George Will calls Trump ‘low-life from Queens’


President Trump in his first eighteen months in office eliminated many governmental regulations, opened federal offshore lands for drilling of oil and gas, greenlit the pipeline, negotiated a fairer trade deal with the E.U., and reduced the income tax rates and simplified the tax code.  This caused the economy to surge and grow.  For example, this quarter, the GDP grew by 4.1%.


As a result, more jobs are created, and we have the lowest unemployment rate since 2000.  Black unemployment is at the lowest rate since 1972.  In comparison, in 2010, under Obama, the black unemployment rate was 16.8%.  The unemployment rate for Hispanics in June 2018 dropped to 4.6%.



President Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.


On foreign matters, President Trump is dealing with North Korea to reduce the tensions.  North Korea agreed to return the remains of U.S. servicemen killed in the Korean War, and fifty-five (55) have been returned.


President Trump cancelled the disastrous Iran deal, but Iran still keeps the $150 billion Obama gave it.


 NATO has agreed to pay its fair, proportionate share of expenses for defense.


On immigration, the Supreme Court upheld the travel bans issued by President Trump.


A real conservative would and should support this agenda and give credit to President Trump for moving this conservative agenda.


But George Will, regarded for the past forty years as a leading conservative commentator but now in his new role as the housebroken pet conservative at MSNBC, described President Trump as a “lowlife from Queens.”


Previously, Will called Trump the worst president in U.S. history.


According to Will, Trump is not merely a lowlife, but a lowlife from Queens.  Evidently, being from Queens is a further example of a lowlife.  Will fancies himself a wordsmith, so he did not use Hillary’s “deplorables” or Obama’s “those who cling to God and guns.”  But the meaning is the same.  Trump is a lowlife, so his supporters must be lowlifes to vote for him.


Why do so called conservatives like Will, Bill Kristol, and most of National Review and the Wall Street Journal hate Trump personally with such vitriol?  If they truly cared about a conservative agenda, as they have been writing for years, they would support Trump’s policies, give him credit, and refrain from the incessant personal attacks on President Trump.  What is the purpose of the constant personal attacks?  How do such vicious personal attacks help move the conservative agenda?


The Will boys view themselves as the self-appointed media spokesmen for conservatives.  They have seen their power and influence decrease substantially because of the diverse conservative sites on the internet, such as American Thinker, where one can read various viewpoints.  The Will boys have lost their monopoly, which they had for years, appearing on the Sunday morning TV shows, to “speak” the approved line. 


The Will boys are upset that deplorables, lowlifes, and those who cling to God and guns do not follow the wishes of the Will boys on voting.  They are offended that we did not vote for a polite “Jeb!”


Simply stated, we do not need Will, Kristol, etc.  They are history.


Photo credit: Croppped from Gage Skidmore via Flickr.


President Trump in his first eighteen months in office eliminated many governmental regulations, opened federal offshore lands for drilling of oil and gas, greenlit the pipeline, negotiated a fairer trade deal with the E.U., and reduced the income tax rates and simplified the tax code.  This caused the economy to surge and grow.  For example, this quarter, the GDP grew by 4.1%.


As a result, more jobs are created, and we have the lowest unemployment rate since 2000.  Black unemployment is at the lowest rate since 1972.  In comparison, in 2010, under Obama, the black unemployment rate was 16.8%.  The unemployment rate for Hispanics in June 2018 dropped to 4.6%.


President Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.


On foreign matters, President Trump is dealing with North Korea to reduce the tensions.  North Korea agreed to return the remains of U.S. servicemen killed in the Korean War, and fifty-five (55) have been returned.


President Trump cancelled the disastrous Iran deal, but Iran still keeps the $150 billion Obama gave it.


 NATO has agreed to pay its fair, proportionate share of expenses for defense.


On immigration, the Supreme Court upheld the travel bans issued by President Trump.


A real conservative would and should support this agenda and give credit to President Trump for moving this conservative agenda.


But George Will, regarded for the past forty years as a leading conservative commentator but now in his new role as the housebroken pet conservative at MSNBC, described President Trump as a “lowlife from Queens.”


Previously, Will called Trump the worst president in U.S. history.


According to Will, Trump is not merely a lowlife, but a lowlife from Queens.  Evidently, being from Queens is a further example of a lowlife.  Will fancies himself a wordsmith, so he did not use Hillary’s “deplorables” or Obama’s “those who cling to God and guns.”  But the meaning is the same.  Trump is a lowlife, so his supporters must be lowlifes to vote for him.


Why do so called conservatives like Will, Bill Kristol, and most of National Review and the Wall Street Journal hate Trump personally with such vitriol?  If they truly cared about a conservative agenda, as they have been writing for years, they would support Trump’s policies, give him credit, and refrain from the incessant personal attacks on President Trump.  What is the purpose of the constant personal attacks?  How do such vicious personal attacks help move the conservative agenda?


The Will boys view themselves as the self-appointed media spokesmen for conservatives.  They have seen their power and influence decrease substantially because of the diverse conservative sites on the internet, such as American Thinker, where one can read various viewpoints.  The Will boys have lost their monopoly, which they had for years, appearing on the Sunday morning TV shows, to “speak” the approved line. 


The Will boys are upset that deplorables, lowlifes, and those who cling to God and guns do not follow the wishes of the Will boys on voting.  They are offended that we did not vote for a polite “Jeb!”


Simply stated, we do not need Will, Kristol, etc.  They are history.


Photo credit: Croppped from Gage Skidmore via Flickr.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Shadowbanning: Twitter’s Revenge on Trump


Twitter, like its Facebook cousin, now claims to have “fixed” the “error” involving the failure of prominent conservatives such as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to not appear in Twitter’s search box and denies it engages in the practice known as “shadow banning”:


Twitter has denied shadowbanning, saying that the apparent suppression of autocomplete search suggestions for Republican congressman Matt Gaetz is an “error.” A Twitter spokeswoman denied shadowbanning exists, and told Breitbart News that the issue with Matt Gaetz’s search results is being fixed:



As we have said before, we do not shadowban. We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box, and [are] shipping a change to address this. The profiles, Tweets and discussions about these accounts do appear when you search for them.


Yes, Virginia, shadowbanning exists as Twitter plays “trick or tweet” with conservatives. As a shadowbanned Twitter user, I have seen my tweets suddenly become “unavailable,” followers suddenly “unfollow” en masse, Twitter analytics stats suddenly flatline and set to zero, and attached photos or explanatory graphics suddenly become “unavailable”. If you are a prolific Twitter conservative, you will be accused of “automated” behavior and have your account locked or even suspended. Once I was suspended for “aggressive following behavior” just for following all conservative accounts Twitter suggested I should follow.


Users on Twitter have the option of “blocking” accounts they do not wish to hear from or find offensive. Liberals intent on shutting down debate on Twitter, just like they have done at major universities, find a willing accomplice in Twitter’s algorithms, enabling them to get Twitter to do their dirty work. As Jim Hanson writes at Fox News Opinion:


When I check I often find that a user who has blocked me is someone I have never interacted with. So why the block? Often, it’s due to being on a block list created by a liberal activist group. Twitter supports block lists and makes it easy for users to mass-block entire universes of people they don’t even know.


But Twitter now uses factors such as the number of people who have blocked an account to determine whether to classify it as “low quality” content. The company also uses the number of complaints or reports on the account. If the number of these exceeds certain thresholds, an account can be deemed low quality and access to tweets from that user are severely diminished.


Shadowbanning takes many forms and, as social media icons Diamond and Silk can attest, is only “fixed” when prominent names get caught up in the censorship. Tens of thousands of not-so-famous conservatives on Twitter and Facebook can attest to disappearing tweets, mysteriously static or dwindling follower and friend numbers and the uncertainty that once a tweet or post is made anybody is allowed to see them.



The “error” affecting conservative lawmakers such as Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Devin Nunes appears to be in retaliation for the increased focus on the censorship of conservatives by social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook:


Twitter’s censorship goes beyond just targeting pro-Trump accounts, they are now actually targeting lawmakers who support the President.


Last week, Rep. Gaetz shredded Twitter during a hearing about the censorship of conservatives on social media in the House Judiciary Committee. So now he’s wondering if this is why the social media giant moved to shadowban his account.


Gaetz tweeted: BREAKING: @Twitter deliberately targeting @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan, @DevinNunes, & me to be #Shadowbanned.


Is it only a coincidence that these allegations would arise the week following my heated exchange with Twitter Executives before the Judiciary Committee??


Coincidence? I think not. Twitter co-founder Evan Williams has apologized for any role Twitter may have had in President Trump’s victory and accumulating evidence suggests that ever since Twitter has been trying to make amends:


The co-founder of Twitter apologized Saturday for the social media platform’s role in Donald Trump’s rise to the White House.


In an interview with the New York Times, Evan Williams said that he recently learned that President Trump said he believes Twitter put him in the White house.


“It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that,” he said. “If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.”


Gaetz has suggested that the biased treatment of conservative politicians on Twitter and “errors” that do not seem to affect progressive socialist Democrats may amount to an “in-kind” political contribution:


Rep. Matt Gaetz is considering filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over Twitter’s alleged suppression of his account, the Florida Republican told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Wednesday.


Gaetz was one of several prominent conservatives, including members of Congress and the chair of the Republican National Committee, whose accounts Twitter suppressed by making it harder to find in the site’s search function, a Vice News investigation published Wednesday found.


“Democrats are not being ‘shadow banned’ in the same way,” the report concluded, noting: “Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.”


Twitter announced in May that the company would rely on “behavior-based signals” to boost the visibility of some accounts and to suppress the visibility of others as part of a step “to improve the health of the public conversation on Twitter.”


And what behavior-based signals would Twitter use? Conservative pro-Trump hash tags or themes perhaps? Indications of conservative support may already be employed in triggering shadowbans:


Covert (and overt) censorship of conservatives and right-wingers has been a reality on Twitter for some time. In January, Twitter employees were caught on camera discussing “shadowbanning” some conservative accounts, and classifying others as “bots” if they made too many tweets about “God, guns, and America.”


Thanks to James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, we know some of the details of, methods, and reasons for Twitter’s pro-active censoring of conservatives:


Twitter direct messaging engineer Pranay Singh admitted to mass-banning accounts that express interest in God, guns, and America, during a Project Veritas investigation.


“Just go to a random [Trump] tweet and just look at the followers. They’ll all be like, guns, God, ‘Merica, and with the American flag and the cross,” declared Singh, who was secretly recorded by Project Veritas reporters. “Like, who says that? Who talks like that? It’s for sure a bot.”…


“So if there’s like ‘American, guns,’ [in the account bio] can you write an algorithm to just take all those people out?” asked one undercover reporter.


“Umm, yeah, it’s actually how we do it,” Singh replied. “You look for ‘Trump,’ or ‘America,’ or any of, like, five thousand, like, keywords to describe a redneck, and then you look, and you parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then look for stuff that matches that stuff… You assign a value to each thing, so like Trump would be .5, a picture of a gun would be like 1.5, and if the total comes up above a certain value, then it’s a bot.”


Well, I do all of that, and I am not a bot. I am a conservative who supports Trump.  Would Twitter shadow ban users who constantly say “Impeach 45” or “Trump is Putin’s puppet”? Planned Parenthood and its ilk are not affected so why should pro-life Christians who support the Second Amendment?


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              










Twitter, like its Facebook cousin, now claims to have “fixed” the “error” involving the failure of prominent conservatives such as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to not appear in Twitter’s search box and denies it engages in the practice known as “shadow banning”:


Twitter has denied shadowbanning, saying that the apparent suppression of autocomplete search suggestions for Republican congressman Matt Gaetz is an “error.” A Twitter spokeswoman denied shadowbanning exists, and told Breitbart News that the issue with Matt Gaetz’s search results is being fixed:


As we have said before, we do not shadowban. We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box, and [are] shipping a change to address this. The profiles, Tweets and discussions about these accounts do appear when you search for them.


Yes, Virginia, shadowbanning exists as Twitter plays “trick or tweet” with conservatives. As a shadowbanned Twitter user, I have seen my tweets suddenly become “unavailable,” followers suddenly “unfollow” en masse, Twitter analytics stats suddenly flatline and set to zero, and attached photos or explanatory graphics suddenly become “unavailable”. If you are a prolific Twitter conservative, you will be accused of “automated” behavior and have your account locked or even suspended. Once I was suspended for “aggressive following behavior” just for following all conservative accounts Twitter suggested I should follow.


Users on Twitter have the option of “blocking” accounts they do not wish to hear from or find offensive. Liberals intent on shutting down debate on Twitter, just like they have done at major universities, find a willing accomplice in Twitter’s algorithms, enabling them to get Twitter to do their dirty work. As Jim Hanson writes at Fox News Opinion:


When I check I often find that a user who has blocked me is someone I have never interacted with. So why the block? Often, it’s due to being on a block list created by a liberal activist group. Twitter supports block lists and makes it easy for users to mass-block entire universes of people they don’t even know.


But Twitter now uses factors such as the number of people who have blocked an account to determine whether to classify it as “low quality” content. The company also uses the number of complaints or reports on the account. If the number of these exceeds certain thresholds, an account can be deemed low quality and access to tweets from that user are severely diminished.


Shadowbanning takes many forms and, as social media icons Diamond and Silk can attest, is only “fixed” when prominent names get caught up in the censorship. Tens of thousands of not-so-famous conservatives on Twitter and Facebook can attest to disappearing tweets, mysteriously static or dwindling follower and friend numbers and the uncertainty that once a tweet or post is made anybody is allowed to see them.



The “error” affecting conservative lawmakers such as Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Devin Nunes appears to be in retaliation for the increased focus on the censorship of conservatives by social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook:


Twitter’s censorship goes beyond just targeting pro-Trump accounts, they are now actually targeting lawmakers who support the President.


Last week, Rep. Gaetz shredded Twitter during a hearing about the censorship of conservatives on social media in the House Judiciary Committee. So now he’s wondering if this is why the social media giant moved to shadowban his account.


Gaetz tweeted: BREAKING: @Twitter deliberately targeting @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan, @DevinNunes, & me to be #Shadowbanned.


Is it only a coincidence that these allegations would arise the week following my heated exchange with Twitter Executives before the Judiciary Committee??


Coincidence? I think not. Twitter co-founder Evan Williams has apologized for any role Twitter may have had in President Trump’s victory and accumulating evidence suggests that ever since Twitter has been trying to make amends:


The co-founder of Twitter apologized Saturday for the social media platform’s role in Donald Trump’s rise to the White House.


In an interview with the New York Times, Evan Williams said that he recently learned that President Trump said he believes Twitter put him in the White house.


“It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that,” he said. “If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.”


Gaetz has suggested that the biased treatment of conservative politicians on Twitter and “errors” that do not seem to affect progressive socialist Democrats may amount to an “in-kind” political contribution:


Rep. Matt Gaetz is considering filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over Twitter’s alleged suppression of his account, the Florida Republican told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Wednesday.


Gaetz was one of several prominent conservatives, including members of Congress and the chair of the Republican National Committee, whose accounts Twitter suppressed by making it harder to find in the site’s search function, a Vice News investigation published Wednesday found.


“Democrats are not being ‘shadow banned’ in the same way,” the report concluded, noting: “Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.”


Twitter announced in May that the company would rely on “behavior-based signals” to boost the visibility of some accounts and to suppress the visibility of others as part of a step “to improve the health of the public conversation on Twitter.”


And what behavior-based signals would Twitter use? Conservative pro-Trump hash tags or themes perhaps? Indications of conservative support may already be employed in triggering shadowbans:


Covert (and overt) censorship of conservatives and right-wingers has been a reality on Twitter for some time. In January, Twitter employees were caught on camera discussing “shadowbanning” some conservative accounts, and classifying others as “bots” if they made too many tweets about “God, guns, and America.”


Thanks to James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, we know some of the details of, methods, and reasons for Twitter’s pro-active censoring of conservatives:


Twitter direct messaging engineer Pranay Singh admitted to mass-banning accounts that express interest in God, guns, and America, during a Project Veritas investigation.


“Just go to a random [Trump] tweet and just look at the followers. They’ll all be like, guns, God, ‘Merica, and with the American flag and the cross,” declared Singh, who was secretly recorded by Project Veritas reporters. “Like, who says that? Who talks like that? It’s for sure a bot.”…


“So if there’s like ‘American, guns,’ [in the account bio] can you write an algorithm to just take all those people out?” asked one undercover reporter.


“Umm, yeah, it’s actually how we do it,” Singh replied. “You look for ‘Trump,’ or ‘America,’ or any of, like, five thousand, like, keywords to describe a redneck, and then you look, and you parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then look for stuff that matches that stuff… You assign a value to each thing, so like Trump would be .5, a picture of a gun would be like 1.5, and if the total comes up above a certain value, then it’s a bot.”


Well, I do all of that, and I am not a bot. I am a conservative who supports Trump.  Would Twitter shadow ban users who constantly say “Impeach 45” or “Trump is Putin’s puppet”? Planned Parenthood and its ilk are not affected so why should pro-life Christians who support the Second Amendment?


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

“Crumbs” Pelosi Desperately Tries to Distract From Epic 4.1% GDP Growth – Posts Bogus Chart Claiming American Wages Are Dropping

House Minority Leader Nancy “Crumbs” Pelosi (D-CA) knows Americans will not want to change direction in the midterms and 2020 if the economy is roaring and Americans are gainfully employed, so she desperately tried to distract from the epic 4.1% GDP growth.

The US GDP for the second quarter accelerated to a whopping 4.1% under the leadership of President Donald Trump.

This is another BIG Trump win.
This doubles the first quarter growth of 2.2%.

