Category: American Values

Free Speech and the Banning of Paul Joseph Watson from Facebook and Instagram

It really shouldn’t matter what your political persuasion is, if you’re an American who appreciates the 1st Amendment right of free speech, you should be outraged by the banning of Paul Joseph Watson (along with a few others).

Social Media companies, Facebook and Instagram, essentially un-personed him yesterday by removing him from their platforms. Ostensibly under the guise of “hate speech”, he was thrown into the category of “dangerous individuals and organizations”, a category that includes people and organizations, presumably, advocating for terrorism and such, and removed. Poof. This is absolutely ridiculous. Paul Joseph Watson is not a “dangerous individual”, even by FB standards, or a terrorist, nor is he an advocate for violence. Paul is “dangerous” because he is an influential Internet figure, with a large following, who effectively argues against certain popular leftist philosophies.

Seemingly the only real issue is that Paul Joseph Watson is associated with Alex Jones and Infowars. The egregious thing about all of this is that you and I can being banned, censored, suspended, or have content removed that doesn’t comport with Facebook’s policy.

From The Atlantic:
“Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Jones and Infowars.)”

Now, I can make a whole other post about the “Facebook is a company and they can do whatever they want.” Yes, that’s true, but the real problem is who gets to decide what is and isn’t acceptable? Facebook, Instagram, et al want to have their cake and eat it too. Advertising their platforms as “open”, yet retaining extensive editorial control over content. You and I will be disciplined if we share anything the company doesn’t like. Sounds rather authoritarian to me and creates a needless adversarial relationship with the user base.

When a company exercises it’s editorial control over it’s “open platform” to the point of deplatforming, down ranking, hiding, shadow banning, so that only what’s acceptable to the company remains, the platform is no longer open. The Social Media companies have now claimed moral authority over content and that seems to make them publishers rather than platforms. When will your content become subject to editorializing? When will your content become “dangerous”? When will you become persona non grata on the platform?

The sad thing is while companies do have the freedom to do what they want (unless it’s baking a cake or taking wedding pictures), the social media platforms should be jealously guarding 1st amendment principles for speech on their platform, much like Gab. If it’s covered by the 1st amendment, they should let it go. Is Alex Jones an outrageous conspiracy theorist? Sure, but who really cares? Let him publish his stuff, keep advertisers off his page that don’t want to be associated with him, and let others publish debunking and counter factual information in refutation. Is Louis Farrakahn an anti-semite? Yes, and most of us have known this for longer than Facebook has even been a company. Let him publish his vile opinions as long as it comports with the 1st amendment. Let other people publish counter speech that denounces him and other’s like him.

The world is full of “dangerous” ideas and ideologies and the only good way to combat them is to develop and maintain a robust platform of free speech where these ideas and ideologies are analyzed, dissected and debated. Social Media companies need to quit playing the role of Thought Police and Feelings Protector, and let adults fight the war of ideas online within the bounds of the 1st amendment without corporate overlord interference.

Big Internet’s War on Free Speech

https://youtu.be/PWoEvslf7Tg

Take a few minutes to watch and understand this is a huge problem and doesn’t bode well for any person, business or organization that expresses a viewpoint that differs from the Corporate enforced Social Orthodox Religion.

Men, Women, Differences, and the Google Manifesto

I wanted to post a link to Slate Star Codex’s blog post “CONTRA GRANT ON EXAGGERATED DIFFERENCES” because it’s one of the better looks on sex differences that I took the time to read. There are a couple of others and I may re-find them and update this later for future reference. Codex’s blog posting is a response to “Differences between Men and Women are Vastly Exaggerated“, an article by Adam Grant that was widely read post Google Manifesto release.

In a modern society such as ours, it really should not be controversial to discuss, in a rational way:

  • that there really are documented differences between the sexes
  • that those differences don’t make either sex any better or worse
  • that in many ways these differences are complimentary and should be seen as such
  • that the differences should not be segmented, eradicated, ignored or glossed over but utilized to best advantage
  • that small differences in a population can actually produce large results
  • that we should not view natural sorting by preference or choice as a bad thing or something to be fought

and I could go on about what shouldn’t be that controversial to discuss. But we apparently don’t live in a country that values open discussion, open inquiry, or a search for truth based in an objective reality any more. Apparently, we are post-truth, becoming post-rational and maybe well on our way to being post-science, but that’s another topic. Most things on my list above are seemingly self-evident; simply living in the world and observing interpersonal dynamics reveals these differences, but hey, all of that is simply an evil Western social construct created by the bigoted, cis-gendered, white, heterosexual male oppressors to preserve the patriarchy, so what do I know.

So, just a reminder, this memo, authored by started all the broo-ha:

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

It should be noted that pretty much every Leftist either went ballistic or was triggered out of their minds over this well reasoned, documented and actually quite moderate paper. You’ll note in the link and the page, that it is described as “anti-diversity screed”. Also, for the record, you can identify every Left leaning media and web outlet, based on how they described this memo/manifesto. Do a, ironically, Google or Twitter search for “#googlemanifesto” or “#googlememo” and you can see the range of reactions.

The MSM coverage of this document was absolutely appalling. There is a reason CNN has the “fake news” reputation in Right leaning circles. It’s because of things like this:

This Twitter lede is a perverse rendering of what is actually in the memo.

From the memo itself, the author says he supports the diversity efforts at Google and appreciates diversity. The kicker for the memo author is essentially that Google goes about remediating their lack of diversity by discriminating, that some programs should be opened to everyone, because they can actually benefit everyone. There are other points, and you should read the original memo for yourself. Pro-Tip: Always read primary sources.

Other outlets simply throw up what amounts to a straw man argument against the memo’s contents. In this Wired article, “Even the guy behind the research thinks that Googler is wrong“. The author of the article states the following:

“Damore wrote that the lack of diversity within leadership roles is due to innate personality differences between men and women…”

No. James Damore was very careful to qualify his statements regarding the statistics and research he cites, and he does not say this. He argues that sex differences, leading to preference based decisions, are an additional factor that is not being considered in the current diversity environment. He is countering the myopic view of the Left that every non-diverse environment is based on some overt discrimination.

The researcher, David Schmidtt that the author quotes says as much:

I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations.”

The other quotes from Dr. Schmidtt actually support Damore’s primary argumentative thrust as well, not contradict it. This is shoddy journalism. An article written not for truth, but to support a narrative about and discredit the contents of the Google Memo.

To say that this has caused internal explosions at Google would be an understatement. Some at Google have some jaw-dropping things to say:

Google Leak #1
Google Leak #2
Google Leak #3
Google Leak #4
Google Leak #5 Pie Chart of Survey
Google Leak #6
Google Leak #7

While all of these are revealing in their own way, the most interesting image to me is the pie chart detailing the results of an internal survey revealing Googlers’ reaction to the memo. I’m going to embed it for quick perusal. It’s clear that Google is not homogeneous with respect to these views expressed by the SJWs.

Google Memo Survey Results

As you can see, while there is a significant portion of Googlers that don’t agree with the memo’s point of view (48.5%), there is no small percentage of people at Google that hold a different view (~36%), and a good portion that are willing to sit the fence (12.6%). Also, there is a large contingent that are willing to have views aired and discussed without rushing to judgment. Forty-two percent strongly disagreed with the statement: “The document is harmful and shouldn’t have been shared.” Only 19.1% strongly agreed with it being harmful and should not be published. Overall, the majority did not see the memo as harmful (57.4%), which is actually good to see. You can argue the sample size is relatively small compared to the Google population and probably indicative of those most passionate about the issue. But, Google would be wise to tread lightly, and not allow the most vocal of the inmates to run the asylum.

Other sites are noting that there is internal support for the memo author’s views as well. I post the link and the headline below, to illustrate the derisive way in which this is spun. Note that Motherboard is leading with “anti-diversity”.

Internal Reactions to Google Employee’s Manifesto Show Anti-Diversity Views Have Support

Regardless of spin, I don’t think the numbers lie. There are large numbers of people in Google and larger numbers in American society that are not drinking the SJW Kool-Aid, and probably never will. This episode, James Damore vs Google, is just one more skirmish in the culture war. The war is not over, no matter what the Left wants to tell you and it won’t end for the Left until we all capitulate to their ideology.

