Category Archives: First Amendment

Stuff it: UN human rights chief says Trump’s attack on media “dangerous”

zeid raad al hussein

Zeid all of a sudden concerned with “human rights”

“Freedom of the press” doesn’t give them the right to intentionally misquote and represent what Trump says. Why don’t you stick to what you know best: wasting U.S. taxpayer money.

From NY Post: US President Donald Trump’s criticism of journalists amounts to an attack on the freedom of the press and could provoke violence against reporters, the United Nations’ human rights chief said Wednesday.

Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said Trump had also made worrying remarks about women, Mexicans and Muslims, and he went on to question the president’s approach to immigration and decision to pardon former Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio.

There was no immediate response from the White House on the wide-ranging rebuke of Trump’s repeated references to the “fake media” and some of his other statements and decisions.

“It’s really quite amazing when you think that freedom of the press, not only sort of a cornerstone of the US Constitution but very much something that the United States defended over the years, is now itself under attack from the president,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said.

“It’s sort of a stunning turnaround. And ultimately the sequence is a dangerous one,” he told a news conference in Geneva.

Referring to the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN, he added: “To call these news organizations ’fake’ does tremendous damage and to refer to individual journalists in this way, I have to ask the question, is this not an incitement for others to attack journalists?”

Zeid voiced concern that a journalist from the Guardian had been “assaulted in the United States most recently” but gave no details.

Trump rounded on journalists last week, calling them “truly dishonest people” and criticizing their coverage of a white supremacist-organized rally in Virginia and the political fallout from his comments that violence there was caused by “many sides.”

Nazi salutes, swastikas, anti-Semitic slurs and racist references to African-Americans had “no place in the United States or beyond,” Zeid said in his first comments on the events in Charlottesville.

Trump has also made worrying remarks about women, Mexicans and Muslims, “mocked a person with disabilities publicly” and issued a directive on a transgender ban in the military, he said.

“The president prides himself as a taboo breaker, indeed his supporters see him as such. But at the time I expressed my feeling that this was grossly irresponsible, because it has consequences, it emboldens those who may think similarly to sharpen their assaults on these communities,” he said.

Zeid voiced deep concern at Trump’s pardon of Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt in a racial profiling case that highlighted tensions over immigration policy.

“Does the president support racial profiling, of Latinos in particular, does he support abuse of prisoners? Arpaio referred at one stage to the open-air prison that he set up as a concentration camp, he later recanted, said it was a joke,” Zeid said. “Does the president support this? These actions have consequences.”

Zeid, comparing the leadership role of a US president to a bus driver, said: ”I almost feel that the president is driving the bus of humanity and we’re careening down a mountain path.

“And in taking these measures, at least from a human rights perspective, it seems to be reckless driving.”

DCG

Advertisements

Libtards’ civility on display: Left-wing protestors plan to leave dog poop for Patriot Prayer rally

sbathroom_toilettpoopsteaming_100-100

Keep it classy libtards…

From Sacramento Bee: A rally that some are calling a gathering of right-wing supporters this weekend in San Francisco could have attendees watching their every step.

The Oregon-based group Patriot Prayer is set to share its message at what is billed as a free-speech rally Saturday at Crissy Field, which sits just along the San Francisco Bay near Golden Gate Bridge. However, those protesters will likely be met by a lot of dog poop.

A man named Tuffy Tuffington says on Facebook he wants people to “leave a gift for our alt-right friends” by asking people to let their dogs “do their business” at Crissy Field before the Patriot Prayer event.

The event adds that all droppings will be cleaned Sunday.

“I just had this image of alt-right people stomping around in the poop,” Tuffington, a 45-year-old artist and designer who owns two Patterdale terriers, told The Guardian. “It seemed like a little bit of civil disobedience where we didn’t have to engage with them face to face.”

Patriot Prayer’s organizer, Joey Gibson, takes issue to his organization being called a white supremacist or racist group. “Absolutely not,” Gibson says in a video on the group’s Facebook page. “I believe in what’s on the inside,” adding that he doesn’t care about race, sexual orientation or political preference.

“Patriot Prayer is about using the power of love and prayer to fight the corruption both in the government and citizen levels that seek to gain power through division and deception,” the page’s “About” section reads.

However, that hasn’t stopped some leaders from calling the event dangerous, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jackie Speier, both Bay Area-based lawmakers who spoke to KGO about their concerns.

The Sacramento Bee will be sending a reporter to the rally this weekend.

DCG

College professor wears “combat gear” to protest Texas’ campus carry law

professor charles smith

Just a tad melodramatic…

From Fox News: A Texas professor is making waves on social media after protesting the state’s campus carry law by wearing protective combat gear to class.

San Antonio College geography instructor Charles K. Smith went to his class last week sporting a camouflaged bulletproof vest and helmet. He said he wore it because he doesn’t feel safe.

“It definitely makes me feel uneasy that there are more firearms on campus than there should be,” Smith told mySA.com. “[Dressing this way] was just a statement on how I felt.”

Campus Carry, which was signed into state law in 2015 and officially implemented into Texas community colleges on Aug. 1, allows individuals with a conceal license to carry a handgun on college premises. The law went into effect at 4-year institutions in 2016.

A photo of Smith wearing the combat gear was shared on Facebook, which generated a flurry of comments in favor of and against the professor.

“I realize students were carrying guns on campus illegally, but now it’s legal to do so. It increases the chances of something happening,” said Smith, who also acknowledged that no one had pulled a gun on him in his 10 years at the college.

“Used to, when they got mad at me, they had to go home to get the gun and had time to cool off. Now they will have it with them,” he added.

Smith said he’s concerned about an argument breaking out and one of the participants having a gun. “My assumption is that you will have more people carrying guns – that will lead to problems. It always has,” he said. “There is nothing on this planet worth a human life.”

James “Hot Mustard” Velten, who posted the photo on Facebook, told Fox News on Tuesday that response on campus has been mostly positive. “Many professors admire his statement about campus carry,” he said. “Many professors don’t feel safe because of the law.”

Velten also told mySA.com that Smith was a passionate professor. “Around people like that, you tend to listen a bit more,” he said.

Smith said his protest has nothing to do with San Antonio College, as they are following the law. He said he ran his plans by local police and the administration beforehand.

“Some of them were okay and some of them weren’t, but it’s freedom of speech,” he said.

DCG

Lena Dunham takes it upon herself to report two flight attendants for “transphobic talk”

lena dunham

I wouldn’t bet $100 that her story is true. You know her track record for telling the truth.

Update: According to Breitbart, there’s already some holes in her story as the airline cannot verify her claim. Shocker, not.

From Daily Mail: Lena Dunham took matters into her own hands when she heard two flight attendants engaging in ‘transphotic talk’.  The 31-year-old actress was very active on social media Wednesday night as she reported the employees to American Airlines on Twitter. She even direct messaged the major airline and shared screenshots of the private conversation on her Instagram.

At first, the Girls star was complaining about a plane delay and being ‘admonished’ over having a wrinkled boarding pass until she heard the unsavory chatter. Lena wrote: ‘Not gonna call out the airline who delayed cuz shit happens BUT I did just overhear 2 @AmericanAir attendants having a transphobic talk.’

She then went on to tell the over 90-year-old airline how employees should be trained in this day and age.

The comedienne wrote:  ‘At this moment in history we should be teaching our employees about love and inclusivity @AmericanAir. That was worst part of this night.’

She then went on to share screenshots of the private messages she sent the airline including: ‘I think it reflects badly on uninformed employees of your company to have that kind of dialogue going on.’

Lena also wrote them: ‘Awareness starts at home but jobs can set standards of practice.’

The customer service representative took information from the star and said they would pass it along for further review.

The next day, Lena reflected on the entire happening and even shared her societal views as she wrote: ‘For those who followed my airport saga yesterday, here’s my takeaway: these days it’s the little things. A smile. Offering a seat. Respect.’

We can’t afford to treat each other like cattle when we have a government that does. Being trapped at the airport filled me with love!’

Despite the incident in the air, things are going swimmingly for Dunham as she will appear on the new season of FX’s American Horror Story. Creator Ryan Murphy tweeted the news which was also confirmed by her reps to the Hollywood Reporter, adding that the Girls star will appear in just one episode of AHS season seven.

DCG

Threat to free speech: Unconstitutional S720/HR1697 will make it a felony to support anti-Israel boycott

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West:

  • In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel.
  • The U.K. has also enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism.
  • In the U.S., state governors have implemented regulations barring businesses from participating in any boycotts of Israeli settlements in Palestine. On college campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

Now there are two companion bills in Congress which will criminalize free speech by making it a felony to support any boycott of Israel, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that members of Congress have sworn to protect.

The bills are S.720 and its companion in the House, H.R. 1697, with an identical name, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act.

Here’s the text of S 720:

Israel Anti-Boycott Act

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
  • supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

S 720’s companion bill, HR 1697, is much longer. It explains that:

“For a half century, Congress has combated anti-Israel boycotts and other discriminatory activity under the Export Administration Act of 1979.”

HR 1697 also specifies the punishment for violating the Israel Anti-Boycott Act: a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison:

Whoever knowingly violates or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of section 8(a) [of the Export Administration act of 1979] or any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder shall be fined in accordance with section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705).”

And what are those penalties? From 50 U.S.C. 1705:

“(b) Civil penalty

A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of- (1) $250,000; or (2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.

(c) Criminal penalty

A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.”

Both bills have widespread bipartisan support:

(1) S 720 was introduced by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and has 45 co-sponsors:

  • 31 Republicans: John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Tom Cotton (AR), Mike Crapo (IA), Ted Cruz (TX), Deb Fischer (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), Dean Heller (NV), John Hoeven (ND), Johnny Isakson (GA), James Lankford (OK), Jerry Moran (KS), David Perdue (GA), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Roberts (KS), Marco Rubio (FL), Ben Sasse (NE), Tim Scott (SC), Luther Strange (AL), Dan Sullivan (AR), John Thune (SD), Thom Tillis (NC), Roger Wicker (MS), Todd Young (IN).
  • 14 Democrats: Michael Bennet (CO), Richard Blementhal (CT), Maria Cantwell (WA), Christopher Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Kristen Gillibrand (NY), Margaret Wood Hassan (NH), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Robert Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Gary Peters (MI), Charles Schumer (NY), Ron Wyden (OR).

(2) HR1697 was introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) and has 240 co-sponsors:

  • 177 Republicans
  • 63 Democrats

S 720 was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on March 23, 2017. Its companion bill, HR 1697, was referred to the House Financial Services Committee also on March 23, 2017.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports on July 20, 2017, that HR 1697/S 720 “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee” (AIPAC). Indeed, AIPAC’s 2017 lobbying agenda identifies passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.

The two bills that will make it a felony if you support any boycott of Israel also have the support of the thoroughly-cucked Christians United for Israel.

Did you know that, according to a list compiled in 2012, there are 41 members of Congress (29 in the House; 12 in the Senate) who have dual US-Israeli citizenship, which means they have dual loyalties?

The above list is dated in that Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner are no longer representatives.

Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), 73, who introduced S720 and whose grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants, is on the above list. The family name was originally Kardonsky.

In 2015, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), 55, who introduced HR 1697, wrote a letter to the New York Times condemning the paper for a graphic on members of Congress opposed to Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement, which initially identified Jewish lawmakers with a bold yellow highlight. Roskam, who opposed the nuclear deal, called the graphic “anti-Semitic” and that it “feeds the canard of dual loyalty that legitimizes prejudice toward Jews worldwide.”

What is needed is an updated list. Alas, as L. Michael Hager — co-founder and former director general of the International Development Law Organization, Rome — discovered, it is extremely difficult to identify members of Congress who hold dual citizenship and to ascertain the second nationality of those members.

