The Left Keeps their Audience Context Ignorant

I was enduring “The View”, they referred to an unknown comment made by the president. They didn’t show the comment all they showed was the reaction to the alleged “racist comment”.

These are the alleged “racist” tweets (that I had to look up). I’m using CNN simply to be authentic to them. But I replied to the video:

And the response?

Really? This is the propaganda being comprehended from the above tweets? So the comprehension they’re being told is:

” I am presuming you are NOT a citizen already based on your skin color, go back to where you came from we don’t want you here!”

HOWEVER, what was actually said is VERY different when put in CONTEXT!

“If you don’t like our country, then you’re free to make the choice to leave any time. The fact one of you is an immigrant and is praising one of our enemies is disgraceful. Why stay or come to a country you hate?”

I again replied in a way a person the left could comprehend:

My question is if the left hates corporations…why in the HELL would they want Sharia law?! 🤪

Advertisements

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 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.

 

Social Media Has No Business Parenting US: Back OFF!

Featured

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.

Twitter Censors a Student Of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School

 

 

On May 25, a tweet was sent out by @TheALX wondering why Twitter suspended a Marjory Stoneman Douglas Survivor.

https://twitter.com/TheALX/status/999976706025934849

This student was well known for taking video recording of the school shooting and posting it on Social Media. Both CNN and Twitter Support quoted his initial social media posting. However, the student’s account was mysteriously suspended on the basis that he was not yet 13. So as firm proof, @TheCaptainAidan allegedly sent a copy of his birth certificate as evidence.

https://twitter.com/TheALX/status/1000014021037383680

Yet, if you do the math, it’s nearly impossible for a student to be in high school and NOT be 13 already. If he IS 13 and in high school, does that not also suggest that the young man is psychologically mature enough to be on Twitter anyways?

However, when I attempted to look up his page, twitter had removed it already!

screenshot-twitter.com-2018-05-25-11-47-27

However, they have yet to remove a South African youth (whose age is questionable) who I got into a conflict and reported for tweeting out death threats to whites in general. (this conflict is documented in one of my videos) When I Googled his previous name “Dream League Fanatic” you get this image:

screenshot-www.google.com-2018-05-25-13-55-37

However, when you click on the link given to you at Google it shows that not only is his account still alive and well, but he’s changed everything on it so that nobody knows who he used to be. He changed his pictures and account name from “Dream League Fanatic” to “The Manager”, he even changed the domain linked to his account. However, the username @asalive433 is the exact same and the tweets to this page date back to before 2017 which means this is the same person that I captured and reported for his horrific tweets. Instead of posting his open hatred for whites, he is now posting his open obsession with porn.

So how is it that this youth… South African, porn obsessed, filled with hatred, and unable to verify his age… allowed to continue his account AFTER being reported for serious tweets over a month ago (I highly suggest you watch my video for this).

But this youth: American, survivor of a horrific crime, was NOT reported, confirmed his age… has been erased from Twitter within a few weeks!

Even the New York Post and Jezebel clearly states that he is fourteen. It’s not rocket science to realize that this youth was old enough. What’s also NOT rocket science is realizing that he was more than likely erased from Twitter due to his and his brother’s support of the first and second Amendments.

Aidan’s brother, Brandon (18), was featured on Fox News claiming that he does not support the gun control push that his school’s tragedy is being used for. It is safe to assume that Aidan and his brother agree with one another, apparently they’re close. But we’ll never know, because as soon as the Left was through using his voice for their own agenda, they cancelled his ability to voice his opinion. Proof of the left using children’s crises to further their own agendas and not really caring about their voices.