Trump To Speak At CPAC Next Week To Talk About the Future of the GOP

Trump To Speak At CPAC Next Week To Talk About the Future of the GOP

Former President Donald Trump is going to give his first major public speech in his first major public appearance at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that launches in Florida this Thursday, February 25 through the 28th.   Trump will return to the political limelight during CPAC at the Hyatt Regency in Orlando, where he is expected to take aim at President Joe Biden’s immigration policies that got rid of the former president’s “America First” agenda.  I keep asking why an American president would do that to his own people.  The only answer I can ever come up with is because the Biden administration is not thinking of the American people, they are thinking about their future and their future power in our system.   By getting rid of America First policies they are buying into the power structure of the globalists of the world that will benefit them personally as well as politically.  Think about all the allegations that have been made against Joe Biden and his crime family with respect to how they dealt with countries like Ukraine and China.  They reportedly made millions if not billions of dollars by selling out to those countries and being a part of the corruption that ensues there.

Trump hasn’t made an appearance at any major events since he gave his last speech as president on January 20 prior to President Joe Biden’s inauguration, will speak on the last day of CPAC as a keynote speaker according to a source that told Fox News.

The former president has been quiet since leaving office and moving back home to Florida with his family.  To make communication tougher,  Trump has not been able to use social media as a means to communicate with his supporters after Twitter permanently banned him from its platform and after Facebook, whose founder spent $400 million to help Democrats defeat Trump, has indefinitely suspended his account following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.  The tech giants have also attacked conservative social media platforms like Parler that was ousted by Amazon from their web services for transparently bogus reasons.

Trump’s keynote speech will focus on “the future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” a source close to the former president told the New York Post. “Also look for the 45th President to take on President Biden’s disastrous amnesty and border policies.”  you will probably not see many establishment-type RINOs at the event while trump is speaking, especially the traitors who voted with Democrats to impeach and remove him from office for something he didn’t do.

Trump, who has made regular appearances at CPAC since he was elected in 2016, spoke at the event every year from 2017 through 2020.   His 2019 speech lasted just over two hours, one of the longest speeches he gave as president where he spoke out against Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (AOC) and the disastrous Green New Deal.

Trump was and always will be a man of the people, a real blue-collar billionaire.

Donald Trump hasn’t said much since leaving the White House around 8:30 am on January 20, where he went back to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.  The only formal statement the 45th president produced was a scathing response to the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) after he joined forces with the lunatic Democrats to blame the former president for the riot that took place on January 6, something which all evidence proves he did not incite.  McConnell’s actions beg the question, what can you say about Mitch McConnell you couldn’t say about Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot?

Trump has since created “The Office of the Former President,” which drove liberals nuts, “will be responsible for managing President Trump’s correspondence, public statements, appearances, and official activities to advance the interests of the United States and to carry on the agenda of the Trump administration through advocacy, organizing and public activism.”

Last week, Trump let his supporters know that he is not leaving politics, not just yet.

“Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again (MAGA) has only just begun,” he said. “In the months ahead I have much to share with you, and I look forward to continuing our incredible journey together to achieve American greatness for all of our people. There has never been anything like it!”

Why the Media Wants You To Pay Attention to the Proud Boys

Why the Media Wants You To Pay Attention to the Proud Boys

The political left had a temper tantrum on Saturday by kicking their favorite scapegoat, the Proud Boys, because trashing and punishing American men is a fantasy and a hobby for the left, to be honest, and things are not going the left’s way right now. The Proud Boys is a group of American men of all shapes, colors, and sizes who describe themselves as a “drinking club with a Patriot problem.” Like traditional American men, the proud boys don’t appear to like to be gaslighted and bullied by the government.

The Proud Boys were trending on Twitter on Saturday for what they might wear.

Late last week, the media had driven a cancel culture campaign against the Proud Boys to pressure hotels not to rent them rooms in DC during the next week.

I covered that story:

Supporters of Trump’s target political opponents of the left who want to control and dominate others. And they are obsessed with the Proud Boys to the point that a news company, The Hill, is reporting on what the Proud Boys ‘might wear’ to an upcoming rally for President Donald J. Trump.

