Connect with us

Opinions

I don’t like Alex Jones, but his social media ousters bode ill for all Americans

Published

on

I dont like Alex Jones but his social media ousters bode ill for all Americans

Alex Jones is outrageous. He’s been classified as a conservative, a conspiracy theorist, and a racist. I see him more as a loony shock jock, an entertainer who has found an untapped niche and taken full advantage of it to promote himself and his operations. I’ll explain why he’s not what people think he is, but first let’s address the elephant in the room: his removal from prominent social media sites.

I’m the first person to say any site has the right to remove or promote any user of their site for any reason they choose. People like to claim “free speech” when they see censorship of their favorite personalities on sites like Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube, but it has nothing to do with free speech. The 1st Amendment protects us from an oppressive government. How private businesses operate is up to them as long as they stay within our laws.

My concern is the road upon which these social media sites are taking modern society. This road of “community etiquette” is one that draws us towards a not-so-distant destination where many would not willingly go if they saw it coming. Perhaps 1984 exemplified it best with the government’s control of information. One could ironically note it was in information war and the truth lost out in 1984. We’re heading towards a similar fate.

The dystopian society George Orwell envisioned relied on a willing populace. It’s hard to imagine Americans giving up so many of their freedoms directly through government decree, but it’s easier to imagine one driven by cultural phenomena. Our always-connected society of mobile devices combined with our group approval desires through social media are the types of phenomena required to coax us to give up our freedoms willingly. It’s a conspiracy theory that I’ll share shortly.

An unexpected good guy in the whole Alex Jones mess is Twitter. They have not banned him and even explained why they haven’t. He hasn’t broken any of their rules.

Twitter CEO says Infowars’ Alex Jones not banned because ‘he hasn’t violated our rules’

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-ceo-says-infowars-alex-jones-not-banned-because-he-n898616“We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules,” Dorsey tweeted. “We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified.”

He added that the company is holding Jones to the same standard as every other user rather than “taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.”

It’s a rare case of consistency superseding the common leftist desire to inflict social justice on all who oppose them. Unfortunately, Dorsey’s last comment about adding fuel to conspiracy theories tarnishes his actions a bit.

What Alex Jones is

On the surface, Jones is a patriotic Libertarian-minded blowhard who has some crazy ideas intermingled with some slightly less crazy ones. His fans say he exposes what he exposes to make America better and to protect us from the evil overlords in the Illuminati or lizard people or New World Order or whoever. There may be a little bit of truth in this, but only a little.

The more prominent reality of Alex Jones is that he’s an eyeball hound like so many other entertainers. What he says and how it’s received is less important to him than how many people hear him. We know this because he heavily promotes an image of barely-restrained insanity. He publicizes outbursts that do not help him in a quest to save America but that do get people interested in seeing his next batch of silliness.

He takes it too far because it’s the best way to get lovers and haters to continue loving and hating him. More controversy equates to more eyeballs.

He’s an entertainer. Think Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern combined with a willingness to explore the most outrageous topics.

It’s important to understand this aspect of his nature because he taints everyone he allegedly represents. His unwavering support of Donald Trump is conspicuously unaligned with his allegedly conservative values. His promotion of crazy conspiracy theories buries the rational conspiracy theories in a heap of insanity. There really are conspiracies afoot, but people like Jones make it harder to find the truth.

As for being a racist, I’ve seen enough of him to believe that it’s false but I haven’t seen everything so it’s possible.

Whatever it takes to get eyeballs, line his pockets, and secure his place in his “New Atlantis” is all that Jones is about.

Now for the conspiracy theory

All of this bodes ill for Americans. The government has exerted more and more control over our lives and most on the left welcome it. But what about those on the right? How do you get them to put aside freedoms? By letting companies like Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and YouTube take away the things we crave.

We’re seeing attacks on conservatism, Libertarianism, and federalism on nearly every platform on the internet. This has been well publicized and scorned by right-leaning users of these sites. What can we do? Can we boycott? Many have, but that doesn’t help. If anything, removing anti-socialist opinions from these sites helps them achieve their goals.

Eventually, we will see an outcry for someone to step in and prevent the censorship. Who will be called upon? Yes, Washington DC. It won’t be the left but the right that prompts actions against Silicon Valley’s inherent liberalism. Many will believe this is a good thing because it provides equal footing for all opinions… at least that’s how it will be described. That’s not what will end up happening in the long-run.

The natural progression of anything that DC sticks its fingers into is state control. Mandates become regulations. Regulations become laws. Laws become oversight. Oversight becomes control.

If we continue down this road, social media and mobile communication will both be so heavily embedded with government meddling that they will be state-run industries. They will “protect” us from Russia, Alex Jones, hate speech, anonymous trolls, offensive images, and anything else they deem inappropriate.

In the end, it will not be the government that takes control of social media and mobile networks. It will be the people who will give them control.

Culture and Religion

What’s at stake: Nancy ‘Slippery Slope’ Pelosi wants to control your property

Published

on

By

What's at stake: Nancy ‘Slippery Slope’ Pelosi wants to control your property

Mrs. Hope for a slippery slope has promised the critical step to gun confiscation – Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.]

Anyone paying attention to the Left’s ongoing war on Liberty should take notice of the Red flag Nancy ‘Slippery slope’ Pelosi just ran up the pole. She stated that so-called universal background checks would be among Democrats’ top priorities if the party wins control of the House in the midterm elections. These are in essence, government controls over property, despite the emptional spin placed on them.

Government Control of property has no Constitutional Justification.

For starters, the national socialist Left doesn’t have the authority to control private property in this way, referring to the words of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Try as we might, we couldn’t find the words ‘Government Control of Property’ in the founding documents. In point of fact, the opposite is quite the case. Even if it’s an item the Left considers to be ‘scary’ or dangerous.

Then consider this portion of the 5th amendment:

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

A requirement for one to get government permission to exchange one’s possessions would in effect set the government as the owner of that property. This in effect would constitute one being deprived of that property – this being explicitly prohibited by the founding documents.

Still further, consider the spirit of the 4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A requirement for governmental permission for any type of exchange of property would most assuredly violate the 4th amendment. Again, control of property directly equates to ownership of said property. Government controls with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] would be ownership of said property.

Presumption of Innocence.

Then of course the reason that a strict government requirement of this type would presume that someone is guilty of being some sort of miscreant in the eyes of the Left [Being a gun owner and all..] So one would have to prove that isn’t the case before exercising a basic human and Constitutional right.

Finally of course, this would also violate the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It should be logically easy to see that requiring government permission to exercise a Constitutional right would be an infringement of it. In many ways, Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] could take the record for the most violations of the people’s Constitution rights to date.

The Precursor to Confiscation.

We’ve already proven that the national socialist Left desperately wants to ban and confiscate guns. There have been over 70 different instances in the past few years where they have openly made this demand.

This should readily explain to everyone why they obsess over a step that will do nothing for security, but everything for control over our Liberty. Their Holy Grail is to be able to send a threatening letter to every gun owner [or supposed gun owner] demanding that they turn them over for destruction.

Incremental Liberty Control.

A few years ago when the Liberty grabbers felt they had the wind at their back, with that mindset they were open and honest about how they would go about banning and confiscating guns.

First off they talked about it’s not being an overnight process as being a good thing since incrementalism is key. A massive change would mean non-compliance, so a ‘Progressive’ approach would put in place the means for confiscation over time, beginning with: Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.]

They began with a call for a national registry – they need to know who owns the guns and where they are, then:

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

So the process of registration for gun confiscation starts with making ‘private sales illegal’. Yes, in a nation that values property rights, they want to make it illegal for one to exercise those rights.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Interesting that they use the phrase Red flag’. Now after they have their lists of gun owners they start cracking down on gun owners, raiding those who don’t comply with their edicts.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported.

‘we can do what we will’ isn’t that just lovely? This from people who want the law enforcement to raid anyone who may have a few guns.

The Takeaway.

Everyone should be mindful of two very important points in all of this. Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] will do nothing to solve a problem caused by the nation’s Socialist-Left in the first place – the destruction of the family and moral underpinnings. But whether it solves the problem is irrelevant to the Left, It is but one crucial step to their final solution to the gun problem.

Those unfamiliar with this issue may wonder why the Liberty grabbers tend to obsess over this one item in their agenda over all others. It should be obvious that this sets them on the road to registration and then confiscation.

 

Continue Reading

Immigration

How many caravans does it take to lose an election?

Published

on

How many caravans does it take to lose an election

The caravan of migrants from Central America will either be the last of its kind for a while or it will become a trend as people emboldened by “safety in numbers” excitedly wait for the next trek to start. Whether it’s the first or the last will depend a great deal on the midterm elections.

It will also depend on how reactions to the caravan are perceived by those who are behind it.

What do the elections in the United States have to do with asylum-seekers and others wanting to walk thousands of miles in large groups? Everything. You see, this caravan wasn’t sparked by a spontaneous desire to leave. Hundreds of thousands, possibly more, would leave the dangers and turmoil of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador if they thought they had a realistic chance of acceptance into the United States. The caravan was orchestrated by forces in and out of Honduras. The forces on the inside were told they’d get help. The forces on the outside who have delivered help wanted to make a statement and have an impact on the United States elections.

I started exploring this possibility because of the timing. The caravan is anticipated to arrive at the border around election day.

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory. I rarely post these theories because there is no shortage of them and I’m not nearly as imaginative as the professional conspiracy theorists. To me, the world is not flat, Elvis is not alive, and we actually did land on the moon. I’d never make it at InfoWars.

If one looks at the timing of this event, mainstream media coverage, and reactions from Washington DC, it’s easy to acknowledge the possibility that organizers were working with external forces behind the scenes to put the caravan together and march it towards the border during the home stretch of the midterm elections. Let’s look at those three components and flesh out what it all means.

Timing

As I stated before, it’s way too convenient for a “spontaneous” event such as this to coincide so perfectly with our midterm elections. We’re in the middle of hurricane season and Willa is about to hit Mexico. Did the organizers of the caravan not realize there may be a safer time for thousands of people to walk thousands of mile? Of course they knew. They are well aware of the weather patterns in Central America and Mexico.

They chose now knowing they’d have to battle the weather.

Something prompted them to pick this time over others. It wasn’t an uptick in violence; last year saw the lowest homicide rate in Honduras in over a decade. Mainstream media points specifically to San Pedro Sula where elements of the caravan originated as being “the most dangerous city on Earth,” but that’s no longer true. In fact, their homicide rates are lower than St. Louis or Baltimore.

Were they prompted by poverty? For most of the migrants other than the organizers, the answer to that question is yes. The vast majority of those who joined the caravan did so because they are extremely poor and have no prospects for improving their lives in Central America. But they’ve been poor for decades and have never formed a mass of people such as this one, so it’s not a valid argument for the timing. If they’d waited a couple of months they’d be travelling in very mild temperatures with no risk of facing hurricanes.

Whoever organized this, they did so with this very exact timing in mind.

Mainstream Media Coverage

In all my years of being a watchdog of the mainstream media, I have never seen the level of sympathetic coverage that I’ve seen with this caravan. Journalists are trained to report the facts, find the interesting angles, and seek the underlying truth behind an event. We haven’t seen that at all in mainstream media this time. Nothing.

The “facts” they’ve reported have been minimal. It’s just repetition of the same storyline over and over again. Even as a critic of mainstream media I found this extremely odd.

There should be no shortage of interesting angles to report, but again the absence is striking. Reporters are trained to ask questions and find people with stories that will intrigue us. When there’s a crowd, they’re trained to find people who stand out. Most importantly, they’re supposed to find the counter-narrative. A gang member who sees greater opportunity in America. An American activist walking in solidarity with the group in their plight. A local politician there to make sure everything goes smoothly for his people.

These and other interesting angles definitely exist within the caravan and journalists are trained to find them. Yet we’re seeing nothing like that. Every interview is with a persecuted by hopeful migrant who’s just looking for the American dream. This narrative is repeated over and over again.

Either mainstream media sent their worst reporters to cover the caravan or there’s an agenda in play.

Reactions from DC

When the caravan launched, Democrats were quick to embrace the “humanitarian crisis” that was driving people to walk such a great distance. We heard them say this was the embodiment of their desperation, that these people have no other choice, and that America can and should do more to help people in such great need.

Then, two strange things happened. First, Republicans generally didn’t take the bait. They didn’t need to because of the second strange thing that happened: Americans generally didn’t take the bait, either. It was clear based on the sudden silence from Democrats that they expected to hear a lot more voices on social media welcoming the caravan, empathizing with their plight, and denouncing any proposed actions by the President. For a very short time after President Trump threatened to send the military to the border, many Democrats called him out.

It didn’t last long. Americans weren’t nearly as upset as Democrats expected when hearing about the prospects that President Trump would use the military to close the border. Sure, the leftist base was outraged, but most Republicans were happy about it. As were most Independents.

As were many moderate Democrats.

The leftist vision of open borders isn’t quite as popular with Americans as Democrats had hoped.

If Democrats win the House and/or the Senate, this will be the first of multiple caravans attempting to breach our borders. If Democrats lose both, leftists will rethink their strategy and this will be the last caravan for a long time.

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Democrats are right about Trump’s actions but wrong about his motives

Published

on

Democrats are right about Trumps actions but wrong about his motives

Donald Trump sent out a tweet over the weekend accusing Democrats of being “obstructionists” on the issue of so-called immigration reform. According to Trump, this is causing “needless pain and suffering” while creating the conditions responsible for the “horrors taking place on the Border.”

Besides being a blatant example of how Trump and the GOP have turned the politics of distraction into an art form, his blame game is a lie — at least, where the “horrors” on the border are concerned — because Trump has full constitutional power to stop the border invasion without Congress.

So, why perpetrate the lie that the border problem is not his fault? It could be, and most likely is, Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution and his blame-everyone-but-himself narcissism. In this case, however, I think there’s more to it.

I believe we are also witnessing Trump’s adaptation of the “never let a crisis go to waste” Saul Alinsky-inspired rule perfected by the Obama administration. Trump uses the border “crisis,” which he promised to fix and could fix if he wanted, to orchestrate a political advantage for himself by spreading the lie that the “horrors” at the border are the Democrats’ fault.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have their own theory concerning Trump’s motivation. They believe he’s trying to put the focus on immigration as a way to “change the subject” away from health care.

Considering the fact that Trump and the GOP have failed to repeal Obamacare as promised, I can see how “Chuck and Nancy” might reach that conclusion. However, they’re incorrect because the NY Liberal in the White House and his swamp buddies in Congress are all-in with the Democrats on the healthcare issue.

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece about an op-ed allegedly written by Trump where he decried the Democrat Party’s call for “Medicare for all” — which is Washingtonese for single-payer — while promising to protect Medicare and parts of Obamacare. He doubled down on this commitment a few days ago.

Despite promising for the fourth election in a row to really, really repeal Obamacare if voters let them keep their majority, Republicans have assumed complete ownership of Obamacare. And when you add that reality to the inevitable expansion of Medicare, the creation of single-payer, government-run socialized health care is guaranteed, which has been the goal of Obamacare from the very start.

Heck, there’s even a movement within the GOP to advance single-payer as the conservative answer to the health care crisis.

The sad reality of today’s Republican party is that it has been transformed into the Trumplican Party. Equally sad is how so-called conservatives have become Trumpservatives whose betrayal of conservative values is so obvious, they aren’t even hiding it anymore.

Democrats are right about Trump using the immigration problem as a way to change the subject, but they’re wrong about what’s motivating him to do so. He isn’t doing it to avoid the Democrats’ goal of single-payer, government-run socialized health care … he and the GOP love it just as much as they do.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report