Democrats: the party of “Do as I say, not as I do”

Featured

Democrats show how not to promote a free press

The Democrat press accuses Trump of suppressing the Freedom of the Press

I cannot count the times the press has accused President Trump of oppressing the members of the American press. However, finding an example of the whining required reference to an 8 January 2019 commentary at The Federalist that detailed the scaremongering by the American press on freedom of the press.

committee-to-protect-journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a group alleging to promote press freedom and the rights of journalists, awarded President Donald Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” in its “Press Oppressors” awards this week. The story was giddily retweeted across the liberal Twitterverse, because, one imagines, people actually believe it.

From there, the author (David Harsanyi) goes on to characterize the battle between the American press and President Trump as a “slap fight (between) a couple of sloshed Real Housewives.” Sadly, until President Trump moved his press gatherings out to the edge of Marine One, I would have to agree with Mr. Harsanyi and say that the press got too much press out of the White House. Nonetheless, the move to the edge of Marine One happily put an end to much of the grandstanding by the press.

Additionally, I would suggest that any freedom-loving conservative read this article by Mr. Harsanyi so as to glean:

While Trump’s efforts to stop Michael Wolff’s fabulist “Fire and Fury” from being published are silly and counterproductive and sure to fail (update: as is his new lawsuit against Buzzfeed), he is merely accessing the legal rights that all Americans enjoy. In the meantime, Democrats, right now, support new laws that would allow the state to ban political books and documentaries. The Obama years made overturning the First Amendment via the Citizens United a tenent of its party platform. Obama, in perfect syntax, engaged in an act of norm-breaking, called out the Supreme Court publicly for upholding First Amendment. That was rhetoric, too. Few defenders of the press seemed bothered by any of it.

(Read more at The Federalist)

Although sometimes embarrassed by Trump’s foibles, I still support a President who punches back

Admittedly, there are times that I wince at the words tweeted by the President; however, I appreciate this President who fights (unlike some seemingly spineless Republicans).

thefighter1

This is particularly accentuated since I have seen that this President has taken into consideration many of the topics that have been heavy on my heart. He has held the hope presented by the pro-life position. Moreover, he took in mind the effect the misdirected courts have had on our lives by appointing constitutionally-minded jurists. Furthermore, he removed the chains placed by previous administrations on our economy through unnecessary regulation. More to the point, he removed the mandate that we be required to kowtow to governmental meddling between me and my doctor.

And while I will not make this portion of this post into a listing of the major accomplishment of the administration, I do find it necessary to reiterate the mistrust I have in the press due to their 90% negative reporting on this President.

Democrats show how not to allow journalism

O’Rourke ejects a conservative journalist

We find by reading Breitbart that Presidential hopeful Robert Francis O’Rourke tossed a conservative journalist (Joel Pollack) out of a public meeting.

NothingStopORourke

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) has styled himself as a champion of press freedom, tweeting last October: “The press is not the enemy of the people but the best defense against tyranny.”

It is now August, and with his poll numbers falling in the Democratic presidential primary, O’Rourke has decided that he is entitled to abuse members of the press who cannot be relied upon to provide favorable coverage.

O’Rourke’s campaign ejected this Breitbart News reporter from a speech at Benedict College, a historically black college, on Tuesday afternoon.

JoelPollack_EjectedByBeto

This reporter was standing along the side of a lecture hall in the basement of the Henry Pinder Fine Arts Humanities Center, waiting for the event to start, together with roughly 200 students and college staff members. Other news outlets had set up cameras in the back of the room.

Several minutes after the 3:00 p.m. event had been scheduled to begin, a staff member in a Beto O’Rourke t-shirt approached this reporter and asked what outlet I represented. Upon reading the press credential on my chest, he put a hand on my shoulder and said, cheerfully, “Oh, hey. All right.”

A few minutes later, before the event began, a campus police officer approached this reporter and motioned for me to accompany him to the back of the room, adding that I should bring any property I had with me. In the hallway outside, he informed me that I was to leave.

A different member of the O’Rourke campaign staff, who said his name was “Steven” and would not give a last name, said that I was being ejected because I had been “disruptive” at past events.

This reporter has covered two O’Rourke events. The first was at a protest outside a shelter for migrant teens in Homestead, Florida, in June; the second was at the College of Charleston “Bully Pulpit” lecture in Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday evening. At no point was there any disruption whatsoever.

This reporter asked a question during a press gaggle on Monday evening; that was the only interaction of any kind with the candidate.

The question asked the Democratic presidential hopeful whether misquoting Trump’s comments on riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was consistent with O’Rourke’s pledge to “heal” and not “inflame” divisions in this country.

Considering how the Left howled when Jimmy Acosta was barred from White House briefings, this should have made front-page news

However, unlike the spats between the White House and Jimmy Acosta, Kaitlan Collins, and others, they might have forgotten about Obama’s blacklisting of Fox?

iu

Or, more to the point, did they think that we did not notice how they encircled Acosta after he was called out for blocking a female White House staffer from taking the microphone he had repeatedly been told to relinquish? News to the Nightly News: you cannot successfully champion both the #MeToo movement and a bully of females.

Bodyguards for April Ryan rough up an invited guest photojournalist

The New York Post lets the cat out of the bag by reporting on the attack that one bodyguard of April Ryan perpetuated on a photojournalist who was trying to ply his trade.

AprilRyanBodyguard

CNN political analyst April Ryan — who has repeatedly blasted President Trump for attacking and vilifying the press — got her bodyguard to forcibly remove a journalist from an event she was speaking at in New Jersey, leading cops to charge him Monday with assault.

“This was more than just an assault on me,” tweeted New Brunswick Today editor Charlie Kratovil. “This was an assault on freedom of the press.”

Kratovil claims he was violently tossed from the New Jersey Parent Summit on Aug. 3 by Ryan’s goon after spending two hours inside filming other guests and speakers without any problems.

Kratovil had been invited to The Heldrich Hotel, where the event was held, by a public relations firm and asked to cover it. Video posted online shows him sitting in the audience as Ryan takes the stage and starts speaking.

Moments later, her bodyguard — Joel Morris, 30, of Illinois — comes into view and is told something by Ryan. He promptly walks over to Kratovil and allegedly attempts to take his video camera.

“Put that down,” Kratovil yells. “Don’t you dare — put that down, sir! That’s my camera!”

A tussle allegedly ensues and Morris winds up walking Kratovil out of the venue — with his arm twisted around his back, the journalist says.

“This is a personal event,” Morris can be heard telling him. “You’re not allowed back in.”

A woman can be heard screaming at Kratovil at one point, saying: “How dare you come in here and interrupt this event like this!”

“I didn’t interrupt,” he fired back.

Kratovil posted a video on his Twitter page Monday, explaining how cops found “probable cause” to charge Morris with harassment, assault and theft.

“I was there to cover April Ryan’s speech,” Kratovil explained. “Joel Morris stole [my] camera, high-tailed it out of the room. One thing led to another, I ended up being assaulted after retrieving the camera. But now Mr. Morris is going to have to show up on Sept. 12…in Superior Court.”

Kratovil added, “It’s a shame that we even have to be at this point.”

He read a statement from the NJ Society of Professional Journalists, saying: “It is never under any circumstances permissible for a person aggrieved at being photographed or videotaped to lay hands on the journalist, or attempt to take away the journalist’s equipment.”

“It is sad we have to say this, and remind people of this — and it’s super sad that we have to remind another journalist of this,” Kratovil said. “We are still waiting for [Ryan] to comment on this unfortunate incident…Maybe now that there’s criminal charges we might hear something from her. I hope sincerely that she does comment and I hope she does condemn this. This is unacceptable…Not in our country, we have freedom of the press here.”

(Read more at New York Post)

Although this started in full view of April Ryan and the bodyguard was in her employ, she denied involvement

Somehow, a person who made a name for herself by reporting on other people has surrounded herself with bodyguards and will not allow herself to be the subject of reporting.

Another phase of the killing of the Freedom of the Press: Liberals stand against the free flow of ideas

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy

Due to the slanted reporting by NBC News in their 22 August 2019 article on the Epoch Times, it becomes evident that maybe this outlet (that liberals want to close down) merits our support.

To quote NBC (and, thence, read beyond the liberal bias to see the possible truth):

Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign, from any future advertising on the platform.

The decision follows an NBC News report that The Epoch Times had shifted its spending on Facebook in the last month, seemingly in an effort to obfuscate its connection to some $2 million worth of ads that promoted the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies.

“Over the past year we removed accounts associated with the Epoch Times for violating our ad policies, including trying to get around our review systems,” a Facebook spokesperson said. “We acted on additional accounts today and they are no longer able to advertise with us.”

Facebook’s decision came as a result of a review prompted by questions from NBC News. The spokesperson explained that ads must include disclaimers that accurately represent the name of the ad’s sponsors.

The Epoch Times’ new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which appeared under page names such as “Honest Paper” and “Pure American Journalism,” allowed the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook’s political advertising transparency rules. Facebook’s ban will affect only The Epoch Times’ ability to buy ads; the sock-puppet pages created to host the new policy-violating ads were still live at the time of publication.

Nicholas Fouriezos, a reporter for the website OZY, tweeted about the move Thursday. It was first spotted last week by Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast.

A recent NBC News investigation revealed how The Epoch Times had evolved from a nonprofit newspaper that carried a Chinese-American religious movement’s anti-communism message into a conservative online news behemoth that embraced President Donald Trump and conspiracy content.

(Read more tripe at NBC News)

Facebook as one of the gatekeepers for the Democrat party

Nobody can deny the numerous times Facebook has acted to suppress points of view that counter the Democrat orthodoxy. When at a gathering of liberals, Mark Zuckerberg bragged that Facebook had banned pro-life ads to the platform just prior to the Irish referendum on abortion (something that at least one Spanish article corroborates).

PJWBanned-1200x630

So, how can we consider Facebook (or Google or Twitter) a unbiased platform for the digital exchange of information? Considering that it took Facebook years of anti-Semitic offenses by Louis Farrakhan to get him banned, but only months of right-wing reporting or commentary by Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer to get them banned, there is no way to trust Facebook in such a manner.

NYTwits: You’re not the resistance

NYT Staffer Pleads With Newsroom: ‘We’re Not F**king Part Of The Resistance’

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we are told of an instance where a member of the press resisted “The Reistance.”

The New York Times takes a lot of heat from the right for just existing.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

That they even needed a reminder on this matter speaks volumes.

The meeting came after Manhattan’s paper of record caught hell when editors ran — and then changed — a headline that put President Trump in a favorable light. The headline changed after the Twitterverse descended on the NYT like an angry swarm of bees.

“Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism,” last Monday’s headline read after Trump delivered a speech denouncing white supremacy after the recent spate of mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso killed 30 people.

Lefty Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor and longtime editor at The Nation, dramatically dropped her subscription. If you lose Joan Walsh you know you’re in trouble (eye roll)

In the next edition, the NYT changed the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”

CNN media writer Oliver Darcy wrote about a newsroom town hall that happened at the behest of Executive Editor Dean Baquet last Friday.

New York Times Illustrations Ahead Of Earnings Figures

Stating the obvious, one staffer said, “There are a lot of people that think The Times is too liberal, and when you start throwing words like that around, people will accuse us of editorializing.”

Baquet didn’t need his arm twisted. “It was a fucking mess,” he told reporters and editors of the headline choice.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

A headline to state the obvious: the New York Times is only objective as a mouthpiece for Democrats

Nobody can gloss over it. All pretense that there might be true objectivity at the New York Times has evaporated.

Muslim-American Journalist Says Twitter Shadow-Banned Her After Asking Ilhan Omar For An Interview

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we hear the story of Dalia Al-Aqidi, a Muslim, female journalist and refugee, who was shadow-banned from Twitter after pressing Ilhan Omar for an interview.

