Sunday night, Fox News hosted a town hall for one of the many Democratic Party primary candidates, wherein the candidate brushed aside a question from a concerned citizen about the crimes of illegal aliens.
“Let me begin the answer to that question by saying – look – all of us know as human beings, regardless of circumstance, whether people are rich or poor, no matter the color of their skin, what their background is, people commit crime: crime happens,”Julian Castro told the audience member who asked the question.
The woman told Castro that she had been the victim of identity theft and fraud at the hands of an illegal alien, who stole her social security number. Apparently, the perpetrator of the crime was released from police custody, “never to be heard from again.” She asked if, as president, Castro would ensure that illegal aliens who commit crimes would be detained, and not simply released.
The woman did not inject race into the question. She never mentioned the skin color of the perpetrator of the crime. But Castro assumed that she was talking about a nonwhite person, and in his answer implied that the woman was racist simply for asking a question about illegal aliens.
Democrat presidential candidate @JulianCastro's reaction when Arizona voter Jessica Welch tells him she was victimized by an illegal immigrant: "Crime happens." pic.twitter.com/At2UkPkjzN
— Official Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) June 13, 2019
The Netflix documentary Knock Down the House, which follows the campaigns of female Democratic hopefuls in the 2018 election cycle, and highlights Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), is so far thehighest rated filmof 2019, according to Rotten Tomatoes.
The documentary, which had its rights purchased by Netflix for a whopping $10 million, has a 100 percent approval rating among Rotten Tomatoes users, eclipsing the likes of Amazing Grace, Apollo 11, and Ash is the Purest White.
Knock Down the Housefollows the campaigns of female Democratic hopefuls Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Amy Vilela, Cori Bush, and Paula Jean Swearengin as they campaigned for Congress during the 2018 midterm elections.
“At a moment of historic volatility in American politics, these four women decide to fight back, setting themselves on a journey that will change their lives and their country forever,”notes Rotten Tomatoes. “Without political experience or corporate money, they build a movement of insurgent candidates challenging powerful incumbents in Congress. Their efforts result in a legendary upset.”
In February, the film won the coveted audience award at the Sundance Film Festival and a five-minute standing ovation. Ocasio-Cortez, who was the only one of the four women featured to win her election, was not in attendance but sent a message to the audience via video link.
“I’m just so glad that this moment for all four of us was captured and documented not just for the personal meaning of it but for everyday people to see that yes, this is incredibly challenging, yes, the odds are long but also that yes, this is worth it,” she said.
The film, which premiered on Netflix in May, also drew gushing reviews from left-wing critics. The Guardian‘s Jordan Hoffman wrote described it as “inspiring and a “classic David and Goliath scenario.”
“Everyone likes an underdog story, and when the underdog is as eloquent, passionate and righteous as these four women are, the final reels of this film feel like a Rocky movie,” he wrote at the time.
Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.
The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.
Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”
Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)
Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.
The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.
Breitbart News has already covered some of the individuals that Facebook placed on its list of potential “hate agents.”Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as “hateful” and banned from the platform, in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel. Star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters.
The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful. In the document, Facebook tags Benjamin with a “hate agent” signal for “neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of Proud Boys” on October 21 last year.
Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as “representing the ideology of an ethnostate” for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate.
In addition to the more unorthodox signals that Facebook uses to determine if its users are “hate agents,” there is also, predictably, “hate speech.” Facebook divides hate speech into three tiers depending on severity and considers attacks on a person’s “immigration status” to be hate speech.
Here’s how “hate speech” — both on and off Facebook — will be categorized by the platform, according to the document:
Individual has made public statements, or statements made in private and later made public, using Tier 1, 2, or 3 hate speech or slurs:
3 instances in one statement or appearance = signal 5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month = signal
If you’ve done this within the past two years, Facebook will consider it a hate signal.
Other signals used by Facebook to determine if its users should be designated as hate agents include carrying out violence against people based on their “protected or quasi-protected characteristics,” attacks on places of worship, and conviction of genocide.
Are you a source at Facebook or any other corporation who wants to confidentially blow the whistle on wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari securely at allumbokhari@protonmail.com.
What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s election and the “yellow vests” protests in France?
What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?
Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.
What are the popular gripes against them?
One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.
Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, offshored and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad).
Three, unelected bureaucrats multiplied and vastly increased their power over private citizens. The targeted middle classes lacked the resources to fight back against the royal armies of tenured regulators, planners, auditors, inspectors and adjusters who could not be fired and were never accountable.
Enlarge ImageA Yellow Vest Pro-Brexit Protestor seen with an EU flag modified with a Swastika during a rally at Trafalgar Square.Getty Images
Four, the new global media reached billions and indoctrinated rather than reported.
Five, academia, rather than focusing on education, became politicized as a shrill agent of cultural transformation — while charging more for less learning.
Six, utopian social planning increased housing, energy, and transportation costs.
One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees, or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.
In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.
Green policies were aimed at raising fees on, and restricting the use of, carbon-based fuels. But proposed green belt-tightening among the hoi polloi was not matched by cutbacks in their second and third homes, overseas vacations, luxury cars, private jets and high-tech appurtenances.
In education, government directives and academic hectoring about admissions quotas and ideological indoctrination likewise targeted the middle classes but not the elite. The micromanagers of Western public schools and universities often preferred private academies and rigorous traditional training for their own children.
Elites relied on old-boy networks to get their own kids into colleges. Diversity administrators multiplied at universities while indebted students borrowed more money to pay for them.
In matters of immigration, the story was much the same. Western elites encouraged the migration of indigent, unskilled and often poorly educated foreign nationals who would ensure that government social programs — and the power of the elites themselves — grew.
The champions of open borders made sure that such influxes did not materially affect their own neighborhoods, schools and privileged way of life.
Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist or nativist middle classes. Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools and safety from sudden, massive and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia into their communities.
As for trade, few still believe in “free” trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn’t elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights and patents?
The middle classes became nauseated by elites’ constant trashing of their culture, history and traditions, including the tearing down of statues, the Trotskyizing of past heroes, the renaming of public buildings and streets and, for some, the tired and empty whining about “white privilege.”
If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?
How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system — benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?
In the next few years, expect more grass-roots demands for the restoration of the value of citizenship. There will be fewer middle-class apologies for patriotism and nationalism. The non-elite will become angrier about illegal immigration, demanding a return to the idea of measured, meritocratic, diverse and legal immigration.
Because elites have no answers to popular furor, the anger directed at them will only increase until they give up — or finally succeed in their grand agenda of a nondemocratic, all-powerful Orwellian state.
The International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank do not want Trump to make America great again.
by Shane Trejo
Two of the most powerful international bankers in the world are teaming up in a joint effort to halt President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ trade policies.
Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank (ECB) and Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are urging Trump to abandon his trade war and return to the status quo preferred by globalist financiers.
“We meet at a moment when support for global cooperation and multilateral solutions is waning,” Lagarde said at the 8th ECB conference for the central, eastern and south-eastern European (CESEE) nations on Wednesday.
“Global growth has been subdued for more than six years and the largest economies in the world are putting up, or threatening to put up, new trade barriers. And this might be the beginning of something else, which might affect us all in a more broad way,” she added.
Lagarde also warned: “These troubling developments will create headwinds for all, but certainly for the CESEE growth model, a model that has relied on openness and integration.”
Draghi also forecast doom unless Trump submitted to China, abandoned his nationalistic policies, and let he and his fellow bankster cronies go back to running the global economy.
“Global trade has faced headwinds in recent years as trade-restrictive measures have outpaced liberalising measures,” Draghi said.
“The central and eastern European business model has become vulnerable to shocks to international trade and financial conditions,” he added, warning of potential ill effects of Trump threatening to hike tariffs on European autos.
“The effect of tariffs could be amplified, as a large share of goods cross borders multiple times during the production process,” Draghi said.
“The main long-term challenge is moving towards a more balanced growth and financing model, which is more reliant on domestic innovation and on higher investment spending than it has been so far,” he added.
Regardless of the fear-mongering of the international bankers, President Trump remains undaunted in his resolve to cut China down to size and approve the standing of the U.S. in the world.
Tom's Blog 