Some Thoughts on #FreeStacy, Twitter, SJW’s, Censorship. and All Around Evil

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

too much to think

I wanted to briefly interrupt my blogging retirement to discuss #FreeStacy, Twitter, and censorship.

Imagine that you go to a restaurant, and the following happens…

  • The chef intentionally under-cooks your food
  • The waiter intentionally doesn’t turn in your order
  • The server announces to all the other patrons that you are a racist
  • The pastry chef posts your address, pictures of your children, and your employers home address on the front door of the establishment
  • The dishwasher creates a fake social media account in your name and posts racist content to it
  • The busboy calls the police and states that you harassed him, even though you’ve never seen him before
  • The owner kicks you our before you get your meal for “abuse,” even though you’ve done nothing but speak about the news of the day.

Now, imagine that you not only pay your bill at this restaurant, but you also return every day for the next round!

Well, if you have a Twitter account, and are a Conservative and/or Christian, you might be experiencing this on an increasing basis. And for some inexplicable reason, you continue to go back.

When I was on Twitter, I followed Stacy McCain.   At no point in time did he target or harass others. However, while Stacy had the absolute nerve to call out people for lying, or stalking others. Or, he was a regular critic of feminism, quoting feminists and giving his take on their ideas. At the same time, SJW’s on Twitter were posting people’s addresses, encouraging others to harass them, and even posting pictures their target’s children. We’ve seen the use of scripts to encourage bans, attempts to target sexual abuse victims and their families, the filing of false claims of harassment, and swamping accounts with fake followers. None of the aforementioned SJW’s were banned for their actions, however, Stacy McCain was.

Now, rather than “boo-hoo” and state that it’s “so unfair,” I’ll say we should expect this. Given the SJW’s totalitarian impulse, and their attraction to evil, we should not be surprised when evil people do evil things. The fact is simple; liars lie, cheaters cheat, stalkers stalk, and then laugh at the misfortune of their victims. They are the “crybullies,” who stalk, harass, and otherwise try to destroy the lives of others. However, when they are confronted with their own words and actions, they quickly claim to be the victim and call down the powers that be upon their target. It is a fairly predictable and easily observed pattern. And, when the playing field is Twitter, should we be surprised when this happens? Of course not, all the parties are acting within their own nature.

The real question is; why do Conservative play their game-on their playground?

The recent changes at Twitter have made a bad situation even worse. It was bad when I was on the platform, and even worse since. Since the formation of their “Ministry of Truth,” Conservatives have been banned, had their blue checkmarks removed, and “shadowbanned.” Their sin? Not being SJWs. Or, even worse, telling the truth about SJW’s.

So then, what is the freedom loving, truth telling segment of the population to do?

Before I answer that, let’s take a look at Twitter’s business model. Twitter sells targeted ads that appear in user’s feed…

Twitter (TWTR) earns 85% or more of its revenue from advertising. In the second quarter of 2014, Twitter posted an advertising base of $277 million, which was more than double the amount of revenue the social media site brought in during the same time in 2013. Twitter uses promoted tweets, promoted accounts and promoted trends. Twitter sells promoted tweets to marketers, and these then appear in users’ Twitter feeds. The company creates tailored advertising opportunities by using an algorithm to make sure promoted tweets make it into the right users’ timelines. 

Twitter makes additional money through data licensing. From the first six months of 2012 to the first six months of 2013, Twitter’s data licensing revenue increased by 53% to $32.2 million. Twitter has named four companies “official data resellers,” and these companies have direct access to all tweets. Each company has developed algorithms for data mining that measure consumer response to everything from brands to movies.

Twitter also made a profit in the last quarter, albeit a small one…

Twitter executives and investors would probably like to forget 2015 on the whole, but things aren’t looking much better for the social media company heading into the new year.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Gone are the heady days of 2013, when the San Francisco-based company was signing up new users at a brisk pace and was, literally, the talk of the town. Twitter’s share price soared following its initial public offering to more than US$60 on the New York Stock Exchange on expectations that it would become the next Facebook – an online advertising juggernaut with upwards of a billion users.

Two years later, the company has instead stalled at about 300 million users, with anaemic growth punctuating 2015. Twitter added only four million users in its most recent quarter, which helps explain its share price spiral to about $22 to close out the year, well below its IPO debut of $44.90.

The company fired the chief executive, Dick Costolo, in June and replaced him with Jack Dorsey, its founding chief executive who had himself been axed from the job in 2008. Upon his return, in October, Mr Dorsey had the pleasure of overseeing more than 300 layoffs.

Yet Twitter hasn’t been in free fall. The company finally became profitable last year, posting net income of $7 million in its most recent quarter. Revenue garnered from advertisers has also been climbing steadily, to $569m in the third quarter, up 58 per cent compared with a year earlier.

But, it’s growth has stagnated.

When you look at the business model, Twitter’s primary income comes from ads. Looking at this a bit realistically, you see that being able to publish 140 characters for the privilege of being stalked by SJW’s (and later being banned for it) is not actually Twitter’s product. The users themselves are the product! Twitter sells access to its 300 million users to advertisers, who get to present their ads. Also, they allow data mining for all users and Tweets.  Your abuse is just a bonus-you are the product!

In other words, if you are “Tweeting while Conservative,” not only are you being potentially abused in an environment that clearly does not like or want your company, you are actually feeding it.

