I’ve recently been covering the growing assault on conservative speech by big tech companies. They used to deny it or blame it on their “algorithms,” but now, they’re barely even making the effort to deny their bias – and when they do, their denials are undermined by former employees who are speaking out about the culture of leftist tyranny that exists inside companies such as Google, Twitter and Pinterest.
(If you missed what I wrote last week, much of it has been compiled into an op-ed here):
Over the weekend, the New York Times did its best to try to provide cover for censoring conservatives with a ridiculous piece about how watching rightwing YouTube videos “radicalized” a poor, unsuspecting young liberal into an alt-right monster before he realized the error of his ways (at one point, he even dated – gasp! – a Christian girl!)
Among the dangerous rightwing radicals identified by the Times were Ben Shapiro (apparently, the only Orthodox Jewish Nazi in the world) and Dave Rubin, a gay, classically liberal talk show host whose crime is to treat conservative guests like human beings. Rubin discussed with Fox News’ Jesse Watters what it felt like to have the paper he grew up on branding him as a rightwing radical:
This seems to be part of an escalating campaign to silence all conservatives before the 2020 election. Andrew Klavan of the Daily Wire explains it this way:
1. Convince people that hate speech should be silenced.
2. Define hate speech as alt-right.
3. Label powerful mainstream conservatives “alt-right.”
4. Silence powerful mainstream conservatives.
It used to be an inside joke in politics that to the media, all Republicans were “arch-conservatives” or “far-right,” but there was no such thing as a far-left, arch-liberal. This goes back so far that Barry Goldwater was a far-right arch-conservative, while Ted Kennedy was just a liberal. But it’s no joke anymore. It seems to be part of a concerted effort to smear and ban people just for holding views that are not approved by people in media who have managed the neat trick of simultaneously being both far-left and fascist.
I can’t help wondering why so many Democrats want to be the President of a country they really don’t seem to like very much. They’ll tell you America was never great; that it’s irredeemably racist, sexist and homophobic; that it’s mean and xenophobic for expecting other nations to respect its borders; and it needs to be “fundamentally transformed” into a much larger and more socialist version of Sweden. America is so bad, they defend people who refuse to stand during its National Anthem and who burn its flag. Bernie Sanders won’t even say if he opposes having the government take over major industries in an all-out socialist assault on the free enterprise system.
Yet they’re all fighting over the chance to lead America. Why? If America were half as awful bad as they seem to think it is, you’d assume they’d be on a plane to Cuba instead of on the campaign trail, trying to win the Presidency (to be fair, Bernie Sanders has been in both places).
Think I’m overstating the case? “Beto” O’Rourke went to Charleston to address a gathering of black community leaders and activists on how to advance the black community. They seemed to be looking for ways to help blacks achieve the American Dream: for instance, some have started a non-profit to help more black males attend and stay in college.
But what “Beto” told them is that black people need to “be protected from their country.” I’ll let him explain what he means at the link, where he "white-'splains" all the ways, from kindergarten on up, that black people need to be protected from America -- although I warn you: as with all important issues, he ultimately admits, “I don't have the answer."
“Beto” does apparently believe, though, that he can protect us all from climate change by killing the oil industry and replacing it with wind power. As much wind as he and his fellow Democrats are generating, I still don’t think that’s practical.
Personally, I think the best way to “protect” all Americans of all races is by protecting us all from having any of these people become our President.
Correction: In a previous story about the libel verdict against Oberlin College, I said that the jury awarded $33 million in punitive damages for a total of $44 million. An earlier report I saw erroneously had it that way. Turns out it was actually $22 million in punitive damages, which added to the $11.2 million in compensatory damages totals over $33 million. But they also ordered Oberlin to pay the bakery’s legal fees, and knowing attorneys, it just might reach $44 million before the dust settles.
Unlike many news outlets these days, we try to be accurate, so I wanted to correct this detail. But to cite the Dan Rather defense, it was fake but accurate.
Meanwhile, in Great Britain, instead of demanding that university students learn to behave like adults, they’re going in the opposite direction by letting 15- and 16-year-olds challenge test questions that “trigger” them. An exam board ruled that students have the right to file an official complaint about this question:
“There are 84 calories in 100g of banana. There are 87 calories in 100g of yogurt. Priti has 60g of banana and 150g of yogurt for breakfast. Work out the total number of calories in this breakfast.”
Critics claim the question is traumatizing for an age group prone to anorexia, with some students protesting that the very subject of counting calories “triggered me so much” and left them panicked and near tears. This is the second test question to spark protests, following an uproar over an English exam question that included a passage from a book in which a character was later raped. That part wasn’t even in the test, but some students complained that it “triggered” them anyway. No explanation for how they knew what later happened in the book if they’re too sensitive to have read it.
I feel a need to point out that this comes just one week after the commemoration of the brave young Britons of the 1940s, many of them still teenagers, who shipped out to join the D-Day invasion, and not long after the release of the documentary, “They Shall Not Grow Old,” about Britons as young as 14 who lied about their ages to volunteer to fight in World War I. If it’s still true that the sun never sets on the British Empire, it might only be because the current young generation would throw such a fit about being “triggered” by the dark.
This is a terrific article from the Orange County Register, looking at the Grand Canyon-sized gap between the so-called “good intentions” of progressive “social justice” policies and the quality of life of the people they claim to be helping. The results are anything but “just” and offer more proof of why "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" is considered one of the biggest lies of all time.
We’ve all observed how government policies in the most liberal cities have led to widespread crime and violence, filth, disease, unemployment, homelessness and scarcity of affordable housing, all heavily impacting the poor and middle class (what’s left of it, anyway.) But this piece looks even deeper into the numbers to show why so many minorities are fleeing places where “social justice” leftists run the show for cities and states in the South and Midwest that those same leftists haughtily condemn and boycott -- but where everyone, including their own black and Hispanic ex-pats, lives better lives.
This goes into some details as to why that is. For instance, the obsession with “climate change” drives up the costs of gas and electricity, which kills job creation while putting a huge burden on working class families. Heavy environmental regulation blocks construction, which kills blue collar jobs while making housing scarce and expensive. The further left the politicians, the more they rail about “income inequality”…but the further left the government, the worse income inequality is (California has the worst in America, while San Francisco has practically reverted to a feudal system of lords living in castles and impoverished serfs taking refuge in caves.)
Despite claims that liberal cities are more friendly to minorities, most of their minority populations are shrinking as they flee L.A., San Francisco, New York and Chicago for “non-woke” cities like Dallas or Phoenix, where they have a better chance of attaining the American dream. For instance, in Los Angeles, only 37% of Latinos and 33% of African-Americans own their own homes. In "unenlightened" Houston, those numbers are 51% and 42% respectively.
Read the whole thing, and if you’re a young person who still believes there’s a connection between how much someone virtue-signals and how much actual virtue they have, then read it twice. And again, on behalf of the residents of those cities to which the refugees from leftism are fleeing, I convey this message: “You are welcome here, but please don’t vote to bring the same garbage you fled (and we mean “garbage” both figuratively and literally) to the places you fled to.”
Unlike many people, I wouldn’t poke fun at Joe Biden for promising to cure cancer if he’s elected President. Yes, it’s a ludicrous promise – there are many different forms of cancer that researchers have been trying to cure for decades, and the idea that all it would take is throwing more federal money at it is the same fruitless solution liberals have for every problem. Still, Biden’s son died of brain cancer, so I understand why this is such an important issue to him personally, even if the promise is not practical.
I think it would be better to reserve any mockery for those who support Biden but are already trying to excuse him for not curing cancer by blaming cancer on Trump. No, that’s not a joke; that’s the actual news story that provides the premise for jokes:
Joy Behar on “The View” recently disputed the term “far-left” to describe the crazy promises and policies coming from the Democratic Presidential candidates. Instead, she claimed she backed Democrats because their policies are just “common sense.” When challenged to name a “far-left” idea, Meghan McCain mentioned late term abortion, and Whoopi Goldberg responded that that doesn’t exist.
I bring that up just to give you a baseline so you understand how Joy Behar and other modern liberals define “common sense.” She argued that it will be difficult for Biden to cure cancer because some cancers are caused by environmental factors, and Trump is fighting “climate change” legislation, which will make the environment more polluted and, apparently, cause more cancer than even Joe Biden can cure. So if Joe Biden fails to cure cancer, it’s Trump’s fault.
In summation, the defender of liberal “common sense” in the media thinks that Donald Trump is pro-cancer. That is some seriously uncommon common sense.
Monday, the Supreme Court threw out the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling against a Christian-owned bakery that declined a job making a same-sex wedding cake. They sent it back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips. The case involved Sweet Cakes By Melissa, which was owned by a Christian couple who were slapped with $135,000 worth of fines over one cake for refusing to violate their religious beliefs.
The attorney for the lesbian couple who pressed the case called the ruling “disappointing.” Really? They’ve already relentlessly persecuted a Christian couple for their religious beliefs, forced the small business they spent their lives building into closure, and put them through an expensive, personally-devastating ordeal for years, all because they declined a job baking a cake that any number of other local bakeries would have gladly made. Now, instead of rightly throwing out this case, the SCOTUS has once again dodged the issue again and sent it back to the lower courts. I find the idea that the Oregon judges will truly "reconsider" whether they are hostile to people of faith as hard to swallow as a two-year-old wedding cake. Just how much more pain were the plaintiffs hoping to inflict?
I find it more than “disappointing” that anyone would face such an injustice in the United States. I am “disappointed” in her clients for using their new-found right to same-sex marriage to bludgeon someone else’s religious freedom rights. I’m “disappointed” in the entire Oregon governmental and judicial system for enabling such bullying, and I’m “disappointed” in the SCOTUS for creating such a muddle of clashing rights without clarifying it, then continually leaving it to be sorted out by forcing people of faith to suffer ruinous fines and prosecutions in biased lower courts.
I am at least encouraged that the SCOTUS finally seems to be slowly starting to clean up the legal mess it’s made. But instead of dealing with this piecemeal on a case-by-selectively-prosecuted-case basis, how about issuing a clear and definitive ruling upholding the supremacy of the First Amendment?