LIBERALS THREATEN TO KILL & RAPE PRO-LIFE WRITER & HIS FAMILY

Liberals Threaten To Kill & Rape Pro-Life Writer & His Family

“I hope your wife and daughter are both brutally raped”

By Kelen McBree

Conservative, pro-life writer Matt Walsh and his family have been threatened with death and rape by dozens of angry leftists who are upset about his stance on abortion.

“Over the last 24 hours pro-abortion people have threatened to kill me, kill my family, rape my wife, rape my daughter, and assault me,” he said. “They’ve wished death on me, on my children, on all pro lifers. They’ve wished rape on my wife and my daughter. I remember when the Left told us that criticism of Ilhan Omar was ‘putting her life at risk.’ Will leftists have the same concern for the lives of my wife, my children, and myself?”

CAP

As multiple states pass anti-abortion legislation, the left is becoming more hostile to pro-life Americans.

Matt Walsh was targeted after pointing out that pregnant rape victims account for less than 1% of abortions and arguing abortion is often used by abusers to cover up rape.

Walsh provided proof of the attacks he’s received for doubters, saying, “Leftists on this thread are saying they don’t believe me. I’ve already provided the evidence but I guess I’ll put it in this thread for the sake of convenience.”

Below are some of the worst messages sent to Walsh:

CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP
CAP

Several liberals who didn’t send threatening messages to Walsh felt they needed to tell him he deserves to have his entire family threatened with rape and murder.

CAP

CAP

Belgian Authorities Clear Migrants From ‘No-Go’ Transit Station

CAP

VERIFIED TWITTER JOURNALIST THREATENS TO CONTACT MAN’S EMPLOYER BECAUSE HE DID THE ‘OK’ HAND SIGN

Verified Twitter Journalist Threatens to Contact Man's Employer Because He Did the 'OK' Hand Sign

“I wonder what their employers would think”

By Paul Joseph Watson

A verified Twitter journalist is threatening to contact people’s employers because they did the ‘OK’ hand sign.

Yes, seriously.

Finnish Twitter user Iisak Selin responded to a tweet by journalist David MacDougall with a photo of himself using the hand gesture.

MacDougall responded by tweeting, “Hi Iisak – Do you have a job? I wonder what your employers think of you making a sign that has been co-opted by white supremacists and racists? Would be interesting to find out. Or maybe a future employer is interested…”

CAP

But MacDougall wasn’t finished.

He then responded to another individual who posted a photo of himself doing the OK hand sign with the same threat.

“I don’t know if these people have jobs, but I wonder what their employers would think about them making signs that are closely associated with & used by white supremacists and racists?” asked MacDougall.

CAP

That’s funny, because I wonder when MacDougall and his ilk will stop abusing their platforms to threaten to doxx people simply because they don’t like their politics and do some actual journalism.

Respondents on Twitter soon put MacDougall in his place.

CAP

CAP

CAP

CAP

CAP

CAP

CAP.jpg

As we document in the video below, the media was tricked into believing the OK hand sign was secret code for white supremacy as a result of a 4chan troll and has been whipping up hysteria about it ever since.

‘Christchurch Call’ is a blueprint for more online censorship — and Zuckerberg is a big fan

CAP

By Danielle Ryan

There is nothing inherently wrong with the new ‘Christchurch Call’ to curb violent and terrorist content online. No one in their right mind wants mass shootings live-streamed online — but it’s what comes next that should worry us.

Drawn up in the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque massacre, which was streamed live online, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ is billed as a “roadmap for action” and calls for the “immediate and permanent” removal of “terrorist and violent extremist content” from social media platforms. It has been signed by 18 governments and eight tech companies.

On the face of it, that sounds fine. It’s difficult to argue against removing terrorist content from the platforms so many of us use on a daily basis. The trouble is, Ardern has already admitted that the pledge is simply a “starting point” — and if you were expecting this to be the moment at which social media companies finally began to push back a little bit, sorry to disappoint you, but they’re all in on it together.

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burning

Endorsing censorship

Lord of social media, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is afflicted with an obvious and ever-worsening God complex, offered a full-throated endorsement of online censorship a few days ago, saying “…the question of what speech should be acceptable and what is harmful needs to be defined by regulation, by thoughtful governments.”

That’s right, Zuck thinks “thoughtful governments” should be deciding what is “acceptable” for us to say online. There’s no ambiguity there. It’s a simple, straight-forward endorsement of the idea that governments should be allowed to regulate our speech. If that doesn’t worry you, then maybe you’re the kind of person who reads dystopian novels and cheers for the wrong side.

Zuckerberg’s comment isn’t exactly out of the blue. Facebook is already under fire for censoring political speech from both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. The company has banned a slew of right-wing commentators and conservative agitators from its platform and taken worrying steps against leftist and anti-war activists around the world.

Just the beginning

So, if social media companies aren’t going to fight back on our behalf (and they clearly are not), who will? The obvious answer is “journalists” — but they don’t appear to be in too much of a rush to halt this creeping censorship either. Some of them appear to be advocating more censorship, rather than less.

ALSO ON RT.COMNo kissing gays or conservative hunters: Overcautious Facebook blocks political ads in SwedenIn an interview with Le Monde on Monday, Ardern was asked why she decided to focus “uniquely on violent terrorist content, and not more broadly on hate speech, which also contributes to the drift in social media?”

Ardern replied that focusing on terrorist content was just the “point of departure” on which everyone could agree. So this is a journey we are on. We’ve departed at ‘terrorism is bad’ — but where will we end? Ardern said she was wary that going any further right now would “open the way for debate” on potential risks to freedom of expression. But in a joint press conference on Wednesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, she said her hope was that working together, governments and tech companies could “eliminate ideologies of hate.”

That would be lovely — and if only the word were so simple, we could just eliminate all the meanies from the internet and live in an online utopia. Unfortunately, this is completely unrealistic, and when you start talking about eliminating certain ideologies, that’s where things get sketchy. Particularly if we’re going to delegate the task of deciding what is and is not “harmful” (as Zuckerberg said) to “thoughtful governments.”

‘Hate speech’ or ‘free speech’?

Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis is set to sign a bill that would make it a “hate crime” to “demonize” or“delegitimize” Israel. The bill purports to be about “anti-Semitism” but it’s really just a vehicle to censor and even criminalize political speech. You see, that’s the kind of thing that “thoughtful” politicians get up to if left to their own devices. Then again, the Florida bill probably isn’t something that would ring alarm bells at Facebook HQ, either. Zuckerberg already happily complies with orders from the Israeli government to delete Palestinian activist accounts.

As for the US government, it has refused to sign Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ citing first amendment rights — but declining to sign a vague and non-binding agreement doesn’t mean much. Capitol Hill is still swarming with politicians just dying to enforce more restrictions on free speech.

ALSO ON RT.COMFrance wants more govt regulation of Facebook and Zuckerberg calls it ‘model’ approachDemocratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted in the aftermath of last year’s Infowars ban that the very “survival of [US] democracy” depends on Facebook’s willingness to “take down” more websites that “tear our country apart.” Sure, why don’t they just get rid of any content that could conceivably be categorized as divisive? Sounds like a foolproof plan.

A US government intelligence report last year highlighted a former RT show hosted by Abby Martin as an example of content that sowed “radical discontent” in society for critically covering controversial issues like US regime change wars, fracking, capitalism and police brutality. Be careful out there, you never know what could be defined as “radical” content next.

As journalist Igor Ogorodnev wrote in a recent oped, the aftermath of an atrocity “is a honeypot for short-sighted do-gooders buzzing about looking to do something, but also opportunist politicians to realize their long-harbored ambitions.”

Trying to distract us

Social media is what the public uses to organize en masse in the 21st century.

Is it any wonder that Macron, facing months of Yellow Vest protests against his government, is helping lead the charge toward more online censorship?

A French government report recently called for the eradication of content that damages “social cohesion” and warned that“false information,”“unfounded rumors” and “individuals pursuing political or financial objectives” can have an impact on “the social order.” But who decides what constitutes “false information” and “unfounded rumors”? Is Macron’s government “thoughtful” enough for Zuckerberg?

ALSO ON RT.COMWhite House posts call for social media censorship stories, triggering hope & cynicismOf course, it’s much easier for governments to pass the blame for social discontent onto companies like Facebook, while arguing that censorship is the only solution. If they didn’t do that, they’d have to admit that what really drives mass discontent are the neoliberal policies that have had a detrimental effect on basic standards of living, wiped out people’s life savings and ravaged the planet.

But maybe that’s all something Ardern and Macron can work on some other day — that is, if we’re allowed to talk about it.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

2020 Watch: De Blasio Announces Candidacy, Trump Weighs In

The New York City entered the race, and came out swinging against President Donald J. Trump.

By 

The never-ending list of Democratic Party candidates for president got a little bit longer Thursday, when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his candidacy.

“Even before his announcement, de Blasio already qualified to participate in the Democratic primary debates, according to a poll from Reuters and Ipsos,” Axios said. “The mayor intends to leverage his record of New York achievements such as universal pre-kindergarten and raising the minimum hourly wage. Following the announcement, he will go on a 4-day campaign tour to Iowa and South Carolina, per NBC.”

President Donald J. Trump weighed in on de Blasio’s candidacy on Twitter.

“The Dems are getting another beauty to join their group. Bill de Blasio of NYC, considered the worst mayor in the U.S., will supposedly be making an announcement for president today. He is a JOKE, but if you like high taxes & crime, he’s your man. NYC HATES HIM!” he said.

CAP

“There’s plenty of money in this world. There’s plenty of money in this country. It’s just in the wrong hands,” de Blasio said in a campaign announcement video.

He spent the first half of his announcement video describing his far-left platform, which includes universal healthcare, a $15 minimum wage, and “free” Pre-Kindergarten education for all. He spent the second half of the announcement video attacking Trump, calling him a “bully.”

De Blasio is squarely in the progressive corner. He was widely ridiculed for last month for proposing a skyscraper ban in New York City to fight climate change.

Big League Politics reported:

The mayor of America’s most populous city has a new plan to fight “global warming,” and it involves doing away with the landscape of the city over which he presides.

“We’re going to introduce legislation to ban the glass and steel skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said. “They have no place in our city or our Earth anymore.”

The mayor did not offer much in the way of specifics regarding his plan. Will existing skyscrapers be demolished, or will the city ban new ones from being erected? Many such buildings are apartments and condos. Will the people who live in them be forced to move? Also, what happened to “climate change?” This reporter was under the impression that “global warming” was an outdated term.

According to Spectrum News 1 in New York City, de Blasio’s proposal would prevent developers from “using all glass facades unless they meet strict new energy guidelines,” which he called “the city’s version of the Green new Deal.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