HOW MUCH OF A DANGER IS JOE BIDEN'S MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA AND OPEN BORDERS MARK ZUCKERBERG?

MEXICANS WILL ELECT ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS ALL OF WHOM WILL HAVE BEEN ANNOINTED BY CRIMINAL BANKSTERS ON WALL STREET AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS AND NO END TO THE BIDEN INVASION OF 'CHEAP' LABOR

Who in hell are Zuckerberg and Dorsey to trash our "profound national commitment" to speech that "may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks" on Democrats?  

The corporate alliance between tech conglomerates, the Chamber of Commerce, and the outsourcing industry, though, is hoping to convince the court that throwing out work permits for H-4 visa-holders will “undercut” the American economy.

Big Tech takes a giant step towards totalitarianism

By David Zukerman

Twitter has banned former President Trump for life, while Facebook has settled for a two-year suspension.  How proud these mammoth-valued censorious outfits must feel.  Well, the late Associate Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., is likely to be rather disappointed.  As for Framers of the Constitution, they must wonder why they bothered to enact the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.

Justice Brennan, of course, in the 1964 case, New York Times v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 took note of some precedents underscoring our tradition of free speech, and then summed up our "profound" free speech tradition.   The justice's sources included this observation from Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, quoted at 376 U.S.  269 of his Sullivan opinion:

"[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions."

Ah, but if you are a president, or former president, loathed by privately-owned media outlets, with an enormous impact on the free flow of information, you will find a wall as iron as that which surrounded the former Soviet Union, a wall that blocks your ability to speak one's mind freely, even "not always with perfect good taste."

Justice Brennan, at 376 U.S. 270, then quoted at length from the incisive "classic" statement on free speech that Justice Brandeis included in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357:   The Framers

knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Did the Framers ever imagine that a powerful, although private, media outlet would claim the power - worse, the authority, to stifle the free expression of a president; indeed, coercing him into silence by means of Big Tech tyrannically thuggish methods?  Unlikely.

And what of our "profound national commitment" to freedom of speech and assembly that Justice Brennan went on to take note of at 376 U.S. 270 in his Sullivan opinion.   He wrote that the Sullivan case was considered:

...against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

What would Justice Brennan say of the background of the commitment by Facebook and Twitter to silence debate on public issues by a narrowly-skewed censorious approach to public debate to ensure that a particular public official or  figure would be denied his right to enjoy the "profound national commitment" to "uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate...that...may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

What a remarkable claim of power we get from the likes of a Zuckerberg or a Dorsey: the power to determine what caustic remarks may be heard on their media outlets, and what caustic remarks are to be banned.   Do Zuckerberg and Dorsey play favorites as they determine who shall speak and who shall be banned?   Of course they do.   But that is, actually, a mere trifle in considering their flagrant chutzpah in the face of the spirit of liberty in America.    Who in hell are Zuckerberg and Dorsey to trash the credo to liberty expressed by Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California?  Who in hell are Zuckerberg and Dorsey to trash our "profound national commitment" to speech that "may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks" on Democrats?   And they dare claim that Republicans are undermining our democratic institutions?  Today we recognize, as a sad variation on the theme by Justice Brandeis,  the totalitarian leanings of the Big Tech companies to eradicate the Constitution's guarantee of free speech and assembly. 

Republicans, speak up in defense of Mr. Trump -- or do you accept diktat from the execrable duo of Zuckerberg and Dorsey?

Rubio: 'Five Companies in America Now Have the Power to...Silence Anyone'

By Susan Jones | June 4, 2021 | 6:08am EDT

 

 

 

(Photo Illustration by Chesnot/Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says the nation's five largest social media companies -- Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple -- are the new "gatekeepers of the public square in American politics."

"We've never been here before," Rubio told Fox News's Sean Hannity Thursday night.

Five companies in America now have the power to basically wipe anybody out and silence anyone.

You know, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, you know, they all get together, and they decide -- Apple -- they get together and decide, we're going to wipe somebody out, you're done. There's nowhere for you to communicate. You can't even get web services, and you can't communicate to the outside world your views.

More than that, they now have put themselves in a position of determining what news can be re-reported. We remember those articles about Hunter Biden, and they quashed "The New York Post" stories. They wouldn't let it be spread.

And now for the first time, we've seen them have to go back and remove a ban on stories about the origins of the COVID-19 virus because they've proven to be untrue. This is the danger here is, you have a bunch of unelected, unaccountable, anonymous people deciding what we're allowed to say to one another and what we're allowed to share.

That's a very dangerous moment. They have assumed basically governmental type powers without being accountable to anyone.

One year ago, Rubio joined Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and other Republicans in introducing a bill that would allow Americans to sue Big Tech companies for acting in bad faith by selectively censoring political speech and hiding content created by their competitors.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act would prohibit Big Tech companies from receiving Section 230 immunity unless they update their terms of service to operate under a clear good faith standard and pay a $5,000 fine if they violate those terms.

“Recent actions by Big Tech call into question the legal immunities that social media companies enjoy under Section 230 and whether these firms live up to their obligations,” Rubio said at the time, in June 2020.

“It is time to take a fresh look at the statute and clarify the vague standard of ‘good faith’ for which technology companies receive legal protections. That is exactly what this bill does. While Section 230 serves an important purpose, it should not protect unrelated activities such as censorship and political activism.”

UK and EU Antitrust Authorities Launch Facebook Investigation

JOHN THYS/AFP/Getty Images

LUCAS NOLAN

4 Jun 20217

2:18

The European Commission and Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority have both launched investigations focused on Facebook Marketplace to determine if Mark Zuckerberg’s company uses data from advertisers to compete with them.

NBC News reports that the European Union and the United Kingdom have both launched antitrust investigations into Facebook’s use of advertising data in its online sales marketplace, which could result in Facebook being forced to change its business model as well as face fines.

The European Commission and Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority are reportedly investigating whether Facebook users data from advertisers to compete with them. The European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has battled with Facebook over antitrust issues multiple times in the past.

Vestager has fined tech firms like Google $9.7 billion over antitrust issues and is currently investigating Amazon and Apple. Vestager reportedly plans to focus on Facebook’s collection of data from the near 7 million companies that advertise on the platform.

“We will look in detail at whether this data gives Facebook an undue competitive advantage in particular on the online classified ads sector, where people buy and sell goods every day, and where Facebook also competes with companies from which it collects data,” she said. Vestager added: “In today’s digital economy, data should not be used in ways that distort competition.”

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also announced an investigation into whether Facebook is abusing its dominant position in social media or digital advertising through its collection and use of data. Facebook stated that it plans to fully cooperate with both the EU and the UK investigation to “demonstrate that they are without merit.”

Facebook said its “marketplace and dating offer people more choices, both products operate in highly competitive environment with many large incumbents.”

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

MARK ZUCKERBERG IS THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERCA TODAY.

THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY DESTROYING AMERICA'S BORDERS, JOBS AND CULTURE FOR CORPORATE PROFITS

Sanctuary State Colorado to Give Professional Licenses to Illegal Aliens

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

2 Jun 2021229

2:31

The sanctuary state of Colorado will begin allowing illegal aliens to obtain professional licenses, funneling them into white-collar American jobs.

This week, Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed into law a plan that will give out professional licenses for jobs in education and health care, among other industries, to illegal aliens. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us had lobbied state lawmakers to pass the legislation.

Now, Colorado’s state agencies will not require an applicant to certify their legal status in the U.S. to secure a professional license.

“The bill eliminates the requirement that the department of education … verify the lawful presence of each applicant before issuing or renewing a license,” the law reads:

The bill also specifies that lawful presence is not required of any applicant for any state or local license, certificate, or registration. The bill affirmatively states that the bill is a state law within the meaning of the federal law that gives states authority to provide for eligibility for state and local public benefits to persons who are unlawfully residing in the United States. [Emphasis added]

FWD.us Colorado State Immigration Director Marissa Molina praised the legislature’s passage and Polis’ signing, claiming it will help fill “worker shortages” even as the state’s unemployment rate is 6.4 percent as of April — above the national unemployment rate, which is 6.1 percent.

“As our state continues to face worker shortages, particularly in education and health care, we have opened the door for a new generation of nurses, teachers, and other essential workers to fill labor gaps needed to support our continued health response and long-term economic recovery,” Molina said in a statement.

New Jersey passed similar legislation last year, and illegal aliens in the state are now applying for and receiving professional licenses.

Today, there are anywhere between 11 million to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S., costing Americans about $134 billion annually, with about eight million holding American jobs. Nearly 200,000 illegal aliens reside in Colorado.

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

Steel: ‘Zuckerbucks’ Corrupted the 2020 Election for Big Tech

141

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

SHAWN STEEL

30 May 202164

5:13

Dark Money. Citizens United. The Koch Brothers.

Remember when Democrats used to decry the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics?

“Today, the Supreme Court kept open the floodgates to uninhibited special interest spending in our campaigns and in our politics,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi lamented following a 2012 Supreme Court decision to uphold Citizens United. “Their disappointing decision to uphold Citizens United deals yet another blow to a fundamental American value: that the voices of the people determine the outcome of our elections, not the checkbooks of the few.”

Nine years later, the Democrat Party is content to see American elections outsourced to “the checkbooks of the few” – so long as the checks are signed by Big Tech.

While mainstream media headlines have focused on President Trump’s bans from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram after the election, Big Tech’s greatest election manipulation came well before voters cast their ballots and in a decidedly traditional way.

Good old-fashioned money in politics.

Too late to affect the outcome, the public is slowly learning more about how Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, funneled more than $419.5 million through two non-profit organizations to influence the 2020 election.

At the time, Zuckerberg framed the donation as necessary to help election officials prepare for unforeseen challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet far from personal protective equipment for poll workers and contactless voting, Zuckerberg’s millions bankrolled get-out-the-vote campaigns.

The public should be deeply troubled by the partisan affiliation of the private groups tapped by Zuckerberg to enhance voter participation. The bulk of the Zuckerberg money – $350 million – was channeled to the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL). The group’s founder and executive director, Tiana Epps-Johnson, is a former Obama Foundation Fellow and Election Administration Director of the far-left New Organizing Institute. According to CTCL’s own report, election officials spent the funds on “social media and advertising” and allowed government officials to “purchase thousands of dollars in billboards, television commercials, radio, etc.”

The second group receiving Zuckerberg election funds, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, spent $69.5 million in 23 states. Its funding was inequitably distributed to aid battleground states. More than half of CEIR grants were distributed to just four swing states: $13.2 million to Pennsylvania, $11.9 million to Michigan, $5.6 million to Georgia; and $4.8 million to Arizona.

New York has double the population of Michigan, yet received just $5 million – less than half of Michigan’s funding. If the funds were truly meant “to provide nonpartisan, accurate, and official voting information to the public,” why did more populous but uncompetitive states receive less money?

More than six months after the election, the public still doesn’t have a full accounting of the full extent of how these organizations spent nearly a half-billion dollars. The only available accounting: a locked Google spreadsheet that identifies the 2,500 government agencies that received funding, but that doesn’t share how much each entity received or how the funds were spent.

“The full extent of the grants isn’t known,” NPR News concluded in its December 2020 investigation into the unprecedented privatization of the 2020 election administration. “The Center for Tech and Civic Life declined repeated interview requests from APM Reports to discuss the funding and how it was used. In late October, the group listed the jurisdictions that received funding on its website but didn’t disclose dollar amounts or funding priorities for each jurisdiction.”

In addition to the partisan affiliations of its founders and lack of transparency for how the money was spent, the public should be concerned that the group’s voter turnout efforts were heavily concentrated in Democrat strongholds in swing states.

The Associated Press confirms that CTCL distributed “$6.2 million to Wisconsin’s five largest cities, $10 million to Philadelphia, and $6 million to Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.” A March 2021 report by the Foundation for Government Accountability found that Democrat counties received 92 percent of CTCL’s funding in Pennsylvania.

“It just doesn’t pass the smell test,” says Nicholas Horton, research director for the Foundation for Government Accountability. “Government should be a neutral, fair arbiter of the election process, and the public should have no doubts and full confidence in that process when going to vote in the polls.”

Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, is a member of the Republican National Committeeman.

Chamber of Commerce Launches Campaign to Import Wave of Foreign Workers to Take American Jobs

220

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

1 Jun 2021158

4:49

The United States Chamber of Commerce has launched a lobbying campaign to massively increase legal immigration to the U.S., specifically the flow of foreign visa workers into American jobs.

Dubbed the “America Works Agenda,” the Chamber is lobbying state and federal lawmakers to hugely expand the rate of legal immigration whereby, already, about 1.2 million legal immigrants are awarded green cards annually and roughly 1.4 million foreign nationals are given visas to take jobs in the U.S.

As part of the campaign, the Chamber is asking lawmakers to:

• At least double employment-based green cards to 280,000 admissions a year
• Eliminate per-country caps, allowing India and China to monopolize employment-based green card categories
• Double the annual number of H-1B visas awarded to foreign workers
• Double the annual number of H-2B visas awarded to foreign workers
• Expand the H-2A visa program to allow non-seasonal agricultural businesses to import foreign workers
• Allow foreign students to more easily secure employment-based green cards after graduation
• Provide amnesty to illegal aliens enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program
• Provide amnesty to foreign nationals enrolled in Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
• Allow local politicians to import foreign workers to take American jobs in their local economy and to drive up population growth

Chamber President and CEO Suzanne Clark is billing the campaign as an effort to address the so-called “worker shortage” facing the business community, though 16.4 million Americans remain jobless and 5.2 million are underemployed but all of them want full-time work.

Such measures are a boon for big business as inflating the U.S. labor market allows employers to cut Americans’ wages, reducing the cost of labor, to increase profit margins.

The campaign’s goals, though, are largely out of step with the majority of Americans.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released on Tuesday, revealed that 72 percent of likely U.S. voters want to cut legal immigration levels, 62 percent want businesses to recruit jobless Americans for jobs over importing foreign workers, 58 percent say the U.S. has enough skilled Americans and does not need more foreign H-1B visa workers, and a plurality of 44 percent want immigration slowed down to stabilize the nation’s population growth.

(Chart via the Center for Immigration Studies)

The benefits of a tightened labor market, in which employees hold negotiating power over employers, manifested between 2017 and 2019 as the Trump administration sought to reduce overall immigration to protect the U.S. labor market.

In November 2019, for example, the bottom 25 percent of wage-earners saw the largest spike in their paychecks thanks to a tightened labor market with less foreign competition. Americans in the construction, mining, finance, hospitality, and manufacturing industries enjoyed some of the highest wage growth at the time.

A year before, also as a result of a tightened labor market, construction industry insiders admitted Americans had a 95 percent chance of being matched with a job at employment agencies and employers were having to boost wages in order to attract and retain workers.

In contrast, a flooded labor market from mass legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. has had a devastating impact on the nation’s working and middle class while redistributing wealth to the highest earners. While creating an economy that tilts in favor of employers, the economic model helped keep wages stagnate for decades.

Between 1979 to 2013, wage growth for the bottom 90 percent of Americans grew just 15 percent. Meanwhile, wage growth for the top one percent of Americans was nearly 140 percent.

(Chart via Economic Policy Institute)

Researchers have found that a flooded labor market can easily diminish job opportunities and wages for Americans.

One particular study by the Center for Immigration Studies’ Steven Camarota revealed that for every one percent increase in the immigrant portion of an American workers’ occupation, their weekly wages are cut by perhaps 0.5 percent. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by potentially 8.75 percent as more than 17 percent of the workforce is foreign-born.

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

Big Tech, Chamber of Commerce, Outsourcing Industry Unite to Keep Foreign Workers in American Jobs

2,635

Graeme Jennings-Pool/MANDEL NGAN/MICHAEL REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

31 May 20211,380

3:19

The nation’s biggest tech corporations joined forces with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the outsourcing industry to keep foreign visa-holders in American jobs even as about 16.4 million Americans remain jobless.

Executives with Google, Amazon, Apple, IBM, HP, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Microsoft Corporation, Twitter, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, Michael Bloomberg’s New American Economy, and other corporations have filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit to ask a federal court to keep more than 90,000 foreign visa-holders in the U.S. workforce.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2015 by Save Jobs USA, a group of former American workers at Southern California Edison who had their jobs outsourced to foreign visa workers, to block the Obama administration from giving work permits to H-4 visa-holders who are the spouses of H-1B visa workers.

The outsourced American workers argue that the executive action by Obama wrongly gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to provide work permits to tens of thousands of H-4 visa holders. Congress, they argue, did not authorize such authority to DHS and thus, the agency does not have the authority to provide the work permits.

“There is no statutory authorization for an alien possessing an H-4 visa to work,” Save Jobs USA’s initial complaint states.

Today, close to 100,000 foreign spouses of H-1B visa-holders have American jobs in the U.S. labor market thanks to the H-4 visa work permit authorization that the Obama administration began. That has been continued throughout the Trump and Biden administrations.

The cheap foreign labor pipeline, Save Jobs USA argues, unjustly increases foreign labor market competition against America’s white-collar workforce who are forced to compete for jobs against such visa-holders.

“Save Jobs USA members are injured by DHS’s new H-4 Rule because they will compete with H-1B and H-4 guest workers for jobs,” their complaint states. “DHS’s findings for the H-4 Rule repeatedly state that it will increase the number of Save Jobs USA’s H-1B competitors.”

The corporate alliance between tech conglomerates, the Chamber of Commerce, and the outsourcing industry, though, is hoping to convince the court that throwing out work permits for H-4 visa-holders will “undercut” the American economy.

The H-4 visa, like the and Optional Practical Training (OPT) program and the H-1B visa program, helped flood the U.S. white-collar labor market by providing a constant flow of foreign workers to which corporations can outsource jobs rather than hiring Americans. In many cases, American workers who already hold the job and are merely fired, replaced, and forced to train their foreign replacements.

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

Facebook, Big Tech genuflecting to China

By Eric Utter

Facebook-- and the other social media giants-- exhibit preposterous and revolting virtue-signaling gall while kowtowing to Communist China and its military, not least by banning all references to the “Wuhan” or “Chinese” flu on their platforms due to their “racist” and bigoted nature. These monumental frauds and charlatans often claim to be all about morality and charity, and openly despise supposedly money-grubbing Republicans, yet they will do/allow/tolerate anything if they believe it is to the benefit of their own bottom line.

If they are not the “focus of evil in the modern world,” they are aiding and abetting those that are. If they had a shred of decency/morality/integrity/humanity, they would be beyond ashamed. If they were really concerned about making the world a better place, they would “cancel” themselves.

It seems the billion-and-a-half Chinese -- and the market they comprise -- are all they really care about… even after telling us that there are far too many humans now and that this is inevitably leading to planetary destruction.

China’s carbon footprint, the largest in the world? Island-size plastic offal-heaps in the ocean, courtesy of the Middle Kingdom? Countless “artificial islands” being built in the South China Sea to be used as military bases with which to dominate sea lanes and threaten its neighbors? The imprisonment and torture of Uighurs? Tossing baby girls into the trash for decades like spent/used condoms under its “one-child” policy? Meh. No big whoop. What are you so excited about?

Yet these same entities until recently flat-out banned speculation that the COVID-19 virus may have somehow originated in a Wuhan lab that was studying coronaviruses at the time. People, President Trump included, were reprimanded, fired, or sued for evening daring to utter the phrases “China Virus,” “Wuhan Flu,” or “Kung Flu.”

China may or may not have engineered COVID-19 as a bioweapon. What is certain is that it is becoming much more technologically proficient, mostly from stealing information from the U.S. And that it is growing its navy at an astounding rate. It has simultaneously become increasingly smug and belligerent.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin purportedly said, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

Tragically, it appears he was correct.

CNN’s Tapper to Facebook Exec: Why Ever Reinstate Trump? — ‘His Lies Are Getting Worse’

PAM KEY

4 Jun 2021415

2:51

CNN anchor Jake Tapper said Friday on his show “The Lead” that former President Donald Trump’s “lies” were getting worse during an interview about Trump’s two-year Facebook ban with Nick Clegg, the company’s vice president of global affairs and communication.

Tapper said, “So, Facebook is acknowledging that Trump used its platform for harm. He incited the deadly insurrection. Trump continues to spread lies that prompt death threats. Why give him your platform at all?”

Clegg said, “Well, that’s a legitimate question. Some people think that Donald Trump should be able to use Facebook immediately, again, and others think he should never be able to use it at all. And as you know, social-media companies have responded in somewhat irrespective of future behavior. Google have said he will come back on YouTube when conditions allow. What we’ve done in response to the comments we’ve received from the independent oversight board is to stipulate what penalty we think should be applied to match the gravity of what happened in January. We’re applying the most severe penalty that we have in the range of penalties available to us under the new enforcement arrangements that we published today.”

Tapper said, “Today, just today, Donald Trump is telling election lies. Today. Not, you know, back in January. Today he’s doing it. So I guess my question is, isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? I mean, you know that when he returns, he’s going to use his platform to tell lies, lies that have provably incited violence. Not just violence, but an attack on the Capitol some considered an attack on democracy. What kind of clues are you looking for? I mean, there’s no indication that he’s getting any better. His lies are getting worse. He thinks he’s going to be reinstated as president in August.”

Clegg said, “Sure. Look, I’ll be very clear about what I think and what we Facebook can and can’t do. What we can do is enforce our rules in terms of his history on our platform. It’s not our role or should it be to censor everything that Donald Trump does say, good, bad or ugly.”

Tapper said, “No, of course not. But if he tells lies that incite violence and have proved to do that in the past, does that matter?”

Clegg said, “The key thing is incitement. The key thing in the instance of the post he posted on January 6th was the praise that he expressed through his post on Facebook and indeed on other social media platforms for rioters involved in the violent insurrection at that time.”

Tapper said, “The tripwire was praising the mob?”

Clegg said, “Yeah.”

Tapper said, “Not the lies that incited the mob?”

Clegg said, “No.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Donald Trump: No More Dinners for Mark Zuckerberg When I’m Back in the White House

23,067

Twitter/Donald Trump

CHARLIE SPIERING

4 Jun 20213,023

1:59

Former President Donald Trump appeared to express regret Friday that he ever hosted Mark Zuckerberg at the White House for dinner after Facebook announced the former president would be suspended for two more years.

“Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife,” Trump wrote in a statement sent to reporters. “It will be all business!”

The former president’s statement immediately sparked curiosity from reporters who wondered if his statement confirmed that he planned to run again in 2024.

Trump issued his statement after Facebook announced its decision to ban him for two more years.

Facebook detailed a new set of rules to govern public officials on their platform, warning that Trump posed a “serious risk to public safety.”

“Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols,” the statement from Facebook read.

The former president hosted Zuckerberg for dinner at the White House in October 2019 and also met with Zuckerberg in the Oval Office in September 2019.

Trump’s personal meetings with tech executives like Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey frustrated conservatives who wanted to see the president take a tougher line on big tech companies who were censoring, shadow banning, and de-platforming conservatives.

But the former president made it clear he no longer has an interest in working with any of the major big tech CEOs.

“Facebook’s ruling is an insult to the record-setting 75M people, plus many others, who voted for us in the 2020 Rigged Presidential Election,” he wrote. “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our Country can’t take this abuse anymore!”