#sarahjeong

Trump is 100% correct with this Exec Order against Twitter et al

While the mainstream media will howl in protest, Trump has made it very clear to social media companies with this executive order – YOU DECIDE.

Trump is merely saying is that if these companies wish to keep a liability shield in place, they need to abide by the neutrality of the service provision which was always the spirit of the law. They flaunted it and now opened a Pandora’s Box all by themselves.

Simply put, Twitter, Google, Facebook and others were getting away with murder. Censorship by its very nature dictates pushing political and social views on others. What a wonderful loophole it was to push political agendas with zero legal repercussions.

Google was busted after a video featuring senior management discussing plans after the 2016 election went viral. There is such chronic bias as much as they plead innocence. Ask yourself why your phone seems to populate ads on your webpages based on searches?

Twitter has censored more conservatives than we can list. To Twitter, it is not the principle but the side that matters.

Ultimately Trump has told them they are at liberty to run their businesses how they choose. Unfortunately, if they go down the path they have freely chosen they live by the new rules which are completely appropriate.

POTUS is 100% correct but watch the mainstream media meltdown. Zuckerberg, at the very least, gets it. Dorsey is too Trump deranged to know better. Trump also added that the government would be pulling the billions of dollars it gives social media platforms now that they want to actively push their own agenda.

Once again – the message is “YOU DECIDE”

The best description of Twitter ever

yoelroth

If anyone wants to be informed, Twitter is one of the least likely platforms to find it. A fair and neutral playground marshalled by an unbiased hall monitor? Pfffft. We have included the best description of Twitter ever at the end. First some context.

Twitter updated its new rules on May 11th, 2020 vis-a-vis fact-checking and integrity. Of course, the platform, like YouTube and Facebook, decides what it deems appropriate. Who could forget when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the Senate that Silicon Valley – where most of the tech world is headquartered – is “an extremely left-leaning place” and the evidence shows what side of politics gets fact-checked.

Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth (@yoyoel) is an avid anti-Trumper. Several days after the 2016 election he proudly tweeted, “I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.” We should sleep soundly at night that he also referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “a personality-free bag of farts.” Surely there is no risk of conservative bias with the integrity team at Twitter…sleep soundly.

Recall the time The NY Times hired Sarah Jeong who had tweeted “Cancel White People” among a laundry list of crude bile. Twitter did nothing despite being exposed and the newspaper endorsed her hire regardless (she has since been let go). Black conservative, Candace Owens exchanged the words “white” for “Jewish” and “Black” and was swiftly suspended.

F3570C69-B33D-4BA2-B56F-39A01CEA5DAD.jpeg

We wrote yesterday of our amusement that Twitter chose to use a brazenly anti-Trump media outlet like CNN, which has been regularly caught lying to fact-check the president. How amusing it was to hear White House Counsel Kellyanne Conway tell reporters how the media has no problems immediately retweeting items without a second’s thought to verifying.

Stephen Fry perhaps made the most accurate description of the social media site a few years back.

It’s no big deal – as it shouldn’t be. But yes, for anyone interested I have indeed deactivated my Twitter account…It’s quite simple really: the room had started to smell. Really quite bad.

Oh goodness, what fun Twitter was in the early days, a secret bathing-pool in a magical glade in an enchanted forest. It was glorious ‘to turn as swimmers into cleanness leaping.’ We frolicked and water-bombed and sometimes, in the moonlight, skinny-dipped. We chattered and laughed and put the world to rights and shared thoughts sacred, silly and profane. But now the pool is stagnant. It is frothy with scum, clogged with weeds and littered with broken glass, sharp rocks and slimy rubbish. If you don’t watch yourself, with every move you’ll end up being gashed, broken, bruised or contused. Even if you negotiate the sharp rocks you’ll soon feel that too many people have peed in the pool for you to want to swim there any more. The fun is over.

To leave that metaphor, let us grieve at what Twitter has become. A stalking ground for the sanctimoniously self-righteous who love to second-guess, to leap to conclusions and be offended – worse, to be offended on behalf of others they do not even know. It’s as nasty and unwholesome a characteristic as can be imagined. It doesn’t matter whether they think they’re defending women, men, transgender people, Muslims, humanists … the ghastliness is absolutely the same. It makes sensible people want to take an absolutely opposite point of view. I’ve heard people shriek their secularism in such a way as to make me want instantly to become an evangelical Christian…

#CancelWhitePeople Sarah Jeong dumped by NYT

What irony that The NY Times finally came to the conclusion what the majority knew about potty mouthed Sarah Jeong, albeit 12 months too late. The picture above shows a selection of tweets before she was hired by NYT. Despite that, NYT defended her hire.

CM wrote back in August 2018,

“Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.”

Now the NYT has terminated her contract. Undoubtedly her contribution was as empty as her Twitter bile. She will now be a contributor, a rather large downgrade from being on the editorial board. She tweeted about the NYT paying attention to subscriber numbers, something the paper might have considered at the start.

