Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

It Can’t Happen Here – Just Go Back to Sleep

The real goal of the intolerant Left is the outright extermination of conservative White culture (and elimination of the First Amendment)

 CSS-Offical-New-Logo2
Flag-American-Grunge-Usa-Background-Patriotic-Old

by: 

(Natural News) It’s now perfectly clear that the real goal of the intolerant Left is the complete extermination of conservative White culture in America and the elimination of First Amendment rights for anyone who isn’t a Leftist.

This is now abundantly clear after the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where radical left-wing protesters (Antifa) clashed with angry right-wing protesters, leading to 3 deaths and dozens of injuries. According to Leftists everywhere, young, white conservatives have no right to voice their grievances at all… even as they are demeaned, censored, slandered and vilified by the establishment Left.

Had those protesters been Black Lives Matters proponents instead of “Unite the Right” members, their right to protest would have been celebrated and even rejoiced by the mainstream media and the political establishment. According to the Left-wing status quo in America today, African-Americans, Muslims, women and LGBTQ community members all have the right to violently protest against anyone they want, but White conservative males are uniquely forbidden to exercise their First Amendment rights without being immediately labeled KKK, neo-Nazis, racists and bigots.

Along with this, Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are now systematically silencing all conservative voices for purely political reasons, either demonetizing accounts, shadow banning their visibility or censoring them altogether. This politically-motivated effort of Left-wing internet gatekeepers to silence conservative voices only leads, of course, to increasing frustration among those being suppressed. And this frustration is now focused into public rallies which are now one of the very few places where such voices can express their grievances.

Yet when the Governor of Virginia pulls the permit for the rally just minutes before it was scheduled to begin — and then unleashes Antifa and other radical Left-wing groups onto the streets like a mob of communist “cultural revolution” enforcers — it can only end in violence. This is exactly what happened in Charlottesville, where the Virginia Governor — an extremely corrupt puppet of the Clintons — engineered precisely the kind of violence escalation that the Left wants to see on the evening news so they can claim the moral high ground while seeking the outright extermination of conservative culture in America.

What the Left refuses to acknowledge is how such oppression and censorship will only lead to an ever more powerful rising up among oppressed conservatives. It seems obvious their numbers will only grow stronger, and they will begin to stage protests and rallies in more cities, very likely ignoring permits altogether (since such permits are a hoax anyway, as they are at first “approved” and then rescinded at the very last minute).

(For the record, I denounce the KKK, racism and violence against innocent protesters. At the same time, I also denounce the censorship, bullying and attempted extermination of history now being carried out by the Left, all of which has led to this escalation in the first place. Many of you may not know this, but I am Native American and my wife is an immigrant. I’m also on the record stating that we are all African-Americans because our ancestors were all African in origin, but this scientific, anthropological point seems to be hopelessly lost on everyone.)

By censoring the speech of conservatives, Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are pushing America toward civil war

Continue Reading: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2017/08/14/the-real-goal-of-the-intolerant-left-is-the-outright-extermination-of-conservative-white-culture-and-elimination-of-the-first-amendment/

 

Time For A Class Action

DIAMOND AND SILK RIP YOUTUBE, SAY 95% OF VIDEOS DEMONETIZED OVER TRUMP SUPPORT

“Not Suitable For All Advertisers.”

Diamond and Silk rip YouTube, say 95% of videos demonetized over Trump support

Two of President Trump’s most ardent supporters, the YouTube stars known as Diamond and Silk, say a financial stranglehold has been placed on their videos.

Lynnette Hardway and Rochelle Richardson of North Carolina, whose support of Mr. Trump and no-nonsense delivery during the 2016 U.S. presidential season turned them into online sensations, said Thursday their YouTube videos have become casualties of the company’s attempt to silence “extremism.”

“@YouTube @TeamYouTube stopped over 95% percent of our videos from being monetized, stating: ‘It’s Not Suitable For All Advertisers,’” the two said in a series of tweets. “Wonder if @YouTube @TeamYouTube stopped the monetization of our videos because we are loyal supporters of the @POTUS. Hummmm. Sounds like Censorship to us, which is a Violation of our First Amendment. A Bias Method used to Silence our Conservative Voices. @YouTube, how was it OK to monetize our videos for the past two years and now those same videos are no longer eligible for monetization?”

