Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Loews Hotels Cancels Sen. Josh Hawley Fundraiser, Falsely Alleging ‘Incitement’ of Capitol Riots

Loews Hotels Cancels Sen. Josh Hawley Fundraiser, Falsely Alleging ‘Incitement’ of Capitol Riots

“We are horrified and opposed to the events at the Capitol and all who supported and incited the actions,” Loews Hotels tweeted on why they were no longer hosting the Hawley fundraiser.

https://youtu.be/ShjtiKs6RhA

Apparently, voicing objections to electoral votes, as Democrats have repeatedly done, now equates to “incitement” and “sedition.”

In the aftermath of the Capitol riots, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have been on the warpath, using Republican objections to certain electoral votes as an excuse to call for Republicans in the House and Senate to either be censured, to step down, or be expelled for allegedly “inciting/encouraging” an insurrection.

At the top of their list to cancel from Congress – and from public life eventually – are Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), who were two of the more vocal Republican members of the Senate to voice objections to some of the electoral votes.

Not only have numerous Democrats including AOC and her fellow Squad members called on Cruz and Hawley to either resign or be expelled, but the push is on to “Enemies List” them out of book deals, fundraisers, and off of influential political boards and committees.

Sen. Hawley appears to be on the receiving end of most of the blowback so far. Last Thursday, Simon & Schuster announced they were backing out of a deal with Hawley to publish his book “The Tyranny of Big Tech” after the Capitol riots. We “cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom,” they said in a statement:

In response, Hawley threatened a lawsuit:

Earlier this week, Hallmark Cards asked Hawley and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) to return employee campaign donations:

“Hallmark believes the peaceful transition of power is part of the bedrock of our democratic system, and we abhor violence of any kind,” Hallmark spokeswoman JiaoJiao Shen said in a statement. “The recent actions of Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall do not reflect our company’s values. As a result, HALLPAC requested Sens. Hawley and Marshall to return all HALLPAC campaign contributions.”

Late Friday, Florida attorney Daniel Uhlfelder – otherwise known as the “grim reaper man” who used to prowl Florida beaches in opposition of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ COVID policy – posted a flier on Twitter for a February fundraiser for Hawley that was to be hosted by a Loews hotel in Orlando, and asked the chain “Why are you hosting [a] weekend event for traitor Josh Hawley?”

The next day and after tens of thousands of RTs and comments to them from “concerned” liberals, Loews Hotel chain announced they would no longer be hosting the fundraiser on grounds that they were “opposed” to anyone who “supported and incited” the actions of the Capitol rioters:

Hawley blasted back at them as well, telling them that “to equate leading a debate on the floor of the Senate with inciting violence is a lie, and it’s dangerous”:

“If these corporations don’t want conservatives to speak, they should just be honest about it. But to equate leading a debate on the floor of the Senate with inciting violence is a lie, and it’s dangerous. I will not be deterred from representing my constituents and I will not bow to left wing corporate pressure,” he said in a statement to The Hill.

The backlash to the backlash was inevitable:

https://twitter.com/JudyByTheSeaSea/status/1350598015875215375

Rep. Elise Stefanik, a staunch defender of President Trump’s who also voiced objections to electoral votes in the House, has also faced the wrath of the cancel culture-obsessed left. Stefanik was “removed from a senior advisory committee at Harvard’s school of government” last Tuesday after alleging election fraud and objecting to certifying election results last week.

Of the school’s decision, Stefanik had this to say:

With all these charges of incitement and sedition being thrown around and the various social media purges and cancellations from the public sphere taking place, what about the Democrats who objected to certifying the presidential elections in 2001, 2005, and 2017?

And what about all the Democrats who have actually used language that could be construed as incitement?

As usual, there’s one set of standards for Republicans, but none for Democrats.

Hawley is right when he says falsely alleging “incitement” is not a good path for America to go down. Instead of “uniting and healing” the country, as Democrats claim to want to do, it is only going to lead to more division and animosity.

Which, come to think of it, is exactly why Democrats are playing the “incitement” card, because, in reality, none of what they’ve done in the aftermath of the Capitol riots is really about incitement. None of it.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Colonel Travis | January 17, 2021 at 12:16 pm

In the past several years it has gone from: you are not patriotic to you are deplorable to you are an insurrectionist.

