Should You Be Able To Sue the Media For Damages For Labeling a Person a Survivor or Victim BEFORE a Conviction?

The presumption of innocence used to be taken very seriously in this country. Recently, however, it has been taken so lightly that a mere accusation has turned the courts into a system of a presumption of guilt. The media has not helped in this situation and in the movement of #metoo any woman who has made an accusation is too often immediately labelled by the media as a ‘Survivor’ or a ‘victim‘.

When a paper is writing about any other criminal act the word ‘alleged’ must be used, the presumption of innocence is taken seriously or else the accused could sue for damages if they’re found innocent in the end.

It is a different story with today’s sexual accusations, as soon as a person makes their accusation the media labels the person either a ‘Survivor’ or ‘victim’ but does not place the word ‘allegedly’ before these words anymore. Is this right? It is apparent that we now instinctively label an accuser as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’, but does this word break the boundaries of presumption of innocence? Many times the process of discovery is just as dirty as the accusation itself, could these how we paint someone cast a shadow on the outcome of their lives? Placing doubt in the minds of enough people IS a political influence itself.

One can only be a survivor if one is FIRST a victim, one can ONLY be a victim if the person they’ve accused has been convicted, calling an accuser a ‘survivor’ without the accused being convicted is a violation of the accuser’s right to due process. So technically you should be able to sue for damages for anyone who used that word or the word ‘victim’ in connection to the accuser’s name for a violation of his or her due-process. If you can sue because a paper does not use the words “allegedly” in violation of due process (which people have) then you should be able to sue for referring to a woman as a survivor/victim BEFORE her alleged perpetrator has been tried and convicted. Anything before this should be considered defamation. She doesn’t become a victim UNTIL he is found guilty.

I petition that any news media channel that uses the word victim or survivor in connection with an alleged perpetrator before they are convicted should be found guilty of Defamation of Character or liable for any damages caused. Apologies not accepted- it’s too easy to be sorry.

 

 

Advertisements

‘Ring Hollow’: Democrats Still Fail to See Why People Are Angry With Them

No matter what the president does, it’s like he can never win. Even though it’s been the Democrats that have been the increasingly violent through out these times, the President has been blamed for these attacks. The Democrats are complete hypocrites, they don’t understand the reasons behind why these suspicious packages were sent in the first place. He has currently condemned those who sent suspicious packages to Democrat leaders and called for the parties to put their differences aside, but it hasn’t stopped the Democrats from condemning him still.

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, in a joint statement, refused to set their political differences aside, regardless of the fact the President extended an Olive Branch.

“Time and time again, the President has condoned physical violence and divided Americans with his words and his actions…”,    “…dictators around the world who murder their own citizens, and referring to the free press as the enemy of the people… “, “President Trump’s words ring hollow until he reverses his statements that condone acts of violence,” – Parts of The Joint Statement Issued by Chuck Schumer and Nanci Pelosi

Let me note, that all Presidents of the past have made their fair share of contributions when it comes to cozy-ing up to dictators that enforced an inhumane standard for its common citizens. This is common-place, it is a must when it comes to negotiations and every leader has their own way of forming relationships with these foreign adversaries. What we ask is, did we get anything out of it? Trump is one of the few who actually got something in return. (Which I will write on and link here in the near future).

It is exactly this type of denial, and their failure to acknowledge their own arrogance that has pushed someone over the edge. I don’t condone what this person did, however, they fail to acknowledge that they are the main factor behind the polarization in this country. It started the moment he got elected, they never had a problem with the electoral process until he won.

Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and other well-known Democrats have invoked violence. Countless Democrat Hollywood stars have called for ‘resistance’ (a militia term) through violence, military coups to overthrow the government, and even the assassination of the President. Their failed acknowledgement in these activities is what is driving people from their party.

May I also point out, that in their refusal to put the past in the past, that they are the party that keeps the violence in the present. The president has acknowledged the violence, and even if he does NOT acknowledge everything in the past (which I understand why they don’t like real jokes they ARE the punchline), if he is making an “attempt” to wash away his supposed ‘sin’ (which I see none from my point of view to begin with) wouldn’t the opposing party with the alleged moral superiority attempt to meet in the middle? Yet, these politicians have made no attempt to acknowledge this “good act” and have instead, have insisted on pointing fingers. A sign that they have no intention to cooperate, even IF given the opportunity.

The more they try to place the division and violent behavior on the Republicans, the more they point fingers without acknowledging the part their own supporters and representatives are playing, the more their party will shrink.

You Can’t Save Something You Never Had

Former President Barrack Obama didn’t just go to the University of Illinois to give a speech. He actually went there to accept an award of “ethical standards” in government. Laughable when you consider:

  • the last five Governors from the state of Illinois have gone to Federal Prison for corruption crimes
  • eavesdropping (recording someone without their knowledge) is a federal offense in Illinois, EVEN if they were breaking the law!
  • it’s been revealed that there are a long list of scandals that were covered up when it comes to Obama’s Administration (just because it wasn’t acknowledged doesn’t mean it didn’t happen)

This is like the mob giving an anti-corruption trophy to a government official that is one of their own members.

Another line I’ve noticed Democrats have used repeatedly is “our Democracy”. In the speech Obama presented he stated he used the word democracy ten times. He also stated:

“…that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it.”

The level of ignorance behind this statement is not apparent to Democrats, for one simple reason, they truly think they live in a Democracy! This statement shows Obama’s true idiocy for several different reasons.

  1. For the simplest and most basic, America is a Constitutional Republic with a democratic-like voting process, however even THAT is NOT 100% democratic.
  2. Even in a Democratic system, it is impossible to save a Democracy by voting.

To the first example the founding fathers never trusted Democracy, when you vote in a Democracy, the majority population can wipe out the voices of the minority population. If the Democrats truly don’t want white rule, why do they want to wipe out the electoral college right now?

Secondly, when a REAL Democracy fails, it’s impossible to use voting to fix it. Democracy often fails because of the voting, and in turn, voting can’t turn anything around. Democracy is like a river and any type of unique individual thoughts are swept away with the flow of mainstream beliefs. It crushes individuality and wears away any hope of being fixed after it’s broken. However, to say that we need to vote in order sustain something that we’ve NEVER had to begin with, makes our former president look like a flat out idiot.

He commented on Trump being a product of division in this country. However, fails to look at his own policy enforcement as a source of potential division. Particularly anything related to Title IX he’s signed off on, has created robust amounts of friction and confusion in schools. It has redefined terms, and the spinoff has created a new culture to where law-terms of things such as harassment, and rape are buried under biased definitions. Definitions designed to fit a certain narrative that make the left look like saints and anyone who doesn’t fit this criteria is a ‘Nazi’. To answer Mr. Obama’s question, this is why it is so hard to say ‘Nazi’ because the meaning of the term ‘Nazi’ or ‘alt-right’ today is simply:

AltRight

Obama is full of himself, arrogant and his level of ignorance is on par with his own ego. For these reasons, even those who voted for him (including myself), are sick of him.

#SHUTUPOBAMA

 

Twitter Bans Alex Jones, A Few Questions For Them

Twitter has, as we all knew they would eventually do, suspended Alex Jones’ account and banned him from Twitter.

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1037806327584776193

What was the reason for this banning? Apparently, Twitter accused Alex Jones of violating their “abusive behavior policy”.

This is the foundation of the policy that Twitter claims Alex Jones violated.

Basic POlicy

However, the left views “abuse” differently than what is realistic. Realistically abuse is being targeted by someone, involuntarily having to submit to them in some way, and having an inability to fight back.

On Twitter, onlookers voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones and viewed his content. They also had just as much freedom to block him as soon as they made an account. Realistically if the left had a distaste for his content they would have taken the two seconds it took out of their day to simply block him and never heard from him again. If a person voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones with full knowledge that he has had signs of what Twitter calls “abusive behavior” in the past, are they not consenting to the possibility of their engagement also being hostile? Not saying that he WAS hostile, many who reported him were just as hostile as they accused him of being. So the reality is, they weren’t mad at his content being offensive, so much as they were angry at him having a voice at all. They were angry that he had a right to speak his mind!

Can we really say anyone is abusive if the party in question is being voluntarily approached by their opponents? Is the approach of a person’s platform or reply to their tweet not technically consent to their alleged ‘hate speech’ (I do not believe in the left’s version of hate speech)?

However Twitter seems to think, like many leftists, that a person doesn’t need to be the target of the content for the speaker to be considered abusive.

screenshot-help.twitter.com-2018.09.06-22-01-31

In Twitter’s own words, as long as there is a possibility you’ve offended someone, there is a possibility your account is getting suspended. Depending on the demand, Twitter will ban you based on the amount of people who deem your content as hateful.

And Twitter is filled with little cupcakes waiting to press that ‘Report’ button.

This leads me to question, does Twitter have the right to even make this standard on their platform since twitter considers itself a platform and NOT a media? Yes, they’re a private company, but there are laws when it comes to platforms. They claim not to be a media simply because they don’t produce content. However, if they regulate the content that IS produced, can they not be established AS a publishing platform regardless of owning the actual creators who are producing the content? And if they are truly a free speech platform, do they have a right to regulate content like this at all within the sovereignty of the United States? In either direction, did they have a right to rip the rug out from under Alex Jones’ feet over unfounded claims he violated their policy? Does he not have the right to see the evidence, a right to dispute the claims?

When it comes to their platform, they’re either one or the other. It is a slippery slope and they cannot crawl their way out of the rabbit hole they, and other social media platforms, have created for themselves.

 

Why Are We Showering John McCain With Honors?

I, like many others, heard about John McCain’s death from terminal brain cancer. The flags were lowered to half staff. Representatives of both parties  gave their condolences and commemorated his memory, in respect to his participation.

However, some Senators went even further, Chuck Schumer went so far as to petitioning to renaming a senate building after him. There’s another petition that wants to Award Senator John McCain with the Congressional Medal of Honor. People showering him with compliments, saying he had a “great sense of humor”.

I only have a few questions, my first being Why? He drug his feet on policy, he bent to the will of people who happened to be in power at the time, and his only accomplishment was staying in office for thirty years. John McCain has only had a total of 53 pieces of legislation passed as law. In comparison Mitch McConnell has been a Senator since 1984, roughly the same amount of time, he has had 150 bills become laws. Over this same time period, John McCain has missed 11.7% of his votes compared to other senators which is 1.5%.

Honoring government officials when they’ve done little to no work to deserve it, other than staying in office, is like giving an MVP award to a team member simply for running up and down the field. This may be a hard pill for some to swallow, but John McCain was a lazy senator whose only accomplishment was getting re-elected for thirty years. Why should his legacy change simply because he’s not here anymore?

There were many instances when he ‘voted his conscience’, instead he could have formulated answers to go along with that conscience. For example, he disagreed with the ‘repeal and replacement’ of Obamacare, yet, at no time had he put forward any effort to establish any answers to solving the problem. He made himself out to be a critic of other people’s solutions.

Does this make him a bad person? No, I’m simply saying someone should have to do more than simply exist within the senate for an extended period of time to be sensationalized as we are currently doing with John McCain. The last thing we need is for a monument of Maxine Waters when she passes away. I can only imagine a statue of her with the statement “Impeach 45” on it!

However, simply overnight, I saw the tone about John McCain switch from extreme criticism towards stroking his ego. The only thing that he has done in his life worth honoring was his military career, however, he has done little for the country when it comes to his political career. It may be respectful to honor the dead and recall memories that were true about a person’s life, but honoring a person for something they don’t rightfully deserve is irritating. It dishonors the people who do sacrifice in order to accomplish things. Like suggesting to give a purple heart to Peter Strzok.

The Left-Wing Media Disrespects Mollie Tibbetts

Mollie Tibbetts was a college student from Iowa state University from a rural area. She went missing a little over a month ago on July 18th, 2018. She was front page news for a long time. Her family and friends fought hard to keep her at the center of attention so that the public wouldn’t forget about her. The only clue investigators had was her fit-bit information, a black SUV on a security camera, and the fact that people she knew had been excluded as suspects.

Just recently it was revealed that a body was found, the media was still sympathetic, still posting her full name in their headlines. However, it was later revealed that he was an illegal alien from Mexico and the tide had turned. Headlines that once bore the name “Mollie Tibbetts” read “a college girl”. The perpetrator’s status as an illegal was dulled in some article titles to ‘undocumented immigrant’, and in some cases completely extinguished to the title of ‘immigrant’.

Business Insider Before They Knew Mollie Tibbetts’ Perpetrator’s Immigration Status

screenshot-www.businessinsider.com-2018-08-22-13-03-40

This is their story after they found out about her perpetrator’s immigration status

screenshot-www.businessinsider.com-2018-08-22-12-59-41

This is the New York Times’ Story, they didn’t use illegal OR undocumented

screenshot-www.nytimes.com-2018-08-22-13-23-17

 

The Far Left Is Creeping Up Even On Some of the Most Conservative Campuses

I was picking up my school books for this fall at the local University known as Quincy University. It is a Catholic Private School, meaning it is probably going to be as conservative and as open-minded as I’m going to find within fifty miles. They are pretty even keeled and very pro-free speech, which some find hard to believe when I tell them this, because they’ve never seen anything beyond their own town. The amount of support it had for Trump was through the roof.

However, even on a campus that’s insulted with a conservative town, the left is working its way into targeting its next generation. Probably right under this towns nose, these books are signs that the left making its way towards mass indoctrinations:

0815181102-000815181104-00

This would make sense if these were in the school library, but these are books that are in the book store. They were books specifically there to be picked up because they were requested to be used by professors in their classes. I realize today it’s considered a “feminist’s” world, which I don’t agree with, but to have an entire class on it? However, it is a private campus. Yet the second picture is where I get concerned. The fact that this was even on anyones list says that there is a problem, yes there can be a conversation, but to have an entire book for the class? That’s an over reach.

Hate speech is free speech, if you don’t like that speech, then speak your mind. The only way to fight hate speech is with more speech. The moment you start to even think the answer is to close your mouth, our country is dead.

If this is a Catholic Campus, think of how bad a non-religious campus that runs on public funding is. Think of how tied down those students voices are, if this is just a sample of what I’m expecting here.

 

Judge Denies Motion to Detain New Mexico Compound Criminals: After Starving 11 Children, Killing 1 & Training Them For Terror

Contact the New Mexico Eighth Judicial District Circuit Court and Nag the Hell out of them!

The media was not straight forward leading up to this story, yet now that many see the big picture this doesn’t make America look any better. On top of the media being dishonest, the American Justice system is seriously lacking in morals. Many judges simply need to lose their positions, I wonder how many got to their positions to begin with, and this is one of those times.

Everyone by now has heard of the New Mexico bunker, but if you haven’t read about it, it’ll send a chill up your spine. After several hours in a hearing the judge, Sarah C. Backus, denied the prosecutors’ requests to hold the five adults until trial. Even with evidence of the intent to commit acts of violence in the future, apparently that wasn’t enough to convince this judge that these people were a danger to the community.

You’re telling me, that even though these people have a history of disappearing on others without consulting them, that you’re going to allow them the privilege of their freedom up until their trial dates? That even though they are undeniably guilty of child abuse, you’re going to risk them having the ability to flee to a different state and disappear again?

 

Like last time the media is covering it up:

Washington Post Headline:

“Judge denies request from prosecutors to hold five adults without bond in New Mexico child abuse case”

Although the article is detailed the title is, Very bland, without any detail. Almost as though it was… just another child abuse case not linked in any way to the bunker in the middle of the desert.

This is what you get when you put an activist judge in the court house. It doesn’t matter if the crime was horrendous, the criminals aren’t treated as criminals. They are empathized with through the judge’s ideological lens. This is true whether a judge leans left or right. Of course this is only my opinion, however, actions speak louder than words.

What is even MORE insulting, is what the original article revealed about the defense presented in court and how they pandered to race and religion as a defense. As though those two things inherently made them less violent:

The defense spent their time at the podium hammering home that there is a double standard at play, alleging that if the suspects were white, Christian and had guns, “we might not be here today.”

If these criminals flee, the suffering of those children will be on her.

If you ask me and they DO flee, she should face some consequence right next to them!

Don’t like her decision! You’re not alone!

Here’s that Link AGAIN!

Social Media Has No Business Parenting US: Back OFF!

There was a point in time when you hit the age of eighteen, you were on your own. It’s funny how our lives are mere pawns to be used in war at eighteen, yet you need to use your parent’s information for financial aid all the way up until you’re twenty-five unless you divorce them. I had to wait until I was twenty five years old to go to college, I couldn’t receive the financial aid that I needed and I didn’t know that something as absurd as divorcing your parents even existed. I have been on my own since I was eighteen and I have received next to zero help from either of my parents.

People make conscious choices to do things, this isn’t just a matter of free speech, it’s also a freedom to choose what I listen to. Sorry, but the last person who tried to control everything in my life ended up not seeing me again. I firmly believe in the freedom of choice, even if it means hearing things I don’t necessarily agree with. By deeming certain content as “hateful”, they are becoming the parent I didn’t ask for. The parent that I don’t want, need, and quite frankly am insulted to be given. I am not a child to shepherded around.

Banning Alex Jones is like placing parental content filters on America’s computers as though he’s rated ‘R’. It’s insulting to think that you supposedly know what’s best for me to see. You see it as ‘hateful’, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with the Facebook page Death To America consisting of 1,347 people when I last counted it, Twitter having countless accounts registered under Death To America, they’re shaddowbanning conservative accounts.

screenshot-twitter.com-2018-08-10-23-38-17

However, this doesn’t seem to disturb these social media billionaires, they’re just practicing their right to religious practice. Thankfully, twitter hasn’t completely gone off the deep end and is one of the few social medias that hasn’t botted Alex Jones off yet.

Youtube doesn’t seem to mind not listing videos according to what’s popular now either. According to Mark Dice, new algorithms now make sure that what they think comes before what you’re looking for, even if the title is written word for word:

This one reveals YouTube puts mainstream media first instead of by who gets the most views (whom they just recently banned anyways and haven’t changed the algorithms)

This one reveals how YouTube intentionally scrambles your search results try to get you think like you do.

Here’s an example of how this works, there’s also another algorithm that’s gone up. If you search a controversial subject, it will post a link with mainstream beliefs linked to them to try to ‘unbrainwash’ you.

Social media is a platform to voice all opinions. If it were a place for kids to simply play on it, you wouldn’t have to verity you were a certain age. Since when was it legal to shut down another person’s right to publish and distribute to his/her audience? When did corporations have the right to take my chosen media source away from me as though I were some child that had to be moderated? It’s funny how you have to be 18 to hold a youtube account (13 with a parent’s permission), but can still be parented like you’re some little kid that can’t take a few shots of reality.

Alex Jones, though I don’t agree with him and do take him for a nut job at times, should have his accounts reinstated. He hasn’t hurt anyone, hasn’t incited violence of any kind, if the most he has done is presented conspiracy theories then do nothing more than voice your opinion as to why they are conspiracy theories. You do nothing more than bring validity to his claims by cutting off his voice. If  social media is not in fact social then I will treat you like any other controlling parent, divorce you. These are class action lawsuits waiting to happen, people don’t like having their voices cut off, or the content they love taken away from them by force.

Eleven Children Rescued in New Mexico Were Being Trained For School Shootings

There was a frantic search for a little boy who had allegedly been taken by his father. Siraj Wahhaj, 39, was suspected of kidnapping his three year old son who was disabled and was in the custody of his grandfather. The chase led to New Mexico, where low and behold, Police found eleven other children, in a compound in the middle of the desert. Without water, disgusting conditions, and practically starving to death.

When this was initially reported, the story was that three women and two men were arrested after finding them with eleven children. However, they only showed the mugshots of the men and the horrible living conditions. Being that we live in a rather feminist society I didn’t think much of it at first.

Mugshot1Mugshot2Horribleconditions1Horribleconditions2

Then, I ran across a blog post on facebook saying that the New Mexico bunker was really a place to train future school shooters. I like looking into these things, only because I like to get my facts straight to know in the future. I found a news article that linked to an article from the UK that showed the mugshots to the three women that were apprehended. Now I see why CNN didn’t put them in their original post, when they say they “asked the captain to confirm a Muslim connection” in their second article (which was in no way in their first) this should have given it away at the very beginning.

 

 

Of course this doesn’t show the initial intent behind the abduction or that Islam played a part, but with holding information from a story is lying to the public. Nobody said that there were suspicions that Islam could be involved, no, they completely withheld the information completely. I had to find out through a blog circulating on social media, and confirm it through a source, which at the time, was only posted through a different country’s media. Even though the media DID eventually cover it, it was extremely defiant and dishonest in its initial presentation of all the facts. If an alternative news source hadn’t covered it, I doubt there would have been any mention of it at all.


In doing more research, I ran across a video that basically spells out everything in capital letters.

This explains the media’s silence and their reluctance to talk about it afterwards, it comes to show they were silent even when the curtain was pulled back. Even when we thought we knew everything, they were still ‘keeping us in the dark’. It comes to show how dishonest the media has truly become.