Monthly Archives: March 2018

Hillary Clinton Takes to India to Figure Out “What Happened”

The failed presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton continues to trot around the globe spewing her anti-America rhetoric.  She has since made her way to India, as most people here in the United States are fed up with her nonsense, her own Democrat party has all but disowned her.  Any mention of the name Hillary Clinton has become toxic to any Democrat politicians hopes of every winning any elected position.

I guess the people of India are still eating up her psuedo-intellectual babble as this time around she proceeded to try and explain that even though she lost the election, she still won the most important portions of the country.  She goes on spouting off about how she won places that are “optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward”.

This couldn’t be further from the truth as I reside in one of those places she’s speaking of New Jersey, and work in another “liberal utopia” she was speaking of New York City.  While these locales may be diverse, they are by no means dynamic and optimism is hard to find unless you are a well connected liberal ideologue or a Democrat politician.

Another video has popped up on social media showing Hillary Clinton apparently losing her balance while defending the stairs during her trip to India.  While I am be by means trying to make light of this, it is clear she may not be well and the back and forth over her health prior to the 2016 election may have been valid.

Whether you agree with her sentiment expressed while on her trip to India or not, one thing is clear – it might be time for Hillary Clinton to gracefully, or not so gracefully bow out the political spotlight.


Social Media Attack on Free Speech

Do We Have Free Speech on Social Media?

Does free speech extend to online social media platforms?  Do we truly have the right to express ourselves freely on sites like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and other social media outlets without the fear of having our accounts suspended or banned altogether?

The debate rages on especially in the wake of the recent “Twitter purge” in which thousands of accounts that Twitter allegedly deemed to be bots or in some cases “Russian bots” were deleted.  This seemed to hit the conservative Twitter accounts harder than any other accounts on the social media platform, I personally lost roughly 1,700 of my more than 60,000 followers overnight.  Were they indeed “Russian bots”?  The world may never know, nonetheless I did regain back nearly all of the followers I had lost, and my account continues to grow.

The Twitter purge continues as a quick Twitter search for the hashtag “TwitterPurge”  brings up countless instances in which users are consistently losing hundreds if not thousands of followers every day for the past few days.

The biggest issue here is not Russian bots or fake accounts, it is Twitter’s alleged attack on the Conservative Twitter accounts and the fact that their approach to dealing with monitoring hate speech and enforcing their community guidelines doesn’t seem to be applied evenly across the political spectrum.  There have been countless instances of deragatory, harassing, and even threatening Tweets posted against Conservative accounts and even against our President and those accounts are still alive and well.

We have seen first hand what the atmosphere is like on the inside at Twitter thanks to James O’Keefe’s underconver videos in which he was able to question a few Twitter employees asking them just how they police this social media platform.

Here’s what they had to say!

In this video James O’Keefe’s operation helps to expose what appears to be going on behind the scenes at Twitter.  Keep in mind this is just one of the major social media platforms and this mindset seems to be running rampant throughout Silicon Valley as they all do their best to drive a narrative and silence speech they do not agree with.

For example, in this video Twitter employees speak about a practice referred to as “shadow banning” in which they implement algorithms to hide content posted by people with a specific opinion.  In this case they spoke about shadow banning Conservatives and Trump supporters.  This even goes as far as to giving specific Twitter employees the power to ban accounts they may not agree with.

Now that we have a little insight as to what appears to be going on behind the scenes at Twitter, the question arises – what can be done about this?

As a publicly traded company complete with a set of community guidelines that are supposed to govern how they operate.  Of course these guidelines are quite vague leaving open the door for those at Twitter to implement them as they see fit.

According to Business Insider, Roger Stone intends to file an anti-trust lawsuit against Twitter for banning his account.

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican strategist and an informal adviser to President Donald Trump, plans to file an antitrust lawsuit against Twitter after the company permanently suspended his account on Saturday.


“I am going to sue Twitter on multiple grounds,” Stone told Business Insider on Sunday.

He did not elaborate when he would file the suit, and when asked what grounds he planned to sue Twitter on, he replied that he would let the suit “speak for itself when filed.”


Stone told New York magazine, which first reported the news, that he had been advised he has a “very strong legal case.”

