Silencing Of Conservatives

Silicon Valley Sharia

Michelle Malkin

|

Posted: Nov 28, 2018 12:01 AM

  Share   Tweet

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

  

Trending

• 
  Michelle Malkin
  Silicon Valley Sharia
• 
  Ben Shapiro
  'Medicare-for-All' Is No Health Care Cure-All
• 
  Walter E. Williams
  Black Education: What Makes Sense?

This is a tale of two young, outspoken women in media.

One is a liberal tech writer. The other is an enterprising conservative new media reporter. One has achieved meteoric success and now works at a top American newspaper. The other has been de-platformed and marginalized. Their wildly different fates tell you everything you need to know about Silicon Valley's free speech double standards.

Some smug elites will downplay Twitter's disparate treatment of these users by arguing that private tech corporations can do whatever they want and that no First Amendment issues have been raised. But this battle is about much more than free speech rights. It's about whether the high-and-mighty progressives who monopolize global social media platforms truly believe in nurturing a free speech culture.

By punishing politically incorrect speech and making punitive examples of free thinkers, tech titans are enforcing their own authoritarian version of Silicon Valley sharia -- a set of both written and unwritten codes constricting expressions of acceptable thought in the name of "safety" and "civility."

Laura Loomer was suspended permanently from Twitter over the Thanksgiving holiday for this tweet -- and I quote in full:

"Isn't it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate 'women, LGBTQ, and minorities' is a picture of Ilhan Omar? Ilhan is pro Sharia(.) Ilhan is pro-FGM(.) Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish."

CARTOONS | JERRY HOLBERT

VIEW CARTOON

Ilhan Omar is the newly elected Democratic Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota who is indeed pro Sharia. Omar equivocated on a state bill to increase penalties against female genital mutilation. It is a fact that gay people are oppressed and killed under Sharia. It an undeniable truth that women are abused and forced to wear the hijab. Omar has accused Israel of hypnotizing the world, attacked its "evil doings," and has said she supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against the Jewish state.

Twitter booted Loomer, who is Jewish, off its site for expressing her well-supported opinions, which the social media giant called "hateful conduct." She has been labeled a "far-right activist" for her mainstream views. As she noted in a new statement posted to her website Tuesday:

"I am just one example of someone who has been banned for discussing issues on social media that big tech companies have deemed as untouchable. All across the world, people are being silenced, censored, and even jailed for having online discussions about Islam, immigration, jihad, and Sharia. I was banned for posting facts about Islam. In other words, non-Muslims are being subjected to Islamic blasphemy laws on social media, progressively."

If Loomer were a left-wing "Islamophobia"-invoking feminist who practiced undercover or gonzo journalism to go after Republicans, she'd be hailed as an innovative disruptor instead of dismissed by establishment elites on both sides of the political aisle.

Now contrast the fate of 30-year-old Sarah Jeong, who was named an editorial writer at The New York Times in August 2018. Her left-wing colleagues and admirers applauded her "verve and erudition." And they made much of her diversity status as a "young Asian woman." This person-of-color shield gave Jeong immunity to post several years' worth of hateful tweets attacking white people.

"White men are bull----";

"#CancelWhitePeople";

"oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and "f--- white women lol."

Recommended

WOW: Money Raised After Pittsburgh Shooting Went To An Islamic Center With Terror Ties

Matt Vespa

She has tweeted "f--- the police" and "cops are a--holes," derided fraternity members and athletes wrongfully accused of rape and fumed about "dumba-- f---ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."

Let's review: Loomer was kicked off Twitter for calling out Sharia and a culture that promotes hatred of gays, boycotts of Jews and subjugation of women. Before the permanent suspension, Loomer -- who had built up a following of more than 250,000 -- had her blue check removed and was silenced during the midterm elections when her investigative work was making a difference. She called out Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey for anti-conservative bias at a congressional hearing and was mocked by establishment detractors in both parties.

Meanwhile, Jeong sits on her perch on The New York Times editorial board after using Twitter to spew hatred against all men, all cops, the entire white race -- and Twitter. Jeong denies Silicon Valley's political bias and selective speech suppression, which she has dismissed as a "paranoid fantasy."

