THE FBI IS NOW INVESTIGATING ‘IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE’ POSTERS

The FBI is Now Investigating 'It's Okay to be White' Posters

A valuable use of their resources.

  – NOVEMBER 5, 2019

The FBI is now investigating ‘It’s Okay to be White’ posters after the “hate filled flyers” were posted around the campus of Western Connecticut State University.

After the flyers were discovered, university president John Clark characterized them as a ‘hateful attack’. Other flyers also posted on campus said “Islam is right about women.”

“Have no doubt that we are treating this as an attack on our university community and making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished,” Clark wrote in a letter. “I am fully committed to the absolutely necessary goal this does not happen again. We must be ever vigilant to protect our university against these hateful attacks.”

Clark added that if any student was found to be responsible for posting the flyers, they would be expelled as well as hit with possible “criminal actions.”

The FBI office in New Haven was also alerted and is now investigating the flyers.

As we reported yesterday, similar flyers were posted at the Oklahoma City University School of Law, prompting authorities there to launch a “hate crime” investigation.

Why the FBI hasn’t got anything better to do with its resources God only knows.

It’s not as if the flyers even need “investigating,” since we already know their origin.

The whole thing was a product of 4chan trolls who sought to repeat their stunt of posting the flyers on Halloween to bait the media into whipping up another moral panic about racism.

By prodding progressives and the press into suggesting that it’s not ‘okay to be white’ as proven by their hysterical overreaction, the trolls are in the process revealing the actual racism of leftists.

CENSORSHIP: TWITTER ANNOUNCES NEW RESTRICTIONS FOR WORLD LEADERS

Censorship: Twitter Announces New Restrictions For World Leaders

Big Tech moving to block Trump’s reach to public as election season heats up

  – OCTOBER 15, 2019

In a move surely meant to muzzle President Trump, Twitter has announced new rules for the accounts of world leaders, making clear that certain content will result in “enforcement action,” according to a press release.

“There continues to be meaningful public conversation about how we think about Tweets from world leaders on our service,” Twitter stated Tuesday. “We welcome the conversation and want to share more context on our principles and process for reviewing reported Tweets from these accounts.

CAP

“When it comes to the actions of world leaders on Twitter, we recognize that this is largely new ground and unprecedented. We understand the desire for our decisions to be “yes/no” binaries, but it’s not that simple. The actions we take and policies we develop will set precedent around online speech and we owe it to the people we serve to be deliberate and considered in what we do.”

“Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. We also have a responsibility to the people who use Twitter to better explain why we make the decisions we make, which we will do here.”

Twitter then lays out their “Enforcement scenarios” that would limit a world leader’s account or the ability of users to share their posts.

“The below areas will result in enforcement action for any account on our service (without consideration of the potential public interest value in allowing the Tweet to remain visible behind a notice):”

– Promotion of terrorism;

– Clear and direct threats of violence against an individual (context matters: as noted above, direct interactions with fellow public figures and/or commentary on political and foreign policy issues would likely not result in enforcement);

– Posting private information, such as a home address or non-public personal phone number;

– Posting or sharing intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent;

– Engaging in behaviors relating to child sexual exploitation; and

– Encouraging or promoting self-harm.

“In other cases involving a world leader, we will err on the side of leaving the content up if there is a clear public interest in doing so.”

Notably, if Twitter believes a world leader violated these policies, the company will freeze other users’ ability interact with that leader’s post.

“We haven’t used this notice yet, but when we do, you will not be able to like, reply, share, or Retweet the Tweet in question,” Twitter stated. “You will still be able to express your opinion with Retweet with Comment.”

CAP

Though Twitter made a similar announcement back in June, these new restrictions are far more severe than simply “down-ranking” a post.

Democrats will likely pressure Twitter relentlessly to enforce these limitations on Trump because they’re triggered by everything he says or tweets.

2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris already demanded that Twitter outright remove Trump’s account earlier this month because he could “harm” people with his words.

Other Democrats also called for Twitter to remove Trump’s account, including former DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison and Rep. Jackie Speier (Calif.).

Regardless of what Democrats try to do, Twitter has clearly decided it will serve as the gatekeeper for what information you can and cannot disseminate from your elected leaders.

 

AND THEN THEY CAME FOR JOE ROGAN

And Then They Came for Joe Rogan

Cancel culture catches up with podcast megastar

  – OCTOBER 7, 2019

YouTube has set its sights on prolific podcaster Joe Rogan, targeting him for demonetization like so many other controversial content creators before him.

Last week, one of Rogan’s interviews was flagged after a “human review” reported the video for allegedly containing “harmful or dangerous acts.”

Alex Jones has seen this before, and he’s warning Rogan they won’t stop with just one video.

