Clarence Thomas Says The Days of Blocking Free Speech on Social Media May Be Numbered

Clarence Thomas Says The Days of Blocking Free Speech on Social Media May Be Numbered

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas lifted eyebrows over a statement he made that appears to warn social media companies that their power to censor speech they don’t like might be diminished sometime soon.

Thomas gave his thoughts in comments he made in a 12-page concurrent opinion on a Supreme Court ruling that considered whether former President Donald Trump had acted unconstitutionally when he blocked several people from following his now-banned Twitter account. In fact, because the account was banned, the lawsuit was ruled moot.

Thomas deliberated that the argument made by the plaintiffs was undermined because Trump’s social media accounts were later suspended by numerous social media platforms. This was when the tech tyrants went Woke and started censoring people who were not Woke.

The Justice then wondered whether the social media companies found themselves in violation of free speech rights when they censored the use of their platforms.

“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” Thomas wrote in his opinion. “We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

It has begun. Finally, a learned Constitutional mind is getting involved in the unfair practices of Big Tech. He had better hire a food taster because the Woke Supremacy wants to conquer the country and the number one way all socialist supremacies throughout history have accomplished this was to silence the opposition. In this case, they will want to silence Justice Thomas.

Justice Thomas considered if social media tech companies should continue to receive an exemption from liability in the now-famous Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Publishers do not get such an exemption from liability. What this means is that a publisher has to watch what is posted on their website because they could be sued if they say something inaccurate or if they libel someone in their content. This is why I cannot write an article and post it on the New York times website. They are a publisher and they decide what goes on their site, not the writer.

On the flip side, a platform means that the tech giants in social media are merely providing a place on the Internet for people to post their own comments. They don’t have to worry about being sued if somebody posts foul language or someone spreads misinformation intentionally or otherwise. It’s not them posting it, they’re merely giving a medium for anyone to post.

Section 230 among other things allows platforms to moderate their content, and it is supposed to be in the spirit of what would upset the general public. For example, if someone posts F-bombs for the sake of shock value, that would be considered offensive speech that would upset the average person in a community.

The problem arises when social media companies start censoring speech that is not inflammatory, isn’t looking for shock value, but simply disagrees politically with the radical corporate officers of the company like say, anything Donald Trump said over the last four years. Section 230 wasn’t intended to give tech tyrants full control over free speech on their platforms, which is exactly what they have taken.

“As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions.”

“This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them,” Thomas concluded.

In Marsh v. Alabama the court ruled that a private town could not use a state trespassing statute to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town’s sidewalk, even though the town was a privately owned company town.

“Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses a town, the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. P. 326 U. S. 507.”

And then…

“People living in company-owned towns are free citizens of their State and country, just as residents of municipalities, and there is no more reason for depriving them of the liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments than there is for curtailing these freedoms with respect to any other citizen. P. 326 U. S. 508.”

What this means is that a privately owned town is a de facto government and the rules of the First Amendment apply. I see no reason at all why they shouldn’t also apply to privately owned social media companies because social media has become the de facto town square in our society. I own and operate a social media site. We adhere to the spirit of Section 230. We have a Terms of Use notice that users adhere to, but we do not block free speech simply because we disagree with it. If the government removes Section 230 from the Communications Decency Act it will help the tech tyrants because they have the money to hire enough lawyers to keep the courts tied up for a decade while smaller companies that protect Free Speech like Parler, Gab, and mine don’t have those billions of dollars for tons of lawyers, so removing 230 would just kill the competition for the Big Tech sites. What the government should do punish companies that violate the spirit of Section 230 by censoring free speech they don’t like politically and stripping them of their platform status and deem them a publisher because that’s what publishers do.

Clarence Thomas Documentary Pulled From Amazon Prime During Black History Month

Clarence Thomas Documentary Pulled From Amazon Prime During Black History Month

The wokety woke Amazon has gone into full tyrant mode showing that diversity for the Woke Supremacists is only superficial, because if your belief systems don’t conform to the Supremacy then you’re not considered a part of diversity.  When leftists claim to love diversity they’re not really talking about true diversity.  For the Left, diversity means people from different races, colors, genders, and backgrounds, but all of them must subscribe to the Woke Supremacy ideology.

