Misusing The Power Of Social Media

PJ Media posted an article yesterday about a recent statement by Mark Zuckerberg.

The article reports:

During this year’s Aspen Ideas Festival, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that Facebook is increasingly trying to work with governments to determine what political speech it does and does not allow. Oh sorry, I mean: what kind of political ads it is willing to approve.

In the particular example Zuckerberg cited, in 2018, American pro-life groups wanted to run advertisements for Facebook users in Ireland. This is because the Irish were about to vote in a referendum on whether abortion should be legalized.

When Facebook saw the ad requests, the company contacted the Irish government asking whether this should or should not be allowed. “Their response at the time was, ‘we don’t currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.'”

In other words, Facebook could do as it pleased. There was no legal reason to disallow the ads. But what did Facebook do? You guessed it:

“We ended up not allowing the ads.”

When Mark Zuckerberg made this decision, Facebook became a publication–not a platform. The decision was an editorial decision–not a legal decision. The decision was consistent with the political ideology that Facebook has supported in the past. This is the point at which Facebook becomes dangerous. Much of the younger generation gets their news through social media. If Facebook is making editorial decisions based on political ideology, they are not acting as an honest broker of news. Our younger generations are not hearing the complete story–they are hearing a politically biased version–no different from the mainstream media.

There are no laws against Facebook making editorial decisions, but its users need to be aware that they are not getting both sides of any story.

The World Is Upside Down

Yesterday Newsweek posted an article about Alabama’s new pro-life law.

The article includes a tweet from Amnesty International:

Abortionfacts.com states:

As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain…. First, the unborn child’s mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.

Doesn’t abortion violate the baby’s human rights? Killing babies in not healthcare–it is just the opposite. I don’t necessarily agree with all of Alabama’s law, but I believe that we have taken too lightly the murder of approximately 61 million babies since 1973. It is time to end the billion dollar abortion industry that so callously sells aborted baby body parts. The defense of the practice of killing babies and selling their body parts is simply inexcusable.

 

Who Are They Listening To?

The Democrats have taken a stand in support of late-term abortion. A recent survey shows that most Americans opposed this practice. Why do the Democrats support it?

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday that stated the following:

The Democratic Party’s leading presidential contenders are silent on data showing an overwhelming majority of voters oppose their stance on abortion.

A poll released by Susan B. Anthony List on Wednesday found that 77 percent of likely general election voters favor legislation protecting children born through failed abortions and 62 percent oppose efforts to expand late-term abortions. The results closely mirror those previously recorded by Gallup showing only 28 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal during the second trimester and only 13 percent support it during the third trimester.

Despite these numbers, the Democratic presidential contenders continue to support the Women’s Health Protection Act. If implemented, the bill would invalidate any laws that “single out abortion providers with medically unnecessary requirements and restrictions, do not promote women’s health or safety, and limit access to abortion services,” according to the liberal Center for Reproductive Rights. Effectively it would strike down prohibitions on abortion after 20 weeks, regulations protecting individuals or institutions from being forced to perform abortions, and laws preventing abortion on the basis of sex, among others.

The article continues:

“I don’t think they’ve seen the poll numbers,” Kristen Day, the executive director of the Democrats for Life of America, told the Free Beacon. “They look at the poll numbers which Planned Parenthood and NARAL give to them, which say that most Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But that isn’t the truth about abortion and what people’s opinions are on abortion.”

Day called supporters of the bill “definitely out of the mainstream on this issue. Think like in California and New York, you get a lot of electoral votes. So they’re in line with where California and New York are on abortion but that’s not the majority of the nation.”

Day urged for both pro-life and pro-choice Democrats to “speak out more” against late-term abortions. She added the caveat, however, that was often easier said than done.

“A lot of them are afraid to speak out, I think, because they don’t want to appear to be against women,” Day said. “There are people in Congress right now who are pro-life … but they’re afraid to vote that way, they’re afraid to vote their conscience. On no other issue would you be forced to do that.”

Abortion is a million-dollar business in America. Planned Parenthood makes money both on abortions and on the selling of aborted baby body parts. Planned Parenthood (through its PAC’s) makes large donations to Democrat candidates’ campaigns. At some point Democrat candidates are going to have to decide whether the campaign money they receive from Planned Parenthood is actually helping their campaigns with voters who opposed late-term abortions.

Rules For Radicals In Action

Rule number 13 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That is currently what the mainstream media is doing to the students of Covington High School in Kentucky. The students are being targeted because they are pro-life, Catholic, go to private school, and support President Trump. A full viewing of the video shows that they were simply waiting for a bus while being harassed by a racist group and rudely treated by an elderly native American. I can pretty much guarantee that if Nathan Phillips had done what he did to the Covington High School students to a group of New York City students, the invasion of their personal space might have been handled very differently.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article illustrating how this works.

The article cites the media’s bringing up a previous story that has already been proven false:

Nevertheless, the media jihad continues, and that includes NBC shamelessly running a debunked and deceptive smear story that had been reported on and debunked all the way back in May.

NBC’s deliberately misleading headline reads: “Gay valedictorian banned from speaking at Covington graduation ‘not surprised’ by D.C. controversy.” The story accuses “Covington” (I’ll explain the quote marks in a bit) of “banning” a speech that was to be given by an openly gay student.

The article then explains the problem with the story about the graduation speech:

  1. NBC News does not concede the fact that Bales submitted the speech late, instead framing it only as an allegation — an excuse from the diocese.
  2. Nowhere does NBC News reveal that Bales’ speech was a Parkland-inspired diatribe about gun control.
  3. Christian Bales was not a student at Covington High School.
  4. Christian Bales graduated from Holy Cross High School, a completely different high school.
  5. If his speech had been approved, he would have given it at Holy Cross High School, not at Covington High School.
  6. Holy Cross High is run by the same Catholic diocese as Covington High, but they are two completely different schools.
  7. NBC News bombards the story with more than a dozen references to “Covington” but goes out of its way to obscure the fact Bales attended a completely different school…

Since Covington High School is the target of the current media attack, the fact that the incident happened at a different high school is not relevant to the media. This is how fake news works, and this is how Rules for Radicals are implemented.

 

About That ‘Civility’ Thing

Hot Air posted an article today about the attempt by Republicans in the House of Representative to make sure that there is no federal funding of abortion under Obamacare (assuming Obamacare is not overturned in the courts or repealed by a new Congress or President).

The article reports:

On the House floor today, in disgustingly disingenuous fashion, Nancy Pelosi smeared the intent behind the Protect Life Act, which aims to ensure that no funds authorized or appropriated by Obamacare may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage and also reinstates conscience protections for pro-life medical workers.

The exact quote in question:

“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer addressed. He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

Just for the record, that is not what the bill is about. The conscience protections for pro-life medical workers have been undermined by the Obama administration. The Protect Life Act seeks to bring these protections back to where they were before the Obama administration changed them.

A website called “Freedom2Care” reports:

October 13, 2011

News reports are highlighting the fact that suddenly “…the federal government is mandating that all private health insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization services [including the “morning after pill–Plan B” or the “ella” drug that can end the life of a developing human being]  free of charge. “Organizations that provide insurance to their employees will be forced to cover such services, even if they object. The effect is that the cost of these ‘free’ services will be shifted to plan participants through higher premiums both to employees in employer sponsored plans, and to individuals in the individual insurance market.”

If we are to be a truly free society, then the rights of those people with religious beliefs have to be respected as well as the rights of those people who do not share those beliefs. This mandate on private health insurance plans does not respect the rights of those people with religious convictions. I have no problem with having healthcare providers providing whatever medical services are requested. I do have a problem with the idea that the wishes of those with religious convictions are being ignored and overridden.

Enhanced by Zemanta