Email Bill Meyer, Podcasts on BillMeyerShow.com
Bill’s Past Shows and commentary at BLOG ARCHIVES.
Bill Meyer’s Facebook page: Facebook.com/BillMeyerShow
Follow Bill on Parler @BillMeyerShow
________________________________
MONDAY 4-05-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
TUESDAY 4-06-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
WEDNESDAY 4-14-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
THURSDAY 4-15-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
FRIDAY 4-16-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
___________________________
04-16-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest information
6:35 Rick Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, www.dailytorch.com – We update the courts, the other news, how to be effective, and not be “whip-sawed” back and forth by the News Cycle.
7:10 Greg Roberts, Mr. Outdoors, with the Outdoor report
7:20 or so Mike Pelfrey, Patriot car/truck rally starts tomorrow at Rogue Valley Mall by Penneys, then travels to Reinhart Park in Grants Pass. Meet at the Mall tomorrow, Saturday, 1pm to join in and BRING YOUR FLAGS and patriotism.
7:35 Pedro Gonzalez is a Chronicles contributor and assistant editor of American Greatness and a Mount Vernon Fellow of the Center for American Greatness. Follow him on Twitter @emeriticus.
More about Pedro – www.muckrack.com/emeriticus
Subscribe to his Contra feed – https://contra.substack.com/
The following is normally behind his Contra “Paywall”, but it’s too important, read and share, and sign up for his free weekly newsletter at the contra address above.
Why you should think twice before joining Donald Trump’s proposed social media network and always read the fine print.
Trump’s America OnlineWhy you should think twice before joining Donald Trump’s proposed social media network and always read the fine print.
I’m releasing this one from behind the paywall because it seems like a story that deserves as many readers as I can attract. However, only subscribers can comment. If you’re not already subscribed, please considering signing up. There is a new development on the horizon of Donald Trump’s post-presidency: a social media network built around and for the former president. In a recent Newsmax interview, former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski announced the project’s development. “This is going to be launched in the next 3 to 4 months, and it’s going to be an interactive communication tool, whereby the president will be able to post things to it, and people will be able to repost and communicate directly with him,” Lewandowski said. Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News’ “#MediaBuzz” something similar on March 21, albeit with a different timeline. “I do think that we’re going to see President Trump returning to social media in probably about two or three months here, with his own platform,” he said. “And this is something that I think will be the hottest ticket in social media, it’s going to completely redefine the game, and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what exactly President Trump does.” Lewandowski’s comments suggest that this project may take longer than Trump’s team had anticipated. They’ve also considered a handful of social media networks for a partnership because, as Jonathan Swan and Sara Fischer explained, “Trump is famously averse to putting his own money into companies, preferring to license his name and use other people’s money to fund his ventures.” On February 5, BuzzFeed News reported that then-campaign manager Brad Parscal floated the idea of Trump “taking an ownership stake in Parler during a meeting last year at the White House, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.” “The president was never part of the discussions,” Parscale told BuzzFeed News. “The discussions were never that substantive. And this was just one of many things the campaign was looking into to deal with the cancel culture of Silicon Valley.” Jared Kushner replaced Parscale with Bill Stepien in July after the former’s profligacy drew unwanted attention to the Trump campaign’s finances. Business Insider reported in late December that Kushner “approved the creation of a campaign shell company that secretly paid the president’s family members and spent almost half of the campaign’s $1.26 billion war chest.” Though there was an effort to blame spending problems on Parscale, most of that money—$415 million—was spent after Kushner replaced him with Stepien. Parscale fell back into Trump’s orbit recently, joining Kushner confidants Stepien and Miller among the “top political lieutenants” of Trump’s post-presidency. Talks with Parler would resume once more. A leaked document showed Parler offered a 40 percent stake in the company during negotiations with the Trump Organization in December. “Upon completion of that deal, half of that stake would have been given immediately to the Trump Organization, while the other half would have been doled out in tranches over the 24-month period of the agreement,” journalists Ryan Mac and Rosie Gray reported. But things fell apart after the Capitol Building incident on January 6, when Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores and Amazon booted the platform from its web hosting service. With Parler going dark, an alternative platform presented itself in Gab. And as was the case with Parler, Kushner’s representatives requested equity in exchange for Trump’s presence on Gab—a proposition flatly rejected by CEO and founder Andrew Torba. Torba told me that his platform’s skyrocketing traffic—in other words, its data—attracted Trump’s team, led by Kushner’s representatives, to Gab. “As we told Mr. Kushner’s aides, Gab has no plans to sell our business or to compromise in any way our mission to defend free speech online for all people,” he said. “We fully expect the president’s entry into the arena to accelerate alternative technology growth trends and wish the president and his tech team well.” Torba said the motive became transparent after a call with Kushner’s aides. “They said that they were in ‘make money mode’ and were focused on how they could financially benefit from Gab and change our free speech stance,” he told me. “All I wanted to do was give the president his voice back, but Kushner and others in the president’s orbit expected me to hand the keys to the kingdom over to them and change the core mission of Gab,” Torba added. “I wasn’t going to let that happen.” The latest platform in the sights of Trump’s team appears to be an obscure social media network called FreeSpace, which claims 20,000 combined downloads between the Apple and Google app stores. Everything that has happened up to this point contradicts Lewandowski’s recent comments and highlights a cutthroat approach by Trump’s team. “The platform that the president is building is not going to rely on Amazon, or Amazon servers,” he told Newsmax, seemingly disparaging Parler. He claimed Trump’s platform is “going to be completely built from scratch, from the ground up.” But the focus so far seems to be not on building but acquiring an existing product. According to Lewandowski, this platform is “going to give [Trump] the opportunity to control not only the distribution of it, but also who participates in it.” Therefore, it does not appear intended to be a forum for free expression—like Parler and Gab—but more like a direct marketing app, which, in politics, usually means fundraising. If free expression were, in fact, the objective, then Trump would have jumped on and boosted an existing alternative to continue communicating with his supporters directly. But Kushner reportedly advised Trump against getting on either Parler or Gab after Twitter permanently suspended his account—and Trump listened. Further, a recent Republican National Committee survey also appears to connect Trump’s social media dreams with fundraising. “Big Tech isn’t even pretending to care about protecting free speech anymore, and President Trump has announced plans to go around them by starting his very own social media platform,” an email from the RNC reads. The attached survey asks respondents: “Should President Trump start his own Social Media Platform?” Trump attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter to the RNC in early March, demanding the organization stop using his name and likeness in fundraising efforts. It’s unclear whether Trump consented to this survey. Regardless, it raises awareness of his proposed platform. In a similar vein, a recent story revealed how Trump supporters, including a cancer patient, were unwittingly enrolled in recurring donations that quietly drained their bank accounts. When they demanded their money back, funds raised from supporters after the election to “stop the steal” effectively subsidized the refunds to other supporters. So much of what Trump does tends to devolve into a distracting grift, and this proposed platform has the look of that before even launching.
|
|||||||||||||||||
8:10 Rachel Dawson, Policy Analyst for the Cascade Policy Institute – www.CascadePolicy.org
We discuss the innovative Whoosh technology which would allow fish protection AND the continued use of hydropower resources.
https://cascadepolicy.org/environment/dams-and-fish-can-live-together-thanks-to-whooshh/
______________________________
04-15-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest information
6:15 Armin Brott, aka Mr. Dad, is a spokesman for the Men’s Health Network. He is author of The New Father: A Dad’s Guide to The Toddler Years, a nationally published columnist on manhood and fatherhood, and Host of ‘Positive Parenting,’ a weekly talk show.
We also discuss Manly Men make Better Dads – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9454321/Manly-men-make-better-DADS-study-claims.html
The New Father: A Dad’s Guide to The Toddler Years
Hailed by Time Magazine as “the superdad’s superdad,” Armin Brott is a pioneer in the field of fatherhood and has been building better fathers for more than a decade. As the author of eight bestselling books on fatherhood, he’s helped millions of men around the world become the fathers they want to be—and that their children need them to be.
FIND HIS WEBSITE HERE:
FIND HIM ON FACEBOOK HERE:
FIND HIM ON TWITTER HERE:
7:35 Patrick M. Wood is the Founder and Director of Citizens for Free Speech, a nationwide non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and defending the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.Wood is also the Editor of Technocracy News & Trends, a world-wide journal dedicated to critical analysis of Technocracy and globalization. Wood has authored four books, including Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.
WEBSITE: www.citizensforfreespeech.org
Citizens for Free Speech (CFFS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2018 and dedicated to preserving free speech and enabling citizens to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Local activism is the spirit of Free Speech in America. We believe in the role of the citizen stakeholders in their local communities, and encourage active involvement in local processes, boards and elections. We provide hands-on and personal training in the actual exercise of the First Amendment.
“CFFS promotes successful local activism by showing its members how to effectively communicate and exercise their First Amendment rights in every public or private situation. We mobilize our members to achieve success in their local communities by giving them tools, strategies, training and encouragement to restore civility in the civic arena and to teach others to do the same.”
FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/Patwood
FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/citizensforfreespeech
TWITTER: @StopTechnocracy, @citizens_free
8:10 Kevin Starrett – Oregon Firearms Federation = the state of current gun legislation.
8:40 Bruce from Klamath County brings us news of the recent vandalism of the only ambulance for Rocky Point.
04-14-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest information
6:35 Eric Peters, automotive journalist at the excellent www.EPAutos.com
Today we discuss The NEW VW as contrasted with the “old” VW – https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/04/12/the-great-regression/
The Mercedes 2021 E450 Review – https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/04/14/2021-mercedes-e450/
And, when everyone has a touchscreen, what does “luxury car” really mean?
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/04/13/the-spectrum-meets-in-the-middle/
7:35 Former state senator and now Josephine County Commissioner Herman Baertschiger – he’s tired of the lies, and we discuss it.
8:35 Larry Klayman, author of It Takes a Revolution: Forget the Scandal Industry! Klayman, is founder and former chairman of the successful non-profit foundation Judicial Watch, and current chairman of Freedom Watch. With a title that satirically mocks It Takes a Village by Hillary Clinton, It Takes a Revolution: Forget the Scandal Industry! details how our executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government have become thoroughly corrupt and failed the citizenry.
TWITTER: @LarryEKlayman, @FreedomWatchUSA
_____________________________
MONDAY 4-05-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
TUESDAY 4-06-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
WEDNESDAY 4-07-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
THURSDAY 4-08-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
FRIDAY 4-02-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 6AM pt 2 – 7AM – 8AM
__________________________
04-08-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest information
6:35 Ken Blackwell,Policy Board Member for the American Constitutional Rights Union, and former Secretary of State for Ohio
FL—American Constitutional Rights Union Policy Board Member Ken Blackwell castigates Georgia-based companies like Coca-Cola, Delta, and also Major League Baseball for giving into the woke mob over their unfounded objections to new ballot safeguards its state leaders passed.
In his most recent article for Breitbart, he notes these companies capitulated to tyrants, who are using false allegations of racism as an intimidation tool.
“Corporatist wokesters have been sucked in by Joe Biden’s ‘big lie’: that these laws are racist to the point of being “Jim Crow on steroids,” says Blackwell.
7:10 Dr. Bryan Ardis is the CEO of Ardis Labs. Dr. Ardis’ 2 practices have helped thousands of patients from all over the world. Follow his podcast “The Dr Ardis Show” Watch Dr. Ardis on NewsmaxTV
Get his free 16 page research report on Covid – email Doc@ardislabs.com
More info on the Dr. – www.Ardislabs.com
Find his podcasts at www.voKalnow.com
Dr. Ardis says this is simply… not normal. Something is very very wrong in America and Dr. Bryan Ardis has figured it out. We discussed his study of Authoritarian Thought Control, the model that shows how people are easily manipulated and programed and how Dr. Fauci, BIden, our media, and others have been using those techniques on the American population for over a year. He believes they are complicit in purposefully creating The Covid Cult
7:35 Joseph Rice from Josephine County Liberty Watch – Is the Jo Co Health Department reporting local businesses to OSHA?
Here is a PDF of the various emails Joseph communicated to the county – Joseph Rice Emails Jo Co OSHA
Here is a PDF of the OSHA complaint filed against the Gold Miner Restaurant
8:35 Josephine County Commissioner Darren Fowler – Responds and adds clarity to the earlier interview with Joseph Rice.
____________________________________
Bill’s Guest Information for Wednesday 4/7/21
6:35 Automotive Journalist Eric Peters at www.EpAutos.com and we discuss the “real” inflation creeping into the transportation system https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/04/03/the-inflation-they-cant-hide/
Also, the Amazing Dodge Ram TRX super truck – https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/04/05/2021-ram-1500-trx/
7:10 State Rep. Duane Stark updates HIS experience right now at the “Marble Nut House”. (The not-so-affectionate term for the state legislature session)
8:10 Glenn Archambault, our elected Farm Services Agency representative, talking about the AG view in southern Oregon, Hemp programs, and a snap shot on food supply security.
8:45 “Open for Business” with Randall Lee from Advanced Air.
Great deals are happening right now on Bryant factory rebates, plus Energy Trust of Oregon rebate offers. They’re hiring for MANY positions, and Randal mentions if you’re looking to replace your HVAC, get it in now, because industry material and labor shortages are delaying installations – Get on the schedule today by calling Advanced Air at 541-772-6866.
________________________________
Bill’s Guest Information for Tuesday, 4/7/21
6:35 Attorney Thomas Renz, and we talk the legality of Vaccine Passports.
Since the Biden administration announced last week it was partnering with private companies to develop a vaccine passport system that would require Americans to show proof of vaccination status as a requisite to “returning to normalcy,” states and congressional leaders have become fiercely divided over the issue with many claiming vaccine passports are nothing more than a power grab and anti American.
As it stands, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Wisconsin, Wyoming, South Dakota, Arkansas, Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska, California and Maryland have expressed opposition
More About Thomas: Attorney Thomas Renz is the lead Attorney in 4 major cases regarding the unconstitutional COVID-19 lockdowns, mask mandates, & business closures brought in Ohio, New Mexico, Maine and Nationally.
www.MakeAmericansFreeAgain.com
7:10 State Rep. Kim Wallan brings the latest from the state legislature
7:35 Jo Co Commissioner Herman Baertschiger weighs in on the state and county issues, too
8:10 What’s the status of Britt and other live venues opening? I talk about that with Donna Briggs, President and CEO of Britt Festivals.
8:35 David Horowitz, bestselling author of The Enemy Within How a Totalitarian Movement is Destroying America. More on David: www.frontpagemag.com/author/david-horowitz
Horowitz lays out how we have ended up in the worst national crisis since the Civil War. He details:
• The Left’s embrace of Critical Race Theory and Cultural Marxism—the underpinnings of their totalitarian ideology
• The decades-long infiltration of our education system by ideologies hostile to America, our institutions, and our freedom
• Why the Obama administration marked a point of no return in the division of America into two irreconcilable political factions
• The Democrats’ unprincipled campaign to destroy a duly elected U.S. president
• Their political exploitation of the coronavirus pandemic
• Their complicity in the riots of the summer of 2020, which left twenty-five dead, injured two thousand police officers, caused billions of dollars in property damage, and revealed the fragility of our civic order
_____________________________
Bill’s Guest information for Monday 4/5/21
7:35 Medford Mayor Randy Sparacino discusses the new anti-camping ordinance, in order to reduce homeless problems on the Bear Creek Greenway.
8:10 Dr. Dennis Powers, “Where Past Meets Present”. more information on his site www.DennisPowersBooks.com
The 1964 Good Friday/Crescent City Tsunami
By Dennis Powers
The March 27, 1964, Alaskan (Good Friday) earthquake with an 8.7 Richter-scale (9.2 on the moment magnitude scale) spawned a major tsunami that traveled the entire Pacific Ocean basin. After causing multiples of death and destruction at Alaskan coastal towns, the oceangoing tsunami left for the U.S. coast, slamming with their worst effects into Crescent City. Located 15-miles south of the Oregon border, this small coastal town of 3,000 people suffered losses that exceeded the combined effects of all previous tsunamis on the Continental U.S.
The four main surges at Crescent City threw many people late at night into life-risking jeopardy. In the space of two hours, 11 people died, 15 others were missing, 60 injured, 30 city blocks devastated, 289 businesses and homes destroyed or damaged, as well as 21 large fishing boats capsized or destroyed (plus numerous smaller ones) with incredible destruction wrought under a full moon late at night.
When people thought that the second flooding was the last, sightseers and residents alike headed down to see for themselves. Two more waves caught them unaware, the last one 21 feet high when it steamed onto land. The surges leveled an entire downtown, and the fatalities would have been much worse had this occurred during the summer-tourist season.
The destruction included ripped-out telephone, sewer, water, and gas lines with the bodies of dead animals scattered over land and sea. The bay was littered at its bottom and near solid in places with destroyed cars, boats, appliances, logs, and lumber, as cars and trucks bobbed up and down with the capsized vessels. Tens of thousands of logs from log farms up to Washington covered the beaches for miles in both directions.
Owing to downed electrical wires sparking ruptured-oil tanks, a bulk tank farm with five, 50,000 gallon tanks and two adjacent oil and gas stations were ablaze. No food, clothing, pharmacies, banking, gas stations, or any amenities were available. Trees were uprooted, asphalt streets ripped out, and 3 million board feet of lumber strewn over land and sea, along with 1,000 wrecked cars, numerous shattered buildings, and countless fish.
The tsunami then steamed past California to Mexico and coursed around the world two times before finally expending its energy. After the destruction, the city and coast had to rebuild, starting that next morning when 200 men and women just showed up with their crowbars, tractors, and raw hands to start cleaning up–although no official call had gone out. As the undermanned fire department fought to put out fires, the Red Cross set up facilities that cared for over 500 people.
City and county work-crews, state and federal forest workers, and state-conservation-camp prisoners arrived to help with the cleanup. Across the U.S., individuals donated money; the Salvation Army, Red Cross, and others sent in disaster relief; the military was called in; and President Johnson declared this a disaster area.
The stories of ordinary people who rose to extraordinary heights came out. The ocean surged over two fishermen at the Klamath River mouth, pummeling them 1-1/2 miles up the river; the U.S. Air Force later awarded posthumously the Airman’s Medal, its highest award for bravery under peacetime condition, for the acts of one Sergeant.
The media nationally lionized others, including Gary Clawson, who swam through the tsunami to find a rowboat and save two drowning people, then rescued six others–including his father, mother, fiancée, and three friends–only to unbelievably be the only one who survived when the raging ocean swept the boat and its group through a 200-foot culvert underneath Highway 101, an iron grate plugged with debris at its end.
The sea rose over unsuspecting people just going about their lives. One nationally followed tragedy involved a family camping by the sea in Oregon (Beverly Beach State Park, one-third down the Oregon coast from the Washington border). Four small children drowned, while their grief-stricken parents survived.
Food, clothing, electrical generators, potable water, and portable sanitation facilities were trucked in. From banks and supermarkets to newspapers and gas stations, employees and citizens alike joined together to restart these normal but essential services. The S.B.A. soon established an office for flood loans and disaster relief. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers arranged for private contractors to demolish buildings and rebuilt public facilities. Aided by federal disaster relief and urban development funds, new dock, breakwater, and boating facilities were built, along with a new downtown center called “Tsunami Landing.”
In response, the U.S. Government later constructed its West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska with monitoring devices along the U.S. Pacific Coast. However, experts feel that an offshore eruption of the nearby Cascadia Subduction Zone, or another Alaskan tsunami, could create a disaster of incalculable proportions. Not to mention that tsunamis have hit Crescent City a total of 34 times since 1934.
Although the 1964 disaster was by far the worst, this area is always a target for even the smallest ones. The March 2011, Japanese tsunami–for example–crossed the Pacific Ocean to sink 11 boats in the harbor, damage 47 others, destroy 2/3rds of the docks, and kill one sightseer. Who knows what the future will bring?
Sources: Willie Drye, “National Geographic News: California Tsunami Victims Recall 1964’s Killer Waves,” January 21, 2005; “CBS News: Tsunami sweeps 5 to sea, rips out Calif. docks,” March 11, 2011, at Japanese Tsunami Effects; Richard Gonzales, “National Public Radio: California Town Still Scarred By 1964 Tsunami,” at The 1964 Crescent City Tsunami; See generally “West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center,” at Warning Center. Also, Dennis M. Powers, The Raging Sea: The Powerful Account of the Worst Tsunami in U.S. History, New York: Citadel Press (Kensington Publishing Co.), 2005.
8:45 “Open for Business” with Cheriesse from No Wires Now – save on your satellite, cable, internet, security and so much more with a LOCAL company.
No Wires
Lyle & Cheriesse Beck
1560 Biddle rd ste B
Medford or 97504
Call or Text Cheriesse at 541-680-5875, and find out how much she can save YOU.
_______________________________
MONDAY 3-29-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
TUESDAY 3-23-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
WEDNESDAY 3-31-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
THURSDAY 4-01-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 7AM – 8AM
FRIDAY 4-02-21 PODCASTS 6AM – 6AM pt 2 – 7AM – 8AM
____________________
OSHA wants to make COVID rules PERMANENT – send your meaningful public comment in by close of business Friday.
tech.web@oregon.gov is the comment email address.
Here is the pdf of the OSHA rules proposal for reference. OSHA permanent rule Info
Points you could make in your comments – try to make as much of it in your own words, of course:
- Describe in your own words the detrimental effects the current rules have had on you, your business, and the economy, and how making this permanent would affect you.
- OSHA refers to “Covid-19”, which is a collection of symptoms which cover at least 5 other coronavirus illnesses. SARS CoV-2 is the infectious agent of concern, which has not been isolated. OSHA may desire to call it Covid-19 for clarity and ease of implementations, but OSHA’s rules don’t permit this, and again it violates constitutional provisions.
- ORS 183.400 4a indicates if a rule violates constitutional provisions that it’s null and void.
- OSHA has engaged “stakeholders” with regard to their “Covid-19” rule making. The term “stakeholder” indicates that it used a Consensus Process, and according to ORS 183.400, was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures. The agency can normally use a consensus process only if there isn’t other existing law and procedure available. In other words, OSHA has used a fraudulent consensus process to arrive at these rules.
ORS 183.400 section 4a reads as follows:
4a) The court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that the rule:
(a) Violates constitutional provisions;
(b) Exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; or
(c) Was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures.
4-02-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest Information
6:35 District 2 U.S. Congressman Cliff Bentz discusses the infrastructure bill, other DC issues, and we also dig into the drive for creating vaccine passports.
7:10 Greg Roberts from RogueWeather.com and today’s Outdoor Report
7:35 The Swamp Update from Rick Manning at Americans for Limited Government. www.dailytorch.com and www.getliberty.org
8:10 Jackson County Commissioner Colleen Roberts – Discussing the spike in cases, FOIA action to get more information on the positive case information.
04-01-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest information
6:35 Matthew J. DiLoreto, Vice President, State Government Affairs, HDA. Healthcare distribution alliance. HDA represents 36 distribution companies — national, regional and specialty — as well as more than 130 manufacturer and more than 50 service provider/international members, respectively. These members serve more than 180,000 licensed healthcare providers, delivering millions of lifesaving products to these outlets every day. Today we’re discussing the logistics of Covid vaccine distribution, which HDA is involved in.
7:35 Dr. Eric Fruits –Cascade Policy Institute
Beware the Four Day School Week
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
As Oregon students return to the classrooms, watch out for a new fad that could make our state’s academic performance even worse.
That fad is known as the “four day school week.”
Oregon is one of only nine states that allows four day school weeks and more than 130 districts operate on a four-day schedule. Post-pandemic that number is sure to climb.
Many teachers and administrators like that it provides for a three day weekend every week.
Proponents push the four day week as a way to cut costs without harming academics. But this claim is only half true.
Moving to a four day school week does cut costs. But, it also cuts total instructional time.
Recent research on Oregon’s experience with the four day week finds that schools that moved to a four day week experience significant declines in reading and math achievement. Moreover, these declines worsen over time.
Everyone’s heard the old saying, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true.” The same goes for Oregon’s faddish adoption of the four day school week. It’s claims simply aren’t true.
Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is Vice President of Research at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
8:10 Joel Skousen, editor of the EXCELLENT World Affairs Brief newsletter. (I’m a happy subscriber) The newsletter analyzes the week’s stories, with an emphasis on explaining the deep state attributes. Today we also discuss a special essay on the importance of listening to your conscience – It is free on the site HERE – https://joelskousen.com/the-still-small-voice-of-conscience
Joel is a political scientist, by training, specializing in the philosophy of law and Constitutional theory, and is also a designer of high security residences and retreats. He has designed Self-sufficient and High Security homes throughout North America, and has consulted in Central America as well. His latest book in this field is Strategic Relocation–North American Guide to Safe Places, and is active in consulting with persons who need to relocate for security and increased self-sufficiency.
____________________________________
Bill’s Guest Information for Monday 3-29-21
6:35 Dr. John Lott https://crimeresearch.org/about-us
John Lott is the author of Gun Control Myths: How politicians, the media, and botched “studies” have twisted the facts on gun control and today we’re talking about his latest investigation into VOTER FRAUD!
Montana, a Prototype for Widespread Voter Fraud?
A mountainous, 2,600-square-mile region with a population of approximately 119,600 does not seem like your prototypical setting for machine politics. Yet a recent audit of mail-in ballots cast in Montana found irregularities characteristic of larger urban centers – on a level that could have easily swung local elections in 2020, and statewide elections in cycles past.
The Biden administration, the Democrat-controlled Congress, and the Democratic National Committee are collectively pressing to both nationalize, and make permanent, many of the extraordinary pandemic-driven voting measures implemented during the 2020 election -particularly mass mail-in voting.
Political leaders and prominent media outlets have dismissed concerns raised by critics that such measures invite voter fraud. But could the election in small-county Missoula call all that into question?
During the summer of 2020, the then-governor, Democrat Steve Bullock, issued a directive permitting counties to conduct the general election fully by mail. In the run-up to the election, a court also struck down Montana’s law aimed at preventing ballot harvesting. Missoula, Montana’s second most populous county and one of its most heavily Democratic, opted in to the universal vote-by-mail regime. In response, in October 2020, several county residents with experience targeting election integrity issues formed a group to ensure the legitimacy of the 2020 vote. The members contended that Missoula County had shown anomalies in elections past. [more…]
Dr. John Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He was the senior adviser for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, and he worked on vote fraud issues. Dr. Lott’s recent book is Gun Control Myths.