The left bastardizes language. Controlling language controls thought controls people. How the left is talking now is no different than any horrific regime on earth has talked. Fortunately, we have a Constitution that keeps us from going full Kommie. If you see how the language has grown harsher over the past few years, why does anyone think the action cannot?

Scary times.

    Fortunately, we have a Constitution that keeps us from going full Kommie.

    Only if the courts enforce it. After the last year — or two, or three, etc — I have as much faith in the courts as I do in free and fair elections in the US.

    They didn’t do a thing about obvious election fraud. They ducked, dodged, weaved, and punted using what were essentially legal technicalities. Never looking at the evidence. They didn’t want to look at the evidence.

    Think they’ll do a thing about the obviously well planned and coordinated and politically motivated corporate assassination of Parler?

    And so on and so forth.

    The fate of the United States Constitution is largely in the hands of one John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts does not instill me with confidence.

      “does not instill me with confidence…”

      You’re being generous. We know the fix is in with Roberts: they have him by the nose.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to TheFineReport.com. | January 17, 2021 at 10:04 pm

        While Roberts nose may have been complicit, it seems to me that another protrusion was what created blackmail leverage. It appears that his stupidity allowed this.

      artichoke in reply to Ulysses. | January 18, 2021 at 2:55 am

      Aw hell, all 9 of them are in on it. Even the 2 who didn’t vote to reject the case, they said they would have accepted it because they had to, then rule against the plaintiffs because of (iirc) lack of standing.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 17, 2021 at 3:27 pm

    “The left bastardizes language.”

    They are not bastardizing the language at all. They are saying exactly what they think and telegraphing where they are going.

    Boycott these leftist businesses. Do not go to them or use their services, ever again. Tell others to boycott them. Cancel or be cancelled.

      “Cancel or be cancelled.”

      YES: vote with your pocketbooks and your feet.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 17, 2021 at 4:57 pm

      I shall also point out the language is not bastardized but, rather, perfectly precise. The use of the word insurrection justifies invocation of the Insurrection Act which has many horrible ramifications.

      They are telling you what the want to do. You should listen.

        Colonel Travis in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | January 17, 2021 at 10:11 pm

        Really – so what happened at the Capitol was an insurrection? Trump is a danger to America because he demanded the citizenry attack the government with weapons? You are taking their side here?

          Obviously, it wasn’t an insurrection or a coup attempt. Funny this should come up as I was over at Jacobin (the commies R us site) and reading through their stuff (it’s often surprisingly well-considered, if totally wrong-headed) because I suspect they and their ilk are going to be next ones targeted by our new Dem/media/tech overlords and was trying to figure out if they realize that yet.

          They are super duper commie, and they have at least three articles up right now arguing against new “domestic terrorist” legislation (which I also think is ridiculous, unwarranted, and unneeded). If Molly Hemingway or Ben Shapiro, any big name on the right, slapped her/his name on any one of these articles (and edited out all the “comrade” references and other weirdo quirks of the commies), it would be shut down in an instant as “misinformation.”

          Anyway, so my point is that they have a good piece on why the Capitol riot was clearly not an insurrection and that the federal government was never in the slightest danger of being overthrown. Obviously, I don’t agree with their conclusion about Trump being weak, but I think the points are sound on it not being anything close to an insurrection much less a coup. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/01/trump-capitol-riot-fascist-coup-attempt This, too, would be flagged as “misinformation” if posted by anyone on the right (that’s why I suspect they are going to be next).

          Colonel Travis in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 17, 2021 at 11:22 pm

          Thanks for that link, Fuzzy. I’ve never read that site before, I’m glad to see some (key word) semblance of levelheadedness on the other side.

          Of course, what happened in DC wasn’t a violent uprising against the government. It must be portrayed that way to justify tyranny. Hello, language bastardization. Do you ban Trump from social media by saying his dissent is patriotic, a la Hillary?

          Even when tyrants are in total control, do they tell you what their plans really are? The cattle car is a bit crowded, but it’s ok, you’re just going to a work camp.

          If lies didn’t work, they wouldn’t be used.

          You’re welcome, Colonel! I like to check in with the left and see what’s going on (you have to know what your enemy is thinking, how they think, what they value, etc., after all). I can’t abide the surface leftist claptrap spewed by the activist media, but I read that, too. Happily, the commie crew at Jacobin are, mostly, good thinkers and better writers, so it’s not as hard to read them. I’d rather read most of the Jacobin commies than the sophomoric ramblings and elitist rantings of, say, a Jennifer Rubin or an S.E. Cupp, any day of any week.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 17, 2021 at 11:25 pm

          They are calling it an insurrection. Some are calling all Trump supporters insurrectionists. They are saying anyone who casts doubt on the integrity of the election is seditious and an insurrectionist.

          Just talk? We always think they are just talking, and seemed surprised when they actually follow up on what they have been talking about for years.

          Oh, we know it’s not just talk. They are grabbing their Reichstag moment and attempting to paint all Trump supporters as insurrectionists, traitors, domestic terrorists, etc. This is the first step. The next step is the dehumanization of Trump supporters, we can’t be just traitors and terrorists, we must be subhuman. Watch for it.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 18, 2021 at 1:08 am

          BSR, you are misunderstanding my point. I have never said what the left says is mere bluster. Yes, they want to silence opposition. Their reasons are based on lies. The left destroys language to get what it wants. Rioters are peaceful protesters. Dissent is armed rebellion. The female-at-birth-wrestler-on-steroids-trying-to-be-a-guy, who is crushing normal girls for state championships is good. The list is endless.

          @ Fuzzy Slippers, id recommend Sam Harris as a podcaster is very good – very thoughful; you wont like his opinions im sure but he dissects some of the positions on both sides quite well.

          Thanks, mark311. I don’t really care for podcasts, preferring to read instead, but I will keep this in mind if that ever changes.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 18, 2021 at 12:57 pm

          “You are taking their side here?”

          Obviously it was no insurrection. I am saying the Democrats and their allies (or masters) are saying it was, and are therefore telegraphing their intent. I am saying they have not bastardized the language, but are using it precisely and telling you their intent, and you should not spend time trying to read into what they are saying, or disregarding it. It is not bastardized language they use. It is clear and precise.

          They now have members of congress that want to kick out 121 Republicans from office because of their “support for insurrection.” Meanwhile, the management of the Democrat party does not kick back, nor does the Republican party as far as I can tell.

          They are telling you their intent, clearly, without any bastardized language.

    Yes. Subtle change in language to control the narrative. Most think it’s no big deal. But it is. It is a form of propaganda. It must be pushed back against – hard.

    They have succeeded in painting those who disagree with them as racist and fascist. This marginalization will eventually lead to pogroms, witch-hunts to identify all those who have impure thoughts and to eliminate them.

    Amazingly, FOX News is not sensitive to this at all. They use the language the progressive want them to use. Chris Wallace is especially clueless on this. For example: calling the capital riot an “insurrection” which is defined as “armed resistance to state authority.” Show me one picture or video where anyone had a gun in the capitol (except for Capitol police and security). Yet CNN uses the term “insurrection” at least 3x per hour for the last 6 days. They know exactly what they are doing. They know the definition perfectly well.

    Sounds scary – because it is. It is a slippery slope to hell.

    Push back in every communication.

Isn’t it defamatory to accuse someone of inciting violence without evidence?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JDmyrm. | January 17, 2021 at 1:01 pm

    They will get away with it, because he is a “public figure”.

      Not necessarily. He is going to bring a breach of contract claim. To prevail, he only needs to prove their pretext for backing out of their contract is a lie “by the preponderance of the evidence.” He will not need to prove “actual malice”–the almost impossible standard applicable to public figures in a defamation action.

Past time we had a Conservative economy.

“Loews Hotel chain announced they would no longer be hosting the fundraiser…”

Weird. I am old enough to remember the vociferous ‘it’s a private business and it can make that choice’ argument when bakers, photographers, and wedding venues were politely refusing some customers.

Oh. Wait…

    If there is no reasonable alternative available. You cannot deny service to people… persons, but there is no right to force endorsement of a message. That said, they did bake a cake, but not the message.

    Political congruence (“=”) is a many Pro-Choice selective, opportunistic, relativistic (e.g. “ethical”) thing. In related news, the Chinese national socialists have evolved from Planned Population (“final solution”) to one-child to Planned Parenthood (“wicked solution”) (socially justified using familiar language: women are not incubators) and sequestering its deplorables in concentration camps.

