Friday, December 30, 2016


More progressive censorship on display. About mid-way through the Michael Savage show on WMAL earlier today, it was suddenly yanked off the air. A re-run of the Chris Plante was aired instead of the Michael Savage show. Seems to me this country is getting more and more like Europe. Freedom of speech is only free if leftists spew it.

Chris Plante is a good guy and all, but I’m not interested in listening to some re-run. If i want to listen to re-runs I could always find it on the Internet. So far, no reason has been given by WMAL why they suddenly pulled the Michael Savage show. Don’t expect one either.


Muslim hate speech is OK

Google is refusing to stop its enhanced search function helping users to access lectures by a Muslim cleric dubbed the pied piper of jihad, despite acting against other offensive material.

When people search for the radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the site’s autocomplete function — which uses algorithms based on what others have searched for — suggests searches that add words including “quotes” and “lectures” while they are still typing his name.

These enhanced searches lead to transcriptions and recordings of hate-filled lectures that are known to have inspired the 7/7 bombers and helped to radicalise other terrorists. In contrast, searches for Awlaki’s name without Google’s suggested extra words lead to accounts of his terrorist involvement.


Thursday, December 29, 2016

Real men don't eat icecream?

THEY’VE done it again — only this time it’s Richard Hammond in the firing line. The star of The Grand Tour has sparked a backlash after he said he doesn’t eat ice-cream because he is “straight”.

The comments came during an episode of the reimagined version of Top Gear which screens on Amazon Prime instead of the BBC after Jeremy Clarkson’s “fracas” with a producer saw the trio opt to stay together.

In the clip being circulated from Happy Finnish Christmas, Hammond explains he wouldn’t eat a Magnum in a Volvo because “I don’t eat ice-cream. It’s something to do with being straight.”

After some quizzical looks from Clarkson, James May, laughter and applause from the audience he is forced to explain.  “Ice-cream is a bit, you know ...” he said.

Clarkson clarifies: “So you’re saying all children are homosexual?”

“There’s nothing wrong with it, but a grown man eating an ice-cream, you know it’s a bit ... it’s that way rather than that way,” Hammond said.

Clarkson responds: “Welcome to the inside of Richard Hammond’s head.”


Speech ferment in Oklahoma

Last November 14, a professor from the History of Science Department found two racist posters in university buildings. The posters were titled "Why White Women Shouldn't Date Black Men" and "Race and Intelligence:  the Facts." The professor photographed these flyers, posted the images on Twitter, and then took them down. Ironically, by publicly posting images of the posters the good professor succeeded in publicizing their message. What might have been viewed by only a handful of people was instead seen by thousands.

Removing the posters set a terrible example for students. The implied lesson was that you don't have to defeat ideas you disagree with by reasoned argument -- you are entitled to suppress them by force. Subsequently the Faculty Senate declared that toleration of hate speech was antithetical to "the pursuit of learning [and] the creation of art and knowledge." Members of the OU community were advised to report incidents of hate speech to the OU Police Department. Collectively, the OU Faculty Senate has the intelligence of a flock of turkeys. But to assert that intolerance is essential to teaching and research plumbs a new low.

Attempts to suppress hate speech are extremely troublesome. For starters, there is no objective or legal definition of hate speech. In practice, hate speech can be anything people find offensive. On the OU campus, if you say something as innocuous as 'I support Trump," a number of people would consider this to be hate speech. Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment. People do not have a right to make specific and credible threats or incite violence, but they do have a right to express personal opinions that are both wrong and offensive. Pity the poor police officer who receives a report of alleged hate speech. How is he or she to respond? Not only is there no statute outlawing hate speech, it's a crime to deprive individuals of their First Amendment rights under color of authority.

Not only is the University of Oklahoma campus a hotbed of racial hysteria, it's also home to the dreaded scourge of Islamophobia. According to a report in the OU Daily, on November 15, an unidentified person handed a Chick Tract titled "Camel's In the Tent" to a female professor from Lebanon. A Chick Tract is a short evangelical Christian pamphlet. Distributing Chick Tracts is a common form of Christian proselytizing. Over the last fifty years, approximately 800 million Chick Tracts have been printed and distributed. They are very common.

Evidently the professor who received a copy of "Camel's In the Tent" had never seen a Chick Tract before. Because the content of the pamphlet made her feel "uncomfortable," she reported the incident to the OU Police. Irony coated the professor's account like two inches of freezing rain in an Oklahoma winter storm. She professed that she "came to this country because I believe in American values," and then preached "we need to reach out [to people] and listen to their fears."

But she didn't reach out and listen to fears about Islam or Islamic terrorism. She called the police! The professor also failed to grasp that freedom of religion and speech are core American values. In the United States of America we don't call the police on people who are engaged in Christian proselytizing. That's what they do in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It gets worse. In October of 2015 a monument recognizing the Ten Commandments was removed from the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol because Section II-5 of the Oklahoma Constitution states that "no public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion." But this has not stopped the University of Oklahoma from setting aside a room in their Bizzell Library dedicated to Muslim prayer. Although the room is described as a "reflection room" open to everyone, it's sectarian nature is indicated unambiguously by the fact that it's stocked with copies of the Koran and pamphlets on Islam.

While conservatives view leftists as people with bad ideas, leftists don't look upon conservatives as people who even have ideas -- they're just bad people who must be rooted out, suppressed, and excluded. This quest has now superseded any pretense to education. The OU Campus is in the grip of a moral frenzy, the very definition of a witch hunt.


Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Comments made under a guarantee of privacy lead to punishment

Most blacks don't do much to endear themselves to whites so whites who dislike them have some grounds for that

Fathers of two Marist High School seniors filed a lawsuit Monday claiming their daughters were “used as scapegoats” after a racist text message thread between students went viral.

The two students were among a group of five either suspended or expelled from the school at 4200 W. 115th St. in the wake of the text message incident.

The text messages surfaced Nov. 6 after a protest following the fatal police shooting of a 25-year-old black man the day before in Mount Greenwood. Black activists said they encountered '60s-style racism as they clashed with demonstrators supporting police.

Meanwhile on Twitter, someone shared a screen shot of a text message reportedly from a Marist student, who said "I F------ HATE N-----S," to which one of her friends replied, "same."

The plaintiffs were kicked out of school within days of the messages going viral “without hearing their side of the story and without any disciplinary process,” according to the suit.

The two white teenagers, who are also unnamed in the lawsuit, were among 32 girls included in the text message group. The group originally met in September at a religious retreat, known as Kairos.

The retreat is designed for young women to meet and "freely express themselves on all types of topics," according to the lawsuit. As part of the retreat, the girls involved were promised that "any comments made orally would be strictly confidential."

The lawsuit also points to a March 14, 2014 incident in which a black student and Marist football player, according to the suit, tweeted a comment "advocating the killing of white people." That student was required to receive counseling following the comment, the suit argues.

"By comparison, the comments made by the minor plaintiffs were, at most, racially insensitive," the lawsuit says.


Must not disrespect Mrs Obama

The University of Colorado’s School of Medicine is cutting ties with a faculty member who made a racist remark about first lady Michelle Obama on Facebook.

Dr. Michelle Herren, who works at Denver Health Medical Center, holds a nonpaid faculty appointment at the CU School of Medicine and a medical-staff appointment at Children’s Hospital, where Denver Health physicians supervise residents and other medical practitioners in training, the Denver Post reports.

As previously reported on The Root, Herren posted a photo of Michelle Obama yelling on Facebook. Under the photo, Herren wrote: “Doesn’t seem to be speaking too eloquently here, thank god we can’t hear her! Harvard??? That’s a place for ‘entitled’ folks said all the liberals!”

Herren then added, “Monkey face and poor ebonic English!!! There! I feel better and am still not racist!!! Just calling it like it is!”


But it's OK to call George Bush a monkey face!

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

TX: Must not get tired of black people

Even in a private message

The text read, "I'm so sick of playing black people."

A woman in the stands for a girl's basketball game between Kingwood High and Nimitz High (Aldine ISD) sent the message to someone. A Nimitz parent saw it and whipped out her phone to take a picture.

"I think that's not acceptable. Especially in this day and time," said Humble ISD parent Ed Dubois.

We've learned the woman who sent the text was a teacher at Greentree Elementary School. The parent who took the picture of the text sent it to Houston-area activist Gerry Monroe, who took his concerns to Humble ISD.

Here is Humble ISD's full statement:

"Humble ISD expects educators to show respect for all students and to demonstrate good sportsmanship at student events. The text message does not represent the values of the district. Upon being made aware of the photo, the district took immediate action by investigating. That investigation revealed that a person employed as an elementary school teacher sent the text. She has resigned."


Depicting racism is racist?

This fall, Salem State University put out an open call for an exhibition titled “State of the Union.” Artists were asked to submit work that “addresses concerns and hopes for our future,” such as “environmental issues, social inequities, income inequality and education.”

Garry Harley, an artist in nearby Lowell, Massachusetts, saw the notice and knew immediately what to submit: two digital paintings, both inspired by campaign rhetoric he found frightening. One was based on a photo of Ku Klux Klan members in full, menacing regalia; the other, Warsaw Jews being rounded up during World War II.

Both were accepted.

The exhibition opened the day after Election Day. And when it did, Harley’s work — in particular the KKK picture — caused an uproar. Students complained that the art was insensitive, racist, upsetting, offensive.

The school held a tense public forum. Harley, who says he wanted to raise awareness but not offense, attended in the hopes of a “teaching moment.” He arrived with handouts: copies of Francisco Goya’s “The Third of May 1808” and Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica,” masterpieces that had committed traumatic events to canvas and, by extension, to public memory.

The next day, administrators sent an apology to the campus community and announced they were temporarily shuttering the exhibit. Then last week, after a second meeting, which Harley did not attend, the exhibit was reopened — with some modifications.

Among them: The KKK painting, and only that work, was curtained off, peep-show-style


Monday, December 26, 2016

Leftist hate speech never stops

An unruly passenger had to be removed from a JetBlue flight leaving New York on Thursday after he began loudly harassing Ivanka Trump and her young children, according to TMZ and posts on social media.

Ivanka, the daughter of President-elect Donald Trump, was flying in coach with her husband, Jared Kushner, her children and several cousins when an unidentified man began yelling at her.

“Your father is ruining the country,” the man said, according to TMZ. “Why is she on our flight? She should be flying private.”

The man was reportedly holding a young child in his arms during the tirade. Trump tried distracting her kids during the incident.

When JetBlue security escorted the man off the plane, he reportedly complained they were “kicking me off for expressing my opinion.”

"The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly," JetBlue said in a statement. "If the crew determines that a customer is causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight. In this instance, our team worked to re-accommodate the party on the next available flight."

Earlier, a man identified as Matthew Lasner tweeted that his husband was “chasing” down Trump and Kushner “to harass them,” hashtagging his tweet “#banalityofevil.”

But Lasner’s story changed quickly, as he then tweeted “My husband expressed displeasure in a calm tone, JetBlue staff overheard, and they kicked us off the plane.” He also tweeted a picture of Trump sitting on the plane.


Walmart pulls Black Lives Matter T-shirt

A pretty strange message, however you look at it

US RETAIL giant Walmart has pulled a controversial Black Lives Matter T-shirt from its online offerings amid complaints by police.

Walmart told Fox News Insider that it will no longer sell the shirts with the words “Bulletproof: Black Lives Matter” on its website.

The move came after the Fraternal Order of Police called the shirts offensive and asked the retailer to stop sales.

The police organisation’s president Chuck Canterbury said in a letter to Walmart chief executive Douglas McMillon that the shirts could “damage Walmart’s good name among the law enforcement community”.

“I urge you to prohibit the use of the Walmart name and website for the retail sale of these products,” Mr Canterbury wrote.

Walmart responded by providing a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press pledging to cease sales of the shirts.

The statement said the company has a marketplace with millions of items offered by third parties, including Blue Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter merchandise.

It said Walmart removed the Black Lives Matter shirt after hearing concerns from customers.


Sunday, December 25, 2016

Fake hate speech (Again)

President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the media establishment have made the so-called “fake news” one of the gravest threats to democracy.

However, they usually manage to forget this kind of “fake news” which they were so eager to believe but once again turns out to be just another hoax.

Police arrested Andrew McClinton on Wednesday in conjunction with the arson of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church, which was burned and vandalized on Nov. 1, a week before Donald Trump was elected president.

A bishop from Hopewell told the Associated Press that Mr. McClinton is a member of the predominantly black church.

The suspect is charged with first-degree arson of a place of worship.

The side of the 111-year-old church was scrawled with the words “Vote Trump” in white spray-paint, prompting calls for Mr. Trump to denounce the act purportedly perpetrated in his name.

Will there be a retraction from those involved in spreading the “fake news” meme?  Don’t hold your breath:


Navy Scuttles Job Name Change Plans

Early this year, the Pentagon announced that it was going to “modernize” job titles in the military because, Barack Obama’s guys argued, many of those names were antiquated and confused civilians. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus directed that all job titles be rendered gender-neutral in order to please the PC Police, who worried that they may offend the sensibilities of newly empowered women now freed to fight on the front lines. The episode demonstrated once again the fact that Obama is more interested in using the military as his social engineering guinea pig than as an elite fighting force tasked with defending the nation and defeating the enemy.

Well, sailors in the Navy were having none of it. After receiving thousands of complaints protesting the decision, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson issued a memo on Wednesday stating, “We have learned from you, and so effective immediately, all rating names are restored.” Richardson continued, “Modernizing our industrial-age personnel system in order to provide sailors choice and flexibility still remains a priority for us. We will need to tackle the issue of managing rating names.”

This is a win for practical reality over leftist ideology. But as with any rotten idea the corrupting roots run deep, and it will take vigilance on the part of conservative-minded leaders both in the government and military to pull out all the weeds that Obama and his cronies planted.


Friday, December 23, 2016

France Considers Ways to Deal With Problematic Online Content, While Preserving Free Speech

Two French senators have introduced an initiative aimed at creating an ombudsman to make rulings on whether online material is inappropriate and should be removed, while at the same time aiming to preserve free speech.

“There is a lot of content freely accessible,” Senator Nathalie Goulet said during a meeting to discuss the plan, “Some is about radicalization and other about pedophilia. Who decides when content is legal or not?”

Goulet and another senator, Olivier Cadic, are promoting legislation which, if adopted by parliament after presidential elections next year, aims to help internet service providers, web hosting and social media companies to determine whether the content they publish is legal or not.

The proposal is for an ombudsman to be appointed for a six-year period from among members of an independent administrative regulatory body that is tasked with ensuring that data privacy law is applied to the collection, storage, and use of personal data.

Internet companies will be encouraged to seek the ombudsman’s opinion when in doubt about material to be published.

A company that wants to consult the ombudsman will have to get in touch by email or regular mail, asking about the content in question.

The ombudsman, who may work with a translator if the material is in another language, will provide an opinion in a maximum of seven days. The response will be based on the law but will be an opinion only, with no obligation that it must be followed.

Audrey Herblin-Stoop, head of public policy at Twitter France, acknowledged that “terrorist organizations use our platform to spread terrorist messages” and attempt to brainwash people.

She told the meeting that Twitter has blocked 260,000 “terrorist accounts.”

Google France welcomed the ombudsman proposal.

“It is a hard work to find illicit content quickly and get rid of it,” said Thibault Guiroy, the company’s public policy manager and head of government relations.


Intolerance in the name of tolerance

The modern day Left preach tolerance but are totally intolerant of anybody who disagrees with them

 College classrooms ring with claims of hate speech for anything that isn’t in line with a particular way of thinking.

Ironically, those who scream intolerance are, themselves, being intolerant. If it is noble to tolerate diversity, shouldn’t those who laud such tolerance be at the forefront of defending those who disagree with them?

It is possible to disagree with a religion, political perspective, or public policy without being racist, sexist, or a hater. Disagreeing isn’t inherently hateful. If that were so, then those who disagreed with those accused of hate speech would by definition be committing the very act of hate being denounced. Nobody could disagree with anything.

Regularly since President Obama’s election eight years ago nearly anyone voicing an opinion different than that of the President, was labeled racist. In the most recent election, those who opposed Hillary Clinton were branded as sexist. Even career journalist Cokie Roberts claimed that Hillary’s defeat was “reflective of a strong sentiment about not having a woman president.” Are Clinton supporters “haters” because they disagree with Trump? I would hope not.

Even counselors and psychologists who pride themselves on tolerance and sensitivity are not immune to this goofy bandwagon effect. While attending the American Counseling Association’s annual conference a few years ago, I was in a workshop on diversity. The workshop was led by a gay man who led the group of 75 or so participants in a 3-hour session making fun of Christians. It wasn’t his intent, but that is what happened.

While allegedly presenting on how faux “therapies” have been promoted by people of faith, the group participants were openly laughing at and making fun of people of faith. While I actually agreed with the facts that were being presented, as a person of faith I have never felt more uncomfortable in my life. These well-intentioned counselors, many of whom were LGBT, were doing the very thing they were condemning.

Tolerance has been elevated to a religion and has come to mean that anything goes – as long as it doesn’t violate some politically correct perspective. In other words, tolerance means “think like me” – the very thing it was a reaction against.

I suspect historians of the future will look back at this era and chuckle at the obvious contradiction. Intentions were good, they will note, but in the attempt to battle the clear intolerance of their past, they created an environment where those with the power to require tolerance didn’t practice it themselves.


Thursday, December 22, 2016

Leftist intolerance again

They shut out anything that might threaten their beliefs

A survey shows a significant number of Democratic women are reacting to Hillary Clinton’s unexpected election loss by blocking, “unfollowing” and “unfriending” people on social media who express political opinions they don’t like.

Thirty percent of Democratic women reported cutting off online communication with someone for political reasons since the Nov. 8 election, according to a Public Religion Research Institute poll published Monday. They are more than twice as likely to blot out dissenting points of view from their social media timelines as Democratic men, who reported doing so at a 14 percent rate.

The survey found Republicans have been more tolerant of opposing points of view since Donald Trump’s election victory. Just 10 percent of Republican women and 8 percent of Republican men reported unfriending people on social media for political reasons.

The PRRI poll is one of several indications that this year’s presidential race had a particularly injurious effect on friendships and even marriages between those who hold opposing political beliefs.

Mr. Mitchell said the ability to form relationships with political adversaries is instrumental to a flourishing society and the mutual pursuit of truth. He said friendship should be seen as a higher good than politics.

“If we can’t be friends across political differences, then our civil fabric frays, and we become enemies who can’t communicate, and that is sort of a scary trend,” he said.


Facebook’s confusing hate speech policy detailed in leaked documents

‘Migrants are dirt’ will get removed, but ‘migrants are dirty’ is fine

German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has obtained what it says are internal documents used to guide content moderation on Facebook. Excerpts from the documents, which the paper published on Friday, shed light on how the world’s largest social network defines hate speech and other offensive content — something that Facebook has long been reluctant to disclose. A separate report from SZ, published on Thursday, detailed operations at a Berlin office where more than 600 people work to moderate content on Facebook, earning barely more than Germany’s minimum wage.

Lawmakers in Germany and other European countries have pressured Facebook to more swiftly remove racist and xenophobic content, much of which has been directed toward migrants. German authorities have argued that Facebook must curb hateful content at a time of rising anti-migrant sentiment; but critics of the crackdown have warned of “creeping censorship,” raising concerns over how Facebook would define hate speech.

The documents published by SZ provide some insight into the company’s approach. According to the newspaper, Facebook strictly prohibits content that targets a person based on characteristics such as race, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation — factors that the company defines as a “protected category.” The documents also outline sub-categories that receive extra protection, such as youth and senior citizens, and include hundreds of examples meant to cover a range of permutations and contexts.

The documents allow for content that attacks a religion or a country, though attacks on individuals based on religion or nationality are removed. But the line is a bit blurrier for migrants, despite the fact that many who have sought asylum in recent years are from majority-Muslim countries like Syria. From the SZ report:

For instance, saying “fucking Muslims” is not allowed, as religious affiliation is a protected category. However, the sentence “fucking migrants” is allowed, as migrants are only a “quasi protected category” – a special form that was introduced after complaints were made in Germany. This rule states that promoting hate against migrants is allowed under certain circumstances: statements such as “migrants are dirty” are allowed, while “migrants are dirt” isn’t.


Wednesday, December 21, 2016

French-Jewish scholar to appear in French court over 'hate speech'

He said the plain truth that Muslims are taught to hate Jews.  It's in the Koran.  But some truths may not be spoken in France

One of the world’s leading historians on the Jewish communities in Arab countries is being prosecuted in France for alleged hate speech against Muslims.

The Morocco-born French-Jewish scholar Georges Bensoussan, 64, is due to appear next month before a Paris criminal court over a complaint filed against him for incitement to racial hatred by the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, the group recently announced on its website.

The complaint, which leading French scholars dismissed as an attempt at “intimidation” in a statement Friday, was over remarks about anti-Semitism by Muslims that Bensoussan, author of a definitive 2012 work entitled “Jews in Arab Lands,” made last year during an interview aired by the France Culture radio station, the Collective said.

The Collective based its complaint on two remarks by Bensoussan.

“Today, we are witnessing a different people in the midst of the French nation, who are effecting a return on a certain number of democratic values to which we adhere,” read the first quote flagged.

The second quote cited read: “This visceral anti-Semitism proven by the Fondapol survey by Dominique Reynié last year cannot remain under a cover of silence.” Conducted in 2014 among 1,580 French respondents, of whom one third were Muslim, the survey found that they were two times and even three times more anti-Jewish than French people as a whole.


Tuesday, December 20, 2016

To "commit" suicide is a bad word in Britain

People should stop using the phrase 'commit suicide' because it is unfair to people who kill themselves by making it sound as though suicide is a crime, MPs said yesterday.

A report from the Commons Health committee also called for restrictions on websites that encourage suicide.

Ministers said that the term 'committing suicide' 'reinforces stigmatising attitudes' and should no longer be broadcast or printed in newspapers.

They also warned that there is frequent 'inappropriate reporting and portrayal of suicide' by the mainstream media.

They called for restrictions on social media to curb sites that encourage suicide in a report which said ministers should launch a new programme to try to reduce numbers of suicides. The MPs said it was 'clear that suicide is preventable and that much more can and should be done to support vulnerable individuals.'


In defence of hate speech

Criminalising offensive language only empowers bigots

GEERT WILDERS, a Dutch politician, says some horrible, inflammatory things. He has called Islam a “fascist ideology” and referred to Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, as “a devil”. He is no friend of free speech, either: he wants to ban not only the Koran but also preaching in any language other than Dutch. The Economist deplores his views; but he should be allowed to express them.

Prosecutors in the Netherlands have reached a different conclusion. On December 9th a court found him guilty of insulting and inciting racial discrimination against Dutch Moroccans. At issue was a nasty line from a speech in 2014. “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” Mr Wilders asked supporters of his anti-immigrant Party for Freedom (PVV). The crowd replied: “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Mr Wilders smiled and said, softly: “We’ll take care of that.” The audience chuckled.

The court decided not to impose a fine, arguing that the conviction itself was punishment enough. Some punishment. Three months before an election, Mr Wilders can pose as a victim of an illiberal law and a politically correct elite who, he claims, are letting Islam undermine Dutch civilisation. Mr Wilders’s image as a martyr is further enhanced by the fact that Islamist radicals have threatened to kill him for his words.

All this makes him stronger. His party leads the polls, with the support of a third of voters. The PVV will probably not win control of the country—mainstream parties will club together to keep it out of office. But using the law to attempt to silence Mr Wilders enhances his malign influence over Dutch politics and makes it more likely that he will one day wield real power.


Monday, December 19, 2016

Associated Press Will Partner with Facebook to Flag ‘Fake News’

That AP is an objective source is a laugh but it appears that nothing will actually be deleted -- so as long as that is true, there should be no great drama.  Conservatives are used to being abused by the Left.  Having something condemned by the Leftist media might actually recommend it

The Associated Press announced Thursday that it will join Facebook to help “identify and debunk” news stories being shared online that are false.

According to the AP announcement, “when AP or another participating fact-check organization flags a piece of content as fake, Facebook users will see that it has been disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. That flag will follow the content if a Facebook user chooses to share it.”

“AP has long done some of the most thorough fact-checking in the news business,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s incoming executive editor. “This initiative is a natural extension of that tradition, and of the AP’s long-standing role setting the standards for accuracy and ethics in journalism.”

Facebook announced a partnership with Snopes,, ABC News, and Politifact as well on Thursday. These fact-checking partners will have “access to a tool that will let them label stories in the News Feed as fake,” a Facebook spokesperson told Business Insider.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the move to flag “fake news” stories on his page, explaining, “we're making it easier to report hoaxes, and if many people report a story, then we'll send it to third-party fact checking organizations. If the fact checkers agree a story is a hoax, you'll see a flag on the story saying it has been disputed, and that story may be less likely to show up in News Feed.”

“You'll still be able to read and share the story,” he added, “but you'll now have more information about whether fact checkers believe it's accurate. No one will be able to make a disputed story into an ad or promote it on our platform.”


Man with "incorrect" opinions won election to the Kentucky House of Representatives

Abortionists do murder babies and if it's OK to call George Bush a chimp it is surely OK to call Obama an ape

Republican Dan Johnson posted messages on Facebook that displayed prejudice toward black people, Muslims and others during his campaign for a seat in the Kentucky House of Representatives. He talked of white pride and Southern secession; he shared at least three pictures showing President Obama as an ape. He also aired videos in which he accused his opponent, Democratic Rep. Linda Belcher, of murdering 80,000 babies, and he said she hired “Chicago thugs” to terrorize his family.

“The Islam-crat Barack Obama — Criminal Clinton, Criminal Hillary — and Lyin’ Linda, and you know what? They have sent Chicago thugs after me. Chicago thugs after me! They came to my house, they came to our church,” Johnson said in a video posted Oct. 28. “Threatening my life, threatening my grand-babies’ life. … That’s who Linda Belcher has put on me.”

Embarrassed by Johnson’s behavior, on Oct. 1, the Republican Party of Kentucky and House Minority Floor Leader Jeff Hoover called on him to drop out of the race.

Instead, he won, narrowly defeating Belcher, a three-term incumbent, by a vote of 9,342 to 9,186. Johnson will represent Bullitt County’s 49th House District in the General Assembly for the next two years.


Sunday, December 18, 2016

Fake hate speech again

Yasmin Seweid, 18, was charged with filing a false report after she told police three men called her a terrorist and chanted "Donald Trump".  She addressed the alleged harassment in a Facebook post and spoke with media outlets about the ordeal

The Baruch College Student also went missing after the alleged harassment, but was found over the weekend.

Now police sources have told NBC 4 New York that Seweid allegedly admitted to them she had been out drinking with friends, and made up the attack to distract her angry father.

She was arraigned at Manhattan Criminal Court and released Thursday morning.

The Baruch College student originally said she told police she was approached by three men and told to "get out of this country," was called a terrorist aboard the train and told to "get the f****** hijab off your head!" She also alleged that one of the men grabbed her bag and broke the strap.

She called the incident "traumatizing" and spoke with multiple news organizations about it.


Politico Fires Writer Over Disgusting Tweet About Trump And Ivanka

Free speech is no protection against defamation and libel

Watch what you tweet. That apparently was the warning sent to fellow Politico staffers after firing contributing writer Julia Ioffe for a rather salty tweet about President-elect Trump and his daughter, Ivanka.

Ioffe tweeted yesterday, “either Trump is fucking his daughter or he’s shirking nepotism laws. Which is worse?”

Ioffe was already heading to The Atlantic next year; Politico decided to accelerate the termination of that contract


Friday, December 16, 2016

Must not echo Trump on a Leftist campus

The Left tend to believe their own propaganda:  That Trump is racist, sexist etc even when there is plenty of evidence that he is none of those things.  So they get a shock when asked to prove it

Parker Rand-Ricciardi and another Babson College classmate drove onto the Wellesley College campus after the presidential election in a pickup truck with a Donald Trump flag hanging out the back while shouting, “Make America great again.”

Now he stands accused of “racist, misogynistic, and/or homophobic conduct.” However, a Babson College investigation can’t document those specific allegations, according to Jeffrey S. Robbins, a lawyer for Rand-Ricciardi, who is threatening Babson with a defamation suit. His client wants a public apology from Babson, along with the withdrawal of charges of harassment and disorderly conduct. Citing federal privacy laws, Babson won’t comment on specifics but said in a statement it’s committed to “a just result.”

Lacking hard evidence of more offensive conduct, this looks like a knee jerk reaction by college administrators quick to coddle Trump-traumatized campus liberals. But the case is complicated by where its students chose to do their gloating and by the very nature of Trump’s campaign. Just running around with a Trump sign can be viewed as racially offensive and demeaning to women — especially at Hillary Clinton’s alma mater — given that Trump was accused of stoking those biases. That makes it a teachable moment.

On Nov. 11, Babson College President Kerry Healey apologized to the Wellesley College community for actions she described as “insensitive, unacceptable, and contrary to our core values.” A Babson vice president of student affairs sent out a letter saying that driving by Harambee House was “perceived . . . as racially offensive and gender demeaning.”

The two Babson students were banned from campus. Then, on Dec. 11, both students were notified the ban had been lifted. According to a letter released by Robbins (and first reported by the Boston Herald), a Wellesley College police report concluded, “No racial slurs, no homophobic slurs nor any other offensive symbols or flags were reported to anyone.” There’s also no evidence the two Babson students purposefully drove past Harambee House.

It looks like Babson jumped the gun by imposing a penalty before the investigation was complete.

Meanwhile, the story went viral, and both Babson students said they were subjected to death threats.


Trump signs are dangerous

On Monday night a high school basketball game in the Kansas City area featured Center High School, from a predominantly black area of Kansas City, versus Warrensburg High School, a predominantly white high school from a suburb of Kansas City.

The Warrensburg student section has a tradition during player introductions which consists of the student body turning their backs on the opposing team during their introductions. School faculty at Warrensburg have frowned upon this tradition, saying it’s unsportsmanlike. Though, despite their disapproval they’ve never told the students not to do it.

So, Monday night when the Warrensburg students turned their backs on Center they didn’t do so for racial reasons, they just did what they always do. However, Monday night’s game featured a twist to the tradition when a Warrensburg student brought a Trump-Pence campaign sign and held it up during the introductions. This did not go well:

Trump signs do not signify universally-accepted symbols of racism. Right? After reading what Warrensburg superintendent Scott Patrick, who apologized for the sign, said to the Kansas City Star, I’m not so sure. Patrick said, “I think in this case, (the Trump sign) was really the difference in what took this from something that was unsportsmanlike to something that was insensitive, not necessary and inappropriate.”

What? Everything was fine: not insensitive, not necessary, not inappropriate, and certainly not racist until someone brought a Trump sign to the game?


Thursday, December 15, 2016

An Australian mayor criticized for rejecting race-consciousness

The Lord Mayor of Hobart has been slammed for 'disgusting ignorance' after her comments regarding a proposed Aboriginal memorial in Tasmania.

Earlier this week Sue Hickey said that she objected to a proposal by Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) to build an Aboriginal Memorial in the city because it would create a 'guilt ridden' place and current generations should not be blamed for past atrocities.

'I didn't kill the Aborigines, and nor would I; it was a different era,' she told ABC radio.

Former [black] Labor senator Nova Peris took to Twitter to pronounce her frustration with Ms Hickey's comments.

'Disgusting ignorance by Mayor of Hobart. No doubt (Sue Hickey) is front n (sic) centre of every Anzac Day dawn service w/ a red poppy,' Ms Peris tweeted.

The memorial makes up part of the $2 billion concept plans drafted by David Walsh's MONA for a cultural hub located on the Hobart waterfront at Macquarie Point.

The proposed Truth and Reconciliation Art Park would serve to acknowledge conflict between European settlers and Indigenous people known as the frontier wars and the Indigenous Tasmanian groups that subsequently died out.


Google Supreme Court case in Canada pits rule of law against free speech

Should technology companies be legally responsible for policing the global Internet to enforce the laws of any one country?

This thorny question is at the heart of a case now being heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, as Google challenges a British Columbia court order requiring it to block certain search results worldwide. If the order is upheld, it could set a precedent with profound and far-reaching implications, not only for Google and other tech firms with global reach, but also for the future of free and open access to information on the Internet.

The order against Google arose from a legal fight between a B.C.-based manufacturer of complex industrial equipment, Equustek Solutions Inc., and its former distributors, which Equustek alleges stole its trade secrets, eventually developing competing products and selling them on the Internet.

Despite a 2012 order for contempt of court and an ensuing arrest warrant, the former distributors have continued to flout multiple court orders to stop advertising and selling the products online. Unable to reach the defendants directly, Equustek set its sights on strangling their Internet traffic.

