Demonetized!!!

They are rigging the google search results with marxist theory and SJW bullshit autocomplete search input fields! This is gaslighting people!

Fuck these marxist cunts in Google. fuck you evil cunts!

#BreakGoogleUp  #BreakGoogleUp  #BreakGoogleUp  #BreakGoogleUp

They aren’t happy chappies. They are also stupid.

The Left is so tolerant…

It amuses me how the lefties think they’re so “unique” and so “original” when they all copy each other lol friggin cult, this why it always them leading the sheeple social fads and trends every generation, especially the ones that the mass media popularize and hype up. gotten more worse and notable with social media.  

The non-conforming people are the ones who don’t jump on them bandwagons. -gasps- it is like being normal is just being yourself and there is only one you so that makes you unique… -again gasp- i mean to put it simply you wouldn’t accuse a dog of being a conformist for behaving like a dog now would ya, just because all the other dogs are behaving like dogs commonly behave. methinks the left is allergic to normalcy. the doctor must trigger them when they go for check up and he says “all is normal” and they be like D:<

The conformists are the ones acting abnormal to seek attention and they do it in groups. < Ain’t nothing “non-conformist” about that haha. /sarcasm

So much for “tolerant open minded leftwing the defender of minorities” -_-

Sources: https://bit.ly/2Grh4vf

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=30917

Notre Dame Cathedral Fire: The Future of 850 Years of History. Notre Dame Cathedral Fire: No Workmen on Site When Blaze Started. While the extent of the damage is yet to be fully assessed, the other lingering question regarding the fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is how it started in the first place.  

Notre Dame Cathedral Fire: Locals React with Tears, Despair and Optimism.  Crowds are heavy outside of the Notre Dame Cathedral where on Monday a massive fire broke out, threatening to destroy the entire structure.

More marxist brainwashed pawns lol such cringe! xD

Fischer reports that the group, organized by “Werk for Peace” spent most of their time dancing to Yiddish music and singing.

The protest seemed to be against Miller’s stances on immigration.

One speaker, Scott Brown, claimed that Miller, who is Jewish, has “hidden behind whiteness” to gain power.

“It is disgraceful to use the oppression that is a part of our Jewish history as a distraction from the ways we benefit from whiteness,” he said into a microphone.

these assclowns 

The Manson-Family singing and keeping a vigil in front of a courthouse. Brainwashed, just like socialists, Antifa and the feminists, marxists, SJWs leftwingers, wanting their revolution and unrealistic hippie utopia. This cult wanted that too and they went as far as killing people brutally to try and get it.

If you believe illegal immigrants are a net positive, why would you not want them bussed to areas which explicitly support amnesty or open borders? http://tinyurl.com/yylanagx

[Video transcript:] I’m trying to understand why there’s anybody who would opposed Trump’s sanctuary city plans. See what’s happened is this basically the judiciary and Congress are leaning on him to not detain people so much they’re like all the situations the detention centers is deplorable, so you have to let people go and you can’t deport them because you know we we have clown world immigration laws at this point. 

We’re simply not enforcing pre-existing laws Congress is literally refusing to enforce laws that it itself passed long before Trump was president. I think that it’s you know nutty, I think it’s totally insane but you know they’ve got the ninth circuit on their side so SCOTUS really needs to expedite this issue. But we have what’s called in this country “Sanctuary Cities” which are places where of course you can be an illegal and and local law enforcement and state law enforcement in some cases won’t interfere, they don’t look into it, they don’t cooperate with ICE because for some reason that’s that’s not you know and for some reason that doesn’t lead to any repercussions anymore it’s very funny to see the Democrats become a Confederate movement again I suppose. 

But basically what Trump says is “Aah I’ve got an idea, I know how to solve all of our problems, you say you want illegals to be there and you don’t have a problem with that so we’re gonna bus em to your communities! We’re gonna take people from the detention centers, all these families, you know, the women and children and we’re gonna put them in your communities!” “oh my god no you’re not allowed to do that”, they say and he’s moving forward with it anyway. I’m trying to think, like people who support Trump you shouldn’t have a problem with it, look the sanctuary cities by SCOTUS are gonna get crackdown on anyway, so it’s just going to compact the issue into these particular locales, they can pay for the problem and as for people that are like maybe believe in more open borders, you don’t have a problem with illegals, you want amnesty, or something, you want this situation to happen, what does it matter? 

If it’s ten people or ten thousand people that move into your town, why is it that California wouldn’t want a few tens of millions of more illegal immigrants? Doesn’t matter I mean they can get driver’s licenses and too, so I mean why are you such a racist dude? I’ll tell you what it is, it’s the gated community “not in my backyard” people, it’s the its people in Lily white communities all these so-called the pseudo-intellectual yuppies and a bunch of of Starbucks Marxist college kids want open borders, but they live in their gated communities, but if you start busing in a hundred times as many people, their gated communities will be overrun. 

Eventually you’ll need little resettlement centers and you should put them right in the upper class neighborhoods too, you should put them right in the lily white neighborhoods that way these people can see the result of their actions. Maybe then they’d stop me you know maybe if they have to live in the real world most people have to live in, then the things would be different, it’s just and the Liberals will make this same proposal with education, I’ve heard this argument before: “Oh ban private school and put everyone in public school and all of a sudden all these evil rich people will want to fund the schools more,” yes they would, well then you know take responsibility for people who don’t want to be part of that experiment of having an open borders weird society in which the nation-state has fundamentally devolved away back into a weird patchwork Confederacy, oddly enough almost more than it has into a global-istic sort of movement. 

Why do you care? Why do you care how many illegals are in your community? I thought that they were a net positive, wherever they happen to be, “oh no no illegal immigrants are great”, yeah and then some of them by the way are definitely great people, well then you should have more of them. What are you worried about? Your taxes increasing? Fuck the taxes. You want to increase taxes on everyone anyway to pay for your pet programs. 

I don’t see what the problem is, and by the way I’ll say this; Vermont, is a sanctuary state and there are certainly plenty of communities in Vermont that are sanctuary cities including briefly Rutland although that’s been pushed to the side. Yeah I support bringing a bunch of illegals here to Vermont, I’ll tell you why; because then if it causes problems, the people of the state of Vermont maybe will recognize why they shouldn’t be voting straight Left in every fucking election. Maybe they would realize “hey immigration is fine but maybe there should be a legal process for them, maybe we should not reward, maybe we should not take seriously the Democrats, a political movement that fundamentally has told hundreds of millions of people around Latin America “you can come here illegally and we will not allow you to be deported and if you get detained we will make sure that you are eventually released, you should be considered the same as taxpaying citizens” - That is what the Democratic Party fundamentally believes or appears to believe. That’s basically what it’s saying it’s a psychological signal. 

The biggest problem that we have with immigration is it’s not even on the ground policy at the US border, it not deportation or anything it’s the appearance, it’s the floorshow, it’s the fact that a large chunk of our political system has signaled to the rest of the world “you can go ahead and trot all over us and ignore our laws and there are no real repercussions for them”. As for the detention facilities, you know the basic cause for why this is now happening - yeah it’s absolutely true that the detention facilities are overrun - whose fault is that? You aren’t even willing to give Trump funding for border security. Part of that was earmarked for more detention centers. 

By the way I don’t like the idea of detaining, especially children and pregnant women, you caused them to come here by signaling that the border was open for business for whoever came and by “you” I mean the Left. It wasn’t Trump that did that Trump said he wanted to build a wall that would have dissuaded people from even making the catastrophicly dangerous journey, which fucking half the females get raped on the way here in the first place, they get to the border half of them get turned into drug mules, cartels try to draft people, terrorists filtering among them, you are causing innocent people to suffer and you’re now going to cause people in sanctuary cities to suffer. 

