Democrats want to fact-check your cell phone text messages
I think this is a significant escalation from fact-checking public posts on social media, and even from doing that in direct/private messages on social media platforms. Cell phone messaging predates most of the internet services messaging capabilities and is generally viewed as significantly more private. If this is implemented, suddenly the Democrats will be inserting themselves into the private conversations of many older and less technically sophisticated Americans who did not previously feel personally impacted by spying and censorship.
When companies like facebook and the media collude to suppress opposition to their favored narrative and policies, they destroy any trust in anything they say or allow to be said. Censorship is counterproductive when your message is true. It's only when your message is false that it becomes necessary.
The SPLC has already thoroughly discredited itself, and any groups associated with them should have no part in anything like this. Not that that matters, since this is a political purge of the US military. Obama purged the officer core and Biden is purging the rank and file. The next step, likely in 2024, will be using the military against the people.
MA government told Twitter to delete tweets of Senate candidate
We've seen recent revelations about California and Iowa officials making similar censorship demands of Big Tech companies. Funny how it's all about private companies exercising their own discretion until you find out the government is giving them instructions.
Police officer investigated for Molon Labe keychain
The phrase has been associated with the right to keep and bears arms -- not just the three-percenters, which are a more recent development -- since ancient Greece. This whole panic over anyone who believes in America as the Constitution defined it is political bullshit. And no, the right to keep and bear arms is not extremist.
There are three boxes to which a free man can go when seeking to remain free.
He begins with the soap box -- advocating for retaining his liberty, using the 1st Amendment to protect his ability to speak. The media's bias (especially following the final capitulation of Fox News), combined with Big Tech's censorship of the internet, and pervasive cancel culture, have created a situation where speech is no longer free.
If speech alone is insufficient, he moves to the ballot box, voting for leaders who will correct the situation. While this may not resolve the problem immediately, so long as leaders are chosen by popular vote in free and fair elections there remains hope.
The presidential race in 2020 appears to have demonstrated that the ballot box is no longer free or fair.
That only leaves one box left. Pray we need not open it.
Wikipedia now censoring support for traditional marriage
The problem here is that censoring something like this does not make it go away (as Wikipedia no doubt wishes), it just prevents that opinion from being expressed on a certain platform. It's a thumb on the scales of the overton window, as I saw it described somewhere earlier today; it's not a rational argument, not a discussion, not an explanation, merely a declaration that a certain position is verboten in polite society. Not only does the law not agree with that opinion (any longer, even though this change to millennia of law only happened recently), that opinion can no longer be spoken about at all, thus hampering anyone who disagrees from expressing their disagreement.
This is evil. It is evil in the unique manner of totalitarian technological societies; a minor evil that hurts millions of people just a little bit, and thus hopes to achieve great evil while sliding beneath the notice of those who might oppose it effectively.
This is an obvious attempt at influencing the election, and should result in Twitter being denied any protections against suits for those tweets it does not correct or remove, as Twitter has now claimed for itself an editorial role rather than being a content-neutral service provider. Trump has responded with an executive order emphasizing the importance of free speech and declaring that, by stepping back from political neutrality, Twitter has become a publisher making editorial decisions instead of a platform, thus stripping their protections from suit under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
... and they did it because of red flag laws. They are also refusing to share their bodycam footage, because of course they are. After all, that footage would expose them as liars who shot and killed a man while he slept peacefully in bed next to his pregnant girlfriend, who they also shot.
The police are keeping the survivors under surveillance and threatening them with arrest if they attend protests.
Everyone involved here needs to go on trial for murder and violation of civil rights. But they won't. Because they are police.
I'm not sure if I want to go that far. Any serious attempt at regulating the media would invite regulatory capture immediately, and backfire upon the small, indepedent bloggers and commentators. But to be honest... yes, I do think the media attention given to mass murders that happen at school contributes to them happening again and again and again.
Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) issued the following statement regarding the Internal Revenue Service informing the Committee that they have lost Lois Lerner emails from a period of January 2009 April 2011. Due to a supposed computer crash, the agency only has Lerner emails to and from other IRS employees during this time frame. The IRS claims it cannot produce emails written only to or from Lerner and outside agencies or groups, such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices.
Do the words obstruction of justice ring a bell?
There is no way this was anything other than a completely deliberate attempt to cover up incriminating evidence.
When it was Nixon, they said "It's not the crime, it's the coverup."
Major media is paid by government agencies for specific content
Those who have been paying attention have known this was true for some time in the realm of entertainment programming. If you ever wondered why so many children's shows have ham-handed anti-drug messaging, wonder no more: running an anti-drug storyline was good enough to tick a box and get money from the government, so of course everyone did. But a new revelation indicates that a similar situation exists for news programming:
Amber Lyon is an award-winning journalist who worked for CNN. She says while working at CNN she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration (like the Nick Robertson report), and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network. Why? According to Lyon CNN is paid by foreign and domestic Government agencies for specific content. [Emphasis added]
They are also paid by foreign governments to not air things, with an example at the link above. I can remember when CNN previously admitted to not reporting the truth from Baghdad while Saddam Hussein was in power.