#cancelculture

Banks & Insurers lecture customers on morals

Baseball legend Curt Schilling has claimed that insurance company, AIG, has cancelled his policy over tweets he made about the recent events on the Capitol.

Schilling stated he had a AAA rating and no claims for 17 years.

Aren’t insurance companies supposed to assess risk? Did Schilling have a major endorsement contract with AIG? If so, we’d understand. If not, isn’t he an anonymous customer among millions?

What relevance does an insurance policy have to do with a customer expressing first amendment rights? Has AIG gone through the Twitter accounts of all of its policy holders to check they have not said anything similar to Schilling? If not, would be highly discriminatory, no? Should he sue?

Wasn’t AIG found guilty of entering into sham transactions in order to inflate the reserves and to conceal losses in 2005? Didn’t Schilling, a taxpayer, indirectly bail out AIG post the GFC?

Deutsche Bank has also moved to end its association with Donald Trump. Ironic, that a bank which has been fined repeatedly for unethical behavior such as money laundering thinks it has an opportunity to save its skin by signaling it has repented. Will a flood of customers open accounts as a sign of appreciation? Probably not.

Fascinating that – bank worth 8% of its peak value, is lecturing customers about morals when it has a self-documented history of being a bank for the Third Reich, including the provision of funds to build the Auschwitz extermination camp.

Since when did corporates self-appoint themselves as moral arbiters of their customers individual constitutionally enshrined liberties? Will customer social media profiles now form part of the loan application documents? “Sorry sir, your credit rating is outstanding but the application has been rejected for something you posted when 13 years old.” Got it?

More corporate cowardice masquerading as courage. This is nothing more than companies showing they are going out of their way to make public sacrifices on the altar of the Marxist fringe mobs in the hope they become the last to be cancelled. What a joke.

We never thought it imaginable but today, corporate PR departments have less spine than internal compliance officers.

Phew, Glad Twitter cleared that up!

Oh, the irony!

Twitter’s public policy page has doth protested Ugandan ISPs blocking social media ahead of an election.

Didn’t Twitter actively engage in suppressing the NY Post’s expose of Hunter Biden‘s laptop ahead of the US presidential election?

Thank God we have Twitter defending the free speech & human rights of Ugandans before Americans.

So powerful have Big Tech companies become that they don’t even require a phone call from politicians to censor the opposition. It is decided by their own commissars.

Glad we cleared that up. Time for the UN to appoint Twitter to the chair of the Human Rights Commission without delay. Twitter should nominate Kathy Griffin given her unwavering balance.

America’s cultural revolution and the long march back to equality

Within 48 hours of the confirmation of the electoral votes, unelected tech giants displayed once again how they can dictate terms to the democratically elected leader of the free world and his followers.

The First Amendment might as well have been written in invisible ink.

Now other platforms are following suit, laying the groundwork to ensure directly/indirectly there will be little effort to help unite the country by restricting/cancelling access to conservative sites.

Who is inciting who exactly?

Three quotes to reflect on before we begin:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again,”

and

History is written by victors.

The left is in raptures over Trump’s expulsion from Twitter. Of course they have no issues with cancelling those who don’t share their ideological views. Yet if you question their rights to free speech, hell hath no fury. After all everything that parses their fingertips is good, clean and wholesome. If you say otherwise you’ll be cancelled. Got it?

Yes, the argument will be made that privately run social media companies have the right to police those who may damage site integrity and promote the collective safety of subscribers. Have they been asleep at the wheel for the last 4 years? Even terrorists have been allowed to tweet without sanction.

The problem is that the unelected and unqualified overseers making those determinations to suspend others have shown time and time again they back the side not the principle. OJ Simpson on justice anyone?

A great example is Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth (@yoyoel), an avid anti-Trumper. Several days after the 2016 election he proudly tweeted, “I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.” We should sleep soundly at night that he also referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “a personality-free bag of farts.” Surely there is no risk of conservative bias with the integrity team at Twitter…sleep soundly!

Black conservative Candace Owens proved just how biased Twitter is when she was suspended for replacing the word ‘white’ with ‘black’ and ‘Jewish.’ She proved the point with respect to the incendiary tweets made by the NYT’s then latest recruit, Sarah Jeong. Never let racism get in the way of the decision making process!

Facebook recently threatened to de-platform conservative comedian JP Sears for satire.

Now, Google has decided to remove conservative forum, Parler, from its Android store presumably just because Trump has endorsed it. So will every single thing that he has supported be shutdown or targeted? Watch out Goya!

Will Apple join the cultural revolution? Are all Parler users foaming at the mouth Trump cultists? Or do some simply like to entertain a wider spectrum of opinions?

Is this merely targeted anti-competitive behaviour? A secondary boycott? Has Parler actually committed any crime? Has Google been unethically marshaling the content and traffic of another private company to form the determination that it needs to be publicly sacrificed? Would it help to appoint a Google overseer to sit on the board of Parler, like Chinese corporates are now forced to accommodate? Will Rumble be the next conservative site to be axed from Android?

Can’t the free market determine whether Parler has a right to exist rather than a select few politburo officials from Google?

We can be sure that if Parler wasn’t experiencing the explosive growth it has had to date, Google would not have seen a need to expunge the threat. Alas too many wanted to seek an alternative platform to exchange ideas. It’s day one, year zero. Black is white. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Got it?

One has to question the legal basis for allowing a hateful and venomous platform like Twitter to function on Google Android but an upstart alternative – which couldn’t hold a flame to the incumbent – needs to be taken out?

Is this the type of healing we’ve been promised by the incoming administration? Restore unity by sitting idly by and allowing the media to silence those that disagree with them?

What better way for Biden to stamp his leadership credentials on uniting a fractured nation than stating how important the 1st Amendment is for all Americans.

But why bother? The tech giants are firmly on his side. After the last 4 years, it is high time to make sure that a monster of their own creation never upsets the political apple cart ever again. We await the glowing support of the climate change agenda, Paris, WHO, discrimination-driven racial equity and the benefits of allowing a path to citizenship or 11 million illegal immigrants.

It does not matter that Trump recently tweeted a video to his followers to go home peacefully and respect law and order. That was deemed incendiary and subsequently blocked. Don’t believe your lying eyes because we will be told what we can and can’t consume. Obviously we aren’t capable of thinking for ourselves.

Clearly to Jack Dorsey’s mob, it was imperative to prevent any sensible commentary by Trump from seeing the light of day. We wouldn’t want anything to challenge the narrative. The tech giant had to ensure that he was portrayed in the worst possible light before cancellation. No right of reply. Voltaire would be rolling in his grave.

We don’t deny Trump has said many silly things over his term but compared to some of the bile that has never faced sanction, it is laughable.

We fear that such moves will only fan the flames of division.

It seems these platforms want to proactively create an atmosphere that allows for the incoming administration to clamp down even harder on supposed enemies of the state. What better way than to douse their opponents in high octane fuel while carelessly playing with matches?

We are always amazed that more haven’t seen the TED talk by a black musician, Daryl Davis, who befriended the KKK by simply ‘listening‘ to them. That was all it took to get so many to hand in their robes.

Note the word “listen.”

Sadly, social media platforms have long drowned out reasoned debate well before the commissars found the need to jail dissidents with sanctimonious edicts.

This is a dangerous precedent being set. By muzzling a country that is built on a constitution that enshrines free speech, it is playing with fire. We ain’t seen nothing yet. America will be decisively cut in two.

In closing we’ve long argued that Trump pulled the scab off the festering wound of deep seated division. He was the catalyst. Not the cause. With the incoming administration, failure to address the growing power of big tech will lead to more people taking the law into their own hands.

We don’t condone unlawful behaviour but will be the least bit surprised if those who feel the most marginalized think they’ve nothing to lose.

If we thought 2020 was a horrible year, 2021 could well destroy that myth but thanks to social media you’ll only be able to view the world through the rose tinted glasses of willfully dishonest propagandists.

The social media giants will do well to remember that “before setting out on revenge, first dig two graves.”

Why should we believe in the science when such people are modeling it?

We were continuously told last year that we must follow the science on COVID-19. No ifs. No buts. We’re all in this together. Right?

Not so fast. Politicians continued to collect paychecks while forcing so many into financial destitution by preventing their right to earn an income. Even worse the political class continuously broke their own draconian rules which landed many of the less fortunate with fines, arrests and in the worst case scenario, prison. Rules for thee but not for me.

Back to the science.

One could be forgiven for possessing a healthy dose of skepticism in questioning the medical advisories by virtue of the constant flip-flopping on how to contain the virus.

Sweden has proven that lockdowns aren’t effective. That didn’t stop a me too approach exercised by most cities/states/countries to adopt economics-destroying stay-at-home orders. It wasn’t based on a science but a safety in numbers approach. The idea that there was less political risk by following a herd mentality rather than herd immunity.

Flu guru Dr Fauci told us masks were ineffective until they became a useful political tool for him to promote their use.

