PROJECT VERITAS CATCHES ANDREW GILLUM CAMPAIGN STAFFER CALLING WHITE PEOPLE SLUR
Mike Brest 10/31/2018
Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum is the latest to be stung by a Project Veritas undercover video. A video released on Thursday shows a campaign staffer they identify as Omar Smith using a racial slur and saying the candidate makes promises he knows he can’t keep.
“It’s a cracker state,” Smith stated. “Get it? Ask anybody outside of here. You go Port St. Lucie, Orlando … man them crackers ain’t gonna let us do that sh*t dawg. Boy, you crazy?”
He went on, saying, “Gillum is a progressive. He is a part of the crazy, crazy, crazies.”
Then the undercover reporter asked how Gillum plans to pay for many of his campaign promises, Smith said he couldn’t. “That’s not for them to know … That’s not for [the voters] to know. Remember our saying, modern-day fairy tales start with ‘once I am elected.’”
Campaign Staff Mocks Sinema Platform: “She’s going to stand up and protect Arizonans values. Whatever the f**k that means.”
Sinema’s Immigration Proposal: “path to citizenship” For All Non-Criminals ”
Sinema Campaign Manager: “We can’t be talking about an assault weapons ban,” Describes an Incremental Approach to Gun Control
Top Donor Says Gun Control “couldn’t be a platform issue…” But Sinema Would Still Vote for It
Campaign Staff Says: “… she is pro-choice. She is very liberal, she’s progressive”
Sinema Donor: Can’t Do “anything that’ll alienate any voters… gotta be all Martha McSally is a c**t and uh, and [Sinema is] good”
(Phoenix) Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from current Congresswoman and US Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema’s campaign, exposing the campaign’s belief that to win in Arizona, Sinema must appear more moderate than she really is, and hide her progressive views from voters in the process. This is the sixth undercover video report Project Veritas has released in a series revealing secrets and lies from political campaigns in 2018.
Said James O’Keefe, founder and president of Project Veritas Action:
“Kyrsten Sinema used to be quite the radical firebrand. But now because she knows she must get moderate voters to win her senate race, she has perfected the art of playing it safe while diminishing her prior views and behavior.”
Arizonans will “actually shoot you”
Featured in this report is Sinema’s campaign manager Michelle Davidson, who explains that because of political pressures, Sinema cannot outright campaign on an assault weapons bans:
DAVIDSON: “… I think Kyrsten’s approach is so, I think, important. We can’t be talking about an assault weapons ban… “
In the video, Rep. Sinema says that Arizonans will “actually shoot you” if you support gun bans in an Arizona campaign. Davidson says that while Rep. Sinema can’t outwardly campaign on gun bans, what she can do is champion other gun control points:
DAVIDSON: “So we can’t talk about that [assault weapon bans] right? So what Kyrsten… the conversation that she can lead is how do we get to a place where we can, background checks… We’ve got to fix the gun show loophole, we have to fix the background check system. We’ve got to make it harder for people who have been convicted of domestic violence and other violent crimes to get guns—I mean those are the conversations we can have.”
Also featured in the report is Steve Andrews, a big donor to Sinema’s campaign for the Senate, who says that while not being able to campaign on assault weapon bans “voting I’d have to assume she’ll be okay.” Andrews adds “she won’t support assault weapons, I don’t think.”
Sinema Another Fake Moderate
Rep. Sinema makes her stance toward immigration clear, saying she believes the United States should grant a path to citizenship to anybody in the country who has not committed a “bad crime”:
SINEMA: “I believe that we should offer citizenship to every person in this country who isn’t bad. You know, if you haven’t committed a bad crime, you know, then you should get a path to citizenship. That’s what I believe.”
Also in the report are staffers working on Kyrsten Sinema’s campaign who admit that she is more progressive than she lets on. Lauren Fromm, a field organizer also featured in the report, says:
FROMM: “There’s a lot of very conservative people in Arizona and so [Sinema] can’t alienate the conservative or moderate conservative voters by being super pro- she is pro-choice. She is very liberal, she’s progressive.”
Rap Sheet: ***628*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters
When not calling Trump supporters “Nazis” as a means to dehumanize us, the establishment media like to whine about the lack of civility in American politics, even as they cover up, ignore, downplay, or straight-up approve of the wave of violence and public harassment we are seeing against supporters of President Trump.
It is open season on Trump supporters, and the media is only fomenting, encouraging, excusing, and hoping for more… The media are now openly calling Trump supporters “Nazis” and are blaming Trump for a mass murder he had nothing to do with. This, of course, is a form of harassment because it incites and justifies mob violence.
Here is the list, so far, and remember that if any one of these things happened to a Democrat, the media would use the story to blot out the sun for weeks. Remember how crazy the media went over a nobody rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask, a GOP staffer who criticized Obama’s daughters? And yet, hundreds of Trump supporters are harassed and brutalized and the media only dutifully report them, if at all. That is because the media are desperate to normalize and justify violence and harassment against Trump and his supporters.
And while the media openly encourage this violence against us, the media also campaign to disarm us, to take away our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves.
This list will be updated as needed. Back-filling it will be an ongoing project…
Here is a video channel dedicated to documenting the dozens and dozens of assaults against Trump supporters.
…Nobody is directly responsible for a shooting except the shooter, and nobody throws a brick except the person who picks it up. No side has a monopoly on political violence. There are loonies at the fringes of every political movement — mentally ill, perturbed and paranoid — who can be stirred toward violence or dissuaded from it.
But when we have Democratic senators accusing political opponents of murder, when our college campuses descend into assault zones for conservative speakers (or those who defend them), when our major cities become playgrounds for far-left rioters and the news media gloss over it, we move toward a more violent and fractured society, not a safer one….
In a gesture that was intended to put New York City Republicans “on notice,” members of Antifa vandalized the Metropolitan Republican Club building, located on NYC’s Upper East Side, breaking windows and doors and defacing the facade with “anarchist” symbols, according to the New York Times. In a note left with the vandalism suggested that the damage to the left at the scene, the vandals declared that the attack was related to a planned appearance by Gavin McInnes, the founder of the Proud Boys, a conservative group that has publicly battled with leftist groups at rallies, protests and demonstrations across the US.
Today, we hear the sloppy, misconceived term “white nationalism” more often than we hear about American nationalism. And whenever the term nationalism is raised, it is often quickly conflated with racism. For instance, at an Oct. 23 rally, President Donald Trump declared that he was a nationalist. He used the term in contrast with globalist, who he called “a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly not caring about our country so much.” Many commentators quickly deplored the President’s statement as a dog-whistle admission that he truly supports “white nationalism,” once again suppressing legitimate debate over the value of American nationalism, while insisting that racialist “white nationalism” is what we really should be talking about.
This is a problem. Because it’s American nationalism that the U.S. needs right now. Never in our lifetimes have we seen America’s various tribes so divided, so intolerant of one another, so quick to delegitimize and even threaten violence. The mutual loyalty that has bound Americans together as a nation seems like it is disappearing. The bitter argument over ongoing large-scale immigration is only a proxy for this deeper issue: Can Americans ever unite again around a shared national story? Can they ever see themselves as brothers again?
“White nationalism” is used to describe the small fringe of Americans who believe nationality is defined by the color of one’s skin. These groups promote the kind of loosely Darwinian thinking that motivated German Nazism: What’s decisive, they say, is the “quality” of one’s genes. So people should obsess about skin color and the shape of one’s facial features — traits that supposedly tell you who’s got the right genetic make-up.
Most Americans find these attempts to reduce nationality to race repugnant. This is because race politics brought about the murder of millions in Europe, while in America it produced slavery, civil war and a legacy of domestic unease — and occasional violence — that hasn’t died down to this day.
…In all democratic countries, in the United States even more than elsewhere, a strong belief prevails that the influence of the intellectuals on politics is negligible. This is no doubt true of the power of intellectuals to make their peculiar opinions of the moment influence decisions, of the extent to which they can sway the popular vote on questions on which they differ from the current views of the masses. Yet over somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as they do today in those countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.
In the light of recent history it is somewhat curious that this decisive power of the professional secondhand dealers in ideas should not yet be more generally recognized. The political development of the Western World during the last hundred years furnishes the clearest demonstration. Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program.
In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals. In Germany this stage had been reached toward the end of the last century; in England and France, about the time of the first World War. To the casual observer it would seem as if the United States had reached this phase after World War II and that the attraction of a planned and directed economic system is now as strong among the American intellectuals as it ever was among their German or English fellows. Experience suggests that, once this phase has been reached, it is merely a question of time until the views now held by the intellectuals become the governing force of politics….
How much do Illegally-entering, undocumented, residents and workers cost the legal residents and citizens of the US on an annual basis? $100 billion? $130 billion?
low-skilled, illegal/undocumented residents have the net effect of pushing down unskilled wages and sending the bulk of their earnings overseas as remittances effectively transferring massive amounts of money from the lower class residents of a country.
These are the consistent results of studies on this topic. Evidentially, illegal immigration is a negative for resident populations so articles in support of open borders have to equate legal immigrants and illegal immigrants as the same thing.
Of course this is globalist corporatism because the only beneficiaries are the corporations that get to pay lower and lower wages for higher and higher profits.
The next thing corporate media will be pushing is nationalizing property for equal distribution to all residents of the world via a centralized government power… Global Communism.
Flashback 2005: Sen.Obama On Illegal Immigration
The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers
Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017
…At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels….
The Fiscal Cost of Resettling Refugees in the United States
Matthew O’Brien and Spencer Raley | February 5, 2018
…Using the most recent admissions figures, data on federal and state public assistance programs, and information from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), our analysis found:
The cost per refugee to American taxpayers just under $79,600 every year in the first five years after a refugee is resettled in the U.S.;
In 2016, the State Department spent nearly $545 million to process and resettle refugees, including $140,389,177 on transportation costs;
Of the $1.8 billion in resettlement costs, $867 billion was spent on welfare alone;
In their first five years, approximately 54 percent of all refugees will hold jobs that pay less than $11 an hour;
$71 million will be spent to educate refugees and asylum-seekers, a majority of which will be paid by state and local governments.
Over five years, an estimated 15.7 percent of all refugees will need housing assistance, which is roughly $7,600 per household in 2014 dollars.
It is important to note that this analysis does not address the costs associated with any incurred national security and law enforcement costs associated with some refugees who pose a threat. The total price of additional vetting and screening expenditures, law enforcement and criminal justice costs, and federal homeland security assistance to state and local agencies is hard to quantify….
“Business interests however are short-term. Easy immediate access to labor will always be preferred to the costs of training and capital investment for the longer term. In the nature of economic cycles, yesterday’s essential labor can often become, as the defunct factories and mills of Europe have shown, today’s unemployed. Employers who demanded immigrant labor are not held to account for this or required to contribute to subsequent costs of their unemployed former workers. Few things are more permanent that temporary worker from a poor country. If business were made responsible for the lifetime costs of their migrant labor in the same way as they must now deal with the lifetime environmental costs of their products, perhaps enthusiasm for labor migration might be moderated and make way for longer-term investment in capital-intensive restructuring.”7
A critique of economics
As noted in the sections below, the economic costs of illegal immigration are staggering. Yet economists – and the mainstream media – tend to downplay and often completely ignore this impact. Western economics is based upon the premise that “growth is good” and that economic stagnation and particularly negative growth are extremely undesirable. With mass immigration driving US population to double within the lifetimes of children born today, one must question whether the economic paradigm of unending physical growth is truly in the best interests of America – and of Americans, no matter what their race, creed, or color.
Three academics rewrote parts of Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf,” infused it with far-left buzzwords, and made it a major part of an intentionally absurd “research paper.” And a notable feminist-oriented journal accepted it for publication.
The paper was a part of a broader effort by academics James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose to expose political bias in humanities research fields such as race, gender, and sexuality, according to a press release.
Recently I woke up to what might be considered the biggest-ever prank perpetrated by three Anglo-American academics in an attempt to showcase the fraudulent, cancerous disciplines that are spreading within the Western academy. In a course of one year, they came out with seven peer-reviewed hoax papers, all in feminist, post-modernist, gender and race studies, and sociology journals. One is quite literally a paraphrase of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” garbed in a feminist language.
A trio of writers who describe themselves as left-leaning but decry the academic influence of political correctness, identity politics, and what they call “grievance studies” conducted an experiment: Could they fool scholarly journals into publishing hoax papers masquerading as legitimate scholarship?
The answer, it turns out, was yes. Seven journals accepted the fake papers, which were written by James Lindsay, a mathematician; Helen Pluckrose, editor of Areo; and Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University.
Four of the papers have been published, according to The Wall Street Journal
Twats Call Everyone a Nazi to Justify Violence… Because They’re Ignorant and Have No Arguments.
There’s an amateurish comic book project on KickStarter that is calling for violence against anyone who is “far right” “alt right” white or Christian… for being Nazis.
They say that doing this will…
“make the world a better and less hateful place.”
KickStarter has chosen to keep the project up even though it violates their terms of service by calling for violence based on political views, race and religion.
“Sometimes they’re called Nazis. Other times, they’re the “far right” or “alt right.” White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies. Screw that. Always Punch Nazis.”
It’s funny that even though I have classical Liberal and Libertarian views, these days I have often been accused of being, far-right, alt-right and a Nazi just because I disagree with globalism, socialism and Marxist/Maoist collectivism.
This is why I understand… When these people use the word “Nazi,” they’re trying to shut down debate, villainize anyone with different political views, and justify using violence against them.
People have become so ignorant and misguided that they can’t see this as a naked political ploy to create division, violence and chaos.
Their views are so weak that they can’t have a conversation and have to go immediately to insults, intimidation and violence to justify their views.
They include a diagram of YouTube personalities and connect them with a bunch of red lines, claiming to map out all of their guest appearances on each other’s shows.
They don’t mention that many of these YouTubers and personalities are usually opposing each other.
They don’t mention that many of these guest appearances were to have a debate between opposing ideas. Very few of these people agree about everything.
Apparently it’s “extremist” to invite people onto each other’s shows… and debate any views differing from the corporate mainstream.
“the problem is fundamentally linked to the social network of political influencers on the platform and how, like other YouTube influencers, they invite one another on to their shows.”
Apparently, these “influencers” have a wide range of positions, including just plain old conservatism… so they’re not all “dangerous extremists,” but they’re dangerous because they’ve debated with “extremists” on their show.
Or does having any non-liberal viewpoint make someone an extremist?
“promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism.”
How are they “overt” white nationalists? Did they say something good about white people? How can you be an “overt” white nationalist, or is the author just throwing out highly emotional, negative words hoping it sticks?
This is propaganda, pure and simple. This is a hit piece against the competition in media and the competition of ideas.
Remember these YouTubers have won in the ratings war, especially since they claim Joe Rogan is one of these dangerous influencers.
And non-leftist and non-globalist views are making a comeback as people realize the lies behind multicultural globalism as an ideology.
Any view advocating people’s rights is called “Nationalism” and any view against demographic warfare through mass immigration is called “White Nationalism” or “White Supremacy.”
When did people lose the right to free speech and association?
This is Nineteen-Eighty-Four-level stuff. This is the real world example of Orwell’s Newspeak. They are trying to rewrite reason and logic and debate to all mean dangerous and subversive because it doesn’t agree with their ideology and agenda.
YouTube provides a breeding ground for far-right radicalisation, where people interested in conservative and libertarian ideas are quickly exposed to white nationalist ones, according to a report from Data & Society.
The report describes an “alternative influence network” of about 65 scholars, media pundits and internet celebrities promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism. They are broadly united by their reactionary position: an opposition to feminism, social justice and leftwing politics and present themselves as an underdog alternative to the mainstream media.
The report, for those who have not read it yet, is as exactly what you would expect from an establishment stenography institution like The Guardian: The so-called “Syrian Civil Defence,” aka the White Helmets, are pure and virtuous; anyone who questions them is an anti-imperialist activist/conspiracy theorist/troll with support from the Russian government; no criticisms of the group are valid and they’ve all been refuted by reputable fact-checkers like Snopes; blah blah blah, etc., etc. As I say, you know exactly how the story goes…but you should read it anyway. It really is a perfect snapshot of the template that the MSM uses to discredit any and all opposition, and it would have been incredible effective…in the 1950s, when people still trusted the mainstream media. (Protip: no one trusts the MSM anymore!)
This being the age of the internet, though, it’s impossible for fake news stories like this to fly with an increasingly informed and connected public. When The Guardian ran its hit piece on the independent researchers like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett and Tim Anderson, all of whom are countering the mainstream White Helmets / Syria narrative, they simply responded on their own websites and social media and in interviews on independent media sites, probably reaching more people in the process.
I find this meme to be very divisive and disingenuous.
I believe that there have been thousands of children sexually abused, both male and female… but their gender shouldn’t matter. They’re innocent children. Innocent children being systematically preyed upon by adults in positions of power is a pretty bad thing, should it be used in this way?
I also believe that for decades (centuries?) the victims of priest abuse were not believed, or, if they were believed it didn’t matter because they were silenced and shamed.
Victims of abuse need to be supported in any case, but evidence and due process and protections for the accused should remain in place, as is our tradition of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
Christine B Ford has our support, but given the culture of her high school, her own admissions about her lifestyle during that time and the lack of solid evidence, willing witnesses, or even memory of time and place, makes it seem like the Democrats brought forward fairly unprovable accusations about an extremely unfortunate event at the most politically opportune time to stall the Kavanaugh vote until after the midterms and next SCOTUS session.
No, I Don’t Believe Christine Blasey Ford, Here’s Why
by Ann McCormack September 19, 201829
Only yesterday, we found out that the ‘victim’s’ lawyer Debra Katz — a major Democrat donor — is Vice Chair of a partially Soros-funded organization that opposes Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Ms. Katz is vice chair of the board of the Project on Government Oversight [POGO]. POGO is one of the many leftist groups demanding Kavanaugh’s records.
Christine Blasey Ford, the ‘victim’, has a brother — Ralph Blasey — and he has close financial ties to Fusion GPS. [Update: This has been disputed. Fusion denies any direct connection]
Katz at first said ‘victim’ Christine Blasey was willing to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then she said it had to be an open session. Then it was closed session. Now she will only testify after an FBI probe.
They keep moving the goalposts over a claim that can never be disproven.
The FBI said they already did their investigation of Kavanaugh and will not do another. A 36-year-old case of two alcohol-imbibing teens without evidence cannot be probed, and, if it could be, which it can’t, it would be the police, not the FBI who would do it.
Ford, I think, has this problem. She says it was so traumatic that it took her years to get beyond it but she can’t tell us where she was, when it happened, or how she got home. She’s saying it changed her life and at the same time, she’s telling us that she can’t recall anything about it.
“I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” one of those friends, Jim Gensheimer, recalled Blasey Ford saying that summer day while watching her kids participate in a Junior Lifeguard program. “They’re going to be all over me.”
This, of course, is a misrepresentation. No one is demanding “every little detail.” But we do have a right to expect any allegation that seems to have as its objective the sandbagging of a Supreme Court nominee have some verifiable details, like whose house it was.