Carville Says Networks Should Have Aired Trump Speech So America Could See What CNN Sees Every Morning

James Carville has finally solved the mystery of why the legacy media should carry President Donald Trump's speeches live. Not because Americans deserve to hear their president. Not because voters can make up their own minds. No, according to the Democratic strategist, the networks should have aired it so viewers could receive the proper Commie News Network approved diagnosis.

Appearing on CNN's The Situation, Carville lamented that ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the usual suspects deprived America of what he considers must see television. Others might call it "reporting the news."

"I would advise them to attack CNN, attack ABC, attack NBC, attack MS NOW, because they didn’t air the speech. And I think the President of the United States acting loonier than a tune is newsworthy. I don’t think we should have hidden that from the American people. I think it should have been blanket coverage of it. He’s literally off his rocker, and there’s no other way to describe this," he told Wolf Blitzer.

That is quite a pivot. Just hours after the media collectively decided Trump's remarks on election security were too dangerous for public consumption, one of the Democratic Party's loudest strategists complained they should have broadcast every second of it.

Apparently censorship is only a bad idea when Democrats think it will help their polling numbers.

Carville is the longtime Democratic strategist and Bill Clinton campaign advisor. He is known for his blunt, combative style, and some of the statements he has made in the past, have sparked backlash for being classist and even misogynistic and dismissive of women's claims. He has also been quite dismissive toward fellow Democrats.

In 1998 the made what is known as the "Trailer Park" comment: “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” (or “you’ll find plenty of women to accuse Clinton of sexual harassment”). This statement was made at the height of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and Monica Lewinsky 'Oral Office Scandal," as some have called it.

But even prior to that comment, there was the "Bimbo Eruptions" in his handling of the 1992 campaign. While he didn't make a direct quote along these lines about Bill Clinton's affairs and sexual misconduct during the presidential race, he was a central figure int the Clinton "war room" where aides (Betsey Wright, specifically) used the term "bimbo eruption. This was criticized as slut-shaming and derogatory toward women. Carville and his team had to deal with damage control.

In 2017 Carville referred to Hillary Clinton as "a little bit like the guy who killed his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan." This came soonafter Clinton's 2016 election defeat to President Trump. He was criticizing her for blaming external factors (such as FBI Director James Comey’s letter and Russian interference) rather than taking full personal responsibility.

The last example I'll give is when, in 2024, Carville called to "kill the woke." In interviews around the 2024 election cycle, he stated that the party had to “kill the woke” or move away from progressive cultural priorities to focus on economic “kitchen table” issues. This obviously provoked strong backlash from progressive Democrats and activists, who viewed it as a betrayal of social justice causes, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equity priorities. 

So James Carville is a tad touched in the head.

Wolf Blitzer looked slightly confused by the sudden outbreak of consistency and asked, "So you think we should have given him more publicity? Is that what you’re saying?"

Carville eagerly snatched a fly near his face, popped it in his mouth, and replied, "Absolutely saying that, I’m absolutely saying that. I think the decision not to air that speech by CNN and other and other networks is not being what’s really newsworthy, and that this guy’s gone."

Translation, Americans should have been trusted to watch the speech, as long as they arrived at the same conclusion CNN had already prepared for them.

Carville then continued his medical evaluation from the comfort of a television studio.

"He knows he’s going to lose, but he couldn’t explain what he was trying to do. He couldn’t execute it. Literally, the guy was literally crazy. And he just rehashed everything."

It was an impressive performance from a political consultant insisting the media should air a speech only because he was certain viewers would hate it.

The irony is hard to miss. For years, the press has insisted Americans cannot be trusted to hear certain arguments because they might be persuaded. Now Carville is arguing they should hear Trump's speech because they definitely will not be persuaded.

At least someone on CNN accidentally admitted the obvious. If Trump's speech was really as unhinged as Carville claims, why hide it? 

The only thing stranger than refusing to air it is demanding it should have been aired only after deciding in advance what everyone was supposed to think about it. That is less journalism and more Mystery Science Theater with a newsroom budget.

Journalism is dead.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Meta Head Zuckerberg admits he went along with Biden-Harris admin censorship scheme

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta [formerly Facebook] admitted in a letter that he was wrong and regrets that he went along with the Biden-Harris administration to basically pee on the U.S Constitution and the First Amendment by censoring Americans in a variety of subjects.

It's about time, Marky--what took you so long to grow a pair? Or are you really being sincere?

Facebook has been for years censoring its content, almost exclusively the content from conservatives. Zuckerberg's mea culpa is an insult and I don't trust him. His sudden regret comes after he and his company spent years fighting to hide the evidence of its hand-in-glove relationship with the Democrats to censor opposing views.

Thanks to the hard work of House Judiciary Committee Chairman  Jim Jordan (R-OH), Zuckerberg was forced to release incriminating documents and then admitted to what we knew for years. But at least he's "really, really sorry."

Do you believe him or do you think he's only sorry that he got caught?

Tweet

Biden's DHS "likely" violated First Amendment by working with Big Tech to censor election content

" . . . it makes sense, ice cream has no bones."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An injunction was ordered Tuesday on the Department of Homeland Security by a federal court after it found that the agency probably violated the First Amendment by coordinating with social media companies to effectively censor "election-related speech."

[H/T Fox News Digital]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the scope of an injunction in place that limits the Biden administration's communication with big tech companies to include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security.

Of course it wasn't Biden himself who did the communicating now that it's obvious communicating isn't one of Joe's strong points--it's likely someone behind the curtain pulling his strings.

According to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R), who is leading the litigation against the Biden administration, CISA is the "nerve center" of the White House's "vast censorship enterprise" and "the very entity that worked with the FBI to silence the Hunter Biden laptop story." 

"CISA was created to protect Americans from foreign attack, and now it has begun targeting its own citizens," Bailey told the outlet.

A three-judge panel determined that CISA was the "primary facilitator" of the FBI's interactions with the social-media platforms and worked in close coordination with the FBI to push the platforms to change their moderation policies to cover "hack-and-leak" content.

The opinion in the order describes CISA’s "switchboarding" operations as "merely relaying flagged social-media posts from state and local election officials to the platforms." But the judge said that "in reality, the practice is ended up being "[s]omething more,'" the order reads.

"CISA used its frequent interactions with social-media platforms to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech. And CISA officials affirmatively told the platforms whether the content they had ‘switchboarded’ was true or false," it added.

"Thus, when the platforms acted to censor CISA-switchboarded content, they did not do so independently. Rather, the platforms’ censorship decisions were made under policies that CISA has pressured them into adopting and based on CISA’s determination of the veracity of the flagged information. Thus, CISA likely significantly encouraged the platforms’ content-moderation decisions and thereby violated the First Amendment," the judges said.

Well this is worse than Watergate and J6 combined. 

The injunction stems from a lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general against the Biden administration that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation" that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics, including Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks.

If any word in the English language can be used to promote Marxism, that word is "misinformation." Because it's the ones who define what misinformation is, that has the power to shut down dissent.

The attorneys general deposed Dr. Anthony Fauci, and FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan. Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Fifth Circuit ordered the first injunction on July 4th (Independence Day) preventing White House officials and other federal agencies from meeting with tech companies about ways for them to impose "Big Brother" tactics in order to censor social media.

The scathing injunction said the government's actions during the pandemic were akin to "an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'"

"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history," the injunction states. "In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech."

The Justice Department has appealed the court order to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government faced "irreparable harm" because Doughty's order may prevent the federal government from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes."

But the truth is, the American people would face "irreparable harm" if these leftists had their way.

Tweet

Comrade Kirsten Powers acts like she's working for Pravda, oh wait, she's working for CNN

CNN's Kirsten Powers has suggested that Republicans should just shut up because she doesn't agree with what they say. 

Brilliant! 

She's miffed that YouTube is finally changing their censorship policies that have gagged conservative speech in the past, partly because Twitter, under Elon Musk, was first to abide by the First Amendment and is kicking YouTube's symbolic butt all across the Internet, and is doing a 180 degree turn.

YouTube, on Friday, tried to justify their American-way move this way: “In the current environment, we find that while removing this content does curb some misinformation, it could also have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech without meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm.”

YouTube also noted, “As with any update to our policies, we carefully deliberated this change.”

Of course historically, they tended not to curb any misinformation by the Left, but they forgot to mention that for some reason. Ideally, they would not curb any information that wasn't calling for violence, but that was never going to happen. 

Regarding the 2024 election season that is now getting underway, the company wrote:

“The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society — especially in the midst of election season.”

Well-said. Now. But it was also true for the entire time they were removing videos over the last three years. And now they want to try to make up with people and pretend they care about free speech? Sorry if I don’t believe it. They took a political side and now they can’t roll it back.

Even with this change, they’re still leaving some wiggle room to go after things that will likely benefit the Left.

But it's fairly obvious that the reason they're doing this about-face is because of Twitter's potential takeover of political shows and podcasts, leaving YouTube in the dust, so this may be YouTube's attempt at assuaging the situation.

https://t.co/u5QM3vi4fVhttps://t.co/2IMmmVapCu

— T(w)itter Daily News  (@TitterDaily) June 4, 2023

However, the Compromised News Network's Kirsten Powers had a cow and couldn’t seem to deal with it.

WATCH: CNN’s Kirstin Powers calling for the complete censorship of Republicans’ speech. pic.twitter.com/x5jLqA1cg7

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) June 3, 2023

“And so, if the problem is that, ‘Oh, people aren’t going to be able to upload things that Republicans are saying,’ maybe Republicans should stop saying it, right? Is that not the solution to the problem?” Comrade Powers complained. 

She later tried to clean up the load she had dumped, but it went over like another load. 

So, I [don't] think that — look, I [don't] support free speech, and I don’t think we want to silence political speech. But this company does [not] have [the] responsibility [to decide what can or cannot be spoken]. And that’s not a violation of free speech to say, “We’re not going to allow you to upload information that is demonstrably false.”

Who gets to determine what is “false,” Kirsten? I know you'd like to be on that company committee. 

Why did 2020 questions about election mishandling from Republicans get censored, yet all the Democrats floating election denialism in 2016 never did?

Because the liberal media is like an extension of the DNC, and anyone with eyes and a brain knows this.

Tweet

Jonathan Turley destroys Debbie Wasserman Schultz's dumb hearing questions

Unfortunately, she gives blonde jokes credibility

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Duh) went head-to-head with George Washington Law professor and legal expert Jonathan Turley and showed the nation that she was completely out of her league, over her head, and in deep poo. Sadly, she gives dumb blonde jokes credibility.

Debbie Downer tried to discredit Turley in the House hearings on the weaponization of the federal government. That's like taking a rubber knife to an AK47 fight.

Debbie's questioning began with this gem: "So essentially your answers to questions yesterday were your own opinion and pure conjecture."

Professor Turley politely responded, “No, I wouldn’t say that, I try to base them on what we know from the Twitter Files—” 

Then Debbie interrupted him with the same BS premise: “But this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account user?” 

Turley tried once more to answer the cretin's question: “No, I’ve come to give legal advice based on facts that are in the public domain and I would really refer to—” 

True to form Wasserman Schultz didn't allow Turley to complete a sentence saying that his answers were using up her time to question him [I paraphrase]. Since she couldn't discredit his answers nor compete with his intellect, the only thing she could do was to try to keep him from responding to her questions. She is an obvious idiot and a rude one to boot.

Subsequently, during a Friday morning appearance on “Fox and Friends,” Professor Turley immolated Wasserman Schultz's insistence that he was merely offering "opinion and conjecture" about Twitter working with the FBI, but that he had no “specific or unique knowledge” to speak about the issue. 

Professor Turley responded to the idiot congress-cretin:

"The congressman was asking if I’ve ever worked at Twitter as a condition for my talking about what the Twitter files. It’s like saying you have to work at the Pentagon if you want to testify about the implications of the Pentagon Papers. The point of witnesses before committees is often to give legal analysis based on what is known and what could be found in this investigation.

"The exchange she was referring to was a member who expressly asked me about the Twitter files and what this suggests about what I’ve called ‘censorship by surrogate.’ And then she went into this issue of, ‘Well, you’ve never worked at Twitter. How do you know what goes on at Twitter,’ which is completely absurd.

"The whole premise of my testimony was that Twitter has now authenticated and confirmed these facts. These facts are coming from Twitter. These are Twitter files. And the facts indicate that they had weekly meetings with the government.

"They indicate that the government would send long lists of citizens and others to be targeted, censored, to be in some cases, banned. Those are very serious allegations that raise constitutional questions, which is why I was there to discuss it."

Evidently, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clueless about the role of an expert witness and not very bright. She is the embodiment of the Democratic Party, which has half the country fooled by their false promises about the future, and their lies about the love of the country they can't wait to change.

If the Democrats could have their way, there would be no free speech and no Constitution as we know it.

Tweet

USC Bans the word "Field" plus 16 more offensive words that gives folks the vapors

The following is not meant to be taken seriously, at least in total. After you read the satirical reasoning, it's hoped that you will come up with your own crazy leftist censorship of common everyday language. Please do not be offended by my sarcasm/satire, but the Left has finally lost what was left of its collective mind.

The University of Southern California's Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work (GO PECKERHEADS!) is banning the following racist or sexist words:

mankind, field, black, brown, color, thug, bro, brah, s'up, grades, defendant, monkey, ice skating, cotton,  nap, "pull the trigger," manly, mankind,  American, abort.

Now let's look at why these words should never be used by those of us with true sensitivity to our species

1. mankind: don't be stupid--I already used "species" as a substitute and don't you feel better already that I didn't offend your sensitivities? 

2. field: according to the Peckerheads of USC's Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, field is "anti-black" and "anti-immigrant." This is mainly due to the way the fightin' Peckerheads see these two groups: as people only capable of maintaining menial agricultural work bailing hay, using a manure spreader, shucking corn, picking cotton and the like.

3. black: should never be used by whities, but people of color and LGBTQI+&498 folks can use the word.

4. brown: see 'black'. 

5. color: if you use the word color it proves you see color and all that people with color have needed to endure in this racist country.

6. thug: this word is an insult to blacks and undocumented persons of long walks.

7. bro, brah, s'up: are all words that white supremacists [e.g., all Republicans] attribute to black folks. There are plenty of decent white folks, [aka Democrats, communists, socialists, progressives, Trump haters] who address each other or greet each other with those words and maybe a fist-bump.

8. grades: using mathematical comparisons to determine the success of one individual over another is racist, plain and simple.

9. defendant: that's just racist, bro, you feel me?

10. monkey: everyone knows this is racist. I don't need to mansplain to you.

11. ice skating: only white people ice skate except for a few NHL players born in Canada or some other frozen hell-hole.

12. cotton: back in the day, the black man and woman worked in the field picking cotton for the man. The mere mention of cotton, or even the boll weevil, is a racist trope.

13. nap: while some try to defend this word and attribute it to taking rest in the middle of the day, the word really connotes the false narrative that certain groups of people are lazy and don't want to work. 

14. pull the trigger: while it is supposed to mean to go forward with an action, everyone knows it's racist and accuses young black men and a few young black women, of gangland shootings and other crime.

15. manly/mankind: it's sexist. Period.

16. American: why does the USA get to say "American" and not South America, or even that hell-hole of frozen wasteland, Canada? Sure, Justin Trudeau [aka Latka] speaks French, but he also speaks American English. So we need to stop calling ourselves Americans and call ourselves Land O' States.

17. abort: while the word means to stop something, such as a mission or a flight,  it is also often used in referring to the stopping of the life of a baby in the mother's womb. It's therefore offensive, not only to this writer, but to G_d.

Tweet

Trump proves Piers Morgan is the epitome of fake news

Piers Morgan is coming to Fox Nation now that Chris Wallace apparently has retired, at least for now, from the news business since CNN+ quickly went bust. While Morgan isn't going directly to Fox News, and has been on some of their programming such as The Five and Gutfeld! he just might end up there in the future, but that remains to be seen.

Morgan published a promotional video on Wednesday using part of a recorded interview he did with former President Donald Trump. The interview appeared to show Trump storming out of the interview and that's the way Morgan played it.

However, that wasn't exactly what happened.

Trump released audio revealing that Morgan was being deceptive to his audience because the video was edited and set to air next Monday for his new show "Piers Morgan Uncensored." That's almost the same thing as "unedited" but the video was indeed crafted to make it appear that Trump left in a huff.

This "most explosive" video of the year, as it was called, was a stitched together series of various cuts from the interview that made Trump look unhinged he Morgan challenged his claims about the 2020 election.

"Morgan versus Trump," the narrator says, as the video shows Trump standing up from his chair and telling producers to "turn the camera off" while huffing, "Very dishonest." The montage included close-ups of Trump's sweaty face and dramatic background music because that's what's happening in today's news business.     

The video predictably went viral because it seemed to confirm the media's caricature of Trump.

What Morgan and the production crew didn't count on was that they weren't the only ones recording the interview. As it turned out, Trump's team did a recording of the whole interview, and it definitely paints a very different picture of what really took place.
.

According to NBC News, the interview ended on a cordial, friendly not, and Trump actually said, "That was a great interview," as per Trump himself agreed. Morgan responded, "Thank you very much. I really appreciate it." 

After Morgan made that concluding remark did Trump say, "Turn the camera off."

When Trump made the remark that Morgan was being "very dishonest," it had to do with the fact that he was initially told the interview would only last 20 minutes, and this is what Trump agreed to. But it lasted over an hour and this was what the remark referred to, not the election or anything else.

President Trump released a statement late Wednesday blasting Morgan.

"Piers Morgan, like the rest of the Fake News Media, attempted to unlawfully and deceptively edit his long and tedious interview with me. He wanted to make it look like I walked out on the interview when my time limit of 20 minutes went over by an hour," Trump said.

The former president added, "[Morgan] went out of his way to deceptively edit an interview and got caught."

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

Morgan refused to admit he lied to Trump and to the public. He responded to Trump's statement on Thursday morning and totally ignored the fact that he deceptively edited the video.

The butt muncher doubled down: "Morning, Mr President! It was a great interview, thanks for all your time. Sorry you got so annoyed that I don’t believe the 2020 election was rigged or stolen from you, but as I said, where’s your proof? If you have it, show us — or accept the result and move on," Morgan said.

I will no longer take Piers Morgan seriously [never did before, so why start now] and will not watch his Fox Nation show. I think Fox made a huge mistake going into a contract with him.

Tweet

Anonymous exposes 364K files on Russia's censorship of the invasion

A Ukrainian hacking group associated with Anonymous released 364,000 files Thursday from Roskomnadzor, the Russian agency that monitors and censors information by the media. The documents were generated as late as Saturday, this past weekend.

The documents show that Moscow censored everything that referred to Russia's military action as an invasion,  and in fact, some Russian citizens were totally unaware an invasion of Ukraine took place.

"Roskomnadzor has given instructions about what can be said and ordered media outlets to delete stories that call Russia's invasion of Ukraine an Invasion," Anonymous said in a message posted online.

Russia President Vladimir Putin signed a new law on March 4th that makes it a crime to report anything that goes against the government's narrative over that what Russia did was not an invasion of Ukraine, it was a "special military operation." It's almost as if Russia is taking its cues from our Big Tech companies.

The foreign news outlets decided they had to protect their reporters, including the Compromised News Network (CNN), which stopped live broadcasts from Russia. The BBC also suspended the reporting of its Russia correspondent. When the law was put in place, that day Putin blocked its citizens from going on Facebook but in spite of that, many Russian citizens have been using virtual private networks to bypass the government's censoring of real news.

In another online development, Meta (formerly known as Facebook) says that it temporarily made allowances for some violent speech on its platform, such as "death to the Russian invaders" that would normally violate its rules. But it will still prohibit violent speech against Russian civilians and keep Donald Trump from accessing the platform.

* * *

For more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

On Feb. 26, the Anonymous group announced on Twitter that it had successfully taken control of Russian streaming services and TV channels, replacing state-sponsored broadcasts with "the truth about what happens in Ukraine."

Anonymous also claimed credit for hacking Russia's Internet service providers as well as leaking content from a Belarusian weapons producer.

Anonymous warned in late February that it had declared a cyberwar against Russia for invading Ukraine and targeting civilian populations across the Eastern European nation.

Tweet

GOP tries to push bills allowing social media lawsuits to oppose cancel culture

GOP lawmakers in about 24 states are trying to push bills that allow victims of social media giants to be sued for policing content on their websites that doesn't comport to their political views. They are therefore taking aim at federal law preventing lawsuits against internet companies for removing posts.

The GOP has introduced bills that would allow for civil lawsuits against platforms engaging in what they term "censorship" of posts, which it most certainly is. Many of the lawmakers are against the deletion of political and religious statements, says the National Conference of State Legislatures. And in roughly two states, Democrats are calling for greater scrutiny of big tech and are sponsoring the same measures. 

The phone company is a platform and cannot be held responsible for what is said over their lines, and thus, cannot be sued. These social media giants are making the same claim that they are merely a platform, but if they are censoring content how are they the same as the phone company?

Former President Trump and the GOP in general, have gone after the federal liability shield that protects platforms like the phone company, or the comment section of a website, for two examples. There is no doubt that Silicon Valley is doing all the can to shut up conservative viewpoints and we are seeing this in other aspects of national commerce like the banning of certain books on Amazon and other sites.

And let's not forget that Twitter banned Trump on their platform and used the January 6th protests and riots at the Capitol as an excuse to do that. while Facebook gave him an indefinite suspension which is currently being reviewed by a semi-independent panel at this time.

Some people argue the legislative proposals are doomed to fail while the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is in place. They said state lawmakers are wading into unconstitutional territory by trying to interfere with the editorial policies of private companies.

Perhaps these companies should not be private, based on their incredible influence on public opinion, to the point that they likely swayed the 2020 presidential election in Joe Biden's favor.

Len Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described the idea as a “constitutional non-starter.”

“If an online platform wants to have a policy that it will delete certain kinds of tweets, delete certain kinds of users, forbid certain kinds of content, that is in the exercise of their right as an information distributer,” he said. “And the idea that you would create a cause of action that would allow people to sue when that happens is deeply problematic under the First Amendment.”

Niehoff makes a good point, but that supports the argument of breaking these tech monopolies up. Okay, we know it's complicated.

The bills by the GOP vary slightly but many allow for civil lawsuits if a social media user is censored over posts having to do with politics or religion, with some proposals allowing for damages of $75,000 for each blocked post. They would apply to companies with millions of users and carve out exemptions for posts that call for violence, entice criminal acts or other similar conduct, which of course, is unconstitutional.

The sponsor of Oklahoma’s version, Republican state Sen. Rob Standridge, said social media posts are being unjustly censored and that people should have a way to challenge the platforms’ actions given their powerful place in American discourse. His bill passed committee in late February on a 5-3 vote, with Democrats opposed.

“This just gives citizens recourse,” he said, adding that the companies “can’t abuse that immunity” given to them through federal law.

Part of a broad, 1996 federal law on telecoms, Section 230 generally exempts internet companies from being sued over content that users post on their sites. 

The statute, which was meant to promote growth of the internet, exempts websites from being sued for removing content deemed to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” as long as the companies are acting in “good faith.”

And that, my friends, is the problem. Who decides what is "good faith?"

At the very least, Section 230 should be updated to ensure these powerful companies meet certain criteria before they receive legal protection. And they should NEVER be permitted to ban a sitting president elected by the people.

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet

Facebook execs discuss crushing First Amendment under Biden

You've got to love Project Veritas and their guerrilla journalism approach to uncovering the truth.

On January 31st, Veritas released a devastating leak showing Facebook (FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg getting all moist over Biden's executive orders, calling them "important and positive steps," in spite of Biden's admission that the same thing Trump did with executive orders was dictatorial. [H/T Media Research Center]

Zuckerberg then went on to say that he looks forward to when "Facebook is going to be able to work together with this new administration."

Guy Rosen, a guy whose job is an oxymoron known as Facebook VP of Integrity, was also shown discussing how the company's cutting-edge technology could be used to target conservative speech, in contrast to the First Amendment. 

Rosen, who some believe to be a total crap weasel, described how the platform is trying to “limit the spread of content that could potentially lead to further civil unrest, further violence.” Translation: Rosen wants to suppress free speech by people with whom he disagrees because if they are allowed to say what they believe, Antifa and perhaps BLM, will become violent and blame their behavior on words.

Rosen went on to describe how FB is specifically targeting political FB groups:

"We have a system that is able to freeze commenting on threads in cases where our systems are detecting that there may be a thread that has hate speech or violence in the comments. These are all things we've built over the past three, four years as part of our investments into the integrity space, our efforts to protect elections.”

Meanwhile, these FB buttheads are not willing to ban actual violent leftist organizations such as Rose City Antifa as they remain fully operational on their platform with thousands of followers.

Other far-left leaders at FB made anti-free speech comments on the company’s future as well.

Roy Austin, FB's VP of Civil Rights [not a joke] believes that all company decisions should be "run through a civil rights lens,” including the use of advanced virtual reality technology to re-educate people [to believe what he and FB believes]:

“I wonder whether or not we can use Oculus to help a white police officer understand what it feels like to be a young black man who’s stopped and searched and arrested by the police. … I want every major decision to run through a civil rights lens.” [FB's civil rights lens, no doubt.]

There is no question that conservatives and their civil rights are under attack by the far-left and Big Tech [but I repeat myself]. Please consider contacting Facebook headquarters at: 1-650-308-7300 and demand they and Big Tech be held to account to provide clarity on "hate speech" rules that seem to apply in only one direction.

Anyone who has been censored should contact the Media Research Center and use their contact form, and help them hold Big Tech accountable.

Please consider subscribing to this free blog, Brain Flushings, and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help feed my backyard squirrel and help in the fight of the China virus.

Tweet

Twitter's self-awareness is that of a cactus

You've heard the overused term 'you can't make this stuff up.' Well Twitter has people saying that and it shows the social media giant's total lack of self-awareness to the point it makes you laugh and be angry simultaneously.

The statement Twitter made regarding the Ugandan election, just prior to permanently banning President Trump from its platform, is almost too hypocritical to believe, but they meant what they pontificated to the African nation, optics be damned.

Here's the story: just days after Twitter permanently banning President Donald Trump from its platform, Twitter posted their thoughts about "freedom of expression" and "access to information" regarding the Ugandan election. Normal people who read the post either laughed at the hypocrisy or were amazed at Twitter having the balls to pontificate about the exact thing they are guilty of doing to the President of the United States of America.

The post stated:

"Ahead of the Ugandan election, we're hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps," Twitter Public Policy began. "We strongly condemn internet shutdowns — they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet."

But not so much for President Trump and a bunch of conservatives with different political and cultural views.

Twitter Public Policy next added: 

"Earlier this week, in close coordination with our peers, we suspended a number of accounts targeting the election in Uganda. If we can attribute any of this activity to state-backed actors, we will disclose to our archive of information operations."  

Then came the the incredible, blatant hypocrisy: 

"Access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter, is never more important than during democratic processes, particularly elections."

Huh? Are you freaking kidding us?

When leaders from Germany, France and Mexico condemn banning Trump from social media, all leaders who are not fond of Trump, you know there's a "freedom problem" in the United States.

The anti-American values of the far-left didn't see it as a problem but they're too stupid to see that their loss of freedom will soon come for them.

Many normal people hit back at Twitter for what they said about the Ugandan election:

"Are there no mirrors at Twitter?" TheBlaze's Jessica O'Donnell asked. 

"High comedy!" conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza exclaimed. "You can't make this stuff up."

My personal favorite:

"Twitter's like: 'Don't restrict people's speech, that's our job,'" another user said.

So Twitter shuts down the New York Post for a story they don't want going public, then bans prominent conservatives and President Donald Trump from their platform, and think they own the moral high ground to lecture Uganda?

If you don't see the unintentional humor in Twitter's virtue signaling, you need to pay closer attention. I will continue posting Brain Flushings on Twitter, at least until they ban all conservative narratives. Perhaps you'll subscribe to this blog and others as you see fit. I really hope you will because it's only a matter of time when the voices on the right will be hard to hear.

Please subscribe and look for other voices too. 

C'mon, man, gimme a break. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny, no joke. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear. C'mon, check out the ads and give them a good, hard clicking.

Tweet

Fascists attack pro-Trump demonstrators

Conservatives and other Trump supporters attended a rally on Saturday in San Francisco to protest against high tech censorship and promote free speech. While the pro-Trump turnout had a few dozen people show up, hundreds of Antifa thugs came to create violence and attacked demonstrators, leaving one with a bloodied face and missing tooth.

Team Save America, a conservative group, organized the event to protest the censoring of free speech by Twitter, whose CEO and founder, Jack Dorsey, supports far-left causes and censors conservative speech. The group planned a rally at United Nations Plaza and then move the protest to Twitter's headquarters a couple of blocks away.

But the demonstration almost immediately regressed into a shouting match and became violent as hundreds of counter-protesting Antifa thugs charged the area. One of the First Amendment advocates and group organizer, Philip Anderson, was hit in the face and had a tooth knocked out by a member of a group that Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), referred to as a "myth."

"This is what happens when you lose free speech," Anderson said, as Antifa scumwafers booed and threw objects at him. "This is what happens, America. This is what our country is turning into."

The event was canceled before it ever really got started.

The San Francisco Police Department did not respond to a request for comment Saturday, nor did they respond to the violence as it occurred in real time.

Social media companies have been blasted for censoring information that is negative for the left. For example, the Hunter Biden connection to communist China and his father's [Joe Biden] involvement in the scandal. Twitter is also censoring postings by President Trump and put a warning on a tweet in which Trump compared coronavirus to the flu, while Facebook removed the post altogether.

As of Saturday night, Twitter locked out the New York Post's account because they tweeted about Hunter Biden's involvement as mentioned above. The New York Post is the fourth largest newspaper in the country.

And Facebook said it's reducing distribution of the Post's reporting on the scandal with Hunter and Joe Biden.

Reasons given by these companies are lame claims that they refuse to allow posts from hacked sources. Of course that doesn't include President Trump's tax returns, for example, but only information that would damage the left.

We no longer live in a free country and that has got to change back to the way it was.

C'mon, man. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear.

Tweet

YouTube removes video supporting Trump's statement

The leftists at YouTube removed a video showing how UV light treatment can kill the Chinese Communist Wuhan Coronavirus in the air. There was no reason given for the removal, but it might have something to do with the fact that President Trump mentioned it, and therefore, it is bad, not good.

The medical team at Cedars Sinai and Aytu Bioscience showed how the treatment for the virus is effective and safe for humans, but "Orange Man" likes it, and thus, it was removed.

The video was flagged by New York Times "reporter" Davey Alba to Youtube. She flagged the video because people who were sharing it showed scientists were actually developed the idea that President Donald Trump had mused about during a briefing and giving him kudos is out of the question.

Alba tweeted [brackets are my thoughts]:

I contacted YouTube about this video, which is being shared on tons of replies on Twitter & on Facebook, by people asserting that it backs up Trump's idea throwing it out there that UV rays kill coronavirus.
YouTube just said it removed it for violating its [whatever we say is their] community guidelines. pic.twitter.com/gbs5Igq0yy
— Davey Alba (@daveyalba) April 24, 2020

YouTube apparently would rather disrupt treatment efforts of the virus than give Trump even one iota of credit for his musings. The so-called community guidelines seem to be whatever Trump or conservatives assert must be a lie or harmful in some way and must, therefore, be removed.

Nobody was being endangered by the medical team and the video, it merely explained the science behind the treatment, and it was not possible to duplicate so again, nobody could possibly get injured in any way by the video.

The team tweeted:

Many are now talking about UV light being used as a treatment for COVID-19. We are proud to have teamed up with @MarkPimentelMD and his team at @CedarsSinai. They developed Healight. Peer-reviewed data will be published in days, but here's how it works: https://t.co/9E6dyOkwhI
— Aytu_BioScience (@BioscienceAytu) April 24, 2020

Lifesaving ideas are only permitted on YouTube if they and the New York Times, a former newspaper, approve. And if the idea in question is provided by Trump, you can forget about it.

The situation has deteriorated even more, however.

YouTube is not only going along with requests from the envious left, they are pulling anything that "goes against WHO recommendations,” according to Youtube’s CEO Susan Wojcicki.

#YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki says anything that goes against the W.H.O. is a violation of YouTube policies. All content that isn't "medically substantiated," such as advising people take Vitamin C, will be removed by the platform.
This is called CENSORSHIP folks.#smh pic.twitter.com/9cnB2dnS7O
— Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) April 21, 2020

If social media platforms are going to censor information they don't like, then they need to be considered publishers, not merely platforms, and as such, they need to be held accountable for what they publish.

Nasheed is right. When these social media platforms are political and biased, they need to be called out on it, particularly when they spew crap that WHO [aka Wuhan Health Organization] is the final arbiter of what is "proper."

YouTube and the New York Times would rather give credit to an organization that on Jan. 14th said that there was no evidence the Wuhan coronavirus was communicable between humans, despite Taiwan saying it is. And then not including Taiwan as a separate nation.

WHO also said toward the end of January [when Trump halted travel with China] that there was no reason to halt travel with the Communist nation, allowing many thousands to travel all over the globe to spread the virus.

YouTube is obviously not neutral but is grossly political. They choose what to promote and what to censor and need to be treated as such.



Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.





Tweet

Top Twitter twit: Fox News is 'more dangerous' than Trump's tweets

Francisco Leong / AFP /Getty

Ev Williams is the co-founder of Twitter and is the butt of Bernie Sanders and AOC attacks for having lots of money--oh wait--no, he isn't. But anyway, Williams said Wednesday that he thinks Fox News is much more "powerful and destructive" than Twitter.

His reasoning may have to do with the idea that Twitter tends to shut down conservatives either banning them permanently, or putting them in "Twitter Jail" with a temporary suspension, but he didn't mention that notion.

“The vast majority of the electorate is not on Twitter reading Trump’s tweets and being convinced by that,” Williams told the Communist News Network in an interview someplace in Canada called Toronto.

“What they’re convinced much more by is the destructive power of Fox News, which is much, much more powerful and much more destructive than Twitter.”

Yes, Twitter doesn't destroy--it deletes. Fox News uses opinion hosts like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, but they also have real reporting by people such as Brett Baier, Shannon Bream, and even the liberal Shep Smith. What other major news network has a conservative host? Name one.

Williams admitted that President Trump is a “master” of the platform, telling CNN’s Donnie O’Sullivan: “What Trump has done with Twitter is pretty genius, frankly.”

I wouldn't necessarily call Trump a "genius" but I would certainly call him the king of trolling. Anyone who wins the Democratic nomination for the 2020 race, better have thick skin, certainly thicker than Trump's. He counterpunches everyone who has something negative to say about him, and that's his biggest problem. He needs to know when not to "punch down."

But the fact is, virtually all of the media is well left of center, with CNN and MSNBC furthest to the left. The leftist media have never erred on the side of Trump whenever they've "made a mistake" in their so-called reporting, and they have attacked him incessantly since even before he entered the race for the presidency.

Kindly consider following Brain Flushings and please visit the ads on these pages. Thank you.




Tweet

Microsoft to become the 'Language Nazis'

Microsoft has elected itself to become the language police in order to form a more perfect country free of opposing challenges. The company is cracking down on what people say while using their services--especially what conservative people say.

According to the company, they plan to ban accounts that use what they deem to be "offensive language," defined as: any language or ideas that offends their sensibilities. 

They will go through your [former] private data to "investigate" users.

Users of Office, Xbox, Skype, and other products were warned in a March 1 release that they will prohibit inappropriate content and offensive language. "Don't publicly display or use the Services to share inappropriate content or material (involving, for example, nudity, bestiality, pornography, offensive language, graphic violence, or criminal activity),"they warn in a portion of their new codes of conduct.

Okay, so the graphic violence, nudity, bestiality, pornography and violence are understandable. But "offensive language" is protected under the First Amendment and as long as it doesn't incite violence, should not be banned.

They say the remedy for so-called hate speech, is more speech.

And policing people's online behavior is just plain wrong.


Tweet

German Gov't using Hitler-style law to censor news outlets

I don't often side with the reporting by Infowars because I believe Alex Jones sees everything as a conspiracy which puts food on his table. But I also believe in the First Amendment and his right to say what he wants.

And this time, I believe Infowars.

German officials will begin censoring Infowars and other media outlets reporting on the migrant crisis that makes Chancellor Merkel look Schlecht [bad]. 

Shades of Adolf!

The German government is stepping up enforcement of a Nazi-style censorship law that will pressure Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other social media sites to remove content considered to be "hate speech" by people who support Das Chancellor Uber Alles. 

It's kind of what American leftists and Muslims want to do to conservatives and anyone who says things they don't like.

"The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG or Network Enforcement Act) law was passed at the end of June 2017 and came into force in early October," the BBC reported. "The social networks were given until the end of 2017 to prepare themselves for the arrival of NetzDG."

". . . Germany's justice ministry said it would make forms available on its site, which concerned citizens [aka "rats"] could use to report content that violates NetzDG or has not been taken down in time."

This gives Nazi policy sympathizers (leftists) carte blanche to censor anything they are offended by and keeps it from being viewed in Germany. It also makes thinking for yourself passé--there's a lot of that going around in the U.S. as well.

Obviously, the censorship would include links to news articles regarding the problems Germany faces with "open borders" which is routinely being hidden from the public even now.

One example in this regard was when a German girl was murdered last year and the migrant who did it was arrested. In spite of the story making international headlines, German state media refused to report the story, calling it "too regional."

Basically, the new German censorship law will work similar to the ways the Nazis enacted their censorship laws in 1933. The Nazis called it an "editorial law" and it forced newspaper editors to adhere to strict censorship standards. Some excerpts of the law are:

Editors are especially obligated to keep out of newspapers anything which:

a. is misleading to the public by mixing selfish interests with community interests;

b. tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich, in foreign relations or domestically; the sense of community of the German people; German defense capability, culture, or the economy; or offends the religious sentiments of others;

c. offends the honor and dignity of Germany;

d. illegally offends the honor or the well-being of another, hurts his reputation, or ridicules or disparages him;

e. is immoral for other reasons.

The last one is like an employee contract which basically allows the employer to fire the employee for anything he or she sees reason to fire them. In the Nazi case, the firing was via a squad.


Tweet

Twitter favors liberals and Ben Shapiro proved it

Conservative intellect Ben Shapiro and angry loser Rosie O'Donnell appear to dislike each other. Their Twitter relationship has taken a terrible turn with O'Donnell showing her lack of cleverness and vocabulary to use a vulgar sexual term.

Shapiro said that he's using O'Donnell's tweets, that include the vulgar sexual term, to see if the social media platform favors liberals or if they're fair and balanced.

"Just reported @Rosie for targeted harassment, mainly to see if Twitter does indeed have a double standard. Everyone knows if Rosie were conservative, Twitter would suspend her in a hot second. So, Twitter, put your money where your mouth is," Ben tweeted. He added the popular #MeToo hashtag.

He explained further: "It's an attempt to clarify Twitter's standards. I don't actually want them to ban or suspend Rosie. I want them to stop applying their own rules inconsistently."

You would have a better chance of convincing a goldfish to ride a tandem bike with you before Twitter would be consistent with liberals and conservatives.

Earlier this week, O'Donnell said that she would give $2 million each to Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake if they voted against the tax reform legislation.

Shapiro, who graduated from Harvard Law School, and is also the editor of The Daily Wire, responded to O'Donnell, who is a college dropout, with a series of jabs and an article he wrote on his website titled: "Rosie O'Donnell Violates Federal Law, Offers To Bribe Republican Senators To Vote Against The Tax Bill."

Another Shapiro tweet called for the corpulent former comedian to be locked up. He joked, "If Trump orders Sessions to investigate Rosie, he will be carved into Rushmore on Friday."

After Shapiro's posts, O'Donnell came back at him with the brilliant profanity-laced reply: "suck my d**k Ben." [It's improbable that she was referring to a sex toy, but perhaps she was.]

The exchange continued as Shapiro went on: "You're already a felon, Rosie. Don't be a homophobic sexual harasser too."

After Shapiro alerted his followers that he reported the felon homophobe, she simply replied, "oh ben." He responded: "All victims deserve to be believed."

Of course, O'Donnell's account was still active at the time the story came out, but she blocked Shapiro, realizing she was no match for his intellect.



Tweet

Washington Post urges ditching First Amendment

All colleges should censor 'racist and offensive' speech, an editorial in the Washington Post editorial read. This came in response to what they're calling a racist banana episode at the American University, which is currently under investigation by the FBI as a hate [aka 'thought'] crime. The rag is using this incident to justify getting rid of the First Amendment and stop people--racist pigs included--from saying whatever they want to say.

The editorial wants to "Make crystal clear that racist . . . speech is off limits." They want to punish and censor students if anyone thinks their speech or behavior is racist.

The term 'racist' therefore, will be determined by whoever says that what another student is saying is racist.

But worse than the ability to censor anyone you wish to shut up, the Constitution gives all of us, racists, humanitarians, good folk, bad folk and even vegetarians the right to say whatever they want. If you don't like what you hear, you can either leave or rebut the person. You do not have the right to censor that person unless they are calling for violence or creating an actual danger with their words.

And if anyone thinks that having their fragile feelings hurt is violence or danger, then they ought to shelter in place . . . forever.

It's always comical as much as it's irritating and hypocritical to hear arguments from "reputable" parakeet cage-liner newspapers to shut down free speech. In fact, my feelings are hurt by the Washington Post for them to think that I might be so racist as to even imply that people of my melanin level would promote racist dialogue or demonstrations. 

I say we censor them. 

I am not suggesting that hanging nooses on campus is not a crime--it's as offensive as hell--but I don't care for the idea that anyone should be given the power to shut down free speech.

The excuse the left gives is that hate speech isn't free speech.

Yes, hate speech is free speech, as much as it may suck to have to put up with it. But the best remedy for hate speech on campus is more speech--a better argument from the other side, not burning down a business because you're angry or getting paid by a Soros funded front to do it. 

And certainly not being stopped from speaking and stifling our core principles.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA also wrote a Post editorial explaining why "making racist speech off limits" is a horrible idea.

"At public universities, it would violate the First Amendment; at private universities, it would violate many of the universities' stated commitments to open debate, as well as basic principles of academic freedom," Volokh wrote.

Speaking about being "crystal clear," the Supreme Court said that the government shall not discriminate based on viewpoint, even in limited public fora such as university open spaces.

Volokh also points out that even criticizing immigration could be deemed racist, or criticizing any religion. 

Who in the schools will or should decide what is or isn't racist?

The one thing that should scare all of us who appreciate the freedoms we have in this country is the notion of how one branch of government, the judiciary, is making decisions for us and unwriting much of the Constitution.

Please consider following Brain Flushings by clicking the Follow tab.


Tweet

Students at top University want to ban white philosophers

Were Plato, Socrates and Descartes caucasian? Probably, but I don't really care because it's irrelevant to what they've offered to mankind. 

Sure, Bertrand Russell was white--that's his photo above--but what does a person's race matter to non-racists who don't measure a person's worth by the amount of melanin in their skin?

But students at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London (aka: "The School of Lower Education") are demanding that "the majority of philosophers on [sic] our courses" need to be from Africa and Asia rather than being white, Western thinkers. They want Russell, Plato and Descartes, along with other white men, dropped from the course studies.

The snowflakes say that it's their strategy to "decolonize" the college, which they regard as a "white institution."

SOAS, a constituent college of the University of London (GO Crumpets!) is regarded as the world's leading institution for the study of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

In a list of educational priorities titled: "Decolonising SOAS: Confronting The White Institution," the union's statement of "educational priorities" ironically states its aim to "Create an inclusive (LOL) learning and teaching environment by defining what these terms mean [that is, who to exclude in the inclusion] and address the white curriculum by undertaking a full scale audit of every course reading list."

They must have gotten this idea from the movie "Fahrenheit 451." 


These inclusive snowflakes go on to say that white philosophers should be studied only "if required", and then should only be taught from "a critical standpoint," because white people are so mean and stuff.

The move is being pushed by democracy and education (LOL) union officer Ali Habib, who is on SOAS's governing board of trustees and also wants to widen the scope of scholarships for refugees as an educational priority.

I Kant believe these stupid kids.

Welcome to the world of censorship of ideas and acceptable racism.




Tweet