Sunday, December 4, 2016

Hypocrisy

by -
twitter

Free speech is under attack and the left is using Twitter to drown out the voices of conservatives.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a gay white man that is not liberal, and the left hates him. Milo is the Breitbart Tech editor and outspoken homosexual that stands with Trump.

Just minutes before Milo’s event, “Gays for Trump” kicked off at the Republican national Convention; he got the news that he was suspended from Twitter forever.

The permanent ban was supposedly because of “targeted abuse”. The thing is, he didn’t target or abuse anyone. He got into a little back and forth with Leslie Jones, the star of the new Ghostbusters movie, but it was the fans on Twitter that attacked her for being black. Milo didn’t attack her at all.

Here is what Milo said in a statement.

“With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives.”

“Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the special pretzel logic of the left. Where are the Twitter police when Justin Bieber’s fans cut themselves on his behalf?”

“Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left, this will blow up in their faces, netting me more adoring fans. We’re winning the culture war, and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.”

“This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.”

Milo makes a good point. Twitter has not done enough, or hardly anything, to stop ISIS from recruiting members on Twitter and using the platform to coordinate attacks.

Twitter doesn’t ban the people that say they want to #KillTrump or the people that want to kill cops.

Twitter has been flooded with anti-police tweets and people celebrating when cops died in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Those people are still on Twitter.

It is clear Liberals don’t know how to react when a minority defends conservative thought, but this is the wrong way. Banning free speech is wrong.

Twitter is in a tough spot in more ways than one. The company is financially unstable and is failing as a stand-alone company. Twitter is expected to be acquired by another larger company by the end of the year. If Twitter is not purchased, it won’t last much longer.

If Twitter continues to ban conservatives for reviewing a movie while allowing people to cheer for dead cops and to join ISIS, then they have much bigger issues than money.

What do you think about Twitter and how they support liberal causes while silencing conservatives? Let us know in the comments below.

Here is Milo’s speech at the Gays For Trump. It is a rough video.

by -
durbin

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin has a lot of nerve to accuse Republicans of racism for delaying President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General considering he’s the only sitting senator who actually opposed a candidate specifically because of race. In fact, the veteran lawmaker referred to the judicial nominee as “especially dangerous” for, among other things, being “Latino.”

Additionally, Durbin has voted against several Republican presidential nominees who also happened to be ethnic minorities—Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American female Secretary of State. Durbin, who has represented Illinois in Congress since 1997, most certainly was never accused of being a racist for making those choices.

Over a decade ago an inner office memorandum from Senator Durbin’s office that was not intended to be made public referred to a George W. Bush judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada, like this; “especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Following a two-year confirmation battle, Estrada withdrew his name from consideration. But the fact remains that Durbin used race as a reason to nix his appointment. Back in 2003 Judicial Watch filed a formal complaint against Durbin with the Senate Ethics Committee, which not surprisingly, took no action.

In the ethics complaint JW points out that Durbin improperly developed and engaged in a racially-motivated scheme to obstruct the confirmation of judges at the behest of political interest groups. “Denying confirmation to a judicial nominee because of his ethnicity is an outrageous act that brings enormous disgrace upon Senator Durbin and the U.S. Senate,” JW’s complaint reads. It goes on to state that Durbin’s opposition of Estrada because he’s Latino raises the specter that he also opposed judicial candidate Janice Rogers Brown because she is black.

“Senator Durbin’s racially-motivated actions and those of his agents to prevent the confirmation of Mr. Estrada bring enormous discredit upon both the Senator and the U.S. Senate,” JW further states in the 2003 complaint. “Senator Durbin has compromised his integrity, violated his oath of office, may have violated the law, and undermined the trust and confidence of the American people in their government and the U.S. Senate.” JW also requested an investigation of the matter, but the notoriously inept ethics committee blew the whole thing off.

Fast-forward to present-day kabuki theater at the nation’s capital and the script features the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat accusing Republicans of making Obama’s choice to be the nation’s next Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, “sit in the back of the bus.” Lynch would be the country’s first black female attorney general and, quick to play the race card, Durbin was clearly making a reference to Rosa Parks, a black civil rights activist who was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus during segregation in the 1950s.

by -
Hollywood sign

The Left loves studies – especially those with an author pedigree that hales from liberal academies like the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In this case, the latest study revolves around the topic of ethnic and gender diversity in Hollywood in film, television and executive ranks.

According to the second annual Hollywood Diversity Report by UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, lead author Darnell Hunt says Hollywood diversity is improving but not fast enough.

This is in keeping with the liberal ethos that says to understand a society, you need to divide it black against white, rich against poor, male against female, gay against straight – whatever characteristic is required to establish a fairness issue to fuel the grievance industry.

According to Hunt and his co-authors:

“The U.S. population is about 40 percent minority and slightly more than half-female”. . .”but women and minorities are represented onscreen and behind the camera in drastically lesser proportions” the study of Hollywood diversity in 2012 and 2013 indicates.

The study blames the lack of diversity on agencies, guilds, studios and networks — “an industry culture that routinely devalues the talent of minorities and women. . .”

Hunt based the study on the top 200 films by global box office in 2012 and 2013 and every broadcast, cable and digital TV series of the 2012-13 season.

Tale of the tape

In movies, “minorities were underrepresented more than 2-to-1 (less than half as much as their share of the U.S. population) in lead roles and 2-to-1 as directors, and women lagged 2-to-1 as leads and 8-to-1 as directors”.

Television “remained white-heavy onscreen and behind the camera, with minorities underrepresented nearly 6-to-1 in lead roles on scripted broadcast shows and nearly 2-to-1 as leads on cable (relative to their share of the U.S. population), more than 3-to-1 as cable series creators and more than 6-to-1 as broadcast creators.”

Women were underrepresented about 2-to-1 as broadcast and cable creators, and their frequency as leads on broadcast dipped below 50 percent; they also remained outnumbered on cable. Both groups were underrepresented in reality programming.

Executive diversity fairs worst in study for 2013

According to the study, the executive class of TV networks and studios were 96 percent white and 71 percent male and major and mini-major film studios were 94 percent white and 100 percent male.

Perhaps in an effort to inoculate themselves from the harsh criticism bigotry and sexism, the study received the financial backing of major studios and networks including the Walt Disney Co. and Time Warner. These studios then used study outcomes as a guide to address diversity disparities in the entertainment industry.

By way of redemption, executives have made changes to their corporate structure creating vehicles like HBOAccess:

“. . .a mentorship program for diverse writers and filmmakers, which Time Warner executive director of diversity and corporate social responsibility Jonathan Beane says was inspired largely by the report. “I want to make sure that what I’m preaching, I have data to support it. [The report] does that,” he says.

Beane also agreed with researchers that:

“. . .the problem stems from executive attitudes during the hiring process, which perpetuates the lack of diversity in executive suites — even if unintentionally.” “I don’t believe it’s malicious,” says Beane. “It’s just that people have a better eye for talent when it looks like them and has the same background as them.”

Whether or not these efforts to improve diversity are window dressing to ingratiate the study authors to film and television industry executives in subsequent studies going forward remains to be seen.

What is known is that diversity for its own sake will not result in equal artistic and entertainment outcomes that can only be decided by an actor unmentioned in the study’s text or footnotes – the people who buy tickets.

TRENDING STORIES

We have not heard much from Hillary after she lost the most incredible election in modern history, but now she surfaces to reach a...