Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)
Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned”. And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.
The pro-life movie Unplanned surprised at the box office its opening weekend, taking 5th place with $6.1 million. That didn’t stop Twitter from attacking the film twice in one weekend, however.
The movie’s Twitter account was briefly suspended on Saturday, mere hours after its release on Friday. On Sunday, the account seems to have mysteriously lost 99,000 of its 100,000 followers.
There was a backlash against the suspension of the account. Twitter didn’t provide any rule that was violated, but they reinstated the account – with zero followers. People trying to re-follow the account were prevented from doing so, including the author of the PJ Media article:
I attempted to follow the page, but the same thing happened to me.
However, the movie performed so well at the box office that they are expanding the number of theaters next week to 1,700:
Despite the Twitter suspension and sudden mysterious loss of followers, Unplanned racked up more than $6.1 million at the box office, despite being predicted to take in only $2-3 million. Even more impressive, the film only played on 1,060 screens, earning an average of $5,770 per screen.
On Sunday, the film announced that its distributor, Pure Flix, will add an additional 600 screens for a count of 1,700 screens next week.
The movie also earned an A+ rating from CinemaScore, and it has a 93 percent positive rating on RottenTomatoes.
I’d make sure that you go see it as soon as possible. Remember what happend to the Gosnell movie, last time? The theaters pulled it very early, even though it was doing very well.
I understand that companies make mistakes, but why are all the mistakes made by these big social media companies in favor of their allies in the Democrat Party? Is it because they don’t want their allies in the Democrat Party to lose elections?
For the last 22 months, we’ve seen the media keep up a constant drumbeat about how Trump colluded with Russia to sell Russian corporations uranium rights in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, wait, the media hasn’t said anything about that. So, there was an investigation, and the investigation went on forever, and found nothing.
In a four-page letter provided to Congress on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr officially revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not find any evidence that President Donald Trump or members of his campaign treasonously colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.
No collusion:
“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election,” Barr’s letter to Congress noted.
No obstruction of justice:
The investigation headed by Mueller also examined whether Trump obstructed justice at any point related to ongoing investigations of Russian interference. In his letter, Barr stated that Mueller’s investigation was unable to demonstrate that the president broke the law by interfering with law enforcement.
Just to count the cost of the investigation, it was:
19 lawyers
40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and more
2,800+ subpoenas
500 search warrants
500 witnesses
over $25 MILLION in taxpayer dollars
Remember, this isn’t the first time that the media reported constantly on a story that fit their radically-leftist narrative, but then was later disproven with evidence. Remember how they breathlessly reported the charge that Brett Kavanaugh ran a secret gang rape cartel? How about when the Covington kids literally assaulted a peaceful native American who literally served overseas in Vietnam? How about the faked Jussie Smollett hate crime? This happens all the time.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presents Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a “reset button”
Here’s some collusion with Russia
Remember this article from the radically leftist New York Times?
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
Why didn’t that get investigated for 22 months by a Special Consel duting the Obama administration? Why didn’t the mainstream news mendia report on that for 22 months ahead of the 2016 presidential election?
Obama promised Russian president Dmitri Medvedev “more flexibility” after the 2012 election
Russia colluded with Barack Obama
And speaking of collusion with Russia, how come this was never investigated:
Why didn’t actual collusion with the Russians deserve a 22-month Special Counsel investigation? Why didn’t the media run that clip for 22 months asking why Obama was colluding with the Russians? You don’t have to look very far in his foreign policy to see actual examples where we sided with the Russians against our allies, such as when Obama backed out of giving missile defense to Poland. Or when Obama stood by and did nothing after Russia ran tanks into Georgia in 2008. Or when Obama refused to sell anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, after Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Obama’s entire foreign policy was pro-Russia! It was right there in the open.
By the way, Trump did sell 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, to defend themselves from Russia. But did the mainstream news media report on that? How exactly is selling anti-tank missiles to Russia’s enemies “collusion with Russia”?
What about Obama?
What about the Obama administration? Were they ever investigated for their many scandals?
The Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels so they could call for more gun control when those guns were used to kill Border Patrol agents. Or the Obama administration using the IRS as a weapon against conservative get-out-the-vote organizations, just before his re-election campaign. And on and on. The media had nothing to say about those scandals.
If I were giving advice to the Republican party about how to win in 2020, I would advise them to focus on three priorities. Lowering unemployment, reforming the criminal justice system, and expanding school choice. They should also paint the Democrats as the party of infanticide, Green New Deal and elimination of private health insurance.
So far, Trump has done an excellent job of encouraging private sector job creators to create millions of new jobs. Unemployment is at a record low, and that’s important for persuading Black and Hispanic voters to vote for smart policies instead of tribal identity and envy. I don’t agree with with reforming criminal justice to favor criminals, but that will help with minority voters as well. But what we really need to do is provide Black and Hispanic voters with a way to get their children out of failing public schools. Public schools are filled with lazy, unionized Democrat teachers and administrators who care more about indoctrinating kids with Democrat propaganda than teaching them job skills that will make them independent, self-sufficient adults.
The Republican party knows that school choice is a win for them, and they are doing something about it.
Here’s the latest from the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that promotes fiscally conservative policies:
Today, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos joined Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), to announce new federal legislation that would establish a federal tax-credit expanding school choice. The proposal would give dollar-for-dollar tax credits to individuals and corporations who donate to state designated scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). While its particulars bear scrutiny, the “Education Freedom Scholarship” (EFS) proposal’s overall design is a solid attempt to walk a tightrope of backing state efforts at school choice while protecting against federal meddling now and in the future. Unfortunately, a number of critics on the right are too quick to react on their fears, and too slow in remembering what is holding back school choice.
Some conservatives and libertarians worry that solving the problem of underforming schools from the top down is a political overreach, but the AEI policy analyst writing the article says that the Republican bill doesn’t have that problem:
As I wrote back in 2017, backing state developed tax-credit scholarships is the best, and probably only, way the federal government could support state efforts without overreaching. It would not be a federal program, but a tax credit that supports programs where states are explicitly responsible for policy particulars.
[…]No doubt, the bill would need to be explicitly structured to ensure the states’ primary role, and durably prevent federal overreach; fortunately defending states’ role is a paramount feature of the bill’s design.
School choice is a nice issue for Republicans, because it allows them to point out the hypocritical nature of Democrat politicians. Democrat politicians are essentially hypocritical. They want to ban guns for you, but they have armed security to protect themselves. It’s the same thing for education. They want to ban private schools for your children, but their own children all attend private schools.
The top Political Contributors in 2016 election cycle includes two teacher unions
Democrats are obligated by teacher unions, (e.g. – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers), to vote against parents who want their children to get a better education. That’s because teacher unions are some of the biggest Democrat donors. Teacher unions just want more salary and bigger benefits, despite the evidence that clearly shows that more education spending doesn’t produce better student achievement.
The possibility is examined that school choice programs could be a means to reducing the achievement gap. Data based on meta-analytic research and the examination of nationwide data sets suggest that school choice programs that include private schools could reduce the achievement gap by 25%. The propounding of this possibility is based on research indicating that the achievement gap in faith-based schools is generally 25% narrower than one finds in public schools. Results of these studies suggest that both the racial achievement gap and the socioeconomic achievement gap are reduced by the same degree (25%). The significance of these results is discussed, especially as it pertains to the attitudes that people frequently have toward school choice.
Not only do children do better in non-public schools, but the competition forces public schools to focus less on leftist indoctrination, and more on reading, writing and math.
A school that is more productive is one that produces higher achievement in its pupils for each dollar it spends. In this paper, I comprehensively review how school choice might affect productivity. I begin by describing the importance of school productivity, then explain the economic logic that suggests that choice will affect productivity, and finish by presenting much of the available evidence on school choice and school productivity. The most intriguing evidence comes from three important, recent choice reforms: vouchers in Milwaukee, charter schools in Michigan, and charter schools in Arizona. I show that public school students’ achievement rose significantly and rapidly in response to competition, under each of the three reforms. Public school spending was unaffected, so the productivity of public schools rose, dramatically in the case in Milwaukee.
School choice makes public schools perform better because competition between providers always lowers the cost and increases the quality of services and products being provided to the consumers. Consumers always suffer when there is a monopoly. This is why people are more satisfied purchasing goods from Amazon and Netflix than they are lining up at the post office or the department of motor vehicles. The free market serves the consumer.
I was raised in a poor background, and I am a visible minority. If Republicans want to get the votes of people in my community, it makes sense to put in place policies that allow people like me to get a good education so we can get good jobs and do better than our parents did. Republicans should be all about equipping people to be independent and self-sufficient. These are conservative goals.
WINTERY KNIGHT 