Twitter is a private company. As such, they can do as they please. However, this also means that no one is obligated to use Twitter. And, in fact, why would you want to contribute to a business that seeks to harm you?   Twitter is making it clear that truth is not wanted there. They don’t want to hear us. They don’t want us there. They already allow regressive users to target and stalk Conservatives, so why go there at all?

My suggestion is clear. Conservatives are not welcome on Twitter. If Twitter wants to be the SJW hugbox of hate, leave them to it. Stacy McCain cannot go back. Adam Baldwin has already left. Milo has been unverified for being too fabulous. Many others have been banned or are leaving. If you want to call their advertisers and state your dissatisfaction, go for it. But leaving Twitter, and then abandoning to the cold hands of the free market is the best move. If they fail, they fail. If they manage to continue, they can be the regressive zoo of the internet. Just like Stacy McCain critiques Tumblr Feminazis, the regressives of Twitter could be a display of child-like, censorious, totalitarian evil, much like a forensic psychiatric ward of the internet.

Or, consider the old Klingon proverb; “Only a fool fights in a burning house.”

By the way, I don’t have a Twitter account. So the only way this gets on Twitter is for someone else to put it there. And, I’m not keeping the comments open on this, as I don’t have time to moderate. I’ll be getting back to my retirement, and studies, so God bless, and stay away from Twitter.

Matt
And for some informative reading, here are some links…

The #FreeStacy Story: Why Was My @rsmccain Account Suspended?

#FreeStacy: ‘A Girl’s Name’

#FreeStacy: @rsmccain ‘Will Not Be Restored’; @SexTroubleBook Suspended

The Hateful Lies of Feminism

 

 

 

Share

Football Legend Publicly Rejects His Alma Mater Because They Canceled ‘American Sniper’ Movie

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Boomer Esiason

 

Hat/Tip to Joel Himelfarb at Newsmax.

Former Quarterback and now talk show host, Boomer Esiason is “deeply saddened and insulted” by his Alma Mater, the University of Maryland for bowing to pressure by some Muslim students and canceling an airing of the movie, American Sniper.

Current talk-show host and former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason says he is cutting off the University of Maryland, his alma mater, after it decided to cancel a screening of the movie “American Sniper.”

Esiason tweeted that he is “never donating another dime to the U of MD” after learning about the cancellation of the film, which profiles the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

“I’m deeply saddened and insulted,” Esiason added. Chris Kyle, he emphasized, “is a HERO!”

Esiason tweeted out an op-ed by Todd Starnes of Fox News explaining why the film was canceled at the University of Maryland.

Starnes wrote that the school said it would postpone indefinitely an upcoming screening of the film after some Muslim students denounced it as “Islamophobic, racist, and nationalistic.”

He quoted a petition launched by the Muslim Students Association denouncing “American Sniper.” It declared that the film “only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason.”

The movie “dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes,” according to the MSA’s petition.

“American Sniper” was scheduled to be seen May 6 and 7. On Wednesday, the university’s Student Entertainment Events panel said the film would be “postponed.”

Although it did not mention the MSA’s petition, the panel mentioned that it had a meeting about the film with “concerned student organizations.”

Breyer Hillegas, president of the school’s College Republicans, told Fox News’ Starnes that he was furious about the cancellation.

“Universities are always trying to satisfy the political correctness police and worry about who they might offend — rather than standing up for principle and the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Hillegas said.

But this isn’t the only school where Muslim students tried to censor free speech.

The University of Michigan canceled a screening there earlier this month, only to reverse itself after a firestorm of criticism from across the United States. One prominent critic was the school’s new football coach, Jim Harbaugh, who said he was “proud” of Chris Kyle and planned to show “American Sniper” to his team.

.

.

.

Share

Net “Neutrality”: Turning The Internet Into MSNBC

Share

dems-for-net-neutrality

 

 

“Obama gave his direction to the FCC in back in early November and lo and behold, the FCC majority has put together President Obama’s plan for Internet regulation …Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab.” – FCC commissioner Ajit Pai

“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced.” — Wikipedia

“Think of the press as a great keyboard
on which the government can play.”
? Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda

Make no mistake: Barack Obama, not the FCC, is the one pulling the strings here.  So-called “net neutrality,” as envisioned by Barry and the Socialists … uh, Democrats, is no more than a thinly disguised attempt to abrogate free speech rights as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“…the movement behind net neutrality—from President Barack Obama to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and reportedly to New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand—is coming from the left for political reasons. As liberal dominance of the media has waned under the shadow of FOX News, conservative talk radio and websites such as the Drudge Report, some in the Democratic Party have been looking for creative ways to maintain, or regain, the “mainstream media’s” liberal clout. Net neutrality is one way to attain their goal of dominating the media.”Forbes

Obama supporters, useful idiots who would gleefully support the stoning of infants and puppy dogs if they thought it would help Dear Leader in his campaign against capitalism,  are all in favor of so-called “net neutrality,” which they see as a large thumb in the eye of the telecom giants instead of what it really is: a sucker kick to the cojones of American freedom.

Related stories:

.

.

Share

Obama’s FEC Plans To Regulate Blogs, And Dictate What We Can, And Cannot, Say Online

Share

 photo internetcensorhip_zpsc6492d61.jpg
 

Censorship is coming to the WyBlog. Obama’s FEC commissars are going to regulate political blogs and websites, subjecting us to their byzantine campaign finance regulations.

