More More Censorship of Conservatives

And now it’s not even particularly conservative voices, it’s the center-right voices of Newsmax TV and OANN that the Left is desperate to shut up.

Oliver Darcy, CNN Senior Media Reporter:

[I]t was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump’s supporters into not believing the truth: That he lost an honest and fair election[.]

Certainly lies according to that which may not be questioned, CNN. There were, actually, quite a breathtaking number of election irregularities in that election. Maybe Biden would have won anyway, absent those irregularities, but that’s beside the point. Discussions, debates, regarding those irregularities and the election itself are entirely proper.

And Alex Stamos, ex- of Facebook and now an occasional CNN contributor, on a CNN television show:

We are going to have to figure out the OANN and Newsmax problem. These companies have freedom of speech, but I’m not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes.

Listen to what passes for logic in that. Freedom of speech appears to be confined to the OANN and Newsmax bathrooms, since they’re not to be allowed to speak in public. Neither are pipelines like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, “and such” allowed actually to be pipelines—they are to be required to censor what us ordinary Americans are to be allowed to hear.

Here’s Darcy again:

Just a reminder that neither @Verizon, @ATT, nor @comcast have answered any questions about why they beam channels like OAN [sic] & Newsmax into millions of homes. Do they have any second thoughts about distributing these channels given their election denialism content? They won’t say.

Neither are any of these carriers required to say. Aside from the lack of obligation to answer the inquisition, there’s no need: the foolishness of Darcy’s characterization is its own answer.

If the timid ones of CNN were able to form coherent arguments with which to counter the concerns, surely those so-smart ones would do so. Instead, they cower behind the shield of censorship. So long as its their own words that aren’t censored.

RTWT. The stuff CNN and its cronies are pushing isn’t merely disgusting, it’s a deliberate assault on American liberties, a careful attempt to destroy one of our core values, the stuff that makes America America.

More Censorship of Conservatives

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

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

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?

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.