By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | January 22, 2019

In the America of today social justice warriors virtue signaling their tolerance for others have been repeatedly and quite often exposed for the bigots, sexists, and racists that they really are.

Take, for example, the following video provided by Brandon Farley via his Twitter page, in which a food cart lady parked at the PDX Women’s March in the hyper-tolerant city of Portland this past weekend refused service to an individual requesting a meal reportedly based on the fact that he is a male.

Tolerance at its finest.

You won’t see this one in the mainstream media because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Misandrists – or man haters – are not vilified or abhorred like a teenage kid with a red hat smiling during the drumming of a traditional Native America tune, but rather, are defended and raised to 15-minute celebrity status among the very peers who call for death sentences against anyone who disagrees with their oft extreme and skewed personal belief systems.

This, right here, is the hypocrisy of the modern day social justice warrior, and though we don’t see the complete incident because the preceding moments have not been made available, it sure does appear to be a case of refusal of service based on a bias on the part of the lady working the cart:

If we’re not mistaken, it is against Federal Law to discriminate against a person because of their race or sex.


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | January 17, 2019

The communist mayor of New York City has announced plans to literally steal the property of landlords he doesn’t like in the big apple. The city government would be allowed to steal the buildings of landlords who force tenants out. De Blasio’s opponents say this plan amounts to “straight communism,” and that’s a fact

Bill De Blasio in his State of the City address on Thursday, announced he wants to take action against landlords who try to force tenants out by making the property unliveable, according to a report by Fox News. He then pulled out an executive order to create a Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants. He said that in the event the government intervenes, the buildings would then be controlled by a “community nonprofit.”  But theft is still theft.  There’s no morality behind De Blasio’s plan.

“When a landlord tries to push out a tenant by making their home unlivable, a team of inspectors and law enforcement agents will be on the ground to stop it in time,” he said, according to the New York Daily News. “If the fines and the penalties don’t cut it, we will seize their buildings and we will put them in the hands of a community nonprofit that will treat tenants with the respect they deserve.”




“My first reaction was: Is this communist Cuba?” state Assemblymember Nicole Malliotakis, who ran against De Blasio in the 2017 mayoral race, told Fox News. “ I can say that as a daughter of Cuban refugees who fled Castro’s Cuba in 1959, this is what happened to her family, she had her home taken, my grandfather had his gas station taken.” Malliotakis added, “This is extreme even for Mayor de Blasio because we know that he has socialist leanings, but this is straight communism and I think it’s very scary to America-loving, democracy-loving people.”

This should be condemned by literally every human on earth, whether they vote republican or democrat.  No human ever has the right to steal the property of another human. And that extends to the humans who think they are gods in government.

Malliotakis also said that the proposal was highly hypocritical of the mayor, as she says the city runs some of the worst housing in the country via the NYC Housing Authority. She also expressed some doubt as to how his plan to seize property would fare. “Any attempt to seize property will face a court challenge and the mayor himself comes up with these ideas, throws stuff out there and doesn’t know how he intends to make it happen,” she said. “It’s all rhetoric.”

But De Blasio’s plans are more of a “communism for everyone” and until good people stand up and refuse to be controlled by the government, dictators like De Blasio will continue to use force and violence against them.


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to America Uncensored by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. You are encouraged to click their link above for more interesting content.


SHARE:

By Tyler Durden | ZeroHedge | January 16, 2019

In what Judicial Watch describes as a “major victory for accountability,” a federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department’s response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.

As Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain reports, the judge’s order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton’s use of a private email account was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” and said the response of the State and Justice Departments “smacks of outrageous misconduct.”

Judicial Watch announced last night that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials – including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan(The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to:

▪ Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;

▪ whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and

▪ whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Discovery is scheduled to be completed within 120 days. The court will hold a post-discovery hearing to determine if Judicial Watch may also depose additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

Yet Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case: information about the points’ development and content, as well as their discussion and dissemination before and after Rice’s appearances could reveal unsearched, relevant records; State’s role in the points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from FOIA requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.

Judicial Watch also may serve interrogatories on Monica Hanley, a former staff member in the State Department’s Office of the Secretary, and on Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant.

According to Lamberth’s order, regarding whether Clinton’s private email use while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA, Judicial Watch may depose:

Eric Boswell, the former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.… Boswell’s March 2009 memo to Mills … discusses security risks Clinton’s Blackberry use posed more generally. And Boswell personally discussed the memo with Clinton. So, he plainly has relevant information about that conversation and about his general knowledge of Clinton’s email use. Judicial Watch may depose Boswell.

Justin Cooper. the Clinton Foundation employee who created the clintonemail.com server. In its proposal, Judicial Watch noted Cooper’s prior congressional testimony “appears to contradict portions of the testimony provided by Huma Abedin in the case before Judge Sullivan.” … Cooper repeatedly told Congress that Abedin helped set-up the Clintons’ private server, e.g., Examining Preservation of State Department Federal Records: [before a Congressional hearing] Abedin testified under oath she did not know about the server until six years later.… Judicial Watch may depose Cooper.

Clarence Finney, the former deputy director of State’s Executive Secretariat staff…. [T]his case’s questions hinge on what specific State employees knew and when they knew it. As the principal advisor and records management expert responsible for controlling Clinton’s official correspondence and records, Finney’s knowledge is particularly relevant. And especially given the concerns about government misconduct that prompted this discovery, Judicial Watch’s ability to take his direct testimony and ask follow-up questions is critical.

Additionally, Judicial Watch states that it seeks to go beyond cursory, second-hand testimony and directly ask Finney what he knew about Clinton’s email use. This includes asking about emails suggesting he knew about her private email use in 2014, and emails he received concerning a December 2012 FOIA request from Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding senior officials’ personal email use-topics State’s 30(b)(6) deposition in Judge Sullivan’s case never addressed. Judicial Watch may depose Finney.

4. Heather Samuelson. the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate State’s receipt of Hillary Clinton’s emails.… [T]his case turns on what specific government employees knew and when they knew it. Judicial Watch must be able to take their direct testimony and ask them follow-up questions. Judicial Watch may depose Samuelson.

5. Jacob Sullivan. Secretary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy Chief of Staff. The government does not oppose Sullivan’s deposition.

Regarding whether the State Department’s settlement attempts that began in late 2014 amounted to “bad faith,” Judicial Watch was granted depositions from the State Department under Rule 30(b)(6); Finney; John Hackett, the former deputy director of State’s Office of Information Programs & Services; Gene Smilansky, an attorney-advisor within State’s Office of the Legal Advisor; Samuelson; and others.

Judicial Watch was also granted interrogatories on whether the State Department adequately searched for responsive records, as well as several document requests.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The court-ordered discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

▪ Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

▪ Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The Judicial Watch discovery plan was in response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Lamberth.

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

As a reminder, this Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.


Originally Published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge.

Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to America Uncensored by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. You are encouraged to click their link above for more interesting content.


SHARE:

By Kurt Nimmo | AnotherDayInTheEmpire | Jan. 16, 2019

Prior to the 2018 midterm election, I speculated a Democrat-controlled House would result in hearings targeting “hate groups,” that is to say anybody on the “right” who challenges official narratives, otherwise known as “conspiracy theories.”

“Rep. Bennie Thompson, an African American lawmaker from Mississippi, is in charge of the House Homeland Security Committee,” reports McClatchy. “Thompson intends to hold hearings to spotlight what experts say is a growth of deadly right wing extremism in America, even if the hearings could feature members of white supremacist groups.”

Thompson said his aim is to change the dialogue and find a balance in a U.S. domestic terrorism strategy that he believes has focused too heavily on the threat of homegrown Muslim terrorism and too little the rise of far right, white nationalist, and anti-Semitic groups.

The corporate propaganda media has done a fair job of conflating “white supremacy” and political thought the government wants to silence and shutdown.




The McClatchy article follows this line and links the “trend” of antigovernment activism to Timothy McVeigh and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That event has served as a touchstone for over two decades, primarily thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has made a cottage industry out of hyping “rightwing hate” (unacceptable political thought) and the threat of violence (for the state, the two are inseparable).

McClatchy and the corporate media have attached “rightwing extremism” to a number of violent incidents that have more to do with disturbed individuals than ideology.

A recent spate of deadly incidents—including the shooting deaths of 11 congregants at a Pittsburgh synagogue in October, the February 2018 shooting deaths of 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida and the August 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—have given Thompson and other congressional Democrats anecdotal evidence about the extreme right.

The Obama administration, continuing the work of the Bush administration, had the Department of Homeland Security produce a paper on the supposed threat posed by “rightwing extremists,” who are by the state’s definition terrorists on par (or worse than) al-Qaeda and its follow-up act, the Islamic State. Republicans, at the time a majority in the House, lambasted the paper and accused the Obama administration of overreach. Then DHS boss Janet Napolitano went into damage control mode.

Napolitano apologized for the report. But the political backlash led DHS to halt work on tracking violent far right extremism, according to Daryl Johnson, the report’s author.

But now the House is in the hands of the Democrats and they want blood following the election of Donald Trump and the rise of the so-called Alt-right, or New Right.

Under Republican control from 2011 until last week, the House Homeland Security Committee repeatedly rejected calls by Thompson and Democrats for specific probes of domestic far right activities. Some Republicans now are wary that Thompson’s probe would be conducted with a partisan eye.

“Congress and the White House has looked at terrorism through the lens of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The House Homeland Security Committee, established after those attacks, largely has focused on the foreign threat or potential danger posed by U.S. residents becoming radicalized by foreign terrorist groups.

That emphasis will change under the Democrats. The new terrorists are “homegrown” and include nationalists (shorthand for racist), constitutionalists, and libertarians. There will be hearings and possible show trials in the months ahead.

The DHS will finally arrive at its final destination—a national secret police focused on political activism challenging the ruling elite and their contrived political arrangement.

Thompson said his aim is to change the dialogue and find a balance in a U.S. domestic terrorism strategy that he believes has focused too heavily on the threat of homegrown Muslim terrorism and too little the rise of far right, white nationalist, and anti-Semitic groups.

In order to be classified as antisemitic, a group or an individual only need criticize Israel and its incestuous relationship with the ruling elite and its political operatives, in particular the neocon faction.

Thoughtcrime—opposition to the state and its policies—will not be tolerated by the political class. Democrats want to make sure another Donald Trump will not sit in the White House. In order to do this, they have to go after high profile individuals and groups, hold show trials, and continue the work of deplatforming “deplorables” and their “hate,” in other words, free speech.

Finally, a word of warning to the “far-left.” If you wander outside the parameters set by Democrats and their “progressive” foundations, you will also be attacked and undermined by the state, especially if you oppose Bush’s wars, which became Obama’s wars and now Trump’s.


Originally published by Kurt Nimmo at Another Day In The Empire.

Kurt Nimmo has blogged on political issues since 2002. In 2008, he worked as lead editor and writer at Infowars, and is currently a content producer for Newsbud.


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Sons Of Liberty | January 15, 2019

On Monday, 10-year-old Canadian boy Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden, aka “Queen Lactacia,”  was featured in a photo spread by Jonathan Frederick Turton in full drag with a naked adult male drag star.  When are people going to have enough?

The Daily Wire reports:

Young Nemis, whose drag name is “Queen Lactacia,” was shot by photographer Jonathan Frederick Turton for the spread. In one of the shots that did not make the magazine, Nemis, in full drag makeup and a black dress, is posing for a photo with the Season 7 winner of “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” Violet Chachki. In the shocking photo, Violet is wearing nothing but a pair of heels and a small piece of fabric covering his genitals, as seen in the screenshot below: (you can see the picture if you really care to here.)

“Interviewed and photographed [Queen Lactatia] for [Huck Magazine] about life as a child drag queen,” posted Turton.

Turton, according to his website, “is a multi-media content producer with specialisms in photography, videography and journalism.” He claims to have shot for mainstream outlets and businesses like the BBC, Adidas, Dazed and Confused Magazine, and The Discovery Channel.

In the jarring Huck Magazine piece — which ironically bashes Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro for calling out parents for over-sexualizing their “drag kids” — Nemis’ mother, Jessica Melancon, conceded that drag has a sexual component and is unapologetic about her young son wearing sexually suggestive clothing if it “makes him feel beautiful”:

“Drag is an adult arena and that’s where people question our judgement,” concedes Jessica. “So we have to censor things. He knows there are adult aspects of drag that he’s not allowed to apply to his show.”

“We would never try to overtly sexualise our child. But if he wears something that makes him feel beautiful, what right do I have to stop him wearing that dress because it might cause people to think things they shouldn’t be thinking? It’s a circular problem.”

This isn’t a new thing either.  When the little boy was 8-years-old, he was in Elle magazine.

If the above doesn’t get your blood boiling and angry, then you can check out a piece on little Nemis when he was 9 at Pink News (be warned its a sodomite magazine).

LifeSite even wrote about the fact that it is clear this little boy is being abused as he has no problem not only dressing up this way and acting like this but also carries messages that clearly indicate he is being sexually abused.




Nicole Russell writes at the Washington Examiner that this isn’t “progressive,”  it’s child abuse.  Indeed it is.

Russell writes:

Move over transgender kids, there is a new trend in town. Drag kids — kids dressed in full garb of their biologically opposite gender — are now joining the scene with transgender kids. The parents, guardians, and advocates of transgender or drag kids are not only supportive, but seem to be encouraging the child’s experience and publicity.

There’s nothing politically correct about this new frontier; it’s abuse, merely distorted and cloaked in progressivism.

The Advocate reported that Lactatia was “encouraged by his supportive parents” and began taking classes to perfect his art. “Lactatia’s public presence grew exponentially after he recently appeared at the Montreal stop of the Werq the World drag tour. RuPaul’s Drag Race star Bianca del Rio invited Lactatia up to the stage and the younger queen charmed the dress off the older queen (though Lactatia admitted his favorite Drag Race queen is Ginger Minj).”

Any parent of an elementary school-aged child knows children can’t wear clothes they don’t have or drive themselves places. The parents of these drag kids, are not just supporting it but encouraging it by purchasing supplies and carting their kids to drag events. This seems not only bizarre but abusive in the sense that it’s an unnatural distortion of healthy child’s play.

This trend is not about a child “being himself” but a parent encouraging an agenda that is unhealthy for a young child to embrace.

Now, Russell adds, “Certainly Hilton is not physically abusing these drag kids and neither, likely, are the children’s parents.”

I have to ask, are you sure about that Ms. Russell?  Are you absolutely certain?  How does a young boy like this have the filthy mouth he has, pushing an agenda and the sensuality that he is pushing without being subjected to physical, sexual abuse.  I’ll bet if an investigation would ensue, and it should, there is no doubt in my mind that sexual abuse would be found.

Why this boys’ parents aren’t in trouble with the law is beyond me and why those photographing him with naked men aren’t being arrested is beyond my comprehension as well.

Nothing was done when little Desmond was paraded in the States and showed up dancing in an adult sodomite club with half-naked men throwing money at him.  Nothing is done on behalf of little Nemis here.  I can tell you this:  By not doing anything to those involved, you are only encouraging more depravity, more Sodom and Gomorrah and more child abuse.  Mark my words!  It’s time to bring justice against these abusers of children.


Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, 

GunsInTheNews.com and 

TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


SHARE: