Published on Sep 24, 2019
By Mark Dice
THE FORMULA FOR GUN CONFISCATION AND CIVIL WAR
Learn how the establishment is setting America up for failure
SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
If ever there was a war on for the minds of free-thinking Americans, it is surely taking place now.
As the tyrannical technocratic globalist system wreaks havoc on the public, knowledge of the actual threats facing America, utilizing the brainwashing of upcoming generations and the sheep inhabiting the left/right paradigm, a formula for gun confiscation is gradually reaching completion.
Another New York Times Editor Made Racist, Anti-Semitic Comments
By Haris Alic
Another high level employee of the New York Times made racist, antisemitic, and disparaging comments on social media.
Jazmine Hughes, an associate editor of the New York Times Magazine, has made a series of racist and antisemitic comments on social media over a multi-year span. A number of the tweets came from Hughes’s personal account, which is associated with her Times email, after she was hired by the outlet in April 2015 and continued well into 2017.
Breitbart News has been able to confirm the authenticity of the tweets, which are still visible on Hughes’s page at the time of the publication of this story. While Twitter has not officially verified Hughes’ account, her official New York Times website biography links to the account, confirming it is in fact hers.
Hughes is a high-profile New York Times editor. Forbes highlighted her on its 2018 “30 Under 30” list of influential media figures. The business magazine even conducted a brief interview with her, where she promoted herself as a champion of “diverse storytelling,” in the words of Forbes.
Hughes is only the latest Times employee to be exposed for making controversial and racially offensive statements. In recent months the paper has been rocked by multiple instances of such behavior at its top editorial ranks.
Although most of the tweets center around every day interactions, a few have pointed to political overtones. Hughes appears to have been particularly irate with white people for electing President Donald Trump. Late on election night 2016, shortly after it became clear that Trump had won the presidency, Hughes took to social media to state she had not been so angry at white people since having learned of Drake and Taylor Swift’s short but ill-fated relationship.
Another tweet that Hughes sent in the days following the election seemed to imply she blamed white women for Trump’s victory — an argument the Times itself made the morning after the election.
Hughes continued making disparaging tweets about white people and Jews well into 2017. Her most recent came in June 2017, when the editor claimed, “Jews are inDEED good with money.”
time and again i find myself reflecting on America’s only good white woman, Katie Ledecky
— Jazmine Hughes (@jazzedloon) May 19, 2017
Even prior to joining the Times, Hughes had a history of controversial comments and writings. In February 2015, shortly before being hired by the Times, Hughes stated the “working title” of a piece she had just authored for the New Republic was, “What can take yr freedom, but can’t take a joke? White people.”
The article in question discussed what Hughes saw as the “gentrification” of humor at “white people’s expense.” Hughes argued that “racialized humor is an instrument that people of color can use to placate themselves in the face of the overwhelming reality: It’s just better to be Caucasian.”
“By making fun of white people, people of color can, in a small way, push back against stereotypes, opposing racial humor by inverting it,” Hughes wrote, claiming such jokes “gain membership in a club open to all people of color, a space impervious to white hegemony.”
The article’s premise is that as white people become more aware of systematic inequalities, they begin to make light of their privilege in an effort to sympathize with communities of color. In most cases, however, Hughes argued such attempts at solidarity only reinforce the status quo at the expense of people of color.
“This is how the party ends—with white people wanting in on the joke so badly that they create a separate category of ‘cool’ white people who mock their own whiteness in an effort at solidarity,” she wrote.
The article appears to be the only one Hughes authored for the New Republic. Since joining the Times, she has occasionally written pieces centered on the intersection of race and culture. Her most recent project for the Times’ magazine was the 1619 Project, a comprehensive series of articles and essays arguing that slavery was the institution that fundamentally shaped the modern United States.
The newspaper made a massive investment in the 1619 Project, through which it aimed to redefine America’s understanding of the history of slavery. Hughes was no small part of the newspaper’s work on this, as she was on the byline of one of two major feature pieces on the broadsheet print edition of the special.
“The broadsheet special section has two components: A reported essay by Nikita Stewart, a reporter on The Times’s Metro desk, examining why Americans are so poorly educated on slavery, followed by a history of slavery written by Mary Elliott, curator of American slavery at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, and Jazmine Hughes, a writer and editor at The Times Magazine,” the Times wrote about how its 1619 Project feature came together, highlighting the critical role that Hughes played in its publication.
It is unclear if the Times knew of Hughes’s prior controversial tweets before allowing her to undertake a project of such means. Representatives for the paper did not return requests for comment.
The revelation of Hughes’ tweets come shortly after the Times declared it intended to hone in on racial issues leading up to the 2020 presidential race. Those efforts, though, have been severely undercut by multiple revelations concerning the paper’s staff using racist, anti-Semitic, and generally disparaging comments.
Breitbart News reported in August that one of the outlet’s senior news desk editors, Tom Wright-Piersanti, had a history of making anti-Semitic and racist statements on his social media accounts spanning over years. Wright-Piersanti, who helps oversee the paper’s political coverage, apologized for the prior comments, but as of now is still employed by the Times even though the outlet is reportedly “reviewing next steps.”
Two other individuals associated with the outlet, a fact checker Gina Cherelus and a recent addition to its editorial board — Sarah Jeong — have also been exposed for making racist comments. Jeong, in particular, has denigrated white people in the past, comparing them to dogs.
The Times also published a series of antisemitic cartoons in its international print edition earlier this year, which the newspaper later retracted and then admitted were antisemitic. In response, the Times has still not identified the personnel responsible for the publication of the antisemitic cartoons or whether those people have been held accountable–but instead has decided to not publish any more cartoons because it cannot trust its staff to not publish more antisemitism.
All of these incidents and more have amounted to what Breitbart News’ John Nolte has described as a humiliating year for the New York Times, after a summer of public meltdowns and serious institutional mistakes.
‘SQUAD’ MEMBER AYANNA PRESSLEY TO INTRODUCE IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AGAINST KAVANAUGH
Despite latest debunked accusation, freshman congresswoman determined to unseat Supreme Court Justice
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a member of the “Squad” of far-left freshmen congresswomen, will introduce a resolution calling for an impeachment inquiry of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh following a debunked New York Times hit piece against him alleging sexual misconduct.
“I believe Christine Blasey Ford. I believe Deborah Ramirez. It is our responsibility to collectively affirm the dignity and humanity of survivors,” Pressley said in a statement, reported WBUR.
“Sexual predators do not deserve a seat on the nation’s highest court and Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process set a dangerous precedent,” she said. “We must demand justice for survivors and hold Kavanaugh accountable for his actions.”
Pressley plans to introduce the resolution even after the Times issued a major correction noting the accuser of the alleged misconduct claims she has no memory of the alleged incident even taking place, and refused to be interviewed.
The Squad’s leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment on Twitter before the NYT’s clarification, deleted her post following the clarification, then curiously, reposted her impeachment call on Monday.
The latest accusation against Kavanaugh has been outright debunked. So why is the left still moving forward with efforts to remove Kavanaugh?
The answer is because their aim has always been about preventing Kavanaugh from serving in the court due to their belief that he will attempt to outlaw abortion and repeal Roe v Wade.
The lawyer of Kavanaugh’s original accuser Christine Blasey-Ford said just weeks ago that her client’s motivation to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct was rooted in her desire to protect abortion.
Pressley’s impeachment resolution has virtually no chance of passing, as it requires a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Republican-led Senate to unseat Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.
Leftist Dark Money Group Behind Supposed Grassroots ‘Impeach Kavanaugh’ Movement
By Aaron Klein
NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George Soros, has played a central role in leading activism against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh based on a quickly deteriorating claim in a controversial New York Times article.
Demand Justice is fiscally sponsored by a nonprofit arm of the secretive, massively funded Arabella Advisors strategy company that pushes the interests of wealthy leftist donors. Arabella specializes in sponsoring countless dark money pop-up organizations designed to look like grassroots activist groups, as exposed in a recent extensive report by conservative watchdog Capital Research Center.
Within hours of the release of the questionable Times article, Demand Justice not only launched a social media campaign but used the piece to push their October 6 event to “protest this corrupt Supreme Court and demand an investigation of Kavanaugh.”
The event is being organized with the radical Soros-funded Women’s March and CPD Action, whose sister group, Center for Popular Democracy, is also funded by Soros.
Within less than 24 hours, Demand Justice used the Times piece to further promote their rally and renew the event’s aim “to #ImpeachKavanaugh.”
Together with the Women’s March and CPD Action, Demand Justice went on a public relations offensive against Kavanaugh utilizing the latest accusation storyline to comment in the news media.
“This new report corroborates the allegations made by Debbie Ramirez and proves the FBI investigation conducted last year was a sham from the start,” the three groups said in a statement widely picked up by the news media.
“At this point, an impeachment inquiry in the House is the only appropriate way to conduct the fact-finding that Senate Republicans refused to conduct.”
The trio called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler to immediately launch an impeachment inquiry.
Demand Justice has since blasted out emails and other messages to supporters urging Kavanaugh’s impeachment, based in part on the Times piece.
Demand Justice has been at the forefront of anti-Kavanaugh activism. Even before President Donald Trump first announced Kavanaugh as his official nominee, Demand Justice committed to spending about $5 million to oppose any eventual Trump nominee for the Supreme Court. The organization seeks to raise $10 million in its first year.
Breitbart News reported that within less than one hour of Trump’s announcement that Kavanough was his nominee, Demand Justice had already put up the website stopkavanaugh.com, exclaiming: “We need to demand that the Senate defeat the Brett Kavanaugh nomination.”
The news media has routinely produced articles on Demand Justice protesters, with many pieces failing to inform readers that this is not a grassroots group but an organization spawned by professional organizers and tied to deep leftist funding.
Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, served as press secretary for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The group’s digital team is headed by Gabrielle McCaffrey, who was a digital organizer for Clinton’s campaign.
In an interview with the New York Times, Fallon would not comment on the source of the group’s financing, but the newspaper noted that he was recently a featured speaker at the conference of the Democracy Alliance, a grouping of progressive donors.
Democracy Alliance’s founding donors include billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer. Indeed, Fallon’s panel at Democracy Alliance was moderated by Sarah Knight of Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
Demand Justice is fiscally sponsored by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, one of four nonprofits run by Arabella Advisors.
The Capital Research Center’s expose documented that from 2013-2017 alone, Arabella’s four nonprofits spent a combined $1.16 billion with the aim of advancing “the political policies desired by wealthy left-wing interests through hundreds of ‘front’ groups.”
“And those interests pay well: the network’s revenues grew by an incredible 392 percent over that same period,” the report related.
“Together, these groups form an interlocking network of ‘dark money’ pop-up groups and other fiscally sponsored projects, all afloat in a half-billion-dollar ocean of cash,” states the report. “The real puppeteer, though, is Arabella Advisors, which has managed to largely conceal its role in coordinating so much of the professional Left’s infrastructure under a mask of ‘philanthropy.’”
The New York Times piece at the center of Demand Justice’s latest anti-Kavanaugh push purports to have “uncovered” a “previously unreported story” about the Supreme Court justice. The article was adapted from a forthcoming anti-Kavanaugh book by the newspaper’s reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
At first, the Times reported these standalone details:
A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.
The Times issued a massive correction after it was reported that the newspaper had omitted the detail — included in the book — that the female accuser does not remember the incident.
The correction reads:
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.
The allegation itself is “confusing” to National Review writer John McCormack, who opines:
If you take this confusing accusation in the essay at face value, it doesn’t even appear to be an allegation of assault against Kavanaugh.
If Kavanaugh’s “friends pushed his penis,” then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s “friends,” not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual “naked parties” would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his “friends” to “push his penis.”
Despite Demand Justice’s activism and amid the collapsing Times claim, Nadler does not seem to be in a rush to impeach Kavanaugh, saying, “We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while.”
BORDER SECURITY – NINE AND COUNTING: Another Illegal Alien Charged with Child Rape in Maryland Sanctuary County
In less than two months, there have been nine illegal immigrants charged with sex crimes in the Maryland sanctuary county.
In what has become a disturbingly familiar story over the past couple months, another illegal alien has been charged with rape in the sanctuary jurisdiction of Montgomery County, Md.
