Get Out!

Driver Accused of Killing 7 Bikers in New Hampshire was Immigrant who Should Have Been Deported – GoFundMe Set Up for Victims

VP Pence: Mexico Did More to Secure the Border in Last 10 Days Than Dems Have Done in Last 10 Years

VP Pence: Mexico Did More to Secure the Border in Last 10 Days Than Dems Have Done in Last 10 Years

(CNSNews.com) – During an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union with Jake Tapper,” Vice President Mike Pence said Sunday that Mexico has done more to secure the border in the past two weeks than Democrats in Congress have done in the last 10 years. 

“The truth is, in the last 10 days, Mexico has done more to secure our southern border than Democrats in Congress have done in the last 10 years, and that has to change,” he said, pointing specifically to Mexico’s agreement to have “100 percent of asylum seekers from Central America remain in Mexico.” 

Pence said that “90-plus percent of the people that apply for asylum in this country are denied.” 

“They actually don't have a claim for asylum,” he said.

PROJECT VERITAS: New Google Document Leaked Describing Shapiro, Prager, as ‘Nazis Using the Dogwhistles’

(New York) – Project Veritas has obtained a newly leaked document from Google that appears to show a Google employee and member of Google “transparency-and-ethics” group calling conservative and libertarian commentators, including Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, “nazis.” 

The email apparently was sent as part of the Google “transparency-and-ethics” group internal communications and suggests that content from PragerU, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro should be disabled from the “suggestion feature.” “…if we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles…”

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.

Of course, Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro are Jewish, so calling them "Nazis" is exceedingly abhorrent.

Google Pushing Political Agenda Into Products to Prevent Trump Reelection, Insiders, Documents Say

Outrage as ISIS jihadis to go to the ‘front of the queues for council houses and jobs’

COUNTER-TERRORISM experts have described Government proposals to re-intergrate extremists back into British society with offers of council homes and jobs as “mistaken” and tantamount to bribery. 

Leaked plans for a scheme called Operation Constrain suggest putting returning jihadis at the front of the queue for social housing, and helping them into education or employment. 

The project would reportedly target up to 20,000 extremists known to MI5, while Britons returning from former Islamic State strongholds in Syria would also be eligible. 

The nationwide programme is due to start next year, the Mail on Sunday reported. Whitehall said the scheme was part of the government’s commitment to “respond to the evolving threat in the most effective way we can”. 

But former counter terrorism advisor Col Richard Kemp told the Telegraph: “I think it’s very much mistaken policy. 

“When you look at the profile of many of the people who have been involved in terrorist attacks in the UK, or travelled overseas, they do not come from deprived backgrounds. 

“If someone is inclined to be an extremist, you are not going to bribe them into not being a terrorist.” Terrorism expert Professor Anthony Glees told the Mail: “You can’t bribe people not to be terrorists.”

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.

Google Wants To Hack The Election

Hatred of Israel, Homosexuality and Women’s Emancipation Are Dominant Beliefs in Arab World, New BBC Poll Reveals

From Algermeiner:

A clear majority of the Arab world continues to believe that Israel is the main threat in the Middle East and North Africa, a comprehensive BBC poll of 11 Arab countries revealed on Monday. 

The poll — which involved interviews with over 25,000 respondents in Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Yemen, Iraq, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria — also demonstrated that a strict social conservatism prevailed throughout the region, exemplified by a violent hatred of homosexuality. 

Opposition to women holding positions of power and influence, as well as sympathy for the practice of “honor killings” — the execution of female relatives for allegedly shaming their families — remains widespread as well. 

The poll, conducted for the British broadcaster by the Arab Barometer research organization, showed that residents of the Palestinian territories were more resistant to liberal democratic values than are their neighbors in several respects. 

Only five percent of Palestinian respondents — the lowest number in all the countries surveyed — regarded homosexuality as “acceptable.” 

Notwithstanding a string of brutal internal wars in Arab nations over the last decade in which several million people have been killed and displaced, Israel was still held up as the greatest threat to the region in most countries. 

In Lebanon, 79 percent of respondents identified Israel as the main threat, while in the Palestinian territories that figure was 63 percent. In all cases, the US came second. 

Despite their geographical distance from Israel, a plurality of respondents in Morocco, Algeria and Libya all agreed that the Jewish state was a more significant threat than any other country. 

Only in Iraq and Yemen did more respondents identify Iran — which has supported terrorist paramilitaries in the brutal internal conflicts in both countries — as a bigger threat than Israel. 

At the same time, the overwhelming dissatisfaction with living standards in the region meant that at least one in five residents of the Arab world wished to emigrate elsewhere. Europe remained the most popular destination, although a sizable number wanted to move to North America, or to other countries in their own region. 

About 30 percent of Palestinians would emigrate if given the opportunity, with the number rising to nearly 60 percent in the case of Sudan.

Morning of The Carnival (from Black Orpheus)

Gerry Mulligan - Baritone Sax
Art Farmer - Flugelhorn
Bob Brookmeyer - Trombone
Bill Crown - Bass
Dave Bailey - Drums

While All You Pussies Are Inventing Your Own Fucking Tech Companies, Real Men Will Be Storming The Bastille

Google/Youtube shut down the Project Veritas video exposing Google's attempt to squash Conservative Free Speech.

Twitter is shutting down the new Conservative Free Speech forum, Parler.

When Jordan Peterson's gay-assed Conservative speech forum is created, it will do no good. It will be shut down too, OR, it will be a Ghetto for Conservatives.

You don't invent your way our of a War by coming up with nifty ideas while people are gunning for you.

YOU KILL THEM!

From Ace of Spades:

Only a speaker or publisher of claimed defamatory content can be sued. 

Not being a speaker or publisher of a defamatory statement gives you total immunity from suit. You're just a guy, you had nothing to do with the tort alleged. 

Section 230 specifically says that "neutral content platforms" shall not be deemed to be the "speaker or publisher" of a claimed defamatory statement made by a third party using their service -- hence, the complete immunity from suit. You can't be sued for something someone else said, obviously. 

Now newspapers can be sued for the defamatory remarks of, say, an interview subject. They are publishers of that defamatory statement -- they chose to publish it. The interview subject made the statement, but then they chose to publish it themselves, becoming another "speaker" of the defamation. 

Now, "neutral content platforms" are never considered "speakers" of third-party defamations (or any third-party crime involving speech, such as offering to sell contraband or conspiring to commit a crime). But a newspaper or media company --or this blog -- could be. 

The corporate cucks claim that you cannot put restrictions on Google, Facebook, or Twitter as regards their right to censor opinions they disagree with because that constitutes "compelled speech." You're compellingthem to speak things they do not believe, the cucks' argument goes. 

But... section 230 states that, as a legal matter, they are not considered the "speakers" of any statement made on their "neutral content platforms." 

So which is it? Are they the speakers of these words -- in which case, like a newspaper or tv station, they'd have every right to exercise editorial judgment and decide what they wish their company to say -- or are they not the speakers of these words, which is their claim whenever someone tries to sue them? 

As it stands, they are speakers when it comes to their power to block people from speaking on their platforms -- and thus can indulge in the vice of censorship -- but not speakers when it comes to people suing them for what other people said on their platforms. 

Choose one or the other: Either you are a speaker of other people's words or you're not. You can't forever choose one and then the other when it's in your interest to have the Clown Nose On or the Clown Nose Off. 

Also, note that these platforms are quick to ban groups like the Proud Boys even though the Proud Boys aren't hate groups routinely engaged in violence, and yet rarely ban Antifa groups, which are hate groups that routinely use these platforms to target people for violence, and to coordinate violence. 

Why should Google and FaceBook and Twitter have the cover of section 230 when it's quite clear they are affirmatively bending their own rules to allow violent domestic terrorist groups to plot and scheme using their platform? They've demonstrated both the capability and desire to ban political groups for far less than what Antifa does; if they're permitting antifa to remain, why should they not be parties to a lawsuit that targets antifa for its violence? They have chosen to continue offering their services to known law-breakers, for purposes of law-breaking. 

Having put in place a draconian and expensive system for banning some speakers -- can any of these companies say "We just don't have the money or staff to ban criminal speech"? 

If you have the time and personnel to ban Crowder, you have the time and personnel to ban Antifa. And if you choose not to -- then you are liable for their crimes. 

If Google and Facebook and Twitter want to ban Crowder or Carl Benjamin, they say "We're speakers, to deny our right to censor is to force us to utter speech we disagree with!" 

But try to sue them for knowingly and willfully acting as a plotting tool for antifa, and they say, "But we're not speakers! We can't be sued for others' speech?"Here's the algorithm: 

If someone is complaining of your censorship: 

1) Claim that you are effectively the speaker of statements made on your site, and say you have First Amendment right to not be compelled to be the speaker of things you disagree with. 

But if someone sues because you did not delete and ban conspirators, contraband-sellers, and defamers: 

2) Claim that you are legally not the speaker of those statements, thanks to the Community Decency Act, section 230. 

So a publisher has the right to not print people's speech if they don't like it, or find it objectionable, but they also have the responsibility of checking to see if all statements published by them are legal and true, and may face legal suit (or possibly even criminal prosecution) if they're not. 

But when it comes to Tech Monopoly Publishers -- they have the right to censor, but none of the responsibility to patrol for legality and accuracy, on pain of legal consequence, that publishers do.Meanwhile, while acting like publishers in all relevant ways. 

Does anyone see the problem here? Or are a lot of Cuckservatives and Ruling Caste Republicans just paid a lot of money by corporations not to see the problem? 

This is just one of the incongruities that arises when a company is permitted to claim one status -- "We're speakers and you can't compel us to permit speech we disagree with!" -- for one set of circumstances but invoke an entirely contradictory status -- "We're not speakers at all!" -- for others. 

It's time to resolve this. 

These companies are in fact media companies -- the largest and most profitable in the world. Google makes NBC look like a corner shop. 

And if they themselves are going to willingly, knowingly abandon their positions as "non-speakers" -- as bona fide neutral content platforms -- then they should join the rest of the media in being potential liable for defamation or conspiracies to commit violence that they permit their platforms to be used for.

John Coltrane

Walkin'

OF COURSE THEY DID!

Google-YouTube Deletes Project Veritas Video Exposing Google Interfering with Elections Against Conservatives

Will will see the first Revolution against a corporation?

New Documents Shed Light on Attempted Coup

Anderson Cooper Stutters, Cuts Interview Short After Trump’s Rape Accuser E. Jean Carroll Says People Think Rape Is “Sexy”

LOL

And there goes their latest anti-Trump libel.

Thelonius Monk

Don't Blame Me

James O’Keefe Strikes Again: Project Veritas Publishes Explosive Report Featuring Google’s Plan to Prevent ‘Trump Situation’ in 2020

BREAKING @Project_Veritas: Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on Hidden Cam --- FULL VIDEO AND BACKUP: https://t.co/8DWus8E4ia pic.twitter.com/XWD9JKcZ2C

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 24, 2019

Project Veritas has released alarming new undercover video, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider revealing the tech giant’s plans to meddle in US politics and “prevent a Trump situation in 2020.” 

One aspect of the report features undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai, arguing against Senator Elizabeth Warren’s suggestion that the company should be broken up because a smaller company would not be able to prevent “the next Trump situation.” 

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that,” Gennai says.

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.