Friday, April 30, 2021

Is “follow the science” our new dictatorship? How ‘Technocracy’ is our new mandatory religion

Dr. Fauci is the nation’s new god, at least in the mind of the mainstream media and federal government. If you don’t follow the science as espoused by Saint Fauci, you are a traitor, an insurrectionist and worse than an infidel.

How did that happen?  Gradually.

Forget about Congress, elections, or the rule of law. The bureaucracy that relies on technocrats,  scientists and engineers has replaced all of that.  The data gathered by our phones and internet feed the technocrat’s algorithms to mold and shape our behaviors.  Many of us believe that same technocrat-driven ideology designed and implemented the algorithms had corrupted the 2020 presidential election. The technocrats deny ‘fraud’.  They likely believe it was simply the Technocracy doing what needed to be done.

The term ‘Technocracy’ encompasses this new science-driven dictatorship.

The ‘cancel culture’ is an offshoot of this dictatorship. It is a tool to implement this scientific dictatorship of Technocracy.  Cancel culture uses the same internet used to populate the technocrat’s algorithms to censor free speech on the internet. Anything we post in social media or in the most popular blogs that disagrees with or debunks the “science” will be cancelled.

Technocracy is not a brand new term.  It has been around for decades. The internet has enabled its newfound power and influence.

Here are a couple of definitions:

Merriam-Webster: “A system in which people with a lot of knowledge about science or technology control a society.”

Britannica: “A political philosophy [relying on] government by technicians who are guided solely by the imperatives of their technology.”

The website defines Technocracy as:

“…a replacement economic system for Capitalism and Free Enterprise, and is represented by the United Nations’ program for Sustainable Development and “Green Economy.” It proposes that all means of production and consumption would be controlled by an elite group of scientists and engineers (technocrats) for the good of mankind. Technocracy was originally architected in the 1930s but regained favor when adopted by the Trilateral Commission in 1973, under their “New International Economic Order” program.”

What’s wrong with Technocracy?”  Here are just a few things:

  • Science is a fallible discipline; the ‘absolutes’ of science may change every several years, months, or days. In the meantime civil liberties may be abridged or destroyed by “following the science”.
  • Scientists, engineers, and technocrats are fallible human beings that often have agendas and motives incompatible with human welfare, success, prosperity, or happiness. They have no concern for the individual – only for the collective.
  • Technocracy as a political philosophy supplants other forms of government such as Constitutional Republics and Democracies with a technocratic dictatorship.
  • It has demonstrated that it is capable of replacing a fair vote with a manipulated vote to favor the candidates who support Technocracy.
  • Technocracy is in opposition to free will, free choice, and free speech of individuals.
  • Technocracy is in opposition to Christianity and every other form of faith and religion.
  • A fair equivalence of the concept of “Technocracy” in today’s popular jargon is “Deep State.”

Technocracy is indeed our new religion with our Federal Government being the new church. Those of us who disagree with its doctrines will be cancelled and punished in ways we have not yet imagined.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

No! Everyone does NOT “deserve” a living wage…

The hoards of leftist wannabe socialists in the US are promoting a laundry list of socialist ideals for the US.

Here are just five:

  • Everyone deserves a living wage
  • College should be free
  • National borders are immoral; all immigrants deserve our help
  • We need to invest billions to reverse climate change
  • People of color deserve preference in all things if not reparations for our past wrongs

Each of these topics requires a book or two to explain how idiotic and counterproductive each is, but I’ll provide what should be the obvious essence.

Everyone deserves a living wage:

I recall a 4th or 5th grade American history class that described the fate of the first settlements along our east coast in Jamestown in 1607 and later in Plymouth in 1620. The leaders concocted the notion that everyone deserves free food. Few worked for it. Most ended up starving because food production failed. It took that failed system and hundreds of deaths to finally realize two things worked a lot better:  No work/no eat, and if people can keep and profit from what they work for they will produce more.

Why does everyone “deserve” a living wage? What is a “wage” anyway?  Especially what is a “living” wage? “Wage” is “the price of labor.” Socialists distort the definition, making wage for no labor mean “gift.”  So really, socialists want to give everyone a “living gift” for doing nothing.

“Deserve” is another trigger word.  Advertisers love to use that word. “You deserve that Escalade.”  “You deserve that cruise to the Caribbean”  Bulls—t!  No you don’t.  You worked for it and paid for it. You don’t “deserve” it. Deserve is cheapened into “something for nothing”, just because you exist.

No, everyone does NOT “deserve” a living wage. That ignores human nature. It ignores the fact that we need to be motivated to produce – and I don’t mean “re-produce” – that comes naturally. 

And shouldn’t the failure of third world nations that embarked on the socialist experiment tell us something? Obviously it doesn’t teach the socialist wannabees a thing.

College should be free:

No, it shouldn’t. For a number of great reasons.

  • It would cheapen the value of college.  We don’t need more useless “Critical race theory”, “Gender studies”, “Dance” “Feminist theory” and “Disruption/Community Organizing” majors. A number of websites list useless college majors.  HERE is one.
  • Not everyone who is made to believe college is for them has the aptitude for it, in spite of discriminatory “affirmative action.”
  • There is a greater need for technical skills, many of which earn much more than many college degrees.

National borders are immoral; all immigrants deserve our help:

Nope.  National borders have been the guardian of laws and order and advanced cultures throughout human history. They are in fact the basis of morality – the most effective means of keeping immoral and lawless hoards from wrecking havoc in a nation. A borderless region is nothing but space for itinerants and nomads – folks who aren’t necessarily known for a decent standard of living and human advancement.

And no, not all immigrants deserve our help. There’s that trick word “deserve” again. Why do they “deserve” our help?  There are 100’s of millions of people in the world whose standard of living is below the poverty level of US citizens. Do they “deserve” to be in the US?  Why are they in the condition they are in?  Are we responsible for their condition? In 99.9% of those situations, no, we have no responsibility.  In 99.9% of those situations, it is from their own poor governance, immorality, or crude habits.  They would bring their failure-prone culture here. The results should not be difficult to imagine.  Just look an Minneapolis and Detroit. 

We need to invest billions to reverse climate change:

No, we don’t.  Why not?  Because climate ALWAYS changes.  It changed before there was a United States. It’s changed for millennia. Man has as much influence on the nature of climate change as a gnat's fart on the moon. The sun and the earths molten core have an infinitely greater influence. To believe a few billion dollars here and a few billion there to radically convert our sources of energy to unproven and unreliable options is a fool’s errand. The John Kerry’s of the world are a bane on our economy and the world. We produce a tiny fraction of carbon emission of China or India. They ignore the memo and good for them.  The memo isn’t worth the ink its written with.

People of color deserve preference in all things - if not reparations for our past wrongs:

Ah yes, my least favorite popular racist expression:  People of color. The term “people of color” is most often used in a pejorative sense against the people of “no color”, whites who are actually beige, a color.

No, people of color do not deserve discriminatory preference in anything.  Affirmative action outlived it usefulness a decade or two ago. Now such policies are bald-face discrimination against people of no color.

And reparations?  For people five generations removed from slaves who are now benefitting from those who eliminated slavery?  From people five generations removed who gave their lives for the elimination of slavery?  If anything, “people of color” owe people of “no color” for saving their “colorful” asses.

Sunday, April 25, 2021

How the leftists and wokists define “hate”…

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the opposite of its title, except the “Southern” part.  It is headquartered in Atlanta.  The Poverty and Law part of its name bear no resemblance to its mission any more than Antifa’s title relates to its mission:  Both lie, deceive, and wish to disparage and destroy the moral foundations of our nation.

Front Page Magazine, a conservative, anti-Communist website featuring David Horowitz and Jamie Glazov, was recently de-platformed by Disqus.  Disqus is the “comments” utility used by 10’s of thousands of web sites. Diana West’s(conservative blogger and author of Death of the Grownup), Pamela Geller’s (featuring the Islamic nuisance), D. James Kennedy Ministries and hundreds of other conservative or Christian sites have also been scrubbed by Disqus or it’s leftist, woke, censoring  corporate behemoths.

From Front Page:

On March 3rd the Editors at FrontPage received an email from Disqus, the networked community platform used by hundreds of thousands of sites all over the web.  The statement reads:

“It has come to our attention that your site is included in the Hate Groups listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map:

“As fostering Hate is a violation of the Disqus Terms of Service and Basic Rules, we can no longer support your site on the Disqus network. Disqus will be removed from your site on March 17th, to allow time for transition and a comment export. If you will need a manual export, please let us know before the removal date.”

Yes, the SPLC has a “hate map.”  And many corporations mindlessly follow their deceiving, hateful advice about who and what they categorize as “hateful.”

What is their criteria for organizations and individuals listed on their “hate map?”  Here is a list of the beliefs that will get you on their s—t list:

  • You believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
  • You believe there are two genders, male and female, period.
  • You’ve commented negatively on social media about the homosexual lifestyle.
  • You believe in the sanctity of life and are opposed to abortion.
  • You demonstrated on behalf of Donald Trump or expressed words supporting him on social media.
  • You believe in strong borders and putting the United States first in trade, national defense, and foreign relations.
  • You don’t believe in mass amnesty.
  • You don’t soft-peddle Islam.
  • You believe the COVID death rate is misleading or have concerns about Big Pharma’s vaccines.
  • You express a dim view of Black Lives Matter, rioters, or those who resist arrest.

The higher profile and more effective your messaging on any of the above topics has been, the more likely you, your website or your access to mainstream social media will be cancelled.  Fortunately, there are millions of us who express our thoughts “under the radar” and haven’t been cancelled by the powers that be – yet.

This list of “’hateful’ offenses against humanity” is pretty much the same as that used by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, and others for cancelling their former users. And this cancelling, doxing, censorship of thought, opinion and ideas is still going on – full steam. I wonder if globalist corporations/social media just use the SPLC hate labels as a convenient “cover” for or confirmation of their own corporate values or if they just blindly follow? Probably both.

In either case, there is a selfish corporate war against the values that made this nation great, and on policies that, if implemented, would continue the US on that path.  Sadly we are now on a different path – one that does not bode well for our nation’s future.  We do indeed have a revolution on our hands.

The sooner conservatives, libertarians, and traditional Christians can move their reading and conversations over to newly created, conservative-friendly sites like Parler, Gab, Frank, Rumble, and others, the more effective we will be in the battle against the thought control corporate media has imposed on us. That is the very least we should be doing.

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Reasons for a successful Chauvin appeal…

The first thing to come to my mind after the Chauvin verdict is this:

Put yourself in the position of the jurors who live and work in Minneapolis and vicinity.  Even if you thought there was “reasonable doubt” about Chauvin’s guilt, what would your thoughts be if you were to render verdicts other than conviction on all three counts?  Would you experience fear?  Fear for your home, your work, your family, fear for yourself? The jury voted as they did out of FEAR.

The jury was not sequestered during the trial.  While they were instructed to not watch the news, I cannot imagine that they did not hear the news from any number of sources: Friends, family, co-workers.  Consider the news of the pigs head on the doorstep of one of the defense witnesses two days before jury sequestration.  Consider the mob rule and violence in Minneapolis for weeks after the death of George Floyd. Consider the words of prominent Democrats who, in so many words, promoted violence if the verdict was not as it was.  Consider the words of the President and Vice President urging conviction.

What were some of the points in favor of the defense that should have elicited “reasonable doubt?”

  • The criminal record of Floyd
  • The drug use of Floyd
  • The current amount of drugs in Floyd’s body
  • The typical strength and aggressive, unpredictable behavior of drug-imbued individuals
  • The weight differential between Chauvin and Floyd
  • The resistance to arrest shown by Floyd
  • The police accommodating Floyd’s request to be laid on the ground instead of into the back of the police vehicle
  • The typical actions of those resisting arrest saying they “can’t breath” or any other handy excuse.

Were these points clearly and forcibly enough explained by the defense?  If they were, was the jury intimidated into reaching their guilty verdict on all three counts?

Were the police officials, including the Chief, who testified against Chauvin that he violated department policy just protecting their own domains?  Could the defense have brought in many other witnesses from other policing agencies to testify that the restraint used, as well as its duration, was reasonable under the circumstances?

The case was lost as soon as the judge denied the requested change of venue.

There was no change of venue from a city whose leadership and much of the population demonstrated before, during and after the riots that they were anti-police and handcuffed law-enforcement.

The Chauvin trial was a textbook example of a Kangaroo Court assuring that the jury was intimidated into their verdict by fear from a hostile, anti-police community.

An appeal is justified in a jurisdiction outside of Hennepin County for all the above reasons.

And one more thought:

Monday, March 29, 2021

Continuing media and FBI cover for US jihad networks

The media and law enforcement insist the motive of the March 22, 2021, massacre of 10 people in Colorado on March 22, 2021, is still unknown.  That is willful blindness.

The key takeaways of the following investigative report by John Guandolo on the March 22, 2021, Colorado jihadi massacre are these:

  • Most media ignore the Islamic motivation behind what are called by law enforcement as “unknown motive.”
  • There is a large Islamic network promoting and protecting these jihadi actions
  • Family members of jihadis will claim “mental illness” as a cover to detract from Islamic motivations
  • The FBI and other police and investigative entities of the US are reactionary and not proactive in preventing these attacks
  • The FBI rules of engagement have been wiped clean of most information and training about Islamic doctrine that promote and justify violence against US citizens. Consequently the motive of such attacks remains “unknown” when it is forbidden by their own policies to consider Islamic doctrine and teaching as the primary motivation.

For additional background on the this attack, below is a link to John D. Guandolo’s recent report titled “Jihadi Kills 10 in Boulder – Jihadi network Left Untouched”

[See UTT’s Report on the Boulder Jihad HERE]

On Monday March 22nd, ten Americans were killed by a Syrian-born jihadi named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.

Like almost all of the jihadis who have killed Americans on our soil, this jihadi was known to the FBI.

Like all of the other jihadis, Alissa has a massive support network that trains and support jihadi operations which continues to be untouched by the FBI, DHS, and states like Colorado.

Jihadi organizations like Hamas/CAIR, ICNA, ISNA and its affiliates, MAS, MSA, and so many others operate with impunity in Colorado.

Mosques all over Colorado – and the United States – teach muslims the purpose of Islam is to wage war against the non-muslim community until “allah’s divine law”/sharia is imposed on every human on earth and all un-Islamic governments are destroyed, being replaced by an Islamic State.

Just read the textbooks used for 7th graders in U.S. Islamic schools and you will see it teaches muslim children that sharia must be imposed on all human beings, and that they are obliged to be exclusively loyal to “the Islamic State.”

Colorado is a haven of jihadi activity, yet officials have taken no action since a state task force raided a Jamaat al Fuqra terrorist training camp about 12 miles east of Buena Vista in October 1992.

The FBI, of course, refused to get involved in that investigation.

One clue there is a problem in Colorado is that the leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Anwar al Awlaki, was the President of the Muslim Students Association at Colorado State University.

Awlaki was killed by a U.S. missile in 2011, yet that did not trigger anyone to scratch their head and ask, “What actually goes on in those Muslim Students Associations?”

Approximately 10 years ago I met with the Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and layed out the threat from the Islamic Movement to the citizens of Colorado. His response was to say that if people and organizations wanted to non-violently overthrow the Constitution there was nothing he could do.

I was astounded.

The Oath of Office does NOT require adherents to protect the Constitution from violent enemies only, but ALL enemies.

This unprofessionalism and criminal negligence is a part of the reason 10 people are dead in Boulder.

The network supporting jihadis like Ahmad Alissa remains untouched by those with a duty to ensure it is destroyed.

The criminal negligence on the part of state and federal officials is also why: 14 people were killed by a jihadi at Fort Hood, Texas; 4 Marines and 1 Navy sailor were killed by a jihadi in Chattanooga, Tennessee; jihadis killed 3 people and wounded hundreds of others – including 17 who lost limbs – at the bombing of the Boston Marathon; a young boy had his neck slit and two others were stabbed by a 17 year old muslim convert during a sleepover in Florida; 1 man was killed and 14 others injured in a vehicular attack in Fremont and San Francisco by a jihadi; 2 teenagers in Irving, Texas were killed by their jihadi father for “dishonoring” him under Islamic Law; the founder of Bridges TV beheaded his wife in New York State; Private Andy Long is dead and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded at an Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas; a woman was beheaded in her office in Moore, Oklahoma; and why so many others have been killed or wounded by jihadis.

Each of these attacks can be tied to mosques and organizations inside the U.S. which is a part of an identifiable network of jihadi organizations dedicated to overthrowing the government of the United States.

Over the last 20 years, police and federal officials have gone after those perpetrating the violence AFTER THE FACT, but have failed to dismantle the massive domestic Islamic network producing these jihadis/terrorists.

It is nothing short of gross criminal negligence.

It is high time the citizens hold all officials accountable who have failed to rid their communities of the enemies of liberty who work daily to enslave Americans with totalitarian systems like Islam and communism.

UTT empowers citizens to do just that. Join us as we take the fight to our enemies and put FREEDOM back on the offensive where it belongs.

For more information, see UTT’s report on the Boulder Jihad HERE.

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

See something, say something?

“See something – say something” sounds nice in theory but most know how it really works in practice, especially concerning Muslims (quotes below from FOX).

The students observed odd, troubling behavior from Allissa, the killer.  Here is one example among many:

"His senior year, during the wrestle-offs to see who makes varsity, he actually lost his match and quit the team and yelled out in the wrestling room that he was like going to kill everybody," said Marvel, who reportedly graduated in Arvada West High School’s Class of 2018. "Nobody believed him. We were just all kind of freaked out by it, but nobody did anything about it."

Here’s the problem:

“Marvel [a student with Alissa, the Muslim shooter] also told the Post how Alissa "would talk about him being Muslim and how if anybody tried anything, he would file a hate crime and say they were making it up."

That’s it.  If anybody did report the “odd behavior” of a Muslim, most Muslims have been indoctrinated to pull the “hate crime against Muslims” card. That has a chilling effect on the “see something – say something” advice. Thus, the students remained silent.

The media and most politicians promote this Muslim tactic out of ignorance and their belief that all religions are alike because most don’t practice any.  Doing this, they work against law enforcement and the general public. They remain unaware that Islamic doctrine encourages violence against non-Muslims. This teaching is too often internalized by the both the most devout and the disenfranchised among Muslims who will act on that doctrine in crude ways, just as Muhammad did, Muhammed being their perfect example in all things.

Until our “leaders” get a grip on the uniqueness of Islamic doctrine and practice (unique not in a good way), we will continue to be intimidated into silence when we “see something” and say nothing.

Friday, March 19, 2021

COVID affirmative action for the “socially disadvantaged”

The Democrat-c0ntrolled Congress exercised their socialist, racist chops in their party-line passage of the 2021 COVID relief bill.

As reported by the New York Post, “Biden’s COVID relief bill is chock full of anti-white reverse racism.”

“The bill looks more like reparations than COVID relief. It says farm aid is “for the purposes of addressing the longstanding and widespread discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers.” Truth is, farmers have been struggling for a decade, and more than half lose money year after year. Minority-owned farms are generally less indebted than those owned by whites, though diminished access to credit may be part of the reason. White and minority farmers alike need debt relief.”

Worse yet, aside from race discrimination, the bill discriminates against anyone who is NOT deemed to be “socially disadvantaged.”  Farmers who don’t meet the definition of “socially disadvantaged” get NO assistance.

And who does “socially disadvantaged” include, you might ask?  Here is the government definition from Cornell Law:

“Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.” [italics added for emphasis]

Democrats/socialists in Congress and the media will take that definition to include the following :

  • Racial ethnic bias: Any ethnic minority, including Hispanics Black, Asian, and Middle Easterner, no matter how well off economically they may be
  • Cultural bias: Any alcoholic, drug addict, pedophile, sex addict, Chinese sex worker, psychopath, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer, pervert, or criminal trespasser (aka “illegal alien), because these addictions and behaviors are believed to be caused by “circumstances beyond their control.” Ask members of the American Psychiatric Association (ASA) if this is true and note the answer you get.

The left believe that most anti-social human behaviors stem from circumstances beyond their control.

In other words, our present culture, through legislative fiat, requires that every perverse belief and behavior must not be merely accepted and tolerated, but must now be REWARDED with discriminatory government handouts from every taxpayer.

Socialists and others who want to destroy the moral and ethical bedrock of this nation are having a field day under the Biden administration in showing favoritism toward the irresponsible and perverse, and penalizing the rest of us who believe in responsible, moral and controlled behavior.

Democrats and Socialists believe that responsible, moral behavior is beyond the control of the individual.  They prefer to reward irresponsibility and penalize the rest of us.

Here are several sources concerning this COVID Relief legislation:

Tuesday, February 09, 2021

If the nation split up, how would we get there…

A growing chunk of the nation’s population believe the differences between the left and right, liberals and conservatives, socialists and patriots, globalists and nationalists, takers and producers – however you want to label the GREAT DIVIDE, are IRRECONCILABLE.

Starting from that premise, it leads many to wonder if the nation is headed for a split of some sort, whether peacefully arranged through astute negotiations (which is as likely as a foot of snow in Key West) or through more violent means.

What are some of the more likely scenarios and chain of events that would result in the ultimate breakup, when might that occur, and what will the final map look like?

We can be pretty sure it won’t be a North/South thing like in the 1860’s.  I also doubt it will be a strictly Red State/Blue State split, either.  There are too many socialist/leftist controlled cities with psychotic populations in two many otherwise conservative “Red” states to let themselves be taken over by a bunch of conservatives. Take deep Red Texas, for example.  It would be another snow event in Key West before Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, or Austin would cave to conservative governance.

So, what is most likely? 

Well even in liberal New York and California there are conservative counties in primarily rural areas.  Every state has a mix.  Trump-loving Florida has its deeply liberal Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties, and likely Hillsborough, Duval and Orange counties, home to  West Palm, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, and Orlando that are lovers of Biden, Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, and Commie Kamala. But over 70% of the rest of the area of Florida is Patriot territory.

And university towns, large or small, in any state, will be leftist, globalist, environmental-extremist strongholds.

2020 US Presidential Election results map, by county…2020 US Presidential Election Map By County & Vote Share

With the exception of the bogus November 3rd election results in several dozen counties across the nation (add those to the Red) the map above depicts what our national divide would look like.

For the most part, the Great Divide would be Urban/Rural. 

Suburbs and small towns would be a mixed bag.  The outcome, especially in these highly contested areas, would depend on a combination of political, economic/fiscal, psychological ops, cyber, and kinetic resources, and the relatives skills and will to use them. I would imagine that control of small, liberal-leaning towns in rural regions would be overtaken by conservatives and patriots.  And conversely, suburbs under the heavy influence of large metro areas would have to succumb to the will of the socialists in control in those areas.

These contested areas are the most likely to be subject to violent and kinetic activity due to the nature of the populations, the densities of the populations, the financial/economic interests involved, and the prejudices, especially among minority groups, that have grown since the Obama years.

The rural and fringe suburban areas will be less likely to experience violence, although violence will still be widespread.

Now, since the socialists in charge now control the military brass and are in the process of vetting military personnel who may have conservative, patriotic, or nationalist leanings (God forbid we have soldiers who are patriotic and love their country!) the direction most of our military might take is open to debate.

Our national intelligence and investigative services are another matter.  We should expect widespread psycho-babble, cyber shutdowns, disinformation, and infiltration by these organizations to keep deep state interests in power. Local police will be further neutered.  County sheriffs will be the law enforcement hope of conservatives.

My bottom line:  It will be messy and the lines will be drawn and redrawn many times over.  I would NOT want to live in or within 50 miles of any urban area of over a half million people.  I would not want to live in or closer than 10 miles of any city of more than 100,000.  I would not want to live in a BLUE state, or in or near a state capital or university town of any size.

And I cannot envision any entirely peaceful way out of our Great Divide.

When will the Great Divide become a serious option in the minds of those who  have the influence and power to make it happen?  I’d give it two or three more presidential election cycles at most.

So my mostly rhetorical question:

At what point will some parts of the frog begin to twitch in the pot of boiling water and attempt to jump out?  Or is it too late?  That is to say, at what point will some well-informed and well-equipped segments of our population act in a manner that invites forced suppression that is widespread enough to evoke an uprising?  Will such reaction become a tsunami, or will it never go beyond conservative/nationalist grumblings?

I suspect that the powers that be are anticipating this reaction and are one or more steps ahead. Thus we are seeing skirmishes in the form of suppression of speech (mainstream media, college campus, internet media), neutering of local police, 5,000 troops remaining along with massive walls built in DC and scripted generation of COVID fear accompanied by mandatory mask-wearing here and there to condition us for future government dictates.

Monday, January 18, 2021

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.

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

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?

big tech free speech - NewsIn 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…