Below is the transcript of the video.

Today, we will not be discussing the conspiracy theory that big tech is attempting to protect us from “fake news” by censoring stories, channels, topics, and individuals. We’re not discussing this conspiracy theory because it’s no longer a theory. It’s demonstrable through testing and most big tech firms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google readily admit they are removing anything they deem to be inappropriate.

This has all been brewing for years but spit hit the pan when the unthinkable happened. Donald Trump won the 2016 election, causing most of these big tech companies to privately vow, never again. They blame themselves for allowing the people to be misled and vowed to themselves that they will do what they can going forward to make sure the unacceptable elements of society will no longer use their platforms to spread disinformation and lies.

The latest identified iteration of this blatant form of intellectual censorship was discovered on Reddit when a user tried to get Google to recommend the phrase “Hillary Clinton Email” without success. So, let’s try it for ourselves.

[Test confirmed]

For those who don’t know, the recommendation engine used by Google and pretty much every search engine and social media site is designed to offer recommendations to your queries based on what you start typing. We all use it and take it for granted. The algorithm that delivers the recommended results is based on the combined data from search attempts combined with your own search history. We did it in incognito mode so my own search history wouldn’t come into play.

It’s ignorant to believe that so few people are searching for the phrase “Hillary Clinton Email” that it didn’t trigger the algorithm to recommend it when we first started typing her name, let alone when we types E-m-a-i and l. So yes, this is indisputable proof that a topic Google doesn’t want anyone to investigate, namely Hillary’s email scandal, has been wiped from their recommendation engine.

This isn’t news to most of you. We’ve been aware of such activities for a long time. What I’d like to discuss is why this happens in the first place. Is it a form of intellectual censorship? Absolutely. What are they censoring? They’re trying to purge anything within the collective conscience that goes against the various narratives they want the people to believe in. One of those narratives is that Hillary Clinton and the American people were robbed, which is the only acceptable explanation for why Donald Trump is President in their eyes.

Frankly, this is minor. I’m less concerned about this one than some of the other narratives they’re pushing, such as globalism, open borders, anti-Judeo-Christian beliefs, and the various “settled sciences” that they feel no longer warrant debate such as climate change or evolution. This systematic censorship subverts much needed discourse and relegates many of the lucid voices in our society to the same categories where they place the despicable.

There are certain things that must be censored for the sake of the harm they do. I am not one who believes in absolute freedom of speech to include child pornography or how to turn household items into mustard gas, but that’s a far cry from the other things they’ve chosen to censor, such as Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

They are trying to protect us from ourselves because in their own minds, they know better. They’ve seen what can happen when people start pushing Pizzagate or Fizzledrip. They’re worried that flatearthers are going to corrupt our nation’s children with fears they’ll run into the Antarctic ice wall no matter which direction they travel. They think if we’re looking into Hillary Clinton, they shouldn’t recommend her email as a topic of research because, in their minds, there’s nothing to see here.

We don’t need to be protected. The internet is loaded with false notions and it’s up to the people to decide what they want to believe and what they want to dismiss. Big tech shouldn’t impose their own superior sensibilities on us just because they think most people are sheep. That may be true, but so what? Let us be sheep. We’re okay with it.

But here’s the thing, and it’s what I fear even more than big tech’s censorship. As private companies, Washington DC should NOT be attempting to tell them how to operate their businesses. The people can choose to use whatever platform we want to use to communicate, search, and socialize. I’d rather work as a people to expose the blatant intellectual censorship these companies are perpetrating rather than calling on government to make them stop. It may be the easy way out and I can imagine many on both the right and the left cheering if DC started regulating these companies as publishers rather than platforms. But that would be a very short-term fix. If you think censorship is bad now, just wait until DC gets their hands on the mute button. Things will become exponentially worse.

Google might be easy. Facebook might be fun. Twitter might be loud. But the power they all share is theirs because we choose to give it to them. We don’t need DC regulating the censors. We simply need to exercise our individual right of choice.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Below is a transcript of the video above.

The word of the day, dear friends, is…

feck·less
/ˈfekləs/
adjective
lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.

If Republican voters needed any further proof that the men and women they voted in to serve us in the House of Representatives and Senate are nothing more than watered down versions of their Democratic counterparts, one needs only to look to the southern border to see a glaring absence of a border wall.

Perhaps they need a reminder of what that wall should have been. Back in 2016, they won the White House and retained control of the House and Senate due in large part to their promise to build the wall. Now, as they’re on the verge of handing over control of the House to the Democrats, we’ve barely scratched the proverbial surface on the wall debate. Perhaps they fell for the sales pitch that Mexico was going to pay for it. Who knows?

Whatever they’re reasoning for not funding it when they had the chance, we’re now at the eleventh hour and they’re siding with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer by supporting keeping the government open without increasing the DHS budget to $5 billion for wall construction. Instead of standing firm with the President, they’re trying to convince him to punt. They’re ready to go home for the holidays, after all, and they see no way to make the Democrats budge. The path of least resistance is to fight the President and the people they represent instead of fighting the Democrats. This should be remembered.

Primary them all, I say. At least that’s what I would say if I were still a Republican. I gave up on them doing anything different from the Democrats long ago. As I Tweeted earlier…

If you wanted…

– No border wall
– Planned Parenthood funded
– Obamacare intact (despite one judge's nice attempts)
– Gargantuan budgets
– Skyrocketing nation debt

… then you're in luck. It didn't matter which party you voted for in the House and Senate. You got your wish.

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) December 17, 2018

It’s time to demand answers. We need to flood their phones, emails, and social media asking them why they haven’t been fighting with every ounce of courage they can muster to unite behind the goal of funding the wall. They can say they tackled Obamacare and tax reform in 2017. I’ll buy that. But the only excuse they can muster for failing to address it in 2018 is the midterm election and that’s a pitiful excuse. I could even make the case that had they fought to fund the wall in 2018, they might have been able to retain control of the House and expand their majority in the Senate.

The funny part, for me at least, is that I’m not a huge fan of the wall. I’d prefer a technology-based solution that would be just as effective as a deterrent while being exponentially more effective at actually capturing those who attempt to cross illegally.

But that’s not what we were promised. For now, let’s just get the darn wall. Our elected officials are so obtuse when it comes to understanding technology, I won’t push for something so complex. Get the down payment on the wall. It’s a great place to start. Otherwise, the flow of illegal immigrants crossing over will never be impeded.

The wall is not a perfect solution. I’d prefer a much more practical, affordable, and effective virtual wall. But we need something and the GOP promised a wall. The fact they refuse to deliver it after two years is proof that they truly are feckless.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

This is a transcript of the video above.

Let’s look at the migrant caravan crisis from a different perspective. Currently, the positions are very polarized between the two dominant political philosophies. On one hand, you have the progressives who mostly want the migrants at the border to be let into the nation, granted asylum, and given opportunities to build a better life. On the other hand, you have conservatives who want them to go through the process legally or simply go home.

Both positions have their merits, but both sides are also missing important points. The death of a 7-year-old Guatemalan migrant while in Border Patrol custody has sparked outrage from the left who blame the Trump administration’s policies for her death, while the right is equally outraged that the girl was forced to enter the country illegally when she could have received food, shelter, education, and healthcare in Mexico.

This girl’s horrible and avoidable death is now being politicized by both politicians and the media. Everyone’s pointing fingers. Nobody’s working on actual solutions.

As a sovereign nation, the government has a responsibility to its citizens to prevent foreign nationals from crossing the border illegally. As a nation that doesn’t turn its back on those who need help, the American people should have a sense of compassion for those who seek our help. We can accomplish both goals if the government does its job of defending the border while the people do our job of rendering assistance. It’s very important to note that the people, not the government, should be the ones rendering assistance to the migrants. The last thing we need is more intervention from Washington DC.

Private charities are fully capable of working with the Mexican government to provide better lives for the migrants. All Mexico has to do is continue to offer asylum to all the migrants and dramatically improve border security on their southern border. They’ve done what they can to mitigate the humanitarian crisis that is brewing even while their temporary facilities are being overrun. But combine Mexican asylum with good old fashioned American philanthropy and everyone can be happy.

It wouldn’t take much. Fundraising is easy for those who are willing to make it happen. With the funds that Democrat Beto O’Rourke accumulated during his failed Senate bid in Texas, every adult migrant can be paid the average Mexican household income for a full year. If one Senate candidate in a midterm election can raise those kinds of funds in a matter of months, surely the empathetic left and the industrious right could get together to raise even more in a much shorter period of time.

Instead of giving them food and a cot, philanthropic efforts could give these people real opportunities to succeed in Mexico. Those who still want to go through the process of entering the United States legally will have the resources to wait for it to happen in safety. Meanwhile, border patrol will be able to focus on the remaining illegal border crossings, the ones that aren’t at the border for an opportunity to earn American wages but who are trafficking illegal goods or nefarious people.

For this concept to work, both sides of the political aisle will have to abandon some of their false premises. Progressives will have to admit that our sovereignty is too important to encourage even more unlawful traffic than we already have at our southern border. They would also have to acknowledge that Mexico is offering asylum, so the notion that the migrants must be let in so they can escape their horrible situations in Central America is false.

On the other side of the aisle, conservatives have to understand that most of these people will not or cannot go back. We need to send the message to potential future migrants that they will not be able to circumvent our laws, but doing so does not require turning a blind eye because it’s not our problem. Don’t get me wrong. It’s definitely not our problem, which is why I would be opposed to taxpayer-funded solutions. However, a charitable solution would allow people to willingly pitch in without condemning our own sovereignty.

If a current or near future charity launched a massive drive to give the migrants more opportunity in Mexico, and this philanthropic drive coincided with efforts by the Mexican government to stop the flow of migrants crossing into their country, neither political side in America would be completely happy about it but both sides would have their concerns essentially eased.

This bears repeating. Beto O’Rourke raised enough money for his Senate campaign to pay every adult migrant at the border an average Mexican household income for a full year.

I invoked Beto O’Rourke for three reasons. First, he’s demonstrated an ability to raise money for something of minimal importance like a political campaign. Surely he could turn those efforts towards a philanthropic campaign and achieve even better results. The second reason I mentioned him is because he lost his race. Very soon, he’ll have nothing better to do. The third reason is that for something like this to work, a network of powerful people would need to get behind it. O’Rourke’s leftist buddies on the coasts plus his friends in Texas would be perfect for a scenario like this own.

Instead of the left calling for the President to relieve border restrictions or the right saying the only solution is for them to go back to the situation they chose to leave, we should be putting together the solution as a people. The only responsibility the government has in this whole mess is to prevent illegal border crossings and commit appropriate resources to work with those who are trying to enter legally.

I can already hear the complaints from both sides. The left will complain that helping them build lives in Mexico goes against their desire to achieve the American Dream. The right will say there are starving Americans who deserve our charity more than the migrants. Both sides are right, but this solution really doesn’t oppose either notion. To the left, I’d say if they choose to enter legally and work through the process we have in place, so be it. They’re welcome to pursue their version of the American dream as long as they do it within our laws. To the right, I’d say the charitable efforts put towards solving American problems would not be hampered by a campaign to help the migrants. If we’ve learned anything about American philanthropy, it’s that the vast charity of our citizens is driven by a diverse range of motivations. The money that would be given to help the migrants is not money that would have been given to help Americans. No domestic causes would be harmed by aiding the migrants.

If the left stops playing the open borders card and the right stops playing the not-our-problem card, we can make this solution happen. It may not be the solution either side wants, but it may be the only solution that can actually work.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.