The popular duo, who were also paid $1,275 for “field consulting” work by the Trump campaign, boast 89,000 subscribers on YouTube and another 361,000 on Twitter.

Read more

Sign Up For Free Taxpayer Funded Sterilization

(Video screenshot courtesy of News Channel 5). Judge Sam Benningfield said he wanted to end the vicious cycle of drug offenders passing through his court room who couldn’t afford child support.

Tennessee judge offers inmates 30 days off sentence if they get sterilized

July 21 (UPI) — Prisoners at a small county jail in Tennessee are being given an opportunity to get 30 days removed from their sentence — if they agree to be sterilized.

Sam Benningfield, the only judge in White County, Tenn., introduced the program as a way to prevent repeat drug offenders and other criminals to abstain from having children.

“I understand it won’t be entirely successful, but if you reach two or three people, maybe that’s two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win-win,” he told News Channel 5.

Continue Reading: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/21/Tennessee-judge-offers-inmates-30-days-off-sentence-if-they-get-sterilized/5081500618290/


Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

What a great idea! Let’s have the State decide who can and can’t reproduce! Judges are already playing God by deciding who can and can’t parent their children and what’s in the “best interest” of children.

Judge Benningfield developed the program which is enforceable from the bench, and was given approval by the Tennessee Dept. of Health. This is Nazi style eugenics people!

At least the White County District Attorney, Bryant Dunaway, isn’t buying into it and has ordered his assistant DA’s not to enter into any agreements related to this insane program. The ACLU is also opposed to this program and issued a statement that, “legally pressured contraception and sterilization is “unconstitutional” and a violation of basic individual rights.”

This battle, like every battle we are facing will only be won in the court of public opinion!

Free Speech Isn’t Hate Speech

Youtube Is Burning Books As the Deep State Prepares to Burn People

CSS-Offical-New-Logo2

YouTube’s new program where kids as young as 13 will decide what you will see and hear. It’s called the HEROES program. I call it Lord of the Flies runs our social media.

america will burn

YouTube (i.e. Google) and Facebook are acting as unregulated monopolies. They provide a privately owned platform in which the Independent Media provides a conservative interpretation of the news as opposed to the radical left-wing Mainstream media who espouses such values as expressing anti-Christian views, advocating for the continual erosion of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, completely open borders in which anyone with two legs and carrying weapons of mass destruction can illegally cross our borders take up residence, all courtesy of the US taxpayer. And according to Facebook and YouTube they have the right to ban you from using their platform for espousing traditional American values that our country was founded on.

Not Advertiser Friendly

I have had scores of videos demonetized by YouTube because they are “not advertiser friendly”. Not advertiser friendly? I had a video demonetized that had 1,735 likes and 21 dislikes, with over 40,000 views and I did not make a dime on the video. Why? Because I referred to a current event that involved a suspicious death of a political figure.  My approval rating for this video had an approval rating of over 98% and it is not advertiser-friendly? With 98% of the people approving of the video, the video was very advertiser-friendly and would make the audience of The Common Sense Show MUCH more receptive to being advertising friendly. The term advertiser friendly is a Bravo-Sierra term. What they mean is that I am not loony-liberal-left anti-Christian friendly and my conservative views should not be heard. The First Amendment violators and the thought police are patrolling the corridors of the social media giants with the message “You either promote our world-view or will make you deliver your message at a financial loss.”

There is no such thing as advertiser friendly.  The whores from Wall Street don’t care where they peddle their goods and services.  Just ask Prescott Bush (HW Bush’s father) when tried to get away with doing business with the Nazis during WW II.

Hate Speech and Extremism

Any view which is anti-New World Order which OPPOSES the total obliteration of freedom, both politically and financially, is labeled as hate speech. If we advocate for screening immigrants criminal background is hate speech as if no terrorist with bad intentions would ever try and cross our border in order to do Americans harm.

If one speaks against the illegal and unethical actions of Wall Street, that is considered “extremism”. I have been demonetized and suspended from Facebook for discussing child-sex-trafficking. The FBI and every major police department in the country have task forces related to this topic, but if I write about it, even just to report a related news event, my work is banned and/or demonetized.

