Millie Weaver in Bozeman Montana
|| Millie Weaver | Infowars
Millie Weaver in Bozeman Montana
|| Millie Weaver | Infowars
|| Daily Caller
“Yvette Felarca, the Berkeley area school teacher and militant left-wing protester responsible for organizing the riot at the University of California, Berkeley in February 2017, claims that violence against the far-right is “not a crime.”
Felarca, who belongs to “By Any Means Necessary,” a far-left group, is currently facing assault charges after she was caught on video assaulting a white supremacist during a July 2016 rally in Sacramento, Cali.
As reported by Huffington Post on Wednesday during her arraignment, Felarca described her actions as a form of self-defense, and therefore “not a crime.”
….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller
“In a feature story on Antifa protesters who physically assault those they disagree with, CNN lays out the narrative that the leftist protesters are driven to violence in an effort to achieve peace.
“On the morning of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Keval Bhatt hunted through a closet in his parents’ Virginia home for the darkest clothes he could find,” CNN reports. “The 19-year-old didn’t own much in black, the color he knew his fellow protesters would wear head to toe on the streets of Washington that day.”
“I thought, there’s a very good chance that I might get arrested, that my whole life could be radically altered in a negative way if I kept driving, and I was really close to turning around,” Bhatt told CNN. “But I think the rationale is that even if it did negatively affect my life, I had still contributed to this movement that was necessary. I was still making an effort to make other people’s lives better, even if it made my life worse, and once I realized that, I had no regrets.”
Bhatt, who was arrested, is used as an introduction to the people who identify as the Antifa movement, which CNN reports is not the same at the Democrats or other liberals who support them.
Antifa, according to CNN, “has come to represent what experts who track these organizations call the ‘hard left’ — an ideology that runs afield of the Democratic Party platform and supports oppressed populations as it protests the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites.”
CNN also speculates that Antifa is a grassroots organization that lacks central leadership, although it has been documented by Breitbart News that powerful Leftists, including George Soros, are funding protests and protesters.
Describing those protesters as anti-Trump on “society’s fringe” – including illegal aliens and transgender people – they embrace violence.
“Antifa leaders admit they’re willing to physically attack anyone who employs violence against them or who condones racism — as long as force is used in the name of eradicating hatred,” CNN reports.
CNN also notes the connection between Antifa and Nazi Germany, even if the media outlet and many others characterize people who are targeted by Antifa as the ones with Nazi sympathies.
“Anti-fascists and the black bloc tactic originated in Nazi Germany and resurfaced in United Kingdom in the 1980s. Large numbers of Antifa activists first appeared in the United States at anti-World Trade Organization protests in 1999 in Seattle, and then more recently during the Occupy Wall Street movement,” CNN reports.”
….Continue reading more @ Breitbart
“Press reports claim that the free speech rally/counter-protests in Boston have been “mostly peaceful,” but that’s small comfort to an older woman who was assaulted by an Antifa member as she waved the US flag on Boston Common.
Before getting to the video of the assault, let’s take a gander at some of the signs carried by “counter-protesters.”
The woman was understandably shaken at the end of the video. As usual, Antifa demonstrates that they will violently remove any person or symbol they deem offensive – which includes the US flag.
The free speech rally has ended, but counter-protesters are still in the streets, scuffling with law enforcement.”
….Continue reading @ Townhall
| Youtube | TimCast
….The Berkeley wedgie.
…Antifa get chased out of town while throwing M-80s.
…Summary and more @ Youtube
“The 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by a 7-time previously deported illegal alien could have been prevented, says the agent’s brother Kent Terry in an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas. Terry’s family hopes the Trump Administration will now go after “the real criminals” responsible for putting the “Fast and Furious” guns in the accused killer’s hands.
A task force including Mexican law enforcement officials, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents and U.S. Border Patrol Border Patrol BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit) agents arrested accused killer Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, in Mexico earlier this week, Breitbart Texas reported. Court records obtained by Breitbart Texas stated immigration officials deported Osorio-Arellanes seven times before he returned illegally on December 14, 2010, as part of a Mexican bandit “rip crew.” The accused killer of Agent Terry opened fire on the BORSTAR team in southern Arizona that had been dispatched to find the “rip crew” which had been robbing other drug and human smuggling convoys in the area.”
…..Continue reading more @ Breitbart
– PJ Media
“I recently attended a symposium, held at the University of Toronto and sponsored by a group of politically savvy libertarian and conservative students, on the topic of free speech and expression in the current repressive cultural and political milieu. The audience of almost every other conservative symposium I have attended has been composed chiefly of elderly white men, with a modest sprinkling of women and a sparse handful of younger people. On this occasion I was gladdened to note that the age gap had been bridged, dividing equally between older and younger, while the distaff representation was comparatively prominent.
The fact that the symposium was organized by two student groups worried about their political and economic future, Students for Liberty and Generation Screwed, explained the mixed composition of the conference attendees and signaled a more hopeful future for the nascent conservative movement growing on campus as well as in the non-academic world. This young, right-leaning cohort — politically active, intellectually engaged, well-educated and civil — are in marked contrast to their leftist counterparts consisting of a mélange of snowflakes and hooligans, who were soon to make their presence known at the event.
The issues discussed at the symposium largely involved the nature and definition of speech violence, or what is called “hate speech,” criminalized in several countries and jurisdictions. Both sides of the dispute, left and right, agree that limits to freedom of speech are necessary, but disagree as to where these limits should be placed. The left, whether radical or moderate, regards as felonies forms of speech that offend a privileged identity group, whether racial, ethnic, religious (i.e., Muslims), or gender-based (i.e., women, gays, trans-people), or criticizes the ideological positions such favored groups adopt. Additionally, a prime tactic of the left is what we may call pre-emptive suppression. Speaking engagements are often shut down before or during an address, making debate and discussion impossible. Censorship and repression thus become acceptable methods of dealing with such perceived “transgressions” as open colloquies, lectures and conferences.
The conservative right believes that speech should be mainly unfettered, except when it damages reputations through lies or urges acts of physical violence. Of course, speech itself can be an act, as philosopher J.L. Austin has shown in How to Do Things with Words: in his most famous example, when the minister states “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” an act has been performed since it changes the status of the participants.
We should note, however, that words critical of an individual or a group are not performative (or “illocutionary,” in Austin’s phrase). If I criticize Islam as a violent faith, I do not thereby make it violent or directly instigate violence against it. My words do not change the reality of Islam, whatever it may be. In the U.S., even words advocating violence (except in official or legally constituted circumstances, or in situations where there is a clear and present danger) are not considered performative. The 1969 Brandenburg vs. Ohio Supreme Court case ruled that “speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” (Italics mine). In the words of the Legal Encyclopedia discussing the case, “the First Amendment protects speech unless it encourages immediate violence or other unlawful action.” (Italics mine). In this instance, both the temporal element and unequivocal incitement are crucial. Mere advocacy is another question entirely and is not prohibited, although here the conservative argument tends to draw the line, even if the U.S. Supreme Court did not.
In Canada, we are not so fortunate. We have no First Amendment. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes free speech as a principle of civic life, but with so many exceptions that the term “free speech” has become an empty watchword, an instance of virtue-signalling. The logic on which its application is based is ludicrously circular. For example, the Supreme Court decision in the Whatcott case, in wich Bill Whatcott was convicted of hate speech for protesting what he saw as a homosexual agenda in primary school, reads: “The benefits of the suppression of hate speech and its harmful effects outweigh the detrimental effect of restricting expression which, by its nature, does little to promote the values underlying freedom of expression.” As my wife Janice Fiamengo puts it in Episode 52 of her video series The Fiamengo File, “free speech matters only when it is speech that promotes ‘the values underlying it.’” In other words, free speech is only free speech when it is free speech.
Consequently, “if expression is made conditional on its promoting a particular set of values, then it is clearly not in any sense free or valued in itself.” Tightening the already-restrictive noose on free speech even further, the Canadian Parliament is now preparing to debate Motion 103, which authorizes the government to take steps to eliminate “Islamophobia,” and will surely tackle the element of critical speech as well.”
….Continue reading the thoughtful article @ PJ Media
– from PJ Media comments:
More on Freedom of Speech:
Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.
In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to thecompany’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”
These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.
Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.”
…continue reading more @ Gizmodo.com
Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter,” the individual said. “They realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics. When we injected it, everyone started saying, ‘Yeah, now I’m seeing it as number one’.” This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence.
The company also instructs its curators to avoid promoting stories about Facebook itself — a useful barrier against articles that could make the company look bad.
“When it was a story about the company, we were told not to touch it,” said one former curator. “It had to be cleared through several channels, even if it was being shared quite a bit. We were told that we should not be putting it on the trending tool.”
…continue reading @ Breitbart.com
– The comments section is quite interesting. /CJ
“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”
The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.”
….continue reading @ Hotair.com
– Unfortunately, the comments section at Hotair is Facebook only.
We have certainly enjoyed the comment section and look forward to seeing it grow and become more diverse.”
….more @ Hotair.com
More on Facebook here
– Chicago Sun-Times
“The protesters who caused Trump to cancel his Friday night rally at the UIC Pavilion erupted in elation at the announcement and took to the arena floor to celebrate.
I’m not sure what they were celebrating…..
There was a lot of negative energy being expended inside and outside the UIC Pavilion.
To be clear, I’m glad people came out to protest Trump. I was hoping for it.
But as I watched an elderly man with a walker trying in vain to return to his car because idiots were running wild through the parking garage where many of Trump’s fans parked their cars, I was ashamed.
“This is what free speech looks like!” shouted a leader of the protesters on his megaphone while the old man asked the police if it was safe yet to get to his car.
I hope this isn’t what free speech looks like.”
…Continue reading more of Mark Brown’s piece @ Chicago Sun-Times
– As I watched the video below, I wondered if this is how a democratic republic ends? Stifling dissent and free speech anywhere and everywhere, on college campuses, and now at political rallies.
There are candidates and political figures I may vehemently disagree with, but I would never abridge their right to speak freely and without restraint.
Seeing the students celebrating shutting down a political instance of free speech, the rally looked like something from a foreign country, not the United States. / CJ
– I wonder if the University of Illinois at Chicago gives a course in Denial of Speech?
(apologies for the inconsistent audio)
More here @ Youtube
– CSPAN / Infowars
Update: Note at approx. 2:25 of the above video roll, a Sanders supporter in a red shirt, comes up to the ad hoc conference, and asks, “You counted everyone again, right?”
The Clinton supporter tells her, ‘we counted everyone.’ And with a nod of her head the issue is dropped for the moment. She lied.
She lied to tilt the vote to Hillary.
One major takeaway from this, is in the video, later while they are tabulating, a woman asks if she can video the process, and a woman seated at the table, agrees she has the right. That is the point, every public process can be captured via video, and the truth can be exposed as in this case.
“This is, apparently, what a caucus looks like in a Presidential race in America in 2016.
The footage is taken from precinct #43 in Des Moines, Iowa, where supporters of Clinton and Sanders gathered to determine the delegate count for the candidates.
The description of the video, posted on the C-SPAN website, claims “Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus”.
Reports suggest that Sanders was winning during an initial vote, but when a recount was called, Clinton gained the lead.
One person who was at the event at Roosevelt High School took to Reddit to explain:
So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.
The footage appears to verify this with the Clinton camp admitting they did not do a second full count and that “they just added the (new) people”.
“Does that add up right?” one of the organiser is heard asking the caucus chair, who replies “I don’t think so.”
Nevertheless, a challenge by Sanders supporters for a third count was rejected and Clinton was handed a victory.
This monumental cluster f*ck was just one 1,600 caucus sites around the state of Iowa. Who knows what went on elsewhere.”
See and read more @ InfoWars.com
– To see the whole video on CSPAN see below:
“Democrats from three Polk County, Iowa, precincts held their caucus at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines. Participants broke into groups supporting different candidates, selected team captains, and then tried to persuade uncommitted voters or those supporting “not viable” candidates to join their group.”
See the whole video @ C-SPAN video library
There is a transcript available as well.