Maybe her impact was one which didn’t ring the turnstiles at NYT. It is likely the same reason why The Guardian begs for charity instead of coming to terms with the fact that the content maybe the problem.

Note NYT is offering Aussies an 80% off subscription deal for a year.

Was the CIA too white at the time of 9/11?

Central Intelligence Agency

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII? That was 54 years prior to the 9/11 attacks.

What a spectacular own goal. How could the BBC be so careless? It should be completely down to the CIA’s white supremacist backgrounds that led to an agency completely driven by irrational fear to facilitate any old excuse to bomb the crap out of shithole nations. Does CM need to do the BBC’s work for them?

Passing the CIA aptitude tests are bound to be pretty tough in the intelligence areas. The day the CIA starts to prioritise skin tones, sexual proclivity and what is between the legs of candidates as opposed to what is between their ears one should expect even more misses to result. It might be too late – find the CIA Diversity webpage here.

Diversity of thought is all that matters. The BBC would do well to seek introspection. If the CIA had been predominantly staffed by blacks and Hispanics, would this article have ever seen the light of day? Of course not. Good to know BBC practices racism. Or is the journalist gunning for a position on the NY Times editorial board alongside the sweet #cancelwhitepeople Sarah Jeong?

NY Times’ TDS in 2 pages

The New York Times is so triggered almost 2.5 years after the 2016 election that it printed 2 pages worth of Trump’s insults since he ran for the Republican primaries. Why does it bother? By the time November 2020 arrives there will be another 2 pages of insults to add to it. Maybe more. Does the editorial board somehow think its readers aren’t aware of the paper’s dislike of Trump?

The NYT should be seriously concerned if he stops the slander because it will run out of things to write about.

So much for “all the news that’s fit to print

Twitter bias – who’d of thunk?

Judge for yourself on whether Twitter targets particular groups. Think Sarah Jeong faced no Twitter ban for calling to #CancelWhitePeople whereas black conservative Candace Owens got a suspension for changing Jeong’s words from “white” to “Jewish” and “black”.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg openly admitted in a congressional testimony that Silicon Valley was littered with people from the far left. Think of poor old #WalkAway activist Brendan Straka , the articulate, openly gay hairdresser who was suspended for 30 days for highlighting he’d appear on the then banned InfoWars. Not for posting a video.  Just that he’d appear.

The publishing of Google’s internal post-election debrief video shouldn’t have surprised anyone in the slightest. All the outer appeals to the group’s impartiality were smashed by this leaked video. In a sense Google was the victim of the half-life nature of the very digital media feeds it seeks to control. Even worse it was all the senior management talking about what really goes on behind closed doors.

Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.

Why not just set up a rival?

1346B271-FF66-4974-838D-70B38A31F0C0.jpeg

Seriously! If conservatives are becoming frustrated at the bias shown by Facebook, Twitter or any other social media forum why not set up a rival? If conservatives feel their voices are being suffocated by political correctness and the actions of arbitrary  thought police why haven’t they set up a platform that will not silence free speech?

Even if they have a very good case to argue against being silenced they have two options; stop using these social media players who they feel obstruct or build a fresh site which would surely see conservatives flock to it.

Fighting Facebook or Twitter to play fair has been proved worthless countless times (e.g. black conservative Candace Owens being suspended for replacing the word “whites” from Sarah Jeong’s tweets with other races). So it is a war that won’t be won.

Hey! NY Times – you need new editors

B27D9E23-440B-4D38-BDC2-51B2ABF97DEF.jpeg

Seriously NY Times. Just once. CM dares you. Write some balance on this debate about tracking undocumented kids? Where are these magical editors seeking to ensure “all the news that is fit to print”? Why not write the truth of “why” tracking migrant children is so hard? Everything bad doesn’t happen because of the Trump administration. CBS wrote in Feb 2016 (hint: Trump wasn’t president) the following,

Finding immigrant children with outstanding deportation orders is also complicated by the fact that they often are no longer at the addresses provided to the government…We are out looking,” Homan said. “But they are hard to find. A lot of these folks who don’t show up in court, we don’t know where they’re at.”

Yes, the truth isn’t that the immigration agencies don’t keep track of the kids, their often (illegal) immigrant families don’t want ICE to know where they are to prevent their own deportation so move around making them hard to track.

Then again if the NYT want to run the narrative that the Trump administration is a bunch of Nazis why not write that it is woefully incompetent in executing its draconian plans to systematically tag and terrorize children?

Oh, that is right the problem started in the Obama era with respect to this. Don’t let that fact distort yet another problem that needs fixing due to poorly laid out policy. Then again CNN was at it with its ideological twists only two days ago.

Or perhaps In Jan 2016 when WaPo noted, “The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children…several Guatemalan teens were found in a dilapidated trailer park near Marion, Ohio, where they were being held captive in squalid conditions by traffickers and forced to work“. So slave labour to repay human traffickers? Let’s encourage more to attempt the crossing?

Yes, the system clearly needs to be changed but if you read the NYT or WaPo one would believe the entire problem has Trump’s finger prints all over it. Clearly not.

Democracy may die in darkness but stupidity is disinfected by sunlight.

Twitter, Twitter on the wall who should we shutdown after all?

F3570C69-B33D-4BA2-B56F-39A01CEA5DAD.jpeg

Black conservative Candace Owens gets a 12-hr Twitter ban for replacing the words of Sarah Jeong from “white” to ”black” or “Jewish”. Good to see the consistency in double standards from The Left. Of course Jeong suffered no such fate.

Candace Owens is an extremely articulate and intelligent person in her own right. Good to see more hypocrisy called out by her. If only Jeong could get as many likes or retweets. Perhaps Ann Coulter said it best, “Luckily for Jeong, the way “white men” saw the world in the 50s was that South Korea should be free.

#CancelIdentityPolitics

The NY Times lectures Americans about child rearing

7AABD4A6-F25B-4A70-BFFA-4619267685C4.jpeg

Ahh, The New York Times. No sooner had it justified the hiring of a white/male/cop hating (torn asunder if one should be all three) and newly discovered NYT loathing editor in Sarah Jeong, it went out to lecture Americans on the importance of enforcing morals when raising children.

Should we pay attention when the openly homophobic NYT, a paper whose masthead endorses everything it claims it isn’t, points fingers? So who in its view would it prefer as a role model to have American parents instill such virtues in their kids? As opinion writer/photographer Damon Winter wrote, “What is it like to see young people exposed to so much anger? Heartbreaking.

While the tear-jerking article is best read to a sorrowful violin, let’s see some of the positive role models and people of integrity the paper rarely calls into question. Those from the left which the NYT might champion as possessing the higher moral code somewhat missing in Trump voters. Here are 15 options they may consider…

1. Sarah Jeong – white, male, police, NYT hating racist ? As a NYT employee she’s been vetted.

2. Peter Fonda – who thought Barron Trump should be locked in a cage with pedophiles?

3. Samantha Bee – who is comfortable calling Ivanka a feckless c*nt who should sit in a short skirt on her daddy’s lap to change his policy?

4. Johnny Depp  – who said it’s been a while since an actor assassinated a president?

5. Madonna – who threatened to blow up the White House?

6. Michelle Wolf – who thinks its funny to celebrate abortion or characterise Sarah Huckabee Sanders (SHS) as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women? Say what happened to being PC?

7. Kathy Griffin – who held a bloodied decapitated head of Trump and then complained it was unfair that Trump ruined her career? Apologised, retracted it and complained again that she wanted pay equality despite her self inflicted stupidity causing her career to be in the dumps.

8. Maxine Waters – who suggested Americans should openly attack Trump admin officials in public after SHS was kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant?

9. Snoop Dogg – who shot POTUS in a music video?

10. Robert DeNiro – who wants to punch Trump in the face? Or the standing ovation he received for saying “F*ck Trump

11. Joy Behar – who is comfortable suggesting devout Christians are mentally ill?

12. Whoopi Goldberg – for supposedly calling Jeannine Pirro a “sand n*gger”?

13. Jim Acosta – CNN reporter who can’t take a fraction of what he dishes out and expects SHS to apologize for someone else’s beliefs? Or for asking inappropriate and irrelevant questions during the Kim summit?

14. Joe Biden – former VP who threatened to punch Trump behind the school shed?

15. Or perhaps put forward all the Hollywood celebrities who threatened if Trump became president to leave America but never did?

There is no question there are some highly unsavory characters on both sides of partisan politics. Yet to sandbag all 63mn who voted for The Donald as racist, bigoted and uneducated deplorables with questionable child raising children abilities re-inforces why liberals will have such a hard time convincing people they actually stand for something. If the Dems lose the mid-terms then it must be Russian meddling again, not their unhinged lunacy.

Until the left acknowledge they have a major problem with their image (especially as they go ever more socialist) they’ll struggle to convert many to their side. Last week even Maduro in Venezuela said socialism has been a massive failure.

There is a certain hollowness to Trump celebrating  his 50% approval rating (higher than Obama’s at the same stage). Reality is that Macron, May, Merkel, Trudeau and Turnbull dwindle in the mid 20-30s.

Despite such constant overwhelmingly negative media bias dished out to POTUS, just how badly can the mainstream media be misreading the mood of the people? The more negatives they hurl, the higher his support. The more effusive praise breathed on other world leaders, the more damage is done to their popularity. What gives?

It isn’t that Damon Winter doesn’t make a valid point about the importance of teaching all children good manners and ethics, it is a bit rich coming from a paper that has virtually no moral compass whatsoever. When The NY Times walks the talk it maybe worth paying attention.

No reason why it shouldn’t convert from a broadsheet to a tabloid to keep up with its new found image of ignoring every aspect of ethics it so willingly pushes on the rest of us.