Censorship and the tech companies

This blog has been linking regularly to reports about political correctness, censorship, and the attacks on our First Amendment rights. Ned Ryun at American Greatness reports:

Just over six years ago, I attended Google’s Political Innovation Summit in New York City. Over the course of the day, it dawned on me that, in the not-too-distant future, Google and other social media companies like Facebook and Twitter would have the power to control and manipulate information flow in unforeseen and dramatic ways. That power would give the tech giants the ability to manipulate elections and policy debates and even to re-define what free speech actually means.

That future has arrived.

. . .

Every single decision of these tech companies seems to cut the same way—against a conservative worldview, against religious communities, against anything that doesn’t fit comfortably within their little Silicon Valley bubble.

. . .

To err in any direction but toward the free flow of information is to sow the seeds of our eventual demise. 

Full report is here.

# # #

Political correctness and the decline of Fox News

image credit: Flopping Aces

Fox News suspended Judge Jeanine Pirro for asking a fair question: Is Sharia Law compatible with the United States Constitution? This isn’t just about immigration or Sharia Law. It’s yet another indication that we are losing our free speech. (And Fox seems determined to circle the drain; they just hired Donna Brazile.)

Here’s some reporting from Flopping Aces:

Sharia Law may become the third rail of America politics if one is to judge by the suspension/cancellation for at least one episode of Judge Jeanine’s weekend Fox News show “Justice with Judge Jeanine. A cowardly Fox News has extended the protective canopy of political correctness apparently barring its hosts from asking the tough and obvious questions about a doctrine few non-Muslims are aware of and few Americans understand.

. . .

Pirro’s March 9 comment [was] about Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn.), who wears a hijab, a traditional head covering worn by Muslim women.“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” 

. . .

A question that deserves to be asked and answered. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has in the past observed that those who follow Sharia law can’t also be loyal to the U.S., Constitution and the Western values it represents, and either shouldn’t be allowed to enter the U.S. or should be deported from it, much less serve in its legislative assemblies.

Full report with links is here.  Fox is losing credibility, and viewers are turning the channel - sometimes to Fox Business, also to OAN. Or to talk radio. Or to the conservative blogosphere - which is also encountering censorship, de-platforming, etc. 

# # #

A Civilian Cyber Militia in Ohio to Protect Elections

Image credit: carriermanagement.com

Ohio Seeks to Create a Civilian Cyber Militia 

to Protect Elections

Paula Bolyard at PJ Media reports:

Ohio lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would create a civilian cyber militia tasked with protecting the state's critical government agencies and election systems from cyber attacks. If passed, the bill would create a new volunteer unit under the authority of the Ohio adjutant general called the Ohio Cyber Reserve (OCR). It would operate at the same level as the National Guard, creating eight regional teams of 10 members each.

The "Improve Information Integrity and Security Act" (SB 52) would create a cybersecurity reserve force "capable of being expanded and trained to educate and protect state, county, and local governmental agencies, critical infrastructure, including election systems, businesses, and citizens of this state from cyber attacks."

. . .

The bill, introduced by Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) in February, has been assigned to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, where it is awaiting a hearing.

The headline reads “To Protect Elections.” What could go wrong? Click on Ms. Bolyard's full report here and scroll down to some reader comments (esp. by "ValVeggie").

Here's the Government Oversight and Reform Committee page. No meeting on this bill is scheduled for next week. The draft of SB 52 is posted here. It's 23 pages long. Here's Sen. Theresa Gavarone's website; it includes an email option.

# # #

Happy St. Patrick's Day

From the 2018 St. Patrick's Day Parade in downtown Cleveland :^):

# # #

Income inequality is fair

Image credit: ventura632.wordpress.com

A core Tea Party value is "free markets." Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell are two economists who are able to make complicated subjects accessible to Everyman. In his column today, Mr. Williams explains why capitalism is not a zero-sum game:

Some Americans have much higher income and wealth than others. Former President Barack Obama explained, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." An adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has a Twitter account called "Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure" tweeted, "My goal for this year is to get a moderator to ask 'Is it morally appropriate for anyone to be a billionaire?'" Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren, in calling for a wealth tax, complained, "The rich and powerful are taking so much for themselves and leaving so little for everyone else."

These people would have an argument if there were piles of money on the ground called income, with billionaires and millionaires surreptitiously getting to those piles first and taking their unfair shares. In that case, corrective public policy would require a redistribution of the income, wherein the ill-gotten gains of the few would be taken and returned to their rightful owners. The same could be said if there were a dealer of dollars who — because of his being a racist, sexist, multi-nationalist and maybe a Republican — didn't deal the dollars fairly. If he dealt millions to some and mere crumbs to others, decent public policy would demand a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some call income redistribution.

. . .

A system that requires that one serve his fellow man to have a claim on what he produces is far more moral than a system without such a requirement. For example, Congress can tell me, "Williams, you don't have to get out in that hot sun to mow a lawn to have a claim on what your fellow man produces. Just vote for me, and through the tax code, I will take some of what your fellow man produces and give it to you."

Let's look at a few multibillionaires to see whether they have served their fellow man well. Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, with a net worth over $90 billion, is the second-richest person in the world. He didn't acquire that wealth through violence. Millions of people around the world voluntarily plunked down money to buy Microsoft products. That explains the great wealth of people such as Gates. They discovered what their fellow man wanted and didn't have, and they found out ways to effectively produce it. Their fellow man voluntarily gave them dollars. If Gates and others had followed President Obama's advice that "at a certain point" they'd "made enough money" and shut down their companies when they had earned their first billion or two, mankind wouldn't have most of the technological development we enjoy today.

. . .

The only people who benefit from class warfare are politicians and the elite; they get our money and control our lives. 

Say what you like about Bill Gates; Mr. Williams has a point. The full article is here. 

# # #

Sen Rob Portman votes against Trump's national emergency at the border

From Breitbart:

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rob Portman (R-OH), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Roy Blunt (R-MO) voted in favor of eliminating Trump’s national emergency, which would make it harder to secure America’s southern border.

Not veto-proof but still sickening. 

# # #

Your cell phone and Google

image credit: andysowards.com

Google Exec Admits to Congress That They're Tracking Us 

Even with 'Location' Turned Off

Paula Bolyard reports at PJ Media (via Blazing Cat Fur) on yesterday's congressional hearing:

A Google executive admitted during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday that Google tracks users' phones  — even when their location history is turned off.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) questioned Google Senior Privacy Counsel Will DeVries about the company's tracking policies during a hearing examining online consumer privacy. Some of DeVries' answers will likely disturb consumers who thought there was a way to avoid being tracked by Google through their phones.

. . .

DeVries explained that it's "complicated" -- a word that he used several times as he tried to evade Hawley's questions about why Google tracks its users' locations.

. . .

PJM's Phil Baker explained in December 2018 how to turn off as many tracking features as possible on your phone, but ultimately, users need to understand that Google has the ability to track you anytime you're carrying your phone. As Congress and Big Tech continue to duke it out over privacy issues — which may ultimately lead to new laws designed to protect consumers' private data — it's imperative to understand that your smartphone is a sophisticated geotracking advice. For now, that is the price you pay for the "free" services Google provides.

Full article at PJ Media is here. I don’t use a cell phone very often, but I have already switched from using Google on my desktop computer. And it’s easy for computer illiterates such as myself. Instead of Google, choose DuckDuckGo or StartPage as your search engine in your default settings menu.

# # #