Big Tech Censorship Is Real and Dangerous

 

Twitter and Facebook just censored a news story by one of America’s largest papers. After the New York Post published an investigation of corruption allegations, the tech giants suppressed the story, and Twitter blocked its users from sharing the link. Twitter even locked the New York Post’s account, as well as the accounts of many prominent conservatives and the White House press secretary. This incident is tech censorship, plain and simple. A reputable outlet published a story that is in the public interest, only to be banned from spreading the word. Keep in mind: These are the same social media platforms that Russia, China, and Iran use to spread propaganda and disinformation. But instead of tackling that problem, Twitter and Facebook went after a mainstream American media outlet that’s been around since 1801. Twitter has apologized for how it handled the situation, and yesterday said that it had changed its policies. Reminder: tech companies have special protections under the law and the ability to block content as long as they apply rules evenly. It's clear that's not the case — which is why the Senate is right to investigate this fiasco.

The UN Human Rights Council just voted to let even more human rights abusers join its ranks.

 

Hypocrisy alert: The UN Human Rights Council just voted to let even more human rights abusers join its ranks. On Tuesday, the council voted to give seats to Communist China, Communist Cuba, and Russia, joining other oppressive nations like Venezuela, Sudan, and Libya. The council’s latest move further validates the United States’ decision to leave the Human Rights Council, which Amb. Haley announced in 2018. The council gives credibility to some of the world’s worst regimes — see China’s oppression of the Muslim Uighurs, Christian worshippers, and the entire city of Hong Kong. And instead of promoting human rights, the council spends significant time attacking Israel and the United States. No wonder China and Russia want to get in on the game. It gets worse. While the Human Rights Council is undermining its own mission, American liberals want to ask the Council to intervene in U.S. elections. That’s right: They want to give an anti-American international organization power over America. What could possibly go wrong?

 

What has changed such that Joe Biden is leading in all the polls?

What do you think has happened that has caused people to think differently and choose Joe Biden over Donald Trump? No one is asking this question!

One could point to COVID-19. Blaming Donald Trump is a far cry from proving the claim. COVID is a pandemic and it is behaving as a Pandemic! Even the WHO is stumped! History tells us that until a vaccine is developed and 85% + of the population receives it, the ravages of the disease will continue.

The collapse of the economy? The President did not close the economy, governors and mayors made those decisions. Rightly or wrongly these decisions crashed the economy. Not the President. Even not, the WHO is calling out that “Shutdowns” do more harm than the disease over time.

Another other point is the riots. We have witnessed billions of dollars of damage by rioters with stated goals of tearing down the U.S. institutions. Most of the riots were not confronted while the president did not overstep his authority while admonishing the states to “take control” of their states and cities.

Finally, there is Joe Biden the candidate. Biden was clearly not the Democrat choice during the primaries. If there was a leader it was Bernie Sanders. However, there was no clear, strong leader coming out of the Democrat Primaries. Also, another consideration was that Kamala Harris performed so poorly she had to drop out very early.

So, in your mind, what changed the views of the voting public? There is reason to believe that nothing has changed. The polls and predictions are exactly like 2016 at the same time. The headlines on October 18, 2016 was that Hillary Clinton had a 91% probability of winning the election. Think about it!

The Preservation of Government and It's Permanence - George Washing circa 1796

 

An excerpt from George Washington's Farewell Speech. As we can learn from reading the entire speech, Washington fully embraced how fragile the miracle of our formation and the constitution are. There are many admonishments of where and how what we created through great sacrifice can and will be lost. What follows is a stark warning about what I see occuring in our Nation today. Please read this, re-read and take very seriously. This what we face and we must a patriots of this great nation stand up to!

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion, and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the Laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. This leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. - George Washington, 1796

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

 

Federalist 9 Excerpt

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

For the Independent Journal.

A. HAMILTON

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily, for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place.

 

Federalist 55 Excerpt

A. Hamilton

Last page

Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

PUBLIUS.

The State Shutdown Racket!

 

The State Shutdown Racket

 

Judges are standing up to governors who have overstepped their authority during the pandemic. Over the weekend, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously struck down Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s sweeping restrictions. Last month, a federal judge did the same thing to Democratic Governor Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania. These rulings make a point that many politicians have forgotten: Government power is limited, even during a pandemic. While elected officials are right to take swift action to keep citizens safe, they are wrong to think they can do whatever they please. In Michigan, Gov. Whitmer unilaterally banned paint sales at large stores, motor boating, landscaping, and golf, among many other things. When the legislature refused to extend her restrictions, as required by law, she extended them anyway. Whatever you call that, it isn’t democracy. As the Michigan Supreme Court said about Gov. Whitmer, “no individual in the history of this state has ever been vested with as much concentrated and standardless power to regulate the lives of our people.” Here’s hoping more states get the message and move to protect their citizens in ways that are safe, smart, and constitutional.

What does Natural Rights in the United States mean?

 

State Constitutions, Selections on Equality and Natural Rights

In the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of its several states clearly state pople have natural unalienable rights to life and liberty. Read on.....

Virginia Constitution, 1776

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Massachusetts Constitution, 1780

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

New Hampshire Constitution, 1784

All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

 All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are—the enjoying and defending life and liberty—acquiring, possessing, and protecting property—and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.

Pennsylvania Constitution, 1790

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, we declare—  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Ohio Constitution, 1802

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized, and forever unalterably established, we declare— That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety;

Natural unalienable rights do not come from government; people are born with them. These words present that fact it is part of being human. Governments are charged with protecting our natural rights from others and from any government.