Man Arrested for Violation of Leash Law, but it’s Not What you Think

Portland Police responded to a disturbance call on Monday in a SE neighborhood. When they arrived on the scene they found 26 year old Tito Barkley urinating on a fire hydrant.

 

The officers approached Mr. Barkley to assess the situation. When they asked what he was doing Mr. Barkley responded by stating that he was just out for a walk.

 

The officers report that he was not slurring his words and did not appear to be intoxicated. The officers asked Mr. Barkley for his license which he produced from a collar around his neck.

 

Puzzled they continued to question Mr. Barkley. It was during this questioning that Mr. Barkley told the officers that he identified as a dog and that they could not arrest him for urinating in public, as it was not illegal for dogs to do so.

 

“I identify as a dog and you have to respect that,” Mr. Barkley told the officers as reported by a witness.

 

The officers arrested Mr. Barkley shortly afterward for violation of the city leash laws, failure to pay county registration fees, and failure to provide proof of rabies vaccination.

 

“We welcome all people here in Portland,” Officer Catcher said in a statement “as long as they follow our laws.”

 

Mr. Barkley is currently on a three day hold to see if his owners can be found before being neutered at Bonnie L. Hayes and being put up for adoption.

Written By Cody Benson

For No Fact News

A Cody Benson Parody

Media Conspiracy or Out of Control Group Think?

The above video is of an interview that was uploaded to YouTube on January 16^th 2018. Cathy Newman, a Channel 4 News reporter, interviewed Jordan Peterson, a professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, who has attracted a massive following by telling people to ‘clean up their room’ and ‘tell the truth.’

After this interview was posted it immediately went viral, the original YouTube video has been viewed 2,900,851 times with 114,597 up votes and 2,417 down votes and 55,324 comments at the time of this writing.

Shortly after this interview, claims were made by Channel 4 that ‘threats’ have been made against Newman and that they were bringing in additional security. It was at this time that the media smear machine went to work, attempting to paint Peterson, through the actions of his ‘followers’ as a sexist, misogynist ‘alt-right’ bigot.

These media outlets are attempting to use character assassination in order to attempt to salvage their narrative, even if they have to mislead to do so.

The Threats

According to Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, Cathy Newman has been on the receiving end of “vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat” and that it is “[A] terrible indictment of the times we live in.”

According to the Independent, security experts have been hired by Channel 4 and they are considering police involvement.

When asked for proof of these threats very little is forth coming. According to The Daily Mail the ‘abuse’ included comments such as ‘RIP Cathy Newman’ and ‘Cathy Newman we know where you live.’

That last statement seem ominous to be sure, but no screen shots or images are provided as proof. They go on to say that more than 500 postings have been made calling Newman a bitch. The Daily Mail also claims that Newman’s 13-year-old daughter found a pornographic mock-up on Instagram of her mother with Dr. Peterson.

They go on to claim that Peterson’s “admirers” attacked Newman by describing her in a comment as the “Low IQ Left Establishment” and saying that she should be “ashamed of such a catastrophic interview.”

The Daily Mail continues saying that critical comments were expected but the death threats have caused serious alarm. Yet they do not provide any examples of these death threats. No quote is mentioned nor a screen shot shared.

The Threats seem to amount to people saying mean things to her on the internet.

The Headlines

These are some of the headlines describing this story. Clearly they are misleading, either for ideological reasons or for clicks.

The Independent says that the abuse was misogynistic and that it is all just a backlash against the #MeToo movement.

 

The Daily Mail calls the interview a ‘row’ and calls Peterson an ‘anti-feminist.’ The interview was tough and could be called a row for embellishment but to label Peterson as an anti-feminist is just wrong and has zero evidence to back it up.

The Sun also calls it a ‘row’ and calls Peterson a ‘controversial academic.’ He covered what makes him controversial in the interview.

Huffington Post states that Newman is threatened after the interview. It is miss leading because it is unclear what kind of threats are made, who is making them, and proof that the threats have actually been made.

The headline does not say allegations of threats, rather they just state it as fact.

The Guardian defends Peterson.

