Connect with us

Opinions

Twitter suspensions will continue until every conservative is silenced, unless…

Published

on

Twitter suspensions will continue until every conservative is silenced unless

Twitter is targeting conservatives. Some would argue they always have, but things have changed in the past couple of weeks that should infuriate anyone who believes men are not women, migrant caravans are not harmless, or free speech should be allowable even on social media.

The pretense of being politically unbiased has been dropped based on Twitter’s actions. If you ask their press office, they’d never admit to it, but following a string of high-profile conservative suspensions and bannings, it’s clear they’re in the process of a purge.

Combat veteran Jesse Kelly, who hosts a radio show and is a regular contributor on The Federalist, was permanently banned from Twitter yesterday. At this point, nobody, including Kelly, seems to know why.

Once or twice and it could be a coincidence. But Laura Loomer, Michael KnowlesCandace Owens, Bruce Carroll, James Woods, Gavin McInnes, and other prominent conservative voices have been temporarily suspended or completely banned recently. Tucker Carlson and Fox News have stopped using the platform after Twitter refused to take down Tweets listing Carlson’s home address. Glenn Reynolds, better known as Instapundit, deleted his Twitter account in protest.

These recent actions have many conservatives concerned.

“Twitter started by banning people on the fringes, and now it seems they’re starting to move in and target conservatives who are closer to the mainstream like Jesse Kelly,” said Kassy Dillon, a writer at DailyWire. “It’s a shame. Twitter needs to be more clear about what rules people are violating.”

This isn’t the first time the site has been accused of quashing conservative voices. Earlier this year, reports of “shadow banning” emerged. Conservatives were allegedly targeted by the platform. Twitter denied it, but reports continued to come in of strange results on Twitter searches and reduced exposure for known conservatives.

With the rash of actual bans and suspensions, there’s no way for Twitter to hide it this time. It’s right in front of us. So how should conservatives respond?

“Twitter, clearly, is not a platform for free speech,” said Chris Pandolfo from Conservative Review. “So what are conservatives prepared to do about it other than… complain on Twitter? I don’t know the answer to that question and the bannings will continue until someone on the right can answer it.”

Is there an answer? Do conservative switch platforms? Do we abandon social media? Do we throttle down our opinions? Nothing seems immediately viable on the surface when faced with a platform many rely on that seems bent on stifling us.

There aren’t many alternatives with the same sized audience. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Reddit are the only domestic social platforms with comparable reach. If a user’s goal is to share ideological messages and communicate to the masses, isolated alternatives like gab.ai won’t help. They’re simply echo chambers, which is possibly what Twitter is trying to become on greater scale.

Hateful conduct policy

At the heart of this issue is the recently updated Hateful Conduct Policy. In it are some obvious reasons for censorship such as calls for violence against an individual or group. But one of the additions that has many scratching their head is “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

It means you can’t call a transgender woman a man even if biologically speaking they are.

It means you can’t call Caitlyn Jenner by her male birth name, Bruce.

It means you can get banned for asking why a transgender woman isn’t a man, as Meghan Murphy learned last week.

Murphy is not a conservative. She’s a progressive feminist. But even she was suspended for declaring that men aren’t women and asking questions about transgenderism. That tells us something very important. It isn’t necessarily conservative accounts that are being targeted, though they’re obviously more on Twitter’s radar. It’s conservative ideas that are the target.

This means the situation is actually worse than we thought. If conservative philosophies are Twitter’s focus, then it isn’t about not offending other users. It’s really more about offending social justice warriors such as the ones on Twitter’s leadership and censorship teams.

Bethany S. Mandel, who also writes for The Federalist with Kelly, sees the company culture at Twitter as a driving force behind the purge.

“This is the result of the left wing bubble Twitter staff operate in,” she said. “They whine and complain about Trump’s supposed war on the press, but have no qualms silencing speech they simply disagree with.”

To many, this seems like a free speech issue, but as Mandel points out, the Constitution doesn’t protect us from the whims of a private company. It’s their platform. They don’t have to be fair.

“We don’t have a 1st Amendment right to Twitter, but a lot of us give them an awful lot of free content,” she said. “The value add has been disappearing for some time. It’s time for conservatives to start considering alternatives platforms.”