7:10 Greg Roberts with www.RogueWeather.com and today’s Outdoor Report
7:35 Matt Roberts with the Greenway Recovery Project, https://www.facebook.com/savemedford and www.SavetheGreenway.com
8:10 Dr. Dennis Powers, “Where Past Meets Present”. More about the good Dr. at www.DennisPowersBooks.com
The Carpenter Foundation
By Dennis Powers
The allure of the early 1900’s Orchard Boom drew numbers of well-educated Easterners and Midwesterners to the Valley. Included in these newcomers were the Harvard-educated brothers, Leonard and Alfred Carpenter. After college, Leonard had been an electrical engineer and Alfred in the real estate and banking business. Although neither knew much about agriculture, the Carpenter brothers planted a pear orchard in 1909 with a draft-horse team. The two men established their Veritas Orchard and took turns managing it.
Alfred decided to travel around the world in 1920, as Leonard with his wife of three years, Winifred, watched over the orchard. While on the cruise, Alfred met and fell in love with Helen Bundy and were married in 1922 in Cairo. Helen’s father, Harlow Bundy, and his brother had started a business in New York state three decades before that later owned the important patents for punch clocks. Named the Bundy Time Machine Company, the operation expanded, merged with others, and in 1924 with others formed International Business Machines (“IBM”). Helen and her two siblings were the owners of very valuable stock.
Living for a few years in Pasadena, Alfred and Helen returned to the Medford area in 1926. Buying land near Jacksonville on Old Stage Road, they planted a small orchard and built a “large and inviting” home that they named “Topsides.” This became the center for their parties and social events, often for the benefit of nonprofits. Alfred managed their orchard and later became a board member of COPCO (which over time became part of the mega-utility, Pacific Power) and the Medford Irrigation District.
With the trials and tribulations of World War II, the Carpenters used their private funds to form the Jackson County Recreation Committee (“JCRC”), which provided entertainment and activities for the military personnel at nearby Camp White. This was a large undertaking with the troops numbering at one time as high as 40,000. Their committee purchased the building originally built and used by Pacific Telephone as the entertainment facility. (Alfred and Helen transferred the building’s ownership in 1958 to the University Club.)
Although there was no further need to entertain the troops when the war ended, Alfred and Helen continued their charitable support: Scholarships were granted so that “worthy” students could attend college; and major donations were made to Medford’s Community Hospital/Rouge Valley Medical Center (“RVMC”–now Asante), the Red Cross, and the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts at Harvard University. Many were made anonymously.
The JCRC reorganized in 1958 to become the Carpenter Foundation with a board of trustees; its aim was to “add opportunity, choice, inclusiveness, enrichment, and a climate for change for those living in the Rogue Valley.” The Foundation’s first grants included the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (“OSF”), RVMC, and this has continued over the years.
Alfred not only served on the RVMC board for nearly 40 years, but he also served as its president for 11 years, and would make a weekly visit to talk with the employees and physicians; he additionally served for a time as the chairman of OSF’s fund-raising committee. The major assistance given to the Valley’s arts and music is noteworthy. This included substantial grants that supported major projects and/or the development of the Angus Bowmer Theatre and Carpenter Hall at OSF, the Britt Music Festival, and the Craterian Performing Arts in Medford.
Helen Bundy Carpenter died in 1961, and Alfred later remarried Helene Salade Donker. Following into the foundation was Alfred’s nephew, Dunbar Carpenter, whose father Dunbar (Alfred’s older brother) had come to Medford during the Orchard Boom, but returned later to Boston. Dunbar was born in Medford in 1915, graduated from Harvard, married, and during World War II flew the large Pan American Clippers for civilian contractors working with the military.
After World War II, Leonard and Winifred—then in their sixties—asked Dunbar and his wife, Jane, if they would be interested in taking over their orchard. They did and moved to Medford. In 1972, four public trustees were added to the family members. When Alfred died in 1974, Dunbar (1915-2008) and Jane Carpenter (1915-2007) continued the foundation as a major charitable organization in this area
The Carpenter Foundation in the fifty years since its inception awarded nearly $19 million in grants, $3 million in college scholarships, and over 2,800 grants to Southern Oregon nonprofit organizations. It provides grants in the areas of human services, education, scholarships, the arts, and public interest. In an average year, it will make over 100 different grants and presently makes grants totaling some $750,000 annually, all to nonprofits (who then can distribute or assist individuals).
Alfred and Helen Carpenter created a foundation that truly stands out. With their successors, its operation has brought about a very positive climate of change—for all of us in this region.
Sources: See generally, “Carpenter Foundation,” at History, People, Grants Made, and Financials, including downloading the Carpenter Foundation Booklet, “Fifty Years of Growing Community”; George Kramer, “The Oregon Encyclopedia: Carpenter Foundation and Alfred (1881-1974) & Helen Bundy (1886-1961),” at Synopsis.
Bill’s Guest Information for Friday 3/26/21
6:35 Rick Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, www.DailyTorch.com and www.GetLiberty.org with this week’s “Swamp Update” and analysis from DC.
7:10 Greg Roberts with www.RogueWeather.com and today’s Outdoor Report
7:20 Dr. Carol Lieberman
www.expertwitnessforensipsychiatrist.com
https://terroristtherapist.com
Twitter: @DrCaroleMD
Forensic Psychiatrist Says President Biden’s First News Conference Confirms It’s Time For The 25th Amendment
Website: http://caroleliebermanmd.com/
8:35 Sam Jacobs with www.ammo.com
Deplatformed: How Big Tech and Corporate America Help Subvert the 1st and 2nd Amendments
ammo.com/articles/deplatformed-big-tech-companies-subvert-second-amendment-social-media-guns
- Deplatformed: How Big Tech and Corporate America Help Subvert the 1st and 2nd Amendments
Anyone familiar with the Bible is familiar with the Mark of the Beast: Without this mark, no man may buy or sell.
Regardless of one’s religious faith or lack thereof, there is an illustrative case in this biblical story: When one cannot buy or sell, one is metaphorically up the creek. Short of producing everything one needs oneself, buying and selling are necessary parts of virtually every modern person’s life.
In our modern world, we can begin to see a sort of Mark of the Beast: While ideas and even objects aren’t banned, they are increasingly difficult to come by, not due to government fiat, but due to the machinations of corporations hostile to the American values of freedom.
One can be in favor of the free market while recognizing a simple truth: There is no way that America’s Founding Fathers would have sat on their hands while five corporations dominated American discourse and commerce. It is hard to imagine, for example, the Founders suffering a single private bank processing most of the payments in the United States and refusing to do business with gun merchants. Alternately, one can scarcely imagine that the Founders would have sat still for three companies – all of them hostile toward American values and the Constitution – dominating political discourse and deplatforming anyone who opposed them.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation today: Guns are not illegal, but private companies will make it increasingly difficult to buy, sell or own them – up to and including pulling your bank account. You have all the freedom of speech you like, but prepare to be deplatformed or have your voice buried by large tech corporations with their thumb on the scale of American discourse.
As the American economy has become more corporatist – such that the market is controlled by the interrelation between monolithic mega-corporations, Wall Street and the state – and less capitalistic and dynamic, the American press and economy are now being dominated by forces hostile toward the American public and American values.
No less an authority than James Madison warned Americans that the First Amendment alone was not enough to protect free speech. In Federalist No. 47 and Federalist No. 51, he argued that the separation of powers was necessary to protect free speech by preventing one branch of government from accumulating too much power at the expense of the others and, indeed, the rest of society at large.
This is an important point to remember when considering the First Amendment implications of Big Tech and its war on free speech and gun freedom. The Founding Fathers did not live in a world where a few large corporations had more power than the (incredibly limited and power impoverished) government had, either at the federal or the state level. It’s doubtful that they could have conceived of such a thing.
But they did carefully consider the problem of centralized power as it pertained to the rights enshrined in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to enforce itself. What’s more, if the Founders did not address the notion that the private sector could meaningfully and substantially circumvent rights for all Americans, it was simply because they could not conceive of such a thing, not because they were writing the private sector a blank check.
Corporate Big Brother: Banks as Gun Control
Who needs to pass gun control laws anymore? The left can simply appeal to payment systems, banks and processors as a method of non-state gun control.
Case in point: Andrew Ross Sorkin’s December 2018 article decrying credit card companies for “financing” mass shootings. As with many arguments from the left, the premise is flawed, but very simple: Because eight out of 13 shootings that killed more than 10 people in the 2010s involved a credit card purchase (though, as always, it is worth asking what counts as a mass shooting and what is being left out of the tally – more on this here), credit card companies have a responsibility to step up and stop allowing their customers to make purchases for firearms using credit cards.
This effectively amounts to a request for banks to begin surveilling the legal economic activity of their customers.
It’s not far-fetched to consider that some mass shootings have been facilitated by credit card purchases. The Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen as well as Aurora theater shooter James Holmes used credit cards to purchase the weapons and ammunition they ultimately used to commit mass murder.
But mass shootings, particularly those not part of urban gang warfare, are incredibly rare, despite the overwhelming amount of media attention paid to them. What’s more, while statistics for such would be difficult to formulate, the vast, overwhelming majority of firearms and ammunition purchases made with credit cards are made by law-abiding citizens for entirely legal purposes. For most Americans, firearms purchases can be a spike in their normal spending for the month. And what of it? The call for credit card companies and other payment processors to monitor the economic activity of law-abiding citizens would cause an outrage if the government were to do it, so why is the American public supposed to sit still for an invasion of their privacy simply because a private company is performing the surveillance?
Anyone who has ever made a firearms purchase knows that the bill can add up quickly. The oft-demonized AR-15 can easily top $4,000 when the price of a scope, rifle case and a decent cache of ammunition are added to the bill. Even a humble handgun purchase can quickly hit over $1,000 when a good holster and ammo are tacked on. This means that millions of Americans purchasing firearms for no reason other than recreation or self defense are going to have their personal finances investigated by a corporate Big Brother, with all the lack of transparency one can expect from a massive bank whose starting premise is “guilty until proven innocent.”
The attempt by the left to get banks to snoop on legal purchases amounts to nothing more than the stigmatization of the exercise of one of the rights enshrined in our Constitution. And while some would argue that the Constitution only limits the government’s actions, it must constantly be asked why we should allow for such an intrusion into our private lives simply because a private company is doing it.
“If you don’t like it, just make your own credit card company.”
Hardly.
Corporate Gun Control and the Mark of the Beast
After the Parkland Shooting, the American media entered into another round of its “something must be done” (read as: your guns must be taken away) propaganda. One result of this was some of the biggest banks in the United States dropping or scaling back their relations with gun manufacturers.
JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake crowed to reporters that the company’s relationship with firearms manufacturers “have come down significantly and are pretty limited.” Bank of America announced its intention to stop extending credit to business clients manufacturing “military-style weapons.” One must, of course, ask if this applies to companies engaged in supplying the United States military itself or the increasingly militarized police found in our nation’s cities.
Bank of America stopped short at stigmatizing the retailers who sell such weapons. Citigroup, however, took the step of requiring any of its business partners to restrict firearms sales to those over the age of 21, as well as those who have not passed a background check. They also barred their partners from selling so-called “high capacity magazines” and bump stocks, which were later banned.
Amalgamated Bank went perhaps the furthest of all, refusing to invest any of its assets in companies involved in the manufacture of “firearms, weaponry and ammunition.”
This leads into another aspect of corporate gun control: Not only is the left demanding that big banks snoop around in your legal purchases, the banks are also starting to make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to obtain the financial services banks would never dare to deny to any other law-abiding company simply on the basis of what they sell.
There is, of course, consumer push-back. For example, the somewhat successful boycott of Dick’s Sporting Goods after it ceased selling so-called “assault weapons.” But Dick’s is still in business and still not selling scary black rifles. And while you can do your business with a competitor, it still doesn’t change the fact that the message has been sent: Companies can remove legal items from their shelves in a politicized fashion with virtually no meaningful consequences.
There is also the growing specter of private companies banning customers from carrying in their stores. Huffington Post compiled a list of seven companies who do not want legal firearms being carried in their businesses. Outback Steakhouse was at the center of a story where a law enforcement officer was asked to leave because he was carrying, something that he is required to do when he is in uniform. Salesforce, a popular software platform for online retailers, will no longer do business with companies who sell virtually all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Microsoft has put language in its Code of Conduct that prevents users from using them “in any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms.” This is another sweeping example of corporate attempts to infringe upon America’s Second Amendment rights. There is nothing illegal or immoral about owning, selling or promoting firearms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.
This is a form of corporate coercion that shows the limitations of simply relying upon the Constitution and the free market to ensure one’s rights are respected. It’s hard to imagine that the Founders would simply have thrown up their hands and accepted that corporations were making it impossible for them to exercise their rights simply because there was nothing “unconstitutional” about it.
Beyond this, however, there are two rather frightening developments.
The first is several liberal state governments skinning the cat from the other end. Rather than making it difficult or impossible to purchase firearms, they are going after the National Rifle Association. While many well-meaning people in the Second Amendment movement consider the NRA to be weak tea (and not without good reason), the fact remains that the NRA is the most public and prominent opponent of gun grabbers. The fall of the NRA at the hands of gun grabbers (as opposed to more principled pro-Second Amendment groups) would spell disaster for gun rights in America, setting a precedent that would be used against other organizations protecting gun freedom.
The State of New York, led by Andrew Cuomo, has started attacking insurance programs offered by the NRA to its members. He has also attempted to threaten every insurer and bank in the state to not do business with the NRA. It is important to remember that the banking industry is largely centered in New York, meaning that the governor of that state has an outsized influence on how banking is done across the nation.
Another chilling example of corporate coercion goes beyond the Second Amendment and into the First: Popular veteran rights and gun blog “No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money” was removed from Blogger, a blogging platform owned by Google, on the grounds that it “promoted or sold regulated items.” The website was later restored with the explanation that it was removed by an automated system.
PayPal, the biggest payment processing system on the Internet, cannot be used for any exercise of your Second Amendment rights, nor to pay for dissident thinkers’ services such as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones or even Wikileaks. One is not obligated to support or defend the beliefs of any of these people or groups to see that a dangerous precedent is being set. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has an extensive list of companies and brands that have instituted anti-firearm corporate policies or have supported further strict legislation.
These are neither the first nor the only times that Big Tech and corporate America have attempted to censor conservatives, libertarians, pro-gun freedom forces and others with opinions to the right of John McCain. Some have argued, not without solid evidence, that Big Tech is involved in a full-throttle war against conservatives and free speech on the Internet. We’re inclined to agree.
Big Tech’s War on Free Speech
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging it. Congress has looked into this, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge, not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet.
It’s less true to say that Facebook, Google and other Big Tech platforms “lean left” than it is to say that they push a globalist, neoliberal, corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth. Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for the sake of growth is also the philosophy of the cancer cell.
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years. Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones. But the real test case was not him, it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer, commonly known by his handle “weev.”
weev (always lowercase) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints. To wit, he has a large swastika tattooed on his chest. However, proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn’t be concerned with what weev thinks or says, because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it. But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters.
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow banning and outright deplatforming of conservative voices all across the web. Mainstream, establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “I’m not a Nazi” for two reasons.
First, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Nazi or not. All legal speech should be allowed on social media, or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator, which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there. This means that your ex-spouse lying about how you missed Little Timmy’s baseball game on Facebook can be construed as defamation, for which Facebook is liable because they didn’t remove the status update. Facebook’s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform, a claim that is patently false, is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack.
But the other reason is that for many on the left, there is not a tangible difference between weev, MILO, Alex Jones, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Cruz, Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States. Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist, a fascist apologist, or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology.
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual, self-avowed fascists, nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists, edgy conservatives, or even “respectable” centrist types like Dave Rubin. To throw the far right under the bus in the hopes of satisfying Big Tech’s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming, which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi, or pretend not to because it’s politically expedient.
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users. The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the government about its users and their data, who informs users that the government is sniffing around about them, and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies.
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “potential right-wing terrorists” or “right-wing extremists” (to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists), they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech, who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government, with minimal or no arm-twisting on the part of the feds. Take, for example, the Philadelphia synagogue shooter. Self-proclaimed “free speech” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked.
Sure, no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter. But the point is that these platforms, even the ones who allegedly have your back, have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped up in the press.
Conservatives Censored on Social Media
It’s worth showing just how many mainstream, run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it’s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door. Indeed, we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “hate speech,” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech. Here are some examples that are worth considering:
- Pastor Rich Penkoski: This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims.
- Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages: In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation.
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.
- Alveda King: Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade.
- Ryan T. Anderson: Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology.
- Robert Spencer: The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.”
- Brian Fisher: The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines.
- PragerU: PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services.
- David Kyle Foster: David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ex-gay” movement, a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “cured” their homosexuality. His Vimeo channel, featuring over 700 personal testimonials, was pulled from Vimeo for being “hateful.”
Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “hate speech” due to their “filtering program.” Yes, really. Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted. Moderates and leftists who don’t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo, Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning.
Deplatforming is not limited to social media. Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services. This returns us to the Mark of the Beast notion: What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments. And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money’s no good because you have a concealed carry permit. Sound far-fetched? So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist.
The Great Conservative Purge of 2021
Deplatforming on the Internet went to a much more disturbing level in the wake of the 2020 election and the breaching of the capitol building by protesters on January 6, 2021. This event, much like the attack of September 11, 2001, began to be used as a pretext for increasing encroachment on the civil liberties of ordinary citizens, not limited to a mass purge of Twitter users.
Some of the more egregious examples of how Big Tech moved to constrain free speech on the Internet are worth calling out. The elephant in the room was the removal of President Donald Trump from Twitter, as well as Facebook, Instagram (which is owned by Facebook), Pinterest and even Spotify. While there is no evidence that the big tech companies colluded with one another in an attempt to silence the president, it is suspect on its face due to the outwardly coordinated nature of the deplatforming.
The attack on President Trump was not limited to his social media accounts. Trump’s primary lender, Deutsche Bank AG, announced that it would no longer have any dealings either with Trump personally or with his companies. Signature Bank closed the president’s two personal banking accounts. Payment processor Stripe prohibited donations to the president’s campaign (Stripe had previously shut down the account of alternative social media site Gab).
Conservatives on Twitter reported that they were losing tens of thousands of followers in the span of hours as conservatives, libertarians and patriots were removed from the platform. ZeroHedge reported on its Twitter account that over 70,000 accounts were suspended on Friday alone.
The deplatforming of the president was denounced not just by conservatives in the media and Congress, but also by German Chancellor Angela Merkle, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and key Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny. One can safely assume that these people were not motivated by their undying love of President Trump, but by broader concerns about crackdowns on freedom of expression.
At the same time, Parler, an alternative to Twitter that was pitched primarily to conservatives who were deplatformed, was removed from the Google Play and Apple app stores before it had its web hosting denied entirely by Amazon. Again, three companies with no accountability to the public who were elected by precisely no one removed an entire platform of communication from the Internet with, as far as anyone knows, no means for appealing the decision.
Salesforce announced that it was “taking action” against the Republican National Committee. Specifically, Salesforce has moved to “prevent its use of our services in any way that could lead to violence.” However, this seems to include any questioning of the results of the 2020 election, which, it is worth pointing out, is not fully accepted as valid and fair by a significant portion of the American electorate. Specific numbers on this vary, but it is worth referring to several polls to paint a picture of just how widespread the view that significant election fraud took place in 2020:
- A Rasmussen poll found that 30 percent of Democrats believed there was fraud in the 2020 election.
- A Politico poll found fully 79 percent of Trump voters believed the election was stolen. Given that 74 million people voted for Donald Trump, this equates to over 58 million voters.
- The same poll reported that only 38 percent of Trump voters accept the results of the election. Again, using the same numbers, this means that over 45 million Americans do not see the 2020 election as being legitimate.
- 70 percent of Republicans do not believe that the election was free and fair according to a Politico / Morning Consult poll.
All of this adds up to one simple fact: A significant portion of Americans, amounting to tens of millions of voters on both sides of the political spectrum, do not believe that the 2020 election was legitimate. Does Big Tech plan to deplatform all of them? How many will be fired for their jobs for not kowtowing to the official line on the 2020 election? How many will lose their banking services? If the alleged “most powerful man in the world” can have his access to social media and banking denied, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Ron Paul, the kindly physician who is known for, among other things, his principled opposition to wars of aggression, was removed from Facebook after he posted an article in opposition to Big Tech deplatforming. Former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, had a video removed from YouTube without explanation on the same day. Steve Bannon had his YouTube account removed entirely. Arfcom, one of the most popular gun websites on the entire Internet, had its hosting from GoDaddy, an Amazon Partner, removed without warning or explanation. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling had his insurance cancelled because of his social media presence.
There was never any reason to believe that the deplatforming of select individuals would end with the deplatforming of a few “outre” individuals with ideas that, as the saying might go, “everyone agrees have ideas that are beyond the pale.” Indeed, the recent wave of Internet deplatforming shows precisely why freedom of speech – even for ideas that one might find loathsome – is important. The trial balloons that have been floated over the last few years were actually canaries in the coal mine. It was the process of acclimating the public to the idea that people could be exiled from social media and deprived of a means to communicate for no reason other than saying something that rubbed unaccountable tech moguls the wrong way.
The social media crackdown appears to be a prelude to something far more ominous. Elected officials, particularly those on the Democratic side, referred to the trespassing at the capitol building as “terrorism” and called for more robust investigation and prosecution of acts of “domestic terrorism.” With the president of the United States himself, leading conservative media figures and, indeed, entire platforms being thrown off of the Internet, there is every reason to believe that when elected officials talk about “domestic terrorists” they are speaking of people who have not broken any laws and whose only crime is being critical of a corporate-neoliberal regime that now rules America without meaningful opposition.
Indeed, we can already see the storm clouds circling. A number of participants in the January 6th protests who did not breach the capitol building reported that they returned to their jobs to find out that they had been fired for participating in a lawful and peaceful protest. This didn’t begin in January – all the way back in October, a woman was fired for attending a Trump rally.
The specter of government power in the form of a new “anti-domestic terrorism” law, Big Tech deplatforming and socioeconomic pressure being leveraged against any and all critics of the new regime is very real. This union of corporate and government power, coupled with street-level violence and ostracization, is the very essence of fascism.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? i.e., Who Watches the Watchers?
Of course, it’s important to ask for a list of left-wing groups who have been banned from social media. But somehow, left-wing groups – even those who violate the terms of service, such as several accounts dedicated to doxing right-wing accounts and inciting violence against conservatives, libertarians and others on the right – are allowed to operate with impunity.
Indeed, it is worth asking who decides what is against the rules at Facebook, Twitter, etc. There is an answer to this question: For Twitter, it’s a “Trust and Safety Council” comprised of 12 left-wing groups and one conservative group you’ve probably never heard of: The Network of Enlightened Women. The 12 left-wing groups include the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD, both of whom have labeled mainstream conservative groups as “hate groups.”
For Facebook, they rely upon a “fact-checking” process that leverages Snopes and PolitiFact as impartial “fact checkers.” YouTube uses the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both left-wing groups known for their attacks on mainstream conservative organizations. Facebook, for its part, deleted 57 of over 200 “hate groups” demanded by the SPLC in August 2017.
What Is To Be Done?
The question after reading this becomes: What should be done, if anything?
It’s difficult to imagine a situation where government interference in Big Tech is going to have the desired outcome. The result might be more and greater censorship than existed before. However, it is worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz, not exactly known as a proponent of Big Government, has been at the forefront of attempts to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship of conservative voices on the Internet.
But it’s quite possible that new laws and regulations are not required. What is instead required is a more rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations that are already on the books. To wit: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube content-neutral platforms or are they editorial platforms? If the former, then it would seem that their case for being able to censor legal speech on their platforms is legally flimsy. If the latter, then they are responsible for everything posted on their platforms by every user. Similarly, if Google is intentionally manipulating its results to yield a politicized result, that is likely in violation of existing telecommunications statutes.
The American shift from capitalism to corporatism has had dire unintended consequences: Power has coalesced in both Washington, D.C. and many tech and media companies, such that the latter can undermine American rights and manipulate American political opinion with impunity, while the former abdicates its oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
____________________________
GET YOUR COMMENT IN TODAY
Oregon OSHA wants to make the COVID rules PERMANENT – Head here to find out more, and make a public comment (against it, I hope) https://osha.oregon.gov/news/2021/Pages/nr2021-05.aspx
03-26-21 Bill Meyer Show Guest information
6:35 Rick Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, www.DailyTorch.com and www.GetLiberty.org with this week’s “Swamp Update” and analysis from DC.
7:10 Greg Roberts with www.RogueWeather.com and today’s Outdoor Report
7:20 Dr. Carol Lieberman
www.expertwitnessforensipsychiatrist.com
https://terroristtherapist.com
Twitter: @DrCaroleMD
Forensic Psychiatrist Says President Biden’s First News Conference Confirms It’s Time For The 25th Amendment
“Biden’s news conference was painful to watch, impossible to follow and make sense of, and an embarrassment for our country. But, he did accomplish one thing: he ‘united’ the country by making them realize that it is time for the 25th Amendment,” warns Carole Lieberman, M.D., M.P.H., America’s Psychiatrist. Dr. Lieberman works as a forensic psychiatrist/expert witness who has testified in hundreds of cases – including ones in which she had to determine mental competency. She has been warning America about Biden’s encroaching dementia – which is now worsening at an alarming rate. “As is typical for people with encroaching dementia, President Biden’s ability to answer questions in ways that make sense declined, the longer he tried to answer questions. As he was tiring and going past his pre-planned answers, he was obviously more lost his train of thought. In fact, he again said, ‘Where am I here?'”
Website: http://caroleliebermanmd.com/
8:35 Sam Jacobs with www.ammo.com
Deplatformed: How Big Tech and Corporate America Help Subvert the 1st and 2nd Amendments
ammo.com/articles/deplatformed-big-tech-companies-subvert-second-amendment-social-media-guns
- Deplatformed: How Big Tech and Corporate America Help Subvert the 1st and 2nd Amendments
Anyone familiar with the Bible is familiar with the Mark of the Beast: Without this mark, no man may buy or sell.
Regardless of one’s religious faith or lack thereof, there is an illustrative case in this biblical story: When one cannot buy or sell, one is metaphorically up the creek. Short of producing everything one needs oneself, buying and selling are necessary parts of virtually every modern person’s life.
In our modern world, we can begin to see a sort of Mark of the Beast: While ideas and even objects aren’t banned, they are increasingly difficult to come by, not due to government fiat, but due to the machinations of corporations hostile to the American values of freedom.
