Author Archives: admin
A Nation Tuned to the Station of Freedom
A Nation Tuned to the Station of Freedom
For most Americans, there hasn’t really been time to stop and process what happened at the Capitol last Wednesday. Instead, we’re just trying to survive, fighting off daily waves of crackdown and retribution — punishment for a crime the vast majority of conservatives didn’t commit or condone. The people in power, the same ones who called the summer riots “the American Way,” are coming for our rights, our speech, even our livelihoods. Who will be left standing? If history is any indication — we will.
Right now, it’s a little hard to see beyond the present crisis, but our country has been at similar crisis points before. A generation who’s been robbed of the privilege of learning history can’t look backward — but if they could, they’d see that when our voice is threatened, the church always finds a way to respond. That doesn’t mean the next two years will be easy. What we’re witnessing in this moment may be the most dangerous corporate-political alignment this nation has ever seen. “Silencing, blacklists, social credit scores, threats…” We’ve woken up to an American where you support the wrong political ideology and suddenly, Tucker Carlson shakes his head, “you can’t communicate, and you have no legal representation, and you can’t fly in an airplane, and you can’t put your money in a bank.”
But the beauty of the American system is that we have the ability to correct this. In fact, that’s our nation’s story: the great obstacles and the greater comebacks. Our movement is a vital part of that. We can shrink back and wait for our powerlines to be cut or we can use the weapons we have: the airwaves, our broadcast booths, and any other means for getting our message out. Religious broadcasters still have reason to be concerned, attorney Craig Parshall agreed on “Washington Watch.” But this isn’t the first time an army of the Left has tried to cut off our microphones.
It wasn’t that long ago, Craig reminded everyone, that Bill Clinton tried to get a federal agency to create a definition of “hate speech” that they could use to shut down certain radio and television broadcasters. Of course, that fell flat when the agency, after about a year of work and public money, couldn’t come up with an accurate definition of the term. Then, Barack Obama took a crack at it with the FCC, floating the idea of local commissions that could enforce “community standards” and decide if content was appropriate. “That failed to gain traction,” Craig explains, “but it was threatened.”
For decades, liberals have tried to crack down on religious and conservative talk. We’re seeing it right now with Mark Levin. Cumulus Media is demanding that its host stop talking about a “stolen election.” “If you transgress this policy,” its memo warned, “you can expect to separate from the company immediately.” This same thing happened back in the communist era of the 1950s. People who wanted to preach the good news banded together, and look at the result! There’s more Christian programming out there today than there was 40 or 50 years ago when it was attacked. Obviously, there are bullies out there who think they can stop the truth or the gospel from going out. But I’ve got news for them: they never win.
Look at what happened with the Fairness Doctrine. It was entirely dismantled under the Reagan administration — and conservative talk flourished. Why? Because it goes to the heart of the American people who share these traditional values. “You just [have to] wonder,” Craig said, “what is the motivation for not having an open marketplace of lawful ideas?” And the answer is, the far-Left can’t compete with those ideas. So they want their opponents cowed, humiliated, and muted. “We’ve been marked as the enemy, because we oppose the idea that the state is superior to God… But there are those who believe that they have a better plan — and they [think] that we are better off under their soft totalitarian hand than we are with liberty.”
At the end of the day, we need to keep doing what we’ve been doing, regardless of how they mischaracterize us and our intentions. The battles are going to come — they always do — but we have to be just as resolute and unyielding. We’re going to continue to speak the truth in love, seek the face of God and His power, and rely on his strength to sustain us in what is going to be a very challenging chapter in the history of our country.
“The Great Commission is called ‘great’ for a reason,” Craig insisted. “When the apostle Peter got arrested, unlawfully dragged in before the council in Jerusalem, he said, ‘Look, you can do whatever you want to with me, but I can’t stop talking about what I have seen and heard in terms of the Savior, because I walk with him. We have the same commission today.” And that’s the determination the church needs right now. No matter what the other side does to us, no matter what they call us, we’re not going to be quiet.
MAXIME BERNIER ON CANCEL CULTURE
MAXIME BERNIER ON CANCEL CULTURE
Ten months ago I discussed freedom of speech and cancel culture with @ezralevant on my show. It’s a good time to watch it if you haven’t already.
https://youtu.be/-SiyIe0wfJI
Big Tech companies are at war with Social Media sites Gab and Parler!
Big Tech companies are at war with Social Media sites Gab and Parler!