I support this move because then maybe those people, when they see the true result of an open border situation, when they see that yes indeed enormous numbers of people want to enter your community and you’re not going to be able to stop them because you’ve set the stage to call people evil if they think that that policy should be any different, why don’t you just let those cities that have signaled that they don’t have a problem with it, take all of the illegal immigrants that get released from the detention centers? We should return to catch and release only to release them in the sanctuary cities, and then those you know they can’t legalize those individuals unilaterally the federal government has to do that and that’s obstructed right now, so enjoy at least two more years of struggle probably six. 

Then some liberal president will come and try to do what Obama did with executive amnesty. You remember that right? You do remember that Obama, who when he or initially ran he was actually more of a hardliner on immigration. He’s like “wow I know hurts the American worker and stuff”, he did the Bernie Sanders shtick all over again, you Bernie bros are being totally conned by Bernie Sanders. Do you realize, go back and hear what Obama had to say around 2007 about immigration, sounds kind of similar now doesn’t it? What do you think he’s gonna do? No he’ll do the same as Obama - what was it 2013 or something? Executive amnesty, “well I’m just gonna sign my little piece of paper here and legalize 4 million people”, well then the court shot it down and said “no Mr. Obama you can’t do that”,  you can keep them from being deported actively by refusing to do your job but you can’t actually give them residency. That’s why Trump can’t unilaterally deport everybody, but he can release them in the country. 

I love this program. I think it’s a great idea and it trolls the Left. It trolls the same people that they’re like Not in my backyard-ers, they’ll say like “we need prison reform” but if you say that you want that prisoners rehab facility in their neighborhood they don’t want it. “We need more green energy but don’t you put those windmills near my house”. “Oh immigration is great but don’t you resettle them here”. “Migrants, we need to help asylum seekers, refugees but don’t you put the resettlement program in my neck of the woods”. That’s what these people are and that’s most of the Liberals, that’s the whole problem.

____________

Ocasio-Cortez Staff In DAMAGE Control Over False Statements after her policy adviser went on Tucker Carlson and falsely stated that their FAQS on the Green New Deal were not in fact real. Following this an activist with Media Matters spread a snipped video only showing the adviser denying the FAQ and not Carlson correction leading many to believe that the FAQ was fake. To make it worse, Ocasio-Cortez retweeted the activist propaganda. Now we have a staff member for Cortez saying “unwilling to work” WAS supposed to be included we just didn’t understand what they meant. The damage control for the far left bill seems to be not working as it just makes the press on the issue worse.

The following is video transcript:

In the wake of the Green New Deal it would seem that Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her staff are in full on damage control. A controversy erupted when one of her policy advisors went on Tucker Carlson’s show and incorrectly stated that the FAQ they released “didn’t exist and was actually trolls” because apparently he was referring to some other document. 

Now we can see they’re kind of backpedaling back and forth and I have to assume I think they’re kind of lying and I think they did publish this on purpose but because of the backlash, because of the embarrassment; they’ve started walking things back. But now one of the staff members for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez says “no we were thinking about some of these things; you just didn’t understand”.

First from Business Insider" Ocasio Cortez and team attempt damage control after a fumbled Green New Deal rollout that included a line about paying Americans quote “unwilling to work”. A line on Cortez’s website supporting economic security to all those who are unable or unwilling to work triggered backlash this week and prompted mixed messages from her team about where that line came from and whether it was ever intended to be part of the landmark Green New Deal policy package.

The controversy has given fodder to critics of the Green New Deal legislation which was unveiled Thursday, though the actual Green New Deal legislation introduced to the House of Representatives contains no mention of guaranteeing economic security to those unwilling to work, the phrase was included on Cortez’s website in a frequently asked questions page that has since been removed from the site. The page was also sent to reporters including NPR which published the document and The Washington Post.

This tweet began to make its rounds which kind of exacerbated the problem. Jeff Stein of The Washington Post said “incredibly strange dynamic right now a zillion outlets have run with the Green New Deal equals mystery FAQ sheet, which includes things like money for those unwilling to work, but that’s not in the plan the senator and often now Cortez is retweeting her advisor, telling Fox the sheet is itself not theirs.”