Now a multitude of vaccines are upon us, science doesn’t seem to be the only driver of decisions on how it should be administered.

Were the science to be followed to the letter, wouldn’t the best option be to save lives in aggregate? Wouldn’t that be to give it to the most vulnerable members in society first i.e. the elderly?

Well the CDC has modelers like Jo Walker. Walker identifies as a non-binary trans who goes by pronouns they/them. Walker’s Twitter handle makes a pretty strong case for putting social justice ahead of science. Walker is a fervent supporter of defunding the police and claims to live on stolen land. By that measure, it is not hard to believe that such public disclosure might reveal a certain personal bias.

We don’t know about you but all we look for in data scientists (or any other profession for that matter) is the ability to do the role competently.

Are modelers like Walker partly responsible for pushing the racial inequity narrative at the CDC? In a nutshell, given there are more whites in the 65yo and above category (who just happen to be among the highest risk of succumbing to COVID-19), the CDC believes there is a strong case for minorities being bumped up the queue even if it could result in a higher final death tally.

Put it another way, if minorities dominated the most risky categories (65+) the CDC would have no need to report it because it would merely be the right thing to do.

Expect 2021 to reveal more mind numbing social justice masked as science. So much for uniting people by promoting real equality. Use identity as the yardstick. The more oppression points the better. End segregation by enforcing it.

Then some wonder why fewer and fewer people are in this together. The CDC and many groups like it have ceased being reputable agencies and become activists pushing agendas unrelated to their mandated fields.

Holding people to what they said as teenagers

This is cancel culture at it’s sinister core.

A bi-racial student, Jimmy Galligan, sat on a 3-second video of white student, Mimi Groves, saying something stupid, aged 15. He released it once she had been accepted for a place at the University of Tennessee. Her place has since been rescinded.

We wonder if there is a teenager on the planet that hasn’t fallen foul of saying something dopey, especially in the social media world?

We are not defending Mimi Groves for saying something inappropriate (the ‘n’ word) when she was 15. We find it more pathetic that The New York Times decided to write an article praising the cowardice of a kid who obviously didn’t care enough about what Groves said until he could use it to destroy her future.

Galligan said, “I wanted to get her where she would understand the severity of that word.”

No, instead of Galligan drawing attention to it at the time by approaching her 1-1/online and telling her he was offended by the comment, he did nothing. It is unlikely he would have done anything about it had it not been for the current cancel culture climate which gave him an advantageous runway to take her out. Simple as that.

Forget context. Did Groves honestly say the slur with venomous anger or just as a stupid teenager who listens to too much rap/hip-hop where the n-word is mentioned multiple times in pretty much every song? Never mind that Groves was an ardent supporter of the BLM movement. To the left, an example must be made of her. No matter what the cost.

Still, hypocrisy is nothing new at the NYT. After all it openly appointed Sarah Jeong to its editorial board, a lovely young lady who had tweeted to “cancel white people” and “I enjoy being cruel to old white women.” Never mind that black conservative Candace Owens was suspended on Twitter for tweeting Jeong’s bile replacing the word “white” with “black” and “Jewish.”

If the radical activists who seek to cancel others for things they said at 15, they should be only too happy to be held to things they said in their past.

Just as pathetic, the University of Tennessee asked for Groves to withdraw her successful application or have it rescinded. Are these the values our educators wish to instill? Was it easier to surrender to the hate mob because it would give the PR office less hassle?

What if, heaven forbid, Groves takes her own life because of this incident? Should her parents seek compensation from Galligan and the NYT for the proactive campaign to destroy her based on an out-of-context social media post? Are we to believe that Galligan hasn’t made ill-considered remarks on social media?

This is cyber-bullying in a cancel culture world. Period.

Cancel culture is a virtue to those on the left. To the NYT, Groves is expendable based on her ethnicity. Had such an incident happened with the roles reversed the article wouldn’t have seen the light of day.

Who knew WaPo would let democracy die in darkness?

Well, well, well. Who knew that the Washington Post would write an article saying the Erie, Pennsylvania post office worker who went on Project Veritas to whistleblow on voter fraud had recanted his story.

WaPo wrote,

“[The whistleblower] told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the “whistleblower completely RECANTED.”

In this video, the same worker, Richard Hopkins, went on record saying he never did such a thing.

Interesting that the WaPo followed up by publishing a smear to discredit Hopkins with ,

The Erie postmaster, Rob Weisenbach, called the allegations “100% false” in a Facebook post and said they were made “by an employee that was recently disciplined multiple times.”

Are an employee’s internal employment records fit for public consumption? Even if he was disciplined, what exactly was his crime? Was it verbal? Written? Did he chew gum while sorting? Or did he merely refuse to participate in following orders given to him to break the law? Maybe WaPo let the wrong cat out of the bag. If Hopkins wasn’t disciplined maybe they’ll face a law suit (like Covington High student Nick Sandmann) for trying to smear him publicly with insufficient grounds?

Why the Mute Button will benefit Trump in the final debate

Problem solved? The debate moderators intend to have a mute button in the forthcoming debate to avoid interruption experienced in the first debate.

It sounds wonderful in principle, but we believe if the moderator is of sufficient ability, she shouldn’t require technological assistance to fall back on if her biases seek to stifle robust debate through balanced questioning and reasonable time to answer and redirect.

One can only imagine how fairly the mute button will be applied in the final show off between Trump and Biden on October 22nd given we know that the moderator, Kristen Welker, is staunchly in the Democrat camp.

We are sure when the microphone cut offs are tallied, Trump will outscore Biden on a 10:1 scale, if not more.

We have no doubt that Trump is the more likely of the two to interject but we think it will work in Trump’s favour to be cut off because we know that the deranged mainstream media will openly celebrate and applaud the idea of suppressing the free speech of someone they disagree with on a whim.

We don’t think that will play well to level headed Americans who want to hear and see the reactions of both candidates when pinned on the ropes. A good moderator would seek that type of courage under fire.

Unfortunately, the debate will likely end up being 3 on 1. Softballs will be tossed at Biden and hand grenades lobbed at Trump.

Should Trump leave the stage after being cut off countless times, we won’t be the least bit surprised. He will prove the point of just how biased the moderator was and how she relished the ability to muzzle the most powerful man in the world to feed her own derangement. She’ll prove his point about free speech. Never forget Reagan slammed a moderator for threatening to cut the mic in 1980.

If he leaves, the media will divert all attention to Trump as to why he did so and prove back to their faces that they have absolutely zero interest in objectivity other than to justify using authoritarian cancel culture tactics to silence and humiliate him.

As we like to say, journalistic integrity will only return when the mainstream media loves America more than they hate Trump.

Best they put this on full display.

Kamala Harris sponsored fund bails out man charged with sexually assaulting 8-yo

As the media were too preoccupied praising Kamala Harris for making ‘Timberland boots cool again” – after they lambasted Melania Trump for wearing them several years ago – journalists overlooked the fact that the Minnesota Freedom Fund she openly endorsed bailed out Timothy Wayne Columbus.

He faces up to 30 years in prison for allegedly sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl in 2015. He was released from a Minneapolis jail in early July on $75,000 bail, according to jail records.

In August, MFF paid $350,000 in cash to release twice-convicted rapist Christopher Boswell from jail. Boswell currently faces charges of kidnapping and sexual assault as well.

The fund bailed out Lionel Timms from jail in late July on a third-degree felony assault charge for allegedly assaulting a person on a bus. Timms was arrested again while out on bail for allegedly assaulting a bar manager, who was left with a traumatic brain injury.

MFF Interim Executive Director Greg Lewin released a statement in response to Timms’ second offence saying his arrest while out on bail was a “failure of the criminal justice system.

Deshaun Jermain Boyd was released from jail on $70,000 bail in July after being charged with 1st-degree aggravated robbery. He stomped on the head of a man with a cane and robbed him.

Do we need to go any further to show up a system where a potential president proudly paints criminals as victims?

Minny City Council panics as crime surges

Who ever would have guessed?? How could the Minneapolis City Council predict that calls to defund the police would lead to a 55%YoY surge in arson? Or murder, carjackings, robberies or assaults???

These woke Democrats thought “reimagining the police” would just work. What happened to the army of social workers who had the skills to reason with an irate 350lb armed narcotics dealer chasing up accounts receivable from his financially constrained customers?

Minny City Council President Lisa Bender, who led the charge in the initial calls to defund the MPD, complained that the law enforcement officers were being defiant by not answering the calls of constituents.

As we pointed out in June, Lisa Bender tweeted,

If you are a comfortable white person asking to dismantle the police I invite you to reflect: are you willing to stick with it? Will you be calling in three months to ask about garage break-ins? Are you willing to dismantle white supremacy in all systems, including a new system?

So no Lisa, three months later they want more police.

“Policy wonk” council member Phillipe Cunningham said,

What I am sort of flabbergasted by right now is colleagues, who a very short time ago were calling for abolition, are now suggesting we should be putting more resources and funding into MPD.”

Who knew?!