Ward Connerly Fights to End ALL Discrimination in America

/in , /by

When the leftist cabal that runs California tried to bring affirmative action back via a ballot initiative in 2020, Ward Connerly came out of retirement to fight them off. Connerly was no stranger to this fight. Back in 1996, Connerly led the effort behind Prop. 209, a ballot initiative approved by California’s voters that banned affirmative action.

The only way laws passed by voters via ballot initiatives can be overturned in California is via a new ballot initiative, and in 2020, it was Prop. 16 that was designed, if approved, to overturn Prop. 209 and restore affirmative action.

The coalition Connerly built to stop Prop. 16 relied on an emerging political giant in California, an increasingly politically active, left-of-center Asian community. These Asian activists, already discriminated against in college admissions, realized that if Prop. 16 passed, their presence in California’s public universities would be reduced to their percentage of the population.

When Asian students represent half of the National Merit Scholars in California, but only 15 percent of the population, one may understand how restoring affirmative action might seem not only unfair, but a dire threat to the future of their children.

Prop. 16 was defeated with surprising ease, losing 57 percent to 43 percent. But without Ward Connerly’s outspoken defense of Prop. 209, and his relentless efforts to help mobilize California’s Asian community, they might not have won.

Connerly, a former businessman who once served as a University of California Regent, is now looking into a ballot initiative for 2022 that will target critical race theory. Reached for comment on his new project, Connerly said “There is a growing recognition that the country is in trouble and California is leading the way.”

With respect to the Asian activists he enlisted once, Connerly believes they are now permanently awakened. “There is a concern among Asians in California that our institutions are collapsing. They are frightened and eager to get involved. There are a lot of them and their network is very formidable,” he said.

Ward Connerly is another example of a Black patriot with an uncompromising vision of justice and fairness who will never get the mainstream media attention he has earned. But behind the scenes, he is quietly building a coalition that may achieve election breakthroughs nobody thought possible. He is a man to watch.

 *   *   *

Alan Keyes – A Christian Conservative

/in , /by

In America today, all it takes to be suppressed in social media is to be known as a Christian conservative. For Alan Lee Keyes, a Harvard educated PhD who happens to be Black, also being a Christian and a conservative makes him especially embarrassing to the white overlords who determine what goes viral and what gets “throttled down.” So don’t expect to run across a Tweet from Keyes showing up in your feed, or expect to easily find him in a Google search.

This is a shame, because Keyes, a Harvard educated PhD, comments on the challenges facing America today with clarity and courage. Consider this quote from his website:

“Unlike today’s political shysters, the Founders didn’t deal in conclusions. They dealt in reasoning, and presented their conclusions in logical terms. This is what I try to do in all that I write. My aim is not to please with agreeable words, but to inform with sound reasoning and logic in order to substantiate reasonable conviction. If we truly respect the American founding, we must never agree to be estranged from it. We must never let the founding generation’s way of speaking and thinking become so alien and unfamiliar to us that we come to live, as it were, in another country.”

Keyes’s has little time for phony conservatives, writing this about Mitt Romney: “The greatest difference between Romney and Obama was that Romney could boast that he imposed a more radical government takeover on the people of Massachusetts than Obama managed to get in the Obamacare legislation.”

At age 70, Alan Lee Keyes remains in his intellectual prime during one of the most consequential periods in American history. If he was, like so many, bought off and willing to use his gifts to promote critical race theory and related gibberish, his name would probably be a household word. He would be a perennial guest on the major left wing cable networks and he would be boosted to prominence on every social media platform. As it is, his Christian faith and his devotion to America’s founding principles makes even the right-of-center producers at Fox News leery of giving him too much exposure.

This is a shame for many reasons. It denies Alan Keyes the recognition he’s earned. It is yet another example of how big tech has betrayed America’s most cherished traditions. Worse still, it denies the Black community a powerful voice of reason and vision. Instead, the messages delivered to Black voters are dominated by leftist “leaders” who are bought and paid for by a leftist oligarchy that wants nothing but their votes and their quiescence.

 *   *   *

New Database Tracks Canceled People

/1 Comment/in , /by

Somewhere in the Rocky Mountains, an anonymous researcher has launched a website that tracks people who have been “canceled” for exercising their right to free speech. Appropriately named “CanceledPeople.org,” the database already has 195 entries, with many recognizable names including James Damore, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray, Megyn Kelly, Nicholas & Erik Christakis, Bret Weinstein, Chris Mathews, Roseanne Barr, Gina Carano, Roger Pielke Jr., and, of course, Donald Trump.

Notable among those listed are people who are not merely victims of the so-called Left, but also the Right. For example, the first name on the list is Junia Joplin, a Baptist Minister who was fired after she came out to her congregation as a transgender woman during a sermon. This indifference to who is being canceled (and who is doing the canceling) is a welcome attempt at nonpartisanship, although the majority of the listings are people victimized by the Left.

On their About page, the site creators explain what they look for when considering who to add to their database. They write:

“The canceled person has been targeted for behavior that falls within the boundaries of “reasonable expression” (see more on this below). The “offense” may not be recent, and it may not even be their own action.

The canceled person has lost their job or position (this includes forced resignations). Their future professional opportunities have been limited. If they are self-employed, they have suffered financial losses from a boycott or sabotage of their company.

The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to silence them. The effort seeks to render their person or their ideas unfit to discuss.

The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to shame them and destroy their reputation. The effort seeks to damage their self-worth and will likely target their personal or professional relationships.”

A strength of this well sourced, no frills database – they don’t even have a logo! – is the “Offense” column, where a lengthy explanation of exactly what happened is provided. Reading these explanations will trigger recollections in many cases where the event gathered national or international publicity for a time, but the name of the person canceled was forgotten.

Whoever is responsible for this database wants to remain unknown, but we salute their efforts and hope they will continue their excellent work. They have created a valuable resource for anyone seeking to more thoroughly understand cancel culture. And needless to say, there have already been far, far more instances of cancelation than the 195 high profile events captured so far in this database, and multiples more cases where people have been intimidated into silence.

 *   *   *

Twitter Censors James O’Keefe

/in , /by

On April 15, Twitter “permanently suspended” the account of James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas. The offense, according a Twitter spokesman speaking to the New York Times, was that O’Keefe had attempted to ““artificially amplify or disrupt conversations” through the use of multiple accounts.”

O’Keefe flatly denied the charges and intends to sue Twitter for defamation. In February, Twitter “permanently suspended” the Project Veritas account, but if that’s the only other account O’Keefe was operating, he did nothing wrong. It is common for people to have two Twitter accounts, one for themselves, and one for their company.

Veritas has been on the offensive lately, having already filed a defamation suit against the New York Times regarding allegedly misleading reporting on a Veritas video. O’Keefe has also just threatened a defamation suit against CNN.

The timing of O’Keefe’s deplatforming might be considered suspect, however, since it is only in the the last few days that one of the latest Veritas video catches CNN employees openly boasting about how their deliberately based coverage of President Trump may have played a key role in his failed bid for reelection.

O’Keefe’s methods are controversial. O’Keefe first made a name for himself by posing as a pimp to secretly record ACORN staff. The expose O’Keefe just released on CNN involved one of his journalists creating a fake account on Tinder to attract one of CNN’s technical director, whereupon she went on five dates with him, recording their conversations.

This may be unethical journalism by traditional standards, but it is genuine, important investigative reporting nonetheless. The ACORN videos helped awaken the nation to spectacular corruption in that organization. The CNN expose offers yet another proof that America’s major “news” networks are nothing of the sort.

If you bother to read source material, view news conferences in their entirety, check FBI/DOJ statistics, or indulge in any similar sort of due diligence, it quickly becomes clear what outrageous, biased liars most major television personalities have become.

Perhaps if Twitter is going to ban James O’Keefe, they may want to also ban David Muir, the photogenic hack, masquerading as a journalist for ABC, “the most watched news show in America.” David Muir’s propensity to “artificially amplify or disrupt conversations,” about what’s really going on in America has few rivals, because he pretends to be objective.

The good news, if there is any, is that Twitter and the other social media monopolies cannot completely staunch the flow of contrarian information. There are too many participants, and too many ways to get the message through the algorithms and monitors. America continues to awaken.

 *   *   *

“Planet Lockdown” Video Survives – Watch While You Can

/in , /by

In January 2021 we predicted that a video recently posted on YouTube and Facebook entitled “Planet Lockdown – an interview with Catherine Austin Fitts,” would soon be pulled down. Sure enough, as reported by publications ranging from Forbes on the establishment Right to the Washington Post on the establishment Left, YouTube cancelled the video, but not before it got over 20 million views.

This video survives online however, and a good place to find it before the whack-a-mole censors smack it down again is on Earth Heroes TV, a mildly transgressive video amalgamator with a mission to “support the elevation of human consciousness, through intentional videos that inspire positive change.” Hard to argue with that.

Click here to view the Planet Lockdown video.

As discussed in our previous report, what Fitts talks about is only peripherally about COVID-19 vaccines and other current topics that were the pretext for her banishment on the big platforms. Fitts discusses in some detail her belief that five industrial sectors are working in tandem to create a new world order:

(1) Technology industry building clouds.

(2) Military doing space development.

(3) Big pharma developing injections to modify human DNA.

(4) Media providing propaganda.

(5) Central bankers engineering a new crypto system of global currency.

These are the sorts of conspiracy theories that got dozens of prominent channels representing the Q collective thrown off YouTube back in October 2020. Fitts, because she isn’t talking about satanic cults and global pedophile rings, will see her words last a little longer before the censors come for her. But while her content is less salacious, it is dealing with subjects – also plumbed by the Q investigators – that are equally troubling and far more central to our global economic destiny.

What Fitts is describing is a dark version of futurism. Her perspective is negative, but lucid. Technology makes it much easier for a small group of people to get together and become very powerful. But why? Fitts offers a logical answer:

“If technology can make it possible for people to live 150 years, and it isn’t possible to keep this a secret, then why not downsize the population, integrate robots, and you can have a very wealthy and luxurious life without the management headaches?” In one particularly chilling quote, Fitts says “I was having a conversation with a venture capitalist, billionaire type, and he looked at me with these amazingly dead eyes and said ‘I can take every company and completely automate it with software and robotics and fire all the humans. We don’t need them any more.’”

Some of the ideas and allegations ventured by Fitts may stretch credulity, but nonetheless are essential concepts for anyone trying to make sense of where we may be headed as a civilization.

 *   *   *

When is Factchecking Actually Censorship?

/in , /by

Dinesh D’Souza, one of the most valuable, credible voices on the American Right, has taken on Facebook’s “factcheckers.” In a recent article for Epoch Times, D’Souza provides several examples of how Facebook has “flagged, demonetized for periods of time, and reduced the distribution” of his posts. But why?

In answering this, D’Souza goes beyond explaining what we already know – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, with impunity, censor anyone they wish, right up to and including a former U.S. President. But D’Souza goes on to explain the symbiotic relationship between the “Factcheckers” and the online communications monopolies.

By way of example, D’Souza details how two of the factchecking organizations relied on by Facebook have distorted the facts surrounding VP Kamala Harris’s slave owning ancestors. This well documented fact of the VP’s lineage, achieved via the marriage of the slave owner’s white grandson to a free woman of color. That couple gave birth to Christiana Brown, a great grandmother of the VP.

Politifact, as D’Souza puts it, “seems to confirm my account completely but then mysteriously concludes, ‘In the end we don’t have enough documentation.’ Evidently a genealogical chart and Kamala Harris’s own father’s testimony does not seem to be enough.”

Snopes was worse. Despite clear evidence, they declared the claim “unproven,” then go on to write “Even if it is the case that the Harris family, by way of Christiana Brown, are descendants of Hamilton Brown, those who seek to attack or undermine Harris for the wrongdoing of a man who died almost 200 years ago should first gain a better understanding of the complicated, traumatic histories of black families in the United States.”

As D’Souza says, understating the point, “this is tendentious editorializing.” Indeed it is. These are partisan organizations, masquerading as “fact checkers.” As D’Souza alleges, they are providing cover for Facebook to flag or remove content they find politically disagreeable. They are allowing partisan organizations to selectively target inconvenient truths as “misinformation,” while exercising excessive leniency towards anything – truth or lie – that supports their ideology.

D’Souza is not only a valuable and credible spokesperson for the right, he is eloquent. How he summarizes this sad situation bears repeating verbatim:

“How tragic it is that platforms that once symbolized freedom and open inquiry have now become frightening cauldrons of restriction, repression, and censorship. The very people who said they would save us from Orwell’s Big Brother have become Big Brother.”

*   *   *

Twitter Censors Criticism of BLM Hypocrisy

/in , /by

What part of being a “trained Marxist” that cashes in on a lucrative contract with Warner Bros, a multinational for-profit corporation, is not hypocrisy? What part of being a Black Lives Matter activist buying a “compound” in one of the most exclusive white enclaves in America is not hypocrisy?

These things are, of course, explicitly hypocritical. Then again, most of what the Left in America does is hypocritical. How else can these supposedly grassroots militant movements be embraced by the most powerful corporations and wealthiest billionaires on earth? But don’t call them out on it. At the least, don’t do it on Twitter.

We’ll never know exactly why Twitter has blocked and deleted Tweets critical of BLM founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors purchase of a “secluded mini-compound tucked into L.A.’s rustic and semi-remote Topanga Canyon,” her fifth real estate acquisition in just the past year, because they’re blocked. Jason Whitlock who saw his Tweets erased and replaced with “This Tweet is no longer available,” actually had Twitter also temporarily suspend him from his account. The same thing happened to @ScoonTV.

What’s going on here? If Patrisse Khan-Cullors wants to ride the latest leftist/corporate psyop to riches, flaunting her hypocrisy and laughing all the way to the bank, that’s nothing new. Go ahead. But why is it that Twitter can permit relentless, often unfounded criticism of public figures on the Right, but is protective of a BLM executive, very much a public figure, whose actions at the least deserve to be exposed to the public?

Jonathan Turley, in his recent report on this latest proof of a double standard at work among the online communications monopolies, said it best:

“The greatest irony may not be the home purchase but the corporate support. A professed Marxist, Cullors has not only been paid handsomely by corporations like Warner but is being actively protected by corporations like Twitter.  When it comes to free speech, I support Khan-Cullors and Whitlock. The question is whether both have an equal opportunity to speak.”

 *   *   *

Will YouTube Remove “Dislike” Icon From Public View?

/in , /by

As reported on TechCrunch and elsewhere, YouTube is considering hiding the dislike count from videos posted on their platform. They are currently running tests and if they decide to go ahead with this, the dislike icon will still appear and be clickable, but only the content creator will be able to see the count. Presumably, the “like” count will still be publicly viewable.

YouTube claims the idea is based on creator feedback, saying content creators complained that viewing the dislikes affected their “well being.” This is a rather thin justification, since creators would still see the dislike count internally, it just wouldn’t be public. Perhaps by not making the count public, people will not have the incentive to click the dislike icon?

Considering how valuable the dislike count can be towards alerting people to videos that are misleading or clickbait, concern about content creator “well being” seems like an excuse. What’s really going on could be an attempt to suppress “dislike mobs” that descend on select videos to pump up the dislike counts. But so what? And why now?

What YouTube is considering has to be considered in the context of what YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and all the major online communications platforms have been doing since at least 2016, which is to consciously manipulate public opinion. Stuck with a business model that rewards anything that is gross or offensive, they’ve taken it upon themselves to compensate by censoring political speech they disagree with and promoting political speech they support.

In this context, the timing is suspect. As Paul Joseph Watson observed in a recent Tweet, “Official White House YouTube team gonna be overjoyed at this.” A quick look at the official White House YouTube channel shows exactly what Watson is getting at. The dislike counts on Biden’s videos consistently outnumber the like counts by a ratio of between five and ten-to-one.

A Politifact analysis from January 2021 actually confirms that already, “YouTube may have removed ‘spam’ dislikes from a video posted by the White House after President Joe Biden took office.” It’s a safe bet that YouTube never removed any “spam” dislikes from Trump’s official videos.

Big tech, certainly including YouTube, has gone to a lot of trouble to protect the interests of Democratic candidates and causes, and to disparage and suppress dissenting voices. That makes it entirely plausible that hiding the dislike count will be a decision motivated at least in part by a wish to protect the president they got elected from any unnecessary embarrassment.

 *   *   *

Crowdfunding Sites Block the Right But Not the Left

/in , /by

There was an in-depth report published in USA Today on 3/28 entitled “Crowdfunding hate: How white supremacists and other extremists raise money from legions of online followers.” Useful as much for what it left out as for what it covered, it is recommended reading.

Two glaring and very common errors informed the report. First, it lumped everyone on the so-called “right” into the same bucket, and second, it made no mention of left-wing groups. There are violent extremists on the right and on the left in America, but the ones on the right are disproportionately targeted.

Most useful was how the article identified four online crowdfunding sites that are attempting to offer services without, as one of their spokespersons said, “discriminating against customers for political reasons.” Those sites are GiveSendGo, GoGetFunding, AllFundIt and Our Freedom Funding.

The conflict over when to cut a group off rests on competing objectives. On one side is the constitutional right to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. On the other side is the much vaunted need to ensure, as PayPal puts it in their policy, “services are not used to accept payments or donations for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.”

That is a pretty high bar, especially when one steps back and considers the violence perpetrated across America for nearly a year in the name of “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” by groups that raise funds with nearly complete impunity, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter. A recent AP report claims one of the primary BLM organizations, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, took in over $90 million last year.

While Antifa, BLM, and countless other groups have been largely unhindered in their crowdfunding efforts, they hardly need a crowd, thanks to millions pouring in from major corporations, as well as from billionaires including George Soros and Tom Steyer.

There’s plenty of evidence of crowdfunding platforms escalating their war that, from the start, has disproportionately targeted the right. It’s hard to justify why Laura Loomer or Brandon Straka qualify as people so noxious and so dangerous that they have to be banned from raising money online, while hundreds of local Antifa and BLM groups are untouched. But a more egregious example is Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people who were chasing him during the Kenosha riots last summer, killing two of them.

This young man, who claims he acted in self defense, faces a blistering onslaught of civil and criminal actions that will probably cost him millions in legal fees. Despite the fact that there is a solid case to be made for his defense and a reasonable chance he will be acquitted of the most serious charges against him, the accounts set up for people to contribute to him on GoFundMe were taken down. Similar accounts set up on another crowdfunding site, Fundly, were also taken down. Finally, accounts set up on GiveSendGo were able to raise funds for Rittenhouse’s defense.

This isn’t about Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence. It isn’t about his intentions. It’s about his right to legal defense, and the right for people who wish to contribute to his legal defense to be able to do so. How on earth do these crowdfunding sites justify denying people that right?

An even deeper level of financial attack against online fundraising, or any sort of online commerce, comes from the payment processors. These are the intermediaries that crowdfunding sites have to use – along with anyone doing business online – to convert credit card information into actual bank deposits. The only major online payment processors are PayPal and Stripe. And wouldn’t you know it, PayPal and Stripe have cut all ties with GiveSendGo. It is not clear what alternative payment processor GiveSendGo has found, but they remain online and able to accept most – but not all – credit cards.

Perhaps, as Gab is considering, it will become necessary for right-of-center crowdfunding sites, along with all right-of-center websites that engage in internet commerce, to start up their own banks. Maybe they will resort to BitCoin or the totally private Monero. But cybercurrencies come with their own set of challenges, not least of which is the so-called entry and exit points wherein cash turns into cybercurrency, and wherein cybercurrency is turned back into cash.

Better yet, the firms providing financial services in the United States could respect the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, instead of applying one standard to the right wing people they don’t like, and quite another standard to the left wing people they support.

 *   *   *

How Long Will Marjorie Taylor Greene Last On Mainstream Platforms?

/1 Comment/in , /by

Those of us who are amused and glad that finally there are some politicians who engage in hyperbole and confrontational politics with the same abandon as Leftists have a new celebrity to follow, Georgia’s firebrand GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

It isn’t necessary to recapitulate the many ways Greene has horrified the mainstream. They are too numerous to briefly summarize and some of the concerns about her comments and conduct have merit. But so what? There are dozens of members of the U.S. Congress who have committed equally if not more egregious offenses, especially if you examine their history prior to taking office.

As a USA Today headline blared on February 9, “Marjorie Taylor Greene should be removed from Facebook for spreading ‘dangerous lies,’ advocacy groups say.” And who are these “advocacy groups?” They are partisan left-wing pressure groups, the beneficiaries of funding largesse that partisan right-wing pressure groups (is there even such a thing?) can’t imagine. And what about the “dangerous lies” we’re hearing night and day from left-wing sources?

It is a “dangerous lie” to claim the United States is “systemically racist.” It is a dangerous lie to claim there is a “climate emergency.” These are lies that are destined to turn the United States into a police state controlled by a small oligarchy. They are more dangerous than anything Marjorie Taylor Greene has ever said or done, not only because they represent a transformative, credible threat, but because – thanks to billions of dollars and years of repetition – millions of Americans believe these lies.

For several hours earlier this month, Marjorie Taylor Greene was locked out of her Twitter account, supposedly by mistake. Expecting her accounts on Twitter and Facebook to survive is a poor bet. And the reason Greene is considered a threat by these and other mainstream platforms has little to do with anything she’s ever said in the past, however hyperbolic. Greene is a threat because she is willing to challenge the big lies of our time: the lies of systemic racism and a climate emergency.

On principle, and for a variety of reasons, Greene’s voice should be heard. To respect the First Amendment. To adhere to the Section 230 exemptions that prohibit social media platforms from engaging in editorial censorship in exchange for immunity from some liability. And most of all, to offer equal time. A tough voice on the right, standing up to an avalanche of state-sanctioned, media-driven, corporate supported leftist propaganda that inundates the nation.

 *   *   *