You Can’t Save Something You Never Had

Former President Barrack Obama didn’t just go to the University of Illinois to give a speech. He actually went there to accept an award of “ethical standards” in government. Laughable when you consider:

  • the last five Governors from the state of Illinois have gone to Federal Prison for corruption crimes
  • eavesdropping (recording someone without their knowledge) is a federal offense in Illinois, EVEN if they were breaking the law!
  • it’s been revealed that there are a long list of scandals that were covered up when it comes to Obama’s Administration (just because it wasn’t acknowledged doesn’t mean it didn’t happen)

This is like the mob giving an anti-corruption trophy to a government official that is one of their own members.

Another line I’ve noticed Democrats have used repeatedly is “our Democracy”. In the speech Obama presented he stated he used the word democracy ten times. He also stated:

“…that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it.”

The level of ignorance behind this statement is not apparent to Democrats, for one simple reason, they truly think they live in a Democracy! This statement shows Obama’s true idiocy for several different reasons.

  1. For the simplest and most basic, America is a Constitutional Republic with a democratic-like voting process, however even THAT is NOT 100% democratic.
  2. Even in a Democratic system, it is impossible to save a Democracy by voting.

To the first example the founding fathers never trusted Democracy, when you vote in a Democracy, the majority population can wipe out the voices of the minority population. If the Democrats truly don’t want white rule, why do they want to wipe out the electoral college right now?

Secondly, when a REAL Democracy fails, it’s impossible to use voting to fix it. Democracy often fails because of the voting, and in turn, voting can’t turn anything around. Democracy is like a river and any type of unique individual thoughts are swept away with the flow of mainstream beliefs. It crushes individuality and wears away any hope of being fixed after it’s broken. However, to say that we need to vote in order sustain something that we’ve NEVER had to begin with, makes our former president look like a flat out idiot.

He commented on Trump being a product of division in this country. However, fails to look at his own policy enforcement as a source of potential division. Particularly anything related to Title IX he’s signed off on, has created robust amounts of friction and confusion in schools. It has redefined terms, and the spinoff has created a new culture to where law-terms of things such as harassment, and rape are buried under biased definitions. Definitions designed to fit a certain narrative that make the left look like saints and anyone who doesn’t fit this criteria is a ‘Nazi’. To answer Mr. Obama’s question, this is why it is so hard to say ‘Nazi’ because the meaning of the term ‘Nazi’ or ‘alt-right’ today is simply:

AltRight

Obama is full of himself, arrogant and his level of ignorance is on par with his own ego. For these reasons, even those who voted for him (including myself), are sick of him.

#SHUTUPOBAMA

 

Advertisements

Twitter Bans Alex Jones, A Few Questions For Them

Twitter has, as we all knew they would eventually do, suspended Alex Jones’ account and banned him from Twitter.

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1037806327584776193

What was the reason for this banning? Apparently, Twitter accused Alex Jones of violating their “abusive behavior policy”.

This is the foundation of the policy that Twitter claims Alex Jones violated.

Basic POlicy

However, the left views “abuse” differently than what is realistic. Realistically abuse is being targeted by someone, involuntarily having to submit to them in some way, and having an inability to fight back.

On Twitter, onlookers voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones and viewed his content. They also had just as much freedom to block him as soon as they made an account. Realistically if the left had a distaste for his content they would have taken the two seconds it took out of their day to simply block him and never heard from him again. If a person voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones with full knowledge that he has had signs of what Twitter calls “abusive behavior” in the past, are they not consenting to the possibility of their engagement also being hostile? Not saying that he WAS hostile, many who reported him were just as hostile as they accused him of being. So the reality is, they weren’t mad at his content being offensive, so much as they were angry at him having a voice at all. They were angry that he had a right to speak his mind!

Can we really say anyone is abusive if the party in question is being voluntarily approached by their opponents? Is the approach of a person’s platform or reply to their tweet not technically consent to their alleged ‘hate speech’ (I do not believe in the left’s version of hate speech)?

However Twitter seems to think, like many leftists, that a person doesn’t need to be the target of the content for the speaker to be considered abusive.

screenshot-help.twitter.com-2018.09.06-22-01-31

In Twitter’s own words, as long as there is a possibility you’ve offended someone, there is a possibility your account is getting suspended. Depending on the demand, Twitter will ban you based on the amount of people who deem your content as hateful.

And Twitter is filled with little cupcakes waiting to press that ‘Report’ button.

This leads me to question, does Twitter have the right to even make this standard on their platform since twitter considers itself a platform and NOT a media? Yes, they’re a private company, but there are laws when it comes to platforms. They claim not to be a media simply because they don’t produce content. However, if they regulate the content that IS produced, can they not be established AS a publishing platform regardless of owning the actual creators who are producing the content? And if they are truly a free speech platform, do they have a right to regulate content like this at all within the sovereignty of the United States? In either direction, did they have a right to rip the rug out from under Alex Jones’ feet over unfounded claims he violated their policy? Does he not have the right to see the evidence, a right to dispute the claims?

When it comes to their platform, they’re either one or the other. It is a slippery slope and they cannot crawl their way out of the rabbit hole they, and other social media platforms, have created for themselves.