Facebook Bans Conspiracy

Facebook Bans Conspiracy
Facebook Bans Conspiracy

To most Americans it’s obvious that Facebook’s bans are the conspiracy. They’ve doubled-down on probably illegally silencing certain sorts of speech and certain sorts of speech only, while letting at least as “dangerous” things go by without censure or censorship. Indeed, they developed the habit of actively defending their preferred narrative by banning dissenting or complaining comments and those that made them.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Fighting Fascistbook

Fascistbook
Fighting Fascistbook Is Very Possible

Most people believe that there is no real way to fight against Facebook’s fascistic censoring of speech and opinion in its platform because Facebook aka Fascistbook is a private, corporate entity. Fortunately and surprisingly, this is NOT legally true and there is case law to back that up.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) that when a corporation is, in essence the public square and functions as such, it must abide by the same restrictions as the State insofar as Constitutional law is concerned. And that Facebook is, in fact, operating in that manner is the held opinion of the SCOTUS, as stated in Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. _ (2017).

Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

— Justice Anthony Kennedy

The Court’s ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina is of particular importance because it eliminates the potentially countering issues brought up in Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996), though Facebook’s de facto monopoly and ubiquitousness might well do that already.

So yes, I do believe that we, the People have to capacity to fight Fascistbook and the other dangerously biased and tyrannical social media corporations that have become entrenched in society to the point of it not being completely ridiculous to think of them as utilities.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Adieu Et Bon Débarras

Adieu Et Bon Débarras, Paris!

Adieu Et Bon Débarras, Paris!

Goodby and good riddance, Paris – specifically the The Paris Agreement which was brokered in France during the COP 21 talks. All the signs are present that President Trump will remove America from this Climate Change Agreement. Once again proving he’s a political outsider, strongly looks as if Trump will keep yet another campaign promise.

I’m happy with this and our domestic enemies are livid over it – weeping, wailing, gnashing their teeth, and promising retribution. I will, however give these Liberals and Progressives a small measure of credit this time. This isn’t just another episode of their derangement. President Trump pulling America out of Paris Agreement is apocalyptic for their hopes and dreams of a “greener,” weaker America.

And yes! I’m big enough to admit that I’m petty and mean enough so that a significant part of my happiness with leaving the Paris Agreement is that the Left is so butt-hurt over doing so.

Here, however, is one important point, though not the key point for me: This Paris Agreement isn’t actually that horrific from my point of view. It is and was largely meaningless and without any provisions – or even delusions thereof – of any of its various articles being actually binding or enforceable upon the the 196 signatories. In this it is a lot like NATO.

Is It A Treaty Or Not?

No. My primary reason for being happy about leaving the Paris Agreement is that it really wasn’t legally enacted in the first place or, at least, it was easily arguable that it wasn’t. This is because it’s a treaty or, at least it certainly seems to meet the legal requirement for being one, and Obama just signed it as if he were king without ever sending it to the Senate for ratification, which is constitutionally required. So, if it is a treaty, it is not one that America ever entered into and President Trump would just be correcting an illegal act by Obama.

Then again, some legal experts argue that the Paris Agreement isn’t a treaty, despite it easily meeting the prima facie standard of such under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law” (VCLT art. 2.1(a)) is a treaty. It was, after all, specially and specifically crafted to not be a treaty so that it didn’t need to undergo the required scrutiny by the various states that such things entail. In other words, it was written in a manner that Obama could sign it unilaterally under the auspices of the UNFCCC, instead of sending to the Senate for approval. So it could be argued that this was just an Executive Agreement under the law.

If the latter is held to be true, this is ironic in the extreme since Obama’s signing the Paris Agreement violated the 1992 Executive Agreement with the Senate to submit for their review and ratification any future agreements which contained “targets and timetables” for emissions reductions by the US.

So, there it is. Either it’s a treaty; in which case, it’s null and void due to its unconstitutional and illegal enactment; or it’s simply an Executive Agreement by Obama; in which case, it ceased being binding on January 20th, 2017 and President Trump is well and completely within his rights to either formally rescind our nation’s participation or simply ignore it in whole or in part and to do so for any or no reason whatsoever.

Either way, President Trump would be doing the right thing in my opinion. Whether it was executive overreach on Obama’s part or his simply violating the agreement under which the Senate ratified the UNFCCC in the first place, putting an end to it would the right thing.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Our Last Chance

Our Last Chance To Defend The Scotus From Liberal Infection
Our Last Chance To Defend The SCOTUS

If any American still needs a compelling reason to vote for Trump in the upcoming 2016 elections, this is it. If Hillary is elected, the makeup of the SCOTUS will be irrevocably changed and those Liberal “justices” will fundamentally transform America through judicial activism.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Law: A Queer Thing Now

So right now there’s a lot of discussion and spewing of hatred over the SCOTUS’ decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which now demands that all 50 States allow Queers to marry under the law. Most of the hate being spewed is, unsurprisingly, coming from the Liberals and Progressives and is both an orgy of gloating and implied threat of persecution – persecution now more likely after Obergefell.

In all truth, I’m rather ambivalent about this ruling from the SCOTUS. I’ve read the decision and it seems a solid and well-founded piece of law overall, but with one glaring problem – Judicial Tyranny over the States and the unintended negative consequences that bit of overreach may very well engender.

Queer Judicial Tyranny
The Law Seems A Queer Things These Days

While I have exactly zero issues with the idea of queers being able to marry and have always been an opponent and detractor of DOMA I firmly believe that the SCOTUS’ hearing of this case and rendering such a broad opinion is contrary to best interests of the nation and flies directly in face of previous SCOTUS rulings – utterly ignored by Justice Kennedy and the four Liberals on the Court – that unequivocally stated in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo that all laws pertaining to marriage are the purview of the several States and not the Federal Government.

Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand.

“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.

Indeed, I’m displeased by Obergefell for exactly the same reason as I was against DOMA. Marriage law has historically been a province of state law in the United States and it should stay as such. While the Supremacy Clause does allow the SCOTUS to do what they’ve done – it’s perfectly valid under Constitutional Law – one should not do something merely because one can or one feels for some person or group of persons.

And yes, this is what Justice Kennedy did. He ignored history and the long-standing weight thereof, previous SCOTUS rulings, and the negative impacts of the legal precedent this sets so as to lend aid and comfort to a group he favors – homosexuals. Remember always that Justice Kennedy is the one who through judicial action effectively legalized sodomy in America with his opinion on Lawrence v. Texas.

So, to all the queers out there – I’m honestly happy for you but I shudder to think of the damage you’ve caused the nation by how you’ve gotten what you felt you deserved.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |