Illinois to introduce bill that would allow for social media background check before approval of gun purchase

Because all that gun crime in Chicago is coming from people purchasing legal firearms, right?  Via CBS Chicago:

“This is something my community is demanding action on,” said Rep. Daniel Didech (D-Buffalo Grove).

That’s why Didech is proposing gun buyers reveal their public social media accounts to Illinois police before they’re approved for a firearm license.

“A lot of people who are having mental health issues will often post on their social media pages that they’re about to hurt themselves or others,” Didech said. “We need to give those people the help they need.”

Pro-gun groups are outraged.

“When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Either the community is really stupid or Didech is just saying that to push his gun control agenda.  Clearly the shootings in Chicago are not coming from law abiding citizens purchasing firearms legally.  Even Joe Scarborough realizes that the vast majority of shootings stem from firearms purchased illegally.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet every week dozens of people are shot.  Heyjackass.com is a great site to keep track of Chicago’s shootings.

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 8.34.13 AM

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 8.34.38 AM.png

Something tells me whoever is making this determination of who is fit or not to purchase based on their social media in an ultra-liberal city like Chicago will probably preferentially penalize Trump supporters or anyone who has thoughts contrary to the narrative.  It is usually the SJWs who like to patrol for thoughtcrimes.

Many people will point to some of the school shootings and what was said on social media before them.  As if those guns are procured legally by the kids doing the crimes, or like that is the type of shooting that is common in Chicago.  It is not a stretch to think that parents may be prohibited from purchasing firearms if their kids post something edgy on social media.  After all, the kid could steal the gun and kill kids in school, amiright?  Whatever excuse they can come up with to take guns away from citizens.  They have no shame.

IMG_2915.JPG

Duke professor steps down after suggesting students should speak English on campus

Diversity is our strength.  Diversity is our strength.  Diversity is our strength.  Tell yourself this mantra day and night for the next year.  It will totally make it true.  Via Inside Higher Ed:

Duke University asked a professor to step down from her administrative role after she sent an email to students advising them not to speak Chinese in the medical school building and suggesting that failure to speak in English in nonclassroom settings could make it harder for them to get jobs and internships and secure research opportunities with faculty.

Megan Neely, an assistant professor and director of graduate studies for a master’s program in biostatistics, sent an email Friday to first- and second-year students in the program warning them of what she wrote were complaints from two other unnamed professors about students speaking in Chinese in the student lounge and study areas.

“Hi All,” Neely wrote. “I had two separate faculty members come to my office today and ask if I had pictures of the [master’s in biostatistics] students. I shared with them the head shots of the first- and second-year cohorts taken during orientation. Both faculty members picked out a small group of first-year students who they observed speaking Chinese (in their words, VERY LOUDLY) in the student lounge/study areas. I asked why they were curious about the students’ names. Both faculty members replied that they wanted to write down the names so they could remember them if the students ever interviewed for an internship or asked to work with them for a master’s project. They were disappointed that these students were not taking the opportunity to improve their English and were being so impolite as to have a conversation that not everyone on the floor could understand.” (Emphasis per original email.)

Neely’s email continued, “To international students, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep these unintended consequences in mind when you choose to speak in Chinese in the building. I have no idea how hard it has been and still is for you to come to the U.S. and have to learn in a non-native language. As such, I have the upmost respect for what you are doing. That being said, I encourage you to commit to using English 100 percent of the time when you are in Hock or any other professional setting.”

And the reaction from the Asian Students Association:

“This behavior is not only hypocritical — given Duke’s dependence on international students and faculty for their undergraduate and graduate programs, desire to present itself as a ‘global university’, and partnership with Duke Kunshan University — but also discriminatory,” the Asian Students Association at Duke and the Duke International Association said in a joint statement about the emails on Facebook. Duke Kunshan is a reference to Duke’s branch campus in China.

Inevitable in 2019 in America.  Everyone is a victim and there is no common language or culture or shared values.  This is what happens when you import all that multiculturalism has to offer.

To recap: professor is told by other professors that some students were speaking obnoxiously loud in another language.  Professor, looking out for the students, mind you, suggests that they should take advantage of the opportunity to practice their English skills while on campus, which may even help them get research opportunities.  Reaction: outrage and she has to step down.

A few things.  This wouldn’t be an issue in a predominantly homogeneous society.  A country with 90%+ of people of the same nationality, with the same culture, the same language, the same beliefs, makes things a lot easier and run a lot smoother.  That ship has clearly sailed for the United States in its current form.  As mentioned yesterday, it should always behoove the guests of a country to respect the laws and the customs of the host country.  Expressing outrage, at a SUGGESTION, is not respecting the host country.  Though we are seeing this increasingly more and more from visitors.  As if it needed to be said again, apologizing to the outrage mob will never absolve you in their eyes.  It will only show weakness and they will continue to pounce until you are out.

College campuses have been the breeding ground for this type of behavior since at least the 1960s.  It will only get worse.  With the current trajectories there will be a time in the not so distant future where students demand signs and translators in English, Spanish, Chinese, and who knows what else.  This is what happens when you do not encourage assimilation.  Every tribe of people will bring THEIR same customs and cultures and languages to America and not bother learning OUR customs, our culture, our language.  Remind me again, who wants this?

Your privacy is always under attack

People tend to eye roll when they hear the “Freedom isn’t free” phrase whenever they’re told their civil liberties are under attack.  Eye roll all you want but it’s true.  The extent to which your privacy is under attack runs far deeper than you probably think.  A snippet from a recent article by Daily Mail:

The disturbing scale of the personal data harvested and traded by multinationals can be revealed today.

Health details, children’s voice recordings and copies of passports can be at risk when customers tick an online consent box.

Analysis by the Mail found that Marriott International, FacebookAsda, Paypal, BT and Tesco engaged in hidden data harvesting and sharing.

Giant firms can use personal data to build a profile of customers for targeted adverts or to pass to other organisations.

Examples include:

  • Pregnant women’s due dates being farmed out by Asda to mystery third-party companies for marketing;
  • Children’s voices recorded on the YouTube Kids app being used by Google to promote other apps;
  • Passport photos given to PayPal for account verification may be shared with Microsoft for fraud prevention and the testing of new products;
  • Health details, ethnic origin and political views of Facebook users being used by the social network for targeted advertising;
  • Viewers of BT television being profiled for advertisers according toprofiles of their television watching and telephone call records.

And further down:

Last week Marriott International announced that hackers had breached its database of 500 million guests, with the attackers having ‘some combination’ of passport numbers, names, addresses and bank card details.

The hotel group also routinely stores the names and ages of its guests’ children, room service orders, social media accounts and employer details and shares this across its operations in 150 countries including Venezuela, Gabon and Libya.

By ticking an online ‘accept’ box, Marriott guests consented to giving up this data and to acknowledge having read the 5,600-word privacy policy which said that ‘no storage system is 100% secure’.

Ever wonder why you seem to get targeted ads in your gmail or Facebook?  Sometimes when you’ve never even entered anything remotely close to words that would garner such targeted ads like that?  This is probably why.  Companies taking your information and selling it to other companies.  Technically with your permission but very sneakily hid in the fine print of the terms of service that are thousands of words that they know nobody will read.

7065964-6465037-image-a-2_1544052312220.jpg

Even with all of these revelations coming out you’ll still have some who say, “well I have nothing to hide anyways so why does it matter?”.  This is a juvenile argument, to say the least.  But consider this.  Many of these companies are building profiles on you without you even knowing it.  Did you know that Facebook collects data on people who don’t even have profiles, and even make shadow profiles for those who never signed up?  Probably not.  Again, some may ask why they should care.

Well, consider China.  They are implementing a social credit system which will have far-reaching implications from everything from trying to get a loan to throttling your internet speeds to even banning you from flying or purchasing train tickets.  Yes, seriously.  Given the ongoing battle in America against the globalists, are you really so confident that they wouldn’t put a system like this into place if they regained Presidential and Congressional power?  Neither am I.  As we know by now, the Silicon Valley masters of the universe are already trying to censor those who do not share all of their beliefs, claiming as always that it’s for the good of everyone.  Who will be the gatekeepers to determine what is righthink and what is wrongthink when social credit scores can determine whether you can raise a family or not?  This is not a stretch at all.

Unfortunately you cannot protect yourself 100% from this kind of slithering deceit.  But you can at least make it harder for them.  Only populate your profiles with the minimal amount of required data.  Have a throwaway email address for junk accounts.  Get off of Gmail.  And for the love of God never ever ever post any pictures of your children on social media.

We’ve been asleep at the wheel far too long.  Our civil liberties are under constant attack and we must constantly be thwarting said attacks.  Do not give an inch.

Round One goes to Jared Taylor

A California Supreme Court Judge rejected Twitter’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought on by Jared Taylor for banning his and American Renaissance’s Twitter accounts.  Press Release:

Judge Kahn recognized Taylor’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) that Twitter could be, in effect, guilty of false advertising by holding itself out as a public forum for free speech while reserving the right to ban the expression of ideas with which it disagrees. Judge Kahn also recognized Taylor’s claim under the UCL that Twitter’s terms of service—according to which it claims the right to ban any user any time for any reason—may well be “unconscionable,” and a violation of the law.

In oral argument, Judge Kahn asked: “Twitter can discriminate on the basis of religion, or gender, or sexual preference, or physical disability, or mental disability?” Counsel for Twitter conceded that it claimed that right—even though it would never exercise it. Judge Kahn denied that Twitter has such a right.

This is the first time censorship by a social media platform—an increasingly widespread practice seen by many as discrimination against conservative viewpoints—has been found actionable under state or federal law. This finding could have far-reaching consequences for other internet platforms that have become essential vehicles for the expression of ideas but that silence voices with which they disagree.

This lawsuit has larger free speech implications as well that extend far beyond this one case.  Social media giants like Twitter and Facebook have time and again silenced those exhibiting wrongthink, better known as conservatives or any other person or group spreading ideas and information that do not fit the official narrative.  After the momentous 11/8/16 they’ve clamped down with much more ferocity against dissenting ideas.  This is a first step that couldn’t come soon enough.  Here’s hoping for the best in the upcoming lawsuit.

%d bloggers like this: