FORMER FACEBOOK PRESIDENT SEAN PARKER: "GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT IT'S DOING TO OUR CHILDREN'S BRAINS"

 

FORMER FACEBOOK PRESIDENT SEAN PARKER: 

"GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT IT'S DOING TO OUR CHILDREN'S BRAINS" 

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/11/11/former-facebook-president-sean-parker-god-only-knows-what-its-doing-to-our-childrens-brains/;

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

(The Telegraph) — Facebook has been criticized by one of its founding members for “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology” and putting children’s mental health at risk.
Sean Parker, the former president of Facebook who joined Mark Zuckerberg’s company in its first months, said the company’s founders intentionally built the site to consume as much human attention as possible.
Parker, who has made billions as an early shareholder in the social network, also criticized Facebook’s effect on children. “It literally changes your relationship with society, with each other,” he told newsite Axios. “It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

"The inventors, creators... understood this consciously. And we did it anyway," Parker said.
Parker, a former hacker who founded file-sharing website Napster, said he had become a "conscientious objector" to the social networking site. His stint at Facebook was shortlived, resigning from the site in 2005 after a cocaine scandal.

Facebook has been competing for human attention Credit: Getty

Facebook and internet addiction have been found to show up in brain scans in a similar way to drug addiction. Instagram, which is also owned by Facebook, was found to have to have the worst impact on young people's self esteem, negatively impacting people's body image, sleep and fear of missing out.

Facebook came under fire earlier this week for asking users to send in nude pictures they feared would be leaked on the social network so it could automatically block the images if they were uploaded as revenge porn.

Several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have expressed concerns about the so-called "war for your attention" as Google, Facebook and other internet giants compete for user interaction.
Tristan Harris, a former Google engineer, said on Twitter: "The race to bottom of the brain stem is not my opinion, it's the truth - I'm describing how the system works... This isn't about criticising the tech industry, it's about urgent need to reform the way the attention economy works."
Parker, 37, was portrayed by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network. Arrested by the FBI for hacking at 16, he went on to found controversial file-sharing website Napster in 1999, which was later shut down under legal challenges from the music industry.
He has invested in a series of other companies, including Spotify, serving on the music streaming service's board for a period, although he now devotes most of his time to philanthropy. In 2013 he was fined $2.5m for building a film-style wedding venue in a conservation area in California without permits.
_____________________________________________________

 All Facebook Users Must Know THIS Secret

 Alex Jones breaks down how the Facebook social networking website is designed to prey on a psychological “vulnerability,” the company’s former president recently warned. Speaking at an Axios event Wednesday, Facebook’s first president, Sean Parker, said the app used by over two billion people around the world takes advantage of human psychology and the need for social-validation, and is possibly re-wiring human brains. 

CLICK BELOW FOR THE FULL STORY.....  

https://www.infowars.com/ex-facebook-...  

https://www.infowars.com/facebook-wan...

 Former President Of Facebook Exposes Their Evil Plan

 Former Facebook President Sean Parker Says Facebook Is Designed To Prey On Users

 The Facebook social networking website is designed to prey on a psychological “vulnerability,” the company’s former president recently warned.

 

Give Your Soul To Mark Zuckerberg, Or You're A Racist

 It's time to SUBMIT your children to Master Zuckerberger.

Ex-Facebook President Warns App Exploits Psychological ‘Vulnerability’

Suggests social media platform re-wiring minds, putting children’s brains at risk

BY ADAN SALAZAR

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/ex-facebook-president-warns-app-exploits-psychological-vulnerability/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Facebook social networking website is designed to prey on a psychological “vulnerability,” the company’s former president recently warned.
Speaking at an Axios event Wednesday, Facebook’s first president, Sean Parker, said the app used by over two billion people around the world takes advantage of human psychology and the need for social-validation, and is possibly re-wiring human brains.

“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, … was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'” Parker said.
The billionaire also revealed the company proceeded with their exploitation of the human mind despite signs the website altered one’s “relationship with society,” and could be negatively affecting children.

“I don’t know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and … it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other … It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”
The app, Parker explained, plays off human psychological needs, effectively exploiting a feedback loop every time a person’s content receives likes, shares or comments, encouraging them to use the app more frequently.
“And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you … more likes and comments.”
“It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”
While Facebook developers and creators, including company CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were aware of the website’s potential to essentially control one’s mind, Parker says they did nothing to change it.
“The inventors, creators — it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”
Parker now heads up a cancer research institute and claims he’s become a social media “conscientious objector.”

---

Follow @AdanSalazarWins
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735

 

UK GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHRISTIAN REFUGEES FROM SYRIA

 UK GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHRISTIAN REFUGEES FROM SYRIA 

By Christine Douglass-Williams

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/uk-government-discriminates-against-christian-refugees-from-syria; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Barnabas Aid finally obtained figures proving that the UN has only recommended tiny token numbers of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and other minorities for resettlement in the UK. The overwhelming majority of refugees recommended by the UN have been Sunni Muslims

This gross neglect of peaceful Christians and other minorities has been long discussed, but without any steps being taken to remedy the injustice. Instead, the UK and other Western nations have turned their backs on the most needy groups, who are not only victims of war, but have been persecuted at the hands of jihadists.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, declared that “politically correct officials were institutionally biased against Christian refugees” in the UK; in the U.S., of the 10,801 Syrian refugees who came to the US under Obama in 2016, only 56 were Christian.
Trump once promised that the US would prioritize Christian refugees, but to date, there has been no follow-up.
Most disturbing about the UK was that “ UK officials tried to prevent the release of this information” about its discrimination against Christian refugees, but “Barnabas Aid submitted a freedom of Information request to the UK Home Office” and discovered the ugly truth.
Christians have been abandoned, not only by Western governments but also by the largest Christian organizations globally, which have remained strangely silent. Even the Pope promised to take in Christian refugees in Italy, but then took only Muslims instead; he even called Muslim migrants “warriors of hope”.
Vice President Pence recently offered some hope in a speech when he announced that President Trump had ordered the State Department to stop funding UN relief efforts and “support directly persecuted communities through USAID.” Results are now awaited.

“UK government discriminates against Christian refugees from Syria”, Barnabas Aid, November 2, 2017:

THE UK government and the UN are discriminating against Christians and other minorities in their refugee programmes according to new Home Office statistics, seen by Barnabas Aid an aid agency which works for persecuted Christians.
Last week Barnabas Aid finally obtained figures proving that the UN has only recommended tiny token numbers of Syrian Christians, Yazidis and other minorities for resettlement in the UK. The overwhelming majority of refugees recommended by the UN have been Sunni Muslims who form the majority in Syria. But Christians, and other minorities have been repeatedly targeted for attack by Islamist groups such as IS.
The new statistics, obtained in a Freedom of Information Request to the Home Office by Barnabas Aid, of the religious background of Syrian asylum seekers recommended by the UNHCR for resettlement in the UK revealed:
o In 2015 out of 2,637 refugees there were only 43 Christians, just 13 Yazidis and only one Shia Muslim. In 2016 the statistics were even worse. Out of 7,499 refugees there were only 27 Christians, five Yazidis and 13, Shia Muslims.
o It is widely accepted that Christians made up 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population and Shia’s around 1.5 per cent while there are estimated to have been 70,000 Yazidis in Syria.
Disturbingly, UK officials tried to prevent the release of this information. Barnabas Aid submitted a freedom of Information request to the UK Home Office in February. And in spite of being legally required to release it within 28 days, officials failed to do so and repeatedly stalled or simply did not answer correspondence.
Eventually, Barnabas Aid lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s office. On 19 September the Information Commissioner issued a formal notice requiring the Home Office to release this information within 35 calendar days or face contempt of court proceedings.
Even then, the information was only released at the very last minute after Barnabas Aid had contacted the immigration minister’s office, alerting him to the situation and asking him personally to ensure civil servants complied with the order.
“This is shocking behaviour by both UN and UK officials. In 2005 the UN formally adopted the responsibility of states to protect citizens from genocide and crimes against humanity. These statistics show that the UN has itself failed miserably and inexcusably in this respect,” said Martin Parsons, Head of Research at Barnabas Aid.
“Christians and other minorities in the Middle East have been treated shamefully by the UN. And the UK government has abjectly outsourced its own responsibilities to the victims of genocide in spite of repeated representations,” he added.
Barnabas Aid obtained these figures just as US Vice President Mike Pence announced that the US government would now directly help persecuted Christians ……

STANFORD UNIVERSITY FASCISTS SCHEDULE "STANFORD AGAINST SPENCER: A RALLY AGAINST ISLAMOPHOBIA"

 

 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY FASCISTS SCHEDULE "STANFORD AGAINST SPENCER: A RALLY AGAINST ISLAMOPHOBIA"

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/stanford-fascists-schedule-stanford-against-spencer-a-rally-against-islamophobia;  

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Once again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).
Today’s fascists call themselves “anti-fascists.” Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent. Forcibly suppressing the speech of someone with whom one disagrees is a quintessentially fascist act.
You may object that these students are not forcibly suppressing my speech, they’re just protesting it elsewhere. That is true, but whether I am allowed to speak, or shouted down by fascist students as happened last spring at the University at Buffalo, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, note Evans’ statement about how the Brownshirts “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers”: the ongoing campaign of defamation and ad hominem attacks on me in the Stanford Daily and Stanford Review, as well as this protest, are the modern-day embodiment of such campaigns. The intent is the same as that of the Nazi Brownshirts: to make sure I am heard by as few people as possible, and that most people go away with the idea that I am a terrible person, and the ideas I represent are to be shunned by all decent people.
All this without any genuine examination, discussion, or debate of those ideas. These “Stanford Against Islamophobia” students don’t want a free and open discussion. They want to shut down free and open discussion. You can see how their propaganda works in the message below:

“Spencer is a self-proclaimed Islamophobe”

Indeed: my new book is called Confessions of an Islamophobe, and it discusses the very phenomenon we see in this protest, of demonizing and stigmatizing foes of jihad terror. Have you preordered your copy yet, Stanford students? Get it here. In it, as well as in Jihad Watch posts advertising the book (not that Stanford fascist students can be expected to have done any actual research), I’ve explained that “Islamophobia” is an intentional conflation of two distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks upon innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorism, which is lumped together with those vigilante attacks in order to discredit such analysis and intimidate people away from attempting it. I am an “Islamophobe” in the sense of opposing jihad terror, discrimination against women, gays, and non-Muslims, and the denial of the freedom of speech. In that sense, everyone should be an “Islamophobe.” But in this propaganda piece, the Stanford fascists are attempting to give you the impression that I approve of vigilante attacks upon innocent Muslims. Note that they never define “Islamophobia,” because doing so would give away their game.

“and co-founder of two known hate groups.”

Hate groups according to whom? According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a hard-Left propaganda and smear group, not a reliable arbiter of what constitutes a “hate group.”

On his own blog, just within the past week, he has targeted Stanford students and our community centers.

Hey, Stanford Leftists, thanks for reading! This one is really rich. I responded point-by-point to the vicious smear campaign being conducted against me in the Stanford student press, and now they say I’m “targeting” Stanford students and community centers. Well, my dear snowflakes, welcome to the real world, where there are no safe spaces. When you attack someone, he may fight back. Crying victimhood when you started the conflict is silly and bad form, and apes Hitler in claiming that when he invaded Poland he was just responding to Polish provocations. But of course, we have already established that y’all are fascists.

When Spencer attacks members of our community, we cannot be idle. Let’s show Spencer that Stanford students refuse his violent rhetoric and presence on our campus.

Good. Don’t be idle. Don’t expect me to be, either. One thing you can do, when you crawl out of your safe spaces after hugging your teddy bears and enjoying some milk and cookies, is substantiate your false claim that I indulge in “violent rhetoric.” Produce one quote from me that advocates for violence. Happy hunting!

