The Democrat Plan to 'Roy Moore' Judge Brett Kavanaugh

By all accounts, 53 year old Judge Brett Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life without the hint of scandal or stain.  The senate confirmed him 57-36 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006.

Kavanaugh is well respected as a jurist, a human being and a liberal Democrat feminist had nothing but the utmost praise for him.

Leading Liberal Feminist Supreme Court Advocate Supports Kavanaugh

Here’s a noteworthy op-ed from Supreme Court advocate Lisa Blatt urging that the Senate confirm the Kavanaugh nomination. Blatt, a former clerk to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a self-described “liberal Democrat and feminist,” has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other woman. Some excerpts:

Sometimes a superstar is just a superstar. That is the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who had long been considered the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court if Republicans secured the White House. The Senate should confirm him.…

Because I am a liberal Democrat and feminist, I expect my friends on the left will criticize me for speaking up for Kavanaugh. But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them.…

I do not have a single litmus test for a nominee. My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. I have no insight into his views on Roe v. Wade—something extremely important to me as a liberal, female Democrat and mother of a teenage girl. But whatever he decides on Roe, I know it will be because he believes the Constitution requires that result.…

Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh—full stop. It is unbecoming to block him simply because they want to, and they risk alienating intelligent people who see the obvious: He is the most qualified conservative for the job.

WOW that is quite an endorsement. Still, the Democrats are determined to stop his confirmation to the Supreme Court and for no valid reason except to be be jerks and humiliate President Trump.  The Dems plan on taking over Congress in midterms and they want to FORCE Trump to nominate a liberal justice or it's NO CONFIRMATION.

Justice Kennedy's retirement has left the court with 4 conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas) and 4 very liberal justices (Gingsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan).  Kennedy was viewed as a swing justice because he sided with the liberal jurists on many issues, especially the contentious social issues.

Sen. Diane Feinstein sent a letter to the DOJ demanding an investigation of Judge Kavanaugh for sexual improprieties that occurred when he was high school and the sole accusation was based on an unidentified victim and and a lack of facts.  The FBI refused to investigate this 'nothing burger' of a case.

Feinstein has apparently convinced her to publicly come forward and she has.  Her name is Christine Blasey Ford and she's a liberal California professor and an admitted Trump hater who views herself as part of the resistance.

Her 'let's destroy Kavanaugh' hit piece was through the Washington Post, the most notorious Trump hating newspaper on the planet. Ford didn't just claim that Kavanaugh made a sexual advance at her at a teenage party when he was 16 but said in so many words that he forcibly tried to rape her and even kill her.  That's quite an accusation. An excerpt from the WaPo article, here:

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

Blasey herself is apparently very confused about a sexual assault incident that happened 35 years ago and she initially claimed that 4 boys were involved.  Interestingly, the sole witness to the event, Mark Judge, denied that it ever happened!  The Daily Caller reports, here:

Ford claims she told no one of the alleged assault “in any detail” until 2012, when she and her husband were in couple’s therapy. The therapist’s notes, which Ford reportedly provided to WaPo, do not identify Kavanaugh by name.

However, the notes report that Ford said she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

The notes say four boys were involved in the alleged assault, a discrepancy Ford attributed to an error on the part of the therapist. There were four boys at the party but only two — Kavanaugh and Judge — in the room, she said.... 

Judge has also denied that the incident described in The New Yorker report occurred, telling The Weekly Standard on Friday that the allegations were “just absolutely nuts.”

“I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge told TWS. 

Feinstein, who has known of Ford’s allegations since July, did not raise the issue during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing earlier this month. Nor did the matter come up during a closed session where sensitive information was discussed, according to a Judiciary Committee spokesperson.

In a statement released Sunday afternoon, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, took issue with with Feinstein’s withholding of the allegations.

What is going on here?  We have a woman in therapy for marital problems who apparently is still upset that some teen boys hit on her when she was 16.   Any female who dated in high school has stories about a horny dude hitting on her but it's hardly something that folks remember as a traumatizing event that still affects them decades later.  Moreover, her initial report to her therapist claimed there were 4 boys involved in the assault.  Is she seeking attention by attempting to make herself into a 'Me Too' sexual assault victim, especially if it destroys the life and career of a man she hates because of his politics?

After the Washington Post hit piece of a story broke, Mark Judge, the guy Ford claims allegedly saved her from being raped and even killed by Kavanaugh emailed the The Weekly Standard: "Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter. Since I have nothing more to say I will not comment further on this matter. I hope you will respect my position and my privacy."

Remember, it was Judge who had previously told The Weekly Standard "It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way."

So the bottom line is that we have a women in therapy decades after an alleged sexual assault by 1 or 4 teenage boys who really can't remember much but who still is determined to destroy Kavanaugh with an accusation that happened 35 years ago at a teenage party, and all while the sole witness denied it ever happened.

And this is all the dirt that the Democrats can dig up on Kavanaugh?  I'll use the words of James Comey in his description of the infamous Russiagate dossier - it's 'salacious and unverified'. 

It's turning into a classic 'he said, she said' but with the added bonus of a witness who said it NEVER happened.  Of course in the 'Me Too' age, a male is automatically presumed guilty even if the facts are false and unsubstantiated. 

This is precisely how the left destroys innocent people and it happens all the time. 

The Tyranny of #Google, #Facebook & #Twitter, And What Needs To Be Done

With conservatives and their views being rapidly purged by Google and social media, I've been wrestling with this issue especially since I'm apparently permanently banned by Facebook.

My Personal Story of Facebook Censorship, Abuse and Getting Banned

However, this isn't about me because I'm a nobody and yeah I don't understand why a big bad Nazi company like FB would even target a nobody like me but they did.  Furthermore, it's definitely about folks like Alex Jones, Peter van Buren and others who are NOT nobodies but who have been targeted for persecution for their political views.  Since I tend to advocate for free market solutions to problems, I have reluctantly defended the right of Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter to operate however they want because it's their right. Of course, I've also opined for competition to break-up these insidious and censorious monopolies.

The best explanation I've found on the issue was written by Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. He seems to understand the situation best and in the context of liberty and the law.  Therefore, I'm reposting his article in its entirety and I've highlighted relevant passages.

The Hi-Tech Threat...It’s real, and it has a solution

A number of conservative commentators, notably Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, have raised the alarm over the so-called Hi-Tech Threat, i.e. the threat to free speech posed by a censorious Silicon Valley liberal elite which seems intent on eliminating all evidence of right-leaning opinion on their platforms. And those platforms have achieved near monopolistic status, with Google controlling 85 percent of the online advertising market, Facebook enjoying similarly hegemonic status insofar as news delivery, and Twitter rounding out the equation with its increasing claim to the title of America’s town square.

Yet these conservative commentators are ostensible champions of the free market: do they really want the government to take over the internet? This is the question “progressives” are asking, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that’s because they don’t understand the Internet, the history of government regulation of the Internet — or, indeed, anything at all.

The reality is that the hegemonic position of the Hi-Tech giants wasn’t achieved due to anything remotely resembling the “free market” – and the solution has nothing to do with a government takeover of the Internet.

The year was 1996 – the very beginning of the Internet Age. Antiwar.com – one of the earliest web sites – was around, but not very active. The big online power was … Compuserve! Remember them? Congress was frightened to death of this new phenomenon, and naturally the first impulse of these slow-witted solons was to try to regulate it in the name of “decency.” And of course they had to do it for The Children! The Communications Decency Act punished purveyors of pornography with two years in jail plus a $250,000 fine for those found guilty of sending “indecent” material over the Internet to minors.

There were no hearings: why debate something that is so self-evidently wonderful? Who could be for sending online porn directly to the computers of America’s adolescents?

After the Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 for being too vague – and showing, the Court remarked, that lawmakers had no idea about how the Internet actually worked – section 230 of the law remained on the books. This was a special provision written and enacted for the benefit of the corporate entities that were at that moment building the infrastructure that would rapidly become the Internet we know today. The core of the provision is that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The CDA was passed to simultaneously give the impression that Congress was intent on protecting The Children from pornography and that the corporate entities responsible for injecting such filth into people’s homes would be given legal immunity for any undesirable consequences following from that.

Section 230 set online speech on a different legal standard from published-on-dead-tree or spoken speech in that the online version is not subject to traditional common law torts claiming defamation, libel, etc. A newspaper, for example, is held liable for defamation because a degree of editorial control is assumed. A distributor, or common carrier, is not subject to the same legal standard because there is limited editing of content, if any. For example, a phone company cannot be held responsible for defamation if a robo-call campaign inaccurately describes some politician as a child molester.

None of these Hi Tech monster companies would have succeeded without Section 230: the risks would’ve been too great for nervous investors, who would’ve been scared off by the prospect of lawsuits eating away at their profits. They wanted some guarantee that their money would not be wasted and that their investment would pay off. So what to do? The solution was readily apparent to their congressional servitors: carve out an exception to the rules!

This is a recurring feature of life in the Oligarchical States of America: the law is for the little people, like you and me. Those semi-divine giants of Silicon Valley such as Mark Zuckerberg are in a whole different class all by themselves. They aren’t subject to the common law – only us commoners are!

Section 230 was made out to be a great victory for free speech, and was fought for by the American Civil Liberties Union: after all, what would happen if online speech was stopped by a bunch of bothersome lawsuits? Of course, that hadn’t happened with published-on-dead-tree speech, but that’s because editors (and lawyers) exercised editorial control – yet “interactive” Internet entities somehow could not have done the same. Oh no, they had to be granted immunity, i.e. special legal privileges.

