REP. KEN BUCK - A CONFESSED SLUT FOR THE SPECIAL INTERESTS HE SUCKS OFF

 

The Swamp: Big Media-Backing Special Interests, Lobbyists Flood Ken Buck’s Campaign Coffers as He Pushes Bill to Benefit Them

856

AP Photo/Brennan Linsley

MATTHEW BOYLE

10 May 2021Washington, DC1,592

12:05

House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee ranking member Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) is continuing to co-sponsor and promote a bill with Rep. David Cicilline that would allow big media companies to form a cartel to pressure companies for more censorship and special favors by creating a special antitrust carve-out for them.

Buck is leading this charge while taking thousands and thousands of dollars this year from special interests and lobbyists backing the legislation. In total, in just the past two months, recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show Buck has raked in at least $18,000 from lobbyists, special interest groups, and PACs for organizations that support the legislation he is championing that would fundamentally change the media and technology landscape.

The bill, opposed by both the full Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who warned the bill would give establishment media outlets “cartel power,” as well as House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who called it “the antithesis of conservatism,” is called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA). It would create a special legal exemption in antitrust law for media companies to allow them to band together in a manner that would otherwise be illegal so they could collectively bargain with big tech companies.

The controversial legislation is the brainchild of a special interest group called the News Media Alliance (NMA). NMA, which is technically a 501(c)6 as classified by the IRS, is a membership-based advocacy organization with top establishment media organizations as leading board members.

The News Media Alliance includes among its board of directors several top establishment media company executives, with senior officials for major establishment media outfits like the New York Times, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Tampa Bay Times, the Boston Globe, the Dallas Morning News, USA Today, Fox News, Wall Street Journal. and New York Post owner News Corporation, among its current board of directors, according to its website. The current leadership of the News Media Alliance is run by a News Corporation executive. Antoinette “Toni” Bush, the Executive Vice President and Global Head of Government Affairs at News Corporation, is currently from 2020 to 2022, serving as the chair of the board of the News Media Alliance.

Buck’s continued drive to push the legislation–which has wide scale support in the Democrat Party–has befuddled conservatives who generally have liked him over his years in Congress. But it turns out that Buck’s advocacy for this bill coincides with a steady stream of at least $18,000 in campaign donations from lobbyists for special interest groups and corporations that would stand to benefit significantly if the bill became law.

The News Media Alliance, for what it’s worth, literally publicly thanked Buck for doing its work on pushing the bill–a tweet that Buck retweeted–earlier on Monday:

Backers of the legislation believe it may rein in big tech companies by forcing them to pay news organizations for content they use on their platforms, but as Breitbart News has demonstrated, the legislation has a number of flaws and loopholes that would actually end up empowering big tech and big media companies, while still hurting independent and smaller publishers.

Such flaws with the bill include the lack of a favored nations clause, which would allow a handful of large of media companies to cut their own deals with big tech companies—the terms of which would not apply universally and likely leave out other publishers like conservative and independent media. Another flaw is a usage issue, which means, even if the big tech companies agree to universal implementation of the payment standards across all media, the companies could just keep icing out conservative media—like Google has done to Breitbart News for the last year plus.

Establishment media companies, like those represented on NMA’s board, would potentially stand to gain financially from this legislation should it ever become law, because it would carve out an exemption in antitrust law for them that would allow them to collectively bargain with big tech companies to reach payout agreements for media content creators from the tech platforms. Perhaps that’s why their allies in the D.C. swamp are so keen on funding the campaigns of members of Congress willing to do their bidding.

First and foremost, per FEC filings, Buck took $1,000 from David Chavern, the president and CEO of the News Media Alliance, on March 18 of this year. Chavern, a former U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive, now leads the News Media Alliance. Interestingly, unlike News Media Alliance board members, Chavern does not actually have a background in news, but serves as a top industry advocate from his perch atop this special interest group.

Six days before Chavern doled out this donation to Buck, he testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law at a hearing on the JCPA on March 12. Cicilline, the subcommittee’s chairman, presided over the hearing. Buck is the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Less than two weeks after the hearing, on March 25, FEC records show, Danielle Coffey—the general counsel for the News Media Alliance—gave an additional $1,000 to Buck.

A day after Chavern’s donation, Susan Hirschmann—the CEO of Washington, DC, lobbying firm Williams and Jensen—gave $1,500 to Buck on March 19, FEC filings show. The Center for Responsive Politics lists Hirschmann and several of her other colleagues at the Williams and Jensen lobbying firm as registered lobbyists for the News Media Alliance. The amount she made from this, according to the filings published by the Center for Responsive Politics, was $240,000 in the calendar year 2020.

Her fellow Williams and Jensen lobbyist, Matthew Hoekstra—who is also listed by the Center for Responsive Politics as a registered lobbyist for the News Media Alliance, also making $240,000 in calendar year 2020—gave $2,000 to Buck on March 30 of this year, per FEC filings.

Williams and Jensen attorney Christopher Hatcher, according to the Center for Responsive Politics a registered lobbyist for the News Media Alliance, gave Buck $500 on March 30.

Williams and Jensen’s Political Action Committee (PAC) gave Buck another $1,000, the FEC filings show, on March 26.

Several other PACs from big establishment media organizations also flushed Buck’s campaign coffers with sizable donations. Fox Corporation’s PAC, which represents Fox News and other Fox properties, gave Buck $3,500 on March 31.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) PAC gave Buck $5,000 on March 26, per FEC Filings. The NAB is a special interest group that backs the JCPA as well, and it counts among its current board members NBCUniversal executives, Walt Disney Corporation executives, CBS executives, and many more on its who’s who board member list.

News Corporation’s PAC, which represents the broader company’s interests in addition to Fox News, also gave Buck a separate $2,500 political donation on March 15.

Buck’s congressional office chief of staff, Garrett Ventry, originally told Breitbart News the congressman would cooperate with this investigation, including commenting on the specifics of it and answering detailed questions about the congressman’s actions. Ventry had also indicated that the congressman would cooperate by providing any and all written or other communications between the congressman and either his official office or campaign staff and these various individuals and entities who donated to him, including but not limited to anything about the legislation Buck is promoting that these special interests are lobbying for.

But then, hours after that initial indication that the congressman would cooperate, Ventry later changed his mind. “No comment over here at this point,” Buck’s chief of staff told Breitbart News.

The ultimate irony here is that Buck, the man who literally wrote the book titled Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption is Worse than You Think, is in reality taking thousands upon thousands in campaign donations from lobbyists backing legislation he is pushing.

On the front flap of the 2017 book, Buck’s publisher writes, as part of the effort to sell the book, derisively of official Washington, DC: “Lavish parties. Committee chairmanships for sale. Pay-to-play corruption, Backroom arm-twisting. Votes on major legislation going to the highest bidder.” Breitbart News, in 2017, published a broader excerpt of the congressman’s anti-corruption book.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Buck is the top Republican on a key subcommittee and pushing controversial legislation that has key special interests backing it—all while he’s taking thousands upon thousands of dollars in political donations from those very same special interests.

As the broad and serious flaws have emerged in the legislation—a House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing on the bill exposed many of them—GOP opposition to the legislation has intensified. McCarthy, the House GOP leader, came out against the bill in a Breitbart News exclusive last month, and Jordan–the House Judiciary Committee ranking member–has been similarly stridently opposed to the bill. Even cosponsor Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), during the early March hearing on the proposal, expressed concerns with the bill and said he would consider withdrawing his support for it.

Before Gaetz could pull his cosponsorship of the bill, he was hit with allegations of sexual impropriety that have dominated headlines around him for weeks since that hearing. But Gaetz, sources close to him contend, may still withdraw cosponsorship of the bill. Per other House GOP aides, other GOP cosponsors of the legislation, including Reps. Burgess Owens (R-UT) and Victoria Spartz (R-IN), have privately signaled they may withdraw support as well, raising concerns about the bill and how it was presented to them to win their support in the first place.

Buck has been aggressive in pushing his legislation, even in the face of unified Republican opposition to the bill from McCarthy and Jordan. To pass such a bill out of this divided Congress—where Democrats have slim majorities in the House and Senate—the Democrats would need to win over at least 10 Senate Republicans (if the bill ever got that far) to get around the filibuster in that chamber. The Senate version of the bill has as original cosponsors Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA)—but most other Republicans have not weighed in yet. That is why building Republican opposition to the legislation has irked the bill’s supporters, as they fear the bill would need significant GOP support in the House to clear the hurdles needed to get it through the filibuster in the Senate.

McCarthy’s move to announce opposition to the bill—a huge move for any party leader in either the minority or majority to weigh in against specific legislation—brought to a screeching halt any more momentum behind the bill. But Buck went to work quietly—along with a group of the bill’s most cash-flush special interests—over the past several weeks since McCarthy’s announced opposition, to build what he claims is broad conservative media support for the bill. Buck produced the fruits of that organizing work late Sunday night when he rolled out a letter signed by executives from a number of nominally rightwing media organizations expressing support for the bill.

Zuckerberg & his FWDus investors are funding many of the pro-amnesty groups doing street protests.

The funding is rational b/c the amnesty bills also inflate the population of consumers, renters, & blue- and white-collar workers. https://t.co/eF9iVlQBeW

Poll: Almost Two-Thirds of Americans Say Social Media Is Ripping Country Apart

146

CHIP SOMODEVILLA/Getty

LUCAS NOLAN

11 May 2021258

2:54

According to a recent NBC News poll, the majority of Americans say that they use social media at least once a day and also believe that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are dividing the nation rather than bringing it together. 77 percent of conservatives believe social media platforms are dividing the country.

NBC News reports that a recent national NBC News poll found that the majority of Americans admit that they use social media at least once a day and also believe that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are doing more to divide the country rather than unite it.

66 percent o adults say they use social media at least once a day, versus 33 percent who say that they don’t. These numbers are essentially the same as NBC poll figures from both 2018 and 2019.

64 percent of Americans reportedly think that social media platforms do more to divide the nation than unite it. This includes majorities of Republicans (77 percent), independents (65 percent), and Democrats (54 percent). The poll also reported that the majority of whites (70 percent), Latinos (56 percent), young adults (61 percent), and seniors (71 percent) all believe that social media is dividing the nation.

