Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT. COM
Wed., Jan. 23, 2019
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
If I were a Covington parent,
1. I would pull my kids out of that school
2. Sue the school, archdiocese, media corporations and defamation suits against these morons.
3. Sue Nathan Phillip (fake vet. NATIVE American leftist activist) for false defamation and slander.
4. Have Trump invite all the boys to the white house for lobster and steak.
5. And boycott anyone who hasn't condemned the Black Israelites for their racist, Homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted hate speech.
You don't like it? BLEEP OFF!
Facebook doesn't really believe in free speech. What they believe in (and actively practice) is censorship
By L. Brent Bozell III | Fox News
It’s a new year, but Americans are fighting a battle as old as the nation itself. It’s the battle to preserve our free speech and for the first time we’re losing — badly.
The new front lines of this fight are on social media — Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram and others.
2.5 billion people use at least one of Facebook’s apps, making it probably the most important social media platform. Unfortunately, its employees, from the CEO on down, don’t really believe in free speech. They believe in and actively practice censorship on a scale almost unimaginable a few years ago.
Facebook’s embattled founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and its Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg seem determined to make the situation worse. After declaring to Congress their commitment to neutrality, they made end-of-year pronouncements that both promised more censorship, and appeased the far left by vowing to involve them with “new products, features and policies.”
Facebook is now openly antagonistic toward the right. Posts aren’t just blocked by humans who decide what they do or don’t like; they are blocked by computer programs designed by humans to ensure liberal sensibilities are not offended. The New York Times says the company is monitoring “billions of posts per day in over 100 languages.” That makes what Facebook is doing almost impossible to track, until it’s too late.
The Times described a global network with more than 15,000 employees assessing content based on rulebooks more than 1,400 pages long. The rules secretly designate groups as hate organizations and are so specific they even ban certain emoji use. Hate speech mandates alone run “200 jargon-filled, head-spinning pages,” wrote The Times.
Facebook is now openly antagonistic toward the right. Posts aren’t just blocked by humans who decide what they do or don’t like; they are blocked by computer programs designed by humans to ensure liberal sensibilities are not offended.
The result is chaos. There’s no consistency in what Facebook bans or doesn’t ban — except that conservatives suffer. Pro-life, pro-gun and pro-Trump content all run afoul of Facebook’s eager hate speech censors. Just days before the annual March for Life, Facebook blocked advertising for the new pro-life movie "Roe v. Wade."
Around the Fourth of July, Facebook censored a post for “hate speech.” It was the text of the Declaration of Independence.
Conservatives like Samaritan’s Purse head Franklin Graham have been targeted, as well. Graham was suspended recently for a comment he made two years ago. Facebook later apologized.
This is commonplace for conservatives. The company bans, blocks or suspends and then later apologizes … sometimes.
The radical left has no such worries. Smash Racism DC, the Antifa group that targeted Fox host Tucker Carlson’s home and threatened his wife, is still on the site. So is Splinter News, which posted the personal cell phone number of Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller. Even reprehensible anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan has a Facebook page with more than 1.1 million followers.
Facebook is escalating the problem. In November, Zuckerberg announced a new “Blueprint for Content Governance.” He wrote like he believes in free speech, saying, “The world is better…when traditional gatekeepers like governments and media companies don't control what ideas can be expressed.”
But Facebook does.
Two paragraphs later he asked, “What should be the limits to what people can express?” Then he said the site was instituting more content controls that would limit what you see “even if it doesn't actually violate our standards.” That's called shadow banning content.
Sandberg followed with an endorsement of the liberal “civil rights audit” of Facebook that included an ACLU executive and 90 left-wing groups. She called it one of her “top priorities for 2019.” That audit revealed Facebook had worked so closely with the left that it allowed “several civil rights organizations engaged in the civil rights audit to visit [the company’s] election war room.”
The report Sandberg endorsed commits Facebook to work with these left-wing groups on “content moderation,” elections, and the Orwellian-sounding idea of creating a “civil rights accountability infrastructure.”
It also expressed the need for “greater employee diversity.” When liberals say “diversity,” they mean hiring more liberals from approved special interest groups.
Facebook also engaged the law firm Covington & Burling under former Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona to audit how Facebook treats conservatives. In theory, that report will get equal attention. But in practice, it won’t. It will detail the complaints conservatives have, and Facebook will throw it away. How can it do otherwise? Sandberg has publicly committed to supporting radical left-wing groups — against conservatives.
The company has committed a great deal to the left, including “addressing censorship and harmful and potentially discriminating content on the platform.” That is a direct threat against the conservative movement.
The Media Research Center, along with more than 40 other organizations and tens of millions of supporters in our Free Speech Alliance, has called for just the opposite. We put out four demands that should be endorsed by anyone truly committed to having “a platform for all ideas,” as Zuckerberg stated: 1. more transparency 2. more clarity on hate speech rules 3. an equal seat at the table for conservatives 4. embracing the First Amendment as a model for allowable speech.
Those four demands are firmly in line with America’s foundational principles of free speech. Does Facebook believe in them? Conservatives are concluding that it doesn’t. According to a McLaughlin & Associates poll, one-third (32 percent) of self-described conservatives have left or are considering leaving Facebook.
I was in the room when Zuckerberg told a gathering of conservative leaders that if Facebook’s commitment to be the platform for all ideas was not maintained, its business plan would fail. He was right.
L. Brent Bozell is the founder and president of the Media Research Center.
Fox News’ Shannon Bream defends her private, Christian education
by Jerry McCormick
Photo via Gil C / Shutterstock
Second Lady Karen Pence recently took a job at a Christian school, a controversy that was soon followed by another blow for Christian education when a Catholic schoolboy was accused of being rude to a Native American veteran. All of that has sent liberals into a tizzy — but Fox News @ Nighthost Shannon Bream isn’t having it.
After seeing thousands of tweets about the newly created hashtag movement, #ExposeChristianSchools, Bream defended her private, Christian education, tweeting on Saturday:
Shannon Bream ✔@ShannonBream
#ExposeChristianSchools I was surrounded by people who cared about me as a human being, not just a student. I got a top notch education that allowed me to graduate magma cum laude undergrad and w honors from law school. It wasn’t perfect, but there was a high standard and love.
Defending Christian Schools
Bream more or less committed social media suicide by chiming in on this issue, but she did it anyway.
As she pointed out, she received an excellent education at a Christian school, as have millions of other Americans.
A quick look down the social media feed and you could not ask for a more diverse group of people defending the principles of these schools. One woman even said her children’s Christian educations were well worth every penny.
Shannon Bream ✔@ShannonBream
#ExposeChristianSchools I was surrounded by people who cared about me as a human being, not just a student. I got a top notch education that allowed me to graduate magma cum laude undergrad and w honors from law school. It wasn’t perfect, but there was a high standard and love.
bjsvatex@bshiversVA
Worth every penny my husband and I sacrificed to send our children to Christian schools. We will not have a worry free retirement, but our children are successful, caring, contributors to our country!
Looking for Things
This controversy all got started when word got out that Karen Pence had taken a job at a local Christian school.
The school’s policies are fairly standard for a Christian establishment, but liberals were of course offended by them.
Then the confrontation happened between a Christian teenager and a Native American veteran.
Upholding a Narrative Backfires on the Mainstream Media
By JIM GERAGHTY
Nathan Phillips (right) confronts a student from Covington Catholic High School in Washington, D.C., January 18, 2019. (Kaya Taitano/Social Media/via Reuters)
Making the click-through worthwhile: Two hours of video show that the media narrative about Native American Nathan Phillips and the students at Covington Catholic High School was wrong, and that the media enthusiastically rushed to judgment; BuzzFeed tells readers and CNN viewers to trust them, and ignore what the special counsel’s office said; President Trump puts an offer on the table to end the government shutdown, but Nancy Pelosi feels no pressure for a deal.
A quote from Martin Luther King Jr. for the day, and perhaps a lifetime, considering all that goes on around us each day: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
What Really Happened at the Lincoln Memorial at the March For Life
Will wonders never cease? The New York Times writes a follow-up article about the exchange between Native American Nathan Phillips and the students at Covington Catholic High School that acknowledges the preceding day’s coverage was . . . misleading.
A fuller and more complicated picture emerged on Sunday of the videotaped encounter between a Native American man and a throng of high school boys wearing “Make America Great Again” gear outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
Interviews and additional video footage suggest that an explosive convergence of race, religion and ideological beliefs — against a national backdrop of political tension — set the stage for the viral moment. Early video excerpts from the encounter obscured the larger context, inflaming outrage.
Over at Reason, Robby Soave goes through a two-hour video of the event, revealing that the snippets that went viral completely ignored the presence of the Black Hebrew Israelites, a religious sect that often gathers in public places in Washington and offers “preaching” that includes hurling racially incendiary slurs at people passing by. (Most D.C.-area residents right now: “Oh, those guys.”)
Soave:
Phillips put himself between the teens and the black nationalists, chanting and drumming as he marched straight into the middle of the group of young people. What followed was several minutes of confusion: The teens couldn’t quite decide whether Phillips was on their side or not, but tentatively joined in his chanting. It’s not at all clear this was intended as an act of mockery rather than solidarity.
Soave notes that the interaction between Phillips and the students captured on the initial footage comes after “an hour of the Black Hebrew Israelites hurling obscenities at the students. They call them crackers, [a slur for gays], and pedophiles.”
At the 1:20 mark (which comes after the Phillips incident) they call one of the few black students the n-word and tell him that his friends are going to murder him and steal his organs. At the 1:25 mark, they complain that “you give [a slur for gays], rights,” which prompted booing from the students. Throughout the video they threaten the kids with violence, and attempt to goad them into attacking first. The students resisted these taunts admirably: They laughed at the hecklers, and they perform a few of their school’s sports cheers.
He would later tell The Detroit Free Press that the teenagers “were in the process of attacking these four black individuals” and he decided to attempt to de-escalate the situation. He seems profoundly mistaken: The video footage taken by the black nationalists shows no evidence the white teenagers had any intention of attacking. Nevertheless, Phillips characterized the kids as “beasts” and the hate-group members as “their prey”.
Could the Covington Catholic High School students have handled it better? Perhaps — at least one student makes a tomahawk chop gesture in there, which is disrespectful to Phillips. We can also ask why the chaperones didn’t move the teens away from the Black Hebrew Israelites. But Phillips approached them, not the other way around, and despite his subsequent claim that he wanted to calm things down, he went up to the teens and made things worse by going nose-to-nose.
He’s simply not being honest in his characterization when he told media afterwards, “a group of Catholic students from Kentucky were observing the Black Israelites talk, and started to get upset at their speeches.”
We can expect better from teenagers, but we must demand better from grown men. Kyle Smith:
I’d say their reaction was if anything more restrained than you would expect from teenagers. I’d advise them to do better next time. I certainly wouldn’t consider expulsion.
Notice that if we didn’t have the full video, most people would still believe the original narrative of malevolent Catholic high-school teenagers taunting a Native American veteran. Some people are so wedded to their worldview of all virtue residing on one side of the aisle that they’ll still choose to believe it, even in the face of contrary video evidence.
Michael Brendan Dougherty:
Like so many stories that supposedly conveyed the reality of Trump’s America, that so perfectly displayed white Christian menace, it turned out to be fake. Fake, like the Ohio University student who sent herself anti-gay hate mail; manufactured, like the racist harassment on a bus that Hillary Clinton tweeted about; an attempted frame-up, with liberal credulity made into the co-conspirator, like the vandalism of a Jewish cemetery done by a progressive reporter.
Ah, like the reporting about hate crimes that picked up in November and December 2016?
History has taught us to be wary of “you won’t believe the offensive message written on this restaurant receipt” stories. The one in New Jersey was a hoax, the one in California was a hoax, and the one in Tennessee is sketchy, with a handwriting expert saying the writing on the receipt doesn’t match the customer’s. The gay slur on the cake from Whole Foods was a hoax.
A Jewish family is not fleeing Lancaster County after a backlash to their complaint about their school’s Christmas play. A drunken man did not threaten to set a Michigan woman’s hijab on fire. The November burning of an African-American church and spray-painting of “Vote Trump” was committed by an African-American parishioner. That Manhattan Muslim teen who claimed she was attacked by three drunks who called her a “terrorist” on the subway while lots of New Yorkers stood and watched? Hoax. (The hoaxer’s sister later went on Facebook and criticized the police for being excessively skeptical: “It became super clear to me these past two weeks that the police’s first instinct is to doubt your story and try to disprove it.”)
Or that racist, Nazi and pro-Trump graffiti spray-painted on Philadelphia homes and cars the morning after the election. The perpetrator was a 58-year-old African-American man.
And as I wrote a few years ago — sheesh, has it really been four years? — the mainstream media’s “narrative journalism” tends to undermine the causes it intends to promote, because eventually enough of the audience realizes the gap between what they’re being told and what they know to be true. Speaking of which . . .
Democrats lurch left on top policies as 2020 primary begins
by STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press
In this Saturday, Jan. 12, 2019, file photo, former San Antonio Mayor and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro speaks during an event where he announced his decision to seek the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, in San Antonio. Castro launched his campaign by pledging support for “Medicare for All,” free universal preschool, a large public investment in renewable energy and two years of free college for all Americans. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic presidential contender Julian Castro launched his campaign by pledging support for "Medicare for All," free universal preschool, a large public investment in renewable energy and two years of free college for all Americans.
That wasn't enough for some of his party's most liberal members.
Critics on social media quickly knocked Castro's plan to provide only two years of free higher education — instead of four — as "half measures," ''scraps" and "corporate Dem doublespeak." Aware of the backlash, the former Obama administration Cabinet member clarified his position in an
interview days later.
"At least the first two years of college or university or apprenticeship program should be tuition free — and preferably four years," Castro told The Associated Press. "We're going to work toward that."
Welcome to the 2020 presidential primary. Almost no policy is too liberal for Democrats fighting to win over their party's base, which is demanding a presidential nominee dedicated to pursuing bold action on America's most pressing challenges.
Among two dozen possible candidates, virtually all have embraced universal health care in one form or another. Some have rallied behind free college, job guarantee programs, a $15 minimum hourly wage and abolishing — or at least reconstituting — the federal agency that enforces immigration laws. While few have outlined detailed proposals to fund their priorities, most would generate new revenue by taxing the rich.
The leftward lurch on top policies carries risks.
President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are betting that voters will ultimately reject the Democratic proposals as extreme. Some GOP leaders cast lesser plans as socialism during the Obama era.
Republican critics are joined by a handful of moderate Democrats, who fear that promises by well-intentioned presidential prospects may create unrealistic expectations with their party's most passionate voters.
Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg, a former Republican mayor of New York now considering a Democratic presidential bid, recently opined that primary voters might be receptive to a more moderate approach.
"Most Democrats want a middle-of-the-road strategy," Bloomberg said on ABC's "The View." He added: "If you go off on trying to push for something that has no chance of getting done, that we couldn't possibly pay for, that just takes away from where you can really make progress in helping people that need help today."
So far, at least, very few presidential prospects are heeding such warnings.
In the 2016 campaign, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, was the only presidential contender to support "Medicare for All," a proposal that would essentially provide free health care coverage to all Americans. This year, it's hard to find anyone in opposition.
That's even after one recent study predicted the plan would cost taxpayers more than $32 trillion. Proponents argue that those same taxpayers would save the trillions they currently spend out-of-pocket for their health care.
Lesser-known policies have emerged heading into 2020 as well.
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who is expected to launch his presidential campaign soon, has sponsored legislation to create a federal jobs guarantee program in several communities across America. The pilot program, which is co-sponsored by fellow 2020ers like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, California Sen. Kamala Harris and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, could ultimately transform the U.S. labor market by providing well-paid government employment with benefits for anyone who wants it.
Critics decry the plan as a step toward socialism.
"Big challenges demand big solutions," Booker told the AP. "Both Martin Luther King Jr. and President Franklin Roosevelt believed that every American had the right to a job, and that right has only become more important in this age of increasing income inequality, labor market concentration and continued employment discrimination."
Billionaire activist Tom Steyer supports much of the liberal movement's new priorities — including Trump's impeachment — but says the federal jobs guarantee "doesn't make sense" given the nation's low employment rate.
"I want the private sector to produce jobs people can live on," he said in an interview. "A guarantee of government jobs doesn't make sense."
Yet Steyer insists that most of his party's policy priorities — universal health care and free college, among them — are anything but radical.
"The Republicans are an extremist far-right, radical party. When you say we need to moderate to their position, there's nothing moderate or pragmatic about their position," said Steyer, who recently backed away from a presidential run, although he's expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to shape the 2020 debate.
Free college is quickly emerging as a litmus test for Democratic contenders.
Those already on the record backing free tuition at public colleges and universities include former Vice President Joe Biden, Sanders, Gillibrand, Harris and Warren. Estimates vary for the cost to state and local taxpayers, although Sanders acknowledged it could be $70 billion annually.
Warren seemed to back away from her support for free college during an appearance in Iowa earlier in the month, however. In 2017, she co-sponsored the "College For All Act," which would have made tuition free at public universities.
Asked in a radio interview whether she supports reducing the cost of college or offering it free, Warren responded: "No, I think this is about reducing the cost."
It's unlikely the Democratic Party's energized base would tolerate any significant shifts to the center on free college — or any of the party's top issues.
Such populist appeals helped fuel sweeping Democratic victories in last fall's midterm elections, while producing a new generation of unapologetic Democratic leaders such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is aligned with the democratic socialist movement. And polls repeatedly suggest that voters support proposals for universal health care, free college and free preschool.
"We have seen a dramatic shift in the Democratic Party's political center," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Those who deny that are hurting their chances in 2020."
Meanwhile, Castro, like others in the early 2020 field, says he's fully committed to a "bold vision" to address the nation's top policy challenges.
"All Democrats recognize that this is not going to be easy, that to get Medicare for all, for instance, it's not guaranteed, it's not going to be easy, it may require along the way there are some compromises," he said. "But I'm convinced that it's worth it to go forward.
An amazing 2 letter English word.
A reminder that one word in the English language that can be a noun, verb, adjective, adverb and preposition.
UP
Read until the end ... you'll laugh.
This two-letter word in English has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that word is 'UP.' It is listed in the dictionary as an [adv.], [prep.], [adj.], [n] or [v].
It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP?
At a meeting, why does a topic comeUP? Why do we speak UP, and why are the officers UP for election and why is itUP to the secretary to write UP a report? We call UP our friends, brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver, warmUP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and fix UP the old car.
At other times, this little word has real special meaning. People stir UPtrouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.
To be dressed is one thing but to be dressed UP is special.
And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP.
We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UPat night. We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP!
To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look UP the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4 of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions.
If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more.
When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP. When the sun comes out, we say it is clearing UP. When it rains, the earth soaks it UP. When it does not rain for awhile, things dry UP. One could go on and on, but I'll wrap itUP, for now . . . my time is UP!
Oh . . . one more thing: What is the first thing you do in the morning and the last thing you do at night?
U
P !
Did that one crack you UP?
Don't screw UP. Send this on to everyone you look UP in your address book . . . or not . . . it's UP to you.
Now I'll shut UP!
G'day...Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2019/01/www_22.html
Related Posts :
Mysteries in het Rijksmuseum | De Ludwigs | Nienke Special | Nickelodeon Nederlands
Henry Danger Opening Titles | Castilian Spanish | Nickelodeon España
Im Europa-Park | Kids' Choice Awards Countdown-Tour 2018 | Nickelodeon Deutschland
Power Rangers Defeating Mega Villains | Super Hero Power Rangers!
O melhor do Nick Play em Abril! | Nickelodeon Brasil
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment