Category Archives: thought crime

Scrabble Players Association to ban 238 words that cause harm, even on a board

This will certainly end all the problems in our country…

From USA Today:

“The North American Scrabble Players Association is prepared to vote this week to ban more than 200 offensive words from its official lexicon for judging in tournaments, according to a report from The New York Times. If the rule change is approved as expected, the ban will go in effect by September.

Hasbro told The New York Times on Tuesday the NASPA had “agreed to remove all slurs from their word list for Scrabble tournament play, which is managed solely by NASPA and available only to members.” Hasbro owns rights to Scrabble in North America.

While some competitive Scrabble players endorse using the words because of the points allotted, John Chew, the CEO of NASPA, told members in a recent newsletter banning the words is best because of the harm they can cause even on a Scrabble board.

“I have felt for a long time that there are some words in our lexicon that we hang onto in the mistaken belief that our spelling them with tiles on a board strips them of their power to cause harm,” Chew said.

It is not hard to unlearn 238 words (including inflections), none of which are high-probability, and all of which have offensive meanings that are easy to remember.”

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Attack of the Clones

As seen on Whatfinger.com

In the absence of reliable sources I have decided to add a humorous video from Whatfinger.com

This 13 minute video will leave you laughing and cheering if you are a Conservative.

If you are a Liberal…

your head will explode.


~ Traildust

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

We had a chance for unity…

After the death of George Floyd people on BOTH the left and right were outraged. It was appalling and everyone called for immediate action by the Minneapolis Police Department. We wanted to see justice.

It was chance for both sides to work together to address police brutality, especially against African Americans.

Then progressives and BLM took over and started making demands. Demanding you acknowledge your white privilege. Demanding you kneel before protestors. Demanding you support their movement without dissent. See the following examples:

Kneel before protestors and ask for forgiveness: “During a protest over the death of George Floyd, dozens of white protesters knelt before a group of African American protesters and asked for forgiveness from past sins of white people, which the leader described as “years and years of racism, of systematic racism.” In response, the black protesters knelt with their white counterparts and joined them in prayer.”

Deny white children their innocence:

Teens encouraged to publicly shame their racist parents on Tik Tok: I literally hate my family so much,” Izabella said, eyes wet from crying. “It’s just. They just tried to argue with me that George Floyd — like, they just tried to tell me that he deserved that ’cause he did something wrong, and that it was okay. That is not okay. And it’s just making me so upset. I don’t know. I do not wanna live here. I hate livin’ in Louisiana. I hate livin’ around these racist f-cks. Like, I just wanna leave.”

Withhold affection from relatives who don’t support BLM: “The New York Times ran an op-ed telling people to withhold affection from their relatives unless they protest or give money to anti-racism organizations.”

Have your white children publicly denounce their privilege: “Mother is slammed over photo of her young daughter taking the knee on her doorstep while holding a placard reading ‘privileged’ during Black Lives Matter protests.”

We cannot achieve unity without agreement and compromise. By mandating how a white person responds to your movement, you shutdown chances of ever achieving a common goal.

Public humiliation and shaming is also not a viable way to achieve unity.

By setting mandates based upon YOUR conditions and my skin color (for which I have no control over), you shutdown MY voice. Which really means this movement is a one-way street.

If you think this will help achieve unity, you’d be wrong. In fact, I predict MORE racial division as a result of these tactics.

But what do I know? That’s just my white-privileged opinion.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Evidence points to CNN and Shaun King guilty of fabricating George Floyd video.

 

More  and more information related to this event becomes available daily.  In an effort to not be fake news. I will be updating this post often..  For example, The original version of this post was based on a video that lead  me to believe the event happened on one street.  Later on after posting, a new, more complete video became available.  Irregardless,  my opinion on this event will not change.  I believe this event was staged. The embedded recording times in the  videos iis the proof. That is the focus of this post/research.  If  the information was not related to the video time, chances are I didn’t  include it. Sometimes too much information can be confusing and unnecessary once you have proven your point.  I believe this is one of those situations.  Any information I include that does not support my point, I do so in the spirit of information  sharing.

