If Big Tech Doesn’t Treat Leftist Terrorists Like It Did Donald Trump, Government Should Make Them

The tragic murder of Charlie Kirk has exposed the dark underbelly of left-wing discourse on the Internet as users on BlueSky, Reddit, and Discord celebrate the vicious assassination of a young husband and father because of his politics and faith. Moreover, FBI Director Kash Patel has confirmed evidence that some media users may have previewed Kirk’s killing days beforehand (the FBI is investigating at least twenty Discord users for their communications with the killer).

This entire episode highlights the dangerous radicalization that has happened over years as extreme rhetoric online pushes young people toward desperate and awful acts. Social media companies need to take responsibility for their role in radicalization, and their failure to address irresponsible liberal discourse after their aggressive censorship of conservative viewpoints exposes a dangerous double standard.

A template for how private actors can self-police was on display Tuesday when local television affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair, forced Disney/ABC’s hand to cancel indefinitely Jimmy Kimmel Live! They recognized that the callousness and blatant misinformation on that show did not serve the public interest. By contrast, social media titans have enabled irresponsible leftist rhetoric to proliferate and pollute civil discourse.

For the last decade, the Left has sought to drive conservatives from the public square through tools like deplatforming and debanking. Working hand-in-glove with the Biden administration, for instance, the Big Tech companies canceled thousands of conservative voices who dared to challenge the then-conventional wisdom during the Covid-19 pandemic. And they did so again after the 2020 election, targeting “election deniers” and “J-6ers” for cancellation, even going so far as to ban President Trump. Not only everyday citizens, but a half-dozen senators and congressmen (all Republicans) had their accounts suspended for violating these “community standards.” Even Stripe stopped processing campaign contributions to Donald Trump because the financial services company believed he violated their arbitrary standards.

When the Big Tech companies defended those decisions in the media and the courts, they turned again and again to their “terms and conditions,” the contracts users sign that permitted the companies to remove content that violated their “community standards.” The popular conversation site Reddit, for instance, has a set of “Reddit Rules” that include principles like “[e]veryone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.”

On January 8, 2021, two days after the protests taking over the Capitol, the news magazine Variety reported that “Reddit on Friday said it banned r/donaldtrump — one of the biggest pro-Trump subreddits on the platform — after ‘repeated’ violations of the site’s policy against inciting violence.”

Many of these decisions occur down the Internet stacks and not just at the platform level, such as a cloud services company that manages the site’s traffic or even the app store. This was on full demonstration in 2018 when Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince unilaterally decided to stop servicing the alt-right website Daily Stormer after they were instrumental in planning the infamous neo-Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia. As Prince explained in a Wall Street Journal column, he decided it was no longer in Cloudflare’s interests to service this client, so he pulled the plug. Prince simply found that the Daily Stormer was in breach of his company’s Terms of Service and decided to act accordingly.

Keep reading

Charlie Kirk; Or How the Right Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Cancel Culture

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk last week the theories have been flying thick and fast.

The alleged shooter has been identified as a pro-transgender campaigner into furry internet culture and also a traditional Republican Mormon. He is both a leftist anti-fa agent and a far-right “Groyper” fan of Nick Fuentes.

Others suggest the alleged shooter, regardless of his politics, is just a patsy, and Kirk was killed by Mossad operatives for turning against Israel. People are analyzing video footage minutely looking for bullet paths and possible suspects in the security entourage.

Still others maintain Kirk was never killed at all, and the whole thing is a fake psy-op.

We have yet to receive the “official version” from on high but, when we do, you can be sure it won’t satisfy everybody, and debate will rage.

Thus far, there is only one certitude we can take away from the case – cancel culture is alright, really.

For years, the Republican position has been that leftist “cancel culture” – ruining lives and careers because of “offensive” social media posts – is ridiculous and morally wrong.

Not anymore, now massive social media campaigns are launched against anyone who celebrates, minimizes or even fails to adequately mourn the death of Charlie Kirk.

Keep reading

People are losing jobs due to social media posts about Charlie Kirk

Over thirty people across the country have been fired, put on leave, investigated or faced calls to resign because of social media posts criticizing Charlie Kirk or expressing schadenfreude about the conservative influencer’s assassination earlier this week, according to an analysis by NPR.

And more may be to come: some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech. Conservative activists are collecting and publicizing social media posts and profiles that they say “celebrated” his death and are calling for them to lose their jobs.

“If they have their picture on their profile, even without a name, download the picture and reverse image search it,” posted right-wing influencer Joey Mannarino. “Cross-reference it with their LinkedIn profile and find their place of employment. Call the place of employment, leave Google reviews.”

Some Republican elected officials, along with right-wing influencers with large followings, including Laura Loomer and Libs of TikTok, the account run by activist Chaya Raichik, shared screenshots of offending posts and demanded action.

NPR has compiled a list from news reports of 33 people who have lost their jobs or are under investigations over their posts as of Friday. Most were public school teachers, with at least 21 educators in school districts across the country fired, put on administrative leave or placed under investigation by their employers. Firefighters, members of the military, a sports reporter, an employee of the Carolina Panthers and a city council official in Indiana have faced similar treatment or calls to resign.

Among the earliest and most prominent firings was MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd, a former Republican political consultant to President George W. Bush. As news of a shooting at a Kirk event began to spread, Dowd made comments on live television that soon after attracted widespread backlash from conservatives.

Keep reading

Welcome To The Land Of The Free… Until You Express An Opinion

Britain’s cancel culture is a purposely designed social credit system.

Say the wrong thing, and you’re done for. One ‘offensive’ tweet? Straight to prison.

Say a silent prayer? You’re nicked.

Point out that men don’t have wombs, or that climate change hysteria is exaggerated? You’re sacked and shunned.

Post a meme that contradicts a government orthodoxy or expresses concerns about illegal immigration? Congrats, you’re now persona non grata and at risk of being given a holiday at His Majesty’s pleasure.

Welcome to the land of the free… until you express an opinion…

Great Britain, 2025, where the air is thick with sanctimonious twaddle, and our inalienable rights are under attack from the self-proclaimed elite. Those pompous, hypocritical overlords of ‘correct’ thinking have decided our words, thoughts, and even our chickens need their approval. Free speech? In the U.K., members of the public are in prison for sending a single tweet. And just wait until they roll out digital ID (the so called BritCard) and the Stasi levels of censorship which will follow.

The Establishment has closed its grip harder than Keir Starmer on free Arsenal tickets. Wielding censorship like a sledgehammer and telling us what constitutes ‘approved truth’ as though we’re living in Orwell’s 1984.

But fear not, because there’s a growing rebellion. Increasing numbers of Brits simply aren’t having it anymore. They see through this dystopian farce, preferring instead to give it the middle finger. Our great nation isn’t China or North Korea (though they’d like it to be). Britain is the crucible of free speech and has long championed open expression across literature, the arts and politics.

Amidst the madness, we salute a titan of liberty: John Milton, whose Areopagitica in 1644 stands as a blazing beacon for free speech. With a poet’s fire and a rebel’s heart, Milton faced down Parliament’s suffocating book licensing laws, daring to proclaim that truth thrives only when it wrestles openly with falsehood. “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” he thundered, crafting a vision of Britain as a place for ideas, where no censor’s pen could silence the quest for truth. His words, a clarion call against tyranny, sowed the seeds for our nation’s proud claim as a bastion of free expression.

Keep reading

The Coward’s Bargain

Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.

My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason, and facts, though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.

This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.

But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “That can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.

But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.

I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.

After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.

Another person told me that they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during Covid sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.

But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.

This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.

And this is the world we’re handing to our children.

Keep reading

Documents Show DC Bar Skirted Its Own Rules And Due Process To Target Jeff Clark

The D.C. Bar skirted its rules dictating how to fairly open a disciplinary investigation to target and potentially disbar Trump-era Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, new documents obtained by The Federalist reveal.

During his brief tenure as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin sought information about the D.C. Bar’s weaponization of its punishment process against Republican lawyers. His letters to the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and the bombshell replies he received not only confirm the legal licensing association’s lawfare against Clark was inspired by a sitting Democrat senator, but also expose the D.C. Bar for trying to cover up its partisan motives.

In a February 7 letter to the D.C. Bar’s Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, Martin asked the association to produce proof by February 21 that “you are even-handed in your policies” and explain how the Bar handles “clearly politically motivated attacks that come from certain ‘public interest’ groups.”

“This would include something that explains how you limit the targeting of individuals who you may disagree,” Martin noted.

Martin was referring to Clark, who was charged by the legal licensing association in in July 2022 with “attempted … conduct involving dishonesty” and “attempted … conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.” Clark was also named as one of the 19 “co-conspirator” targets in Democrats’ wide-ranging election indictment in Georgia and even had his house raided by the FBI.

The investigation into Clark appeared to be inspired by a report forwarded to Hamilton’s office on October 7, 2021 by the chief counsel for oversight on the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. The 394-page document alleged Clark played a key role in a plot to “wield [the] DOJ’s power to override the already-certified popular vote.”

The Trump-era DOJ official did not commit a crime when he drafted a letter to Georgia officials noting the DOJ “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.” In fact, Clark chose not to send the letter after facing objections from his DOJ superiors and a pivot from then-President Donald Trump.

Keep reading

UK Rail Station Volunteer Ousted For Wrongthink Over ‘Pride’ Train… And He Is Gay

A volunteer has been banned from a railway charity scheme in the UK after he asked a basic question regarding a train that had been wrapped in ‘Pride’ colours.

The Telegraph reports, “Matthew Toomer, 48, was thrown out of West Midlands Railway’s ‘Adopt a Station’ scheme after he privately contacted company bosses to express concern about its ‘Progress Pride’ train.”

What awful hateful thing did Mr. Toomer say?

He commented on a social media post about the rebranded train, asking if it would “return to its natural state once the event is over.”

Oh the horror.

He was then “summoned” to attend a meeting with railway officials and informed that he views (he didn’t express any views) “do not align with [WMR’s] values and mission.”

He was then banned from the station volunteer group altogether as punishment for merely hinting at not being fully onboard with the trans train.

Mr Toomer told reporters “As a gay man myself, I want to stress that this wasn’t about objecting to visibility.”

Yes, even the gays can’t ask questions about the relentless ‘progress’ of THE MESSAGE.

“My concern was the increasing tendency of public transport organisations to take visible positions on divisive issues,” Toomer further outlines, adding “The Progress Pride flag has become associated with particular ideological stances – particularly around gender – which not everyone, including many within the LGB community, fully endorse.”

“My position was simply that public services should remain neutral and welcoming to everyone,” he emphasised.

Noooooo. That opinion won’t do.

While the Free Speech Union has demanded that the train company “apologise for this vindictive decision and reinstate him,” the Telegraph gleaned that the company had basically scoured Mr. Toomer’s social media activity and discerned that it was “problematic”.

A WMR spokesman said “Our company has a proud culture of inclusion and allyship,” adding “We believe the views Mr Toomer has expressed on social media on a range of subjects are at odds with these values and could be harmful or offensive to our colleagues, customers or other volunteers.”

Wrongthink then, essentially.

Keep reading

Calls for new Labour mayor to be sacked because he dressed up as Adolf Hitler for charity event

A newly appointed Labour mayor who dressed up as Adolf Hitler at a charity event is facing calls to resign. 

Photographs of Seve Gomez-Aspron MBE wearing a German Army uniform, complete with swastika, and a fake moustache, previously surfaced online in 2019 when he was serving as a councillor for St Helens. 

The series of snaps were taken at a fancy dress dinner in aid of Claire House Hospice, which supports seriously and terminally ill children, in 2009, when he was not yet a councillor.

Mr Gomez-Aspron said at the time the outfit was inspired by Mel Brooks‘ satirical comedy The Producers. He described the decision to wear it as ‘clumsy’.

But despite his apology, there is still much furor surrounding his recent appointment, with more than 1,000 people signing a petition for his removal as mayor. 

According to the Sun, 11 councillors also walked out in protest during his swearing in ceremony on May 14. 

‘He is reviled throughout St Helens for his inappropriate behaviour and attitude,’ a councillor told the newspaper.

‘Many feel that he is not fit for public office, never mind the prestigious role as mayor,’

The councillor told the Liverpool Echo the first time the photos went viral that they were taken in his early twenties, before he was a Labour Party member

He added at the time: ‘I have matured and learnt a lot since then, and it goes without saying that I would not do this now.

‘I know how this could be seen as insensitive and how it could cause hurt and offence.

‘That was not at all my intention and I sincerely apologise. I have part-Jewish ancestry and I recently visited Israel to commemorate those killed in the Holocaust and the war.’

But, for Mr Gomez-Aspron – who also once appeared on ITV’s Million Pound Drop where he scooped £100,000 with a pal – this scandal was not his first. 

Just last year the then deputy leader of St Helens Council was forced to apologise for ‘offensive’ comments made towards a councillor during a meeting about a proposed rise in council tax. 

Mr Gomez-Aspron described the councillor’s reasoning for voting against a 4.99% rise as ‘diatribe’ and claimed he has ‘not a clue what he is talking about’. 

He went on to describe the man and another councillor as the ‘Earlestown Brain Trust’, before correcting himself by saying ‘it was wrong to imply there was a brain’.

Keep reading

Disgusting way woke activist destroyed Dunkin’ worker’s life just because he supported Trump

Maine liberal journalist has admitted to falsely accusing a Donald Trump supporter of providing drugs and alcohol to a minor to get him fired from his job. 

Chris J. Barry, 56, who goes by the moniker Crash Barry, confessed to making harassing phone calls to right-wing activist Nick Blanchard’s place of work.

The two men appear to have a lengthy feud over their differing political views, including 35-year-old Blanchard’s involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot and his local school board meetings protests.

Barry owned up to the fraudulent calls in a Substack post titled ‘Mea Culpa,’ claiming Blanchard’s celebration of Trump’s inauguration pushed him over the edge.

First, the journalist confessed that when he learned Blanchard was hired as a manager at a local Dunkin’ Donuts, he decided to call to the establishment.

He did not divulge the details of the call but said, ‘According to my source, the owner ran a background check on him and the job offer was subsequently withdrawn.’

Barry then admitted that Blanchard’s posts on Inauguration Day infuriated him so much that he ‘decided to teach the a**hole a lesson.’ 

‘I wanted to teach the son-of-a-b***h a lesson. Give ‘em a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.’ 

Keep reading

US Government Agencies Caught Censoring and ‘Block-Listing’ The Gateway Pundit and Others with the Help of Radical UK Anti-Conservative Censorship Group

Imran Awan, the CEO at The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), bragged about getting conservative news orgs such as the Gateway Pundit, the Federalist, and Zero Hedge reported to social media AND demonetized! Especially from Google Ads, a prominent advertiser online.

According to Bad Kitty Restless Development is funded by numerous big money leftist groups and government agencies, including:

  • Obama Foundation
  • USAID (United States Agency for International Development)
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Clinton Health Initiative
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • United Nations
  • The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
  • Norwegian Agency for Exchange Cooperation (NOREC)
  • Irish Aid
  • Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)
  • Ford Foundation
  • Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)

Keep reading