Liberals on the Federal Election Commission are discussing new rules to regulate websites and blogs. The new regulations would require websites to disclose their political donors.

The better for Lois Lerner to harass those donors, of course.

So, nonwithstanding the First Amendment, I can have opinions, just so long as they’re the approvedopinions.

I’m pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn’t approve. Can you imagine the absurdity of Thomas Paine reporting to King George on the sources of his funding for Common Sense? Yeah, me neither.

The fact that so many liberals do approve speaks volumes about their mentality. They want to be told what to think; it frees them from having to take responsibility for their actions. They want to be insulated from contrary opinions; it relieves them from contemplating right vs wrong.

Welcome to communist America. Where the government controls the media. And citizens aren’t free to speak their minds.

Noting the 32,000 public comments that came into the FEC in advance of the hearing, Democratic Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, “75 percent thought that we need to do more about money in politics, particularly in the area of disclosure. And I think that’s something that we can’t ignore.”

But a former Republican FEC chairman said in his testimony that if the agency moves to regulate the Internet, including news voices like the Drudge Report as GOP commissioners have warned, many thousands more comments will flood in in opposition of regulation.

“If you produce a rule that says we are going to start regulating this stuff, including the internet and so on, I think you will see a lot more than 32,000 comments come in and I don’t think staff will analyze them and find that 75 percent are favorable to more regulation,” said Bradley Smith, now with the Center for Competitive Politics.

They don’t care what we want. They’re going to impose their will. They’re going to shut us up. They’re going to shut me up.

This isn’t America anymore. And if you voted for Obama, then you don’t deserve to call yourself an American. You’re a communist. Move to Cuba or North Korea already. Because I am not going to stand idly by and let you and this power-mad president destroy the last vestiges of my freedom.

I have a RIGHT to speak my mind. And Barack Obama can go to hell.

Wolverines!

.

.

Barack Obama, FEC, Censorship, First Amendment, Blogs

Share

Journalism in the Age of Obama: All the News The White House Lets Them Print

Share

 photo censorship_zps66d78786.jpg

To be fair, the First Amendment enjoins Congress from restricting freedom of the press. I just never expected to see our legions of wannabe Woodwards and Bernsteins acquiesce so easily to White House censorship.

White House press-pool reports are supposed to be the news media’s eyes and ears on the president, an independent chronicle of his public activities. They are written by reporters for other reporters, who incorporate them into news articles about President Obama almost every day.

Sometimes, however, the White House plays an unseen role in shaping the story.

Journalists who cover the White House say Obama’s press aides have demanded — and received — changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists. They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction.

The system is set up to incorporate censorship. Reporters send their stories to the White House Press Office, and the White House sends them on to the national and international media.

After careful vetting by the Ministry of Propaganda, of course.

So when Instapundit calls reporters “Democratic Party operatives with bylines” he’s hitting pretty close to the mark. The media goes along because everybody is on the same team.

And it’s easy to understand why CBS ditched Sharyl Attkisson, because she didn’t toe the Obama Administration line on Benghazi. CBS News President David Rhodes has a brother named Ben. Ben Rhodes is Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, ie, Director of the Ministry of Propaganda.

Did you know that it was Ben Rhodes who rewrote the Benghazi “talking points” given to Susan Rice, deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack?

Gee, I wonder why you never read about that in the papers.

Share

Will Fox Again be Targeted by the Obama Administration?

Share

govt-censorshipIf you recall, right after Obama was elected, the new administration declared the Fox News was not a news network, and sought to exclude them from anything in the new administration.  Of course, Fox covers stories that the rest of the networks refuse to cover.   That, and they refuse to lie for team Obama.  Given that history, and other, more recent events, and you’ll agree with Wyblog’s assessment of the situation…

Will the FCC shut down Fox News now that Obama has blamed them for all his problems?

It’s not without precedent.

Obama has gone out of his way to make sure that journalists keep their mouths shut about the shady actions and scandals that his administration has been involved in.

He threatened to destroy the career of a Fox News reporter exposing the truth about Benghazi. He’s using Soviet tactics to prosecute a filmmaker who made a movie exposing Obama’s radical background. He’s also been the most aggressive president since Nixon in keeping a tight grip on information. One former NSA official even came out and said that Obama’s tactics have made the US a police state.

And let’s not forget how he used the IRS to harass Conservatives.

Oh, wait, he told Bill O’Reilly he really didn’t do that. Honest.

And besides, all his problems are caused by Fox News. They’re spreading lies!. Lies and more lies! It’s all lies!

While speaking about Benghazi, Obama laughed at one point when O’Reilly asked about Susan Rice’s contention that the attack was a spontaneous action.

About two minutes later, Obama blamed Fox News for people believing Obama did not call the Benghazi attack terrorism.

“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said.

“And they believe it because folks like you are telling them that,” Obama said.

“No, I’m not telling them that,” O’Reilly responded to laughter.

You know what I find most disconcerting? How he laughed at O’Reilly’s questions. Classy, that, isn’t it? Real Presidential.

When you look at any action of this administration, you have to keep in mind that controlling information is step one in any totalitarian state.  Eliminating Fox is a goal, especially when they outdraw both MSNBC and CNN combined.  And, what of all the Tea Party groups that have turned up over the last few years…

So I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that new IRS regulations will effectively put most conservative groups out of business, right before the 2014 midterm elections.

IRS Reg-134417-13 will forbid conservative groups from holding voter registration drives, advertising, promoting, and prohibits any kind of political activity including rallies, mailings, teas, and forums.

Meanwhile unions, a heavy Democrat-friendly constituency, are exempt from these new rules. I’m sure that’s just an oversight…

See, they completely make the charge of illegally targeting Conservatives go away by making it legal.

In a regressive world, run by regressives, only regressive ideas are to be discussed.  Any other ideas are to be banned, and the proponents of those ideas punished!

Share

Court Finds That Bloggers Have Same Rights as Journalists: Important Repercussions

Share

govt-censorshipProgressives, or as I like to call them, regressives, no matter of which party, hate the fact that new media is threatening their information monopoly.  Bloggers are among their chief targets. John Kerry notes a few months ago…

Steve, from America’s Watchtower, has more…

Yesterday at the U.S. Embassy in Brazil John Kerry said the following:

I’m a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like [Henry] Kissinger’s book about diplomacy where you think about the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars,” Kerry said to a gathering of State Department employees and their families.

“And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren’t we lucky

  Okay, nothing wrong there, we are lucky to live in a world where it is much easier for countries to communicate with each other. But apparently the Secretary of State does not see it that way for he continued:

Well, folks,” he said, “ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.

“It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest. (emphasis added)

Just remember folks, you are too dumb to make your own decisions.  You should be like the low information voters that do what they are told.

We’ve broke so many stories, and kept the pressure on with so many others, that the Democrats in Congress were working on a means to silence us.

Dianne Feinstein wants to regulate who can and cannot be a reporter.  The Internet’s largest disseminator of news, Matt Drudge, called her a “Fascist”.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for a “Reporter Shield Bill” which would determine who is and who isn’t a journalist.

Here’s Senator Feinstein at the hearing:

Senator Feinstein proposed language that she said,”effectively sets up a test for establishing bona fide credentials that make one a legitimate journalist.”  Legitimate journalists will be protected.  Non-legitimate journalists, like blogs, will not.

As you might guess, this legislation would have created a situation in which the only “bona fide” journalists would be the ones who repeat their regressive talking points like good little sheep.  Remember when the White House said that FOX News wasn’t a “real” news outlet?  That would then extend to any source of information that did not tow the Democratic party line.  They would be no longer “bona fide.”  Then, Democratic operatives would target those sources.

Thankfully, a court has decided that the First Amendment applies to all Americans, and not just the organized liars at MSNBC.  Steve, at America’s Watchtower has more…

Today a Federal Appeals Court ruled that bloggers do indeed have protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution:

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

So, the Democrat’s efforts to create a “playing field” where bloggers can be sued out of existence for writing an opinion, or citing facts, has failed-for now.  However, they will be back.  As John Kerry points out, the regressives think we are far too stupid to be trusted with factual information, so sources of information outside of the government must be eliminated.  After all, how are we supposed to believe that global warming causes it to be cold?  How are we supposed to believe that a YouTube video caused Benghazi when it was so clearly a planned attack!  How are we supposed to blindly believe that ObamaCare is the best thing since sliced bread when the bloggers show how many people are losing hours, or their jobs, or their plans?

You get the idea.  We are dealing with a totalitarian government that is busy consolidating power.  To accomplish that, information must be controlled.  Bloggers are an obstacle to that, so we have to go.

Share

Welcome to Amerika, 2014!

Share

Note: As I’ve been paying attention the rhetoric of the left, particularly the content in Common Core, I am again reminded of the old ABC miniseries, Amerika. Here is a modified version of a post I wrote about it in March of 2010…

Every now and again, I refer to Obama’s version of our nation as “Amerika.” Given that the ObamaCare abomination has survived it’s first few hurdles, it might be a good time to revisit why I say that.

In 1987, ABC ran a 12 hour miniseries called, “AMERIKA,” chronicling life in an America that was taken over by the Soviet Union. Here is the trailer.

I started looking for clips from it. There aren’t all that many, but this one rings true for modern liberal thought.

All that’s missing is the “mmm, mmm, mmm.”  That, and it sounds to be straight out of Common Core.

I wonder what folks in the lefty media thought…

Well, that sounds like anyone on MSNBC referring to Conservatives.

Is it just me, or is truth imitating fiction here?

Note: This is the fourth time I’ve run this post since 2010.  Each time I’ve run it, I’ve had to find another version of the last video, which featured some heated exchanged among the media talking heads of the time.  Seems that many of the were thinking that the miniseries was too tough on the Soviets.  Perhaps that’s why news coverage of a TV miniseries from 1987 has to be censored, or put down the “memory hole,” so to speak!  Can’t have the fictitious Amerika interfering with the real Amerika, can we?

Share

GLAAD’s Tolerance: Agree Or You Are Anti-Gay

Share

gay_naziGLAAD is a militant intolerant tyrannical homosexual group which by its words and actions espouses a philosophy where persons absolutely must believe their way about homosexuals to be considered tolerant. If you are a public figure and believe differently than GLAAD they will cause a ruckus at your place of employment, try to get you fired, and put you on their blacklist. GLAAD has no concept of disagreeing while being civil. Most everyone, if not all, in conservative punditry espouse their own views but don’t go after particular public figures trying to get them fired for them believing differently.  Liberty loving conservatives/libertarians try to persuade others to change their views with words, not with threats, coercion, intimidation or force.

Then there are some spineless Republicans, journalists, and others in conservative circles who have either fallen for GLAAD’s perverted interpretation of what constitutes tolerance or are scared sh*tless so they believe its defamation to speak negatively about homosexuality. Courage is required to stand up to these fascists. The timid either need to shut the hell up if there not going to stand up for liberty or reach down deep inside themselves and gain some courage and stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Robert Oscar Lopez of American Thinker explains what happened to him when he was blacklisted by GLAAD:

I won’t hyperlink this, but if you go to GLAAD’s website and seek out their “commentator accountability project,” you will find my name.  This is GLAAD’s blacklist.  Within hours of GLAAD’s publication of my addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along with dozens of other high officials in California, with the announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST.

The e-mail stated clearly that as a result of my being placed on this list, I would never get a direct interview in the United States.  (Whoever “they” are, they made good on the threat, because when I was brought onto Al Jazeera, they made sure that I was the only one critical of gay adoption, versus two hosts and two other panelists who were for it, and the host cut my microphone.)

According to the press release sent to my university, any media outlet introducing me would be bound to introduce me as an “anti-gay activist” certified by GLAAD as a bigot.  When I read the claims of this e-mail, I wondered if this would be true — would media in the United States really introduce me by saying I was certified as “anti-gay” by GLAAD?

Well, the answer to that question remains mostly unanswered.  Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera, since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States.  In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations.  In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag’s “Faith and Reason” show in Los Angeles have interviewed me.  And I’d been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.

Prior to GLAAD’s blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches.  Three were working with me to set up dates.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.  Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

That is the power of GLAAD. 

Original Post:  TeresAmerica

Share

New York vs First Amendment: Seeks to Make it Easier for Leftist Goons to Target Critics by Banning Anonymous Speech

Share

From the Federalist Papers, to the Internet today, anonymous political speech has been a mainstay of political discourse in the US.  It is frankly needed, as there is often negative consequences to speaking out against the status quo.  And, in other countries, the results can be somewhat terminal.  Since it is difficult to track down, harrass,  intimidate, beat, or even kill anonymous speakers, the NY State Legislature has decide to ban it.  David Kravets, at Wired, has more...

Did you hear the one about the New York state lawmakers who forgot about the First Amendment in the name of combating cyberbullying and “baseless political attacks”?

Proposed legislation in both chambers would require New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, to “remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.”

No votes on the measures have been taken. But unless the First Amendment is repealed, they stand no chance of surviving any constitutional scrutiny even if they were approved.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte said the legislation would cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.”

Had the internet been around in the late 1700s, perhaps the anonymously written Federalist Papers would have to be taken down unless Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay revealed themselves.

But, taking things, like the Federalist Papers, down is the general idea.  We have covered many examples of why statists hate anonymous speech, and what they do to people they can identify…

Well, let’s take a look at what happened to people that were found to have made donations to efforts that “progressives” do not like.  First, here is some details that I covered in past years.

First up, here is an article from Human Events.

No matter that Prejean was representing California, majorities of whose voters have twice voted to enshrine in their constitution the exact belief Prejean articulated on stage.

The real apology needed to come from homosexual activists who, immediately after more than six million Californians voted last November to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, participated in riot-like protests across the nation.

Conservative churches were picketed and vandalized, and church services were disrupted.  Envelopes containing white powder were sent to several Mormon temples. And a postcard sent to the homes and businesses of many financial donors of Proposition 8 read:  “If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”  Other donors were forced to resign from their jobs after they were revealed as contributors to the Prop 8 effort.

This may seem like a harsh reaction to democracy in action.  But the gay rights movement has always had an erratic relationship with basic democratic values.

Last May, gay activists shut down an American Psychiatric Association panel because two evangelicals were scheduled to appear. Ahead of the California vote, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that same-sex marriage was coming to California “whether you like it or not.”  Recently, a student at Los Angeles City College sued the school after a professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to allow him to finish a speech against gay marriage during a public speaking class.

That just oozes “tolerance” and “diversity,” doesn’t it?  Then again, the gay rights crowd used campaign contribution regs to find out who contributed to Prop 8, and created a map to their homes.

And the results of that?

More to the point, what Eightmaps intends to accomplish happened to me and my famly last year. And it was terrifying. Here’s the story:

Someone got my address from publicly available sources, made a malicious flyer with that information on it, went to the city’s homeless shelters and passed it around (the police told me that someone on staff at a shelter told them he saw a stranger distributing the flyers). The flyer told the homeless that if they came to my house, we’d give them money. This person did not care that it was summer, and he was tricking the poorest of the poor to a four-mile walk from the downtown shelters to my house. All he cared about was striking out at me.

We knew something was up after the second rough-looking person showed up demanding money, and got angry when he was told we had no idea what he was talking about. (All this happened when I was at work; imagine your wife opening the door to confront a homeless man who has just learned from her that he’d walked all that way in the heat for no reason). But we could tell they had some sort of flyer with our address on it. We called the police, who advised us to stall the next person who showed up, then call them on 911. That we did. Julie phoned me at work one day to say a scary-looking guy was at the front door with one of the flyers, and that she’d just called 911.