Please consider the following admonition from YouTube:

“Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.”

Don’t the topics which includes content of controversial, sensitive issues, wars, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies make up 95% of the content on your nightly news?

Rules for Thee but Not for Me

Continue reading and make sure you watch the video at the end of the article:

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2017/07/22/youtube-is-burning-books-as-the-deep-state-prepares-to-burn-people/

Overcriminalization

Mainstream Media Now Advocating “All Citizens” Spend Time In Prison As “Service” To Country

By Claire Bernish

Corporate media achieved a new level of absurdity last week, when Jesse Ball, writing for the Los Angeles Times, suggested every American be required to spend a stint behind bars every ten years as a veritable guarantee to improve conditions of incarceration in the United States.

In the piece titled, “Everyone should go to jail, say, once every ten years,” Ball writes,

A notable demand that is made upon the citizens of the United States of America is that of jury duty. Although many despise, hate and avoid it, there is a general sense that the task is necessary. We believe a society is only just if everyone shares in the apportionment of guilt.

To this demand of jury duty, I would like to add another, and in the same spirit. I propose that all citizens of the United States of America should serve a brief sentence of incarceration in our maximum-security penitentiaries. This service, which would occur for each person once in a decade, would help ensure that the quality of life within our prisons is sufficient for the keeping of human beings.

Without foreknowledge on length of stay and other details, citizens would languish behind the same bars as convicted criminals under Ball’s proposal — albeit in a section separated from offenders, assumedly not to confuse jailers and inmates, or endanger anyone serving ‘incarceration duty.’

But Ball misses the point — feeding the elephant in the room of overcriminalization of daily life, excessive laws, and, worst by far of all, the normalization of incarceration as conditional to the American way of life — lecturing all of us to walk a mile in the shoes of the convicted rather than declaring the brazen failures of the Injustice System evidence enough, itself, for dismantling the whole dysfunctional mess.

After all, according to the Prison Policy Institute, the United States now cages some 2.3 million of its roughly 326.5 million total people — the largest per capita incarcerated persons of any nation on the entire planet.

An interplanetary traveler would logically conclude it a prison nation — or, at least, one astonishingly rife with thugs, murderers, thieves, and worse.

Even the more law-and-order, authoritarian among us could see the flaws evident in a system claiming freedom, while locking away proportionally more than even the dictatorial fascist regimes our troops putatively combat.

While undoubtedly posited from a place of compassion as a plea for ethics in imprisonment, Ball’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek proposal unfortunately evinces the frequency with which Band-aids are applied as a fix for gaping structural flaws which should otherwise condemn the system to demolishment.                      

But, worst of all, this proposition capriciously normalizes the American Incarceration State.

Consider how those 2.3 million souls wound up stuffed into the cramped confines of the nation’s myriad federal, state, and local facilities; or, worse — judging by a voluminous body of anecdotal accounts — one of the altogether notorious prisons-for-profit, managed by private corporations intent only on thrift in housing its human commodities to save the State some pennies.

Most of the convicted behind bars have committed nonviolent crime — but moralizing on personal vice and legislation enacted sanctimoniously against substances have exploded the nation’s prison population to alarming proportions.

A court or jury decision of guilt in no way can be characterized on par with ‘laws’ governing ethics and human rights — for, if a candid observation of inmate records were ventured, a sweeping sum could be said to have landed in prison by violating the State’s prohibition on the cannabis plant.

And not violently so.

Forgetting for a moment ‘the law is the law,’ to describe a society as just, which chooses to not only cement unjust ideas into law, but imprison violators of aberrant legislation — particularly in cases of medicinal use — must be the pinnacle of hypocritical pomposity, if not the telltale heart of a dying empire.

Sure, forcing (on penalty of prison?!) yet more behind bars to prove how base the conditions behind bars might actually assist the vocal calling to improve conditions behind bars, but if so many have been locked there for reasons only justifiable for the violation interned in the print of legal tomes, the plan is an exercise in pure futility.

Unless it simply normalizes prison life as a veritable inevitability — might as well prepare for the eventuality some offensive chunk of life will be wasted rotting between the torrid walls of a prison cell.

The irony, palpable.

No, we do not need to send the relatively innocent to prison to endure torturously foul food and varying degrees of inhospitability to prove locking people in cages does nothing to curb crime — indeed, the opposite is arguably true.

New UltraBeam Tactical Laser (Ad)

It’s the system, broken — not people’s compassion.

Juries convict based on flawed evidence, evidence omitted by technicality, and an embarrassing list of other inexcusable conditions accumulated on the books over centuries — and more laws and regulations find their way to the ledger every day.

They’re creating additional ways to make you a criminal — so, in that sense, Ball might be onto something.

‘Get ready for prison, dear young people, by the time you’re an adult, there won’t be a thing you can do without somehow breaking the law,’ the writer unintentionally asserts between the lines.

“I wonder,” Ball continues, “once all you citizens of the United States are passing in and out of prison on a regular basis, will the conditions there not seem singularly urgent? Just picture congressmen, priests, stock traders, truck drivers, people of every faith, color, description, all for once sharing in something.”

Sharing in the memory of peering out from inside prison walls isn’t conducive to solving the issue of mass incarceration.

Scrapping unjust, unethical, amoral, and otherwise ludicrous laws governing every conceivable aspect of daily life, however, is.

Claire Bernish began writing as an independent, investigative journalist in 2015, with works published and republished around the world. Not one to hold back, Claire’s particular areas of interest include U.S. foreign policy, analysis of international affairs, and everything pertaining to transparency and thwarting censorship. To keep up with the latest uncensored news, follow her on Facebook or Twitter:@Subversive_Pen. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/07/mainstream-media-now-advocating-citizens-spend-time-prison-service-country.html

One More Way for Government to Get the Kids

New Ontario Law Allows Gov’t To Steal Kids From Parents Who Oppose “Gender Identity”

By Rachel Blevins

Ontario has just set a startling precedent with the passage of a new law that could lead to the government seizing children from parents who oppose the “Gender Identity” agenda.

Bill 89, the 2017 Children, Youth and Family Services Act, passed by a vote of 63-23 on June 1. The new law will have jurisdiction over child protective services, and adoption and foster care services.

One of the most notable parts of the bill is that when it comes to the state’s process for deciding which home a child should live in, it takes out the consideration of “the religious faith in which the child is being raised,” and replaces it with the child’s “gender identity” or “gender expression.”

Differences include: the current Act includes the child’s cultural background in this list while the new Act Chil the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage; the current Act includes the religious faith in which the child is being raised while the new Act includes the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition, warned that the new law does not just affect parents who are facing the risk of having their children seized by the state, it also affects parents who are looking to adopt.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” Fonseca said. “Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

Another troubling aspect in the new Ontario law can be found in what the government determines to be the “least disruptive course of action.” With Bill 89, it argues for the use of “prevention services, early intervention services and community support services.”

The least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services, should be considered.

In a press release on the new law, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services described the legislation as helping “children and youth across the province thrive and reach their full potential by strengthening and modernizing child, youth and family services.” It noted that the law will put “a greater focus on early intervention, to help prevent children and families from reaching crisis situations at home.”

John Sikkema, a lawyer with the Association for Reformed Political Action in Canada, criticized the bill’s clause, and said that it could do more harm than good to a child when applied.

“You can imagine a situation where, say, a child’s teacher suspects that a child is gender questioning or something and they’re not being supported in that,” Sikkema said, noting that the teacher would then “actually have a duty to report certain things to a Children’s Aid Society who would look into it further.”

As The Free Thought Project has reported on multiple occasions, the United States has its own share of problems with Child Protective Services seizing children from families whose beliefs don’t align with the state.

However, the idea of basing a child’s safety in a home off of his/her “gender identity” sets a troubling precedent in the province of Ontario, and takes legal government invasion in the home to a new level.

Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.

The State Really Does Own Your Children

Watch Lawmakers Claim The State Owns Your Children

By Annabelle Bamforth

Legislators in Texas have been working toward passing a host of laws to reform the state’s Child Protective Services agency. New legislation has been crafted to improve the agency which has seen multiple dilemmas resulting in detrimental safety problems for children in the state. There have been several bills introduced this year aimed at improving the agency. One bill, in particular, House Bill 39, seeks in part to require medical exams to be performed more quickly on children who have been newly placed into the foster care system.

