53percenter's Blog

As previously announced, the besieged Fox News host Laura Ingraham returned to the airwaves on Monday night and she came back with a vengeance.

The strong conservative woman was the target of a vicious and un-American cyberbullying campaign led by teenage fascist punk David Hogg with plenty of help from far-left groups that have declared total war on free speech and has lost nearly two dozen advertisers.

Hogg’s triumphant moment was stripped of some of its sheen when instead of simply getting rid of her and surrendering to those who hate us for our freedoms, the network chose to stand behind her in the face of a still inchoate internal menace that is only beginning to flex its muscles.

On Monday night, Ingraham was no shrinking violet and ripped the leftists who are hellbent at purging conservative voices from the public square and imposing a cruel and dark vision on America.

She called them out as exactly what they are – Stalinists.

Laura Ingraham returns with a vengeance, armed with a battle plan: ‘We will never relent. Never.’ https://t.co/uyTmx0xvtP pic.twitter.com/9h4dy4nbMQ

— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) April 10, 2018

Via The Hill:

Fox News host Laura Ingraham returned from a one-week vacation on Monday night to castigate what she described as left-wing activists’ attempts to “intimidate those who disagree with them.”

She described the efforts as “Stalinist, pure and simple” on her primetime program.

The commentary comes nearly two weeks after Ingraham mocked Parkland shooting survivor and student activist David Hogg in a tweet regarding the 17-year-old’s rejection by several colleges. That tweet in late March prompted Hogg to call for a boycott of Ingraham’s advertisers.

“The left’s propaganda shaped a new generation of young adults, who then parroted all that malarkey about the ‘patriarchy,’ and then they came up with their own new phrases like ‘micro-aggressions’ and ‘safe spaces’ and ‘white privilege,’” Ingraham said. “Today, left-wing activists use these terms as bludgeons to intimidate those who disagree with them from entering the dialogue at all.”

“Their efforts are Stalinist, pure and simple,” she continued. “Their objective is a total transformation of American society, not through rational discourse and open debate, but through personal demonization and silencing.”

Ingraham also condemned “retaliatory hit squads” and said “the left” is “silencing conservative voices.”

“Let’s face it: expressing views that just five or ten years ago were considered mainstream can now get you fired,” Ingraham added later. “It can cause you to lose a promotion. Or you can be branded a ‘hater,’ or yes, you can get boycotted.”

“We’re not going to stand for this.”

She cited a 1991 book by Dinesh D’Souza about the growing intolerance on campus entitled “Illiberal Education” as being responsible for the embrace of what I have labeled as neo-Stalinism and the coming left totalitarianism that is currently being imposed on conservatives but will eventually include all Americans.

Ingraham would have found a much more accurate depiction of the modern left in a more recent book by D’Souza entitled “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” which came out last year.

Via the publisher’s website:

The explosive new book from Dinesh D’Souza, author of the #1 national bestsellers Hillary’s America, America, and Obama’s America.

What is “the big lie” of the Democratic Party? That conservatives—and President Donald Trump in particular—are fascists. Nazis, even. In a typical comment, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says the Trump era is reminiscent of “what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor.”

But in fact, this audacious lie is a complete inversion of the truth. Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts.

To cover up their insidious fascist agenda, Democrats loudly accuse President Trump and other Republicans of being Nazis—an obvious lie, considering the GOP has been fighting the Democrats over slavery, genocide, racism and fascism from the beginning.

Now, finally, Dinesh D’Souza explodes the Left’s big lie. He expertly exonerates President Trump and his supporters, then uncovers the Democratic Left’s long, cozy relationship with Nazism: how the racist and genocidal acts of early Democrats inspired Adolf Hitler’s campaign of death; how fascist philosophers influenced the great 20th century lions of the American Left; and how today’s anti-free speech, anti-capitalist, anti-religious liberty, pro-violence Democratic Party is a frightening simulacrum of the Nazi Party.

Hitler coined the term “the big lie” to describe a lie that “the great masses of the people” will fall for precisely because of how bold and monstrous the lie is. In The Big Lie, D’Souza shows that the Democratic Left’s orchestrated campaign to paint President Trump and conservatives as Nazis to cover up its own fascism is, in fact, the biggest lie of all.

It was a bravado performance and it is time for the real resistance to begin!

On the day when Facebook kingpin Mark Zuckerberg will give his testimony before Congress, yet another embarrassing report of how easily that the world’s most powerful social media network was manipulated and users were punked has come out.

This time it is not a pro-Trump third party like Cambridge Analytica or even those damned Ruskies but rather a white guy in Australia who attempted to cut himself a nice slab of American’s racial grievance industry pie by setting up a bogus Black Lives Matter page on Facebook and then siphoning off money for himself.

According to reports, the page had over 700,000 followers at its peak but was shut down after domestic representatives of the real BLM began to suspect that something was amiss and reported the page to the anti-conservative corporation which after some investigation, acknowledged that it was a fraud and removed it.

The crackerjack investigative team at CNN were able to take off their tinfoil hats and stop sniffing the nasty-ass panties of blow job queen Stormy Daniels for long enough to break the news that all of those chumps who had been frequenting the page set up by Aussie union official Ian MacKay who also owned over 100 racially-tinged web domain names including blacklivesnews.com, blackkillingsmatter.com and backfists.com.

Largest ‘Black Lives Matter’ Page A Fake… https://t.co/RxSTOWhZby

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) April 9, 2018

Via CNN “The biggest Black Lives Matter page on Facebook is fake”:

For at least a year, the biggest page on Facebook purporting to be part of the Black Lives Matter movement was a scam with ties to a middle-aged white man in Australia, a review of the page and associated accounts and websites conducted by CNN shows.
The page, titled simply “Black Lives Matter,” had almost 700,000 followers on Facebook, more than twice as many as the official Black Lives Matter page. It was tied to online fundraisers that brought in at least $100,000 that supposedly went to Black Lives Matter causes in the U.S. At least some of the money, however, was transferred to Australian bank accounts, CNN has learned.

Fundraising campaigns associated with the Facebook page were suspended by PayPal and Patreon after CNN contacted each of the companies for comment. Donorbox and Classy had already removed the campaigns.

The discovery raises new questions about the integrity of Facebook’s platform and the content hosted there. In the run-up to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress this week, Facebook has announced plans to make the people running large pages verify their identity and location. But it’s not clear that the change would affect this page: Facebook has not said what information about page owners it will disclose to the public — and, presented with CNN’s findings, Facebook initially said the page didn’t violate its “Community Standards.”

Additional details via The Guardian:

A high-ranking Australian union official has been suspended amid reports he ran a fake Black Lives Matter Facebook page that solicited donations from the movement’s supporters.

CNN reports that Ian MacKay – an official with the National Union of Workers – helped set up and run a Facebook page called Black Lives Matter as well as other domain names linked to black rights.

The page, which was removed by Facebook after CNN’s queries, had almost 700,000 followers – more than double the official Black Lives Matter page.

MacKay – who is white – did not respond to calls or emails but denied running the page when contacted by CNN.

A statement given to the Guardian by the NUW’s national secretary, Tim Kennedy, said the union had launched an investigation into the claims made in the CNN report.

He said the union had suspended “the relevant officials pending the outcome of an investigation”.

Two of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination who have both staked out their claim as social justice warriors and rightful heirs to the legacy of Barack Obama while have their chance to grill Mr. Zuckerberg when he appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee today but somehow I am skeptical that Kamala Harris or Cory Booker will even see fit to mention the phony BLM page. Not that Zuck would tell the truth anyway, he won’t be under oath.

For such a “wise Latina,” Sotomayor seems like sort of a dumbass.

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

Last week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Arizona police officer who non-fatally shot a deranged woman outside her home in 2010. Only two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

After the altercation eight years ago, the injured woman, Amy Hughes, filed a lawsuit against University of Arizona Police Department Corporal Andrew Kisela, accusing him of having used excessive force when he shot her.

Six years later the corrupt U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision, thus allowing Hughes’ lawsuit to move forward in the justice system.

Fast forward to last Monday, when the Supreme Court ruled to squash Hughes’ lawsuit on the basis “that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity protecting him from the litigation because he did not violate any clearly established law,” according to Reuters.

Kisela did nothing wrong, and the evidence proves it.

The court’s official ruling states that the altercation began when Kisela and another officer, Alex Garacia, received a “report that a woman was hacking a tree with a kitchen knife.” When they and another officer, Lindsay Kunz, arrived at the scene, this happened:

Garcia spotted a woman, later identified as Sharon Chadwick, standing next to a car in the driveway of a nearby house. A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated Chadwick from the officers. The officers then saw another woman, Hughes, emerge from the house carrying a large knife at her side. Hughes matched the description of the woman who had been seen hacking a tree. Hughes walked toward Chadwick and stopped no more than six feet from her.

All three officers drew their guns. At least twice they told Hughes to drop the knife. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hughes, Chadwick said “take it easy” to both Hughes and the officers. Hughes appeared calm, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife. The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s line of fire, so he dropped to the ground and shot Hughes four times through the fence. Then the officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics, who transported her to a hospital. There she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Less than a minute had transpired from the moment the officers saw Chadwick to the moment Kisela fired shots.

Case closed, right? Not exactly.

Attorney Andrew F. Branca of Legal Insurrection noted that, in her “poorly reasoned” dissent, Sotomayor chose “to view the facts as she wishes and with little connection to reality, or the training and experience of the police officers tasked with making use-of-force decisions very quickly, with imperfect information, and with stakes as high as life itself.”

She basically made up facts. I know someone else who often does the same thing …

Examples:

She suggested that Hughes was harmless because the blade of her knife was “facing away from Chadwick.” This proves nothing.

She argued that Hughes “had committed no illegal act.” Disobeying police orders seems pretty illegal to me.

She argued that Kisela never gave Hughes a warning before firing. They drew their weapons and yelled “drop the knife.” What else did she need? A chart!?

She arrogantly criticized Kisela’s tactical decision-making, arguing that he should have used a taser. But nowhere in her biography does it mention any formal police experience, so how would she know what method is best?

Her luridly dumb dissent continues for 15 more pages.

“And more and more and more of the same kinds of nonsense, a full 15 pages of it. As with any Sotomayor dissent, I can recommend that you read it only if you have masochistic tendencies,” Branca opined.

For such a “wise Latina,” Sotomayor seems like sort of a dumbass. I suppose that’s why leftists love her so much.

Personal Note: You are welcome to contribute to my Patreon account or make a one-time submission if you’d like. Or, if you’ve already subscribed but would like to now unsubscribe, that’s totally fine too. Thank you regardless for your continued support!

H/T Townhall