In October 2014, Hagen filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the names of members of Congress with dual citizenship. In January 2015, he finally got a non-answer in a telephone call from a legal officer of the Library of Congress. After reminding Hagen that Congress and the CRS by extension are exempt from FOIA requests, the officer said CRS does not collect dual citizenship data.

Hagen writes:

“That’s bad news for those of us who believe that citizens should know if their representatives in Congress (and senior government officials and judges, for that matter) owe allegiance to any other nation….

Without transparency on dual citizenship, Americans remain in the dark, free to speculate on which representatives may have divided loyalties…. The lack of transparency is dangerous, for it erodes trust in government, creating credibility doubts where there should be none and allowing some conflicts to continue undetected, without question or debate.

Thus the first requirement is transparency. We need a government agency (presumably the CRS) or a non-governmental organization to disclose the names and non-U.S. national affiliations of Members of Congress and senior government officials and to track and report on this issue.

Secondly, we need more media attention to the subject of dual citizenship….

Beyond the threshold issue of transparency are equally important questions of whether a dual citizen elected to Congress or appointed to a senior USG position should be required to renounce his or her citizenship in the second nation. Even if American law continues to allow the government service of dual citizens, should it not require such persons at least to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second nationality?….

Conflicts of interest and apparent conflicts by public officials erode trust in government. Allowing dual citizenship in Congress (and in the Executive and Judicial Branches) to flourish under cover of non-disclosure puts our democracy at risk.

It’s time to bring this issue into open debate.”

To their credit, both the ACLU and MoveOn.org oppose S720/HR1697. In a letter urging senators to oppose the bill, the ACLU’s national political director Faiz Shakir wrote:

“We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.”

See also:

~Eowyn

When it comes to political correctness, Millennials have the solution…

safe spaces

Like I’m going to take advice from those who love socialism yet can’t define it. Riiiiight.

From Yahoo (via Business Insider): The heated debate about political correctness is often misunderstood.

While many individuals across generations dislike the pejorative use of political correctness to represent censorship, a closer investigation reveals generational differences in the desire to use inclusive language.

Millennials know that using appropriate language invites rather than restricts productive conversation. Creating a supportive environment makes space for all individuals to feel welcome in sharing their opinions, rather than fearing that people will demonize their personhood and attack their character based on their identities. Thanks to the internet, Millennials are citizens of the globe and ambassadors of social justice. Unfortunately, not all generations understand how using certain words or phrases prohibits dialogue and hurts other people.

To discover five things that all millennials want older generations to know about political correctness that they don’t understand, read the list below.

  1. There is a major difference between ‘being honest’ and spewing prejudice.

You have the right to share your opinion, but you don’t have the right to make people feel threatened. Using emotionally charged words that make others feel frightened for their mental, physical, and emotional wellbeing — even if it does not impact you in the same way — is morally wrong.

Prejudice means possessing strong unfavorable opinions about a person based on their demographics and cultural affiliations. While we all have varying degrees of prejudice, using yours to purposefully harm others, or refusing to stop saying words that others find hurtful, is bullying. Just as you want a teacher to intervene and protect your child from a bully, it’s okay for others to give you the opportunity to correct your behavior when your words are offensive.

  1. Political correctness is not about censorship, it’s about showing respect.

Censorship is a coercive attempt to hide something from people. Asking people to use more inclusive language is not silencing their voice, it’s inviting them to use language in a way that promotes productive conversation.

The purpose of political correctness is to treat all people with the love and respect they deserve. This means calling people by the pronouns they use, and avoiding words and phrases that stereotype and demonize entire groups of people. You can still possess whatever ideology you follow and you can still share your opinion, you’re just being asked to do so in a way that is not hurtful to others.

  1. Millennials feel more connected to global citizenship and human rights than nationalism.

Not only do Millennials have conversations with people around the world, they are also seeing inhumane acts of violence against marginalized people live streamed on social media. This increased visibility and exposure leads to a desire to ensure equality for all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, or religion.

Nationalism, or the belief that your country and its laws, culture, and government is superior and beyond critique, is not appealing to Millennials. Seeing firsthand pictures and videos on their smartphones of discrimination and unequal rights for people of color, Muslims, immigrants, women, and LGBTQ individuals has increased Millennials desire for social justice.

  1. Inclusive language creates space for meaningful conversations to take place, offensive language makes people feel unsafe.

If you were trying to have a difficult conversation with someone and they opened the discussion using words that were aimed at hurting your feelings, making you feel unsafe, or undermining your personhood, would you want to keep talking?

No, and that’s why everyone should use more inclusive language. When you create space for other people instead of shutting them out, it creates opportunities for honest dialogue to emerge. You’re not being ask [sic] to silence yourself, you’re being asked to use different words and phrases to express your thoughts. That subtle difference is not a big deal — you do it all the time. You don’t speak the same way to your partner as you do your grandmother or your newborn infant. Adjusting your dialogue isn’t a momentous task, and doing so might allow you to have more meaningful conversations with people from all walks of life.

  1. Millennials are not being sensitive, they’re being morally minded and ethically informed global citizens.

Many individuals in older generations think that Millennials are overly sensitive, but it may be the other way around. If Millennials are simply asking older generations to be respectful of others by using more inclusive language, and older generations respond with hostility — a common response to feeling threatened — perhaps older generations are dealing with an underlying fear of being unable to adapt to a changing world.

Making mistakes is part of learning. Most people occasionally say things that hurt other people’s feelings. But the mature individuals are the ones that apologize and then adjust. Continuing to use hurtful language only prevents meaningful and necessary conversations.

DCG

Fake news CNN unlawfully threatens maker of Trump wrestling GIF; Alt-Media vows revenge

On Sunday morning, July 2, 2017, President Trump tweeted a photoshopped GIF of him downing a wrestler whose face bore the CNN logo.

That’s CNN — the peddler of fake news, whose producer recently admitted on Project Veritas’ hidden camera that the network’s Trump-Russia story is ‘bullshit’ fake news, and contemptuously describes American voters as “Stupid as shit”.

Thin-skinned CNN went on the war path to track down the source of the Trump wrestler GIF to a Reddit poster, rumored to be a 15-year-old teen, who calls himself HanAssholeSolo (HAS). The network’s investigative KFile team then uncovered HAS’s real identity by using identifying information of key biographical details HAS had posted on Reddit and a Facebook search.

On July 4, two days after Trump’s tweet, CNN published an article written by Andrew Kaczynski, the head of CNN’s KFile team — “How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF“.  In the article, Kaczynski describes how his KFile team uncovered HAS’s real identity and contacted HAS, after which HAS publicly apologized for the GIF and confirmed his identity.

Kaczynski writes:

“In the interview [with CNN], ‘HanA**holeSolo’ sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.”

Despite the fact that HAS apologized to CNN for the GIF — which HAS is under no obligation to do, as he was simply exercising his Constitutional First Amendment right of free speech when he made the GIF — CNN (via Kacsynski) still threatens to dox (publicly reveal the identity) HAS if he does not behave properly in the future:

“CNN is not publishing ‘HanA**holeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Kacsynski also claims that HansAssholeSolo is not 15 but a middle-aged man — which may or may not be true, as there is no way for us to verify the claim, unless HAS actually comes forth and reveals his age and identity.

Kacsynski’s threat was followed by an official statement from CNN:

As WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange points out, CNN and Kacsynski’s standing threat to dox HansAssholeSolo if he ever so much as make fun of CNN again is illegal. According to New York Penal Law §135.60, CNN’s threat is coercion in the second degree and a class A misdemeanor. PEN §135.60 states:

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or

2. Cause damage to property;  or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person’s business;  except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or

7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense;  or

8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;  or

9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

The backlash against CNN-Kacsynski’s threat is swift and furious:

(1) On July 4, 2017, the chat forum 4chan‘s very resourceful /pol/ politically incorrect section declared war on CNN, vowing to utterly destroy the network. Here’s their “Declaration of War on CNN“:

“Sirs and madams,

Herein contained in this post is /pol/’s formal declaration of war against CNN. Your news agency has for years produced propaganda designed to brainwash the public at large into your sick worldview, and has non-stop endlessly harassed the good men and women of our website and in the right-wing at large. Your latest threat to dox an individual for creating a harmless meme is just another example of your malignant nature and the urgent need to shut your organization down for good.

