On June 1, 2017 I did a segment on my radio show about how Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted to violating congressional cybersecurity rules by using Dropbox. This is a part of the congressional record, is fact, and is undeniable. Again, this happened in Congress.
Given that she is embroiled in a criminal investigation involving her employee, and she’s threatened the Capital Police chief over this same investigation, her failure to adhere to congressional cybersecurity rules is a legitimate story. Especially since lack of security at the DNC when she was Chair led to the WikiLeaks email saga during the campaign.
I’d also like to point out that my show airs on FM radio (in case you didn’t know), and is not an unregulated podcast. This broadcast met all requirements set forth by the FCC. I did not do, or say, anything that could be considered offensive by any reasonable person. I merely covered the facts of the story, and provided my opinion on it.
I take many of my podcasts from my radio show, and upload them to YouTube in case listeners prefer to listen to the podcasts on that platform. That’s exactly what I did with this podcast from my show. You can listen to the segment below.
Uh huh. It doesn’t violate their community guidelines.
In fact, a lot of conservatives who’ve had their monetization throttled by YouTube lately haven’t violated their community guidelines either.
When YouTube started promoting their new restrictions they said it was an effort to restrict hate speech from making money (for the user, YouTube still gets theirs).
Let’s run through the things YouTube said would get you banned from monetization:
If you want to run YouTube ads, you must refrain from publishing:
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity or sexual humor
Violence, include display of serious injury and event related to violent extremism
Inappropriate language, including harassment, swearing, and vulgar language
Promotion of drugs, regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
Controversial or sensitive subject and event, including subject related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.
Let’s run through the list, shall we?
Nothing sexual, no violence, no swearing, no harassment, no promotion of drugs, no controversial or sensitive material, and no graphic imagery. Again, this was an FCC compliant radio broadcast on FM radio. According to YouTube’s own standards, I’m in the clear.
I have submitted a dispute, but don’t hold out much hope of getting this overturned. Interestingly enough, I just watched the video and ads are still playing. I’m not sure if those ads will be removed, or if YouTube will still keep them on my video, but just not allow me to earn any commission on them.
One of the regular segments of my show is highlighting fake hate. Nearly all of the ‘hate crimes’ over the past several years that go viral have ended up being fabricated hoaxes designed to push a false victim narrative while peddling hate themselves. Real victims rarely seek out publicity, and they almost never set up GoFundMe pages.
Learn the lesson here. If you see a ‘hate crime’ story in the media, don’t automatically believe it.
Also, don’t believe everything in a story that isn’t citing a legitimate source with links. Here’s why …
“LGBT people are the minority group most likely to be targeted for hate crimes, according to FBIstatistics. So there are a lot more real stories than fictional.”
Oh really? That was in the same article. Of course, no citation was made, and my background already tells me it’s bogus. Challenge accepted!
An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:
48.3 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offenders’ bias against race.
18.7 percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation.
17.1 percent were victimized because of bias against religion.
12.3 percent were victimized because of bias against ethnicity.
1.6 percent were victims of gender-identity bias.
1.4 percent were targeted because of bias against disability.
0.6 percent (40 individuals) were victims of gender bias. (Based on Table 1.)
It should be noted that the FBI’s data has some problems with regards to racial bias hate crimes. You see, a lot of hate crimes committed against whites don’t get categorized as hate crimes. There are also very few hate crimes committed in the US, but you wouldn’t no it based on media hype. With that said, we aren’t talking about that necessarily. The author of this article stated FBI data shows LGBT people are the most targeted for hate crimes.
As you can see, hate crimes based on race occur nearly twice as much as those directed towards LGBT victims. So race, not sexual orientation leads the pack in hate crimes.
Many will like say that hate crimes based on race shouldn’t be all inclusive. Each individual race counts as a minority group (minus white people, of course), while LGBT is its own group. They could argue that the LGBT group is targeted more than any other individual group (i.e. Blacks, Hispanics, etc.). However, that still isn’t true.
Among single-bias hate crime incidents in 2014, there were 3,227 victims of racially motivated hate crime.
Of the 1,248 victims targeted due to sexual-orientation bias.
You have to subtract 1.5% from the sexual-orientation bracket because they were hate crimes against heterosexuals, and don’t count as LGBT hate crimes. The new number is 1,229 total victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes in 2014.
Meanwhile, 62.7% of racial hate crimes were committed against blacks. That’s 2,023 of the 3.227 racially motivated hate crimes.
There were 794 more hate crimes just against blacks in 2014 than there were against the entire LGBT community.
Even if you added all 109 gender identity hate crime victims to expand LGBT to LGBTQ you still are well short of the hate crimes experienced by just blacks.
Any way you cut it, the article’s assertion that the LGBT community is the most targeted minority group for hate crimes is patently false.
Exit question: Is this gay guy threatening to shoot Republican Senators a hate crime?
