Why LGBT Activists Can’t See What’s Wrong With A 9-Year-Old Drag Queen

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/16/lgbt-activists-cant-see-whats-wrong-9-year-old-drag-queen/

Brandon Hilton, owner of an online clothing store specializing in erotic clothing, recently announced that nine-year-old drag queen Lactatia was his company’s newest “cover girl.” He tweeted, “I think this new generation of drag kids is brilliant and inspiring! @Desmond_Amazing and Lactatia are the future! @TheHouseofMann is just making sure they look SICKENING! People will talk no matter what, might as well give them something FIERCE to look at!”

Hilton received an immediate and overwhelming backlash as people reacted angrily to the appearance of him sexualizing a child. He responded, “woke up to countless tweets telling me to ‘kill yourself’ and calling me a ‘pedo’ after we announced 9 year old drag superstar Lactatia as our new HOUSE OF MANN covergirl… if you can’t handle a kid in a sequin onesie, maybe the future isn’t for you.”

Hilton messaged me on Twitter after I challenged him to explain why he would encourage the sexualization of a child as an LGBT activist. Although his tweets seem to celebrate children engaging in these adult activities, he seemed profoundly disturbed by the accusations. He believed the outrage came from ignorance and hatred by “right-wing propaganda.” While I think he did not intend to sexualize the child or promote pedophilia, I also think he cannot understand how his actions did just that.

Why Kids Are So Important to the LGBT Left

The images of the young boy are undeniably adult in nature, from the make-up to the posing, to the facial expressions. The boy is emulating an adult woman being sexually provocative. He has seen this behavior and body language in his drag queen mentors.

Drag is an inherently adult form of entertainment, meant to exaggerate female sexuality using humor and vulgarity. The sexuality within the artform cannot be separated out and therefore many oppose minors, and certainly children, participating in it.

Since LGBT people first celebrated the boy, he has been a symbol of a movement crossing a line. While those on the Right are quick to assert pedophilia as a motivation behind this movement, it is more rooted in sexual and gender theory that relies on children for validation.

Children expressing sexuality or gender identity that deviates from the norm are viewed as proof that this deviancy is inborn. And society is more likely to accommodate inborn traits than freely made adult choices. While LGBT Americans have full rights and are arguably widely celebrated in every sector, the LGBT Left has fixated on encouraging sexual expression in ever younger children. They genuinely believe they are helping these children by allowing them to “be themselves” in an environment free from judgment or repression.

The LGBT Left also believes denying one’s “true self,” which is often revealed in childhood, leads to homelessness, drug abuse, and suicide. They believe they are saving these children from a life of bullying, fear, and crippling anxiety. So any child who emulates LGBT culture is widely celebrated and promoted. A nine-year-old boy dressing and behaving as an adult drag queen is seen as beautiful and progressive.

An Identity Defined by Sexuality Struggles to Express Itself Differently

In June 2017, The Advocate, a major LGBT advocacy website and magazine, celebrated Lactacia. The boy has become a celebrity in the LGBT world. Hilton believed he was promoting and celebrating a young boy he considers inspiring to his identity group.

The LGBT world often struggles to separate its sexually explicit culture from its advocacy for equality and rights. In many ways they are incapable of understanding why the outside world would be appalled by explicitly sexual public displays. For them it must be out of malice, hatred, or ignorance rather than reasonable aversion.

Gay pride parades have long been extreme public displays of every form of sexual deviancy imaginable. Gay liberals see no distinction between their sexual selves and their everyday selves. They celebrate the merger of the two as identity and culture.

The consequence here is that Hilton and the LGBT world will never be able to fully appreciate the damage being done to a generation of children pushed to grow up faster. The LGBT Left’s intense focus on labeling then exploiting LGBT children holds incredible risk and threatens their futures. Early sexual activity and expression can be devastating to young people, especially LGBT youth. High rates of drug abuse, sexual abuse, and risky sexual behavior are commonHIV rates are extremely high for gay and bisexual young men aged 13 to 24. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify asLGBT, with higher risks of drug use and sex work.

While the LGBT world may not be intentionally trying to harm children or put them at risk, it is time leaders of the movement fully recognize the dangers of using young children to validate their sexual politics. To help further this discussion, we must be careful not to abuse the term “pedophile.” Overuse will diminish the impact of our message and make it more difficult to fight the legitimate scourge of child sexual abuse rampant around the world.

What we must do is call out the dangers of sexualizing children too early, making them vulnerable to people who do wish to exploit and abuse them. LGBT advocacy groups have a responsibility to recognize that every form of sexuality and gender identity can be freely enjoyed by adults in private, but should never involve children regardless of the context or motivation. While they intend to celebrate the uniqueness of the child, they in effect steal the child’s innocence and impose an adult identity onto him, all to validate their own insecurities. We cannot stay quiet and allow more children to lose their childhood to the dreams of progressives who only imagine the future while failing to grasp the trauma they impose in the present.

Chad Felix Greene is a political and social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. He has written and illustrated Jewish children’s books and writes for online publications.

HOW HOLLYWOOD KILLED #METOO

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268994/how-hollywood-killed-metoo-daniel-greenfield

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

When Time picks an abstract concept as its ‘Thing of the Year’, it’s the kiss of death.

The magazine’s 2011 edition celebrated the Arab Spring’s ‘Protester’ just as the worst of the civil wars were getting started. In 2006, it picked ‘You’ just as the big web companies began crushing individuality on the internet. In 2002, it cheered the ‘Whistleblowers’ you haven’t heard from since. And in 1993, it put Arafat and Mandela on the cover as the ‘Peacemakers’. Good luck finding that peace.

So #MeToo was headed for trouble as soon as it became Time’s ‘Thing of the Year’. The cover, with the accusers dressed in somber black, foreshadowed the black dress code at the Golden Globes.

The cover wasn’t a win. It was a sigh of relief. Hollywood, the media and other cultural industries had been running scared of the scandal for months. Now they were finally getting a handle on it. In public relations, you get ahead of the scandal. You understand what makes it tick and take it apart.

Awards season was looming. And the culture industries were figuring out how to take #MeToo apart.

Harvey Weinstein had tried to shift the conversation from the women he was accused of raping to the NRA. Hollywood followed the same basic strategy without being quite as tacky as Harvey. It moved the conversation from #MeToo’s rape accusations to virtue signaling about diversity in the industry.

The best way to fight one hashtag was with another hashtag. #TimesUp replaced #MeToo. But where #MeToo was a raw personal accusation, #TimesUp was an impersonal leftist slogan of political urgency. #TimesUp for all the bad things we don’t like. Especially #MeToo. #TimesUp was safe where #MeToo was risky. US Weekly could advertise 9 #TimesUp products that showed you were down with the cause.

They included a $380 sweater.

#TimesUp had plenty of female stars out front. But they didn’t claim to be victims. Instead they were taking the safe Hollywood position of supporting victims. Victims as far from Hollywood as possible. #TimesUp’s official site features a huge letter from the “sisters” of Hollywood vowing to stand with female farm workers, janitors, health aides and illegal aliens suffering from sexual harassment.

You can’t redirect the problem any further away than farm country.

In true Hollywood style, the solution is sending a lot of money to an established lefty group to tackle the problem: the National Women’s Law Center. It’s the same old Harvey Weinstein solution. Throw money at a trendy lefty cause and keep on inviting actresses up to your hotel room. Play the noble celebrity hero saving poor people in flyover country by writing big checks to big lefty insiders in major cities.

#TimesUp’s noblesse oblige was celebrity rehab for awards season. Spielberg was rolling out The Post. Its theme was Oscar bait, championing the anti-Trump Washington Post, and its stars were living Oscar bait. But Meryl Streep had been accused of knowing all about Harvey’s rapes. Posters for The Post had been vandalized with the “She Knew” tag that followed her name all around La La Land.

Streep led the #TimesUp list. She called for a charge against the safest targets in Hollywood. “I don’t want to hear about the silence of me,” she whined to the New York Times. “I want to hear about the silence of Melania Trump.” It was up there with Harvey vowing to focus on fighting the NRA.

But the industry went into overdrive to reinvent one of the wealthiest women in Hollywood as a victim.

After ranting incoherently about President Trump, Robert De Niro revealed that his real mission was fighting for Meryl Streep’s equality. “Astonishingly, today, women are still struggling to get their rightful place and their fair share. I am still fighting for Meryl (Streep) to be able to get 79 cents of what a man would get to play Graham. It’s shameful. I know.”

Meryl Streep is being paid $825K an episode while De Niro is only making $750K an episode. If anyone’s making 79 cents on the dollar here, it’s Bobby.

But talking about how actresses aren’t being paid enough is a safe subject. The industry can always cut a bigger check to the small club of #TimesUp actresses with negotiating leverage as long as its titans don’t have to stop assaulting the much larger club of actresses with no leverage at all.

Salaries are negotiable. Prison sentences aren’t.

The other solution was, also in true Hollywood style, style. The industry was going black. The women would wear black dresses. The men would go on wearing black jackets. And everyone would put on a #TimesUp pin to signal their commitment to whatever the hell the hashtag actually stood for.

Most of the actual victims of #MeToo weren’t invited to the Golden Globes.

James Franco wore his #TimesUp pin to the Globes. He won Best Actor. And then the ghost of #MeToo emerged with women accusing him of inappropriate behavior. The #TimesUp pins weren’t working.

Or maybe they were.

Multiple sexual assault accusations against Oscar winner Paul Haggis went mostly unnoticed. Haggis, like Streep, is a reliable delivery system for award season leftist tripe. #TimesUp’s curated female celebs had far more to say about female farm workers and diversity than about Haggis and Franco.

#TimesUp didn’t mean standing up to Haggis or Franco. It was Natalie Portman grousing about the lack of female nominees for Best Director. Like so many of the #TimesUp representation complaints, it was self-serving. Portman’s directorial feature debut, A Tale of Love and Darkness, an adaptation of anti-Israel hack Amos Oz, sank under the weight of poor reviews. But maybe next time, she’ll be nominated anyway. Nominations for the small circle that Portman belongs to are almost as cheap as checks.

Put more female celebs up front and no one will have to talk about the rapist in the industry closet. Especially if they’re black women.

Hollywood’s manic response to #MeToo was to build a wall out of black women. Oprah’s narcissistic speech and the phony presidential hype heaped on her afterward was only the most obvious example.

#TimesUp’s legal defense fund is co-headed by Nina Shaw. Its parent beneficiary, the National Women’s Law Center, is headed by Fatima Goss Graves. #TimesUp was careful to keep Shonda Rimes up front. And there was Anita Hill heading a commission with a name too long to bother writing or reading.

Race isn’t an actual Hollywood defense against rape.

Birth of a Nation was the ‘It” movie of the new Black Nationalist trend in 2016. Then, Nate Parker, its director, was confronted with a past rape accusation. Coming to his defense was Harvey Weinstein.

“I know Nate Parker and I’ve always found him to be a wonderful man,” Harvey insisted.

“You try to smear the messenger,” Al Sharpton ranted at his hate group, the National Action Network, whose events had been attended by Barack Obama and Eric Holder. Sharpton suggested the accusations were some sort of conspiracy against black people even though the victim had committed suicide.

Diversity doesn’t stop sexual assault. There are plenty of photos of Oprah and Harvey Weinstein palling around. One of Harvey’s accusers even connected seeing Harvey with Oprah to trusting him. But it is a great way to change the subject over to affirmative action. And that’s what #TimesUp is really about.

#MeToo isn’t quite dead, but #TimesUp changes the subject. There’s only so much room for the latest allegation when the media is busy chatting about what the rise of new black female directors means.

Cut in some actresses and lawyers, and the party can go on all night. Just ask Lisa Bloom and Meryl.

The girls will cover for the boys. They’ll write, produce and direct Oscar bait about the plight of female farmworkers. And it’ll win. Everyone in the industry will talk about how bad life is out there while the assaults go on in hotel rooms, closets and cars.

It’s a real Hollywood ending.

Why Leftists Hate Masculinity

Why Leftists Hate Masculinity

An ongoing mantra of the left is that everyone is a victim, with a singular carve-out for white men.  A large group of the female population has embraced this chant.

While there may be a number of grievances put forth by this movement, there also comes a theme that is particularly dangerous: the feminist attack on masculinity.  This is derived not only from feminists; it comes from the left in general.

There has emerged a war on masculinity.  Why?  Because masculine men are harder to control under tyrannical socialism.  The modern beta male, on the other hand, craves socialism.  This is why the left has branded masculinity as toxic: it stands as a roadblock to their endgame.

Leftists blame, of all things, masculinity for the recent spate of sexual harassment scandals.  For eons, masculinity has been considered a natural and even required trait of being male, but it is now apparently the reason for deviancy.  Who knew?

The glaring problem with this argument is that the men who are typically being accused of such transgressions are anything but masculine.  Sexual harassment is bipartisan; both liberal and conservative men in positions of power seem to harass women with aplomb.  But where is this referenced masculinity?  Harvey Weinstein?  Al Franken?  Louis CK?  I posit that a consistent theme among most accused harassers is a complete lack of masculinity.  I would go so far as to suggest that the lack of masculinity is a contributing factor to this problem.

Most of these accused public figures are modern men – perhaps not quite beta males, but certainly closer to Obama’s now infamous Pajama Boy than they are to John Wayne.   Are men who display a lack of masculinity less likely to victimize women?  Obviously not.  But the left does not let reason or rationality interfere with an opportunity to degrade social decency or further its collectivist agenda.

The feminist hatred for masculinity is only another tool in the toolbox of communism.  Masculinity tends to make a man individualistic.  Individualistic men are capitalists, not communists.  They are men who cherish individual liberty, and they rely on themselves rather than on government.  Self-reliance is a four-letter word for leftists, and masculine men are generally self-reliant.  Beta males like Pajama Boy rely on government, and such modern men, devoid of any semblance of masculinity, are ideal for leftist indoctrination.

Were the frontiersmen communists or capitalists?  How about the cowboys?  How about the Navy SEALs or Army Rangers?  Sure, the press may find in the military a few Che Guevara t-shirt-wearing idiots and parade them all over the place, but I am willing to bet that the majority of SEAL Team 6 comprises masculine capitalists.

What games do young boys play?  They pretend to be cowboys.  They pretend to be soldiers.   They don’t pretend to be soviet textile workers slaving under Stalin’s system.  They don’t pretend to be entitled Millennial brats who congregate at Starbucks and talk about the wonders of socialism, either.  Most boys hit the ground embracing masculinity.  Some maintain it, but many have it berated out of them by the weak society they walk in or by their leftist parents.

Masculinity leads a man to seek to better himself in many regards, while collectivism thrives on mediocrity.  Collectivism in this country is sought by the lazy who don’t want to work but feel entitled to free handouts of all kinds.  Unfortunately, collectivism is also touted by many who are successful, such as middle-class suburbanites who feel guilty for what they have achieved through hard work while others have not been so fortunate.  Yet, when suggesting that the redistribution effort begins with their own 401(k)s, seldom will you find volunteers.  Collectivism is also cheered on by certain billionaire hypocrites who made their wealth through capitalism yet now tout the wonders of socialist systems.  The irony.

While these social groups appear quite different, there is a common trait among the men in all of them: no masculinity to be found.  Be it the lanky hipster in skinny jeans or the billionaire hypocrite, imposing is not one of their descriptions.  The billionaire may travel everywhere with a fleet of personal security, but he has no strength of body and apparently little strength of character.  Are there plenty of physically weak men who are capitalists?  Absolutely.  Capitalism is not dependent on machismo or charisma.  However, few alphas are socialist, and self-reliance is a collectivism-killer.  That is why the left finds masculinity toxic.

