Germany unbanning AfD?

Is Germany allowing the conservative AfD party to run in elections rather than being branded a terrorist organization?

Should TikTok be banned?

Listening to Breitbart on Sirius XM's Patriot Channel this morning, a lot of conservatives were calling in defending TikTok saying it shouldn't be banned. It was a little disheartening. From a national security perspective, it's collecting vast amounts of data that can (and likely is) being shared with it's communist Chinese overlords.  From a societal perspective it is a contributor to social decay.  It's not alone, Facebook and Instagram and others have the same effect, but TikTok is Facebook  and Instagram on steroids. It encourages groupthink and shortens attention spans in a far worse way than other platforms.

I understand that banning something is counter to the conservative principles of the free market, but the purpose of government is to help set boundaries.  Murder is illegal, heroin is illegal. They are illegal for a reason; the common good. For some TikTok is like heroin. What someone does with their free time is their own business.  I get that, I agree with it.  But when their habits begin to affect society, when their hobbies affect national security, limits are needed.  It's not like there aren't alternatives for TikTok in any case, American alternatives. 

In the case of X (Twitter) there's an owner who is sincerely trying to provide a service, that generates a profit but still is trying to do what's in the best interest of Western society.  Elon Musk doesn't always get it perfectly right, but the intention is there.  This is clearly not the case with TikTok. I believe a ban makes sense.

If you think I'm wrong (or right) please let me know in the comments.  I haven't given much thought to TikTok, since it's not a big thing in my household and I've never used it. I'm open to being proven wrong, or right.

Maine is an idiot

Maine has gotten into the act of trying to ban president Trump from the 2024 ballot. This too will fail.

Patreon banning conservatives

 Patreon bans people whom they hate under the guise of removing "hate speech".  I've never heard of Sydney Watson before, but now I'm a fan.  Thanks Patreon.

Facebook Oversight Board slaps Facebook. Very lightly.

President Trump should be banned for 6 months instead of indefinitely?  Just wow. Not "WOW!" because we've all come to expect from these not-a-platform tech giants. 

Dave Rubin's take on the Facebook Trump ban

 Dave Rubin talks about a lot of recent events, because my take has been limited by my day job.

Where is Rage Against The Machine on this censorship?

" They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em."

Bulls on Parade, Rage Against The Machine

"Liberals" have skipped removing the books, they are just outright banning them now.  Ironic that the rebellion has become the empire (or machine) and are far worse than what they replaced.

The solution is simple - Ban Twitter

This is not a cancel culture thing. In fact, it should just be called Cancel Cult.  Rather, why would I support a platform publisher (Twitter) that selectively decides who can and cannot use their service, AND, does it so very poorly. This weekend I am going to close my Twitter account.  It's about as useful to me as is a cancelled Parler.  I'd rather wait for Parler to re-emerge than use Twitter.

It's awful:

I deleted my Patreon Account today, here's why

Just like Twitter, Patreon has set up some sort of Trust and Safety Counsel.  That counsel is really a policing free speech counsel.  Look what happened to Sargon of Akkad.  I'm not saying I support the language he used, but the policing being done is clearly, CLEARLY, selective and targeted at conservatives whom they are holding to a much higher standard than they are with progressives. How can I stick around on the platform in the face of this?

Here's what Dave Rubin had to say as he mulled over a response to Patreon himself.

Me leaving Patreon is singularly, pointless.  But if we leave en masse then it possibly makes a difference. I urge you to do the same. Except - where do we go?  What's obviously lacking is a conservative platform that encompasses the functionalities of Patreon, Twitter, Facebook and Google. Why don't we have that? No one has stepped up because it is a massive undertaking requiring huge funding and it has a slow growth path before becoming financially viable. But it is so necessary because what conservatives are facing is a slow virtual silencing in an era when virtual presence is what matters.

Nevertheless we only have two options at the crux of the situation - capitulate and meekly die off as a voice, or fight back.  If a company takes enough of a hit then maybe it reconsiders its Gestapo tactics against the right.  And maybe, just maybe an alternative might, in light of the obvious opportunity, emerge.

Hey, let's ban cars too

Not to be too glib, because a lot of leftitst would be thrilled to witness the disappearance of the automobile.  However, those who want to ban guns because guns kill people should take note - cars kill people too, often inadvertently, but increasingly, not always;

Several people have been injured after a car mounted the pavement and mowed down pedestrians outside the Natural History Museum in London this afternoon.

A man was pinned down by security guards and arrested by police in the heart of the capital's museum land in Kensington.

Hundreds of terrified tourists fled the scene as the black Toyota Prius - a registered minicab - careered into a sign before ultimately crashing into a crowd of as many as 10 people as it hit a silver car, according to witnesses.

Gun laws are extremely strict in the U.K. but they still have murders. They still have terrorism. Gun laws are not the answer. Maybe stricter penalties for murder and assault might work. Maybe it's something else. The point is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Otherwise while we are at it we should not only ban guns, we should also ban shovels, rakes, steak knives, camping (because grizzly bears), construction sites, fire and doctors who can't cure cancer.

Sally Yates, you're fired.

Sally Yates, (former) acting Attorney General and president Obama appointee refused to enforce president Trump's immigration ban order.  And for that, she was, rightly, fired.

As the editors of National Review (themselves no fans of Donald Trump) noted;

Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way. No one knows this better than high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice. That is why President Trump was right to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

It's that simple. Instead, knowing her days were numbered she decided deliberately to turn herself into a martyr in the face of a hyped-up outrage against the ban. The very outrage by the way, that will help convince Trump supporters they were right to support him and will help galvanize their support of what they see as a return to common sense from a president who wouldn't even say the words "extremist Islamic terrorism" to a president who wants to do his job and put Americans' safety first. 

Getting back to Yates, her actions were poorly conceived.  Not only did she get herself fired but she's not going to be made a martyr.  No one outside of her immediate family and circle of friends cares about Sally Yates. Liberals will use her as the flavor of the week cause celebre until Trump's next move which as it turns out, is happening tonight.  And once Trump's ban on former government employees working for lobbyists kicks in, perhaps prior to her next role, she'll potentially be challenged in finding her next obvious role.  perhaps she'll take a speaking-engagement tour or go out touting her eventual book about how she was treated so unfairly by president Trump just because she stood up for her (politically driven) principles.  I'm sure she'll draw huge crowds at Snowflake University.

But her problems don't end there.  Her actions were those of insubordination. 

To make an analogy, there are many federal judges who oppose abortion. They apply Roe v. Wade even though they disagree with it intensely, because their duty is to obey superior courts. As every official in the Justice Department knows, if one disagrees with the law one is called upon to apply, or the policy one is bound to enforce, one is free to resign. Staying on while undermining government policy is not an act of courage. It is an act of sabotage.

Is it indictable? Maybe.

Furthermore, the very thing Ms. Yates turned up her legal nose at -- a president placing restrictions on immigration from terror-infused countries -- was done in 2011 by Barack Obama, the man responsible for her appointment.

That Trump fired her only minutes after she opened her mouth was predictable and necessary -- and not just to provoke the inevitable jokes about his television show. The president was acting within the law. She wasn't.

...She deserves to be indicted and have her license to practice law yanked. But no, she shouldn't go to jail. She should get a job and do something useful -- far from the law. On the weekends, she can go protest all she wants.

To use a military analogy it's a court marshallable offense. To view it as an act of heroism is to ignore the reality of how the government or any business works - like it or not you do as your boss says or you find another job. Do otherwise and you're fired.

Get Ready for Stupid, UK style

The British parliament is set to vote tonight (ET), to ban Donald Trump from its soil.  I'm not sure they all realize that he might become president of the country's biggest ally.  But it isn't really about that is it?

As Allahpundit at HotAir points out;

Assuming that actually banning Trump is off the table, what’s the point of today’s debate? Those who follow British politics regularly would know better than I, but I assume that it’s mainly about making Cameron’s government uncomfortable — not only will they have to grudgingly defend admitting Trump to the UK so as not to create awkwardness with Americans but they’ll have to distinguish the decision not to ban Trump with previous decisions to ban other controversial speakers. One Muslim MP from Labour is eager for that discussion...

It's all about optics. Classic Left tactic. But pass or fail, this is stupid.  Should Trump become president, he doesn't seem like the type to forget this stuff.

While I'm not sure I want to see Trump as the GOP nominee,  anything the left and liberals do to alienate him, I'm good with.  The more they spend time attacking him, the harder he will attack back, and the less attacks there are focused on Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Christie et. al.  Trump is running cover for other Republicans both at home and abroad.  Should he not eventually win, think of all that ink, punditry SuperPAC attack money gone to waste while another winner emerges with months of liberal attacks wasted.

That makes me happy, because the stupid on the left will have paid dividends on the right.

Obama's energy jobs destroyed number

Obama: Frigging with Rigging

According to the Department of Energy, U.S. offshore oil production is going to drop by 11% in 2011.  The reason is the Obama administration's ban on deep water drilling that came about, conveniently, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill.  What the President wants is green energy self-sufficiency - in other words energy self-sufficiency on his terms.  Setting aside the  President's hypocrisy on energy self sufficiency in the United States, there's the issue of the President once again, putting an agenda ahead of the needs of the American people.  In a time of economic trouble, shouldn't the President be doing as much as he can to mitigate the economic circumstances faced by the nation?