HB 39, introduced by Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), would mandate that the state’s Department of Family Protective Services schedule a medical examination for children who have been in temporary state custody for longer than three business days. Children in rural locations would be required to receive a medical exam within seven business days.

While the bill was originally centered around hastening medical exams for new foster children, questions arose regarding whether vaccines would be included as part of these medical exams. Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington), the vice chairman of the Texas Freedom Caucus, introduced an amendment to HB 39 to make vaccinations exempt from the required medical treatments. The bill saw a turbulent debate upon Zedler’s amendment as the discussion turned to childhood vaccines and who should be responsible for crucial medical decisions when custody is obscured.

“You get that child back five, eight, 10 days later, and they’ve now had that surgery or they’ve had these vaccinations,” Zedler said according to Dallas Morning News. “That’s an issue of liberty.”

Wu was vocal about his belief that the law allows the state to assume authority in such situations. “Let me make very clear: the moment a child is removed from their home – the moment the child is removed – by law, the child is now a child of the state of Texas,” said Wu. “We have the responsibility to make sure that child is safe and is given proper medical care. That is the law.”

“When we put into the law that we are limiting the ability of our agency that is tasked with taking care of a child that is in their custody and they are legally responsible for, we are setting a dangerous precedent,” Wu continued. “This is the same thing I told you when we argued over my bills and this is the same thing I will tell you again when we argue over this bill.”

Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) questioned Wu’s choice of wording: “Mr. Wu, you used the word ‘belongs to the state of Texas.’ Do you want to rethink that wording?” he asked. Stickland then interrupted Wu’s response and went on to ask “True or false: that CPS has taken children and found that they were wrong in doing so? And returned the child? Has that happened, Representative Wu?”  Wu acknowledged that it has occurred “on rare occasions.”

Stickland challenged not only Wu but also Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place), who sought to add an additional amendment in response to the amendment of Zedler’s, which would allow “cancer-preventing” vaccines to be administered, particularly the HPV vaccine.

Davis noted statistics related to cervical cancer deaths and low HPV vaccination rates in Texas and said that “the HPV vaccine will eliminate cervical cancer.” Stickland asked Davis if she believed that parents had the right to choose medical procedures for their children. Davis responded that she believed “children that have been taken from their parents and are in protective custody undergoing a medical examination should be given a vaccine that prevents them from developing cancer.”

You can’t handle the truth about vaccines (Ad)

Stickland asked Davis if she understood that they were discussing the issue of children in temporary custody with no parental rights terminated during the medical exams. “Agreed, but cancer is not temporary,” Davis answered.

Stickland repeated his question of whether she thinks parents have the right to choose medical procedures for their children, and Davis said that “we have to find a balance because there is absolutely in my opinion zero science behind the fact that any vaccines are systematically harming children.”

Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) also challenged Davis’ amendment and said that it appeared that her amendment would transfer decision-making authority from families to a physician. Leach asked Davis if her amendment “goes against the wishes” of a child or the parents.

Leach added that he was not interested in deciding which vaccines are “good or bad” or who needs to be vaccinated, but was focusing on the question of who would have the authority to make vaccination decisions under her amendment. “Who at the core at the very basic level, who should make this decision?” Leach asked Davis.

Davis’s amendment was tabled in a 74-64 vote; Zedler’s amendment to prohibit vaccines during medical exams was passed in a 74-58 vote, with another amendment attached by Wu to allow for tetanus shots to be administered in emergencies.

Zedler later said to The Texas Tribune that the majority of parents that he’s communicated with are not overall opposed to vaccines but are troubled by the scheduling. He also said that  “the only one that might possibly be [an emergency] is a tetanus shot.”

In the video below, Wu makes the ominous claim that parents — who’ve not been found guilty of any wrongdoing — no longer have care over their children and that those children now belong to the state. When the state begins to claim they own our children, something is very wrong.


New Hampshire-based writer Annabelle Bamforth is focused on breaking the left/right paradigm through new media and local politics. Annabelle is the editor-in-chief of Emmy-winning journalist Ben Swann’s Truth In Media Project and a producer for Mr. Swann’s Truth In Media episodes. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.

%d bloggers like this: