If someone on Facebook claimed that Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson had just instituted a policy that would allow minorities to move to the head of the line at all of the coffeehouse chain’s outlets, would you believe it?
Some did, and that suggests Starbucks and other organizations like it have tread so far to the radical left that it’s virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction anymore.
Check out the original Facebook post that started this controversy below, and make sure to also read the attached comments:
Relax, it was fake. But some people really believed it.
“That’s it! Enough of this white Guilt CRAP! I don’t need coffee that bad!” bellowed one incensed Facebook user.
“I’ll take my white privilege somewhere else!” wrote another.
While it’s tempting to blame these users for being so susceptible to false information, perhaps the blame lies elsewhere.
In the wake of a Philadelphia-based Starbucks calling the cops on two black patrons two months ago after they refused to leave, the coffeehouse chain launched a “progressive” campaign to force left-wing dogma about “implicit bias” down its employees’ throats.
This despite the fact that loitering and trespassing on a private business are grounds for removal/arrest no matter what color you are. But all that apparently mattered to Starbucks was that the far-left was accusing it of being racist.
The notion of “implicit bias” is in itself very suspect, and studies have shown that so-called “implicit bias” training leads to no fruitful results. Starbucks was so desperate to appease the left-wing mob that it didn’t care, though.
Starbucks isn’t the first company (or government agency) that’s succumbed to the far-left’s nonsense, nor will it be the last. And when so many basic societal institutions fall prey to craziness, can you really blame everyday Americans for falling hook, line and sinker for the craziest brand of fake news? Not really.
(Labeled For Reuse Google Image)
If you think about it, it’s not really fake news that’s the problem, as the left would have everyone believe. It’s rather the ongoing deterioration of American society courtesy the left’s racial pandering, political correctness and soft bigotry of low expectations.
Case in point: If someone told you that a university professor had demanded that his school stop hiring white people because “cis het white people need to lose more,” would you believe it?
In its second blockbuster year, G. Edward Griffin’s Red Pill EXPO will convene in Spokane Washington from June 21 through June 23 to bring to account fake news and fake history. The EXPO will feature over 24 nationally-known speakers, including G.
New Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad indicated Sunday that his government will keep a controversial law banning fake news that he once slammed as a tool to curb dissent. The law, which was rushed through parliament last month ahead of last week’s general election, carries a stiff penalty of up to six years in jail and a fine of 500,000 ringgit .
KUALA LUMPUR, May 21 — The Anti-Fake News Act officially gazetted in April will be abolished, said the new Communications and Multimedia Minister Gobind Singh Deo today. He said the proposal to abolish the act would be brought to Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad so that it could be abolished as soon as possible.
In the current era of “fake news,” methods for determining the authenticity of information emerged as the #1 tech trend over the next few years – as established by Churchill Club, Silicon Valley’s venerable thought leadership forum. This was the 20th edition of Churchill Club’s annual Top 10 Tech Trends debate, which convenes notable venture capitalists to uncover “non-obvious or underestimated” trends for the next three-to-five years.
What happens when calm investigations of facts and a presumption of innocence are replaced by a torch-carrying “social justice” mob? One state trooper in Texas just found out, and his story should be a terrifying wake-up call. A career law enforcement officer named Jarrod K. Hubbard is now facing death threats and has had to shield…
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia—Opposition leader Mahathir Mohamad dared Malaysian authorities on Thursday to charge him in court under a harsh new law against “fake news” after police placed him under investigation as election campaigning heats up. Dr …
Europe already has zero ‘free speech’. Demands that free speech be ended is a key part of ANTIFA demonstrations. This proves that ANTIFA is really an arm of the international elites. This is why ANTIFA is allowed to terrorize citizens in the …
Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, turned ubiquitous talking head on left-leaning cable news and radio, recently published five talking points that he claims shoot holes in the NRA’s (here meaning all gun-rights supporters’) arguments. The points are not at all unique to Mr. Reich, so we thought it would be worthwhile to take a closer look.
Reich’s Point Number 1: Gun laws save lives.
“Consider the federal assault weapons ban. After it became law in 1994, gun massacres – defined as instances of gun violence in which six or more people were shot and killed – fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But when Republicans in Congress let the ban lapse in 2004, gun massacres more than doubled.”