“Stanford Against Spencer: A Rally Against Islamophobia,” Stanford Against Islamophobia:

Tuesday, November 14 at 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM PST
Next Week
9–17°Partly Cloudy

Show Map

Mitchell Earth Sciences Building., Stanford University

397 Panama Mall, Stanford, California 94305

135 Going · 100 Interested

Share this event with your friends

Invite
Dear Stanford Students, Faculty, and Staff,
Join us in uplifting communities attacked by Robert Spencer’s Islamophobia. On Tuesday, November 14th at 8pm, come to a rally on the grass in front of Mitchell Earth Sciences to show solidarity with those affected by Islamophobia. There will be speakers, music, food, and time to share your thoughts and hear from others. Email stanfordagainstislamophobia@gmail.com if you would like to be added to a speakers list.
We are a coalition of concerned students and organizations that formed in response to the Stanford College Republican’s event with Robert Spencer. Spencer is a self-proclaimed Islamophobe and co-founder of two known hate groups. On his own blog, just within the past week, he has targeted Stanford students and our community centers. When Spencer attacks members of our community, we cannot be idle. Let’s show Spencer that Stanford students refuse his violent rhetoric and presence on our campus.
In our open letter (https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/08/an-open-letter-to-the-college-republicans-regarding-robert-spencer/), we asked the College Republicans to cancel the event because we, as as a campus, don’t want to take part in endorsing his platform with our name and money. We also reiterate our ask of campus to boycott the event, because attending will only legitimize his platform.
Islamophobia is not just a Muslim issue. It’s a campus issue.
In solidarity,
Concerned students of Stanford
For accessibility concerns, please email stanfordagainstislamophobia@gmail.com. There are accessibility ramps to the rally between Durand and Mitchell Earth Sciences.
Time: 8PM-10PM
Location: Mitchell Earth Sciences
Hosted by: Stanford Against Islamophobia

______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/stanford-hosted-son-and-supporter-of-palestinian-jihad-murderer-and-supporter-of-911-jihad-attacks-with-no-uproar 

ERDOGAN: THE AIM OF THE TERM "MODERATE ISLAM" IS TO "WEAKEN ISLAM"

 

ERDOGAN: THE AIM OF THE TERM "MODERATE ISLAM" IS TO "WEAKEN ISLAM" 

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/erdogan-the-aim-of-the-term-moderate-islam-is-to-weaken-islam; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“The term ‘moderate Islam’ is being lathered up again. The patent of moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam.”
“Lathered up”: good phrase, Tayyip!
Doesn’t Erdogan know that “Islam is not a monolith”? He must be a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe”!

“The term ‘moderate Islam’ aims to weaken the religion, Erdoğan says,” Daily Sabah, November 10, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lashed out at the term “moderate Islam” on Friday, saying the term’s only aim is to weaken the religion itself rather than distance it from extremists.
In a clear reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s remarks, Erdoğan said that the origin of the term lies in the Western world.
“The term ‘moderate Islam’ is being lathered up again. The patent of moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam,” Erdoğan said.
“They say we will return to moderate Islam, but they still don’t give women the right to drive. Is there such a thing in Islam? I guess they will give this right when they turn to the moderate one,” he added.
Erdoğan’s words came at a women’s entrepreneurship event held for the Organization Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Women’s Advisory Council at the Presidential Palace complex in Ankara.
In his speech, Erdoğan also criticized discrimination against Muslim women. “Headscarves are gradually being banned in EU states with the public – personal space trick, attempting to bar Muslim women from entering social life. Attempts to incarcerate Muslim women in their homes is spreading like a virus,” Erdoğan said.
“Today, most EU countries actively restrict Muslim women from working and getting access to education. Those who are teaching us lessons on human rights are unfortunately applauding as the most basic human rights are being trampled in their countries.”…

PHOTOS: ROY MOORE ACCUSER A DEMOCRAT ACTIVIST

 

PHOTOS: ROY MOORE ACCUSER 

A DEMOCRAT ACTIVIST 

 Accuser had closely worked with Hillary Clinton’s campaign

BY KIT DANIELS

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/photos-moore-accuser-a-democrat-activist/;

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

One of senatorial candidate Roy Moore’s accusers is apparently a fervent Democrat who has worked for the DNC as a sign language interpreter for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, a revelation which the Washington Post never included in its original report. The accuser, Debbie Gibson, had also publically supported Moore’s opponent Doug Jones before the accusations came to light.



Interestingly, when attacking Moore ally Steve Bannon for suggesting the Washington Post was politically motivated in its reporting, the newspaper implied that Gibson wasn’t “down with Democratic propaganda,” a statement which seemingly conflicts with Gibson’s political activism:


Now go back and look at the photos again.
The Post also reported:

“According to campaign reports, none of the women has donated to or worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, or his rivals in the Republican primary…”
But notice the precise wording; it’s lawyer-speak. It might very well be true that Gibson didn’t donate or work for Doug Jones, but according to her Facebook profile, she did actively campaign for him, which doesn’t help her credibility and it should have been reported – yet the Washington Post conveniently left it out.
And remember, the Post did endorse Jones on Oct. 23.
If the Washington Post was as objective as it claims to be, you’d wouldn’t have to come to Infowars.com to find the rest of the story to make up your own mind as to whether the accusations carry weight.
And as Infowars reported earlier, there’s a claim spreading on social media that a reporter was taped while reportedly offering a woman $1000 to accuse Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexual improprieties.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealKitDaniels
Twitter: Follow @KitDaniels1776
MORE Videos: Resistance News

 

ATTACK ON SENATOR RAND PAUL CALLED "SERIOUS CRIMINAL MATTER"

ATTACK ON SENATOR RAND PAUL CALLED 

"SERIOUS CRIMINAL MATTER" 

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/27340-attack-on-sen-rand-paul-called-serious-criminal-matter; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

After last week's vicious assault upon U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky by his next-door neighbor Rene Boucher (initially dismissed in the media as a “trivial” dispute over landscaping issues, non-political, and involving only “minor injuries"), several of Rand Paul’s neighbors and Paul’s attorney have challenged those assertions.
Doug Stafford, Paul’s lawyer, told CNN on Thursday that the assault was a “serious criminal matter involving serious injury. This was not a fight. It was a blindside, violent attack by a disturbed person. Anyone claiming otherwise is either uninformed or seeking media attention.”
Boucher, an anesthesiologist and Paul's next-door neighbor of 17 years, has been charged with a misdemeanor, fourth-degree assault in the attack, which reportedly occurred while Paul was mowing his yard in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Paul was using earplugs, and was completely unaware of Boucher until he tackled him behind, breaking six of Paul's ribs.

Paul is also suffering from excess fluid around his lungs, and there are reports that his recovery may take months. With the Democrats and Republicans so closely divided in the Senate, this could have serious political implications for tax reform and other parts of the Republican agenda. Paul is rated the most conservative member of the Senate by the “Freedom Index” of The New American (which grades members of Congress on their fidelity to the Constitution); Boucher, Paul’s alleged assailant, has a well-established reputation as strongly anti-Republican and anti-conservative.
Earlier reports indicated that the two were almost friendly, even walking their dogs together, despite holding sharply different political views. However, Stafford disputed the assertion that they were on friendly terms. Although the two men are next-door neighbors, Stafford said they had not spoken to each other for years.
Several of Paul’s neighbors have now weighed in, challenging the narrative that the attack was the result of a landscaping dispute, which left the implication that Paul did not properly maintain his property. “The Pauls are and always have been great neighbors and friends. They take pride in their property and maintain it accordingly,” neighbor Travis Creed told Breitbart.
Creed added, “Rand has enjoyed working on and maintaining his lawn for as long as I have known him. He was attacked on his property for no apparent reason and suffered serious injury.”
A registered nurse who works with Boucher told the Washington Post that Boucher’s politics are “liberal,” and that he was “active” on social media expounding on those views. For example, Boucher posted on Facebook, “May Robert Mueller fry Trump’s gonads,” and “Impeach Trump, Impeach Pence, and Keep Impeaching.”
Another neighbor, Alicia Stivers, defended Paul’s character. “I have never heard Sen. Paul speak an unkind word about anyone, let alone become physically violent. Which makes it all the more shocking that a next-door neighbor of many years who has not so much as exchanged an email or spoken word with Rand in several years, would race downhill and pummel Rand from behind.”
Stivers, who has been part of the neighborhood association for four years, added that Paul was “attacked from behind with no warning.”
While a political motivation for the attack may not be proven, it would appear that the initial reports that it was all about some leaves is highly unlikely.
This attack, combined with the shooting of House Republican Whip Steve Scalise in June, raises some serious questions. Scalise was shot in Alexandria, Virginia, by James Hodgkinson, a strong supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, while practicing for the congressional baseball game. Before opening fire, Hodgkinson asked another congressman present what political party they were all in. When told “Republican,” Hodgkinson began shooting, almost killing Scalise.
Now, a conservative Republican U.S. senator, simply mowing his lawn, has been attacked by yet another known left-winger. Can one imagine the response of the media if a Democratic Party member of Congress was targeted in a shooting by a known backer of, say, Senator Ted Cruz? If a Democratic Party senator was struck so hard that it broke six ribs, and the assailant was revealed to be a well-known conservative activist, would the media have dismissed it all as a dispute over tree leaves?
Yet, Boucher’s lawyer argued on Monday that the dispute was “trivial.”
When Paul’s attorney, Doug Stafford, mentioned that the charges against Boucher involved “state and federal authorities,” CNN’s report said that Stafford “did not clarify why federal law enforcement would be involved in the matter.” Perhaps it is because an assault on a U.S. congressman is considered a federal offense.
It is to be hoped that Senator Paul will make a quick and full recovery, and that attacks upon Republican members of Congress by violent left-wing supporters of the Democratic Party and its progressive agenda will not become common events.
______________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2017/11/socialist-neighbor-assaults-senator.html 

VETERANS DAY SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP

VETERANS DAY SPECIAL MESSAGE 

FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP 

 

NAACP URGES CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ASK CONGRESS TO RESCIND "RACIST" NATIONAL ANTHEM

 

NAACP URGES CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ASK CONGRESS TO RESCIND "RACIST" NATIONAL ANTHEM 

BY WARREN MASS

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/27341-naacp-urges-calif-legislature-to-ask-congress-to-rescind-racist-national-anthem;

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The California Hawaii NAACP last week began visiting state legislators’ offices in the California state capitol to distribute copies of two resolutions that the organization passed at its state conference in October. One urges Congress to rescind “one of the most racist, pro-slavery, anti-black songs in the American lexicon”: the national anthem. The other expresses support for former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who was the first major professional athlete to kneel when “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played before games last season. His form of protest was copied by other NFL players during this year’s NFL season and has become a highly publicized source of controversy that even attracted the attention of President Trump.
“We owe a lot of it to Kaepernick,” said California Hawaii NAACP President Alice Huffman, as quoted by the Sacramento Bee. “I think all this controversy about the knee will go away once the song is removed.”
It was Huffman who proposed the idea of the resolutions at a recent NAACP state convention. “We’re not trying to protest the flag at all,” Huffman said. “We’re protesting this racist song that has caused so much controversy in America, and we’re just trying to get it removed. So, whatever comes out in the future as a national anthem, we can all stand proudly and sing it.”

“This song is wrong; it shouldn’t have been there, we didn’t have it ’til 1931, so it won’t kill us if it goes away,” Huffman insisted, as quoted by TV station CBS 13 in Sacramento.
The CBS report noted that Colin Kaepernick started the NFL protests to bring attention to what he regarded as “systemic racial injustice in the country.” But Huffman alleges that Kaepernick’s message was lost when it turned into a debate about the flag. “The message got distorted, the real intentions got overlooked, it became something that’s dividing us, and I’m looking for something to bring us back together,” she said.
Huffman told CBS that the NFL protests led her to look at the lyrics of the “Star Spangled Banner,” especially the parts of the anthem we don’t typically sing, such as beyond the first stanza. “It’s racist; it doesn’t represent our community, it’s anti-black,” she alleged.
Interestingly, Kaepernick never cited the words that Huffman says are offensive to black Americans as a reason for kneeling during the playing of the “Star Spangled Banner.”
During a 2016 interview with NFL Media, Kaepernick made this statement explaining his reason fro refusing to stand for our national anthem:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people are getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times on September 25, Kaepernick’s former teammate, San Francisco 49ers safety Eric Reid, wrote: “Why Colin Kaepernick and I Decided to Take a Knee.” He wrote:

In early 2016, I began paying attention to reports about the incredible number of unarmed black people being killed by the police. The posts on social media deeply disturbed me, but one in particular brought me to tears: the killing of Alton Sterling in my hometown Baton Rouge, La. This could have happened to any of my family members who still live in the area. I felt furious, hurt and hopeless. I wanted to do something, but didn’t know what or how to do it. All I knew for sure is that I wanted it to be as respectful as possible.

A few weeks later, during preseason, my teammate Colin Kaepernick chose to sit on the bench during the national anthem to protest police brutality. To be honest, I didn’t notice at the time, and neither did the news media. It wasn’t until after our third preseason game on Aug. 26, 2016, that his protest gained national attention, and the backlash against him began.

Reid approached Kaepernick and the two of them discussed “how we could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice movement.” He continued:

After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest.

Kaepernick’s and Reid’s allegations that our nation’s police officers regularly engage in shooting unarmed black people are contrary to the facts. As just one example disputing Reid’s allegations, an article in the Washington Times on April 21, 2015 stated: “An analysis released last week shows that more white people died at the hands of law enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus on black victims of police force.” Another report from the Federalist Papers Project the following day cited Peter Moskos, an assistant professor at New York City University’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who concluded that during the period ranging from May 2013 to April of 2015 that roughly 49 percent of those killed by law-enforcement officers were white, while only 30 percent were black.
While the numbers still seem to substantiate Kaepernick's claims of unethical targeting of blacks by police (since blacks only make up 13 percent of the U.S. populace), it must be remembered that, as Wall Street Journal editor Jason Riley, who happens to be black, noted: "Blacks commit seven to 10 times more violent crimes in this country than whites do." So if anyone were to complain about police targeting, it should be whites.
These figures do not address another significant point, however: Even if Kaepernick’s and Reid’s allegations about disproportionate police violence against black citizens had some basis in fact, does publicly showing disrespect for our national anthem do anything to solve the problem?
Returning to the statements made by Huffman, pointing to Kaepernick’s kneeling during the national anthem as evidence that the long-revered song is racist and the cause of controversy, there simply is no connection. Kaepernick never said he was objecting to the anthem and did not mention any words in the song to which he was taking issue. His protest was strictly against what he perceived to be law enforcement’s treatment of black citizens. He never objected to the anthem itself.
Yet, the NAACP proposal is not intended to disrespect the flag, Huffman said. “We’re not trying to protest the flag at all,” she said. “We’re protesting this racist song that has caused so much controversy in America, and we’re just trying to get it removed. So, whatever comes out in the future as a national anthem, we can all stand proudly and sing it.”
Even that statement belies reality. The lyrics to which Huffman objects are found in the rarely sung third stanza of the anthem. Furthermore, if we are to infer that Francis Scott Key was being derogatory to blacks, we would also have to assume that he also hated "hirelings," who are mentioned in the same stanza — not likely. In truth, the objectionable lyrics in question are impossible to interpret and are left to conjecture, unless we can bring Francis Scott Key back from the dead so he can explain their meaning to us. We offer the words below, and challenge anyone to tell us exactly what Key’s intentions were:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,

A home and a country, should leave us no more?

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

As an interesting aside, there were reputedly black British troops at the fort, called the Corps of Colonial Marines, who could have been the objects of the song. Deciphering the meaning of these words would make an interesting exercise in an English literature class, but no person without an agenda would say they warrant the wholesale scrapping of our national anthem.
But then again, the NAACP always has an agenda.

Related articles:
NAACP Releases Report on Tea Party Racism
NAACP Set to Release Report on Tea Party Racism
National Anthem Protests
The Star-spangled Banner