Category Archives: rights

More Censorship of Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Dorsey has continued his Twitter shutdown of Conservatives, this time “temporarily freezing” the account of a Republican Congresswoman. (So much for “believe the woman” and “#MeToo.”)

[Marjorie Taylor (R, GA] Greene’s account “has been temporarily locked out for multiple violations” of Twitter’s “civic integrity policy,” a company representative said in an emailed statement.

For the heinous crime of—what, exactly?

Twitter did not specify what content led to the action—and the congresswoman herself said she was in the dark about the suspension

Rather than answering Greene’s commentary, for instance with actual logic and facts regarding Dorsey’s and his employees’ view of—what, again?—or fostering general conversation among Twitter users on—what was that?—Dorsey has chosen to simply shut up speech with which he’s incapable of discoursing and with which he has decided Twitterers are just too grindingly stupid to form rational argument. Or too emotionally wrecked to face such commentary. Or wholly incapable of simply ignoring the matter on their own initiative.

Or it’s just an excuse, a rationalization. Civic integrity: the truth according to Dorsey and his Twitter. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing else.

More Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Zuckerberg is at it again, this time blocking a President’s access to his Facebook, which he created explicitly to be a public forum. But only for those of whom he personally approves.

Never mind that President Donald Trump plainly has never intended to obstruct the peaceful transition of power, but merely to continue his fight to ensure only those votes legally cast and counted are counted. That he plainly expected that to demonstrate his reelection rather than confirm his loss is neither here nor there. And it certainly doesn’t compare in the slightest to the refusal to accept the outcome of the 2016 election, and the Left’s and Progressive-Democratic Party’s active and four-year-long attempts to overthrow the President duly elected that year. That was an effort Zuckerberg and his minions at Facebook not only whole heartedly approved, but they actively supported and participated in, going to the point of censoring the President’s speech.

Nor has anything Trump has said or tweeted condoned any part of the assault on the Capital Building.

This is just rank censorship. Which censorship—any censorship—is just the cowardice of those who are terrified of opposing opinions.

The clumsy or rude phrasing of those opinions is given artificially heightened importance solely to obscure the cowardice of the censors.

Update: It’s become a full-on assault on individual liberties, epitomized by the overt attack on our freedom of speech, but plainly won’t be limited to that.

We have Jack Dorsey banning all Trump speech from his Twitter, along with the speech of his supporters. We have Followers “disappearing” from other Conservatives who tweet.

We have Tim Cook openly attacking a rival to Twitter–and to Apple–with his ban of the Parler app from his app store.

We have Sundar Pichai joining the attack by barring the Parler app from his Google Android app store.

We have Jeff Bezos shutting down Parler altogether with his Amazon ban of Parler from his servers that were hosting the alternative to Dorsey’s Twitter. That shutdown, too, was done with advance notice deliberately too for Parler to withdraw its–and its users’–information from those servers.

We have Mark Zuckerberg, in addition to the above, banning #WalkAway from his Facebook, a hashtag that committed the speech crime of encouraging members of the Progressive-Democratic Party to leave Party while showing those disappointed and disaffected other places where their voices could be heard and taken seriously.

This a full-on attack by Big Tech, by a tiny few oligarchs grown too powerful and presuming to dictate to ordinary Americans what speech will be permitted in the public square, moving openly to prevent Conservatives from having any voice at all in the public square.

Hard to Tell the Difference

Posted on by
Reply

In the aftermath of Wednesday afternoon’s events, the Progressive-Democrats already are blaming their political opponents rather than the thugs who assaulted the Capital Building. And calling for Republican heads to roll.

Ex-HUD Secretary Julian Castro:

@tedcruz is guilty of treason and must resign from the United States Senate.

Here’s Carrie Lam, Hong Kong Chief Executive:

[T]he opposition’s goal of objecting to every policy initiative of the government may fall into the category of subverting state power.

Hard to tell the difference.

So much for Progressive-Democrats’ calls for unity.

Keep in mind, too, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (D, NY) wish (since realized) for Progressive-Democrat control of the Senate so that, with Progressive-Democrats controlling all of Congress and the White House, there’d be no need to negotiate with Republicans. To Progressive-Democrats, “unity” means “do it our way and be quiet about it.”

Who Has the Power?

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China is reaching deep into Hong Kong to arrest—now more than 50—people who had the effrontery of running in opposition parties for the city’s legislative body or otherwise demurring from the city’s Chief Executive policies and those of the central government in Beijing.

Carrie Lam’s rationalization (paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal) of the arrests and of the law passed in order to effect the arrests is dispositive regarding the role of the people and of government in Hong Kong and in the PRC.

[T]he opposition’s goal of objecting to every policy initiative of the government may fall into the category of subverting state power.

Objecting to state policy is subverting state power.

Government’s role, says the PRC government, is to rule, and the people’s role is the subservient one: to obey.

An Audit Commission

Posted on by
Reply

A group of Senators are planning to join a (large) group of Representatives to object, tomorrow, to a few States’ Electoral College slates being accepted unless they get agreement to an audit commission, modeled on a 19th century audit commission created for the same purpose that consisted of five each of Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, that will conduct a 10-day audit of elections in the objected-to States.

Naturally, Progressive-Democrats in both houses of Congress together with the NLMSM are up in arms, to the point of hysteria about the move.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN)…said in a statement Saturday that Mr Biden will be inaugurated January 20, “and no publicity stunt will change that.”
For a group of my Republican colleagues to claim that they want an additional federal ‘commission’ to supersede state certifications when the votes have already been counted, recounted, litigated, and state-certified, amounts to nothing more than an attempt to subvert the will of the voters.
It is undemocratic. It is un-American[.]

Progressive-Democrats should leap at the chance of an objective commission doing a serious, detailed audit. Three things would result, two of which would redound to their advantage: the commission would find nothing in sufficient amount to change the claimed outcome, but serious error and outright wrongs would be identified so miscreants could be brought to justice and weaknesses corrected in Congress—restoring faith in our election systems while confirming Biden’s election. Or nothing wrong would be identified, also restoring faith and confirming Biden.

Or, the third item: enough being found to reject enough Electoral College slates to put the election into the House of Representatives for President and the Senate for Vice President.

That Progressive-Democrats are so terrified of a commission audit is instructive.