He continued “it certainly looks as if the documents below came from AOC’s office. AOC advisor and clip retweeted by Cortez to Fox ‘you’re referring to some I think doctored document that someone other than us has been circulating’”

My [Tim Pool’s] response to this got nearly 2500 retweets and I want to make sure we get all of the facts on the record and break down what’s going on I said “This is getting scary. AOC and others are straight gaslighting people. NPR still has the faq published CNBC reported the same. The web archived from her web site still exists.”

At the time the information we had was that her policy adviser on Tucker Carlson repeatedly said it was a forged document and that she had tweeted about it. She then retweeted a clip from activist organization Media Matters for America where they said “look what happens when Tucker is pushed out of his conservative bubble and a policy advisor for AOC debunks all of his conservative lies” but this was a short clip and it was propaganda, it wasn’t the truth. On the show Tucker Carlson then went on to correct her policy adviser saying “I’m getting information in my ear it is on your website it is true” but her policy adviser refused to believe it.

And yesterday the Daily Wire published a story about this they said “Ocasio Cortez adviser caught making false statements about documents they published”.

Now it is true he did make false statements. He went on later to clarify he was mistaken and was referring to something else. First they show this tweet which was pushed out by Cortez herself, it says “watch what happens when Tucker Carlson steps out of the conservative bubble and brings on an AOC policy adviser who debunks all the conservative media lies straight to his face. Spoiler: it doesn’t go great for Tucker”.

However it would seem that her policy adviser was referring to this tweet where Cortez was criticizing Mark Dice and jack Posobiec for satirizing her Green New Deal with an obviously fake document that talks about recycling urine, she said “when your Green New Deal legislation is so strong the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions but the real one net 70 House co-sponsors and a one and all dem a presidential candidates anyway.”

The Daily Caller also covered the story and added at the end Hockett conceded that he was wrong in an email to Daily Caller News Foundation on Saturday. “It appears there was more than one document being discussed yesterday only one of which I had heard about with any definiteness by last evening after a long day of media appearances namely the one referred to by congresswoman in her tweet.” He wrote “I regret that we seem unknowingly to have ended up speaking about different documents for a minute during our longer and otherwise on-the-same-page conversation last night.”

Cortez responded to Jeff Stein of The Washington Post on Twitter by saying “There are multiple doctor to Green New Deal resolutions and facts floating around there was also a draft version that got uploaded taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there. Point is the real one is our submitted resolution H.res 109.

Saikat Chakrabarti who worked with Cortez also tweeted an explanation saying “Regarding all the errant faq TL;DR is read the resolution to see what people actually signed onto. We did this in collaboration with a bunch of groups and offices over the course of last month as a part of that process. There were multiple iterations brainstorming Doc’s FAQ set cetera that we shared some of these early drafts got leaked.” 

“There separately is a doctored FAQ floating around and an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the Green New Deal resolution got published to the website by mistake. Idea was to wait for launch, monitor questions and rewrite that FAQ before publishing. Mistakes happen when doing time launches like this coordinating multiple groups and collaborators. It’s hard to have both a transparent and open process with many stakeholders while keeping all info locked down but what’s in the resolution is the Green New Deal.”

So essentially it wasn’t apparently an attempt at actual gaslighting and the issue we’re seeing is they claim they “mistakenly published the FAQ to their website they mistakenly published another PDF version of this and send it to various news organizations and they shouldn’t have done that because it was an early version of the draft”

Personally I don’t think that’s what’s happening and I think they’re doing damage control in trying to walk things back. Now that does kind of make sense, the resolution in the FAQ are a bit different but barely the only real difference is that the resolution uses more legal language, it looks like a bill and it doesn’t mention unwillingness to work but it does call for racial equity and gender pay equity and things of that nature so they’re still basically the same thing.

But here’s where it gets more interesting while I don’t want to say necessarily that there I can definitively prove they were gaslighting at the time with Ocasio Cortez retweeting that statement from her policy advisor her policy adviser going on TV and saying “nope you’re wrong it’s a fake document” it really did seem like they were trying to confuse people and Gaslight people.

Now I can’t say it definitively because at this point they’ve given reason to believe it may not be true, though my personal opinion I do think they are lying and trying to play damage control, but here’s the thing Saikat Chakrabarti has actually come out and said “no yeah we are actually talking about these things”. The reality is the FAQ is something they did plan they did talk about they do believe but was accidentally published. So it’s not like the document shows information that is factually incorrect, they do believe these things and psychotically clarified they do then they do believe this.

He tweeted yesterday night saying “we were essentially thinking about pensions and retirement security eg economic security for a coal miner who has given 40 years of their life to building the energy infrastructure of this country but who may not be willing to switch this late in his career” he tweeted this in response to CNBC saying that the Green new deal offers economic security for those unwilling to work.

So it’s not that the FAQ was wrong, no apparently the frequently asked questions was real they actually are thinking about providing economic security to those who are unwilling to work and he clarified what he meant was “people who lose their jobs when their jobs become obsolete” but I kind of find that hard to believe because they could just say economic security to people who lose their jobs due to technological advancement, not those unwilling to work, there’s a bit of a difference there. But it sounds like he’s admitting they really are having those conversations the faq isn’t wrong if it’s not wrong why did they take it down why didn’t they just change that one sentence?

In my opinion it’s because that was something they believe it is something they talked about and they’re embarrassed by it it made them look bad and other politicians and credit party were calling them out.

Beyond just the unwillingness to work he also addressed the economists when they said that the Green New Deal bundles together the issues of climate change and economic inequality, he said “we’ve been saying since day one that a Green New Deal is a path to jobs and justice through a national mobilization of our economy to tackle climate change. It’s a huge opportunity to create wealth and shared prosperity.“

Yes, the Green New Deal is more about “equality and justice” but hold on equality is the wrong word what they actually say is equity and there’s a big difference; equity does not mean equality in fact equity brings about the opposite of equality.

This image is often shown to people to explain what equality and equity is when you look at equity you can see that three people are now all able to see a baseball game, but when it comes to equality and people are given the same resources not everyone has a chance to watch the baseball game. 

This is very easy to understand when you can see except it’s about height… But what’s about skin color or gender or other things that aren’t quantifiable. 

Equity means the opposite of equality, it means we will arbitrarily decide based on our personal opinions or ideology to allocate resources to people through means that are not uantifiable. 

In this image it makes sense, in reality it actually doesn’t and this is what their bill is calling for - equity NOT equality. 

That means they believe some people should get more money than others based off of their perception and their ideology, not what is quantifiable.

So the most important conclusions we have here is that it’s very likely on Tucker Carlson that this policy adviser was just ill informed. 

But that’s important too, why would a policy advisor for Cortez go on national television without knowing what was in their own published frequently asked questions, not only on her website but in multiple PDFs sent out to various news organizations. 

You think that kind of preparation and knowledge would be very important. 

We can also see that Saikat has mentioned they were talking about paying people unwilling to work. 

Why didn’t her policy adviser know about that? 

This is very strange and it would seem that somebody is lying somewhere down the line. 

The Green New Deal seems like a bungled intersectional mess and they’re in full-on damage control.

More videos about the Green New Deal:

Far Left/Antifa Looters Rioted in Paris, not “Yellow Vests” . How to Spot the left wing rioters : Find the masked ones usually found fighting flaming trash cans while spray painting anti capitalist and pro anarchist nonsense on the walls . The yellow vests went for the banks, they did not attack other people’s businesses.

“Macron won’t listen, not yet”. I’m here in Paris interviewing French citizens participating in the Yellow Jacket protests, and it’s clear that their real motives are being buried by the mainstream media. I spoke to one man who said that many protesters had come in from small villages, and he explained their motivations.

“The Level of Treason from the Press in France is Astounding” Yellow Vest Interview. I was just in Paris to speak with the Yellow Vest protesters. One man told me that he’s participating in the movement, which started out as a demonstration against taxation, but has grown also to protest the constantly dropping standard of living and illegal immigration.

I don’t trust wikipedia, it is compromised.