“Twitter wants to avoid being regulated like a utility,” he told the publication. “No one has been willing to file the anti-trust case. I am.”

A lawsuit is also being filed by Jarod Taylor, an editor of a journal publication called American Renaissance.

According to Breitbart,

The genesis of the suit is Twitter’s November 2017 announcement that they would start banning and sanctioning users based on their offline behavior and associations. On December 18, 2017, Twitter, five years after their top British executive described the company as “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” made good on this threat, “purging” hundreds of mostly right-wing users. Twitter’s new policy refers to association with “violent extremist groups,” and a company blog post claimed, “If an account’s profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended.”


One of those purged is Jared Taylor, founder and editor of “American Renaissance,” a fringe-right journal on race and immigration. He is frequently described as an “extremist” and a “white supremacist” by left-wing groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the latter of which sits on Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Council,” the largely leftist group of activists and non-profits Twitter assembled in 2016 to help decide which speech to censor.

It’s clear that Twitter has made Mr. Taylor out to be some sort of “right wing extremist” as they do most Conservative minded individuals.  Jared has since filed a complaint against Twitter in an attempt to clear his name and restore his account.

Breitbart continues,

Taylor is a graduate of Yale University and Paris’s Sciences Po, the former West Coast editor of PC Magazine, and author of several books. He describes himself as a “white advocate” or “race realist” and condemns Nazism and antisemitism.

According to the complaint, in his more than six years on Twitter, Taylor never made threats, harassed anyone, or otherwise came under scrutiny for his behavior on the platform. Even the SPLC notes Taylor “scrupulously avoided racist epithets [and] employed the language of academic journals” in his writings, and Taylor once wrote an article urging people to be more civil on Twitter.

As the complaint puts it:

Mr. Taylor has always expressed his views with respect and civility towards those who disagree. He has never engaged in vituperation or name-calling, on Twitter or elsewhere.

Neither Mr. Taylor nor American Renaissance has ever promoted or advocated violence, on Twitter or anywhere else. Indeed, they have urged their followers to maintain a dignified and respectful tone towards those who disagree with them. Neither Mr. Taylor nor American Renaissance is affiliated with any groups that promote or practice violence.

At no time did either Mr. Taylor’s or American Renaissance’s accounts engage in “trolling,” insults, or harassment, nor did they ever encourage anyone else to do such thing

It’s always good to er on the side of free speech and the idea that Twitter and other social media platforms are private entities therefore they should be able to operate freely and govern their social networks as they see fit.

The question becomes what happens wen that private entity becomes public, and what happens when that private entity begins shaping the news narrative and silencing the first amendment right of those whom they don’t agree with?

Should we now let government step in and begin demanding social media platforms be held accountable by government to ensure free speech is upheld?  And can we rely on government to ensure that we all have a voice and we all have the ability to be heard equally?

Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become powerful tools to influence opinions on a variety of topics and it shouldn’t be up to a select few within these businesses decide the narrative.

Trump to Reign in Little Rocket Man

Trump to Meet with Kim Jung Un By May

Reports are coming in tonight that President Donald Trump has agreed to meet with the leader of North Korea by May of this year.  This appears to be a huge step in the right direction when it comes to achieving a more unified Korean Peninsula.

While this is the case one must wonder, if this meeting goes as planned and we actually do see a denuclearized North Korea, will the liberals and the democrats finally give Trump credit for this accomplishment as they have failed to give Trump credit on even one of the many accomplishments he has achieved in more than a year in office.

According to AP,

Chung said he had told Trump that Kim says he’s committed to “denuclearization” and has pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests — providing a rare diplomatic opening after a year of escalating tensions over the North’s tests. The rival Koreas have already agreed to hold a leadership summit in late April.


“He (Kim) expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible,” Chung said. “President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong Un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.”

Chung did not say where Trump would meet with Kim.


The White House said Trump’s meeting with Kim would take place “at a place and time to be determined.”

Trump took office vowing to stop North Korea from attaining a nuclear-tipped missile that could reach the U.S. mainland. He’s oscillated between threats and insults directed at Kim, and more conciliatory rhetoric. His more bellicose talk, and Kim’s nuclear and missile tests, have fueled fears of war.