Every day that blue check marked hate-monger Sarah Jeong gets to tweet while Laura Loomer remains silenced reminds us of how powerful social media conglomerates have rigged the free speech playing field.

It's no fantasy. It's a nightmare.

Michelle Malkin is host of "Michelle Malkin Investigates" on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com. 

If Allegations Are True, Grover Norquist Should Be Outed As An Israel Hating, Democratic Operative Whose Love Of The Muslim Brotherhood Is Repugnant.

BECK TO NRA: IT'S NORQUIST OR ME

Talk-show host concerned about 'influence agent' in leadership

Glenn Beck

American Conservative Union member Grover Norquist has attracted much criticism and opposition over the years because of his links to Muslim activists – the Center for Security Policy says he pals around with “the Muslim Brotherhood,” for example.

CSP President Frank Gaffney even has created a file about Norquist, called “Agent of Influence – Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right.”

But the dispute suddenly was elevated to a whole new level this week when highly popular talk-show host Glenn Beck suddenly told the National Rifle Association, for whom Norquist has served on the board and is up for re-election, it’s either him or Norquist.

Probably not both.

Gaffney was discussing influences on conservative groups and organizations, and he broached the subject of Norquist.

“Tell us how he is an agent of influence and what you’re concerned about with the NRA,” Beck said.

He continued, without giving Gaffney an opportunity to answer immediately.

“I will tell you I am so concerned about this, Frank, and I am not an expert on Grover Norquist by any stretch of the imagination. But I’ve heard enough that makes me concerned enough, and I hope the leadership of the NRA hears this and every member of the NRA hears this: If this man is re-elected and confirmed on the board, I may drop my membership in the NRA.

“I am that concerned that he is a very bad influence … If this is who the NRA decides to put on their board of directors, I don’t think I can be associated with them.”

Gaffney noted that he was concerned that “influence operations on behalf of enemies of this country are continuing.”

See Beck’s comments:

WND’s multiple requests via telephone and email to the NRA for comment did not generate a response.

Beck either was echoing, or was echoed by, a blog post at Creeping Sharia, which said, “While one director may not be able to influence the direction of the NRA, be sure Norquist will try and he’ll bring more Muslims with him. What he will undoubtedly do is act as an informant, a mole, deep inside the NRA, sharing the NRA’s intents and strategies with terror-linked Muslim groups within the U.S. and abroad.”

The blog continued, “Members should vow to cancel their membership and stop funding the organization if this Muslim infiltrator remains on the board.”

On the floor of the U.S. House, Rep. Frank Wolf several years ago cited Norquist’s connections with “terror.”

“Around the years 2000 and 2001, Mr.Norquist’s firm represented Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted two years later for his role in a terrorist plot and who is presently serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison,” Wolf said.

He quoted the U.S. Justice Department explaining that Alamoudi took part in “recruiting participants” for a plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

In connection with Alamoudi, Wolf said, Norquist’s “Islamic Free Market Institute” sponsored a “Rally Against Israeli Aggression,” where “Alamoudi roared from the stage: ‘I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support Hamas here?’”

And the crowd cheered “Yes!”

The U.S. has listed Hamas as an organization supporting terror.

The CSP reported Norquist has links “with a bevy of individuals with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

And conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote, “If any Democrat activist had such shady connections, conservatives would be on him like white on rice. Instead, Norquist has gotten away with smearing his critics – most notably, former Reagan official Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, one of the most decent and patriotic Republicans I’ve had the honor of meeting – as hatemongers. … The conservative movement cannot afford to be associated with race-card-playing apologists who refuse to cut their ties to terrorist sympathizers.”

WND Editor Joseph Farah wrote in a commentary several years ago, “There’s a growing awareness among real conservatives who would like to see Norquist toppled from his position of power in Washington just as much as those on the left. Count me among those in that group.”

He continued, “Grover Norquist is not a conservative true believer. He may have been at one time. But he is no longer – that’s for certain. Maybe, like other politicians, he’s just been around Washington too long.”

Concerns cited by Wolf, regarding Norquist, included:

• His ties to known terrorist financiers Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian;

• His support for the Ground Zero mosque;

• His advocacy for transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil;

• His lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae;

• His representation of the Internet gambling industry;

“Simply put,” said Wolf in a sharp attack recorded on C-SPAN, “I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream.”

At the time, Norquist responded that Wolf’s allegations are “beneath him.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/beck-to-nra-its-norquist-or-me/#LGmuKxFTiDvestMm.99

No One In Washington Or In Democrat Or Republican Party Really Understand The Basis For The Tea Party.

Further Proof The Establishment Still Doesn’t Get The Tea Party

June 16, 2014 by Bob Livingston 

 40 17

 

 3 194

GETTY

A Tea Party protestor attending a rally in Phoenix in 2009.

Dave Brat’s historic upset of conservative-in-name-only (CINO) pro-amnesty Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor not only made the GOP establishment go temporarily insane, it showed, once again, that even after seven years, the Washington elites still have no concept of what the Tea Party really is.

One would think that a conservative publication like The Washington Examinerwould have at least an inkling of an idea. But in his post-mortem of Cantor’s stunning defeat, The Examiner’s T. Beckett Adams showed that Washington, D.C., is so insular and so insulated that it is completely clueless about what is happening in America.

Exercising doublethink only a propagandist for the GOP establishment could employ, Adams wrote that Brat was a Tea Party candidate without Tea Party support who won because of a “strong, personalized ground game.” The Tea Party, Adams writes, “had nothing to do with Cantor’s defeat.”

Adams could not be more wrong. While it’s true that so-called Tea Party organizations like Club for Growth, Freedom Works and Tea Party Patriots sat on the sidelines in the Brat/Cantor Virginia primary, the real Tea Party was hard at work.

The idea of using the Boston Tea Party as the backdrop for a movement against ever-expanding government got its start in 2007 as a money bomb for Ron Paul on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Held on December 16, it was dubbed Boston Tea Party 07.

Two years later, from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Rick Santelli made a famous nationally televised rant against bailouts for underwater homeowners on February 19, 2009.

That week in February, President Barack Obama was busy crossing the country stumping for Federal bailouts and “stimulus” programs. Americans, fed up with both Republicans and Democrats and their bailouts for the crony corporations and banksters, began staging “raucous grassroots rebellions against Beltway spending binges,” as Michelle Malkin wrote at the time. “The new Boston Tea Party is here, baby,” she proclaimed.

No one covered and promoted the local grassroots, mom-and pop-inspired protests more than Malkin. In her column, Rebel yell: Taxpayers revolt against gimme-mania, she wrote:

The first revolt took place on President’s Day in Smurf-blue Seattle, where mom-blogger Keli Carender hastily organized a downtown demonstration to oppose what they called the “stimulus rip-off.” A motley band of nearly 100 protesters — moms and their kids, college students, libertarians, taxpayer groups, GOP activists — raised their voices and dined on pulled pork (donated by yours truly). They assailed both the substance of the overstuffed stimulus package and the short-circuited, non-transparent process by which it was passed.

Some wore pig noses. Others waved Old Glory and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags. Their handmade signs read: “Say No to Generational Theft;” “Obama’$ Porkulu$ Wear$ Lip$tick;” and “I don’t want to pay for the SwindleUs! I’m only 10 years old!” The event was peaceful, save for an unhinged city-dweller who showed his tolerance by barging onto the speakers’ stage and giving a Nazi salute.

Carender, a newcomer to political activism, shared advice for other first-timers: “Basically everyone, you just have to do it. Call up your police station or parks department and ask how you can obtain a permit, and then just start advertising. The word will spread. I am only one person, but with a little hard work this protest has become the efforts of a lot of people.”

Why bother? It’s for posterity’s sake. For the historical record. And, hopefully, it will spur others to move from the phones and computers to the streets. For Carender, it’s just the beginning. She gathered all the attendees’ e-mail addresses and will keep up the pressure.

Similar protests, often promoted by local conservative talk radio stations and hosts, began springing up in cities and towns across the nation. Those people and groups weren’t the hated Koch brothers, nor were they inspired or funded by them, despite what the Washington establishment and their propagandists in mainstream media have told you. Many, if not most of those attending Tea Party gatherings, had never even heard of the Koch brothers.

These were owners of small businesses, homemakers, blue collar workers, college students, retirees and veterans who were uniting for a common purpose: To oppose big government, bailouts and increased taxes. The Tea in their adopted name was an acronym for taxed enough already.

The national Tea Party organizations sprang up in the aftermath of those grassroots protests when it became obvious the movement was taking off. While they share some ideas with the local groups—or at least claim to—they have little else in common with them. For instance, both Club for Growth and Freedom Works long ago promised to sit out the immigration battle. Yet Cantor’s pro-amnesty stance is one of the main factors in his defeat. Local Tea Party groups—and most conservatives and rank and file Republicans—staunchly oppose amnesty.

In Alabama’s June 2 primary for the State’s 6^th Congressional District— which National Review declared the most important race in the country — national Tea Party groups sponsored and threw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a candidate: physician Chad Mathis. Mathis, a recent transplant to Alabama, had no ties to the State, was a poor public speaker, and in debates, he demonstrated no personality and little grasp of policy.

Local Tea Party groups backed State Senator Scott Beason, a longtime thorn in the side of the State’s Republican establishment who had advocated for pro-gun legislation and led a fight against Common Core.

Despite the heavy spending on mostly negative attack ads, Mathis finished fourth in the seven-man race. Beason, running an underfunded grassroots campaign in which he was outspent by four other candidates than nine to one each, finished third, narrowly missing the two-man runoff. Had he the funding poured into Mathis’ campaign, he likely would have led the field. He at least would have been in the runoff facing one of the two who finished ahead of him: the establishment, business-backed candidate or the policy wonk.

The national Tea party organizations are infiltrated with members of the GOP establishment and they represent various establishment wings. They are typically a little more conservative than, say, John McCain and his lapdog Lindsey Graham. But they aren’t necessarily representative of the grassroots and they are beholden to K-Street and crony corporations for funding—hence their decision to sit out the immigration debate being pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The national media were premature in announcing the demise of the Tea Party last month after some of the candidates they backed lost their elections.

Despite the defeats, and many others that are sure to come, the Tea Party is far from dead. Otherwise, why would establishment warmongers like Representative Peter King (Sourpuss-N.Y.) lament in the aftermath of Cantor’s defeat that he wondered whether the GOP was crumbling as a whole. “I don’t know where we go now as a party,” he said in an interview. “I’m very concerned that we may go all the way to the right.”

That’s the point: Many real Tea Partiers hope the GOP moves “all the way to the right” or crumbles altogether.

The GOP, a party of mercantilism since its inception, has been gradually moving left for more than 100 years. It’s going to take more than seven years to move it far enough right to make it a party of the Constitution. The Tea Party is not an organization. It is an idea—a movement—and rumors of its impending demise are exaggerated. The GOP establishment would do well to figure that out sooner rather than later.

More Obama Pay To Play

Once again we see another scandal brewing in the Obama White House with LightSquared, a company in which Obama had owned stock and whose owners are bundlers and friends of the President. It gets worse in that the technology that they are trying to get FCC approval will decimate GPS signals. Additionally one General has reported he was forced to change his testimony by the White House.  I wonder what the press would be saying if this was done by a Republican administration?

This just sounds like another special deal (like Solyndra) for the friends of Obama which will require taxpayers to bail out another firm. Personally, it makes me sick.  Read more about it in the following article by Michelle Malkin, if your stomach will allow it.

Malkin: LightSquared - Obama's Dangerous Broadband Boondoggle

By Michelle Malkin September 21, 2011 6:35 pm

If you thought the half-billion-dollar, stimulus-funded Solyndra solar company bust was a taxpayer nightmare, just wait. If you thought the botched Fast and Furious border gun-smuggling surveillance operation was a national security nightmare, hold on. Right on the heels of those two blood-boilers comes yet another alleged pay-for-play racket from the most ethical administration ever.

Welcome to LightSquared. It's a toxic mix of venture socialism (to borrow GOP Sen. Jim DeMint's apt phrase), campaign finance influence-peddling and perilous corner-cutting all rolled into one.

The company is building "a state-of-the-art open wireless broadband network." Competition in the industry is a good thing, of course. But military, government and civilian aviation experts have long objected to LightSquared's potential to interfere with the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite network. As the government's own Positioning, Navigation and Timing agency explained:

"The GPS community is concerned because testing has shown that LightSquared's ground-based transmissions overpower the relatively weak GPS signal from space. Although LightSquared will operate in its own radio band, that band is so close to the GPS signals that most GPS devices pick up the stronger LightSquared signal and become overloaded or jammed."

Two high-ranking witnesses -- Air Force Space Command four-star Gen. William Shelton and National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Director Anthony Russo -- have now blown the whistle on how the White House pressured them to alter their congressional testimony and play down concerns about LightSquared's threat to military communications. According to Eli Lake of The Daily Beast, both officials were urged to express confidence in the company and endorse its promise to address any technical concerns "within 90 days."

Gen. Shelton had noted earlier this year: "Within three to five miles on the ground and within 12 miles in the air, GPS is jammed by (LightSquared's) towers. ... If we allow that system to be fielded and it does indeed jam GPS, think about the impact. We're hopeful we can find a solution, but physics being physics, we don't see a solution right now."

Despite industry-wide protests, the firm somehow received fast-track approval for a special FCC waiver that grants LightSquared the right to use wireless spectrum to build out a national 4G wireless network on the cheap. Ken Boehm, of the conservative watchdog National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) in Washington, D.C., summed up the deal earlier this year: "LightSquared will get the spectrum for a song, while its competitors (e.g., AT&T and Verizon) have to spend billions."

The current "fix" LightSquared proposes to address the interference problems is a costly, conceptual pipe dream that could require massive retrofitting of millions of handheld GPS devices. GPS expert Eric Gakstatter scoffs: "I've been pretty open-minded about LightSquared proposing a solution, but this really insults our intelligence. (A)s we've seen previously with LightSquared, it's not about finding a practical solution for the GPS user community; it's all about selling an idea to the FCC. The problem is that the FCC doesn't have to live with LightSquared's half-baked 'solution'; we do."

So, what's greasing LightSquared's skids? Hint: It used to be known as "Skyterra." In 2005, Obama put $50,000 into the speculative firm -- raising eyebrows even among his water-carriers at The New York Times. The paper noted that Skyterra's principal backers at the time of the investment included four Obama "friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees."

One of those pals who urged him to buy stock in Skyterra was George Haywood, a major Skyterra investor and campaign donor who chipped in nearly $50,000 to Obama's campaigns and to his political action committee along with his wife.

Coincidentally, Obama bought his Skyterra stock the very same day the FCC "ruled in favor of the company's effort to create a nationwide wireless network by combining satellites and land-based communications systems." The Times reported that immediately after that morning ruling, "Tejas Securities, a regional brokerage in Texas that handled investment banking for Skyterra, issued a research report speculating that Skyterra stock could triple in value."

Coincidentally, Tejas and its chairman, John J. Gorman, were also major backers of Obama -- flying him in a private plane for political rallies and pitching in more than $150,000 for his campaign coffers since 2004. Obama sold his stock at a loss in November 2005, but his political relationship with the company was cemented. In 2009, shady billionaire hedge-fund manager Philip Falcone -- whose firm Harbinger Capital Partners is reportedly under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation abuses -- acquired Skyterra.

Coincidentally, Falcone, his wife and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja have contributed nearly $100,000 between them to the Democratic Party during critical White House meeting periods and negotiations over LightSquared's regulatory fate.

Oh, and coincidentally, there's $6 billion earmarked for a "public safety broadband corporation" buried in the Obama jobs proposal just as LightSquared pushes into that market, too.

It's all just one strange quirk of timing, Team Obama shrugs. Except, as we all should know by now: There are no coincidences in Chicago on the Potomac. Just an endless avalanche of quids, quos and taxpayer woes.

---

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM