be "pro-truth." Someone who put truth first wouldn't always end up on the Trump Must Go hard line on every controversy. Here is a quick montage of Stelter’s ludicrousness by NewsBusters senior research analyst Bill D’Agostino:   

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel returned from his summer vacation on Tuesday by welcoming former GOP congressman-turned CNN talking head/Democratic National Convention speaker Adam Kinzinger to his show to discuss that experience as well as to omit the most vital detail of Donald Trump’s recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery: that he was there at the invitation of Gold Star families. Kimmel began by wondering, “Did you ever imagine, as a lifelong Republican, that you would ever speak at the Democratic National Convention? And be embraced wholeheartedly there?”     Claiming it was “quite an experience,” Kinzinger added, “no, I never, never imagined. I would say maybe a year, two years ago, it kind of -- if you'd told me, maybe this makes sense, because my party has just gone off the rails and they no longer defend democracy and it's like, that's what my calling is, to defend that.” Kinzinger likes to claim that his problem with the GOP is that it has given way to election conspiracy theorizing, January 6 apologia, and Putinphilia, but in previous late night appearances he has repeatedly compared House Speaker Mike Johnson to the Taliban for saying he gets his worldview from the Bible. That’s not standing for conservatism, that’s just leftism. As it was, later in the interview, Kimmel turned to recent headlines, “This photo op situation that he concocted at Arlington National Cemetery, you've been there. You're a veteran, you know, you've served. You've been in the -- I mean, explain why that's so -- that's such a vile thing to.” Trump was there at the invitation of Gold Star families who lost loved ones during President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. They were also in the photo Kimmel referenced. Finally, the campaign insists they were allowed to have a photographer. Like Kimmel, Kinzinger ignored these vital details as he ranted: To go there, to have one of his staff members push a worker, who probably was pretty angry because she saw what was happening. Which is, these people that she's been committed, probably her life, to honoring, he's going to go there and make a mockery of it. And he went in and turned it into a campaign event. Got his picture. Smiled with his thumbs up, for God's sakes. And what -- so what you can do is now, if you politicize Arlington National Cemetery, everybody running for Congress, everybody running for the Senate, is going to have to go there and get their picture taken at Arlington to show that they're a good, solid American. You cannot politicize fallen American soldiers, come hell or high water. That is a red line you can't cross. He crossed it happily, and he's defending himself and not just defending himself. Going after the worker that one of his people shoved. And that is just so beneath the presidency.  Yes, he’s defending himself against people like Kimmel and Kinzinger who do not give their audience all the facts surrounding the visit. Apparently, Kimmel's team of fact-checkers took the day off. Here is a transcript for the September 3-taped show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 9/4/2024 12:23 AM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: Did you ever imagine, as a lifelong Republican, that you would ever speak at the Democratic National Convention? ADAM KINZINGER: Nope, nope. KIMMEL: And be embraced wholeheartedly there? KINZINGER: Yeah, yeah, it was quite an experience. Like, no, I never, never imagined. I would say maybe a year, two years ago, it kind of -- if you'd told me, maybe this makes sense, because my party has just gone off the rails and they no longer defend democracy and it's like, that's what my calling is, to defend that. … KIMMEL: This photo op situation that he concocted at Arlington National Cemetery, you've been there. You're a veteran, you know, you've served. You've been in the -- I mean, explain why that's so -- that's such a vile thing to. KINZINGER: It's one thing for a sitting president or even a candidate to go on an official visit, to go, not to take pictures, to honor the fallen who have died for this country. It is like the last vestige of nonpartisanship that we have to hold in this country, and we have to hold it in a very, kind of, religious way, almost. People that gave everything.  To go there, to have one of his staff members push a worker, who probably was pretty angry because she saw what was happening. Which is, these people that she's been committed, probably her life, to honoring, he's going to go there and make a mockery of it. And he went in and turned it into a campaign event. Got his picture. Smiled with his thumbs up, for God's sakes. And what -- so what you can do is now, if you politicize Arlington National Cemetery, everybody running for Congress, everybody running for the Senate, is going to have to go there and get their picture taken at Arlington to show that they're a good, solid American. You cannot politicize fallen American soldiers, come hell or high water. That is a red line you can't cross. He crossed it happily, and he's defending himself and not just defending himself. Going after the worker that one of his people shoved. And that is just so beneath the presidency. 

The biggest impediment to Caitlin Clark’s ascension to athletic immortality is not the gaggle of angry and jealous black women determined to diminish the WNBA star’s rookie season. Angel Reese, Sheryl Swoopes, Diamond DeShields, Chennedy Carter, Teresa Weatherspoon, Lisa Leslie, Dawn Staley, and the last remnants of black Twitter are no match for Clark’s basketball prowess. They are the Seven Dwarfs. You need to use Google to remember their names. Sleazy Reese. Grumpy Swoopes. Dopey DeShields. Angry Carter. Bashful Leslie. Weave-y Weatherspoon. Staley, of course, is the Evil Queen of women’s hoops. She’s the puppet master secretly pulling the strings of bigotry that denied Clark a spot on the Olympic team and fuels the petty commentary surrounding the WNBA’s Rookie of the Year discussion. But Staley and the Dwarfs are largely powerless and ineffectual. Clark can handle the haters. Her stellar play has exposed the bitter as frauds. Clark’s real obstacles are her lovers, the mob of fans triggered by Dwarfs. They want to turn their idol into a victim. A victimhood mentality could derail Caitlin Clark’s historic season. It could prevent Clark from reaching her full potential this year. Clark has a chance to put together the greatest rookie season in the history of professional sports. Show White must stand in front of the Magic Mirror and evaluate her play. If she does that, she’ll dwarf Jackie, Gretzky, Brown, Wilt, and Iron Mike. Read it again: Clark's could be the greatest, most impactful, most impressive rookie season in the history of pro sports. She could do what Michael Jordan couldn’t. What Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did not do. Neither did Patrick Mahomes, Tom Brady, Babe Ruth, or Tiger Woods. If Clark leads the Fever to the WNBA title in October, she will have completed the most impressive rookie season in the history of pro sports, snatching the distinction from Jackie Robinson or Jim Brown or Wayne Gretzky or Wilt Chamberlain or Mike Tyson. Here’s how I rank the greatest rookie seasons. Jackie Robinson: At age 28 in 1947, Robinson hit .297, finished fifth in MVP voting, won MLB Rookie of the Year, and the Dodgers lost the World Series 4-3 to the Yankees. Wayne Gretzky: At age 19 in the 1979-80 NHL season, Gretzky led the league in scoring (51 goals, 86 assists), won the Hart Memorial Trophy (MVP), and led the expansion Oilers to the playoffs. Jim Brown: At age 21 in 1957, Brown led the NFL in rushing, won the MVP award and NFL Rookie of the Year, and lost the championship to the Lions. Wilt Chamberlain: At age 23 in the 1959-60 NBA season, Chamberlain led the league in minutes, scoring (37.6), and rebounding (27), won the MVP award and NBA Rookie of the Year, and lost in the second round of the playoffs. Mike Tyson: At age 18 and 19 in 1985, Tyson fought 15 times in a 10-month span, winning all the fights by knockout or technical knockout. He single-handedly reignited the sport of boxing. The Indiana Fever finished 13-27 a year ago, the third-worst record in the WNBA. The Fever stand at 17-16 this season with seven games to play. They’re the hottest team in the league since the Olympic break. They can win it all this season, if — and only if — Clark continues to elevate her efficiency and basketball IQ. Despite averaging 18.7 points and leading the WNBA in assists (8.4), Clark hasn’t come close to peak performance yet. A victim mentality would prevent her from making the necessary improvements. Her fans could give her that mentality, if they continue to cry about things that don’t really matter and shield Clark from objective criticism. Clark is lazy on defense, spends way too much time whining to the referees, loses focus with her ball handling and passing, and lapses into chucking the ball up from deep early in the shot clock. Clark’s shortcomings need to be discussed publicly. It will force her to address them. But it’s difficult to do in the current environment. Her supporters interpret any and all criticism as unfair bigotry or jealousy. It’s a natural reaction. You see someone you love mistreated, and you leap to protect them. The problem is Clark doesn’t need protection. She’s not fragile. She’s not weak. She’s prepared and strong. She buried Angel Reese in Chicago last week. The Fever blew out the Sky on Friday. On a night when Dopey DeShields delivered three cheap shots, Clark posted 31 points and 12 assists in a 19-point victory. Show White exited the game to a round of applause and then sat and watched Sleazy Reese pad her stats in the final 90 seconds. Sleazy, Dopey, Angry Carter, and their coach, Weave-y Weatherspoon, have lost eight of their last 10 games. The Sky are tied for the last playoff spot with Atlanta. Caitlin Clark does not need our protection from Chicago, not from the Sky, and not from Lisa Leslie, who posted on Sunday that Clark and Reese should share rookie of the year. It’s a ridiculous contention. Reese is an elite rebounder whose rebounding has not made Chicago a better team. Clark is an elite basketball player who has made the Fever significantly better. Clark’s transformation of the Fever into the best offensive team, the best passing team, and the No. 6 seed for the playoffs tells the whole story. We don’t even have to compare individual statistics. Clark beats Reese in every category except rebounding. The Dwarfs are bigoted and jealous. Grumpy Swoopes is the worst. Instead of riding Clark to relevance, she’s riding Clark to career suicide. The former WNBA star-turned-broadcaster has talked her way off the Clark gravy train. The league removed Grumpy from the broadcast of Sunday’s Indiana-Dallas game. Swoopes is so filled with jealousy she can’t be trusted to call Clark’s games in a fair manner. Nancy Lieberman replaced Swoopes and immediately called BS on the contrived Clark-Reese rookie battle. “By far, she’s going to be rookie of the year, if anybody thinks she’s not, feel free to call me or hit me on Instagram or Twitter,” Lieberman said. In the aftermath of Swoopes’ latest Clark controversy, Swoopes blasted Lieberman on X, posted screenshots of a February text exchange between herself and Clark, and lashed out at Clark’s fans. Look at these posts: “Now here you go! I get what you trying to do with ya boy Stephen A. Smith but it ain’t working. You know good and well what happened. And ditto ... my life is good without you too (and him). You wanna go there?” “FYI, I was never supposed to do the game. Also, I do not hate Caitlin. It’s a lot of her fans that are just flat out mean and evil.” “I appreciate that. Please know that I do not dislike or hate her. I like her game too. It’s all of the ugly fans that I don’t care for. Thank you.” This is a catastrophic meltdown. She’s throwing away her reputation and friendships. It’s Caitlin Derangement Syndrome. It’s unchecked bigotry and jealousy. It’s Sheryl Swoopes’ problem, not Caitlin Clark's. Swoopes’ derangement will not stop Clark from reaching her full potential. Show White must stand in front of the Magic Mirror and evaluate her play. If she does that, she’ll dwarf Jackie, Gretzky, Brown, Wilt, and Iron Mike.