PragerU: Social media can no longer act both as a publisher and as a public forum

Liberty will be in jeopardy if the dominant social media organs can have it both ways, censoring speech while pretending to be public forums.

A new 5-min video from PragerU perfectly encapsulates the issue of censorship of the dominant social media organs. Presenter Eric George goes through the background of the PragerU v. YouTube lawsuit and the controversy over whether these corporate giants are publisher or public forums.

This case is the critical point because these behemoths wield tremendous power and have the best of both worlds. They started out acting as public forums where they acted as conduits – enjoying the legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They are now acting as publishers deciding on what content is acceptable such as PragerU videos, while still being under the protection of being a ‘public forum’. From the transcript:

Here’s why this is so important:

A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.

They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria.

In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher.

We’re fine if they’re a publisher. And we’re fine if they’re a public forum.

They just can’t be both.

If we win our legal action, YouTube will have to return to the way things were when they started. That’s freedom.

But if we lose, YouTube gets to act as a publisher while pretending to be a public forum. That would mean much less freedom.

And then, eventually, no freedom. Because the most powerful internet sites on earth will determine what you see—and what you don’t.

[Emphasis Added]

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Exposing the truth about Republicans

 

Which party founded the KKK, supported slavery, and opposed civil rights and giving blacks the vote?

A recent video from Will Witt from PragerU exposes that people do not really know that much about the Republican and Democratic parties. The revelation of the facts of the matter shocked most of the people, showing that the government indoctrination system is woefully inadequate to educating the country. No matter how much money they waste.

Now that the Left is doing all they can to render the words racist and sexist meaningless, while numbing everyone to real crimes against certain minorities. It’s vitally important to correct the record on which political party began with the purpose of the abolition of slavery. The party that started the – and revived – the KKK and which party opposed civil rights and giving blacks the vote.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Jocko Willink: Discipline = Freedom

PragerU has a new video from Jocko Willink on Discipline on the hard road to inevitable success.

In this year’s 2019 PragerU Commencement Address, Navy Seal (Ret.) and best-selling author, Jocko Willink, offers some hard-learned, practical advice. It all starts with Discipline. That’s what will get you on the road to personal fulfillment and success – and keep you there. Watch and find out why.

We cannot do justice to this short [5:43 min] Commencement Address, so this will just be summary of the main points:

[Our emphasis]

One of the best things I’ve learned is that anyone has what it takes to travel the hard road – to walk The Path that leads to success. That includes you. It won’t be easy. It will demand everything you’ve got to give. But you can do it, and I want to give you three key principles I’ve learned that will help you to get it done.

Principle number one: Discipline. Equals. Freedom.

That’s not a contradiction – it’s an equation. Discipline might appear to be the opposite of freedom. But, in fact, discipline is the path to freedom.

Discipline is the driver of daily execution. Discipline defeats the infinite excuses that hold you back.

Some people think motivation is what will compel them to get things done. But motivation is just an emotion – a feeling, and like all feelings, it’s fickle: it comes and goes. You can’t count on motivation to be there when you need to get through truly challenging times.

Principle Number Two: Stay. Humble.

In life, you are going to have to do things that you don’t want to do. Maybe things that you don’t think you should have to do – things that offend your precious ego.

…

Now, being humble does not mean that you shouldn’t be confident. You certainly have to believe that you are a capable person. But don’t let confidence turn into arrogance. So keep your ego in check and stay humble.

The third and final principle: Take. Ownership. Of. Everything.

I call this “Extreme Ownership.”

In the military, the best leaders and the best troops were the ones that took ownership of everything in their world – not just the things they were responsible for, but for every challenge and obstacle that impacted their mission.

…

So: be disciplined in all that you do. Don’t subject yourself to the whims of motivation. Stay humble and be willing to do what needs to be done.

And: take extreme ownership of your life and everything in it.

Then: choose the hard path – the path of responsibility, hard work, and sacrifice. The Path of discipline, humility, and ownership that ultimately leads to freedom.

If you follow these principles, then nothing in the world will stop you.

I’m Jocko Willink, host of the Jocko Podcast and author of Extreme Ownership, for Prager University.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Why isn’t communism as hated as Nazism?

Dennis Prager presents the case of why some forms of organised evil are ‘more equal’ than other forms of organised evil.

Even though it was from a few years ago, this 5 minute video from PragerU lays out some of the reasons why the Far-Left collectivist ideology of Communism aren’t as reviled as another Far-Left collectivist ideology, Nazism.