That is why the ascendant nation of /pol/ has unanimously agreed that all of our resources will be put to the goal of ending your reign of terror. Do not take this lightly. We have the best cyber hackers in the world. We have access to memes that will forever damage the psyche of your company and its employees. We could bring you to heel with zero casualties if we so wanted. As such, we are offering you a chance to surrender now by our terms.

-Total surrender/ dismantlement of CNN and its sister companies and investigative organs
-Criminal prosecution by an impartial tribunal to accordingly sentence everyone involved in CNN and its crimes
-Immediate retraction of all hit pieces and false stories against the President of the United States along with an apology
-Cede all of CNN’s current economic and fiduciary assets to a private fund organized by representatives of /pol/ to be used for the development of new, alternative media organizations which will replace CNN
-Well-written apology to the person CNN threatened to dox

You have one week from the time of this posting. Our people will make certain that you see this message. Remember, we are anonymous. We do not forgive and we do not forget.

We’re waiting.”

And as promised, 4chan and other netcitizens delivered and will continue to exact retribution against CNN.

(2) On July 4, a 4chan poster discovered that Andrew Kaczynski follows the Church of Satan on Twitter. Is Kaczynski, like John Podesta, also a spirit-cooker?

(3) On July 5, netcitizens gave Andrew Kaczynski a taste of his own “dox” medicine by posting Kaczynski’s personal info. to pastebin and here.

(4) Someone did the research and discovered CNN is an All Jew Network, which defies the law of probability (click image below to enlarge):

(5) Reporting for the liberal Daily Caller on July 5, 2017, Betsy Rothstein claims that CNN staff have had their home addresses published and received anti-Semitic threats and accusations:

“Several anchors and reporters at CNN have had their home addresses published and have received threats of rape and other violence in the wake of a story published by Andrew Kaczynski . . . . Anti-network trolls are encouraging viewers to wrongly accuse CNN staffers of pedophilia and child pornography. There is also ‘tons of anti-Semitism.’”

Indeed, a 4chan netcitizen posted this list of home addresses of six CNN hosts and correspondents.

(6) Meme-makers got busy and created even more Trump vs. CNN pictures and GIFs. If the network had a hissy fit over the Trump wrestling GIF, this compilation is sure to give CNN honchos a stroke:

In this war, my bets are on 4chan.

Bring out the popcorn!

See also:

H/t Jim Stone and FOTM‘s MCA, MomOfIV, and Will Shanley.

UPDATE:

CNN’s ratings are plummeting. From Daily Caller, July 6, 2017:

CNN has fallen to #13 in cable TV rankings, according to weekly numbers posted on Thursday by TV Newser.

The ratings slide comes as the network has come under heavy scrutiny for a variety of journalistic missteps, including the retraction of an article alleging that a Trump associate had illicit Russian business ties.

Fox News and MSNBC are listed as first and second, respectively, in the cable rankings, which measured average audience sizes for the period between June 26 and July 2. Fox News drew an audience of around 1.82 million while MSNBC drew an audience of 1.34 million. CNN had only 711,000 viewers on an average day during the measurement period.

To give some perspective to CNN’s average daily rating of 711,000 viewers:

Fellowship of the Minds, this humble little-known blog with a handful of unpaid volunteer writers, had its best day on August 21, 2014, when we got a phenomenal 355,340 unique views. That’s half of the 711,000 average daily rating of international cable TV and corporate giant CNN, whose anchors are paid $millions.

~Eowyn