 

Update- Body cam footage  worn by officer driving “Park Police” vehicle has different  embedded time  and  date in video.  That’s  3 different recording times  for 3 different  video’s  of the same event.

Given the obvious importance of accurate time and date in body cam videos. Real police officers would be sure time was correct.  

 

 

 

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

We’re Being Played: BLM “Good Cop” vs. ANTIFA “Bad Cop”

Cross-posted with trevor loudon.com

One need not be a cynic to observe that media-propelled street demonstrations over the killing of a Black occur, with suspicious correlation, during the months preceding elections: Trayvon Martin in 2012; Michael Brown (Ferguson, MO and Oakland, CA) in 2014; Sylville Smith (Milwaukee) and Keith Lamont Scott (Charlotte) in 2016. And now in 2020, across the nation after the death (murder?) of George Floyd.

This is not to say that outrage over the death of George Floyd is to be dismissed as inauthentic, nor unwarranted. While there is much we don’t yet know, the now-infamous video is certainly prima facie evidence of police abuse. Still, there is much that must be to be determined before we can reach legitimate conclusions: was the knee on the neck accepted procedure in that department (doubtful), used on Whites and Blacks alike, or did the officer go out of bounds? Was he disciplined before, or even did the department try to fire him before, but was unsuccessful due to union contract protections?

We still have much to learn.  In time, we will know. What we do know now is that the matter has the full attention of state, local and federal prosecutors, and justice will be done, and in the daylight of media coverage. In turn, a salutary deterrence effect of rogue police behavior will be advanced.

At the same time, it’s also worth noting that the same folks who are quick to condemn all police, and indeed our entire country for “systemic racism,” are the first ones to dismiss the rioting and looting as coming from a “few bad actors” while the “overwhelming majority of protestors are peaceful.”

Well guess what? The overwhelming majority of police are upstanding and brave individuals, performing a ever-more difficult and dangerous jobs (and so they do deserve robust job protections, just not at the expense of preventing the removal of those who do not deserve to wear a badge).

Before we proceed however, it must be stated unequivocally that the entire premise of “police slaughtering Blacks” and “systemic racism” in this country is a big lie – one worthy of premier propagandists like Edward Bernays and his spiritual protégé, Josef Goebbels. Don’t take my word for it – it’ll be dismissed as coming from a White male, in Progressive-speak meaning that it is to be summarily dismissed. So instead, consider the words of intellectually honest Blacks, such as Candace Owens (here  and here) and Larry Elder (here and here).

When you have big lies developed, distributed and adhered to, notwithstanding contrary evidence, you have an underlying agenda – one that may be shrouded even from the public operatives perpetuating the big lies.

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Democrats kill amendment to bill which would prevent credit discrimination based on politics or religion

Frances Martel reports for Breitbart, that on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020, Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against an amendment to a proposed bill that would prevent the powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from forcing private credit scoring companies to evaluate Americans based on political opinions or religious beliefs — to “make use of information related to political opinions, religious expression, or other expression protected by the First Amendment, whether obtained from a social media account of a consumer or other sources.”

The amendment would have been tacked onto Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s (D-MA) Student Borrower Credit Improvement Act, or Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020.

House Democrats rejected the amendment with 208 votes. Only 15 Democrats voted in favor of the free speech protections. Some, like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), took the pusillanimous non-committal way by abstaining.

Republicans warn that without such an amendment, the powerful CFPB would have the legal authority to make nearly any criteria mandatory for a private credit evaluation company to take into consideration, paving the way for a system in which the federal government has the power to assign numerical scores to individuals like Communist China’s social credit system, based on their loyalty to a certain political party, membership in civil society groups that the government approves or disapproves of, or other private behaviors.

In a statement following the House vote, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) warned that if the Senate also passes the bill (Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020) without the amendment, the CFPB would now have the power to use any aspect of a person’s life to change their credit score, with significant potential for abuse. McCarthy said:

“In keeping with their theme of handing over more control to the government, Democrats now support giving the CFPB unchecked authority on credit score modeling, without any built-in measure to stop potential abuse of power or violation of our Constitutional rights. There is a terrifying parallel to the practices of China’s communist regime, which seeks to control the actions of their population with a social credit score. This kind of oppressive practice is antithetical to American freedoms and ideals.”

China’s new “social credit system” bans citizens from key social services like public transportation if they lose too many points behaving in a way disapproved by the Communist Party. China has begun exporting this system, along with its surveillance technology, to countries in the Western Hemisphere like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

See “Totalitarianism: China will keep ‘social credit’ score on each citizen for reward/punishment

Democratic 2020 presidential candidates have posited a point system like China’s “social credit” for evaluating good citizenship. Andrew Yang calls his “modern time banking”. He said on his website: “Volunteer activity and community engagement would be tracked by an app and seeded, initially, by the government. After that, local administrators would oversee the program.”

Created in 2011 to protect Americans from economic malfeasance in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) supposedly is responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. Designed by Sen. Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren (D-MA), CFPB’s jurisdiction is vast in scope, including banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors and other financial companies.

Though an agency of the executive branch of the federal government, CFPB does not answer to the President, making it unaccountable to anyone but its director, 45-year-old Kathy Kraninger — a Republican and a Trump administration appointee. The President of the United States has only limited oversight over CFPB through a narrow list of reasons to remove a director.

CFPB has faced repeated accusations of abuse of power, particularly under its founding director Richard Cordray, an Obama appointee. In perhaps the most absurd example of overreach, the CFPB attempted in 2015 to punish a land development company for not maintaining roads in Tennessee at the standard the Bureau deemed appropriate.

The constitutionality of giving an unelected body such as the CFPB the power to impose its demands on private individuals and corporations has been the subject of extensive debate and unsuccessful lawsuits. Last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the CFPB.

On the same day as the House Democrats’ defeat of the free speech-protecting amendment, Elizabeth Warren launched a campaign against “disinformation,” a word the Chinese Communist Party often uses to censor speech. She tweeted:

Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump must be prepared to take on the full array of disinformation that foreign actors and people in and around his campaign will use to divide Democrats, suppress Democratic votes, and erode the standing of the Democratic nominee. Campaigns and tech companies can take a number of steps to slow the spread of misinformation right now. And as president, I’ll take a series of actions to further address the spread of disinformation.

Warren also vowed that “when” elected President, she would not only overturn everything President Trump has achieved, she would hunt down and punish Trump administration officials and functionaries.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

New Rasmussen Poll Predicts Violence Regardless of Trump Impeachment Outcome

 

The Daily Wire Sunday (Nov. 24) reported the results of a new Rasmussen poll that found a majority of likely voters believe violence will erupt regardless of how the impeachment of Present Trump plays out. A striking percentage of those polled believed that members the other political party “lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.”  A smaller percentage thought members of the other political party were “downright evil.”

There is an old Chinese curse that goes something like this: 願你生活在有趣的時代 May you live in interesting times.

From DailyWire.com

By  Frank Camp

On Thursday, Rasmussen Reports released a survey showing that a majority of “likely voters” believe that removing the president from office via impeachment would “lead to violence.” Perhaps more shocking, a larger majority believe that anti-Trump individuals will “resort to violence.” The survey was conducted between November 18-19 on 1,000 “likely voters.”

Specifically, the survey asked respondents: “How concerned are you that President Trump’s impeachment and removal from office will lead to violence?” Rasmussen reports that 53% of respondents indicated that they are concerned. 24% are “very concerned.”

The survey also asked: “How concerned are you that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence?” 59% of respondents indicated that they are concerned. 34% are “very concerned.”

Democrats don’t appear nearly as worried about opposition violence.

“While 40% of Democrats are very concerned that those opposed to Trump’s policies will resort to violence, just 18% feel that way about his supporters if the president is removed from office,” according to Rasmussen. When asked about the likelihood of a new “civil war” occurring within “the next five years,” 31% of respondents said that such a scenario is likely. 9% said it was “very likely.”

Awareness of political aggression and politically-motivated violence seems to have moved to the forefront of America’s collective consciousness.

According to a Pew Research survey conducted in April and May, 85% of respondents believe that the “nature of political debate … has become more negative in recent years.”

An October 2018 survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on “800 full-time undergraduates” found that a significant number of students believe that violence is justified as a preventative measure against “hate speech.”

According to The Wall Street Journal, the survey asked students if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.” 33% said that they “agree” with the statement.

In early-October, Nathan Kalmoe, assistant professor of political communication at Louisiana State University, tweeted out some troubling information from a YouGov survey:

“In a 2019 YouGov survey w/ @LilyMasonPhD, 70% of Reps & 56% of Dems saw the other party as “a serious threat to the United States & its people.”

55% of Reps & 44% of Dems said the other party is “not just worse for politics—they are downright evil.” 34% of Reps & 27% of Dems said the other party “lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.”

A small but disturbing percentage of respondents indicated favorability toward “political violence,” according to Kalmoe. 55% of Reps & 44% of Dems said the other party is “not just worse for politics—they are downright evil.”

34% of Reps & 27% of Dems said the other party “lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.”

We also asked several questions about attitudes toward political violence. Here’s one. Other items asked about threatening leaders & citizens, & support for violence if your party loses in 2020. You can see most (but not all) people rejected partisan violence today.

The survey asked: “How much do you feel it is justified for [own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?”

While a strong 87.3% of respondents said “not at all,” 5.2% said “a moderate amount,” 4.7% said “a little,” 1.5% said “a great deal,” and 1.3% said “a lot.”

That means that out of all respondents, approximately 12.7% were at least a little bit comfortable with the idea of using violence as a tool of political power.

The Rasmussen survey report can be viewed here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2019/voters_fear_violence_from_trump_s_foes_more_than_his_supporters

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Triggered: Oregon high school stages walk out due to offensive language & Chick-fil-A food truck

If you are a Christian and don’t believe in homosexual marriage you WILL be punished. Punished for hurting the feelings of those who don’t feel safe with your beliefs.

In West Linn, Oregon (just south of Portland), students staged a walkout because of what they believe is damaging actions/beliefs and they just want to feel safe. They claim there’s been a rise in “transphobic” language, bullying and that a transgender student had his/her/it (I’m unsure of their preferred pronoun) car vandalized.

Then there’s another HORROR: There’s been a Chick-fil-A food cart at home football games. That will soon come to an end because yummy chicken sandwiches are triggering.

Read the whole story here or watch below.

Kids today are so fragile. Better grow up fast young ones because the REAL WORLD doesn’t offer safe spaces for your precious feelings.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Twitter to ban all political advertising

Jack Dorsey, CEO of  Twitter and self-appointed censor of free political speech, announced on the eve of Satan’s holiday that ALL political advertising  on Twitter is now banned.

In addition, the ban extends t0 election advertising and political issues. Think anti-abortion, pro second amendment, and global climate change skeptics. In addition, it does not take an Einstein to figure out that this policy is aimed directly at President Trump, who uses Twitter to inform citizens of important issues that Twitter and the rest of the left wing, libtard, socialist/communist media cabal ignore.

From: The Guardian-US Edition

by Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco

Wed 30 Oct 2019 18.19 EDT

First published on Wed 30 Oct 2019 16.05 EDT

 

Twitter will ban all political advertising, the company’s CEO has announced, in a move that will increase pressure on Facebook over its controversial stance to allow politicians to advertise false statements.

The new policy, announced via Jack Dorsey’s Twitter account on Wednesday, will come into effect on 22 November and will apply globally to all electioneering ads, as well as ads related to political issues. The timing means the ban will be in place in time for the UK snap election.

jack 🌍🌏🌎

@jack

We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…🧵

384K

4:05 PM – Oct 30, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

111K people are talking about this

Twitter had previously implemented rules and restrictions for political advertising.

The announcement comes as Facebook is embroiled in a controversy over its decision to exempt ads by politicians from third-party fact checking and from a policy that bans false statements from paid advertisements. Dorsey explained the motivations behind the change in a lengthy Twitter thread that appeared to include several references and responses to the convoluted arguments that Facebook has put forward in recent weeks.

The organic spread of political messages online “should not be compromised by money”, he wrote. The advanced state of digital advertising technology, including “machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting” and deepfakes – fake or manipulated videos that appear real – combined with the pollution of the online information ecosystem with misinformation, “present entirely new challenges to civic discourse”.

“This isn’t about free expression,” he added, in a seeming riposte to the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent defense of online political advertising in a speech billed as a “stand for voice and free expression”. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.”

Dorsey tweeted another counter-argument to Facebook with an accompanying winking emoji, writing: “It’s not credible for us to say: ‘We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, but if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want!’”

jack 🌍🌏🌎

@jack

Replying to @jack

For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want! 😉”

 48.6K

4:05 PM – Oct 30, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

7,398 people are talking about this

That argument appears to mock Facebook’s recent attempts to justify its decisions to exempt posts by politicians from its third-party factchecking program, and ads by politicians from a policy that bans false statements from paid advertisements.

Together, the policies have created a situation in which Facebook is simultaneously asserting its commitment to reducing misinformation while allowing incumbent politicians and political candidates to lie in paid campaign ads.

Dorsey called for “forward-looking political ad regulation”, noting that transparency requirements that have been proposed by US lawmakers are “progress but not enough.”

“The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field,” he said.

Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, called Twitter’s decision “another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives” while Hillary Clinton called it “the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world” and the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deemed it “a good call”.

Daniel Kreiss, an associate professor of journalism and media at the University of North Carolina, argued that companies should focus on restricting the use of personal data in ad targeting rather than banning all political ads, which he said “favors incumbents and media appointed elites vis-a-vis challengers”.

J Nathan Matias, an assistant professor of communication at Cornell University, said that the ban could have a number of unintended consequences, including pushing campaigns to use more bots and “hybrid human-software coordination on Twitter”.

“It’s very hard to define ‘political’ things from non-political discourse,” he added. “If their policies are too loose or their enforcement too clumsy, Twitter could do real damage to public health, the uptake of government services and civic life.”

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

California demorat calls for expansion of red flag laws: Employers, co-workers & teachers can petition to take away your guns

California Assemblymember Phil Ting tweeted about his excitement to remove due process for law-abiding citizens, all in the name of “gun safety.”

From his tweet: “My bill, #AB61, which improves gun safety by expanding CA’s #RedFlagLaw, heads to the Gov! If signed, more people can access a court process that temporarily takes away someone’s firearms if they pose a danger. I called for better gun laws at an SF rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ18vDie_70 …”

What #AB61 allows is for employers, co-workers and teachers to petition judges to take away guns from people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. The bill Ting has proposed had cleared the California Senate.

More details from 13NewsNow.com:

“California enacted a so-called “red flag law” that took effect in 2016. But it only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to ask judges for gun restraining orders. Assembly Bill 61 by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco would expand that law.

Ting introduced the bill in response to a November 2018 mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, where 12 people were killed. The gunman, Ian David Long, had shown signs of instability to family and friends.

Groups advocating gun rights and civil liberties oppose the bill, which still must be approved by the state Assembly.”

The Thousand Oaks shooter legally obtained his firearm yet had various “interactions” with police and possibly PTSD. In April, a mental health specialist with the crisis team met with the shooter during a previous incident and felt he might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. But after speaking with him, they decided not to detain him under laws that allow for the temporary detention of people with psychiatric issues. So law enforcement had the means to remove his guns but they chose not to.

The summary of the bill states the following:

“Expands the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte temporary gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, to include an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.”

Read the whole bill here.

Photo from YAF

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0