The Fourth Amendment Is Worth Protecting

Intelligence Chiefs Testify At House Hearing On National Security Threats

The New York Times recently published an extensive article that attempted to shine a positive light on an appallingly scandalous set of facts.

However, even with its extravagant spin efforts the newspaper could not exclude the information that the FBI employed secret counterintelligence tools to spy on the Trump campaign, including the use of a paid confidential informant who sought to extract damaging information from several people associated with the campaign.

It is a grave situation when, through the use of counterintelligence powers, a presidential administration targets officials associated with the campaign of the opposition party.

The same Obama executive branch engaged in a series of extraordinary actions to step-up government intrusions, including the following:

-The NSA was allowed to obtain private data on American citizens;

-Members of the press were spied upon;

-Hundreds of individuals were “unmasked” by the ambassador to the UN and the national security adviser;

-An unreliable dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants, and the parties submitting the applications failed to disclose key facts to the FISA court.

After all of these expansive actions were taken, the FBI counterintelligence probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” placed then-presidential candidate Donald Trump under surveillance.

It is the height of irony that in early 2017 President Trump was derided for his tweet that claimed he was being surveilled.

As these and other troubling facts emerged, the mainstream media did their dutifully best to rev up the spin engines.

The New York Times characterized the actions taken by the FBI during the above-referenced period as focused on Russia rather than spying, while the Washington Post attempted to twist the narrative into asserting that the FBI was “protecting” President Trump rather than targeting him.

In an appearance on CNN about the spying on the Trump campaign that had taken place via the hands of the government, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper channeled Martha Stewart as he indicated how the spying was a “good thing.”

Seemingly lost in the media coverage as well as in the continuing discussion is the damage being done to the fundamental principles of individual privacy rights, which are set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Framers sought to protect citizens from unreasonable intrusions by the government. It was indeed a breakthrough notion by the Founding Fathers that the privacy of our persons, houses, papers, and effects are off limits to interference by government, unless and until a judge has signed off on a warrant that authorizes a search, seizure, or surveillance.

Judges may only issue warrants after finding probable cause to believe that the invasion of privacy or surveillance will produce evidence of criminal behavior. In addition, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to specifically describe what will be seized and where a search will take place.

The norm in the Colonies during the pre-Fourth Amendment era was that warrants were issued in secret by British courts, without the inclusion of probable cause and/or specificity. In other words, the government could conduct a search without any legitimate judicial scrutiny.

It is now known that secret FISA warrants for surveillance on the Trump campaign were issued, based on an unreliable dossier purchased by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and that the FBI failed to disclose key information to the FISA court.

The use of so-called national security letters to gather documents on Trump campaign figures, however, constitutes a whole new level of government action that flies in the face of Fourth Amendment precepts.

According to the New York Times, the FBI “obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters – a secret type of subpoena…”

Several federal statutes allow intelligence officials to request certain business record information using national security letters, which are documents that compel the production of private materials.

National security letters are a type of administrative subpoena, which must be used solely in connection with national security investigations. The documents require individuals or organizations to provide materials that typically involve telephone, email, and/or financial records.

The national security letters include a gag order mandating that those responsible for complying cannot disclose the existence of the document or its content. When used in the manner in which the New York Times describes, national security letters are de facto warrants.

Simply said, phone records and other documents were compelled by a government agency from individuals connected with an opposing political party’s campaign, without a court, probable cause, or any judicial oversight whatsoever.

History demonstrates the danger of granting government agencies the ability to subvert constitutional norms.

Even in cases involving national security, the full requirements of the Fourth Amendment can and should be fulfilled in an expedited fashion, with no intrusions into citizens’ privacy without probable cause that is determined by a court of law, upheld by affirmation or sworn oath, which sets forth precisely what will be confiscated and the location that will be searched.

Advertisements

Tim Allen Is ‘Standing’ Again

lastmanstandingboycott-640x480

In May of 2016, ABC executives made an inexplicable decision, one that from a business standpoint seemed totally incoherent.

The Disney-owned network mysteriously cancelled its second-highest rated sitcom, which made no sense since the comedy had already received two prime time Emmy nominations and was on a solid upward trajectory.

“Last Man Standing,” starring Tim Allen, was in its sixth successful season at the time of its cancellation, with an average of more than 8 million viewers for the 2016-17 season. It was well on its way to the lucrative syndication level to which television producers, showrunners, and stars perpetually aspire.

Mike Baxter, the show’s lead character played by Allen, is a charmingly crusty outdoor sporting goods executive. He is also a refreshingly vocal and hilariously brazen center-right individual.

One rational explanation for ABC’s exercise in poor judgment back in 2016 may be that the company has an inherent disdain, as many in Hollywood do, for the show’s conservative-leaning content.

The fact that Allen’s actual political views are pretty much the same as the character he plays seems to give credence to the network’s likely motive in terminating the show. Adding possible fuel to the proverbial fire, Allen also happens to be a supporter of President Trump.

The comedic tension in the show comes from the nature of Allen’s character being a married father of three, who as a tried and true male head of the household attempts to safeguard his family fortress against attacks from left-minded relatives and the PC police.

A petition to bring back the show was launched by center-right TV viewers. “Last Man Standing” was described in the petition as a show that “appeals to a broad swath of Americans who find very few shows that extol the virtues with which they can identify; namely conservative values.”

ABC predictably denied that bias played any role in the decision to deep-six the original sitcom. Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment, claimed that the reason the show was cancelled was due to high costs as opposed to Allen’s personal politics or the political content of the show.

Considering the fierce competition within the television industry as well as the difficulty of achieving the kind of consistent ratings success that Allen’s show garnered, ABC’s explanation simply does not hold water. As Allen himself told the Hollywood Reporter, “…there is nothing more dangerous, especially in this climate, than a funny, likable conservative character.”

After “Last Man Standing” was cut, ABC plugged the adult fairy tale drama “Once Upon a Time” into the time slot, which drew far lower ratings.

Then recently, in a sort of serendipitous Hollywood surprise, along came the refreshing reboot of the 1980s sitcom “Roseanne,” which took the TV world by storm and gave a starving center-right public (which incidentally is a huge demographic) a reason to laugh again.

Fox Television Group, led by chairpersons Gary Newman and Dana Walden, made a wise call and announced that they were bringing back the series.

“‘Last Man Standing’ ended too soon and the outcry from the fans has been deafening,” Newman and Walden said in a statement. “We’ve wanted to put the show back together since its final taping a year ago, and Tim never gave up hope either. Thanks to its millions of devoted viewers and the irrepressible Tim Allen, we haven’t seen the last of ‘Last Man Standing.’”

It initially appeared that key players Nancy Travis and Hector Elizondo were caught up in other television projects. However, in addition to Allen the show has been able to get Travis onboard, along with other original cast members Jonathan Adams, Christoph Sanders, Amanda Fuller, and Jordan Masterson. Hopefully the network can find a way to include Elizondo in the renewed show as well.

As for Allen, he issued a statement asking himself whether he was excited by the announcement that his show was returning to the air.

“Team LMS was in the sixth inning, ahead by four runs, stands were packed and then for no reason, they call off the game. It leaves you sitting in the dugout, holding a bat and puzzled. Now we get the news from Fox that it’s time to get back out on that diamond – hell yes, I’m excited!” Allen said.

In the same manner as his character would, Allen quipped, “When I heard the offer to create more episodes of ‘Last Man Standing,’ I did a fist pump so hard I threw my back out.”

“Last Man Standing” is expected to be part of the Fox schedule in the 2018-19 season, and much to the chagrin of ABC, many viewers will be doing fist pumps as they hand Fox a mega-ratings hit.

John Kerry’s Contemptible Collusion

kerry-facepalm-550x413

Former Secretary of State John Kerry has been colluding with the enemy, back-channeling with leaders of a totalitarian regime that fosters terrorism, and working against the national security interests of the United States.

Kerry has committed a textbook violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law that has never resulted in a conviction. The law is violated when a private citizen negotiates without authorization on behalf of the United States in disputes with foreign governments.

The rationale behind the law seeks to prevent an individual with international contacts from thwarting the policy of the nation. This is exactly what Kerry has been attempting.

Why bring up a law from centuries past?

Four days into the Trump presidency acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover, raised the very same Logan Act to claim that General Michael Flynn, a former Trump administration national security adviser, was in violation of the law due to Flynn’s perfectly proper discussion with the Russian ambassador during the transition period leading to the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

The law that Yates cited, which was passed during the administration of President John Adams, was not intended to apply to incoming officials during a transition period between presidential administrations.

The Logan Act was also used during the 2016 presidential campaign to attack then-candidate Trump when he humorously asked the Russians to reveal the 30,000-plus emails, which Hillary Clinton had illegally deleted from her server.

At least twice in the past two months Kerry has engaged in what Matt Viser of the Boston Globe termed “shadow diplomacy,” meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in order to seek a way to preserve the discredited and dubious Iran nuclear deal.

Kerry is apparently selfishly seeking to save what he believes is his personal legacy, while acting against current U.S. policy as well as the best interests of the Western world.

The Iran deal, which was struck in 2015 by the Obama administration, is now viewed as a toothless transaction at best, and at worst it is considered a dangerous pathway that enables Iran to become a nuclear power.

This is the same abominable deal that in January of 2016 the public learned that a jet carrying $400 million in euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies had landed in Tehran. The money was purportedly a partial payment of an outstanding claim by Iran. Soon afterward another $1.3 billion in cash followed, for a total of $1.7 billion in cash handed to the Iranians.

The Iran deal was one of the key policy issues litigated during the last presidential election, and the American people chose the policy that then-candidate Trump frequently enunciated, that the Iran deal needed to be terminated.

Trump has until May 12 to decide whether to continue on with the agreement. He has indicated that he intends to pull out of the Iran deal.

The Boston Globe called Kerry’s meeting with the Iranians “stealthy” and reported that Kerry is using his contacts acquired “during his time as the top U.S. diplomat to try to apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.” This is a Logan Act violation pure and simple.

Each day for a year and a half now news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC have been repeating the term “collusion” Meanwhile when Kerry colludes with a dangerous enemy to undermine a duly elected president, the appropriate media outrage is predictably missing.

If there were ever a clear cut example of a Logan Act violation it would be when a former top diplomat actively works against the United States with a totalitarian terrorist-supporting state, which is simultaneously seeking to acquire the capability to nuke both Israel and America.

This comes as no surprise when one considers Kerry’s history of cavorting with enemies and undermining American foreign policy. In the 1970s, Kerry traveled to Paris, France to meet with leaders of an enemy against which the United States was fighting a war, the North Vietnamese Communists. This, too, was a violation of the Logan Act.

In the 1980s, Kerry championed the Nuclear Freeze, which in response to Soviet placement of ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe, urged the U.S. to respond with a nonsensical policy of no response.

It has been reported that Kerry is considering a second run for president in 2020 to take on President Trump. However, Kerry’s contemptible collusion with Iran should utterly disqualify him as a candidate for any political office in the nation.

The Left’s Attempt to Silence Kanye West

629490020_donald-trump-kanye-west-zoom

Author and conservative icon Andrew Breitbart had a phrase that rings true to this day: “Politics is downstream from culture.”

For decades now the left has maneuvered its way into dominating the pop culture as well as the cult of personality itself. Liberal political mantras have engulfed a once vibrant arena in which an exchange of ideas lived and breathed.

Far-left activists, who in many instances amassed their fortunes on fertile Left Coast soil, took to using their positions of prominence to force agenda-ridden content into every facet of the entertainment industry.

Kanye West, one of the most well known celebrities in the entertainment world, recently disrupted the info world order and did so by expressing to his millions of Twitter followers material that is contrary to current liberal doxology.

Kanye’s first tweet made social media heads explode.

I like the way Candace Owens thinks,” the rapper-entrepreneur posted.

Essentially Kanye endorsed Owens, who is a talented African-American woman who speaks out against victim-hood and, in her words, the “Democratic Party plantation.”

The media organs of the left reacted in predictable fashion, attempting to disparage, isolate, and destroy Kanye as well as any other notable individual who would dare traffic in liberal political “heresy.”

The pattern has become all too familiar as has been witnessed with various other celebrities, including Shania Twain, Roseanne, and Tim Allen. However, Kanye’s position in pop culture appears to pose a greater threat to the liberal powers that be, particularly because he is an African-American who is held in high esteem within his own community and an ever widening circle.

West has been known to frequently delve into matters deemed controversial, but in this case the media appear to have placed him on an exile list for having expressed views that differ from the mandated liberal slate.

A highly unusual number of Kanye-bashing headlines have arisen, including the following:

— “You Know You’ve F***ed Up When Donald Trump Thanks You” (Esquire)

— “How Red-Pill Culture Jumped the Fence and Got to Kanye West” (Wired)

— “The bizarre political evolution of Kanye West” (The Washington Post)

The Post was not done yet. It went on to viciously associate Kanye with the Alt-Right in a piece titled “Kanye West, alt-right darling.”

Throughout the Internet and social media, reactions by resistance trolls were filled with vulgar, profanity-laced tirades, including platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other left-of-center websites. Celebrities began to unfollow Kanye on Twitter, including Drake, Justin Bieber, BTS, The Weeknd, Rihanna, Ariana Grande, Harry Styles, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, and Kendrick Lamar.

Members of the Kardashian clan, Khloé and Kourtney Kardashian and Kylie Jenner, apparently also stopped following Kanye. Rosie O’Donnell and Samuel L. Jackson tweeted out highly negative reactions to Kanye’s posts.

John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen are no longer Kanye followers. The reflexively liberal Legend evidently texted Kanye to try and convince him to back off from his recent posts.

I hope you’ll reconsider aligning yourself with Trump,” the singer-songwriter wrote.

In a tweet of a screenshot of a text thread, Kanye made it a point to let Legend and the public know that he takes his pro-Trump expressions seriously. He texted that Legend was using “a tactic based on fear” to undermine Kanye’s political and cultural beliefs.

With a post that read “Black people don’t have to be democrats,” Chance The Rapper tweeted out what appeared to be support for Kanye. However, in a redux of the Shania Twain debacle, after being blasted on social media Chance backtracked and made statements that he is not a Trump supporter.

Despite all of the backlash, Kanye forged ahead with a stream of posts expressing his affection for the president, including a photo of his personal “Make America Great Again” cap, complete with an autograph by the current occupant of the Oval Office.

You don’t have to agree with Trump,” Kanye tweeted, “but the mob can’t make me not love him.”

He referred to President Trump as his “brother” and explained that they both possess “dragon energy.” He even doubled down on his pro-Trump expressions with the release of a new song “Ye vs. the People”

Because Kanye is such a seminal figure within the pop culture, his independent minded thoughts threaten the exclusivity of a territory that the left wing and the Democratic Party have always dominated.

The African-American vote is a significant part of left-of-center constituents. African-American voters typically choose Democrat candidates at a 90 percent level. If there is even a small drop in the African-American Democrat vote, the Party’s candidates are simply going to lose.

The Democrats Sham Lawsuit

fec-hillary-dnc-lawsuit-009-01-800x416

After more than a year, scores of interviews, mountains of documents, raids on witnesses, and tens of millions of dollars squandered away, there is still no evidence to support the allegation that President Donald Trump was involved in any type of “Russian collusion.”

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to get the “L” off its forehead, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks, putting forth a wild conspiracy theory to try and divert attention away from its embarrassing loss in the 2016 presidential election.

A host of federal laws that were supposedly violated are cited in the suit, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and tried-and-true fave of the left, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The lawsuit is a redux of the 1972 DNC lawsuit during the Watergate investigation against then-President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee, which ended in 1974 when the Dems took a settlement of $750,000 from the Nixon campaign on the same day Nixon vacated the Oval Office.

In a statement contained in a press release, current DNC Chairman Tom Perez publicized the suit using identical phrases that CNN and MSNBC guests and hosts have been parroting for almost two years.

Perez claimed the lawsuit was filed because “Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy” in an act of “unprecedented treachery.”

The timing of the legal maneuver is a huge tell. Recent news coverage has been splattered with stories about the much-anticipated book tour of former FBI Director James Comey, which has not exactly been going according to plan and has even managed to elicit its share of ridicule and disdain.

Two news stories involving the Obama appointed Inspector General have cracked the liberal media firewall: 1) a criminal referral on the fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; and 2) the launch of a new investigation into Comey over the release of his self-incriminating memos.

Meanwhile President Trump’s poll numbers have hit a high-water mark and seem poised to go even higher with the historic news that North Korea may be willing to denuclearize. At the same time the Democrat generic ballot numbers appear to be falling.

Adding to a growing political anxiety for the DNC is the fact that the organization is running short of cash. It is for this reason and so many others that the group has seemingly adopted the Saul Alinsky strategy of pinning your political rival with the dirty deed you have committed.

Audaciously, this is the same DNC that rigged its own primary, as former interim DNC chairperson Donna Brazile has documented. It is also the same DNC that colluded with the Russians for real on the DNC bought-and-paid for fake dossier.

Legally speaking, the Democrats may rue the day that they filed this action. In civil lawsuits, defendants are entitled to conduct discovery, including having the ability to subpoena the production of documents and other evidence and depose witnesses under oath.

Republicans would no doubt jump at the chance to subpoena the DNC computer server and obtain the communications and documents that show how, in its own primary process, the DNC swindled the supporters of 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

The DNC repeatedly refused to allow the FBI to access its server so that law enforcement could verify the allegation that Russia had hacked the server during the presidential campaign. Instead the DNC reached a dubious arrangement with the FBI in which a third-party company conducted forensic investigations on the server and shared details with the FBI.

The list of documents and witnesses involved with the purchase of the fake dossier and the subsequent FISA abuse scandal is lengthy and includes the names of McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and Glenn Simpson, all of whom could be deposed as a result of the DNC lawsuit.

Additionally, defendants in the suit would be able to bring a host of counterclaims including ones that might involve defamation, conspiracy to defraud, and federal election money laundering.

Allegations that the Hillary Clinton campaign laundered millions of dollars in contributions from big name donors could also potentially become a part of the discovery effort.

As reporter Amy Chozick outlines in her book, “Chasing Hillary,” during the very same time period that the DNC lawsuit contends the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia, the Clinton campaign was engaging in an effort to elevate President Trump’s candidacy and tie him to the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Some Democrats are wise enough to see that the DNC lawsuit poses a whole slew of problems for them, as illustrated in the comments below:

— California Rep. Jackie Speier described the suit in a CNN interview as an “ill-conceived” idea that is “not in the interest of the American people.”

— Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the legal action is a “silly distraction.”

— Gloria Borger, the reflexively liberal chief political analyst at CNN, said that the DNC lawsuit is a “100% stunt” designed to “raise money,” adding that “they want to keep the story moving.”

The DNC needs to come to grips with the reality that it was a main player in the rigging of the 2016 presidential election, handing the nomination for president to a flawed candidate, who was under criminal investigation at the time of her nomination and who flat-out lost an election that diehard Democrats believed she already had in the bag.

Hollywood’s Largest Union Responds to the Sexual Harassment Scandal

hollywood-759

The entertainment industry appears to be engaging in a superficial public relations campaign in response to the systemic sexual harassment crisis, which has severely tarnished the once-golden Hollywood brand.

In the fall of 2017, numerous women came forward with sexual misconduct allegations against former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, charges that spanned several decades and dealt with inappropriate and possible criminal behavior ranging from harassment to rape.

What has followed the initial Weinstein related expose is a host of harassment and sexual misconduct allegations involving actors, producers, directors, and other high-profile individuals.

Many of the alleged incidents are said to have taken place in hotel rooms. In a number of instances, women who believed they were attending a business meeting were instead subjected to various levels of improper behavior.

After the earth shattering revelations had come to the public forefront, what the appropriate response on the part of the entertainment community should have been was, at a minimum, to immediately cease the practice of holding meetings in hotel room suites.

Tragically, this did not occur and the practice of conducting private hotel room meetings continues to take place, despite the avalanche of news stories surrounding the biggest scandal in Hollywood history.

Elite decision makers in the industry argue that the private hotel room setting has been used to conduct meetings for those seeking roles in movie productions or television programs since the early days of Hollywood.

The continued use of hotel rooms for meetings has finally led SAG-AFTRA, which is the largest labor union in Hollywood representing actors, performers, broadcast journalists, and other entertainment professionals, to actually do something.

The union had been under fire in the wake of the sexual impropriety scandal for failing to protect its members from potential sexual misconduct. After holding a series of public meetings and forums with its members and industry leaders, the union has released a new set of guidelines regarding the conducting of private meetings in hotel rooms and residences, which calls for an end to the practice.

SAG-AFTRA is urging its members and their respective representatives to refrain from accepting professional meetings in “high-risk locations.”

If for any reason a producer and actor fail to come to an agreement on a meeting location, the SAG-AFTRA guidelines establish the concept of a “support peer,” which is an individual who will be available to accompany a performer to the meeting.

Distressingly, the guidelines may prove to be ineffective in the long run, since they are voluntary rather than mandatory.

To understand the industry’s intrinsic conflict, a cursory examination of a significant segment of the entertainment business is necessary; one that seems to have escaped a cultural airing and public dialogue—the music business.

Male music performers, who have had serious accusations lodged against them, seem to have been permitted to take a brief leave from their public appearances. And when a seemingly adequate amount of time has passed, they are subsequently allowed to go forward with their careers as if nothing ever happened.

–Singer Chris Brown was accused of assaulting then-girlfriend singer-actress Rihanna and additionally had similar problems with another girlfriend in 2017. The subsequent girlfriend was able to obtain a five-year restraining order to address claims of abuse and violent threats.

–Singer R. Kelly, who was acquitted of child pornography charges in 2008, nevertheless has for decades been trailed by accusations of abuse of women and of having had sexual relationships with minors.

–Epic Records chairman and CEO Antonio “L.A.” Reid made a swift exit from Sony Music after having been accused of sexual harassment by a female assistant at Epic Records. Variety reported that “multiple” claims were made against Reid. This year Reid announced that he had formed a new record label, Hitco, which has signed rapper Big Boi.

–Singer Trey Songz was recently arrested for felony domestic assault. The felony charge of hitting a woman while at a Hollywood party was rejected by the Los Angeles District Attorney. Songz’s case is still being reviewed by the L.A. City Attorney to determine whether or not to charge the singer with a lesser charge of misdemeanor domestic violence.

–Rapper XXXTentacion was arrested in 2016 and is awaiting trial for aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, domestic battery by strangulation, false imprisonment, and witness tampering. The rapper is also facing other felony counts relating to the case and was under house arrest from late December 2017 through March 2018. The rapper recently reached number one on the Billboard Artist 100 chart to become the top musical act in the nation.

–Rapper Fabolous was recently charged with third-degree aggravated assault and third-degree terroristic threats. The rapper allegedly punched a female victim in the face with enough force to knock out her front teeth.

The revelations regarding the horrific practices that were going on in all corners of the entertainment industry were a long time in coming. No superficial image repair has the means to restore the integrity of an individual or to address in any meaningful way the wanton exercise of arrogant power.

Perhaps when criminal prosecutions begin to take place, persons in positions of power and influence will be deterred from taking advantage of employee hopefuls, vulnerable subordinates, and would-be stars.

Tech Oligarchs Censor the Right

rtx5gc6c_wide-5a1301163e38ee381c8d446c8fc3f81e71ecf663-s1100-c15

The technology companies that provide social media platforms have grown to gargantuan size and now possess an ominous power over the ability of citizens to express and communicate ideas.

This control over free expression, which is held by a few tech oligarchs, is unprecedented at any time in human history.

The most widely used social media platform, Facebook, claims 2 billion users globally and is the preferred source for news for 45 percent of American adults. Three hundred hours of video are uploaded to Google-owned YouTube every minute of the day. And Twitter indicates that it has 330 million monthly active users. It was inevitable that these three monolithic social media platforms would be replete with users who seek to influence public opinion.

At one time all three seemed to reflect the notion that the general Internet should be treated as a free and open forum for any and all points of view.

The three have now shown themselves to be untrustworthy with data. They have proven to be biased, and of late have made it clear that they are willing to utilize the same kind of censorship that authoritarian regimes impose.

The ability of conservatives to reach people through the use of social media is being slowly and steadily diminished by the implemented policies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. This is occurring under the guise of eliminating false information.

Videos, posts, and other expressions are routinely being taken down, accounts are surreptitiously being limited in scope, and in some cases users are even being exiled from the Internet.

Tech giants have consistently demonstrated hostility toward the convictions of Americans who dare to hold contrary views to the pre-ordained liberal script. This all seemed to have begun with the revelation in the spring of 2016 that news curators at Facebook were suppressing news stories from right-of-center outlets. The resultant negative publicity caused Facebook to actually remove its human editors.

Last summer Twitter blocked pro-life advertisements, labeling them “sensitive content.” Early this year Twitter claimed that it was purging the platform of suspected Russian bot accounts, but it ended up causing conservative Twitter users, including podcaster Dan Bongino, to suffer a loss of followers.

In what it claimed to be a hunt for “fake news,” YouTube shut down highly viewed non-liberal channels on its platform. It ultimately had to apologize for what it called “mistaken removals,” just one more admission that a video platform had engaged in ideological censorship. The organization’s use of an extreme left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to determine what is “offensive” speech is a major tell of YouTube’s true intentions.

Oddly, the highly entrepreneurial Silicon Valley community has allowed itself to become a slavish patron of anti-business liberalism. As is typical of much of Wall Street and many major corporations, the tech world is devoted to leftist immigration policies that allow tech companies to access inexpensive labor.

Perhaps because the technology world considers itself to be scientifically minded, a huge portion of the tech community has become enamored with faux scientists such as Al Gore and have simply bought the notions of radical environmentalists hook, line, and sinker.

Those outside of the liberal circle, who happen to constitute a sizable segment of society, have made great strides in the past using digital technology to persuade the public. Presently, though, they are justifiably concerned about losing access to social media platforms at such a critical juncture in U.S. politics.

Where do divergent thinkers go to find a way to fight back against the free expression redactors? Here are some options for consideration:

–Litigation.

Lawsuits launched by those who feel as if they have experienced interference with their free expression on social media may find themselves in an uphill battle. However, it may be worth the struggle.

At the trial level, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh recently indicated that Prager University, a non-profit project by author, educator, and national radio talk show host Dennis Prager, failed to show in a lawsuit that YouTube infringed upon its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The suit was filed over YouTube’s “Restricted Mode” setting on such topics it deemed offensive. The judge held that YouTube was not a “state actor,” but rather a “private entity” and as such was not subject to First Amendment protections.

The judge also dismissed a claim on another legal theory that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager University’s videos were “inappropriate.”

The judge did encourage Prager University to amend its lawsuit to explore whether California’s state constitution would provide protection “in the age of social media and the Internet.” The decision can, of course, be appealed.

–Regulation.

The cumulative actions of social media giants have resulted in otherwise free market thinking individuals to begin eyeing the prospects of some kind of limited government regulation of the social media space.

One approach would be to classify social media platforms as “common carriers” and require that all users be treated equally. This is a variant of the much touted “net neutrality” about which tech blogs often rant.

A specific proposal that seems to have some merit involves mandating that users who are dissatisfied with either Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter be allowed to freely transfer their data to another platform, much in the same way consumers transfer their cell phone numbers from one carrier to another.

–Competition.

It is long overdue that a freedom loving social media provider appear on the scene.

Similar to the way in which the bias of the mainstream media gave birth to the alternative media, i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the like, those who hold non-liberal beliefs must create an alternative social media and do so before its too late.