More Twitter censorship

Two days ago, this blog linked to Katie Hopkins’s column at Front Page mag; her column was about the celebrations marking the UK's Brexit from the EU. It was a thoughtful and heartfelt report. And today, we read Robert Spencer’s report at Front Page that “Twitter Suspends Katie Hopkins, and you’re next”:

Twitter has suspended UK's courageous freedom fighter Katie Hopkins, who had a million followers on the platform, and one thing is certain: she will not be the last foe of jihad violence and Sharia oppression who is banned from Twitter. It’s all about silencing “hate,” you see. But the banning of Katie Hopkins illustrates yet again that for the Left, there is good “hate” and there is bad “hate.”

According to the UK’s Independent, “Twitter said that Ms Hopkins had been temporarily locked out of her account for violating the site’s hateful-conduct policy, which bans the promotion of violence or inciting harm on the basis of race, religion, national origin or gender identity.”

Twitter has erased all but a handful of Hopkins’ tweets, so it’s impossible to tell what the offending tweets were, but it is abundantly clear at this point that for Leftist guardians of acceptable thought nowadays, virtually any dissent from the Left’s agenda will be read as “the promotion of violence or inciting harm on the basis of race, religion, national origin or gender identity.” While “promotion of violence” is fairly easy to spot, “inciting harm” can be seen in any critical word. 

And then the offender has to go.

Full column is here. And of course, this is not a one-off. Many conservative voices, such as Pamela Geller, Dennis Prager’s Prager University, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, and Michelle Malkin (article at the link includes details on de-platforming and de-monetizing), have been censored on Twitter, Facebook, on campuses, on PayPal, etc. As Robert Spencer warned: we’re next.

# # #

State of the Union preview

photo credit: Issues and Insights

The Editorial Board at Issues and Insights previews tonight’s State of the Union address:

State of the Union addresses are tedious, pointless, and quite often irksome. But this year’s promises to be none of that. President Donald Trump is going to do what no U.S. president has ever had to do before: He will denounce socialism in America.

. . .

Will Trump use strong words rather than watered-down political language to remind America of socialism’s gulags, inherent violence, and forced conformity; of planned economies’ abuse of liberty, smothering bureaucratic traps, and the oppression of the many through the power of a few?

It’s not his style to go soft. So it’s likely the country is going to hear what it needs to.

Full editorial is here.

# # #

Katie Hopkins at the Brexit Celebration

photo credit: relocatemagazine.com

Today, the great Katie Hopkins posted her column on FrontPage about the Brexit celebrations last Friday.  Here’s a part that will likely resonate with any Trump supporter:

And then the jarring realization: what we came for could not be delivered.

This was not a Brexit celebration as advertised in our minds. We wanted to feel it was over. That the monster had been slain and the white knights were back in control. We wanted to feel elated by our win.

But we could not. This was not the end and we knew it. Our adversaries are all still there: the system, the media, Remainers, globalists, and self-serving politicians. And many of these are now hardwired for something that feels like revenge.

Gathered here in the mud and rain, perhaps we also allowed ourselves a moment of weakness, a kind of confessional that this has been really brutal with scars of the fight across all. We are nursing bruises from families divided, children fallen silent, Christmases made awkward, and the loss of friends.

. . .

We have suffered far beyond these personal or parochial injuries: the politicians, elected by us but unwilling to represent us; the lawyers, interpreting law to block Brexit and suit their partisan beliefs; teachers schooling our children that Leave was the wrong answer and that all Brexiteers are racists.

. . .

This crowd needed the kind of Trump rally I have seen, a chance to feel triumphant, to feel strengthened by tough leadership and to be lifted up. They needed refueling with patriotic pride. . . .

She concludes with a sigh – watching the corrupt media in action:

I walked away quietly, watching mainstream news crews try to pick off the most drunk or incoherent of us to humiliate for their TV shows in the morning.

I posted this as I expect she speaks for many Tea Party readers. The full column is here.

# # #

Documentary on Justice Clarence Thomas

Scott Johnson at PowerLine reports:

Last night we saw the fantastic documentary Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words in theater 18 of one of our local suburban AMC multiplexes. It might have been a seat or two short of a sell-out, but we had to settle for two seats in the first row. It was packed.

. . .

The left could not and cannot deal with Justice Thomas. They disparage him for his silence on the bench, but they don’t want him speaking out either. His comments on the Anita Hill episode — his comments then and now — are utterly devastating. Joe Biden makes a cameo appearance as a complete and utter buffoon. This section of the film should elicit feelings of rage and disgust from sentient beings, and yet the scenario is as current as today’s headlines. I am so grateful this movie exists and urge you to see it.

Click here for the rest of Mr. Johnson’s report, which includes links to other online reviews as well as the trailer for the documentary.

If you live near New Bremen, Ohio, you can see this new film.  It’s the only Ohio venue currently showing this film.  But I’ll keep checking the home page for the documentary for any upcoming screenings in the greater Cleveland area.

# # #

Happy Brexit Day

Congratulations to our cousins across the pond!

###

Ad on immigration policy

Video of a "best ad" for the 2020 election cycle, forwarded to me by a buddy in DC:

I have not been able to find this elsewhere online, so it may be a sneak peek.

# # #

Peter Schweizer on Sen. Sherrod Brown

Here’s more from Peter Schweizer’s chapter in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite (HarperCollins) on Sen. Sherrod Brown (footnote numbers silently deleted) :

Sherrod Brown has always relied on a certain roguish charm when in the public spotlight. Described by the media as a “handsome, gravelly-voiced defender of the working class; perpetually mentioned in presidential conversations,” he has spent almost his entire adult life either serving in political office or running for it. The unique appeal to his supporters, in addition to that charm, is the fact that he viewed “himself as a progressive before it was cool.”. . .

. . .

Brown displays his working-class sentiments in his Senate office reception area, where he has a miner’s safety lamp sitting on the table, as well as a beer stein from the United Mine Workers. . . .

His wife, Connie Schultz, once sent an email to a colleague at the Cleveland Plain Dealer who had drawn a political cartoon critical of him. She wrote: “For 30 years, Sherrod has fought for those who would have no voice and no future without him . . . (and he) remains a hero to so many. . . .

But Brown himself, as we will see, grew up privileged. While he has campaigned with a hole in one shoe (and drawn the media’s attention to it with an early, infamous reelection advertisement), his roots are far from working class.

. . .Sherrod Brown’s friend John Eichinger jokingly explained at a Democratic Party roast back in 1982 that Brown’s approach is to “get money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect them from each other.”

It is a formula that has worked in American politics for more than one hundred years.

However, a closer examination reveals a far more complex picture than that of a conventional progressive politician. More than simply using that political strategy to win office, Brown seems to have used his government office to benefit his family, in particular, his brother’s legal practice, which has engaged in what some might consider strange and suspect lawsuits. Additionally, Brown’s advocacy for “workers” appears to be far more about protecting union leaders who donate to his campaigns than rank-and-file union workers. Indeed, when the interests of union leaders and the union members clash, Brown consistently sides with the bosses who have underwritten his many political campaigns.

The chapter contains over 100 footnotes to print and online sources.  I chose the above extracts to provide a partial overview of chapter 6, and there is much more on Sen. Brown’s relationships with and activities involving labor pension funds and his association with his brother’s law firm.

# # #