Thursday, July 30, 2020

NEO-FASCIST MARK ZUCKERBERG FACES PRISON TIME



Watch Live: House Judiciary Committee to Hold Big Tech Antitrust Hearing

0:46

The House Judiciary Committee will hold an antitrust hearing on America’s largest technology companies on Wednesday.
The hearing will feature Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.
The hearing will start at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Follow Breitbart News for more coverage of this hearing.
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.




Rep. Matt Gaetz Files Criminal Referral Against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg drinking
Getty/Chip Somodevilla
2:54

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has filed a criminal referral against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for making materially false statements to Congress while under oath at two separate joint hearings in April 2018, according to a statement released by the congressman on Monday.
“Zuckerberg repeatedly and categorically denied his company engaged in bias against conservative speech, persons, policies, or politics and also denied that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives,” read the statement by Rep. Gaetz of the Facebook CEO’s conduct during the congressional hearings.
The congressman went on to say that in June, James O’Keefe and the investigative journalists at Project Veritas revealed evidence to the contrary.
“Project Veritas published the results of an undercover investigation featuring two whistleblowers who worked as Facebook’s ‘content moderators,’ revealing that the overwhelming majority of content filtered by Facebook’s AI program was content in support of President Donald Trump, Republican candidates for office, or conservatism in general,” added Gaetz in his statement.
“This alone is already an indication of bias within the platform,” he added.
Gaetz says that he now “questions Zuckerberg’s veracity, as well as his willingness to cooperate with the House’s oversight authority,” suggesting that the Facebook CEO has been “diverting congressional resources during time-sensitive investigations, and materially impeding our work.”
“Such misrepresentations are not only unfair, they are potentially illegal and fraudulent,” affirmed Gaetz.
Therefore, Gaetz is now referring Zuckerberg to the DOJ for an investigation into the alleged false statements made to Congress by Zuckerberg while under oath.
The congressman wrote to U.S. Attorney General William Barr on Monday, urging him to investigate the Zuckerberg’s conduct.
“Facebook’s AI screening content is not politically neutral,” wrote Gaetz in his letter to Barr. “Neither are the moderators hired to review content flagged by the AI program. This stands in opposition to Mr. Zuckerberg’s congressional testimony and violates the ‘good faith’ provision of Section 230(c)(2)(A) of the Communications Decency Act.”
“Accordingly, I respectfully refer Mr. Zuckerberg to the Department for an investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§1001, 1505, and 1621 for materially false statements made to Congress while testifying under oath,” he added.
You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, on Parler at @alana, and on Instagram.


6 Massively Misleading Answers from Big Tech CEOs to Congress

Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies remotely during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on antitrust on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, July 29, 2020, in Washington. (Mandel Ngan/Pool via AP)
Mandel Ngan/Pool via AP
14:26

The most powerful tech CEOs in the country, representing Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel to discuss their market dominance and censorship yesterday. Here are some of the most misleading answers the CEOs gave Congress.
Yesterday, the CEO’s of major American tech firms Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook appeared before the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel to discuss the market dominance of their firms and issues relating to censorship on their platforms. During the hearing, the CEOs made a number of claims relating to their platforms and the competition they face. Each of the CEOs made extremely misleading statements, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai regularly misrepresenting how Google operates or the competition the tech giant faces.
Here are six instances where the Masters of the Universe stretched the truth:
1: Google’s Sundar Pichai Claims it ‘Faces New Competition Every Day’
During the hearing, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress that the company faces intense competition, and that “new competitors emerge every day.”
Pichai stated: “Just as America’s technology leadership is not inevitable, Google’s continued success is not guaranteed. New competitors emerge every day, and today users have more access to information than ever before. Competition drives us to innovate, and it also leads to better products, lower choices, and more choices for everyone.”
However, while it is true that many companies may make an attempt to compete with Google, the chances of them being successful are extremely slim. For example, Google accounts for 90 percent of online searches according to GlobalStats, while competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing and the privacy-focused DuckDuckGo may attempt to compete with Google, the company faces no real threat or competition.
Google’s search dominance is one of the reasons that the company was able to suppress the search results of Breitbart News and other conservative news websites, essentially “purging Breitbart content from search results since the 2016 election,” according to Breitbart News’ reporter Allum Bokhari.
2: Google CEO Sundar Pichai: ‘We Don’t Approach Work With Any Political Viewpoint’
Pichai claimed during yesterday’s hearing that the tech giant does not approach its work with any particular political viewpoint, a concept disproved by Breitbart News’ extensive reporting on the company’s political bias. During yesterday’s hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) addressed Pichai, stating:
You said something today different than you did with Ms. Lofgren, you confessed that there is a manual component to the way in which you blacklist content. It seems to be no coincidence that sites like Gateway Pundit, the Western Journal, American Spectator, Daily Caller, and Breitbart that receive the ire or the negative treatment as a consequence of your manual tooling.
And it also seems noteworthy that whistleblowers at your own comapny have spoken out. You said that one of the reasons you maintain this manual tool is to stop election interference, I believe it is in fact your company that is engaging in elction interference. You’re using your market dominance in search to accomplish that election interference.
Pichai responded:
I strongly disagree with that characterization.
We don’t approach this work with any political viewpoint. We do that to comply with law, known copyright violations, very narrow circumstances and we have to do that to comply with the law, and in many cases, those requests come [from] law enforcement agencies.
Breitbart News reported as far back as 2017 that political bias was rampant at Google, with senior management reportedly “on the verge of tears” following President Trump’s election. One Google insider told Breitbart News at the time: “After the 2016 election, we had an entire TGIF dedicated to the election result, in which several of our top management gave emotional speeches as though the world was going to end, and seemed to be on the verge of tears. It was embarrassing.”
Recently Breitbart News reported that Breitbart’s ranking in Google’s search engine had diminished significantly following our publication of a story in 2016 that at an internal meeting leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, expressed their anger over President Trump’s election and compared Trump voters to “extremists.” During the meeting, the executives discussed their desire to make Trump’s election and the populist movement a “blip” in history.
Breitbart News reporter Allum Bokhari writes:
Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher’s content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart’s search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.
On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top 100 search positions for only 55 search terms.
Moreover, organic Google search traffic to Breitbart (measured by unique visitors) is down 63 percent when comparing the first half of 2016 with the first half of 2020.
Breitbart News has repeatedly revealed Google’s political bias, yet the company’s CEO still attempts to claim that the tech giant does not approach its work “with any political viewpoint.”
3: Sundar Pichai Claims Google Has ‘Limited Presence in China’
While it is true that due to China’s restrictive “Great Firewall” many U.S. companies such as Facebook and Google are unable to operate directly within the country, that hasn’t stopped Google from making multiple deals with the Chinese government and attempting to launch a censored search engine for government officials.
The search app, codenamed “Project Dragonfly,” would have featured a list of unsearchable terms based on topics that are blocked by the government of China. It would also have linked users’ searches to personal phone numbers. Leakers also claimed that Google’s privacy team had been denied access to the project, something the company denied. A senior Google researcher, Jack Poulson, resigned in protest at the project in September of 2018.
After details of Google’s Project Dragonfly search engine leaked, many came out in opposition to the company’s plans to operate in China. 14 human rights organizations published an open letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai which stated: “Google risks becoming complicit in the Chinese government’s repression of freedom of speech and other human rights in China.”
Vice President Mike Pence stated: “Google should immediately end development of the ‘Dragonfly’ app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers.”
Google has stated that they are “not close” to launching a search engine in China but leaked discussions paint a different picture. Google’s Keith Enright told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on September 26th that there “is a Project Dragonfly,” but said, “we are not close to launching a product in China.” Google’s search engine chief, Ben Gomes, told a BBC reporter at Google’s 20th-anniversary celebration event: “Right now, all we’ve done is some exploration, but since we don’t have any plans to launch something, there’s nothing much I can say about it.”
But privately, discussions surrounding Project Dragonfly have painted a different picture. According to one Google source, Gomes’s comments to the BBC about Project Dragonfly were “bullshit.” Sources told the Intercept that Gomes informed employees in July 2019 that the company planned to release the censored Chinese search engine as soon as possible and employees were to prepare the engine to be “brought off the shelf and quickly deployed” once they received approval from Beijing.
4: Apple CEO Tim Cook Claims All App Developers Treated Equally
Google’s Sundar Pichai was not the only tech CEO to misrepresent how his company operates, Apple’s Tim Cook also made the bold claim that all iOS developers that attempt to have their app listed on Apple’s App Store are treated equally.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) addressed Cook, stating: “Mr. Cook, with over one hundred million iPhone users in the United States alone and with Apple’s ownership of the app store giving Apple the ability to control which apps are allowed to be marketed to Apple users, you wield immense power over small businesses to grow and prosper. Apple is the sole decision-maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through Apple’s app store isn’t that correct?”
Cook responded: “If it’s a native app, yes sir.” Johnson then outlined an investigation that found that app developers are very much at Apple’s mercy when it comes to demands and changes to the App Store. Johnson stated: “The app store is said to also discriminate between app developers with similar apps on the Apple app platform, and also as to smaller app developers versus large app developers. So, Mr. Cook, does Apple not treat all app developers equally?”
Cook responded: “Sir, we treat every developer the same, we have open and transparent rules, its a rigorous process. Because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on, but those rules apply evenly to everyone…”
However, Breitbart News has reported that Apple has a long history of removing apps from its store for a number of reasons and often with little cause. Breitbart News reported in 2016 that the app of the upstart social media network Gab was removed from the App Store by apple over content posted by users on the platform, not content generated by the app itself.
Gab CEO Andrew Torba commented at the time: “The double standards of Silicon Valley are on full display with this app store rejection from Apple. Apps like Tumblr, Reddit, and Twitter are flooded with pornographic content and allowed to remain on the App store.”
“Gab empowers users to filter out this type of content, mute users who share it, and also features a reporting system to flag illegal content,” he continued. “Apple went out of their way to seek out this content and find any reason to reject our app. We will continue to appeal this decision and defend free speech for everyone. In the meantime, Gab can be accessed from any mobile browser as always.” The Gab app is still unavailable in Apple’s app store.
5: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Alleges Company Makes Up Less Than 1 Percent of Global Retail — Fails to Note U.S. Online Retail Market Dominance
Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world and CEO of e-commerce giant Amazon, noted in his opening remarks claiming that Amazon was not a monopoly that: “Amazon accounts for less than 1 percent of the [$]25 trillion in the global retail market and less than 4 percent of U.S. retail.”
Bezos is correct about those figures, but conveniently leaves out an extremely important one: Amazon accounts for 38 percent of all U.S. online shopping. Research firm eMarketer reports that Amazon accounts for approximately 38 percent of U.S. e-commerce sales, generating around $260.86 billion in revenue. The reserach firm writes:
We forecast that Amazon’s 2020 US retail ecommerce sales will rise 17.2% to $260.86 billion—4 percentage points higher than the expected overall growth rate for US retail ecommerce sales. As a result, Amazon’s market share will increase from 37.3% in 2019 to 38.7% this year while expanding its lead over the No. 2 player from 31.7 points to 33.4 points. We expect this momentum to continue into 2021 when it will reach 39.7% market share.
Andrew Lipsman, eMarketer principal analyst and report author, noted: “What’s surprising is that despite accounting for nearly four in 10 e-commerce dollars, the company continues to gain market share and extend its lead.”
So while Bezos is correct that in terms of global retail Amazon does not have a monopoly, it does have a stranglehold on e-commerce in the United States and a large chunk globally.
6: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Exaggerates Company’s Competition
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a similar claim to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, that the tech giant regularly faces competition from other tech firms. Zuckerberg did this by suggesting that Facebook was competing with every single tech product that connects people, this would include video calling services such as Zoom or even niche social networks such as Pinterest.
“The space of people connecting with other people is a very large space,” Zuckerberg told Congress. This is technically true but what the CEO failed to mention is that 69 percent of Americans are using Facebook, according to the Pew Research Center. The next most popular social media network is the Facebook-owned photo and video-sharing app Instagram, which is used by 37 percent of U.S. adults.
Zuckerberg may be able to argue that in the broad definition of tech that connects users together Facebook does not dominate the market, but in terms of actual social media network dominance, Facebook’s power is unparalleled.
Read more about the tech CEO’s recent hearing before Congress at Breitbart News here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com

Tucker Carlson to Rep. Jim Jordan on Google: ‘Why Do You Think They Would Give You Money and Why Would You Take It?’
1:59

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson pressed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on his acceptance of campaign donations from Google.
According to Carlson, they were Google’s second-largest political contributor. Jordan described the contribution as an exercise of the First Amendment and denied any Google’s contribution influenced his behavior.
“Look, if they want to exercise their First Amendment liberty to give me money, I raised $3 million last quarter. If Google gives me a few thousand dollar check, God bless them. That doesn’t change who I am. You saw that today in the committee. I went after Google. I went after them for the very issue you just raised, Tucker. In 2016, Google tried to tailor their features to help Clinton in key states. That’s directly from the e-mail, the head of their multicultural marketing sector.”
Carlson went on to press Jordan on what actions could be taken to against Google, where it has been lacking.
“We are working on it,” Jordan replied. “We’re working on it right now with folks in the Senate. Josh Hawley is working on that. Our staff is working with Senate staff on that issue. What is the way? What’s the best way to structure that language? We’re looking at that.”
“We’re also — what the Justice Department is doing. Bill Barr is looking at this issue as well,” he continued. “So that’s the route — now, we may have to write some other law. There are three possible remedies here. All I know is that there is a big problem and there has to be a remedy we’re looking at, which is the best course of action to take. But none of that happens, Tucker. None of it happens if Jerry Nadler still in charge of the Judiciary Committee, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get elected as President and Vice President.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor


“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” 

                                                                                     Karen McQuillan 

Mark Zuckerberg’s Silicon Valley investors are uniting with the Koch network’s consumer and industrial investors to demand a huge DACA amnesty






Big Tech Floods House Judiciary with Cash as Committee Intensifies Antitrust Review

Google Empty Chair at Senate
AP/Jose Luis Magana
7:12

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google have donated vast sums of money to members of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee in advance of its Big Tech hearing on Wednesday.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administration Law will hold a hearing on Wednesday, which will feature testimony from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
This arises as Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly critical of the big tech’s dominance on the Internet; however, big tech companies’ donations to members of the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust may undermine potential efforts to find antitrust solutions against the power and influence of these big tech companies.
During the antitrust hearing, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH), will ask these tech giants questions alongside members of the House antitrust subcommittee. The House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee members include:
  • House Judiciary Committee Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-RI)
  • House antitrust subcommittee Vice Chair Joe Neguse (D-CO)
  • Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
  • Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
  • Rep. Val Demings (D-FL)
  • Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)
  • Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)
  • House antitrust subcommittee ranking member Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
  • Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
  • Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO)
  • Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND)
  • Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL)
As the House Judiciary Committee prepares to hold its hearing, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have donated large sums to the members of the committee.
Google
Google has donated $140,939 to members of the House Judiciary Committee during the 2020 term. Google donated $96,939 to House Judiciary Democrats, and $44,000 to House Judiciary Republicans. $26,439 of the donations came from individuals, whereas $114,500 of the donations come from political action committees (PACs).
Further, they have donated large sums to the committee’s leaders and members of the antitrust committee, including:
Republicans:
  1. $10,000 to Ranking Member Jordan (R-OH)
  2. $5,000 to Buck (R-CO)
  3. $1,000 Steube (R-FL)
Democrats:
  1. $8,705 to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nalder (D-NY)
  2. $6,570 to Neguse (D-CO)
  3. $2,500 to Johnson (D-GA)
  4. $2,000 to Raskin (D-MD)
  5. $1,941 to Jaypal (D-WA)
  6. $2,025 to Demings (D-FL)
  7. $2,101 to Scanlon (D-PA)
  8. $5,531 to McBath (D-GA)
Facebook
Facebook donated $110,390 in total to the House Judiciary Committee during the 2020 cycle. Facebook donated $100,620 to House Judiciary Democrats and $9,770 to House Judiciary Republicans. $85,890 of the total donations came from individuals from Google, $24,500 of the donations came from PACs.
Zuckerberg’s company donated to members, including:
Republicans:
  1. $770 to Jordan
  2. $1,000 to Armstrong
Democrats:
  1. $16,705 to Nadler
  2. $1,210 to Raskin
  3. $1,613 to Jayapal
  4. $3,800 to Demings
  5. $1,000 to Scanlon
  6. $12,783 to McBath
Amazon
Amazon donated $124,700 to the House Judiciary Committee, with $88,410 going to Democrats, and $36,290 going to Republicans. $37,200 of the total donations came from individuals within Amazon, and $87,500 came from Amazon-related PACs.
The e-commerce giant donated to individual members, including:
Republicans:
  1. $1,730 to Jordan
  2. $715 to Gaetz
  3. $2,500 to Buck
  4. $2,500 to Steube
Democrats:
  1. $9,900 to Cicilline
  2. $1,000 to Neguse
  3. $1,000 to Johnson
  4. $4,510 to Raskin
  5. $15,398 to Jayapal
  6. $6,000 to Demings
  7. $1,015 to McBath
Apple
Apple donated the least money to members of the House Judiciary Committee, only donating $13,962 during the 2020 cycle. $12,167 went to House Judiciary Democrats, while $1,795 went to House Judiciary Republicans. $13,962 of the donations came from individuals within Apple.
The tech company donated:
Republicans:
  1. $0 to House Judiciary members that will speak during Wednesday’s hearing.
Democrats:
  1. $2,800 to Raskin
  2. $198 to Jayapal
  3. $2,033 to McBath
As these companies prepare to testify before the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr noted that big tech companies wield influence similar to that of a country.
He wrote in an op-ed, “A handful of corporations with state-like influence now shape everything from the information we consume to the places where we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions.”
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.















Carlson: Big Tech Engaging in Censorship on Coronavirus to Help Biden

9:40

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson explained how big tech was working to help former Vice President Joe Biden’s election prospects through the censorship of doctors offering information counter to the prevailing wisdom dominating the mainstream media regarding COVID-19.
Carlson cited a live-streamed press conference carried by Breitbart News on Monday as an example and compared the actions by those tech companies to the Communist Chinese.
Transcript as follows:
In an election year, everything significant that happens is about the election. So all these developments are, in fact, related. And here is the core question in every election: Who is up and who is down. As of tonight, the president is down double digits in the polls. There’s not much question about why that is. Americans are miserable. They’re stuck at home. They’re fearful. Millions of them don’t have jobs.
The percentage of Americans who believe our country is headed in the right direction has dropped off a cliff since this spring. Not coincidentally, that’s when a strange new virus from China began to spread among our population. The rise of COVID-19 tracks almost precisely the decline of Donald Trump’s approval number. The political lesson from this is clear: The more damage the Wuhan Coronavirus does to America, the harder it is for the president to get reelected.
That’s not speculation. It’s the most certain fact in politics. Every Democratic officeholder understands it. If the population remains terrified, Democrats will have more power in January. The Democratic party has every incentive to keep Americans afraid and off-balance. For the next 97 days, they plan to do that. That’s their entire campaign strategy, the only thing they’re running on.
Yesterday, the news site Breitbart posted a video of a group of physicians giving a press conference about medical advances in the fight against COVID. Some of the news the doctors delivered was hopeful because there is hopeful news to report. Seventeen million people saw that video. The president retweeted it. This enraged Democrats. Any scientific advancement that reduces the suffering of Americans in an election year is a threat to Joe Biden’s campaign.
They decided to pull the video off the internet. Fifteen years ago, that would have been absurd. You couldn’t have done it. This was America. You weren’t allowed to ban a news story just because it might hurt your candidate’s poll numbers. And in any case, there was no way to do it. There were too many news outlets then. No one could control them all. That has changed.
While the rest of us were sleeping — or in the case of so many of our senators, taking payoffs from Google — a tiny number of left-wing corporations took virtually complete control of all news and information in this country. Now, if Democrats want to erase a politically-inconvenient news story fewer than 100 days before an election, they can do it.
And they did do it. Big Tech censored science. They pulled the video of doctors in lab coats talking about coronavirus research, and they hid that video from the public. That’s exactly what the Chinese government so often does. Except when Silicon Valley erases your freedoms, they lecture you as they do it. They got all the ruthlessness of Chinese authoritarians but with double the self-righteousness — the American version.
Thankfully, this doesn’t apply to us at Fox News. We happen to work for one of the few mass media companies left in America that is not controlled by Facebook or Google. We can report the news honestly. Big tech can’t censor us, at least not right now. You’re not allowed to watch these physicians on YouTube tonight, but we can show them to you here, and we’re going to.
Here’s Doctor Bob Hamilton:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAMILTON: I think it is important that all of us who are here today realize that our kids are not really the ones who are driving the infection. It is being driven by older individuals. And yes, we can send the kids back to school, I think, without fear.
We need to not act out of fear. We need to act out of science. We need to do it. We need to get it done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: What you just heard isn’t some crackpot theory. It’s mainstream science. Increasingly, it represents the consensus among doctors and researchers around the world. Children are not meaningful vectors for the coronavirus. Worldwide, there is not a single recorded case of a student infecting a teacher with the virus. Not one case. And that’s why so many nations around the world are reopening their schools this fall. But not us. We’ve got a presidential election in November. Children must suffer so that Joe Biden can win that election. That’s the imperative driving our so-called “health” policy. But you can’t know that. So they pulled the video telling you that. Here’s another physician from the press conference called Doctor Stella Immanuel:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IMMANUEL: There is a cure for COVID. There is a cure for COVID is called hydroxychloroquine. It’s called zinc. It’s called Zithromax. And it is time for the grassroots to wake up and say, “No, we’re not going to take this any longer. We’re not going to die.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Doctor Immanuel’s claim is harder to endorse. Is hydroxychloroquine a “cure” for the coronavirus? We don’t know the answer. We do that that many frontline physicians around the world have prescribed it, and continue to. We’ve interviewed some of them. The drug appears to show promise in treating some early-stage patients. That’s good news. The science on hydroxycholoroquine isn’t settled either way. Science rarely is settled. That’s why it’s science — and not, for example, radical feminist theory. Science is constantly evolving, as we test and retest our assumptions against observed reality. That’s the whole point of science.
Unfortunately, reality is not the point of politics. Winning is the point of politics. So they scrubbed the video.
Here’s more of it:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IMMANUEL: My message to Dr. Anthony Fauci is when is the last time you put a stethoscope on a patient? That when you start seeing patients like we see on a daily basis, you will understand the frustration that we feel. You need to start feeling for American people like we, the frontline doctors, feel. I need to start realizing that. They are listening to you. And if they are going to you, you got to give them a message of hope.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That last clip enraged them. Above all, you must never mock the sainted Anthony Fauci. Under no circumstances can you note that Fauci is very often a hypocritical buffoon, who refuses to admit what he clearly doesn’t know. If you say that out loud, they will cancel you. Fauci is too useful to the Biden campaign. His word must be law, even when it doesn’t make sense. Criticize Fauci, and you will disappear from the internet. And so, Dr. Immanuel disappeared from the internet.
Then Google’s countless toadies did the cleanup work, the ugly stuff. The Daily Beast attacked Immanuel for getting her medical degree in Africa and then suggested she believed in witchcraft. Because, you know, Africans do that. Political correctness is fine with The Daily Beast most of the year. But this is election season. Dr. Immanuel had to be destroyed. The Daily Beast was happy to help.
So were the think tank libertarians, including some still positing as conservatives. You saw them on Twitter, helpfully reminding you that this kind of censorship wasn’t really censorship because the government wasn’t doing it.
They didn’t explain why that distinction matters to anyone. In fact, censorship is always bad, whether it’s imposed by Congress, or by monopolies that only exist because they receive special carve-outs granted to them by Congress. It doesn’t matter. It’s always wrong. Censorship doesn’t improve public health. In fact, it threatens public health. The authorities responsible for containing this pandemic have failed. We know that. Some are trying their best, but they’ve frequently been wrong. We know that because it’s on tape. What we desperately in a crisis, especially in a crisis like right now, is we need are more voices in this conversation, not fewer. Remember when the Surgeon General told us this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME ADAMS: What the WHO and CDC have reaffirmed that they do not recommend the general public wear masks (edit) Wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting the disease.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Masks are dangerous! That wasn’t very long ago. Now masks are mandatory. In other words, scientific consensus changes. That’s the point — as we learn more, our conclusions change. Legitimate scientists understand that. That’s called the scientific method. Big tech companies don’t care one way or another because their goal is to control the outcome of an election, not to protect public health. This isn’t about public health, and it’s not about science. It never was. It’s about power. And no one in the history of the word has had more power than Google and Facebook have right now.
We should have seen this coming. People who have power abuse that power and people who have absolute power abuse it absolutely, as we’ve learned.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor


Josh Hawley: GOP Must Defend Middle Class Americans Against ‘Concentrated Corporate Power,’ Tech Billionaires

JOHN BINDER

The Republican Party must defend America’s working and middle class against “concentrated corporate power” and the monopolization of entire sectors of the United States’ economy, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.

In an interview on The Realignment podcast, Hawley said that “long gone are the days where” American workers can depend on big business to look out for their needs and the needs of their communities.
Instead, Hawley explained that increasing “concentrated corporate power” of whole sectors of the American economy — specifically among Silicon Valley’s giant tech conglomerates — is at the expense of working and middle class Americans.
“One of the things Republicans need to recover today is a defense of an open, free-market, of a fair healthy competing market and the length between that and Democratic citizenship,” Hawley said, and continued:
At the end of the day, we are trying to support and sustain here a great democracy. We’re not trying to make a select group of people rich. They’ve already done that. The tech billionaires are already billionaires, they don’t need any more help from government. I’m not interested in trying to help them further. I’m interested in trying to help sustain the great middle of this country that makes our democracy run and that’s the most important challenge of this day.
“You have these businesses who for years now have said ‘Well, we’re based in the United States, but we’re not actually an American company, we’re a global company,'” Hawley said. “And you know, what has driven profits for some of our biggest multinational corporations? It’s been … moving jobs overseas where it’s cheaper … moving your profits out of this country so you don’t have to pay any taxes.”
“I think that we have here at the same time that our economy has become more concentrated, we have bigger and bigger corporations that control more and more of our key sectors, those same corporations see themselves as less and less American and frankly they are less committed to American workers and American communities,” Hawley continued. “That’s turned out to be a problem which is one of the reasons we need to restore good, healthy, robust competition in this country that’s going to push up wages, that’s going to bring jobs back to the middle parts of this country, and most importantly, to the middle and working class of this country.”
While multinational corporations monopolize industries, Hawley said the GOP must defend working and middle class Americans and that big business interests should not come before the needs of American communities:
A free market is one where you can enter it, where there are new ideas, and also by the way, where people can start a small family business, you shouldn’t have to be gigantic in order to succeed in this country. Most people don’t want to start a tech company. [Americans] maybe want to work in their family’s business, which may be some corner shop in a small town … they want to be able to make a living and then give that to their kids or give their kids an option to do that. [Emphasis added]
The problem with corporate concentration is that it tends to kill all of that. The worst thing about corporate concentration is that it inevitably believes to a partnership with big government. Big business and big government always get together, always. And that is exactly what has happened now with the tech sector, for instance, and arguably many other sectors where you have this alliance between big government and big business … whatever you call it, it’s a problem and it’s something we need to address. [Emphasis added]
Hawley blasted the free trade-at-all-costs doctrine that has dominated the Republican and Democrat Party establishments for decades, crediting the globalist economic model with hollowing “out entire industries, entire supply chains” and sending them to China, among other countries.
“The thing is in this country is that not only do we not make very much stuff anymore, we don’t even make the machines that make the stuff,” Hawley said. “The entire supply chain up and down has gone overseas, and a lot of it to China, and this is a result of policies over some decades now.”
As Breitbart News reported, Hawley detailed in the interview how Republicans like former President George H.W. Bush’s ‘New World Order’ agenda and Democrats have helped to create a corporatist economy that disproportionately benefits the nation’s richest executives and donor class.
The billionaire class, the top 0.01 percent of earners, has enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as the bottom 90 percent since 1979. That economy has been reinforced with federal rules that largely benefits the wealthiest of wealthiest earners. A study released last month revealed that the richest Americans are, in fact, paying a lower tax rate than all other Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Tucker Carlson Exposes D.C. ‘Conservatives’ for Doing Big Tech’s Bidding

Rich Polk/Getty
21 Dec 20190
3:53
Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed establishment conservatives for taking money from big tech companies to do their bidding, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Friday night.
The popular host, known for his no-holds-barred denunciations of establishment conservatives as well as Democrats, revealed massive spending by the establishment conservative Koch Foundation to protect big tech in Washington.
Tucker revealed that Americans for Prosperity, a “purportedly conservative group” controlled by the Kochs, launched an ad campaign trying to stave off the closing net of antitrust enforcement against Google and Facebook. The ads targeted Republican and Democrat state attorneys general that were investigating alleged antitrust violations by big tech companies.
The Koch-funded group also targeted members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with digital ads urging them to “oppose any effort to use antitrust laws to break up America’s innovative tech companies,” reported Carlson.
The Fox host ran through a laundry list of allegedly “conservative” D.C. think tanks that take money from big tech, and often advocate against regulating them over political bias or any other matter.
“In all, the Koch network quietly spent at least $10 million defending Silicon Valley companies that work to silence conservatives.”


Tucker Carlson Slamming Conservative Inc. for Defending Big Tech

Tucker Calls Out
-Kochs
-Heritage Foundation
-American Conservative Union
-AEI

"Big Tech Companies silence Conservatives, Conservative Non-Profits try to prevent the government from doing anything about it."

“Google has given money to at least 22 right-leaning institutions that are also funded by the Koch network,” reported Carlson.
“Those institutions include the American Conservative Union, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Review Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Mercatus Center.”
Carlson explained that this spending gets results.
“In September of 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and three other groups funded by Google and the Kochs sent a joint letter to the Attorney General at the time, Jeff Sessions, expressing grave concerns over the DoJ’s plans to look into whether search engines and social media were hurting competition and stifling speech.”
Carlson also called out The Heritage Foundation, arguing that its shilling for big tech meant that it “no longer represents the interest of conservatives, at least on the question of tech.”
“A recent paper by Heritage, entitled ‘Free Enterprise Is the Best Remedy For Online Bias Concerns,’ defends the special privileges that Congress has given to left-wing Silicon Valley monopolies. And if conservatives don’t like it, Heritage says, well they can just start their own Google!”
Evidence of big tech’s efforts to co-opt establishment conservatives has been accumulating for some time. In March, Breitbart News published leaked audio from a senior director of public policy at Google, talking about using funding of conservative institutions to “steer” the movement. Another part of the leaked audio transcript was also revealed on Tucker Carlson’s show at the same time.
The Heritage Foundation has continued to defend big tech against efforts to strip them of their special legal privileges, which were given to them by Congress in the 1990s and are enjoyed by no other type of company.
This is despite the fact that Google publicly snubbed the foundation last year, canceling the formation of a planned “A.I ethics” council after far-left employees of the tech company threw a hissy fit over the fact that Heritage president Kay Coles James was set to be one of its members.
Are you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.


