web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Maxine Waters Just Proved Democrats Want Facebook to Be Their Propaganda Arm

Westlake Legal Group MaxineWatersAPimage-620x317 Maxine Waters Just Proved Democrats Want Facebook to Be Their Propaganda Arm twitter Social Media Regulation Propoganda Politics News Media Maxine Waters Mark Zuckerberg Internet Front Page Stories facebook democrats Allow Media Exception

House Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., asks a question of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton, during a committee hearing, Tuesday Sept. 24, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

If you really want to know what the end game is for Democrats, I’ve always found that listening to California Rep. Maxine Waters grill someone during a congressional hearing is a good way to find out. This is the same Waters that told an oil and gas CEO that the end goal was for the government to take over their companies, after all.

In the case of the hearing featuring CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, we learned a few things. For instance, we know that Democrats don’t know what the purpose of a social media network is, but we also know what they want it to be.

Waters was asking Zuckerberg about what kind of fact-checking Facebook does when it comes to political ads. The social media CEO told Waters that they do no fact-checking themselves, and find it important to allow politicians to display their ads because they believe it is important for politicians to be heard plainly.

Waters continuously interrupted, seeming to drive the point home that Facebook does no fact-checking itself. Zuckerberg kept attempting to explain that it does occur thanks to third-party fact-checkers that activate whenever a post is flagged by the Facebook community, or by its technical systems.

Waters didn’t seem to be interested in the answers Zuckerberg was giving and cut him off to say that her time had expired.

What can this tell us?

We know that Democrats view the mainstream media as their territory, and mainstream media tends to agree. Much of what we see from major news networks tend to look more like propaganda than actual news, with an ever-present slant constantly giving the left the high ground.

It’s why ABC News attempted to pass an event at a gun range in Kentucky off as Turkey attacking Kurds in Syria after Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. military out of the region. It’s why they’ll breathlessly report on the heinous racism of a smirking high school student wearing a MAGA hat without looking for any more details.

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are some of the most highly trafficked websites in the world, with a constant stream of news and opinion floating through it thanks to its users. Left alone, this could be really bad news for Democrats, who rely on throwing out talking points in a vacuum for a narrative to thrive.

It would behoove people like Waters to ask questions that create a narrative about the nature of Facebook itself. They need to paint it as unreliable and dangerous to the public. This, in turn, does one of two things. It makes people wary of anything they may see on the platform that runs counter to their narrative, and it also sets up the possibility for government regulation with public support.

The end goal is simple. Make Facebook a publisher and not a platform. If they can do that, they can likely make a social media company another propaganda arm.

Judging by the amount of censorship, blacklisting, shadow banning, and punishing that we know occurs on social media platforms against right-leaning people already, they pretty much are publishers already. But it’s much more lucrative and less dicey for Facebook to claim platform status than admit they’re a publisher already. It results in less government oversite and intervention.

Waters wants that intervention. She and the Democrats want to drag Facebook under the control of the state so that they can then decide what is and isn’t proper conduct when it comes to news dissemination. Like she admitted to the oil companies, Waters’s goal is to have the government run the show.

The post Maxine Waters Just Proved Democrats Want Facebook to Be Their Propaganda Arm appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MaxineWatersAPimage-300x153 Maxine Waters Just Proved Democrats Want Facebook to Be Their Propaganda Arm twitter Social Media Regulation Propoganda Politics News Media Maxine Waters Mark Zuckerberg Internet Front Page Stories facebook democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Julian Castro Needs 800k In 10 Days Or He Drops Out Of POTUS Race.

Westlake Legal Group JulianCastroAPPhoto-300x153 Julian Castro Needs 800k In 10 Days Or He Drops Out Of POTUS Race. white house washington D.C. warren Social Media progressives President Trump polls Politics Politico Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism kamala harris Julian Castro Internet immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections donald trump democrats Cory Booker Conservatives Congress comedy Capitalism Buzzfeed Bipartisanship biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2019

I need 800k or im going away. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)

Don’t threaten us dude.

Julian Castro, who has NO RELATION to Fidel or Raul in Cuba other than in the general outlook of how government should meddle in every aspect of your life, needs your help. His campaign is running short on funds being he has spent a lot of money doing….well, I’m not really sure of what he has been doing.

According to Buzzfeed

Presidential candidate Julián Castro said on Monday that he will have to drop out of the Democratic primary if his campaign doesn’t raise $800,000 in the next 10 days.

In an email to supporters, Castro said he will not have the resources to continue campaigning if he can’t raise the funds by the end of October.

“The truth is, for our campaign, these debates have offered our only guaranteed opportunity to share my vision with the American people. If I can’t make the next debate stage, we cannot sustain a campaign that can make it to Iowa in February,” Castro said in the email. “My presidential campaign is in dire need of financial resources to keep going.”

Castro’s campaign has very little cash on hand compared to most of his competition, according to the most recent FEC filings. His campaign, which raised $3,495,406 and spent $3,960,970.81 last quarter, had $672,333 on hand as of the end of September.

That’s rough.

According to the latest Real Politics Polling  for Iowa, Castro is polling at…. HE IS NOT EVEN LISTED.

How can you be asking for cash to make it to Iowa and they are not even showing you UNDERWATER in the latest polling? That is super impressive except for a winning campaign it is not. Castro spent 3.9 million last quarter while raising 3.4 million. I’m guessing that there are a lot of fancy meals on that spreadsheet and not too many value meals purchases at McDonald’s.

While I am 100% in favor of Americans donating to any and all political causes and candidates they see fit, I would humbly suggest spending money on other things also if you are on the bubble about donating to the Presidential campaign of someone who is not running so hot.