In comparison, only 27 percent of all adults believe that the platforms work to unite Americans. NBC notes that Black respondents are the one demographic split on the question, with 42 percent saying it’s more divisive and 40 percent saying it’s more unifying.

When the same questions were asked in a poll in March 2019, 57 percent of respondents said that social media platforms do more to divide Americans, while 35 percent said they do more to unite citizens.

Among daily social media users, 49 percent said that social media platforms improve their lives while 37 percent say that they make their lives worse. Democrats, women, and college graduates are more likely to say that social media improves their lives while Republicans, men, and those without college degrees are more likely to disagree.

The poll also finds that a majority of parents, 54 percent, say that the time their children have spent on computer screens, phones, and TVs has increased during the pandemic. 38 percent of parents say the amount of screen time for their children has stayed the same while 4 percent say it has declined.

Read more at NBC 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

According to Cammack, Facebook profited from ads for pages promoting how to cross the border while at the same time silencing conservative pages.

Vice President Kamala Harris: ‘A Free Press is Critical to Democracy’

By CNSNews.com Staff | May 6, 2021 | 4:19pm EDT

 

 

Then-Sen. Kamala Harris with George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America," Jan. 9, 2019. (Photo by Lorenzo Bevilaqua/Walt Disney Television via Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) - Vice President Kamala Harris sent out a tweet on Monday—which was “World Press Freedom Day”—warning that freedom of the press is “critical to democracy.”

“A free press is critical to democracy,” Harris said in her tweet.

“On this #WorldPressFreedomDay, we recognize the courage of journalists around the world,” she said.

“And we recommit ourselves to protecting and promoting a free and independent press everywhere,” Harris said.

The United Nations General Assembly created World Press Freedom day in 1993.

“World Press Freedom Day was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1993, following the recommendation of UNESCO's General Conference,” says the UN website.

“May 3 acts as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom,” says the UN website. “It is also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics. It is an opportunity to: celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom; assess the state of press freedom throughout the world; defend the media from attacks on their independence; and pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.”

Exclusive—Josh Hawley Keeps His Children off Social Media: ‘Their Business Model Is Addiction’

Josh Hawley / Facebook

JOSHUA CAPLAN

7 May 202129

1:46

Appearing Friday on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), author of The Tyranny of Big Tech, explained how he and his wife do not allow their young children to utilize social media due to concern over what he described as the platforms’ addictive features.

(Listen from 12:14)

A transcript is as follows:

ALEX MARLOW: You have a young family, as do I. Have you thought about technology devices being age-restricted? I’m just getting to that point where I’m starting to think some of this stuff. Have you given that much thought?

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY: This is something that my wife and I have thought a lot about. It’s really started me getting concerned about this issue some years ago because I do have three small children. Just looking at the effects of these devices and these platforms on my young kinds, is what started us as a family about thinking about this issue and then digging into it. In our own family, I can tell you we don’t allow our small children to have these devices, they’re not on social media, we don’t allow them to be exposed to these platforms. I think that is an important choice we made as a family, and I think every parent has to consider how control they’re giving to these tech companies by allowing them to track their children and allow them to build information about their children.

I’ve also proposed some limits to the addictive features that these companies use. Their business model is addiction. And for adults too. I think we need to confront some of these addictive features that they used to try to get us online all the time so they can take data, take stuff from us, and then sell to make money on it.

Exclusive: Sen. Josh Hawley: ‘Democrats Have Really Come to Love’ Big Tech Censorship

MOHD RASFAN/AFP via Getty Images

ROBERT KRAYCHIK

7 May 202138

2:38

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), the author of The Tyranny of Big Tech, told Breitbart News Daily on Friday that some Democrats “have really come to love” Big Tech’s political censorship while seeking to integrate technology firms’ control over information flow with government power.

In an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow, author of Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruption, Hawley noted the coordination between left-wing and partisan Democrat news media and the world’s largest technology companies in targeting dissident websites for censorship.

Marlow asked, “How much of Big Tech censorship is driven by the establishment media? It seems like they have the most to lose from a free and open Internet. The more the internet is free, the more you see the rise of Breitbart. … There are opportunities for individuals and upstarts to rise. The mainstream media doesn’t want this, so they’ve kind of found these common allies in Big Tech.”

Hawley replied. “The legacy media — which of course is the leftist media — are trying to throttle down speech and throttle down other journalistic sites, like Breitbart, [and] other conservative sites that we have seen get discriminated against.”

LISTEN:

Leftist news media initiate campaigns against ideological competitors as a lobbying effort for Big Tech companies to censor conservative, right-wing, and other outlets.

Hawley remarked, “The left media go after [sites like Breitbart News] and then … have companies like Google say, ‘Okay, well you can’t access our advertising services.’ Well, if you can’t access [their] advertising services, then independent platforms like Breitbart can’t exist, and Google knows that.”

“This is the power of their monopolies, that they could turn off the revenue flow to all of these independent news sites and opinion outlets if they so choose, and this frankly is dangerous,” he added.

Hawley described increasingly concentrated power over the flow of information in the hands of companies like Facebook and Google as a threat to all news media.

“The irony here is that Big Tech is also a threat to the establishment media in that Big Tech is about to control them, too,” he concluded. “It’s really a deal with the devil that the establishment media is making.”

Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

A flood of money from the Facebook founder

gave Dems an unfair and illegal advantage.

Tue Dec 22, 2020 

Matthew Vadum

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife helped buy the presidency for the increasingly frail and feeble former Vice President Joe Biden by improperly influencing election officials as they strategically flooded left-wing activist groups with more than $400 million during the 2020 election cycle.

Those groups, in turn, gave huge grants to election administrators in order to create “a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds,” Phill Kline, director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm focused on religious freedom, wrote in a new report.

Part of the lesson here is that not all privatization is good. Some things need to be done by government alone.

“This privatization of elections undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters,” according to Kline.

And this illicit collusion between pro-Biden funders like Zuckerberg and government officials that outsourced election administration to the activist Left helped Democrats prevail in battleground states. It may end up installing a puppet of the Communist Chinese in the White House in the terminal stage of the rolling coup attempt against President Donald Trump that began before he was inaugurated.

This year there was “an unprecedented and coordinated public-private partnership to improperly influence” the election in swing states, which “effectively placed government’s thumb on the scale to help these private interests achieve their objectives and to benefit” Barack Obama’s former vice president, according to Kline, a former attorney general of Kansas.

Biden, an underachieving, sleazy career politician from Delaware with no notable achievements despite a half century in office, has claimed victory and the transition process is underway even though President Trump continues to contest the election. Trump’s lawyers filed a new appeal with the Supreme Court Dec. 20 in hopes of reversing the Democrat-dominated Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings that they say unconstitutionally modified the state’s voting-by-mail laws, opening the door to massive election fraud.

Election experts have long said that mail-in voting is fraught with problems because it gives wrongdoers greater opportunities for fraud compared to in-person balloting.

The bipartisan U.S. Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, determined in 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and that “vote-buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

“The consensus among people who study fraud carefully is that voting by mail is a much more fertile area for fraud than voting in person,” Charles Stewart, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in 2018.

Pennsylvania’s official 20 presidential electors voted for the Biden-Harris ticket Dec. 14 while a completing slate of Republican electors voted for the Trump-Pence ticket. The Democrat electors in Pennsylvania and other contested states may be challenged in Congress on Jan. 6 when the electoral votes are officially tabulated.

Kline’s report comes as presidential advisor Peter Navarro released his own 36-page report detailing voting irregularities.

“The observed patterns of election irregularities are so consistent across the six battleground states [i.e. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin] that they suggest a coordinated strategy to, if not steal the election outright, strategically game the election process in such a way as to ‘stuff the ballot box’ and unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket,” Navarro said during a Dec. 18 conference call with reporters.

According to the Amistad Project’s report, Zuckerberg and his wife made $419.5 million in donations to nonprofits this election cycle –“Zuckerbucks,” as some have called the money— $350 million of which went to the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). The other $69.5 million went to the Center for Election Innovation and Research.

Contrary both to federal law and state legislature-endorsed election plans, Zuckerberg’s money “dictated city and county election management,” Kline wrote in the report’s executive summary.

In addition, “executive officials in swing states facilitated, through unique and novel contracts, the sharing of private and sensitive information about citizens within those states with private interests, some [of] whom actively promote leftist candidates and agendas.”

This sharing of data “allowed direct access to data of unique political value to leftist causes, and created new vulnerabilities for digital manipulation of state electronic poll books and counting systems and machines.”

The Amistad Project, which began investigating the digital vulnerabilities of state election systems in spring 2019, learned that state and local elections officials did not preserve the legal right to access computer logs on the machines counting ballots.

“The first step to engage any computer forensic examination is to gain access to machine logs, yet scores of election officials failed to maintain the right to even review such information, much less establish a method for bipartisan review. In effect, America purchased a complex ballot box (computer) into which its votes would be deposited, but didn’t have the right to open the box and review the count.”

As the COVID-19 crisis worsened in March 2020, more and more lawsuits were filed by left-wing organizations aimed at weakening laws designed to protect the integrity of absentee ballots, the report noted.

Kline is correct.

Democrats aiming to make mail-in balloting mandatory for all Americans in the 2020 election attacked electoral integrity laws in well over a dozen in the courts in an attempt to overturn restrictions on voting-by-mail.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told MSNBC May 20 that going forward it would be called “voting at home,” after Democrats discovered that the idea of “voting-by-mail” didn’t excite actual voters. Voting in person is “a health issue” in the era of the pandemic, she said.

Democrats and other voting-by-mail advocates claimed voters shouldn’t have to risk their physical well-being to vote. Republicans countered that mail-in voting should not be expanded because it is so susceptible to fraud and that Democrats were using the pandemic as an excuse to rig the election.

The attorney leading the legal onslaught against fair elections was Marc Elias of the high-powered Democratic law firm Perkins Coie. Elias has a long history of successfully fighting electoral integrity policies in court, eliminating or weakening signature-matching requirements and ballot-receipt deadlines.

Elias is also an important figure in the “Russiagate” conspiracy, which aimed to overturn the result of the 2016 presidential election. A lawyer who represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the 2016 election cycle, Elias hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to conduct opposition research against then-candidate Trump. That research effort culminated in the laughable, thoroughly discredited 35-page dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele that purported to tie Trump to the Russian government.

While the leftist litigation was ripping electoral safeguards to shreds, battleground state governors began issuing emergency executive orders restricting in-person voting, which has many anti-fraud safeguards, while putting state resources into promoting high-risk, fraud-prone voting-by-mail.

“[T]his coordinated assault on in-person voting generally favored Democrat Party voters who preferred to vote in advance, while placing Republicans, who preferred to vote in person, at a disadvantage,” Kline stated in the report.

Combined, these actions helped to create “a two-tier election system favoring one demographic while disadvantaging another demographic.”

Infused with hundreds of millions of Zuckerbucks, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, “a previously sleepy 501(c)(3) organization … whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million,” suddenly began asking Democratic Party strongholds to seek strings-attached grants that imposed strict conditions on the way recipient jurisdictions ran their elections.

CTCL gave $100,000 to Racine, Wisconsin, in May of this year, and asked its mayor to recruit four other cities (Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request. The bloc of cities submitted a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15 to CTCL and, in turn, got $6.3 million from the nonprofit to implement the plan.

The plan treated state election integrity laws “as obstacles and nuisances to be ignored or circumvented,” as CTCL “retained the right, in the grant document, to, in its sole discretion, order all funds returned if the grantee cities did not conduct the election consistent with CTCL dictates.”

In effect, CTCL managed the election in the five affected Wisconsin cities.

The report stated that the CTCL-engineered plan also went around voter ID requirements for absentee ballots by defining all voters as “indefinitely confined” due to COVID-19, and later, after criticism from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, by directing election clerks not to question such claims.

The plan also ushered in the use of drop boxes for ballot collection, a move that disrupted the chain of custody of the ballot, and consolidated counting centers, “justifying the flow of hundreds of thousands of ballots to one location and the marginalization of Republican poll watchers such that bipartisan participation in the management, handling, and counting of the ballots was compromised.”

Electoral integrity watchdogs got wise to CTCL’s pro-Biden game early on.

A group of Wisconsin voters filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Election Commission against the group, claiming that election-assistance grants it gave to Democrat-dominated cities violated state law.

The complainant, Wisconsin Voter Alliance, based in Suamico, Wisconsin, claimed in the legal complaint that CTCL grants violated state law prohibiting the provision of monies to election officials to induce persons to vote or influence an election outcome.

Zuckerberg’s saturation-bombing of CTCL with money allowed the group to hand out so much cash that Democratic strongholds spent around $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of Wisconsin, according to Kline.

Zuckerberg-underwritten CTCL grants also found their way to election officials in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

CTCL grants in Pennsylvania were used to pay election judges in Philadelphia and other election officials. CTCL directed Philadelphia to increase its polling locations and to use drop boxes and eventually mobile pick-up units.

Zuckerbucks allowed Philadelphia to “cure” improperly completed absentee ballots in a manner not provided for in Republican-leaning areas of the state, the report stated.

For example, in Democrat-dominated Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was placed every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters. In the 59 counties Trump won in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters.

“Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote,” Kline wrote.

“This two-tiered election system allowed voters in Democrat strongholds to stroll down the street to vote while voters in Republican strongholds had to go on the equivalent of a ‘where’s Waldo’ hunt.”

“These irregularities existed wherever Zuckerberg’s money was granted to local election officials. In effect, Mark Zuckerberg was invited into the counting room, and the American people were kicked out.”

If Biden ends up being sworn in Jan. 20, take a wild guess who will be receiving a presidential Medal of Freedom.

 

Big Tech, Koch Network Cheer Biden’s Amnesty to Flood U.S. Labor Market

JOHN BINDER

Big tech’s lobbying arm and the Koch brothers’

network of donor class organizations are cheering

on President Joe Biden’s amnesty plan that would

pack the United States labor market with more

foreign visa workers for business to hire over

American graduates and professionals.

This week, Biden’s amnesty plan was introduced in Congress by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) as Democrats look to increase foreign competition in the U.S. workforce while more than 17 million Americans are jobless.

Among other things, the plan would:

· Put nearly all illegal aliens in the U.S. on an eight-year path to citizenship

· Provide $4 billion in foreign aid to Central America

· Expand the U.S. labor market with more foreign visa workers

· Expedite green cards for foreign relatives, otherwise known as “chain migration”

· Potentially add 52 million foreign-born residents to the U.S. population

· Eliminate per-country caps, ensuring India monopolizes employment green cards

· Increase the Diversity Visa Lottery program where visas are given out randomly

· Provide green cards to foreign students who graduate in advanced STEM fields

· Bring already deported illegal aliens back to the U.S. to provide them amnesty

For Amazon, millions of newly legalized illegal aliens, foreign visa workers, and chain migrants who would be added to the U.S. labor market as a result of the plan are a boon to multinational corporations’ profits.

“Today’s immigration reform bill marks an important step in reducing the green card backlog, creating a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers & making our immigration system more efficient,” Amazon officials wrote in a statement. “We look forward working [with] the administration and Congress to advance these proposed solutions.”

Today's immigration reform bill marks an important step in reducing the green card backlog, creating a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers & making our immigration system more efficient. We look forward working w/ the administration & Congress to advance these proposed solutions.

— Amazon Public Policy (@amazon_policy) February 18, 2021

Specifically, aside from providing Amazon with more foreign visa workers to hire, the plan includes a green card giveaway that would create a green card system where only H-1B foreign visa workers are able to obtain employment-based visas by creating a backlog of seven to eight years for all foreign nationals.

The process would reward outsourcing firms and tech corporations for the decades of outsourcing American jobs to H-1B foreign visa workers.

Executives with the Libre Initiative, a Koch-funded organization, also praised the Biden amnesty plan as “an important first step” to securing the green card giveaway for corporations that they have also long lobbied for.

“There is broad support for proposals like a permanent solution for Dreamers, workforce visa reform, removing per-country caps, efficient border security measures and much more,” Daniel Garza with the Libre Initiative wrote in a statement:

Lawmakers should seize the opportunity and demonstrate that partisan gridlock will not keep the American public waiting another 30 years for congress to enact sensible, permanent solutions. We look forward to working with lawmakers to ensure that we can get nonpartisan, sensible solutions past both chambers and enacted into law.

Todd Schulte with FWD.us, a group that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg created to lobby on behalf of tech corporations, called the amnesty plan a “critical moment for immigration policy” and a “substantial step forward.”

“Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform a long-failed and too easily weaponized immigration system,” Schulte wrote in a statement. “The time is now and we will seize this moment.”

Despite the business lobby’s insistence that there is a labor shortage, millions of Americans are out of work today and hundreds of thousands of U.S. graduates enter the labor market every year looking for white-collar professional jobs with competitive pay and good benefits.

Already, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million legal immigrants every year. Another 1.4 million foreign visa workers are brought in annually to take American jobs, many in white-collar professions. The latest data reveals that nearly 6-in-10 workers in Silicon Valley, California — the tech industry’s hub — are foreign-born.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here. 

 

Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.
By Steve Baldwin

American Spectator

What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million (BLOG: THE NUMBER IS CLOSER TO 15 MILLION ILLEAGLS). The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion (DATED: NOW ABOUT $35 BILLION YEARLY AND THAT IS ON THE STATE LEVEL ONLY. COUNTIES PAY OUT MORE) on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. 

Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.

"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." 
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.

Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg Funds Groups Staging Amnesty Marches

Annie Spratt via Unsplash

NEIL MUNRO

6 May 2021364

7:19

Mark Zuckerberg has funded many of the pro-migration groups now staging street marches for amnesties that would redirect more wealth and power to billionaires.

The Facebook CEO and his wife, Priscilla Chan, funneled their pro-amnesty donations via their Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the FWD.us advocacy group of wealthy West Coast investors.

Some of the donations went to groups in the WeAreHome campaign, which organized many of the street protests on May 1.

The deputy leader of FWD.us, Alida Garcia, sat on the campaign’s steering committee until she took a White House job in mid-March. The campaign announced March 19:

FWD.us Vice President of Advocacy and We Are Home Steering Committee member Alida Garcia is taking temporary leave to serve as the White House’s Senior Adviser for Migration Outreach and Engagement.

At least four of the 22 groups on the campaign’s steering committee have received money from the Zuckerbergs or FWD.us, including America’s Voice, CASA, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), and United We Dream.

Many of the groups were also supported during FWD.us’ expensive campaign to sway the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision on whether to let President Donald Trump end the DACA work-permit program.

On May 1, the We Are Home campaign announced:

Nationally, FIRM Action and We Are Home partners, including Faith in Action/LaRed, United Farm Workers (UFW), SEIU and others held more than 65 events, including marquee events in D.C., Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle and Los Angeles.

Todd Schulte, the president of the FWD.us group, declined to answer questions from Breitbart News. But Schulte retweeted flattering images of May 1 marches that featured the We Are Home campaign, even though many of  the events were so small that organizers were reluctant to show widescreen images:

Given the massive elite support for the campaign, the turnout in Washington D.C. was small:

The Zuckerberg-supported amnesty, worker importation, and population-expansion agenda is very unpopular outside the progressive movement, recent legal immigrants, and media newsrooms.

In an FWD.us polling memo by three Democrat polling companies, released March 2021, nervous legislators were advised:

It is better to focus on all of the aforementioned sympathetic details of those affected [by an amnesty] than to make economic arguments, including arguments about wages or demand for labor. As we have seen in the past, talking about immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do is not a helpful frame, and other economic arguments are less effective than what is recommended above.

If successful, the billionaire-backed amnesty and immigration-expansion campaign would spike Wall Street values, shrink wages, discard U.S. graduates, boost housing prices, further skew job-creating investments towards the coastal states, reduce companies’ use of American-run labor-saving technology, and cement billionaires’ control over the technology sector.

The Zuckerbergs’ Facebook-created wealth is roughly $100 billion, according to Forbes.com. The variety of investors who founded and funded FWD.us was hidden from casual visitors to the group’s website sometime in the last few months.

As investors, Zuckerberg’s investors gain from immigration because it provides investors with more lower-wage workers, high-occupancy renters, and government-funded consumers, ranging from children in K-12 classes to underpaid workers seeking food stamps to old people in government-run healthcare.

From 2013 to 2018, the Zuckerbergs have given at least $30 million to FWD.us and its non-profit education spin-off.

In January, the Zuckerbergs’ charity group reported that it would provide $100 million over the next three years for advocacy by FWD.us on immigration issues:

FWD.us has played a critical role in the past few years in successfully protecting the DACA program, as well as fighting family separation and reuniting families, and will help lead the charge in 2021 to transform America’s immigration system into one that’s fair, modern and humane, and centered on a pathway to citizenship.

FWD.us reveals little about how it spends the money it gets from the Zuckerberg couple or from its own investor members. But on April 25, it acknowledged its support for the We Are Home campaign.

A coalition of immigration advocacy groups today announced a new $50 million campaign aimed at pressuring lawmakers from both parties to pass a pathway to citizenship. The effort, which comes as the White House is previewing how President Biden will recommit to passing a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, PS holders, farm workers and other essential undocumented workers in Joint Address to Congress, includes a $30 million commitment from the “We Are Home” campaign led by advocacy organizations, as well as a $20 million commitment from a handful of other immigration groups including FWD.us.

On May 6, FWD.us announced a pro-amnesty campaign ad, saying:

The ad is running on TV as well as on digital platforms, and it is the first in a series of spots backed by a seven-figure buy – part of a $50 million effort by immigration advocacy groups to urge the swift passage of citizenship legislation.

The funding support from the super-wealthy Zuckerberg couple — and from FWD.us members — is complemented by indirect donations from other wealthy billionaires.

The New York Times outlined spending by Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss billionaire who lives in the United States. His money flows into several dark money funds, which are then distributed to election campaigns and to street groups:

Between the spring of 2016 and the spring of 2020, [Wyss’] Berger Action Fund donated more than $135 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has become among the leading dark money spenders on the left, filings from the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Election Commission show.

One of the nonprofit groups managed by a for-profit consulting firm called Arabella Advisors, Sixteen Thirty donated more than $63 million to super PACs backing Democrats or opposing Republicans in 2020, including the pro-Biden groups Priorities USA Action and Unite the Country and the scandal-plagued anti-Trump group Lincoln Project, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Another nonprofit managed by Arabella, the New Venture Fund, which is set up under a section of the tax code barring it from partisan political spending, received more than $27.6 million from the Wyss Foundation from 2016 through 2019.

The “We Are Home” campaign’s website says that “We Are Home is a project of the New Venture Fund. It is associated with a separate project, We Are Home Action, which is a project of Sixteen Thirty Fund.”

GOP Rep. Cammack Details How Cartels Are Using Facebook to Smuggle Illegal Immigrants — ‘It’s Absolutely Nuts’

TRENT BAKER

7 May 2021122

2:39

Friday on FNC’s “Fox & Friends,” Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) discussed her recent letter scolding Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for allowing human smugglers and cartels to “openly” operate on the social media platform.

Cammack said while visiting the border, she found a “disturbing trend” from immigrants that they coordinated the logistics of entering the United States illegally through Facebook.

“It’s wild. It is absolutely unconscionable to think that it is happening,” Cammack emphasized. “But I have got to tell you my very first border trip we had just gotten to the Donna processing facility, and there was a busload of very young children and parents with children under the age of six. And I spoke to a 15-year-old girl. I said, where are you from? She said Guatemala. I said, how did you know to come here? And she said Facebook. I hadn’t been but five minutes in the Donna processing facility when I heard the term Facebook. And as I went through the facility, I kept hearing from kids, from adults — Facebook. Yes. We coordinated logistics through Facebook. We paid through Facebook. We talked on WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook. And it was a disturbing trend. And when I started talking with HSI and some of the Border Patrol agents, they themselves have seen this firsthand.”

She continued, “I figured hey, I’m a millennial, I’m pretty savvy with Facebook. I will do a quick search. And just this morning, you know, at 6:00, as I’m sitting down to do this interview with you guys, I pull up Viaje a Estados Unidos. And, lo and behold, a page with directions, with routes, prices — six grand to come to the United States, $9,300 to get to San Antonio. It takes a simple search of ‘get to the frontera,’ and that is all it takes to find out exactly who to pay, how to get here, and how you’re going to get smuggled across. And they even talk about in these ads how you can take a six-year-old or under, or if you are a single adult, what they dual to help get you across. It’s absolutely nuts.”

According to Cammack, Facebook profited from ads for pages promoting how to cross the border while at the same time silencing conservative pages.

“Instead of targeting conservatives, maybe we should focus on the cartels instead, right?” she posed to Facebook.

Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent

PUT THIS FUCKER IN PRISON BEFORE HE DOES ANY FURTHER DAMAGE TO THIS UNRAVELING NATION!!!

Amnesty Axis: George W. Bush Touts Cheap Migrant Labor with Zuckerberg Group

Cliff Hawkins/Getty Images

NEIL MUNRO

10 May 202118

6:17

Americans’ immigration laws can be changed in “bite-sized pieces” to let employers hire foreign workers instead of Americans, former President George W. Bush told an advocacy group backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

“We’re working with a big coalition here in the Bush center,” Bush said in a May 6 interview arranged by the National Immigration Forum (NIF), which has been funded by Zuckerberg:

Can we get something done? I think so, but it’s going to have to be in bite-sized pieces … We don’t recognize the fact that there are jobs that need to be done and [foreign] people willing to do them and that needs to be part of a reform.

That “willing worker” goal would destroy Americans’ right to their own national labor market where American employers and American employees can compete on a level playing field for work and wages.

The “willing worker” goal pushed by Bush and his right-of-center Koch network is also being pushed by Zuckerberg’s left-of-center amnesty campaign.

The goal is hidden inside the January 20 amnesty and cheap-labor bill that was introduced by Joe Biden and cheered by Zuckerberg’s coalition. The bill creates an easy way for companies to hire an unlimited number of mid-skill foreign graduates in exchange for the promise of getting green cards in just ten years.

The plan builds on the existing pipelines of visa workers, which are imported via the H-1B, Optional Practical Training (OPT), L-1, TN, B-1/B-2, and other visa worker programs. Even though only about 80,000 foreign graduates get green cards per year, this green-cards-for-work labor system has allowed companies to build a foreign workforce of at least 800,000 mid-skilled foreign contract workers.

That huge mid-skill, no-rights workforce displaces hundreds of thousands of young Americans. This displacement slows technology growth, but it spikes profits by reducing pay, and it also reduces the chance that groups of U.S. or foreign tech workers can split off to create their own novel technologies and companies.

The NIF arranged the interview with Bush. It is part of a larger coalition of Zuckerberg-backed left-wing groups that are using street protests and lobbying to push Congress to pass multiple amnesties in 2021. George Soros has also supported the NIF’s spinoffs.

Bush explained that his personal low-profit, old-economy business on his estate could not survive if he had to rely on higher-wage, blue-collar American labor:

I’m a tree farmer — live oaks, red oaks if you need any … It’s not a very profitable business I want you to know, but it works because there are eight H-2B visa holders who come up [from Mexico] and work for us. They’re skilled, big family people, they send their money home to their families, but [the H-2B visa program requires] they have to go home every year for two months.

Then there’s a question as to whether or not the government let him back in after the two-year hiatus. That creates enormous uncertainty and if at some point, the government says “You can’t come back in,” then all of a sudden, we got a real problem.

“We’d benefit economically when people come to do work that needs to be done … and yet the system doesn’t recognize that now [because] it’s antiquated and broken, and it complicated, and it’s confusing,” Bush complained.

Bush explained why he does not favor Americans over migrants. “It depends on where you start your philosophy from. I started mine from ‘All life is precious, and we’re all God’s children.'”

Bloomberg: "On Immigration, George W. Bush Is a Portrait of Failure."
(We can never resist an excuse to post another article describing Bush's "Any Willing Worker" fundamental betrayal of every American family)https://t.co/8UQkglcUyc

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) April 21, 2021

While president, Bush’s poll ratings dipped to 33 percent in 2008 after he pushed amnesties in 2006 and 2007. Those amnesties included his “Any Willing Worker” plan, which would give American citizenship to foreigners if they agree to undercut Americans by taking jobs where employers offered meager wages.

“New immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country,” Bush announced on January 7, 2004. “If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job,” he said.

In April, the Cato Institute released a survey that showed that strong majorities of Americans believe U.S. immigration policy should first serve the interests of their fellow Americans, not of employers or investors.

“Nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans say it’s more important when making immigration policy to consider what ‘benefits the United States and its current citizens,’” said the April 27 survey of 2,600 U.S. adults. The survey also showed that 60 percent of Americans want to reduce immigration by at least half.

Bush acknowledged the unpopularity of his plans. “There’s been a lack of leadership on the issue because … it is a very hot political issue,” Bush admitted to the NIF group. “Once an issue becomes politically hot, it’s very difficult to, you know, paint a positive picture.”

For many years, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.

This opposition is multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, intra-Democratic, rational, and recognizes the solidarity Americans owe to each other.

The voter opposition to elite-backed economic migration coexists with support for legal immigrants and some sympathy for illegal migrants. But only a minority of Americans — mostly leftists — embrace the many skewed polls and articles pushing the 1950’s corporate “Nation of Immigrants” claim.

The deep public opposition to labor migration is built on the widespread recognition that legal and illegal migration moves money away from most Americans’ pocketbooks and families.

Migration moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to investors, from technology to stoop labor, from red states to blue states, and from the central states to the coastal states such as New York.

Zuckerberg & his FWDus investors are funding many of the pro-amnesty groups doing street protests.
The funding is rational b/c the amnesty bills also inflate the population of consumers, renters, & blue- and white-collar workers. https://t.co/eF9iVlQBeW

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) May 6, 2021