Nonsense. Reich doesn’t cite a source for his claims because there is no credible source drawing that conclusion. Start with his definition of “gun massacres” being shootings resulting in 6 or more deaths. Despite a rash of those horrible events, massacres, by any definition, remain rare. But because of their horrific nature, they draw media, following the ancient newspaper adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a result the nation fixes its gaze on a single-digit percentage of all crime involving guns, and a fraction of a percent of overall deaths.
With such a small sample size, a difference of one or two incidents has a dramatic impact when presented as a percentage. Thirty-seven percent of 10,000 would be a significant result, but 37% of 3 would be one more or less – a meaningless statistical anomaly. There’s no way of knowing exactly what Reich’s percentages are based on though, because he provides no source, and most tellingly, no real numbers. In short, Reich’s first point is just short of a total fabrication.
Reich’s Point Number 2: The Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter.
When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the framers’ goal was [to] permit a “well-regulated militia,” not to enable Americans to terrorize their communities.
The First Amendment was written more than 200 years ago and the founders’ goal was to protect people’s right to assemble in person, and protect the press – newspapers printed on paper, not to enable the mass propagation of fake news by internet trolls. But few today would argue that the First Amendment does not apply to online communications. The rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are not dependent on technology.
It is also worth noting that during the framers’ time, it was common for private citizens who could afford them to own canons, and even fully-armed warships. The right to arms does not “permit mass slaughter,” and restricting that right does not prevent mass slaughter. Every day over 100 million lawful gunowners don’t kill anyone or terrorize their communities. Restricting their rights will not prevent evil people from doing evil things.
Reich’s Point Number 3: More guns have not, and will not, make us safer.
“More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide. In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory buyback program to reduce `the number of guns in private ownership. Their firearm homicide rate fell 42 percent in the seven years that followed.”
Once again, Mr. Reich throws around “studies” but fails to mention which ones. We can easily present more than 30 studies that show that gun control laws don’t reduce risks of violence. In fact, in the late 1970s Wright and Rossi produced a study funded by the Carter Justice Department, with the objective of determining which “gun control” programs were most effective. They found none. In the mid-2000s, both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Science Foundation did independent reviews with the same objective. Both reviews reached the same conclusion as Wright and Rossi: that there is no clear evidence that any gun control laws have effectively reduced crime.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Reich also fails to mention that murder rates in Australia were declining prior to the massacre that triggered their gun ban and confiscation. The rates went up slightly in the year right after the ban, then resumed their downward trend at a slower pace than previously, and slower than the rate enjoyed in the U.S., where gun laws were being liberalized, and gun ownership was skyrocketing.
Reich’s Point Number 4: The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun safety laws.
“According to Gallup, 96 percent of Americans support universal background checks, 75 percent support a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and 70 percent favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police. Even the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common-sense gun safety laws.”
Gallup polls also concluded that Hillary Clinton was supposed to be our president.
Poll results depend on how questions are phrased and asked. A good many Americans support some of the general ideas around gun control, but absolutely reject specific proposals. Rephrase the question about “universal” (sic) background checks to ask whether it should be a felony for you to lend your gun to a friend for target practice, and different answers come back, as they did in Nevada and Maine when such proposals were put to voters.
Reich’s Point Number 5: The National Rifle Association is a special interest group with a stranglehold on the Republican Party.
“In 2016, the group spent a record [for them] $55 million on elections. Their real goal is to protect a few big gun manufacturers who want to enlarge their profits.
America is better than the NRA. America is the young people from Parkland, Florida, who are telling legislators to act like adults. It’s time all of us listen.”
Gun prohibitionists routinely target the NRA instead of ordinary American gun owners. It’s certainly easier to stir fear and uncertainty about some large organization funded by a faceless industry than to risk humanizing the opposition. Even so, the NRA’s power does not arise from industry money, it comes from millions of individuals who freely choose to defend their rights with their voices, their votes, and their dollars.
Something else worth mentioning is that while Reich and other media accuse NRA of buying politicians with their $55 million in election spending in 2016, labor unions reportedly spent $1.7 billion on those elections.
If those talking points are the strongest assault an Ivy League lawyer can launch against the unfettered right to arms for defense of self, family, home, and homeland, then the Second Amendment should be safe for a while longer. Unfortunately, these and similar points rarely get any sort of honest scrutiny in the media shouting matches, so it’s up to you to call them out every time they pop up again.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.