#WalkAway from Corruption

I want to talk a bit about the revelations about the Biden family this week, and will under the fold.

But first I’d very much like you to watch this video. This a young woman’s walk away story and she is very impressive. Yes, the video is a bit long, but that also means it’s pretty thorough.

I’ve said many times that my dad, while actually pretty conservative, was a New Dealer, and I cannot fault why he was and was probably right to be. But I was also right to walk away from the Democrats clean back in High School because they just did not make sense in my world. Only in the reign of Obama, however, have I come to believe the Republican Party may well be America’s deliverance once again, but only if we conservatives force them to be.

Here’s the video

See what I mean, this is powerful stuff, I think, for any Democrat who still has a residual ability to think for themself.


OK, on to Biden et. al. The NY Post (one of the very few newspapers who retain any credibility whatsoever) broke a story on Wednesday about the corruption emanating from Joe Biden’s family. It is based on a copy of a computer hard drive found by a Maryland computer repairman and turned over to the FBI last year. One of the very interesting questions raised is just what the FBI has been doing with it for almost a year, or was it just used as a seat cushion. I suspect many of us know the answer to that.

It is seemingly pretty damning about Hunter’s activities in Ukraine and China. To me, it looks like corroboration more than anything we haven’t already suspected. But it is interesting that supposedly Joe required his family to kick back 50% of their ill-gotten gains which makes the Mafia look like pikers. Like I said, very interesting but nothing much all that new. And in fact, Biden’s campaign hasn’t denied it so much as attempted to spin it.

But the real story here is that Twitter suspended the Post and removed the Tweets associated with the story, suspended the Editor of the Post, suspended the official Trump campaign site,  locked White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s account, and blocked links to the official US Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans on the matter.

Facebook while somewhat more measured has also restricted access to the material.

Senator Ted Cruz’s questions are appropriate,

1. Who made the decision to prevent users from sharing this story? On what basis did they make that decision?

2. When was the New York Post made aware of Twitter’s decision and what process was afforded to it to contest the censorship?

3. Has Twitter prevented the New York TimesWashington Post, or any other major news outlet from posting its own reporting? If so, when?

4. If Twitter did not prevent Buzzfeed from sharing its reporting on the Steele dossier or the New York Times reporting on President Trump’s tax returns, please explain a politically neutral principle for why the reporting is treated differently?

5. Has Twitter ever restricted a story published by a major news outlet about Donald J. Trump during his four years as President of the United States?

6. Have Twitter or any of its employees involved in the decision to censor this reporting been in contact in any capacity with the Biden-Harris campaign or any of its representatives regarding this reporting or the allegations contained therein?

Meanwhile, Senator Josh Hawley  Tweeted this:

Once again, the coverup is poised to do more damage to the perpetrators than the alleged crime(s).

If we hold the Senate, and/or take the House, which is our part in curbing this corrupt nonsense, then the Article 230 status of big digital media is in play, and they are likely to lose, being held to the standards of publishers, and likely convicted of election interference on a scale that Russia and China have never even dreamed of.

It’s an ill wind …

Time to Change Models

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Twitter’s algorithms and content monitoring on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 5, 2018. REUTERS/Chris Wattie – RC1D5C3E3B60

When we talk about our freedoms, the ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights are critical ones that ensure the rest, and they are all interdependent. The second does defend the rest, but so does the first, and the seventh and so on. It’s an integral whole, none of which are subject to negotiation.

That said, they do apply in law only to the government, the prohibit the government from doing certain things. In themselves, they do not prohibit private entities from doing those same things. But they hold up the ideal.

A century or so ago, a system was set up, and yes, Theodore Vail had considerable to do with it, that the US Government wouldn’t interfere with certain monopolistic practices of the Bell Companies, and in return, they would strive to supply affordable, universal service. It worked quite well for bringing central station telephone service to even the remotest part of the nation -with an agreed tweak here and there.

But the other thing about the phone company is that they simply did not care what you said on their lines. You could attempt the overthrow of the president, you could threaten to kill those attempting to overthrow the president whatever, the phone company did not care. It was (is actually) a common carrier, if you had the money for the service, it would carry the message, no questions asked.

Now the government, with due process involving some of those amendments we spoke of above might record and use your statements in a court of law, but the key phrase is due process and government. Nobody ever got disconnected by Northwestern Bell for saying something the CEO didn’t like on the phone.

So why this history lesson? Some lessons have seemingly been lost. Ashe Schow in The Daily Wire tells us:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said in an interview last week that the company could no longer “afford to take a neutral stance anymore.”

He made this statement after being asked by podcaster Sam Harris why Twitter’s bans and suspensions always seem to “reliably land[s] on one side of the political divide.”

He pointed out that progressive feminist Megan Murphy – who is no friend to conservatives – was banned for tweeting that “Men are not women” and asking, “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?” yet unapologetic anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan is still allowed on the platform.

“I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore. I don’t believe that we should optimize for neutrality,” Dorsey said immediately.

Later in the podcast, Dorsey mentioned the Murphy ban again, saying, “The case you brought up. I’m not sure what was behind that, but I certainly don’t believe it was that one tweet.” He added that most people who are punished by the platform were repeat offenders.

Dorsey, according to NewsBusters, also dodged a question about the First Amendment. Harris had asked him why Twitter couldn’t just ban actual violent speech, but allow all other forms of speech, even those many vehemently disagree with. Dorsey said Twitter’s policies follow “the spirit of” the First Amendment.

Read the rest but you get the gist of it. Twitter itself is taking sides.

US law has assumed that Twitter Facebook, Google, all the others, are like the phone company, simple carriers of information, common carriers that if you pay the fare, will carry the message. It’s a good proven model, but it is inaccurate. Dorsey just denied again that his company is a common carrier, and he’s right, it is selectively choosing messages it is willing to carry from chosen clients. That’s OK too, but it is a different model.

It’s the model of the editorial page of any newspaper, they can print what they want, supporting their opinion. It’s also the model we use here, I’m not required to be fair or balanced, this blog is basically my opinion, what news is here I try to make accurate, but no guarantees.

But there’s another factor here, Bell Tel as a common carrier has no responsibility for the messages they carry. The New York Times is responsible for every word printed on its editorial page.

And so it is time for the lawfare to begin. Doxxing people? – Twitter’s at fault, Threatening public figures? Twitter dunnit. On and on. Time to break these self-righteous protectors of snowflakes, soy boys, and other so-called people that oppose American freedom.

And you know, I suspect the world will be a better place when we have destroyed them, and their owners.

Jack and the California Beanstalk

Last month I referred to an article that Kurt Schlichter wrote in Townhall. As usual, when you’re over the target, the Colonel has been taking some flack. He clarified a few things a few days ago, especially in relation to the preposterous article that Jack Dorsey, one of the founders of Twitter endorsed. His new Townhall article is here.

Tech titan Jack Dorsey of San Francisco-based social media platform Twitter applauded an article in something called Medium in which some other hipster CEO described how liberals intend to crush Normal Americans into serfdom in a bloodless “civil war.”

Here it is.

Ready?

It will just sort of happen. Why? Because. Americans will simply decide to be like California because of reasons and phew, no more troublesome conservatives and Gaia is saved!

So basically, wishing.

Well, that’s a kind of war plan. Perhaps by unleashing the power of hoping so they can utterly subjugate the half of America that voted against Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and drive the people who actually operate and defend this country into silent obedience.

Or not.

Now, I know what you’re saying. You’re saying, “Why do a bunch of San Francisco dorks think that 150 million Americans with 300 million guns are just going to give up their rights and their say in their own governance and submit to the commands of people who eat kale by choice?” That’s a fair question, and they have an answer.

Because you just are.

I didn’t say it was a good answer.

Recently I wrote a long column here describing the ugly realities of an actual Second Civil War – realities that are much uglier for the anti-freedom liberal side in terms of terrain, combat power, and morale. […]

That’s the article I referred, of course. And yes, I have read the article in Medium as well. It’s the most fantastical bit of wishful thinking I ever read. If that’s the level of this guy’s thinking he couldn’t properly manage a broom, And Jack is no better.

They want to silence you too, and every other patriot. But that’s a short-sighted tactic because people who are silenced, particularly uppity Americans who take their natural rights seriously, won’t just shrug and give up. They will stew and fume at the injustice of their oppression and then they will radicalize and then, because they have been wrongfully denied access to the means of participation in the governance of their own society, they will inevitably exercise their power in the only way left to them. They will rebel. They have before. Sometimes it’s peaceful – like by electing Donald Trump. But if peaceful doesn’t work, they are going to give not being peaceful a try. That’s just human nature.

This is where the liars pounce again with their fussy fauxtrage – leftists love violence directed at Normal Americans – but facts are facts. If the liberal plan to drive non-liberal Americans from the public square – the NRA, Laura Ingraham, and even Kevin Williamson silencing campaigns are just some recent examples – succeeds, it will only succeed for a little while. The fact is that if Normal people are barred from “legitimate” participation, they will participate “illegitimately.” Just ask the redcoats how taxation without representation worked out.

Here’s a hint: We Americans have good teeth and don’t eat spotted dick.

Bolt down that pressure cooker lid and turn up the fire, well ever see a steam explosion? This will be worse.

[…] But there are problems with using California as a role model, starting with the fact that California sucks.

Oh, it doesn’t suck for rich guys living by the beach like Jack and his hipster buddies. California is pretty great for bros like him. But the guys who cut his lawn and wash his Tesla and feed his pet pandas, well, not so much. The article claims, “California Democrats actually cared about average citizens.” Yeah, uh huh. Drive 10 miles inland from the beach and California dreamin’ becomes California nightmarin’.

California is a bankrupt failed state that is essentially Illinois with palm trees and better weather. Outside the coastal urban enclaves where Jack and his pals mingle, drinking kombucha and apologizing for their white privilege to their baffled servants, it’s a crowded, decaying disaster. Bums wander the streets, littering the sidewalks with human waste. Crime is rising. Illegal aliens abound, more welcome in the Golden State than actual Americans. California is an example all right, but a cautionary one.

In fact, the middle class in California is escaping just as fast as they can. It won’t be long until it’s Jack and his buddies, and illegal aliens, with damned few in the middle. The key point for the rest of us is to make sure they know why California went so bad, and don’t vote for it where they wash up. It’s already a problem in Montana, Colorado, and Texas. Texas seems to have a fair handle on it, the others not so much.

They are correct when they say “[i]n this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward.” Yep, true. They are also correct when they observe that, “America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences toward the slippery slope of civil war.” Yep, also true, and it ought to scare the hell out of them.

If the liberals ever get their wish for a new civil war, my money is on the side with all the guns.

Yep, and that will be the end of the story, or maybe more likely, a new beginning.

%d bloggers like this: