Posts Tagged ‘datechguy's magnificent seven’

By John Ruberry

On Friday night Substack journalist Matt Taibbi released the first installment of the Twitter Files, which outlined the efforts by Twitter, with assists from the Democratic National Committee, to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020. It’s a dynamite story–a political party worked behind the scenes with a Big Tech company to suppress a damaging news story about a presidential candidate, in this case Joe Biden, so he could defeat the incumbent, Donald J. Trump.

That tale of intrigue is something that you would think that you would find only in political thrillers. You know, the stuff of books, movies, or TV series. Except the Twitter scandal really happened. In response, the elitist mainstream media chose one of three tactics, or a combination of them, to confront this scandal: ignore, bury, or insult. In this post I’m going to discuss the first one in depth, and I’ll get to that in a moment.

But first a look back at an incident from 2005, the year I started my own blog, Marathon Pundit. What was then called the blogosphere was a relatively happy place. In comment threads and in behind-the-scenes emails, there was regular communication between conservative and liberal bloggers and journalists, even some camaraderie, at least here in Illinois. Politically our two camps didn’t agree on much–but there was one subject where we were in unison. All of the Illinois bloggers and mainstream media reporters hated the Reverend Fred Phelps and his twisted house of worship, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. 

Some background: Phelps, who died in 2014, would bus in the few dozen members of his church, which then, as it does now, consisted only of the extended Phelps family, and protest at the funerals of soldiers and sailors killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. They held signs that read, among other things, “God Loves Dead Soldiers.” Phelps, who probably was in need of intensive psychiatric care, based his opinion on God and US military deaths on America’s acceptance of the gay lifestyle. 

Back to Illinois: There was a Phelps protest in East Peoria, Illinois in 2005 at the funeral of a US Marine gunnery sergeant, who was killed in Iraq, which the local paper, the Peoria Journal Star reported on, but it left out the Westboro Church protest. And that infuriated Bill Dennis, who wrote the now-inactive Peoria Pundit blog. 

Dennis had this say 17 years ago:

More than once, I’ve read the opinion that the media shouldn’t give Phelps and his people any “publicity.” Whether or not any particular groups gets publicity from news covering isn’t important. The news media needs to cover the news, whether or not it’s news we want to hear. It’s not the media’s job to keep us from having to hear ugly messages. The people who work in the information business need to reject the notion that the public is better off when it is kept in the dark. We wouldn’t tolerate the government doing that to us. Why does the media think it has the right to keep unpleasant news away from us?

It’s the news media’s job to answer questions, not to turn their head and pretend they didn’t hear the question.

The media’s opinion of what information should be provided to its consumers has now become dangerous. Big Tech, meaning of course Twitter, and as well as Google and Facebook, as well as traditional sources such as the legacy newspapers and broadcast networks, actively worked to suppress or ignore the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was revealed in October 2020 by the New York Post, as the presidential election season was underway. Yes, season–voting was already underway just about everywhere. Those media villains–I believe it’s fair to include those three Big Tech behemoths are part of the media–committed election interference. Think of a football game where the beat reporter for an NFL team is standing on the sidelines when the opposing team is about to score a touchdown–who then runs on to the field and tackles the player carrying the ball. Let’s call that wronged player “Trump.”

That’s what happened in 2020. 

What is the slogan of the Washington Post, which has so far has written just one story about the Twitter Files? Oh yeah, “Democracy dies in darkness.” At least the most recent time Clay Travis checked, which was this morning, the New York Times hasn’t reported on Taibbe’s Twitter revelations. Travis Tweeted a few hours ago, “It has now been two days since @twitter & @elonmusk posted actual emails & correspondence of internal documents relating to the Hunter Biden laptop censorship in 2020. The @nytimes has still not covered the story at all.”

In a story published today CBS news barely mentions Taibbi’s scoop–but it attacked Twitter owner Elon Musk. Oh yeah, attacking. A whole bunch of leftist journalists, propagandists really, went into that attack mode I discussed earlier, vilifying Taibbi for performing superb journalism.

And in regard to that Phelps story from ’05, it wasn’t just the Peoria Journal Star committing the sin of omission. You remember I said that back in the day conservative and liberal bloggers and journalists used to interact regularly about stories. I can’t find the email I sent so long ago, but I reached out to a big shot left-wing Chicago newspaper columnist about what the Peoria Pundit and I saw as media malpractice. His polite reply to me was something like this, “But if we report on Phelps and his hateful protests, then we are only doing what he wants–giving him publicity.” 

No, Mr. Newspaper Columnist, it is your job is to report the news. Not hide it, shape it, or twist it.

Democracy dies in darkness. So does the truth.

John Ruberry regularly blogs from the Chicago area at Marathon Pundit.

We have been pushing more and more people to seek mental health resources. That is a good thing, and will hopefully reduce the number of suicides and other mental health problems. But there is a stigma associated with seeking mental health services. People are afraid that they will be judged by others for seeking help, and it will have consequences.

Well, they aren’t wrong. And Hawaii recently proved it will absolutely treat you like a second-class citizen if you seek help for depression:

Michael Santucci, a cryptologic warfare officer from Fort Myers, Florida, saw a medical provider at a military hospital for feelings of depression and homesickness a few months after arriving in Hawaii last year, according to his lawsuit, filed in April. He wasn’t diagnosed with any disqualifying behavioral, emotional or mental disorder, the lawsuit said.

He later filled out forms to register his firearms with the Honolulu Police Department and indicated that he had been treated for depression, but noted it was “not serious.” Hawaii law requires registration of all firearms. Prior to acquiring a gun, an applicant must apply for a permit. Santucci needed such a permit even though he legally owned his firearms before arriving Hawaii.

Because Santucci answered “yes” on a form indicating he had sought counseling, the permit process was halted and his firearms were seized, his lawyers said.

Navy Times

Not just halted, but the corrupt police took his weapons.

For those who have never had to deal with the losers that do gun registration in Honolulu, let me illustrate the process. You bring 16 dollars and 50 cents in exact change to the police office. If you bring a 20 dollar bill, the lady behind the counter yells at you like Roz from the Monsters Inc movie. You get fingerprinted. You have a background check run. You get treated better at the DMV.

So, what did LT Santucci learn out of this? Probably to never be honest with the Honolulu PD ever again. That’s what everyone else reading this learned too. Even though Santucci never said he was going to kill himself or hurt anyone else, he was denied his rights. Any gun owner is now incentivized to not seek mental health for exactly this reason, putting them at higher risk of mental health issues.

Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the people that run the system want more gun owners committing suicide. Maybe its a feature, not a bug. We’ve seen a shift where homosexuality and transgenderism are no longer considered mental health problems, and we’ll encourage life-altering treatment when we should be encouraging people to better come to grips with the reality they live in. On the other side, telling a mental health practitioner that you struggle being deployed away from home is immediate grounds to remove your rights as a citizen. This is made all the worse by the fact that LT Santucci is raising his right hand every day to defend these people.

If that doesn’t make you mad, well, maybe you should seek treatment for that.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you enjoy these articles, why not donate to Da Tech Guy and purchase a book from the author!

On Tuesday the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  Twelve traitorous Republicans joined with the Democrats to pass this Bill, which will trample on the Religious Liberty of every American, particularly those who believe in traditional marriage. 

Freedom of Religion is one of our most important God-given natural rights.  It is enshrined in the First Amendment.  Thanks to this clause, the federal government is barred from trampling on the religious freedom of every single individual. 

This letter from Republican Senator Mike Lee chronicles just how the Respect for Marriage Act violates the Free Exercise of Religion clause.

As you are aware, we are one step closer to passing into law the Respect for Marriage Act. In the Obergefell oral arguments, there was a now infamous exchange between Justice Alito and then–Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. In response to Justice Alito asking whether, should states be required to recognize same-sex marriages, religious universities opposed to same-sex marriage would lose their tax-exempt status, General Verrilli replied, “ . . . it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito, –it is going to be an issue.”

And it is an issue. Obergefell did not make a private right of action for aggrieved individuals to sue those who oppose same-sex marriage. It did not create a mandate for the Department of Justice to sue where it perceived an institution opposed same-sex marriage, but the Respect for Marriage Act will. What we can expect should this bill become law is more litigation against those institutions and individuals trying to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.

Should Congress decide to codify Obergefell and protect same-sex marriages, we must do so in a way that also resolves the question posed by Justice Alito. Instead of subjecting churches, religious non-profits, and persons of conscience to undue scrutiny or punishment by the federal government because of their views on marriage, we should make explicitly clear that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a particular view of marriage that threatens the tax exempt status of faith-based non-profits. As we move forward, let us be sure to keep churches, religious charities, and religious universities out of litigation in the first instance. No American should face legal harassment or retaliation from the federal government for holding sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

According to this Fox News article, Republicans were able to incorporate a very modest religious liberty amendment, while failing to pass true religious liberty amendments. 

An amendment by Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., was adopted Monday evening aimed at making sure the bill does not undermine religious liberty and states that nonprofit religious organizations “shall not be required to provide services” to a marriage it opposes.

On Tuesday the senate also considered three additional amendments to the bill by Senators Marco Rubio, R-Florida, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and James Lankford, R-Okla., that would have purportedly added stronger religious liberty protections to the measure, but all failed to reach a threshold vote for final adoption. 

The First Amendment consists of the following six clauses. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Respect for Marriage act violates four of them.  Firstly, this act establishes progressive orthodoxy as the official religion of the United States, in direct violation of the establishment clause.  After this act is passed, Americans who hold and espouse views contradictory to progressive orthodoxy will be punished, violating the free exercise of religion clause and the free speech clause.  The freedom to assemble includes the freedom to not assemble.  The Respect for Marriage Act forces private venues to assemble for marriage ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

By: Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I am a one-holiday-at-a-time sort of person; don’t talk to me about Christmas until Thanksgiving is over!

But…Thanksgiving is now over; my neighbors were out this weekend hanging lights on their homes and posting pictures of their Christmas trees on social media. On our Christian calendar it is Advent season. The hangings on the altar change color and the Advent wreath appears.

This time of year we are counting the days until Christmas. Our schedules are filled with parties, shopping, finding the perfect gift. The kids pen letters to Santa while adults wrap gifts, plan menus, and hide presents. The children are filled with expectation and energy. As adults we may feel some pressure, some sentimentality, and maybe some stress.

The word “advent” is derived from a Latin word that means “coming.” Yes, Christmas, (and Santa) is coming; the nativity of our Lord is coming, but we also know that Christ is coming again, and we wait for that.

I’ll be honest; I love Christmas, but I’m always glad when it is done. I put up a live tree and I take it down on December 26. I’m one of those people who finds the whole thing stressful. I never have enough money to buy what I want to for people, and I feel a self-imposed pressure about that. I decorate my house, put up a tree, and do the baking because it is expected. I love a pretty tree, but who sees it? We have a very small family, and they all live in another state. My parents are gone, and we no longer have a family Christmas party. It’s all just rather sad and sentimental to me.

So this year I make a vow: I will make a solid effort to enjoy everything that is good about the season. I will attend events at my church, enjoy the children’s Nativity Pageant; I will look at the pretty lights in the neighborhood and I will put up a dang tree.

Years ago, we had a maiden aunt in the family who was on a teacher’s pension and didn’t ever have much money. She purchased what she could for those on her gift list; we called them “Aunt Maude presents.” She would give you a pair of socks. Or a coffee mug. A bottle of maple syrup with a big red bow. A package of hair barrettes. Each gift was thoughtfully selected with love. If she ever felt pressure to spend beyond her budget it never showed.

I might be purchasing Aunt Maude Gifts this year, and I’ll probably still be glad when the season is over, but I am going to make every effort to enjoy the spirit of the season and the true reason for the season!

And a Merry Christmas to you all!