HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech

Kim Gardner, Circuit Attorney for St. Louis, pressed charges against a local couple last month who were filmed on video brandishing weapons on the porch of their home.  Now the Missouri Attorney General is dropping the charges.

The McCloskeys, Mark and Patricia, were captured on video when they responded to a mob ripping down the locked gate that led to a private driveway and trespassed through their yard.  That video went viral.  That’s breaking and entering and trespassing, and the George Soros-funded Kim Gardner charged the victims instead of the people who broke the law.  What the McCloskeys did was exactly why we have a Second Amendment.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey’s response to a mob of protesters tearing down the gate to a private driveway and trespassing through their yard went viral.

Leftists in the Fake News media and the Democratic Party have said they were peaceful protesters.  When you break through a locked gate and go onto someone’s private property you are no longer a peaceful protester.  I don’t know why that’s so difficult to comprehend for the leftist mind, but here we are.

The McCloskey’s who’re both attorneys, were eating their dinner on the patio of their home when several hundred Black Lives Matter protesters, tore down a gate to gain entry to a private community that was plainly marked as private with “No Trespassing” signs.

Mark McCloskey said that the intruders started threatening the couple.  He then went into the house and grabbed a pistol and what appeared to be an AR-15.

Fortunately, nobody was hurt, and the weapons that the McCloskey’s legally owned worked by keeping the mob at bay and stopping them from  harming them.  Their crime?  They lived in a gated community.

From The Lion Times:

“Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt is intervening in state Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s legal action against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, for brandishing a rifle.

The McCloskeys took up arms when extreme ‘anarchist’ demonstrators broke in through a locked gate and gathered outside their house on June 28. The weapon was confiscated after the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department searched the property.“

The AG released a video on Twitter, where he stated:

“As Missouri’s chief law enforcement officer, I simply will not stand by while Missouri laws are being ignored.

That is why I am entering the case in terms of seeking the dismissal of the case to protect the rights of Missourians to defend themselves in their property under Missouri’s castle doctrine.”

WATCH:

Schmitt said:

“The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in the Missouri Constitution and their laws, which I am charged for protecting,”

He continued:

“This includes the Missouri castle doctrine, which provides broad rights for Missourians to protect and defend their personal safety, and property against those who wish to do them harm.”

The legal professional common mentioned that the costs issued by Gardner was nothing greater than politics.

“The shameless circuit attorney filed suit against a St. Louis couple who, according to published reports, say they were doing just that–defending the safety of their property,”

He went on to say:

“A political prosecution, such as this one, would have a chilling effect on Missourians exercising their right to self-defense. The law of Missouri is clear and must be protected … enough is enough.”

This whole incident with the circuit attorney and the McCloskeys was a test to render Second Amendment rights worthless.  Had the AG not intervened this way, more progressive prosecutors, financed by George Soros, would step all over Second Amendment rights, and it would have spread throughout the country.

What elected official in their right mind would charge a couple who was defending themselves from rioters who broke into their community and started threatening them?  A radical progressive leftist Democrat, that who.

We have a big decision to make in November.  If you want radical leftist prosecutors and politicians completely ignoring laws and subverting justice for ideology then vote for Joe Biden.  If you want the rule of law to apply to everyone, vote straight Republican.  Seriously, because Trump, who is a law and order president, needs control of the House and Senate to get things done.

Shocking – Twitter Bans Jewish Star of David in Profile Images – Deems it “Hateful Imagery”

Shocking – Twitter Bans Jewish Star of David in Profile Images – Deems it “Hateful Imagery”

Anti-Semitism has been around since there have descendants from Shem, the eldest son of Noah (2340 B.C).  Christians believe that those who hold to this racism, have their compulsion to harm and even exterminate all the Jews, from Lucifer himself.

The Messiah was born in Bethlehem, Isreal around 4BC. The prophecies said this Jesus of Nazareth would die, be buried, and rise again defeating death and destroy the power Lucifer and his demons have on people. So if the Anti-Semites would have exterminated all Jews, Jesus Christ would have never been born. Since they did not, he was, leaving the demonic world to try to destroy everyone, especially all the Jews.

The major social media platforms are anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and anti-American. Twitter for example arbitrability decides which posts are within their standards and which ones are not.  They just put Zahra Billoo, the radical executive-director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter, in charge of “censorship”. So guess whose pages, with the Star of David on them, are not going to found?

From Gateway Pundit

In 2014, Zahra Billoo, the radical executive-director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter, tweeted that she “struggles with Memorial Day each year.”

In January 2019 The Wall Street Journal reported that Zahra Billoo was directing Facebook and Twitter on censoring conservative voices.

Billoo had an exceptional hatred for Jewish conservative Laura Loomer and pushed Facebook and Twitter to delete Laura from their platform.

As Jordan Schachtel reported at Conservative Review — Zahra Billoo has numerous tweets that violate the so-called Twitter and Facebook standards for hate speech.

Twitter this week locked out users who used the Jewish Star of David in their profile image.

The Jerusalem Post reported:

Twitter users found themselves locked out of their accounts after using the Star of David in their profile images.

The Star of David has been deemed “hateful imagery” by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism has reported that several Twitter users have contacted them in recent days to report that their accounts had been locked by the social media platform. The reason given? According to messages they received from Twitter: “We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against posting hateful imagery. You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. As a result, we have locked your account.”

The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.

It is frustrating that most of the users on FB and Twitter, even if conservative, knowing of the open hostility towards President Trump, other conservatives, and Biblical Christians, remain on their platforms anyway. Just like the Germans under Hitler, those who should stand up and call out the Anti-Semite racism don’t, but instead pursue their dreams while those of Jewish descent are attacked by those looking to silence them completely. Shame on Twitter, Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

Moderate Journalist Bari Weiss Issues Brutal Resignation Letter from the NY Times

Moderate Journalist Bari Weiss Issues Brutal Resignation Letter from the NY Times

The left has just forced out one the remaining real journalist from the New York Times. We are not talking about a conservative, but an actual moderate, who lets a story go where it leads and report it to the readers, for their evaluation. This world view is no longer wanted at this propaganda outlet.

Bari Weiss, a non-leftist at the New York Times, has issued a brutally honest resignation letter.  As you go through it, you see a few, somewhat naive expectations, as she joined the well known, political activist, hit piece publication.

The political centrist held no punches in describing the work environment as “toxic” for those not pushing a liberal agenda. She said she was called a “Nazi” and a “racist” by her colleagues, while leadership hardly stepped in.

In her letter to Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger, Weiss explained why she first joined the times in 2017. Her reasoning? To bring honest balance to giant news platform:

I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

She continued to describe how the New York Times has derailed from objective professional journalism and now caters to a leftist narrative.

Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history,” she wrote. “Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative…Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.”

The hostility at the Gray Lady seemed to be overlooked by Weiss’s superiors, as she explained their apathy towards disparaging comments by peers even while being praised by her leadership.

“I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery,”

Weiss also mentioned how there are likely several writers at the New York Times who feel the way she does. She gave a list of rules that would be well-suited for a New York Times employee who was more concerned about their career than their duty to objectively report.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

Acting editorial page editor Kathleen Kingsbury provided a statement to Fox News responding to Weiss’s resignation.

“We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion. I’m personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report,” Kingsbury said. “We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.”

With just a little effort, it is easy to verify that Kathleen’s statement to Fox was blatantly dishonest. The NYT has only promoted one opinion, unabated for decades. You would be hard-pressed to find a handful of objective New Yorkers, who would define their publication of balanced.

Bari, I believe nailed it, in her assessment for the longing for a free press in our country.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal idea or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

Hopefully, Bari Weiss finds a position with or starts her own, more balanced news platform, adding needed content in the news cycle. As a conservative, I am sure I will not agree with some of her positions, but under our 1A, this is how our founders had envisioned it.

Pelosi Busted: Gives Facebook $180K For Advertisements All While Telling Advertisers To Boycott The Social Media ‘Platform’

Pelosi Busted: Gives Facebook $180K For Advertisements All While Telling Advertisers To Boycott The Social Media ‘Platform’

Because the ‘fact-checkers’ are so aggressive these days, let me state, yet again, that this article contains my opinions and an excerpt from an article that appeared on the Fox News website.

The fact I feel it is necessary to include this disclaimer, yet again, speaks volumes about the state of freedom of speech online these days …

Opinion| Mark Sidney| It is no secret that I believe that the major social media companies have been in bed with, and doing the bidding of the Democrat Party machine.

Although we have seen stretches where some of our page reach has returned, overall we have seen about 10% of the reach we were seeing before Trump won the election in 2016.

That being said, ever since Trump’s EO about social media, we have seen an increase in traffic, however, it seems to have stopped sometime yesterday.

The Democrats, who were once known as defenders of free speech (in some circles) are now openly calling for online censorship.

There is no doubt in my mind that they are looking to censor the people who have political views with which they disagree, or which counter the ‘official’ MSM narrative.

Hillary gets it:

Hillary Clinton says running Facebook would be her dream job Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey on Friday that if she could be CEO of any company right now, she’d choose Facebook, the Washington Post reports.’

There is no question that the Dems understand the power of social media and want to use it as a political weapon while denying their opposition the ability to spread their messages on the platforms.

Just look at what Pelosi is saying, and then at what she is doing:

Fox News aggregated this section of an article from the Washington Free Beacon:

‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on advertisers to boycott social media networks unless the outlets agree to restrict “dangerous” political speech, even as her campaign spent over $180,000 on Facebook ads over the past week.

“Advertisers are in a position, they have power to discourage platforms from amplifying dangerous and even life-threatening disinformation,” said Pelosi at an online conference on social media hosted by George Washington University on Tuesday.

Pelosi said advertisers should use “a combination” of tactics to pressure social media companies to change their policies, including pulling ad revenue.

Pelosi spent $182,528 on Facebook ads over the past seven days, according to Facebook’s public database. The spending shows the value Democrats place on the platform as a political fundraising and organizing tool, even as they call for tighter speech restrictions on the site.

Pelosi’s comments appear to correspond with Joe Biden’s public pressure campaign against Facebook. Last week, the Democratic presidential candidate called on supporters to protest Facebook and demand that the website restrict “misinformation” posted on the platform by Donald Trump and his supporters.’

Imagine that, a hypocritical politician… go figure.

0