Tag: U.S. CONSTITUTION

Apple Tells Parler To Censor Free Speech Or Lose Its App

By Tom Pappert

John Matze, the founder of the pro-free speech social network Parler, revealed on the platform that Apple contacted him to demand he censor “offensive” speech from the website or the big tech platform will remove Parler’s app from its App Store. 

Matze revealed on his Parler account that he was threatened with the deletion of his smartphone app if his company does not change its Community Guidelines and immediately begin removing content Apple considers “offensive.” When Matze flatly refused to comply with the tech giant’s demands, Apple prevented the Parler app from sending push notifications to users.

Screen Shot 2019-06-25 at 5.56.05 PM

Big League Politics recently joined Parler, and has partnered with the pro-free speech platform to provide high quality, pro-America news to the public.

As we reported, Parler’s novel approach to content moderation is to stand firmly behind the First Amendment and the United States Constitution:

Perhaps Parler’s most fascinating and distinguishing difference from the other big tech giants is its devotion to freedom of speech. While Facebook, Twitter, Google, and virtually every other big tech website offer byzantine rules regarding what they consider hate speech, sensitive content, targeted harassment, and other forms of behavior they consider toxic, Parler stands behind the United States Constitution’s definition of free speech.

Parler’s Community Guidelines, a five page long, easily read and understood document available on its website, enshrines this.

Removing Parler’s app from the store could theoretically stunt the website’s growth, even as President Donald Trump is reportedly considering opening an account on the platform as part of the social media strategy for his 2020 reelection campaign.

0

Portland State U Students Demand Disarming Of Campus Police

PSU Disarm Campus Police

By Faye Higbee and Jeff Dunetz

Never mind how stupid this sounds. Never mind how much students today are afraid of mass shooters. Portland State U students have decided they want their campus police disarmed.

KGW8 TV reported,

Portland State University students rallied at a Thursday board meeting, calling for campus police officers to be disarmed.

Trending: The AOC Mess: Why The Holocaust Should NEVER Be Used As Weapon Of Political Warfare

“Police with guns are ticking time bomb,” said Olivia Pace, one of the students who spoke in front of the Portland State University Board of Trustees.

Students in favor of disarming campus police held signs and spoke at the board meeting. They said they believe it has taken far too long for university leadership to take action…

At Thursday’s board meeting, multiple students spoke directly to trustees, voicing their frustration with the lack of decision making on the issue.

“We feel like the longer the university pushes this off to more and more committees and more and more third parties, the issue will kind of just dissolve,” said Pace.

Earlier this year a report, commissioned by the university, found that more than half of students and faculty supported disarming campus officers. That same report also recommended keeping campus police armed.

Really? And what happens if a criminal with a gun comes onto the campus. Will the Campus police tell them to drop the weapon or they will tell the dean? Or their mommies?

Last year PSU officers shot and killed Jason Washington – who was a legal gun carrier that happened to drop his weapon as he was trying to break up a fight. The Campus Cops testified:

When Washington got up, the officers say he was holding the gun in his hand.

“I’m screaming, like, begging really – for this guy to drop his gun,” Dewey told the grand jury.

Both officers said they told Washington to drop the gun. Then they said he pointed it in their direction.

“In my mind, I’m like thinkin’ I’m gonna be shot right there, and I fire a couple rounds,” said McKenzie. “I see him fall to the ground. Uh, when I see that, I saw firing. I, my next thought process is if he’s wounded, he can shoot at us again at the last know location we were at.”

That testimony was confirmed by a Portland Police forensic technician who was called in to examine the body camera video of the shooting, slowing it down and enhancing the video to see whether Washington pointed his gun at police.

Video shows PSU officers fatally shooting man; grand jury report says the gun was friend’s

The technician, Portland Police Bureau officer Anthony Eugenio, showed the grand jury that Washington’s right arm was extended in front of his body with a black object in his hand, consistent with a firearm.

When asked if he believed that Washington pointed the gun towards the officers, he said that is “correct.”

A grand jury cleared the two Campus police and based on the testimony it seems that by using their service revolvers the two campus police saved lives (including their own)

Even so, the story of Jason Washington was a tragedy.  But the students think the campus police officers are “dangerous” because they carry guns—and they are dangerous to students who point a gun at them.

How many of these students worry about a mass shooter, armed robber, a rapist with a gun, or any other kind of gun-wielding criminal gets onto the Campus? How many of them would be quickly shot dead if their campus police were unarmed? Who would stop a shooter? They are valid questions, ones that the “social justice warrior” crowd ignores.

Much of this post was first seen at Conservative Firing Line

0

IL Sen. Taunts Gun Owner: Forget the Fine, Maybe We’ll Just Take Your Firearms

By AWR HAWKINS

Illinois State Sen. Julie Morrison (D) taunted a concerned gun owner during a town hall by telling him she might forgo fining him and simply confiscate his firearms.

The exchange was caught on video by the Illinois State Rifle Association and was tied to proposed fines for keeping commonly owned semiautomatic firearms in one’s home.

The concerned gun owner pointed to SB107 and said the purpose of it was “to take away [his] semiautomatic firearms.”

Morrison then interjected that the purpose was not to take them, but to prevent any future sales.

The gun owner responded by pointing out that the ban on future sales included a fine for current owners who did not hand their guns over. He said, “You want me to turn them over to the state police unless I pay a fine for each firearm and register them, then I get to keep them.”

Morrison concurred, saying, “Okay.”

The gun owner then asked, “If I get to keep it–if I pay a fine and register it–then, how dangerous is it in the first place and why do you need to ban it all?”

