Mainstream media denies violent group an invading force
NOVEMBER 4, 2018

NOVEMBER 4, 2018


Synagogue vandal James Polite seen alongside his former mentor, New York Democrat Christine Quinn © Facebook / Abraham Aali and Reuters / Andrew Kelly
Less than a week after a gunman murdered 11 worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue, anti-Semitic graffiti was found scrawled inside Union Temple in Brooklyn’s predominantly Jewish Prospect Heights neighborhood. The graffiti read “Die Jew Rats” and “Hitler.”

A Democratic political event scheduled at the synagogue on Thursday night was canceled, and police investigated the incident as a hate crime. After being caught on the synagogue’s CCTV cameras, James Polite was arrested on Friday.
Far from being an archetypal tattooed skinhead, Polite is a black former Democratic intern who had his college education bankrolled by the New York Times’ ‘Neediest Cases Fund.’
Polite had a rough upbringing, according to a 2017 New York Times profile. He told the Times he identifies as “queer” and felt misunderstood at home. As a young teenager, he requested that he be placed in foster care, and spent the following years shunted from home to home.

“Nobody gotta die. Mexico, latin America, carribean (sic) vs. Jew n*gger pigs. One person touch me this whole shit a smoking,” he wrote.
In the comments, friends urged Polite to seek professional help, and his one-time mentor Quinn wrote after his arrest that she was “simply and utterly devastated.”
“I knew this young man,” she wrote. “And while he has experienced hardship that most people can’t ever imagine, his actions are inexcusable.”

While Polite’s life seems to have gone down a dark path, from New York Times poster boy to synagogue vandal, he is not the first unlikely suspect to be busted for hate crimes in recent years. Last year, Israeli police arrested a 19-year-old Israeli Jew in connection with hundreds of bomb threats made to Jewish community centers across America.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

On October 25, the ECHR found in favor of Austria and against a claimant, Frau S., who had been prosecuted for saying in 2008 that the Prophet Mohammed “was a pedophile” because he had married a six-year-old girl. The applicant had claimed that the criminal sentence she received violated her right to free speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found against her and in favor of Austria, which had convicted her of inciting religious hatred.
On July 17, the same ECHR, by contrast, had found in favor of Russian applicants from the now famous ‘Pussy Riot’ band, and against the Russian state, which convicted them for having incited religious hatred by staging a performance of a ‘punk prayer’ in Moscow’s Christ the Savior cathedral in 2012. This case was considered under three different articles of the European Convention on Human Rights but it made two judgements under the same Article 10 which the judges later said could not protect Frau S. In the Pussy Riot case, the court found that the girls’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 had been violated.
In other words, according to the Strasbourg court, you are allowed to insult the Christian religion but not the Muslim religion. It is difficult to think of a more obvious case of double standards than this. Worse, and as Gregor Puppinck of the European Centre of Law and Justice in Strasbourg has pointed out, it is clear that the court justified finding in favor of Austria, and against Frau S., purely out of fear of Muslims. In numerous paragraphs of the ruling, it defends Austria’s conviction of the woman in the name of the goal of protecting “religious peace.” This can mean nothing else other than that peace might be threatened by Muslims if Austrians insult the prophet of Islam. In other words, the court is failing in its primordial role, which is surely to uphold the right of speech against threats of violence against them.
READ MORE: Russia appeals €37,000 European fine over Pussy Riot case
The double standards are all the more shocking because Frau S. was discussing facts. The Austrian courts ruled that the fact that Mohammed had married a small girl, and consummated that marriage when the girl was nine, did not justify her calling him a pedophile. By contrast, there are no facts at issue in the Pussy Riot case, whose action in the cathedral was purely designed to shock. In other words, the intentionality of the Pussy Riot girls cannot be in doubt, whereas it requires a speculative leap about her motives to say that Frau S. was deliberately trying to incite hatred.
The upholding of the conviction of Frau S. is also in contradiction with another ruling by the ECHR, in this case concerning Lithuania. In January of this year, the court ruled in favor of a clothing company which had used irreverent images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary to promote its sales. This too was defended in the name of freedom of speech under Article 10. So, the ECHR is prepared to protect blasphemous or offensive freedom of speech even if the goal is purely commercial and not political – but only if the offence is against Christians and not against Muslims.
These gross inconsistencies show the structural defects of human rights law. The European Convention on Human Rights is a series of generalized statements about what sort of rights people should enjoy. Because they are necessarily general statements, these “rights” only become law after a ruling by a judge in a particular case. Because the judge has only these general statements to go on, and not a specific legislative act, he or she can more or less decide the case according to his or her personal opinion. It is in the very nature of such “human rights” courts that they give grossly excessive power to judges.
In proper legal systems, the law consists of detailed national legislation and specific rulings (jurisprudence). The role of the judge is to apply the law as it is: he or she has no room for personal maneuver. By contrast, in human rights courts, as in the Supreme Court of the United States, it is effectively judges who make the law. This is a very bad state of affairs because it turns courts into political instruments and judges into politicians, as we see every time there is a new appointment to the US Supreme Court.
The situation in Strasbourg is worse than in the US because a large majority of the judges at the ECHR had never been judges before. They may have a law degree but they have usually never sat on a bench before going to Strasbourg. Very often, they have been government employees. This means that they come to the job without the very specific training and experience which all judges should have. Instead, they often approach their job with a political agenda: this was, for example, the case of a Belgian judge who became vice-president of the court and who took up her appointment with an avowed determination to implement progressive policies.
This is why the ECHR has been so easily hijacked by political progressives who have pushed through a raft of political issues which should be decided by national parliaments after public debate and in accordance with public opinion. A large number of practices which either did not exist, or which were illegal, when the Convention was drawn up in 1950 have now been enforced by the ECHR against national legislation – abortion; in vitro fertilization; pre-implantation screening (in a ruling which promulgates the right to eugenics by declaring the applicants’ “right to bring a child into the world which is not affected by the illness that they carry”); the right to practice violent sado-masochism; the right for transsexuals to marry; the right to surrogate motherhood; the right to suicide (under Article 8 on respect for private and family life); and conscientious objection to military service. In this last ruling, the ECHR judges specifically gave themselves the right to change the law by saying that “it should have a dynamic and evolutive approach.”
Three things are clear from this list. First, these sorts of rights are clearly not the core human rights which the authors of the European Convention in 1950 thought needed protecting against dictatorial states. They are instead modish lifestyle choices. Second, the fact that these social changes have been pushed through by the ECHR means that we live under a government of judges – unelected judges who make the law in place of elected legislatures. Third, if the ECHR continues along the same path it has adopted for decades, then Europe will effectively have a law forbidding blasphemy against Islam but not against Christianity. The Court will thereby have decisively betrayed its claim to be acting in the name of universal values. Under such circumstances, it should be closed down.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

By Tyler Durden

Kempe, whose office announced the investigation in a Sunday morning news release, didn’t reveal any details of the probe, which comes on the heels of a court victory by Democrats, who successfully challenged the state’s attempt to de-register 50,000 voters under the state’s “exact match” voter ID law, according to the Daily Caller.
“While we cannot comment on the specifics of an ongoing investigation, I can confirm that the Democratic Party of Georgia is under investigation for possible cyber-crimes,” Kempe press secretary Candice Broce said in the release. Both the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have been alerted.
The state Democratic Party has called the allegations “100% false” and “an abuse of power” by Kempe. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a computer scientist and attorney who are currently suing Kempe said that the lawsuit is “an attempt to distract from a report about vulnerabilities in the state’s voter registration website.”
The “vulnerabilities” could potentially allow anybody to access the voting records of individual voters.
Poll numbers between Kempe and his opponent, Democrat Stacy Abrams, have tightened to within a two percentage point margin as Abrams has benefited from several celebrity endorsements, including the support of Oprah Winfrey, who joined Abrams in knocking on doors last week.
The Daily Caller quoted Abrams as saying the lawsuit was a “desperate attempt” to sway the vote in Kempe’s favor ahead of the election.
“I’ve heard nothing about it, and my reaction would be that this is a desperate attempt on the part of my opponent to distract people from the fact that two different federal judges found him derelict in his duties and have forced him to accept absentee ballots to be counted and those who are being held captive by the exact match system to be allowed to vote,” Abrams said.
For many Georgia voters, news of the investigation will not be taken lightly. According to a poll conducted by the AJC and a local TV station, many voters in the state are concerned about the integrity of its elections, including fears about tampering and ineligible voters casting ballots.

By Chris Menahan

From KTSM:
Cruz rallied in San Angleo on Tuesday, discussing issues such as immigration. During his speech, he specifically made his feelings clear to his supporters that the caravan of Central American migrants were not welcomed, but, if they made it they should turn to O’Rourke’s supporters for help.
“When you get here, we have identified homes, that are willing to take you in to give you free housing, free food, free health care,” Cruz said. “And every one of these homes is self identified with a little black and white sign that says Beto. Don’t bother knocking, just kick the door and they don’t believe in walls, so just let yourself in, and make yourself at home.”
This should be the standard response anytime a lib says we need to let these people in. Tucker used it against Jorge Ramos last week to hilarious effect:

By John Nolte
It is open season on Trump supporters, and the media is only fomenting, encouraging, excusing, and hoping for more… The media are now openly calling Trump supporters “Nazis” and are blaming Trump for a mass murder he had nothing to do with. This, of course, is a form of harassment because it incites and justifies mob violence.
Here is the list, so far, and remember that if any one of these things happened to a Democrat, the media would use the story to blot out the sun for weeks. Remember how crazy the media went over a nobody rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask, a GOP stafferwho criticized Obama’s daughters? And yet, hundreds of Trump supporters are harassed and brutalized and the media only dutifully report them, if at all. That is because the media are desperate to normalize and justify violence and harassment against Trump and his supporters.
And while the media openly encourage this violence against us, the media also campaign to disarm us, to take away our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves.
This list will be updated as needed. Back-filling it will be an ongoing project…
Here is a video channel dedicated to documenting the dozens and dozens of assaults against Trump supporters.
Please email jnolte@breitbart.com with any updates or anything you think deserves to be added to this list. Also, if you see errors — duplicate postings or events misinterpreted as attacks on Trump supporters, please let us know. Unlike the establishment media’s reporting, we want this list to be comprehensive and factual.


NOVEMBER 2, 2018
The covert campaign, coordinated mainly on the website 4chan, involved posting sheets of papers reading, “It’s okay to be white,” in an effort to bring awareness to the racist double standard white people face every day.
In the wake of the postings, numerous media reports struggled to describe the campaign, with some calling it the work of neo-nazis, “covert racism,” and “white supremacist.”
Other media outlets went as far as to claim that posting the signs is illegal, while some warned removing the signs could be dangerous.
In the US, posters reportedly hit Boston, North Carolina, Delaware and Texas, where residents in Fort Worth were told to call police if they witness the sign.
“I condemn any type of literature sign that is posted that may be offensive to some folks,” Fort Worth City Councilman Cary Moon said, advising residents that taking down the signs “might interfere with investigations and collection of evidence,” according to CBS DFW.
Posters were also reported at various college campuses across the nation, including Tufts University in Massachusetts, the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, North Carolina State University, Duke University, the University of Idaho, and the University of Delaware, with more continuing to be reported.
Elsewhere in the globe, “It’s ok to be white” posters were reportedly seen in several Canadianprovinces, the UK, and Australia.
One man in Halifax, Canada, reported seeing a “group of 4 in black hoodies and white masks” posting the signs in the downtown area, which he says he tore down.

Signs also showed up outside the offices of two parliament members in South Australia, prompting South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to denounce the “pro-nazi slogans.”
“Whoever this moron is this [sic] should be named and shamed,” Hanson-Young wrote on twitter.

South Australian police say they are investigating “the motivation and intent of the persons posting the signs,” adding that they could be fined for littering.
“When the person/s responsible for posting the signs are identified and located they can be issued with a $315 fine plus $60 victims of crime levy for the offence of post bill without consent under section 23(1) of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016,” a South Australian police spokesman said, according to The Advertiser.
SA Police also claimed there were rumors on social media that razorblades could be affixed to the posters and warned people to report the signs to police rather than remove them.
The posters appear to be a continuation of a similar campaign launched by 4chan last year, which had equally triggering results.

NOVEMBER 2, 2018
James O’Keefe joins Alex to discuss the undercover footage of members from the Beto O’Rourke campaign claiming they use funds to support the illegal caravan heading towards the border.
Watch Owen Shroyer talk to Texans about the undercover Veritas video below:
Live On UT Campus: Do Students Care About Neto’s Campaign Violations?