One can be in favor of the free market while recognizing a simple truth: There is no way that America’s Founding Fathers would have sat on their hands while five corporations dominated American discourse and commerce. It is hard to imagine, for example, the Founders suffering a single private bank processing most of the payments in the United States and refusing to do business with gun merchants. Alternately, one can scarcely imagine that the Founders would have sat still for three companies – all of them hostile toward American values and the Constitution – dominating political discourse and deplatforming anyone who opposed them.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation today: Guns are not illegal, but private companies will make it increasingly difficult to buy, sell or own them – up to and including pulling your bank account. You have all the freedom of speech you like, but prepare to be deplatformed or have your voice buried by large tech corporations with their thumb on the scale of American discourse.
As the American economy has become more corporatist – such that the market is controlled by the interrelation between monolithic mega-corporations, Wall Street and the state – and less capitalistic and dynamic, the American press and economy are now being dominated by forces hostile toward the American public and American values.
No less an authority than James Madison warned Americans that the First Amendment alone was not enough to protect free speech. In Federalist No. 47 and Federalist No. 51, he argued that the separation of powers was necessary to protect free speech by preventing one branch of government from accumulating too much power at the expense of the others and, indeed, the rest of society at large.
This is an important point to remember when considering the First Amendment implications of Big Tech and its war on free speech and gun freedom. The Founding Fathers did not live in a world where a few large corporations had more power than the (incredibly limited and power impoverished) government had, either at the federal or the state level. It’s doubtful that they could have conceived of such a thing.
But they did carefully consider the problem of centralized power as it pertained to the rights enshrined in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to enforce itself. What’s more, if the Founders did not address the notion that the private sector could meaningfully and substantially circumvent rights for all Americans, it was simply because they could not conceive of such a thing, not because they were writing the private sector a blank check.
Corporate Big Brother: Banks as Gun Control
Who needs to pass gun control laws anymore? The left can simply appeal to payment systems, banks and processors as a method of non-state gun control.
Case in point: Andrew Ross Sorkin’s December 2018 article decrying credit card companies for “financing” mass shootings. As with many arguments from the left, the premise is flawed, but very simple: Because eight out of 13 shootings that killed more than 10 people in the 2010s involved a credit card purchase (though, as always, it is worth asking what counts as a mass shooting and what is being left out of the tally – more on this here), credit card companies have a responsibility to step up and stop allowing their customers to make purchases for firearms using credit cards.
This effectively amounts to a request for banks to begin surveilling the legal economic activity of their customers.
It’s not far-fetched to consider that some mass shootings have been facilitated by credit card purchases. The Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen as well as Aurora theater shooter James Holmes used credit cards to purchase the weapons and ammunition they ultimately used to commit mass murder.
But mass shootings, particularly those not part of urban gang warfare, are incredibly rare, despite the overwhelming amount of media attention paid to them. What’s more, while statistics for such would be difficult to formulate, the vast, overwhelming majority of firearms and ammunition purchases made with credit cards are made by law-abiding citizens for entirely legal purposes. For most Americans, firearms purchases can be a spike in their normal spending for the month. And what of it? The call for credit card companies and other payment processors to monitor the economic activity of law-abiding citizens would cause an outrage if the government were to do it, so why is the American public supposed to sit still for an invasion of their privacy simply because a private company is performing the surveillance?
Anyone who has ever made a firearms purchase knows that the bill can add up quickly. The oft-demonized AR-15 can easily top $4,000 when the price of a scope, rifle case and a decent cache of ammunition are added to the bill. Even a humble handgun purchase can quickly hit over $1,000 when a good holster and ammo are tacked on. This means that millions of Americans purchasing firearms for no reason other than recreation or self defense are going to have their personal finances investigated by a corporate Big Brother, with all the lack of transparency one can expect from a massive bank whose starting premise is “guilty until proven innocent.”
The attempt by the left to get banks to snoop on legal purchases amounts to nothing more than the stigmatization of the exercise of one of the rights enshrined in our Constitution. And while some would argue that the Constitution only limits the government’s actions, it must constantly be asked why we should allow for such an intrusion into our private lives simply because a private company is doing it.
“If you don’t like it, just make your own credit card company.”
Hardly.
Corporate Gun Control and the Mark of the Beast
After the Parkland Shooting, the American media entered into another round of its “something must be done” (read as: your guns must be taken away) propaganda. One result of this was some of the biggest banks in the United States dropping or scaling back their relations with gun manufacturers.
JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake crowed to reporters that the company’s relationship with firearms manufacturers “have come down significantly and are pretty limited.” Bank of America announced its intention to stop extending credit to business clients manufacturing “military-style weapons.” One must, of course, ask if this applies to companies engaged in supplying the United States military itself or the increasingly militarized police found in our nation’s cities.
Bank of America stopped short at stigmatizing the retailers who sell such weapons. Citigroup, however, took the step of requiring any of its business partners to restrict firearms sales to those over the age of 21, as well as those who have not passed a background check. They also barred their partners from selling so-called “high capacity magazines” and bump stocks, which were later banned.
Amalgamated Bank went perhaps the furthest of all, refusing to invest any of its assets in companies involved in the manufacture of “firearms, weaponry and ammunition.”
This leads into another aspect of corporate gun control: Not only is the left demanding that big banks snoop around in your legal purchases, the banks are also starting to make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to obtain the financial services banks would never dare to deny to any other law-abiding company simply on the basis of what they sell.
There is, of course, consumer push-back. For example, the somewhat successful boycott of Dick’s Sporting Goods after it ceased selling so-called “assault weapons.” But Dick’s is still in business and still not selling scary black rifles. And while you can do your business with a competitor, it still doesn’t change the fact that the message has been sent: Companies can remove legal items from their shelves in a politicized fashion with virtually no meaningful consequences.
There is also the growing specter of private companies banning customers from carrying in their stores. Huffington Post compiled a list of seven companies who do not want legal firearms being carried in their businesses. Outback Steakhouse was at the center of a story where a law enforcement officer was asked to leave because he was carrying, something that he is required to do when he is in uniform. Salesforce, a popular software platform for online retailers, will no longer do business with companies who sell virtually all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Microsoft has put language in its Code of Conduct that prevents users from using them “in any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms.” This is another sweeping example of corporate attempts to infringe upon America’s Second Amendment rights. There is nothing illegal or immoral about owning, selling or promoting firearms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.
This is a form of corporate coercion that shows the limitations of simply relying upon the Constitution and the free market to ensure one’s rights are respected. It’s hard to imagine that the Founders would simply have thrown up their hands and accepted that corporations were making it impossible for them to exercise their rights simply because there was nothing “unconstitutional” about it.
Beyond this, however, there are two rather frightening developments.
The first is several liberal state governments skinning the cat from the other end. Rather than making it difficult or impossible to purchase firearms, they are going after the National Rifle Association. While many well-meaning people in the Second Amendment movement consider the NRA to be weak tea (and not without good reason), the fact remains that the NRA is the most public and prominent opponent of gun grabbers. The fall of the NRA at the hands of gun grabbers (as opposed to more principled pro-Second Amendment groups) would spell disaster for gun rights in America, setting a precedent that would be used against other organizations protecting gun freedom.
The State of New York, led by Andrew Cuomo, has started attacking insurance programs offered by the NRA to its members. He has also attempted to threaten every insurer and bank in the state to not do business with the NRA. It is important to remember that the banking industry is largely centered in New York, meaning that the governor of that state has an outsized influence on how banking is done across the nation.
Another chilling example of corporate coercion goes beyond the Second Amendment and into the First: Popular veteran rights and gun blog “No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money” was removed from Blogger, a blogging platform owned by Google, on the grounds that it “promoted or sold regulated items.” The website was later restored with the explanation that it was removed by an automated system.
PayPal, the biggest payment processing system on the Internet, cannot be used for any exercise of your Second Amendment rights, nor to pay for dissident thinkers’ services such as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones or even Wikileaks. One is not obligated to support or defend the beliefs of any of these people or groups to see that a dangerous precedent is being set. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has an extensive list of companies and brands that have instituted anti-firearm corporate policies or have supported further strict legislation.
These are neither the first nor the only times that Big Tech and corporate America have attempted to censor conservatives, libertarians, pro-gun freedom forces and others with opinions to the right of John McCain. Some have argued, not without solid evidence, that Big Tech is involved in a full-throttle war against conservatives and free speech on the Internet. We’re inclined to agree.
Big Tech’s War on Free Speech
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging it. Congress has looked into this, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge, not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet.
It’s less true to say that Facebook, Google and other Big Tech platforms “lean left” than it is to say that they push a globalist, neoliberal, corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth. Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for the sake of growth is also the philosophy of the cancer cell.
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years. Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones. But the real test case was not him, it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer, commonly known by his handle “weev.”
weev (always lowercase) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints. To wit, he has a large swastika tattooed on his chest. However, proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn’t be concerned with what weev thinks or says, because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it. But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters.
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow banning and outright deplatforming of conservative voices all across the web. Mainstream, establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “I’m not a Nazi” for two reasons.
First, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Nazi or not. All legal speech should be allowed on social media, or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator, which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there. This means that your ex-spouse lying about how you missed Little Timmy’s baseball game on Facebook can be construed as defamation, for which Facebook is liable because they didn’t remove the status update. Facebook’s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform, a claim that is patently false, is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack.
