David Burge
@iowahawkblog
You hate to see it, and by that I of course mean CNN at the airport.

Matt Walsh
@MattWalshBlog
CNN has just forfeited 95 percent of its viewership

Emily Zanotti
@emzanotti
2021 is looking up already

Avatar
mellio
27 minutes ago
95% of their audience! Hmm. What could that other 5% possibly consist of?

Ralph Kramden
18 minutes ago
People in prisons, of course. It's part of their punishment for violent crimes.

Section 230 even provides for a section regarding illegal activity on the internet. If the President made a specific threat, which is an illegal action, that could have been turned over to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution. The problem is that the social media companies are defining what is a threat, and simply state they perceive Trump’s rhetoric to be so, not that it actually qualifies as such. This also is another example of editorial control, as they have redefined, beyond the legal definition that could be prosecuted, what a threat is. Again, this sets up these companies from self-denial of the protections contained in Section 230.

In fact, Section 230 states that the goal is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal and State regulation. Now, these companies want to argue that although they are free of Federal and State regulation, they are free to regulate their own services as they see fit, essentially rendering those services outside of the free market. When Amazon unilaterally decides that Parler is not entitled to the protections from Section 230, but they are in denying Parler those same protections, they are in a way, invalidating their own access to the protections. Sure they are free to choose with whom they do business, but they cannot suggest that they are a part of a “vibrant and competitive free market” while denying services to a firm, which is also protected from liability within Section 230.

Is Parler not an “interactive computer service?” Are they not entitled to the protections of Section 230? If they are, and I want to be very thorough here, WHAT GIVES APPLE, GOOGLE, AMAZON, OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDER THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THAT THEY NEED TO EDIT, DELETE OR OTHERWISE CONTROL THE CONTENT ON PARLER, WHEN THE STANDARD ISN’T THE SAME FOR OTHERS? Again, they want to be able to hide behind Section 230 protections to deny another company of their own right to Section 230 protections. It is certainly cowardice if not criminal.

If tech feudal lords and oligarchs can decide which sovereign has a voice and platform, then sovereignty is meaningless. Europeans must take note.
By Sumantra Maitra
Whatever the result of the massive Twitter purge, it made one thing clear to the world. Carl Schmitt’s most important and controversial aphorism, “sovereign is he who decides the exception” is still timeless.

In the American republic, the sovereign is not the state, which has hollowed out. The sovereign now is the group of neo-feudal oligarchs, Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Facebook, who now decide and control who can speak, see, learn, and buy, and what and when. Give them an army of their own like the East India Company, and the American state is over. //

The hypocrisy here is the establishment of a new hierarchy and power structure. Twitter is doing what it can, not what it cannot. Tech companies can go against Western conservatives because they are not afraid of Western conservatives. They have realized that, due to their ideology and free-market dogma, modern conservatives are impotent about using the state or power.

Twitter cannot do that with China or Antifa, because there will be real consequences in terms of their revenue or street violence. In other words, tech companies are afraid of state power in some countries (China, Russia) and not in others (the free-market United States). The principle of power remains the same. As Phillippe Lemoine said, “Twitter banned Trump because it could and that’s all there is to it. At least the Athenians were honest with the Melians before they destroyed them.” //

No wonder China, Russia, the European Union, and India are trying to control their internet. Their sovereignty is in question if tech oligarchs decide who can speak and who cannot. And the Chinese are happy to rub it in that at least in China, the state remains supreme to a bunch of feudal lords arbitrarily deciding rules. //

The tech-lash censoring of the president and a bunch of conservatives is similar to the king realizing during Magna Carta that it’s the feudal lords who hold real power, not him. It is the duty of historians to add that conservatives have only themselves to blame if they lose the war with the tech neo-feudalists.

They had years to break up monopolies. They didn’t. Vae Victis. The coming consequences will be severe.

Kelley Paul
@KelleyAshbyPaul
Hey @jack , remember how for the last three years you have allowed thousands of hateful tweets celebrating my husband’s assault and encouraging more violence against him? I do.
1:10 PM · Jan 10, 2021

ELIJAH SCHAFFER
@ElijahSchaffer
Just a reminder that almost every violent BLM/Antifa riot in 2020 was organized on this platform

Dozens of people murdered, cops badly injured, billions of $ in property damage, horrible terrorist attacks like Kenosha

All organized on Twitter. No participants suspended.
12:17 PM · Jan 10, 2021

The Federalist
@FDRLST
FLASHBACK: Just Months Ago, Democrats Blocked a Resolution Condemning Mob Violence
Months Ago, Democrats Blocked a Resolution Condemning Mob Violence
thefederalist.com
8:28 AM · Jan 10, 2021

“Our pretensions to civilization have become very thin,” begins Hayward. “Political violence was legitimized last year and is spreading wildly now. “Might makes right” is clearly the only “principle” behind freedom of speech. That’s why Chinese Communists will never be censored by Big Tech.”

“When every “principle” becomes nothing but a ruthless exercise of power, it’s not surprising that a growing number of people conclude they must demonstrate some sort of power in order to be taken seriously,” he continued. “Violence is the crudest exercise of power.” //

John Hayward
@Doc_0
·
Jan 11, 2021

A well-run civilization makes it clear universally that violence is absolutely unacceptable. Giving free passes for irresponsible rhetoric and destruction to groups favored by the dominant political ideology of the State undermines that message.

We must also [give] people peaceable means of expressing themselves and controlling their own lives, to relieve the pressures that can lead to violent outbursts and other forms of lawlessness. The less healthy discourse and freedom of action you have, the more pressure builds up. //

People begin getting the idea that violence gets results and that the law won’t really touch those who do get violent. As a result, we slide back into barbarism. //

“A great deal of our society today boils down to anarchy and barbarism arrogantly disguising itself with the trappings of civilization,” tweeted Hayward. “That’s the key to understanding cancel culture and crybullies: they sanctify their lust for power by loudly claiming to be helpless victims.”

Facebook, MailChimp, and Constant Contact have all banned the group from using their services. Parler has been banned from all of the major app stores, and now faces extinction from Amazon. Are these actions coordinated? Absolutely and without question. This is actual fascism. Again, the definitions have changed.

And is it “violence” from the right which they fear? No. It is the violence from the left if they do not do it, which they do. Cancel culture’s ugly start has come to its inevitable fascist evolutionary jump; to full-on control. Businesses didn’t board up around the country based upon a threat of a Biden win, but fear of the left’s reaction of a Trump victory. Similarly, the Big Tech Left isn’t doing this solely out of their fear of the right, but rather their fear of the survival of the left should they not take this action. //

We will survive this purge, and when we do, we will be stronger for it. The left, however, is scared and rightfully so. Their efforts to destroy the heart of America have failed. They have awakened the American spirit, and their best efforts to silence it have failed. They’ve brought us to this point and are now demanding that we change to fit their new definition. I don’t think so. In our world, the sky is still blue, and the Constitution still protects us from them. We aren’t a threat to them unless they make us so. We aren’t their enemy unless they make us so. If anything, the soul of America is coming, and if they decide to define that as a threat, so be it.

Looking at the behavior of some of the right-leaning people that had infiltrated the Capitol building, you can see that sanity and calm thinking hadn’t won the day. While not quite as destructive, the actions looked a lot like the leftist Black Lives Matter riots than anything.

These people didn’t just arrive at their conclusions in a vacuum, and while there are many paths to becoming a radical, the left’s ability to make people feel a sense of desperation is definitely one of them.

One of those ways the left does that is to silence, censor, and belittle. It’s a tactic that might work a while but behind the seal they put on dissent, pressure builds. At some point, it’s going to explode.

The censorship of conservatives isn’t new. It’s been going on for years and it’s no conspiracy theory. Video evidence shows just how blatant the censorship of conservatives is, and despite how the leftists in Silicon Valley deny it, it’s clear that the left wants it.

The silencing of conservatives or right-leaning voices isn’t going to make the problem go away, it’s only going to increase the anger and vitriol felt by the silenced. The radicalization won’t come because of an abundance of radical speech, it’ll come from a lack of expression of dissenting opinion, the vast majority of which is entirely reasonable.

Resentment will drive the radicalism, not false information.

There’s a difference between dissenting speech and actually dangerous speech, and the left has more or less lost sight of what that difference is in its quest to sensationalize and silence.

The left continues to put the kibosh on conservative speech at its own risk, and — God forbid — a real insurrection rises up that actually takes the lives of a good number of people, the left will only have themselves to blame.

While journalists and news outlets love to claim they are holding people accountable in their reporting, one detail always overlooked is their own accountability. Those who hold judgement are above being judged, goes their thinking. This leads to odd results frequently, such as when the press manages to defy the very mandates they have called to be imposed on others.

It never fails to amuse when the self-appointed authorities cannot keep their own positions straight, and throughout the past year there have been numerous instances where the media managed to contradict their own positions.

CNN's Fareed Zakaria Lets Out 'Dirty Little Secret' They Hid About Trump
By Nick Arama | Jan 01, 2021 10:30 PM ET

CNN
Now that the media thinks that President Donald Trump will be leaving office, they’re admitting things they never would have admitted otherwise.

CNN for example pushed all kinds of fake news against Trump for four years, suggesting all kinds of connections to Russia that weren’t real and pushing the Russia collusion hoax.

But today, on CNN’s New Day, Fareed Zakaria, revealed the network’s “dirty little secret” about the president.

First, he spread nonsense about how he thought Joe Biden would get us “engaged again” around the world. Like how Biden was engaged in Ukraine and China? Or how the Obama coddled Iran and failed to do anything about Russia or North Korea? President Donald Trump actually had real constructive contact, not just talk and bending over for our enemies.

When he was asked about how Russia policy would change if Biden came in, Zakaria dropped the truth about Trump.

From Newsbusters:

“I think in general, there isn’t going to be as much difference as people imagine. The Biden folks are pretty tough on Russia, Iran, North Korea. You know, the dirty little secret about the Trump administration was that while Donald Trump had clearly had a kind of soft spot for Putin, the Trump Administration was pretty tough on the Russians. They armed Ukraine, they armed the Poles. They extended NATO operations and exercises in ways that even the Obama Administration had not done. They maintained the sanctions. So I don’t think it will be that different.”

So as Newsbusters notes, who were the people that kept all that a secret? It was CNN and their liberal brethren in media, as they tried to suggest things other than the truth.

Add to that Trump was the one who dropped bombs on Russians, killing a few hundred in Syria. Remember how media mocked Trump about his interest in Greenland? But that very interest showed how far thinking Trump was about trying to head off Russia’s aims in the region. He wanted position there to check them if need be.

But the liberal media never really cared about the facts, just the narrative. So for four years we heard all kinds of stories suggesting Trump was a Russian agent. You can still see Democrats spreading this nonsense to this day and many still think so, even though it’s been debunked.

If they actually cared about who really seemed in the pocket of the Russians, the irony of ironies was, it was never Trump.

Compare to the Obama/Biden administration, which never seemed to really check the Russians, even after they claimed “Russian interference.” Indeed they did everything that seemed to help the Russians, from making the deal with Iran (Russia’s connection in the region), not arming Ukraine (and Obama personally making sure they were disarmed to begin with), killing American pipelines, not checking Russia in the Arctic. In all things, Obama was strangely “flexible” for Russia. Perhaps it was not strange then that it was to Russian disinformation that the Democrats appealed to try to take down Trump in 2016. Imagine what the Democrats would have done to Trump if he had that hot mic moment that Obama had with Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev. Trump would have been impeached by the Democrats in a red-hot minute. Obama? He got a pass.

But media never gave Trump credit for all he has done, even with stunning historic achievements in the Middle East and in the development of the vaccines at the fastest rate in history. Everything he did do, they downplayed, spun to a negative or if they couldn’t do that, just ignored. It’s why yes, there was interference in this election. It was by the media, who did all they could to hurt Trump and help the Democrats

Plato turned on Homer to make several sophisticated points, and at the end of the “Republic,” he encouraged his readers to defend the poets and present reasons they should not be exiled from the ideal city. In contrast, the woke have rejected Homer, and the rest of the Western canon, because they hate any art that doesn’t reinforce their parochial ideology and cannot stand those who are different from them. In reality, their celebration of diversity is confined to a narrow spectrum.

Far from being genuinely multicultural, the woke are an insular subculture that replicates many of the worst traits of other such subcultures, including an insistence on didactic art. Yet, their overrepresentation in media and education (among other institutions) means that they wield real power, which they can use to mold children to transform society as a whole.

There is no issue more important to the future and soul of our nation right now than the leftist bigotry threatening the very concept of what it means to be an American. //

On the medical side, Dr. Harald Schmidt, a supposed expert on ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that essential workers, not the elderly, should be the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines. His reason? “Older populations are whiter,” he told the publication. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

To be clear, the term “level the playing field” here means allowing people to die because of the color of their skin. //

All three of these examples of dangerous racism occurred in one week. One week. All stem from the pernicious concept of critical race theory, a demonstrably racist set of ideas Democrats want to drill into the heads of all-white government employees except, apparently, Joe Biden, who to my knowledge has never undergone this vital training (strange, given that his own Vice President-elect has openly called him a racist).

There is no more important fight for conservatives today than battling the racism of the American left. And as is often the case with effective battle plans this one is quite simple. We must call for people not to be judged or treated differently solely on the basis of the color of their skin. That shouldn’t be a controversial concept, but it is.

“Let’s just do this simple thought experiment. I just heard today Elon Musk was moving to Texas. So the smartest man on the planet has decided to move away from the dumbest governor in the United States.” //

“So when the smartest guy in the world says, ‘I’m moving,’ what does that say to the rest of us?” //

Speaking of miserable, Adam told Tucker Southern California’s got things backwards:

“The Left has this way of approaching problems, and it’s a sort of bizarre reverse engineering of a problem. Which is, Los Angeles is like a house that’s riddled with termites. So Los Angeles’s reaction is, ‘Fire the termite inspector.'”

“And what happens to the house when you do that?” Carlson cued.

“It just turns into a pile of sawdust.” //

“[I]t’s like saying, ‘We can’t make it up the hill in this old truck. We can’t go fast enough. The engine doesn’t work.’ ‘Well, then just take the speedometer and push it with your finger up to 80 miles an hour.’ It doesn’t work.”

AOC and the hard-left want the very socialistic Green New Deal to be pushed through so badly they’ll lie their heads off to make it happen and if it means scaring the population into compliance then so be it.

You’ll never see AOC show up to debate anyone about it. It’s clear the ramifications of the Green New Deal would scare the population even more than the left’s climate scaremongering. Better to tell everyone that we’re about to hit the point of no return and make them climate issue voters.

Only once again, the deadline’s come and gone, and everything is great. The only thing burning up is the left’s climate narrative.

So not only are they saying they wouldn’t cover it, but they’re also talking about how they’ll try to spin the scandal, to make it about Trump rather than about Biden and how there’s a “media story,” how dare the New York Times Maggie Haberman and Politico’s Jake Sherman actually retweet this news.

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
Replying to @JonathanTurley
...Darcy calls for every tweet by Trump to be labeled as disinformation while asking “and why stop there?” Precisely. Once you cross the Rubicon of speech regulation, there is little reason or inclination to stop. //

What is chilling about Darcy’s writings is that they reflect the view of many now in Congress and in the Democratic Party. Indeed, they reflect many in the Biden campaign. Once a party that fought for free speech, it has become the party demanding Internet censorship and hate speech laws. President-Elect Joe Biden has called for speech controls and recently appointed a transition head for agency media issues that is one of the most pronounced anti-free speech figures in the United States. It is a trend that seems now to be find support in the media, which celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

Of course, what Darcy considers “disinformation” or what Blumenthal considers “robust content modification” is left dangerously undefined.

CNN has a breaking story out of China where documents have been acquired which reveal that the Chinese communist government authorities have not been honest in their reporting of the crisis within their country. The documents show that the Chi-Com leaders were intentionally downplaying the crisis and deceptively underreporting the figures they were dealing with on the Mainland. //

As this is their own BREAKING report you understand the grave delivery and urgency in the presentation, but what is also unmistakable is the tone of surprise, as if this is somehow a new revelation to things. The idea that the communist leadership was not being completely transparent with numerous aspects of the outbreak has been long seen, but CNN has been part of the cabal of news agencies which have taken a more defensive posture in its approach to how that government had been responding.

“The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth, but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie, is why the public no longer respects them,” Musk tweeted in May 2018. //

The NYT dos not have sovereignty over information, and it is not their place to decide what is true and false, nor is to control what is said, where it is said, and by whom. The tech community has a message: The New York Times Company does not reserve the right to speak first, nor does it reserve the right to speak last

The media is attempting to make Joe Biden out to be some historic leader at every turn, and one of the latest “historic” things he’s doing is appointing nothing but women to the top of his White House press staff.

It’s too bad Trump already did that, but this is going completely ignored by the media.

According to the Washington Post, the Biden administration is putting nothing but women in the top spots of his press staff and, as the Post reports, it is “the first time that all of the top aides tasked with speaking on behalf of an administration and shaping its message will be female.” //

Kayleigh McEnany
@kayleighmcenany
President @realDonaldTrump already has an ALL FEMALE Senior White House Press Team.

So does @VP...

So does @FLOTUS...

So does @SecondLady...

The completely DISCREDITED @washingtonpost once again reveals their blinding propagandist Fake News proclivities ⬇️ //

Being a Republican woman doesn’t count for them.

The comments by Kerry come from a panel discussion hosted by the World Economic Forum earlier in November, following the 2020 election. The host of the panel is Borge Brende, the president of the World Economic Forum, an organization that has thus far devoted more time and money to promoting the Great Reset than any other group in the world.

These quotes are noteworthy for a number of reasons, but perhaps the most important is that Kerry makes it clear that Biden himself supports the Great Reset and that under a Biden administration, the reset “will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.” //

put squarely in front of a lot of these CEOs the issue of stakeholder versus shareholder—which is really at the bottom of what I was talking about, about the dysfunctionality of government and the reaction of citizens. It’s shareholder versus stakeholder. And the issue is whether or not we’re going to move fast enough to provide for what people need at this moment. I think the greatest opportunity we have to do that is in dealing with the climate crisis. … //

“ESG [environment, social, and governance standards] is now in every discussion in every board room. Many, many more financial institutions are looking for what was fashionably called ‘impact investing,’ but everybody is now considering how do we have an impact that’s positive and meet ESGs. The global development standards, the SDGs [U.N. Sustainable Development Goals] are being talked about more.”

Kerry finishes by talking about Joe Biden’s commitment to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and Biden’s plans to impose carbon-dioxide restrictions.

SOURCE: John Kerry’s remarks at “The Great Reset: Building Future Resilience to Global Risks,” World Economic Forum, weforum.org, November 17, 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/the-great-reset-building-future-resilience-to-global-risks. (Remarks begin just before the 26-minute mark.)

The newly elected Utah representative — and former NFL player //

Burgess’s message: Freedom Force will protect businesses and those who toil at them.

As the erstwhile Oakland Raider sees it, owning a business is a cornerstone of liberty in the United States:

“Business ownership is the foundation of our freedom. It’s where our middle class comes from.” //

“So…if you wonder why they’re shutting down things right now – because no matter who you are, Democrat, independent, or Republicans, the Left hates business owners because it empowers the middle class.” //

It’s certainly not a stretch to say there’s overt opposition to business ownership. Despite dreamy assertions among the woke, socialism is not a system where you as a low-wage worker suddenly become one of many CEOs. It is, rather, a system in which business ownership is banned — all products and means of production are instead forcibly taken by the biggest business of all: Government.

In other words, if you own a business and say you’re a socialist, either:

A. You want the government to take away what you’ve built

OR

B. You don’t know the definition of socialism