Category Archives: US Constitution

Diamond & Silk Take it to Congress | Apr 27 2018

Diamond and Silk Testify Before Congress on Social Media Censorship Against Conservatives

|| Breitbart

“Diamond and Silk testified before Congress over social media censorship against conservatives, Thursday, with Diamond declaring during their testimony that “censorship is no hoax.”

“We would like to thank the judiciary committee for allowing us the opportunity to voice our concerns about conservatives being targeted and censored on social media platforms,” opened Lynette Hardaway, who is better known as Diamond. “Facebook along with other social media sites have taken aggressive actions to silence conservative voices such as ourselves by deliberately restricting and weaponizing our page with algorithms that censored and suppress our free speech. These bias algorithms are tactics designed to pick up on keywords, thus telling the pages how to behave in ways that repress and stifle expressed ideas including shadow-banning, which blocked our content from being seen by our followers while depriving our brand through the demonetization of our videos.”

“Followers stop receiving notifications when we posted videos & content. Followers were also mysteriously unliked from our page. Subtle and slowly Facebook used one mechanism at a time to diminish our reach by restricting our page so that our 1.2 million followers would not see our content thus silencing our conservative voices,” she continued. “When we reached out to Facebook for an explanation, they gave us the runaround. Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress and stated that the most important thing he cared about was making sure no one interferes in the 2018 elections. But after doing our research we wondered if Mark Zuckerberg was using Facebook to interfere in the 2018 elections by labeling users accounts as either Liberal, Very Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, or Very Conservative.”

“This is one of the main underhanded ways to censor conservatives. So if I’m labeled as Very Liberal without the option to edit it, update and correct this setting, then algorithms are already put into place which allows advertisers that have Liberal views, services & causes to target me,” Hardaway explained, before adding that, “Diamond and Silk’s personal Facebook page has been labeled by Facebook as Very Liberal.”

Hardaway then declared that, “Even though we are not Very Liberal, Facebook does not give us the option to change this label to Conservative, making it less likely for us to see advertisement, news stories and services from a conservative point of view,” before asking, “If Facebook labeled our user account as very liberal and got it wrong, how many more other users account have they gotten wrong?”

Pointing to a screenshot of a Facebook notification which informed Diamond and Silk that restrictions had been placed on their Facebook page, and then to screenshots of their followers complaining that they can’t see their videos, Hardaway proclaimed, “They’re not receiving notification… They can’t watch our videos.”

Hardaway also showed screenshots comparing the number of views they used to get on videos compared to now, noting that anti-Trump pages with half the amount of followers were able to rack up hundreds of thousands of views, while Diamond and Silk’s views had dropped to just thousands.

“In 2016 with less than one million followers, our page reach would garner between 5 to 8 million people reached within a week. All of that changed when algorithms were placed on our page to suppress our reach,” she expressed, claiming that “YouTube also demonetized 95 percent of our videos in August of 2017 and categorized our videos as ‘hate speech,’ even though our account was in good standing.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Image of the Day |

 

 

Pentagon Kills LifeLog Project

| Wired – Feb 04 2004

The Pentagon canceled its so-called LifeLog project, an ambitious effort to build a database tracking a person’s entire existence.

Run by Darpa, the Defense Department’s research arm, LifeLog aimed to gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees or does: the phone calls made, the TV shows watched, the magazines read, the plane tickets bought, the e-mail sent and received. Out of this seemingly endless ocean of information, computer scientists would plot distinctive routes in the data, mapping relationships, memories, events and experiences.

LifeLog’s backers said the all-encompassing diary could have turned into a near-perfect digital memory, giving its users computerized assistants with an almost flawless recall of what they had done in the past. But civil libertarians immediately pounced on the project when it debuted last spring, arguing that LifeLog could become the ultimate tool for profiling potential enemies of the state.

Researchers close to the project say they’re not sure why it was dropped late last month. Darpa hasn’t provided an explanation for LifeLog’s quiet cancellation. “A change in priorities” is the only rationale agency spokeswoman Jan Walker gave to Wired News.

However, related Darpa efforts concerning software secretaries and mechanical brains are still moving ahead as planned.”

….Continue reading more @ Wired
“Facebook is an American online social media and social networking service company based in Menlo Park, California. Its website was launched on February 4, 2004, by Mark Zuckerberg, along with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes.”
 – wiki

Almost 60% of Californians support Trump Deportations of Illegal Aliens | Apr 19 2018

Half of Californians support deportations, Muslim travel ban, survey finds

|| San Jose Mercury News

(Photo by Drew A. Kelley, Contributing Photographer)
A new UC Berkeley study shows not all Californians are opposed to Trump’s border wall

“About half of Californians say they support President Trump’s Muslim travel ban and more deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new poll that challenges the conventional belief that residents of the left-leaning Golden State are overwhelmingly allergic to the administration’s hard line on immigration.

The survey released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society shows that while residents of the country’s only sanctuary state value diversity and inclusion on all fronts — from economic and racial justice to immigration reform — their viewpoints on politics, race and culture are sometimes complex and even contradictory.

“It’s a state whose progressive movement has grown and matured… and yet we’re still seeing high levels of inequality across the state and other social justice issues that are problematic,” said Olivia Araiza, director of the Haas Institute’s Blueprint for Belonging project, which commissioned the survey. The group, which opposes Trump’s policies, said it found some of the results unsettling.

About 24 percent of the survey’s participants said it’s “very important” for the U.S. to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, while 35 percent said it’s “somewhat important,” according to the poll. That viewpoint even held true in the Bay Area, where 25 percent of those surveyed said increasing deportations is very important and 35 percent said it’s somewhat important.”

….Continue reading more @ Mercury News

Gov’t Must Impose ‘Transgender’ Demands Nationwide, Says WA Federal Judge | Apr 18 2018

Gov’t Must Impose ‘Transgender’ Demands Nationwide, Says Judge

|| Breitbart

“A federal judge in Washington State has declared that all civic groups nationwide must accept people of both sexes into their single-sex spaces and activities, or else be stigmatized and sued by the federal government.

In legal jargon, Judge Marsha Pechman declared in a lawsuit against the Pentagon’s “transgender” policy that the federal government must use its powers to champion people who want to live as members of the sex, either inside the military or outside, just as it must use federal powers to suppress racism:

Today, the Court concludes that transgender people constitute a suspect class. Transgender people have long been forced to live in silence, or to come out and face the threat of overwhelming discrimination. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ and Washington’s favor as to the applicable level of scrutiny. The Ban specifically targets one of the most vulnerable groups in our society, and must satisfy strict scrutiny if it is to survive.

In this context, the term “strict scrutiny” means that people who say they are transgender must be treated as members of the opposite sex by all federal or state agencies, universities, schools and civic groups that accept federal dollars, except in rare circumstances. Judges would approve exceptions in rare circumstances that are absolutely necessary and also narrowly tailored to achieve an important goal.

In practice, the judge is telling all civic groups that they will lose nearly all lawsuits if women try to exclude men from showers and bathrooms, athletic competitions, victims’ shelters, girls’ schools, civic competitions, or any single-sex civic group or practice.

The judge’s decision, if accepted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and by Supreme Court in 2020, would order the government to suppress and stigmatize any public recognition of any biological distinctions between the two different, equal and complementary sexes in a heterosexual society of women, men and children.

The judge is a feminist who would likely object to men who demand that women stay silent when their sexual privacy is violated and would object to the elimination of women’s athletics. But many feminists have embraced the transgender ideology because it blurs the civic distinctions between the two equal, different and complementary sexes. That blurring is sought by feminists who wish to compete for status and income against men in the workplace.

The transgender ideology says a person’s sex is determined only his or her feelings of “gender identity,” not by their biology. The ideology says the government agencies, such as the Pentagon, must force Americans to accept the wishes of men who deem themselves to be women and of the women who declare themselves to be men, even if those men and women decline any opposite-sex clothing or hormones, or cosmetic surgery.

Conservatives point out that men and women, teenage boys and teenage girls are very different, and prosper in a society which recognizes and accepts their equal, complementary and different priorities and capabilities.

Feminists say that pro-transgender policies will erase the concept of women — and of women’s rights —  because men will be women.

.. ..

The judge’s legal decision was made April 13 in a lawsuit against the Pentagon’s transgender policies, which excludes people from military service if they want to be treated as members of the other sex. The Pentagon policies reject the vague guidelines pushed by transgender activists about who should be classified as male or female, and instead reaffirmed the normal biology-based distinction between male and female as the fairest way to describe people’s sex:

.. ..

But the judge seems to embrace the transgender ideology, and uses the “gender identity” term without quote marks, despite the inability of biologists to identify and measure a “gender identity’:

The term ‘transgender’ is used to describe someone who experiences any significant degree of misalignment between their gender identity and their assigned sex at birth … Experts agree that gender identity has a “biological component,” and there is a “medical consensus that gender identity is deep-seated, set early in life, and impervious to external influences.”

The judge also argues that her government-enforced redesign of the nation’s civic culture rests upon a claim that is only “widely understood,” but not actually confirmed by science or recognized by voters’ common sense:

The Court notes that the [Pentagon’s] Implementation Plan uses the term “biological sex,” apparently to refer to the sex one is assigned at birth. This is somewhat misleading, as the record indicates that gender identity—“a person’s internalized, inherent sense of who they are as a particular gender (i.e., male or female)”—is also widely understood to have a “biological component.”

These claims ignore the scientific evidence that the vast majority of children who claim an opposite-sex feeling of “gender identity” do drop that claim after puberty. Many adults also drop that claim after trying to live as members of the opposite sex, sharply weakening the claims that “transgender” people comprise a confirmable and permanent group.

Very few Americans claim to be transgender, but that rarity means they deserve maximum protection, says the judge:

While the exact number is unknown, transgender people make up less than 1 percent of the nation’s adult population … There are no openly transgender members of the United States Congress or the federal judiciary, and only one out of more than 7,000 state legislators is openly transgender.

People trying to live as members of the other sex deserve protection because of the harm they suffer, the judge said, even though she also disregarded the harm that would be caused by official suppression of sexual differences, such as the loss of sexual privacy in bathrooms or the health damage caused by “transgender” medical treatment of children. For example, training manual prepared by the Pentagon in 2016 said naked female soldiers must give “dignity and respect” to men who join them in their shared shower rooms.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

 

THE DISTURBING TRUTH ABOUT HOW AIRPLANES ARE MAINTAINED TODAY

In the last decade, most of the big U.S. airlines have shifted major maintenance work to places like El Salvador, Mexico, and China, where few mechanics are F.A.A. certified and inspections have no teeth.

“Not long ago I was waiting for a domestic flight in a departure lounge at one of the crumbling midcentury sheds that pass for an American airport these days. There were delays, as we’ve all come to expect, and then the delays turned into something more ominous. The airplane I was waiting for had a serious maintenance issue, beyond the ability of a man in an orange vest to address. The entire airplane would have to be taken away for servicing and another brought to the gate in its place. This would take a while. Those of us in the departure lounge settled in for what we suspected might be hours. From the window I watched the ground crew unload the bags from the original airplane. When the new one arrived, the crew pumped the fuel, loaded the bags, and stocked the galley. It was a scene I’d witnessed countless times. Soon we would board and be on the way to our destinations.

As for the first airplane, the one with the maintenance problem—what was its destination going to be? When you have time on your hands, you begin to wonder about things like this. My own assumption, as yours might have been, was that the aircraft would be towed to a nearby hangar for a stopgap repair and then flown to a central maintenance facility run by the airline somewhere in the U.S. Or maybe there was one right here at the airport. In any case, if it needed a major overhaul, presumably it would be performed by the airline’s staff of trained professionals. If Apple feels it needs a “Genius Bar” at its stores to deal with hardware and software that cost a few hundred dollars, an airline must have something equivalent to safeguard an airplane worth a few hundred million.

About this I would be wrong—as wrong as it is possible to be. Over the past decade, nearly all large U.S. airlines have shifted heavy maintenance work on their airplanes to repair shops thousands of miles away, in developing countries, where the mechanics who take the planes apart (completely) and put them back together (or almost) may not even be able to read or speak English. US Airways and Southwest fly planes to a maintenance facility in El Salvador. Delta sends planes to Mexico. United uses a shop in China. American still does much of its most intensive maintenance in-house in the U.S., but that is likely to change in the aftermath of the company’s merger with US Airways.

