Facebook Excuses Won't Work in 2019 as More Conservatives Are Banned on Social Media
    
By Diamond & Silk

Facebook’s excuses for banning conservatives are so 2018. With the latest scandalous round of conservative expulsions from the social media giant and other platforms, circa 2019, Americans can no longer accept Mark Zuckerberg’s explanations for banning conservatives online.

In our own case, when Facebook banned some of our posts in 2017, calling us “unsafe,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg told senators it was just “an error in enforcement."

At the time, far-left, Trump-hating "reporters” rushed out to call us liars, saying basically that the popularity of our social media pages “debunked” the idea that Big Tech is censoring Trump supporters and conservatives.

That lame argument won’t be enough to excuse the way Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Silicon Valley liberal oligopoly have been acting lately, though. There’s nothing “debunked” about this latest round of censorship.

Last week, Facebook took down a whole wishlist of pages representing some of the Democrats’ top targets and scapegoats, even threatening to ban regular users who share content from those accounts. Facebook can swear up and down that it’s about “stopping hate” or “fake news” or whatever, but we know the real reason: more free speech on social media is bad for Democrats.

Even banning Louis Farrakhan, the Jew-hating “minister” and chum of Barack Obama and Keith Ellison, serves the Democrat Party’s interests. He was becoming too much of a problem for Democrats every time Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube banned conservatives. People could just say “what about Farrakhan calling Jewish people ‘termites?’” and we were once again reminded about that inconvenient history of prominent Democrats inviting Farrakhan’s hateful butt to hang out.

Somehow, Facebook even got the liberal media to call Farrakhan a “far-right” leader. He has been a hero of leftist radicals for 45 years for preaching about white people being devils. It’s like they expect us to believe that Farrakhan was a MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporter, even after the co-founder of the anti-Trump hate group known as the “Women’s March” called him “the greatest of all time."

Give us a break!

Twitter is getting in on the action, too, snuffing out a clearly labeled parody account with around 85,000 followers that poked fun at socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the grounds that it was "fake."

Twitter used its data collection to identify the owner — an orthodox Jewish man named Mike Morrison — and handed him a permanent ban, not just of his AOC parody account, but of his 50,000-follower personal account, as well.

It just goes to show that if you make Democrats look silly on social media, their friends in Silicon Valley will be sure to put a stop to it.

Meanwhile, some jerk Democrat state representative in Philadelphia is using Twitter to mock and harass an old lady and some underage girls who were peacefully praying and respectfully protesting outside a planned parenthood clinic in his district. State Representative Brian Sims offered to pay his supporters to identify the anti-abortion activists so they can get more hate. Sims is still allowed on the platform, even though Twitter has a very specific rule against "targeted harassment."

Why? Because Sims is a Democrat, and the women he targeted for harassment are pro-life Christians.

Big Tech’s support for the liberal agenda is not just a one-way street, of course.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Mazie Hirono have both gone out of their way to defend Big Tech censorship lately, for instance. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Nadler’s top corporate donor is Google’s parent company Alphabet, or that both he and Hirono take big bucks from Facebook?

In response to the latest batch of bans, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden took steps to defend Big Tech, anticipating that Republicans will try to take corrective action against the social media companies. The easiest way conservatives could get a little protection from all this censorship is by revising Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a special set of privileges for internet companies.

As President Trump pointed out just the other day, "Social Media & Fake News Media, together with their partner, the Democrat Party, have no idea the problems they are causing for themselves."

Wyden helped write the Communications Decency Act 23 years ago. Now he’s claiming it’s all about allowing Facebook to "weed out hate."

Really, Senator? Because when you got the chance to explain why you wrote the law, in its preamble, you didn’t say a word about "hate.” What you did say is that “interactive online services” should get special protections because they “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse."

But as soon as prominent conservatives start suggesting that maybe the law should be changed because Facebook clearly hasn’t been living up to its end of the deal, suddenly that "diversity of political discourse” stuff is forgotten in favor of “weeding out hate."

Did we mention that Wyden gets ten of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Facebook and Alphabet, too?

The anti-conservative censorship that Big Tech practices on behalf of its Democratic bedfellows is no "error.” The only “error” they made was in being so blatant about it. It’s no longer 2018, and Big Tech’s outdated excuses won’t work on the American people anymore.

SOURCE  






BSA Leaders and Demos Ignore Homosexual Predators

In returning abusers to leadership positions, BSA failed boys and their families

The Boy Scouts of America, at the national level, has certainly fumbled past policies regarding abusers. As we have written plainly, BSA’s current policies regarding homosexual Scout leaders are PC absurdity. But it’s interesting to note that the latest Democrat inquiry into Scouts, and the letter of apology from the chief Scout executive, do not dare mention the fact that BSA now affirms homosexual leaders of Boy Scout units.

California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier is leading a probe into abuse claims against the BSA, and a striking letter from BSA Chief Executive Michael B. Surbaugh walks back previous denials about reinstating leaders suspected of abuse. “When I sent my response to your November 20, 2018 letter, I believed in good faith, and with deeply felt conviction, that BSA would never have knowingly allowed a sexual predator to work with youth,” he wrote to Speier. “Since then, I have learned that my response was incorrect. I have reviewed information that now makes clear to me that decades ago BSA did, in at least some instances, allow individuals to return to Scouting even after credible accusations of sexual abuse. I am devastated that this ever occurred. On behalf of BSA, I sincerely apologize to the individuals affected by this practice.”

Furthermore, emphasizing the disconnect between local Scouting organizations and the national BSA board, area Scout executives were told nothing about these letters to Congress.

Mark Alexander is the father of two Eagle Scouts, and an executive Scout council board member who was a Scout leader for 15 years. He has strongly objected to the BSA’s politically correct policy of welcoming homosexual leaders. Regarding the BSA’s acknowledgement of prior homosexual predation by Scout leaders, Alexander notes, “The the absurd current PC policy of affirming homosexual Scout leaders is in obvious conflict with the past history of homosexual leader predation on boys. That conflict is the 600 pound gorilla in the room, yet neither the Democrats investigating the BSA abuses nor the inept BSA national leadership dare acknowledge it.”

SOURCE  





'Woke Christians' Offended by Prayer for President

Since its founding, the United States has prized the freedom of religion and explicitly protected it from government interference. However, that freedom was never intended to mean that government was to be free from religious influence or people of faith. This reality is seen in the fact that all of America's presidents have claimed a religious faith and have been members of a Christian church. That also goes for the vast majority of members of Congress throughout our history. To put it bluntly, our nation has had a long history of religiously minded individuals being involved in government at all levels.

Yet quite a stir was created after President Donald Trump unexpectedly turned up at a large nondenominational Christian church in the DC suburb of McLean, Virginia, and asked for prayer on Sunday. The pastor, David Platt, a relatively well-known Christian leader in Evangelical circles, was caught off guard but quickly obliged. He offered an appropriate nonpartisan prayer — the kind of prayer Christians have been praying for political leaders since it was first commanded in Scripture some 2,000 years ago.

Much of the controversy may be blamed on the current hyper-partisan American culture. With Trump vilified daily by the Leftmedia to the point of being seen even by some Evangelicals as "the problem in the world today," it's not surprising that a pastoral prayer over the president would be considered "the wrong thing to do."

Platt, evidently feeling negative blowback over his decision to pray over Trump, sought to explain and defend his decision in an open letter. Platt rightly pointed to 1 Timothy 2, noting that Christians are commanded to pray for political leaders, irrespective of how righteous or unrighteous these leaders may be. (Many scholars believe Nero, a major persecutor of Christians, was emperor of Rome when the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Timothy.)

Platt then writes, "I wanted to share all of this with you in part because I know that some within our church, for a variety of valid reasons, are hurt that I made this decision. This weighs heavy on my heart." Here's where we see the problem. Platt gives a pass to those Christians who harbor an attitude of such self-righteousness that it would "hurt" them to see their pastor publicly pray for a sinner like Trump.

Leave it to an atheist to get this more correct than Platt. Hot Air's Allahpundit writes, "I'm just a simple unfrozen atheist caveman, unqualified to tell Christians how to practice their faith, but I can tell you this: In 12 years of Catholic schooling, not once was it intimated to me that it might be wrong to pray for someone. The very idea of it shocks me even now, decades later. Prayer is never wrong. If anything, it's more righteous when offered for the wicked, that God might turn their hearts and redeem them. ... What are the anti-Trump congregants of this church learning about their faith to make them feel 'hurt' that the pastor would pray for someone whom they deem wicked? And what is the pastor of this church teaching to make them believe it's 'valid' to feel that way?"

Clearly, Democrats and the Left would love nothing more than to divide the Evangelical world over politics. Christian leaders hoping to avoid catering to one political party over another are finding it increasingly difficult, as seemingly everything has become a political issue. This is what happens when God is diminished and the state begins to take the place of God in people's lives.

SOURCE  






No doubt Australian Christian footballer was fired by Qantas, says Mark Latham

Biffo seems to have the goods on this.  The Qantas chief is after all an outspoken homosexual

One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham has accused Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce and other corporate sponsors of Rugby Australia of forcing Israel Folau’s sacking in comments under parliamentary privilege this morning.

Mr Latham says that Qantas’s views on Mr Folau’s comments on homosexuals going to hell on a social media post resulted in Rugby Australia fearing lost sponsorship revenue and forcing Mr Folau’s departure.

He read from a witness statement by Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle from the Folau hearing which mentioned her concern at losing Qantas’s sponsorship because of Mr Folau’s comments.

Qantas provided a comment from Mr Joyce on the issue last month where he said: “We don’t sponsor something to get involved in controversy. That’s not part of the deal. We expect our partners to take the appropriate action. It’s their issue, they have to deal with it.”

Quoting Ms Castle this morning, Mr Latham said: “I calculated … at least $10 million of annual sponsorship revenue … was at significantly greater risk as a result of Mr Folau’s conduct.”

Mr Latham added: “The head of Rugby Australia is putting a commercial value on the religious freedom of Israel Folau. “That just shows the fix was in. Qantas knew Folau was going to get punted.

“Ms Castle was acting as the slave of [Alan] Joyce within her organisation. “She knew what he wanted without even a direct conversation with him.”

Mr Latham said: “75 years ago today young men from across the free world stormed the beaches of Normandy … to fight for the freedom of all mankind”.

“How in 2019 are so many Australians worried about the loss of religious freedom?” Mr Latham said. “How in 2019 do we look at Israel Folau and wonder how a football player and resident of NSW has lost his job?

“We’re fighting dictatorial corporations who purchase … control of sporting codes. “These big corporate chiefs preach diversity . . but they’re trying to impose uniformity.”

Mr Latham quoted Ms Castle’s written evidence which said days before Folau’s post Rugby Australia had commenced commercial negotiations with Qantas on further sponsorship.” She said corporate partners including Qantas had approached her at a meeting to “express their concerns”.

Mr Latham rose later and said “There’s no doubt Israel Folau was sacked by Qantas.”

He asked Labor members of the Legislative Council whether they wanted to support Qantas, or the worker in Israel Folau.

Mr Latham said it was outrageous Mr Folau had been sacked for comments he made well away from his workplace and it was not like he had made them in a post-match interview.

SOURCE  

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************