      Milhouse in reply to n.n. | January 18, 2021 at 12:25 am

      If there is no reasonable alternative available. You cannot deny service to people…

      Not true. You are never compelled to do business with all comers. You always have the right to choose your customers, except on grounds specifically prohibited by law.

    You seem to be confused. Going back on an agreement (which that tweet indicates is what was done here) is the same as not entering into an agreement in the first place?

    That, or you are acting with about as much good faith as Loews Hotels.

    No one on this thread has claimed that the government should have compelled Loews to contract in the first place.

    Although frankly, I would support a law that forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation based on political orientation.

    But once Loews did contract, they cannot back out for bogus reasons. If I were on the jury, Loews would be paying Senator Hawley a GREAT amount of money.

    We have endured over half a century of the Left saying that it is illegal for private businesses to discriminate. A lot of people lost their businesses and life savings in the process. Now the Left has flip-flopped and says refusing service is okey-dokey.

    Don’t allow the Left to force us to obey anti discrimination laws while exempting themselves.

      We have endured over half a century of the Left saying that it is illegal for private businesses to discriminate.

      NO, WE HAVE NOT. Nobody on the left has been saying so, because it isn’t true. Private businesses have every legal right to discriminate, except on those grounds that are prohibited by law.

        Well, actually, the left has been arguing that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to certain favored groups. We all know about the gay wedding cake nightmare, but it’s extended to florists and to other (typically Christian-owned) businesses.

        Their goal in doing so is to push the Overton window, to extend existing protections to include newly (they hope) protected classes. It’s lawfare. It’s been going on for decades. You can nitpick all day long, but Recovering Lutheran is right here because the left depended on lawsuits to further their cause, so they targeted, often intentionally, businesses for suits to challenge their right to refuse to do X on (mostly) religious grounds.

        The goal was and is to create through legal precedent new protected classes that are not protected by federal law but will be protected by legal precedent outside those areas where local or state law might differ. You know this.

          People here are claiming that the left has been saying all discrimination is illegal, and therefore this contradicts their position, but that just isn’t true. They have never argued that all discrimination is illegal, or even that it should be. They argue for changing the law to include more of their favorite grounds in these laws, or they argue in court that some of these grounds are already included in one of the listed grounds but nobody noticed.

          I recall when Texas under GWB’s governorship passed a hate crimes law that covered crimes committed out of hatred on any grounds, and the left was very upset about it. How dare Texas not single out their favorite grounds for special treatment?

          Yeah, people say all sorts of things, and I do agree that some broad claims about discrimination aren’t reflected in and haven’t been upheld by law. But the general point that the legal system is and has been (far too effectively) used by the left to create new “rights” is actually correct.

          These are just comments, Milhouse, not a court of law. If someone is not precise on some detail, it’s okay to point it out (of course), but that doesn’t make their entire point flawed. Comments are where people get to just share their (nonviolent, nonracist, nonetc.) thoughts, so they may not be utterly precise. I think that’s okay.

    Weird. I am old enough to remember the vociferous ‘it’s a private business and it can make that choice’ argument when bakers, photographers, and wedding venues were politely refusing some customers.

    Sigh. How many times do you have to have it explained to you that private businesses absolutely do have the right to choose whom they do business with, except on grounds specifically prohibited by law?

    There is no law banning all discrimination. There are federal laws banning certain businesses from discriminating on the grounds of race, sex, religion, age over 40, and disability, so those businesses can’t discriminate on those grounds.

    There is no federal law banning them from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, so they are perfectly free to do so unless they’re in a place where state or local law bans it. The bakers, photographers, venue operators, etc. in question happen to be in places where it is banned.

    Discrimination on the grounds of political views is banned only in a few places. Florida isn’t one of them, so Loews is entitled to do this. And we are entitled to boycott them for it. And if Sen. Hawley has a contract with them without an easy escape clause then he can sue.

      And the local/state bans, these businesses have argued (sometimes successfully) violate their Constitional rights. This is not a black and white area, Milhouse, and you know it. In fact, you have argued over the years on these very pages that it’s not.

      In this particular case, you are ccorrect, there is really no legal recourse for Hawley. But the broad brush you are using to make your point is problematic.

      On a related point, I think political affliiation should have been added to federal law protections during Trump’s first two years when he had Republican majorities. I’m not sure why it wasn’t, but it should have been.

        He may well have legal recourse, depending on how his contract is worded. But not on grounds of discrimination.

          Good point. I doubt they would have cancelled, though, if the contract did not permit it in some (perhaps slippery) way. I think the point of interest in this story is how far the purge is already extending, before Biden even takes office. Can this hotel chain refuse to host Hawley? Sure, of course they can (barring some contractual restriction–but this type of contract is typically drawn to protect the host not the client), sure, but at some point this refusal to extend service of any kind (or employment, etc.) to Trump supporters has to be reviewed. Scary times, my friend, scary times.

          I don’t think government intervention is a good thing, but this purge of Trump supporting Republicans and voters from the social sphere cannot continue. What do you think we should or can legally do? I think focusing on the minutiae is helpful as a distraction and as a means of putting off the hard questions, but at some near point, we really need to think about how to stop the purge. There are no easy answers. Do you think nothing should be done at all? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on countering this.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2021 at 10:13 am

          “He may well have legal recourse, depending on how his contract is worded. But not on grounds of discrimination.”

          All true, but to add, why pursue it? Actual damages are very small if they exist at all. Redress via the court would cost way more than the recovery of any damages. There are times when it’s simply the principle of the thing, but a court would not let you make this a “principle of the thing” movement. A judge would dispense with this, in one way or another, in five minutes after letting both parties gnaw at each other to try and force settlement for a few months.

          In its essence this is a very simple contract tort.

          Save your money and fire power for bigger battles. And do not do business with Loews Hotels, and encourage others to avoid them on the basis they appear to be untrustworthy in honoring their contracts and commitments, and discriminate on a political basis.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | January 18, 2021 at 8:54 am

      “the right to choose whom they do business with, except on grounds specifically prohibited by law”

      We may wish that to be true. It does not make it so. For example, just recently in an unreasoned decision, the Supreme Court has told us that discrimination because of sex means because of sexual orientation as well. Something the legislature did consider multiple times and always refused to add to the law. Claiming “doing business” does not mean “employ” won’t help your argument. It is the “specifically prohibited by law” part that is not true.

      Of course, you could always fall back on “the law is whatever the courts say it is” but we should prefer to not confuse the judiciary with the legislature.

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | January 18, 2021 at 10:19 am

        If you adhere strictly to the text of the law, and to the supreme court’s precedents, then Gorsuch’s decision seems inevitable. The supreme court has said many times that when you act against a man for acting in a way that you would have no problem with if he were a woman, or vice versa, then that is discrimination on the grounds of sex. And it has said that arguments about “same” and “different” don’t work when it comes to race. Put those two together and it’s difficult to explain why Gorsuch was wrong. I think the problem is one step back from that, in the assumption that those precedents are correct. I don’t think they are, precisely because they lead to this absurd conclusion.

        I wish I knew what Clarence Thomas, in his heart of hearts, thinks about Loving. Or how he would have ruled on it, had he been on the court at the time.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | January 19, 2021 at 1:11 pm

          First of all and for the record: thank you for your comments.

          I agree that some of the precedents are dubious which at least partially explains Gorsuch’s opinion.

          However, as Alito has demonstrated by showing the full set of combinations, Gorsuch’s core argument and thought experiment, the but-for test, is not applied correctly. It is as if he multiplied one side of the equation with (-1) and the other with (1) while keeping the equal sign. The only way the result is still true is if both sides are a product of zero. In other words, if you change the sex of the employee you’d have to change the sex of any meaningfully impacted person as well, otherwise, you not only change “sex” but “sexual orientation” as well.

          Sorry for the delay in answering.

Next time I have an opportunity to stay at one of their places (which will be the first time), I will decline, and if appropriate, let them know exactly why.

They are putting their bet on the Left being forever ascendant and that memory fades if it doesn’t . When they say “yes” to the Party now it will be harder to say “no” when the Party comes for $omething E$le.

It’s time to hold Pelosi accountable for her demand that the military not comply with orders from Trump. Who has the chutzpah to begin the hearings?

Democrats:unity = Islam:peace

We have to go from defense to offense. From now on when discussing politics with others there will be only one question: do you stand with American Constitutionalists or the democrat fascists? I will have nothing to do with the democrat fascists.

Senator Hawley’s family was threatened by Antifa BEFORE the “insurrection”. The Franz von Papen Republicans were rather quiet about it after it happened. No evidence of the high moral indignation we are presently hearing (in fact, they were rather quiet when BLM/Antifa were burning, looting, raping and murdering to their hearts’ content almost all last year).

Remember that the von Papen Republicans are convinced that the Communists will overreach and lose the House and Senate in 2022 (maybe they should ask the people of North Korea how easy it is to vote Communism out of power). Instead, they will find out what the original von Papen did when he thought he could help elevate Hitler to the post of Chancellor and use him for his own advantage.

Sounds like a great defamation lawsuit.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Guardian79. | January 17, 2021 at 10:14 pm

    There are other causes for action, all should be pursued.

    Milhouse in reply to Guardian79. | January 18, 2021 at 12:30 am

    No, as a defamation suit it’s a sure loser. He’s a public figure, so he’d have to prove “actual malice”, which doesn’t mean what it sounds like. He wouldn’t be able to.

    As for breach of contract, it depends on what the contract says. Most hotel contracts have escape clauses for cases like this, but it depends on the exact wording of the clause in this contract.

      As far is the matter of defamation goes, I do not believe it has anything to do with Hawley’s being a public figure or “actual malice,” which means intentional or reckless disregard of the truth. The statement is ambiguous as to whether Loews accused him of being behind the riot. I’m not sure whether it is a question of law or a question of fact for the jury to interpret whether a reasonable person reading this statement could take it as an accusation that he was behind the riot. If that is so, then Loews would not have a public figure defense, because there is zero evidence that he was in fact behind it and to make an accusation that he was, when there was plenty of time for Loews to discover that, easily satisfies the actual malice standard.

        Milhouse in reply to RRRR. | January 18, 2021 at 7:31 pm

        They didn’t accuse him of being behind the riot. They accused him of supporting and inciting it. And for that they have a public figure defense, so they get away with it even though we all know it’s not true.

        The contract issue depends on its wording.

Where was all this corporate opprobrium when the goose-stepping, jackbooted thugs of “Anti-fa” and “Black Lives Matter” were rioting, looting, destroying businesses, murdering innocent citizens and desecrating synagogues all across America, for six-plus months, in the year 2020? Rather than swiftly and unequivocally condemn this totalitarian violence and its animating ethos, these feckless corporations lined up to pay tribute to, and, obeisance to, BLM, Anti-fa, and their myriad cohorts, showering them with billions of dollars in donations.

It’s getting to the part where I feel as though we should clear my political leanings in advance before doing business with anyone:

“Excuse me, would you be upset doing business with me if you knew that I support Joe Biden?”
“Why, no – of course not.”
“Would you be upset doing business with me if you knew that I support Donald Trump?”

It will be interesting to see their reactions. Oh, and record it when you ask.

Loew’s is inciting socialism.

They are cancelled for any future travel.

Two comments:

1) Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. When are we going to pony up and start our own media outlets, ones that the left can’t cancel? If Trump wants to be a real patriot–and make a bundle on to boot–he ought to underwrite new conservative media, both hardware and software. That way, no one on the right need worry about twitter, amazon, facebook, google, etc. cutting off access. Yes, it would cost a lot upfront, but notice that the above companies are doing very, very well financially, so it’s like any other business–you have to spend money to make money. They did, and they are wealthy companies.

There’s another upside to doing this. Business is pretty much zero sum, so whatever starts to work on the right siphons business from the left. They have quite a lot of equipment, and much of that will hopefully be sitting idle, looking for something to do.

Finally, note that the cost of computers, servers, etc. declines over time, not from amortization, but as a consequence of Moore’s Law. The left bought theirs when it was more expensive. We can buy new equipment at far less than they paid and it will be, well, newer and more up to date.

2) Regarding Lowe’s in particular, they’re part of Universal. We need to let that whole cesspool get its money elsewhere from this point forward. Won’t be from me or anyone who think like I do.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend