Ninety miles from the South Eastern tip of the United States, Liberty has no stead. In order for Liberty to exist and thrive, Tyranny must be identified, recognized, confronted and extinguished.
infinite scrolling
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
The Utopian Life That Wasn't...
The history of American slavery began long before the first Africans arrived at Jamestown in 1619. Evidence from archaeology and oral tradition indicates that for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years prior, Native Americans had developed their own forms of bondage. This fact should not be surprising, for most societies throughout history have practiced slavery.
In her cross-cultural and historical research on comparative captivity, Catherine Cameron found that bondspeople composed 10 percent to 70 percent of the population of most societies, lending credence to Seymour Drescher’s assertion that “freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution.” If slavery is ubiquitous, however, it is also highly variable. Indigenous American slavery, rooted in warfare and diplomacy, was flexible, often offering its victims escape through adoption or intermarriage, and it was divorced from racial ideology, deeming all foreigners—men, women, and children, of whatever color or nation—potential slaves. Thus, Europeans did not introduce slavery to North America. Rather, colonialism brought distinct and evolving notions of bondage into contact with one another.
At times, these slaveries clashed, but they also reinforced and influenced one another. Colonists, who had a voracious demand for labor and export commodities, exploited indigenous networks of captive exchange, producing a massive global commerce in Indian slaves. This began with the second voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1495 and extended in some parts of the Americas through the twentieth century. During this period, between 2 and 4 million Indians were enslaved. Elsewhere in the Americas, Indigenous people adapted Euro-American forms of bondage.
In the Southeast, an elite class of Indians began to hold African Americans in transgenerational slavery and, by 1800, developed plantations that rivaled those of their white neighbors. The story of Native Americans and slavery is complicated: millions were victims, some were masters, and the nature of slavery changed over time and varied from one place to another. A significant and long overlooked aspect of American history, Indian slavery shaped colonialism, exacerbated Native population losses, figured prominently in warfare and politics, and influenced Native and colonial ideas about race and identity.
EU Internet Censorship Will Censor the Whole World's Internet
As the EU advances the new Copyright Directive towards becoming law in its 28 member-states, it's important to realise that the EU's plan will end up censoring the Internet for everyone, not just Europeans.
A quick refresher: Under Article 13 of the new Copyright Directive, anyone who operates a (sufficiently large) platform where people can post works that might be copyrighted (like text, pictures, videos, code, games, audio etc) will have to crowdsource a database of "copyrighted works" that users aren't allowed to post, and block anything that seems to match one of the database entries.
These blacklist databases will be open to all comers (after all, anyone can create a copyrighted work): that means that billions of people around the world will be able to submit anything to the blacklists, without having to prove that they hold the copyright to their submissions (or, for that matter, that their submissions are copyrighted). The Directive does not specify any punishment for making false claims to a copyright, and a platform that decided to block someone for making repeated fake claims would run the risk of being liable to the abuser if a user posts a work to which the abuser does own the rights.
The major targets of this censorship plan are the social media platforms, and it's the "social" that should give us all pause.
That's because the currency of social media is social interaction between users. I post something, you reply, a third person chimes in, I reply again, and so on.
Now, let's take a hypothetical Twitter discussion between three users: Alice (an American), Bob (a Bulgarian) and Carol (a Canadian).
Alice posts a picture of a political march: thousands of protesters and counterprotesters, waving signs. As is common around the world, these signs include copyrighted images, whose use is permitted under US "fair use" rules that permit parody. Because Twitter enables users to communicate significant amounts of user-generated content, they’ll fall within the ambit of Article 13.
Bob lives in Bulgaria, an EU member-state whose copyright law does not permit parody. He might want to reply to Alice with a quote from the Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, whose works were translated into English in the late 1970s and are still in copyright.
Carol, a Canadian who met Bob and Alice through their shared love of Doctor Who, decides to post a witty meme from "The Mark of the Rani," a 1985 episode in which Colin Baker travels back to witness the Luddite protests of the 19th Century.
Alice, Bob and Carol are all expressing themselves through use of copyrighted cultural works, in ways that might not be lawful in the EU’s most speech-restrictive copyright jurisdictions. But because (under today's system) the platform typically is only required to to respond to copyright complaints when a rightsholder objects to the use, everyone can see everyone else's posts and carry on a discussion using tools and modes that have become the norm in all our modern, digital discourse.
But once Article 13 is in effect, Twitter faces an impossible conundrum. The Article 13 filter will be tripped by Alice's lulzy protest signs, by Bob's political quotes, and by Carol's Doctor Who meme, but suppose that Twitter is only required to block Bob from seeing these infringing materials.
Should Twitter hide Alice and Carol's messages from Bob? If Bob's quote is censored in Bulgaria, should Twitter go ahead and show it to Alice and Carol (but hide it from Bob, who posted it?). What about when Bob travels outside of the EU and looks back on his timeline? Or when Alice goes to visit Bob in Bulgaria for a Doctor Who convention and tries to call up the thread? Bear in mind that there's no way to be certain where a user is...
A quick refresher: Under Article 13 of the new Copyright Directive, anyone who operates a (sufficiently large) platform where people can post works that might be copyrighted (like text, pictures, videos, code, games, audio etc) will have to crowdsource a database of "copyrighted works" that users aren't allowed to post, and block anything that seems to match one of the database entries.
These blacklist databases will be open to all comers (after all, anyone can create a copyrighted work): that means that billions of people around the world will be able to submit anything to the blacklists, without having to prove that they hold the copyright to their submissions (or, for that matter, that their submissions are copyrighted). The Directive does not specify any punishment for making false claims to a copyright, and a platform that decided to block someone for making repeated fake claims would run the risk of being liable to the abuser if a user posts a work to which the abuser does own the rights.
The major targets of this censorship plan are the social media platforms, and it's the "social" that should give us all pause.
That's because the currency of social media is social interaction between users. I post something, you reply, a third person chimes in, I reply again, and so on.
Now, let's take a hypothetical Twitter discussion between three users: Alice (an American), Bob (a Bulgarian) and Carol (a Canadian).
Alice posts a picture of a political march: thousands of protesters and counterprotesters, waving signs. As is common around the world, these signs include copyrighted images, whose use is permitted under US "fair use" rules that permit parody. Because Twitter enables users to communicate significant amounts of user-generated content, they’ll fall within the ambit of Article 13.
Bob lives in Bulgaria, an EU member-state whose copyright law does not permit parody. He might want to reply to Alice with a quote from the Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, whose works were translated into English in the late 1970s and are still in copyright.
Carol, a Canadian who met Bob and Alice through their shared love of Doctor Who, decides to post a witty meme from "The Mark of the Rani," a 1985 episode in which Colin Baker travels back to witness the Luddite protests of the 19th Century.
Alice, Bob and Carol are all expressing themselves through use of copyrighted cultural works, in ways that might not be lawful in the EU’s most speech-restrictive copyright jurisdictions. But because (under today's system) the platform typically is only required to to respond to copyright complaints when a rightsholder objects to the use, everyone can see everyone else's posts and carry on a discussion using tools and modes that have become the norm in all our modern, digital discourse.
But once Article 13 is in effect, Twitter faces an impossible conundrum. The Article 13 filter will be tripped by Alice's lulzy protest signs, by Bob's political quotes, and by Carol's Doctor Who meme, but suppose that Twitter is only required to block Bob from seeing these infringing materials.
Should Twitter hide Alice and Carol's messages from Bob? If Bob's quote is censored in Bulgaria, should Twitter go ahead and show it to Alice and Carol (but hide it from Bob, who posted it?). What about when Bob travels outside of the EU and looks back on his timeline? Or when Alice goes to visit Bob in Bulgaria for a Doctor Who convention and tries to call up the thread? Bear in mind that there's no way to be certain where a user is...
Florida / Broward County Voters Guide:
Get An Absentee Or Sample Ballot HERE
Recommendations From Richard DeNapoli:
(I looked them over, looks good to me)
UNITED STATES SENATOR
Rick Scott
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS DISTRICT 22
Nicolas Kimaz
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS DISTRICT 23
Joseph "Joe" Kaufman
GOVERNOR & LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Ron DeSantis & Jeanette Nuñez
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ashley Moody
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Jimmy Patronis
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
Matt Caldwell
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 93
Chip LaMarca
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 98
Joseph Anthony Cruz
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 103
Frank Mingo
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 105
Ana Maria Rodriguez
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 4
Shari L. McCartney
RETENTION VOTE JUSTICES OF THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
Alan Lawson - Vote YES
RETENTION VOTE 4th DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL JUSTICES
Burton C. Conner – Vote YES
Jeffrey T. Kunz – Vote YES
Carole Y. Taylor – Vote YES
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, GROUP 38
Jason Allen-Rosner OR Stefanie Camille Moon
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, GROUP 46
Maria Markhasin-Weekes
COUNTY COURT JUDGE, GROUP 9
Tanner Channing Demmery
COUNTY COURT JUDGE, GROUP 19
Allison Gilman
BROWARD SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SEAT 2
Richard DeNapoli
CITY COMMISSION / MUNICIPAL
Cooper City Commission, District 2: William L. "Lenny" Athas
Dania Beach City Commission: Marco A. Salvino Jr.
Hallandale Beach Mayor: Joy D. Adams
Hollywood City Commission, District 5: Jack Izzo
Margate City Commission, Seat 3: Antonio Arserio
Oakland Park City Commission: Steve Arnst
Plantation
City Council, Group 1: Michael "Mike" Taussig
City Council, Group 2: Rico Petrocelli
City Council, Group 5: Timothy Fadgen
Mayor: Jennifer Izaguirre
Pompano Beach
City Commission, District 1: Andrea Leigh McGee
City Commission, District 2: Tom Terwilliger
Southwest Ranches City Commission, District 1: John Eastman
Tamarac
City Commission, District 2: Bill Mei
Mayor: Michelle Gomez
Weston City Commission, Seat 4: Nancy Cooke
STATEWIDE AMENDMENTS
Amendment 1: YES
Amendment 2: YES
Amendment 3: NO RECOMMENDATION
Amendment 4: NO
Amendment 5: YES
Amendment 6: YES
Amendment 7: YES
Amendment 8: Removed from Ballot
Amendment 9: YES
Amendment 10: NO
Amendment 11: YES
Amendment 12: YES
Amendment 13: NO
BROWARD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
Transportation Surtax: NO
County Commission District Map Standards: YES
County Redistricting Procedure: YES
Affordable Trust Fund Definition: YES
Discretion of Inspector General: YES
Revisions to Zoning Glossary: YES
Examining Board Alternate Members: YES
Quorum Shall be Majority: YES
Materials No Later than 48 Hours Before Meeting: YES
Independent Board Nominates Auditor: YES
Comp. of Inspect. Gen. Selection Oversight Com: YES
Delete Ineffective Language: YES
UNITED STATES SENATOR
Rick Scott
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS DISTRICT 22
Nicolas Kimaz
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS DISTRICT 23
Joseph "Joe" Kaufman
GOVERNOR & LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Ron DeSantis & Jeanette Nuñez
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ashley Moody
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Jimmy Patronis
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
Matt Caldwell
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 93
Chip LaMarca
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 98
Joseph Anthony Cruz
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 103
Frank Mingo
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 105
Ana Maria Rodriguez
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 4
Shari L. McCartney
RETENTION VOTE JUSTICES OF THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
Alan Lawson - Vote YES
RETENTION VOTE 4th DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL JUSTICES
Burton C. Conner – Vote YES
Jeffrey T. Kunz – Vote YES
Carole Y. Taylor – Vote YES
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, GROUP 38
Jason Allen-Rosner OR Stefanie Camille Moon
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, GROUP 46
Maria Markhasin-Weekes
COUNTY COURT JUDGE, GROUP 9
Tanner Channing Demmery
COUNTY COURT JUDGE, GROUP 19
Allison Gilman
BROWARD SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SEAT 2
Richard DeNapoli
CITY COMMISSION / MUNICIPAL
Cooper City Commission, District 2: William L. "Lenny" Athas
Dania Beach City Commission: Marco A. Salvino Jr.
Hallandale Beach Mayor: Joy D. Adams
Hollywood City Commission, District 5: Jack Izzo
Margate City Commission, Seat 3: Antonio Arserio
Oakland Park City Commission: Steve Arnst
Plantation
City Council, Group 1: Michael "Mike" Taussig
City Council, Group 2: Rico Petrocelli
City Council, Group 5: Timothy Fadgen
Mayor: Jennifer Izaguirre
Pompano Beach
City Commission, District 1: Andrea Leigh McGee
City Commission, District 2: Tom Terwilliger
Southwest Ranches City Commission, District 1: John Eastman
Tamarac
City Commission, District 2: Bill Mei
Mayor: Michelle Gomez
Weston City Commission, Seat 4: Nancy Cooke
STATEWIDE AMENDMENTS
Amendment 1: YES
Amendment 2: YES
Amendment 3: NO RECOMMENDATION
Amendment 4: NO
Amendment 5: YES
Amendment 6: YES
Amendment 7: YES
Amendment 8: Removed from Ballot
Amendment 9: YES
Amendment 10: NO
Amendment 11: YES
Amendment 12: YES
Amendment 13: NO
BROWARD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
Transportation Surtax: NO
County Commission District Map Standards: YES
County Redistricting Procedure: YES
Affordable Trust Fund Definition: YES
Discretion of Inspector General: YES
Revisions to Zoning Glossary: YES
Examining Board Alternate Members: YES
Quorum Shall be Majority: YES
Materials No Later than 48 Hours Before Meeting: YES
Independent Board Nominates Auditor: YES
Comp. of Inspect. Gen. Selection Oversight Com: YES
Delete Ineffective Language: YES
And They're Still Rapists: Alleged Child Predators In Florida Include 6 Hispanics, A Vietnamese, A Liberian, And A Greek Immigrant
The Polk County Sheriff's Department has announced the arrest of 13 men for attempting to have sex with young boys. There are horrifying details, but what you need to know his that about half of them are Hispanic, and the ones who aren't include a Vietnamese-American, a Greek immigrant, and a guy from Liberia. [13 men arrested in Polk County child predator operation,by Ken Suarez, FOX 13 News, October 9, 2018]
"Precious" Capitalism...
Ocasio-Cortez’s Previously Undisclosed Ties To George Soros Revealed
She Guevara...
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Living Proof That Leftists Are Leftists Because They Cannot Understand Basic Economics...
That's A Nice Economy You Got There...
Graphic Depiction Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Imposing Socialism On America!
Democrats Go Full Socialist With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Leftists Love Communism Until They Get Communism...
Students Fight Back After Bar Blocks Them from Celebrating Kavanaugh Confirmation
Following a lengthy and outrageous confirmation process, Brett Kavanaugh was finally confirmed by the Senate to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court.
The Daily Caller reported that a group of College Republicans at the University of Washington in Seattle wanted to host a celebratory event in honor of the conservative jurist’s confirmation, and arranged for an event called “Beers 4 Brett” to be held at a popular local named Shultzy’s.
The event was advertised on social media with a line that read, “Let’s celebrate our newest Supreme Court Justice, and the failure of the lies and false claims against him!”
Needless to say, leftists still angry over Kavanaugh’s confirmation wasted no time inundating the social media advertisement with vile threats, not to mention numerous complaints lodged with the venue for hosting the event. The threats and complaints prompted the bar to contact the group and plead with them to cancel the event and not come to the bar.
KTTH conservative talk radio host Justin Rantz reported that Shultzy’s posted a message to Facebook aimed at the group, which read, “Shultzy’s is a sports-themed bar & grill that welcomes everyone. We do not promote or endorse any one religious or political viewpoint. As such, due to the political nature of your planned event, we request that you find another venue to celebrate.”
Chevy Swanson, president of the UWCR group, told Rantz, “I thought that the left wing activists who took notice of our event had lied to the restaurant about the nature of our event. It seemed incredibly odd to deny service for a quiet gathering of college republicans and guests.”
So Swanson contacted an attorney who’d successfully sued the school on their behalf previously — Bill Becker of Freedom X — who suggested the student group threaten to sue the bar for discrimination if they refused to host the event, citing a Seattle ordinance that specifically prohibits businesses from discriminating based on political ideology.
That gambit may have worked, as the group proceeded to show up at the bar as originally planned and held the event without incident. Swanson told Rantz, “We asked for a table and they served us.”
Of the ideological discrimination directed toward his group, Swanson said, “It’s shown that it’s clear that the tension against conservatives around here has hit a boiling point where even the smallest public showing of support of conservative ideas is a point of contention and that there is no reason to roll over to hostility like that.”
A liberal-leaning local media outlet named Crosscut reported that despite all of the tension, the celebration at the bar was relatively quiet and uneventful, even as a small group of liberals upset over the Kavanaugh confirmation looked on in disdain, one of them even admitting he had considered attempting “to start some s—” prior to deciding not to out of fear of repercussions.
“I think showing how far people on the left will go to defame someone has united the right,” said Swanson, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Washington, who asserted that the Democrats had run with the smear campaign against Kavanaugh to cynically...
The Daily Caller reported that a group of College Republicans at the University of Washington in Seattle wanted to host a celebratory event in honor of the conservative jurist’s confirmation, and arranged for an event called “Beers 4 Brett” to be held at a popular local named Shultzy’s.
The event was advertised on social media with a line that read, “Let’s celebrate our newest Supreme Court Justice, and the failure of the lies and false claims against him!”
Needless to say, leftists still angry over Kavanaugh’s confirmation wasted no time inundating the social media advertisement with vile threats, not to mention numerous complaints lodged with the venue for hosting the event. The threats and complaints prompted the bar to contact the group and plead with them to cancel the event and not come to the bar.
KTTH conservative talk radio host Justin Rantz reported that Shultzy’s posted a message to Facebook aimed at the group, which read, “Shultzy’s is a sports-themed bar & grill that welcomes everyone. We do not promote or endorse any one religious or political viewpoint. As such, due to the political nature of your planned event, we request that you find another venue to celebrate.”
Chevy Swanson, president of the UWCR group, told Rantz, “I thought that the left wing activists who took notice of our event had lied to the restaurant about the nature of our event. It seemed incredibly odd to deny service for a quiet gathering of college republicans and guests.”
So Swanson contacted an attorney who’d successfully sued the school on their behalf previously — Bill Becker of Freedom X — who suggested the student group threaten to sue the bar for discrimination if they refused to host the event, citing a Seattle ordinance that specifically prohibits businesses from discriminating based on political ideology.
That gambit may have worked, as the group proceeded to show up at the bar as originally planned and held the event without incident. Swanson told Rantz, “We asked for a table and they served us.”
Of the ideological discrimination directed toward his group, Swanson said, “It’s shown that it’s clear that the tension against conservatives around here has hit a boiling point where even the smallest public showing of support of conservative ideas is a point of contention and that there is no reason to roll over to hostility like that.”
A liberal-leaning local media outlet named Crosscut reported that despite all of the tension, the celebration at the bar was relatively quiet and uneventful, even as a small group of liberals upset over the Kavanaugh confirmation looked on in disdain, one of them even admitting he had considered attempting “to start some s—” prior to deciding not to out of fear of repercussions.
“I think showing how far people on the left will go to defame someone has united the right,” said Swanson, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Washington, who asserted that the Democrats had run with the smear campaign against Kavanaugh to cynically...
GERMAN FATHER CHARGED FOR PROTECTING HIS DAUGHTER AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT BY MIGRANT
A man protecting his 21-year-old daughter against a bottom groping African will be charged with causing bodily harm.
At the Munich Hackerbrücke train station, a drunk 28-year-old migrant from Eritrea grabbed a German woman under her skirt on Tuesday.
When her father saw the sexual assault, he punched the African man in the face to make him stop.
An employee of the German railway company Deutsche Bahn, witnessed the incident and alerted federal police.
The German police decided to file two charges: One against the migrant for sexual assault and one against the father for causing bodily harm.
Many Germans were shocked by the case against the father, believing the man acted in defence of his daughter. Comments below a Facebook post regarding the charges show that many do not understand why the father is being punished for protecting his daughter.
“It is up to the judiciary to assess the case. There is a suspicion that there were two crimes, one sexual harassment and the other a physical injury. The police are required by law to bring both,” spokeswoman Petra Wiedmann of the Munich police says.
She advises people to use ‘other options’ when a crime occurs at the station. People should address the security forces on the ground in a preventative way if something suspicious...
Google's ANTI-AMERICAN GOOD CENSOR: Leaked Briefing Says Google Must Move Away from ‘American Tradition’ of Free Speech to Expand Globally, Attract Advertiser $$$s
A leaked Google briefing titled “The Good Censor” advises tech companies to move away from the “American tradition” of free speech if they wish to attract advertising revenue and continue global expansion.
The briefing, leaked exclusively to Breitbart News, was the product of extensive research on the part of Google. This included expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer and tech critic Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries on five continents were consulted to produce it. It can be read in full here.
The 85-page briefing admits that Google and other tech platforms have fundamentally altered their policies in response to unwelcome political events around the world, including the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.
Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.
Page 14 of the document acknowledges that a few Silicon Valley tech giants now “control the majority of our conversations,” but that these platforms....
The briefing, leaked exclusively to Breitbart News, was the product of extensive research on the part of Google. This included expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer and tech critic Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries on five continents were consulted to produce it. It can be read in full here.
The 85-page briefing admits that Google and other tech platforms have fundamentally altered their policies in response to unwelcome political events around the world, including the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.
Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.
Page 14 of the document acknowledges that a few Silicon Valley tech giants now “control the majority of our conversations,” but that these platforms....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)