In truth, the Golden State is becoming a semi-feudal kingdom, with the nation’s widest gap between middle and upper incomes—72 percent, compared with the U.S. average of 57 percent—and its highest poverty rate. Roughly half of America’s homeless live in Los Angeles or San Francisco, which now has the highest property crime rate among major cities.
December 20, 2019 
California Preening
The Golden State is on a path to high-tech feudalism, but there’s still time to change course.
“We are the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta. California has the ideas of Athens and the power of Sparta,” declared then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. “Not only can we lead California into the future . . . we can show the nation and the world how to get there.” When a movie star who once played Hercules says so who’s to disagree? The idea of California as a model, of course, precedes the former governor’s tenure. Now the state’s anti-Trump resistance—in its zeal on matters concerning climate, technology, gender, or race—believes that it knows how to create a just, affluent, and enlightened society. “The future depends on us,” Governor Gavin Newsom said at his inauguration. “And we will seize this moment.”
In truth, the Golden State is becoming a semi-feudal kingdom, with the nation’s widest gap between middle and upper incomes—72 percent, compared with the U.S. average of 57 percent—and its highest poverty rate. Roughly half of America’s homeless live in Los Angeles or San Francisco, which now has the highest property crime rate among major cities. California hasn’t yet become a full-scale dystopia, of course, but it’s heading in a troubling direction.
This didn’t have to happen. No place on earth has more going for it than the Golden State. Unlike the East Coast and Midwest, California benefited from comparatively late industrialization, with an economy based less on auto manufacturing and steel than on science-based fields like aerospace, software, and semiconductors. In the mid-twentieth century, the state also gained from the best aspects of progressive rule, culminating in an elite public university system, a massive water system reminiscent of the Roman Empire, and a vast infrastructure network of highways, ports, and bridges. The state was fortunate, too, in drawing people from around the U.S. and the world. The eighteenth-century French traveler J. Hector St. John de CrèvecÅ“ur described the American as “this new man,” and California—innovative, independent, and less bound by tradition or old prejudice—reflected that insight. Though remnants of this California still exist, its population is aging, less mobile, and more pessimistic, and its roads, schools, and universities are in decline.
In the second half of the twentieth century, California’s remarkably diverse economy spread prosperity from the coast into the state’s inland regions. Though pockets of severe poverty existed—urban barrios, south Los Angeles, the rural Central Valley—they were limited in scope. In fact, growth often favored suburban and exurban communities, where middle-class families, including minorities, settled after World War II.
In the last two decades, the state has adopted policies that undermine the basis for middle-class growth. State energy policies, for example, have made California’s gas and electricity prices among the steepest in the country. Since 2011, electricity prices have risen five times faster than the national average. Meantime, strict land-use controls have raised housing costs to the nation’s highest, while taxes—once average, considering California’s urban scale—now exceed those of virtually every state. At the same time, California’s economy has shed industrial diversity in favor of dependence on one industry: Big Tech. Just a decade before, the state’s largest firms included those in the aerospace, finance, energy, and service industries. Today’s 11 largest companies hail from the tech sector, while energy firms—excluding Chevron, which has moved much of its operations to Houston—have disappeared. Not a single top aerospace firm—the iconic industry of twentieth-century California—retains its headquarters here.
Though lionized in the press, this tech-oriented economy hasn’t resulted in that many middle- and high-paying job opportunities for Californians, particularly outside the Bay Area. Since 2008, notes Chapman University’s Marshall Toplansky, the state has created five times the number of low-paying, as opposed to high-wage, jobs. A remarkable 86 percent of new jobs paid below the median income, while almost half paid under $40,000. Moreover, California, including Silicon Valley, created fewer high-paying positions than the national average, and far less than prime competitors like Salt Lake City, Seattle, or Austin. Los Angeles County features the lowest pay of any of the nation’s 50 largest counties.
No state advertises its multicultural bona fides more than California, now a majority-minority state. This is evident at the University of California, where professors are required to prove their service to “people of color,” to the state’s high school curricula, with its new ethnic studies component. Much of California’s anti-Trump resistance has a racial context. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has sued the administration numerous times over immigration policy while he helps ensure California’s distinction as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. So far, more than 1 million illegal residents have received driver’s licenses, and they qualify for free health care, too. San Francisco now permits illegal immigrants to vote in local elections.
Such radical policies may make progressives feel better about themselves, though they seem less concerned about how these actions affect everyday people. California’s Latinos and African-Americans have seen good blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and energy vanish. According to one United Way study, over half of Latino households can barely pay their bills. “For Latinos,” notes long-time political consultant Mike Madrid, “the California Dream is becoming an unattainable fantasy.”
In the past, poorer Californians could count on education to help them move up. But today’s educators appear more interested in political indoctrination than results. Among the 50 states, California ranked 49th in the performance of low-income students. In wealthy San Francisco, test scores for black students are the worst of any California county. Many minority residents, especially African-Americans, are fleeing the state. In a recent UC Berkeley poll, 58 percent of black expressed interest in leaving California, a higher percentage than for any racial group, though approximately 45 percent of Asians and Latinos also considered moving out.
Perhaps the biggest demographic disaster is generational. For decades, California incubated youth culture, creating trends like beatniks, hippies, surfers, and Latino and Asian art, music, and cuisine. The state is a fountainhead of youthful wokeness and rebellion, but that may prove short-lived as millennials leave. From 2014 to 2018, notes demographer Wendell Cox, net domestic out-migration grew from 46,000 to 156,000. The exiles are increasingly in their family-formation years. In the 2010s, California suffered higher net declines in virtually every age category under 54, with the biggest rate of loss coming among the 35-to-44 cohort.
As families with children leave, and international migration slows to one-third of Texas’s level, the remaining population is rapidly aging. Since 2010, California’s fertility rate has dropped 60 percent, more than the national average; the state is now aging 50 percent more rapidly than the rest of the country. A growing number of tech firms and millennials have headed to the Intermountain West. Low rates of homeownership among younger people play a big role in this trend, with California millennials forced to rent, with little chance of buying their own home, while many of the state’s biggest metros lead the nation in long-term owners. California is increasingly a greying refuge for those who bought property when housing was affordable.
After Governor Schwarzenegger morphed into a progressive environmentalist, climate concerns began driving state policy. His successors have embraced California “leadership” on climate issues. Jerry Brown recently told a crowd in China that the rest of the world should follow California’s example. The state’s top Democrats, like state senate president pro tem Kevin DeLeon, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, and billionaire Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer, now compete for the green mantle.
Their policies have worsened conditions for many middle- and working-class Californians. Oblivious to these concerns, Greens ignore practical ideas—nuclear power, natural gas cars, job creation in affordable areas, home-based work—that could help reduce emissions without disrupting people’s lives. Ultra-green policies also work against the state’s proclaimed goal of building more than 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. In accordance with its efforts to reduce car use, the state mandates that most growth occurs in already-crowded coastal areas, where land prices are highest. But in cities like San Francisco, the cost of building one unit for a homeless person surpasses $700,000. California’s inland regions, though experiencing population gains, keep losing state funding for decrepit highways in favor of urban-centric, mass transit projects—yet transit use has stagnated, especially in greater Los Angeles.
The state, nevertheless, continues its pursuit of policies that would eliminate all fossil fuels and nuclear power—outpacing national or even Paris Accord levels and guaranteeing ever-rising energy prices. Mandating everything from electric cars to electric homes will only drive more working-class Californians into “energy poverty.” High energy prices also directly affect the manufacturing and logistics firms that employ blue-collar workers at decent wages. Business relocation expert Joe Vranich notes that industrial firms account for many of the 2,000 employers that left the state this decade. California’s industrial growth has fallen to the bottom tier of states; last year, it ranked 44th, with a rate of growth one-third to one-quarter that of prime competitors like Texas, Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida.
Similarly, the high energy prices tend to hit the interior counties that, besides being poorer, have far less temperate climates. Cities like Bakersfield, capital of the state’s once-vibrant oil industry, are particularly hard-hit. High energy prices will cost the region, northeast of the Los Angeles Basin, 14,000 generally high-paid jobs, even as the state continues to import oil from Saudi Arabia.
California’s leaders apply climate change to excuse virtually every failure of state policy. During the California drought, Brown and his minions blamed the “climate” for the dry period, refusing to take responsibility for insufficient water storage that would have helped farmers. When the rains returned and reservoirs filled, this argument was forgotten, and little effort has been made to conserve water for next time. Likewise, Newsom and his supporters in the media have blamed recent fires on changes in the global climate, but the disaster had as much to do with green mandates against controlled burns and brush clearance than anything occurring on a planetary scale. Brown joined greens and others in blocking such sensible policies.
Few climate advocates ever seem to ask if their policies actually help the planet. Indeed, California’s green policy, as one paper demonstrates, may be increasing total greenhouse-gas emissions by pushing people and industries to states with less mild climates. In the past decade, the state ranked 40th in per-capita reductions, and its global carbon footprint is minimal. Renewable energy may be expensive and unreliable, but state policy nevertheless enriches the green-energy investments of tech leaders, even when their efforts—like the Google-backed Ivanpah solar farm—fail to deliver affordable, reliable energy.
It’s not so surprising, given these enthusiasms, that progressive politicians like Garcetti—who leads a city with paralyzing traffic congestion, rampant inequality, a huge rat infestation, and proliferating homeless camps—would rather talk about becoming chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Reality is asserting itself, though. Tech firms already show signs of restlessness with the current regulatory regime and appear to be shifting employment to other states, notably TexasTennesseeNevadaColorado, and Arizona. Economic-modeling firm Emsi estimates that several states—Idaho, Tennessee, Washington, and Utah—are growing their tech employment faster than California. The state is losing momentum in professional and technical services—the largest high-wage sector—and now stands roughly in the middle of the pack behind other western states such as Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. And Assembly Bill 5, the state law regulating certain forms of contract labor, reclassifies part-time workers. Aimed initially at ride-sharing giants Uber and Lyft, the legislation also extends to independent contractors in industries from media to trucking.
At some point, as even Brown noted, the ultra-high capital gains returns will fall and, combined with the costs of an expanding welfare state, could leave the state in fiscal chaos. Big Tech could stumble, a possibility made more real by the recent $100 billion drop in the value of privately held “unicorn” companies, including WeWork. If the tech economy slows, a rift could develop between two of the state’s biggest forces—unions and the green establishment—over future levels of taxation. More than two-thirds of California cities don’t have any funds set aside for retiree health care and other retirement expenses. The state also confronts $1 trillion in pension debt, according to former Democratic state senator Joe NationU.S. News & Report ranks California, despite the tech boom, 42nd in fiscal health among the states.
The good news: some Californians are waking up. A recent PPIC poll found that increasing proportions of Californians believe that the state is headed in the wrong direction—a figure that exceeds 55 percent in the inland areas. And voters dislike the state legislature even more than they dislike Donald Trump. Newsom’s approval rating stands at 43 percent, placing him toward the bottom among the nation’s governors. A conservative-led campaign to recall him is unlikely to succeed, but surveys reveal growing opposition to the new tax hikes proposed by the legislature. There’s a growing concern about the state’s expanding homeless population.
And a rebellion against the state’s energy policies is already under way. Recently, 110 cities, with total population exceeding 8 million, have demanded changes in California’s drive to prevent new natural gas hookups. The state’s Chamber of Commerce and the three most prominent ethnic chambers—African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific—have joined this effort.
Californians need less bombast and progressive pretense from their leaders and more attention to policies that could counteract the economic and demographic tides threatening the state. On its current course, California increasingly resembles a model of what the late Taichi Sakaiya called “high-tech feudalism,” with a small population of wealthy residents and a growing mass of modern-day serfs. Delusion and preening ultimately have limits, as more Californians are beginning to recognize. As the 2020s beckon, the time for the state to change course is now.




No comments: