An actual hate crime just occurred, but you won’t have heard about it. The victim of this hate crime is a straight white male Republican. The gunman is an angry hate-filled Democrat. This crime won’t be reported as national news, because the people on the secular left – journalists, celebrities, socialists – agree with the gunman. So it’s like the crime never happened.
A Tennessee man is in jail after being accused of pulling a gun on a Sam’s Club customer Saturday.
According to the police report, officers were called to Sam’s Club due to a person with a gun.
According to the alleged victim Terry Pierce, a man pulled a gun on him because he was wearing a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat.
“I have as much right to wear that hat and support my country and my president as he has not to,” said Pierce.
The police report confirms that the suspect, identified as James Phillips, admitted to flipping off Pierce and Pierce’s wife because of their hats.
Pierce tells 13 News that he was shopping with his wife when Phillips “Pulled a .40 caliber out and stuck it in my face, backed up and said, ‘It’s a good day for you to die.'”
Pierce went on to tell 13 News, “I said, ‘Then pull the trigger. Put the gun down and fight me or pull the trigger. Whichever one you want.’ And he backed up and he said it again, he said, ‘It’s a good day for you to die.'”
Pierce said the Phillips then took off. That’s when Pierce followed him out into the parking lot.
“I went out the front of the store to confront him again and that’s when I got him in his car. He couldn’t leave because his mother was still in the store. And we were having a verbal altercation outside,” said Pierce.
Pierce added, “He tried telling me I assaulted him and I said, ‘I never touched you.'”
According to the police report, surveillance video confirms Pierce’s story that he did not put his hands on Phillips.
Now, I know what journalists on the secular left will say to this story. It’s the same thing they said about the Covington kids. It’s hate speech to smile at someone while wearing a Trump-supporter hat, so of course a violent response is justified. This is how journalists on the secular left think.
In a recent post, Newsbusters contrasted the coverage of fake hate crimes that fit their narrative with coverage of real hate crimes that don’t.
As NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck documented early Sunday morning, between January 29 and February 14, the networks spent 101 minutes and 22 seconds helping to push Smollett’s claims of being assaulted by racist and homophobic Trump supporters.
[…]In sharp contrast, when a young white man was kidnapped for two days in the run-up to then President-elect Trump’s inauguration and tortured live on Facebook by black teens, the story was there and gone in just four days. As Houck also exposed on January 4, 2017, both ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News skipped the story while CBS Evening News allocated a mere 27 seconds.
I’m troubled by this story of a Democrat pulling a gun on people who are just out shopping. We have elections so that the majority can decide who will be in charge. If you lose the election, then wait for the next one, and persuade people with reason and evidence to vote for your candidate. Now you can’t even go shopping without some Democrat fascist thug pointing a gun at you and threatening to shoot you.
By now most people have heard about how gangs of Middle Eastern immigrants formed sex-trafficking rings in the UK. Some of the girls and/or their mothers went to the UK police for help, but the UK police wouldn’t do anything because the sex-traffickers were men of Middle Eastern descent. They didn’t want to be accused of “racism” for protecting underage fatherless white girls from gang-rape.
So, what are the UK police up to instead? Well, their top priority is policing people’s speech and even their thoughts.
A mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to a transgender woman as a man online.
Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an activist on Twitter over so-called ‘deadnaming’.
The 38-year-old, from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and remains under investigation.
More than two months after her arrest on December 1, she has had neither her mobile phone or laptop returned…
[…]Writing on online forum Mumsnet, Mrs Scottow – who has also been served with a court order that bans her from referring to her accuser as a man – claimed: ‘I was arrested in my home by three officers, with my autistic ten-year-old daughter and breastfed 20-month-old son present.
‘I was then detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products (which I said I needed) before being interviewed then later released under investigation … I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter.’
They needed three police officers to arrest this dangerous criminal, to let her neighbors know how dangerous her hate speech was.
Does this happen a lot in the UK? Well, you just have to go back a few weeks to find another case.
Here is the UK Telegraph to report on another recent incident:
A docker from Humberside has been investigated by police over a limerick he posted on Twitter after an officer claimed it constitutes a ‘hate incident’ against transgender people.
Harry Miller, 53, from Lincoln was contacted on Wednesday by a community cohesion officer following a complaint that had been made about the plant and machinery dealer’s social media posts.
Citing 30 potentially offensive tweets, the PC singled out a limerick Mr Miller had retweeted which questioned whether transgender women are biological women.
[…]Even though no crime was committed, sharing the limerick online was recorded as a ‘hate incident’.
[…]After Mr Miller questioned why the complainant was being described as a “victim” if no crime had been committed, the officer told him: “We need to check your thinking”.
The fact is, having the police show up at your door to investigate you is a daily occurrence in the UK. They need to do this intimidation and harassment, so that the other taxpayers who pay their salaries understand that their speech is being monitored.
But if police resources are being dedicated to policing other people’s thoughts, then some other crimes won’t get any attention from police.
UK police ignore underage sex-trafficking
What kinds of crimes might be ignored by the UK police, because they are busy policing Twitter tweets that make people feel sad?
Police and council leaders today apologised for their failings as a gang of paedophiles was convicted at the Old Bailey of serial abuse of schoolgirls while in care.
The girls, some as young as 11, were drugged, raped, trafficked and used as prostitutes while supposedly in the safe-keeping of the local authority in Oxford.
[…]Today five men of Pakistani origin and two from North Africa were convicted of more than 40 charges spanning eight years.
[…]The charges involved six girls between the ages of 11 and 15 who were abused over nine years in the Cowley area of Oxford.
[…]Girl D told how, at the age of 11, she was branded with a heated hairpin by a trafficker and loaned to other abusers for £600 an hour.
Over five years she was repeatedly raped by large groups of men in what she described as “torture sex”.
[…]Another victim, Girl A, complained of her plight to police on two occasions but no one was charged.
In the UK, being yourself and expressing yourself is a crime, because it’s important that people on the left don’t have their feelings hurt.
Keep in mind what the secular left is doing in other countries now, because these will be the policies of the Democrat Party 5-10 years down the road. We have to learn what the Democrats are planning by looking at what the secular leftists are doing in countries where they are the majority. There isn’t a Democrat politician in the USA who doesn’t agree 100% with these UK policies.
When is it OK to incite violence against people on Twitter? Well, you just have to be a CNN journalist, and your victim just has to be a white male. In the past few days, journalists from CNN and other mainstream media outlets have called for violence against Catholic high school students.
When an edited clip of Catholic teenagers surrounding a Native American man first emerged, it was billed as evidence of racist high school students harassing an Indigenous person.
Journalists, celebrities, and others with blue checkmarks on Twitter rushed to condemn the kids as racists, even though it was clear from the beginning that something was amiss.
As The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti previously reported, the original video does not show what it was alleged to have shown and was clearly taken out of some larger context. Still, this did not stop the verified Twitter users from condemning and threatening kids based on no more evidence than the media’s say so and the fact that they were white boys wearing Make America Great Again hats.
On Monday morning, Mediate posted an article collecting some of the various tweets that have since been deleted after more information became available and exonerated the students who were waiting for a bus when they were taunted with racial slurs from some Black Hebrew Israelites and confronted by the Native Americans.
That Daily Wire article explains how a New York Times journalist named Kara Swisher tweeted several times that the boys in the edited video clip were Nazis. Actual Nazis.
Another New York Times editor named Tina Jordan accused the students in the edited clip of racism, despite his never speaking a word!
But there were THREE CNN employees who attacked the Catholic students on Twitter.
Here’s the first CNN journalist:
Here’s another CNN journalist:
This tweet from CNN employee Reza Aslan is still up at time of writing:
There was a lot more discussion of the biased news media on the Ben Shapiro podcast from Monday night. He was furious.
Ben Shapiro responds to media bias
Here is the full show:
At 14:30, Ben Shapiro does something that that CNN would not do. He shows the confrontation in context.
The video clearly shows the students ignoring anti-white racism directed against them, and it also shows that Phillips walked right up to them. They didn’t accost him. He walked up to the students, and banged his drum right in their faces. He sought out the crowd, walked into the middle of it, and caused the confrontation.
CNN could not do show the confrontation in context, because it did not fit with their progressive Democrat narrative. And CNN could not interview the students, they only interviewed the liar, because he agreed with them.
This resulted in the students and their parents being harrassed, and targeted with threats of violence, and even death threats. Death threats, thanks to false journalism by CNN. This is nothing more than libel that incited violence against innocent people.
Ben Shapiro only talks about the confrontation for the first 30 minutes or so, but I still think it is worth watching just so that people have the appropriate level of distrust for the mainstream media.
Recently, there were two news stories making their bias even more obvious. A leaked video showed Google executives lamenting Hillary Clinton’s, and a leaked briefing revealed how Google favors European-style censorship over free speech. In addition, one of their senior managers tweeted vicious vulgarities against the Republican party.
Let’s start with the leaked video, which was reported by the Epoch Times.
A confidential video recorded at Google has been leaked to the press, exposing top leadership openly bemoaning Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss and discussing how President Donald Trump’s election “conflicts with many” of the company’s values.
The full recording, originally marked as “Internal Only,” that was leaked to Breitbart by an anonymous source depicts the company’s first all-hands weekly meeting after the 2016 presidential election. The unabashed remarks from top leaders reflect a sunken and depressed mood—some are on the edge of tears over the election results—while at the same time express a desire to fight Trump’s policies and reshape public opinion.
Co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, vice presidents Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai all spoke at length during the hourlong meeting.
Throughout the meeting, executives switched back and forth between emotional and combative discourse, as they discussed potential plans for using the company’s powerful resources.
“I certainly find this election deeply offensive and I know many of you do too,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin said. “It conflicts with many of our [company’s] values.”
Meanwhile, CFO Ruth Porat said they have an obligation to “fight for what’s right and to never stop fighting for what’s right.”
“Our values are strong,” she said. “We will fight to protect them and we will use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values.”
At one point, Porat appeared to hold back tears when recalling the moment she realized Hillary Clinton could lose.
Here’s a clip of the highlights:
Alone, the video would be damning, but it just the latest in a sequence of news stories showing Google’s anti-American bias.
Here’s a story from last week, reported by Breitbart:
An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.
[…]But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.
Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.
Does Google have a plan to influence elections by incorporating biased, inaccurate information in their products and services? Consider this article from the Daily Caller, which reports on internal e-mails from their marketing department:
A newly revealed tranche of emails between Google executives reportedly details how the company supported rides for Hispanic voters in the 2016 election, which one executive characterized as being an effort to boost turnout for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
According to an email chain between Google executives obtained by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and Breitbart News, Google’s Multicultural Marketing development head Eliana Murillo sent out an email the day after the 2016 election detailing that Google had “supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states,” which she characterized as a “silent donation.”
“We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help),” Murillo said. “We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Sen. Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort.”
“Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote in the email. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the ‘sleeping giant’ had awoken.”
Murillo noted that 71 percent of Latinos voted for Clinton and that “that wasn’t enough.” She said that despite efforts to remain “objective,” that Trump’s win was “devastating for our Democratic Latino community.”
Google spent their own money in order to boost the turnout of a group that they thought would help Democrats get elected.
Here’s Tucker Carlson reporting on the leaked e-mail:
Just last week, a manager at Google tweeted out hate speech against the Republican party:
In a Twitter rant over the weekend, Google design lead Dave Hogue claimed Republicans will “descend into the flames” of hell, and described members of the GOP as “treasonous” and “evil” following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F***. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL,” posted Hogue. “I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.”
Note that the F-word was not censored, because this person has no self-control, or respect for people who disagree with his own biased viewpoints. Google likes him, though – they made him a manager. He apparently has the emotional stability to rise high at Google.
I think the case is pretty clear about Google’s bias. It might be time for the federal government to step in and make sure that they aren’t influencing elections with biased, inaccurate information delivered by their products and services.
Are people on the secular left interested in conforming their beliefs to what scientists discover about the universe? Do they greet the progress of science with an open heart and an open mind? Well, we already know that secular leftists are hostile to what science has shown about the origin of the universe, and the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. But what about moral issues like transgenderism?
This month, a Brown University researcher published the first study to empirically describe teens and young adults who did not have symptoms of gender dysphoria during childhood but who were observed by their parents to rapidly develop gender dysphoria symptoms over days, weeks or months during or after puberty.
[…]The study was published on Aug. 16 in PLOS ONE.
Littman surveyed more than 250 parents of children who suddenly developed gender dysphoria symptoms during or after puberty.
The pattern of clusters of teens in friend groups becoming transgender-identified, the group dynamics of these friend groups and the types of advice viewed online led her to the hypothesis that friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs. Examples include the belief that non-specific symptoms such as feeling uncomfortable in their own skins or feeling like they don’t fit in — which could be a part of normal puberty or associated with trauma — should be perceived as gender dysphoria; the belief that the only path to happiness is transition; and the belief that anyone who disagrees with the teen is transphobic and should be cut out of their life.
“Of the parents who provided information about their child’s friendship group, about a third responded that more than half of the kids in the friendship group became transgender-identified,” Littman said. “A group with 50 percent of its members becoming transgender-identified represents a rate that is more 70 times the expected prevalence for young adults.”
Additionally, 62 percent of parents reported their teen or young adult had one or more diagnoses of a psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability before the onset of gender dysphoria. Forty-eight percent reported that their child had experienced a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria, including being bullied, sexually assaulted or having their parents get divorced.
This suggests that the drive to transition expressed by these teens and young adults could be a harmful coping mechanism like drugs, alcohol or cutting, Littman said. With harmful coping mechanisms, certain behaviors are used to avoid feeling negative emotions in the short term, but they do not solve the underlying problems and they often cause additional problems, she noted.
Well, this seems like a OK study, and, as a Christian, my gut response to scientific data is to agree with it, and adjust my beliefs accordingly. I am a little concerned that her data is coming from self-selected individuals who are self-reporting, but it can be hard to find transgender test subjects.
This article at The Federalist had a few examples to illustrate the conclusion of the study:
The study includes other eye-opening information, such as case studies of several children’s stories.
“A 14-year-old natal female and three of her natal female friends were taking group lessons together with a very popular coach. The coach came out as transgender, and, within one year, all four students announced they were also transgender.”
“A 14-year-old natal female and three of her natal female friends are part of a larger friend group that spends much of their time talking about gender and sexuality. The three natal female friends all announced they were trans boys and chose similar masculine names. After spending time with these three friends, the 14-year-old natal female announced that she was also a trans boy.”
I thought this quote from that article was interesting as well, given the culture’s obsession with “bullying”, which is a nebulous term that can mean actual bullying, or mere disagreement.
The study also may indicate that school “anti-bullying” programs typically created by LGBT activist organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign may help accelerate children identifying as transgender by pushing peers and authority figures to profusely express their support. It also may suggest that Marxist-style identity politics that brand heterosexuality as oppressive increase gender dysphoria.
Coming out as transgender means instant fame and popularity, because you’re a victim, and everyone has to be nice to you… or else:
“Great increase in popularity among the student body at large. Being trans is a gold star in the eyes of other teens,” wrote one parent on the study response form. Another wrote, “not so much ‘popularity’ increasing as ‘status’ … also she became untouchable in terms of bullying in school as teachers who ignored homophobic bullying …are now all at pains to be hot on the heels of any trans bullying.”
Very interesting. But the secular left had a completely different reaction to the study.
In any case, this Brown University study could not stand — any effort to actually research the environmental component of transgenderism is met with raucous calls for censorship. And Brown immediately caved. The University pulled down a news article about the study. Realistically, Brown and the journal in which the original comment was published, PLOS ONE, turned against the study because it offended politically correct sensibilities about transgenderism.
Here’s what the spokeswoman for Brown University had to say about pulling the study:
Independent of the University’s removal of the article because of concerns about research methodology, the School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.
[…]There is an added obligation for vigilance in research design and analysis any time there are implications for the health of the communities at the center of research and study.
So much for the spirit of free inquiry and academic debate on the Brown University campus. The progress of science has been overridden by the hysterical reactions of the secular left.
The future is Canada
In Canada – a country that does not have free speech protected by law – it’s actually a criminal offense to make transgender people feel bad by disagreeing with them.
Brown, who appeared with Peterson before the Senate last May to argue against Bill C-16, said a “small cadre of trans activists” have “made a successful revolution” by instantiating a social construct into law.
Denying gender theory under Bill C-16 could result in jail or bankruptcy, he said.
A human rights tribunal can levy fines, or assign a “public interest remedy,” such as sensitivity training, and non-compliance would be considered contempt of court, said Brown.
[…]He advised people watch the case of Barry Neufeld, a British Columbia school trustee facing a human rights complaint for “transphobia” for criticizing the province’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI 123) curriculum.
If you want to know what’s coming to America in ten years, just look north to Canada. Right now, we are having gay activists sue Christian business owners who refuse to take part in same-sex weddings. Canada was doing that in the late 90s and 2000s. Now Canada is arresting people, bankrupting them, and putting them in jail, for using the wrong pronouns when referring to transgender people. That shows you where the secular left in America would like to take our country. Are you comfortable with having your free speech limited like this?