Welcome to the real resistance.

Thoughts on “Bastards on the Bench” Article at Conservative Review

I was just going to share this out as a Facebook post, but there was too much to say really, so I moved it over here.  Besides, I haven’t made any postings for a while and I have a few thoughts longer than a FB article share blurb. You should read the article “BASTARDS ON THE BENCH: FOURTH CIRCUIT LIMITS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO POSSESS COMMON FIREARMS” by Daniel Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz has written a book about the main problem entitled “Stolen Sovereignty“. You should read as much as you can by Mr. Horowitz because he sees the problem with the courts and its impact on liberty very clearly.

Understand the problem: the court system has been co-opted and the sovereignty of the people, their ability to govern themselves, is being weakened and the rights granted to us by the Constitution are being eroded by the activist judiciary. We are slowly being enslaved by justices pushing a political agenda at every level. The one thing we don’t realize is that the courts are never going to be “fixed” by appointments. The courts can only be fixed by Congress taking Constitutional control over the courts by writing legislation to limit the court’s jurisdiction over certain matters, or by the People of the several States initiating an Article V Convention of the States. This is the only way to reign in a court system that is systematically rewriting laws, reinterpreting clear language, and inventing or revoking rights at their pleasure. But don’t hold your breath waiting on Congress. Congress has yielded its power to the Executive at an alarming rate over the last 60 years, and has idly stood by watching the Court eviscerate the laws and the Constitution of this great nation. If we continue much farther down this path we will certainly be made slaves to the Court. I fear that we may already be beyond the point of no return.

While the general demeanor of most Conservative and Libertarian folks is “leave me alone” and “live and let live”, the activity on the Left will not allow such a position for much longer. More active expression of displeasure is necessary. More than just voting for Trump is needed to “upset the apple cart”. We will either stand up for the protection of God given, inalienable rights, or we will be enslaved by a virulent progressive ideology that is truly un-American. If you have a voice, you must begin to use it. If you can write, then write your Congress person, every day if necessary, and make sure they know how you stand on issues. Remember the old adage: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” There are a bunch of squeaky wheels out there, essentially intimidating Congress people to get their way and have their “rights” protected, at the expense of everyone else’s clearly enumerated Constitutional rights. In cases like this, it may actually take a demonstration or march to show our legislators and the courts they are picking the wrong fight with the wrong people. The Left talks about being “woke” to certain issues. Well, it’s time to wake up alright; the culture wars are not over, they’ve escalated and expanded.

For those of you who voted for Trump, let me be clear: Trump will not save us. At best, Trump is a stop gap. Getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is not going to save the country, “turn things around”, or “Make America Great Again”. Even getting another seat is not going to preserve the nation. The problem is deeper than that, and it’s going to require everyone that still believes in self-government, the rule of law, and our Constitution to agitate for adherence to these ideals from every branch of government and influence every area of life, from home, to schools, to state and local government.

The problem is that we’ve continually allowed the Courts to be final arbiter of what is and isn’t Constitutional and just rolled over and accepted the decision. That’s not exactly how things work. Courts sometimes make bad decisions; courts can make unconstitutional decisions; courts have ideologues sitting on the bench writing opinions. A classic example is Dred Scott, where political ideologies with respect to slavery lead to tortured interpretations and justifications by justices on the court. It is up to the other branches to reign in these acts of over reach by the courts by their reasoned opposition and Constitutional remedy. While there have always been cases of ideologues on the court pushing political agendas, we have now reached a critical point in the American Experiment where the judiciary is well packed with justices pushing political agendas at the expense of the Constitution, clearly established law, and the will of the American People. These justices are not supporting, upholding, and defending the Constitution, they are actively destroying it in tortuous ways.

If, in this 4th Circuit case, justices can’t even understand the clear mechanical differences in firearms, how can a court make a reasoned judgement on the law? If they can’t even understand basic facts about the objects in question or actually distort facts to fit the opinion, what then gives us confidence in their other cognitive functions?  If they simply ignore the Constitutional phrasing of “shall not be infringed”, ignore 200 years of established law, and ignore recent precedent in Heller, what is there to stop them ignoring anything that doesn’t fit their ideology and declaring it “unconstitutional”? Why must there be continual appeals to emotion, rather than the law, or the Second Amendment itself, to justify the court’s decision?

These are perilous times, folks, that will require political action on our part. We’ve been patient, to the point of apathy. You and I must start acting, rather than simply hoping the right people get elected or appointed. This is our problem to solve. Remember, Government of the People, by the People.

Corruption: Representative Chaffetz Serves the FBI

I haven’t watched all the hearing videos, but I’ve seen portions over the last couple of days. These hearings are some of the most amazing examples of Executive branch obstruction I have ever seen.  If you do not think that the entire current Obama administration is working a full court defense of Hillary Clinton, you are either deaf, blind, insane, an idiot or quite possibly all of the above.  When the FBI is unwilling to lawfully turn over information requested by Congress for the purposes of oversight, we have problems.  When the FBI (or any agency really) selectively chooses the information to turn over to Congress, we have problems. When it appears that you are protecting people being named in documents by redaction and then preventing, or at least forestalling, revelation to Congress, we have problems.  I’m just glad that Rep. Chaffetz and a few other members of Congress are finally getting a backbone and standing up to the Obama administration’s unlawful, unconstitutional and inexcusable actions.  Oh, that they would have used this power starting, oh, let’s see, about 6 years ago.

 

Corruption: Something Stinks in DC

There are things that just ain’t right. One of them is giving the run around to Congress. Here’s just a brief introduction to Executive obstruction with respect to Congressional oversight, starring the FBI’s acting legislative affairs chief, Jason Herring, and Representative Trey Gowdy.


 

The Day the Republic Died

After having celebrated 240 years of Independence and existence as a constitutional republic on the Fourth of July, the republic of the United States of America died today, July 5th, at 11:00 AM Eastern Time. The cause of death was determined to be the abandonment of the Rule of  Law governing the republic of the United States. The death was broadcast live on TV and streamed across the Internet.  Many witnessed the death across the United States and around the world as FBI Director James Comey presented damning evidence of felonious activity by the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, that was punctuated, after 16 minutes of castigation, by the revelation that, despite all the evidence, the FBI will not recommend Hillary Clinton be prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

The United States has suffered for some time with abandoning the Rule of Law, but today it became clear that all pretense has been officially abandoned. It is clear that laws have no meaning and that enforcement of laws is comepletely arbitrary. It is now absolutely clear that some people are treated with special deference with respect to those laws, or, in the case of Hillary Clinton today, they do not apply at all. If Hillary Clinton manages to be elected in the fall, We The People will have elected our first felon as the Leader of the Free World. Where once we impeached or prosecuted politicians that have broken the law, we now set about electing them to office. Oh, from what heights we’ve fallen!

Justice is a bedrock principle for any society that desires to be free to pursue liberty. If the Government can not or will not enforce laws, then what confidence does the Common Citizen have in that government? If the political class gets preferential or selective enforcement of those laws, then what confidence does the Common Citizen have in the political class and its government? If justice is no longer blind, then what hope can a Common Citizen have in a court of law? What becomes of the principle of “equality under the law”?

Consider the case of Bryan Nishimura, a Naval reservist that downloaded classified information to his personal devices, and plead guilty and sentenced for mishandling classified information.

How does this compare to what Hillary Clinton did? After all, she “retained” and/or “downloaded” (emailed) classified information to “personal devices” (a privately owned server and miscellaneous electronic devices). Also, like Nishimura, she had no nefarious intent with respect to the classified material.

Mr. Nishimura was fined $7,500, placed on probation for 2 years, had his security credentials revoked, and is barred from ever seeking a security clearance again.  What does Hillary Clinton get for doing the same thing? Basically, a stern tongue lashing from Director Comey calling her “extremely careless”.

Folks, Lady Justice is now officially a whore of the political establishment.

Please listen to Ben Shapiro address point by point specifics of Director Comey’s statement.  It’s worth listening to.