Just some apt art for China’s 2022 Winter Olympics – which should, perhaps, be referred to by the children of Man as the Laogai Games. Not, of course, that China’s behavior or the Olympic Commission’s acceptance of it is anything new or unexpected. They’ve had approximately 3,500 years of tyrannical oppression – by normative Western standards, with their Communist Revolution being only the latest change in Oppressor and Oppressed.
Newbie Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a shy and retiring flower; nor is she prone to the basic humility expected of a freshman politician. No, she’s just another nasty Chola whose prone to threatening people.
First, it was Donald Trump Jr. being threatened by Ocasio-Cortez, and now it the CEO’s of Microsoft, Facebook, and Google receiving threats.
And, unlike the thoughtless threat against Donald Trump Jr., these threats are ideologically based and, hence, are more serious. Even more serious since they’re a direct attack on basic rights that are both constitutionally enumerated and set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Dear Mr. Nadella, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Pichai,
We are writing to you today in light of the important role that your companies play as we prepare to take comprehensive action on climate Change. As Members of the House of Representatives, we have already begun our individual, committee, and caucus efforts to make this issue a top priority in the 116th Congress. That is why we were deeply disappointed to see that your companies were high-level sponsors of a conference this month in Washington D.C., known as LibertyCon, that included a session denying established science on climate change.
The past commitments of your companies to address climate change have been well documented. We are encouraged that each of you have pledged to reduce your carbon footprint and have committed other efforts like pursuing renewable energy. We need more of this commitment from corporate America. Disappointingly, though, the example you have set promoting sustainability and evidence-based science is compromised by your implicit support of the session organized at LibertyCon.
We understand that sponsorship of an event or conference is a common occurrence and that these sponsorships do not automatically indicate that the company endorses the variety of political viewpoints that may be presented at these events. However, given the magnitude and urgency of the climate crisis that we are now facing, we find it imperative to ensure that the Climate-related Views espoused at LibertyCon do not reflect the values of your companies going forward.
As you are well aware, the spreading of misinformation can be dangerous to our society. Today’s coordinated campaign to deny climate change, or to put a positive spin on its effects, is not unlike that of the tobacco companies which once sought to discredit their product’s link to cancer. Their propaganda kept the nation from addressing a public health crisis for years, leading to many preventable deaths. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again with Climate change. We must be resolute against granting this campaign any credibility, whether intentional or otherwise.
We look forward to hearing from you in the hope that we can continue to count on you as allies in the fight for a more sustainable future.
Now think about that. Ocasio-Cortez is “concerned ” that the three big tech firms were among the sponsors of an event that included among many other Libertarian and Libertarian-leaning sessions, one that spoke against the AGW position that she believes in. She concerned enough to write to the CEOs of those companies in order to make sure that they won’t do that again.
Essentially, the puta said to them, “Those are some nice stock prices you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if we subpoenaed you and something happened to it.” And she made sure to have Rep. Pingree involved to lend muscle to her implied threat of the loss of 10s of billions of dollars.
That, my fellow Americans, is the beginnings of tyranny. When a worthless politician is comfortable with threatening corporate leaders if they don’t make sure to never again lend support to any event or gathering that might include something that the politician doesn’t like, liberty and America are already moribund.
And, nor is this completely unfounded hyperbole or hysterics on my part. Ocasio-Cortez has already framed Global Warming as an existential threat that must be fought without limits.
Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?
This is our World War II.
Just pause a moment and think about her language and the belief structure it is evidence of. It’s the language of extremism and fanatical belief. And, it is the language that led to World War II; it was just couched in German instead of English. It’s the language used by those who have already accepted any moral cost for the sake of their cause.
Think about this carefully and act accordingly.
Tags: AGW | America | Assassination | Civil War | Climatards | Climate Change | Congress | Facebook | Global Warming | Google | Human Rights | Leftists | Microsoft | Ocasio-Cortez | Pingree | Politics | The Constitution | Threats | Tyranny
Well there’s a differentiator you don’t normally see a political candidate, especially a presidential candidate, invoking. Apparently Hillary Clinton wants us all to know that regularly communes with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. Well, either that or Bill’s getting back at her for something or other by claiming that she speaks to the dead on a regular basis…and theoretically the dead answer her too.