People in attendance applauded the gun owner’s point and once applause died Morrison said, “Well, you just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all, maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying the fine.”

NRATV’s Cam Edwards commented on the exchange that drew Sen. Morrison into the light, where she openly talked confiscation. He described it as part of a larger “push-back” characterized by Second Amendment Sanctuary declarations in southern counties in Illinois.

Edwards said, “It’s been interesting to see this push-back in Illinois. Obviously, over the last few years we’ve seen a lot of counties outside of the Chicago-land area have been very vocal in pushing back. But I’ve got to tell you, I’ve been really impressed by the number of gun owners in northern Illinois…who have been speaking out.”

 

0

Eric Swalwell Has a Plan for Handguns Once AR-15s Are Confiscated

Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell speaks during the 2019 California Democratic Party State Convention at Moscone Center in San Francisco, California on June 1, 2019. (Photo by Josh Edelson / AFP) (Photo credit should read JOSH EDELSON/AFP/Getty Images)

By Awr Hawkins

During an appearance on CNN’s SE Cupp Unfiltered, Democrat presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell made clear he has a plan for handguns he will pursue after AR-15s are confiscated.

Cupp began the segment on Saturday with Swalwell by telling him she appreciates the fact that he is one of the few leftist candidates who admits he plans to take away an entire category of firearms.

Cupp said: “You are the only candidate who is calling for a confiscation of guns. You say you want to ban and buy back every single assault weapon in America. You’ve touted Australia as a model of how gun confiscation works.”

She added, “Gun control advocates often say no one is coming to take your guns away, [but] you say, ‘Yes I am.’ And that is refreshingly honest.”

Swalwell contrasted himself with the rest of the Democrat field, saying: “Other candidates have called for an “assault weapons” ban, but they only want to ban future manufacturing, and future sales. And I think if you recognize that an “assault weapon” shouldn’t be made any more in America, why don’t you just get to the point where you say ‘Those that are here, shouldn’t be here.’ That’s where I”m at.”

Cupp pointed out that “assault weapons” are involved in “less that five percent of gun murders” in America. She then asked Swalwell why he is “stopping at ‘assault weapons’ …and not confiscating handguns, which account for the vast majority of gun deaths.”

Swalwell made clear he also has a plan for handguns, but he is focused on getting rid of “assault weapons” first.

0

ACTOR JEFFREY WRIGHT: WHEN WE GET THE POWER, EVERYBODY ELSE F**KING DUCK

Actor Jeffrey Wright: When We Get the Power, Everybody Else F**king Duck

“There are no principles — not ethical, moral, legal, constitutional, religious, spiritual — NONE. There’s only power.”

Breitbart – MAY 30, 2019

Actor Jeffrey Wright on Wednesday appeared to warn that when the political left in America “get the power” back from Republicans, “everybody else” should “fucking duck.”

“Message from the @GOP:” Jeffrey Wright began, “There are no principles — not ethical, moral, legal, constitutional, religious, spiritual — NONE. There’s only power. And when we get the power, everybody else fucking duck.”

Screen Shot 2019-05-30 at 8.48.10 AM

“Lesson for everybody else: Get the power,” the Westworld star’s message concluded. It came as former Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered remarks at the Justice Department on Wednesday about the conclusion of his election interference investigation.

“If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Robert Mueller said, Wednesday echoing the conclusions made in his 800-plus page report.“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated.”

Read more

0

The End of States! Warren Calls for Federal Government Intervention to Keep Abortion Legal

CAP

By Penny Starr

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is calling for Congress to create and pass legislation that would make access to abortion mandatory across the United States.

Like many of her Democrat colleagues running for the 2020 presidential nomination, Warren is reacting to Alabama banning abortion and several other states poised to follow suit, most recently Missouri.

“These extremist Republican lawmakers know what the law is — but they don’t care,” Warren wrote in a commentary posted on the Medium website on Friday. “They want to turn back the clock, outlaw abortion, and deny women access to reproductive health care. And they are hoping the Supreme Court will back their radical play.”

And she blames Trump for the nation’s increasingly pro-life stance, including that he “stole” a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

“I’ll be blunt: It just might work,” Warren wrote. “President Trump has packed the courts with extreme, anti-choice judges. Senate Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat and rammed through the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh last year in order to cement an anti-choice majority on the Supreme Court.”

Warren claims, falsely, the abortion and “reproductive rights” are guaranteed in the Constitution. The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s right for citizens’ privacy to make legal abortion on demand the law of the land.

And because Warren and other pro-abortion politicians and activists know that the Roe V. Wade decision comes under renewed scrutiny by the high court, the law could be undone.

Her answer: federal government intervention that would stifle states’ right to make abortion laws, including lifting the ban on federal funding of abortions.

“Congress should pass new federal laws that protect access to reproductive care from right-wing ideologues in the states,” Warren wrote. “Federal laws that ensure real access to birth control and abortion care for all women. Federal laws that will stand no matter what the Supreme Court does.”

Government intervention would include:

  • Create federal, statutory rights that parallel the constitutional right in Roe v. Wade.

  • Pass federal laws to preempt state efforts that functionally limit access to reproductive health care.

  • Guarantee reproductive health coverage as part of all health coverage.

In her commentary, Warren inadvertently revealed how pro-life the nation is becoming, including 55 laws restricting abortion have been passed by state legislatures and 18 states have laws in place to kick in if the Roe decision. And 90 percent of counties in the country do not have an abortion clinic, according to data from 2014.

“This is a dark moment,” Warren wrote. “People are scared and angry. And they are right to be. But this isn’t a moment to back down – it’s time to fight back.”

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