McConnell: Pelosi Refuses to Release Impeachment Articles Because She’s Afraid, Unrelated to Fair Trial

Mc-Connell-Says-Pelosi-Is-Afraid-640x480
(Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)

McConnell: Pelosi Refuses to Release Impeachment Articles Because She’s Afraid, Unrelated to Fair Trial
EDWIN MORA
19 Dec 2019 3:37
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/19/mcconnell-pelosi-refuses-to-release-impeachment-articles-because-shes-afraid-unrelated-to-fair-trial/

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday lambasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), often described as fearless and even never-daunted, as “too afraid” to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate that were approved mostly along party lines with three Democrats defecting.

On the Senate floor Thursday, McConnell accused Pelosi of suggesting “that House Democrats may be too afraid … to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate.”

Referring to the development as “comical,” McConnell said Democrats who stressed the urgency of the process now seem “content to sit on their hands.”

McConnell, one of the top Republican leaders who has been holding the party together against the impeachment-fueled onslaught against Trump and his allies, taunted Pelosi’s threat to withhold the articles of impeachment until the GOP agrees to a fair impeachment trial.

“This particular House of Representatives has let its partisan rage at this particular president create a toxic new precedent that will echo well into the future,” McConnell said from the Senate floor Thursday.

“Looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet,” McConnell mused in remarks on the Senate floor after the House voted to impeach Trump along party lines.

Three Democrats defected, voting against at least one of the articles, while the Republicans remained together in their opposition.

House Democrats impeached Trump on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump joined the impeached president’s club as its third member.

Historically, the House sends the articles of impeachment approved in the House to the upper chamber — the Senate – for a trial.

Pelosi, however, appears to be doing what she knows best, playing legislative games. She has threatened that the Democrats would only send over the impeachment articles until she gets what she wants — the promise of a “fair” Senate process.

“We’ll make a decision… as we go along,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday, adding that “we’ll see what the process will be on the Senate side,” Fox News reports.

“We have acted,” Pelosi continued, repeatedly refusing to commit to sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. “Now, they’ll understand what their responsibilities are, and we’ll see what that is.”

Many Republicans have balked at Pelosi’s request because they believe Democrats denied them a fair trial while Pelosi sat by and watched the show.

McConnell’s speech on the Senate floor came after House Democrats voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on Wednesday night.

On Thursday, Senate majority leader McConnell deemed the House impeachment vote — which passed without the support of a single Republican — as “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.”

Impeaching Trump became an obsession for many Democrats soon after he took office.

Speaker Pelosi has vowed not to send the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Republican-controlled Senate until they agree to make the Senate trial fair. House Republicans repeatedly made similar requests, but the Democrat majority ignored them.

So now, Democrats are complaining that Republicans are denying them the legislative commodities that just a few weeks ago they gleefully refused GOP lawmakers.

Pelosi’s threat not to release the articles of impeachment until she gets what she wants is a surprise move that plunges Congress’s timeline of Trump’s trial in the Senate into even more uncertainty.

NYC Mayor De Blasio tells citizens: We own your bodies, and we can force you to be injected with anything we want

Bill-de-Blasio-345518584)

NYC Mayor De Blasio tells citizens: We own your bodies, and we can force you to be injected with anything we want
Friday, April 12, 2019 by: Mike Adams

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-12-nyc-mayor-de-blasio-tells-citizens-we-own-your-bodies.html

(Natural News) NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that residents do not own their own bodies. The city of New York can demand that all citizens be injected with literally anything the government declares to be a “vaccine,” even when those vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue cells, toxic aluminum metals, inflammatory adjuvants and other dangerous, deadly chemicals.

This is the latest attempt by authorities in New York to obliterate human rights and roll out a medical dictatorship where citizens have zero rights to defend their own bodies against risky medial interventions that are demanded at gunpoint.

PJ Media, which has emerged as one of the best independent media websites covering liberty and individual rights, has published an especially noteworthy article on this issue. Authored by Megan Fox, the story is entitled, “Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Mandatory Measles Vaccination Order Faces Legal Challenges.”

We are republishing it here with full credit to the original author and PJ Media website. This in important read. Share everywhere.

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Mandatory Measles Vaccination Order Faces Legal Challenges
by Megan Fox, PJMedia.com

In an unusual and extreme move, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a state of emergency over a measles outbreak in the Orthodox Jewish community and is demanding forced vaccinations of everyone within four zip codes of the affected areas. Violators face fines up to $1000. This includes babies six months of age, even though the MMR is not recommended for anyone under twelve months of age.

The Children’s Health Defense will be filing a legal challenge to the order, which comes on the heels of a New York Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Rockland County ban on unvaccinated children in public spaces.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is supporting a legal challenge to this dangerous, unprecedented overreach. While the City has unquestionable authority to control disease outbreaks, it may not violate the bedrock principle of prior, free and informed consent to all medical interventions, including vaccines. This is a fundamental human right. The City may quarantine, isolate, trace contacts and strongly urge vaccination, but it may not impose such a draconian mandate without demonstrating necessity, reasonableness, proportionality, harm avoidance, non-discrimination, due process and equal protection. The Commissioner has failed to do this; the City’s actions violate New York State law.

CHD board member Mary Holland commented, “I am shocked that Mayor de Blasio would resort to such police state techniques to control an outbreak of measles. I don’t believe the City’s actions will withstand legal scrutiny.” CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is confident their legal challenge will prevail.

This case goes beyond a dispute over religious freedom. Thanks to the Merck federal whistleblower litigation, we now know that Merck’s MMR should have never been approved, much less mandated. To get its license Merck allegedly ordered its scientists to falsify efficacy data to fraudulently conceal the fact that the mumps component quickly wanes, triggering dangerous outbreaks in older populations where it can cause sterility in men and women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 150 outbreaks resulting in 9,200 cases of mumps in fully vaccinated adults, dwarfing the recent measles outbreaks. We are confident that no American court will allow government bureaucrats to force American citizens to take risky pharmaceutical products against their will.

Merck is currently defending itself against claims of falsifying data brought by two former employees.

Medical corporation Merck & Co. will decidedly face the music in the ongoing class action and related anti-trust lawsuit involving its mumps vaccine – a product routinely given to babies and children for generations. The issue, which involves allegations of false compliance with FDA standards for vaccines, prompted a False Claims Act lawsuit: United States v. Merck & Co. This case was commenced by two virologists once employed with Merck, alleges a systematic and long-standing commitment by the company to lying about the efficacy of its mumps vaccination, thereby prompting possible exposure to liability under the federal False Claims Act.

Governor Cuomo voiced concerns about the legality of de Blasio’s emergency order to forcibly vaccinate conscientious objectors. “Look, it’s a serious public health concern, but it’s also a serious First Amendment issue and it is going to be a constitutional, legal question,” Cuomo said in a radio interview on WAMC. “Do we have the right — does society, government have the right to say ‘you must vaccinate your child because I’m afraid your child is going to infect my child, even if you don’t want it done and even if it violates your religious beliefs?”

Some have asked how de Blasio is planning to determine who is or isn’t vaccinated to enforce his order. According to the mayor, they will be using “disease detectives.” de Blasio explained, “It parallels what a police detective does. If someone has symptoms, they will literally interview them to figure out everywhere they’ve been, everyone they might have come in contact with, and then they go reach out to that whole network to make sure people are vaccinated.” It’s unclear whether “make sure people are vaccinated” means “hold them down and inject them against their will.”

Read more stories on liberty and individual rights at PJmedia.com. Stay informed about vaccine dangers and vaccine industry propaganda by reading Vaccines.news.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-12-nyc-mayor-de-blasio-tells-citizens-we-own-your-bodies.html

FacebookTwitterShare

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Red-Flag-Laws-Beth-PP-Featured-9-24-19

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
Beth Alcazar – 09/24/2019

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

A terrible tragedy occurred in my home state of Alabama last month. As reported by the local news, a father and his son were involved in an argument that led to the 70-year-old father shooting his 45-year-old son in the chest in what he claims was self-defense.

Soon afterward, the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action shared the news — along with a comment — on social media. They posted:

’Investigators said James Adams and his son, Alfred Dewayne Adams, were involved in an argument Sunday night. They further stated they believe James told Alfred he was going to bed. Alfred then walked into the bedroom and James shot him in the chest. Some of the neighbors and some other family members can tell us about stuff that was happening through [sic] the years.’ This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law.

Some Questions

“This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law?” That’s quite a statement. And I wanted to post a few questions to Moms Demand Action. First of all, I wanted to ask: If the father truly used a weapon in self-defense, would a “red flag” law have disarmed him … and then spared the life of his violent son? Would the father be dead, then, in this particular situation? Beyond that, do “red flag” laws cover all weapons in the home? What if the suspect had decided to use a knife? Or what about prescription drugs or poisons? Does it cover a person’s bare hands and/or body? Could we confiscate those weapons, as well, whenever we feel there’s “some stuff that was happening through the years?”

Some Examples

And what about the terrible case in which a son killed his father and wounded his mother with a knife? Two months ago, in Arizona, the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office reported that when the older couple returned home, “they noticed their 33-year-old son had consumed a large amount of beer. The parents argued with him over their drinking concern. He threw his phone at them and then went into the kitchen and grabbed two large knives. When he tried to stab his mother, his father intervened and attempted to restrain him while he was still in the kitchen. The son began attacking his dad. As the struggle moved from the kitchen into the living room, the son was able to stab his dad in the chest. The father collapsed to the floor.”

Or there’s this recent horror story from Illinois: A man in a Chicago suburb was arrested by local police after killing his own mother by stabbing her repeatedly with a samurai sword in the chest. Park Ridge Police had removed the murderer’s firearms two times, with the last time being in July 2019. So the suspect didn’t have a gun … but he still had evil intent. And he used whatever weapon he could find.

There’s also the atrocity from Nevada a few weeks ago in which a 36-year-old man bludgeoned a woman to death with a sledgehammer in what Las Vegas police said was a random attack at a laundromat.

I could go on. But I won’t. Perhaps you see the point.

Some Red Flags

Beyond the fear of just anyone pointing out someone else with a gun for no good reason or people wrongly having their firearms taken from them because of mistaken identity or possibly just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there are so many red flags about “red flag” laws. Undoubtedly, we’d love to be able to stop crimes and keep bad people from harming or killing others. But this is not the movie Minority Report, in which police can employ some sort of psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes. Ultimately, we have to ask: Will “red flag” laws actually target violent people … or just people with guns? Because as the above examples (and countless others) show, the problem isn’t the firearms.

About Beth Alcazar

Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.


How many times have we heard about someone running over a bunch of people too. Even the car or truck can be a deadly weapon. If someone is dead set that they are going to kill, for whatever reason, they will find the tool to kill others with!

These gun grabbers want any possible way to take our protection from us. And these same gun grabbers are socialists/communists.

Impeachment can go more ways than one. These politicians that want to do away with the Second Amendment, work for us. When they were sworn in, they swore to honor and uphold the Constitution. Trying to do away with any of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not honoring and upholding the Constitution. Violating one’s Oath of Office is usually grounds for them to be removed.

I say let’s remove their asses!
(Please note, I usually don’t comment on my own posts).

Universal Background Checks Won’t Stop Criminals Getting Guns

guns-640x480
In this Jan. 19, 2016 file photo, handguns are displayed at the Smith & Wesson booth at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Las Vegas. Backers of an expanded gun background check ballot measure approved by Nevada voters in 2016 are arguing that the Nevada governor and attorney …AP Photo/John Locher, File

NRA: Universal Background Checks Won’t Stop Criminals Getting Guns
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/05/nra-universal-background-checks-wont-stop-criminals-getting-guns/
AWR HAWKINS5 Sep 2019

The NRA is warning universal background checks will not keep criminals from getting guns to use against innocents.
This warning comes as politicians as divergent as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) argue in favor of taking action against private gun sales. Patrick specifically argued that the NRA ought to get behind the effort to close the private sale “loophole.”

But the NRA notes that universal background checks are riddled with problems, not the least of which is that they will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

The NRA tweeted:
NRA

@NRA
So-called “universal” background checks won’t stop criminals from obtaining guns, would criminalize private transfers and loans between friends and family, and is completely unenforceable. Criminals don’t follow the law.

A BIG NO FROM US! https://twitter.com/NBCDFW/status/1168969378660007936

NBC DFW

@NBCDFW
Do you support universal background checks for all firearm purchases?

3,054
2:46 PM – Sep 4, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,473 people are talking about this
Down Range with AWR Hawkins. Sign up today!
Enter your email address
SIGN UP
The NRA also notes universal background checks make it difficult for guns to be transferred between friends and family. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) made this same point earlier in the week by citing a Houston woman who was able to save herself from alleged robbers by pulling her handgun and shooting the suspect. He noted, “With universal background checks, I wouldn’t be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves.”

California has had universal background checks since the early 1990s, yet criminals in that state continue to be armed.

On December 9, 2018, Breitbart News reported California’s firearm homicides witnessed an 18 percent rise in firearm homicides from 2014 to 2016. How is this possible with universal background checks in place, unless such checks do not actually prevent criminals from getting and/or possessing guns?

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Students hate Trump’s immigration, border wall quotes, don’t realize they’re from Dems

Campus

VIDEO: Students hate Trump’s immigration, border wall quotes, don’t realize they’re from Dems
Cabot Phillips
Cabot Phillips
Media Director
@cabot_phillips
on Jan 08, 2019 at 10:02 AM EDT
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11717

Campus Reform's Cabot Phillips asked students on the campus of American University if they agreed with President Donald Trump's statements on immigration and the border wall.
Only the quotes the students were given were not actually from Trump. They were from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Secretary of State Hillary of Clinton, and President Barack Obama.

This month, the federal government entered a partial shutdown after Congress was unable to reach a budget agreement, primarily on funding for President Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the southern border.

The wall, a key talking point for Trump throughout the campaign, has been decried by leaders in the Democrat party as anti-American and immoral, among other things.
“I just really think it’s hateful speech”

But their opposition to the wall and embrace of looser immigration laws seems to be a new development.

In recent years, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, President Barack Obama, and Secretary Hillary Clinton have all stated the danger in embracing illegal immigration and ignoring the laws we have on the books.

Such quotes include:

“Illegal Immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress.” -Senator Chuck Schumer, 2009

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked” -Barack Obama, 2005

“I voted numerous times… to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.” -Hillary Clinton, 2008

Wanting to know if opponents of Trump’s border wall had opinions on these past quotes from Democrat leaders, Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips headed to American University.

But there’s a catch… the students were told the quotes actually came from President Trump.

Upon hearing the quotes, students said Trump’s words were “dehumanizing,” “problematic,” and “jingoist.”

“I just really think it’s hateful speech,” one student said, while another added, “the way he’s referring to people across the wall is dehumanizing.”

One student said the comments held racist undertones, claiming “there are racial biases deeply embedded in there.”

But this was all before they knew these quotes were actually coming from political idols of theirs.

Watch the full video to see their reactions to being told Democrats actually the statements.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Cabot_Phillips

From Our Friends at Livinglies, Neil Garfield

https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/95852/posts/2112751964

How to Use and Oppose Judicial Notice

One of the biggest bluffs used by claimants in foreclosure and eviction proceedings is the request for judicial notice. If unopposed, this results in myths being propagated as facts. Just because a document exists or has been uploaded to SEC.GOV or any other site doesn’t mean the source or the content is credible or reliable.
If I manage to record a deed purporting to transfer title that doesn’t mean that title is transferred nor that my ownership is to be presumed. The same is true if I upload the same fabricated deed to SEC.gov or any other site on the internet.
Judicial notice is erroneously applied as a vehicle for shifting the burden of proof. The basic rule of evidence is simple: the proponent of evidence must prove the truth, credibility and reliability of that evidence, even if it is admitted into evidence. Otherwise the evidence is admitted with zero weight.
==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
Most states essentially have the same statute in their laws of evidence, like this one from Florida:

90.202 Matters which may be judicially noticed.A court may take judicial notice of the following matters, to the extent that they are not embraced within s. 90.201:

(1) Special, local, and private acts and resolutions of the Congress of the United States and of the Florida Legislature.

(2) Decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of every other state, territory, and jurisdiction of the United States.

(3) Contents of the Federal Register.

(4) Laws of foreign nations and of an organization of nations.

(5) Official actions of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.

(6) Records of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United States or of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.

(7) Rules of court of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United States or of any other state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.

(8) Provisions of all municipal and county charters and charter amendments of this state, provided they are available in printed copies or as certified copies.

(9) Rules promulgated by governmental agencies of this state which are published in the Florida Administrative Code or in bound written copies.

(10) Duly enacted ordinances and resolutions of municipalities and counties located in Florida, provided such ordinances and resolutions are available in printed copies or as certified copies.

(11) Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (e.s.)

(12) Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. (e.s.)

(13) Official seals of governmental agencies and departments of the United States and of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.

History.s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 1, ch. 77-174; ss. 3, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379.

A quick review of this statute, essentially the same as all others, reveals that it is not intended to be used as proof of contested facts. The fact that a document obviously exists may not be subject to contest unless the objection is that the document was prepared expressly for trial and not as part of whatever transaction is being contested.

Courts often overstep by becoming the lawyer for the claimant in foreclosure or eviction. As an example of the court stepping into the shoes of the claimant, there is the issue of judicial notice. You should research this. Because judicial notice is intended to be used as follows:
  1. For judicial economy — i.e., acceptance of facts that are virtually incontrovertible and not requiring proof. VERSUS your objections to the content of those documents. The requirement of absolute credibility is essential for judicial notice. There is no prejudice to any party by requiring actual proof of the documents and its contents. Judicial economy does not trump the rules of evidence which are designed to ferret out the truth not to assume facts that are untrue or that could easily be untrue because they came from an interested party.
  2. For documents, the only application of the judicial notice doctrine is that the documents exist and are maintained on a completely trusted site and not that what is written on them is true.
  3. In the case of government documents prepared by government with no interest in making any claims or defending any claims but simply in the ordinary course of record keeping, the record is subject to judicial notice and the content is generally presumed to be true unless disproven by the the opposing party.
  4. Judicial notice is completely inappropriate where the documents were prepared by parties with an interest in the outcome of litigation and claims and are not inspected, reviewed or scrutinized as to accuracy.
  5. Verifying facial validity of a document is NOT the same as verifying the statements contained on the document.
  6. For documents the source must be an independent third party source with no interest in the outcome. So if a fabricated assignment of mortgage is recorded in the county records, then the the existence of the document may be judicially noticed without any presumptions of the veracity or sufficiency of the statements contained in the assignment.
  7. Failure to object to the introduction of the document MIGHT be grounds for admission of both the document and its contents. The ability of the opposing party to present evidence that the document had been fabricated and that the statements contained within it are untrue or misleading is not barred by failure to object.
  8. The fact that it is admitted in evidence does not mean that should be given great weight by the trial court. Any evidence submitted by a party who has a direct interest in the outcome of litigation is to be viewed skeptically and requiring corroborative proof.
  9. Judicial notice is NOT appropriate for the PSA or anything else if the request for notice directs the court’s attention to SEC.GOV. This is an effort at misdirection.
  10. SEC.GOV is merely a repository for uploading documents with no more official capacity than box.com or dropbox.com. The fact that a document is there is NOT an indication that the document is an official document. The SEC has not reviewed it or approved it in any way, manner shape or form.
  11. BEST Evidence: Only the original document produced in court would be sufficient evidence of the document’s existence and then only if it was complete and signed — which means that the mortgage loan schedule is attached as the original mortgage loan schedule attached the trust instrument, the prospectus and the servicing agreements when they were originally executed.
  12. It is a common ploy to upload documents to SEC.Gov and then request judicial notice. This is wrong.
  • Share
  • 2Comments

 


Alex Jones © Sean P. Anderson / Flickr
HomeUS News
Alex Jones suspended from Twitter after tweet calling to end censorship
Published time: 15 Aug, 2018 05:50
Edited time: 15 Aug, 2018 12:25
https://on.rt.com/9cee
Alex Jones suspended from Twitter after tweet calling to end censorship
InfoWars host Alex Jones

Controversial right-wing commentator Alex Jones has been banned from tweeting after he posted a link to a video of himself calling on President Trump to “take action” against tech companies censoring his content.

Infowars Editor Paul Joseph Watson tweeted a screenshot of the notification sent by Twitter staff to Jones. According to Twitter, a tweet by Jones one day earlier was considered to be “targeted harassment,” and, as a result, the Infowars host would have his access to the social-media platform restricted for one week. Watson described the situation as “truly, monumentally, beyond stupid.”

Alex Jones has been suspended by Twitter for 7 days for a video talking about social media censorship. Truly, monumentally, beyond stupid. 😄

On the same day that the Infowars website was brought down by a cyber attack.

Will this madness ever end? pic.twitter.com/hXDzH2b7rT
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 14, 2018

In the video, Jones ranted about the censorship of conservative voices by Silicon Valley tech companies, directing much of his scorn at Apple CEO Tim Cook. He called his own ban from various tech platforms a “total anti-American attack,” and called on President Trump to “do something about it.” Along the way, he bashed Democrats, criticized the mainstream media, and accused Cook of working with the Chinese government to undermine America.

Jones’ Twitter page will remain visible for the duration of the ban, but he will not be able to tweet, retweet, follow, or like.

READ MORE: Who’ll host Alex Jones? Porn sites enter the infowars

Last week, Infowars found itself banned from the platforms of almost every major Silicon Valley company – including Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and Spotify – for violating their community standards and spreading ‘hate speech.’

Until Tuesday, Twitter was one of Jones’ last safe havens online, and CEO Jack Dorsey said that Jones would not be banned until he broke the site’s rules.

Jones’ excommunication was cheered by many in the US, including Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who called Infowars “the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies.” He demanded even more censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy.’

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 6, 2018

Jones’ supporters blasted the companies for censoring the rabble-rousing host, and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage called him a “victim of collusion by the big-tech giants.”

Whether you like @RealAlexJones and Infowars or not, he is undeniably the victim today of collusion by the big tech giants. What price free speech? https://t.co/DWroGYaWvk
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 6, 2018

While effectively banned from much of the internet, Jones still posted content to the Infowars website, and via the Infowars app, which has surged in popularity amid the furore. However, on Tuesday, the Infowars website went offline in what staff called a cyberattack. Upon landing on the site, visitors would simply find an error message, which was later replaced with a low-fi splash page directing them to several other affiliated sites.

They can refer to Alex Jones anyway they want to, Freedom of Speech, but censorship is censorship, are we gonna take it? I say Hell No! Facebook and Twitter can go bobbing for whatever they want, but censorship is censorship, and if we allow them to censor us, they will effectively destroy our First Amendment Rights, and move on the Second Amendment Rights and so forth.

China taking over and censoring the internet? And nobody did shit when Obama let the internet slip away from American control. Pussies!