Apple Tells Parler To Censor Free Speech Or Lose Its App

By Tom Pappert

John Matze, the founder of the pro-free speech social network Parler, revealed on the platform that Apple contacted him to demand he censor “offensive” speech from the website or the big tech platform will remove Parler’s app from its App Store.

Matze revealed on his Parler account that he was threatened with the deletion of his smartphone app if his company does not change its Community Guidelines and immediately begin removing content Apple considers “offensive.” When Matze flatly refused to comply with the tech giant’s demands, Apple prevented the Parler app from sending push notifications to users.

Big League Politics recently joined Parler, and has partnered with the pro-free speech platform to provide high quality, pro-America news to the public.

As we reported, Parler’s novel approach to content moderation is to stand firmly behind the First Amendment and the United States Constitution:

Perhaps Parler’s most fascinating and distinguishing difference from the other big tech giants is its devotion to freedom of speech. While Facebook, Twitter, Google, and virtually every other big tech website offer byzantine rules regarding what they consider hate speech, sensitive content, targeted harassment, and other forms of behavior they consider toxic, Parler stands behind the United States Constitution’s definition of free speech.

Parler’s Community Guidelines, a five page long, easily read and understood document available on its website, enshrines this.

Removing Parler’s app from the store could theoretically stunt the website’s growth, even as President Donald Trump is reportedly considering opening an account on the platform as part of the social media strategy for his 2020 reelection campaign.

June 25, 2019 0

California City Proposes Giving Cash to Violent Gang Members Not to Commit Shootings

How could this go wrong?

By Shane Trejo

As leftist California descends into bankruptcy and despair, the leftist-run city governments of the state are getting more radical with their liberal schemes to solve the many problems they helped to create in the first place.

The latest mind-boggling trend in California cities plagued with crime is actually paying gang members not to commit violent crimes.

After a 3-2 vote at Thursday’s city council meeting, the local government of Fresno is set to authorize city leaders such as Mayor Lee Brand and Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer to determine whether the Advance Peace program should be implemented.

If city officials determine that the program is viable, they could be budgeted up to $200,000 in taxpayer dollars to dole out to gang members as a supposed deterrent against committing shootings and other violent crimes. They hope to raise private funding as well to further pay off these thugs.

“I don’t think we should be spending $200,000 or $300,000 over the next five years on a program that certainly has value, but we have a lot of needs in the city of Fresno, it always comes down to priorities,” said Councilmember Garry Bredefeld, who voted against the proposal.

This measure was proposed by Councilmember Miguel Arias, who believes that tax revenue from the increased “cannabis activity” going on within the city following the legalization of marijuana would help pay for the costs of the program.

“In essence, Advanced Peace identifies the most active shooters in Fresno and enrolls them into a prevention program to help them with mentorship and job placement,” Arias said.

Chief Dyer points to the Mayor’s Gang Prevention Initiative and Operation Ceasefire as initiatives that are already in place that make this program unnecessary.

“I am philosophically opposed to giving money to any gang member,” Dyer said.

Fresno would not be the first city in California to implement such a program. The city of Richmond is where the Advance Peace program debuted, and it has since spread to Sacramento and Stockton.

Richmond gives gang members who claim they have given up violence stipends ranging from $300 to $1,000 per month. Sacramento is pumping $1.5 million into their version of the program, with Advance Peace matching that total in privately raised capital.

There is no data showing these programs are effective in combating crime, but that hasn’t stopped liberal cities throughout California from pushing them anyway. Fresno may be the latest city to initiate a program that very well may subsidize violent gang activity in their communities.

June 25, 2019 0

TRUMP RAPE ACCUSER ONCE SAID “WOMEN LOVE” IDEA OF BEING DRAGGED INTO A CAVE BY A MAN

Yes, really

JUNE 25, 2019

**Trump rape accuser E. Jean Carroll once said that “women love” the idea of a man with a “big club” dragging them into a cave.**

The bizarre exchange occurred during a 1995 appearance by Carroll on Charlie Rose’s show. The topic of conversation veered into how, according to Carroll, women were obsessed with men.

During the taping, fellow guest Jimmy Breslin commented, “Yeah but there’s a lot of rules, you can’t walk out of a cave with a club and drag a woman back.”

“Jimmy, women love that!” remarked Carroll.

She then asked Charlie Rose: “When was the last time you took a big old club….?”

The irony becomes somewhat darker given that Rose himself was later accused of abusive behavior and sexual harassment by no fewer than 35 women.

As we reported earlier, Carroll appears to have a rape fixation.

During a more than awkward CNN appearance, she told Anderson Cooper, “I think most people think of rape as being sexy.”

“Think of the fantasies,” she added.

This is the ‘credible’ witness to whom the media has given a platform.

Tells you everything.

June 25, 2019 0

Project Veritas – Leaked Google Document Labels Prager U, Jordan Peterson ‘Nazis’

By Lucas Nolan

Google documents leaked to Project Veritas show the company referring to popular conservative personalities such as Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager as “Nazis.”

A recent report from investigative journalism group Project Veritas claims that leaked internal Google documents shows a Google employee and a member of a Google “transparency-and-ethics” group calling conservative and libertarian commentators such as Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson, “Nazis.” The email was sent as part of internal communications between the Google “transparency-and-ethics” group and suggests that content published by PragerU, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro should be removed from the “suggestion feature.”

A Google employee named Liam Hopkins can be seen stating: “…if we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles…” The employee further suggests following through with the suggestion of another employee named Meredith: “I don’t think correctly identifying far-right content is beyond our capabilities. But if it is, why not go with Meredith’s suggestion of disabling the suggestion feature?”

Following the publication of an undercover video of Google executive Jen Gennai stating that the company was working to prevent another “Trump situation” after the 2016 election; the executive stated in a Medium blog post: “Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings.” Yet here we see Google employees discussing doing exactly that.

Gennai also claims that the Project Veritas video is selectively edited and pushes a series of “debunked conspiracy theories,” about censorship. What Gennai does not address is her direct comments about Google’s view of Congress, the company’s refusal to appear before Congress and her statements claiming that Google will not change its business practices regardless of what Congress says:

Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me.

But despite what the video may have you believe, I’m not involved in any of these products, just like I’m not involved in any of the other topics Project Veritas baited me into discussing (whether it’s antitrust, Congress, or the dozens of other topics that didn’t appear in the video, on which I presumably didn’t say anything that could be twisted to their advantage). I was having a casual chat with someone at a restaurant and used some imprecise language. Project Veritas got me. Well done.

Read the full report by Project Veritas here.

June 25, 2019 0

Google ADMITS They’re Working to “Prevent Trump from Winning”

The Red Elephants Vincent James

Published on Jun 25, 2019

June 25, 2019 0

Cops release bodycam footage of actor Jussie Smollett in noose after ‘attack’ (VIDEO)

The Chicago Police Department has released body cam footage from the morning after Jussie Smollett’s alleged attack, showing the actor still wearing a noose around his neck which he claimed was used in the assault.

The footage was filmed in the ex-Empire actor’s Chicago home back in January at 8:45am local time, some seven hours after he was allegedly subjected to a racist and homophoic attack in a nearby street.

The bodycam captured the officers entering the home and speaking to Frank Gatson, who introduces himself as the actor’s “creative director,” while Smollett can be seen wearing a thin white rope around his neck.

Chicago police release body cam footage of Jussie Smollett pic.twitter.com/vrQptuOBbE

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) June 25, 2019

“Do you want to take it off or anything?,” the police officer asks, referring to the noose. Smollet replies: “Yeah I do, I just wanted you to see it.” The officers are asked to switch off their cameras shortly after.

The video is part of hundreds of files released by the Chicago PD after a judge ordered a special prosecutor to examine the handling of Smollett’s accusation. The actor could face a fresh criminal prosecution for his role in the saga, depending upon the outcome of the investigation.

Video from inside taxi of Osundairo brother’s on their way to meet Jussie Smollett night of reported attack..according to CPD@cbschicago pic.twitter.com/kYbUcoiwi5

— Charlie De Mar (@CharlieDeMar) June 24, 2019

Smollett claimed he was randomly attacked, punched, and doused in bleach by two masked men who he claimed made reference to President Donald Trump’s slogan ‘Make America Great Again.’

The incident sparked widespread outcry amongst the LGBTQ community, African-Americans, and some Democratsas well as the Hollywood elite. However, two weeks later the tables turned when two brothers, Abel and Ola Osundairo, arrested for carrying out the attack, said the entire thing was orchestrated and paid for by Smollett.

Three weeks after the ‘attack’ Smollett himself was arrested and charged with filing a false police report. At the time Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said Smollett “took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career.”

A month later the episode took yet another unexpected turn when all charges against the then-fired actor were unceremoniously dropped in lieu of forfeiting his $10,000 bond and carrying out community service.

Smollett continued to maintain his innocence, but the drama didn’t end there. In March, Chicago Police ordered him to pay $130,000 to cover the cost of investigating the case. When Smollett refused, the amount was tripled in a lawsuit filed by the city in April. Smollett’s legal team is also facing litigation, this time from the Osundairo brothers, who claim their reputation was damaged in the melee.

June 25, 2019 0

SEE THE REPORT GOOGLE CENSORED ABOUT THEIR ELECTION MEDDLING IN 2020

Watch the Project Veritas video HERE that Google doesn’t want you to see!

JUNE 25, 2019

Below you can watch the censored Project Veritas video exposing Google’s plans for election meddling in 2020:

https://www.infowarsmedia.com/js/player.js

Also watch our exclusive interview with Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe who breaks down this incredible attempt by a multi-national corporation to remove an elected president:

https://www.infowarsmedia.com/js/player.js

June 25, 2019 0

Portland State U Students Demand Disarming Of Campus Police

By Faye Higbee and Jeff Dunetz

Never mind how stupid this sounds. Never mind how much students today are afraid of mass shooters. Portland State U students have decided they want their campus police disarmed.

KGW8 TV reported,

Portland State University students rallied at a Thursday board meeting, calling for campus police officers to be disarmed.

Trending: The AOC Mess: Why The Holocaust Should NEVER Be Used As Weapon Of Political Warfare

“Police with guns are ticking time bomb,” said Olivia Pace, one of the students who spoke in front of the Portland State University Board of Trustees.

Students in favor of disarming campus police held signs and spoke at the board meeting. They said they believe it has taken far too long for university leadership to take action…

At Thursday’s board meeting, multiple students spoke directly to trustees, voicing their frustration with the lack of decision making on the issue.

“We feel like the longer the university pushes this off to more and more committees and more and more third parties, the issue will kind of just dissolve,” said Pace.

Earlier this year a report, commissioned by the university, found that more than half of students and faculty supported disarming campus officers. That same report also recommended keeping campus police armed.

Really? And what happens if a criminal with a gun comes onto the campus. Will the Campus police tell them to drop the weapon or they will tell the dean? Or their mommies?

Last year PSU officers shot and killed Jason Washington – who was a legal gun carrier that happened to drop his weapon as he was trying to break up a fight. The Campus Cops testified:

When Washington got up, the officers say he was holding the gun in his hand.

“I’m screaming, like, begging really – for this guy to drop his gun,” Dewey told the grand jury.

Both officers said they told Washington to drop the gun. Then they said he pointed it in their direction.

“In my mind, I’m like thinkin’ I’m gonna be shot right there, and I fire a couple rounds,” said McKenzie. “I see him fall to the ground. Uh, when I see that, I saw firing. I, my next thought process is if he’s wounded, he can shoot at us again at the last know location we were at.”

That testimony was confirmed by a Portland Police forensic technician who was called in to examine the body camera video of the shooting, slowing it down and enhancing the video to see whether Washington pointed his gun at police.

Video shows PSU officers fatally shooting man; grand jury report says the gun was friend’s

The technician, Portland Police Bureau officer Anthony Eugenio, showed the grand jury that Washington’s right arm was extended in front of his body with a black object in his hand, consistent with a firearm.

When asked if he believed that Washington pointed the gun towards the officers, he said that is “correct.”

A grand jury cleared the two Campus police and based on the testimony it seems that by using their service revolvers the two campus police saved lives (including their own)

Even so, the story of Jason Washington was a tragedy. But the students think the campus police officers are “dangerous” because they carry guns—and they are dangerous to students who point a gun at them.

How many of these students worry about a mass shooter, armed robber, a rapist with a gun, or any other kind of gun-wielding criminal gets onto the Campus? How many of them would be quickly shot dead if their campus police were unarmed? Who would stop a shooter? They are valid questions, ones that the “social justice warrior” crowd ignores.

Much of this post was first seen at Conservative Firing Line

June 25, 2019 0