Prosecutors in two counties where an illegal immigrant allegedly murdered four people are seeking the death penalty for his crimes. North Nevada was shaken by the string of murders until the alleged killer was apprehended by law enforcement in January.

Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman, 20, was arrested January 19, 2019, by Washoe County Sheriff’s department and charged with multiple offenses while prosecutors and investigators worked on charging him for the four murders. They rarely invoke the death penalty but the severity and heinous nature of the crimes warrant capital punishment, according to prosecutors.

“We reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst,” Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks said last Thursday. “We use it sparingly.”

The illegal immigrant from El Salvador is accused of shooting and killing Gerald David, 81, and his wife, Sharon, 80, in Reno and Connie Koontz, 56, and Sophia Renken, 74, in Gardnerville.

My Take

Just as traffic fines are doubled in construction zones, so too should penalties be increased when illegal immigrants commit crimes. His immigration status was not taken into account, but the crimes themselves were enough for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, citing multiple offenses including defamation, conspiracy, and negligence. The lawsuit, filed in Virginia, asks for $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.

Currently, Twitter is considered to be a content platform rather than a producer, but Nunes claims the site has overstepped its bounds as merely a host because they’ve taken an active and aggressive interest in filtering and censoring content. They’ve also been aggressive in their banning and “shadowbanning” practices, the latter of which impacted Nunes’s account itself.

This has a very good potential of opening that particular can of worms, as I noted on Twitter:

While everyone focuses on the large dollar amount of the lawsuit, the real fruit from all this is the potential to count Twitter and other social media sites as more than just content platforms due to their aggressive filtering, banning, and censoring. https://t.co/NunECp1EBv

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) March 18, 2019

My Take

There are three acceptable possibilities that can come from this or other actions.

1. Twitter stops banning, censoring, and filtering content altogether other than content that is illegal or filtered by a user upon request. It’s important to throw that in, not because it needs to said to most people but because many anti-free-speech activists (better known as hate-speech protesters) would perceive the goal of ending censorship as a requested license for no-holds-barred free posting. It’s one thing to ban someone for doxxing or making actual threats. It’s a whole other thing to ban people for being critical of sharia law, for example, or to tell people they should learn how to code.
2. Twitter keeps their current filters, bans, and censorship in place but they do so across the ideological, political, cultural, and religious spectrum. There are countless instances where double standards are applied based upon an unwillingness to offend the left while actually craving opportunities to offend the right. One need only look at Ayatollah Khamenei’s Twitter account for examples of someone who can threaten lives without worrying about a Twitter ban.
3. Police the site how they want, but remove the protections against defamation and other lawsuits in an acknowledgement that they’re a content aggregator, not simply a platform.

I’ll admit up front that this site has a vested interest in cleaning up Twitter. Several of our writers have been banned on Twitter for being too aggressively conservative. I know with a certainty that none of their Tweets were as heinous as others’ who are allowed to stay on the site simply because they’re not conservative. But we have no real recourse against the social media giant. As a crowdfunded news outlet that relies on our readers for donations, we would never waste the money getting legal over a handful of Twitter accounts. They’re just not worth it.

But it’s more than just the money. They are a private corporation and I always push back against government interactions with private business. It’s their platform. They can do what they want with it. If they want to be hyper-leftist, that’s their prerogative, just as we will be staunchly conservative. But we’re held to a higher degree of accountability because we’re not a platform the way Twitter is currently classified. It’s this area, the way they’re classified, that we can see fruit coming forth from this lawsuit.

What Nunes is doing isn’t really about the money. It’s about putting Twitter’s anti-conservative and anti-Judeo-Christian practices in the spotlight and establishing a change in the system that holds them accountable. I support the Congressman in this effort.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Conservatives know the LGBTQ community has their say in most aspects of life in America today. Their political and cultural influence is unquestionable and public organizations jump through hoops to appease the various groups. Many libraries have even embrace “Drag Queen Storytime” as a way to teach tolerance to children by allowing transvestites to read stories to children.

Houston Public Library is one such progressive public organization that has embraced the practice. Unfortunately, they didn’t do anything to protect the children that visit the library by allowing “Tatiana Mala Nina” to read for the children. The problem arose because”Tatiana” is actually Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender.

#Tolerance https://t.co/fxzJHEIkYY

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) March 18, 2019

My Take

Houston Public Library has apologized. Is that really enough? Mistakes happen, but there are certain situations and jobs in which extra special care must be taken. Our public libraries, which are often considered to be truly safe places and popular venues for children to learn, should be able to give a reasonable expectation to parents that registered child sex offenders are not given explicit access to children.

This is gross negligence. I may be in the minority on this one, but this is a terminable offense in my books. Someone’s head should roll.

Keep in mind I rarely call for anyone to be fired for a single offense, but this is literally the worst case scenario for a library administrator. When you give someone access to the children that come to the library, they cannot be convicted child sex offenders. That’s sort of a no-brainer.

Nothing will likely happen beyond the apology, but here’s hoping.

So many exceptions are made for “alternative lifestyles” for the sake of tolerance. But when this tolerance allows a convicted child sex offender to have access to small children, the exceptions have gone way to far. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?