DOUBLE WHAMMY: Calling Someone an Illegal Alien Could Strip You of Your Guns

See the source image

By Jose Nino

The Strident Conservative reports that that New York City passed a new ordinance which criminalizes the threat of reporting someone to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the use of phrases like “go back to your own country” or “illegal alien” when these actions are allegedly motivated by hate.

This 29-page directive was published by the New York City Commission on Human Rights and details numerous examples of actions or comments that would be banned under this law. Violators of this law could be punished by fines up to $250,000 per violation.

According to one passage in the law, “The use of certain language, including ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals,’ with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.”

See the source image

The Commission is open about the fact that the directive intends to reject the federal government’s attempts to crack down on illegal immigration. However, Daniel Horowitz pointed out that no such crackdown has been attempted by the Trump administration.

The author of this Strident Conservative piece, David Leach argues that this law “could have long-term consequences on our liberty.”

First he believes that the NYC law is “a clear violation of free speech rights.” The Supreme Court recently ruled that so-called hate speech is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. However, Leach sees the bigger picture:

But putting free speech aside for a moment, the growing movement by the Far-Left to ban hate speech — and even criminalize it — could give them a foot-in-the-door toward dismantling the Second Amendment as well.

Right before the entire impeachment drama started, Democrats, along with Trump and the GOP, were already pushing for anti-gun legislation. Bans on high-capacity magazines and red flag laws were featured on Pelosi’s gun control wish list.

Hower, Leach notes that “there’s been another piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation flying under the radar.”

He expanded upon this:

Named the Disarm Hate Act (DHA), this little-noticed bill would use hate crime laws to deny gun rights. Using similar laws already on the books in a few states as a template, the DHA would prohibit people convicted of certain “violent” hate crime misdemeanors from possessing a weapon. Currently, federal law only bans people convicted of felony hate crimes from gun ownership.

What would constitute a violent misdemeanor hate crime?  Leach cites the words of Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, the co-sponsor of the Senate version of the DHA:

“Most commonly this category includes low-level assault, threats, harassment, and property damage.”

Indeed, leftists have had trouble trying to subvert the Second Amendment directly. So they’ve turned to more indirect ways of doing so.

By linking it to assaults on free speech, they can now kill two birds with one stone. In doing so, they can eviscerate some of the most time-honored principles of American political freedoms.

 

Facebook CEO warns breaking up Big Tech will lead to more ‘election meddling’ and less censorship will hurt people in LEAKED audio

CAP

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to threaten politicians who want to break up the company with election interference ‘issues’, and warns that unregulated social media would create angry crowds, in recently leaked audio.

Breaking up Big Tech firms like Facebook “is not actually going to solve the issues,” Zuckerberg complained during a July open question-and-answer meeting with employees, a recording of which was obtained by The Verge. Instead, he warned, it’ll make them worse.

It doesn’t make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can’t coordinate and work together.

Why broken-up Facebooklets would refuse to coordinate to quash “election interference,” one can only wonder. The statement, which could be easily interpreted as a veiled threat, comes in response to widespread concern that Facebook is a monopoly with too much power over what information people see online. Facebook previously threatened the journalism industry with extinction if publishers refused to cooperate with the social media behemoth (“I’ll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice,” his deputy Campbell Brown warned publishers in a meeting last year, adding that Zuckerberg “doesn’t care” about what happens to them if they scorn Facebook’s olive branch), and Zuckerberg is very much aware of the amount of political power his company wields, especially heading into an election year.

An offer they can’t refuse? Facebook offers mainstream news millions in licensing fees

CAP

But Facebook being broken up isn’t even a concern, as the CEO said the company would “win the legal challenge” should Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren or any other candidate calling for the break up of the Big Tech monopolies actually follow through on that campaign promise. The court battle would “still suck for us,” though, since “I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government.”

CAP

“We care about our country and want to work with our government to do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.” Translation: we care about our country, as long as it doesn’t get in our way. And other countries? Asked about skipping hearings where he was expected to testify in Canada and the UK, Zuckerberg indicated he didn’t care so much about those: “It just doesn’t really make sense for me to go to hearings in every single country that wants to have me show up,” he explained, sounding genuinely bewildered that such a thing might be expected of him.

One particularly interesting employee question concerned how to improve Facebook’s “self-image” – what to tell friends and family who hate or fear the social network. Zuckerberg’s answer was elusive and vague – tell critics that “you care about the problems and acknowledge that there are issues and that you’re working through them.”