Yeah, nothing says, “I’m fit to be POTUS” like claiming you regularly commune with dead people. 😯
â€œA special thanks to the members of the Roosevelt family who are here,â€ Clinton said, at the park, located on Roosevelt Island.Â â€œAnd the one who is not, Eleanor, who made sure that the four freedoms were included in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.â€
â€œI know that because, as all of you famously learned when I served as president, my wife, now the secretary of State, was known to commune with Eleanor on a regular basis,â€ he said.Â â€œAnd so she called me last night on her way home from Peru to remind me to say that.Â That Eleanor had talked to her and reminded her that I should say that.â€
But let’s leave the truth, falsehood, or appropriateness of Hillary’s purported mediumship aside for a nonce. Perhaps more telling of Hillary’s character and qualifications is which dead person she’s talking to so often – Eleanor Roosevelt.
So what we have is an alleged lesbian former First Lady who was largely estranged from her husband due to his infidelity, ran a “Shadow Presidency,” and never showed much love for- or loyalty to America communing with a a dead alleged lesbian former First Lady who was largely estranged from her husband due to his infidelity, ran a “Shadow Presidency,” and never showed much love for- or loyalty to America.
Yeah, those are some “lovely” qualifications…
Unsurprisingly, it took little more than moments for the filth in the United Nations, now little more than a OIC front-group, to start whining, bleating, and yammering about America’s extermination of Osama bin Laden.
It took less than a full day before they started quasi-demanding that we explain ourselves and justify our actions to them.
Details of their arrogance from Reuters via Yahoo News:
GENEVA (Reuters) – The United Nations’ top human rights official called on the United States Tuesday to give the U.N. details about Osama bin Laden’s killing and said that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.
But Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the al Qaeda leader, killed in a U.S. operation in Pakistan, had committed crimes against humanity as self-confessed mastermind of “the most appalling acts of terrorism,” including the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.
It was always clear that taking bin Laden alive was likely to be difficult, she said, noting that U.S. authorities had stated that they intended to arrest him if possible.
“This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law,” Pillay said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.
In Washington, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the U.S. operation to go into Pakistan that resulted in the death of bin Laden and the taking of his body.
“If he was captured and brought before a court, I have no doubt he would have been charged with the most serious crimes, including the mass murder of civilians that took place on 9/11, which were planned and systematic and in my view amounted to crime against humanity,” said Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge.
From what I can see, the details of Operation Geronimo and the reasoning behind it could be easy summed up in a short memo to this jumped-up piece of filth trying to justify her own job by yapping at her betters:
Any Further Questions, Navi?
Her stupid claim that Osama bin Laden would be “charged with the most serious crimes” is one of the laughable statements I’ve heard come out of anyone within the UN in some time. Of course Osama bin Laden would be charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and quite that quite readily and speedily.
Convicting it and getting an appropriate sentence enacted upon it under ICC rules is another matter altogether. It would probably die of old age in it’s UN-mandated, carefully comfortable place of incarceration before the ICC ever finished their arguments over jurisdictionality.
Worse, as Richard Goldstone proved to the Civilized World, such a “trial” would swiftly turn into an ongoing attack upon America’s War on Terror.
Navanethem Pillay’s and the UN expected yammering should be met by either America’s silence, the memo shown above, or an eviction notice.
There is seemingly no sphere of human endeavor that the puling Leftists won’t attempt to invade and subvert into a mockery of itself all in the name of what they try to foist off on mankind as “Human Rights” and “Social Justice.”
It was only a matter of time before these Leftist filth made a push to pervert and control the internet in the same manner.
As always, they seek to wield fictional rights as a sword in their broad ranging jihad against individual liberty, capitalism, and any thought that merit should hold any meaning whatsoever.
- Universality and Equality
All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled in the online environment.
- Rights and Social Justice
The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human rights and the advancement of social justice. Everyone has the duty to respect the human rights of all others in the online environment.
Everyone has an equal right to access and use a secure and open Internet.
- Expression and Association
Everyone has the right to seek, receive, and impart information freely on the Internet without censorship or other interference. Everyone also has the right to associate freely through and on the Internet, for social, political, cultural or other purposes.
- Privacy and Data Protection
Everyone has the right to privacy online. This includes freedom from surveillance, the right to use encryption, and the right to online anonymity. Everyone also has the right to data protection, including control over personal data collection, retention, processing, disposal and disclosure.
- Life, Liberty and Security
The rights to life, liberty, and security must be respected, protected and fulfilled online. These rights must not be infringed upon, or used to infringe other rights, in the online environment.
Cultural and linguistic diversity on the Internet must be promoted, and technical and policy innovation should be encouraged to facilitate plurality of expression.
- Network Equality
Everyone shall have universal and open access to the Internet’s content, free from discriminatory prioritization, filtering or traffic control on commercial, political or other grounds.
- Standards and Regulation
The Internet’s architecture, communication systems, and document and data formats shall be based on open standards that ensure complete interoperability, inclusion and equal opportunity for all.
Human rights and social justice must form the legal and normative foundations upon which the Internet operates and is governed. This shall happen in a transparent and multilateral manner, based on principles of openness, inclusive participation and accountability.
One – people may well be born equal in dignity and rights but their later actions will not result in equal worth or outcome.
Two – neither rights nor privileges must be protected on the net anymore than they me protected in any other venue and, in no case, is fulfillment required to be enforced.
The internet is a method for communication, nothing more. Any other idea is phantasmagoria meant to further a non-normative agenda.
Technically true – everyone has the right to purchase whatever level of access they can afford unless their crimes have resulted in their forfeiture of this right.
No; everyone has the right to use their purchased access to seek, receive, and impart legal information without government censorship except when that censorship is for reasons of national security.
Technical limitation required by internet providers are to be expected and no individual, group, corporation, or government is required to provide a forum for such expression and can, within their own systems edit or delete information at will.
People have no more right to privacy online than when using any other form of communication. Government can surveil people within the limits set forth by their nations’ laws.
Additionally any entity may require any level or type of personal data as a prerequisite for providing to an individual an online service of any sort.
As for control over the later use of one’s information – that is a good thing and a privilege that should be maintained wherever possible but it’s not a right.
This one beggars the imagination of any and all rational humans. I can’t even begin to address the gross stupidity of this point in their manifesto.
If there’s a market for such things they will happen organically, without significant intervention by any governing body. Nor should such ghettoization be actively encouraged.
This idea is counterproductive to the free flow of information, ideas, and knowledge and is nothing but another example of Leftists’ hatred for normative / majority behaviors, ideals, morality, and cultures.
Translation – The productive members of society must pay for the internet access of the worthless eaters and looters; this is ever the generalized goal of “Social Justice.”
If there’s a market for this it will happen organically, without significant intervention by any governing body. In point of fact, it already has to a large extent.
These puling Leftists real point is the “inclusion and equal opportunity for all;” by which they really mean equal results for all. It is nothing but an attempt to suborn the standards to bring everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominators.
The Internet’s normative foundation is as a communication medium, nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing intrinsically to do with human rights or “Social Justice.”
Most of the above are nothing but but Leftist “dog-whistles” for nationalizing – actually “extra-nationalizing” as in the UN – the internet backbone and providing broadband access to everyone and anyone without direct charge – unless, of course, they’re a productive member of society, in which case they would not only have to directly pay for internet access but also indirectly pay for the internet access that would be provided for the useless eaters of the world.
I freely admit that the moment anything starts jabbering about “Social Justice” my first thought is to put few hollow-point rounds in their guts and that I rarely get past that thought.
That is simply because I believe in defending my real rights from their supposedly benevolent tyranny and their goal to steal from me and mine in order to give to those without measurable worth or merit.
And, as is always the case with these vermin, they want some form of monitoring / governing body to police the internet to ensure that nobody except the productive and normative members of society are ever offended by what is said on the internet.
When dealing with these sorts it’s absolutely necessary to remember that their goals never change and their attack vectors rarely do so. It’s always the same thing, incessant attacks upon individual liberties, capitalism, and national sovereignty with the goal being to subjugate humanity to a tyrannical nanny state world quasi-government devoted to enslaving the productive to feed the needs and desires of the worthless dregs at the bottom of society.
Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