But the other reason is that for many on the left, there is not a tangible difference between weev, MILO, Alex Jones, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Cruz, Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States. Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist, a fascist apologist, or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology.
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual, self-avowed fascists, nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists, edgy conservatives, or even “respectable” centrist types like Dave Rubin. To throw the far right under the bus in the hopes of satisfying Big Tech’s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming, which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi, or pretend not to because it’s politically expedient.
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users. The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the government about its users and their data, who informs users that the government is sniffing around about them, and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies.
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “potential right-wing terrorists” or “right-wing extremists” (to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists), they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech, who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government, with minimal or no arm-twisting on the part of the feds. Take, for example, the Philadelphia synagogue shooter. Self-proclaimed “free speech” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked.
Sure, no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter. But the point is that these platforms, even the ones who allegedly have your back, have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped up in the press.
Conservatives Censored on Social Media
It’s worth showing just how many mainstream, run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it’s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door. Indeed, we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “hate speech,” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech. Here are some examples that are worth considering:
- Pastor Rich Penkoski: This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims.
- Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages: In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation.
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.
- Alveda King: Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade.
- Ryan T. Anderson: Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology.
- Robert Spencer: The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.”
- Brian Fisher: The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines.
- PragerU: PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services.
- David Kyle Foster: David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ex-gay” movement, a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “cured” their homosexuality. His Vimeo channel, featuring over 700 personal testimonials, was pulled from Vimeo for being “hateful.”
Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “hate speech” due to their “filtering program.” Yes, really. Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted. Moderates and leftists who don’t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo, Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning.
Deplatforming is not limited to social media. Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services. This returns us to the Mark of the Beast notion: What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments. And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money’s no good because you have a concealed carry permit. Sound far-fetched? So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist.
The Great Conservative Purge of 2021
Deplatforming on the Internet went to a much more disturbing level in the wake of the 2020 election and the breaching of the capitol building by protesters on January 6, 2021. This event, much like the attack of September 11, 2001, began to be used as a pretext for increasing encroachment on the civil liberties of ordinary citizens, not limited to a mass purge of Twitter users.
Some of the more egregious examples of how Big Tech moved to constrain free speech on the Internet are worth calling out. The elephant in the room was the removal of President Donald Trump from Twitter, as well as Facebook, Instagram (which is owned by Facebook), Pinterest and even Spotify. While there is no evidence that the big tech companies colluded with one another in an attempt to silence the president, it is suspect on its face due to the outwardly coordinated nature of the deplatforming.
The attack on President Trump was not limited to his social media accounts. Trump’s primary lender, Deutsche Bank AG, announced that it would no longer have any dealings either with Trump personally or with his companies. Signature Bank closed the president’s two personal banking accounts. Payment processor Stripe prohibited donations to the president’s campaign (Stripe had previously shut down the account of alternative social media site Gab).
Conservatives on Twitter reported that they were losing tens of thousands of followers in the span of hours as conservatives, libertarians and patriots were removed from the platform. ZeroHedge reported on its Twitter account that over 70,000 accounts were suspended on Friday alone.
The deplatforming of the president was denounced not just by conservatives in the media and Congress, but also by German Chancellor Angela Merkle, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and key Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny. One can safely assume that these people were not motivated by their undying love of President Trump, but by broader concerns about crackdowns on freedom of expression.
At the same time, Parler, an alternative to Twitter that was pitched primarily to conservatives who were deplatformed, was removed from the Google Play and Apple app stores before it had its web hosting denied entirely by Amazon. Again, three companies with no accountability to the public who were elected by precisely no one removed an entire platform of communication from the Internet with, as far as anyone knows, no means for appealing the decision.
Salesforce announced that it was “taking action” against the Republican National Committee. Specifically, Salesforce has moved to “prevent its use of our services in any way that could lead to violence.” However, this seems to include any questioning of the results of the 2020 election, which, it is worth pointing out, is not fully accepted as valid and fair by a significant portion of the American electorate. Specific numbers on this vary, but it is worth referring to several polls to paint a picture of just how widespread the view that significant election fraud took place in 2020:
- A Rasmussen poll found that 30 percent of Democrats believed there was fraud in the 2020 election.
- A Politico poll found fully 79 percent of Trump voters believed the election was stolen. Given that 74 million people voted for Donald Trump, this equates to over 58 million voters.
- The same poll reported that only 38 percent of Trump voters accept the results of the election. Again, using the same numbers, this means that over 45 million Americans do not see the 2020 election as being legitimate.
- 70 percent of Republicans do not believe that the election was free and fair according to a Politico / Morning Consult poll.
All of this adds up to one simple fact: A significant portion of Americans, amounting to tens of millions of voters on both sides of the political spectrum, do not believe that the 2020 election was legitimate. Does Big Tech plan to deplatform all of them? How many will be fired for their jobs for not kowtowing to the official line on the 2020 election? How many will lose their banking services? If the alleged “most powerful man in the world” can have his access to social media and banking denied, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Ron Paul, the kindly physician who is known for, among other things, his principled opposition to wars of aggression, was removed from Facebook after he posted an article in opposition to Big Tech deplatforming. Former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, had a video removed from YouTube without explanation on the same day. Steve Bannon had his YouTube account removed entirely. Arfcom, one of the most popular gun websites on the entire Internet, had its hosting from GoDaddy, an Amazon Partner, removed without warning or explanation. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling had his insurance cancelled because of his social media presence.
There was never any reason to believe that the deplatforming of select individuals would end with the deplatforming of a few “outre” individuals with ideas that, as the saying might go, “everyone agrees have ideas that are beyond the pale.” Indeed, the recent wave of Internet deplatforming shows precisely why freedom of speech – even for ideas that one might find loathsome – is important. The trial balloons that have been floated over the last few years were actually canaries in the coal mine. It was the process of acclimating the public to the idea that people could be exiled from social media and deprived of a means to communicate for no reason other than saying something that rubbed unaccountable tech moguls the wrong way.
The social media crackdown appears to be a prelude to something far more ominous. Elected officials, particularly those on the Democratic side, referred to the trespassing at the capitol building as “terrorism” and called for more robust investigation and prosecution of acts of “domestic terrorism.” With the president of the United States himself, leading conservative media figures and, indeed, entire platforms being thrown off of the Internet, there is every reason to believe that when elected officials talk about “domestic terrorists” they are speaking of people who have not broken any laws and whose only crime is being critical of a corporate-neoliberal regime that now rules America without meaningful opposition.
Indeed, we can already see the storm clouds circling. A number of participants in the January 6th protests who did not breach the capitol building reported that they returned to their jobs to find out that they had been fired for participating in a lawful and peaceful protest. This didn’t begin in January – all the way back in October, a woman was fired for attending a Trump rally.
The specter of government power in the form of a new “anti-domestic terrorism” law, Big Tech deplatforming and socioeconomic pressure being leveraged against any and all critics of the new regime is very real. This union of corporate and government power, coupled with street-level violence and ostracization, is the very essence of fascism.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? i.e., Who Watches the Watchers?
Of course, it’s important to ask for a list of left-wing groups who have been banned from social media. But somehow, left-wing groups – even those who violate the terms of service, such as several accounts dedicated to doxing right-wing accounts and inciting violence against conservatives, libertarians and others on the right – are allowed to operate with impunity.
Indeed, it is worth asking who decides what is against the rules at Facebook, Twitter, etc. There is an answer to this question: For Twitter, it’s a “Trust and Safety Council” comprised of 12 left-wing groups and one conservative group you’ve probably never heard of: The Network of Enlightened Women. The 12 left-wing groups include the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD, both of whom have labeled mainstream conservative groups as “hate groups.”
For Facebook, they rely upon a “fact-checking” process that leverages Snopes and PolitiFact as impartial “fact checkers.” YouTube uses the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both left-wing groups known for their attacks on mainstream conservative organizations. Facebook, for its part, deleted 57 of over 200 “hate groups” demanded by the SPLC in August 2017.
What Is To Be Done?
The question after reading this becomes: What should be done, if anything?
It’s difficult to imagine a situation where government interference in Big Tech is going to have the desired outcome. The result might be more and greater censorship than existed before. However, it is worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz, not exactly known as a proponent of Big Government, has been at the forefront of attempts to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship of conservative voices on the Internet.
But it’s quite possible that new laws and regulations are not required. What is instead required is a more rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations that are already on the books. To wit: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube content-neutral platforms or are they editorial platforms? If the former, then it would seem that their case for being able to censor legal speech on their platforms is legally flimsy. If the latter, then they are responsible for everything posted on their platforms by every user. Similarly, if Google is intentionally manipulating its results to yield a politicized result, that is likely in violation of existing telecommunications statutes.
The American shift from capitalism to corporatism has had dire unintended consequences: Power has coalesced in both Washington, D.C. and many tech and media companies, such that the latter can undermine American rights and manipulate American political opinion with impunity, while the former abdicates its oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Written by
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.