 

The Star simply reports that security has been bolstered.

 

One article analyzes the ‘abuse’ and finds it lack luster and worst against Peterson and his supporters.

 

The Mirror says that Peterson didn’t agree that the gender pay gap is unfair. This is very misleading because what Peterson took issue with was the degree to which sexism determines the pay gap as opposed to other factors such as women’s own interest.

Add Mirror:

 

The Copy and Paste Job

While reading these articles and writing my own I noticed a pattern. A few of the articles used the same phrases and I am not talking about using the same quotes.

Several articles call Peterson a Controversial Psychologist or Professor (The Star, Huffington Post, The Mirror). I first thought that they were just writing along similar lines because they were all writing about the same story.

That is until I came across this line from The Star “Peterson is best known for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender and non-binary people who request them.”

This line jumped out at me because it is misleading and untrue. I also had a suspicion that is had heard it somewhere else. A quick check of my notes showed that I had written down this quote from a Huffington Post article.

Not a similar quote, the exact same quote. I pulled the article back up and started rereading side by side with The Star article. They were the exact same. Not similar but word for word the exact same (below are screen shots of the text from each article side by side).

I do not know if this is just lazy journalism, two media outlets sharing the same article or a collaborative effort by two media companies to push the same narrative. Something tells me it is a bit of all three.

History Repeats

This is not the first time we have seem media outlets all run the same story from the same perspective, pushing toward the same goal with little or no regard for facts or evidence. We have seen this with President Trump over and over again.

It is also not the first time we have seen the Progressive’s push a narrative in an attempt to further their ideology that turns out to be a lie. The recent hijab cutting in Canada that elicited a response from their Prime Minister Justin Trudeau turned out to be a hoax just to name one.

This time they were pushing to smear Jordan Peterson because of his sound defeat of their ‘social justice’ view of the world, which divides everyone into victims or oppressors. They want to distract from one of the big truths revealed in this interview. That Freedom of Speech is a right and should be protected and the ‘right’ to not be offended is nothing more than a thin excuse for authoritarian control and censorship.

Part 3: Google's Active Promotion of a Culture of Bias

“Google employees have witnessed multiple instances in which hundreds of “progressive” Googlers would target a single co-worker for harassment, and even potential violence, over a politicized matter, humiliating the person and sabotaging his career.” –Damore v Google Class Action Lawsuit.

The stories and complaints made in the last half of the lawsuit come from sources who wished to remain anonymous. Normally I would have an issue with anonymous sources, but they provide external evidence such as screen shots of conversations to back up their claims.

Google Punishes Other Employees

After experiencing harassment and discrimination due to being conservative, male, and Caucasian and providing evidence to Google HR, Google HR made excuses for the Progressive activists.

The waving away of this misconduct ensured that nothing was done about the problem. In August 2015 a Google employee raised this issue of race and gender discrimination/harassment with Urs Hölzle, a Senior Vice President.

This resulted in a targeted campaign of harassment and threats of blacklisting directed at the Google employee, which management did nothing to stop. Instead several members of management made statements that had the effect of encouraging an “unambiguous social pecking” of political dissidents.

On August 14^th 2015 several Google employees raised the same issues of gender and racial discrimination with two other Senior Vice Presidents in an email entitled “Concerns regarding intimidation and blacklisting.”

On August 19^th 2015 in retaliation for the Google employee’s ongoing attempts to end political discrimination at work, his HR Manager and Director issued a Final Written Warning letter. At no point did Google retract or repudiate the threats and attacks aimed at the Google employee.

Examples of the comments that elicited punishment included the following:

These statements are in no way disorderly, disruptive, derogatory name-calling, abusive or profane, intimidating or coercive. Instead they stand in stark contrast to hostile postings aimed at conservative, male, and/or Caucasian Google employees.

The Final Written Warning issued even repudiated Google’s policy: “We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.”

Ironically, the Google employee had provided ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted for severe written abuse and career sabotage.

The next step after a Final Written Warning is termination.

Google Allows Workplace Harassment of Trump Supporters

In October 2016, a Site Reliability Manager, became aware that a Google employee was a supporter of President Trump and held socially conservative views. These two individuals did not work together, but had become acquainted through the company’s social mailing lists.

In March 2017 the manager scheduled a meeting with the Google employee’s manager in an attempt to sabotage the employee’s annual performance review.

The manager falsely accused the employee of participating in an illegal “doxing” campaign and also suggested that the employee was involved in illegal workplace discrimination. Both were absolutely unsupported.

In a later meeting with his manager the Google employee faced allegations of doxing which the manager said was concerning. The employee provided evidence that the claims were false and concocted, but his name and reputation were already besmirched.

Further compounding the issue in March 2017 the manager, posted on a political mailing list visible to all 80,000 employees to brag about his meeting with the Google employee’s manager for the purposes of harassing and undermining him.

In this conversation the manager made additional politically motivated threats toward members of the “conservatives@” mailing list community at Google. The manager threatened to call Employee Relations to comb through the mailing list archives to nitpick old posting for Code of Conduct violations.

Employee Relations at Google does not mediate disputes or offer advice. Instead they are tasked with investigating employees for policy violations and building a case for discipline.

The manager also threatened to apply Google’s politically intolerant and legally questionable employee handbook speech code to communications taking place between friends off the clock on non-work forums.

The manager’s threats were reported to Google HR, who replied that the manager had “crossed the line.” However, Google never made the manager retract his threats or apologize for his sabotage attempts.

The same manager in August of 2017 directed threats of litigation and termination against unnamed employees who spoke to outside bloggers in support of Damore and his memo. Google, once again, did nothing to stop this.

Conservative Parenting Styles Not Welcome

Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including but not limited to furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality (see photo for plurality).

The only lifestyle that was not openly discussed on internal forums was traditional heterosexual monogamy. In March 2017, Google HR strongly suggested to a Google employee that conservative and traditional parenting techniques were unwelcome at Google.

Google HR was responding to a post that was made replying to a request for conservative parenting advice. The post stated “If I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy from a very young age. That’s the hardest thing to fix later, and our degenerate society constantly pushes the wrong message.”

Google HR response “We did not find that this post, on its face, violated any of Google’s policies, but your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men work outside the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender identity at birth. We trust that neither is what you intended to say. We are providing you with this feedback so that you can better understand how some Googlers interpreted your statements, and so that you are better equipped to ensure that Google is a place in which all Googlers are able to reach their full potential.”

Google Support for Antifa

In May 2017 one Google employee discovered and reported several offensive postings attacking Trump supporters and Caucasian males to Google HR.

Google HR responded in June 2017 by stating “Thanks for your time the other day and sharing your response. We have reviewed the threads that you sent us and do not find them to be attacking traditionally conservative views, but more extreme, “alt-right” views that seem to teeter into discrimination and possibly incite violence against certain groups of people.”

Google has never made any such comments regarding posts supporting violent vigilante organization, Antifa, or other extreme leftist/anarchist organizations. A large number of Googlers have set their corporate profile pictures to Antifa insignias.

 

Blacklisting

In August 2015 Adam Fletcher, a L6 SRE Manager, Jake McGuire a L7 SRE Manager, and Nori Heikkinen, a L6 SRE Manager all publicly endorsed blacklisting conservatives as well as actively preventing them from seeking employment opportunities at Google.

Fletcher even categorized conservatives as “hostile voices” and states that “I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

Read the conversation for yourself.

 

Google’s management-sanctioned blacklists were directed at specific Google employees who tactfully expressed conservative viewpoints. In one case, Jay Gengelbach, a L6 SWE Manager, publicly bragged about blacklisting an intern for failing to change his conservative views. He was supported in his choice by other employees.

 

Kim Burchett, a L7 SWE Manager, proposed creating an online companywide blacklist of political conservatives inside Google.

 

On August 7, 2015 another manager, Collin Winter stated “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.”

He was referring to a Google employee who raised concerns of harassment and discrimination to Urs Hölzle. Paul Cowan, another manager, reshared Winter’s threat to express his agreement with it and indicated that he also participated in blacklisting conservatives.

Cowan stated: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.”

On August 14 2015 a small group of employees complained to Senior Vice President of Google HR, Laszlo Bock and Senior Vice President of Legal David Drummond that and alarming number of individuals were calling for generic firings “if they express[ed] certain opinions on sociopolitical subjects.”

Google took little or no action regarding this complaint, made clear by the fact that the blacklisting posts remain live on Google’s internal corporate network. Google ignored most cases, and occasionally “coached” the worst offenders.

The primary purpose of these blacklists and suggested blacklists was to encourage and coordinate the sabotage of promotions, performance reviews, and employment opportunities for those with conservative viewpoint.

Google Supports Blacklists

At a TGIF all-hands meeting on October 26, 2017 an employee directly asked executives about the appropriateness of keeping political blacklists. Kent Walker, the Senior Vice President of Legal, dodged the question rather than repudiating the practice of blacklisting.

On September 8^th 2017 a group of conservative employees met with Paul Manwell, Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s Chief of Staff, concerning the ongoing problems of politically motivated blacklists, bullying and discrimination at Google. This meeting was in direct response to the company’s handling of the Damore situation.

The employees shared their own experience with discrimination and asked management for three major reforms.

First, clarity around communication policies, recommending that Google publish a clearer statement on what is acceptable and unacceptable employee communication, and that any and all complaints about communication be adjudicated through “a documented, fair, transparent, and appealable process.”

Second, protection from retaliation, asking leadership to make a public statement that conservatives and supporters of Damore would not be punished in any way for their political stances.

Third, that the company make it clear that the hostile language and veiled threats directed at Damore and his supporters were unacceptable, and in the interest of making Google a healthier environment for employees of all political stripes, the managers and VPs who made such statements should retract them.

None of these reforms ever took place.

In October 2017, diversity activists at Google indicated they had met with VPs Danielle Brown and Eileen Naughton in order to ensure that they would be able to continue blacklisting and targeting employees with whom they had political disagreements.

On October 22^nd, 2017 a conservative employee asked HR to put him in contact with leadership to discuss targeted political harassment. Employee Relations acknowledged this request on October 31 2017. On December 22 2017 Employee Relations indicated that they would not be following up on his concerns and considered the matter closed.

Google Blacklists Conservative Authors

On August 20 2016, Curtis Yarvin, a well-known conservative blogger who has reportedly advised Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, and other members of the Trump administration, visited the Google office to have lunch with an employee.

Yarvin’s presence tripped a silent alarm, which alerted security personnel to escort him off the premises. It was later discovered that other conservative personalities, including Alex Jones and Theodore Beale, are on the same blacklist.

When asked by an employee if it was possible to removed writers from the blacklist Google HR refused to help and instead reconfigured the internal system so that it was no longer possible to see who was on the blacklist.

Intimidation of Conservatives with Threats of Termination

One Google employee, referring to two conservative Googlers, stated “maybe we should just try laying of those people. Please.”

Many Google employees resorted to name-calling, and one called conservative Google employees that reported discrimination to Google HR “poisonous assholes.” They also stated that they knew who the “assholes” were and that they could be easily replaced.

 

Several conservative employees reported this to Google HR, but Google HR replied that this was not a policy violation.

Discrimination against Caucasian Males

On April 4^th 2015 a Caucasian male posted a comment about a “Diversity Town Hall” meeting in which the management stated that affirmative action was impractical from a legal standpoint.

Liz Fong-Jones, an L5 SRE Manager, responded that she “could care less about being unfair to white men. You already have all the advantages in the world.”

 

Dozens of other employees joined in to insult and belittle the Caucasian male. They received hundreds of “upvotes” from other Googlers showing their approval.

 

The Caucasian male employee’s own manager replied to chastise him and to promise he would be punished for his apostasy.

 

Fong-Jones doubled-down in a follow up conversation stating that the “benefit to everyone as a whole” justifies discrimination against white men.

 

When Fong-Jones was reported to Google HR, HR responded that Fong-Jones was responding “to some pretty insensitive comments from other colleagues and reacting to an environment that we know have been less than friendly to women and minorities at times.”

They also claimed that her behavior was taken out of context and excused her comments. It was only after matters escalated that Google HR took “action” which, they claim, ranged from “coaching to warnings.”

Chris Busselle, a manager in the Search organization, urged other Googlers to engage in discriminatory practices. In an April 9^th 2017 message Busselle suggested that employees should leverage Google’s influence to have “cheesy white males” removed from speaker lineups at conferences.

When the G+ post above was reported to Google HR they replied “Regarding your concern about Chris Busselle’s G+ post, we have reviewed and do not find that it violates our policies. You may of course feel free to provide him feedback about his post.”

Google Does Not Understand Logical Arguments

A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and Males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts, as seen below.

 

According to the lawsuit, Burchett continued to make hiring and promoting decisions at Google and was not reprimanded by Google, even though Burchett’s posts were reported to Google HR and to the Senior Vice President of Legal in a formal complaint.

In another example a Google employee reported an offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated “If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!”

When a Google employee presented this to Google HR stating it was in violation of the Google Code of Conduct and was creating a hostile workplace that targeted Caucasians, men and individuals over the age of 40.

Google HR responded “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to [sic] violates our policies.”

The employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40-something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed to respond.

Google’s “Diversity” Policies

Charles Mendis, an Engineering Director, informed his team that he was “freezing [headcount]” to reserve future open positions for diverse candidates. Mendis stated, “For each position we have open work on getting multiple candidates including a diversity candidate.” He continued “Often the first qualified candidate is not a diversity candidate, waiting to have a few qualified candidates and being patient is important.”

This discrimination against Caucasians and males was not only allowed at Google but supported and actively encouraged. The lawsuit relates the story of a Google employee who had worked at the company for nearly a decade without incident.

As soon as Googlers learned he supported conservative ideologies, he lost his transfer to a different team (that was almost assured before), received a poor performance rating (his second ever, the first due to bereavement leave) and was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

These are only a handful of the examples of illegal and discriminatory conduct at Google. Other employees may be able to point to innumerable other examples and a compilation of posts and memes from Google’s internal message boards have been included with the lawsuit as Exhibit B.

These claims made in this lawsuit appear to be clear evidence of discrimination against Caucasians, Men, and Conservatives. Yet that is for a court to decided and in the coming weeks we shall see how this lawsuit unfolds.

This is part three of a three part series outlining the lawsuit brought against Google by James Damore. I have provided links to part one and part two if you want the full story.

Part one: Behind the Scenes of Google's Monstrous Culture of Bias
Part two: Google's Culture of Bias REVEALED

I have included a few examples from Exhibit B below:

 

Be Active: A Harsh Criticism for Republicans

The Republican Party in Oregon is a joke.

The Party fights and squabbles leading up to the primary, yet once the primary is done the Party is no more united then it was before the primary. Instead the different groups split off and call each other RINO or claim that because this candidate does not agree with me on X they are not a real Republican.

Unity

Purity testing is killing the Party and causing it to fractionate. The Party lacks any sort of unity outside of the name Republican.

The sentiment is if you do not believe what I, a real Republican, believe then I am simply going to stay home on Election Day and refuse to vote. Or I will write a name in or simply not send in my ballot because I do not want to waste a stamp.

If you fail to compromise within the Party then you will break and you might as well give up and allow a different Party to take your place. You cannot get everything you want all the time, grow up and make a sacrifice for the future.

The candidate might not be perfect but they are better than the alternative and they are more likely to listen to you in the future if you help get them elected.

Failure to Take Action

The Republican Party is inert. They do nothing to get out in the world and get their message out. I have seen more conservative action from non-political groups then I have ever seen from the Party.

The Democratic Party has several activist groups who attract attention and get people energized. What does the Republican Party do, argue on Facebook! Now is the perfect time for a conservative message.

Young men want, no need, to be told that they can take personal responsibility for their own lives and can make things happen for themselves. And they actually want to hear this message, just look at the wild popularity of Jordan Peterson.