By the time I got home, the police were there questioning this guy, who looked like he’d wondered what the heck he’d gotten into. The cops said that this guy meant no harm, that he’d been the victim of this prankster just as we had. They also said he was a registered sex offender.

But wait…there’s more.

Harassment, Hostility, and Slurs

Several individuals who supported Proposition 8 reported receiving harassing telephone calls, e-mails, and mailings. Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot”[34] and using vulgar language.[35] Sometimes harassers called at work.[36] A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved.[37] Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language[38] and offensive labels like “gay hater.”[39] Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.”[40] One e-mail threatened to contact the parents of students at a school where a particular Prop 8 supporter worked.[41]

Harassment sometimes took other forms. For example, two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of an SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.[42] In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic Church.[43] At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.”[44] A professor at Los Angeles City College allegedly told students in his class, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist [expletive deleted].”[45] One Prop 8 supporter received a book, sent anonymously through Amazon.com, that contained “the greatest homosexual love stories of all time.”[46]

So, as you can see.  These bills have one main goal-identify dissenting individuals so they can be harassed, and otherwise intimidated into silence.  It does not intend to stop “bullying,”it aims to facilitate it.

 

Share

Rosie O’Donnell Cancelled, Low Ratings to Blame

Share

It appears that Rosie O’Donnell’s smug and histrionic blend of moonbattery didn’t play all that well on Oprah’s new network.  As a result, her show was cancelled after only five months.  

Despite being termed O‘Donnell’s “second act,” according to the Hollywood Reporter, the show suffered from low ratings and had recently seen a format reshuffling in the hopes of attracting more viewers. O‘Donnell’s presence had initially been considered a boon for the new network and — filming in Winfrey’s former Chicago studio — a way to fill the void left by the former daytime show queen.

While her failure does bring me a certain measure of satisfaction, there is a notable difference between myself and many regressives; I don’t call on people to be silenced.  While I got a grin when Rosie failed, just as I did when Air America did, I never lifted a finger to interfere with their shows or advertisers.  I do believe in freedom of speech, even for those that openly propose that anyone who disagrees with them be deprived of their’s.  Of course, the regressives believes it to be their right, if not obligation, to end any dissent against their nanny state.

Also, we have to consider the irony involved in the situation.  Liberal/regressive messages do not resonate all that well.  Air American, though initially well funded, failed due to lack of listeners.  Many of the left leaning MSM networks and papers have seen drastic drops in audience, while more Conservative-oriented outlets have seen increases in audience .  And, as a result, when confronted with unpopular content and ideas, the regressives show their statist tendencies, and propose that any other ideology be banned from the “marketplace.”  When they can’t get laws passed through “democracy,” they try to do it through the courts.  When they can’t get people to listen to them, they try to ban other sources so people have to listen to them, if they listen to anything at all.

So, as long as the “marketplace of ideas” is a free one, people will have access to the information they want.  If the regressives are successful, only their messages will be heard.

Share

Winning school chants, “USA, USA!!!” Prinicipal says, “We want to make sure that doesn’t happen again.”

Share

Our loyal readers know full well that Statism and all it’s inherent subversive agendas can be, and are dangerous to our culture; eroding away our values, mores and beliefs.

This story is a prime example of just such erosion.

A local school district is apologizing after an apparent incident of racism at a boys high school basketball game this past weekend.

When the final whistle blew Saturday, Alamo Heights celebrated a convincing victory over San Antonio Edison.

Alamo Heights Head Coach Andrew Brewer said he was proud of his team.

“Tremendously proud,” Brewer said. “Tremendously. It’s the best group of kids.”

But it was just after the trophy presentation when the coach was not proud of the chant coming from Alamo Heights fans.

“USA, USA, USA,” they chanted.

San Antonio Independent School District officials took the chant as a racial insult to a school with all minority players from a school with mostly white ones. – Source

When you watch the video, pay attention around the 1:12 mark. The Superintendent of the school in question not only is clearly oblivious to how silly he sounds, he goes so far as to say that the entire school body was lectured on how inappropriate their “USA” chants were. So it would seem that not only is chanting, “USA, USA!!” racist, the students were also indoctrinated against ever doing it again.

This is the question I have for the administrators of the school whose students led this chant – “Are the students in the opposing school not legal Americans?” Even if that is so, how is this racist?

I am actually sickened by this Principal and by the stance the school system has taken. Evidently we must apologize for being American.

Incredible.

World Net Daily also covered this story and they interviewed the reporter from the local news station in the video above.

Share

Isn’t The Tea Party Standing Up for the Constitution?

Share

One of the best bloggers for individual liberties and the Conservative cause is just a conservative girl, and she has a new post up at her blog.

She posted this very interesting comment on Facebook:

I was told today that first amendment issues of forcing the church to pay for birth control isn’t something that The Tea Party should be involved with. Your thoughts?

Yes, you read that correctly; a member of the Tea Party refused to let her post anything related to birth control, or more specifically, abortion.

From her excellent post:

…I was very surprised today when I was told that The Tea Party Mission didn’t include the rally that is being held on March 23 to preserve religious freedom. The posting I put up on this rally was removed and I was given a warning for breaking the “rules”.

When she posted on Facebook about this, of course several folks asked the same thing that I am sure you all are thinking – “Was this a Tea Party member that told you this?” and “What was their reason?”