Reason Number 1: There is, simply put, widespread ignorance of the communist record. Whereas both right and left loathe Nazism and teach its evil history, the left – and I’m talking about the left, not traditional liberals like Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy – has never loathed communism. And since the left dominates academia, almost no one teaches communism’s evil history.

Reason Number 2: The Nazis carried out the Holocaust.

Reason Number 3: Communism is based on nice sounding theories; Nazism isn’t. It’s based on heinous sounding theories. Intellectuals in general – including, of course, the intellectuals who write history – are seduced by words – so much so, that they deem actions as less significant than words. For that reason, they haven’t focused nearly as much attention on the horrific actions of communists as they have on the horrific actions of the Nazis. They dismiss the evils of communists as perversions of “true communism.” But they regard Nazi atrocities (correctly) as the logical and inevitable results of Nazism.

Reason Number 4: Germans have thoroughly exposed the evils of Nazism, have taken responsibility for them, and have attempted to atone for them. Russians have not done anything similar regarding Lenin’s or Stalin’s horrors.

Reason Number 5: Communists murdered mostly their own people.

Reason Number 6: In the view of the left, the last “good war” was World War II, the war against German Nazism and Japanese fascism. The left does not regard wars against communist regimes as “good wars.”

[Our emphasis]

Please note that as always, he distinguishes between Liberals and Leftists.

• True Liberals are Individualists favouring Individual liberty, free trade and Individual Rights and Freedoms.
• With Leftists being of Collectivist of socialist views.

Organised evil by any other name is still organised evil

There could be other reasons why the National Socialist German Workers’ Party could be despised more than communist nations or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

While it may seem to be an elemental reason, the fact that the colloquial name for the enemy during W.W.II tended to hide their base ideology. Contrast this with the other Collectivist nations that were ostensibly our allies during the conflict, the last ‘good war’ as Dennis Prager pointed out. The base ideology of these nations was for more overt in these cases with socialism or communism directly in their nomenclature. Couple this with the McCarthy era with accusations of being a communist deflected by the McCarthyism! response.

Having the collectivist ideology of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party hidden away, one other reason becomes clear. Perpetuating the ‘right wing lie’ gave the nation’s Socialist-Left an out in responding to the horrific oppression and death toll born out of their collectivist ideology. That big lie of theirs could see them pointing to the death toll of the Nazis when the horrors of communism were referenced, a way of balancing out the butcher’s bill that is their base ideology.

The Takeaway

Properly defining all of these collectivist ideologies in their myriad variations as on the authoritarian Left makes one thing clear. There is no balancing out of the death toll. The organised evil of collectivism is irredeemable, as in the word Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez termed the concept of economic Liberty.

This is why the Left puts so much effort in maintaining the Lies in reference to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party [Nazis]. While also parroting the ‘That wasn’t really socialism’ fallacy. When it comes to the horrific death tolls of the past few centuries, it’s all on the authoritarian Collectivist Left. This is why Nazism is properly reviled as should the other collectivist ideologies. This disproportionate response is meant to shift the emphasis away from the obvious Leftist ideologies, but they are all guilty of being organised evil.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

PragerU: The left ruins everything

Dennis Prager makes the point that Leftists parasitically feed off that which has been built up by others.

In his latest video, Dennis Prager lays out the case that Leftists are generally incapable of building on their own and instead have to use up that produced by others.

Please note that as always he makes the distinction between Leftism and Liberalism. A distinction many on the Pro-Liberty Right fail to make, lumping many supportive of individual liberty in with those of the collectivist mindset.

Many have the unfortunate tendency to use a ‘word salad’ in describing the nation’s party in opposition to Liberty. Referring to Leftists as being ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’ in one instance, then ‘democratic’ the next, followed by using the correct term in another.

“The champions of socialism call themselves
progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by
rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of
improvement.

 

They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty.

 

They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship.

 

They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent.

 

They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan
to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a
subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble
cause to fight!”
Ludwig von Mises

It is extremely important that we stop using this word salad in describing the Socialist-Left that unifies many under it’s Red banner. They are Leftists plain and simple.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

PragerU: What’s wrong with government-run healthcare?

 

This latest video from PragerU details how another vote-buying pipe dream from the Left can never work.

A new video from PragerU features policy expert Lanhee Chen from the Hoover Institution at Stanford, who explains how ‘Free Healthcare’ can never work in the real world. As is the case with most Leftist vote-buying schemes, the ‘The Medicare for all’ fiction is long on promises and short on how it will be funded. The tax burden for such a scheme would destroy the economy and would have to be levied on almost everyone. This kind of national socialized healthcare would also take away the incentive for innovation, which has made for the best healthcare system in the states and the rest of the world.

One often suspects that these assurances of freebies are never meant to operate as promised. Witness the much vaunted Obamacare that was supposed to eliminate the uninsured, but did nothing of the sort. Such is also the case with their push for Liberty control, since it never works as advertised.  In most cases, it should be apparent that the Left doesn’t care if their schemes will work or not. If they did actually care, they would try something else, something that actually works.

For the Left, their ‘Ends justifies the means’ mantra extends to most of their agenda. It doesn’t matter if their system of societal slavery works or not, only that it brings them the power they crave. Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

PragerU: Left or Liberal?

Dennis Prager presents the reasons why there is a vast difference between Leftists and Liberals.

One of the most fascinating results of directly interacting with
Leftists is the development of certain questions they cannot answer.
This is not just an arbitrary supposition, but something gleaned from
years of interactions with them. The reaction – or lack thereof – is very indicative of the worldview of the Socialist-Left.

Questions Leftists can’t answer.

Do you have the commonsense human right of self-preservation? [Yes or No]

Leftist can’t answer ‘yes’ to this one because it would negate their arguments for Liberty Control. They can’t answer ‘no’
because it would mean individuals have no value except as part of a
collective. In essence, that is their underlying belief, but they can’t
be honest about it in the least.

What is the legal justification for government control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks?

They have no answer to this because there is none.
This belies their belief in the collective ownership of property. Once
again, an answer here would show too much of their collectivist belief
system.

Are you a Leftist or a Liberal?

This differentiation between the two means that they aren’t interchangeable, despite that being the incorrect common usage. Leftists
cannot answer as being Liberal because they realise that it has been
shown that their use of that term implying support of Liberty is a ruse. Recent events have shown that they only use certain terms to obtain power such as their adding ‘democratic’ to socialism. These imply something that is not the case.

In light of this, the latest video by Dennis Prager of PragerU lays out the case for the major differences between the two terms:

What’s the difference between a liberal and a leftist?

This question stumps most people because they think liberal and left are essentially the same.

But they’re not. In fact, liberalism and leftism have almost nothing in common.
But the left has appropriated the word “liberal” so effectively almost
everyone—liberals, leftists and conservatives—thinks they are
synonymous. But they’re not.

  Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

PragerU Video: What’s a Greater Leap of Faith: God or the Multiverse?

Image Credit: PictureQuotes.me

What’s a greater leap of faith: God or the Multiverse? What’s the
multiverse? Brian Keating, Professor of Physics at the University of
California, San Diego, explains in this video.

What’s a Greater Leap of Faith: God or the Multiverse?

Published: Apr 23, 2018

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

PragerU Video: Why I Left the Left

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even
had a show with The Young Turks! But now he’s not a progressive. He has
left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story.

Published on Feb 6, 2017

Do you believe in free speech?

Do you believe that people should be judged by their character, not their skin color?

Do you believe in freedom of religion?

If you believe these things, you’re probably not a progressive. You
might think you’re a progressive. I used to think I was. My show, “The
Rubin Report,” was originally part of the progressive “Young Turks”
network.

Progressives struck me as liberals, but louder. Progressives were the
nice guys; they looked out for the little guy; they cared about women
and minorities; they embraced change.

In short, who wouldn’t want to be a progressive?

Progressives used to say, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Not anymore.

Banning speakers whose opinions you don’t agree with from college
campuses – that’s not progressive. Prohibiting any words not approved of
as “politically correct” – that’s not progressive. Putting “Trigger
Warnings” on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people –
that’s not progressive either.

All of this has led me to be believe that much of the left is no longer progressive, but regressive. This is one of the reasons I’ve spent so much time on my show talking about The Regressive Left.

This regressive ideology doesn’t judge people as individuals, but as a collective.

The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and
outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme – as long as it’s
not that pesky diversity of thought. This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.

 

Originally published on the NOQ Report

PragerU: As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer

The rich are getting richer, and the poor are… also getting richer.
What’s driving this wealth creation process? In this video, Daniel
Hannan explains why it is capitalism — and capitalism alone — that has
led to the unprecedented enrichment that is the central fact of Western
life.

As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer

Published: Apr 9, 2018

Originally published on the NOQ Report