It started on the fringe but has spread to the middle

Incremental change is what can kill conservatism on Twitter. They started by hitting the fringe elements attributed to the right, such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Now they’re moving towards the middle. How will they get there? By adding to the list of suspension-worthy offenses.

Knowles was suspended over a joke which was actually pretty common on Twitter. He told Democrats to get ready for election day on Wednesday, November 7. This was very clearly a joke and even some on the left told a variation of “alerting” Republicans to get their voting shoes on for Wednesday. Even if we put aside the idiocy Twitter assumes in people by thinking they could miss the election over a Tweet, we can’t dismiss the fact that he was kidding.

We’ve already seen what happens when questions are asked about transgenderism. What’s next?

Will climate change skeptics be deemed a threat in the future? Yes.

Could it be deemed offensive on Twitter to refer to illegal immigrants as anything other than the acceptable term, “Undocumented immigrants?” That one may happen sooner rather than later.

What about anti-vaxxers? Flat-earthers? Moon landing skeptics? Could these pseudo-scientific views be labeled dangerous just as Knowles’ joke was? Yes, and while some conservatives won’t grimace about these conspiratorial concepts being purged from Twitter, we should be. Just because a particular fight isn’t one we share doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on their right to express their opinions.

The left is demonstrably hypocritical. Conservatives need to take the higher road.

Can we save Twitter? Should we?

To me, the answer to both questions is “yes.” I’m not ready to give up on one of the most widely used communication and broadcasting tools available. That would be a victory for Twitter and for leftists. If Twitter used their platform’s Infinity Gauntlet to suspend half the conservatives on their platform, they wouldn’t shed a tear. They would be one step closer to the indoctrinating echo chamber they really want to be.

I’ve head several ideas about how to fix it. Some are calling for government regulations. Call me jaded, but I’d rather keep DC out of this battle.

Others have suggest finding an alternative. None exist right now, at least not anywhere near the scale of Twitter. It would take a large investment for someone to build a free-speech social network that could grow quickly and achieve half the reach of Twitter, and it’s hard to imagine such an investment would be fiscally prudent.

If I were leading the Twitter revolt, I would coordinate a campaign that highlights Twitter’s hypocrisy, doubles down on sharing our conservative philosophies, and fights the urge to play the left’s ban-game.

Step-by-step, it would look like this:

  1. Call out as many hate-filled leftist Tweets as possible. When leftist darlings like Louis Farrakhan, Michael Avenatti, or Eric Swalwell post things that would get a conservative banned, we need to share these Tweets with an attached hashtag, something like #NotBanned. We need to point out as many instances as possible, but we cannot report them to Twitter. More on that shortly.
  2. Share conservative ideas like never before. They want to silence us. That means we need o get louder. Some will get banned. Heck, all of us might get banned. But now is not the time to back down. Tweet more. Share more conservative articles and videos. Get loud and help other conservatives get loud. Retweet like crazy. If they ban us, they ban us. To quote Twitter darling Hillary Clinton, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”
  3. Fight the urge to play the ban-game. We don’t want conservatives banned, but we should also not want leftists banned. Don’t give Twitter examples of them being “fair.” Don’t give leftists reasons to call us hypocrites. I’ll be pointing out all suspensions and bans that I see regardless of ideology because our goal is to have a platform that adheres to lawful protections of free speech. Twitter doesn’t have to abide. It’s their platform. They could ban anyone who likes soccer more than football if they wanted to (not that many would). But if we can point a mirror their way to let them see their own hypocrisy, maybe they’ll have a reason to stand down. It’s a long shot, but it allows us to take the high road regardless of their choice.

The purge has started. Now’s not the time to back down. It’s their platform and they don’t want us on it, but that doesn’t mean we should roll over and put our eggs in a different basket. There’s a way to fight this if we stay true to our beliefs.

Here are some of the best Tweets following Kelly’s ban:

 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever, the ‘Green New Deal’?

Published

on

By

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever the ‘Green New Deal’

There is one big problem with trying to ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gases, it can never happen.

Sometimes it is hard to shake the thought that a higher power played a practical joke on the Authoritarian Socialist-Left with history’s greatest prank. Those familiar with the subject know that the highest manifestation of this ‘art form’ is when the target plays it on themselves and from a source that no one expects. The coincidences leave one gobsmacked as to how it all could be mere happenstance.

The Left’s inherent arrogance has led them to believe they can never be wrong. Even if the result is that they ‘rule the population’ in the end. The problem for them is that they can’t exactly cast themselves as the ‘the party of science’ when they forget about the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Full disclosure, we had been very reluctant to critique the purveyor of this plan knowing that her ‘proclivities’ would be her downfall, knowing it would pay a handsome dividend. We knew that everyone’s favourite socialist would eventually go off the deep end, bringing the rest of the Socialist-Left along with her. Little did we know that it would happen so quickly.

Losing the plot on promises.

While the abject fraud of socialism will have it’s disciples make all manner of promises that will never come to fruition. At least some have a little bit of grounding in reality, neglecting the fact that they will quickly run out of other people’s money. However, in the ‘Green New Deal’ we substantially have an historic first, a completely impossible goal. Consider this passage in their napkin pencil sketch of the outline of a plan to rebuild our entire economy from the ground up:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

[Our Emphasis]

Trying to get to ‘net-zero’ is a fool’s errand because it’s impossible to get to that point with the most important greenhouse gas: Water Vapour.

Never mind that other parts of the scheme are beyond feasibility. Or that the rest of the world will just take up the slack after we self-immolate [After buying the appropriate carbon credits of course]. No, they ignored the most important greenhouse gas and thus rendered their entire plan scientifically absurd.

The problem for them and the indication that this was the greatest prank of all time is that water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Now perhaps they overlooked this scientific fact because the powers that be in the Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling cabal also tend to ignore this ‘inconvenient truth’ to coin a phrase.

Just in case there are any Leftists reading this, we will spell it out for those of the ‘Party of science’: We can never net-zero water vapour since that would entail getting rid of all the water on the planet. Perhaps they don’t realise that Approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by this ubiquitous substance, sometimes referred to as dihydrogen monoxide.

But its impossible elimination would certainly help in providing high-speed rail service to Hawaii.

We can add to this by pointing out that the climate boffins prefer to use terms such as ‘scientific uncertainty’ when referring to poorly understood effects of the ‘positive feedback loop’ of Water vapour. From the National Climatic Data Center on Greenhouse Gases:

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops.

[Our Emphasis]

In other words, they don’t want to admit how water vapour can act as a means for the planet to keep Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling in check. They don’t know for certain about this crucial aspect of the issue. But those of the climate cult do know that if we don’t hand over control of our entire lives to them, entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000, as in this report from the Associated Press:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked June 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. We all might have been too busy dealing with Y2K and the millennium, but entire nations being swept off the face of the earth most assuredly wouldn’t of escaped notice of everyone.

Of course the alarmism never stops with criticism of predictions of world-wide disasters being ‘too rosy’ as in this report from the New York times Nov. 18, 2007: Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say:

VALENCIA, Spain — The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report’s authors admit.

The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Okay, they were over blown about having to do something that ‘in the next two to three years’, but it’s a certainty that in 2009 Barack Obama had only had four years to save the world from The Guardian:

President ‘has four years to save Earth’
Sun 18 Jan 2009 00.01 GMT

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration.

Lest anyone think that since the world ended a few years ago that it would have stopped the predictions of doom, other lists have been since published here and here.

The problem for the Global Cooling cult is that they keep on predicting disaster in a few years and they keep on coming up short. But, we’re not supposed to notice the decades of alarmism, we’re not supposed to rhetorical sleight of hand of the change from Global Cooling in the 1970’s to Global warming when that didn’t happen to Climate Change when that also didn’t happen as well. We’re not supposed to notice the extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. Most certainly we’re not supposed to notice that these claims that demand immediate action requires that we all give up our Liberty to the very people making the demands.

The takeaway.

Perhaps this epic practical joke on the Socialist-Left will serve as a prime indicator to the rational majority to reject the Green New Deal and the rest of their ancient collectivist ideas. That finally enough people will recognise their socialist snake oil for what it truly is, a fraud of the highest order. It certainly has wrought enough destruction, leaving behind a body count in the millions to make that case.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Dear proponents of limited government: It’s time to start speaking up now

Published

on

Dear proponents of limited government Its time to start speaking up now

For nearly a year, I’ve given the Republican Party a pass for the most part. I left the party in 2016 and after pursuing a third party for over a year, life pulled me back from the fray. When things calmed down (thank you, Lord!), I made a conscious decision to be lighter in my condemnation of the GOP as a whole for two very important reason.

First, there were signs of life in the party. They were faint, but it seemed at times to be possible for the party to do some good things like eliminating bureaucracy, cutting taxes, promoting a business-friendly atmosphere, and making proper foreign policy moves. They were far from good, let alone ideal, but I thought if we could keep pressing them towards smart moves on the border, gun owners’ rights, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other areas in which they’ve failed so far, perhaps their decent work on taxes and regulations could be translated into other areas.

Second, the Democrats started to terrify me. Seriously, I’ve been contemplating moving the family to a remote area of Montana and going off the grid before the Democrats got their hands on enough power to do the damage they’ve been promising to do for the last year or so. I wasn’t one who thought Bill Clinton was a radical or Barack Obama was the antichrist. I always thought Clinton was a run-of-the-mill Democrat who could do some damage but not much, while Obama was an ambitious progressive who was nevertheless too smart to think he could make socialism a thing. Since the 2016 election, we’ve seen the Democratic Party go from progressives with bad ideas to far-left radicals who think the only way to go is to destroy America in a glorious explosion of their new Communist Manifesto, also known as the Green New Deal.

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

Now that the GOP has demonstrated a toxic mixture of incompetence and false adherence to limiting government with their latest omnibus debacle, it’s time to return to my old stance of refusing to accept the binary choice. When choosing between bad and worse, it’s only a valid choice if the less-terrible option won’t kill you as well. The binary choice between hanging and drowning isn’t really a binary choice, and neither is the choice between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

There are three things that must be done going forward.

  1. Conservatives, Federalists, and Classical Liberals must find a way to united against the two party system. Whether that’s the formation of a new party (which I failed to do once already), a grassroots effort similar to the Tea Party (which worked for a short time before finding irrelevance), or some other method of unification against the putrid system that has engulfed nearly all of Washington DC, we have to find an outlet.
  2. NOQ Report will become a hub for bringing these thoughts together. This is something that I’ve found success with when I ran The New Americana. Now, it’s time to collect the voices of reason once again.
  3. Prayer. Lots of prayer.

I’ve reached out to some of my conservative and federalist friends. Over the next few weeks, we’ll see what can be done to make DC listen. In the meantime, be discerning and prepare to abandon the tribal mindset that has plagued this nation for too long.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Veronique de Rugy: Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

Published

on

Veronique de Rugy Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

If there’s a word that’s not necessarily negative one could use to describe the Green New Deal, it would be “ambitious.” The deal has so much wrapped into it that it’s hard to tell which components are designed to save the environment and which ones are intended to destroy the economy.

Estimates put costs for the “green side” of the resolution at somewhere between $12-$20 trillion. Then, there’s the Medicare-for-All component that is estimated at $32 trillion over a decade.

And that’s just the start.

This isn’t just a “green” deal. It’s a hodgepodge of policy proposals that include massively growing the welfare state, inserting government even more into the job markets, and a universal basic income that they refuse to actually call a universal basic income. The much-maligned FAQ that was posted and quickly removed from the website of sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mentioned paying people who were unable or even “unwilling” to work.

“Even in the best case scenario where you substitute a UBI for all the other forms of welfare, it’s insane,” said Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, on ReasonTV.

But here’s the problem. The Green New Deal doesn’t substitute a universal basic income for other welfare programs. In the Green New Deal, the programs recommended are supposed to be additions, not substitutions.

“It’s a really hard system to support even in its ideal form,” de Rugy continued. “Then there’s this Green New Deal version which doesn’t even seem to entertain this notion of actually substituting for all the rest, so it’s on top of what we have now.”

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

The real question we need to ask is whether or not the Democratic Party is actually going to support this. In its current form, the Green New Deal is a fantasy, and perhaps that’s what the more-sane Democrats are shooting for by supporting it. By giving it their attention now, they can work their way down to more reasonable proposals for everything from environmental protection to job creation programs to different versions of socialism.

In other words, they may be using the hyper-leftism of the Green New Deal as a gateway to get to the palatable leftism of what’s quickly becoming mainstream socialism.

The Green New Deal shouldn’t scare conservatives because it can’t happen. What should concern us is the end result negotiated down from this starting point. Given the GOP’s negotiating track record lately, we don’t know what we’re going to get when the Green New Deal is trimmed down to reality.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report