This isn’t the free market: it’s crony capitalism.

Thanks to this legal immunity, the Hi Tech giants we see dominating the market today were financed to the tune of billions in freshly-printed Federal Reserve Notes. They grew to gargantuan proportions, and their pretensions as social and ideological arbiters grew even faster. They began to take on the characteristics of publishers without giving up their legal status as neutral “carriers.” They began to pick and choose content, rating it, hiding it, giving preference to some of it and outright censoring others.

And their monopoly over the Internet is as nearly complete as it is possible to be: a few Silicon Valley firms, such as Google and Facebook, determine what the overwhelming majority of Americans see online.

With Congress holding hearings on “foreign influence” meant to purge the Internet of dissenting views, and Big Tech eagerly carrying out this appointed task, the danger to free speech cannot be overemphasized.

The political culture of Silicon Valley was supposed to be “libertarian,” because the Internet is so freewheeling and California is so hippy-dippy. Not so! If there is a more authoritarian political culture than the Bay Area it’s probably New York and DC – but not by much. Just ask James Damore! We must stop them before it’s too late.

How do we do so? It’s simple. Repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and replace it with clear guidelines separating out the nature of a public carrier from a publisher or content originator. If Google, Facebook, and Twitter are curating content provided by others they are still publishers in that they are engaged in selecting what to highlight and what to ignore or hide. In that case, why shouldn’t they be subject to the same legal conditions as, say, Antiwar.com, which does aggregate off-site content as well as publish original material?

If Twitter, for example, wants to exile former diplomat and distinguished author Peter van Buren permanently for daring to disagree with and mock a pack of smug self-satisfied “journalists,” then the company has got to give up its public carrier status and lose its immunity for legal liability. Likewise, if Zuckerberg is going to make the Facebook postings of the Ron Paul Institute nearly inaccessible to its audience.

Today the lords of Silicon Valley are enjoying the benefits of an information cartel: due to their political and financial clout, they were able to bend the rules and grow to monster proportions as a result. Now they are reneging on the conditional nature of their legal immunity and actively seeking to control what content the public gets to see. This tyranny must be crushed in the egg, because what the Zuckerbergs and the Twitter tyrants are hatching is going to be one big nasty ugly bird.

It's a damn good article that explains a lot while clearly identify a huge problem and offering solutions.   FB and Twitter really do operative like media in that they are not NEUTRAL purveyors of data AS THEY CLAIM TO BE but do in fact use their immense media bully pulpit powers to promote it's own political views and ideology and all while being legally exempt from the laws and rules that govern traditional media.  Google controls the world's most popular search engine and uses its vast powers to restrict the flow of information.  Google searches these days DO NOT elicit what they once did and censorship of information is accelerating.

All these companies have used their power not just to squash the free flow of information but they have also financially kneecapped those whose ideology they oppose.  Ad revenues of conservative websites have been denied and it's really hurting them.  The goal of course is to use both financial and censorship powers to permanently shut them down.  It's working.

I have a few of my own thoughts.  In the context of the Deep State and its draconian agenda, it's clear that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are indeed Deep State operatives who get their marching orders from the corrupt to the core US media, the CIA (it heavily controls the media), the Military Industrial Complex (DOD and State Department) and other rogue agencies and institutions.  Antiwar folks seem to suffer extreme censoring and expulsion but so do social conservatives and Trump supporters. The left may be currently celebrating that those pesky conservatives and Libertarians are being purged but the smart folks on the left also understand that that it's only a matter of time before the Deep State goes after its own independent wing that tends to lean hardcore Marxist and socialist.

We are expected to be compliant sheep who outsource our thinking and judgment to the elites of government, media, social media and totalitarian institutions like education.  Such an Orwellian and Nazified view will surely kill off all that once was the bedrock of Western Civilization - freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to oppose government and the freedom of We the People to forge our own destiny. When truth and opinions are verboten, we've crossed a dangerous Rubicon and one that will lead to tyranny, oppression and totalitarian control of everything; we may already be there.

Border Madness - a Freaking Wall Won't Solve Our Immigration Problems But This Will

Anybody who is on social media accepts that it's a freaking lunatic asylum.  Regarding immigration and the the border, we've got lunatic extremists on both sides.  The lunatic left demands a borderless nation and they insist that America should welcome all 7 billion plus folks on the planet and put them on welfare (the social justice socialist warriors).  On the right, its lunatic fringe is advocating for the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants and even the execution of illegal immigrants (yes really, I've heard it) as well as lining the 2,000 mile border with armed citizens to shoot anybody who attempts to cross the border.  That's totally scary stuff and so un-American!

The border is freaking 2,000 miles long and it's just not feasible to wall it off because it would be prohibitively expensive and a failure.  Folks would either breach it or find another way in. Most of the folks offering border solutions have never even visited the border or even know much about the border states and what happens there.  They are just angry folks who have embraced extremism with little to no understanding of our border states.

I lived in the Phoenix area for 10 years and the Austin, TX area for 10 years.  Believe me, the folks in AZ and TX know and understand a lot about the border and its neighbors to the south. For starters, most of the border is ugly and desolate; it resembles a parched and arid  moonscape. It's not very hospitable and tumbleweed rules.

However, the border has a lot of vibrant cities.  Take Nogales, AZ.  It's a city that is literally split in 2 - with half being in Mexico and half being in the AZ.  The international border in Nogales is a very busy place with a ton of folks crossing both ways to work or visit or do business on a daily basis.  It's always been that way.  When I lived in the Phoenix area, my snowbird friends would visit in the winter and they all wanted to go to Mexico. I spent a lot of time in the Mexican side of Nogales - great folks, great food, great shopping and always great fun.

In Arizona you can buy a ton of pottery, arts and crafts from Mexico.  Mexicans fill up AZ shops with their creations.  It's a common thing, an appreciation and respect on both sides for folks who produce, create and trade.

TX also has friendly relations with its southern neighbors.  There are lots of ranches and farms on both sides of the Rio Grand River, water is scarce and Rio Grande water supports significant cattle ranching and agriculture operations on both sides. YOU CAN'T WALL OFF THE RIVER without harming the livelihoods of folks who live there.

TX also has some big border cities like El Paso and Laredo which are working and trading hubs with frequent border crossings.  TX and its Hispanic citizens and neighbors have a very long history of very peaceful and productive relations.

What has changed and gone wrong?  Why is immigration such a hot potato issue?  The answer is simple: socialism and uncontrolled immigration to appease the cheap labor lobby.

CA was once a beautiful red state with a strong and prospering middle class.  However, its huge agriculture industry had an insatiable appetite for cheap labor so it massively imported low skilled farm labor.  CA Democrats jumped on an opportunity: make them voting citizens, give them entitlements and the Democratic Party will grow.  It sure did and now CA is a big blue state ruled by socialists and crazies.  It's got the highest poverty rates in America and its once beautiful cities like San Francisco are now the face of shit flowing in the streets, oppressive poverty and miles of impoverished tent cities.

Lesson here:  if you import the third world you become the third world. If you offer the third worlders welfare, you don't get the best, the brightest or the hardest working.  You get an army of folks looking for handouts.  I'm in no way implying that all immigrants are bad or that immigration is a bad thing.  America has enormously benefited from rational immigration.  Under sane immigration policies, the immigrants excelled and so did America.  However, the immigrants who built America didn't arrive with demands for food stamps, Medicaid and other freebies.  They arrived with nothing, got nothing and worked their asses off for a better life for themselves and their families.  This was the real American dream and it worked for everybody, immigrants and citizens.

Illegal immigration is costing American taxpayers over $100 billion a year, here.  It's a nightmare that is compounded by the crimes of illegals and the horrors of savage gangs like MS13.

So what can we do to solve the immigration problem?  We can do lot and we need to get back to sane immigration policies that we once had.  Forget about building walls, this is what we need to do:

1. End birthright citizenship - nowhere in the constitution does it say that if a woman gives birth on US soil that her child is automatically a US citizen.  Pregnant women are notorious for coming here just to deliver an anchor baby and at taxpayer expense. With that anchor baby comes family reunification programs.

2. End family reunification programs because they exponentially increase third world entitlement dependent immigration.

3. End all welfare for legal and illegal immigrants. No immigrant should be allowed to come here and mooch off of American taxpayers.  Immigrants should be served with notice that the welfare pipeline will be ending and they can either leave or figure out how to otherwise survive in America.

4.  Deport criminals who are not dangerous.  However, I recognize that some in the prison system are too dangerous to ever be let loose and should stay in prison if they are murderers or too violent to ever be free.  Yeah, American taxpayers are stuck with them because if deported, they would likely be set free.

5.  We need to consider making it mandatory for employers to use the E-Verify system that is very effective in affirming if a job applicant is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. Employers love cheap labor and they don't care if their employees are illegal.  They also enjoy welfare dependent employees because it shifts the financial cost of hiring to the taxpayers.  This is wrong, very wrong.

6. End the War on Drugs which is a huge magnet for drug cartels and gangs and all kinds of other problems, here and here.  American taxpayers have shelled out over $1 TRILLION bucks on the war on drugs, it's been a big fail and we lost the war decades ago.

If we do all the the above, America and the world will be a better place and so will the immigrants who come here because they will respect our laws, embrace our culture and work hard.  These are the immigrants we want and need.

Using the immigration issue to grow socialism, grow the Democratic Party and grow corporate welfare is wrong and bad for everybody.  America's entitlement system is a magnet to destroy America and all that made us a great nation with a prospering middle class, a middle class that is rapidly shrinking.  As for illegal immigrants who are here that are productively working and obeying our laws, I have no desire to deport them.  Give them green cards and allow them to flourish.

However, I'm in no way implying that unlimited immigration is desirable; indeed we need to set limits.  One of the great things about America is that it's a low density country with lots of open space.  Let me put this into perspective.  India is 1/3 the size of the US yet has 4 times the population (1.32 billion folks in India vs. 323 million in America). China is roughly the same size as the US but has 1.4 billion people and most live in poverty.

How high density do we want to become?  Do we want to become some high density impoverished shithole?  We certainly would with unlimited immigration.

Yes, we need to make decisions to MAGA and we need to do it without hating immigrants and with full knowledge of the issues that cause our immigration problems - BAD IMMIGRATION POLICIES and the welfare state.  Fix the damn problem and welcome good immigrants.

My Personal Story of Facebook Censorship, Abuse and Getting Banned

Anybody who is a Trump supporter, a conservative, a Libertarian or an antiwar activist has probably experienced some level of censorship on Facebook. It's bad, getting worse and to the point of outright censorship because it's becoming a systematic purge.  I've been shutdown for 1 and 3 days over NOTHING.  I'm not vulgar, I don't use foul language and while I have been sarcastic, I'm never said or posted anything that could be construed as obscene or offensive.  All that changed in the summer of 2018 when I was slapped with a 7 day suspension for calling the Saudis savages for its genocidal war on the Houthi in Yemen.  As one who is ferociously antiwar and pretty much calls all neocons and warmongers savages, I never had much of a problem with my Facebook antiwar activism UNTIL I started attacking the Saudis.  Is Facebook run by the Wahhabi Lobby?  I believe so.

Anyway, as I ratcheted up my antiwar activism that also included attacks on Trump's foreign policy (bombing Syria and threatening Iran) and the neocons in his administration (especially nasty neocons John Bolton and Nikki Haley), Facebook started going back over everything I ever posted and I've been on FB a long time, over 10 years.  My FB introduction states: Peace and Liberty Activist - No Wars, Sound Money and Free Markets.

How antiwar am I?  I'm ferociously antiwar and posted this on FB in April, 2018, without incident or a ban.

Warmongers are the lowest form of human life, the most vile and reprehensible of creatures. They have no conscience, they are sociopaths and they love the thrill of the kill. Many fill up the churches on Sundays while others embrace an arrogant moral superiority as if an intellectual foundation justifies bloodlust, evil and murder. War is the mothers milk of the state and feeds its power and tyranny. Nothing feeds the state and its evil like nationalism. Ordinary folks are victims of nationalism and blindly consent to do its bidding as they wrap themselves in the flag as a symbol of patriotism. Humanity is doomed by its own blindness or evil, or both.

Back to my Facebook story.  In June, 2018 I got a 3 day FB suspension for posting this harmless Daily Caller link on cannibalism.  There is nothing offensive or untrue about this article.  There are still a few human societies that do in fact practice cannibalism.

HERE ARE THE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE EAT HUMAN FLESH

Why would this article violate Facebook Community Standards and even warrant a suspension?  LOL, are folks NOT allowed to know that cannibalism exists in the world today?  Apparently so and any mention of it is perceived as an insult to cannibals.

My antiwar activism against atrocities being committed by the Saudis in Yemen also included criticism of President Trump and Secretary of Defense Mattis for their role in helping the Saudis.  The US-Saudi relationship is something I view as an evil alliance and I'm always asking Trump and Mattis on social media NOT to be Saudi Stooges and I love using @realDonaldTrump and #SecDefMattis to do it.

My Facebook status took a turn for the worse on July 27, 2018 when I posted a story about a pregnant goat who died in India after being violently gang raped, here. The story went viral for a while because it was indeed horrifying and many posted the exact same story.  On my FB page, the discussion turned to Islam and I responded with:

Islam is a sexually dysfunctional culture because females are expected to be virgins when they marry. A non-virgin Muslim female can be murdered in an honor killing by her own family. It's a problem that has traveled to America and Europe, along with the hideous practice of female genital mutilation (FGM - look it up). Accordingly, Muslim males will have sex with animals or rape infidel women. Much has been written about the Muslim practice of sex with animals.

I also included this link titled No Joke Muslim Men Really Do Rape Goats, https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/01/18/no-joke-muslim-men-really-do-rape-goats/. That particular link has disappeared but if you engine search the article title, it's out there but on different websites.  However, everything is being purged from the Internet that speaks the truth about offensive practices by some cultures.

Anyway, that FB post earned me what is now a permanent ban although FB hasn't shut down my account, it just keeps extending my 30 days bans.  Nothing in my post is untrue.  In fact, one of the primary reasons European women are being raped by Muslim men is because Muslim culture has ZERO respect for infidel women who are deemed whores who deserve to be raped.  Sweden has so many Muslim males that it's the rape capital of Europe.  All of this is being covered up by western media.

I don't care what your culture is, if you have young human males at peak testosterone levels, they need sex and it's not uncommon for them to even engage in homosexual sex with each other.  In Afghanistan, they have a custom called the bacha bazi dancing boys who dress like little girls to sexually service male pedophiles, here.

If you toss religion into the equation of sexuality, the situation gets nastier when these males cannot have sex outside of marriage with females sharing the same religion.  Heck, the priests in the Catholic Church who took a vow of lifetime chastity are being exposed as pedophiles who apparently have been sexually molesting children for decades while the Catholic Church covered it up.  Celibacy is not a natural state for most humans but exactly how those biological instincts are satisfied is a matter of culture and religion.  Repugnant as it is to most Americans, humans having sex with animals is not uncommon and even occurs in western cultures.  There are stories about how males have died having sex with a horse.   What is viewed as deviant sex in some cultures is viewed as normal in other cultures.  Therefore, there is nothing wrong with discussing Islam and sex.

If sex is normal then pregnancy is definitely also normal.  Yet, Facebook found this photo offensive and according to Lifesitenews.com "Facebook has deemed this photo to be "political" and therefore not permitted to be posted to Facebook in a LifeSite summer campaign ad.", here.

If you support human life in the womb, that is apparently offensive to FB and violates community standards, especially if it's a conservative ad.  However, if you support human beings including women and children being blown to bits and having their body parts strewn far and wide, that apparently does NOT violate FB community standards.

What FB really come down to is this:  it's clearly a Deep State operative that advocates for endless wars, destruction, bombings, genocide and all the horrors of war.  However, FB is more than just a warmongering Nazi styled censor of those who oppose the military industrial complex, it's also very much an advocate for global governance, open borders, multiculturalism, NATO as well as being a ferocious advocate for the  total destruction of Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian culture.  Therefore, anything that interferes with the Facebook, deep state agenda is verboten, banned and slated for purging.

To permanently shut me down without officially shutting me down, FB has put every one of my posts under a microscope.  They found very little but they found enough to justify extending my FB jail for all eternity.  I will share with you the offending posts that got me a FB notification of deletion.

On 6/29/2018 FB notified me that this offending undated post was deleted for violating community community with the message: "Only you can see this post because it goes against our standards on hate speech."   The post was made before the 2016 election, apparently a ripe period for FB scrutiny.

I'm voting for Trump because he's far less dangerous than the Hildabeast and Melania will indeed be a lovely and classy FLOTUS.  I'm hoping that Trump does better with the Hispanic vote than predicted. LOL, hot blooded macho Latino men do not like arrogant bull dyke females who are determined to emasculate them. I think she makes them cringe in horror.

I was a huge fan of civil libertarian and civil rights activist William N. Grigg who died in April 2017 - he was a brilliant man and humanitarian.  Yet, much hate was posted on FB about him, hate that apparently did conform with FB community standards.  I posted a hateful comment that some idiot made about Grigg and FB used it against me - accusing me of hate speech for pointing out the hate speech of others.  Here's the very hateful comment I posted and prefaced a comment warning folks about the hate:

"William N. Grigg is a Communist, Homosexual,Muslimaic Piece of shit who should shot for Treason!!! AMERICA IS RIGHT 100% OF THE TIME!!! AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A TERRORIST-LOVING FAGGOT WHO NEEDS TO DIE!!! LONG LIVE CHRIS KYLE!!! VICTORY TO WAR ON TERROR!!! DEATH TO ISLAM AND ISLAM ENABLERS!!! LONG LIVE AMERICA!!!"

In June a group of migrants landed on a beach in Spain.  A British newspaper reported on it and when I posted the link, the post was flagged as violating community standards.

Dozens of African migrants storm Spanish holiday beach popular with Brits stunning naked bathers

There was NOTHING offensive about this post - the article merely stated facts.  British tabloids are afraid to say much of anything because they also fear censorship so they tend to just mundanely report facts.

I follow a guy on Twitter called Hotep Jesus because he's witty and has interesting comments on just about everything.  I have also posted his tweets on FB. During or after the Super Bowl I posted this tweet of his which got flagged months after the post:

Hotep Jesus ‏@VibeHi Gaga look like a tranny tin man. #SuperBowl

In its quest to purge me from social media, FB is going back over every post and finding ridiculously unjustifiable reasons to keep me banned.  Moreover, many of my FB friends have posted the same links and comments without being punished.

Way back a year or two ago when folks were debating the issue of transsexual males using the ladies room, I posted this comment:

OKAY, what is the Libertarian solution to solving the school and public restroom problem for trannies and the 'I dunno' folks? Requiring a 3rd gender neutral bathroom would impose a big burden on businesses via statist dictates. In my view, a dude with a penis is still a dude even if he dresses like a woman and would prefer to be a woman. Houston voters just voted down an ordinance to abolish gender segregated restrooms.

Frankly, I had never heard of the word 'tranny' but I'll tune in to the idiot box late at night and watch stupid shows to put me to sleep.  I was watching an episode of Law and Order, Special Victims Unit when the star, Olivia, used it in a totally PC context. What is more PC than L & O?  So I used the term in a FB post and got a suspension and FB actually went back a year or two just to find this GOTCHA post.  I'm violating community standards.

Of course, this is all totally insane!   FB dug it up in the summer of 2018 and used it as an excuse to implement a ban.  These days, my FB bans a chronic, constant and ongoing. 

If FB ever lifts what now appears to be a lifetime ban, I will only use my 2 FB pages to bash this Nazi organization and then permanently shut down my pages.  I want nothing whatsoever to do with Fascistbook.

What happened to me will ultimately happen to everybody who opposes the Deep State and its agenda.  It's only a matter of time.  I've been singled out for social media extinction by FB but so have folks who share some or all of my political views.

On FB you have no recourse and you cannot protest unjust bans.

Ironically, I switched to Twitter after my FB ban.  After a few weeks of being active on Twitter I was shut down.  However, Twitter has a protest process with I initiated - I was shutdown Sunday night Sept. 3, 2018 and reinstated Monday morning and Twitter apologized for shutting me down in error.

My Twitter Lockout

The social media war on conservatives isn't about me and FB.  It's also about millions of other persecuted conservatives.  Google and Social Media are cutting them off in droves, denying them ad revenues, harming their businesses and shadowbanning like crazy, and all because they reject leftist politics, tyranny, totalitarianism, Hillary Clinton, wars, open borders and more.

Welcome to America the Nazified Police State controlled by Google, Facebook and Twitter.

My Twitter Lockout

During the evening of 9/3/2018, I was locked out of my Twitter account. As one who is banned on Facebook for antiwar and liberty activism I'm thinking 'here we go again!".  The reasons given were "Your account has been locked for security purposes." and "Some of your account features are limited due to suspicious activity" and "Repeat violations of the Twitter Rules may lead to permanent suspension.".

I used the Twitter protest system to open a case, got what appeared to be a canned email affirming the above listed charges and responded with:

I'm 69 years old and advocate for peace and liberty. I'm not vulgar or crude and I've never insulted anybody except warmongers, neocons and homicidal-genocidal maniacs (still, I don't curse or use foul language). I haven't violated any rules. If peace activism gets you blocked on Twitter, then we are in deep trouble. Please fix this and restore my Twitter account. I didn't do anything to deserve this. Thank you and show some love for an old lady who works to save the world from mushroom clouds, devastation and destruction."

This morning, I was pleased when I received this email from Twitter informing me that my account was unlocked, that it was locked by mistake and I was also furnished a link to Twitter rules.

Hello, Your account is now unlocked, and we’re sorry for the inconvenience. Twitter has automated systems that find and remove automated spam accounts and it looks like your account got caught up in one of these spam groups by mistake. This sometimes happens when an account exhibits automated behavior in violation of the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules). Again, we apologize for the inconvenience. Please do not respond to this email as replies will not be monitored. Thanks, Twitter Support

All is well that ends well!  Still, it's infuriating to be falsely accused of 'spamming'.  I did no such thing and view the entire fiasco as an intimidation tactic and form of censorship.  Still, I do applaud Twitter for its prompt review procedures that resulted a quick restoration of my Twitter account.

As for Fascistbook, that's an entirely different story that I'm documenting and it's a long one.

How Trump Can Win Millennials and Minorities on Marijuana

Arresting, prosecuting and jailing folks for marijuana use-possession is INSANE.  Even the majority of the American people who once leaned strongly prohibitionist now endorse legalization for both medicinal (yes, marijuana is a very effective medicine) and recreational use.

Americans continue to warm to legalizing marijuana, with 64% now saying its use should be made legal. This is the highest level of public support Gallup has found for the proposal in nearly a half-century of measurement, here. 

So why are state and federal legislators dragging their feet on the issue?  The answer is simple; there are well heeled and powerful lobbies that literally bribe legislators to keep marijuana illegal.  The top 5 lobbies against marijuana legalization are police unions, prison guard unions, private prison corporations, the beer booze industry and big pharm.  I've always believed that marijuana would become legal ONLY when big pharm figures out a way to to obtain patents on marijuana and create monopolies.  Big pharm will always oppose folks growing their own marijuana for medicinal purposes.  The prohibitionist industry creates a lot of jobs for statist prohibitionists.

