Where do you go for free speech now?

Posted on Monday, September 18, 2017 by BZ

If you’re unaware, Gab.ai was created as an alternative social media platform for those of a conservative mind or, more importantly, an actual free speech mind.

It was devised to be the alternative to Twitter and Facebook — mostly Twitter, as it has a Twitter-like feel to it and limits the number of characters per entry.

Initially it took, literally, a few months for me and others to register for Gab.ai due to its popularity. Once on, however, I was a bit chagrined by its klunky interface and what I considered to be its less-than-intuitive interface. Resultingly I wasn’t as active there as I was on Twitter. Gab needed then and now to update its interface and make it more intuitive. There. I said it.

That written, however, there’s a new threat from the Left. The GatewayPundit.com writes:

Twitter Rival GAB Served Notice its Registrar Will Seize its Domain if Not Changed Due to GAB Promoting Free Speech

by Jim Hoft

Twitter rival GAB was served notice by its domain registrar that it has 5 days to transfer its domain or they will seize it.

At the same time GAB is suing Google for anti trust violations.

According to David Z. Morris at Fortune magazine, GAB supports Milo Yiannopoulous whom Morris slanders by calling him a white supremacist who was banned from Google for his racially offensive harassment of a black actress –

According to David Z. Morris at Fortune magazine, GAB supports Milo Yiannopoulous whom Morris slanders by calling him a white supremacist who was banned from Google for his racially offensive harassment of a black actress –

Gab, a social media platform that touts its openness to any and all forms of speech, has sued Google for refusing to list the Gab Android App on the Google Play store. Gab claims, according to Ars Technica, that Google denied its listing to protect a data-sharing agreement with Twitter, potentially violating antitrust rules. But the stakes here may be more about perception than the law.

Twitter used to think of itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” But the internet obviously took that as a challenge, breeding dozens of professional trolls like Milo Yiannopoulous, who was banned from Twitter after organizing a racially offensive harassment campaign against actor Leslie Jones.

Yiannopoulos, along with many white supremacists and other prominent figures of the so-called “alt-right,” have since migrated to Gab as their primary public platform. Antitrust lawyer Mark Patterson told Ars Technica that if Google could show that they chose not to allow Gab into the Play Store because of possible reputational damage from that strong association with hate groups, the antitrust claim would have little chance of success.

Even if it is summarily thrown out of court, Gab’s suit will help the nascent platform further establish itself as an alternative to Silicon Valley’s center-left cultural norms. Those have been on display recently in Google’s move to silence critics at think tanks and internally, and in a broader tech-world crackdown on formerly-tolerated hate speech.

Is this nothing more than the Left — AGAIN — doing its level best to remove free speech from the internet? Of course it is. From “complaints.”

Morris is not correct in his outrageous allegations about GAB and Milo and he should be ashamed. More likely Milo was kicked out of Twitter because he was a successful conservative gay man. Liberals hate successful conservative gay men.

Twitter over the past year terminated the accounts of numerous successful conservatives like Milo during the election and prevented tweets from conservative outlets like this one from being wide spread. Twitter decides which groups are hate groups through their own fascist interpretation of what is a hate group. Any successful conservative apparently fits their definition of a hate group.

The crux of the biscuit is this.

GAB capitalized on the left wing bias of social site Twitter and now is being attacked for allowing free speech on its site by Google and the alt left mainstream media (MSM).

Gab.ai’s owner, Andrew Torba, wrote at Medium.com:

We knew this day would come and now we have entered a crossroads with a very binary decision: remove one post or lose our domain and thus the entire website.

Our choice was very clear to me. The post needs to come down. If it does not, we lose our domain. To my knowledge there are no pro-free speech domain registrars and that is a massive problem. Our only other option now would be to play a cat and mouse game by transferring our domain to another registrar. Others who have attempted to play this game have failed and even had their domain seized completely from under them. We will not play these games. We have little choice, for now.

The free and open internet as we know it is under attack. It is centralized and controlled by no more than a handful of companies who provide these services:

Hosting
DDoS protection
Payment Processing
Domain Registrars
Mobile device hardware and software distribution

This is called a clue as far as I’m concerned. But read on.

Without any of these things an individual website can not possibly compete and operate at scale. If left unchecked, these centralized platforms will continue their dominance and control the means of all information, personal data, and communication on the internet.

It’s not too late to save the free and open internet. Decentralized platforms built on the blockchain (including Gab in the near future) will inevitably give the power and control to The People and make the internet censorship-proof.

Gab wants to lead the creation of the next level of the internet. If Web 2.0 was about centralized, social, and mobile networks: Web 3.0 will be a decentralized, blockchain-based, radically transparent, people-powered internet infrastructure.

We are actively looking for a new registrar. This post will hopefully inspire other teams to start building or attract talented engineers to Gab who want to help us protect the free and open web. Until then, we will continue to build and fight for the freedoms we cherish.

What is it, then, that Conservative speech truly needs? Easy answer: sufficient cash to own and wield its own domain registrar, its own hosting, its own DDoS protection, payment processing, and mobile device hardware and software distribution.

I see this as an absolutely enormous vacuum.

Which needs to be filled with Conservative cash.

Frank mows the White House lawn

Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2017 by BZ

It started with a letter to the White House, which read:

Dr Mr President:

It would be my honor to mow the White House lawn some weekend for you. Even though I’m only ten, I would like to show the nation what young people like me are ready for. I admire your business background and have started by own business. I have been mowing my neighbors’ lawns for some time. Please see the attached flier. Here’s a list of what I have and you are free to pick whatever you want: power mower, push mower, and weed whacker. I can bring extra fuel for the power mower and charged batteries for the week whacker. I will do this at no charge.

Sincerely,

Frank

So 11-year-old Frank from Falls Church, Virginia, came to the White House on Friday the 15th and mowed the White House lawn.

Frank was so intent on doing his job that, when approached by President Trump, he kept calm and carried on.

From TheHill.com:

Boy gets his wish to mow White House lawn, refuses to stop for Trump

by Judy Kurtz

Not even a chat with President Trump himself could stop an 11-year-old boy from fulfilling his wish of mowing the White House lawn.

Frank Giaccio, of Falls Church, Va., had written to Trump earlier this year, saying it would be his “honor” to “mow the White House lawn some weekend for you.”

In the letter, shared by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a press briefing last month, Giaccio said he would cut the grass “at no charge.”

Giaccio was seen making good on his mowing offer on Friday after the White House invited the 11-year-old to spend the morning alongside a groundskeeper at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

In videos posted on Twitter, Giaccio — sporting a red shirt and shorts — is seen pushing a lawnmower in the Rose Garden as Trump approaches him. Laughter from onlookers is heard as the boy doesn’t stop mowing, despite the president standing on the grass right beside him.

On a second pass, Giaccio did indeed stop long enough to shake the president’s hand before continuing with his yard work.

Of course, something as simple and honest as this couldn’t be allowed to stand by certain Leftists, could it? Of course not.

First there were these responses amongst many others.

Then from Twitchy.com:

Why Trump won: Former NYT labor reporter thinks boy mowing White House lawn sends a bad signal

As Twitchy reported Friday, an 11-year-old from Virginia who had volunteered to mow the White House lawn did exactly that this week, pushing a mower around the Rose Garden while the press took pictures.

Frank also met President Trump and was invited to the Oval Office; to us, it was the feel-good story of the week. But we were warned …

We compiled quite a few tweets from critics, but it seems fitting that the New York Times’ former labor reporter should be given special consideration. He thought it was a great display of patriotism and the work ethic that made America great, right?

Yeah, no.

Greenhouse has written a lot about kids being hurt by machinery. It’s a good thing, then, that no parent in America would let a child under 21 operate something as dangerous as a push mower out in the back yard, let alone pay them an allowance rather than an hourly minimum wage.

Steven Greenhouse doesn’t stop there. He refers someone to a website called the “Amputee Coalition” whose headline is this:

Lawn Mower Accidents Cause Needless Amputations

More Than 600 Children Undergo Mower-Related Amputations Each Year

More attention needs to be paid to lawn mower safety to avoid accidents to the operator and children. Needless limb loss accidents can be prevented by taking simple commonsense precautions. (See the checklist at the end.)

Depending on where you live in the U.S., you may mow your lawn 30 times or more this year. Every time you start your mower, you are dealing with a dangerous and potentially deadly piece of equipment. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission statistics are shocking: Each year, 800 children are run over by riding mowers or small tractors and more than 600 of those incidents result in amputation; 75 people are killed, and 20,000 injured; one in five deaths involves a child. For children under age 10, major limb loss is most commonly caused by lawn mowers.

Without a doubt, parents, it’s time to start dressing your children in gigantic Nerf suits before sending them out the door. Better yet, keep them inside the house wearing the Nerf suits. Who knows what could occur when they leave your home. Wait! Don’t most accidents occur in the home?? Oh no! Now what should GOWPs do??

Here … if you don’t believe child labor is dangerous, read this website about amputees who lost a limb to a lawnmower. Actually, don’t read it — just get rid of your lawnmower and put the time you save mowing into getting them banned. Hell, start a lobbying group called Everylawn for Mower Safety.

Greenhouse couldn’t stop there. What does the American Academy of Pediatrics say about the terrible situation President Trump not only enabled but encouraged, the ignorant bastard?

Lawn mower injuries send 13 children to the emergency department every day

On average every day in the United States, 13 children receive emergency treatment for a lawn mower-related injury. That adds up to almost 4800 children injured each year. A recent study from the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine shows that, while there has been a decrease in the number of children injured by lawn mowers over the last few decades, this cause of serious injury continues to be a concern.

Run for your lives! Briggs & Stratton, Toro, Honda and Craftsman all exist to do nothing more than power child-eating machines!

But wait, there’s more. Maybe we should, in the end, ask Frank what he thought about the whole affair.

“It was really cool.”

Best summary I could envision.

Full speech by Ben Shapiro at UC Berkeley, Thursday, September 14th

Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2017 by BZ

Because, as everyone knows, Ben Shapiro is such an overbearing individual and cuts such an oppressive, racist, sexist, -ist and -obe swath seldom seen before, and should never have been allowed to speak at UC Berkeley this past Thursday. Yet he was.

As opposed to prior events where Berkeley PD and the UC Berkeley polices forces chose to stand down as ordered, however, the riots failed to cook off this time because officers were out in force and were clearly a presence. This time they countenanced no one, for example, wearing masks. That predominantly eliminates Antifa. Hold that thought. I’m coming back to it.

But first, Ben Shapiro’s entire speech including a Q and A session with audience members.

Coverage of the arrests outside the speech in Berkeley, by FoxNews.com:

Ben Shapiro speech at UC Berkeley results in arrests at protests

At least nine people were arrested Thursday night related to protests at the University of California, Berkeley, over an appearance by former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said the security measures could cost $600,000. Mogulof called the speech “a successful event” and said the university was committed to hosting speakers like Shapiro in the future.

Stop. Question: just who cost the university $600,000? That’s correct. Its Leftist students. Seems like freedom really isn’t free, is it UC Berkeley? Not when you have rioters for students.

The evening did have its share of hiccups. Police said three arrests were weapons-related. Among them:

— Hannah Benjamin, 20, was arrested for battery on a police officer and carrying a banned weapon.

— Sarah Roark, 44, was taken into custody for carrying a banned weapon.

The arrests were announced on the police Twitter account.

The demonstrators, however, were largely peaceful. Some chanted against fascism, white supremacists and President Donald Trump. Others were holed up inside a student building, waving signs protesting the university’s decision to allow Shapiro on campus.

Inside the hall, Shapiro addressed a friendly crowd. He encouraged people to hold civil discussions with people who have different opinions, saying that’s what America is all about. He condemned white supremacists as “a very small select group of absolutely terrible people who believe absolutely terrible things.”

The campus and surrounding Berkeley streets were under tight security after a series of previous events turned violent.

City and campus officials anticipated protests against Shapiro, and prepared for possible violence with a variety of new strategies and tightened security. It was not immediately clear whether the people arrested Thursday were protesters.

Back to my reference to law enforcement. Four points.

First: Berkeley police agencies decided to utilize actual preparation this time in concert with some proactivity as well, to include the disallowance of persons wearing face covering as is customary with Antifa elements.

Second: Berkeley police agencies came out in force with barriers, gear, presence and plans in place.

Third: They did not stand back as they had in times past, instead making arrests, preventing injury to citizens and protecting property, which proves:

Fourth: When persons were injured seriously and property torched and damaged on prior occasions in Berkeley, it was quite now clearly due to law enforcement stepping back on orders from agency heads in concert with the BAMN/Antifa-supporting Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin. How do we know this? Because of admissions from Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood and because of the results on Thursday.

This means that those people injured and those businesses and persons suffering property damage should individually and collectively sue the City of Berkeley, City of Berkeley Police Department, the Mayor of Berkeley and the UC Berkeley Police Department for negligence, as well as advocate prosecution under California penal code 182 PC for conspiracy, RICO, and federal code 42 USC § 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights — as I delineated in this post.

Because up until last Thursday in Berkeley, what happened was this:

Americans were left to fight it out on the streets of the United States as law enforcement officers were either forced to or willingly allowed violence to occur directly in front of their eyes.

And that is absolutely unacceptable, unsustainable and anathema to actual keepers of oaths.

Oh please, let the suits commence.

Finally, as UC Berkeley itself pointed out: walls work.

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, “The Aftermath,” with Professor Michael Jones, Thursday, September 14th, 2017

Posted on Friday, September 15, 2017 by BZ

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Thursday’s show featured the Underground Professor, Dr Michael Jones, and also a few stories which led up to one massive revelation — finally given verbalization by an individual I highly respect — that I term the DC Axiom, which answers most questions about the swamp. And why little gets done in Washington.

Tonight in the Saloon:

Jersey Joe wasn’t on tonight so YouTube decided not to hose me;
UK teachers scared to teach about 9/11, fearing Muslims will complain;
Dr Jones talks first about how Houston and Florida are no longer on the radar scopes of the American Media Maggots because Trump isn’t booting the issue;
Give Trump a break; keep cool and carry on regarding Trump, Schumer, Pelosi;
Schumer and Pelosi jumped first to create the narrative that Trump deflated;
Only a completely secular person can now hold a position in the federal gov’t?
Feinstein & Demorats grill a Catholic professor nominated for the 7th DCA;
California wants to secede? Straight ahead; you’ll all fail abjectly;
Can a state secede? Dr Jones thinks, after everything, yes, a state could;
We compare and contrast California vs Texas and their infrastructure;
Dr Jones differentiates the central government vs the federal government;
Texas has energy independence absolutely nailed;
Dr Jones: sanctuary cities are entirely unconstitutional;
What authority does a government have to not follow laws?
Picking and choosing what laws will be obeyed and disobeyed;
Is the FBI Constitutional? Dr Jones thinks, bottom line, it isn’t;
Happy Stories: “that sucker’s coming down!”
North Korea launches another missile over Japan;
Are we looking directly into the eyes of WW III?
We know: WW IV will be fought with rocks and sticks;
Susan Rice admits unmasking Trump team after strident denial; SHE LIED;
Diane Feinstein grills Professor Barrett because she isn’t a complete secularist;
Those grillings have a slight bit of consequence; it’s all about Trump, not her;
Nancy Pelosi is losing whatever marbles she once possessed;
Sessions’s DOJ will not investigate the IRS and Lois Lerner;
Three branches of government? No, there are 4, to include the Bureaucratic;
GOP senators say: Comey cleared Hillary Clinton before her interview;
Shame on the FBI for dropping Hillary’s email scandal;
James Comey has managed to drag the FBI into every terrible cesspool;
Comey conducted a FAKE investigation into Hillary Rodham Clinton;
The ultimate DC Axiom finally revealed.

If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” with The Underground Professor, Thursday, September 14th, 2017″ on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.

Next Tuesday’s show on September 19th will feature Dan Butcher of the High Plains Pundit media empire as he and I chat about time political and social events. Miss it at your own peril.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.

Religious affiliation now a disqualifier for public service according to Democrats?

Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2017 by BZ

So say Leftists, to include Diane Feinstein.

From Breitbart.com:

Dianne Feinstein Interrogates Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith

by Joel B Pollak

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether the Catholic faith of a judicial nominee would disqualify her from carrying out the duties of her intended office.

Stop. My first thought? President John F Kennedy. A Democrat. Back in 1961. Have we not progressed from there? Or have we regressed? Not A, but B.

Feinstein told Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that “the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

Let’s listen to Diane Feinstein.

Now let’s listen to Dick Durbin.

Furthermore, Demorats ask: “can a Catholic be a judge?” A far cry from a Catholic president, is it not? Back in 1961? Back then: “a Catholic will ruin our nation.”

Perhaps we should next rightly ask: can a Muslim be a member of Congress? If not a Christian, then why a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or a Shinto priest? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, go away. Right? Because they are “religious.”

Or is this a Constitutional issue the likes of which persons such as Diane Feinstein don’t comprehend as illustrated by her discourse with the late Antonin Scalia?

Gorsuch also happened to school Diane Feinstein during hearings.

Are you, like me, beginning to question the validity and veracity of Diane Feinstein with regard to overall competence? If not, you certainly should. We continue.

Feinstein was referring to abortion, though her question was based on a law review article written by Barrett in 1998 that argued that Catholic judges who object to the death penalty should recuse themselves from cases in which it is a possible sentence because “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice.”

But wait. There’s more.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” yet Feinstein and other Democrats on the panel effectively imposed a religious test on Barrett. It was the second time in recent months that the opposition had attempted to do so: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked Russell Vought, nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, about his Christian belief that salvation comes only through Jesus, as if that would be disqualifying.

Bottom line — the one that the American Media Maggots fail to report?

Barrett stated, “I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on my duties as a judge.”

There was a bit of pushback, from Politico.com:

Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee

by Josh Gerstein

At least two prominent university presidents are accusing senators of religious bias for challenging a Catholic judicial nominee over her faith-driven views during a confirmation hearing last week.

University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber both wrote letters objecting to lawmakers’ pointed questions on the topic to Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett last week, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Jenkins wrote directly to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, taking issue with her statements that Barrett’s worldview seems strongly driven by “dogma.”

“Your concern, as you expressed it, is that ‘dogma lives loudly in [Professor Barrett], and that is a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country,'” Jenkins wrote. “I am one in whose heart ‘dogma lives loudly,’ as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom have given their lives in service to this nation. Indeed, it lived loudly in the hearts of those who founded our nation as one where citizens could practice their faith freely and without apology.”

Look, this is truly nothing new in terms of today’s Demorats. Religion, with the exception of Islam, means nothing. Perhaps less than nothing, rolling over to subjugation and oppression.

If only Leftists would focus their critical eyes inwards.

Demorats fear the law. They only wish new interpretations and not decisions based but upon precedent.