Banned for Exposing Ukraine-Clinton Collusion!

Pathetic, militant liberals have censored me again. This time for exposing their double standard on political collusion.

While watching a CNN live feed on YouTube on September 6, 2017, I participated in the accompanying chat where liberals were freely attacking Trump and conservatives with baseless personal insults and allegations of wrong doing, including dredging up their tired Russia-Trump collusion conspiracy. I pointed out that no proof exists to support their conspiracy. Even some of the most fervent anti-Trump media organizations, which were once unanimous in promoting the conspiracy, have had to give space to token dissent among their ranks, including the Washington Post and New York Times. California Rep. Adam Schiff similarly admits there is no “proof you could take to a jury.” Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified under oath that there is “no evidence” collusion took place. James Comey also denounced suggestions of collusion during his testimony, and was critical of a New York Times’ fake news article claiming collusion took place.

Make no mistake, despite this token dissent and no evidence, the collusion conspiracy is still rampant among liberals as you can witness, for example, here, here, here. Ironically, evidence actually shows Clinton was the one colluding with a foreign country, Ukraine, to undermine Trump, but this has been either ignored, minimized or hypocritically defended by liberals, including politicians and the media. Some examples of this can be found here, here, here,  here, and here.

Liberals could not refute me with evidence of their own so they predictably started attacking me personally, calling me all sorts of derogatory names and alleging that I was either lying, propagating a debunked assertion or a Russian stooge. No, liberals, I am not lying, it has not been debunked and I am nobody’s stooge. I supported my contention by referencing a Politico article by Kenneth Vogel and David Stern which reports that undermining Trump was a top priority of Ukraine’s government. The Ukrainians’ efforts involved, among other things, spreading fake news, including a story accusing a leading Trump assistant of corruption, which these Ukrainian officials were allegedly investigating, but from which they backpedaled post election, and providing the Clinton campaign and media with information it deemed damaging to Clinton’s opponents.

DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa admits meeting with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy to obtain information on Trump and his top aides at the time, specifically Paul Manafort. Chalupa says the Embassy provided guidance when she needed answers “or if there was someone I needed to follow up with.” She admits “the embassy also worked directly with reporters…to point them in the right directions” on Trump-related investigations. Find more information about this here, here, here, here, here and here.

The truth could not be tolerated! Moderators are supposed to be mature, impartial observer weeding out spammers, trolls and generally those disrupting the chat. In this case, the moderator, some intellectually inept, overly sensitive liberal snowflake named Jacey, proved herself incompetent to be moderator by throwing a childish temper tantrum, calling me a “stupid Trump supporter” (apparently for believing the evidence) and banning me. When you can’t counter someone’s argument or evidence, just call them names and, when you can, censor/ban them…that’ll show them who is right. No wonder liberals keep losing elections. LOL

Here’s the screen grab of the incident.

 

Hypocrites The Young Turks Banned Me

This entry answers those asking me why I no longer participate in The Young Turks’ YouTube live stream chat. The short answer is that I have been banned from it since May 15, 2015. This is the second time TYT has banned me for doing exactly what they claim to encourage and allow on their network, as this video makes clear, – civil dissent. My first removal came on November 5, 2012 from their original live stream channel, TYTlive. Then moderator and community ambassador Kimani Wallace David essentially admitted that I was expunged for challenging TYT’s liberal, progressive and atheist dogma, claims and agenda. Although I received no explanation this time, the sequence of events makes it obvious that this same motive applies. These bans thus far only apply to their live stream chats, not their uploaded videos.

(Note: I have provided screen grabs where available and relevant. Unless otherwise noted, these all came from the chat. Some were taken from the live stream and others are from the live stream archives TYT used to have on YouTube, which is why their appearances are different)

During my participation in 2012, I posted my objection to TYT’s conspiracy theory that asserts the GOP aims to suppress voters, especially minorities, by enacting voter identification laws. Kimani promptly blocked me for, in his words, “suggesting that there is no such thing as voter suppression,” and added “YouTube chat is not a democracy.” So much for that dissent TYT claims to encourage and allow.

The irony is Kimani posted for viewers to let him and TYT know if they are getting facts wrong, which is what I did.

What he obviously meant was for the TYT “army,” that is what TYT call their supporters, to help bolster TYT’s propaganda by linking them some cherry-picked “evidence” and not for people to provide anything that challenges it. All the objective evidence, of course, supports me, for example read these reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which is why I was really barred by him. If TYT are as correct as they claim, then contrary contentions should be easily refuted through evidence they or their representatives can provide that anyone can access and review, and this could be done through a free, open, democratic, civil and intellectual forum where opposing views are welcome and debated. Their chat could be such a place, but instead they have made it a liberal echo chamber. This approach is replicated in other areas of the TYT network by individual users who, taking their queues from the TYT leadership, marginalize, ridicule and block political and ideological outsiders. This is the only way in which these liberals, progressives and atheists can continue to justify their message, beliefs and agenda because they do not stand up to vigorous, emperical scrutiny.

At some point after 2012, the live shows moved to the main TYT channel but the accompanying live chat was left without moderation until early 2015. Though my subsequent banning on May 15 came without explanation, it is obvious that it was executed again for purely ideological and political reasons because it came immediately upon opposing, with civility and scientific veracity, the anti-religious bigotry atheist chatters were, and continue, spouting unfettered. Atheists were claiming religion to be a mental illness. I responded that atheism may be a mental illness, or at least a contributing factor to it, as the evidence shows atheists have higher rates of mental health issues, including depression and suicide. Religion, on the other hand, has been shown to provide the basis for sound mental health. This got me removed while the atheists were free to stay and continue their diatribes. To be fair, a minor degree of refereeing in chat was certainly needed by this point to weed out those spamming and publishing people’s personal information. One alleged case even involved TYT co-host Ana Kasparian’s address and phone number being spammed in chat. This nonsense is unnecessary and should be punished by at least a ban, and some of it perhaps warrants prosecution. However, TYT has taken this opportunity to censor dissent.

 

Political Exploitation of the Arizona Shooting Tragedy by liberals and Other Leftists

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’s rhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.