This angered Pelosi. The Democrats don’t want the economy to improve; they hate President Trump so much that they are hoping for a recession.

On Friday, Pelosi posted an article by far-left VOX, who used a bogus Payscale chart to argue American wages have dropped since Trump’s tax cuts.

While everyone was buzzing about the 4.1% GDP growth, Pelosi said, “For 18 months, @realDonaldTrump has put the interests of wealthy Americans over working people. Today is no different. Important fact he refuses to acknowledge? He’s presided over a drop in the real wages of American workers.”

The bogus Payscale chart was first posted by Bloomberg last weekend.

The chart was quickly debunked by people pointing out the numbers are based on modeling of unknown validity and the data was at odds with every other source.

“This chart is based on modeling of unknown validity and is completely at odds with government data, which shows real wages rising. Bad week for scare statistics,” said Scott Winship who works on the joint economic committee for Republican Senator Mike Lee.

“I’m sorry, I just don’t buy this Q2 Payscale data. At all. No other source has given any indication of a collapse in the level of nominal wages or a surge in inflation in Q2,” said Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury Department economist focusing on fiscal, monetary and labor policy.

“Here is the level of average weekly earnings among private nonfarm payroll workers, adjusted for CPI inflation, from BLS. This ought to track Payscale’s “total cash compensation” concept relatively closely over time, though there may be timing differences in specific quarters,” Ernie Tedeschi continued.

‘It’s absurd to think real wages *fell* by 1.8% in Q2.’

Even Josh Barro, Business Insider editor and contributor to MSNBC–certainly no friend of President Trump’s, poked holes in Bloomberg’s bogus chart.

The post “Crumbs” Pelosi Desperately Tries to Distract From Epic 4.1% GDP Growth – Posts Bogus Chart Claiming American Wages Are Dropping appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

James Woods Goes Off, Destroys Obama Legacy with Incredible Meme


Estimates place the cost of President Donald Trump’s border wall in the ballpark of $20-$30 billion. That’ll probably get inflated — as government projects inexorably do — but the point is that it’ll probably clock in at somewhere in that general vicinity.

That sounds like a lot, but in the milieu of modern American government, where foreign aid for a single year can approach the lower reaches of that budget, it’s actually quite modest.

So why is it so hard to get funding for it?

The top Democrat in the Senate says that it’s too costly: “Our view on the wall as something that is ineffectual and expensive has not changed,” Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said back in March as the president was inspecting wall prototypes in California, Reuters reports.

Of course, Schumer supported the wall back in 2006, back when border security was still on the Democrats’ agenda (and abolishing ICE wasn’t). But let’s forget that. The point is, since when does a party which considers $20 billion of taxpayer money to be pocket change suddenly care so much about spending that money in a way that will arguably save taxpayers far more over the life of the project?

TRENDING: Democratic Senator Caught in Blatant Hypocrisy After Attacking Trump Fundraiser

Or, as James Woods puts it in a viral image, how is it that the price of the wall seems to boggle the Democrats while another number doesn’t bother them at all?

Now, it’s worth pointing out here that the $150 billion that Woods is talking about is actually Iranian assets frozen by sanctions that were unfrozen by the Obama administration in the Iran deal.

Under current U.S. law, there’s no particular way to expropriate those frozen funds except in wartime. That said, they didn’t necessarily need to be given back to the Iranians.

Do you support building Donald Trump’s wall?

There’s no court that the United States recognizes as having authority over the president’s ability to freeze foreign funds — either within America or internationally. And, while the government couldn’t use the money, necessarily, the money could have been saved for the Iranian people if and when the mullahs in Tehran are toppled.

That definitely would have been a better use of that money than what actually happened.

When Trump backed out of the Iran deal, former Bush administration official James Robbins wrote in USA Today that the deal “did nothing to hamper Tehran’s support for terrorism and insurgency. In fact, the up to $150 billion in Iranian assets the deal unfroze has probably helped underwrite the country’s recent military adventurism in Syria and elsewhere.”

In fact, that’s one of the great problems with the Iran deal — it gave a massive infusion of cash to a country that’s using that money to fund extremist groups and build up its military.

You may think that this means these two numbers aren’t related, but they are. They show a shocking consistency among the Democrats: a consistent willingness to make decisions that jeopardize American security.

RELATED: James Woods Destroys Obama Legacy, Shows Americans the 1 Video Barack Wanted Us To Forget

In one case, they think it’s too expensive to build the most effective form of security there is on our southern border — a physical barrier.

In another, they don’t bat an eye when $150 billion is returned to a country where “Death to America” has pretty much become an unofficial motto.

Is it any wonder conservatives like Woods don’t trust the Democrats on security?

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

North Korea Returns Remains of 55 US Warriors – Trump Administration Added This: “No Money Was Exchanged” (VIDEO)

The North Koreans returned the human remains of 55 US Warriors to the United States on Friday.

The Korean War “ended” 65 years ago.
The UNC hosted an arrival ceremony for 55 cases of remains today from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at Osan Air Base in South Korea.

The Trump administration thanked the North Korean regime and then added that “no money was exchanged” for the remains.

A country is grateful.

On January 17, 2016, a cargo plane with $400 million in foreign currencies was secretly sent to Iran in the dead of night.

This was the same day the Iranian regime released four American hostages held in Tehran.

Barack Obama later told reporters this was not a ransom payment.

Obama lied.

The post North Korea Returns Remains of 55 US Warriors – Trump Administration Added This: “No Money Was Exchanged” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Free flights for illegals on United, while the rest of us pay full fare?


United Airlines, the airline that famously dragged a paying passenger off a flight, stuffed a dog into an overhead compartment and killed it, and junked a priceless guitar in its baggage handlers’ tender care, has come up with a new one for us: free flights for unscreened illegals, sitting right there next to the paying passengers in those newly shrunken seats.  In the name virtue-signaling, of course.


Here’s the news item:



United Airlines is donating flights to help reunited immigrant [sic] families that were separated at the U.S.’s southern border.


The San Francisco Business Times reported Thursday that the pro-immigration lobbying group FWD.us announced United’s donation in a Facebook post, calling it “needed, timely, and critical.”


“A growing community of support is coming together to reunite families who were separated at the border,” the group posted Wednesday.  ”We are so thankful and happy to announce that United Airlines is jumping in and helping.  Thanks to this partnership with United, we are able to provide travel to the recently reunited immigrant [sic] families to get to their next destination with dignity.”


Now, I’m all for an airline showing compassion.  Kids separated from their parents due to their parents’ prison problems and kids separated from their parents due to divorce ought to get free flights, too.  But this is from the airline that just a few days ago refused to refund the ticket of a woman who got stuck sitting next to a masturbator, and then got the treat of hearing United’s flight attendants joking about it.  Here’s the “customer service” she got from United, as she posted it on Instagram:



So as United tightwads this woman who had a repulsive, traumatic experience on one of its flights, and then offers her a fake apology, coupled with a disgusting assumption that she’d actually want to ride again, the company break out the free stuff for illegals, offering $3 million in free flights to people who have thumbed their noses at U.S. immigration law and can’t be bothered to apply for entry legally, though, as Howie Carr notes, they certainly have no problem jumping in for the benefits.  Who’d want to come here legally with so much free stuff being showered on those who don’t?


And more to the point, who pays for this?  We pay.  Through higher airline ticket costs, which can certainly add up, as a protected class gets more free stuff and the rest of us cover for them, both through our taxes and our inflated costs for airline tickets.


And if one of those illegals brings a disease and in close quarters infects a paying customer, let alone conducts MS-13 activities, you can bet Lauren Michaels will be on the case, apologizing and refusing a refund.


The whole thing shows a bad pattern, making illegal immigration increasingly lucrative, much more attractive, in fact, than emigrating legally, which is actually getting harder.  Who needs a coyote when United Airlines gives it away for free?  Call it another perverse incentive.


Why is this going on?  The news account says United is distributing its free flights for illegals through Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-illegals activist group, FWD.com.  As if Zuck needs the money.  What it looks like is some kind of one-hand-washes-the-other instance of crony capitalism, on top of the insult to paying customers, in order to virtue-signal good intentions.  Maybe United needed something from Zuck, and this amounts to the everyone-wins solution – everyone except the paying customer and the law-abiding citizens and residents who pay full fare.


Graphic montage by Monica Showalter.  Jetliner image by Alan Wilson via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.


United Airlines, the airline that famously dragged a paying passenger off a flight, stuffed a dog into an overhead compartment and killed it, and junked a priceless guitar in its baggage handlers’ tender care, has come up with a new one for us: free flights for unscreened illegals, sitting right there next to the paying passengers in those newly shrunken seats.  In the name virtue-signaling, of course.


Here’s the news item:


United Airlines is donating flights to help reunited immigrant [sic] families that were separated at the U.S.’s southern border.


The San Francisco Business Times reported Thursday that the pro-immigration lobbying group FWD.us announced United’s donation in a Facebook post, calling it “needed, timely, and critical.”


“A growing community of support is coming together to reunite families who were separated at the border,” the group posted Wednesday.  ”We are so thankful and happy to announce that United Airlines is jumping in and helping.  Thanks to this partnership with United, we are able to provide travel to the recently reunited immigrant [sic] families to get to their next destination with dignity.”


Now, I’m all for an airline showing compassion.  Kids separated from their parents due to their parents’ prison problems and kids separated from their parents due to divorce ought to get free flights, too.  But this is from the airline that just a few days ago refused to refund the ticket of a woman who got stuck sitting next to a masturbator, and then got the treat of hearing United’s flight attendants joking about it.  Here’s the “customer service” she got from United, as she posted it on Instagram:



So as United tightwads this woman who had a repulsive, traumatic experience on one of its flights, and then offers her a fake apology, coupled with a disgusting assumption that she’d actually want to ride again, the company break out the free stuff for illegals, offering $3 million in free flights to people who have thumbed their noses at U.S. immigration law and can’t be bothered to apply for entry legally, though, as Howie Carr notes, they certainly have no problem jumping in for the benefits.  Who’d want to come here legally with so much free stuff being showered on those who don’t?


And more to the point, who pays for this?  We pay.  Through higher airline ticket costs, which can certainly add up, as a protected class gets more free stuff and the rest of us cover for them, both through our taxes and our inflated costs for airline tickets.


And if one of those illegals brings a disease and in close quarters infects a paying customer, let alone conducts MS-13 activities, you can bet Lauren Michaels will be on the case, apologizing and refusing a refund.


The whole thing shows a bad pattern, making illegal immigration increasingly lucrative, much more attractive, in fact, than emigrating legally, which is actually getting harder.  Who needs a coyote when United Airlines gives it away for free?  Call it another perverse incentive.


Why is this going on?  The news account says United is distributing its free flights for illegals through Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-illegals activist group, FWD.com.  As if Zuck needs the money.  What it looks like is some kind of one-hand-washes-the-other instance of crony capitalism, on top of the insult to paying customers, in order to virtue-signal good intentions.  Maybe United needed something from Zuck, and this amounts to the everyone-wins solution – everyone except the paying customer and the law-abiding citizens and residents who pay full fare.


Graphic montage by Monica Showalter.  Jetliner image by Alan Wilson via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Twitter’s Statement About How They Don’t Shadow Ban Kinda Sounds Like They Shadow Ban

While others are distracted by recent news that the U.S. economy grew by 4.1% this quarter, or that Donald Trump’s once-loyal lawyer now claims, without evidence, that the then-presidential candidate was aware his son was meeting with Russians for dirt on Hillary Clinton (which Trump continues to deny), or that Russian hackers appear to have targeted the first candidate in the 2018 cycle, it’s easy to miss the most important question of the day: Is Twitter being unfair to conservatives???

VICE News first noticed that several prominent Republicans. such as RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and congressmen like Matt Gaetz and Mark Meadows, were not appearing in Twitter’s search box even when their full names were typed out. That effectively lumped in Republican politicians with figures like far-right provocateurs Richard Spencer, Laura Loomer, and Mike Cernovich. By contrast, none of their Democratic counterparts were affected.

After the story went up, several conservative journalists noticed their accounts were also affected.

The issue was fixed, but Twitter soon after put out a statement denying that it was "shadow banning" users, the phrase VICE used. "People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not…" the tech company writes. "And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology."

But then the statement contains this admission of something Twitter has long been accused of. "We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile)." [Emphasis added]

Uh, call me crazy, but that parenthetical sounds a lot like an admission that Twitter effectively shadow bans users.

The problem is that both sides of the conversation are talking past each other, because no one can agree on what "shadow ban" means. In the early days of Internet forums, "shadow ban" was a term that meant a user could still post and see other people’s posts, but secretly other users could not see their activity. They weren’t banned from the forum, but as far as the other users were concerned, the "shadow banned" user simply didn’t exist at all.

Based on that definition, there have been a series of tut-tut pieces about how of course Twitter doesn’t "shadow ban" and conservatives are freaking out over nothing. It’s also the definition Twitter uses. "The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster," they write.

That strict definition was useful in the days when post visibility was basically the only way users engaged with each other. If you wanted to talk about a subject, you had to navigate through a forum, click on a post, and browse through the replies to see what people were saying. In those days, making someone’s posts completely undiscoverable was the only way to "shadow ban" someone.

But social media is used so much differently. The bulk of Twitter users don’t seek out individual accounts and scroll through their tweets. The entire point of Twitter is that by tweeting and retweeting, you place yourself and others on your followers’ newsfeeds. By tagging or replying to someone, you place yourself in their mentions. By using a hashtag, you make your tweet visible to people who are interested in searching for that subject.

If, as Twitter admits, I can willingly choose to follow someone and not see any of their tweets unless I actively seek out their profile (and after their name not showing up in the search recommendations), then for all intents and purposes they have been banned from participating in Twitter the way 99.9% of users use the platform. Call it a florp, call it a bifworz, call it what you please. If a person is de facto banned from joining the conversation and isn’t informed of that fact, "shadow ban" seems like a perfectly fine shorthand to me, prescriptivism and pedantry be damned.

Twitter is of course at perfect liberty to shadow ban, or ban for that matter, anyone they please. And for what it’s worth, I’m inclined to believe that the search bug disproportionately affecting conservatives was probably unintentional. But the explanation for how it came about is a bit vague.

For the most part, we believe the issue had more to do with how other people were interacting with these representatives’ accounts than the accounts themselves… There are communities that try to boost each other’s presence on the platform through coordinated engagement. We believe these types of actors engaged with the representatives’ accounts– the impact of this coordinated behavior, in combination with our implementation of search auto-suggestions, caused the representatives’ accounts to not show up in auto-suggestions. In addition to fixing search yesterday, we’re continuing to improve our system so it can better detect these situations and correct for them.

If Twitter was disfavoring certain accounts based on how other accounts interact with them, that isn’t ideal. Speaking for myself, I’ve had tweets go viral on the alt-right simply because they were critical of campus liberals. I’ve also been placed on mass blocklists that users can subscribe to and preemptively block anyone who expresses a thoughtcrime.

I’m sure you can tell from my opening paragraph that I recognize that this ranks pretty low in matters of importance. But millions of people use Twitter everyday, and the platform sometimes rivals television and traditional news outlets in its cultural power. If Twitter wants to hold onto that power, alienating half of Americans and lame excuses doesn’t seem like a great way of going about it.

Update: This post has been updated to more accurately describe the far-right individuals shadow-banned by Twitter.

The post Twitter’s Statement About How They Don’t Shadow Ban Kinda Sounds Like They Shadow Ban appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Blog – Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

TOM FITTON: Twitter Shadow-Banned My Account After President Trump Tweeted About Me


TOM FITTON: Twitter Shadow-Banned My Account After President Trump Tweeted About Me

Cristina Laila
by Cristina Laila
July 28, 2018

Twitter is desperately trying to do damage control after they were caught red-handed shadow-banning Trump supporters and Republican lawmakers.

President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton said this week he was shadow-banned by Twitter after President Trump tweeted about him. He said the shadow-ban appears to be lifted after publicly complaining about it.

‘Is this just a coincidence?’ Fitton asked.

Tom Fitton tweeted: So I was tweeted out 5 times by @realDonaldTrump this week and I had been shadow banned by Twitter. Coincidence?

Last weekend President Trump congratulated Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch for their superb work in getting the DOJ to hand over the Carter Page FISA documents.

Trump tweeted: Congratulations to @JudicialWatch and @TomFitton on being successful in getting the Carter Page FISA documents. As usual they are ridiculously heavily redacted but confirm with little doubt that the Department of “Justice” and FBI misled the courts. Witch Hunt Rigged, a Scam!

President Trump tweeted about Tom Fitton five times and the JW boss was subsequently shadow-banned–this further proves Twitter users are being censored due to their association with, and support for the President.

Twitter denied they “shadowban” users in a disingenuous blog post this week by narrowly defining what shadowbanning technically is.

People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”

The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.

Twitter also said in their blog post, they use three signals when determining whether an account is a “bad faith actor” and will ultimately be ‘down ranked’ (shadowbanned).

In their third signal, they said they look at how other accounts interact with you (e.g. who mutes you, who follows you, who retweets you, who blocks you, etc)

This third signal is precisely how Tom Fitton and GOP lawmakers were caught up in their algorithms. Deplorables constantly retweet Gaetz, Meadows, Jordan and Nunes which ultimately led to their shadowbanning. Without realizing it, Twitter admitted to shadowbanning Republicans and Trump supporters.

Coincidence? No, Tom Fitton was shadow-banned for his association with President Trump.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) announced Friday evening he is filing a complaint against Twitter with the Federal Election Commission after it was revealed that his own account was being shadowbanned by Twitter.

Twitter stock tumbled 20% Friday after user numbers declined.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com