#cancelcancelculture

Canceling a mother who helps parents get babies to sleep because she donated to you know who

MRCTV’s Britt Hughes doesn’t want unity. After seeing what leftist mobs did to neo-natal nurse and mother, Cara Dumaplin, who runs the successful Taking Cara Babies website for parents who struggle to get their kids asleep, you’ll see why.

Dumaplin’s crime? She and her husband donated less than $2,000 to Trump’s campaign back in 2019. One check mark editor for @Eater, Hillary Dixler Canavan, thought that giving away Dumaplin’s intellectual property for free on PDF was a great way to ruin her livelihood. She posted on Twitter the following:

Too bad that is a crime. We sincerely hope Dumaplin sues the pants off wilful, vile and despicable imbeciles like Dixler and others like her who forced the business owner to suspend their social media accounts.

Will @Eater stand by an employee who seeks to cancel innocent people with different views? Free speech is one thing. Breaking the law isn’t. We will shed not one tear if Dixler ends up the victim of her own stupidity. Who on earth has a right to try to destroy the livelihood of someone they don’t even know?

As parents of a 12 week old, we will happily subscribe to Cara Dumaplin’s service as bubba’s sleeping patterns have changed. Perhaps we owe Dixler a debt of gratitude for highlighting a service we were unaware of and we look forward to letting other parents in our groups know the same.

Banks & Insurers lecture customers on morals

Baseball legend Curt Schilling has claimed that insurance company, AIG, has cancelled his policy over tweets he made about the recent events on the Capitol.

Schilling stated he had a AAA rating and no claims for 17 years.

Aren’t insurance companies supposed to assess risk? Did Schilling have a major endorsement contract with AIG? If so, we’d understand. If not, isn’t he an anonymous customer among millions?

What relevance does an insurance policy have to do with a customer expressing first amendment rights? Has AIG gone through the Twitter accounts of all of its policy holders to check they have not said anything similar to Schilling? If not, would be highly discriminatory, no? Should he sue?

Wasn’t AIG found guilty of entering into sham transactions in order to inflate the reserves and to conceal losses in 2005? Didn’t Schilling, a taxpayer, indirectly bail out AIG post the GFC?

Deutsche Bank has also moved to end its association with Donald Trump. Ironic, that a bank which has been fined repeatedly for unethical behavior such as money laundering thinks it has an opportunity to save its skin by signaling it has repented. Will a flood of customers open accounts as a sign of appreciation? Probably not.

Fascinating that – bank worth 8% of its peak value, is lecturing customers about morals when it has a self-documented history of being a bank for the Third Reich, including the provision of funds to build the Auschwitz extermination camp.

Since when did corporates self-appoint themselves as moral arbiters of their customers individual constitutionally enshrined liberties? Will customer social media profiles now form part of the loan application documents? “Sorry sir, your credit rating is outstanding but the application has been rejected for something you posted when 13 years old.” Got it?

More corporate cowardice masquerading as courage. This is nothing more than companies showing they are going out of their way to make public sacrifices on the altar of the Marxist fringe mobs in the hope they become the last to be cancelled. What a joke.

We never thought it imaginable but today, corporate PR departments have less spine than internal compliance officers.

Holding people to what they said as teenagers

This is cancel culture at it’s sinister core.

A bi-racial student, Jimmy Galligan, sat on a 3-second video of white student, Mimi Groves, saying something stupid, aged 15. He released it once she had been accepted for a place at the University of Tennessee. Her place has since been rescinded.

We wonder if there is a teenager on the planet that hasn’t fallen foul of saying something dopey, especially in the social media world?

We are not defending Mimi Groves for saying something inappropriate (the ‘n’ word) when she was 15. We find it more pathetic that The New York Times decided to write an article praising the cowardice of a kid who obviously didn’t care enough about what Groves said until he could use it to destroy her future.

Galligan said, “I wanted to get her where she would understand the severity of that word.”

No, instead of Galligan drawing attention to it at the time by approaching her 1-1/online and telling her he was offended by the comment, he did nothing. It is unlikely he would have done anything about it had it not been for the current cancel culture climate which gave him an advantageous runway to take her out. Simple as that.

Forget context. Did Groves honestly say the slur with venomous anger or just as a stupid teenager who listens to too much rap/hip-hop where the n-word is mentioned multiple times in pretty much every song? Never mind that Groves was an ardent supporter of the BLM movement. To the left, an example must be made of her. No matter what the cost.

Still, hypocrisy is nothing new at the NYT. After all it openly appointed Sarah Jeong to its editorial board, a lovely young lady who had tweeted to “cancel white people” and “I enjoy being cruel to old white women.” Never mind that black conservative Candace Owens was suspended on Twitter for tweeting Jeong’s bile replacing the word “white” with “black” and “Jewish.”

If the radical activists who seek to cancel others for things they said at 15, they should be only too happy to be held to things they said in their past.

Just as pathetic, the University of Tennessee asked for Groves to withdraw her successful application or have it rescinded. Are these the values our educators wish to instill? Was it easier to surrender to the hate mob because it would give the PR office less hassle?

What if, heaven forbid, Groves takes her own life because of this incident? Should her parents seek compensation from Galligan and the NYT for the proactive campaign to destroy her based on an out-of-context social media post? Are we to believe that Galligan hasn’t made ill-considered remarks on social media?

This is cyber-bullying in a cancel culture world. Period.

Cancel culture is a virtue to those on the left. To the NYT, Groves is expendable based on her ethnicity. Had such an incident happened with the roles reversed the article wouldn’t have seen the light of day.

Why the Mute Button will benefit Trump in the final debate

Problem solved? The debate moderators intend to have a mute button in the forthcoming debate to avoid interruption experienced in the first debate.

It sounds wonderful in principle, but we believe if the moderator is of sufficient ability, she shouldn’t require technological assistance to fall back on if her biases seek to stifle robust debate through balanced questioning and reasonable time to answer and redirect.

One can only imagine how fairly the mute button will be applied in the final show off between Trump and Biden on October 22nd given we know that the moderator, Kristen Welker, is staunchly in the Democrat camp.

We are sure when the microphone cut offs are tallied, Trump will outscore Biden on a 10:1 scale, if not more.

We have no doubt that Trump is the more likely of the two to interject but we think it will work in Trump’s favour to be cut off because we know that the deranged mainstream media will openly celebrate and applaud the idea of suppressing the free speech of someone they disagree with on a whim.

We don’t think that will play well to level headed Americans who want to hear and see the reactions of both candidates when pinned on the ropes. A good moderator would seek that type of courage under fire.

Unfortunately, the debate will likely end up being 3 on 1. Softballs will be tossed at Biden and hand grenades lobbed at Trump.

Should Trump leave the stage after being cut off countless times, we won’t be the least bit surprised. He will prove the point of just how biased the moderator was and how she relished the ability to muzzle the most powerful man in the world to feed her own derangement. She’ll prove his point about free speech. Never forget Reagan slammed a moderator for threatening to cut the mic in 1980.

If he leaves, the media will divert all attention to Trump as to why he did so and prove back to their faces that they have absolutely zero interest in objectivity other than to justify using authoritarian cancel culture tactics to silence and humiliate him.

As we like to say, journalistic integrity will only return when the mainstream media loves America more than they hate Trump.

Best they put this on full display.

Seattle brewer prints All Cops Are Bastards on beer cans

For those unaware, ACAB means “All Cops Are Bastards.”

A Seattle brewer, Mirage, has taken the liberty of printing that message to the bottom of its cans.

Mirage owner Michael Dempster wrote, “I used the markings because I stand against institutional racism, of which modern policing is a militarized arm.

Interesting he holds this view when the outgoing Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best is black. He might not know that Mayor Jenny Durkan made a point in 2019 of ensuring 39% of new recruits entering the Seattle PD were minorities. So much for institutional racism, unless he means that it is biased against whites?!

We wonder if the mob ends up vandalizing the brewery, will the cops prioritize a call out with the reciprocal respect shown the them?

Somehow the brewer thinks it is taking the moral high ground.

Common sense can literally be a mirage. Or is it cynically hijacking a cause to hopefully sell more beer to college kids and snowflakes?

Social media giants poked the wrong rabbit

Zero sympathy and 100% self-inflicted wound. Trump warned the media behemoths and they thumbed their noses at him.

Trump’s executive order on social media giants will now remove the sanctuary status and open up these platforms for lawsuits based on shutting down free speech.

Some snippets from that order:

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.”

“It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints

….Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.

It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

One can only imagine the lawsuits that will come their way if they continue like this.

The media will no doubt smash Trump over this but isn’t free speech all about strongly disagreeing with others but defending their right to say it?!

In all fairness, if the social media platforms are as honest as they claim they’ll have absolutely nothing to worry about.

America’s Frontline Doctors unmask the mass disinformation on COVID-19.

We are not medical doctors. We don’t profess to be. We found this 3-hr video made by the group America’s Frontline Doctors. They talk to the mass disinformation campaign with respect to COVID-19. A summary version covering three topics:

  1. a 20-minute clip on hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Simone Gold claimed that had hydroxychloroquine been dispensed to COVID-19 sufferers, 50-75% of deaths wouldn’t have occurred. Remember when the media wouldn’t stop bashing it because Trump was pushing it?
  2. a 10-minute clip on COVID-19 reporting. Dr. Gold talks of the mainstream media’s misinformation. The vast majority recover. The mortality rate is extremely low. The fear is overdone, especially with respect to reopening schools. Aussie schools are back. No mass outbreaks…
  3. a clip of Dr Stella Immanuel, a West African born and trained Doctor, who said has had 100% success on over 350 patients with HCQ + AZT + Zinc. Oops, who knew? YouTube has removed it! 

Why are these social media sites blocking videos? Has YouTube self-declared as an international medical body of any authority? Surely YouTube will make some garbage legal claim that it violates some policy. Does anyone truly believe that? Why aren’t all videos that have any connection to medical advice ripped down? Are YouTube censors able to determine what constitutes public safety risks?

These frontline doctors carry huge malpractice suits if they push false claims which lead to widespread deaths. Why not let them bury their careers and spend decades in jail if they are wrong?

Which makes us wonder. Why did The Lancet retract a paper on the negative effects of hydroxychloroquine when it discovered the data was bogus?

We guess if Dr Fauci doesn’t wear his mask off-camera when not social distancing, then we can get the picture that the whole debate is much more about politics than a pandemic.

We imagine the first point of attack by the left will be that the Tea Party Patriots sponsored the forum. Perhaps we need to publish the results of Dr Immanuel’s record of 100% success rate. That would at the very least show “hard” data.

After all facts matter. Not a media obsessed with pushing false narratives and scare campaigns to ensure Trump isn’t reelected.

Josephine Valdez gets under the left’s skin again causing her video to be taken down

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fEiWQAcY2hw&feature=youtu.be

Do you remember a few weeks back when we featured a video starring Josephine Valdez, an articulate, intelligent and fearless young girl from next door, who perfectly explained why she supported Goya Foods while completely destroying the leftist narrative?

Well that video got 1.9 million views before it was pulled down.

Looks like Josephine is back under their skin with this new video.

There is something so beautiful about people who don’t buy into Democrat Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley’s “we don’t need anymore Xxxxx faces that don’t want to be an Xxxxx voice.” Individualism trumps identity every time.

Perhaps Josephine should run against AOC!

Terry Crews warns about the dangers of suppressing certain voices

Many of you may have seen actor Terry Crews reveal CNN host Don Lemon’s ignorance surrounding BLM several weeks ago.

This week, former NFL player Nick Cannon came out saying whites are inferior to blacks, calling caucasians “savages,” telling his audience the “only way that they can act is evil,” and they “have to rob, steal, rape, kill …in order to survive.”

Crews rebutted those comments to say,

We have to include this white voice, this Hispanic voice, this Asian voice. We have to include it RIGHT NOW, because if we don’t…it’s going to slip into something we are really not prepared for.”

FNFMedia has consistently argued that this reverse racism will have the exact opposite effect and perpetuate the very division liberals think they’ll stop.

Crews gets that. If only people like Cannon could see beyond their own selfish attempts for social media notoriety and understand the flames they fan are so counterproductive.

We don’t for a second think the majority of people of any background believe his nonsense. The only problem is few are prepared to stand up to the mob.

It only takes one idiot to use these incendiary remarks as an excuse to push back in the worst possible way taking the lives of innocent people who most likely disavow Cannon’s views in the first place. That doesn’t condone any violent retribution but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that’s where it will head.