Connect with us

News

Mother Says She’s “Proud Of Daughter” Who Disrespected Veterans In Front Of 47,000 People  

Sick!!!!

Published

on

It’s getting worse and worse every day. The lack of respect for our military, flag and our nation is growing by leaps and bounds. This time two elementary school students who were part of a choir which was invited to perform the national anthem before the start of the Seattle Mariner’s baseball game, decided to take a knee.

One of the girls Helena Gamet told her mother ahead of time what she and a friend were planning, It was a rare chance to make a statement on a big stage and she had her mother’s support.

The girl said she did this because she believes in the Black Lives Matter movement and thinks that in this country, a lot of social injustice is happening and a lot of racial inequality is happening to black people for which they aren’t receiving justice.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

The girl’s mother, in an interview, stated that she told her daughter that if she was going to do this, there’s going to be pros and cons. Adding that there was going to be ignorant people who say ignorant things and they’re not going to care that these girls are 12.

Although the girl did later state that she meant no disrespect for our military judging by the mother’s answer it’s clear where this girl gets her disrespect for the nation that houses her.

Watch.

In what other nation in this world are blacks better off than they are in the U.S? And that’s an honest question. Elitist athletes disrespect our country because Collin Kaepernick had to find a way to remain in the news after being benched by the San Francisco Forty Niners for being a poor player and all these rich players follow suit. Most of whom probably don’t know much history other than the one Hollywood makes up for them so they think it’s ok to disrespect our flag.

How things have changed, if anyone from my generation would have pulled a stunt like this, there would have been hell to pay at home for being disrespectful towards the nation which gives endless opportunities to those who want them.

Here are more arguments for and against players kneeling during sporting events via The Boston Globe:

“YES

Amanda Orlando Kesterson

Gloucester resident, Republican State Committee member

Amanda Orlando Kesterson
The practice of playing our country’s national anthem before sporting events is a time-honored tradition. The highly-paid NFL athletes who sparked national controversy by kneeling during the anthem to protest what they term a “racist America” spit in the eye of the same country that tunes in each week to pay their exorbitant salaries.

When the NFL allows disrespect for the flag and the anthem, it disrespects the brave men and women who have provided the freedom and opportunity those athletes enjoy. No country is perfect, but this imperfect nation has liberated other countries and provided opportunities to millions seeking freedom. Our flag and what it represents deserves respect, especially from those as privileged as professional athletes.

The government should never punish anyone for peaceful protest, which is protected by our Constitution. But the NFL owners absolutely should punish players for these actions or it will continue to suffer financial consequences from consumers who resent the anti-American messaging put forth by the players.

When an NFL player dons his uniform and steps onto the field, he is no longer simply an individual peacefully protesting. He is an employee, representing an organization, and his actions while on the job reflect on that company. Private companies set expectations for employees’ behavior, dress, hair length, visible tattoos, and other issues that they feel are important for marketing their brand. Athletes might be highly paid, but they are still employees. The NFL should deal with rogue employees who choose to send an anti-American message to consumers.

In 2012, a young woman visited Arlington National Cemetery and posed for a photo — which went viral — while making an obscene gesture and pretending to yell next to a sign asking for silence and respect while visiting the grounds. Thousands of calls poured in to her employer complaining about her lack of respect for our veterans buried there, and her employer fired the woman and her coworkers who took the shot for not representing the company’s values while on the job.

The right to free speech is protected from government oppression, but not private sector scrutiny. That employer sent a message that codes of appropriate behavior are expected when on the job. The NFL owners should do the same.

NO

Anthony Owens

Salem resident, volunteer, Essex County Community Organization

Anthony Owens
The answer is “no” and we should be examining very deeply why this type of question is even being raised. National Football League teams should not (and cannot) punish their players for kneeling during the playing of the national anthem. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to protest. As it reads, “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.”

Inspired by the example set by Colin Kaepernick last season, more than 200 NFL players kneeled — a respectful symbol of selflessness, humility, and supplication — or sat in conscientious objection during the playing of the national anthem on Sept. 24, 2017. They were making a public statement and, in the language of our Constitution, to petition for a redress of their grievances regarding police abuse and the killing by police officers of African Americans across the United States.

In Kaepernick’s own words to NFL Media in 2016, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Instead of trifling questions like this one that only serve to distract, we should instead be asking ourselves some more important questions:

1. Does this very question of whether punishment should be assessed for kneeling during the national anthem (but not after a touchdown, as with Tim Tebow) underscore Kaepernick’s very point about racial oppression in the US?

2. Why individuals who have killed citizens that they are supposed to be protecting and serving are not punished in this country?

3. How can we as Americans who believe in “liberty and justice for all” stem the obvious patterns of injustice that Kaepernick and his peers have raised, when we so clearly will do anything to avoid looking at them?”

H/T IJR

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.