Equustek asked the B.C. courts to require Google to remove hundreds of websites that market the infringing products from Google search results worldwide. The order was granted and now Google is asking the Supreme Court to reverse it.

Among Google’s arguments is that the B.C. court has “deputized” it to carry out the functions of Canadian law enforcement by forcing the search giant into an endless and costly game of “whack-a-mole” with the defendants’ websites. Google did nothing wrong, but is being forced to bear the cost and responsibility to fix the problem.


Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Facebook is ordered by Austrian court to take down hateful posts written on a fake profile in landmark freedom of speech ruling

Facebook has been ordered by an Austrian court to take down hateful posts written on a fake profile in a landmark freedom of speech ruling.

The Green Party in Austria launched court action against Facebook Ireland Limited because of online comments made about MP Eva Glawischnig, 47.

Social media chiefs have been told they must delete the remarks as soon as they can in a move that could create a precedent for other cases around the world.

Facebook user 'Michaela Jaskova' - a fake profile - had described Glawischnig in April this year as a 'rotten traitor' and a 'corrupt tramp'.

The Greens said Facebook was responsible because the post was not deleted despite multiple requests.

Media lawyer Maria Windhager said the Greens had won the 'first round' with Facebook by winning a preliminary injunction against the offensive posting at the Commercial Court of Vienna.

She explained that the decision shows that Facebook, which normally relies on its own automated community standards and terms and conditions, cannot escape the Austrian legal jurisdiction.

The company normally quotes Californian law, where the head office is based, which is not as stringent as Europe's defamation laws.


Must not praise meat in case it upsets Vegans

A lamb advertisement starring SBS newsreader Lee Lin Chin that was accused of inciting violence against vegans was the most complained-about advertisement of the year.

The advertising campaign for Meat and Livestock Australia, which was also accused of being offensive to indigenous Australians, received a combined 747 complaints across television and online - almost a fifth of all the complaints received by the Advertising Standards Bureau in 2016. The complaints were dismissed.


Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The war on "fake news"

The biggest source of fake news in the mainstream media

The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on “fake news.” Those leading the war are using a few “viral” Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation – and even outright censorship – of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

Those calling for bans on “fake news” are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

The war on “fake news” has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government’s skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media’s pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

The attempts to ban “fake news;” smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician’s record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech.


Restoring Free Speech: The Trump Effect

If you oppose the Left removing crosses from memorials, removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings, banning Nativity scenes and banning saying “Merry Christmas”, the Left claims you’re an extremist who hates homosexuals, suppresses women and want to cram your religion down everyone’s throat. Do you see how the Left’s extremism tactic works? They are the aggressors, but call you an extremist when you simply say, “No.”

Clearly, the Left has launched a pedal-to-the-metal campaign to cram their progressive agenda down our throats. For example: A Zales jewelry TV commercial featured a lesbian wedding. Homosexuals are only 2% of the population.  So why is featuring a lesbian wedding necessary? Fearful to admit it, most Americans still instinctively know marriage is between one man and one woman. But if they dare say it out loud, the Left will try to destroy them by branding their belief in tradition and biblical teaching extreme; outrageously claiming they hate homosexuals and want to see them tortured and murdered.

I believe Trump in the WH has already begun liberating Americans from the Left’s tyranny of political correctness; muzzling free speech. I realize the Left will distort my statement to mean Trump has opened the flood gates to express hate. Nonsense.

The truth is Leftists are the ones who boldly and relentlessly spew hate against Jesus, Christians, Republicans, Conservatives (black and white), white people and police.

All I am saying is Trump has Americans timidly coming out from the shadows; feeling a little less afraid of exercising their Constitutional right to express their religious and political views.

And that brothers and sisters is good for all Americans.


Monday, December 12, 2016

The Future of Free Speech on Social Media Looks Grim

Social-media platforms have not so much "disrupted" the old media gatekeepers as they have introduced a watered-down version of the same concept.

Reddit has suffered a rocky year, having weathered months of censorship concerns and subreddit shutdowns. Recent revelations that co-founder and current CEO Steve Huffman was surreptitiously editing Reddit posts critical of him have thrown the community into still more chaos. But Reddit is far from the only social network struggling with the tension between speech and sensitivity. Similar snafus at other services have been dominating recent headlines: there's "fake news" on Facebook, "hate speech" on Twitter, and the continued scourge of rude comment sections.

Social-media platforms are finding it harder to mouth free speech platitudes (and enjoy the corresponding cultural benefits) while at the same time actively curating a sanitized media feed. Yet to not curate or censor is to be accused of aiding and abetting a parade of horribles ranging from online jihadis to the "alt-right."

The so-called "Reddit Revolt" has pitted a coterie of left-leaning "social justice warriors" against a ragtag, right-leaning, and rambunctious crew who call themselves free-speech activists. Tensions between Reddit administrators and certain subreddits—most notably, the pro-Trump subreddit called r/The_Donald and a now-banned conspiracy theory subreddit called r/pizzagate that believes high-level world leaders operate and patronize international child-trafficking rings—have been high over the past year, as these communities' impolitic and often impolite content raised the hackles of the website's generally more liberal operators. Where Huffman, or u/spez as he is known on Reddit, really crossed a line with certain Redditors is when he admitted to amending user comments that were critical of him to appear like they were criticizing moderators of r/The_Donald instead. While some have been able to forgive Huffman's faux pas as an immature but benign troll against a community that constantly causes problems, others have decided to leave the platform all together in search of more censorship-averse websites.

Of course, internet companies like Reddit and Twitter are private corporations that can run their businesses however they see fit. If that includes censorship, so be it. Users are free to seek or build a better alternative—as users of the still relatively-obscure Voat or Gab platforms have—or just stop using the service altogether.

Yet a social network is only as valuable as, well, its network. If everyone you know insists on using a certain service, you're probably going to use that one, too. Even if you don't personally use a particular network, if enough people in a country or planet do use it, then its policies and priorities could have a major impact on your life


Free Speech on the Quad

It’s slow going, but the campaign to highlight censorship on campus may be getting somewhere. That’s the message of a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Fire), which tracks the speech bullies in academia.

Fire’s 10th annual report surveyed speech policies at 345 four-year public colleges and 104 private schools. The good news is that the share of colleges with “red-light” speech codes that substantially bar constitutionally protected speech has declined to 39.6%, a nearly 10% drop in the last year and the lowest share since 2008. Over the last nine years the number of institutions that don’t seriously threaten speech has tripled to 27. Several colleges including the University of Wisconsin have adopted policies that affirm (at least in theory) their commitment to free speech.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte deserves some credit for this free-speech breakthrough. Last August he sent letters to the presidents of public schools with red-light codes inquiring about their unconstitutional policies. While public universities are bound by the First Amendment, private colleges can legally restrict speech, ironically thanks to their First Amendment right to freedom of association. Nearly twice as many private universities (58.7%) maintain restrictive speech codes as public colleges (33.9%).

As Fire notes, “although acceptance of federal funding does confer some obligations upon private colleges (such as compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws), compliance with the First Amendment is not one of them.” Private schools can therefore discriminate against faculty and students based on their political expression, but not gender or race.

The Obama Administration has used Title IX, which bans sexual discrimination, to threaten schools over their handling of sexual misconduct and assault claims. And its expansive definition of sexual harassment, which encompasses all “unwelcome” conduct of a sexual nature, infringes on speech. Colleges have adopted the Education Department’s “guidance” in responding to sexual harassment claims to avoid sanctions. In June 2015 a tenured Louisiana State University professor was fired for alleged sexual harassment because she used off-color humor. Fire is litigating the case.

Even as some colleges drop speech codes to avoid legal challenges, many have established “bias” reporting systems that solicit complaints about offensive speech. As Fire explains, these systems encourage “students to report on one another—and on faculty members—whenever they subjectively perceive that someone’s speech or expression is biased.”

About 40% of schools that Fire surveyed had a bias reporting team tasked with investigating verbal slights. Students at Rutgers can be investigated if they insult someone’s heredity or blood type (is an AB a positive or negative trait?). At the University of Kentucky, disparaging a smoker can trigger an investigation.

A “case manager” at the University of Oregon intervened this year after a student complained that the student newspaper “gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color.” Memo to Oregon’s duck-and-cover administrators: The First Amendment includes freedom of the press, which means not dictating coverage. These bias interventions have a chilling effect on speech but are more difficult to challenge in court than codified restrictions.

All colleges should follow the example of the University of Chicago, which this year sent all freshmen a bracing warning that academic freedom sometimes means hearing things they might not like or agree with. The tender hearts seem to have survived. Thanks to Fire for holding others to the same principle.


Sunday, December 11, 2016

"Healthy eating" censorship

Like most government edicts, this one is a crock.  Nobody in fact knows what healthy eating is.  Up until a couple of years ago sugar was fine and fat was bad.  Now that has gone into reverse. It's all just poorly founded speculation, not knowledge.  If much the same evidence can lead to totally opposite conclusions, how can we have any trust in the conclusions?

And this episode below is in fact a function of the old advice to avoid fat.  If they were up to date with the current wisdom, they would have concluded that the food concerned was GOOD for your health.

IT’S a seemingly innocent advert featuring two young kids and treasure chest. The 15-second YouTube advert shows two children on a beach who discover a treasure chest with the ice-cream inside.

But the Paddle Pop Twirly Pop advert has been banned by the Advertising Standards Bureau after a complaint that it promotes unhealthy eating and obesity in children.

The Obesity Policy Coalition (OPC) said the ad breached the Responsible Children’s Marketing Initiative (RCMI). The initiative aims to reduce advertising to youngsters for food and drinks that are not healthier choices.

It not only applies to television but also to radio, print, cinema and internet sites as well.

In the OPC’s submission, reported by Fairfax, it stated: “In our submission the advertisement breaches … the RCMI, because it is a communication directed primarily to children, Paddle Pop Twirly Pops do not represent a healthier dietary choice … and it does not promote healthy dietary habits or physical activity.

“We do not think that the message is sufficient to promote good dietary habits or physical activity. In our view, child viewers of the advertisement are unlikely to pay significant attention to the message and are likely to be focused on the visual and audio content.”

The ABS agreed that the ad was aimed at children under 12 and had minimal nutritional benefits and upheld the November complaint.

In its initial response to the complaint, ice-cream manufacturer Unilever said the ad carried a message “True heroes balance energy intake and activity; enjoy Paddle Pop as a treat within a balanced diet” for eight seconds of the video.

A spokeswoman for Unilever told that it was committed to responsible marketing and advertising.  “As part of our ongoing commitment to the RCMI and the review process under the ASB we accept the decision of the independent arbiter and will ensure that appropriate steps are taken to comply with the decision,” she said.

“The TVC will not be rebroadcast and we are in the process of removing it from YouTube.”


YouTube is yet again restricting educational videos from a well-known conservative advocacy organization, PragerU

The latest video under restriction, “Born to Hate Jews,” was removed from YouTube Monday night but then later restored and placed under YouTube’s “restricted mode” after PragerU filed an official complaint.

“YouTube has entirely removed PragerU’s new video with Kasim Hafeez, a British Muslim who is a pro-Israel activist,” PragerU announced Monday on its website.

The restricting of PragerU videos is no new development from YouTube, however.

In October, YouTube restricted 21 of PragerU’s educational videos. Some of the videos under restriction in October included “Are The Police Racist?,” “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?,” “Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?,” and “What ISIS Wants.”

According to PragerU’s website, YouTube is now restricting 18 of its videos, which amounts to over 10 percent of its content. But the pro-Israel video was entirely removed.

In “Born to Hate Jews,” Hafeez discusses how he was indoctrinated with anti-Semitic views and raised to hate the Jewish people.

“Within hours of the video’s release Monday morning, YouTube flagged it for ‘hate speech’ and took it down. PragerU is disputing YouTube’s removal of the video,” said an announcement on PragerU’s website.

PragerU then filed a “formal complaint” to YouTube and Google.

YouTube has since removed the “hate speech” flag and now lists the video under YouTube’s “restricted mode,” according to PragerU’s website.

Videos that fall under the “restricted” category, according to YouTube, contain vulgar language, violence and disturbing imagery, nudity and sexually suggestive content, and portrayal of harmful or dangerous activities.

These age-restricted videos “are not visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have restricted mode enabled,” according to YouTube.

PragerU is asking viewers to sign a petition so that YouTube will restore access privileges to viewers as it says its content is neither inappropriate or offensive to minors or children.


Friday, December 09, 2016

Leftist hate speech again

One Alabama man has lost his job after gloating over the “deplorables” who lost everything in the Gatlinburg wildfires. Hundreds of structures were burned, tens of thousands of people were evacuated and 14 people were killed.

His social media post: “Funny story. I was recently in Gatlinburg. Had a terrible time. I felt the place was a cesspool of consumerism and a bastion of the worst aspect of southern culture. Turns out a wildfire just burned most of the town to the ground. Good riddance, Gatlinburg. And good luck you mouth-breathing, toothless, diabetic, cousin-humpin,‘ mountain-dew chugging, moon-pie-munchin,’ pall-mall smoking,‘, Trump-suckin’ pond scum. (Chuckles and smiles like the smarmy liberal elitist I am.”

Express Oil Change and Tire Engineers, his now-former employer, said in a statement, “We are absolutely disgusted at what was posted, and want to emphasize that a person of this character does not represent who we are as a company. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been affected by the fires throughout the East Tennessee region, along with communities that were affected throughout the Southeast due to the recent drought. We want to offer our sincerest apologies that remarks like this were made.”


Censorship from the SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a disgusting cesspool of an organization, and their latest actions prove that fact tenfold. The New York Post is reporting that the SPLC self-censored survey results to hide the fact that at least 2,000 educators across the country reported racial slurs and other derogatory comments directed at white students in the first days after Donald Trump’s election:

The SPLC’s widely cited report — “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools” — reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.” ....

But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”

As Hans Bader, former Education Department civil rights attorney, correctly concludes, “[The SPLC] left that result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative. It was deemed an inconvenient truth.”

This is far from the first time the SPLC has doctored the truth to fit their agenda. A separate report released Nov. 29 claims there were nearly 900 reports of Trump-related “harassment and intimidation” incidents across the country in the ten days following the election. However, the SPLC can’t confirm that any of the reported incidents actually took place.

Even crazier: simply mentioning “build the wall” accounted for 467 incidents of hate.

If a white person coughs in the direction of a person of color, the MSM cries hate. If a white person is beaten in broad daylight because he presumably voted for Trump, the MSM doesn’t say a thing.


Thursday, December 08, 2016

Amazon removes 'offensive' Allah 'doormats and dog mats' that feature the word 'God' written in Arabic after complaint from British Muslim politician sparks Twitter fury

Amazon has removed a third-party line of 'door and dog mats' featuring the Arabic word for God - Allah - after a complaint from Muslim users, including a British politician.

The mats - sold through Amazon by a number of independent users including 'Dargon One', 'Trendy Mats' and 'Gear One' - had been garnering complaints from Muslims since June, according to RT.

But it was only when Mariam Khan - a Councillor in the English city of Birmingham - complained on Twitter Monday that the site took the items off the market.

'These mats are extremely offensive to Muslims & out of order,' Khan wrote. '@amazon @AmazonHelp please remove these from your site immediately.'

She called the company to complain, earning an apology and promise to remove the items, but she said that the company would take them down faster if her followers complained - which they duly did.

Anam Hoque said the items were 'disgusting', 'irresponsible' and promoted 'hatred' and 'islamophobia'. Moeed Sheikh, meanwhile, called the items 'Disgraceful & Diabolical', adding: 'shame on @amazon & @AmazonHelp for selling these door mats'. 

But others mocked the eventual removal.

Conservative talk show host Phil Valentine tweeted: 'Amazon caves to pressure to remove allah doormats. What happened to "if you're offended don't buy it"?'

Amazon's terms and conditions prohibit the selling of items 'that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views'.

It reserves the right to remove those items that do not comply.

That a British politician brought the controversy to the public eye will be especially embarrassing for Amazon.

This Christmas it released a much-trumpeted UK TV advert promoting 'inter-faith selfnessness' in which a Christian vicar and Muslim cleric buy each other knee-pads so that they can both pray more comfortably.


Dormats with Christian themes were not removed

Facebook's Transformation to 'Fakebook'

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hammered by leftists over the past several weeks for not doing a more thorough job of censoring “fake news” that supposedly helped propel Donald Trump to victory over Hillary Clinton. In other words, Leftmedia news outlets deem any news — especially conservative news — that is outside of the leftwing, socialist umbrella as unworthy to read.

But as National Review’s Jim Geraghty quips, “[I]t’s a little rich to hear the sudden media-wide panic over "fake news.” Just ask Dan Rather about those memos. Or ask Brian Williams about his war stories. Or ask Rolling Stone about those ritualistic gang rapes on the University of Virginia’s campus.“ And the list goes on.

What to do to counter this pressure? Facebook is now gearing up to change how it pushes news to users. The company that was built by millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide is looking to use a tool that allows it to push curated articles from "valid sources” to the news feed of its users. The aim of this new tool is to cut back on the “fake news” in order to provide its users with “reliable and valuable content.”

Zuckerberg, who days after the election commented that he didn’t think “fake news” contributed to Trump’s success, has since changed his tune. He announced that there will be new policies coming forth to “help identify and crack down on the spread of fake news, including writing algorithms that can automatically detect false content, placing warning labels on news that may be fake, and allowing users to flag content they find suspicious on their own.”

Facebook’s new feature is called “Collections” and it will function similar to Snapchat’s Discover section, which “showcases” news stories, videos and other content by handpicked media outlets.

These handpicked outlets are of course full of leftist drivel, and they hope to use Facebook as a means of pushing their content and their content only. Advertising on users' news feeds will no doubt increase as well, which will in turn bring revenues to both Facebook and the major media outlets.

So instead of making any attempt to implement objective journalism that reports the facts, major media will be pimping social media to help spew propoganda. As discouraging as this may be to many readers who enjoy using Facebook and other social media, the reality is that the leftist propaganda machines are simply taking things to the next level. Meanwhile, we in our humble shop and those who fight on our side will continue to relentlessly counter this horrible ideology with the message of Liberty.


Wednesday, December 07, 2016

If you have found that Indians or Asians make better cleaners, you must not mention that

A cinema has been slammed on social media after a job ad said an Indian or Asian was preferred for a contract cleaner position.

The Gumtree advertisement was posted on Sunday for the job of cleaning 12 Event cinemas on Queensland's Sunshine Coast.

A subcontractor was sacked for posting the racist ad asking for someone to work at Maroochydore, the Sunshine Coast Daily reports.

'This is cleaning of cinemas in Maroochydore Event Cinemas - 12 cinemas, seven days a week is $900 a week. Prefer Indian or Asian, no experience needed,' it said.

Australian Regional Media said the ad was taken down on the same day it was posted after critical comments were posted on Birch, Carroll and Coyle Maroochydore's Facebook page.

A man, who only wished to be known as Ken, said he sacked the subcontractor for placing the ad, only three months after hiring him.


Another golliwog fuss

TOOWOOMBA has been dubbed the “most racist city in Australia” after a display of nine golliwog dolls appeared at a Terry Whites Chemist store in Clifford Gardens.

The dolls were placed underneath a sign inviting shoppers to “Experience a white Christmas”, in a move that’s been slammed by Indigenous activists.

Author and activist Stephen Hagan, who famously campaigned against the “N*gger Brown Stand” in 1999, said the display was offensive.

“Toowoomba is the most racist city in Australia,” he told the Sunshine Coast Daily. “Words can’t describe this behaviour in the 21st century. I can understand it in the 1960s but to do it today is inexcusable.”

The store’s Managing Partner Alwyn Baumann offered an “unreserved apology” in a statement, saying the store had made a “regrettable error” with the display dolls, which they will “not stock in future”.

A spokesman for the store clarified the connection between the dolls and the sign was completely unintentional.

Golliwogs are considered offensive due to their history as a blackface motif, in which people of colour are depicted as comically idiotic and as plantation slaves.


The accusation that the city is the “most racist city in Australia” is just an off the cuff comment by a known whiner.  It has no statistical basis.  Golliwog controversies keep cropping up thoughout the English speaking world as a result of attempts by Leftists to make something offensive out of a children's popular soft toy. I had a golliwog myself as a kid over 60 years ago

Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Must not mock Hillary

An 81-year-old Rhode Island store owner has come under fire on social media for dangling a 'lyin' Hillary Clinton doll from what customers described as a 'noose'.

Customers have slammed Tony Polseno Jr, the owner of Pleasant View Orchards store in Smithfield, for the controversial display of the pant-suited plush toy near a Donald Trump election campaign sign.

He said a customer purchased the doll online and gave it to him, so he decided to hang it from his wall.

The doll makes statements that include, 'Not a single one of my emails was classified,' when it's squeezed.

It also says 'I don't believe I ever lied — to the public' and 'When I got off the plane in Bosnia I had to dodge sniper fire,' the Providence Journal reported.

Yelp and Facebook commenters are offended by the doll's placement.

Polseno's wife, Camella, told the Journal the couple have received at least one harassing  message.

The 'Lyin' Hillary Doll' sold out the day after the election, the Journal reported.


Trump Suggests Revocation of Citizenship, Jail Time for Flag Burners

Calling flag burning "speech" is ridiculous.  It's just another Leftist distortion of the plain meaning of words.  With Trump's new appointments to SCOTUS some sanity may return

Trump spokesman Jason Miller told CNN this morning that flag-burning is not constitutionally protected speech. "Flag burning should be illegal," Miller said. "The president-elect is a very strong supporter of the First Amendment, but there's a big difference between that and burning the American flag."

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag-burning was free speech protected by the First Amendment. The latter case ruled that a congressional bill to ban torching the Stars and Stripes was unconstitutional.

Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who referred to himself as an "originalist," defended the right to burn the American flag.

"If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag -- however, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged -- and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government," Scalia told CNN in 2012.

"I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress," he added. "Burning the flag is a form of expression -- speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words -- burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. 'I hate the government, the government is unjust,' or whatever."


Monday, December 05, 2016

Must not belong to a church that is critical of homosexuality

The latest intolerant lynching comes from the Internet’s leading “lolcat” gif distributor, BuzzFeed, which occasionally takes a stab at journalism. The site unearthed a “shocking” possibility about two HGTV superstars with the headline, “Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage.”

What’s so shocking about Christians holding the orthodox view that homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are sinful? Nothing, but from the Rainbow Mafia’s perspective, this “intolerant” belief must not be tolerated or allowed to go unpunished.

But what’s the story here? A lovable Christian couple with a hugely popular fixer-upper show may believe something — that has never been mentioned on the show — that the Left deems offensive. Clearly, this hit piece was designed not to report a story, but to threaten a popular couple should they not disavow beliefs the Left finds reprehensible. Buzzfeed is merely acting as the thought police.

The template for this is simple. Back in 2014, the Benham Brothers, who own a successful real estate company in North Carolina and happened to be conservative Christians, were fired from HGTV after the Rainbow Mafia bullied the network. BuzzFeed knows they can foment a major “issue” because HGTV is so otherwise flamboyantly “gay.”


Must not mention to a black that he is black

Harry Potter actress Miriam Margolyes has sparked outrage after 'humiliating a black fan at an autograph signing, telling him: 'Jews and blacks, they get a discount'.

The Bafta-winning star made the comments while signing photographs for £5 at the London Film Convention.

The 75-year-old, who played Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter series of films, was filmed saying to one man: 'I'm giving you a discount because you're black'.

The acting veteran, who herself is Jewish, has earlier joked 'can't you afford five quid?' as he took a photograph of her.

The woman who filmed the exchange, told The Sun: 'There were lots of us stood around taking photos but he was the only man who was black.

'She singled him out absolutely. Then she made that quip about Jews and blacks and everyone was just staring at the ground and looking embarrassed.

'I recognised the man she targeted from other events and he looked humiliated.'


Sunday, December 04, 2016

France Debates Bill to Criminalize Online Pro-Life Advocacy

French lawmakers on Thursday will debate and vote on a Socialist government-backed draft law that could criminalize online pro-life advocacy. The legislation would extend the ambit of already-illegal “interference” in abortion to cover digital media.

Any website carrying material that is deemed to be “deliberately misleading, intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure” aimed at persuading a mother not to abort her child could face criminal charges, with punishments of two years in prison and a fine of 30,000 euros ($31,800).

A Catholic archbishop has called the move “a very serious attack on the principles of democracy.”

Supporters, including Families Minister Laurence Rossignol, say the goal is to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or biased information, but critics view the wording as vague and dangerous.

“One could hardly be vaguer in the description,” argues Gregor Puppinck, director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – an international affiliate of the Virginia Beach-based American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) – which opposes the initiative.

“It is difficult to understand how the mere consulting of a website information page could obstruct the practice of an abortion or the information about it,” he said in an article Wednesday. “This vague crime is opened to the most extensive interpretations.”

Puppinck says that that clearly violates a French Constitutional Council ruling that legislation must define crimes “in terms precise and clear enough to exclude arbitrary decisions.”

France legalized abortion on demand until the end of the 12th week of pregnancy – or what is known officially as “voluntary interruption of pregnancy” (L’interruption volontaire de grossesse or IVG) – in 1975.

In 1993 another law was passed, creating the offense of hindering or interfering in an abortion – aimed at preventing pro-life activists from physically blocking access to, or occupying or otherwise targeting abortion facilities.

The law was later broadened to cover “moral and psychological pressure” aimed at dissuading abortion, and the legislation now under consideration seeks to widen that further into the digital realm.

In the new law’s crosshairs are websites like, which offers counselling, practical support, and resources that include information about medical and psychological risks entailed in having an abortion.

The French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s official abortion website warns women about sites of that nature.

“Some websites that you find via search engines will tell you that they offer neutral and medical information but are actually edited by anti-abortion activists,” it says.

“They are sometimes hard to recognize but beware systematically sites and hotlines devoting a large part of their content to motherhood and supposed complications and injuries from abortion.”

The government site instead recommends a handful of – hardly neutral – websites, including that of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s French affiliate, Planning Familial, one run by a national association of abortion clinics, and a feminist blog that includes a searchable database of abortion clinics across France.

A posting published on the website rejected the notion that it would deliberately mislead by offering disinformation.

“Our information and prevention efforts for women cannot be disparaged so rudely,” it said, protesting against what it called a “scandalous attempt to muzzle us and stigmatize us by undermining our moral integrity.”

Going further, identified what it called “eight lies” on the government website, such as the assertion that there are no post-abortion psychological consequences.

(Update:  The French National Assembly on Thursday adopted the controversial bill, with the support of leftists and a majority of centrists, while right wing lawmakers opposed it. The measure now goes to the Senate. Family Minister Laurence Rossignol argued during the debate that “freedom of expression should not be confused with manipulating minds.”)


Australia: Freedom fighters stop free speech. Surprised?

The Fascism of the modern Left again

Melbourne-based group Jews against fascism claims to be standing up for freedom. But stamping out free speech and intimidating fellow Australians are tactics direct from the fascist playbook.

Conservative Jewish gym owner Avi Yemini had every right to invite One Nation senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts to speak at a meeting in Caulfield.

And no surprises for guessing the topics that were likely to be discussed: Islamic immigration, repeal of s18C, Halal certification, and the rest. All fairly mainline topics in conversations around the nation.

You are perfectly free to make up your own mind on any of these issues. Surely the best way of doing so is to listen to opposing points of view and weigh the arguments.

But Yemini’s plans have collapsed into a catfight complete with flying fur, hissing and teeth. Glen Eira — where 4 out of 9 councillors are Jewish — revoked permission for the event.

That, in turn, provoked Roberts to accuse the councillors of anti-Semitism; and then peak Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation Commission, weighed in on the side of the council. It’s a mess.

Victorian Police say they “respect the right of the community to express their views peacefully and lawfully.” But now they’ve pulled the plug saying they can’t guarantee the safety of attendees.

 On Facebook, Jews against fascism brag — without irony — that they’ve won a great victory for freedom. “We organised against fascism and we won.” Pardon?

In their totalitarian contempt for free speech and for democracy, and in their demagogic drive to stamp out any dissenting views, it is Jews against fascism who are behaving like true fascists.

Whatever you think of Avi Yemini, the man was doing nothing illegal. And One Nation polled nearly 600,000 votes at the federal election. Hanson and Roberts are legally entitled to their Senate seats.

But fascists are quick to identify those they brand the enemy. In Hitler’s Germany it was the Jews who were the enemy, and the engine of the Nazi state was soon turned against them.

When fascists catch the enemy’s scent, they won’t allow the rule of law to obstruct their hunt. They are contemptuous of democracy and insist on total obedience to their own cause.

Violence, intimidation, threats to personal safety, and vilification are all tactics regularly used by fascists to get their own way and to grind down the resistance of their opponents.

And that is precisely how Jews against fascism have won their great ‘victory’ for ‘freedom.’ Even the police gave up on enforcing the law to defend the right of ordinary citizens to meet publicly.

Intolerance is on the march — but it is wearing the disguise of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, professing to be concerned only with securing justice and peace.

It’s a lie, of course. The Left is doubling down for a long fight to defeat what it claims to be the capitalist tyranny of hatred and oppression — a fight it is determined to win.

Once victory is secured, it will build a new tyranny of its own. Who will fight against that?


Friday, December 02, 2016

Web Hosting Company Shuts Down Conservative Site Boycotting Target Stores

The conservative group 2ndVote has called for a boycott on Christmas shopping at the retail giant Target over its bathroom policies. But on Nov. 23, Leadpages, the company hosting the #AnywhereButTARGET boycott campaign’s website, sent 2ndVote an email requesting the page be taken down.

In his email to 2ndVote, Leadpages’ director of operations, Doug Storbeck, stated that the campaign website violated the company’s terms of service, specifically, the portion prohibiting any content that is “hateful or discriminatory based on race, color, sex, religion, nationality, ethnic or national origin, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or age or is otherwise objectionable.”

In his email to 2ndVote, Storbeck also wrote:

At Leadpages, we strive to create an inclusive workplace that upholds the dignity of all people. We value, respect, and celebrate everyone’s individualities and honor their unique strengths from all different walks of life.

“Leadpages must have sensed our campaign was gaining momentum so they resorted to the typical liberal bully tactics of shutting down and censoring ideas they don’t agree with and calling them ‘hateful’ or ‘discriminatory,’” Robert Kuykendall, 2ndVote’s director of communications, said in a statement.  “Apparently, Leadpages wanted to use the cover of Thanksgiving Day thinking they could quietly make #AnywhereButTARGET disappear.”

“Liberals who constantly tout tolerance and inclusion go out of their way to shut down ideas they disagree with” Lance Wray, executive director at 2ndVote, said in a statement.  “To say our campaign is about inequality, intolerance, hate, discrimination, or devaluing anyone is flat wrong, it’s about common sense and safety. But, some of the truest hate and intolerance we’ve seen has come from the liberal responses to our campaign.”


Twitter 'verifies' Muslim Brotherhood while expelling conservatives

Social media users have long considered Twitter's coveted blue check mark an online status symbol.

While formally used as a way to visually display that Twitter has confirmed a given user's identity, marketing specialists say that the little blue check mark is immense advantage to promoting one's brand and message.

 Twitter says verified accounts are those viewed as being in the "public interest," and emphasizes "users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas."

It's no wonder then, that social media erupted when it was discovered that the Twitter decided to verify @Ikhwanweb, the official twitter handle of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Critics have rightly pointed out that @Ikhwanweb has been used by the Muslim Brotherhood to promote violence, including publishing a 2015 call for violent jihad and "martyrdom," and spreads anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-Western hatred online.

Yet while Twitter has failed against Islamic extremists, it's proven remarkably effective at purging right-wing voices with which it apparently disagrees.

As an example, Twitter notably yanked the same blue checkmark from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos in January of this year before finally permanently banning the online provocateur.

Twitter argues that verification does not represent an endorsement but their use of revoking verification as a form of punishment against those with whom it disagrees belies the fact.

Twitter has also successfully purged controversial "alt-right" twitter accounts from its platform, leading Hollywood actor James Woods, a noted conservative with an active twitter following, to announce he would quit the social media platform over what he regarded as censorship.


Thursday, December 01, 2016

Must not refer to normal family division of labor

Culture Secretary Karen Bradley slapped down a Tory MP today after he told MPs that men in his constituency coach football teams while women wash the kits.

Kettering MP Philip Hollobone raised eyebrows when he made the comments during an urgent question in the Commons on the sex abuse scandal engulfing football.

He said: 'In a place like Kettering, football is 95 per cent of voluntary activity - the players, the coaches.

'And it's basically the dads who are the coaches and the mums who wash the team kit.'

His comments sparked outraged gasps among some MPs

Ms Bradley joked: 'I'm also aware of many husbands who are very good at washing the dishes and making sure that they make the food, I'm sure my husband, if watching this, will be concerned if I didn't put that on the record.'