It appears we are getting closer than we have ever been to attaining a peace agreement with North Korea.  One can’t help but remember Bill Clinton speaking about how he was going to hold North Korea accountable and pave the way for inspectors to enter North Korea to ensure they weren’t pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Agreed Framework laid out by the Clinton administration looked good on paper, the only problem is that communist dictatorships like the Kim Jung Un regime do not abide by peace agreements.

The Heritage Foundation outlines just how far the Clinton was willing to go with a front loaded deal with North Korea, a deal very similar to the failed nuclear deal Obama made with Iran.  A deal that essentially paved the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons within the next ten years. A deal that removed much of the sanctions that were placed on Iran to keep them and their nuclear capabilities in check.

According to the Heritage Foundation,

After 17 months of tumultuous negotiations over the Pyongyang government’s nuclear program, the United States and North Korea signed a detailed agreement in Geneva on October 2 1. The pact is a highly complex, three-staged, multilateral arrangement whose terms will not be fulfilled for many years. For the most part, the deal appears “front loaded” in favor of Pyongyang. A consor- tium of nations, led by the United States, is responsible for constructing a modem nu- clear power infrastructure for the well-armed, repressive communist state. The same con- sortium will bolster the North’s faltering economy by easing its immediate energy bur- dens with large quantities of free fuel oil. In an October 20 letter to North Korean strong- man Kim Jong Il, moreover, President Clinton vastly expanded America’s commitments under the formal agreement. The U.S., said Clinton, would finance the fuel shipments and the reactors if the consortium fails to do so. The total value of the U.S. pledge is esti- mated conservatively at more than $4 billion. In addition to leading the international energy assistance consortium, Washington has pledged to ease its long-standing trade embargo and move toward first-ever diplomatic relations with the North. These concessions provide Pyongyang a degree of political rec- ognition by the U.S. and its allies that it long has sought. Left unaddressed is the immedi- ate threat posed by the North’s formidable conventional military force, which includes a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and missiles capable of reaching South Korea and Japan. About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea to counter the North’s military threat. The Clinton Administration’s aim in all of this is, first, to freeze the North Korean nu- clear program and, ultimately, to assess the North’s past efforts to build nuclear bombs and preclude any future weapons capabilities. U.S. intelligence and defense officials esti- mate that the North has enough enriched fuel to produce nuclear weapons. Secretary of Defense William Perry has stated, “it is possible they could make one or even two de- vices, perhaps even nuclear bombs.”5 Even assuming smooth implementation of the Oc- tober 21 agreement, however, its goals cannot possibly be fulfilled completely for at least a decade.

Clearly the appeasement mentality of prior administrations has done nothing but pave the way for North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons.  We now sit on the precipice of nuclear war. Say what you want about Trump’s approach to the situation, it appears to be working – Trump tweets and all.

Technically we are still at war with North Korea as a peace agreement was never agreed upon once the Korean War came to an end.  Could it be that Trump could be responsible for officially ending the Korean War?  If so would the liberal progressive media and those on the left give Trump the credit he is due.

It’s Time to Recind Obama Era School Discipline Doctrine

Did the Obama Era Discipline Policy Lead to Rise in School Violence?

The media wasted no time placing blame on the guns following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida.  They completely failed, as usual, to delve deeper in to just why Nikolas Cruz may have been able to purchase the firearm he used to commit the henious act that took place on February 14th of this year.

You may be wondering just what could have been done differently, how could we have realized sooner that he was headed down this path that would lead him to becoming the monster he became.  Well the tell tale signs were all there.  There have been reports of repeated visits to his home for a variety of violent accusations, one time it was reported that he even called the police on himself.  Yet nothing was done.

We are also seeing many reports that Nikolas Cruz acted out in school, and many of his fellow classmates even admitted that he had issues.

It was obvious to many that Nikolas Cruz needed help.  In addition to simply being a “weird kid” as many of his classmates reported him to be, there is also evidence to show he had a violent past and clearly a violent present.

Many are asking what could have been done to prevent this tragedy and immediately we are being told it was the gun that committed the crime.  This school shooting has cantapulted both David Hogg and Emma Gonzolaz into overnight stardom as they have become the face of the newly minted anti-gun movement. They are even spearheading a rally call the “The March for Our Lives” on March 24th in Washington DC. You can rest assured that march will be nothing more than an anti-Trump protest attended by the likes of black lives matter and antifa.

Nonetheless, we are here to discuss what could have been done to prevent this tragedy and what policies, procedures, or guidelines cold be revised to prevent this from happening again.

During the Obama administration, his education department influenced many school districts around the country to implement specific guidelines referring to how schools are to deal with problem children, how they are to go about disciplining said children, and what the eventual outcome would be.

According to USA Today,

So, the Obama administration issued federal guidance putting school districts on notice that even if their discipline policy was “neutral on its face” and “administered in an evenhanded manner,” they could be subject to a federal civil rights investigation if minorities were suspended at a higher rate. Partly in response to federal pressure, over 50 school districts, serving 6.35 million students, implemented reforms and 27 states revised their laws regarding school discipline.

It’s clear the Obama administration policies have influenced schools throughout the country as to how they develop their disciplinary policies.  This could not have been more eviden in the Broward County Collaborative Agreenment on School Discipline policy outlines below.

As you can see this document that outlines how administrators and teachers are to address how they deal with disruptive and even violent students.  As per these guildelines they are to go our of their way to avoid reporting incidents to law enforcement, incidents that if they had been reported to law enforcement could possibly save lives if violent behavior such as the behavior exhibited by Nikolas Cruz could be averted.

And this is why it is imperative to get the federal government out of our schools.  We have come to a tipping point at which the federal government is essentially holding our schools and our children hostage, they are demanding that schools operate as they see fit in order to receive federal funding.  Many schools around the country have become beholden to this federal funding, without it they simply wouldn’t exist.

It is time people realize the repercussions of letting politicians in Washington DC dictate to local municipalities how they run their school districts.  It is time we end the beaucracy, end the never ending pipeline of tax dollars flooding DC, when all we see in return is demented policies that are putting our children in danger each and every day they head off to school.

Protecting Our Schools When the Government Won’t

Leave it to The Veterans to Act to Protect Our Children

When all else fails, leave it to our veteran servicemen and women to protect our most precious commodity, our children.  There has been much debate following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida as to how we address what some see as a daunting task of protecting kids while they attend school.

Some may find this to be a daunting task, nonetheless leave it to a veteran of the US military to find a solution to the problem.

According to The Tribunist,

Mark Cowan, an Army veteran, has decided he will personally guard North Side High School in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Cowan stands guard outside of the school with his AR-15 ready.


Cowan isn’t technically on school grounds, but he is close enough to monitor the premises.


He explained to WANE “that he is there to protect the students and ward off anyone who would pose a threat to their safety.”

If the government won’t act, if the government is to concerned with the politics of gun control, this just might be the next best alternative to avoid another mass shooting incident inside one of our nation’s schools. Mr. Cowan, a legal gun owner, and military veteran decided to take it upon himself to act with others will not.

School officials and local law enforcement are aware of his presence, and since he is not breaking an laws those opposed to his presence do not really have any recourse.  Mr. Cowan plans to stand guard at his post until measures are put in place to ensure our children are safe while attending school.

Fort Wayne Community Schools spokesperson Krista Stockman offered a statement to WANE:

“We take the security of our schools very seriously. We understand he has a right to be out there, but we do not believe it adds to the safety of our students. At North Side, as at all of our schools, we have security procedures in place. In addition, at North Side, we have armed police officers in the building every day.”

This may seem like a valid solution to protecting our children as they attend school, but others aren’t so keen with having an armed veteran standing guard so close to a school.

The Tribunist continues,

Cowan is part of a group who takes these matters seriously. He’s an Oath Keeper.


The Oath Keepers describe themselves like this: “a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic’.”


The Southern Poverty Law Center see the group through a different lens. “The Oath Keepers, which claims tens of thousands of present and former law enforcement officials and military veterans as members, is one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the U.S. today.


While it claims only to be defending the Constitution, the entire organization is based on a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy the liberties of Americans.”

Whether or not you agree with the group this individual represents, The Oath Keepers, the idea of veterans protecting our children seems like a very logical solution to the issue we face with mass shootings.