David Hogg Needs his Falling Down Moment

In the 1993 film Falling Down, recently divorced and unemployed William Foster (played by Michael Douglas) is a man who life handed a lemon. Foster then skipped the step about making lemonade and went straight to solutions that included a rocket launcher and lots of dead lemons. For much of the story he believes he is a hero. The film’s most powerful scene is when William is facing down a police officer. At that moment he has an epiphany: “I’m the bad guy?” He says in surprise.

This is a movie David Hogg should see. While Parkland’s most vocal survivor runs around the country like his hair’s on fire, demanding unconstitutional laws that would pry guns out of the hands of legal gun owners, he has yet to realize that HE is the bad guy in this situation.

Let’s start with the only relevant fact to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, which is that Nikolas Cruz killed seventeen students there. Not Smith & Wesson, not the NRA, not Laura Ingraham. Charlton Heston didn’t rise from the grave to kill children and buy Winchester Arms stock options. Instead of blaming the actual killer, Hogg is building a political strawman on the bodies of his classmates. Mostly, it seems, so he can stretch out his fifteen minutes of fame.

He hates guns, we get it. What he doesn’t get is that his school was the gun free zone that he wants the entire country to be. When Cruz invaded that zone, there was nobody to stop him until the police arrived. The time between Cruz’s arrival on campus and police intervention is measured in corpses. This is what happens in gun-free zones. That is why they are so attractive to shooters. His school was a microcosm of what could happen nationwide if he got his way. Gun control will only apply to law-abiding citizens. Not armed criminals.

If this was really about the lives of kids, solutions such as what happened at Tennessee’s Sullivan Central High School would be in the conversation. In that circumstance Thomas Cowan entered the school brandishing a pair of handguns. He was quickly confronted by the school’s armed resource officer, Carolyn Gudger. She drew her gun and held him at bay until the police arrived. In the end only one person was killed, Thomas Cowan. Of course that doesn’t support Hogg’s narrative and certainly wouldn’t get him on CNN. For him this is about getting rid of guns, not protecting students.

David Hogg supports his unconstitutional crusade by traveling the country and demanding the free speech rights of people who don’t agree with him be silenced with boycotts. He tries to hurt businesses that work with the NRA on any level, endangering the jobs of thousands who work for those businesses while demonizing millions of his fellow Americans who are members of the NRA. Let’s not forget the NRA is a completely legal organization populated with law abiding citizens, none of whom have ever shot up a school. Attacking them because of the Parkland shooting is like trying to outlaw the Shriners because tiny cars and fuzzy Devo hats somehow contribute to global warming.

Mr. Hogg, you are the Bad Guy. Not the NRA.

This week we talk about the Second Amendment, Syria and Russia's response, the state of education in the United States today, and much more.

​BY FRANK SALVATO
 
Anyone who posts to Facebook groups regularly knows that if you post links or information to multiple groups – even groups you have been invited to be a part of, Facebook censors have you in their crosshairs. If you post long enough to multiple groups, you have invariably been “restricted,” and therein lays the rub.
 
It is a legitimate question to ask why Facebook censors would deem it necessary to “restrict” the posting rights of someone who has been invited and/or approved by a group. By virtue of the invitation or acceptance, the group creator or moderators have indicated they want a poster’s content and comments; that their information belongs in that community.
 
Additionally, group administrators and moderators can remove and/or block “trolls” or those who abuse their group's newsfeed. So, why should Facebook censors be involved in group content at all unless the content talks about physical harm or incites others to commit a crime?
 
Interesting to this specific topic is that even posters who have been restricted can still “boost” their content – for a price. Yes, content that Facebook censors deem worthy of restriction where group member content is concerned can be “boosted” across the entirety of the Facebook sphere – and the poster can target his or her desired demographic...again, for a price.
 
Is Facebook’s revenue scheme becoming clearer to you now? Your content might be “restricted” when it comes to sharing your links and words with others in groups you belong to legitimately, but if you pay the extortion price...well, it’s not so offensive to them, now is it?

​BY FRANK SALVATO
 
Almost every politician pays lip service to “transparency.” They talk about transparency of process, of their political campaigns, of the legislative process and in government in general. But in a bureaucracy – which the United States has become, transparency is impossible.
 
When an organizational apparatus is constantly employed, regardless of who administers that apparatus, the apparatus becomes the master. A perfect example comes in the form of the current Justice Department/FBI scandal. People in administrative positions who have held those positions (or a higher path to those positions) for several presidential administrations politicized the agency and the department to the point of needing to be disciplined and/or terminated.
 
Another great example comes in the now forgotten IRS scandal centered on Lois Lerner and her criminal activity in censoring conservative advocacy and non-profit groups. Not only did the bureaucracy foster and facilitate this criminal activity – and for how long we will never really know, it made damn sure that no one went to prison for violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of potentially millions of Americans to redress government.
 
One reason this is allowed to happen is that long-term thinking Progressive administrations appoint, hire, and promote operatives instead of honest public servants to positions meant to create firewalls for their ideological pursuits and nefarious deeds. For the love of the Almighty, please read The Fraudulent Senator and understand how the Clinton’s poisoned the Justice Department. It is directly related to what is happening now.
 
Bottom line regarding the current DoJ and FBI issues: President Trump would to well to take a lesson from President Reagan and the air traffic controllers...

​BY FRANK SALVATO
 
Increasingly, people are turning off even the mainstream media news channels that they prefer. Many say that the “bad news” is too much. Others cite the almost required sensationalism in the news needed to glean the oh-so-important ratings (a perception of the Ivory Towers in news media and less a reality). Truth be told, it is that and one more overriding factor.
 
The main thing that brings the mainstream media into the 1970s “National Enquirer” echelon is that today's' deliverers of the news believe themselves to be celebrities; self-important, all-knowing decriers of information, when, in fact, they are limited-to-fair in their abilities to read from a teleprompter while looking concerned.
 
Megyn Kelly and Chris Cuomo are great examples. Shepard Smith is another. Joy Reid, well, it’s a horror show of wannabe celebrity on CNN and MSNBC. FOX News Channel’s problem is that they have to over analyze everything with “pithy” humor that often translates into “snide” or elitist even ar they frame it as “breaking news.”
 
Gone are the days of journalism; journalists who deliver the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of a story leaving the suppositions to the consumers. The closest we have to that – and because of the sensationalism needed to sell ad time they still include leading opinion programming in prime time – is One America News.
 
Not too long ago, for those of us over 50 years of age, there was an offering called Headline News. It was just that: News reports from the field without analysis or the injection of ideological slant or opinion. The American people – and, in fact, the people of the world – were better served then.

Facebook is tightening their liberal grasp of the social media platform, and it appears that conservative news sites are latest victims of subtle censorship under the guise of “algorithm changes.”

NewsWhip, an independent social media analysis company, released a report showing unprecedented engagement growth of left-wing news sites on Facebook. Of the top 10 sites, all but one (foxnews.com) are left-leaning. CNN achieved “a remarkable 30.1 percent increase” in engagement between February and March. Whereas most significant growth patterns are typically attributed to a few highly viral stories, CNN managed to achieve engagement in stories across the board without viral patterns.

Meanwhile, conservative news sites saw a drastic decline. Ben Shapiro-backed Daily Wire dropped from fifth position in February, to 11th position in March. Western Journalism dropped from 12th position in February, to 22nd position in March. Breitbart News fell from ninth position in December, to 21st in March.

In January, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook product teams would be prioritizing “news that is trustworthy, informative, and local” as a means to address “too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today.” Brief surveys from users would allow “the community” to determine quality and trustworthiness of news sources.

Letting “the community” decide seems diplomatic at face value. In reality, users are not privy to the demographics of those who survey news sources, whether they equally represent right vs. left, or what sorts of controls are in place to prevent abuse of the surveying system.

After all, Facebook has a reputation for inflicting negative consequences on conservatives. Conservative pages, such as pro-Trump duo Diamond and Silk, have been limited after vague rationales such as “unsafe for the community” despite a sizeable following and longevity. Additionally, information icons now hover over news items, featuring Wikipedia blurbs about a source, and containing negative information when the source is conservative.

Conservatives were already a target of Facebook authoritarianism long before these algorithm changes. If NewsWhip’s report is any indication of the severe consequences against conservative news sources from just one algorithm change, conservative news sites could meet their social media demise.

​How long until their changes begin to affect the personal profiles of conservative users?

​There is a California State Senator who has introduced legislation that would mandate state-sanctioned “fact checkers” for any social media and/or Internet publication. This is a direct threat to the freedom of speech and freedom.
 
California State Senator Richard Pan has introduced SB1424 that would target social media based in California. The bill appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.
 
As with any draconian legislation, the effect of the law will be determined by the political ideology in power. That California’s Democrat (read: Progressive) Party is just a tad bit to the Left of Mao, the state-sanctioned “fact checkers” would necessarily be sympatico with the mindsets of those in power.
 
This leads one to assume that should a publication cite statistics from a think tank that doesn’t hold the same biases as the presiding Progressives, they could be found in violation of the law.
 
Our Framers and Founders regarded the freedom of speech to be sacrosanct. The redress of government – and the holding of the government’s feet to the fire – are rights bestowed upon us by our Creator, this enshrined in the Charters of Freedom.
 
We are treading on some dangerous territory here folks.

​There is talk of establishing a no-fly zone in Syria after the recent chemical weapons evidently perpetrated by Syria's despot dictator Bashar al Assad. But this idea is a dangerous one.
 
We must realize a couple of truths that cannot be argued away. First, the US dominates in air power anywhere and everywhere in the world, regardless of foe. Russian air assets don't compare to those of the US. The Syrian air force would be defeated in short order should they be foolish enough to follow an order to confront American assets in the air.
 
Additionally, the Islamic State doesn't have an air asset...not one.
 
So the question begs to be asked. Who would benefit from a no-fly zone in Syria? The answer is simple: the Syrians and the Islamic State, both of whom would be allowed to continue their ground campaigns.
 
The question that the recent chemical weapons attack should raise it why Vladimir Putin is tolerating such activity from his ally Bashar al Assad. In the end, because Putin is the great protector of Assad, he is responsible for Assad's actions; he is indirectly responsible for the chemical weapons attack.