More from her Facebook to elaborate on this:

Someone from the Tea Party Patriots Online. I think he is a libertarion. I posted about the rally on the 23 about this issue and I was “warned” for posting about abortion. I told him he should read it first it was about the mandates. Then he said it is still a personal decision. So it doesn’t belong in the tea party.

So go read her blog and read the Facebook conversation linked above and weigh in on this.

Share

Does Freedom of Religion Constitute Bullying? Some in Tennessee Think so

Share

We all know what the First Amendment states regarding religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

According to the regressives it ends right there, but there is more.

 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

We see the establishment clause cited quite a bit.  For example, when I covered the Elwood City Nativity display, it was never proven that Congress had passed a law to put it up, and the critics of it certainly didn’t know about the “free exercise thereof.”   But, then again, the current “Separation of Church and State” has nothing to do with the  the intent of the Founders, which was to deny the Federal Government the power to create a National Church, as the monarchies had in Europe.

Here is the latest example of the separation between the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause.  Apparently, the state legislature in Tennessee is trying to pass a bill protecting the free speech rights of Christian students, as quoting the Bible has been declared “bulling.”  Culture News has more…

Pro-family advocates and lawmakers are advancing language for Senate Bill 0760 (House Bill 1153) to ensure freedom of speech and religion regarding public school anti-bullying, but critics say that allowing Christian students to cite Bible verses is bullying and should be outlawed.

From “Christian activist questions scope of anti-bullying law” by Andy Sher, Chattanooga Times Free Press 1/4/12

. . . leaders of the Tennessee Equality Project, a gay-rights group, charge the [religious liberty] legislation “would give students a ‘license to bully’ that allows them to hide their irrational biases behind an extreme religious belief.”

The Fowler-backed bill says anti-bullying programs and measures can’t use materials or training that “explicitly or implicitly promote a political agenda [and] make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying.”

FACT said it “is wrong to bully people because of their sexual practices. But it’s wrong to bully people period. The larger lesson here is that these tragedies are often the rotten fruit of the all-about-me individualistic culture that comes when we deny the existence of God and his image in us. When life and people become cheap, tragedy becomes the result.”

In the interview, Fowler said gays are “not the only people who get insulted. The thing we need to concentrate on is not whether the characteristics of the victim justify being protected but on the conduct of the person engaging in the bullying while respecting constitutional rights.”

OK then, it’s “bad” to quote the Bible, as it might be bullying, but the Tennessee Equality Project stated, “…allows them to hide their irrational biases behind an extreme religious belief.”

Er, by their own standards, would that not be categorized as “bullying?”  Of course not! Bullying isn’t bullying when Christians are being bullied.

But on a less sarcastic note, this is typical regressive behavior.   They seek to make disagreement with them a crime, yet approve of the same exact behavior that they decry-providing that said behavior is is directed at those with whom they disagree.  I would have to add that if they are willing to effectively ban the Bible, what would be next, and where would it stop?

 

Share

Same old ChiComs: Blogger Jailed for Criticizing Regime, Social Networks Lose Anonymity

Share

So, it seems that it still a pretty bad idea to criticize the ChiComs via a blog…

Turns out China is a tyranny where criticism of the government can result in aprison sentence:

A Chinese court has handed down a 10-year jail sentence to Chen Xi, the second dissident in four days to be convicted of inciting subversion through online essays…

The intermediate people’s court in Guiyang, in south-west China’s Guizhou region, tried Chen Xi, 57, on charges linked to more than 30 political essays he published online.

“The judge said this was a major crime that had a malign impact,” his wife, Zhang Qunxuan, told Reuters by phone after the trial. The judge said Chen was a repeat offender who deserved a long sentence, she added.

If you hit the link, and go over to Verum Serum, you’ll get the details on how Chinese citizens joining social networks, like Twitter, must now give their full name when registering.

If you recall, our own regressives wanted to make all campaign donations public.  You know, with everyone’s name and personal information for all to see, so they could be harassed by regressive minions.  I covered the (failed) Disclose Act this past February, illustrating what had happened when people had disagreed with the tolerant and diverse regressives, and those same regressives found out where they lived…

That just oozes “tolerance” and “diversity,” doesn’t it?  Then again, the gay rights crowd used campaign contribution regs to find out who contributed to Prop 8, and created a map to their homes.

And the results of that?

More to the point, what Eightmaps intends to accomplish happened to me and my famly last year. And it was terrifying. Here’s the story:

Someone got my address from publicly available sources, made a malicious flyer with that information on it, went to the city’s homeless shelters and passed it around (the police told me that someone on staff at a shelter told them he saw a stranger distributing the flyers). The flyer told the homeless that if they came to my house, we’d give them money. This person did not care that it was summer, and he was tricking the poorest of the poor to a four-mile walk from the downtown shelters to my house. All he cared about was striking out at me.

We knew something was up after the second rough-looking person showed up demanding money, and got angry when he was told we had no idea what he was talking about. (All this happened when I was at work; imagine your wife opening the door to confront a homeless man who has just learned from her that he’d walked all that way in the heat for no reason). But we could tell they had some sort of flyer with our address on it. We called the police, who advised us to stall the next person who showed up, then call them on 911. That we did. Julie phoned me at work one day to say a scary-looking guy was at the front door with one of the flyers, and that she’d just called 911.

