Connect with us

Conservatism

Why boycotting Starbucks is the wrong approach to dealing with anti-LEO sentiment

Published

on

Why boycotting Starbucks is the wrong approach to dealing with anti-LEO sentiment

Twitter has been ablaze for the last few days with calls to boycott two huge companies: Nike and Starbucks. The Nike story started before the 4th of July and is still going strong after they decided to pull apparel that carried the Betsy Ross American flag on it because it was deemed racist by professional social justice warrior Colin Kaepernick. Starbucks made the news yesterday after employees in Arizona asked police officers in the store to leave because customers had complained they didn’t feel safe with them there.

These are two very different stories and should not be viewed in the same ballpark, let alone grouped together as companies deemed boycott-worthy by conservatives. Nike is a joke that made a poor decision as a company to abide by their overzealous and highly privileged spokesperson who is actively trying to pervert history. Starbucks apologized immediately as a company and is trying to make amends with Tempe, Arizona, law enforcement officers and LEOs around the nation.

One is an action by a company. The other was the action of some idiotic store-level employees.

We should boycott Nike into financial oblivion. But we should drink our Starbucks (if you’re into such things) because as a company, they are trying to do the right thing. Does that mean employees can’t be representatives of the company? Of course they can. But the perspectives of these particular representatives is irrelevant, especially since the company immediately acknowledged their actions were wrong.

I’ve long felt the conservative movement lacks the level of passion that activists on the left have. When they boycott a company, they do so wholeheartedly and aggressively. Conservatives tend to not be as vocal with their wallets; how many conservatives still go to the movies knowing full well their dollars are being redirected by the Hollywood progressives directly into the campaign coffers of Democrats? I’ll continue to call for boycotting Hollywood just as one of my writers called for boycotts on Nike. But there’s no need to boycott Starbucks. They didn’t do anything wrong as a company (other than make their coffee weaker recently, but that’s just a rumor).

Conservatives must be selective with our outrage. Directing it at Starbucks for the actions of low-level employees is misguided. We should be directing our outrage at companies that make radical progressive decisions like Nike instead.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Dan Crenshaw on the Democrats’ goal

Published

on

Dan Crenshaw on the Democrats' goal

Some say today’s Democratic Party is very different from the one in the recent past. “Evolving” views has made it impossible for anyone in the party to be pro-life, against illegal immigration, or favorable to the free market, especially as it pertains to healthcare. Others say this is the true face of the Democratic Party and has been for years, even decades, as they were biding their time until a moment in history when they could reveal their actual intentions.

From Medicare-for-All to the Green New Deal to open borders to full-blown socialism, today’s Democratic Party has openly embraced some of the most horrendous policy proposals this nation has ever seen. They’re the type of policies we’d expect to see from totalitarian regimes and communist nations, not the United States of America. But perhaps that’s the point.

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) has done a fine job taking to Twitter to express his concerns about Democrats and other major problems the nation faces. Last week, he posted a Tweet that deserves constant attention as it encapsulates the challenges conservatives face as we prepare for the 2020 election.

Though he only touched on a few points in his Tweet, the overarching message is clear. Democrats will not rest until they’ve brought an end to our republic. They have a different vision, one that is an existential threat to America.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why forgiving student loan debt for disabled veterans makes sense

Published

on

Why forgiving student loan debt for disabled veterans makes sense

The cries are already coming in from the purist wing of the conservative movement as President Trump signs an executive order forgiving student loan debt for permanently disabled veterans. They’re saying this is a precursor to student loan forgiveness across the board. They say this opens the door for a future Democratic President to do the same thing, only so widespread it’ll damage not only the country but forever change the way education is handled in America.

But there’s one important caveat about forgiving student loan debt for permanently disabled veterans that reactionary conservatives missed. It was already done. This isn’t introducing a new stance on student loans. It’s expediting the process because as of now, about 1/5th of the eligible veterans are taking advantage of it.

Trump signs executive order cancelling student loan debt for disabled veterans

The memo Trump signed directs the government to develop an “expedited” process so veterans can have their federal student loan debt discharged “with minimal burdens.” Currently, just half of the roughly 50,000 disabled veterans who are qualified to have their federal student loan debt forgiven have received the benefit because of a burdensome application process.

Under the current process, disabled veterans can have their debt forgiven under a loan forgiveness program, called Total and Permanent Disability Discharge, or TPD, as long as they have a VA service-connected disability rating of 100 percent. As of July, however, only about 20 percent of the eligible pool of veterans had taken advantage of the program due to the complicated nature of the application and other factors.

This is a political move that will affect thousands of Americans at a relatively low cost, especially when compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loan forgiveness being proposed by many Democrats.

But the bigger reason nobody should be balking at this is because these are people who have served their country and are actually deserving of the “free stuff” offers being made to everyone by Democrats. And by “everyone,” I mean literally everyone. Democrats want free education for illegal immigrants, and some are balking because the President wants permanently disabled veterans to have their loans forgiven? Fiscal conservatives (of which I am one) need to find another battle to fight.

This is a smart move by the President and turns the chants of “free college for everyone” by Democrats on its head. Loan forgiveness for permanently disabled veterans is pittance compared to the sacrifices they’ve made for this country.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Big Facebook announcement falls flat in under 24 hours

Published

on

Facebook's big announcement falls flat in 24 hours

Yesterday, Facebook was very proud to announce the results of a year-long review by former Senator Jon Kyl. The purpose of the review was to better understand the accusations of political bias, mostly from Conservatives, against the platform. According to Kyl’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the concerns of those he interviewed fell into six broad categories.

  • Bias is baked into Facebook’s algorithms and they should not be in the business of separating fact from fiction
  • That the platform’s community standards were constantly evolving and objections to the category “hate speech”
  • Bias in the employees charged with enforcing the rules and the appeals process for smaller organizations
  • Requiring advertisers to register as political organizations to run ads with a policy focus
  • The drawn-out ad approval process due to the stringent ad policies
  • Lack of viewpoint diversity at the company

In the announcement, there were several things Facebook planned to address which included how they handled political ads and the creation of an oversight board for how they handled the appeals of some high profile content removal decisions.

The announcement was supposed to ease tensions between the social media company and users on the political right. However, rather than getting out of the business of fact-checking content, the company committed to explaining newsfeed rankings. These algorithms and “fact checks” have already negatively impacted several Conservative sites. Not sure an explanation fixes that problem. They will also now tell you when they limit the distribution of a post because their “fact-checkers” give it a false rating. Again, why not just stop?

Probably because they are serving two masters in this fight. Facebook consented to a series of civil rights audits from a very left-leaning assessor. Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg released the commitments from that process on June 30, 2019. One action:

We’re taking steps to address this, including a US pilot program where some of the people who review content on Facebook only focus on hate speech instead of a range of content that can include bullying, nudity, and misrepresentation. We believe allowing reviewers to specialize only in hate speech could help them further build the expertise that may lead to increased accuracy over time.

Balancing the commitments made to both groups will be challenging to say the least. And within 24 hours of the announcement of what they would do to address Kyl’s assessment two high profile content decisions were made.

This morning, news hit that an ad from Women for Trump was removed. I confirmed this with one of the board members. Supposedly, because it assumed the gender of the women in the picture.

 

Can you say peak ridiculousness? Perhaps the assessment they received from Senator Kyl didn’t mention that many people on the right, as well as the vast majority Americans, assume the gender of almost everyone they see. I am also wondering how many posts Forbes Women and Women for Women International have had removed. Since they “assume the gender” of the person pictured on nearly every post.

The other content decision was not allowing the website started by popular Trump-supporting meme maker, Carpe Donktum to work.

Now we all know the left can’t meme, but the right has some pretty good meme artists. And anyone who has spent any time on social media is aware of what a meme is. Satirical short videos or images that everyone knows are a creation, not news or a depiction of factual events. The website was even called “Meme World”. Saying satirical content violates their “Community Standards” is about as stupid as Snopes fact-checking the Babylon Bee. Or just an admission that having a sense of humor is not allowed on Facebook.

Until Facebook decides to employ a good faith approach to known creators, organizations, and campaigns, rather than allowing fringe left-wing zealots to flag content with abandon, nothing will change. Just because Facebook recognizes dozens of genders doesn’t mean most Americans do. Yet activists can use a ridiculous rule based on fringe political ideology to get a perfectly valid political ad pulled.

One that was shared by the President’s official Facebook account. Not the best kick off for a grand announcement about addressing bias. Facepalm Facebook.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending