The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes. The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.
The Gateway Pundit is known as a source of viral falsehoods and hoaxes. It has been described by Newsweek as a fake news websiteand by CNN as a website "prone to peddling conspiracy theories." As a result of a number of lawsuits against The Gateway Pundit over its false stories, it was reported in March 2018 that Jim Hoft had told his writers to be more careful: "I don't want any more lawsuits so we have to be really careful with what we put up." Hoft stated that he believes the lawsuits "are part of a multi-pronged effort to attack media outlets on the right.
The Gateway Pundit promoted false rumors about voter fraud and Hillary Clinton's health. Specifically, rumors of Hillary Clinton's poor health were disseminated via The Gateway Pundit's articles entitled, "Breaking: 71% of Doctors Say Hillary Health Concerns Serious, Possibly Disqualifying!" and "Wow! Did Hillary Clinton Just Suffer a Seizure on Camera?" Regarding voter fraud, The Gateway Pundit published an unsubstantiated report during the 2016 presidential election from the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm, claiming that Republicans had accused Broward County, Florida officials of tampering with mail-in ballots.<
The Gateway Pundithas a record of misidentifying perpetrators of shootings and terror attacks.
In October 2017, The Gateway Pundit published an article falsely implicating an innocent person as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. The article was promoted by Google as a "top story" for searches for his name. Gateway Pundit asserted that New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi had reported that ISIS may have evidence that it was behind the shooting, but Callimachi denied that she had ever made such an assertion.
Shortly after the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, in which a person drove a vehicle into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one, The Gateway Pundit falsely identified a young man from Michigan as the driver. After the misidentification took place, the family went into hiding after receiving several death threats. Together with his father, the Michigan man filed a defamation lawsuit against the publication and other related parties.
The Gateway Pundit promoted conspiracy theories about Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. In February 2018, The Gateway Pundit published an article erroneously stating that school shooter Nikolas Cruz was a registered Democrat, citing a registered Broward County voter with a similar name. The website later corrected its mistake. Later that month, Gateway Pundit was one of a number of far-right websites that pushed the claim that at least one of the teenage survivors of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting was a deep state pawn, alleging that David Hogg's gun control activism was being coached by his retired FBI agent father.
In July 2018, Gateway Pundit falsely claimed that a man arrested with bomb-making equipment and illegal weapons had been a "leftist antifa terrorist".<34> The individual in question was however a conservative whose Facebook profile was littered with pro-Second Amendment memes.
The question, then, is âwill American troops fire on American citizens?â I think the answer is a resounding âyes.â They certainly have in the past. Just look at a handful of previous invocations of the Insurrection Act.
In 1894, President Grover Cleveland used federal troops to put down the Pullman Strike in Chicago. In 1914, Woodrow Wilson did the same in Colorado in what became known as the Colorado Coalfield War. Franklin Roosevelt did it in 1943 to put down a race riot in Detroit. And Lyndon Johnson invoked the act four times to put down riots in Detroit, Washington, Baltimore, and Chicago. In every one of those cases, U.S. troops fired on Americans. History may be repeating itself.
Yep, very common in those days. Little bit harder to get in now.
How would you know? My money is on it's still common. It wasn't the military making that choice, it was local judges.
Because I have been paying attention.
I knew a few people who were facing trials and enlisted just before their trials and escaped prosecution. IIRC some judges would sometimes offer the choice of jail or enlistment. No judge ever sentenced anyone to military service that I am aware of. During Nam, they would take anyone breathing that volunteered to enlist.
Nowadays you have to be almost squeaky clean to successfully enlist.
Each service requires its recruits to meet rigorous moral character standards. In addition to the initial screening by the recruiter, an interview covering each applicant's background is conducted at the MEPS. For some individuals, a financial credit check and/or a computerized search for a criminal record is conducted. Some types of criminal activity are clearly disqualifying; other cases require a waiver, wherein the each service examines the circumstances surrounding the violation and makes a determination on qualification. Applicants with existing financial problems are not likely to overcome those difficulties on junior enlisted pay. Consequently, credit histories may be considered as part of the enlistment decision. Basically, the more severe the crime, the less likely a waiver will be granted.
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: Regardless of your political affiliation, regardless of your cultural values, regardless of what socks you wearâ¦ here are some lessons from teaching special needs kids:
Civilized behavior between kids hangs on a silken thread.
Harmony in the classroom depends upon some kind of accord, something fundamental that the kids all buy into.
When kids opt out of this accord you have lost the very thing that binds the class together.
Whether their grievance is real or just perceived doesnât matter a ratâs arse. Both cases need addressing equally by the teacher when it comes down to it. All that matters is whether the kid buys into the fundamental accord or not.
If the kid's grievance is real, then, if you sincere about harmony in the classroom, you should rectify the grievance.
If the kid's grievance is only perceived, then the failure is one of communication and you should rectify how you all communicate.
Meeting violence with violence does neither, but merely entrenches those who opt out of the group in their belief that the class is not for them.
Sanctions are a valid tool, but they only work with the right communication. Your ultimate goal is to get the kids to internalise the rules of social cohesion.
I vote we assign Trump to teaching special needs kids for a while till he learns the tricks of the trade. âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ Trump, as even his most fervent enablers now concede, doesn't listen, empathize, learn, accommodate, adapt or change. Another 5 minutes , another 4 years, will bring no civilizing the Orange-Haired One. And I, who did not, would not, ever, vote for him, am now becoming appalled, stunned, at the performance of Bill Barr. '
âAnd what rough beast, its hour come round at last,â/âSlouches towards Bethlehem to be born?â This administration is so singularly horrible, that we have no minor clue of what hellish invention they will birth next.