Wilder Hernandez-Nolasco, 21, of Silver Spring is accused of raping a six-year-old girl. He was apprehended and charged with the crime last week, and faces 155 years in prison if he is ultimately convicted of the heinous act.
Hernandez-Nolasco, an illegal immigrant who is a Honduran national, reportedly threatened his child victim that he would ground her for “100 days” if she told anyone about the vicious attack. Law enforcement claims he admitted to committing the rape, and he committed sexual assault against the child on more than one occasion.
This is at least the ninth time that there has been an illegal immigrant charged with a sex crime in the sanctuary jurisdiction of Montgomery County since July 25. The area has become a hot bed for illegal aliens to commit vicious sex crimes with law enforcement being ordered by county officials not to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Kevin Lewis of ABC 7 News has documented the many gruesome cases that have emerged as the result of the county’s liberal policies.
NEW: 37yo Emilio Carrasco-Hernandez raped a 15yo girl in a Silver Spring home they shared, cops say.
The victim ha… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Kevin Lewis (@ABC7Kevin) August 31, 2019
An executive order was issued in July to officially grant sanctuary status within the county. County Executive Mark Elrich signed the executive order that banned all county support toward enforcing federal immigration law.
“We don’t interact with ICE. We don’t contact ICE nor do we ask any of our residents in Montgomery county about their immigration status in the United States,” Acting Montgomery County Police Chief Marcus Jones said.
“I feel pretty sure that most Montgomery county residents don’t agree with the president’s immigration policy such as it is,” Elrich said.
#StandWithICE organizer Michelle Malkin held a rally in Montgomery County last week to unite the community against partisan left-wing county officials who have put the vulnerable in extreme danger in a vain attempt to damage President Donald Trump.
The full video of her rally can be seen here:
Despite the ongoing illegal rape spree, the liberal county officials are digging in their heels and refusing to budge no matter how many innocent people are victimized.
“These individuals and organizations should be ashamed for spreading false information seeking to establish a baseless, illogical and xenophobic connection between a person’s failure to obtain legal status and their propensity to commit a sex crime,” the county officials said in an official statement, placing blame on the “White House, President Trump, Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli, local and national conservative news outlets and neo-Nazi sympathizers.”
No Wonder They’re Moving to Mexico!
1.5M subscribers
But if he had only made racists jokes against white people, he’d still have a job at SNL.
To the people paying $4,200 to see Michelle Obama talk – do you expect her to say anything interesting?
Michelle Obama might have been a ‘classy’ First Lady, but she has rarely done or said anything remarkable or even entertaining. That the media has deified her into the ultimate role model for women is depressing.
The cult of Michelle continues to grow stronger since her departure from the White House. She has just been voted the most admired woman in a worldwide opinion poll, a ranking she already holds in similar US-only surveys.
Her second autobiography, Becoming, released last November, sold over 10 million in the first six months, and stands to become the biggest-selling memoir in history, at least until her husband’s is published, likely next year.
Tickets for the additional book tour dates she has scheduled – in which she recites incidents from her book after prompts from a moderator – are on sale for $2,500 apiece for a meet-and-greet during the Newark stop and up to $4,200 for a suite. The cheapest seats are offered at over $100.
I do not begrudge her making the money – there is genuine public demand – but what makes Michelle Obama special?
Is it her life story? A middle-class A-grade student goes to a good school, a prestigious university and a top place of employment, before meeting a man and putting her career on the back-burner to focus on being a wife and mother.
Is it her personal achievements? Obama has not practiced law in a quarter of a century, and most of her jobs have been admin positions or post-office board sinecures. While in the White House she was best-known for her organic vegetable garden, and promoting politically orthodox and safe causes like eradicating child poverty, bettering education and LGBT+ rights.
Is it her rare insight? Despite being in the public eye for well over a decade, her only truly sticky quote has been “when they go low, we go high,” which is as often used ironically as it is in earnest. Her pronouncements have consisted almost exclusively of vaguely defiant or vaguely empowering or vaguely celebratory platitudes. “When girls are educated, their countries become stronger and more prosperous” or “We need to do a better job of putting ourselves higher on our own ‘to do’ list.” Even middle-schoolers would probably cock an eyebrow at this stuff if they saw it in their Facebook feed.
Is it her candidness? Obama doles a perfectly measured dose of vulnerability or openness, such as her revelations about miscarriage or discussions about how much she loves dogs, without ever threatening the edifice of her public persona, marriage or morals. She is easily more sanitized than any of the candidates in the 2020 Democratic race.
In summary, what we have here is a vanity tour from a woman who has led a comfortable and happy existence and an unremarkable professional life, giving bland ‘inspirational’ advice off a big-room stage in a scripted set-up without revealing too much of herself.
So, what’s the secret ingredient? That she was married to a man who was president for eight years? That she is the first black American woman who got to redecorate the White House?
And that is enough to lift her over 3.8 billion women on the planet.
To me, that is an indictment of US-style feelgood identity politics, where it is enough to be someone rather than do something to be considered an idol. Even if that someone is primarily famous for that most traditionalist of things – being the wife of a powerful man, a commitment that curtailed her potential.
Secondly, it illustrates the transformation of even the most serious media into partisan hype machines, with the New York Times and Washington Post squealing in the presence of Michelle like little girls at a Harry Styles autograph session. Have some self-respect.
Thirdly, it betrays the unexamined worship of the Obama legacy among supporters. It is understandable that the likely 90-percent-plus Democratic-voting audience of Michelle’s Q & A is still reeling from the contrast between her and the current occupants of the White House. But will the time ever come to question another person who was lauded more for who he represented than what he achieved – on, say, his economic complacency paired with social divisiveness at home, or his ineffectiveness abroad? Or at least admit that he helped usher in Trump in 2016, and may do so again in 2020 if a decrepit Joe Biden manages to nab the Democratic nomination riding on black voters’ goodwill from the Obama connection.
Just the whole vibe of the sickly, sycophantic and corporate Obama industry – Netflix deals and all – seems not just vapid and grating, but weirdly passé already in a world where their life truisms and political philosophies have already been proven to be inadequate. Bill and Hillary Clinton – she the most admired woman in the US for an amazing 22 years – also seemed like the perfect power couple once. Now, we view both as more rounded, flawed characters. The same reckoning can’t come soon enough for the most recent Democratic Party White House family.
In the meantime, school girls and broadsheet editors looking for positive role models can look up to women who have actually earned their fame. From Simone to Malala to Scarlett to Adele, there are plenty to pick from.
YOUTUBE BLOCKS TRUMP RALLY BROADCASTER FROM BEING ABLE TO LIVESTREAM
Platform continues to censor Right Side Broadcasting, popular for streaming Trump rallies
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
A channel popular for broadcasting President Donald Trump’s rallies was banned from livestream capabilities Sunday night, according to the broadcaster.
Without explanation, YouTube blocked Right Side Broadcasting from going live, despite the channel, known for streaming Trump rallies, having over 380,000 subscribers and 80 million views.
“Tonight our live-streaming abilities have been revoked by youtube,” said the channel’s founder Joe Seales, in a video uploaded to Twitter. “That’s right after 300+ million views and four years plus of obeying copyright law, of obeying community guidelines, all of a sudden we can no longer livestream on YouTube. They have given us no reason why we can’t livestream. We have received no communication or correspondence whatsoever.”
The channel’s YouTube analytics also show RSBN received zero copyright violations and zero community guidelines strikes.
Seales says ultimately the ban will “cripple” his company’s revenue going into 2020, and suspects his channel has been targeted for censorship by Big Tech, especially given the channel’s demonitization and recent censorship from search results.
“We don’t want to say this, but it feels like we are being targeted by YouTube – because we have been kept out of the search results now for the last several months,” Seales says, adding, “But now not even allowing us to livestream, this is going to severely cripple our company and make it very difficult for us to survive in the lead-up to 2020.”
In follow-up posts, RSBN says a YouTube bot shut down livestream capabilities after it flagged one of their videos for containing audio which violated copyright guidelines, unbeknownst to them.
The channel hopes to have livestream capabilities restored in time to stream a Monday Trump rally in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.
Tom's Blog 