People want to be told that you should always tell the truth and that seeking the truth is a good thing, at the very least do not lie. This is a conservative message, a message of the church and of science, to seek Truth above all else.

Instead they are letting the Progressive Left get away with lying for fear of pissing off their social justice mob. Where are the brave, strong, tough Republicans who will stand up for Republican values and American values?

They are afraid to say they love America because they do not want the bad media attention. But the people will see through the media lies. Use alternative media like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to speak directly to the people and expose the media for their lies.

Just about every cell phone has a camera now, use it and let the public decide for themselves.

Instead the Republican’s try to keep their heads down and hope they can slip in without anyone noticing. How has that worked out so far? That pain in your chest is your soul rotting because you are more focused on protecting yourself from Twitter hate mobs then you are for standing up for Truth, Responsibility, and American Values.

Allows the Left to Label and Define Us

You let those on the left define what you and the Party are. They call you racist, bigot, Nazi and what do Republicans do. The fire back with the word liberal.

It is clear to everyone who the racists and bigots are, just call them for what they are. What did the Republican Party do when Antifa threated to attack them if they marched in the Rose Parade on 82^nd? Nothing. The parade got shut down and the Republican Party did nothing.

This looked weak and conceded the point Antifa was making, that the Republican Party is racist and full of Nazi’s and Fascists. Where was the push back, where was the pride of the Party to defend their reputation?

The people of Oregon are begging for someone to step up and stand up to these people, but the Party leaders are too afraid of being called racist. I understand that the press is against you and you will not get a fair shake in the court of public opinion but that does not mean you take the easy road.

You stand up and fight back, take the hard road, accept the suffering that will be heaped on you and understand that if you are speaking the truth that it will all come out in the end. Have faith.

You allow the left to control the conversation. You argue using their words and premises. It is time to reject their premises and prove them false.

Do the work, challenge Democrats to open debate, make it public and do your homework before the event starts. Study their tricks and literature and do not make a fool of yourself. The left does not want their ideas out in the public and for good reason, they are authoritarian in nature.

Yet the Republican’s just come across as weak and leaderless. I have attended local meet ups and felt zero energy in the room. We have a Republican President, house and senate and yet it feels like the Party is ashamed of winning.

Do not be ashamed of being a conservative or Republican, conservative and Republican thought and ethics have a place and are valuable.

Pick Up What the Left has Abandoned

The left has abandoned Free Speech, innocent until proven guilty, and the universal rights of the individual just to name a few. Instead the left worships hate speech, social justice, and groups rights.

Free Speech, innocent until proven guilty and universal rights of the individual are founding principles that most Americans believe in and will gladly vote for. They have been abandoned as if they are trash on the side of the road.

All the Republican Party has to do is pick them up, yet they just look at them as if they were a coiled rattlesnake. You would just have to read the constitution and the bill of rights as if they were a political playbook and you will have more votes than you have ever had in the past.

Even if the left tried to argue with you most people still agree with the bill of rights. They would be arguing against the bill of rights. They will argue against it, the lefts ideology says it was written by a bunch of white male slave owners and so it is bad.

Of course they hate it because it gives rights to the individual and not the group and all they care about are groups, who they then turn into voting blocks. Yet Republican’s remain silent. They are trying to be statesman like and proper, the time for being proper is over.

Pick up freedom, hold up liberty, and promote personal responsibility, because if you do not then no one will. Republicans complain that the country is being ruined by Progressives, yet they stand by and watch it all happen.

Republicans seem to be in love with their complaints as opposed to doing what it takes to do something about them. It is easy to complain, it is difficult to get real things done.

How about you stand up and fight for the values that made this country great. People want to hear about conservative values and to be told that they, as the individual, have the power to change the world, and the great thing about that message is that it is true!

Why the Republican Party is too afraid to stand up and do anything is beyond me. Where are the radical Republicans that ended slavery, fought against Jim Crowe, and stands up for the rights of the individual? Where are the Republican Activists?

Where are the Republicans who will willingly march into a Progressive city like Portland and tell the small business owners that they are there to support them when their livelihood is being overrun by the homeless? The Progressives organized a protest in favor of the homeless people against the businesses. Seize the opportunity.

Where are the Conservative thinkers who are not afraid to stand toe to toe with a Democrat and challenge them with powerful traditional ideas? Ideas such as the importance of the family and that a family with two parents in the household is better than single parent families.

Where are the Republicans pushing back against the poisonous ideas being disseminated by the Progressives through universities, the media, and Hollywood, such as Toxic Masculinity and White Privilege? Stand up for the young man who is already nervous to approach a girl he is interested in but now has to worry if he could face legal action for making a fool of himself.

Pick up the disaffected liberals in the Democratic Party. They are sick of the Progressive radicals who are simply authoritarian socialists and communists or violent anarchists. You just have to appeal to them in ways they can understand. With classical liberal ideas (read Locke and Mill and founding fathers).

Instead Republicans just wait for Democrats to fail hard and hope that they can get voted in simply for not being Democrats. Why not try to get voted in for being conservative? If you wait the damage done will be irreversible.

What to do

Be controversial. It is not hard because now it is controversial to say you support Freedom of Speech. Ignore the labels heaped on you by your political opponents, it is just an attempt to keep you silent so they do not have to argue against your ideas or principles because they have no arguments against them.

Be public. Get out and interact with people. Hold your own events, do not simply attend other events. Go to controversial events and talk to people. Show people that you will stand up clear and strong.

Be honest. Tell the truth, or at the very least do not lie. The truth always finds a way to come out and you can either take your knocks now and improve or you take make it worse and end up losing everything in the end.

Have thought out arguments and principles. I do not care if we disagree on them as long as they thought out and strong. Consider criticisms to your arguments and use them to make your ideas stronger. Make your case powerful and be ready to face opposition not only in the form of arguments but also in the form of name calling. You know it is coming so be ready for it.

Have a clear place you want to go and a good reason why we should go there. If you want to be a leader than lead. Have a vision of the future, develop a plan for reaching that future and figure out why it is good that we should go that way as opposed to another way.

I make these criticism and suggestions from my own experience as a conservative who has lived in Oregon his whole life and has never had a conservative government in power. I wrote this knowing full well that some people will be angry about it. If that is you than ask yourself are you angry because I got it wrong or angry because it hits close to home?

I would be happy to admit I was wrong, as I am still fairly new to the Party, so please correct me if you think I am wrong on some point.

It is time we stand up and fight for the liberties that have been bitterly won throughout our history. It is time to be active.

Part 2: Google's Culture of Bias REVEALED

David Gudeman has joined James Damore in the lawsuit against Google. Gudeman worked for Google from Oct 2013 to Dec 2016 at which point he was terminated.

Gudeman claims he faced discrimination based on the fact that he is a conservative, Caucasian and male, which he claims was the bases for his termination.

The Derail Document

On or about August 20, 2015 Kim Burchett, an L7 SWE Manager, published a document and posted it on a Google-employees only website. This document was titled “Derailing” and it discussed how individuals might attempt to silence someone’s opinions or distract from someone’s point of view.

The target audience of this document was Caucasian males and conflated ‘marginalization’ with ‘white male privilege.’ Essentially this document stated that if you disagreed with any statement about bias, prejudice, or privilege then you were guilty of “derailment.”

The thesis of this document is that on this one particular set of topics, the left-wing political frame of systematic bias, must always dominate. The receiver must accept that frame and its associated worldview as the only form of acceptable response.

Disagreeing with this article Gudeman left a comment stating his belief that men “need to understand that [Caucasian males] are the victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.” He continued stating that “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.’”

After his comments, others stated that he was misinterpreting the document. Gudeman responded, “Well if that’s the point then you could be clearer, because all I’m getting from this document is that when anyone claims bias, there is no possible defense, not even the defense that the bias did not exist.”

He went on to suggest that “Maybe a section on what a man should do when a woman accuses him of bias in order to protect himself from a system that is highly biased against him.”

He was attacked by other Googlers for his comments to which he tried to further clarify, stating that “I started out intending to change minds by explaining logically and rationally what is offensive about this document. In response, I was treated dismissively.”

Gudeman also compared the document to that which “slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters,” in an attempt to point out the prejudices within the document.

Burchett, in reply to Gudeman stated that she was “[r]esolving this comment. Also escalating to management.” Ironically, other Google employees began to “derail” Gudeman’s point of view. Hiding behind the guise of advocating for an open dialogue, Burchett merely reported Googlers that disagreed with the thesis of her document to Google management as being “un-Googley.”

Punishment for Views on Racism and Discrimination

In September 2015, after being reported to Google, Google HR spoke with Gudeman about his points of view on race and/or gender equality and his political viewpoints. Gudeman was chastised by Google HR for attempting to stand up for Caucasian males and his conservative views.

At the end of the meeting Gudeman was issued a verbal warning. Gudeman saw this as a lack of fairness toward conservatives while liberals were free to express their thoughts and opinions without repercussions.

After Trump’s elections to the Presidency of the United States many employees at Google began to panic, having expected a different outcome. On November 10, 2016 in response to employee posting on Google-wide forums regarding fears about the new administration, Gudeman wrote that anyone “who believes President Trump will be out to get minorities, women or gays has absorbed a lot of serious lies from their echo chamber. And the echo chamber is entirely one sided. You can’t watch TV or go to movies without being constantly confronted with the leftist world view. Leftists can go their whole life never being exposed to the conservative world view except in shows written by people hostile to it.”

In another response to another Google employee Gudeman wrote “[i]f you truly think Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis [sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, then you are so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but are saying them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.”

Termination

On November 9^th, 2016, Sarmad Gilani, a Google employee, posted the following message on an internal Google forum. “As someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim, I’m worried for my personal safety and liberty. Will Google take a public stand to defend minorities and use its influence, or just issue the usual politically nuanced statements about our values.”

Gudeman responded skeptically asking “In the administration of the most pro-Muslim president in history you were targeted just for being a Muslim? Why didn’t you file a civil rights suit? The Justice Department would take your side if it really happened.”

Responses to this comment were dismissive of Gudeman and accused him of calling Gilani a liar. Gudeman explained that he “would not suggest [Gilani] was lying without specific knowledge of the case.”

Gudeman remained skeptical of the story and offered additional motives the FBI would have for looking into Gilani, such as a recent trip to Pakistan. In response a fellow Google employee became hostile and stated she had to escalate this thread, reporting it to Google HR.

While speaking to another Google employee on November 10, 2016 Gudeman complained about his treatment as a conservative and a Trump supporter. Gudeman pointed out “Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google. Googlers feel comfortable slandering them in a public forum and assume there will be no consequences.”

This was met with anger and accusations of “gaslighting.” Gaslighting is a term for manipulating (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity. On December 5^th, 2016 Google HR reached out to Gudeman to discuss his comments, including those surrounding the Gilani post.

Google HR stated that Gudeman had accused Gilani of terrorism based on Gilani’s religion, and that this was unacceptable. As a result of Gudeman’s “accusations” Google stated that he was being terminated.

Gudeman attempted to question the logic behind a co-worker’s story of victimization on the basis of his race and religion and because of his political affiliations, Gudeman was retaliated against and fired.

Google employees were not allowed to question the diversity narrative of the company, even to the point of questioning politically-charged factual assertions by fellow employees to prove their own political agendas.

This culture at Google was severe enough that employees such as Gudeman were bullied into silence and required to tolerate harassment without pushing back. Google’s management refused to consider their concerns to be valid or even worthy of investigation.

Authors Note

If what Gudeman is claiming in this lawsuit is true, it is clear that Google not only openly discriminates based on gender, ethnicity, and political belief but has created and fosters this sort of behavior at all levels of the company.

This is part two of a three part series that covers the David Gudeman section of the lawsuit from page 16 to 21. Part three will cover the other class action claims being made against Google covering page 21 to 49. Pages 49 to 62 cover the cause for action part of the lawsuit with the remaining pages covering Exhibits being presented in court. In these exhibits you can find internal posts, memes, comments, calls to political violence, and open discrimination against Caucasian’s, Men, and Conservatives.