Wonder if he has been banned?
Google have decided that they are the arbiters of internet approvals.
They have decided that they are fully justified in deciding what another company should regulate in it’s own space. They have decided to remove Parler from their App Store because Parler refuses to proactively supervise and ban user content.
This is not how Google wishes the internet to run.
Google are not friends of free expression and free speech.
People who work for Google need to seriously examine what they are working for and toward.
At 11pm on December 31st 2020 Britain (and Europe) finally reached the end of an exhausting 4 or more years of preliminary disentanglement.
I say “preliminary dis-entanglement” because, of course, Britain and the various parts of Europe are impossible to “disentangle” after centuries of getting fully entangled with language, culture, custom, business, commerce and so on and those will NOT be being untangled. British people will continue to buy properties in France or Cyprus or Spain for their retirements and European banks and business will be going to London to arranged the various finances they need.
So what has it all been about then?
Sovereignty. In a word. This is something that , reportedly, the Eurocrats really never got to grasp especially their chief negotiator Michel Barnier . There were reports in the British Press that Barnier got exasperated with the British negotiating team always bringing up the very subject of Sovereignty.
And this is, I think, the crucial point in this whole process. It is, to me at least, very amusing that a large part of the British working class and working middle class understood that concept clearly and embraced it. The people who had, and have the hardest time dealing with leaving are the intellectual ‘Snobocracy’ that infest Britain. These are the people on the BBC who agonized over the result of the vote. The same sort that like to order or flame or suggest that everyone should obey the “rules” when they, themselves think the rules do not apply to them.
I think the people of Britain want the final word on what applies to them. And, in the end that is what they have.
Yes, it may well be that Britain will go along with some EU rules – but it will go along with the rules that its own Parliament passes. And, if the British people don’t like it then they can vote those MPs out and change the rules. Without consulting the vast European Bureaucracy.
Sovereignty. It is a big word, it is a mighty concept and it is finally back in the hands of the British People.
Well played Boris. Well played David frost and the negotiating team. And VERY Well played Nigel Farage .
It is a simple fact of modern life that the left has been advancing its agenda and cause under the battle banner of Hate.
Disagreement with the socialist agenda is labeled as “hate speech”. Failure to enthusiastically agree with the latest insane pronouncement about racism in America, or Trangender Rights – gets labeled as “hate speech”. Someone going to a University to deliver a lecture on the Rights of the Individual will be labeled, in advance, as both “divisive” and “hate speech”. The word “hate” is bandied around in Liberal Speak almost as much as the word “racist”. Neither word is correct – but labeling people with stark, alarming and frankly threatening words is all part of Agit-Prop – the Leninist idea of advancing the cause through agitation and propaganda.
The left brooks no idea of discussion or give and take. The Left’s idea of give and take is; people give, the party takes. The idea of of “discussion” is that it is the audience’s job to shut up, sit down and listen. Applaud at the end. The only sound they wish to hear is enthusiastic and subservient cheering.
You might think that I am exaggerating for effect. I wish I was. But no.
Don’t believe me? Go look at Twitter and see how they behave. Give yourself a day or two of watching the stream of sewage that flows effortlessly from the left and you will be ready to get quit of Twitter nd its twits and move over to Parler or some other place where the unrestrained hatred of the left is, for the moment, non-existent.
Hate, the word, the use, the banners is the stock in trade of the Left. They hate opponents, they hate disagreement, they hate individuals and they hate people.
They do, however, love the exercise of power. The will do or say almost anything to get into power.
I think that, in this day and age, the Conservative needs to re-assert it’s pre-eminent reason for being.
That all individuals have rights.
They do not have “rights” that some government allows them to have. They have rights because they are a person. Pure and simple. Their first right is to own themselves, from that right comes to right to the results of their own industry and imagination. They have the right to defend themselves from anyone who seeks to deny those rights.
The USA was the first country to be founded on the idea that it is the people who form government. We have a country because the US People say that we do. Not the politicians. The rights of the individuals in this country were set down, by the people and were a part of the basis of setting this country up.
We as Conservatives need to defend every citizens rights as laid out in the Constitution. Without exception. For example if someone gets shot down by the authorities – the investigation of that incident needs to be both public and transparent. And we should be in the forefront of that demand.
Likewise if someone is threatening to stifle free speech in the public arena – and if the Government is a part of that movement it MUST be actively opposed. It must not be tolerated. We have allowed our public Universities to become hot beds of intolerance – the exact opposite of what they are supposed to embrace. If a University receives Government funds, from grants, from guarantees on Student Loans or any other tax-payer fund or entity then it MUST support the Bill of Rights without reservation. If it does not, all state funding must be withdrawn – immediately. The University must become entirely a Private Venture and must support itself from that.
Any politician or Public Employee who has taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution..” Who then uses that position to advocate against the Rights contained in the Constitution or who votes to do so – is guilty of perjury and we must press for their impeachment and removal from whatever office it is that they hold.
We need to to be active in our support of Rights. Not, reactive. We must be positive and forceful in our advocating for our rights.
Boris Johnson is, without a doubt, the biggest political disappointment in my personal panoply of choices throughout my life.
When Boris wriggled his way into the limelight and he looked like he was going to be the man to actually lead Great Britain into the new golden age. Giving the impression to the electorate that he was going to be ferocious in their interest. He was going to be the firm and confident hand that would guide Britain out of Europe, would be the man to make trade agreements and alliances throughout the globe and who would also start pushing the advantages of infrastructure toward the north of the country.
Then came Covid 19.
And the pressure of the crisis revealed the true character of Boris Johnson. He got infected and had a rough time of it. Contrast his approach to getting the disease, to the 74 year old Donald Trump who was fiercely brash about getting over it as soon as he could, pushing his medical staff to treat him with Regeneron, an experimental antibody cocktail, to excellent result. Boris was very ill. Maybe he tried to get back too fast -but whatever reason he has become almost hors de combat in the real challenges facing Britain. He has been seen to ally himself to The Great “Green” Proposed swindle.
Boris has laid forward a plan to ban the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles in the UK in 2030. A masterly piece of seeming to be revolutionary and visionary without actually taking responsibility for what actually happens. In 2030 working people in the UK will be forced to take on expensive-to-buy and maintain electric vehicles, most of the people will try to cling onto the cars they already paid for and own and try to get even more mileage out of them because they will lack the spare 20K Pounds or so to afford the rich libs’ toy. But that doesn’t seem to worry Boris – after all the chances he will be PM in 2030? Crashing madly toward zero as things stand.
He claims to be an environmental “believer” yet he is embarking on a course which is going to require the extraction and production of untold millions of batteries requiring huge supplies of mined materials. All of which are abroad, all of which will be imported. He will dump this on the British people and economy in the hope that no-one has a clue as to what is going to happen when, after around 8 years the batteries in the new cars are going to need to be replaced – and what will happen with the extremely polluting used ones?
The title of this article is “Boris the Loris”.
Most people don’t know that a Slow Loris is a cute furry little mammal that has one outstanding characteristic. It is venomous. The only primate that is (and one of only very few mammals).
Perhaps the one comfort we can take from “Boris the Loris” and his venomous behavior, is that when the fight comes over the Green Scam , Boris’s support for that planned scam will be as poisonous and toxic as his plan to lead Britain to greatness was.
In all the “sturm und drang” about stolen elections, the threats of lawsuits, the mathematical “proofs” that there must have been fraud. Rumors of election machines that change votes fake boxes arriving etc etc. One thing seems very clear to me.
The problem is not what we think it is.
The idea of a free election is that no-one knows how each individual voted. The process we have separates the physical voting from the counting. Or, at least it is supposed to.
We are about to embark on two run off elections in Georgia for the two Senate seats there. The elections will happen on January 5th. Inauguration is January 20th 2021. This is IMPORTANT.
It is safe to say that there is going to be enormous pressure and vast amounts of campaign cash flying around.
How do we work to ensure that this election is a secure as it can be? How do we help prevent any suggestion of hi-jack?
There will be lots of organization and money involved in turning out the vote. The GOP probably has observers named for the vote counting.
But there is a gaping hole in this process. Especially for mail in ballots.
The verification of the vote is based on the envelope. Before the envelope is opened the signature on the envelope needs to be scanned and approved. There is also another step that needs to be done.
The envelope needs to have a code that is tied to the voter who is submitting it. Both the envelope and the signature should be scanned and, if they do not match they must NOT be opened. Period. Bear with me for a few moments. The key point is to PREVENT false votes entering the system.
There need to be observers at every in-person voting station and they need to verify, by inspection, that the voter is correctly checked in by the judges. A count must be kept of a) verified voters who have cast ballots b) the number of ballots in the boxes . The observers (Dem and GOP) need to be able to verify the information and to sign the affidavit that reports how many votes were received at that polling station.
There are anecdotal reports from various voting locations that Party observers were either prevented from accessing the polling station or were prevented form being able to observe the verifications or the counting. There needs to be a mechanism for enforcing the needed access. If an observer is prevented from entering a polling station there needs to be IMMEDIATE action. The polling place should be flagged, the overseeing authority needs to be immediately informed. Everything at that polling place should be sequestered from the vote.
There is more to this than these steps. Voting machines must be tested beforehand and must be checked and signed off on by technical experts from each main party involved. Each machine. No exceptions – including any slated as substitutes. The location of each machine needs to be specified and logged. Each machine needs to be tested after use as well to make sure it is functioning correctly.
I do not know all the wrinkles and in and outs. But what I do know is that once the votes are separated from the voters it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to then prove fraud. You can assert it with confidence based on mathematics but it is the gateway that needs to be protected and verified – for in-person voting by ballot of by machine and for write in ballots with the envelope and direct correlation of envelope, signature and code for the voter.
No mailed in ballot that has been opened before election day should be allowed in the system unless there is a proven way to do it with all observing parties present and to sign off on the totals of verified ballots received.
If the GOP does not organize to take care of business in this regard then we kiss goodbye to sorting out anything afterwards as we are finding out now.
You cannot un-stir the cream out of the coffee once it has been added. Once you have opened the door to adding illegal votes to the process you lose the ability to control the integrity of the election.
Sadiq Khan is Mayor of London. He is a pompous blowhard who pretends to a socially progressive agenda. There appears to be no racist trope that he does not subscribe to.
The Guardian Newspaper in the UK is a squishy liberal apologist toilet roll of a publication.
Here is a link to an article that is in The Guardian and about Sadiq Khan’s plans for the Metropolitan Police force in London.
The astounding thing is that the article comes within a gnat’s whisker of actually being useful.
I am, personally, not a fan of the British Police as an institution. In fact in many ways I despise their performance and management. But! The police I knew who lived where I lived? Not a problem at all. They knew most of us, they drank in the same pub. Somewhere in the 60’s and 70’s the Home Office decided that it needed to cheapen the police force and spread it thinner so that it would appear that they were being “efficient” and the era of “Panda Cars” was born. By the years at the start of the new millennium they had become “Pander Cars” in that the police sat in the cars and ignored what they were seeing in areas like Rotherham, Manchester, Oxford, Huddersfield, Rochdale. They missed or enabled or tolerated the activities of known sexual abusers because they were afriad (in some cases) of being seen as “racist”. That is th elevel of the leadership in the police forces of Britain today. Too afraid to deal with crime but very sensitive to criticism of being racist.
And now Khan and the current “leader” of the met Police , Cressida Dick, want to validate the fear of racism by balkanizing policing in the British capital based on race.
If only they had followed through on the original thought – recruit people from the community. Not by race. Just people who wish to be of service to their town, village, area, . Recruit and do the requisite, thorough, background checks, give these men and women solid , professional training and a rewarding job and career. Keep them trained, keep them there. Subsidized housing, professional treatment. Have a strata of support but defer to the leadership of the local constable in all matters in the local community. ALL MATTERS. Stop treating the people who sit in offices as the “elite” and start treating the “plods” as the elite.
Above all – stop trying to treat policing in the communities as an afterthought and start with respect.
Let Khan and Dick run this kind of thing and you will have a racially stratified police and community where merely talking to someone is going to become a careful algorithm of race, class, location, language – even caste. That will reduce policing and move even more resources not into policing the community but in servicing the slew of racial requirements using increasing numbers of civil servants eating the policing budget.
Why do Billionaires pay for the Democrat Party? Why does so much of the “old Money” in San Francisco, LA, New York, Boston help fund the party that is, supposedly, the party of Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin?
Well… could it be they are concerned about not paying their fair share of the national need? Is it because they think the gap between have and have not in society needs to be reduced and that Dems are the troops for the job? Could it be that the likes of Hoyer, Bloomberg, Hoffman, Powell Jobs, Geffen Benioff and the long list of Dem billionaire donors are so filled with their gut wrenching guilt over their “whiteness” that they feel they need to fund a political party just to abuse them?
Or do they have their own reasons which actually make sense?
First of all – people who have money generally like to keep it and the goodies that go with wealth.
People who inherit wealth seem to go in two different ways – they spend their inheritance profligately and become fodder for various magazines around the world. Or they tend to be careful with their trust fund, keep it safe and seek to grow it to pass on their heirs. But most people who make their pile, wish, within reason to keep most of it.
So why would they be out there sending money to the Democrats?
This hinges on the difference between “Wealth” and “Income”.
The recent NYT article that attempted to cast President Trump in a bad light (has there been an article in the NYT in the last 4 years that has NOT sought to cast DJT in a bad light? Answers on a postcard please ) made much of him only paying $750 dollars in Federal income tax in one year (they of course, forgot to add in the tax credit he used for a couple of million but fairness was not the look they were going for).
Whoa Nelly! How could a gazillionaire pay so little? This is Criminal!!!! Well, not so fast cowboy or cowgirl. No-one is taxed on how much money they HAVE. They get taxed on their earnings, just like us little folks. And they can use their money to make sure that professionals do their tax returns to minimize their payments. Now if they are seen to support higher rates of taxation rest assured, they are quite happy for those below them in the income pyramid to pay more.
But the impact of such increased taxation is much higher on those lower down the pyramid. Most people are paying as they earn for their future, their family, and their security and well-being. Most of us are paying off our house or paying rent. Fair enough. We have a certain ‘nut’ that we have to make each month to keep our noses above the water line. But there comes a point in the scale where most of the necessities are taken care of, the house is paid for, the earnings provide more than enough. Regular expenses are not a monthly concern. Keep saving and you will have reserves to last quite a while, earn even more and you will be able to buy things that you don’t need.
So if the super earners decide that taxes should be increased what they are saying is that YOU – Joe Schlub – need to pay more of your paycheck in taxes and fees. But that will impact you in other ways – less money for savings for emergencies, less money for kid’s school or college, longer payback on the mortgage. Less expensive holidays. Now add to that support from the well off for things like higher taxes on energy – that increase is paid by everyone. From the poor to the rich. And the impact is heaviest on the poor, not the rich.
People seem to have forgotten that many politicians have become rich from their government positions Many of the top Dems are millionaires – and they are not the only ones.
So why are the Extremely wealthy underwriting all this? Why do rich wealthy celebs send money to bail out street thugs who get arrested for criminal acts under the guise of “protest”? Why do they push for increased taxation and increased regulation (that results in extra taxation paid by the poor)?
They wish to avoid taxes on wealth. Socialism is all about seizing the wealth of the rich for redistribution to everyone. Not the “income” – the “wealth”. Imagine what the tax bill would be for Michael Bloomberg if he had to pay a certain percentage of the worth of all his owned properties, businesses, bank accounts every year? Or any billionaire.
What makes the Dems hold off? Well the leadership are millionaires and certainly do not wish to have their own smaller applecart upset, also, threaten to do it and billionaires will asset strip the USA so fast and transfer the wealth to Abu Dhabi, Switzerland and other, saner places. And the tax base of the USA would crumble. Remember this other fact – the top 10% of EARNERS pay 70 % of the income tax paid in the USA.
The Billionaires seem to have realized that paying a little more in taxes. Putting a little largess about to the upper tiers of the leftist organizations and they can feed the alligator of socialism with the work and bread of the middle class in the hope that they will be eaten last. They get away with it because if you scratch a socialist you find a greedy little person underneath.
Just remember one major thing here – there is nothing, in law, preventing any billionaire (or millionaire for that matter) from liquidating all his or her assets, turning them into cash, using some of the cash as a trust fund to live on for the rest of his or her days in total security taking just one property as a family home, and then giving the remainder to the government. It is totally legal. How many have done it?
Instead Billionaire Gates gave his fortune to a private “charity” that he runs, and which does what he says. Did not have much faith in the ability of the Government to use his money wisely. Though Bill does have absolute faith in them to use my and your money wisely.