REP. JIM JORDAN: IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT DEMOCRATS NOT ACCEPTING ELECTION RESULT

Rep. Jim Jordan: Impeachment is About Democrats Not Accepting Election Result

“They have never accepted the will of the American people.”

 | – NOVEMBER 22, 2019

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) says that the impeachment hearings are just another consequence of Democrats not accepting the 2016 election result and defying the will of 63 million Americans.

During an appearance on Fox News, the Ohio Republican said the entire basis for the hearings was flawed given there’s no evidence of Trump delivering anything to Ukraine and “quid pro quo” claims are just a ruse.

“So this idea that there was a this for that, a quid for quo — a quid pro quo didn’t happen,” Jordan said. “And yet they continue to say, oh, oh, but this is impeachable.”

“This is not about that at all, Bret. This is — this is about they have never accepted the will of the American people, when 63 million Americans, in an Electoral College landslide, said, we’re going to send Donald Trump to Washington shake that town up,” he added.

“And the establishment here, and particularly the Democrats, have never accepted that,” said Jordan. “And they’re going to do whatever it takes, Mueller report, FBI investigation, dossier, or now this, whatever it takes to try to get him out. That’s what this is really about.”

It’s now been 1109 days since the 2016 presidential election. Democrats who once chided President Trump for suggesting he might not accept the election result have been doing precisely that every day ever since.

Judge, jury & executioner: Facebook policy permits death threats against ‘dangerous individuals’

Screen Shot 2019-07-10 at 10.53.50 AM

Facebook has issued an ominous new policy permitting death threats and calls for violence – so long as they’re directed against “dangerous” individuals or organizations, or someone accused (but not convicted) of a crime.

Facebook has updated its “community standards” to carve out a few exceptions to its “no death threats” policy. Calls for “high-severity violence” are now permitted, as long as they’re directed at individuals “covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy” or individuals “described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses” by media reports. After all, are people banned from Facebook really people at all?

‘No future for dissidents’ on social media: Paul Joseph Watson reflects on Facebook ban

Screen Shot 2019-07-10 at 10.57.10 AM

The change was spotted on Tuesday by commentator Paul Joseph Watson, who along with his former Infowars boss Alex Jones was one of a handful of mostly-conservative personalities banned from Facebook in May under its “Dangerous Individuals” policy. Back then, even mentioning one of the banned names could get a user banned – unless the mention was derogatory.

Facebook has apparently taken that “hate the haters” tactic and run with it. While the “Dangerous Individuals” policy supposedly only covers “terrorist activity, organized hate, mass or serial murder, human trafficking, and organized violence or criminal activity,” none of the commentators banned – including Watson, Jones, conservative political performance artist Milo Yiannopoulos, and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan – were involved in any of those activities. But, Watson discovered, a person wearing an Infowars t-shirt is enough to get a photo removed from Instagram, and photos that include banned individuals – even if their faces are blurred out – have been deleted as well.

Equally ominous is Facebook’s decision to dispense with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” that forms the core of the US legal system (Facebook is based in Menlo Park, California, and at least theoretically subject to US laws). Individuals need only be accused in the media of violent crimes and sexual offenses to become fair game for death threats – not convicted in court. For a company that claims to take the threat of “fake news” very seriously, Facebook is surprisingly cavalier about the potential for media misinformation to lead to violence.

But then, Facebook never even tried to prove Watson, Jones or any of the other banned users were “Dangerous Individuals,” either – its policy has always been that banned users are guilty until proven innocent, as any user who’s ever been forced to jump through its tech support hoops to restore a banned account can attest.

“The largest social media company in the world with over 2 billion users literally says it’s fine to incite violence against me, despite this being illegal,” Watson wrote at Summit.news, pointing out that sending death threats or threats of violence is, in fact, a crime under UK law (as it is under US law and the laws of most developed countries with substantial Facebook-using populations).

Screen Shot 2019-07-10 at 11.01.06 AM

Facebook even tracks off-platform behavior to determine whether users should be blacklisted as “hate agents,” according to internal documents seen by Breitbart, meaning merely showing up at the same event as a “dangerous individual” can potentially earn a user the designation. The site’s list of “hate agents” is reportedly quite exhaustive and includes British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters as well as conservative commentators like Yiannopoulos and Candace Owens. Because all this classification goes on in secret, users have no chance to appeal their un-personing, and may never even know they are being judged, until they start receiving Facebook-approved death threats of their own.

BLACK SUNY PROFESSOR SAYS HE FEELS “HAPPY” SEEING WHITE HOMELESS PEOPLE BEGGING FOR FOOD

Black SUNY Professor Says He Feels "Happy" Seeing White Homeless People Begging for Food

“It feels like a black nationalist wet dream”

JUNE 24, 2019

A black professor of literature at SUNY Old Westbury wrote of how he feels “happy” seeing white homeless people begging for food.

“White people begging us for food feels like justice,” wrote Nicholas Powers in an article entitled Seeing poor white people makes me happy. “It feels like Afro-Futurism after America falls. It feels like a Black Nationalist wet dream. It has the feels I rarely feel, a hunger for historical vengeance satisfied so well I rub my belly.”

The piece was published by a website called ‘RaceBaitr’ but has since been deleted.

Screen Shot 2019-06-24 at 11.10.44 AM

Acknowledging that this isn’t a “good look,” Powers nonetheless denounced Martin Luther King’s message of “show compassion to those who spite you” by asserting, “Go fuck another secretary Martin!”

Claiming that white people are “descendant of murderers who killed our ancestors,” Powers goes on to proclaim, “When a white person begs, maybe a white woman breastfeeding or a young white boy whining like a broken flute, I feel better. Good. It’s not just us. I feel happy. I feel like the scales of justice could shift.”

Powers went on to explain how he enjoys ignoring homeless white people begging for food, writing, “I see in them the history of colonization, slavery and mass incarceration that makes their begging Black people for money ironic—if not insulting. You wasted your whiteness! Why should we give to you?”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Powers’ faculty webpage lists his interests as “feminist theory” and Marxism.

Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg closeup

By Allum Bokhari

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.

The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.

The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.

Breitbart News has already covered some of the individuals that Facebook placed on its list of potential “hate agents.” Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as “hateful” and banned from the platform, in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel. Star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters.

The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful. In the document, Facebook tags Benjamin with a “hate agent” signal for “neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of Proud Boys” on October 21 last year.

Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as “representing the ideology of an ethnostate” for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate.

In addition to the more unorthodox signals that Facebook uses to determine if its users are “hate agents,” there is also, predictably, “hate speech.” Facebook divides hate speech into three tiers depending on severity and considers attacks on a person’s “immigration status” to be hate speech.

Here’s how “hate speech” — both on and off Facebook — will be categorized by the platform, according to the document:

Individual has made public statements, or statements made in private and later made public, using Tier 1, 2, or 3 hate speech or slurs:

3 instances in one statement or appearance = signal
5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month = signal

If you’ve done this within the past two years, Facebook will consider it a hate signal.

Other signals used by Facebook to determine if its users should be designated as hate agents include carrying out violence against people based on their “protected or quasi-protected characteristics,” attacks on places of worship, and conviction of genocide.

Are you a source at Facebook or any other corporation who wants to confidentially blow the whistle on wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari securely at allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

LEFT-WING COMEDIAN FANTASIZES ABOUT ACID ATTACKING RIGHT-WING POLITICIANS

Left-Wing Comedian Fantasizes About Acid Attacking Right-Wing Politicians

“Why bother with a milkshake?”

JUNE 12, 2019

A left-wing comedian in the United Kingdom says she fantasizes about acid-attacking right-wing politicians, asking “why bother with milkshakes?”

During an appearance on Radio 4 last night, Jo Brand, who is a lifelong Labour Party supporter, tacitly endorsed political violence.

“Certain unpleasant characters are being thrown to the fore, and they’re very, very easy to hate, and I’m kind of thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?” asked Brand.

“That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry,” she added.

“This is incitement of violence and the police need to act,” tweeted Nigel Farage, who was ‘milkshaked’ by a leftist while on the campaign trail last month.

Screen Shot 2019-06-12 at 10.56.15 AM

While Brand’s vicious suggestion may have been made in jest, there are plenty of unhinged, radicalized leftists who are only too willing to actually carry out such an attack.

As we previously reported, a left-wing activist who works for a charity called ‘Happy City’ called for Nigel Farage to be acid attacked before deleting the tweet.

“Bravo to Paul Crowther, good on you mate. Great that milkshakes have become a thing when it comes to racists in our midst,” tweeted Ruth Townsley, before adding, “I’d prefer acid but milkshakes will do for now I guess.”

So much for the tolerant left!

———————————————————————————————————————

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