The denigration of masculinity is high on the leftist agenda.  The pushing of acceptance of the “transgender” movement is the latest machination in this crusade.  This fosters further blurring of male masculinity and female femininity, and the plight of a small group of people who wrestle with this issue has become a politically polarizing topic – a tool maximized by the left.  Masculinity is maligned as a trait of the bigot, not as a desirable trait among men, as it once was.  The goal is to foster an entirely androgynous society that makes no distinction between male and female.  This breeds a culture more easily shaped by the almighty state.

The left’s war on masculinity should come as no surprise.  The cultures in history that have resisted oppressive regimes in the past have celebrated masculinity rather than demeaned it.

There is an often quoted poem that sums up a society’s life cycle: “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.”  The abundance of weak men in our society is ushering in those hard times, and it is celebrated by the left every step of the way.

The eradication of masculinity from our society will ultimately result in the elimination of all resistance to tyranny.  Freedom-loving males know this, and women who believe in individual capability rather than dependence on the government also know it.  Remember: subjugation of all to a collectivist regime is the ultimate goal, and branding masculinity as toxic is one of many pieces in the game.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/why_leftists_hate_masculinity.html

WHY HIJAB HOAX GIRL LIED

Editors’ note: Khawlah Noman is now yet another Muslim hoax victim. The 11-year-old Muslim girl has been caught lying about being attacked, last Friday in Scarborough, Ontario, by a man in his 20s who she alleged had used scissors to cut her hijab. After an investigation, Toronto Police confirmed that the crime had never occurred. In light of this new, but very expected, development, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to this escalating phenomenon of fake anti-Muslim “hate crimes”. We are therefore reprinting, below, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s article, The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t, from the November 18, 2016 issue of The Daily Caller, which reveals how totalitarian movements portray themselves in order to gain power.

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t.
The deranged fantasy world of the totalitarian cry-bully.
By Jamie Glazov
Daily Caller, November 18, 2016.

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. The media are bolstering the entire hallucination process, with CNN leading the way.

Central to the whole narrative is the supposed “Islamophobic” anti-Muslim crime-wave sweeping the nation. The rumors spread and the media regurgitates the lies without any evidence to back them up. And then, after the hoaxes are debunked one by one, the media is, by that time, bored and no longer interested.

The latest “Islamophobia” counterfeit involves a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL). The Muslima alleged that her hijab and wallet were stolen by two white Trump supporters who were shouting racial slurs. The woman’s accusation incensed leftists and Muslims across the nation and the world, prompting the ACLU of Louisiana to issue a statement denouncing both the incident and, of course, Donald Trump. The investigation into the incident involved several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. The Washington Post, New York Times and CNN, meanwhile, ate the story up.

But what happened to this Muslima’s story under tough police questioning? Well, the ULL student eventually broke down and admitted to police that she had fabricated the entire thing. By that time, of course, the media wasn’t too interested in such an innocuous little detail.

Recently, The Huffington Post reported on an incident of “Islamophobia” under the headline “Islamophobia Just Drove This Boy And His Family Out Of America.” It was all so heartbreaking and unjust. The one little problem with the story, however, was that it never happened.

Trump supporters, meanwhile, are supposedly involved in a lot of other evil than just attacking Muslim women on campuses and driving little Muslim boys out of America:

A gay Canadian filmmaker, Chris Ball, was alleged to have been beaten up by Trump supporters on election night in Santa Monica. It was upsetting, but it turned out the incident never really happened at all.

An image also recently went viral online that purported to show KKK members in North Carolina celebrating Donald Trump’s victory. It was really awful. And it was also confirmed to be a hoax. The proof of the hoax, however, didn’t go viral.

Many other hoaxes of Trump-induced terror are being debunked as we speak.

All of these “hate-crime” fabrications made up by the anti-Trump forces are nothing new. They are a completely natural ingredient of how totalitarians operate and, hence, how the Unholy Alliance of the Left and Islam operates. Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield explains this phenomenon in the context of the Left:

“The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.”

Greenfield calls this leftist charade “victimocracy” and labels its foot soldier the “cry-bully” who is, in reality, the “abuser-victim.” This monster, Greenfield writes, is

“the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears. If you don’t fight back, the cry-bully bullies you. If you fight back, the cry-bully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.”

Thus, because now the Unholy Alliance maniacs feel “unsafe” because they didn’t get their way in the election, it becomes very clear why it’s crucial for them to play the victim – and, most importantly, to fabricate “hate-crimes” being perpetrated against themselves. Greenfield explains:

“If cry-bullies can’t safe-bait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns cry-bullies into social justice heroes.”

Islamic supremacists play a key part in this story. And since the Left controls our culture and boundaries of discourse, it makes complete sense that the media, instead of focusing on how the Muslim community should make Americans feel safe by repudiating Islamic texts that inspire and sanction violence against unbelievers, instead amplify the narrative that it is Muslims who are afraid and that it is non-Muslim Americans who need to make Muslims feel safe. Leading scholar of Islam Robert Spencer explains this charade, unveiling why Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the CAIR need there to be hate crimes against Muslims so badly:

“The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.”

This is why the Muslima at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette fabricated the “hate-crime” against herself. And it is also why her lie is only the latest example in a long list of so many other Muslim counterfeit stories.

Just to list a few of the typical and notorious incidents:

In February 2016, a Michigan Muslima, Said Chatti, was arraigned in Dearborn’s 18th District Court for making a false police report about an “Islamophobic” plot to bomb Dearborn Fordson High School, a majority-Muslim high school. She contacted the Dearborn Police Department and claimed that an “anonymous” friend of hers overheard a group of individuals plotting to blow up the school to retaliate against the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. When the police presented her with the evidence of the holes in her story, she admitted it was a false report.

In December 2015, a 37-year-old Muslim man, Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was charged with first-degree arson for setting a Houston mosque on fire on Christmas day – a mosque where he himself was a regular, having attended it for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week. Using surveillance video from multiple businesses nearby, investigators were able to identify Moore and a search warrant of his home recovered a backpack and clothing similar to that which was seen in surveillance footage, as well as half of a two-pack of charcoal lighter-fluid bottles that seemed to match another lighter fluid bottle found inside the mosque.

In March 2012, we beheld the murder of Muslima Shaima Alawadi. At first reported as a “hate-crime,” it then turned out to be an honor murder. The media and Unholy Alliance were extremely vocal and indignant while the murder was a hate-crime, even staging a campaign, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.” But once the murder turned out to be an Islamic crime, Shaima turned out not to matter to even one of the activists who had, at one point, made so much noise and howled so many cries of indignation.

The list goes on and on: a Muslim woman in England was proven to have lied to police about claiming to have been punched in the face for wearing a hijab; a Muslim woman in Dearborn dropped a lawsuit against police after video proved she was lying when claiming they forced her to remove her hijab; a supposed “hit-and-run” on a Muslim woman in Brussels blamed on “far right” anti-Islam demonstrators turned out to be perpetrated by a Muslim named “Mohamed.”

Many more of these Muslim victimization fantasies and lies have been documented by Robert Spencer in his special report, “The Top Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes of 2014,” and in his recent video, Yet Another “Islamophobic Hate Crime” Hoax.

And so, we come to see that faking hate-crimes is a long and standard tradition of the cry-bully, and the Unholy Alliance is the premier cry-bully of our modern age. With Trump’s victory now a reality, the Left/Islam forces are foaming at the mouth and gnashing their teeth.

And while they set fires and break windows, brutally beat young girls for liking Trump, break the faces of those they think look like Trump and injure police officers, they cry and whine because they are the realvictims of real hate-crimes. But, as the evidence reveals, these are the hate-crimes perpetrated by the Trump supporters who might have been — and inflicted on the victims who weren’t.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269041/why-hijab-hoax-girl-lied-jamie-glazov