My Local Domestic Violence Shelter, Quanada, Has Blocked Me on Facebook

Featured

I’m not sure exactly what I did to warrant it, though I’m certain I’ve never ‘harassed’ anyone on their site. My local Domestic Violence shelter is pretty selective about which women’s opinions it wants on its site.  The most I’ve ever done was constructively criticize their position on how they portray Domestic Violence. Often it’s females as victims and males as perpetrators. I’ve been vocal of the way they’ve stereotype and attached gender to Domestic Violence roles. So I do like to occasionally go to their Facebook page and read some of their content to comment. However, the other day was different.

I noticed, initially when I had attempted to comment on one of their articles, and I had no option to reply. It had been months since I had even visited the site. So why had I even been blocked? I haven’t done anything to them, anything that is, except being an open critic of the facility. Even then, it had been over five months since I had even engaged or mentioned their name. So they either targeted me and did it without me knowing, or I’ve been blocked for awhile.

Quanada 2

When I checked to see if I sent them any emails, I found that my outbox was completely empty. I had not sent them anything directly to warrant a block. A matter of fact, I hadn’t sent them anything on their inbox an ALL.

QuanadaInbox

 

 

I wanted to make certain that I was blocked. So I looked through my boyfriend’s account, he was allowed to reply and comment. It seemed that I really was put in a situation where I was targeted and silenced.

The point is, this facility receives public funding and is a non-profit, taxpayer funded organization. Is it even allowed to block one of its critics if they’re not harassing them? If they did not block me for criticizing them, are they allowed to block me for no reason at all? I would say NOT. I know for a fact that part of my own taxes go to this group and I should not be silenced for doing NOTHING wrong.

Whatever I allegedly did, I didn’t even receive a Facebook ban for, that’s how pitiful it probably was.

Advertisements

Americans are Slowly Losing Their Freedom of Speech

Featured

The constitution lists out the Rights that every American citizen has. Citizen is a key word in this language of law, because persons do not inherit these rights. This is one of the key arguments for the legality of abortion, since the unborn do not have social security numbers they are considered ‘persons’ and do not have any rights. However, even citizens are losing these supposed ‘rights’ little by little. Many don’t even realize they’re pushing Legislation that may seem like ‘good intent’. Yet, is really a step forward when it comes infringing on their own rights.

One of the most ‘sacred’ of our Amendments, it is pushed back every single day. Free speech is ‘free’ so long as no one is injured physically as a result of it. On our college campuses, a place where free speech is supposed to reign supreme, is being silenced. Obama policies such as the 2011, 2010 Dear Colleague Letters and everything dealing with Title IX has largely had a negative effect. A specific line in the 2010 Dear Colleague letter states

Harassment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents

So basically, any speech that is interpreted as offensive can be classified as ‘hate speech’. All it has to do is be within earshot of a person who found it offensive. Also, unlike legal harassment, which is a repeated unwanted act; a person does not have to inform the individual that they find something offensive and request they stop beforehand. This creates the perfect environment to violate both the second Amendment and due process. A person not having to prove they were offended by something, puts the accused in a position of guilty unless proven innocent. Clearly NOT what the creators of this country wanted.

It’s not just on college campuses, it’s in State Legislation now too. Massachusetts is attempting to pass legislation that fines you if you use the word ‘Bitch’ in a “derogatory manner”.

This reduces the status on whether you’re guilty or not to your accuser’s opinion. It’s the perfect opportunity for false accusers to create allegations on people they don’t like. The law violates the first amendment and should be knocked down. It’s still only in its ‘hearing’ phase but the fact it’s even gotten this far shows how much feminism has become a tool to oppress others. Its intent is to discourage the use of a name commonly given to women, and in this push is shutting down people’s freedom to express themselves. Yet, why not ‘dick’, ‘asshole’, or ‘douche-bag’, because this law was designed to push an ideological agenda to benefit women.

Large media platforms are flagging more and more content as being ‘hateful’. It has been shown that even if content did NOT violate Facebook’s community standards, some were censored anyways. Many have used the excuse that since they are a private publishing company they have the right to censor whomever they want. However, this is no better than what the Nazis did. Now getting a 30 day ban on Facebook is considered a ‘badge of honor’.

On one positive note, Facebook cannot insist they are a publishing company, which allows them to censor whoever they wish, but keep the protection of not being regulated. This is a privilege reserved for a public platform. So either they give up their right to censor and dodge regulation; or they face being regulated, but gain the power to censor. This applies to every form of social media.

A study found that some are calling to reform the First Amendment to ‘reflect cultural norms’. If this were to have been petitioned and enforced earlier in Americas history, there wouldn’t have been a civil rights movement at all. The reality is, when free speech is gone, a culture doesn’t evolve at all. There would be no such thing as a new ‘cultural norm’ because as a person you’d have no right to speak out against current norms. It would create a rise in mob mentality, as it would allow the majority to control whatever happened to the minority. Being that hate speech is based on perception, the ones who define what speech is hateful are the ones to silence the rest.

This is precisely why the Second Amendment was put in place, to protect the first Amendment. A nation is as good as dead when their citizens are no longer truly free to speak.

Why Transitioning a 7 Year old Should be EVERYONE’S Problem!

Featured

A father in Texas recently lost his fight to stop his ex-wife from turning his 7 year-old son into a girl. The child will now be on his way towards transitioning into a girl and eventually chemical castration. The father was court ordered to switch pronouns from male to female, and custody is attempted to be stripped from the father. In a world, where fathers already have very little rights, the fight was already practically non-existent for him.

This is a SEVEN YEAR OLD! How is the mother assessing his sexual orientation based on outward observations? I played with legos, I loved getting messy, I built things, and I dressed in ‘boy’ clothes. This doesn’t mean I want to miss out on the rest of my life because someone assumed this meant something it didn’t. I’ve kissed other women, but this doesn’t mean I’m sexually attracted to them, I was simply curious. We are human beings and we LIKE to try new things.

Which leads me to my next point, the LGBTQ community always states that you cannot assume someones gender, isn’t that PRECISELY what this woman is doing to her son? This boy, unless proven otherwise, is merely just curious to find out what he likes. Isn’t she applying gender stereotypes of a female onto the male and assuming that he then wants to BE a girl? If the only person who knows what gender they wish to be is the individual at question then isn’t it a legitimate and responsible judgement to allow that individual to make that choice when their brain fully matures?

Another point, biology itself conflicts with the notion that a 7-year-old can even make the choice of what gender they are since the brain doesn’t fully develop until twenty-five. Also, to have another person make this decision for you, a decision that could ruin your life sexually, productively, and psychologically is simply wrong! There-in falling back on my last argument, the only person who can make this acknowledgement is the individual in question.

Why does this matter? The last thing we need are spiteful parents getting back at their ex-partners by permanently scaring their children. Might I add, using legal and court ordered means to perpetrate their abuse. There are going to be a lot of mentally derailed children all in the name of getting back at your ex.

You know who it’s going to target the most? Boys. Be aware this is only a prediction, but this is based off of the way things are now. Since women are more likely to get custody and men are more likely to favor the same sex child. Toxic parents who are looking for some form of revenge will use their children as pawns. Most likely it’ll be his favorite to make it more painful. Does this sound to disgusting to be true? Well take a look around you, many already beat or kill their children to get back at the former partner. However, this comes with consequences. Transitioning a child is perfectly legal, insane as that may sound, and it’s court enforced so that the other parent looks like the enemy. On top of that, the child lives, and the parent in turn suffers.

There are dark people out there and this is an abusive DISGUSTING thing we are FORCING upon CHILDREN. This is WORSE than child marriage, at least they can get out of it and live semi-normal lives. These individuals will have no way to reproduce, EVER! And IF they change their minds, which studies are SHOWING that many ARE, there is little support to help them de-transition.

If he DOES change his mind, it will only serve the father, because all this documentation shows, the father did his best to save his son. While there is plenty of documentation, that the mother did everything in her power to crush his freedom to choose and stop his potential future.

Mainstream Media SILENT About Conservative Targeted Political Terrorism

In recent events Democrats have been in an uproar over the bombs that were sent to Donald Trumps critics. A man has already been arrested in connection to the act, it has also been acknowledged as an act of political terrorism, it has been acknowledged that he was a huge fan of Donald Trump. What the mainstream media is unlikely to say is that he was arrested for another bomb threat in 2002. The man obviously has a reoccurring pattern of behavior. It has been denounced as an act of political terrorism even by Donald trump

What is not a mystery was Daniel Frisiello’s intent. Never heard of him? That’s not surprising considering he was barely covered by any mainstream media. He JUST pleaded guilty to sending a white powder to Donald Trump’s sons October 17, 2018. Even though the substance was not lethal, this was also an act of political terrorism. However it wasn’t covered as an act of political terrorism, it was simply covered as “sending a white powder” to Donald Trump’s sons.

Why this was political terrorism:

  • The targets were tragically chosen
  • The perpetrator used fear and intimidation as a tool to try to obtain a political goal

These two characteristics qualify Cesar Altieri Sayoc as a political terrorist as well even if the bombs were completely fake. The only difference is Cesar is being acknowledged for what he is, Daniel Frisiello is being ignored!

When you google his name you find next to nothing when it comes to mainstream sources. This event was taken extremely lightly, it received next to no attention. Could you imagine the attention the media would have given to Obama’s family had someone sent a powdered letter to one of his daughters, it had reached her, and she inhaled some of the particles? Regardless of the content being fatal or not, the outrage would have been continuous and it would be forever reached for in future discussions to come as a counter argument.

If we are to unify the country, as Democrats spout we should, then there is a responsibility on their parts to condemn ALL political terrorists equally regardless of who is being targeted! There is also a responsibility to acknowledge these people as individuals and not apply their personalities to the general population. This is what Donald Trump means when he says the mainstream media needs to get its act together.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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

Featured

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.