What will conservatives have to talk about after Biden is inaugurated?

A clandestine conservative men’s group at an undisclosed location in the general vicinity of the Southeastern United States posed this question after months of discussion about the corrupted presidential election:

“What will we have left to discuss after Biden is inaugurated?”

Here is a list of potential and likely topics:

• When will Kamala become President and by what means?
• When will the next $2,000 “helicopter money” be sent out, and will this be the beginning of a repetitive socialist dole from an unencumbered leftist Congress?
• At what point will the unbridled expenditure of money by Congress  result in loss of confidence in the dollar creating an economic collapse?
• At what point will inflation exceed 5%, 10%, 50% per year?
• To what extent will the 2nd amendment revert to a historic relic? What actions will the President and Congress take to limit the manufacture, purchase, ownership and use of firearms and its ammunition? What might our reaction be?
• To what extent will Congress mandate wealth redistribution? How will those with incomes of $100,000, $50,000 or $30,000 per year be impacted?
• What will become of the Republican (RINO) Party?  How many registered Republicans will register to something else? To what?
• How involved will Trump be in politics or a Presidential comeback?
• To what extent will persecution of conservatives and Christians increase?
• To what extent will social media censorship continue or increase?

These are the topics that come to mind in five minutes of consideration. I have no doubt that dozens of additional topics will become ripe for discussion.

Free speech: Is Congress the only entity not allowed to abridge it?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

*****

Is our understanding of the first amendment all wrong? Do we mistakenly believe that “free speech” applies to every facet of life, both in the private as well as the public sector?

In the current environment of massive corporate censorship, it isn’t Congress that made a “…law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  It has been private corporations:  Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google, and many, many others that have taken it upon themselves to censor us.

So, I guess the question becomes “at what point do private entities act in a manner similar to that of the Federal Government – Congress – in their role of abridging the freedom of speech” to the point where they violate the spirit or intent of the Constitution?

Here are several scenarios:

• If an employee badmouths his employer and is fired for it, does his firing violate his “freedom of speech?”
• If a police officer gives his opinion on Facebook that he believes the black community is being excessively coddled by the Department to avoid being accused of racism, does his firing violate his “freedom of  speech?”
• If you warn others about the evils of Islamic Sharia or tendencies toward violent jihad, and you are thrown off social media because you offended someone, did this violate your “freedom of speech?”
• If your Trump Club in The Villages, Florida, planned to host the movie  “Trump Card” by Dinesh D'Souza, but it was shut down by the local government because some people claimed they would be offended, does that violate your “freedom of speech?”
• If a conservative participates in a rally where a small segment of the group trespasses on public property and he is fired for that, does his firing violate his “freedom of speech?”
• If I have publicly supported the President who is justly or unjustly accused of inciting violence and I am banned from Twitter because of that support, does my being banned violate my “freedom of speech?”

My point:  Just as many have misconstrued the idea of “separation of church and state” (no, it does NOT mean that Christians should be prohibited from influencing government), many have also misconstrued the scope of the First Amendment. The First Amendment primarily applies to the role of Congress, not to corporations or individual citizens.  You can tell me to shut the hell up and my “constitutional rights” are not being violated.

Businesses and corporations have been telling their employees and customers where to go, so to speak, since the founding of our nation. Is this always right and fair? No. Does it violate my personal “freedom of speech? Yes.  But does it violate the provision of the First Amendment?  In most cases, no.

But, we are in the midst of a new era where Big Tech and Social Media are acting in a manner similar to that as if Congress, our government, were imposing speech restrictions – censorship – on its citizens. The consequences are equally pervasive and dire. Speech is quelled.

I suspect the matter will come down to comparing Social Media to public utilities.  These corporate Big Tech, social media entities will ultimately be regulated by the Federal Government just as the communications companies, phones, radio, TV have been. But will “freedom of speech” be respected when the government has a hand in regulating it?

There is a point where corporations become so large and all pervasive in their role in providing services to the general public that it makes common sense for them to be subject to the same restrictions of Congress with regard to the force, effect, and intent of the First Amendment.

In this period of political turmoil many of us will be forced to quickly adapt to new social media venues. A question I have asked:  Why have only liberal entities created these large social media platforms? Why are conservatives so late to the game?  Are only globalist corporations who get large handouts from China able to afford and implement this technology?  I don’t really have an answer.

And the community “powers that be” who ban the showing of a movie because some disagree with it deserves to lose any suit brought against it.

Below is a link to an interview of a Parler official with Glenn Beck – good stuff…

https://rumble.com/vcnzhz-parler-exec-speaks-out-against-unfair-big-tech-throttle.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Glenn+Beck&ep=1

Big Tech Bans Trump and his 75 Million Supporters...

 When Russia's main Western Propaganda outlet "Russia Today" has a headline that states...

Big Tech giants want to prove they are ‘American gods’. Anyone watching the watchers?

 ..we can be sure our First Amendment has been murdered.

Big Tech, including Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple, all run by "censor you first" globalists, are hell bent on killing free speech.  "America First?" Meh.  Not so much.  It's "censor you first."  They ought to get together and use that as their collective mantra.

The Parler app (find web version HERE), the primary alternative to globalist Twitter, has been removed from the Google Playstore, Apple Store, and Amazon.  It's fascinating how this can all occur virtually overnight. 

Now big tech server farms are threatening to remove Parler from their server domains.  From BPR Business and Politics:

 “Parler’s succeeding. What happens now? Of course, Silicon Valley is trying to kill it. Google has just removed Parler without any warning from its app store. Apple and Amazon, which provide [server] services that keep services like Parler online, have also threatened to shut Parler down,” Carlson reported.

Nikki Haley comments on Big Tech's hypocrisy:

Nikki Haley Slams Twitter for Flagging Election Fraud Tweet: ‘Wonder Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Big Tech?’

Here is the rest of the story:

Apple, Google, Amazon target free speech Parler platform, Tucker gets chilling news in real time

---

CHECK OUT BizPacReview on Parler!

Not content just purging President Donald Trump and his supporters from all major social media networks, it appears the far-leftists of Silicon Valley have begun plotting to eliminate all forms of alternate, non-establishment communication in a move that Fox News host Tucker Carlson has described as blatant “political repression.”

Late Friday, one of the country’s most powerful monopolies — Apple — threatened to eliminate the social media platform Parler from its stores unless the network complied with its demands and began censoring so-called “objectionable content.”

 

But although Apple framed the “objectionable content” as content related to the planning and facilitation of “illegal and dangerous activities,” the behavior of other tech titans such as Apple, Google, Amazon and Twitter strongly suggest the move was entirely political.

“Over the last 24 hours, Twitter specifically has banned a number of different conservative accounts, not just the president,” Carlson reported live from his desk late Friday evening.

Indeed, and in response conservatives and moderates began flocking to non-establishment platforms like Parler — and also Gab.

“Tonight a competing social media service, Parler, which we told you about, is seeing a massive and unprecedented surge in traffic. The site even experienced server outage because of new users tonight,” Carlson noted.

“Why? A couple of reasons. Mostly this: Parler is a free speech alternative to Twitter. They don’t censor you. You can say what you want. The president is on Parler, and that has drawn a lot of people who realize they are being suppressed by Twitter.”

And in response to this, Silicon Valley pounced.

“Parler’s succeeding. What happens now? Of course, Silicon Valley is trying to kill it. Google has just removed Parler without any warning from its app store. Apple and Amazon, which provide services that keep services like Parler online, have also threatened to shut Parler down,” Carlson reported.

Listen to him below via Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight“

 n response to the authoritarian, uneven actions against Parler, the company’s founder, John Matze, released scathing statements decrying the threats from “politically motivated companies and those authoritarians who hate free speech.”

“We will not cave to pressure from anti-competitive actors! We will and always have enforced our rules against violence and illegal activity. But we WON’T cave to politically motivated companies and those authoritarians who hate free speech!” he wrote on Parler itself.

“This is not an attack on Parler. This is an attack on our basic civil liberties and right to free speech. They know that the most powerful thing in the world is your voice and 1A.”

He also pushed back on the disingenuous suggestion that Parler is not only somehow the only home to “objectionable content” but also actively allowing such content.

“Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler. Therefor[e] by the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones. Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for,” he wrote.

He added, “Standards not applied to Twitter, Facebook or even Apple themselves, apply to Parler.”

Carlson echoed this same pointing.

“It’s impossible to overstate the amount of filth and political extremism, explicit violence, pornography, whatever, on the Internet. … it’s everywhere,”  he said.

Including on TWITTER:

“But it’s Parler that is being singled out. It’s kind of impossible to not conclude that this is political repression,” Carlson added.

His guest, Parler chief policy officer Amy Peikoff, concurred.

“It really is, because I think we do have the reputation as being the conservative platform. … We do see this as being politically singled out. The other thing is that we are competing with other platforms who have decided that they want to surveil the people on their platform 24/7 without any particularized suspicion,” she said.

“And you know, on the one hand, people don’t like to live in the world of Orwell’s “1984, and then, on the other hand, a lot of people seem to want to pressure social media to do more to moderate as, they call it, content on their platforms. But that would require 24-hour surveillance, so we don’t think that that is consistent with the principles of America.”

Indeed, and the people who “want to pressure social media” to impose authoritarian surveillance measures on the American people are all left-wingers, according to Glenn Greenwald, a classic liberal who’s become a fierce critic of the modern Democrat Party’s increasingly authoritarian ways:

“We would just like to provide a place where people can come and they can speak freely, that they’re not going to be fact-checked, they’re not going to be told what to think, what they can read. And also, we do not data pillage, we don’t data mine them. We don’t turn them into commodities and try to monetize them. And so we would just like to provide that service,” Peikoff continued.

She added that Parler was just as “horrified” by what happened in D.C. as everybody also but cautioned that the extremist rhetoric that precipitated it “has been everywhere this week,” including on Twitter.

“To be singled out, we think, is quite unfair,” she concluded.

“Well I mean, it’s political repression, period,” Carlson concurred.