The airlines are shipping this maintenance work offshore for the reason you’d expect: to cut labor costs. Mechanics in El Salvador, Mexico, China, and elsewhere earn a fraction of what mechanics in the U.S. do. In part because of this offshoring, the number of maintenance jobs at U.S. carriers has plummeted, from 72,000 in the year 2000 to fewer than 50,000 today. But the issue isn’t just jobs. A century ago, Upton Sinclair wrote his novel The Jungleto call attention to the plight of workers in the slaughterhouses, but what really got people upset was learning how unsafe their meat was. Safety is an issue here, too. The Federal Aviation Administration is supposed to be inspecting all the overseas facilities that do maintenance for airlines—just as it is supposed to inspect those in America. But the F.A.A. no longer has the money or the manpower to do this.”

….Continue reading more @ Vanity Fair

More Opposition to California Sanctuary City Laws as San Diego Votes to Support Trump | Apr 17 2018

San Diego County supervisors vote 3-1 to support the Trump lawsuit against California sanctuary laws

|| U-T San Diego

“The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement.

The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely on appeal, said Kristin Gaspar, supervisor for District 3 and chairwoman of the board.

The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against the state at the beginning of March over three laws.

SB 54, the law that received the most publicity when it passed, limits the ways in which local police can interact with federal immigration officials. Under the law, police can turn immigrants over to federal immigration enforcement agencies only if they have committed crimes listed in the legislation. It says local police cannot participate in task forces that are focused on immigration enforcement.

It also requires the California Attorney General to set policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, libraries and hospitals.

AB 103 prohibits local governments across California from adding new contracts with the federal government for civil immigration detention or expanding old ones. It also requires the California Attorney General’s office to monitor conditions in existing immigration detention facilities in the state.

AB 450 says that employers cannot voluntarily allow immigration officials into non-public areas of the workplace unless the officers have judicial warrants. It also requires employers to notify employees about upcoming immigration inspections.

“We’re talking about people who are crossing the border illegally, coming into this county and committing a crime and them being let loose probably to commit another crime,” said Dianne Jacob, supervisor for District 2. “That creates a public safety issue and creates a problem in our neighborhoods.”

Gaspar, Jacob and Supervisor Bill Horn voted to support the lawsuit. Supervisor Greg Cox voted no. Supervisor Ron Roberts had a previous commitment and did not attend the meeting.

A long line of supporters and detractors addressed the board Tuesday morning after a group of people hoping to dissuade the supervisors from supporting the lawsuit rallied outside.

Supporters of the lawsuit felt that the laws in question were an overreach of state power and worried that it would inhibit the federal government from deporting people with criminal convictions.

Critics said they worried that allowing local police to work closely with federal immigration officials, which the laws limit, would create less safe communities because immigrant victims or witnesses wouldn’t call the police.

Many accused Gaspar of bringing the issue to a county vote to gain media attention for her campaign to take the Congressional seat of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.”

…..Continue reading more @ U-T San Diego

 

Jerry Brown Blames ‘Low-Life Politicians’ for ‘Sanctuary State’ Backlash

|| Breitbart

“California Governor Jerry Brown blamed “low-life politicians” for a growing backlash against the “sanctuary state” policies he has enacted in his state during an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Brown spoke as a revolt continues to spread throughout Southern California against the state’s sanctuary laws in the wake of a Department of Justice lawsuit filed last month against the Golden State’s “sanctuary” laws.

The lawsuit seeks to invalidate three state laws — the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54) — under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Roughly a dozen local governments have joined the revolt, and many more are considering joining the lawsuit, with three new cities climbing aboard last week.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Kevin De Leon Appoints Illegal Alien to California State Commission | Mar 15 2018

Mexican lawyer appointed to California government job may be first illegal immigrant in US history to hold state post

|| Washington Examiner

“California may be the first state in the country to appoint a person illegally in the U.S. to a position in state government following the Senate Rules Committee’s decision to approve Lizbeth Mateo, a Mexican-born woman, for a statewide post.

Mateo, a 33-year-old attorney, was appointed Wednesday to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program and will advise the Student Aid Commission.

California Senate Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon’s office confirmed to the Washington Examiner on Thursday Mateo is the first illegal immigrant to be given a state-appointed job and said it was not aware of any other state to have done so.

Multiple officials at immigration organizations also told the Examinerthey were unaware of any other states that had made similar appointments, making the Wednesday vote a historic one.

Mateo came to the U.S. with her parents when she was 14 years old. In California, where illegal immigrants gained the legal right to practice law in 2014, she attended Santa Clara University School of Law and passed the California state bar exam last year.

“While undocumented students have become more visible in our state, they remain underrepresented in places where decisions that affect them are being made,” Mateo said in a statement.

In her new role, Mateo will help low-income and under-served communities learn more about how to apply for college.

It’s not clear if Mateo is a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which would give her legal protections from deportation and work authorization.”

…Continue reading more @ Washington Examiner

 

Note: The California State Constitution would appear to make such an appointment unconstitutional:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 – SEC. 32]

  ( Article 1 adopted 1879. )

SEC. 31.  

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

What is the basis for her appointment? The fact that she is a foreign national, illegally in the country. How is that not a preference based on national origin?

 

Sessions Goes After California’s ‘Sanctuary State’ Policies | Mar 07 2018

Justice Department sues California over sanctuary laws

||  SF Chronicle

“After struggling in court for the last year to strip federal funds from California and sanctuary cities like San Francisco for refusing to aid federal immigration agents, the Trump administration filed suit Tuesday accusing the state of unconstitutionally interfering with immigration enforcement.

Three state laws enacted in 2017 “reflect a deliberate effort by California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration laws,” the Justice Department said in a lawsuit in federal court in Sacramento. The suit seeks to overturn all three laws.

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday to a law enforcement gathering in Sacramento, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Trump administration would “fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you.”

So far, though, his arguments have made little headway in federal court, where judges in San Francisco and elsewhere have rejected efforts to strip federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with Justice Department edicts.

The suits by California, San Francisco and other sanctuary jurisdictions challenge conditions the department has sought to attach to federal funding, while the Justice Department’s suit directly challenges the California laws. But the central issue in all of them appears to be whether sanctuary laws are a proper exercise of state and local government’s authority over law enforcement or an unconstitutional intrusion by those governments into federal immigration law.

Sessions’ suit, though filed in a different court, could be consolidated with the California suit and transferred to San Francisco if the judge in that case decides the issues are the same.

Gov. Jerry Brown, a defendant in the new lawsuit, said in a statement, “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they won’t work here.”

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, also a defendant in the suit, responded with his own overture to law enforcement. “We’ll continue to stand up for our police and sheriffs whose funding has been threatened by the Trump administration” in the federal grants, he told reporters.

Besides targeting sanctuary laws, Sessions and others in the administration have denounced local officials like Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who publicly warned the immigrant community Feb. 24 of an impending Bay Area raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Acting ICE director Thomas Homan, who previously threatened pro-sanctuary politicians with criminal prosecution, compared Schaaf to “a gang lookout.” President Trump’s press secretary said the Justice Department was looking into Schaaf’s actions.”

…..Continue reading more @ SF Chronicle

Sessions Punches Back: DOJ to Sue California to Strike Down ‘Sanctuary’ Laws as Unconstitutional

|| Breitbart

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions will speak Wednesday about his Department of Justice’s (DOJ) first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of three of California’s “sanctuary” laws, Breitbart News has learned.

Relying on both federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, DOJ will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern California to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of these laws intended to protect illegal aliens by preventing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. DOJ will also seek declaratory judgement that these laws are unconstitutional – “preempted” by federal immigration law – when it files late Tuesday night.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Attorney General Sessions is expected to tell a gathering of California police officers Wednesday in Sacramento. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Obama and Comey Had a Secret Meeting? | Mar 02 2018


FBI Denies Secret Comey-Obama Meeting Raises Integrity and Public Trust Issues

|| Daily Caller

“The FBI states it will not expedite the release of documents about secret meetings between FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama, according to a letter the bureau sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Such information is not “a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the government’s integrity which affects public confidence,” David Hardy, the Section Chief for the bureau’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, told TheDCNF in a Feb. 26 letter.

TheDCNF, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requested records of all meetings between Comey and Obama and sought an “expedited process” as provided under the act when issues are of great interest to the media and the records address issues pertaining to government integrity. TheDCNF FOIA request was filed Feb. 16, 2018.

The issue prompting the FOIA request was the disclosure Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017. Comey never divulged the meeting to Congress.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller