No products in the cart.

News

Coalition Asks Congress To Stop Silicon Valley Corporate Civil Rights Abuses

For National Release | August 31, 2018

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) and Oath Keepers are announcing an unprecedented coalition effort to pressure Congress, President Trump, and the Justice Department to protect the civil rights of American conservatives and US elections from the pervasive pattern of censorship and shadow banning being conducted by Silicon Valley corporations against American citizens.

This first of its kind effort will involve activists contacting DC offices by phone and in writing from their homes, and in person in Washington to express the need for American freedoms of speech, of the online press, and of association to be protected from the left-wing bias of companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, PayPal, and others.

Volunteers will be on the ground in Washington, DC, Oct 2-4, and other non-violent racially inclusive groups, bloggers, and online media outlets are invited to join ALIPAC and Oath Keepers in open coalition or to conduct their own efforts independently as part of this effort. Calls will begin today to GOP members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who will be confronting executives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter in a hearing next Wednesday, Sept. 5.

Citizens, bloggers, pundits, media platforms, small companies, and grass-roots organizations will express their own stories of abuse from these highly politicized companies, and will ask our government to enter these documented censorship reports into the Congressional Record, hold extensive hearings on the matter, and seek legal remedies to stop Facebook, Twitter, Google, PayPal, and any other global corporations from targeting and diminishing the free speech rights of Americans based on their creed as Christians, Republicans, conservatives, and non-socialists.

Possible steps the Trump administration and Congress could take include but are not limited to Congressional hearings, investigations by the DOJ Civil Rights division, new regulations, loss of tax breaks for Silicon Valley corporations, and anti-trust measures.

Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers and William Gheen of ALIPAC issued this joint statement:

“America is facing the biggest threat to free speech we’ve ever faced from these new and powerful corporate technologies that are dominated by partisan Democrats, socialists, offshore agencies, and imported foreign labor. These companies have the power to control what information and opinions reach American audiences and who is silencedorshadow banned. They have unregulated, unrestrained power to influence legislation and the outcome of elections and they have made it clear they are willing to abuse their power to violate the civil rights of the tens of millions of Americans who share my views on immigration issues.”

ALIPAC and Oath Keepers will release more information about the negative impacts their organizations have experienced from Silicon Valley corporations next Monday. These organizations contend that Silicon Valley social media and online companies should operate under the same laws and restrictions that prevent phone companies, power companies, and even retailers like Walmart from providing unequal services to American citizens based on race, gender, national origins, age, and religious or political creeds.

Last week Facebook’s censorship made headlines in the Washington Times and Breitbart due to a false charge of “hate speech” Facebook applied to William Gheen President of ALIPAC‘s account regarding the illegal alien murder of Molly Tibbetts in Iowa. Facebook reviewed the charge, apologized, and lifted the restrictions after being contacted by the media, yet never restored Gheen’s comments (View) as promised.

For more information about this first effort to organize many Americans to lobby DC lawmakers to take action to protect American civil rights and liberties from abuse by global communications companies, please visit www.alipac.us and oathkeepers.org.

2

Stewart Rhodes

Stewart is the founder and National President of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, and served as a volunteer firefighter in Montana. Stewart previously wrote the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine. Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

13 comments

  1. I read it and do not agree. I don’t like it either.
    Facebook isn’t a power company. You don’t need Facebook. The comparison is absurd. But even if you do, it is theirs. They own it ands should be able to do as they wish and make their own rules just as the baker should be able to refuse baking for a homosexual if he chooses.
    I think the government has overstepped its authority by telling any business what they must do and advocating more of the same is not the answer. You should be opposing the government telling anyone what to do with their property or business.
    If you don’t like Facebook go somewhere else or start your own social media website. Being inconsistent in your principles means you truly don’t have any principles.

    1. As the late, great George Carlin used to point out, it was Conservative Christians that demanded and got the FCC put into place and the liberals used this agency as a weapon against the conservative/libertarian message. Be wary and careful of what new weapons you add to Caesar’s arsenal; one day, when others have his ear, he might use them against you…

    2. I agree.

      I find it hypocritical to see links to Facebook and Twitter on this blog site.

      But…it belongs to Rhodes, he can do as he pleases. And if he doesn’t like my opinion, he can block it. Just like I block nuisance phone numbers on my droid and block email spam and so forth. Additionally, I don’t have to associate myself with organizations that support Zuckerberg and Dorsey.

      “They came for my neighbor and I did nothing…..then they came for me….”

      Too little too late.

    3. I agree with Rick. Facebook, Twitter etc. are all private companies, and though they nearly have what amounts to a monopoly on communication, they should be allowed to do what they please with their websites – as long as they are up front about what they are doing, and not being intentionally opaque (as they are with shadow banning; banning for no reason, etc.). If they don’t want conservative content on their sites, then make that KNOWN to all before giving anyone the axe.

      Where things get dicey, however, is knowing that Facebook et. al. basically own all the *infrastructure* of the internet (e.g. servers; fiber-optic wires etc.) – and if they simultaneously decided to silence half of their users, they would severely curtail the flow of information, which would be devastating as for many these days the internet is their main source of news and communication. What may need to be done in that case is a temporary “cease and desist” order, placed on the infrastructure; while alternative websites can be built up with their own infrastructure to compete with the MSM. However, *less* government is what is needed here, not more, in the long run.

    4. Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

  2. The institution, Congress, that created the problem by demanding these companies censor the so-called “fake news” of the tributary media (as opposed to the Main-stream) is now expected to come up with a solution to that problem. How many times has that process worked in the past?

  3. Facebook utilizes the brain’s reward center, called the nucleus accumbens. This area processes rewarding feelings about things like food, sex, money and social acceptance. The positive feedback on Facebook lights up this part of our brain. The greater the intensity of Facebook use, the greater the reward.

    Facebook evokes what psychologist’s and brain research refer to as “flow state”, the feeling you get when you’re totally and happily engrossed in a project or new skill.

    Facebook is an emotional crutch, an addiction to self gratification.

    (Pew Research Center, Psychology Today, Carnegie Mellon, Susan Krauss Whitbourne Ph.D.)

    Facebook users are drunk on it’s existence, the cocaine of media, the same mental mechanism as porn addiction or crack or heroin.

    Is Facebook necessary for communication? Not entirely considering there is no shortage of choice like fax machines, land line phones, paper and pen, email accounts, texting apps, websites, smoke signals, hand gestures, radio, and vocal chords.

    I did an experiment. I opened an faceless phony name Facebook account yesterday which overnight grew hundreds of faceless phony accounts attempting to lure “likes” “freind me” and personal information. Facebook is part of the technocracy machine aimed to control all aspects of the human life. Ask why is it named “face book?”

  4. I agree and disagree. My father and I have just plain given up on being in the State of Washington.
    Just doesn’t work for us here. Flat out, too many evil people here and they have destroyed the ecology here.

    But the Texas chapter has NO WEBSITE! They are only accessible by Facebook!
    So if you think that Facebook is OK to use, fine. I do not.
    I am going to go IN PERSON to speak with the chapter there and request permission to help set up an actual, independent website. I have experience with this and will not assist unless they agree to use a secure operating system such as OpenBSD.

    In my opinion, the idea of any official Oath Keeper chapter being held hostage by Facebook, which is, yes, a private company, is utterly unacceptable. Trust me, it is amazingly simple to write a bot program that adds offensive comments that then ban the site. Given that this is happening without any explanations is not okay.

    I sent an email to wa@oathkeepers.org and have not received any response, not even a hello.

    I am indeed removing all of my accounts with all of the censoring companies, except Google, which is a worldwide company that is essentially non-escapable.
    I have denied permissions on all of my Android phone apps, only giving and then revoking again while using the apps. Google itself cannot be blocked. Tough luck for all of us.

    I am too new a member to know how everything works around the organization, but…

    I am requesting that the BOD consider asking the chapters to cease using these organizations, for our own protection.

    Openly declared censorship is one of the last steps before things really fall apart.
    Please note well, I said “openly”.

    If you aren’t scared by this, please reconsider how serious this is.
    I do not want any violence to happen, but hasn’t that already started coming from the other side?

    1. Permanently deleting Instagram accounts, owned by Facebook, is not available directly, only temporarily.
      However, this website explains the trick to actually doing it:
      https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-to-delete-your-instagram-easy-guide
      So I have removed everything, except Facebook, which I will never access from my computers, only from outside computers.
      I have ditched Windows 10 from my laptop, which I have replaced with OpenBSD. https://www.openbsd.org/ Works great, but not all software works on it,
      but then other software does that doesn’t work on Windows/Mac/Linux.
      It’s a toss up of choices. You have to decide for yourself.
      I have kept Pinterest. I don’t use it for social content, just the really fantastic pictures that are extremely useful for learning things I didn’t even know that I didn’t know. I also just use it on my Android phone, nothing else.
      So these are my comments on this issue. Hopefully they are useful to others.

  5. I read Cal’s post. The case of Red Lion vs FCC doesn’t apply here. Just reading the text in his post and not fully comprehending the meaning may cause one to believe otherwise.

    Also, I am concerned about our government’s double-standard here in the case of businesses such as PayPal. I do think it is unfair that they are allowed to deny services to those they disagree with because, unlike Facebook and Twitter, it is a paid service.
    All of that being said, I see the best scenario being the government staying out of everyone’s affairs in order for us to attend to them as we freely choose.

    1. Again I agree with Rick. I believe that the banning and censorship of Alex Jones, et al., is just the bait in a trap to con conservatives/libertarians into compromising their small government convictions in order to create a new weapon of vengeance that will one day be used against We the People when the Fascists finagle control of the government back into their hands. Of course, that is assuming if it really ever left their hands in the first place…

  6. Why does anyone want their info on fakebook or twitter or any other “social “website is beyond my understanding. Why does anyone care about what someone they will never meet or see thinks about their personal beliefs.

    As to the privater company aspect of all the social media sites, are they actually private and cannot be regulated by gov? My understanding is that if you offer shares of your private company to the public to purchase to gain operating capitol, you are a public company as shares connate ownership of a certain amount of said company. Hence can be regulated by gov. Shares only owned by a private individual or wholly owned by a company are truly private.

    By regulating said companies if indeed private companies, the gov. would be overstepping their authority under the 1st Amendment. We all need to read and understand the Constitution, how and why it was written, the wording used, and should be a mandatory course to graduate from High School. To understand the meaning behind the wording and thought process behind the wording of the Constitution the “Federalist Papers” need to be read and understood. They are the papers written by the Founders explaining the concepts behind the Constitution.
    There, I’ve had my say, and is only my opinion, even though I will never see or meet anyone here. It’s my duty as a citizen to help promote understanding of the great experiment in gov called a “Constitutional Republic”.

    1. Right on the money. Public corporations are not the same as fully private. Why? Because public corporations are owned by people under reasons such as for pensions, etc. Other public corporations are buying and selling without informing their clients mentioned above what they actually own, for the moment. Thus, they really don’t have the ability to necessarily vote for corporate decisions. Since the list is constantly changing, as it should, well….

Leave a Reply