He's ‘More Political’ Than His Pops
The younger Soros says he is "more political" than his 92-year-old father, the Democratic Party’s biggest donor.
The younger Soros says he is "more political" than his 92-year-old father, the Democratic Party’s biggest donor.
Jamie Glazov Talks ‘Obama’s True Legacy’ on the ‘Pro-America Report’
Ed Martin speaks with Frontpage Editor on who is really pulling the strings of the Biden catastrophe.
[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Ed Martin, President of the Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, recently spoke with Frontpage Editor and host of The Glazov Gang, Jamie Glazov about his new book, Barack Obama’s True Legacy, and how it documents the suppressed details of how the ex-president was—and still is—a major national security threat to America.
Don’t miss it!
Listen to the podcast: HERE.
*
And don’t miss our 7-Part Series on Obama’s True Legacy below:
[1] Glazov on The Dennis Prager Show: Obama’s True Legacy – and who planted the seeds to the indictment of Donald Trump.
[2] Jamie on Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo Show: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America:
[3] Jamie on Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo Show: Obama’s Conversion Moment – When Was it Exactly? and Why can’t the question be asked about his spiritual journey?
[4] J.R. Nyquist: Obama – Groomed by KGB? The curious – and taboo – Tom Fife story.
[5] Obama’s Russia Collusion – The baseless accusations against President Trump begin to make sense.
[6] When Was Obama’s ‘Conversion Moment’? – The eerie and taboo questions that aren’t allowed to be asked.
[7] The Obama Movie That Can Never Be – The eerie issues that can’t be discussed about the worst ex-president’s religious journey.
We are also thrilled to announce that Jamie’s new book, Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America, has reached #1 on Amazon’s “United States Executive Government” category.
Check out Mark Tapson’s review at Frontpagemag.com: HERE.
Bruce Bawer’s review at AmericanThinker.com: HERE.
General Michael Flynn’s Foreword to the book: HERE.
There’s a reason Mike Huckabee calls it “A ferocious and chilling read.”
Stay tuned!!
Subscribe to JamieGlazov.com.
We Are Jews Against Soros
[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Ed Martin, President of the Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, recently spoke with Frontpage Editor and host of The Glazov Gang, Jamie Glazov about his new book, Barack Obama’s True Legacy, and how it documents the suppressed details of how the ex-president was—and still is—a major national security threat to America.
Don’t miss it!
Listen to the podcast: HERE.
*
And don’t miss our 7-Part Series on Obama’s True Legacy below:
[1] Glazov on The Dennis Prager Show: Obama’s True Legacy – and who planted the seeds to the indictment of Donald Trump.
[2] Jamie on Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo Show: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America:
[3] Jamie on Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo Show: Obama’s Conversion Moment – When Was it Exactly? and Why can’t the question be asked about his spiritual journey?
[4] J.R. Nyquist: Obama – Groomed by KGB? The curious – and taboo – Tom Fife story.
[5] Obama’s Russia Collusion – The baseless accusations against President Trump begin to make sense.
[6] When Was Obama’s ‘Conversion Moment’? – The eerie and taboo questions that aren’t allowed to be asked.
[7] The Obama Movie That Can Never Be – The eerie issues that can’t be discussed about the worst ex-president’s religious journey.
We are also thrilled to announce that Jamie’s new book, Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America, has reached #1 on Amazon’s “United States Executive Government” category.
Check out Mark Tapson’s review at Frontpagemag.com: HERE.
Bruce Bawer’s review at AmericanThinker.com: HERE.
General Michael Flynn’s Foreword to the book: HERE.
There’s a reason Mike Huckabee calls it “A ferocious and chilling read.”
Stay tuned!!
Subscribe to JamieGlazov.com.
We Are Jews Against Soros
His ethnic and religious background must not prevent us from calling him what he is.
George Soros is an evil man. In fact, he is one of the most evil men currently shaping American and Western politics, and global events more generally.
To straightforwardly opine in this manner is not to traffic in antisemitism or noxious Jew-baiting. It is simply to share one’s perspective about one of the most influential political donors, “philanthropists” and social activists in the world — someone who doles out countless sums to undermine and reshape in his dystopian image entire countries, spreading across at least five separate continents.
It is frankly astounding that this even needs to be said. I am a Jewish columnist, podcaster and public speaker. As such, I routinely share my opinions as a basic feature of my job. I imagine some of those opinions are provocative — perhaps highly so — for a subset of the population, especially those of a left-of-center bent. Some (very) small percentage of my critics may hate me and hate my opinions because I am Jewish, but it is surely the case that the overwhelming majority of my critics disagree with me on the merits of my ideas and contributions to the public discourse. Unless I have a compelling reason to believe a specific critic is acting out of rank bigotry, I operate from a baseline presumption that the critic is not a Jew-hater, but simply disagrees with my position.
Again, this should be obvious. But for far too many, it is apparently not obvious — at least when it comes to criticism of George Soros.
For years, whenever conservatives, nationalists and traditionalists have criticized the absolutely sprawling influence of George Soros and his left-wing Open Society Foundations umbrella network, Soros’ praetorian guard in the elected official class and corporate press invariably shriek, “That’s antisemitism! You can’t say that!”
What utter tripe.
Soros directly spent $128.5 million during last fall’s U.S. midterm elections, making him that election cycle’s single largest individual donor. He has spent $40 million trying to elect radically left-wing “reform prosecutors” — something he has been fully transparent about, defending it under his own byline in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last summer — across the country. He has been dishearteningly successful in that endeavor, successfully electing 75 district attorneys — such as Alvin Bragg in New York City, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco (since mercifully recalled) and Kim Foxx in Chicago — who oversee a decivilizational (and oxymoronic) prosecutorial agenda of not prosecuting violent and property crimes. Simply put, Soros is more responsible than any man in the world for the descent of some of America’s most iconic cities into anarchic urban hellholes.
The globalist archetype has routinely given massive sums to anti-sovereignty groups that seek to obliterate national borders, from the U.S. to his native Hungary to Israel. Speaking of Israel, the Jewish Soros harbors a unique disdain for the world’s only Jewish state: He has been a massive bankroller of the antisemitic “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” global movement, his foundations have supported internationally recognized Palestinian-Arab terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and he is the single largest donor ever to J Street and its affiliated PAC, which routinely peddle anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian agitprop and exist for the sole reason of providing “Jewish” cover for Democrats to bash Israel.
Who can earnestly contend that this is someone whose influence cannot be criticized on the grounds that it is “antisemitic” to do so?
Amichai Chikli, the Israeli government’s current minister of Diaspora affairs and minister for social equality, certainly objects. Following last month’s kerfuffle wherein Elon Musk compared Soros to X-Men archvillain Magneto (who, like Soros, survived the Holocaust as a child) and asserted that Soros “hates humanity,” the masses predictably accused Musk of making “baseless” claims and furthering “antisemitic conspiracy theories.” But Chikli defended Musk, writing in a May 18 tweet: “As Israel’s minister who’s entrusted on combating anti-Semitism, I would like to clarify that the Israeli government and the vast majority of Israeli citizens see Elon Musk as an amazing entrepreneur and a role model. Criticism of Soros — who finances the most hostile organizations to the Jewish people and the state of Israel is anything but anti-Semitism, quite the opposite!”
Chikli’s welcome sentiments brought to mind a powerful 2022 New York Post op-ed by Rabbi Dov Fischer of the exceptional Orthodox Jewish group Coalition for Jewish Values, who wrote that “it’s a mitzvah (a righteous act) — not ‘antisemitism’ — to castigate George Soros for his radical attempts to undermine public safety and the American republic.” Hear, hear. Many, many other Jews have espoused much the same, both before and since.
It is past time to formalize and operationalize this widely held sentiment. Last week, Will Scharf — a conservative activist, former federal prosecutor and current candidate for Missouri attorney general — and I cofounded a new group, “Jews Against Soros.” You can read more, and sign up for future updates, at our website: JewsAgainstSoros.com. As the website states: “We are Jews who have had enough of George Soros and his malign, leftist influence on American politics. We are Jews who are also sick and tired of the Left accusing anyone who criticizes Soros of being antisemitic. … Leftism isn’t Judaism, and being anti-leftist is not the same as being antisemitic. Period.”
That is not, of course, to say that there is no such thing as antisemitic criticism of Soros. Of course there are some devious memes, classic antisemitic iconography, and so forth. And when that antisemitism rears its ugly head — whether targeted at Soros or any other Jew — Will and I would be the first two to vociferously condemn it. But the overwhelming majority of the criticism of Soros is entirely legitimate on the substance of the dastardly causes he organizes and funds — indeed, that criticism is just and righteous. It is, as Rabbi Fischer wrote, a mitzvah.
You too can do a mitzvah by joining our cause, and by spreading the word that most Jews reject the risible claim that to criticize George Soros is to fan the flames of the world’s oldest bigotry, Jew-hatred. Patriotic, pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-sovereignty, pro-rule of law Jews the world over abhor this man. George Soros’ ethnic and religious background must not prevent us from calling him what he is: evil.
George Soros is an evil man. In fact, he is one of the most evil men currently shaping American and Western politics, and global events more generally.
To straightforwardly opine in this manner is not to traffic in antisemitism or noxious Jew-baiting. It is simply to share one’s perspective about one of the most influential political donors, “philanthropists” and social activists in the world — someone who doles out countless sums to undermine and reshape in his dystopian image entire countries, spreading across at least five separate continents.
It is frankly astounding that this even needs to be said. I am a Jewish columnist, podcaster and public speaker. As such, I routinely share my opinions as a basic feature of my job. I imagine some of those opinions are provocative — perhaps highly so — for a subset of the population, especially those of a left-of-center bent. Some (very) small percentage of my critics may hate me and hate my opinions because I am Jewish, but it is surely the case that the overwhelming majority of my critics disagree with me on the merits of my ideas and contributions to the public discourse. Unless I have a compelling reason to believe a specific critic is acting out of rank bigotry, I operate from a baseline presumption that the critic is not a Jew-hater, but simply disagrees with my position.
Again, this should be obvious. But for far too many, it is apparently not obvious — at least when it comes to criticism of George Soros.
For years, whenever conservatives, nationalists and traditionalists have criticized the absolutely sprawling influence of George Soros and his left-wing Open Society Foundations umbrella network, Soros’ praetorian guard in the elected official class and corporate press invariably shriek, “That’s antisemitism! You can’t say that!”
What utter tripe.
Soros directly spent $128.5 million during last fall’s U.S. midterm elections, making him that election cycle’s single largest individual donor. He has spent $40 million trying to elect radically left-wing “reform prosecutors” — something he has been fully transparent about, defending it under his own byline in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last summer — across the country. He has been dishearteningly successful in that endeavor, successfully electing 75 district attorneys — such as Alvin Bragg in New York City, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco (since mercifully recalled) and Kim Foxx in Chicago — who oversee a decivilizational (and oxymoronic) prosecutorial agenda of not prosecuting violent and property crimes. Simply put, Soros is more responsible than any man in the world for the descent of some of America’s most iconic cities into anarchic urban hellholes.
The globalist archetype has routinely given massive sums to anti-sovereignty groups that seek to obliterate national borders, from the U.S. to his native Hungary to Israel. Speaking of Israel, the Jewish Soros harbors a unique disdain for the world’s only Jewish state: He has been a massive bankroller of the antisemitic “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” global movement, his foundations have supported internationally recognized Palestinian-Arab terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and he is the single largest donor ever to J Street and its affiliated PAC, which routinely peddle anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian agitprop and exist for the sole reason of providing “Jewish” cover for Democrats to bash Israel.
Who can earnestly contend that this is someone whose influence cannot be criticized on the grounds that it is “antisemitic” to do so?
Amichai Chikli, the Israeli government’s current minister of Diaspora affairs and minister for social equality, certainly objects. Following last month’s kerfuffle wherein Elon Musk compared Soros to X-Men archvillain Magneto (who, like Soros, survived the Holocaust as a child) and asserted that Soros “hates humanity,” the masses predictably accused Musk of making “baseless” claims and furthering “antisemitic conspiracy theories.” But Chikli defended Musk, writing in a May 18 tweet: “As Israel’s minister who’s entrusted on combating anti-Semitism, I would like to clarify that the Israeli government and the vast majority of Israeli citizens see Elon Musk as an amazing entrepreneur and a role model. Criticism of Soros — who finances the most hostile organizations to the Jewish people and the state of Israel is anything but anti-Semitism, quite the opposite!”
Chikli’s welcome sentiments brought to mind a powerful 2022 New York Post op-ed by Rabbi Dov Fischer of the exceptional Orthodox Jewish group Coalition for Jewish Values, who wrote that “it’s a mitzvah (a righteous act) — not ‘antisemitism’ — to castigate George Soros for his radical attempts to undermine public safety and the American republic.” Hear, hear. Many, many other Jews have espoused much the same, both before and since.
It is past time to formalize and operationalize this widely held sentiment. Last week, Will Scharf — a conservative activist, former federal prosecutor and current candidate for Missouri attorney general — and I cofounded a new group, “Jews Against Soros.” You can read more, and sign up for future updates, at our website: JewsAgainstSoros.com. As the website states: “We are Jews who have had enough of George Soros and his malign, leftist influence on American politics. We are Jews who are also sick and tired of the Left accusing anyone who criticizes Soros of being antisemitic. … Leftism isn’t Judaism, and being anti-leftist is not the same as being antisemitic. Period.”
That is not, of course, to say that there is no such thing as antisemitic criticism of Soros. Of course there are some devious memes, classic antisemitic iconography, and so forth. And when that antisemitism rears its ugly head — whether targeted at Soros or any other Jew — Will and I would be the first two to vociferously condemn it. But the overwhelming majority of the criticism of Soros is entirely legitimate on the substance of the dastardly causes he organizes and funds — indeed, that criticism is just and righteous. It is, as Rabbi Fischer wrote, a mitzvah.
You too can do a mitzvah by joining our cause, and by spreading the word that most Jews reject the risible claim that to criticize George Soros is to fan the flames of the world’s oldest bigotry, Jew-hatred. Patriotic, pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-sovereignty, pro-rule of law Jews the world over abhor this man. George Soros’ ethnic and religious background must not prevent us from calling him what he is: evil.
Reader Interactions
Tucker Carlson’s 'Wannabe Dictator' satire master class the left desperately had to ignore.
The walls are closing in on the fascist far left’s echo chamber; that’s the reason they couldn’t allow their outrage show over Tucker Carlson’s takedown of their dear leader.
If you’re one of the 30 million people who have viewed Ep. 4 of Tucker on Twitter entitled Wannabe Dictator (or on Rumble, YouTube, or Odysee) you would have been treated to a master class in the deadpan satire that is the hallmark of Mr. Carlson as he mocked the left while having a rollicking good time doing it.
It’s even more hilarious when you consider that they had to ignore this serious affront to their dear leader because he turned one of their formerly favorite techniques against them. He invoked facts they are desperate to keep out of their echo chamber. Mr. Carlson predicted this in his video presentation.
No one is ever allowed to invoke the facts of history when it comes to Hitler or the Nazis unless the far left does it. As in the case of "Godwin's Law", where they get all authoritarian in shutting down historical debate unless it’s framed a certain way. According to the nation’s socialist left, it is verboten to compare them to the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party.
Unless they’re talking about President Trump: Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about. Even worse, they’ve gone so far as to state a few years ago in the Washington Post: Don’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. It belittles Hitler.
The inventor of "Godwin's Law" about Hitler comparisons on the Internet says they're not always inappropriate.
Supposedly, referring to the facts of history ‘diminishes the significance and horror of what the Nazis did and represented’ and ‘thereby insults all who suffered’ unless it’s the left invoking this to score cynical political points. As they say, if the Democrats didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.
What probably ground their gears was that Mr. Carlson was using a formerly favorite technique the left employs for ‘proving’ the Republicans, pro-freedom right, and later President Trump was fascist in some form.
This technique involves the application of a list of subjective characteristics that always magically fit the target in question - primarily because they’re subjective. These are hard and fast lists of 12, no wait, 14 specific characteristics that never change except when they do.
- Hallmarks of a Fascist Regime [Original URL: http://www.hippy.com/php/article-226.html]
- Fascism Anyone?
- The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
- Fourteen Points of Fascism
- The 14 Features of Eternal Fascism
- The 12 Early Warning Signs of Fascism
- The 10 Characteristics That Define Fascism & Why It has Become Popular Again
- How fascist is Donald Trump? There’s actually a formula for that.
- Umberto Eco Makes a List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism
- 14 Undeniable Signs That Donald Trump Is A Fascist
- The 12 Early Warning Signs of Fascism
- 14 Undeniable Signs That Donald Trump Is A Fascist
- Twelve signs Trump would try to run a fascist dictatorship in a second term
They all seem to have originated with a list published on a now-defunct website www.hippy.com (”No joke,” to echo Beijing Biden). Over the years the items on the lists changed around -- because we all know these are ‘immutable characteristics’ except when they aren’t. Until the first few months of President Trump’s first term; then the fascist far left suddenly changed the technique to one of the long dissertations instead of discrete subjective criteria. This was probably because it became obvious that President Trump didn’t fit the template and the far left wanted to maintain the lie.
What was even worse for the left was that the monologue referenced facts the far left wants to keep out of their echo chamber. For example, the video mentioned Hunter Biden and images we’re familiar with from his laptop, but that story hasn’t penetrated the cone of silence that is the one-sided media bubble of the left.
We rummaged through many a far-left site in researching this story. Because who doesn’t want to wade through extremist far-left propaganda? It’s always a fun activity like cutting through poison ivy vines or hitting your head against a brick wall. We wanted to see if they reacted to this video and we noticed - surprise, surprise - the far left isn’t covering the Biden bribery scandal.
If you want a good example of this, we present the opening paragraph from the New Republic entitled: Inside the GOP’s Latest Desperate Attempt to Smear Joe Biden, How low will Republicans go?
“If you get your news on planet Earth, you agree with me that the biggest news story of last week was the federal indictment of Donald Trump.”
“If, however, you get your news on planet Wingnuttia, you have been led to believe that while the Trump matter was certainly news, the bigger deal by several orders of magnitude was the “proof” that emerged last week that Joe Biden took a $5 million bribe from Ukraine and that Representative Jamie Raskin lied about it. You’ve also been told that the timing of the Trump indictment was no mere coincidence—it was handed down precisely to distract America from the “fact” of Biden’s corruption.”
“If all this is unfamiliar to you, don’t worry. There is no such proof. Raskin, one of the most honorable public servants in America, who couldn’t lie if you tortured him, did not utter a falsehood.”
‘If all this is unfamiliar to you’? The piece states that as though even ongoing allegations of criminal activity of the Biden family far worse than is being alleged against President Trump aren’t even newsworthy.
By the way, take note of what the fascist far left thinks is part of our agenda:
“Their positions—give more money to rich people, stop all abortions, take transgender children away from sympathetic parents, ban books, destroy the planet—aren’t popular, and they know this, so they have to make voters hate the Democrat.”
Does anyone recall seeing those on any party agenda for the pro-freedom right? And they have the cojones to call us liars. ‘Destroy the planet’?
What do they think, that the whole party is going to fly off in spaceships to another planet or something?
So you see, they have to be selective in their outrage, lest they reveal too much of the Biden scandals, not to mention the fact that the Biden regime is unconstitutionally surveilling the people, something the people who pretend to be ‘liberal’ used to claim they cared about.
The irony in all this is that we’re surrounded by the national socialist media, so we can’t help but get pounded by their propaganda, while they can sit in a bubble and convince themselves they’re getting ‘both’ sides of the story. So do everyone a favor and pass along Tucker’s latest. Who knows, maybe it will make a little headway in opening up some echo chambers.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Photo credit: Twitter video screengrab
Dems Trash U.S. Constitution
It's the only thing standing in their way.
If you own a business, the leftists in Congress are coming after you. The only thing standing in their way is the U.S. Constitution.
Whether you own a mom-and-pop diner, an auto repair shop or shares in a multinational corporation, your property is at risk.
The Constitution’s takings clause was designed to protect us from government grabbing our property without paying fairly for it. But last year, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they rammed through the Inflation Reduction Act, boasting that it would enable Medicare to “negotiate” lower prices for medications for seniors.
“Negotiate” is a lie. Under the new law, government can strong-arm companies to sell their most popular medications at a price Uncle Sam dictates, or be taxed out of existence in a matter of weeks. On June 6, the pharmaceutical giant Merck sued, claiming the law violates its constitutional rights.
Amen. This lawsuit is a red flag for everyone in America who owns anything or hopes to.
The actual language of the law is breathtakingly coercive, but let’s face it, most members of Congress don’t bother to read bills before voting on them.
The law says that any company that refuses to sell at the government’s price will be hit with a tax that starts at 186% of the drug’s revenues on Day 1 and is hiked daily until it reaches a ruinous 1,900% of revenues — not just from government sales but all sales. That would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes per day.
The company has no escape. Contrast this coercion with price controls in socialist-leaning European countries, where drug companies can decline to sell at the government price.
Merck explains that it “will be legally compelled to sell its most valuable products for a fraction of their value, on pain of yet more draconian penalties. This is not ‘negotiation.’ It is tantamount to extortion.”
The law also gags the company from disclosing what Medicare officials say about price “negotiations” behind closed doors. Worse, the law requires the company to publicly call the price rammed down its throat “fair.”
Is this even America? Congress limits free speech and requires companies to state things they don’t believe.
Merck’s lawsuit objects, “Our Constitution does not countenance compelled speech in service of state propaganda.”
Congress needs a refresher course on the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment bars the government from taking your property without just compensation. And the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing you to say something against your will. These are the bases of Merck’s lawsuit.
The law being challenged is exactly what you’d find in George Orwell’s “1984,” a novel depicting socialist despotism. The government dictates the price for your product but calls it a “negotiation.” If you refuse, your business is taxed to death overnight. You are gagged from disclosing what is happening and forced to declare the price “fair.”
If Merck’s lawsuit fails, who are the next victims? Auto makers could be forced to sell cars for the federal fleet for $10,000 a piece instead of a fair price. What about bed sheets for the Army, airplane parts for the Air Force or restaurant meals for government employees?
Merck’s lawsuit raises only constitutional issues, but Americans also need to know that price controls on pharmaceuticals could be dangerous to their health. In countries that cap prices, patients have reduced access to new drugs. Patients in France get only half the new treatments that U.S. patients get, according to University of Chicago economist Tomas Philipson.
Last week, the American Society of Clinical Oncology announced a treatment — osimertinib — that improves survival by 51% for lung cancer patients who have had surgery and face a recurrence. As a survivor myself, I cut out the article and put it in my desk drawer, hoping I won’t need it but glad it’s a possibility.
Many politicians think vilifying drug companies is good politics. They ignore the devastating impact of price controls on the pipeline for future cures.
This is a legitimate policy debate. But obeying the Constitution is not optional. Congress members swear an oath to it.
Merck’s lawsuit is headed to the Supreme Court.
Tell Biden and leftist lawmakers to read the 4,543 words in the Constitution and honor them.
Reader Interactions
JOE BIDEN IS ONLY BARACK OBAMA'S PATH TO A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE WHERE HE AND SOROS WILL CREATE A MUSLIM STYLE DICTATORSHIP.
BARACK OBAMA DESTROYED THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS USING HIS BANKSTERS AND LA RAZA/UNIDOUS. NOW HE ONLY NEEDS TO FINISH OFF THE BORDER, HAND AMNESTY TO 50 MILLION MEX FLAG WAVERS AND END FREE SPEECH. HE'S ON HIS WAY!
Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is widely available. See also www.cashill.com.
Barack Obama Pushes ‘Digital Fingerprints’ to Fight ‘Misinformation’
Barack Obama, who was instrumental in fueling the media’s “misinformation” narrative before he left office, has a new buzzword — “digital fingerprints.”
The former Democrat president wants the origin of digital information such as photos and videos to be clearly traced, to fight the spread of deepfakes.
“That technology’s here now,” said Obama in a discussion with his former advisor David Axelrod on the latter’s CNN podcast. “So, most immediately we’re going to have all the problems we had with misinformation before, [but] this next election cycle will be worse.”
President Barack Obama signs the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act alongside Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd (center), Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank (second right), Vice President Joe Biden (far left), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (second left) on July 21, 2010. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
“”And the need for us, for the general public, I think to be more discriminating consumers of news and information, the need for us to over time develop technologies to create watermarks or digital fingerprints so we know what is true and what is not true.”
The idea of fighting “misinformation” by tracing the origin of digital info is not new. A coalition of tech and media companies led by Microsoft is already trying to make this technology the industry standard, as is a coalition with similar goals led by Adobe.
Before he left office, President Obama helped spark the media panic over “fake news” — later rebranded as “misinformation” — that was adopted by the media, NGOs, and tech companies as a pretext to suppress conservative content.
Hours before election day 2016, the Democrat president was giving interviews to the media about the dangers of “fake news,” and in the weeks following the election of Donald Trump, used public appearances to talk about the problem of “misinformation.”
Prior to this, the topic was not discussed widely in the media. Afterwards, it was everywhere. And by 2020, it was a key part of the media and tech industry’s efforts to interfere in the election.
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.
No comments:
Post a Comment