Such is the case that Amazon, during Black History Month, yanked a critically acclaimed documentary on Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black justice serving on the US Supreme Court, from their streaming platform.  Why would they do this?  What did Justice Thomas ever do to them?

Now, if you go to watch the movie you get a notification saying “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” is “currently unavailable to watch in your location.”

This is crossing a line of decency.  The Left has now come full circle and is back to saying “keep the darkies out,” reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan.

Black Americans should be offended by this regardless of their political ideology.  Even though Amazon pulled the documentary for ideological reasons it’s still a racist move because the Woke Supremacy’s ideological belief is that because Thomas is a black man he should naturally be of the same ideological persuasion as the Woke Supremacy.  How is that any different from when Joe Biden said “Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things” during the 2020 campaign?

While Amazon dropped the PBS documentary on only the second black Supreme Court justice in history during Black History Month you will be pleased to know that you can still watch “All In: The Fight for Democracy” with Stacey Abrams.

From Breitbart:

Amazon Prime created an entire Amplify Black Voices page on its site that “feature[s] a curated collection of titles to honor Black History Month across four weekly themes (Black Love, Black Joy, Black History Makers, and Black Girl Magic).”  There are scores of films available to stream, including four films available on the Amazon Prime site to stream (two docudramas and two documentaries) on Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, a liberal icon and our nation’s first black Supreme Court justice.  There are even two films (one docudrama and one documentary) on Anita Hill, who came forward during Thomas’ confirmation hearing to claim that Thomas had sexually harassed her.  (Hill’s story never added up and, and as reflected in a NY Times/CBS News poll after the Senate confirmation hearings, American men and women believed Thomas by a 2-1 margin.)

All of the films are free to watch with your Prime membership, except the Clarence Thomas documentary, which you can now only get if you buy the DVD, according to The Federalist.

The exclusion of a prominent black American such as Justice Clarence Thomas during an effort made by Amazon to celebrate black voices throughout Black History Month shows that the platform is not truly sincere about black voices, only leftist black voices that conform to the Woke Supremacy that Amazon is a part of.  It’s a crime to be the decider that Thomas’s story should not be learned by any American who wants to know it.

Thomas was born to deeply poor and uneducated parents in Georgia where he fought to break away from the segregated south he was raised in to find something better for his life.

“The more I read about the black power movement, the more I wanted to be a part of it,” he wrote in his memoir “My Grandfather’s Son.” He wrote, “What was the point of working within the system? Segregation, lynchings, black codes, slavery…surely the time for politeness and nonviolent protest was over.”

The Left hates Thomas because his worldview was formed by the notion all men are created equal.  The Left expects – nay – demands that black people who are thrust into power positions must use them to bring more power and influence to the leftist Woke Supremacy.  Those who fail to do so are canceled.  The Left can’t stand the fact that a black man on the Supreme Court is the most consistent originalist justice in the history of the Court because they hate the Constitution since the Constitution creates a level playing field where those who play by the rules win and lazy people who don’t want to put in the effort lose.

Clarence Thomas is undeniably historic in that he is the second black American to serve on the High Court and he is the longest-serving black justice as well.  He is to be celebrated and not shunned, especially during Black History Month, and Amazon should be ashamed of itself.

Justice Clarence Thomas Shines a Light on the Shocking Failure By Supreme Court

Justice Clarence Thomas Shines a Light on the Shocking Failure By Supreme Court

SCOTUS, in a long string of abuses against the American people, refusing to address historical violations in numerous state’s constitutional laws to change voting law right before the 2020 Presidential election, has refused again to hear the merits of election cases.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution” – Clarence Thomas, who dissented. 

The lawsuit to hear about ballots unconstitutionally accepted after the Election Day deadline was rejected as “moot.”

“The justices on Monday declined to take up cases challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the ballot-receipt deadline in last November’s election by three days due to the coronavirus pandemic,” reported Politico.

In dissent were Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito on the matter of hearing the case.

COMPLETE SHAME ON THE COURT

The highly anticipated Trump-appointed justices turned judicial activists for the Marxist left: Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh dodged. The liberal disappointment Chief Justice Roberts once again refused to make his job rule on an important legal matter.

The most steady conservative over decades of service was Justice Clarence Thomas, an American hero.

His dissent was firey.

clarence-thomass-dissent

Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.”

“Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue warranted certiorari, but there also was no question that petitioners faced irreparable harm.  Petitioners further established a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal. For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to regulate federal elections. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892).

Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”  But by that time, election day was just over a week away. So we denied
the motion to expedite even though the question was of “national importance” and there was a “strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, ante, at 3 (statement of ALITO, J.).
II
Now that the petitions are before us under the normal briefing schedule, I see no reason to avoid them. Indeed, the day after we denied the petitioner’s motion to expedite in No. 20–542, the case became even more worthy of review.

4 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DEGRAFFENREID THOMAS, J., dissenting

This divide on an issue of undisputed importance would justify certiorari in almost any case. That these cases concern federal elections only further heightens the need for review.

“Justice Thomas shared the truth today when he wrote, “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” one Twitter poster reported.

Ohio Professor says Clarence Thomas not “authentically black” and lacks “racial pride”

Ohio Professor says Clarence Thomas not “authentically black” and lacks “racial pride”

During a lecture in a symposium hosted by Texas A&M University earlier this month, a professor from The Ohio State University blamed white females for racism in educational institutions and called for a greater diversity of educational professionals.

“We need more diversity among educational professionals,” Professor Donna Ford told the virtual audience. “And I don’t mean your skin color, I mean like I don’t want Clarence Thomas teaching my damn kids.”

Professor Ford clarified her comments with Campus Reform:

“Just because a person, an educator is black, does not mean they’re authentically black and have racial pride, and that’s why for example I used Clarence Thomas.”

Texas A&M University at Commerce hosted the symposium titled, “What the Truth Sounds Like” to provide perspectives “on dismantling systemic and oppressive racism throughout education and human services.”

Donna Ford is a professor at The Ohio State University in the Department of Educational Studies.

In her lecture, Ford addressed the racism “operating like a cancer” in educational institutions. “It’s a plague in our damn education system,” she said. She pointed to what she called “a monopoly on education” by white females and white administrators.

“So white females, I’m speaking to you, and I’m saying you’ve got to get your sh – stuff together.” Ford told her listeners to remove their children from the room because she wouldn’t be stopping herself from profanity moving forward, then continued: “But you’ve got to get your stuff together because you know what, you’re the problem, and then you’re the major problem.”

Ford clarified with Campus Reform that she doesn’t believe all white women are the problem: “Not all, but I like to use the term far too many, and ten is far too many. We don’t need any racist teachers in education.”

Ford told her audience that white women are fragile and don’t want to be confronted with their racist attitudes, and that white administrators act as “bystanders, fearful of white fragility, especially afraid to have a white women’s tears show up, so they avoid a pedagogy of discomfort…”.

She further clarified these comments as well. From Campus Reform:

Ford clarified to Campus Reform that she believes that educators often “tend not to hold White women accountable because of perceived fragility,” adding that people often perceive White women as being unable to “handle feedback and criticism and asking them to make changes,” whereas Black women are perceived as “super strong” and able to “handle anything.”

Ford recommended the recruitment of more educators of color in leadership positions and more mandatory trainings on “equity, diversity, and inclusion” at the university level.

“It is a disgrace for any university to not have professional students – from all professionals – get training in equity, diversity, and inclusion. It needs to be at least four classes,” said Ford.

Biden Signs Executive Order to Create a Commission As a Formality For Packing the US Supreme Court

Biden Signs Executive Order to Create a Commission As a Formality For Packing the US Supreme Court

On Friday, the White House made an announcement that President Joe Biden is going to sign an executive order creating a commission to study reform ideas for the US Supreme Court, including packing the Court, something he said he was “not a fan” of during the 2020 campaign. Everyone knew he was going to do it, so this should not come as a surprise.

The White House statement said, “The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.” The White House added that the panel includes experts on Constitutional law, political science, and history. In other words, a bunch of leftists who hate the Constitution and our country.

Biden himself back in 1983 said during a Senate hearing that FDR’s move to pack the Court was a “bonehead idea,” and “a terrible, terrible mistake to make,” and “it put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant” body in government in this country.

WATCH:

So what’s changed? Biden is president now, that’s what’s changed.

The White House announcement somewhat addresses a presidential campaign promise from Biden as the radical Left repeatedly pressured him to say he would pack the court with additional leftist justices to dilute the Court’s growing conservative majority, including three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate. The number one thing for all Democrats is they always want a rigged system. They don’t like to lose, and they don’t like to have to work that hard to get what they want.

First off, Chief Justice Roberts is not a conservative, he’s a Hollywood guy. Kavanaugh is not an originalist either, his vote’s up for grabs. The jury is still out on Amy Coney Barrett. Gorsuch is close to being an originalist, but he votes with Kavanaugh sometimes I believe the only two originalists on the Court are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Biden said in October that he would put together a “bipartisan commission” to address the High Court “because it’s getting out of whack.” See what I mean? Unless the Court is majority leftists on the bench, it will be considered out of whack. They want a rigged Supreme Court.

For Democrats, the term “bipartisan” means one of two things, either that Republicans cave and give them everything they want, or a panel of bipartisan members that means there are leftist Democrats and RINO Republicans who will cave and give them everything they want. Rigged.

Cased in point, Biden’s list for the panel features leftist Democrats and leftist legal scholars (whatever that means) and a few Republicans, most of them critical of President Donald Trump and the America First movement. There are no prominent conservatives or legal scholars. Rigged.

The only reason Biden is doing this is to pacify radical leftists who demand that he expand the Supreme Court for power. The court has had nine justices for over 150 years. That means nothing to radical leftists, as they want a rigged Supreme Court. And packing the court with more justices will do nothing more than what Joe Biden said. It will question the integrity of the court. The entire country will know that every ruling coming out of a

FDR’s attempt to pack the courts failed, because back then there were Democrats who joined Republicans to defeat his bonehead proposal.

In order for the Democrats to pack the Court, they have to do it through legislation. The White House also said that the panel will discuss term limits for Justices on the Court, but that will never happen because in order to do that they have to amend the Constitution.

The commission will be co-chaired by two former Obama officials (some bipartisanship) Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel for former President Obama, and Cristina Rodriguez, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice.

The White House said the so-called bipartisan commission will address the Supreme Court’s role in the Constitutional system, which is ludicrous because it is a separate power created by the Constitution. The other two branches do not get to decide what the High Court’s role is in the Constitutional process, and if we had an honest press, the American people would learn about that. But we don’t have an honest press, we have a press that is champing at the bit to help the Democrats destroy our entire constitutional system.

Federal Appeals Court Judge Says Anti-GOP, Pro-Democrat News Media a ‘Threat to Democracy’

Federal Appeals Court Judge Says Anti-GOP, Pro-Democrat News Media a ‘Threat to Democracy’

A judge on the influential federal court of appeals in Washington used his dissent in a defamation case to excoriate the majority of  US news media outlets for touting “shocking” anti-Republican views and he called for libel laws to be updated to make it easier to sue the press.

The press has a First Amendment Constitutional right to Freedom of the Press but that doesn’t mean that they have a Constitutional right to lie when they report.  The whole purpose of Freedom of the Press was because the Founding Fathers knew what it was like to have a government-run press or a press that appeases government authority because then the people never get the truth of what’s going on in their government.  Today we have the overwhelming majority of our news media siding with Democrats even to the point where they lie in their favor.  The mainstream media no longer report the news.  They create the news and mold it to fit whatever the current leftist Democrat narrative happens to be.   And it should burn your biscuits every time you hear one of these elitist fake news anchors talk about the integrity of the media and how they’re professionals and just want to report the news accurately.  CNN’s motto is “The most trusted name in news” and it’s a total joke.  Since Donald Trump left office CNN’s audience dropped 50 percent.  And the network will completely ignore that revelation. they will act like they are the top broadcast network out there even though there nearly dead last period

U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman said that the New York Times and the Washington Post are “virtually Democratic Party broadsheets,” and that the news section of the Wall Street Journal “leans in the same direction.” He then added the major television outlets and the Silicon Valley tech giants were similarly biased.

“One-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” Silberman wrote. He exempted from his criticism of “Democratic ideological control” Fox News, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.  The judge argued that even those outlets are “controlled by a single man and his son.”   Of course, he was referencing Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, and he wondered how long they could hold out before they too succumbed to the leftist ideology.  I think except for a couple of news anchors and a handful of opinion hosts at Fox News they have already gone Left.

“After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News,” the Reagan appointee wrote.

The case Judge Silberman went on about didn’t involve any of those companies, however.  He dissented in a 2-1 decision throwing out a lawsuit file by two Liberian officials against an environmentalist group called Global Witness that published a report saying that they have possibly accepted bribes.  The judge pointed out that the group’s support to back up its claims was so feeble that it should never have been protected under the Supreme Court’s ruling of New York Times v. Sullivan.  It was because of that landmark ruling that newspapers today get away with publishing anything.  They don’t even have to corroborate sources.   In fact, they get caught lying all the time and they do it with impunity.  New York Times v. Sullivan because a precedent in 1964 and it established that in order for news media outlets to be sued for libel the complainant must be able to prove that false reports were published with “actual malice” in order to be overturned.

Silberman called for the precedent case to be overturned, claiming its protections were allowing what is no longer a free press but one that is overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.”  Just think of the last four years in how the mainstream media treated President Donald Trump.   They lied about him every day of the four years that he served as president.  In fact, they lied multiple times most days.

And Silberman isn’t alone in his thinking.  Back in 2019 the great Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called for the landmark decision to at least be reconsidered since there is no basis found in the Constitution.

Judge Silberman went a little further than Justice Thomas saying the media often “manufactures scandals involving political conservatives.”

Former President Trump, no stranger to this topic, always made similar accusations and numerous times suggested that the libel laws should be made easier to sue media outlets that blatantly lie.

Silberman made his point known that he believes that democracy could be foiled by leftist control of the media.

“The first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news,” he wrote.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid Makes Another Racist Comment that Conservatives: ‘Would Trade All The Tax Cuts For The Ability To Openly Say The N-Word’

MSNBC’s Joy Reid Makes Another Racist Comment that Conservatives: ‘Would Trade All The Tax Cuts For The Ability To Openly Say The N-Word’

Extremely far-left radical MSNBC host Joy Reid’s intentionally egregious week continued on Wednesday when she tweeted out that “people on the right” or conservatives, would all love to “openly say the n-word” and felt oppressed because they couldn’t be “openly racist.”

“I’ll say it again: people on the right would trade all the tax cuts for the ability to openly say the n-word like in ‘the good old days.’ To them, not being able to be openly racist and discriminatory without consequence is oppression. Trump is the avatar for this ‘freedom.'”

It’s always nice that the racist lady on MSNBC can take a moment to tell us what the Right really thinks.  #EyeRoll

In “the good old days” it was Democrats who used that word to denigrate black people.  Republicans have always fought for freedom, they ended Democrat slavery, and despite on-air racist pigs like Joy Reid the GOP has never changed its stance on civil rights.  Reid can have her own opinion but she cannot have her own facts.

This is a woman who posted homophobic and anti-Semitic rants online and then lied saying that her blog was hacked.  If anyone spreads conspiracy theories it’s this fruitcake who has said for years that white people she doesn’t like politically are always trying to harm “brown people.”  She had to apologize in 2018 for her comments.

Make no mistake, her comment was racist and she will get away with it because she wears her race on her sleeve.  Reid equates “people on the right” with white people, and racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.”  In this case, she believes white people would trade tax cuts (a dog whistle for conservative – read white – policies -) for the ability to say the n-word.  She made it up. There isn’t a crumb of evidence to support her statement.

I was so angry I replied.

“You’ve said some pretty outrageous things over your career from gay-bashing to racist rants against white people, but this is worse than most because you’re making up horrible charges against half the country. You made this up. Your words are racism. You’re an awful person, Joy.”

It’s almost as if there is a contest for “Most Shameful Person On Cable News” and between Joy Reid, Brian Stelter, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Cuomo, and Joe Scarborough the competition is tough.  But Reid put herself out in the lead this week with this outrageous indictment of half the country.

Joyless Reid posted the tweet in response to MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson who was replying to a tweet from Bari Weiss, a former New York Times opinion editor.

In a sort of #MeToo-like moment over the leftist silliness from last week when CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers virtue-signaled about a black author about using the n-word and it was all about New York Times science writer Donald G. McNeil Jr. being forced to resign for using a racial slur over a year ago to a student during a school trip, allegedly trying to give a teachable moment about not using the filthy word.

Johnson contended that Weiss was trying to defend the idea of using racial slurs privately when she discussed how many people feel the need to “self-censor” for fear of being attacked herself.  A liberal (not leftist) writer, Weiss is hated by many in the Woke Supremacy because she was not acting like a lockstep Woke Supremamcist when she gave a scathing indictment of the Times’ out-of-control liberal culture in the form of a resignation letter.  The #1 rule of the Woke Supremacy is loyalty to the Supremacy over all else and Weiss violated that cardinal rule, so she is despised by all who carry the Marxist membership card.

Reid tweeted her grotesque statement the same day she said that states like Mississippi and Texas opening up their economies and getting rid of government-forced mask mandates are only doing it because white residents want black people to “get their behinds into the factory and make me my steaks.”

“There is a term called ‘necropolitics,’ which is essentially the politics of who gets to live and who gets to die, and these states, what they have in common is that they have structures which say that Black and Brown lives matter less,” Reid told Johnson.

There isn’t an ounce of evidence to show that states care less about black lives.  What the hell is wrong with this woman?

“And so all that matters is that Black and Brown people get their behinds into the factory and make me my streaks, make me my stuff, get there and do my nails, work, get back to work now and do the things that I, the comfortable affluent person, need. Isn’t that what we’re seeing in states like Texas?” she continued.

As if no white people work in those same jobs.  This woman is deranged.  Instead of seeing the situation in states opening up as opportunities for people who have been hurting badly by the forced government lockdowns for a year are able to get their lives back, able to work and feed their children, to pay their bills once again, this racist piece of garbage Joe Reid instinctively goes the racist route and says that white people are op[ening up their economies again because they want black people to pamper them with the goodness of life that they deserve but not people of color.  That’s sick.

The perpetually angry Reid this week also said that Senator Time Scott (R-SC) was at a Republican press conference to oppose a minimum wage increase for the sole purpose of adding a “patina of diversity.”  So, are they not supposed to include Scott in press conferences on subjects he’s very involved in because he’s black?  Reid sounds like the south end of a northbound horse.

Notice the Congresswoman in the segment smiling at Reid’s racist comment.

Reid is an aggressively angry black racist who sees everything in life through the lens of race.  Between bitter attacks against conservatives and especially conservative white people, and things like calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Clarence” to insult one of the greatest minds on the High Court as somehow being an Uncle Tom, a racial slur to black people who racists of all colors believe act obediently and subserviently to white people.

For a black woman who hates white conservatives enough to say so publicly with no regard to civility and never an ounce of remorse, you have to wonder how she still has a job in media.  Does MSNBC condone such blatant racism or could it be that MSNBC is terrified to fire a racist black female anchor who throws bombastic rants out like an out-of-control petulant child?

LGBTQ Book ‘The GayBC’s’ Targets Children Starting @ Age 4

LGBTQ Book ‘The GayBC’s’ Targets Children Starting @ Age 4

I was sent a link to a post on Twitter that shows a video of what appears to be a 4 or 5-year-old boy who is sitting on a woman’s lap as the woman is reading an interactive children’s book with him while going through the alphabet.   Nothing wrong with that, right?  Except, instead of learning his ABC’s he’s being taught his GayBC’s.  Wait, what?

A picture/word book titled The GayBC’s was written by Matt Webb, a gay graphic designer by trade, teaches LGBTQ vocabulary with illustrations and poems to bring gay teaching to readers ages 4 through 8 so that they can be able to “discuss identity with their loved ones.”

In the book, young children can learn the alphabet to ensure parents are having a dialogue with their children about their sexual orientation at a very young age.  Here are some of the alphabet words the book uses.

  • A is for Ally
  • B is for Bi
  • C is for Coming Out
  • G is for Gay. “It’s a word that implies you’re a girl who likes girls, or a guy who likes guys.”
  • I is for Intersex. “Some are born with the parts of both a boy and a girl; bodies are works of art!”
  • P is for Pan. “You connect with a vibe. No matter the gender, it’s about what’s inside.”
  • Q is for Queer
  • T is for Trans.” It’s a brave step to take, to live as the gender you know is innate.”

WATCH:

Remember, the book claims to target children from the age of 4 through 8.

When I saw this, I did a little research on the book, and when I finished I wanted to tear my hair out.  This is child abuse.  This is a horrible idea.  Radical leftists always target their indoctrination programs at very young children, because they know it’s much easier to screw up a person’s mind with their radical norms while they are young and impressionable, and much more difficult when kids hit their teens and begin to realize it’s just indoctrination bullschtein.

It’s one thing to indoctrinate school students into being good little socialists and lovers of big government but it’s a completely different ball of wax to teach different forms of sexuality to 4-year-old children.  I don’t want them teaching heterosexuality to children.   They’re still innocent.  Why can’t the Woke Supremacy just let kids be kids?  Why do they have to damage them for their causes?

Throughout the ages when schools feel students should learn about the birds and the bees they sent a letter home to the parents and the parents decided how to explain it.  I did this with both of my sons.  Nobody wants to do it, but it’s a clinical discussion about how human beings propagate the species.  There’s no sexuality discussion about LGBTQ that propagates the species.  Yes, it’s an important distinction that matters.

Amazon sells this provocative book but they recently banned the documentary film about Justice Clarence Thomas from their Prime streaming service.  We live in an alternate universe.

The author of this scholarly tome says that he learned of his gender identity and sexual orientation at the age of 5.  He said he was in a karate class in his hometown of McMinnville, Tennessee when he figured out that he was different from his brothers.

“I didn’t know what to do, I didn’t know what was happening, and I remember being very scared and vulnerable,” he said. “I couldn’t tell anybody and ask, ‘What’s this mean?’”

When he grew up, instead of keeping his self-described trauma in his personal mental lockbox he went and created a book that will teach children, most of whom will not have ever in their young and innocent lives considered their sexual orientation, to possibly cause trauma in their lives.  People like this are sick.  They believe they’re doing the children a favor by teaching them things they may have themselves had problems with at a very young age not realizing they are introducing innocent babes to a world they can’t possibly understand.

Just to make it clear to the freaks at Media Matters who may be reading this, I am not condemning gay people or any of the LGBTQ adults who go about living their lives however they want.  God bless them and may they be as happy as anyone else.  I’m talking about adults who prey on children to sexualize, politicize and damage them because of some need they have to fulfill in order to work out their own psychological problems.  I’m sorry, but in our society, we don’t teach very young children about sexuality, any kind of sexuality.  Let them be kids.

Lindsay Amer of the YouTube channel Queer Kid Stuff which provides educational LGBTQ+ videos for all ages thinks the book should be in families’ libraries.  Families without young children in the house, no problem.  I’m trying to be reasonable here.  Adults can do whatever they want, but please let your children alone.

0