DaliaAl-Aqidi_IlhanOmar

A Muslim-American female journalist and refugee was shadow-banned from Twitter after criticizing Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Dalia Al-Aqidi said Omar has largely refused to grant sit-down interviews to U.S. media outlets, while doing so with Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar.

Al-Aqidi is a longtime journalist who has covered the White House and the Iraq war for Alhurra TV, a U.S.-based Arabic network, where the Chicago Tribune lauded her as the “most-watched TV reporter no one in America has seen.” She has also contributed stories to the U.S. government-run Voice of America and the Saudi-government-run Alarabiya in the past. She previously fled Hussein’s Iraq.

“I dared her to give me a 30 minute 1-on-1 interview. I believe we have things in common we can discuss — we’re both immigrants, women, and Muslims. And from what I’ve seen from her she only gives interviews to Al Jazeera,” Al-Aqidi told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Two hours later, CAIR started following me” on Twitter, she said, referring to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “So I pointed out CAIR’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Soon after, it was as if Al-Aqidi didn’t exist on Twitter. From her side, everything looked normal. She never received communications from Twitter notifying her of violating its terms of service, and she could log in and send tweets.

But no one could see them. When a user searches her name on Twitter, it never comes up in the autocomplete. If you type in her screen name “@dalia30,” it does not come up, with Twitter instead suggesting @dalia30900915. When you search for key words that she has tweeted, her own missives are missing from the search results.

Known as a “shadow-ban,” the practice of Twitter secretly preventing others from seeing someone’s tweets, while misleading the user that this is not happening, is so common that a website, shadowban.eu, tests for it. It confirms that Al-Aqidi is shadow-banned.

(Read more at 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller)

This goes to prove that insider politics has killed journalism

Just as Dalia Al-Aqidi got shadow banned for asking questions of the untouchable Ilhan Omar, Laura Loomer got banned from Facebook shortly after reporting on Nancy Pelosi and Sharyl Attkisson left from CBS with her persistence in investigating the Obama excesses.

And Democrats present themselves as tolerant.

Democrats on race relations: Ilhan Omar demonizes all White men

Ilhan Omar suggests people should be ‘more fearful of white men’ than jihadists in 2018 interview

The New York Post reveals through a 25 July 2018 article how Rep. Ilhan Omar demonized all White men.

ilhan-omar-FearWhiteMen

Rep. Ilhan Omar said Americans should be “more fearful of white men” when discussing the threat of “jihadist terrorism.”

The Minnesota progressive was asked in a resurfaced interview with Al Jazeera from August 2018 about the rise of Islamophobia, citing the attacks that killed eight people on a Manhattan bike path in 2017 and the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14.

“I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Omar answered.

“And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men,” she continued.

Omar, a Somalia-born Democrat, along with other first-year Democratic congresswomen — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — have been feuding with President Trump after he tweeted earlier this month that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

(Read more at the New York Post)

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account …

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account for this statement (or her accusations that represenatives friendly to Israel held dual allegances or her “Some people did something” comment about 9/11 or her many anti-Semitic statements), then it might again start to set unfortunate trends.

I say “again” because the last time the Democrat press dismissed the words of a prominent Democrat, riots erupted. On another instance with that same Democrat, towns burned in support of lawlessness.

Ilhan Omar must not have believed her own advice on White men (quoted above), since she had an affair with a married White man

In yet another article, the New York Post explains how Rep. Omar has been accused of having an affair with her white, male campaign worker.

A Washington, DC, mom says her political-consultant husband left her for Rep. Ilhan Omar, according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The Post.

Dr. Beth Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative — and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing, submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday.

The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband — who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison — have a 13-year-old son together.

“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.

“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.

“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.

“It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation,’’ according to the filing.

The Mynetts lived together for six years before marrying in 2012, the filing said.

Omar — a member of “the Squad,” a group of far left-leaning female freshman House members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two others — recently separated from her husband, according to reports.

ilhan-omar-tim-mynett

The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.

Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Mynett at a California restaurant in March.

(Read more at New York Post)

If Ilhan Omar were anything but a hypocrite

Hypocrit_UntilThen

If Ilhan Omar were a true, principled politician, she might consider taking acts that would be best for her constituents.

If she were true to Islam, there would be no room in her life for infidelity or racism.

If she were a dedicated racist, she never would have had an affair with a White man.

With all of this said, all I can say is that she definitely is a hypocrite.

Democrat hypocrisy on personal protection

In response to the Odessa shooting, Democrats call for ineffective gun control

On Saturday, 31 August 2019, an insane man went on a shooting spree after he was fired and then pulled over for failing to signal a turn. Previously described by neighbors as “scary” and “violent,” this nut called the FBI and began “incoherently rambling” after his firing. Although he had both a criminal record and had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and, therefore, failed his background check, this madman purchased a rifle by way of a private sale. By the end of his rampage, the man who won’t be named here had killed seven and wounded 22 as he drove around shooting randomly before he was stopped by a policeman’s bullet near a movie theater.

During the same weekend in Chicago (where gun laws are in effect), eight were killed and 26 injured during a respite from violence (this is the lowest murder rate since 2011).

Over the years, articles demonstrate that Democrats want gun protection for them, not you

Democratic Congressman: Yeah, You Don’t Need Guns, But ‘We Deserve’ Armed Guards

The Daily Wire reports in a 23 June 2016 article on the hypocrisy of Charlie Rangel.

Democratic New York Representative Charlie Rangel, no stranger to hypocrisy, told The Daily Caller in an interview that while members of Congress “need” and “deserve” to be protected by guns, law-abiding citizens should not own guns.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

These are the Democrats who carved special payments out that cover their Obamacare expenses

If anyone finds any bit of surprise in the fact that Congress expects armed protection even as they devise methods of disarming the people, then remember these similar situations. Remember that they exempted themselves from Obamacare. Remember that insider trading laws that apply to you do not keep Congress members from using their Congressionally-acquired information to profit.

7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

Townhall comments on the liberal hypocrisy that surrounds the topic of gun control.

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened — so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.

But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an “upper class” that deserves to be protected with guns while it’s okay if the “peons” get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child’s life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he’s threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they’re so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the “riff-raff,” that they should have a right to be protected even if you don’t.

(Read the list of seven people and organizations who use guns but campaign for gun laws at Townhall)

Beyond knowing who to ignore and boycott

By knowing to avoid the print of the Journal-News and the bloviating of politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein or that of celebrities like Mark Kelly, Shania Twain, Rosie O’Donnell, or Michael Moore — we can be happier when we ignore it all.

Democrats accuse the NRA of profiting from bloodshed

Ridiculous Hypocrite Celebrities Launch Dumb New Attack on NRA

Red State rightfully points out one instance of where celebrities started a hypocritical attack on the NRA.

Even as it becomes apparent that Tinseltown’s celebrity set is an increasingly inconsequential political faction, they continue to hector and lecture the rest of as if they are still socially relevant and influential.

Undeterred by the fact that their overwhelming support of and assistance for Hillary Clinton in 2016 not only didn’t push her over the finish, but actually contributed to her defeat, the luminary Illuminati continue to offer up their unnecessary and unwanted opinions.

Since the election the famous have led the #Resistance — resulting in zero change. They have loudly backed the Women’s March, and their donning of vagina hats has provoked far more laughter than change. Celebrities have openly funded and supported the latest surge of gun control fervor following the Parkland school shooting, and the result has been an increase gun sales and a huge spike in new memberships for the NRA.

So not merely inconsequential to success for their liberal causes, but actively detrimental to it, and yet totally unaware of it.

This lack of awareness has led to a particular crowd of celebrities who, unable to ascertain the reason for rising NRA memberships and gun ownership, to concoct a plan to counteract it. Remarkable.

The formation of The NoRA Initiative is meant to be a direct salvo against the NRA. By way of introduction, this outfit crafted an open letter (PDF) to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and it is a marvel of ignorance and misinformation, all delivered in a demeaning, condescending, angry tone. Just as you’d expect from these geniuses.

This letter — signed by a lengthy list of actors, performers, and dozens of other deeply important people — wastes no time in being an easily disregarded missive of mirth. It begins by addressing the Columbine High School shooting, and our celebrities fall on their collective faces by sentence Two. “Three of the four guns used in the shooting were legally in the possession of the shooters.”

Uh, no. Sorry, Hollywood gun experts, but the two killers at Columbine — Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold — were below the age to “legally” own their firearms. The guns were purchased by another individual, and despite the claim by NoRA, the straw purchase for underage individuals was illegal.

The letter then mentions the NRA held its convention in Denver weeks later. This is another wild inaccuracy. Rather than marching in behind the tragedy, the convention had long been planned for Denver and following the shooting then President Charlton Heston canceled most of the event activities, save for his legally mandated annual speech. This was done out of respect of the victims. Then NoRA engages in more sophistry.

(Read more at Red State)

Not terrorists, but founded by pastors seeking to protect former slaves from the KKK

As I previously blogged in 2016, there are a number of Blacks who support Second Amendment rights. Still, when you compare the support that should exist for the protection of Black families against the stated support for senseless Democrat policies, there really can be no comparison.

Additionally, considering that the NRA was established by former abolitionist pastors who wanted Blacks to be able to protect their own families against the KKK (the Southern Democrat’s violent tool of oppression), there should not be a debate within poor America as to whether only the rich deserve the protection of sidearms via bodyguards (refer to April Ryan above).

As evidenced by the words of the Black conservatives in the 2013 conference documented in the below two videos (both long and short versions), we have ample evidence to support the good intentions of the founders, leaders, and members of the National Rifle Association.

The O’Rourke campaign shows no control in promoting itself after the Odessa shooting

Beto O’Rourke campaign selling ‘this is f—ed up’ T-shirts to help gun control activists

In a 1 September 2019 USA Today article, the sickness of one Democrat campaign comes out.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not mince words when describing the deadly shooting in Midland-Odessa, Texas, that left at least seven people dead and 22 wounded.

“This is f—ed up,” he said on Twitter Saturday evening and in a television interview on Sunday morning.

Later Sunday, his presidential campaign announced that the “f—ed up” quote had become a T-shirt being sold for $30 on the campaign website.

TeamBeto

“100% of the proceeds from the sale of this item will be shared equally between Mom’s Demand Action and March for Our Lives,” the campaign wrote on the O’Rourke campaign website, referring to two prominent gun violence prevention groups.

According to the campaign, the shirt was printed by a union and made in the United States.

The campaign has defended O’Rourke’s profanity on Twitter.

“if you’re angrier about a swear word than a baby being shot in the face, consider your choices,” the campaign wrote, referring to a 17-month-old girl who had been shot in the Texas shooting.

(Read more at USA Today)

News for “Beto”

What I am angry about stems from the continual attack by “Beto” on my Second Amendment rights any time he can make an emotional plea based on the acts of someone else.

Unlike “Beto,” I believe that murderers should be executed (rather then babies). Unlike “Beto,” I believe that the guilty should be punished, not those law-abiding citizens who have done nothing and who want to protect themselves.

Lead Democrats hypocrisy on “Climate Change”

Obama commits America to higher taxes with the Paris Climate Accord

According to a 1 June 2017 Business Insider article, Obama brought the USA into the Paris Climate Accord in order to supposedly slow the progress of global warming.

In December 2015, nearly every country, including all of the world’s biggest polluters, came together in Paris and agreed to limit carbon emissions.

The Paris Agreement was designed to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

It was a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Now President Donald Trump is withdrawing the US from the accord.

Here’s a quick primer on the Paris Agreement.

What did the US agree to?

The Paris Agreement laid out a framework for countries to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Each country submitted a climate-action plan laying out how it would achieve these goals.

The US’s plan, which the Obama administration submitted in March 2015, set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. The baseline level this reduction is measured against is 2005, when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

(Read more at the Business Insider)

After claiming the seas would rise due to global warming, Obama buys multi-million dollar beachfront property

As discussed at PJ Media, Obama has purchased a mulit-million dollar beachfront property which would easily be wiped out by global warming, if it existed.

After the news broke that former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama are buying a $15M waterfront estate in Martha’s Vineyard, some took to social media to accuse the Obamas of hypocrisy on climate change.

“If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t buy a $15 million mansion on…Martha’s Vineyard. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously,” wrote Twitter user @RantyAmyCurtis.

Others made a similar point in reaction to the news of the Obamas purchase, which has reportedly not been finalized yet.

“If climate change is as bad as Obama said it was, why is he buying property on or near the beach?” wrote Twitter user @Huffman_Hippy.

“How about Obama pushing climate change legislation then buying a coastal mansion at Martha’s vineyard?” wrote Twitter user @Mikel1618.

Twitter user @Chris_Roy wrote that the Obamas $15 million investment in a waterfront property “seems odd for a climate change alarmist believing in sea level rise and the destruction of coastal regions.Hmmm 🤔. Obviously not thinking of what he will leave his children.”

(Read more at PJ Media)

This was not the first high-profile Democrat to become a climate hypocrite

Al Gore, who hit his peak during his years in the as the Vice President under Bill Clinton, told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” Additionally, he told American households to conserve by keeping the air conditioning and heating at uncomfortable levels (while he maintained a sprawling mansion that included an Olympic-sized, heated pool). Likewise, he encouraged America to abstain from burning gasoline while he uses a fleet of jets and gas-guzzling sedans.

More recently, AOC has been called out for jet-setting and using SUV’s while advocating her drastic “Green New Deal.”

Democrats on terrorism

Democrats want to both coddle and demonize terrorists

When The Atlantic pointed out the incoherence within liberal (hence, Democrat) thought on terrorists.

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. “My god,” he wrote. “@POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat.” The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. “Terrorism is a real threat,” he acknowledged, “but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists.” Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trump’s approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

LondonBridgeMuslimAttackers

Maybe Murphy didn’t do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects “attack” neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such acts—that fear is what the terrorists want—does not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. It’s designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.

In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that they’ll be kept safe, not to be told that they’re overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the country’s many “dark realities”—the government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the “grim problem of existence,” and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely “material things,” and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.

Murphy’s reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters’ questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the president’s overseas trip:

Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. That’s when the president’s advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.” Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.

Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.

Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obama’s ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays “radical Islamic terrorism” as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.

Obama’s stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didn’t scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bush’s war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to “spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.” Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.

(Read more at The Atlantic)

From these and other instances, Democrats seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too

In the event that one might review the above article (or consider how radical Islam was never mentioned during a Senate hearing on the 9/11 attacks or think about how Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have never been punished for their many anti-Semitic attacks, just remember.

San Francisco City government declares the NRA to be a terrorist organization

By reading between the lines of the New York Times, we discover the degree of disrespect doled out by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors toward the National Rifle Association.

Unsettled by recent mass shootings across the nation, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution this week declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Catherine Stefani on July 30, two days after a shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif., in which three people were killed and more than a dozen others injured.

Before the resolution was put to a vote on Tuesday, Ms. Stefani spoke about the “carnage across this country,” also citing mass shootings last month in El Paso; Dayton, Ohio; and near Odessa, Tex.

Ms. Stefani said the N.R.A. conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed at local, state and federal levels.

“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”

While the resolution has no practical effect, Ms. Stefani said in an interview on Wednesday, “I firmly believe that words matter, and I think this is a step in fighting the negative impact of the N.R.A.”

(Read more at the New York Times)

Consider the results of the Board of Supervisors on San Francisco

To those who might consider the words of Ms. Stefani, walk the streets of San Francisco and decide whether the NRA or the Board of Supervisors has done the most to terrorize San Francisco.

AOC and Pressley raise bail funds for Antifa members who attacked police in Boston

According to the New York Post, AOC and Pressley raised bail for Antifa.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a fellow member of “the Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, vowed Saturday to contribute to a fund that is raising bail money for the 36 counterprotesters arrested at the “Straight Pride Parade” in Boston.

Nine of the counterprotesters arrested have been charged with assaulting police officers, the Boston Herald reported. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pressley (D-Mass.) both tweeted out a link to a crowdsourcing page called The Solidarity Against Hate Legal Defense Fund, which has raised nearly $25,000 to pay bail and other legal fees of those arrested while protesting the march.

“One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston’s white supremacist parade?” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, sharing a link to the fund. “Contribute to the Bail Fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.”

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Pressley’s initial tweet about the fund. Pressley slammed the “Straight Pride” event as an “#LGBT hate march” and asked followers to join her in making a contribution to the fund.

(Read more at the New York Post)

An answer that aligns with our founding

We can stop mass shootings without restricting Second Amendment liberties

Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation argues that America need not give up its guns in response to the recent violence.

PoliceProtection

It is often said by people of all political persuasions, and certainly by my fellow conservatives, that the primary duty of the federal government is to keep us safe.

The problem is, that’s not true. The founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the Federalist Papers, make it clear that the primary duty of the federal government is the preservation of liberty, not safety. The Founders had very clear ideas about the trade-offs between safety and liberty, and they willingly gave up their own security in order to take a desperate shot at more political liberty.

The Founders were primarily concerned about preventing tyranny, and they correctly understood that a free people could keep themselves safe, but a safe people might not be able to keep themselves free. You could live safely in a police state or a military dictatorship, or remain subjects of King George, but you wouldn’t be free.

That’s why Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Americans in the tradition of the Founders don’t trade liberty for safety.

But liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. The Founders believed that a free people could, through self-organization, create the means and the institutions necessary to maintain public safety. Liberty logically precedes safety, but it doesn’t preclude it.

Confronted with the horror of repeated mass shootings, proposed solutions have rushed toward restricting Second Amendment rights. But an American solution for reducing mass shootings should not focus on erosions of liberty.

On the other hand, when defenders of Second Amendment rights offer no practical solutions, they leave open the implication that liberty requires us to tolerate the occasional (or not-so-occasional) mass shooting. Not only is that a losing argument with the public in the long run, it’s also not true. Americans are entitled to both liberty and safety.

And let’s not get distracted by discussions about root causes. That might strike you as peculiar, but root causes are notoriously difficult to address, and government is particularly ill-equipped to do so. So what can we organize to do now to increase safety without eroding liberty?

Travel almost anywhere else in the world and you will commonly encounter armed security in public places. Somehow, uniquely in America, we see this as a bad thing. That needs to change.

In the church my family attends, we adapted after a threat. There is now armed security scattered throughout the congregation, in the sanctuary, in the lobby, and even on the platform. Air transportation obviously adapted after 9/11, with added airport security and air marshals on flights.

It’s time to adapt to the era of mass shootings. Every school, every church, every large retailer and every government facility should have armed, obvious guards at all entrances. We don’t need to force teachers to take up arms, we simply need ever-present, trained, armed security in schools. This is now the cost of protecting our children and of protecting the public.

(Read more at the Institute for Policy Innovation)

Consider these Bible verses

They said they just wanted a place at the table …

Featured

Liberals said they just wanted a place at the political table, but now they want to exclude anyone with whom they disagree

The latest Google blacklist includes the Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, The Christian Post, and so many more

OneNewsNow points out through a 15 August 2019 article how liberals at Google have directed Internet traffic away from conservative sites like Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Caller, and The Christian Post.

File_appears_to_show_ranking_classifier_to_define_channel

Silicon Valley is known as a mecca for left-wing progressives but evidence keeps growing that Big Tech really despises conservatives.

A crisis of conscience prompted Zach Vorhies, a Google senior software engineer, to go to James O’Keefe at Project Veritas – first anonymously, but now publicly – with hundreds of documents that prove the anti-conservative bias at the search engine behemoth.

Vorhies told O’Keefe that conservative news sites have become the latest target.

“This is a blacklist,” he said of the targeted sites, “one of many blacklists that are at Google.”

Google’s influence on the Internet is staggering — it averages a couple hundred million searches per hour — but the rogue Google engineer advised that blacklisting blocks websites such as The Christian Post and The Daily Caller beneath the Google search bar.

Among other organizations targeted are The Gateway Pundit and LifeNews, and conservative talk hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Google is also playing god with the Left, too, restricting access to liberal groups such as Media Matters on the basis that it promotes only “mainstream” news organizations via its Google News service.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

If any liberalism survives, we need to return to classic liberalism that stood on the liberal exchange of ideas

For America to survive, we must conserve our once liberal thought: a freedom of sharing information and advancement of civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

Google obviously does not believe enough in the persuasive power of its own side’s ideas enough to promote those ideas. Rather, Google chose to blacklist political commentators, bloggers, and news organizations who seek the truth rather than cover for Democrats. Luckily, there is a whistleblower at Google and several honest news outlets available through Project Veritas and Christianity Today, who provided the blacklist.

Once you have seen the list, you might consider how Google’s side includes gaffe machine Joe Biden, wild-haired Bernie, and Lie-a-watha — then you might start to understand why Google chose to undercut the competition rather than try to argue for their own side.

Although I will always forcefully advocate for Christianity, I will also fight for everyone else’s freedom to err. I am following my God and my God is a gentleman who does not force Himself on the unbelieving. Unlike Google and advocates of Sharia law, I will follow God’s model.

Radical Muslims said they just wanted a place at the American table, but now they want to eliminate Jews and those who do not believe in Islam

Report: Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib display more anti-Semitism

Breitbart discusses in a 17 August 2019 article an anti-Semitic cartoon shared by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar

Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) both reportedly shared an antisemitic cartoon by an artist who participated in Iran’s Holocaust denial contest on their respective Instagram accounts on Friday, according to Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon.

Ungar-Sargon noticed that Omar and Tlaib had each shared the image on their Instagram “stories.” Both were barred from entering Israel Thursday because of their support for the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement. Tlaib then applied for a humanitarian visa so she could visit her grandmother in a Palestinian village, promising not to promote boycotts of Israel while traveling there. Her request was granted, but she then turned down the offer Friday, claiming that Israel was trying to silence her.

The cartoon Omar and Tlaib reportedly shared shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his hand over Tlaib’s mouth, and U.S. President Donald Trump with his hand over Omar’s mouth. Both leaders are shushing the congresswomen. A Star of David — the symbol of the Jewish faith — appears in the center of the image, implying that Jews are responsible for the act of silencing.

The image is antisemitic on its face. The theme of Jews controlling world leaders, who in turn do their bidding, especially in suppressing criticism, has been a common theme in antisemitic propaganda since Nazi Germany, and remains a frequent feature of antisemitic cartoons in the Arab and Muslim world. The New York Times faced criticism for a similar antisemitic cartoon it published in its international edition in April.

Making matters worse, as Ungar-Sargon pointed out, is the fact that this particular cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, won second place at a contest held by Iran in 2006 at which contestants drew caricatures denying the Holocaust. The contest was held in response to a Danish newspaper’s contest to draw images of Mohammed, which is prohibited by Islamic law, to challenge the self-censorship of Western media. Iran has promoted Holocaust denial as official policy; its president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was notorious for his habit of denying the Holocaust.

(Read more at Breitbart)

These women speak as if we don’t know their history or that of Miftah

When these women complain, they seem to forget that the rest of the world has access to their own hateful comments and the history of the groups they choose to join.

Therefore, Rashida Talib, don’t think that we have forgotten your call for the one-state solution (elimination of Israel). Don’t think that we’ve forgotten your tweet accusing US representatives of dual loyalty due to their support of Israel. Despite the millions of Arab, Muslim Israelis, you claim that Israel discriminates against “darker skinned” peoples. We also remember how you get a “calming feeling” when you think of the Holocaust. Likewise, we remember your false claim that Palestinians gave Jews a “safe haven” from the Holocaust.

If bad company corrupts good morals, what will the bad company of Hamas supporters and Miftah (who proudly praised female suicide bombers and pushed the medieval blood libel). Why haven’t we heard of the pride of Miftah, one of whom killed 13 Israeli children on a bus or another who killed multiple children in an Israeli pizza parlor? Since this is the group that would have led both you (Tlaib) and your friend (Omar) on your tour, why haven’t we heard of this group?

When it comes to Ilhan Omar (if you want to call her that, rather than the true name that she lied about when escaping her past), then don’t forget her now-deleted tweet:

Also don’t forget how she refused to back down from her first tweet and added in a response to a detractor:

Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.

In February, she tweeted (but subsequently deleted) “It’s all about the Benjamin’s, baby” in reference to her false claim that a pro-Israel group was bribing Congress. Later, she tweeted a complaint that she should not have to “pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” (To this, I would remind the woman that it is in the interest of this republic to support the only democracy in the Middle East. Additionally, we benefit from ongoing friendliness toward us — as opposed to the antagonism of Syria, Iran, and other Islamic states — and their prosperity.)

Miftah, a terrorist-supporting group, would have sponsored Tlaib & Omar to Israel

In a 19 August 2019 OneNewsNow article, we find a few details about the group that would have sponsored the radical Muslim Congresswomen.

One fact reportedly “whitewashed” by the mainstream media in all its coverage about the trip Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) planned to Israel is that it was sponsored by an Islamic terrorism-supporting group.

The two Muslim congresswomen did not plan their trip via the conventional bipartisan route.

“The most important element of the story is the fact that two American congresswomen shunned a bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel to go on an independent trip to Israel sponsored by vicious anti-Semites,” National Review reported. “Another important element of the story is that – as of [Friday] – the mainstream media have whitewashed Omar and Tlaib’s vile associations.”

The Washington Examiner reported that only one of seven Associated Press reports on the Omar-Tlaib Israel visit mentioned Miftah, with the six others merely calling it a Palestinian advocacy group – similar to reports by the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post both referred to Miftah as “a nonprofit organization headed by Palestinian lawmaker” with the latter associating it to “longtime peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.” Reuters, ABC News and Yahoo did not mention Miftah’s anti-Semitic nature and Bloomberg News omitted its mention entirely.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Miftah glorifies these terrorists

In a 16 August 2019 National Review article, we find some of the particulars about Miftah:

The group celebrates terrorists, including an evil woman who helped murder 13 Israeli children. In an article titled “Let Us Honor Our Own,” a Miftah contributor describes Dalal Al Mughrabi as “a Palestinian fighter who was killed during a military operation against Israel in 1978” and as one of the Palestinian people’s “national heroes.”

The so-called “military operation” is more widely known as the “Coastal Road Massacre,” a bus hijacking that resulted in the deaths of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

Al Mughrabi is hardly the only terrorist Miftah celebrates. It described female suicide bomber Wafa Idrees as the “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” It singles out for recognition Hanadi Jaradat, a woman who blew herself up in a restaurant, killing 21 people (including four children).

The founder of Miftah herself, Ms. Ashrawi, excused jihadist violence by telling an interviewer that “you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist.”

And of course Miftah published an article asking whether Israel was a proper homeland for the Jewish people:

(Read more at the National Review)

Murder must never be glorified

We can never allow murder to be glorified, no matter what the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say regarding killing of unbelievers — Christians must never abandon grace when dealing with offenses against ourselves. Although I believe that we have a duty to protect the defenseless (as shown in Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 24:11-12 and 31:8-9; and Matthew 7:12 and 18:14 [and many other verses]) and are given liberty to protect ourselves (as shown in Luke 22:36), we must primarily be ministers of grace.

The gay community once said that they just wanted to have an equal seat at the table, but now they require everyone to agree with them

Teacher’s rejection of student’s gender identity prompts training

According to a 19 August 2019 article at Houston Fox affiliate KRIV, a Florida school district will require re-education of a teacher for unapproved opinions.

TransTripe

Teachers and staff in a Florida school district will be given additional diversity training after a high school math instructor refused to call a transgender student by her chosen gender identity.

First Coast News in Jacksonville reports that teacher Thomas Caggiano wrote in an email to the student “I will NOT refer to you with female pronouns … If this is not acceptable for you, change classes.”

Caggiano wouldn’t comment to the television station.

Sandalwood High School Principal Dr. Saryn Hatcher promised to “handle” it and wrote to the student that her wishes would be honored.

Duval County Public Schools spokeswoman Laureen Ricks says the teacher’s behavior is inconsistent with the district’s policy and expectations. She calls it a teachable moment and says staff will undergo additional diversity training.

(Read the original at Fox26)

We have to admit that we saw this coming

As early as 2006, the Huguenins of Elaine Photography were sued for not providing wedding photography to a gay couple. Soon thereafter, Baronelle Stutzman, Melissa Klein, and many other bakers found themselves in the crosshairs of the radical gay agenda for refusing to participate in gay weddings.

The ink on the Obergefell versus Hodges decision in the Supreme Court had hardly dried and so, therefore, the “right” of gays to marry had only recently been recognized when Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Never mind that there were numerous counties across Kentucky where marriage licenses were being handed out.

So, it comes as no surprise that teachers are being sent to re-education for not toeing the gay line.

Antifa never wanted to negotiate — they just wanted to put their opponents under the table. Now Oregon police arrest Prayer leaders

Joey Gibson, Patriot Prayer leader, turns self in to jail

Oregon Live reports in a 17 August 2019 article how Joey Gibson, a leader at Patriot Prayer, turned himself in to jail because he has been linked to a fight outside of a Portland bar.

Joey-Gibson-leader-of-Vancouver-based-right-wing-group-Patriot Prayer

Joey Gibson, leader of Vancouver-based right-wing group Patriot Prayer, turned himself in to the downtown Portland jail Friday in connection with charges linked to a May Day melee outside a Portland bar.

Before entering the Multnomah County Detention Center, Gibson held a news conference outside the jail drawing about two dozen people. Wearing a hat with a label that read “what goes around comes around” and a t-shirt with Bible verse “John 3:16”, Gibson told spectators that he believed he was being unfairly targeted and he was innocent of engaging in or inciting any violence on May 1 outside of Cider Riot.

“I stood on a sidewalk and was assaulted numerous times,” Gibson, 35, said. “This is without a doubt an attack on the First Amendment.”

He also urged people to attend Saturday demonstrations in downtown Portland, to not engage in violence, and if they’re arrested, to do so while in the midst of peaceful protest.

Gibson said he was on the fence on whether to attend before learning of his riot charge Thursday. He was being held in jail on $5,000 bail and released after posting bail at 3:50 p.m., jail staff said.

He is scheduled to be arraigned in court Monday.

“Patriot Prayer and their affiliates showed up, and started pepper-spraying people on our property,” said Cider Riot owner Abram Goldman-Armstrong.

(Read more at Oregon Live)

A differing message from Patriot Prayer and Steven Crowder

When we go to the Patriot Prayer Facebook page, they say:

As Joey Gibson (Freedom & God activist) was walking the streets of Portland trying to get to his ride, antifa spots him. Within minutes an entire mob surrounds him. Some are polite, some are not.

Joey Gibson is being politically charged with a felony for exercising his right to stand on a public sidewalk and record people at the Antifa bar called “Cider Riot!”. Cider Riot fundraises, recruits, and hosts events for Rose City Antifa and other organizations that advocate for violence against Christians and conservatives. He stood there and recorded while the bar employees and customers pepper sprayed Gibson. None of them were arrested.

See Gibson turn himself in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENCpVmh4ZfU&t=3s

See the video from that day here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmunmUuVw0Q&t=12s

Donate to legal fund here: https://gogetfunding.com/legal-fees-for-joey-gibsonpatriot…/

Footage from Stumptown matters:

From the Steven Crowder, we get the following videographic compilation of evidence:

Five stories demonstrating the resemblance of the Left to the Gestapo

Featured

Like the firing squads of the Fascist Spain, the Left silences the opposition

  1. Apple pressures Parler to silence conservatives

According to a 24 June 2019 article at Reclaim The Net, Apple has used intimidation and the threat of loss of access to the App Store to make Parler conform to its leftist practices.

John Matze, the founder and CEO of free speech social network Parler, says that Apple has given him an ultimatum — ban “offensive” content off Parler or the Parler app will be banned from the App Store. Matze says he refused and now Apple is preventing Parler from updating its app.

Matze gave an update on the situation in a Parler post.

JohnMatzeParlerPost

(Read more at Reclaim The Net)

It seems that Apple remains so committed to leftism that they are willing to kill start-ups and endanger their good name.

I am joining Parler and dropping as many Apple products as I have.

  1. Google executive admits they are thought police and will be intervening to stop Trump in 2020

In a 24 June 2019 article at Big League Politics (notably not the New York Times or the Washington Post), a Project Veritas exposé has exposed Google for the totalitarians they work to be.

pvimage

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released hidden camera videos showing a Google executive explaining how preventing Trump and similar leaders is at the top of the monolithic corporation’s list of priorities.

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that,” said Jen Gennai, who works as Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation.

Project Veritas notes that Gennai is in charge of the division of Google that is responsible for implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. This includes making sure that political outcomes unfavorable for liberals cannot be reached.

“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again,” Gennai added.

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?” she asked.

Gennai is proud of her organization’s push for thought control, and the “Machine Learning Fairness” guidelines that have been introduced following Donald Trump’s presidential victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it,” Gennai said.

(Read more at Big League Politics)

So, as long as the Left can control your opinion, they will let you make legitimate inquiries.

Is this any way to conduct a free society that depends on continual education?

  1. How did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?

In a 22 June 2019 US News article, this stalwartly left-leaning branch of mainstream media informs us of Google’s tendency to block information (instead of providing it, as most would expect of a major search engine).

worst-censorship

Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.

The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.

When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.

If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.

(Read more at US News)

Because I respect good reporting at mainstream media outlets when I do see it, I have to praise their enumeration of the nine blacklists created and used by Google. You really need to look at it.

Nonetheless, after you look at the nine ways Google daily blocks us from news, maps, and other information, you should watch the grilling Senator Ted Cruz gave to the Google representative. Hopefully, his passion will be translated into a law or hearings that will see the breakup of the social media giants.

Like Hitler’s Brownshirts, leftists often revert to attacks

  1. Eight instances of intolerant Trump haters harassing high-profile conservatives

As shown by a 26 June 2019 Breitbart article, there have been a number of attacks on even high profile conservatives.

Secret Service took a Chicago restaurant employee into custody Tuesday evening after she spit on President Trump’s son, Eric Trump. However, that is far from the first time a radical leftist has lashed out at a prominent Trump-associated figure.

There has been a rash of instances of the “tolerant” left lashing out and mistreating Trump’s immediate family, members of his administration, and those merely associated by ideology.

(Read the full list of victims at Breitbart)

Additionally, don’t forget the physical violence documented during 2016, 2017, and 2018.

  1. Knowing Nazism by example

In light of:

  • the nature of the Prager University videos, the Project Veritas work, and the Jordan Peterson videos do not approach the realm occupied by the concept of “Nazi”

and

  • the censorious actions of Google do reek of the totalitarian state described in 1984

I suggest that everyone review the video included in the following tweet.

11 Stories on How and Why the Tide is Turning Against the Giants of Social Media

Featured

How the Tide is Turning Against Social Media:

  1. Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

According to a Wall Street Journal article, the Department of Justice has started an antitrust investigation of Google.

google_horns

The Justice Department is gearing up for an antitrust investigation of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, a move that could present a major new layer of regulatory scrutiny for the search giant, according to people familiar with the matter.

The department’s antitrust division in recent weeks has been laying the groundwork for the probe, the people said. The Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust authority with the department, previously conducted a broad investigation of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action.

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

Nobody likes seeing the giant standing at the hilltop threatening everybody. Recently, with its demonetizing of vocal elements on both the left and right, Google (and Facebook and Twitter with similar actions) has made itself a target for politicians needing a cause.

Additionally, for those of us who feel like our message has been pushed under by an overburdening self-appointed bureaucracy, we are ready for releaf.

  1. Trump to Mandate Social Media Disclosure for All Foreign Nationals Seeking Visas to U.S.

Breitbart reported in a 31 May 2019 article how the Trump administration may be in preparation to mandate the disclosure of social media accounts of all foreign nationals who seek U.S. visas.

SanBernadinoShooter2
Tashfeen Malik

President Trump’s State Department will soon mandate that all foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a visa provide their social media accounts to screen out national security threats.

In the Trump administration’s latest immigration directive, the State Department will begin mandating that foreign nationals seeking any visa to the U.S. — including all nonimmigrant, employment, student, tourist, and business visas — disclose their social media accounts if they are on social media.

Should a visa applicant claim that they do not have social media accounts when in fact they do, a State Department official said they would become eligible for a permanent visa ban to the U.S.

The agency’s initiative to increase screening measures of the more than 1.2 million legal immigrants that are admitted to the country every year is part of an executive order signed by the president in 2017, with a senior White House official calling the new rule a “critical step forward in establishing enhanced vetting of foreign nationals.”

“As we’ve seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for terrorist sentiment and activity,” the senior official told Breitbart News. “This will be a vital tool to screen out terrorists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on U.S. soil.”

SanBernadinoShooter1
Syed Farook

The lack of mandatory social media disclosure for foreign nationals seeking visas to the U.S. first came to the forefront following the December 2015 Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, when two terrorists murdered 14 people.

One of the terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, was able to enter the U.S. as a legal immigrant through the K-1 visa after State Department officials failed in three background checks to catch the Pakistani national’s social media posts in which she gushed over jihad.

Already, the Trump administration’s travel ban from eight countries that sponsor terrorism has been effective in ending nearly all legal immigration to the U.S. from those regions.

(Read more at Breitbart)

If AT&T had grown too big for the marketplace in 1984 (and it only controlled networks of landlines and newly-developed cell phones), then how can anyone justify the gargantuan reach of Google, Facebook, and Twitter? Since each of these social media giants (especially Google with its YouTube division) controls major swaths of the electronic discourse of the free (and not free – since they have dealings in China) world.

Additionally, in an era when we have seen these social media giants cooperating with the Obama administration to violate American’s rights against unlawful search and seizure (remember Mr. Snowden and Obama’s NSA scandal), my recent reading has indicated that the social media giants have shown an unwillingness to work with the Trump administration in finding foreign threats to national security. They need to recognize that American rights afforded by the American Constitution need to be protected by American companies — maybe smaller American companies that will appreciate the freedoms afforded them.

All the while, these corporations find it easy to work with socialist dictatorships.

  1. Google Should Be Afraid. Very Afraid.

Even Yahoo Finance has decided to pick up the drumbeat against Google in a 1 June article outlining the beginning of problems for the left-wing social media bastion.

GoogleDown

This is the moment the U.S. technology superpowers surely knew was coming: The U.S. government is preparing to crawl all over Google to figure out whether it is an abusive monopolist. Google parent company Alphabet Inc. and the other tech giants should be quaking in their fleece vests.

Bloomberg News and other news organizations reported late Friday that the U.S. Department of Justice is preparing to open an investigation into Google’s compliance with antitrust laws. If it goes forward, an investigation will no doubt be broad, lengthy, messy, and impossible for Google and its investors to predict.

That should terrify Google and every other big technology company — because there’s no guarantee that the antitrust Klieg light will turn on one company alone.

This isn’t Google’s first antitrust rodeo. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2013 closed without further action its own antitrust investigation into whether Google wielded its dominant web search engine like a cudgel to disadvantage rivals, drive up prices for advertisers and ultimately harm consumers. (Google did agree to some voluntary changes.)

And in recent years, the European Union antitrust watchdog imposed billions of dollars in fines after finding antitrust violations, including over how Google conducted business with its Android smartphone software and its internet shopping service. In the U.S. and elsewhere, politicians from all party stripes have sought to attack Google or other tech giants for various perceived sins, including being too big for the good of industry and consumers. Being Google has meant dealing with perennial regulatory and political nightmares.

(Read more at Yahoo Finance)

In this article, Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance acknowledge the concept that Google, Facebook, and other social media giants have loomed so large over us peons as to deserve being brought down.

  1. Should Big Tech fear U.S. antitrust enforcers?

Reuters tries to explain how the social media giants may (but likely won’t) see repercussions for their anti-conservative actions.

GoogleUp

It is difficult to show a violation of U.S. antitrust law, legal experts said.

It is not enough for regulators to establish that a company has monopoly power. They must also show anticompetitive conduct – an abuse of that dominant position aimed at bypassing fair competition.

“You can get a monopoly just by being a good competitor and that’s fine,” said Chris Sagers, a professor of antitrust law at Cleveland State University.

Under current precedent, the Department of Justice and the FTC also need to show that consumers are being harmed, something that in recent decades has typically been measured by whether prices are going up and innovation is slowing.

(Continued)

What can the U.S. government do if investigators find an antitrust violation?

The FTC and Justice Department can both file civil lawsuits in federal court and ask judges to order changes to a company’s business model.

The Justice Department can also bring criminal antitrust cases, but those prosecutions usually relate to cartels and price-fixing, making charges against big technology firms unlikely.

(Read more at Reuters)

Although these writers at Reuters would have us believe that the government is too inbred with those they should be overseeing to faithfully do their job, I don’t think that I fully buy it. If we can light a fire under a conservative or more in the Senate, I think that break-up of the media giants might put the fear of God (or at least the fear of the people) in some of these companies.

Why the Tide is Changing Against Social Media

  1. Here’s The Eye-Popping Amount Of Cash Google, Amazon, And Facebook Dumped On DC Lobbyists In 2018

The Daily Caller provides us a 5 June 2019 article on the lobbying practices (aka, both “our first amendment right to have our voice heard” and “legalized bribery”) of the social media giants.

million-dollar-practice

Google, Amazon and Facebook plowed a record amount of money into Washington, D.C., a year before congressional Democrats announced a wide-ranging antitrust investigation into the Silicon Valley giants.

They dumped a combined $48 million into lobbying in 2018, up 13% from 2017, government disclosures from January show. House Democrats announced a planned probe of Google and Facebook’s business practices Monday, nearly a year after the companies made their contributions.

Google was the biggest spender in 2018, increasing its lobbying contributions 18% to $21.2 million. Facebook’s spending amount grew nearly 10% to $12.6 million. All three companies spent the bulk of their lobbying on in-house lobbying crews. The efforts largely went toward market and data regulation issues, according to the data.

Neither Facebook, Amazon, nor Google have responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about Democrats’ potential probe.

The House’s investigation comes several days after a Wall Street Journal report noted that the Department of Justice is preparing an antitrust probe against Google’s search engine and business model. It would be the first such investigation since the Federal Trade Commission conducted a probe of Google but closed it in 2013 without taking action.

(Read more at Daily Caller)

When these social media companies were just start ups, they were not a problem. However, now that they seem to have decided that they should eliminate all discussion of anti-liberal ideas (that is, when conservatives, moderates, or liberals offend the sensibilities of their liberal censors, those ideas get blocked), they have become the Big Brother enemy of freedom.

  1. Facebook argues it can’t invade your privacy because you don’t have any

One Facebook lawyer has been quoted in a 31 May 2019 article in The Daily Dot as claiming that Facebook users have surrendered their privacy rights to the company that Zuckerberg helped start.

Facebook-lawyer-says-users-‘have-no-expectation-of-privacy’

A lawyer for Facebook argued in court Wednesday that the social media site’s users “have no expectation of privacy.”

According to Law360, Facebook attorney Orin Snyder made the comment while defending the company against a class-action lawsuit over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

“There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,” Snyder said.

In an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out, Snyder further claimed that Facebook was nothing more than a “digital town square” where users voluntarily give up their private information.

“You have to closely guard something to have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” Snyder added.

Although Snyder said that the social media site would be focusing more on privacy in the future, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria reportedly pushed back on Facebook’s argument.

“What you are saying now sounds contrary to the message that Facebook itself disseminates about privacy,” Chhabria said, according to Law.com.

(Read more at the The Daily Dot)

I’ll have to admit that I blew past the terms of use agreement page. However, the alternative is to have more face-to-face interactions, more communications through snail mail, and more exploring of alternative platforms.

Maybe this might be something that I can incorporate into my life.

  1. YouTube investigating conservative commentator Steven Crowder

The Hill reports in a 1 June 2019 article how YouTube has demonetized and limited the video capabilities of conservative commentator Steven Crowder.

YouTube is investigating conservative commentator Steven Crowder after Vox host Carlos Maza accused him of harassment and making derogatory comments about his ethnicity and sexuality.

YouTube responded to Maza’s tweet thread detailing his allegations, saying that it was “looking into it further.”

The company also confirmed to The Hill that it was investigating in response to Maza’s thread, but declined to comment further.

Maza, the host of Vox’s media literacy series “Strikethrough,” accused Crowder on Twitter this week of “repeated, overt attacks on my sexual orientation and ethnicity.” He said that the pundit has called him “an anchor baby” and “a lispy queer.” He also said that Crowder’s videos have caused him to be the “target of ridiculous harassment,” adding that “it makes life sort of miserable.”

The Vox host told his followers to flag Crowder’s videos and said he did not believe YouTube would take a stand against the commentator. He accused the company of not caring about its LGBT creators.

(Read more at The Hill)

Actually, I think the best response to Carlos Maza’s whining comes though Steven Crowder.

Steven Crowder’s response to the ordeal:

This is corporate censorship and this is yet another giant company trying to lean on this channel, your channel, and the content you’ve created. This is a war (I want to make sure that everyone understands) we will fight to the absolute bitter end both legally and publically.

So if you’ve clicked on this video, it’s the exact opposite of clickbait. The title (VOX is Trying to Ban This Channel… | Louder with Crowder), it’s pretty much what you would expect of the host of Vox.

Vox has actively (it’s been brought to my attention) been on a campaign to get this channel banned (removed from YouTube).

By encouraging viewers in massive flagging campaigns to directly communicating with YouTube in order to try and get me and these videos completely removed from the platform. A couple of th tweets read “by refusing to enforce its anti-harassment policy, YouTube is helping incredibly powerful cyberbullies … go to this dude’s videos and flag them?” (sic @gaywonk tweet).

Let me explain the real (the more sinister) context at play here. First, I’ve been accused of playing a part (or this person, Carlos Maza, has accused me in playing a part) in his in his having been doxed. I have always condemned and continue to condemn and discourage any and all forms of doxing or targeted harassemnt of anyone online. Ok. I’ve been consistent, so please don’t do that, here. I know some of you will get mad — maybe a little enraged with the information you are about to hear — but please don’t do that. Be above that.

If there’s any proof that I’ve actively encouraged people to dox this person or anyone, I will profusely apologize. Any proof.

Here’s the thing. Of the tens of millions of cumulative plays of our rebuttals to Vox on this channel, every single one of them is about criticizing their ideas or incorrect assumptions. Every instance has been about fighting bad information with better information.

Now, Carlos Maza is upset.

Ok, have I ever called you “Carlos, the gay, Latino host at Fox?” Yes, of course. But it’s friendly ribbing and you know I genuinely wouldn’t consider you being that upset about it considering your Twitter handle is “@gaywonk.”

Did I ever offhandedly use the term “lispy queer?” I really don’t remember it, but it sounds like me. Why? because you speak with a lisp and you refer to yourself as a queer. That, along with the LGBTQ moniker, has made me think that “queer” is one of the more suitable terms. If not, I don’t understand the rulebook. Please, please correct me.

Note: the following graphic came up during the video, showing screen captures from Carlos Maza’s Instagram account which use the “offensive” terms.

CarlosMaza

Also, by the way, it’s funny and this is a comedy show. “Let’s be queer” is harmless and I enjoy saying it. You’re not alone. Quarterblack Garrett, half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond. I won’t apologize for it just like I won’t apologize for the “Socialism is for Figs” shirt which thay now want to have actively removed (available at CrowderShop.com).

If using your words, taken directly from the acronym you regularly tout is not Hate Speech — no one can understand the rules. And that’s kind of the point isn’t it.

(There is much more.)

Considering the corporate sponsorship Vox enjoys (starting with $200 million from NBC Universal) and the self-funding of the Louder with Crowder show (where they fund themselves by selling their “Mug Club”), I really can’t wait for Google, Vox, Facebook, and Twitter to be diced into bite-sized bits. I want to see Carlos Maza eat more than his fill of the bits of Alphabet.

  1. Update: YouTube Demonetizes Stven Crowder videos

Washington Times reports in a 5 June 2019 article how Steven Crowder will now be denied income from the videos he produces (but YouTube will continue to draw income).

Comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube victory in the wake of a deplatforming campaign was short-lived due to a “continued review” by YouTube.

The social media giant, which rejected calls by Vox host Carlos Maza to terminate Mr. Crowder’s channel for alleged “harassment,” returned to the issue on Wednesday by demonetizing the channel.

“Update on our continued review — we have suspended this channel’s monetization,” YouTube wrote. “We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies.”

Fans of the conservative comedian thought he was in the clear on Tuesday after YouTube said an “in-depth review” of his channel showed zero violations of its rules.

The initial review, YouTube said, took “days.”

(Read more at Washington Times)

___

  1. YouTube Cuts Off Conservative, Independent Journalists After Vox Outrage Campaign

Breitbart reports in a 5 June 2019 article how YouTube has gone on a conservative-demonetizing quest.

DontBeEvil

YouTube has begun a purge of what it calls “hate” and “misinformation” from the platform, as well as a push to strip ad revenue (“demonetize”) channels that “brush up” against the platform’s increasingly draconian speech codes. The move follows a pro-censorship campaign led by Vox Media reporter Carlos Maza.

YouTube also pledged to push more “authoritative” content from “trusted” sources to users — mainstream media like NBC and CNN fall into this category.

The channels that have been demonetized include independent journalist Ford Fischer, libertarian anti-globalist news channel Press For Truth, SJW critic Sinatra_Says, and conservative comedian Steven Crowder.

The latest purge followed a relentless pro-censorship campaign led by far-left Vox Media reporter Carlos Maza, who objected to content produced by Steven Crowder. YouTube has now targeted not just Crowder, but a range of independent video creators.

“As an independent news producer, I don’t have any salary whatsoever. I live in DC and travel the country covering activism because I think it’s important — especially in this political moment — to have raw documentation of everything that goes on” said Ford Fischer, a former production assistant at Fox News. “Good, bad, or ugly, we as press have an obligation to film it as impartially as we can.”

“It’s true that the mainstream media covers many of the same issues that I do, and they never seem to encounter the same censorship” Fischer continued. “There are numerous examples, but as a simple one I’d note that Vice has embedded with neo-Nazi organizations many, many times. I’ve worked alongside them in doing so, and I’ve licensed [reports] to them about a dozen times for their coverage. Vice will probably never find itself on the chopping block.”
“The demonetization of my work on Youtube effectively cuts my bottom line livelihood in half” said Fischer.

Black conservative author and media personality Jessie Lee Peterson claimed on social media that YouTube demonetized his account after he condemned “anti-Jewish hatred by whites and Muslims.”

Conservative commentator Hunter Avallone also told Breitbart News that some of his videos were demonetized today.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Nothing screams “fascism” more than a host from a company that cooperated with the Obama regime in the suppression of information now demanding the figurative book-burning of unapproved ideas.

Ironically, the sycophants in Antifa call conservatives fascists when they are the real book burners.

  1. Twitter Suspends Researcher Who Exposed Antifa-Journalist Connections

Breitbart reports in a 31 May 2019 article how the researcher who exposed a network of Antifa members posing as journalists has now been suspended by the bigots at Twitter.

twitter-suspends-researcher-who-exposed-antifa-journalist-connections

Twitter has suspended the account of Eoin Lenihan, a researcher who mapped out connections between mainstream journalists and the violent far-left Antifa movement on Twitter, following a mass-reporting campaign by left-wing activists.

Lenihan published the results of his research at Quillette, where he explained the twofold objective of his project — first, to discover the journalists who were most closely linked to Antifa via social media. Second, to discover if those journalists covered the extremist movement favorably or negatively.

via Quillette:

In October 2018, my research partner and I decided to investigate the truth of this impression by using a mix of network mapping and linguistic analysis to see which prominent journalists who covered Antifa also were closely connected to leading Antifa figures on social media. We then inspected the Antifa-related stories these journalists had written.

We created a data set of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts. Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts down to 962 accounts. This represents a core group of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified—of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national-level news outlets.

The journalists included contributors to The Guardian, The New Republic, Al Jazeera, and the Huffington Post.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This really speaks towards the level of integrity within Twitter.

Hit the road, Jack, and never come back — no more, no more, no more, no more.

Twitter needs to be in the dust bin of history in pieces.

  1. Zuckerberg security chief placed on leave amid racism investigation

SF Gate reports in a 31 May 2019 article how the shadow of racism has descended on Facebook.

FaceBookZucks

Mark Zuckerberg’s personal security chief has been placed on administrative leave amid allegations that he made racist and homophobic remarks about people including the Facebook founder’s wife.

Liam Booth allegedly made the remarks about Zuckerberg’s wife, Priscilla Chan, and some of the employees at their household, Business Insider reported earlier, citing legal letters from the former household staff. A spokesman for the Zuckerberg and Chan family office said Booth has been placed on leave while an outside law firm investigates. It didn’t confirm the precise nature of the allegations published by Business Insider.

“The family office takes complaints of workplace misconduct very seriously,” the spokesman told Bloomberg News in an email. “The allegations against Liam Booth were brought to the office’s attention for the first time by the Bloom Firm after both former employees had left employment by the family office and engaged legal counsel.”

Lisa Bloom of the Bloom Firm confirmed by email that she represents “the two individuals who have raised claims.” She declined to identify the people involved or share details on the allegations.

Booth is a former Secret Service officer, according to his LinkedIn profile. He didn’t immediately reply to a message outside of U.S. business hours.

(Read more at SF Gate)

For this and all of the other things that would get the rest of us banned for life, Facebook needs to be broken up.

Facebook finds itself fighting problems on three fronts


Facebook investors call on Mark Zuckerberg to resign as chairman following damaging report

A 16 November 2018 article at The Telegraph reports that investors at Facebook do not seem enthused with Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership.

Facebook investors have called on the company’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg to step down as chairman, following reports that the company hired a public relations firm to smear its critics by drawing links to George Soros.

The attack on Mr Zuckerberg is set to complicate the daunting challenge facing Sir Nick Clegg, Facebook’s new global head of policy and communications, who joined last month and has been asked to conduct a review of Facebook’s use of lobbying firms.

Jonas Kron, a senior vice president at Trillium Asset Management, a US investor which owns an £8.5m stake in Facebook, last night called on Mr Zuckerberg to step down as board chairman in the wake of the report.

“Facebook is behaving like it’s a special snowflake,” he said. “It’s not. It is a company and companies need to have a separation of chair and CEO.”

Both Mr Zuckerberg and Sir Nick have been under pressure following reports Facebook hired Definers, a Republican public relations firm, to help repair its battered reputation following intense criticism of the social media platform’s handling of a scandal over Russian interference in the 2016 US elections and the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

(Read more at The Telegraph)

Considering the many pro-life groups Facebook has removed without warning, this is not “fitting” or “karma.” Considering the number of conservative campaigns (from Brazil’s Movimento Brazil Livre pages to the Trump pre-midterm ad), they don’t deserve to be heralded as supporters of free speech. They only support one side.

Nonetheless, for Facebook to hire a firm to defend George Soros seems just odd. Maybe this is an indicator that Zuckerberg will not be able to take the firm further left until he takes it off the stock market. With shareholders, he will have to stop his march to the left.

Who knows? With market forces in play, he might have to allow free speech for all. (chuckle)

Do we want to regulate Facebook?

Senators Threaten to Regulate Facebook

Bloomberg reports in a 16 November 2018 article how Senators Coons and Corker have determined to get Facebook to fly straight.

Senators Chris Coons and Bob Corker warned Friday that Congress would impose new regulations to rein in Facebook Inc. unless the social-media company addresses concerns about privacy and the spread of misinformation on its platform.

Speaking in a joint interview on the sidelines of a development forum in Wilmington, Delaware, the two senators said that Facebook probably wouldn’t like what Congress does, so it should come up with a solution first.

Chris CoonsPhotographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
“If they don’t, if they continue to act as if we couldn’t possibly deign to regulate them, they’ll get regulated and they’ll be unpleasantly surprised with how swiftly it may happen,” said Coons, a Delaware Democrat and member Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think they’ve got a lot of explaining to do.”

(Read more at Bloomberg)

If Soros wants to regulate social media, we need to watch for Big Brother in Big Social Media

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

When Democrats like Cicilline and liberal globalists like Soros support regulating social media giants, conservatives have to look out for censorship to increase to Big Brother levels. Instead of pushing regulation, maybe conservatives should look toward to a guarantee of the Bill of Rights. Further, we should look toward breaking up the monopolies of social media.

I wish the senators would focus less on the spread of misinformation. Rather, I would have them focus on the full acceptance of free speech (for all parties — not just the liberals).

Since I can judge which news pieces seem viable, maybe they should focus on ensuring all get heard. That is, since I have a habit of verifying news through good sources (e.g., the Wall Street Journal, National Review, or Breitbart), they can make certain that even the gossip publishers can publish. Therefore, in a pinch, we might even accept a story from the New York Times (if corroborating sources exist).

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Leave Facebook?

Some Facebook users are dialing back use over latest scandal

Yahoo Finance suggests in a 16 November 2018 article that people have reached their limit with Facebook.

Expect some Facebook (FB) users to dial back their use of the popular social network and even delete their accounts following the publication of a damning exposé this week.

On Wednesday, The New York Times published an extensive feature that revealed how Facebook management was reluctant to tackle Russia-linked activity on the social network following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, how unprepared Facebook was for the ensuing public fallout, as well the social network’s efforts to wield influence on Capitol Hill. Chief among Facebook’s alleged infractions: employing Definers Public Affairs, a Republican opposition research firm, to accuse left-wing financier George Soros of quietly backing anti-Facebook groups.

“It’s too early to tell the full impact The New York Times story is having — we would have to see in a month — but it will impact [Facebook’s] Daily Active Users and even just the people who are concerned about occasionally logging on and giving clicks and views to a company they might disagree with,” says Altimeter Group analyst Omar Akhtar, who adds the report severely tarnished Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s once-sterling reputation.

(Read more at Yahoo Finance)

As for myself, I have had it with Facebook and don’t use it as a primary means of sharing news. However, I can understand their anger and would suggest use of another platform (such as gab.ai (twitter alternative), vidme (youtube alternative), WordPress (blogger alternative), or Digg (Facebook alternative)).

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Censorship by Facebook, Twitter, & other media giants


Thanks Breitbart for this explanatory illustration.

Midterm meddling: Twitter follows Facebook & blacklists GOP candidate’s family story of immigration from Cambodia

In a 16 August 2-18 Breitbart article, Facebook and Twitter have been shown to be stifling political speech in California again.

Twitter has followed in Facebook’s footsteps by blocking a campaign video ad for Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng. Facebook eventually admitted that a campaign video including the communist atrocities in Cambodia is not “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational,” but Twitter, which describes the ad as “obscene,” disagrees.

Shortly after Facebook came under fire for refusing to allow Republican Congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng to advertise with her campaign ad on their platform, Twitter has made the same decision. Facebook blocked the ad, which shared the story of Heng’s family being forced to flee Cambodia for the U.S., claiming that the Facebook couldn’t allow videos that contained “shocking, disrespectful, or sensational” imagery on their advertising platform. The ad was eventually approved with a Facebook spokesperson stating: “Upon further review, it is clear the video contains historical imagery relevant to the candidate’s story. We have since approved the ad and it is now running on Facebook.” A decision Twitter apparently disagrees with.

Twitter has blacklisted the campaign ad, according to Heng. The Heng campaign stated in a press release: “In recent attempts to advertise Elizabeth Heng’s campaign video on Twitter, the campaign has received a message from the company stating that upon review, the ad is ‘ineligible to participate in the Twitter Ads program at this time based on our Inappropriate Content policy.’ Twitter defined inappropriate content as ‘that which is offensive, vulgar, or obscene.’”

Heng’s advertising refusal comes shortly after Infowars host Alex Jones received a seven-day suspension on the platform and many Twitter users reported a decline in followers as Twitter purged accounts from its platform.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Did Twitter find the images of Pol Pot’s Cambodia offensive, vulgar, or obscene? That is, did the brutality of a communist regime offend the millennial sensibilities of Twitter? Or was it scenes of Fresno’s deteriorating storefronts that offended Twitter?

If it was the images of the results of economic radicals like Pol Pot, will Twitter, Google, or Facebook block video of Patriot’s Day?

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Facebook opens up on vote meddling

A 4 August 2018 Associated Press article points out how Facebook has admitted to vote meddling (however, it does not mention the removal of conservative Brazilian pages or similar actions by Facebook).

For a company bent on making the world more open, Facebook has long been secretive about the details of how it runs its social network — particularly how things go wrong and what it does about them.

Yet on Tuesday, Facebook rushed forward to alert Congress and the public that it had recently detected a small but “sophisticated” case of possible Russian election manipulation. Has the social network finally acknowledged the need to keep the world informed about the big problems it’s grappling with, rather than doing so only when dragged kicking and screaming to the podium?

While the unprompted revelation does signal a new, albeit tightly controlled openness for the company, there is still plenty that Facebook isn’t saying. Many experts remain unconvinced that this is a true culture change and not mere window dressing.

“This is all calculated very carefully,” said Timothy Carone, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame. He and other analysts noted that Facebook announced its discovery of 32 accounts and pages intended to stir up U.S. political discord just a week after the company’s stock dropped almost 20 percent — its worst plunge since going public.

But Facebook’s proactive disclosure, including a conference call for reporters with chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, struck a markedly different tone from the company’s ham-handed approach to a string of scandals and setbacks over the past two years. That has included:

  • CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s infamous dismissal of the idea that fake news on Facebook could have influenced the 2016 election as “a pretty crazy idea”;
  • The company’s foot-dragging as evidence mounted of a 2016 Russian election-interference effort conducted on Facebook and other social-media sites;
  • Zuckerberg, again, declining for nearly a week to publicly address the privacy furor over a Trump campaign consultant, Cambridge Analytica, that scavenged data from tens of millions of Facebook users for its own election-influence efforts.

A chastened Facebook has since taken steps toward transparency, many of them easy to overlook. In April, it published for the first time the detailed guidelines its moderators use to police unacceptable material. It has provided additional, if partial, explanations of how it collects user data and what it does with it. And it has forced disclosure of the funding and audience targeting of political advertisements, which it now also archives for public scrutiny.

Facebook said its timing was motivated by an upcoming protest event in Washington that was promoted by a suspicious page connected to a Russian troll farm, the Internet Research Agency. Several people connected to the IRA have been indicted by the U.S. special counsel for attempting to interfere in the 2016 election.

Despite Zuckerberg’s repeated mantra — delivered to relentless effect in some 10 hours of testimony before Congress in April — that the company now really gets it, some who know the company best have their doubts.

David Kirkpatrick, the author a Facebook history, argues that neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg have ever shown themselves to be “deeply alarmed in public.” As a result, he suggests, Facebook seems more concerned with managing its image than with solving the actual problem at hand.

Such issues run deep for the company. Some of its biggest critics, including former employees such as Sandy Parakilas and early Facebook investor Roger McNamee, say the company needs to revamp its business model from the ground up to see any meaningful change.

These critics would like to see Facebook rely less on tracking its users in order to sell targeted advertising, and to cut back on addicting features such as endless notifications that keep drawing people back in. Parakilas, for example, has advocated for a subscription-based model, letting users pay to user Facebook instead of having their data harvested.

Merely hiring more moderators, or hanging hopes on the evolution of artificial intelligence, isn’t going to cut it, in their view. There have also been widespread calls for Facebook to acknowledge that it is, in a sense, a media company, responsible for what happens on its platforms — a characterization the social network has long fought.

For all that, Facebook is well ahead of Silicon Valley rivals such as Google and Twitter when it comes to openness — even if only because it’s attracted the lion’s share of criticism, said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University.

But Facebook “can’t win at this game,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia professor of media studies whose 2018 book “Antisocial Media” critiques Facebook’s effect on democracy and society. Because it’s so huge — 2.2 billion global users and counting — and so difficult to police, he said, “it will always be vulnerable to hijacking and will never completely clean up its content.”

(Read more at the Associated Press)

This is not big news. So what if Facebook caves again to the socialist forces that would limit free speech. This allows the media giant to feel good about itself. Too bad Facebook could not learn from the lessons provided by Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, and George Orwell.

Then again, there was the example of Barack Obama.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Twitter takes a stab at silencing the “shitty people”

In the following undercover video, the interviewer got Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety, to admit that “we’re trying to get the ‘shitty people’ not to show up.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Spotify, Apple, Google, and Facebook purge the free speech rights of Alex Jones of InfoWars

In the insightful fiction from the middle of the last century (1984 by George Orwell), the author saw the deleterious effect of a central government that controlled everything down to speech and thought. That insight came from exposure to governments that attempted to provide everything to the working class — down to what we should think.

Even with these cautionary tales, a number of media giants (Spotify, Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook) have taken up the task of limiting the free speech rights of others.

The rise of corporate censorship

A 7 August 2018 Spiked Online article delves into censorship by the online media giants.

So we’re now trusting the capitalist class, massive, unaccountable corporations, to decide on our behalf what we may listen to and talk about? This is the take-home message, the terrible take-home message, of the expulsion of Alex Jones’ Infowars network from Apple, Facebook and Spotify and of the wild whoops of delight that this summary banning generated among so-called liberals: that people are now okay with allowing global capitalism to govern the public sphere and to decree what is sayable and what is unsayable. Corporate censorship, liberals’ new favourite thing – how bizarre.

We live in strange times. On one hand it is fashionable to hate capitalism these days. No middle-class home is complete without a Naomi Klein tome; making memes of Marx is every twentysomething Corbynistas’ favourite pastime. But on the other hand we seem content to trust Silicon Valley, the new frontier in corporate power, to make moral judgements about what kind of content people should be able to see online. Radicals and liberals declared themselves ‘very glad’ that these business elites enforced censorship against Jones and Infowars. We should be ‘celebrating the move’, said Vox, because ‘it represents a crucial step forward in the fight against fake news’. Liberals for capitalist censorship! The world just got that bit odder, and less free.

Over the past 24 hours, Jones and much of his Infowars channel has been ‘summarily banned’ – in the excitable words of Vox – from Apple, Facebook, Spotify and YouTube. Initially, Facebook and YouTube had taken only selective measures against Jones. In response to a Twitterstorm about his presence on these platforms, they took down some of his videos. But then Apple decided to ban Jones entirely – removing all episodes of his podcast from its platform – and the other online giants followed suit. Or as the thrilled liberal commentary put it: ‘The dominoes started to fall.’ Despite having millions of subscribers, despite there being a public interest in what he has to say, Jones has been cast out of the world of social media, which is essentially the public square of the 21st century, on the basis that what he says is wicked.

This is censorship. There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship.

(Read more at Spiked Online)

The Real Reason for the Left’s Double Standard on Hate Speech

Having used the ideas of Dr. Brown as much as they aligned with my own, I again find myself dipping from the well of Dr. Michael Brown’s thought (which often appears in OneNewsNow and TownHall) in his 9 August 2018 article on the left’s propensity to excuse its own hate speech.

Why is it that organizations like the SPLC can designate conservative Christians as hate groups while ignoring radical leftists like Antifa? Why is that Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter appear to punish conservatives disproportionately for alleged violations of community guidelines?

The answer is as disturbing as it is simple. The left believes it is so morally and intellectually superior to the right that it can see nothing wrong with its extreme positions and hostile words. Is it wrong to be intolerant of bigots? Is it wrong to hate (or even punch) a Nazi?

In short, if I’m a member of the KKK, is it wrong for you to disparage and mock me? If I’m a dangerous homophobe, is it wrong for you to vilify and exclude me? If I’m a hate-filled propogandist spreading dangerous lies, is it wrong for you to mark me and marginalize me?

Of course, there are double standards on all sides of the debate, on the right as well as on the left. And there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around, from the most progressive to the most conservative.

All of us also have our share of blind spots, so we tend to condemn in others what we justify in ourselves. Welcome to human nature.
Still, it is conspicuous that the same behavior gets treated differently by the leftist elite (including many a university professor) and by watchdog groups like the SPLC and by the internet giants.

Back in 2004-05, when I first began to address gay activism, I was widely mocked for saying, “Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet.”

The response was consistent: “No one wants to put you in the closet!”

A few years back, I noticed a change in tone: “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”

But of course!

While being interviewed on a Christian TV program back in 2011, I quoted the comment of a Christian attorney. He told me that those who were once put in jail (speaking of pioneer gay activists) will want to put us in jail.
For having the audacity to say this on Christian TV, I was vilified and maligned.

Yet when Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing a court order to grant same-sex marriage licenses, there was widespread rejoicing on the left: “Kim Davis is ISIS! Lock her up!”

(Read more at AskDrBrown.org)

NBC ignores an Antifa attack on its own reporter and crew

A 12 August 2018 NewsBusters article illustrates how a “news” outlet self-censors a significant story about a group who would really repress the free press.

On the one-year anniversary of the deadly Charlottesville protests, white supremacists and radical leftists known as Antifa descended on the Virginia town once more to commit more violence. Late Saturday night, NBC News reporter Cal Perry and his crew were in the thick of it as Antifa members ganged up on them and attacked. The next morning, NBC’s Sunday Today ignored the attack and suggested the media was simply “heckled” by their assaulters.

On Twitter, Perry was documenting the protesters as they marched through the streets of college town when they started to get “very aggressive with the media” and trying to block their camera shots. “Yeah. We’re getting a lot of this. Protesters trying to grab our camera,” he responded to one Twitter commenter telling him to “f**k off national media vulture.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Things got super-heated when one Antifa protestor shouted “F**k you, snitch a** news b**ch. F**k you” and tried to either pull the camera away from the person using it or knock it to the ground. It was unclear in the video.

Despite the video evidence on the ground from their own reporter, NBC went to Garrett Haake, who was at the White House in anticipation of violence there as another white supremacist rally was set to be held. “Overnight, tense moments in the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, strong far left protesters heckling the media and chanting anti-police slogans,” he suggested at the top of his report. They actually used footage Perry and his crew shot but didn’t show anything from their attack.

The assault on NBC’s reporter came almost a year since their political director, Chuck Todd used his MSNBC program, MTP Daily to elevate Antifa’s violence as a legitimate tactic against the right. He even doubled down and allowed them to use the formerly prestigious Meet the Press as a platform to push their hate and violent methods. Todd has never condemned them.

Todd appeared on Sunday Today and had nothing to say about the attack or Antifa, which had been declared a domestic terrorism group by the State of New Jersey before he had them on last year. Instead of condemning Antifa, he lambasted the President for criticizing anthem protesters and targeted his supporters as racists.

So I don’t think, if the President is, quote, ‘learned anything’ I think in his mind, he has seen this is an effective political strategy to keep his base, his base,” he declared about what the President had learned since last year’s violence. “That it is the president’s continuation of using to be generous, dog whistles, others say they’re not silent. You can hear the whistles pretty loudly.

It’s sad and disturbing that NBC would choose to ignore violent leftists assaulting their own employees in exchange for railing against President Trump’s voters, but this appears to be the world we live in now. The assault also came after the entire liberal media had been trying to convince the public that Trump supporters where violent ones reporters had to watch out for.

(Read more at NewsBusters)

I have always been warned not to “cut off my nose to spite my face.” It looks like NBC let its nose get cut off and then dared the rest of us not to notice the profuse bleeding.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Patreon and Mastercard ban Robert Spencer without explanation

Jihad Watch reports in a 15 August 2018 article that Robert Spencer has been banned by Patreon and Mastercard without explanation. Nonetheless, this banning likely stems from his shining the light of truth on Islam.

Recently Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes have been banned from various social media platforms, in a desperate attempt by the Left to ensure that the 2016 election results aren’t repeated in 2018. Some people say it doesn’t matter that these men were deplatformed, because they don’t like what they say, and what’s more, these are all private companies. They are indeed private companies, but they have a virtual monopoly today over the means of communication, and once they start banning people because they don’t like what they say, they’ve set a precedent that is inimical to the survival of a free society.

If only approved viewpoints can be aired, we live in a totalitarian state, not a free society, and the effects of this will reverberate in our lives in ways we cannot imagine. If you think that the banning will stop when those who are deemed “crazy” or “extremist” are all banned, you’re in for a surprise.

Yesterday, they came for me, albeit in not yet as thoroughgoing a manner as the way they went after Jones and McInnes.

(Read more at Jihad Watch)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Silenced News Stories – Part 3


Top 10 states packing heat, bottom 10 lacking

In a 17 March 2018 OneNewsNow article, the following states were pointed out to be at the top and bottom of numbers of guns owned and percentages of people with guns.

State # of guns State guns / 1K citizens
TX 588,696 WY 229
CA 344,622 Washington, DC
FL 343,288 NH 47
VA 307,822 NM 46
PA 236,377 VA 36
GA 190,050 AL 33
AZ 179,738 ID 28
OH 173,405 AR 26
AL 161,641 NV 25
NC 153,238 AZ 25

//my.visme.co/visme.js

Published by Hunting Mark.

Facebook algorithm kills conservative news feeds, boosts left’s voice

A 16 March 2018 article in OneNewsNow details how Facebook’s internal workings work against conservative causes:

An in-depth analysis of Facebook’s publicized algorithm change has revealed that the social media giant is drastically reducing users’ news feeds to conservative outlet websites – while boosting those of liberal publishers.

[C]onservative publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook, [while] liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes implemented in early February,” researchers from The Western Journal divulged. “This algorithm change has, in effect, censored conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the world – [a] change that in the short-term, [is] causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold up completely, and in the long-term, could swing elections in the United States and around the world toward liberal politicians and policies.”

(Read specific examples at OneNewsNow)

For those of us who have felt the hand of shadow banning, this comes as no surprise.

Facebook bans Cambridge Analytica for doing for Trump what others did for Obama

Along the same lines, a 16 March 2018 article at CNBC affords those on the left to bemoan the way Facebook aided Trump’s victory (although Obama openly took data from Facebook during his campaigns):

Facebook has suspended Cambridge Analytica, a political data analytics firm that worked on Facebook ads for President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, saying that it lied about deleting user data sent to it by the makers of a popular psychology test app.

In a blog post that went up late Friday night, Facebook explained that a University of Cambridge psychology professor, Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, created an app called “thisisyourdigitallife,” which asked users to answer questions to build a psychological profile.

According to the social network, Kogan “lied” to Facebook by passing that data along to Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) and Cambridge Analytica — an SCL affiliate — without informing users.

The net effect allowed the firm to turn innocuous page “likes” and other Facebook user data into information that was mined for political use.

“In so doing, [users] gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked, as well as more limited information about friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it,” Facebook said.

(Read more at CNBC)

Go cry me a river.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A group representing 3K British advertisers threatens to pull support from Facebook

A 22 March 2018 article at Fox News points to the problems brewing between Facebook and its advertisers in Britain.

Facebook is facing the possibility of an advertiser exodus in the U.K. over the data scandal that has enveloped the company, prompted widespread demands for new regulations and knocked almost $50 billion from its market cap.

ISBA, a group representing about 3,000 advertisers including major brands like Unilever and Procter & Gamble, is demanding answers from Facebook in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data-mining scandal. The companies the group works with could abandon the social network if their concerns aren’t addressed.

The trade group confirmed to Fox News that it will meet with representatives from Facebook on Friday.

“We want to understand the scope of the inquiry Mark Zuckerberg announced yesterday. We want reassurances for our members that it will get to the bottom of the issues and any implications for the public and for advertisers,” Phil Smith, ISBA director general, told Fox News in a statement.

(Read more at Fox News)

Although that this likely comes as the response of liberal executives at companies founded by conservatives, I fully support them in their ability to determine where they (and their hires) spend their money. Take that, Zuck.

After the Austin bomber is killed, Facebook scrubs his page

Local news outlets use his mother’s Facebook feed to get photos

Despite the fact that Facebook almost immediately took down the page posted by the Austin bomber (thereby depriving the local media of a source of a photo of the bomber), local and then national media outlets used photos posted by the mother of the Austin bomber.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js In case the tweet above gets deleted, here is the captured photo:

The sad thing about the photos they captured from the mother’s Facebook feed was that, though they took pains to mask the names of those who corresponded with the mother, they took no effort to hide her name. She had done no wrong and had not been accused of any crime.

Of course, you could point out that I am also putting her name out for public ridicule. However, the 100 to 1,000 that regularly view my blog do not hold a candle to the readership numbers of the Austin American Statesman and other papers that link to it.

Did Facebook’s data giveaway to Obama in 2008 and 2012 break federal law?

A 29 March 2018 article at OneNewsNow looked into the question

Another accusation has surfaced that Facebook was playing fast and loose with user data, and this time it can’t blame an outside political operative or rogue third-party app.

Barack Obama changed the way American politicians campaign with his pervasive use of social media and data collection in 2008 and 2012.

It now appears a lot of that data was given to the campaign, perhaps illegally.

The latest breach was revealed in a pair of Tweets from Carol Davidson, the media director for the Obama 2012 campaign.

“Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph,” she wrote, “but they … were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

Hans von Spakovski of The Heritage Foundation says the problem with Facebook providing that data is that corporations are banned by law from making contributions, including in-kind donations, to federal campaigns.

“It’s very possible that the Obama campaign violated campaign finance law by accepting, illegally, a corporate contribution,” the attorney warns, “and Facebook may have violated the law by making an illegal contribution.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

The only problem with even pointing this out is that we live in Jeff Session’s America (or, rather, AG Rosenstein’s America). Just as Hillary, Rosenstein, Comey, and McCabe will never have to answer for crimes that sent Kristian Saucier to prison — this breaking of campaign finance laws by Obama will never see the inside of a courtroom.

Facebook, Google, & Twitter take extreme measures to fight leakers

The Guardian points to the strict standards of Google, Facebook, and Twitter when it comes to their leakers.

One day last year, John Evans (not his real name) received a message from his manager at Facebook telling him he was in line for a promotion. When they met the following day, she led him down a hallway praising his performance. However, when she opened the door to a meeting room, he came face to face with members of Facebook’s secretive “rat-catching” team, led by the company’s head of investigations, Sonya Ahuja.

The interrogation was a technicality; they already knew he was guilty of leaking some innocuous information to the press. They had records of a screenshot he’d taken, links he had clicked or hovered over, and they strongly indicated they had accessed chats between him and the journalist, dating back to before he joined the company.

“It’s horrifying how much they know,” he told the Guardian, on the condition of anonymity. “You go into Facebook and it has this warm, fuzzy feeling of ‘we’re changing the world’ and ‘we care about things’. But you get on their bad side and all of a sudden you are face to face with [Facebook CEO] Mark Zuckerberg’s secret police.”

The public image of Silicon Valley’s tech giants is all colourful bicycles, ping-pong tables, beanbags and free food, but behind the cartoonish facade is a ruthless code of secrecy. They rely on a combination of Kool-Aid, digital and physical surveillance, legal threats and restricted stock units to prevent and detect intellectual property theft and other criminal activity. However, those same tools are also used to catch employees and contractors who talk publicly, even if it’s about their working conditions, misconduct or cultural challenges within the company.

While Apple’s culture of secrecy, which includes making employees sign project-specific NDAs and covering unlaunched products with black cloths, has been widely reported, companies such as Google and Facebook have long put the emphasis on internal transparency.

Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company’s internal version of Facebook.

(Read more at The Guardian)

The left likes to sling about the terms “Nazi” and “facist.” However, when it comes establishing who has worked to earn the moniker, we need to consider the information in this article.

Drudge saw the monsters Facebook and Google would become

A 3 April 2018 World News Daily article pointed out how Matt Drudge foresaw Facebook’s and Google’s monopolistic hold on both social media and our secrets.

The Internet showed such great promise more than two decades ago when Matt Drudge shook up the media world, followed quickly by WND’s entry as the first independent online news-gathering organization – and, later, an independent book publishing arm and an independent film-production company.

There was no Google, at least not as the domineering search engine with an eye to becoming an out-of-control, invasive corporate version of the National Security Agency that would know everything about you, tracking your every move, on and offline – and monetizing it. It was not yet controlling the means of distribution of information, nor had it yet placed the left-wing extremist Southern Poverty Law Center in a position to censor the news – and even define what news is.

There was no Facebook yet, the other corporate giant that would come alongside Google to grab control of 75 percent of the online ad revenue so together they could starve out independent voices, most of whom had not yet emerged.

It’s a different world today, and it’s a dangerous one in which this Digital Cartel is – without oversight, without checks and balances, without restraint – literally the powerful gatekeeper that is killing personal privacy and free speech.

Matt Drudge saw it coming. I regret to say I did not.

Here’s what he said in 2015: “Don’t get into this false sense that you are an individual when you’re on Facebook. No, you’re not! You’re a pawn in their scheme. …”

He warned back then how online revenue would be weaponized by Google. He warned how Facebook would control and sell you as product. He warned that Americans were becoming confined on the Internet into the “playgrounds” of massive corporations.

“This is ghetto,” he said. “This is corporate. They are taking your energy and you get nothing in return! I’m just warning this country. …”

Matt Drudge saw it coming. Again, I can only admit, with regret and remorse, I did not. Many others did not, either.

So, here we are in 2018. We’ve fallen for Digital Cartel’s trap. They’ve taken our privacy and our freedom. We must fight back – and fight we will.

The independent media is in crisis with falling revenues, controlled by this cartel. We are faced with falling or static traffic that is controlled by this beast. And if the independent media fail, so will free-spirited individual voices of independence. That’s the crisis we face today.

How do we respond?

We need to respond collectively and individually as if we are in a new war of independence, a new fight for liberty, a new battle for the mind, heart and soul of America.

Don’t let the first domino fall, or it will start a chain reaction whose consequences will be catastrophic. Don’t let WND be the first domino.

(Read the rest at World News Daily)

Admittedly, the final line serves WND well; however, I wouldn’t be quoting them if I didn’t support them. I encourage all to follow suit in support of non-main-stream media.