Of course, that allowed leftist to call them “racists,” which is a common fantasy:

Look at this article from the Hill on Saturday, Proud Boys to attend Jan. 6 DC rallies ‘incognito’, that Kaelean Deese wrote:

“Members of the far-right group the Proud Boys will attend Washington, D.C., rallies for President Trump on Jan. 6 “incognito,” with leaders of the group saying they will dress in “all BLACK” to mimic the attire of anti-fascist groups and counterprotesters.

The group is known for its signature black and yellow clothing during rallies and protests, where they typically appear in large groups. The group’s chairman, Enrique Tarrio, announced on social media that group members “might dress in all BLACK for the occasion.”

Additionally, members of the group will likely branch off into smaller formations to remain “incognito.”

Why is that news?

Antifa attacked women, older adults, and children walking down the street to a rally for Trump. Proud Boys have been stabbed, and two male supporters of Trump’s have been shot dead in the street at gatherings.

The Hill reports: “Both the Proud Boys and some violent sects of counterprotest groups known as Antifa have been at odds in recent months during public political events, often engaging in physical conflict due to ideological differences.

Last month, four stabbings occurred near a bar that served as a home base for Proud Boys members following a pro-Trump protest in the city.”


“Despite escalating tensions ahead of Wednesday’s planned mass gatherings, Trump has been eager to invite any of his supporters to D.C,” The Hill reported, apparently attempting to scare people from attending the nation’s capital next week to support Trump.

Ask yourself, is this really news? Why is The Hill reporting on the Proud Boys clothing? Why does the left need a kicking post and scapegoat in the first place?

Trump Will Veto Defense Authorization Act Unless Removal of Section 230 of Communications Decency Act is Removed

Trump Will Veto Defense Authorization Act Unless Removal of Section 230 of Communications Decency Act is Removed

President Donald Trump Thursday night reiterated his vow to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an important military spending bill, if it doesn’t include language to end Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which many on both sides of the political aisle deem a free ride for Big Tech companies to do whatever they want.  But many people, including me, have argued that removing Section 230 would cause more problems than it would solve.

I cannot find a bigger supporter of President Trump than myself, and I am against shutting down Section 230.  Trump has one of the best reasons for doing this, and it’s because he has been the biggest victim of the abuses of Section 230.  The big tech giants actively censored the president and any and all of his supporters during the 2020 election.  They labeled truthful posts as “misleading” or “false” because they decided a long time ago that they were going to support Democrats over Republicans, and they decided they were going to do everything they could to harm Trump’s reelection efforts.  Many openly discussed it.

My reasons for not wanting to repeal Section 230 have nothing to do with protecting social media tech giants from continuing to censor people with different political beliefs.  That’s wholly unamerican as far as I’m concerned.   The reason I’m against it is because removing Section 230 will do nothing stop Twitter, Facebook, Google or others tech tyrants from continuing to do the awful things they do to millions of Americans, because they have billions of dollars at their disposal that they can use to have their lawyers tie up the courts for a decade or longer.

Companies would be held legally responsible for everything people say on their site, and they would face legal risks for enforcing community standards or voluntarily restricting access to or deleting inappropriate or illegal content at the same time.

Removing Section 230 will do actual harm to the good guys who don’t have that kind of money to defend themselves from liability lawsuits.   Newly emerging social media companies like,, and others who act like real platforms would be crushed by frivolous lawsuits and then forced to shut down.  That would help the tech tyrants and do nothing to get them to comply with the spirit of Section 230.  Disclaimer:  I own

Instead of repealing Section 230, we would do better if we just removed platform status of the tech tyrants who are acting like a publisher by censoring free speech.   We should only allow social media companies that behave like a true platform to have the protections of Section 230, which is what Section 230 is all about.

Trump focused his argument on the NDAA’s sponsor, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), after the senator insisted that the termination of Section 230 did not belong in a military spending bill.  He said this after the Senate amended the bill to include a section for renaming military bases and other military assets that bear a Confederate name, which also does not belong in a military spending bill.

The president took to social media Thursday night to make his comments public.

“Very sadly for our Nation, it looks like Senator @JimInhofe will not be putting the Section 230 termination clause into the Defense Bill.  So bad for our National Security and Election Integrity.  Last chance to ever get it done. I will VETO!”

On Thursday, Inhofe announced the NDAA’s completion, and the president responded a brief message: “But doesn’t get rid of Big Tech’s windfall, Section 230, a grave threat to National Security. I will VETO!”

“Section 230 has nothing to do with the military,” Inhofe told reporters at the Capitol, Newsweek reported. “I agree with his sentiment, we ought to do away with Section 230. But you can’t do it in this bill. That’s not a pertinent bill.”

I wish someone would make sure the president and Senator Inhofe hear my arguments against doing away with Section 230, because it will cement the tech tyrants in place as it kills the competition.

Section 2:30 protects Internet companies, particularly social media companies, from certain forms of liability for content that users on their websites post to their platforms.  It allows for basic content moderation.   For example, if someone posts pornography on the platform, and in the site’s Terms of Use policy it says that you cannot post pornography, then the platform has the right to remove that content. That’s not what the tech tyrants have been doing. They were creating inconsistent and irrational rules where they dictated what was free speech that has nothing to do with content that would be deemed offensive by the general community.  Most of the tech giants are run by leftists, so if someone right of center posted something that the leftists who work for the site didn’t agree with they would censor them.  That’s not acting like a platform, and therefore, they should not enjoy the protections afforded by Section 230.

Rather than remove Section 230, the government should make it clear what Internet companies have to do to maintain platform status.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not for government censorship of Internet companies, including the tech tyrants.  Rather, I think that we can come up with a way to define what a platform is and make sure that Internet companies stay within the veil of that definition.

Internet companies that do not behave the way a platform is defined should lose their platform status and be deemed a publisher.  For example, I can’t just post one of my stories on the New York Times’ website, because they are a publisher and they take responsibility the content that is posted on their website.   On a platform, you should be able to post most of anything you want so long as it doesn’t violate the terms of service which would be things that are considered offensive to the general community.  But when you start censoring people for political speech that you don’t agree with you are now a publisher no different from the New York times.   You are blocking people from posting content to your platform, or rather, you are deciding who should be able to post content and who shouldn’t.   That’s not a platform, that’s a publisher.

Facebook, Twitter and other tech tyrants who abuse Section 230 should be dealt with appropriately, but to remove the protections from other social media companies that abide by the platform standards would be harmed while the billionaire tech tyrants would be able to continue violating the rule.  Removal would hurt new companies from being able to compete and would help the companies who violate the rule.

‘Threat To Democracy’: Deep State Portal CNN Sound Alarm Over Conservatives Leaving Twitter, Facebook.

‘Threat To Democracy’: Deep State Portal CNN Sound Alarm Over Conservatives Leaving Twitter, Facebook.

People who lie eventually slip up when things start to go outside their plans.

Marxists who seek to control the medical, educational, and media industries, need the population as a whole to use all of the aforementioned services in their pursuit of creating dependence and loyalty to the state.

So when you look at CNN, a lying Marxist promoting propaganda information outlet, they react to anything which pulls the population away from the approved messaging.

For example, why should CNN care what social media platforms Trump supporters use?

In a segment this week discussing how the political Right is handling the results of the 2020 presidential election, CNN reporter Pamela Brown suggested that it was a “threat to democracy” that people were turning away from dominant social media platforms like Facebook and signing up to be on more pro-free speech platforms and sites.

Crying Brian Stelter who bemoaned smaller conservative news channels garnering more viewership in recent weeks as Trump world has clashed with Fox News over some of the network’s recent coverage weighed in.

“I think, big picture, Pamela, here is the concerning trend line here. People are going more and more into their own echo chambers, more into their own bubbles, especially Trump voters,”

“There’s this new social media app, called Parler, getting a lot of attention. Because conservatives are leaving, saying they’re leaving Twitter and Facebook, going off to Parler because they believe Parler is a safer space for them.”

“What we’re seeing is even more of a bunker mentality in right-wing media,” Stelter continued. “Ultimately, that’s not good for the country.”

“No, it is not good,” Brown responded. “It is a threat to democracy that these people are in echo chambers and they’re getting fed a diet of lies essentially.”

So there you have it folks.

CNN wanted their viewers to believe they are concerned about democracy so much that it is dangerous for anyone to use a different social media platform like Parler, Spreely, or MagaBook.Com, as these users will not be exposed to the truth, like CNN, is broadcasting.

No, they are alarmed that millions of Americans will not longer be exposed to the collective’s messaging making it more difficult to control the masses.