Author: admin

Here is a really interesting account of how academia has abandoned free speech in favor of “correct speech”, i.e.: speech that they approve.

And they call Trump a fascist…

Bakery workers at New York City’s Tom Cat Bakery are being asked to produce proof of the right to work in the U.S. or face  losing their jobs and being deported. Why? Because it is alleged that some of them provided false employment documents when they were hired.

Obviously, those here illegally don’t want to (or cannot) provide the required documentation. They call it bullying by the Trump administration; others call it enforcing the law. In any event, they are protesting the absurd requirement that they be legal workers.

“…I never expected this was going to happen,” (which of course means it shouldn’t) said one worker, a native of Mexico City who admits that he’s not legally entitled to work in the United States. Even so, this worker purports to have provided work documents to obtain his current job.  So let me see if I have this right: not only is he here illegally, he’s working illegally (preventing someone else who is a legal resident from working) and using false documents to do so (identity theft)?

No wonder they are protesting.

Let’s say you call a company to ask information regarding one of their products, or perhaps to avail yourself of some information to which they are privy. That company is able to note that you called, what you called about, and to provide that information to others – free of charge or for a fee.

However, if the phone company – as an intermediary providing telecommunications network services – wanted to collect information of that call and to sell that information to others, there would be a riot. That’s because U.S. Code Title 47 § 222 states:

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.

Note that this is because they are a telecommunications network provider. You are not communicating with them; you are only using their services to communicate with others. They have no right to the information from those calls, or that the calls were even made, except as needed for their internal billing and marketing needs. This data is protected by law because it can contain highly personal data. For instance, say you were calling psychiatrists as a the result of a particularly difficult set of events in your life. Would you want the telephone company to sell that information to your employer, competitor, or ex-spouse? I think not.

Now, image that your  Internet service provider (essentially a communications network provider, similar to the phone  company) wanted to sell information on your web browsing habits, including the exact web sites you access and when/how long you visit. This would be akin to the phone company selling lists of the calls you made. Well, that is exactly what the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) want to do – and the government is going to help.

The Obama administration (of which I was not particularly fond) approved an FCC rule for ISPs that would require they have specific customer approval to release such information – the same as for telephone companies. However, the Republicans in congress have drank the Kool-Aid offered by ISPs that hold since Google is not subject to such a rule that they should not be subject, either. However, the comparison is apples to oranges; Google provides a service to which customers connect and use, while the ISPs simply makes the connection for you (like the telephone company). In this case the ISP to telephone company analogy holds; the information on your network usage – just as the phone calls you make – should be held as private data and not be resold.

Congress has passed – and President Trump is expected to sign – a resolution overturning this Obama-era rule. The resolution would lets ISPs sell your very personal web browsing data without so much as telling you, let alone getting your permission. This is wrong, and should not be allowed. Take the time to protect your online privacy and send a quick note to President Trump indicating your desire that he veto this resolution/rule reversal.

You can start here.

…force them to join you.

The Teamsters seem to have found some friends in Seattle politics:

Uber Fights Seattle’s Push To Make It Bargain With The Teamsters

Think about how this might stifle innovation and productivity. Also, the audacity is astounding.

Once again, politicians in Krazy Kalifornia have gone off the deep end. This time they’ve twisted the facts so as to garner support for not cooperating with ICE in the deportation of dangerous criminal illegal aliens. Towards that end they have passed a directive forbidding firefighters and airport police from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

A quote from the article:

“In Los Angeles, we don’t separate people from their families because it’s inhumane,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Tuesday. “In Los Angeles, we don’t demonize our hardworking neighbors just because they speak another language or come from another country. That’s un-American.”

Eric, no one is being deported because they speak a different language; they are instead being deported because they have ignored our immigration laws. And when they are separated from their families as a result, is it our fault for enforcing immigration law or their fault for putting their families at risk? Be careful, Eric – next you may be claiming that the police are responsible for breaking up families as a result of their arresting the criminals who fail to abide by our laws. To hell with the law abiding citizens the laws are meant to protect; right, Eric?

It is not un-American to deport criminal illegal aliens. It is, however, un-American to violate out laws.