Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, April 15. 2022

Photo via this piece at American Digest

Media: Who do you trust?

‘Censorship is free speech’ is the establishment’s Orwellian line on Elon Musk’s Twitter crusade

Is There Anyone Taking This Green Energy Transition Thing Seriously?

From MacDonald's Averting our Eyes:

Frank James’s subway massacre undoubtedly has roots in untreated mental illness. But it was set in motion by America’s relentless focus on phantom white racism and by the unchecked urban anarchy of the last two years.

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory Comes True: 'At Least 20' Feds Embedded at Capitol on Jan. 6

Chicago Rolls Out Lottery System Giving $500 Monthly Payments To Residents To Promote ‘Equitable Recovery’

New Jersey politicians want to teach children the wrong lessons about 9/11

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:22 | Comments (37) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Frank James. Given his illness, he would likely have been angry and resentful enough at someone to shoot them regardless. But the mentally ill pick up what is in the air around them to shape their delusions, and the article correctly notes that.

#1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2022-04-15 09:42 (Reply)

The entire J6 event needs to have a very public and very thorough investigation by neutral and honest investigators. Not a years long secret investigation like John Durham's slow walk with zero results. But rather a vigorous investigation where everything is exposed and put out for all to see. The god, the bad and the ugly. There has been a serious and deadly misuse of power and lying to the courts and the public by the administration and congress. Heads should roll!

#2 Anon on 2022-04-15 10:27 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory Comes True: 'At Least 20' Feds Embedded at Capitol on Jan. 6

The conspiracy theory isn't that there were federal officers embedded in the crowds on January 6, but that they were the primary instigators of the riot.

Anon: The entire J6 event needs to have a very public and very thorough investigation by neutral and honest investigators.

The Democrats proposed an independent commission, such as the investigations that followed 9-11, but Republicans blocked the proposal.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-15 11:43 (Reply)

I didn't realize Republicans had the votes to block it, although I know they opposed it. And I notice how keen the Democrats are on bi-partisan-ism when they rejected the candidates put forward by Republicans and then named the 'allowable' candidates themselves, candidates that just happened to support their anti-Trump crusade. Was that the first time in history that happened, did I hear that right?
It's just Bad Faith arguments all the way 'round, eh?

#2.1.1 Aggie on 2022-04-15 11:48 (Reply)

Don't believe anything Zach says, without verification on your own. He leaves out many facts. Facts that change the entire narrative of what he is trying to sell.

From NBC, May 14, 2021:

QUOTE:

But moments after Thompson's announcement, McCarthy said he had not approved the proposal, telling reporters that he wasn't even aware the press release was going to be sent Friday morning.

“That’s very concerning to me,” McCarthy said in response to being told that the commission would be limited in scope to the Jan. 6 riot.

"You've got to look at what the build-up before and what has gone on afterwards, otherwise the commission does not work," he said. He also accused Pelosi of having "played politics with this for a number of months."

As you can see, there were good reasons to reject the democrats on this. Really, you think that Pelosi and Schumer want the whole truth exposed?

#2.1.1.1 B. Hammer on 2022-04-15 12:08 (Reply)

So what?

The claim was that we need is "The entire J6 event needs to have a very public and very thorough investigation by neutral and honest investigators"

That has nothing to do with the Democrats' proposal that you mentioned. It's just you derailing another thread by inserting some red herring.

Always dishonest. Always the (((stereotype)))

#2.1.2 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-04-15 11:54 (Reply)

(((Bwaha!)))

#2.1.2.1 Zachinoff on 2022-04-15 13:14 (Reply)

Aggie: I didn't realize Republicans had the votes to block it, although I know they opposed it.

Appointing an independent commission requires legislation. Republicans filibustered the legislation in the Senate with the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, claiming it was a "purely political exercise."

Aggie: And I notice how keen the Democrats are on bi-partisan-ism when they rejected the candidates put forward by Republicans

The Speaker of the House rejected two of the five Republicans, accepting three. The two were rejected because their rhetoric indicated they would try to undermine the investigation. The Republicans were invited to select two other members, but instead withdrew the three Republicans who had been accepted.

B. Hammer (quoting): "That’s very concerning to me,” McCarthy said in response to being told that the commission would be limited in scope to the Jan. 6 riot.

The event of January 6 was exactly the question raised by Anon.

#2.1.3 Zachriel on 2022-04-15 13:22 (Reply)

Leftists when seeing Frank James's photo: "Dammit!"

#3 Maniac on 2022-04-15 10:28 (Reply)

"Dammit! It's the same every time."

#3.1 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-04-15 11:52 (Reply)

And the FBI, apparently. Though these days, it’s hard to tell the difference, they all work for democrats.

#3.2 B. Hammer on 2022-04-15 15:11 (Reply)

Fears that NUCLEAR MISSILES sank with Putin's flagship Moskva

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10721351/Ukraine-war-Fears-Moskva-warship-carrying-nuclear-weapons-sank.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

#4 feeblemind on 2022-04-15 11:21 (Reply)

QUOTE:

‘Censorship is free speech’ is the establishment’s Orwellian line on Elon Musk’s Twitter crusade

QUOTE:

Elon Musk’s vision for the Internet is dangerous nonsense: Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ internet. {. . . } That’s also the dream of every dictator, strongman and demagogue.
{ellipses added}

This is a misquote, which was attained by connecting two disconnected thoughts. The "that" in "That's also the dream of every dictator" does not refer to 'uncontrolled' internet, but to a world "dominated by the richest and most powerful people in the world, who wouldn’t be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science or the common good."

Krugman's point is that there never was and never will be an 'uncontrolled' internet, but "Someone has to decide on the algorithms in every platform – how they’re designed, how they evolve, what they reveal and what they hide. Musk has enough power and money to quietly give himself this sort of control over Twitter."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/12/elon-musk-internet-twitter

#5 Zachriel on 2022-04-15 11:38 (Reply)

You don't make sense with your own words. Stop pretending you know what other peoples' words mean.

Even an idiot like Krugman is beyond you.

#5.1 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-04-15 11:51 (Reply)

Twitter's Chickens Come Home to Roost

The Great Elon Musk panic of 2022 is revealing a big fat boatload of blue-check hypocrites

QUOTE:

where has all this outrage about private control over speech been previously? I don’t remember people like Reich and Jarvis, or Parker Molloy, or Scott Dworkin, or Timothy O’Brien at Bloomberg (“Elon Musk’s Twitter Investment Could Be Bad News for Free Speech”), bemoaning the vast power over speech held by people like Sergei Brin, Larry Page, or even Jack Dorsey once upon a time. That’s because the Bluenoses in media and a handful of hand-wringers on the Hill successfully paper-trained all those other Silicon Valley heavyweights, convincing them to join on with their great speech-squelching project.

It’s become increasingly clear over the last six years that these people want it both ways. They don’t want to break up the surveillance capitalism model, or come up with a transparent, consistent, legalistic, fair framework for dealing with troublesome online speech. No, they actually want tech companies to remain giant black-box monopolies with opaque moderation systems, so they can direct the speech-policing power of those companies to desired political ends.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/twitters-chickens-come-home-roost

#5.2 feeblemind on 2022-04-15 11:52 (Reply)

What we have seen with social media is exactly what our fore fathers warned us about. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should have free speech on the internet, in college and in the public square. What the billionaires that own these social media sites have done should earn them the guillotine or gallows and I'm serious. What they have done to this country makes Mata Hari look like an amateur.

#5.3 Anon on 2022-04-15 12:59 (Reply)

Anon: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should have free speech on the internet, in college and in the public square.

Free speech means that you can limit speech on your own property. Regardless, the article was based on a misquote.

There's a case to be made that some social media companies have become so large as to act as a restraint on free trade, but conservatives have worked to weaken anti-trust enforcement over generations. A reworking of anti-trust law would be reasonable, but has been and would be resisted by conservative forces.

#5.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-15 13:28 (Reply)

"Free speech means that you can limit speech on your own property."

You mean like "no blacks allowed"? Is that what you are advocating? Someone could own a bar and ban blacks or whites or Asians???

#5.3.1.1 You Mean DIscrimination on 2022-04-15 16:35 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: You mean like "no blacks allowed"?

Being Black is not speech. In any case, race is a protected class for public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, you can kick people who won’t stop talking about crochet out of your knitting circle, or Nazis out of your bar for that matter.

#5.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-15 18:31 (Reply)

I knew you would respond that way. Free speech is a constitutional right given to the people and cannot be usurped by congress, the president or the courts. It is NOT a law, by putting it in the constitution the intent of the founding fathers was that no law could be made that would infringe on that right... period!

For better or worse discriminating against someone because of their race, gender or religion ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY is legal and constitutional.

#5.3.1.1.1.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-15 19:12 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: Free speech is a constitutional right given to the people and cannot be usurped by congress, the president or the courts.

No rights, as the founders well knew, are without limitations. For instance, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, or to slander someone, or to incite insurrection.

Furthermore, contrary to your position, the Fourteenth Amendment grants power to Congress to ensure equal protection regardless of race, so racial discrimination in public accommodations is prohibited (with few exceptions).

But, don’t worry. You can still be as racist as you want in your private life.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-15 20:53 (Reply)

"the Fourteenth Amendment grants power to Congress to ensure equal protection regardless of race"

Is that what they have done? Or have they created special rights for some races and genders and special discrimination for other races and genders?

"No rights, as the founders well knew, are without limitations."

I think what you meant to say is some activist judges have unconstitutionally placed limits on constitutional rights.

"don’t worry. You can still be as racist as you want in your private life."

Ahh! There it is. The baseless racist accusation to try to prevent any discussion of the inequalities we are putting in our laws. It was your racist comments I was responding to and I at no time said anything racist. But to hide your own proclivities you have to blame others for what you yourself do.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-16 10:18 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: Or have they created special rights for some races and genders and special discrimination for other races and genders?

QUOTE:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

More particularly, you argued that the First Amendment right to free speech means that Congress can't outlaw racial discrimination, but enforcing equal protection is a power explicitly granted by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You Mean Discrimination: I think what you meant to say is some activist judges have unconstitutionally placed limits on constitutional rights.

We provided examples. Are you saying that the original intent of the First Amendment protected the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, or to slander someone, or to incite insurrection? You must know that's not true, so why do you argue otherwise?

You Mean Discrimination: The baseless racist accusation to try to prevent any discussion of the inequalities we are putting in our laws.

You defended the power of public accommodations to racially discriminate.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-16 11:58 (Reply)

"More particularly, you argued that the First Amendment right to free speech means that Congress can't outlaw racial discrimination,"

No wonder you are so wrong. You lack reading comprehension skills. Let me help you with that: I said that free speech is a given right which is outside the legal/constitutional ability of congress or the states to infringe on. I said nothing about free speech concerning racism or discrimination. THAT is your left wing communist straw man that you used to tar people and (in your mind at least) win arguments.

"Are you saying that the original intent of the First Amendment protected the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater"

I never used the activists words about yelling fire. Obviously if I use my freedom to speak whatever I choose to speak in a manner that is unlawful, for example conspiring to create a hate crime to be blamed at MAGA, that the law can still be enforced. Free speech does not protect you from punishment for breaking constitutional laws. Conversely Americans are not obligated to obey unconstitutional laws.

Free speech is absolute! What you say can get you in trouble but you CAN say it.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-16 13:33 (Reply)

I think I found video of Zach https://neveryetmelted.com/2022/04/16/twitter-employee-seeks-therapy/ and it explains his/her paranoia.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 George on 2022-04-16 13:50 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: Free speech is absolute! What you say can get you in trouble but you CAN say it.

Those statements are in contradiction. If you can be arrested and imprisoned, then free speech is not absolute. However, some restrictions on speech are constitutional and consistent with natural law.

Meanwhile, the Fourteenth Amendment grants power to Congress to guarantee equal protection, including in public accommodations. You can still be as racist as you want in your private life. You aren't required to be racist, though, if that is your concern. That's entirely up to you.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2022-04-16 14:38 (Reply)

"the Fourteenth Amendment grants power to Congress to guarantee equal protection, including in public accommodations."

Then explain colleges discriminating based on race and gender!!!

"You can still be as racist as you want in your private life."

Indeed, Most Democrats are.

"some restrictions on speech are constitutional and consistent with natural law."

No! You are really talking about responsibility not free speech. You have the right to say what you want to. You are responsible for what you say.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-16 17:23 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: Then explain colleges discriminating based on race and gender!!!

Institutions, including individual states and the United States, continued to discriminate after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are consequently liable to redress the harm they caused. Whether affirmative is a wise policy choice is a separate issue.

You Mean Discrimination: You have the right to say what you want to.

You do not have the right to incite insurrection under the First Amendment.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-16 19:25 (Reply)

"You do not have the right to incite insurrection under the First Amendment."

Actually I do. You are mincing words. I can stand on the street corner and preach insurrection all day long and it is within my constitutional right. What I cannot do is conspire to commit insurrection or make threats of violence. Now, it is your turn to mince words and claim I said something I did not say just so you can try to prove me wrong.

"Whether affirmative is a wise policy choice is a separate issue."

Affirmativer action is blatant racism, simple as that.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-16 20:08 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: I can stand on the street corner and preach insurrection all day long and it is within my constitutional right.

Preaching insurrection may be legal, but incitement to insurrection is a crime when the threat is intended, likely, and imminent (Brandenburg v. Ohio).

18 U.S. Code § 2383: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

We provided other examples: Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.

You Mean Discrimination: Affirmativer action is blatant racism, simple as that.

Are you saying an institution can’t be held to account for past damages?

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-16 20:33 (Reply)

"Are you saying an institution can’t be held to account for past damages?"

Holding them responsible is NOT Affirmative action. Affirmative action is discriminating against people based on race or gender. You know that and that is why you have to go weasel words in your response.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-16 22:13 (Reply)

affirmative action: A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-17 08:21 (Reply)

Notably, you drifted from defending segregation in public segregation, and the claim that free speech is "absolute," including the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-04-17 08:24 (Reply)

"you drifted from defending segregation in public segregation"

No! That was all you. I said that you can discriminate on your private property. I'm sure you have a lock on your door. THAT is discrimination.

"affirmative action: A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future."

In practice affirmative action is punishment. It punishes people who never did anything wrong and rewards people for wrongs they never suffered. If you advocate for affirmative action then you are a racist. Simple as that.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 You Mean Discrimination on 2022-04-17 10:47 (Reply)

You Mean Discrimination: I said that you can discriminate on your private property.

And we noted that the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection and grants Congress the power to enforce equal protection, including prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. You can, however, discriminate in your private life and non-public accommodation. You can be as racist as you want. Or not.

You Mean Discrimination: It punishes people who never did anything wrong and rewards people for wrongs they never suffered.

Leaving the wisdom of affirmative action aside, institutions inherit assets and liabilities regardless of the current owners. If an institution, such as the state of Georgia, oppressed people because of their race in violation of equal protection, then the state of Georgia can be held to account.

#5.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-04-17 12:24 (Reply)

Tinfoil hat stuff?

"The West Needs WWIII"

QUOTE:

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong thinks the New World Order’s so-called “Great Reset” plan for humanity now needs war to try and make it work.

It could happen in the next few weeks.

Armstrong explains, “What they are trying to do is deliberately poke the bear..."

"They are increasing the pressure on just about everything under the sun. The West needs World War III. They just need it. The real problem here is they went to negative interest rates in 2014 in Europe. They have been unable to stimulate the economy, and Keynesian economics have completely failed...

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/west-needs-wwiii-martin-armstrong-warns-theres-no-return-normal-here

#6 feeblemind on 2022-04-15 11:58 (Reply)

By the end of the year mortgage interest rates will be 12% or more. By rights to fight the real inflation rate of 20% mortgage rates should be at least 20%. That may well happen some time in 2023. Is your mortgage a ARM (adjustable rate mortgage)? If so what will you do when it adjusts to 12%? Before you answer please use one of the handy online payment calculators to see what your new payment might be. You will be shocked. Simultaneously with this dramatic increase in interest the housing bubble will burst and the economic downturn that the Democrats have engineered will result in a recession. A triple whammy. You won't be able to pay the new mortgage payment, you won't be able to sell the house for what you paid for it and you may lose your job. THAT is the essence of what the "Build Back Better Plan" was all about. They knew or should have known this would go FUBAR but short term a lot of Democrats made millions and a lot of their friends did as well. Now the piper must be paid and the Democrats who screwed you over are walking away from politics and will disappear from public life. They stole the election so they could do this and they did it. What is your plan B?

#7 OneGuy on 2022-04-15 13:27 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, April 15. 2022

Friday morning links