The biggest ones are probably the removal of Gab from the App Store and Google Play store. In addition to that, mainstream online financial services companies such as PayPal and Stripe curtailed all the access from their platforms to Gab.
Reason: Gab joins other less restrictive social media platforms that have seen a surge in traffic since the November general election and recent blocks of accounts of Trump and his high-profile supporters.
In addition to Gab, these platforms include Parler (recently banned from Google Play and App Store as well), TheDonald, and MeWe.
This trend embodies a growing need of people to freely express themselves in the wake of pressures they experience regarding what they are allowed to say.
The restrictions to the freedom of speech that are happening these days are genuinely unprecedented in American history.
The President has not only received a permanent ban on his personal Twitter account but also saw some of his tweets from the official presidential Twitter account removed.It is understandable how more and more people each day are switching to alternative platforms such as Gab in order to be able to raise their voice.
Big Tech strikes again, Twitter in particular to Censor, Violating the First Amendment.
After the tech wide ban of Donald Trump, the inconsistencies of social media platforms remain laughable.Twitter and Facebook stated that permanently removing President Trump’s accounts was to protect people and stop the ever-growing incitement of violence. Additionally, the vast majority of accounts also removed were US conservatives accounts, including Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell’s accounts.
However, Twitter was perfectly fine and happy to allow the disgusting phrase ‘Hang Mike Pence’ to remain on the trending page, culminating in over 14,000 tweets after Twitter purged a large majority of Conservative users on the site on Friday.The account of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei still remains active.
Twitter doesn’t care about users. If they did, accounts like Khamenei’s would have been terminated a long time ago and phrases like ‘Hang Mike Pence’ wouldn’t be allowed to trend.
Twitter’s selective use of their own Communist policies shows that they simply do not care, and by silencing the current leader of the free world, they wanted the rest of the world to know what kind of power they have–so let’s take it away by boycotting twitter–pass the word!
More patriotism of twitter: Twitter Hires Chinese Communist Party-Linked AI Expert Who Wanted to Hide ‘Secret’ Weapons Contracts
Medico-Stalinism in Australia: Victorians Need Covid Permit to Go Home or Face $5,000 Fine
AUSTRALIA – Victorians Need Covid Permit to Go Home or Face $5,000 Fine
January 11, 2021 https://www.rt.com/news/512142-victoria-covid-permit-fine-andrews/
Victorian protective service officers walk past a sign urging people to stay home during Melbourne’s lockdown. Victoria is forcing every person seeking to enter the Australian state to obtain a new permit, including people who live there. Those who flout the new Covid-19 rules risk being slapped with an AU$5,000 ($3,856) fine.
Premier Daniel Andrews announced the new regulation while detailing a relaxation of his state’s hard border with New South Wales.
The changes mean that Victoria residents stuck in regional parts of the neighboring state – which have been designated as an ‘orange zone’ – can prepare to return to their homes. However, the city of Sydney remains designated as a ‘red zone’ and is not included in the relaxed measures.
Victoria premier Dan Andrews. © REUTERS/Luis Ascui
The new rules apply to every arrival in the state, even those from Covid-safe states and territories that have not experienced virus outbreaks in months.
As well as obtaining the permit, travellers from an ‘orange zone’ are required to get tested within 72 hours of arriving and must quarantine until they receive a negative test result.
Andrews has faced criticism from civil liberties campaigners and political opponents for his tough measures throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
The latest move was blasted by opposition Leader Michael O’Brien, who accused the government of overreach for policing people who travel through green zones.
“Doesn’t matter if you’ve been to a green zone that’s never had a case of coronavirus in its history, you now need the Government’s permission before you can come back to Victoria,” O’Brien said.
This is a huge step, it puts the Government in control of every single Victorian’s life.
Reports in Australian news outlets suggest the traffic light system could remain in place for much of 2021.
Also on rt.com ‘Dan Andrews’ Stasi’: Victoria premier under fire for proposed law that would allow government officials to arbitrarily arrest citizens https://www.rt.com/news/501366-victoria-people-arrest-each-other/
Protesters shame Mayor after top staffer travels to Hawaii
Protesters shame Mayor after top staffer travels to Hawaii
- By Sheila Gunn Reid
- |
Every Saturday and Sunday, protesters gather on the square outside Calgary City Hall to voice their angst and disapproval with the ongoing coronavirus restrictions handed down by the province.
Churches and retail space are limited to 15 per cent of capacity. Restaurants are closed except for takeout. Personal care businesses, gyms, hair and nail salons, barbers and recreation facilities are shut too.
The government has been advising against non-essential travel for months, however, you wouldn’t know it if you paid attention to the actions of our lawmakers themselves. Several United Conservative Party MLAs and staffers travelled outside of the country during the Christmas break. Municipal Affairs Minister Tracy Allard was fired by Premier Jason Kenney for her holiday trip to Hawaii.
Allard wasn’t the only one spending time in the Aloha State. Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s chief of staff also enjoyed some fun in the sun over the holiday season. It’s ironic, since Nenshi has been one of the loudest voices calling for increased lockdowns, and a heavier crackdown on the protesters who gather outside of his office every weekend.
I caught up with the protesters on Saturday to see if they had a message to send to their hypocritical leaders at City Hall.
Medico-Stalinist Advice on How to Snitch on Your Neighbour in Toronto
What to do if your neighbour is violating lockdown rules in Toronto
Stay in the loop
Sign up for our free email newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime or contact us for details.
As lockdown restrictions in Toronto continue into their eighth-straight week and the entirety of Ontario awaits an announcement from the province with even stricter public health measures, it’s becoming increasingly evident that a significant portion of the population just isn’t following the rules.
Whether it’s attending a party, hosting family members for dinner, or participating in any of the other activities that are currently prohibited in Toronto to curb the spread of COVID-19, many residents are simply less willing to make necessary daily sacrifices than they were during the first lockdown in the spring.
During a press conference Monday afternoon, Ontario’s Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Barbara Yaffe said the majority of the virus spread in the province is coming from long-term care, retirement homes, workplaces, and social gatherings — adding that roughly one third of Ontario’s population is still socializing.
But what happens when you can actually hear a party taking place or see multiple families, unmasked, entering one household with your own eyes? What happens when the people dangerously flouting lockdown restrictions are your neighbours?
“The short answer is the best thing to do is call 311 to report,” a city spokesperson told blogTO by email Monday.
According to a statement from the city’s Municipal Licensing & Standards division, enforcement officers are on patrol across Toronto monitoring compliance with provincial orders and municipal bylaws, and they also respond to complaints made through 311 on a daily basis.
But just because you call 311 doesn’t mean your neighbour will necessarily face real consequences, because enforcing bylaws is a complex process that requires investigation, gathering facts, and applying legal processes.
If a gathering disperses before officers can confirm it took place, for example, there’s no real way to for the city to take enforcement action.
“On a case-by-case basis, the enforcement team works to achieve compliance through education and/or enforcement action,” reads the city’s statement.
“Should an investigation find that a gathering is defiance of Provincial orders, appropriate enforcement action will be taken against organizers and/or attendees.”
Under the Reopening Ontario Act (ROA), any individual caught defying the shutdown rules by hosting an illegal gathering could face a fine between $10,000 and $100,000, plus a potential term of imprisonment of not more than one year.
An individual caught attending a gathering could meanwhile receive a fine ranging from $750 to $100,000, including up to one year in jail.
A director or officer of a corporation, on the other hand, could face a fine of not more than $500,000 and a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, and a corporation could be fined up to $10,000,000.
“The City of Toronto recognizes that the public have been asked to significantly adjust their behaviours as requirements and orders have changed throughout the COVID-19 response,” reads the statement.
“Compliance with requirements, including Province of Ontario emergency orders and City bylaws restricting gathering size and requiring mandatory masks or face coverings and physical distancing, remains crucial to stopping the spread of COVID-19 in our city.”
Parler sues Amazon, asks court to reinstate platform
Parler sues Amazon, asks court to reinstate platform
By John Kruzel and Chris Mills Rodrigo – 01/11/21 12:37 PM ES
Social media company Parler sued Amazon on Monday, alleging that its suspension from Amazon’s hosting service violated antitrust law and breached the companies’ contractual arrangement.
In its lawsuit, Parler, which is especially popular among conservatives, asked a federal judge to order that the platform be reinstated online.
The 18-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, accuses Amazon Web Services (AWS) of applying a politically motivated double standard to Parler in contrast to its treatment of the more mainstream social media giant Twitter.
“AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus,” the lawsuit reads. “It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.”
Multiple legal experts told The Hill that Parler’s antitrust claim was unlikely to succeed. The lawsuit does not establish that Parler’s suspension was part of an agreement between Amazon and Twitter, the rival social media company that Parler identified as the beneficiary of its shutdown.
“On the antitrust side, it’s pretty weak,” said Erik Hovenkamp, a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The biggest flaw in the complaint by far is really just that it doesn’t allege facts that would indicate a conspiracy between Amazon and Twitter.”
The lawsuit comes a day after Amazon suspended Parler, citing concerns it could not adequately screen out potentially incendiary content, including material that incites violence. It also follows Wednesday’s deadly, Trump-inspired insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead.
The app saw a massive surge in users between the mob attack at the Capitol and when it was pulled down from Amazon Web Services.
Parler saw approximately 825,000 installs from the Apple and Google stores between Wednesday and Sunday, a more than 1,000 percent increase from the same period a week earlier, according to data from SensorTower shared with The Hill.
Parler told the court that its newfound popularity explained part of the urgency behind its emergency request to have its suspension reversed.
“It will kill Parler’s business — at the very time it is set to skyrocket,” the filing states.
In addition to its antitrust claim, Parler also alleged that Amazon breached their contract by not giving 30 days notice before terminating Parler’s account.
However, Amazon told The Hill that it notified Parler over the past several weeks that numerous posts on its site had promoted violence, in violation of their agreed-upon terms. According to a letter obtained by BuzzFeed, Amazon informed Parler of 98 examples of content “that clearly encourage and incite violence” over that timeframe.
“We made our concerns known to Parler over a number of weeks and during that time we saw a significant increase in this type of dangerous content, not a decrease, which led to our suspension of their services Sunday evening,” an AWS spokesperson told The Hill.
However, Amazon reportedly notified Parler over the past several weeks that numerous posts on its site had promoted violence, in violation of their agreed-upon terms. According to a letter obtained by BuzzFeed, Amazon informed Parler of 98 examples of content “that clearly encourage and incite violence” over that timeframe.
David Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said it would severely undercut Parler’s breach of contract claim if in fact Amazon had warned the company repeatedly that it was playing host to offensive material.
“It’s not simply that there’s one day of bad posts,” Hoffman said, referring to Amazon’s letter. “There have been repeated warnings over time about Parler’s failure to comply with Amazon’s terms of use. Given those repeated warnings over time, it’s sort of rich to say, ‘You didn’t give us enough time.’”
Hoffman also noted that Amazon’s standard policy is to resolve web-hosting disputes through an arbitration process rather than in the courts, presenting another potential legal pitfall for Parler.
Amazon’s suspension of Parler came after the Apple and Google app stores — essentially the only places for Americans to download mobile apps — decided over the weekend to stop carrying Parler.
- Parler goes dark after move by Amazon
- Germany’s Merkel finds Twitter ban on Trump account ‘problematic’
The furor over the app stems from its role in facilitating last week’s violent riot at the Capitol. Trump supporters and right-wing extremists used the app, which has billed itself as a haven for free speech, to coordinate and incite the demonstrations ostensibly opposing the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Without access to Amazon Web Services, the app has been dark on Monday.
Attend the END THE LOCKDOWN Rally in Moose Jaw, Saturday, January 16, 2021
Spirited End the Lockdown Rally, Victoria January 9, 2021
TO > those who care about good government in British Columbia
When my old man was at the Dominion War College in 1942, he was taught “sometimes getting shot at is the best intel. you can get”. That was demonstrated on Saturday Jan 09 2021 as we protested outside the head office Ministry of Health in Victoria BC.
The corner of Blanshard and Pandora streets is a good spot for high-vis. advertising — hundreds of cars per hour going by. Many of them stop at the traffic light. So, they do read our signs. Response from motorists was 2 to 1 in sympathy with us. But that spot has dis-advantages, too. A couple of weeks ago, I was hit on the chest by a plastic water bottle, hurled from a passing car. Startled, came to mind Mick Jagger singing: “I went down to the demonstration, to get my fair share of abuse”. Not even a flesh wound though … didn’t need to let it bleed
A dangerous exception to the generally-polite response we get, was, the guy who came up bellowing “I told you last week to get the **** off this corner”. Sensing trouble I took a photo of him — > large, slovenly, drunk, belligerent, could be 50 to 60 years old, one of the street people holed-up at the govt.-funded slum a few blocks away. Sure, you can make excuse for his kind … adrift in the big city, in deep personal pain. But the moment you find yourself the target upon which they’re unloading their problems, is the moment when sympathy is ditched.
When he noticed me taking his picture, he charged at me. I fled. He chased for about 20 yards before giving up. Demons still yowling out of him … he headed across the street towards the group of protesters, raging that he was “going to punch them”. By then, someone had called 9-1-1. About 20 minutes later, a cop did show up. I told him what had gone on. Of course, such altercation is pretty minor compared with the grief police deal with, daily. The charming little old, very British town of good mannered White people which I knew half a century ago, has gone to the dogs.
But the good news, is : standing 40 feet away from the group, conversing with VPD constable #498, was an opportunity for me to get info. re their attitude to what we are doing. I asked him if he had his ticket book with him. He said he did not. I don’t believe that for a second. I pointed out that the GATHERING of us regulars at this place … which our critics call a “superspreader” ! …contravenes the Public Health Act Order. He agreed, saying “you’re all ticketable right now”. So, of course, I said: “Well then, give me a ticket.”
He declined, saying: ‘You’re carrying on a lawful protest’. Yet, I did sense that if I’d pushed the envelope, I would’ve talked myself into one. So I backed off. I said “I don’t need one. I had an incident on the ferries this week which is a good set of facts for challenging the govt. policy about masks” Nodding towards the Law courts building, visible just down the way, I said “I’ll be in court with it. I know police officers aren’t interested in hearing about the law”.
To his credit, he replied “I am interested in the law”….. so I reeled-off section 103 of the Public Health Act. Explaining right there is the defence to the strict liability offence created by Bonnie Henry’s Order re EVENTS AND GATHERINGS. He did not say anything more, yet I got the impression that he was thinking for himself.
I’ve been at the big anti-lockdown Events in BC, plus several small ones. There has been no major blowback. An occasional cat-call that we are “fools”, but that’s all. My sense, is, the zombies going by with their fashion-statement muzzles on tight, are confounded by public presence of so many ordinary folks, organized, boldly contradicting official propaganda. At this stage of this authentic populist movement, provoking an individual to reconsider the Central Party Line is what we’re about. Human beings go in-sane in herds. They come to their senses one at a time.
In Kelowna and Nanaimo, the RCMP have handed out notices alleging violations of the Public Health Act Order to people gathered to protest govt. policy. Sgt. Roberts was the officer in charge on-site at the first big rally in Vancouver last September. When I asked him if they were going to hand out Violation Notices, he said : “we decided not to issue tickets today because the Charter is above the Public Health Act” direct quote
To a certain extent, we have The Man with the Gun on our side. The Victoria and Vancouver Police do not charge us because they have received legal counsel, advising them that our GATHERINGS are Charter-protected political activity
The human mind has a miraculous innate logic programme. The contrast between thousands of peaceful people, marching through the downtowns of major cities in BC, cops escorting our marches rather than bothering us, versus nonsense purveyed on the lamestream media — images of thugs in uniform bullying individuals who are just going about daily life — works away at the consciences of ordinary citizens. Something’s gotta give.
As for the argument out of section 103, it’s important to realize that under the previous Health Act, there had to be evidence to support an Order. But the new statute changed it so that onus is now on the Accused, to prove his innocence. One more detail telling that British Columbia now suffers under communist tyranny. The way it’s going, I expect to be making this argument before a Judge. I sincerely do believe that the entire SARS-2-Covid19 extravaganza is medical malpractice ‘of the first water’ : a HOAX.
At such a trial, I will be submitting hundreds of articles grabbed from the Internet, written by world-class experts, undoing the very premise for the Order of that Head Witch, namely Bonnie Henry. Any half-way intelligent person, with integrity to honestly examine such items, must conclude that there is mass psychosis upon the land.
Wrong is put in place of right : Right is called Wrong. And the man who calleth for Justice, maketh himself a prey
Section 103 of the Public Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia
Defences
103 A person must not be convicted of an offence under this Act if the person proves that he or she
(a) exercised due diligence by taking all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence,
(b) reasonably believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would establish that the person did not contravene this Act or a regulation made under it,
(c) relied on information or an instruction provided to the person by a health officer who was exercising a power or performing a duty under this Act, if the person had no reason to believe that the information may have been false or the instruction may have been unauthorized, or
(d) acted under the order of a health officer who was exercising a power or performing a duty under this Act, if the person had no reason to believe that the order may have been unauthorized under this Act or any other enactment. — Gordon Watson