And Zuckerberg insisted – despite that boilerplate answer – that caring is genuine. He “really cares” about “making sure that our products promote positive well-being,” he said, adding that this concern was behind the company’s decision to more prominently feature content from “friends and family” in newsfeeds, deemphasizing political and viral content. That decision hurt both the producers of such content and the company itself, which lost $100 billion of market cap in one day as the number of users fell dramatically – a historic record for a single-day drop, according to Zuckerberg, who laughed it off.

He also tried to smooth over the rough rollout of Libra, Facebook’s digital currency that has been panned by governments worldwide, claiming that “the public things” – presumably meaning politicians’ calls for extreme scrutiny of the project owing to Facebook’s history of privacy abuses – “tend to be a little more dramatic” but private meetings with regulators have been much easier.

While Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to be a fan of regulations targeting Libra, he is very supportive of regulation of social media – and it has more to do with dodging the pitchforks of angry users than innate virtue. Without regulation, “people are just going to keep on getting angrier and angrier … demand more extreme measures, and eventually people just say ‘Screw it, take a hammer to the whole thing.’”

No More Twitter? 😂

By Mark Dice – 10/2/2019

“His words could harm other people.” Uh, what you really mean is his words could harm you, and the rest of the corrupt, radical left, trying to sabotage the government, and wrongfully remove a sitting president. Those words are stopping you, shining the light on your corruption, and hopefully will remove you from office. Yes, his words are doing that Ms. Harris, but never forget, “nothing can stop what is coming.’

“That privilege should be taken from him” literally means “people should not be allowed a freedom of speech.”

Crazy Maxine was wearing her Halloween mask already: that’s being progressive…

NEW ‘CUCK’ MOVIE VILIFIES CONSERVATIVES AS RADICALIZED, LOSER INCELS

New 'Cuck' Movie Vilifies Conservatives as Radicalized, Loser Incels

Comments and likes on YouTube trailer disabled to prevent criticism.

 – SEPTEMBER 9, 2019

A new movie called ‘Cuck’ centers around a radicalized right-winger who is forced to take a job as a literal cuckold in porn films in what appears to be an attempt to vilify conservatives as resentful, loser incels.

The trailer for the movie features an out of shape millennial – Ronny – who blames his financial woes on minority immigrant groups and a “false sense of diversity” that plagues America.

“Everywhere I go there’s illegals and they’re running the show,” he laments, adding, “You can’t be proud to be white and male anymore, it’s not politically correct.”

The plot then shows Ronny hiring a prostitute before he agrees to play the role of cuckold in porn movies.

CAP

The narrative then shifts to Ronny’s apparent radicalization via YouTube videos which ends up with him buying guns and attending far-right rallies.

“Are you ready to take the red pill or are you just another cuck?” asks one of the faux YouTubers.

The promo for the film describes it as a “gripping fly-on-the wall character study and psychosexual thriller tracking an isolated and lonely young man as he is indoctrinated into the online echo chambers of Alt-Right ideology and hate. Touching on several topical nerves, CUCK gives a raw, unforgiving glimpse into a dark world that hides in plain sight.”

The President and CEO of Red Arrows Studios, the company behind the film, is James Baker, who previously worked for Current TV, Al Gore’s TV network. He also worked for MTV the BSkyB network, which is a subsidiary of Comcast.

In anticipation of a bombardment of negative feedback, comments and likes on the YouTube trailer were disabled.

The film appears to play off of mainstream media hysteria about white supremacists and pushes the notion that online ‘hate speech’ needs to be censored to prevent violent radicalization.

IF THEY COULD THEY PUT US ALL IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS – Liberal Snowflake Melts Down after Man in Trump 2020 T-Shirt Walks into a Traders Joe’s — So Upset She Writes Letter to Editor

Annotation 2019-09-04 145559

By Jim Hoft

Cheryl Boyles is a liberal activist and writer from Green Valley, Arizona.

In August Boyles went with her husband to a Trader Joe’s and she suffered a severe meltdown after a Trump supporter entered the store in a Trump 2020 T-shirt.

Cheryl started panicking.  She said the entire mood of the store “shifted.”

Cheryl was so traumatized by the experience that she wrote the local paper to share her horrific story.

This was posted in the Green Valley News in August.

Annotation 2019-09-04 145826

Boyles even asked their cashier to convey to the management the anxiety she and her husband experienced at “suddenly finding ourselves in a confined space with a man who looked the part of a typical Trump terrorist.”

This crazy woman suffered a major anxiety attack from a Trump T-shirt.

What a nut!

The Green Valley News later reported that they printed 24 letters to the editor, all destroying Cheryl’s overwrought description of a visit to Trader Joe’s in Tucson where she was reduced to, well, snowflake status.  The paper received 50 letters to the editor.  The good news is that not one single letter supported this local nutcase.  

Hopefully Cheryl will get some medication for her severe TDS – Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Hat Tip Emmett

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