Here are some suggestions…

*Buying a ticket on the next Titanic voyage next year. I mean, it can’t happen twice in a row, can it?

*Purchase a “My Pillow” and see if it is really that comfy. Also, email me and let me know if it is. I have been on the bubble for a while now about purchasing one.

*Do GOAT Yoga. I’m not going to do it so you might as well.

Of course, you can donate to #TeamCastro or any candidate you want. If you feel Julio is worth a couple of bucks to extend his time doing whatever he has been doing to be polling at zip in Iowa, knock it out. Maybe donate to all of them. Maybe tweet at the President and see if he could donate to Castro just for the twitter trolling wave it would create.

Good Luck Mr. Castro. Shame that a distant relative of yours that is not really a relative but has the same last name as you is not still alive. I’m sure he would have kicked in a buck or two.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Julian Castro Needs 800k In 10 Days Or He Drops Out Of POTUS Race. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JulianCastroAPPhoto-300x153 Julian Castro Needs 800k In 10 Days Or He Drops Out Of POTUS Race. white house washington D.C. warren Social Media progressives President Trump polls Politics Politico Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism kamala harris Julian Castro Internet immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections donald trump democrats Cory Booker Conservatives Congress comedy Capitalism Buzzfeed Bipartisanship biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230

Westlake Legal Group Big-Tech-620x354 How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230 Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Silicon Valley Section 230 progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Business & Economy big tech 5g 4G

Today’s thought foray – requires us to define a few terms.  First:

Internet Service Providers (ISPs):

The companies that have in the last quarter-century invested more than a trillion dollars – building the actual Internet.  Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, etc.  The companies that laid the Information Superhighway – upon which all the rest of us ride.  The bandwidth providers.

“Edge Providers”:

The Big Tech companies.  And not just located in the Silicon Valley – more than a few are de facto centered in Communist China.  Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.  The biggest of the Information Superhighway riders.  The Bandwidth Hogs – consuming way more than half of all the US bandwidth the ISPs provide.

The Left loves to categorize the ISPs as evil, monster companies – demanding and getting monster government cronyism.

Free & Open Internet:

“The free and open internet is a powerful tool for everyone fighting for social change and racial justice. But companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon – and their government allies – want to destroy it.”

Except as with nigh everything Left – this is titanically stupid.  For a host of reasons.

The companies allegedly looking to destroy the free and open Internet – spent more than a trillion dollars building the free and open Internet.  I’m sure their shareholders would object to their now destroying it.

So they’re probably not going to do it.  As evidenced by the entirety of the quarter-century of the private sector Internet’s existence – during which they never, ever have.

The ISPs – and their “government allies?”  This is laughable on its face.

AT&T (Market Cap: $280 billion), Comcast (Market Cap: $209 billion) and Verizon (Market Cap: $251 billion) – are certainly big.

But these hugest of ISPs – are nowhere near as huge as the Big Tech likes of Apple (Market Cap: $1.1 trillion), Amazon (Market Cap: $869 billion) and Google (Market Cap: $863 billion).

The Big Tech companies – spend MUCH more on government candidates.  And get MUCH more government cronyism in return.

Latest Beneficiary of D.C. Cronyism: Apple – The Most Valuable Company in the World

Amazon: One Of The Biggest Of Bigfoot Cronyism-Recipient Lobbyists

Cronyism: For the Likes of Google, It is Really, REALLY Good to be a Friend of Obama

ISPs spend most of their time – asking governments to leave them alone.  This isn’t cronyism – this is begging the government to let them engage in capitalism.

Big Tech spends most of their time – demanding governments do them special favors.  This isn’t capitalism – this is cronyism.

As but one example: The very stupid policy known as Network Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a stupidly huge government imposition in the Internet – specifically on the ISPs.  A whole host of regulations restricting just about everything ISPs do to provide us service.

ISPs ask governments – to leave them alone with this Net Neutrality nonsense.

Big Tech demands government impose Net Neutrality – because it guarantees them huge government-mandated benefits.

To name but one:

As mentioned, Big Tech consumes way more than half of all US bandwidth.  Net Neutrality – mandates they not be charged any money for any of it.  We the Little People would pay MUCH more for our service – to subsidize the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google.

Net Neutrality is massive government regulation – to impose massive Big Tech cronyism.

The ISPs’ “government allies” – are simply less government types who know how stupid Net Neutrality is…and therefore don’t want to impose it.

Big Tech’s government cronies – are sell-out politicians who know how stupid Net Neutrality is…but impose it anyway because their paymasters demand it.

All of which brings us to the biggest Big Tech cronyism of all:

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act:

“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a piece of Internet legislation.

“It provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others.

“An immunity clause in the Act states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

We must now define two additional terms:

Publisher:

What we’ve always seen pre-Internet.  Newspapers, books and the like.  They edit content – so they control content.  And thus are eligible to be sued – unprotected by Section 230.

Platform:

An almost-exclusively Internet creation.  To allow for user-provided website content – videos, comments, etc – Section 230 indemnifies the websites hosting the content from being libel from many laws for the content.

Section 230 – is a HUGE government benefit to Big Tech.

And Section 230 makes some sense – so long as the Big Tech beneficiaries uphold their tiny end of this massively beneficial bargain.

Big Tech platforms – must be open to ALL users. With content only edited or deleted – for a certain, specific set of defined obvious reasons: Posting pornography, foul language, etc.

Ideological censorship – is a Section 230 no-no.

But Leftist Big Tech – censors less government types all the time.

Conservatives Face a Tough Fight as Big Tech’s Censorship Expands

Big Tech Censors Conservatives, Christians; Facebook, Google: ‘So What?’

Big Tech Has Transitioned from ‘We Don’t Censor Conservatives’ to ‘We Do and You Can’t Stop Us’

Well, we can stop them, actually.

As with nigh all things policy – the original sin here is too much government.

In this instance, the too much government – is the massive Big Tech cronyism of Section 230.

Former FCC Bureau Chief: Masters of the Universe ‘Abused’ Section 230 to Censor Conservatives

“A spokesperson for (Texas Republican) Sen. Cruz told Breitbart News in a statement:

“‘Big Tech enjoys a subsidy that no other industry does: immunity from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That immunity is predicated on the expectation that social media would be neutral public forums.

“‘Big Tech has made it abundantly clear they have no intention of abiding by that, taking the opposite tact by operating as partisan publishers.

“‘Sen. Cruz believes if they’re going to choose to be partisan publishers, then there is little reason why they should get a special immunity from liability that other publishers, such as the New York Times, don’t enjoy.’”

Most of DC is, as nigh always, bizarrely removed from Reality – and actual answers to actual questions.

A few weeks ago I attended a DC debate on Big Tech censorship.

Conservative and Human Events Editor Will Chamberlain – wanted the government to force Big Tech companies to host just about all content.

Libertarian and Reason Magazine Associate Editor Robby Soave – wanted to leave all things relevant as is.

They were opposed to one another.  I was opposed to both.

In the hour-plus long debate – NO ONE even referenced Section 230.  It never, ever came up.

Until I mentioned it during the Question & Answer period.

Oops.

Very few people in the room seemed pleased I did.  And I was screeched at by Big Tech defenders on Twitter – who were watching the event’s livestream.

The most interesting reaction?

I will now be as vague as possible about the following – to protect the involved:

A person who works for one of the biggest of Big Tech companies – a conservative I’ve known for years – was seated next to me.  This person turned to me and whispered something along the lines of:

“If you get rid of Section 230 – it will kill these companies.”

Really?  Many of these near-trillion companies got to be near-trillion dollar companies – almost solely because of Section 230?

And they can’t exist without it?

That sounds like the quintessential definition of government cronyism.

Fake energy solar panel and wind turbine companies can’t exist without government cronyism.  Should we continue to prop up them too?

That doesn’t seem to me to be very conservative, free market or less government.

So why are so many conservative, free market and less government types – defending it?

The post How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Big-Tech-300x171 How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism – Like Section 230 Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Silicon Valley Section 230 progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Business & Economy big tech 5g 4G   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry white house washington D.C. Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism Morning Briefing Mike Pence Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Internet Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Campaigns axios AOC Allow Media Exception 2019

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

You just know that when the Veep told the House committee people he would not cooperate he was really nice about it also.

Late Tuesday night, the Vice President of the United States, through counsel, informed the House committees that are scrounging around doing impeachment-like things that he would not play along.

According to Axios

The counsel for Vice President Mike Pence sent a letter to the chairmen of the House committees investigating President Trump and Ukraine on Tuesday informing them that he will not cooperate with a request for documents in their “self-proclaimed” impeachment inquiry.

This was fully expected, so no surprise.

However, the announcement that Nancy Pelosi blinked and will not hold an impeachment vote as of now means that the White House strategy of pressuring the House to hold a formal vote has worked. Pence and other White House officials will not face much pressure until the House holds a vote or they take this to the courts. The courts won’t take this up soon so this is looking like a suave move by the White House.

The Trump administration is still going to have its hands full dealing with other aspects of this Ukraine story but for now, the House vote on Impeachment is tabled and the Vice President of the United States can just hang out and do what V.P’s do.

Which I’m not sure of exactly.

Here is the letter sent on behalf of the Vice President…

Dear Chairmen:

The Office of the Vice President has received the Committees’ Letter to the Vice President, dated October 4, 2019, which requests a wide-ranging scope of documents, some of which are clearly not vice-presidential records, pursuant to a self-proclaimed “impeachment inquiry.” As noted in the October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel to each of you and to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the purported “impeachment inquiry” has been designed and implemented in a manner that calls into question your commitment to fundamental fairness and due process rights.

The Office of the Vice President recognizes the oversight role of your respective committees in Congress. Please know that if the Committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the Committees have appropriate requests for information solely in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers. Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the President, the Vice President, and their advisors.

As detailed in the White House Counsel Letter, the House of Representatives has not authorized any “impeachment inquiry.” Specifically, the operative House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. Instead of being accountable to the American people and casting a vote to authorize what all agree is a substantial constitutional step, you have instead attempted to avoid this fundamental requirement by invoking the Speaker’s announcement of an “official impeachment inquiry” at a press conference? Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an “impeachment inquiry” against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process.

The Office of the Vice President encourages the Committees to forgo their request to the Office of the Vice President, or hold it in abeyance, pending your discussion with the White House Counsel’s Office concerning compliance with constitutionally mandated procedures. Similarly, the Office of the Vice President encourages the Committees to first seek information from primary sources that may be responsive to your broad requests.

Sincerely,
Matthew E. Morgan

Counsel to the Vice President

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry white house washington D.C. Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism Morning Briefing Mike Pence Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Internet Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Campaigns axios AOC Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Private Sector Is Yet Again Rushing to Save Us from Government

Westlake Legal Group government-ways-of-saving-money The Private Sector Is Yet Again Rushing to Save Us from Government wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy Business & Economy 5g 4G

What Did Government Use for Light Before Candles? Electricity

 

The answer to everything even remotely policy-related – is less government.

Because the original sin of everything even remotely policy-related – is too much government.

Want to solve our health care “crisis” – ???  Undo the original government sins.

After World War II – taxes were kept at during-WW II levels.  So in an end run around this too much government – the private sector started offering employees untaxed “benefits”…including health insurance.

Post-WW II set up a bizarre, antithetical-to-Reality system…where health insurance isn’t tied to the person – it’s tied to the person’s employer.  Which is inherently very stupid.

Post-WW II set up a bizarre, antithetical-to-Reality system…where health insurance stopped being a catastrophic policy, and started paying for EVERY encounter with a health care provider.

Car insurance pays when you wrap your car around a tree.  Imagine how stupid and expensive it would be – if they were paying for everything up to and including oil changes and windshield wipers.

Post-WW II also set up a bizarre, antithetical-to-Reality third-party-payer system.  The doctor and patient are in the room negotiating services and terms – the guy picking up the tab is not.

Which guarantees skyrocketing prices and costs.  Because human nature.

A buyer wants to buy as much as he can.

A seller wants to sell as much as he can – for as much as he can.

The check and balance upon these billions of daily commercial exchanges – is the buyer’s wallet.

The buyer wants to conserve his coin – so he perpetually looks for the best deals.

The seller wants to sell – so he and the buyer negotiate mutually agreeable deals.

If the guy picking up the tab isn’t involved in the process – price is no object.  And things quickly get REALLY crazy.

Seven decades of third-party-payer health insurance later – things have become really, REALLY crazy.

You want more government further screwing up health care?  There’s plenty, you know.

Medicare, for instance.  You know, the third-party-payer government health care plan for senior citizens.

Medicare is currently at least $40 trillion short.

Medicare doesn’t actually completely cover seniors – so the private sector has to backstop the government.  Medigap, anyone?

And Medicare actually pays medical providers ridiculously low rates for medical goods and services.  So since Medicare’s inception – medical providers have been price-shifting to the private sector.  Charging the private sector much, MUCH more – to subsidize the government.

Steadfastly impervious to facts, Leftists everywhere want to murder private health insurance – and force feed us all into Medicare’s bankrupt, gaping maw.  Medicare for All – is medical care for none.

The solution to this titanic government-caused mess – is less government.  Not more – less.

Allow people to purchase policies in any of the fifty states.

Equalize the government’s treatment of individual-purchased and employer-provided insurance.

And begin to roll back the government’s third-party-payer involvement in…everything.

Another area where government keeps rigidly insisting on inserting itself – is the Internet.

The Internet is perhaps the most successful endeavor in human history.  Nothing has grown bigger, better and faster.

The federal government did in fact create the Internet.  And for decades, it just sat there – inert…gathering dust.

Until the 1990s.  When the government privatized the Internet.  At which point – KABOOM.

United States’ private Internet Service Providers (ISPs) spent the next quarter century investing $1+ trillion dollars building the networks.  Taking us from 14k dial-up snail speeds – to multiple gigabyte hyper speeds.

Which paved the way for millions of other companies to invest trillions of additional dollars creating and developing…everything we know on the Web.  And a whole lot of stuff we don’t.  (It’s a BIG Internet.)

Government controlling the Internet – kept it an unknown, unused bit of nothing.  For decades.

The private sector handling the Internet – created the free speech-free market Xanadu we all know and love today.

Steadfastly impervious to facts, Leftists everywhere want to roll back this titanic private sector success – and revert to a government-controlled Internet.

They want to re-impose the very ridiculous Network Neutrality.  Which an avowed Marxist describes thus:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

How very Venezuela of them.

To “get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control” – you need government Internet as a replacement.

Which Leftists have already long been funding.  How’s that been going?  Remarkably like government health care.

Broadband Boondoggles: A Map of Failed Taxpayer-Funded Networks:

“For decades, local governments have made promises of faster and cheaper broadband networks.

“Unfortunately, these municipal networks often don’t deliver or fail, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

“Explore the map to learn about the massive debt, waste and broken promises left behind by these failed government networks.”

One of the angles Leftists attempt to work in defense of their government Internet efforts – is the lack of Internet access in America’s rural areas.

For those of you who are government school victims – the United States is a VERY large place.  Reaching the US’s very many uber-rural areas with uber-fast Internet – ain’t easy.

That being said, this alleged problem – is already exceedingly overblown:

“(T)he (Federal Communications Commission) FCC still bizarrely only counts a hardline (terrestrial fixed) Internet connection as a connection.  Meaning buried cables criss-crossing America – all the way into your abode.

“But nearly everyone in America has a 4G (Fourth Generation) wireless smartphone. On which you can seamlessly stream High Definition (HD) video – the most bandwidth intensive thing currently to do on the Internet.  (And we’re but a few years away from exponentially-faster-5G).

“And then there is Satellite Internet – for the remaining very few who are bereft of both wired and cellular wireless.

“And those…speeds that serve as the FCC minimum?  They are WAY faster than 98+% of Americans currently need.

“The Truth About Faster Internet: It’s Not Worth It:

“‘Typical U.S. households don’t use most of their bandwidth while streaming and get marginal gains from upgrading speeds.’

“So even while streaming High Definition (HD) video – the most bandwidth intensive thing currently to do on the Internet – ‘typical U.S. households don’t use most of their bandwidth.’

“In other words – just about everyone in America has more-than-sufficient access to the Internet.”

As just mentioned, government has for decades been trying to replicate private ISPs.  And as just mentioned – has been perpetually, miserably failing.

And wait: Here come’s the private sector – yet again riding to the government’s rescue.  And all the rest of us too.  Via the aforementioned 5G wireless network:

“(T)he 5G wireless network – is going to blow the doors off of even the existing, massive private sector success.

“And thereby blow an even larger hole in the Left’s demands for government Internet.

“How 5G Will Solve Rural Broadband:

“‘Starting with advanced versions of 4G LTE and then continuing with 5G, wireless technologies will not only displace many wireline endpoints in dense population areas, but also in low population density areas, including rural areas….

“‘The cost advantage of wireless connections is overwhelming.

“‘A spokesperson for the Wireless ISP Association (WISPA) estimates that a wireless connection to a rural endpoint costs one-fifth to one-tenth of a wireline connection….

“Translation from Tech-to-English:

“The Left’s idea to get into the government into the broadband business – is currently very stupid and dishonest.

“Thanks to the private sector.

“And the Left’s idea to get the government into the broadband business – is about to get exponentially stupider and more dishonest.

“Thanks to the private sector.”

Because service to every single nook and cranny of the United States – is about to get massively faster wireless Internet service.

Thanks to the private sector.

Yet again saving us from government.

And yet again saving government from itself.

The post The Private Sector Is Yet Again Rushing to Save Us from Government appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group danger-big-government-1-620x446-copy-2-300x112 The Private Sector Is Yet Again Rushing to Save Us from Government wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy Business & Economy 5g 4G   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Liberal Comedian Teaches Twitter Mob a Lesson After Criticism for Being Friends With President Bush

Westlake Legal Group EllenDeGeneresGWBush-620x317 Video: Liberal Comedian Teaches Twitter Mob a Lesson After Criticism for Being Friends With President Bush the ellen show Texas Sports Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina LGBTQ LGBT Internet Hollywood Green Bay Packers George W. Bush gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post ellen degeneres democrats Dallas Cowboys Culture California Allow Media Exception

Comedian Ellen DeGeneres was at the Green Bay Packers/Dallas Cowboys game on Sunday at the invitation of Charlotte Jones, the daughter of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

During the game, the cameras panned to Jones’ suite and showed DeGeneres seated next to former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush:

Here’s video of them standing for the national anthem:

Predictably, the liberal Twitter fauxtrage mob was incensed that a gay liberal like Ellen DeGeneres would stoop so low as to sit next to a conservative Republican like Bush. Some of the tweets have since been deleted, but Vox’s Aaron Rupar was one of those who said it was a “bad look” for Ellen and her wife Portia de Rossi to sit next to Bush:

Here are some others who were none too pleased with the seating arrangements:

DeGeneres, who has had Bush and some of his family members on her television show in the past, was not interested in playing the shame game. Here’s what she said Monday on her show in response to the haters:

“People were upset,” DeGeneres said. “They thought, why is a gay Hollywood liberal sitting next to a conservative Republican president?… A lot of people were mad. And they did what people do when they’re mad… they tweet.”
[…]
“Here’s the thing: I’m friends with George Bush. In fact, I’m friends with a lot of people who don’t share the same beliefs that I have,” DeGeneres continued. “We’re all different and I think that we’ve forgotten that that’s okay that we’re all different… but just because I don’t agree with someone on everything doesn’t mean that I’m not going to be friends with them.”
[…]
“When I say, ‘Be kind to one another,’ I don’t mean only the people that think the same way that you do. I mean be kind to everyone. Doesn’t matter.”

Watch the segment below:

Having the ability to break bread with someone you disagree with politically isn’t the end of the world. In fact, it could lead to changed minds depending on the types of conversations you may have. At the very least, it could lead to the other person at least being able to understand someone’s point of view from a different perspective, even if they still end up disagreeing with it.

In the rough and tumble of politics, there’s nothing wrong with fighting tooth and nail for what you believe. There’s also nothing wrong with being able to share a beer with your political opponents at the end of the day. Because although there are indeed people in positions of power who do not have the best interests of our country at heart, not everyone you disagree with is The Enemy.

That was Ellen’s lesson and though I disagree with her more often than not, I applaud her for pointing this out.

By the way, the Packers won 34-24.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Liberal Comedian Teaches Twitter Mob a Lesson After Criticism for Being Friends With President Bush appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group EllenDeGeneresGWBush-300x153 Video: Liberal Comedian Teaches Twitter Mob a Lesson After Criticism for Being Friends With President Bush the ellen show Texas Sports Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina LGBTQ LGBT Internet Hollywood Green Bay Packers George W. Bush gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post ellen degeneres democrats Dallas Cowboys Culture California Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-07-at-11.16.35-AM Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Google Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy Climate Change Climate China California Business & Economy 5g 4G

President Donald Trump early Monday morning Tweeted:

“We just WON the big court case on Net Neutrality Rules! A great win for the future and speed of the internet. Will lead to many big things including 5G. Congratulations to the FCC and its Chairman, Ajit Pai!”

All of which is absolutely correct.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit did in fact rule the Trump Administration’s decision to undo the Barack Obama Administration’s unilateral, illegal imposition of the ridiculous Network Neutrality – was Constitutional and legal.

The courts upholding the Trump Administration restoring order – after lawless Obama Administration illegal, unilateral power grabs – is by no means a fait d’acomppli.

Appeals Court Upholds Block on Trump’s Attempt to End DACA

The Obama Administration – under its unilateral, illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) – declared ill-defined, amorphous amnesty from prosecution for millions of illegal aliens.

Somehow, multiple clowns in gowns have ruled the Trump Administration’s attempt to revert to immigration law actually passed by our elected Congress – is illegal.  The courts – are thereby codifying the Obama Administration’s lawlessness.

So we are thankful for the DC Circuit’s excellent tether to Constitutional sanity with its Net Neutrality rollback ruling.

Most unfortunately, the Court left open a hole huge enough for a Leftist caravan to roll on through:

“The federal appeals court’s decision upheld the FCC’s reclassification of broadband Internet access service as an information service, rather than as a telecommunications service, but argued that states can pass their own net neutrality legislation.”

Emphasis ours – because that is a TERRIBLE ruling:

“This…(is) a clear violation of the (Constitution’s) Commerce Clause:

‘[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’

“The Commerce Clause was – like all of the Constitution – a government-limiting entry. It was written to prevent states from big-government-imposing barriers to interstate commerce.

“How to Understand the Commerce Clause in One Simple Sentence:

“‘Congress has the authority to regulate trade between the states; or in other words, the process of goods and services moving from one state to another. Not the products themselves. Not the process of creating those products. Just the act of the products moving from state to state. That’s it.’

“Get that eminent simplicity?

“Let us…focus on the ‘trade between the states…(and) the process of goods and services moving from one state to another.’

“Bits on the Internet – criss-cross state and international borders hundreds of millions of times a second.

“To think that a single U.S. state here or there has the prerogative to regulate something that is so obviously a Commerce-Clause-federal-responsibility – is warped, ideological nonsense.

“It violates both the letter and the spirit of the deregulatory Commerce Clause.

“Because it exponentially grows government.”

Indeed it does.  To trained lawyers appointed as judges – all of this should be quite obvious:

“(T)he WORLD Wide Web is clearly a federal government issue.  The Feds determine our nation’s Internet policy.  And then The Feds negotiate Internet interactions with other nations.”

The federal government cannot successfully do that – if its policy is incessantly being exceeded or undercut by a state here or there.

State-by-State Net Neutrality Laws Breakdown:

“More than half of states in America are opposing the FCC’s ‘Internet Freedom’ bill with local Net Neutrality state laws.”

Washington Governor Signs First State Net Neutrality Bill

California’s Net Neutrality Bill Is Back and as Tough as Ever:

“‘This will be the most comprehensive and the strongest net neutrality protection in the United States, where we are restoring what we lost when Donald Trump’s FCC obliterated net neutrality,’ (Democrat state Senator Scott) Wiener told reporters….”

So the DC Circuit Court’s ruling – undercuts its ruling.

Their Honors ruled the Trump Administration can restore order – until the many states destroy order.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – will be forced to deal with an insane patchwork quilt of fifty different Net Neutrality regulatory regimes.

Complying with this nightmare mess – is going to cost ISPs a LOT of time and money.

Time and money I’d rather them spend – on increasing speeds and decreasing prices.

The federal government will have to take this titanic mishmash of fifty-state-regime Brunswick Stew (a dish famous for containing any and everything).  And try to cobble together a semi-coherent federal policy.  So as to try to incorporate our Internet – with the rest of the planet’s Internet.

Are you familiar with the expression…?

A Camel Is a Horse Designed by a Committee:

“An expression critical of committees – or by analogy, group decision-making – by emphasizing the ineffectiveness of incorporating too many conflicting opinions into a single project through compromise.

“In this figure of speech, the distinguishing features of a camel, such as its humps and poor temperament, are taken to be the deformities that resulted from its poor design.”

Imagine a REALLY surly camel – with fifty different humps.

That will be US Internet policy.

An incoherent mess.  Caused by federal officials having to constantly look over their shoulders for fifty different, often shifting Net Neutrality regulatory mandates.

Rather than looking forward – at how to best situate US in the global Internet regime.

This ain’t great for our nation.

This ain’t in compliance with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

The latter, of course – guarantees the former.

Because, as always – the further we get from Constitutional compliance…the worse things get for us all.

The post Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-07-at-11.16.35-AM-300x122 Trump Is Correct on Net Neutrality Court Win – But That Wasn’t the Whole Ruling wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Google Global Warming Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy Climate Change Climate China California Business & Economy 5g 4G   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Proof that YouTube Is Censoring Non-Mainstream Conservative Content Surfaces

Westlake Legal Group google-Hillary-Clinton-1067x600-620x349 Proof that YouTube Is Censoring Non-Mainstream Conservative Content Surfaces United States Steven Crowder shadowban Politics Paul Joseph Watson Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Censorship blacklist Allow Media Exception

We all know it’s happening. Social media suppresses conservative voices, articles, and videos all the time.

One person in particular who has been censored both overtly and behind the scenes is Steven Crowder, who claimed that his content was being censored. It turned out that he was right, and that his videos would not pop up if you searched for them by name.

They would continuously show themselves in overseas countries, but in America, they were being censored. Crowder created a video to show first-hand screenshots.

As Crowder says in the video, this happening in the United States, where we celebrate free speech, has some very dark implications.

The problem is that it doesn’t end there.

Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News also did an experiment and searched for a video specifically by name called “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.” The video features Clinton caught telling lies about her political positions as you can see.

Entering the name of the video directly into YouTube’s search function yields many results, but not this video as you Watson shows in a screenshot.

Westlake Legal Group 011019search-620x735 Proof that YouTube Is Censoring Non-Mainstream Conservative Content Surfaces United States Steven Crowder shadowban Politics Paul Joseph Watson Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Censorship blacklist Allow Media Exception

I recreated the search myself and got the same exact result.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-620x431 Proof that YouTube Is Censoring Non-Mainstream Conservative Content Surfaces United States Steven Crowder shadowban Politics Paul Joseph Watson Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Censorship blacklist Allow Media Exception

Meaning that YouTube is actively censoring this video about Clinton, and one that would be damning to her if she were to ever run again, which is a rumor that is floating around at this time. In its place are mainstream sources for videos giving commentary and one promotional video by Clinton herself.

While I wouldn’t call all the videos presented flattering to Clinton (with the obvious exception of one) I wouldn’t exactly call them damaging, unlike the one showing her blatantly lying is.

Google’s attempting to protect and promote Clinton has not been anything new. In fact, as a pro-Clinton author detailed, the relationship between Google and Hillary, and noted that it goes much deeper than support from Google employees for her campaign as he detailed in a series of tweets:

Now, switching to Hillary Clinton: This is going to hurt me to write, because I & my whole extended family have been strong supporters of the Clintons for decades. I have a framed, signed letter from Bill on the wall near my desk. But Hillary should be ashamed of herself.

Hillary has long depended on Google for both money & votes. Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google. Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec. And then there’s Eric Schmidt, longtime head of Google …

A leaked email showed that in 2014 Google’s Eric Schmidt offered to run Hillary’s tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office.

About 96% of 2016 campaign donations from Google employees went to Hillary. And Elan Kriegel, Hillary’s Chief Analytics Officer, credits his 2012 tech team, informally supervised by Eric Schmidt, for half of Obama’s win margin: nearly 2.5 million votes.

Even if Clinton doesn’t run, what we have here is pretty solid evidence that Google is willing to rig searches in order to better benefit a Democratic candidate.

The post Proof that YouTube Is Censoring Non-Mainstream Conservative Content Surfaces appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group google-Hillary-Clinton-1067x600-300x169 Proof that YouTube Is Censoring Non-Mainstream Conservative Content Surfaces United States Steven Crowder shadowban Politics Paul Joseph Watson Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Censorship blacklist Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Almost All ‘Research’ ‘Studies’ – Forcefully Draw Liquids Through Straws

Westlake Legal Group Diploma-Mill-Colleges-620x434 Almost All ‘Research’ ‘Studies’ – Forcefully Draw Liquids Through Straws wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Google Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy China California Business & Economy 5g 4G

One of the largest, ongoing, rolling government scams?

Using taxpayer money to fund “research” – so as to generate “studies.”

And governments spend a LOT of our money – on “research” to generate “studies.”

Who Pays for Science?:

“Today, we all do. Most scientific research is funded by government grants….”

And he who pays the piper – calls the tune.

Because human nature.

Governments nigh always get for what they pay.  Because if governments don’t get for what they pay – they stop paying.

Those getting paid – certainly know the score.

Even when the bought-off “researchers” do “research” with non-government money – they know not to anger with their “studies” their far-and-away-largest paymasters.

So NIGH EVERY SINGLE “study” – toes the government line.

The government line is, of course:

The results of ALL your “research” and ALL your “studies” – must call for more government.  And for whatever else government is calling.

We have based large swaths of our lives, tons of government policy and tens of trillions of our dollars – on this one-sided, biased, outcome-driven nonsense.

The quintessential example of this?

Of course – it is the inanity that is Cataclysmic-Man-Made-Climate-Change.

Governments the world over have over the last half-century-plus spent multiple trillions of dollars of our money – on “research” for climate “studies.”

Guess how many of those multiple trillions of our dollars have gone to those skeptical of Cataclysmic-Man-Made-Climate-Change?

It’s as metaphysically close to zero as you’re ever going to get.

Cataclysmic-Man-Made-Climate-Change – is the Greatest Scam on Earth.

When the “research” doesn’t turn out the way government wants it – and it nigh always does, because Cataclysmic-Man-Made-Climate-Change is a giant scam – everyone starts faking the data.

The government certainly does.

World Leaders Duped by Manipulated Global Warming Data

Though I’m not entirely sure they weren’t in on the scam….

NOAA Got Caught Faking Global Warming Temperature Data

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!

And certainly the bought-off “researchers” fake the data.

Climate Change: This Is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud:

“The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda….

“The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).”

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock the Global Warming Debate:

“Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

“(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;

“(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and

“(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.”

Why this world-wide, multi-decade, massive scam?

Because the alleged “solution” to the “problem” of Cataclysmic-Man-Made-Climate-Change – is MUCH more government.  Natch.

Green New Deal Would Cost Up to $93 Trillion

Well…that’s a lot.

The Green New Deal: Less About Climate, More About Control

No kidding.  Even it’s likely author cops to the scam….

AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change:

“Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted recently that the true motivation behind introducing the Green New Deal is to overhaul the ‘entire economy.’…

“The Green New Deal,…would transition the U.S. economy entirely away from fossil fuels within ten years while simultaneously providing a federal jobs and healthcare guarantee.

“It would also, according to its proponents, advance ‘social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.’”

That doesn’t sound very government-expanding at all.

Why are we less government types so skeptical of so much?

Because so much government – has polluted so much.

So when the following raft of headlines came this weekend across the transom – we were more than a mite dubious….

Massive Study Proves Once And For All That No, Net Neutrality Did Not Hurt Broadband Investment

Study Proves The FCC’s Core Justification for Killing Net Neutrality Was False

New Study Finds Net Neutrality Rules Didn’t Harm Investment

Gee…who did this groundbreaking “study”…?

You have to search for yourself – because none of these “news” outlets tell you….

Meet Dr. Christopher Hooton:

“Dr. Christopher Hooton is the founding Chief Economist & Head of Research at Internet Association where he leads the organization’s economic analysis and research on the internet sector.”

Gee…what is the Internet Association…?:

“Internet Association is the only trade association that exclusively represents leading global internet companies on matters of public policy.”

Which companies?  Amongst many others:

Microsoft         (Market Cap: $1.1 trillion)

Amazon           (Market Cap: $854 billion)

Google            (Market Cap: $843 billion)

Facebook        (Market Cap: $506 billion)

Twitter             (Market Cap: $32 billion)

Hooton did his “research” for his “study” – under the auspices of George Washington University.

Because we know college isn’t a bastion for corrupt “research” and “studies.”

See: East Anglia University.  And just about every college and university in the United States….

And what is the Internet Association’s longstanding position on Net Neutrality?

Vociferously for it, natch.

Net Neutrality Repeal Challenged by Internet Association in New Lawsuit

It’s almost hard to believe the Internet Association’s founding Chief Economist & Head of Research – has penned a “study” in defense of Net Neutrality.

Is this the Internet Association’s first foray into dubious Net Neutrality “research?”

Heavens no.

From 2017 – when the Donald Trump Administration was teeing up its right, righteous Net Neutrality un-doing:

Net Neutrality Investment Study Used ‘Corrupted, Made Up Data,’ Economist Says:

“The study was done by the Internet Association that represents pro-net neutrality companies like Amazon, Google and the like….

“A study showing zero impact on internet provider investment by net neutrality rules relied on ‘corrupted’ and ‘made up data,’ according to one economist….

“‘Dr. Hooton fabricates (via interpolation) three-fourths of the data he analyzes…for cable industry broadband investment,’ (economist George Ford said).”

And guess who did this “corrupted” study with “made up data”….

Why…it’s again our old friend Hooton.  The Internet Association’s founding Chief Economist & Head of Research.

And does imposition of Net Neutrality result in less government – or more government?

Just as with the Green New Deal, Net Neutrality results in much, MUCH more government.

Net Neutrality Is About Government Control of the Internet

Indeed it is.

One of its biggest proponents – gleefully admits it:

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

How very Venezuela.

And for the members of the Internet Association – Net Neutrality is a HUGE government-cronyism gift.

Net Neutrality a Sweet Deal for ‘Bandwidth Hogs’:

“Net Neutrality – in which all Internet traffic flows at one speed without preference for any content provider – is a hit with companies such as Google and Netflix that hope to dodge paying for the huge amount of online bandwidth they actually use….”

Oh – and did Net Neutrality cause a drop in Internet investment?

Of course it did.

Because more government – always means less private sector.

Because human nature.

So Net Neutrality is a magical, harmonic convergence.

Of government expansion – and government cronyism.

And oozing from this nexus of DC Swamp-titude – is this latest, ridiculous “study.”

“Researched” by – the founding Chief Economist & Head of Research of the Internet Association.

Whose members benefit HUGE from government’s imposition of Net Neutrality.

How very DC of…everyone.

The post Almost All ‘Research’ ‘Studies’ – Forcefully Draw Liquids Through Straws appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Diploma-Mill-Colleges-300x210 Almost All ‘Research’ ‘Studies’ – Forcefully Draw Liquids Through Straws wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet of Things Internet Government Google Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy China California Business & Economy 5g 4G   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The ADL Labeled the “OK” Symbol White Supremacist and the Internet Is Tearing Them Apart

 

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-7-620x378 The ADL Labeled the “OK” Symbol White Supremacist and the Internet Is Tearing Them Apart white supremacy twitter symbol of hate racism Politics Okay Internet Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture Allow Media Exception ADL

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has found the largest shark they could and jumped it as they have now labeled the commonly used “OK” sign as a symbol of white supremacy.

According to The Hill, the ADL added the hand sign to its “hate on display” database, alongside the burning cross and swastika, and the bowl haircut of the Charleston shooter:

“Even as extremists continue to use symbols that may be years or decades old, they regularly create new symbols, memes and slogans to express their hateful sentiments,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s CEO, said in a statement.

“We believe law enforcement and the public needs to be fully informed about the meaning of these images, which can serve as a first warning sign to the presence of haters in a community or school.”

The “OK” sign has become popular in recent years among far-right extremists and white supremacists who use it to make the letter shapes for “w” and “p,” which stand for “white power.”

If you think this is a bit ridiculous, and going way too far, you’re not alone. The internet responded to this overblown nonsense exactly the way it should. Responding to The Hill’s post, many posted pictures of celebrities and politicians, many of whom are not white, using the “OK” symbol.

The ADL received much of the same kind of response when it posted a video explaining its decision, as well as the history of the “OK” sign, as well as articles about the “bowl cut” being a consistently chosen hairstyle for many.

The truth is that the “OK” symbol is so widely used that calling it a white supremacist sign because 4Chan successfully memed it so as a hoax doesn’t make it a white supremacist sign. Everyone uses it, has used it, or will use it as a sign to indicate that a thing or situation is good.

The only people creating hate symbols here are the ADL. If they didn’t put so much time and effort into making mountains out of molehills, the OK symbol would go right back to being what it always has been and no one would have thought otherwise. Instead, the ADL, as they usually do, are throwing as much gas on the flames as they can by making it a big deal.

In effect, the ADL is creating these hate symbols by putting so much focus on them, not the public.

 

 

The post The ADL Labeled the “OK” Symbol White Supremacist and the Internet Is Tearing Them Apart appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-7-300x183 The ADL Labeled the “OK” Symbol White Supremacist and the Internet Is Tearing Them Apart white supremacy twitter symbol of hate racism Politics Okay Internet Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture Allow Media Exception ADL   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com