By the time I got home, the police were there questioning this guy, who looked like he’d wondered what the heck he’d gotten into. The cops said that this guy meant no harm, that he’d been the victim of this prankster just as we had. They also said he was a registered sex offender.

But wait…there’s more.

Harassment, Hostility, and Slurs

Several individuals who supported Proposition 8 reported receiving harassing telephone calls, e-mails, and mailings. Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot”[34] and using vulgar language.[35] Sometimes harassers called at work.[36] A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved.[37] Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language[38] and offensive labels like “gay hater.”[39] Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.”[40] One e-mail threatened to contact the parents of students at a school where a particular Prop 8 supporter worked.[41]

Harassment sometimes took other forms. For example, two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of an SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.[42] In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic Church.[43] At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.”[44] A professor at Los Angeles City College allegedly told students in his class, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist [expletive deleted].”[45] One Prop 8 supporter received a book, sent anonymously through Amazon.com, that contained “the greatest homosexual love stories of all time.”[46]

In a sense, even the ChiComs are playing catch-up to our regressives.  Removing anonymity is a means to subject people to punishment when they offer opinions that run counter to the government, or their ideological allies.  Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised when statists of any stripe propose means to identify, and target, political opponents.

Share

SOPA and the Blogger: Potential for Censorship?

Share

There has been a great deal of debate going on about the Stop Online Piracy Act.  Some think it’s a massive threat to on-line freedom, and others consider it much ado about nothing.

For the side critical SOPA, here are some points from the Heritage Foundation:

Lawsuits Authorized  

As it is currently drafted, this is how SOPA would work: First, it allows the U.S. Attorney General, as well as individual intellectual property holders, to sue allegedly infringing sites in court. The site would have to be proven to be a foreign site “directed towards” the U.S. and that it would be subject to seizure if it were U.S.-based. Alternatively, a suit could be brought by a private plaintiff, who would have to show that the site is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” That test, in turn, can be met if the site or a portion of the site is “primarily” designed, operated, or marketed to “enable or facilitate” infringement. The bill requires that attempts be made to notify the website operator of any such legal action, but legal proceedings would go forward even if no response is received.            

If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, a range of third-party restrictions would go into effect. Specifically, in cases brought by the Attorney General, to the extent “technically feasible and reasonable,” a court order would:

  1. Require Internet service providers to prevent subscribers from reaching the website in question. This would be done by severing the mechanism by which the domain name entered by Web users is connected (“resolved”) to the proper IP address;
  2. Prohibit search engines such as Google from providing direct links to the foreign website in search results;
  3. Prohibit payment network providers, such as PayPal or credit card firms, from completing financial transactions affecting the site; and
  4. Bar Internet advertising firms from placing online ads from or to the affected website.

In cases brought by a private party, only the restrictions on payment networks and advertising firms would apply.

The current version of the legislation, offered as a manager’s amendment in committee, omits a number of controversial provisions that were included in prior versions of SOPA. Most notably, a process that allowed holders of intellectual property rights to trigger third-party obligations without a court order was dropped. This and other recent changes represent a real improvement in the legislation.

Liberals hate it too, and my perception is that they are upset with the crony Capitalism stench to it.  I happen to agree.  However, their focus is left of center, and they’re concentrating on the entertainment industry, rather than the government.  Yes, the MPAA and the RIAA are heavily involved, but they wouldn’t be at the trough had the government not empowered itself to create the trough in the first place.  No power-no cronies.  It’s that simple.  Don’t get me wrong, I think this legislation is bad news, and I’m glad that it’s nearly universally hated-it’s just that some of our “allies” have a bass akwards view of the cause, as well as the solution.

Also, some people see SOPA as an non-issue…

I swear some people ought not be allowed near a computer — much less drive! :roll:

The conservative and liberal blogospheres are unifying behind opposition to Congress’s Stop Online Piracy Act, with right-leaning bloggers aruging their very existence could be wiped out if the anti-piracy bill passes.

“If either the U.S. Senate’s Protect IP Act (PIPA) & the U.S. House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) become law, political blogs such as Red Mass Group [conservative] & Blue Mass Group [liberal] will cease to exist,” wrote a blogger at Red Mass Group.

Some have asserted that the controversial measures would criminalize pages and blogs that link to foreign websites dedicated to online piracy. In particular, this has concerned search engines like Google, which could face massive liability if some form of the bill passes, some say.

via SOPA is the end of us, say bloggers – Tim Mak – POLITICO.com.

Alright, allow me to be the resident idiot who happens to have a little common sense. Here is a novel idea:

DON’T LINK TO OVERSEAS SITES THAT ARE DEDICATED TO ONLINE PIRACY!

I hate to say this; but….duh! :roll:

I must repectfully disagree, because I follow one “law” in looking at legislation…

Matt’s First Law of Legislation:  All legislation should be viewed through the prism of how it will, one day, be abused.  

The idea is simple:  when the government grants itself power of some sort, it is only a matter of time before it is abused.  As for SOPA, I can, one day, seeing it used against sites opposed to the government, or it’s current ideology.  I can see a liberal judge reading something into it that isn’t in the actual text of the legislation.  I can see it being expanded by future Congresses to encompass things that it was never intended to regulate.  In other words, if the government grants itself a power, it isn’t a question of if it will be abused, it is a question of when.

In the end, the state is the enemy, and we should never give it more bullets to fire at us.

Share