Another big issue is America's Prison Industrial Complex which is a deeply disturbing shame that should horrify all Americans because America's prisons are loaded with drug offenders.  These are NOT symptoms of free countries or anything that we should be proud of but are indicative of raw and absolute tyranny and abuse of power.  We lock up folks for drug offenses simply because it's very lucrative for certain industries that profit enormously.

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, same as heroin and other heavy duty drugs. Bear in mind that many American including George Washington grew marijuana and it was grown in America for a variety of uses and commercial applications.  Marijuana has been a Schedule 1 drug since 1970.

Drugs or Substances listed in DEA Schedule I may include:
Heroin (diacetylmorphine)
LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
Marijuana (cannabis, THC)
Mescaline (Peyote)
MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) - except formulations in an FDA-approved drug product sodium oxybate (Xyrem) are Schedule III
Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
Psilocybin
Synthetic marijuana and analogs (Spice, K2)
Methaqualone (Quaalude)
Khat (Cathinone)
Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV), here.  

Legalizing marijuana is a smoking hot issue and the Republicans are dropping the ball on it.  Hillary Clinton clobbered Trump on the millennial or youth vote 55-37%.  These folks are most affected by America's draconian drug laws.

While the GOP is viewed as the prohibitionist party, folks opposed to the War on Drugs and specifically the War on Marijuana heavily lobbied the Obama Administration to get marijuana removed from the Schedule 1 list.  Obama refused. If marijuana was removed from the DEA's Schedule 1 list, it would most probably become a state issue which it should be anyway.

Not only did Obama support keeping marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, he sneakily and quietly added CBD oil to the Schedule 1 list, most probably at the urging of Big Pharm.  CBD oil has been proven to be effective for a variety of ailments - cancer, seizures, pain, depression and much more, here.

DEA Quietly Classifies CBD Oil as Schedule 1 Drug

If President Trump wants to do something that is eminently sane and that would also earn him wide support, he should:

1. Instruct his DEA to immediate remove marijuana from the Schedule 1 list.  It's legal and easy to do.
2. Publicly endorse and strongly advocate for Congress to pass a law decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level, a constitutional approach that boots the issue to the states where it belongs.  This is a necessary follow up to step 1 because it would prevent future presidents from reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug without Congress passing a law.

The Democrats have been very much a party to prohibitionist policies and just as strongly as the Republicans.  However, if Trump strongly got behind the issue he'd put both the R's and D's in a hot seat.  What Dem in their right mind would campaign on keeping marijuana a Schedule 1 drug and illegal at the federal level?  None that wants to get re-elected.

Finally, if Trump and the Republicans took the initiative in removing marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug and passed a law removing the issue from federal jurisdiction, it wouldn't just help the Republicans with the millennial vote, it would vastly help them with the African American vote.  Despite overwhelming proof that African Americans don't use marijuana in greater proportions than Caucasians, they are indeed arrested and incarcerated in far greater numbers.  It can be absolutely documented that marijuana laws disproportionately affect minority voters.

President Trump has an awesome opportunity to right a wrong and to also deliver what the American people want and want badly.  Just do it and to hell with special interests! 

In conclusion, I'd like to leave folks with one horrifying story on the insanity of America's drug laws.

There's a Man Serving Life in Prison for $5 Worth of Marijuana in the Same Country Where Millions Can Smoke It Legally

In 2008, Winslow was homeless on the streets of Shreveport, Louisiana. One night, an undercover cop approached and asked him for “a girl” and some pot. Winslow got two dime bags of weed from a white dealer he knew and sold them to the officer. In all, he made five bucks from the sale, money he needed to buy food, he says.

Police arrested Winslow, but not the dealer, even though he’d profited more handsomely from the sale; the marked $20 bill was found on him.

During Winslow's trial, prosecutors pointed to his long criminal history as a reason to put him away. But court records show he was far from a criminal mastermind. He had two nonviolent priors and a drug charge, which is not uncommon for poor people living on and off the streets. Still, after the predominantly white jury voted guilty, he was deemed a habitual offender. Under Louisiana law, that meant an automatic sentence of hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.

“I just keep praying I know everything will be all right,” Winslow writes in a letter.

“There are people serving life for marijuana,” Deedee Kirkwood says. “When I tell people about this, they don’t believe me.”

It does defy plausibility, even in the context of the American criminal justice system, which is hardly famous for being rational or sane. According to the ACLU’s “A Living Death” report, as of 2012, 3,278 people were serving life without parole for nonviolent crimes—and that’s just federally and in nine states. The states that have locked away the most people per capita are Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Oklahoma.

Even at a time when more Americans support pot legalization—a Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 64 percent of Americans want legal weed—Fate Winslow is not the only person serving an absurdly long sentence for marijuana.

The marijuana issue is destroying lives and it's long overdue to correct this gross injustice.