Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 21, 2018, 12:43:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106735 Posts in 2400 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

 on: January 18, 2018, 09:45:47 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: January 18, 2018, 09:28:57 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Third post

We Are Suing YouTube for Censoring Our Videos

Dear Valued Subscriber,

As you know, PragerU’s videos are available on a number of platforms, one of which is YouTube. And as you may also know, YouTube has chosen repeatedly to restrict some of our videos for violating their “Community Guidelines.”  Those guidelines are meant to protect users against viewing sexual content, violent or graphic content, and hate speech.

As a PragerU viewer, you know as well as I do that our videos contain nothing even remotely close to any of these categories.

To date, YouTube has restricted nearly 40 PragerU videos, addressing topics ranging from religion and freedom of speech to the history of the Korean War.
More than a year ago, we filed a complaint with YouTube, hoping that there was some kind of innocent mistake.

That’s when we were told by YouTube that after reviewing our videos they determined that they were indeed “not appropriate for a younger audience.” Of course, we have this in writing.

Think about the millions of actually inappropriate videos on YouTube and then ask yourself, “Why is our content restricted?”

Unfortunately, the answer is rather obvious, isn’t it?  YouTube has restricted PragerU videos for only one reason: Ideological discrimination.

Of course, YouTube is owned by Google, which was founded to, ironically, “Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

YouTube has made some of our most important videos inaccessible to the very audience PragerU seeks to reach: young people.

Let me be clear: they don’t like what we teach and so they intend to stop us from teaching it. This kind of censorship is what we have seen on college campuses for years. But it is far more dangerous in this circumstance because the internet is where the world goes to get informed.
Can you imagine if the left owned the internet the way they own our universities?

Can you imagine what the world would look like if Google is allowed to continue to arbitrarily censor ideas they simply don’t agree with?

Well, this is why Prager University filed suit against YouTube and Google. We are not fighting this only for PragerU—we are taking this on for America and possibly the world.

Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our conservative ideas by Google/YouTube?

Now, I have to tell you ... this was not an easy decision.

Over the summer, former Governor of California Pete Wilson — who has been a longtime supporter of PragerU — approached us and posited the idea: “We have to sue them,” he said. “Google is hubris.”

Those words weighed heavy on our entire team as we considered our options.  Obviously, a fight with Google will be hugely difficult and costly, and we hate the idea of deploying energy and resources away from producing more content and reaching new audiences.  We simply cannot do that.  So, before taking any such action, we decided we’d attempt a more diplomatic approach one last time. On the one-year anniversary of Google blocking our content, or the “BANniversary” as we had come to call it, we renewed our complaints to YouTube and re-circulated an online petition urging Google to change course. Many articles have been written and many people, including many very prominent and influential people, rallied in support of our cause. To date, well over a quarter-of-a-million people have added their names to our petition.

What was the result of our efforts?

Nothing. YouTube ignored us. In fact, they have since restricted 11 more PragerU videos.

With our hands tied, we knew Governor Wilson was right—Google’s hubris had to be challenged.

So, we have built an all-star legal team, including Governor Wilson’s Law Firm, Eric George, Alan Dershowitz, Barak Lurie, Kelly Shackelford, Mat Staver, and more.
It’s an impressive group, because this is an important case; not only for PragerU, but for the fundamental American right to freedom of speech.

But this is not going to be easy and it isn’t going to be cheap.

Despite the fact that our amazing attorneys have agreed to reasonably cap their legal fees, there will be additional personnel, research, marketing and public relations costs to PragerU.

This case will be tried in the court of public opinion as much as in the courtroom, and we intend to win in both venues.

However, we cannot deplete our operating budget to fight this case. Thanks to you, PragerU has reached more than 1-out-of-4 Americans on the internet. Sixty-three percent of them are under 34. We plan to continue to focus on this growth and reach 3 out of 4 Americans. We can’t let up now.

We are fully committed to the lawsuit but we won’t let them slow the growth of PragerU.

This is why our board of directors and many staff members have donated, in addition to our annual gift, to what we are calling the “YouTube Action Fund.” Dennis Prager, Allen Estrin, and I have all given extra this year.

Now, here is how you can help:

1.   Please go to our website and sign the petition against YouTube censorship. It already has nearly 400,000 signatures; please add yours if you haven’t done so already, and ask 10 of your friends to do the same.

2.   More importantly, please contribute to our action fund if you can, over and above your planned support for PragerU. Our initial goal for the legal fund is $1 million, and we think we can reach that goal with your help.

Many of you have already given so generously and I am embarrassed to ask for more. But if you think this fight is important please support us in whatever way you can.

It seems like a lot to ask…until you consider how much we have to lose.

Perhaps Goliath could teach Google a little bit about where hubris leads ... when a David comes slinging.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Marissa Streit
CEO, PragerU

Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our conservative ideas by Google/YouTube?

 on: January 18, 2018, 09:17:09 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Second post

see 28:00 of

 on: January 18, 2018, 09:09:03 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
third post

Eventually the President Will Have to Talk
Executive privilege can’t be applied in a criminal probe.
President Donald Trump arriving back at the White House, Jan. 1.
President Donald Trump arriving back at the White House, Jan. 1. Photo: Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press
By Sai Prakash and
John Yoo
Jan. 18, 2018 7:05 p.m. ET

As investigations continue into alleged Russian election meddling, potential witnesses are clamming up. Former White House aide Steve Bannon this week refused to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. President Trump has flip-flopped on whether he will talk to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Confidants may have urged Mr. Trump to invoke executive privilege—the president’s constitutional right to keep conversations and documents secret—to frustrate both congressional and criminal investigations. While this privilege protects deliberations about national security and diplomacy, it cannot shield Mr. Trump from criminal probes. Ultimately, he would lose any conflict with Mr. Mueller over secrecy.

Presidents have long claimed a right to withhold their confidential talks from Congress and the courts. It began with Thomas Jefferson, who ordered the prosecution of his former vice president, Aaron Burr, for raising a rebellion in Louisiana. Burr claimed Jefferson had blessed his plans and sought military reports to prove his innocence. Chief Justice John Marshall, sitting as the trial judge, subpoenaed the president.

Jefferson ultimately gave up some documents, but he considered ignoring Marshall outright, because the Constitution gives each branch the right “to protect itself from enterprises of force attempted on them by the others.”

In U.S. v. Nixon (1974), which rooted executive privilege in the separation of powers, the Supreme Court suggested that all three branches had a right to confidentiality. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the president’s authority as commander in chief and chief executive might establish an absolute privilege “to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets.” But the justices agreed their duty to ensure a fair trial of the Watergate burglars, who hoped President Nixon’s White House tapes would prove their innocence, outweighed his right to confidential talks.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on executive privilege against congressional investigations. Indeed, the judiciary may never decide. In Nixon v. U.S. (1993), involving a different Nixon, the justices held that matters of impeachment are “political questions” reserved to Congress, not the courts. Similarly, they could leave fights over executive information to the politicians, who can use spending cuts, oversight hearings and refusal to confirm nominees to get information from the executive. Still, delay benefits the president because he has the information Congress seeks.But delay benefits the executive, which enjoys withholding the information.

But the Watergate ruling makes clear that criminal investigations trump executive privilege. Mr. Mueller can seek a court subpoena that would compel Mr. Bannon, the president and his associates to turn over documents or even to testify under oath. If Mr. Trump then wished to prevent the questions, he would have to fire Mr. Mueller. But no matter who replaced him as special counsel, the White House would eventually have to talk.

Mr. Prakash is a law professor at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Miller Center. Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

 on: January 18, 2018, 09:06:34 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: January 18, 2018, 08:22:26 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: January 18, 2018, 08:20:25 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Iran’s Internet Imperative
The U.S. can do far more to help Iranians defeat the regime’s firewall.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 17, 2018 7:20 p.m. ET

No one knows how Iran’s political protests will evolve, and perhaps the current moment is more like Poland in 1981 than 1988. That’s all the more reason for the U.S. to assist Iran’s political opposition as it seeks to use the internet to evade regime censors and build a larger movement.

We do know that demand for information inside Iran is skyrocketing. Iranians are flocking by the millions to use circumvention software like Psiphon and Lantern to hide their identities from Tehran’s cyber authorities and access social media, messaging apps and trustworthy news sites. Silicon Valley tech company Ultrareach Internet Corp., which invented the Ultrasurf circumvention software, reported its servers failed this month as Iranians flooded their systems. More than half of the Iranian population owns a smart phone.

The authorities in Tehran are reluctant to order a wholesale internet shutdown lest it damage Iran’s already-weak domestic economy and anger more Iranians. But they also want to control the flow of news and information into and throughout Iran. Toward that end they’ve blocked Twitter , Facebook and in particular Telegram, a messaging app with more than 40 million Iranian users. Meanwhile, President Hassan Rouhani uses government TV and social media to offer lip service to the right of Iranians to express themselves.

This an opportunity for the Trump Administration to learn from the Reagan Administration, which used the telecommunications tools of the 1980s to spread information behind the Iron Curtain. The tools then were short wave radio, satellite news and fax machines. Today’s dissenters need software to evade the regimes’s internet firewalls.

Yet the U.S. government seems remarkably slow and backward in spreading the freedom message, starting with the taxpayer-backed Broadcasting Board of Governors. The BBG’s mission is to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy,” which should put it in the center of Iran’s online battle.

But the presidentially appointed BBG board has become a political sinecure, rather than a home for foreign-policy experts who want to fight oppression. Its current CEO, former cable industry executive John Lansing, was appointed by President Obama. President Trump hasn’t nominated a replacement.

While Iranians are desperate for reliable circumvention technology, the BBG leadership has spent only $15 million of its $787 million 2017 budget on internet freedom and anti-censorship projects, and the agency is telling vendors it’ll take weeks to direct more funding to these projects. The place needs a thorough rethinking for the internet age. Is President Trump aware that he could dismiss the BBG’s current board and nominate a CEO who’s more attuned to foreign policy and the fight for freedom?

Ronald Reagan once observed that truth is “the ultimate weapon in the arsenal of democracy.” That belief animated U.S. policy during the 1980s and, along with a U.S. economic revival and military buildup, sowed the seeds of revolution across the Soviet bloc. The Trump Administration needs a similar strategy toward Iran, North Korea, and for that matter Cuba, Venezuela and China.

 on: January 18, 2018, 08:15:15 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
 Talking to Trump: A How-To Guide
Insights from more than 50 people the president met with in his first year in office
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press
By Peter Nicholas and
Rebecca Ballhaus
Updated Jan. 18, 2018 7:57 p.m. ET
Link copied…

President Donald Trump has received huge public exposure in his first year through blanket TV coverage, speeches and tweets. But what is he like in person?

While some of the president’s most provocative private comments have made headlines—his demands for loyalty from top officials and his vulgar reference to African nations, for instance—The Wall Street Journal gathered others shared by more than 50 people who met with the president to discuss a range of issues in the Oval Office, on Air Force One and at Mar-a-Lago in the past year. Here are their insights:

Be prepared for a change of topic...

In an early session on his infrastructure plan, Mr. Trump detoured into a riff about part of the road network that has long bugged him: guardrails. “It’s put together with these screws, right?” he told cabinet members and business executives, who nodded solemnly. “I always think if I ever went into that sucker I’d be afraid that it opens and you get speared.” He continued: “I want to hire whoever their salesman is. He’s the greatest salesman in the world. That is the worst crap.”

...especially if it involves old enemies and old friends...

In an April meeting focused on bolstering business, Mr. Trump repeatedly interrupted his speech to jab at the news media or to call out executives in the audience, many of whom are his longtime buddies. “Trump reads his audience and responds to that,” said Kathy Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an association of executives that organized the White House event.

    Trump Has Broken All the Rules

    In the year since he took office, President Donald Trump has shown that he isn’t bound by what had been seen as the previous conventions of the role, Gerald F. Seib writes.

    Click to Read Story

    Trump Pledged 28 Actions: Has He Delivered?

    The president entered office a year ago with sweeping promises, ranging from protecting workers to cleaning up corruption and ending illegal immigration and Obamacare. Here’s a scorecard.

    Click to Read Story

    For Businesses, a Net Success

    Trump's initiatives on taxes and regulation have been broadly welcomed by business, even though his relationship with CEOs has sometimes stumbled.

    Click to Read Story

    37 Ways Business Rules Have Changed

    Trump has pushed for deregulation across industries. Here is a sampling of the major changes.

    Click to Read Story

    A Look Back at Approval Ratings

    President Trump is the first in polling history to spend his entire first year with more disapproving than approving of his performance

    Click to Read Story

    Stock Market Roared, Boosted by Earnings and Tax Cut

    Stocks benefited from a mix of pro-business policies, steady corporate earnings and a rebound in global growth.

    Click to Read Story

    Key Moments from Trump’s First Year

    The president has reversed his predecessor’s policies—and sometimes stoked a backlash with his unconventional approach to leading the nation.

    Click to View Timeline

    How Trump Upended Foreign Policy

    As president, Trump has reshuffled the deck of U.S. relationships

    Click to Read Story

    President Trump's First Year in Office

    Click to Watch Video

Trump's First Year

...and expect him to be blunt...

Meeting last spring with representatives of veterans’ groups and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, Mr. Trump criticized the slow pace of terminating federal employees, particularly at the VA. “You just need to start firing people,” he told Mr. Shulkin. “Let them sue us. I don’t care if they sue us.” the point of abruptness.

Mr. Trump abruptly stood up before a March meeting had finished with five chairmen of congressional committees and Vice President Mike Pence. “I have to go do some work in the Oval Office,” he told them, according to one of the chairmen. “But if you need me, I’ll be in there.”

He can be persuaded to change his mind...

Mr. Trump was annoyed with Congress last summer for passing legislation imposing new Russian sanctions. He told aides he was inclined to veto the bill because he wanted better relations with Russia. Aides told him Congress would override the veto, making him look weak. Mr. Trump yielded, signing the bill in August. A White House official said the president never gave serious consideration to not signing the bill, but was frustrated at Congress for inserting itself into a foreign-policy matter.

...especially if it is tactfully done…

Around the same time, Mr. Trump had an idea about how to counter the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, which he got after speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin : If the U.S. stopped joint military exercises with the South Koreans, it could help moderate Kim Jong Un’s behavior. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis used an approach that aides say can work: “He says, ‘Your instincts are absolutely correct,’ and then gets him [the president] to do the exact opposite of what his instincts say,” said one person close to the White House. Mr. Trump dropped the idea, although he has ordered aides to give the exercises a low profile, eliminating press releases and briefings about them.

...and he can take frankness.

Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings from Baltimore took Mr. Trump to task for his depiction of African-American neighborhoods as destitute and crime-ridden. “Most black people are doing pretty good. We have people struggling to make ends meet, but that’s insulting,” Mr. Cummings told him. “Probably nobody has ever told you that.” “You’re right,” Mr. Trump responded, “nobody has ever told me that.” Mr. Cummings later, however, wound up disillusioned, saying, “I don’t think it made any difference.”

Sometimes delaying works best...

To convince Mr. Trump to change course, White House aides sometimes stall, hoping he’ll forget what he wanted done and move on to something else. Trying to dissuade him from taking tough trade actions against other countries, aides caution that such moves could reverse the stock-market gains he touts. Or they might tell him that an action he wants to take on steel or aluminum must wait a month or so until the Commerce Department weighs in.

... but he can also get exasperated...

People who overheard a phone conversation between the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recall Mr. Trump saying, “Rex, Rex, Rex, how many times do I have to tell you…”

...and arguments are rarely final.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump talked about how the U.S. should have seized Iraqi oil as recompense for the 2003 invasion. In office, Mr. Trump returned to the idea and advisers told him it wasn’t feasible. They thought the matter was put to rest. Mr. Trump has since asked about it again. One White House official characterized his question as: “Why do we go into these wars if we don’t get anything for it?” Said another U.S. official: “No case is ever settled.”

He is happy to play tour guide...

In the middle of meetings with executives and lawmakers, the president sometimes invites them to walk over and take pictures in the Oval Office if they haven’t visited before. “I mean, who does that?” said Scott Heitkamp, the CEO of ValueBank, who attended one such meeting in March.

...even if the seating arrangement is tricky.

Unlike past presidents, who often sat on couches with Oval Office visitors, Mr. Trump sits behind his desk, raising the question for guests: Can they put their papers on the Resolute Desk? “At one point, I set my papers on the table, and then I thought, maybe that’s not the best form,” said former Rep. Jason Chaffetz. “So I picked them back up again and set them back on my lap.”

He can be courteous with Republicans...

When Rep. Steve Scalise (R., La.) visited the Oval Office after his return in September from a near-fatal shooting, Mr. Trump made sure he sat in the chair normally reserved for visiting heads of state. “That’s an honor,” Mr. Scalise said.

...and Democrats...

Mr. Trump spent months courting Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va), at one point introducing the senator to an assistant and instructing her: “When Joe calls, you make sure to give me the message.”

...and isn’t beyond using chocolate to win someone over.

Mr. Trump invited Rep. James Comer (R., Ky.) to fly with him after a rally in Louisville as he sought support for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. On board, the president asked him whether he had any children. Three, Mr. Comer said. Mr. Trump handed him three Air Force One-branded boxes of M&Ms: “Give them to your kids and tell them they’re from me.”

But he has a short fuse...

Backstage at the National Prayer Breakfast in February, when Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) told Mr. Trump several religious organizations in his state opposed the White House’s travel ban, the president snapped: “Nobody told me you were going to be a nasty man.”

...and sorry can be the hardest word.

Weeks after Mr. Trump’s election victory, the incoming president and his advisers were considering how to handle China being upset by a phone call he held with Taiwan’s leader. The question of an apology was broached. “Never, ever apologize,” Mr. Trump said.

And finally...

Mick Mulvaney, the president’s budget director and frequent golf companion at the Trump course in northern Virginia, said Mr. Trump will point out arcane features during the rounds, noting “which trees have died and which trees to cut down and what greens are struggling with what fungus.”

—Gordon Lubold and Michael C. Bender contributed to this article.

 on: January 18, 2018, 08:00:11 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Tucker Carlson has gotten my attention with this theme.  Kicking this thread off with VDH:

 on: January 18, 2018, 07:57:14 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!