VISUALIZE REVOLUTION! We can’t start to rebuild the AMERICAN middle-class until we stop electing and reelecting bribes sucking white-color criminals and until we burn down Wall Street, hang the banksters and billionaires plundering this nation and push Mexico out of our jobs, welfare lines, voting booths and borders! PUT YOUR CELL PHONE DOWN AND GET BUSY BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS ARE AMERICA'S GREATEST THREAT!
The billionaire class, the top 0.01 percent of earners, has enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as the bottom 90 percent since 1979. That economy has been reinforced with federal rules that largely benefits the wealthiest of wealthiest earners. A study released last month revealed that the richest Americans are, in fact, paying a lower tax rate than all other Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Facebook Puts Soros, Muslim Brotherhood, Activists in Charge of Censorship
The Leftist-Islam Supreme Court of Social Media Censorship is here.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Facebook controls as much as 80% of social media traffic. That means that it has the power to erase conversations, shift narratives, and control how people speak to one another.
With 190 million users in the United States, the social network monopoly has more control over what people see than all of the media giants combined do. And now Facebook is putting some very troubling political activists in charge of its Oversight Board who will decide how it censors.
“You can imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don’t work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world,” Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg had described the Board.
What does Facebook’s Supreme Court of Censorship look like when you zoom in?
Only a quarter of the Oversight Board originates from the United States. That means three quarters of the censorship court comes from countries with no First Amendment. While people from outside the United States may believe in certain kinds of free speech, political speech in this country will be determined by a majority Third World board of left-leaning political activists.
And even there the balance is curiously tilted.
3 members of the 20 member board are Muslim or come from Muslim countries. Only one board member is Hindu. Considering that there are approximately 1.1 billion Hindus and 1.8 billion Muslims, the Facebook Oversight Board favors Muslim countries at the expense of Hindus.
Considering the pressure by Islamists and their allies to censor India’s Hindu political movements and civil rights organizations combating Islamic violence, this is troubling.
The Oversight Board also has only one Asian member for around 1.8 billion people.
Of the 3 Muslim nationals, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy has noted that Tawakkol Karman was a top leader in a Muslim Brotherhood linked group with ties to Al Qaeda.
“The Brotherhood is a movement fighting for freedom," Karman wrote of the organization whose leaders have called for the murder of Jews and whose history includes Nazi collaboration.
“Because it is an integral part of this region, the Brotherhood is the one who will rule Riyadh and Abu Dhabi," she even predicted.
Facebook has added an Islamist who believes that a theocracy will rule the region, and put her in charge of determining content moderation policies for the entire planet. A member aligned with a violently bigoted organization will help Facebook police “hate speech”.
What will happen to ex-Muslims and secular activists in Muslim countries under this setup?
These numbers make it clear that the Board is not proportional by population, and despite its international makeup, reflects the political agendas of Facebook’s left-leaning leadership.
The first member, in alphabetical order, is a program manager at the Open Society Initiative, a part of the George Soros global political empire of NGOs. There is no indication that the Soros employee will be stepping down from her role so that, despite previous clashes with the radical billionaire, George Soros will effectively control a seat on Facebook’s Oversight Board.
Andras Sajo has held positions in Open Society organizations, including on the Board of Directors of the Open Society Justice Initiative and is allegedly an old friend of Soros.
Helle Thorning-Schmidt sits on the Board of Trustees of Soros' International Crisis Group along with the extremist billionaire and his son.
Maina Kiai sits on the Advisory Board for the Human Rights Initiative of Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Sudhir Krishnaswamy also appears to have benefited from an Open Society grant. This is not unusual considering that the Oversight Board is weighed heavily toward NGOs with members from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Even dismissing members who have only appeared at Soros events or made use of grants from Soros organizations, four Oversight Board members are deeply involved in Soros organizations. And Soros has made his hostility to free speech, and his conviction that conservatives must be censored, abundantly clear.
Soros has demanded that Facebook "should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site" and complained that the company "fails to adequately punish those who spread false information.” Will Oversight Board members who work for Soros or sit on the boards of his organizations protect free speech or support the billionaire’s crusade to censor the opposition?
If the Oversight Board is going to be the final determinative body for Facebook censorship, why stack it with so many professional human rights activists who are not lawyers or professors? Courts don’t invite in activists to issue rulings. That’s because activists come with agendas. And their agendas may involve empowerment, but usually for a small and narrowly defined group.
They are also rarely independent, but often funded by billionaires with their own agendas.
But even the Oversight Board’s academic members can be as repressive as a Soros.
Nicolas Suzor had written that "neutrality" on social media platforms is "causing problems" and that "neutral tools that do not actively take inequality into account will almost inevitably contribute to the ampliﬁcation of inequality." He even suggested that dissent from the Left's global warming positions could also be viewed as dangerous. "Racism, misogyny, and bigotry, anti-vaccination content, misinformation, self-harm, and climate change denial — all require difficult judgments about when one person’s speech is harmful to others."
In a Twitter exchange, a prof argued that, "many of the most controversial content moderation decisions are about leave-ups. Think: Pelosi video, hate speech in Myanmar, Alex Jones... not having this in scope for the Board from the start is a huge… Oversight." Suzor replied that, "totally agree that expanding the scope as soon as we can is really important."
That should worry anyone whose speech might one day fall afoul of the Soroses and Suzors.
Dubious claims that some form of speech is dangerous have been used to justify crackdowns by social media giants on everything from pro-life views to support for conservative candidates. The current wave of censorship has been justified by insisting that conservative speech is either a product of foreign disinformation (the Russia hoax), that it’s medically dangerous (suppression of political protests, dissent on coronavirus policy, or opposition to abortion), or that any speech offensive to an identity politics group causes inequality and psychological harm.
Combine the three together and they add up to censoring any political speech the Left opposes.
And, as Michael Moore’s censorship by environmentalists shows, not even career leftists are immune from the Orwellian political orthodoxy that brands some views anathema overnight.
(That is why leftists might want to reconsider their abandonment of liberalism before it’s too late. History shows that the ideology most likely to purge lefties for ideological dissent is the Left.)
Facebook set up the Oversight Board to outsource its censorship while evading responsibility for its repression. The dot com giant wants to be a monopoly that has a stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas, but it doesn’t want to be open to the marketplace’s diversity of ideas.
That is the totalitarian fallacy of most of the Big Tech giants who want users on their terms.
Stacking the board with Soros cronies and assorted human rights activists, digital experts, and the other sorts of people who spend all their time appearing on panels and giving TED talks, is how Big Tech companies have their censorship cake and eat it too. After this, when conservatives complain about Facebook censorship, it won’t be Mark Zuckerberg’s fault.
But it will be.
The Oversight Board, like most Facebook initiatives, is rigged from the ground up. It contains a few token libertarians, but is tilted toward lefties. It contains an Islamist, but hardly anyone likely to advocate for the values of traditional Christians and Jews. Behind the facade of international diversity, the Supreme Court of Censorship has very little intellectual or religious diversity.
Two libertarian/conservative establishment figures don’t balance out eight lefties just as bringing in an Israeli leftist does not balance out a Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood figure. Giving Soros four seats and Koch one is not only rigging the game, but failing to address the real issues at stake.
The social media giant is responding to pressure to censor conservative views, especially in the US, the UK, Israel, Latin America, Myanmar, and India, yet has no representatives of the sorts of people who are likely to be censored. Instead it stacked the deck with those likely to censor.
Where are the Trump supporters, the Modi backers, the Bolsonaro fans, the Zionists, the Buddhist monks of Myanmar, or any group that dissents from the Left on any major issue?
Of the groups likely to be censored, only the Islamists get their own representative at Facebook.
The Supreme Court of Censorship is rigged in favor of the censors and against the censored.
Facebook has assembled a grab bag of globalist personalities that wouldn’t be out of place at a UN conference (and a number have worked at or for the UN in some capacity) and put them in charge of determining what can be said by billions of people around the world.
And by countless millions in the United States of America.
The United States is tasked with protecting the essential freedoms of its citizens from interference by its government, by foreign governments, or by any force so powerful that it can singly blot out any of the Bill of Rights. The Big Tech monopolies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook pose a unique threat to the unalienable rights among which are, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", for whose protection, "Governments are instituted among Men."
This is the role that Jefferson envisioned for government in the Declaration of Independence.
Governments wield power by the “consent of the governed” who can vote and remove any government. Facebook would like us to think that its powers to censor will derive from a bunch of globalist NGO activists and lefty law professors. No individual or group has the power to stop Facebook’s monopoly over social media. It has become too rich and powerful.
Only our government can fulfill its role by restoring our freedom to speak and be heard.
Otherwise all political speech that is not of the Left will be erased from the public square. If there were any doubt about that, Facebook’s Supreme Court of Censorship has settled it.
Investor Jeffrey Wernick Blasts Facebook’s Oversight Board as ‘Technofascism’
investor Jeffrey Wernick is the latest prominent voice to speak out against
Facebook’s new “oversight board” that will have the power to control speech
on the social media platform. Wernick has described the board as a form of
“technofascism” and an affront to the First Amendment.
“Shame on Facebook. Shame on anyone
who embraces this concept,” Wernick said in a statement released on Friday.
“And shame on anyone who would agree to serve on this Committee. They are free
speech frauds who want to control language and thought.”
He also accused Facebook of being a
“data rapist” in an apparent reference to the Cambridge Analytica scandal,
in which the personal information of millions of Facebook users was used
without their consent ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
oversight board — also known as its “Supreme Court” — is expected to wield
significant power over what can and cannot be said on the platform. But the
20-person group, which will operate semi-independently of Facebook, has already
come under fire for being compromised largely of left-wing
and anti-Trump figures.
The board includes Stanford
University law professor Pamela Karlan, who earlier this year joked about
President Trump’s then-13-year-old son Barron while she testified at the House
impeachment hearings. Another member is Australian law professor Nicolas
Suzor, who once tweeted that he “loved” an article comparing President Trump to
Other members include a former aide
to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and three people who have documented ties to
leftist billionaire George Soros.
coalition of 60 conservative organizations and publishers recently
called on Facebook to do away with its politically skewed
oversight board. The coalition also warned that the board is stacked with
individuals from other countries who may not uphold America’s First Amendment
Wernick, who has invested in bitcoin technology and serves as a strategic
advisor to the competing social network start-up Parler,
is encouraging people to abandon Facebook.
“My proposed solution is for people
to simply get off Facebook,” he said in his statement. “Facebook is an
acknowledged data rapist who promotes digital assassinations of individuals and
groups. And is now recruiting more people to further legitimize those
practices. Do not be distracted by the window dressing. Shame everyone and
anyone who is willing to serve on [the board] and practice technofascism.”
prominent figures to criticize Facebook’s oversight board include Sen. Josh
Hawley (R-MO), who has been a consistent voice against Silicon Valley
overreach, and Brendan Carr, one of the
four commissioners of the FCC.
Silicon Valley’s Control Virus
The tech industry’s Chinese surveillance solution to the Wuhan
April 30, 2020
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the
Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the
radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Silicon Valley was both the epicenter of one
of the country’s first Wuhan Virus outbreaks, hosting the 2nd case
in California and the 7th in the country, and of the
technological tools of the lockdown, from contact tracing and drone tracking,
to the virtualization of everything from education to socialization.
The tech industry represents the apex of both globalization and repression.
On its massive campuses, foreign workers likely played a role in spreading the
virus even as their industry became the public face of fighting the virus by
unleashing a new wave of censorship and surveillance against Americans.
Before long, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg could be seen warning
that the social media giant would delete any protests against the lockdown,
YouTube’s Susan Wojcicki declaring that any videos that contradicted WHO would
be deleted, and Microsoft’s Bill Gates speculating about immunity passports.
And Google and Apple came together to build a contact tracing
system that would track everyone.
Silicon Valley’s titans and monopolies want to be the heroes of
this pandemic, but the only things they have to offer are the totalitarian
tools of surveillance that have destroyed public trust in the industry.
Santa Clara County has, as of this writing, experienced nearly
100 deaths. A Stanford study last month speculated that there were 48,000
infected. Even as Silicon Valley has helped spread the Wuhan Virus, it has its
own form of immunity. Barbers can’t work online, but interface designers can.
Tech industry stocks may have taken a beating, but unlike countless small
businesses, they will bounce back.
And the virus culture of lockdowns and social distancing,
wholesale civil rights violations and the elimination of privacy is trending
the tech industry’s way. The massive databases of the huge monopolies are
making it a lot easier for the authorities to track lockdown scofflaws. The
creepy visions of an automated posthuman society have become the default
response to the virus across America.
Social distancing is completing Silicon Valley’s vision of a
world of isolated people who can only connect to each other through the
mediation of their services. The brave new world in which Facebook is family,
Twitter is politics, and Google is reality is a lot closer than ever before in
the new Safer at Home society.
While the tech giants have much to say about what people can and
can’t do, they have little to say about the origins of the Wuhan Virus and how
Santa Clara County ended up with its own pandemic.
"China did a lot of things right at the beginning, like any
country where a virus first shows up," Bill Gates told CNN. In a Washington Post editorial,
he described Microsoft China as a model of whose "roughly 6,200
employees", "about half are now coming in to work."
China is more than the tech industry’s partner: it’s the future.
The social credit system and surveillance society, the skyscrapers and robotics,
the high-speed rail and the massive factories are more than just TED talks,
they’re a grim chrome-plated reality. The censorship, surveillance, and
propaganda deployed by Silicon Valley in response to the pandemic was a Chinese
solution privatized in an American fashion.
Gates, like other Silicon Valley technocrats, has to keep
spreading the myth of Chinese expertise in battling the Wuhan Virus, not just
because Microsoft needs the approval of the Communists, but because the Peeps
are to tech industry technocrats what the Soviet Union with its collective
farms and planned economy was to the New York and Chicago academics of nine
decades ago. The future.
That’s why Democrats have spent the last generation mumbling
that we should be more like China. Perhaps not the forced abortions, organ
trafficking, or camps, but they do make the trains run on time. And California
can’t even manage to build a train. It’s no wonder that Silicon Valley looks
westward even as it uses the pandemic to unleash technodystopian solutions
worthy of three William Gibson novels.
The one thing that China’s Xi and Gates’ corporate culture in
Redmond could agree on is that people are stupid and need to be told what to
do. Most will never do what they’re supposed to unless they’re manipulated,
prodded, and even bullied into doing what the masters of the universe think
That’s exactly why the tech industry’s monopolies have created a
toxic culture that has infected our culture, poisoned our politics, and is
depriving us of our civil rights. Its number dot zero web divides and conquers,
fragmenting our society along algorithmic lines, creating crises for its own
profit, and then brutally stamping on the consequent conflicts with its unseen
machinery of surveillance and censorship.
Silicon Valley isn’t fixing the pandemic with its control freak
responses, instead it’s worsening it. The tech industry might have learned from
its Chinese cohorts that censorship doesn’t inspire confidence, it creates
distrust, manufacturing a consensus by silencing everyone who disagrees spreads
In a dissentless culture, everyone echoes the propaganda, but no
one really trusts or believes anything.
Control, surveillance, and suppression don’t solve problems.
They just convince members of the elite that the problem is under control.
That’s what the Communist elite accomplished in China. Their lies,
intimidation, and likely killings aren’t fooling the people in the affected
areas, just their bosses.
That’s also how Silicon Valley works. Instead of proverbs from
Mao’s Little Red Book, there are buzzwords. But they all serve the same
function, ghost cities and vaporware, phantom industries and fake economics,
entire Potemkin realities built on lies that fall apart when you pull back the
Who really needs this level of control and deceit? Thieves and
liars. The bigger the con, the harder you have to grip the tiger so it doesn’t
eat you. That’s as true in China as it is in California.
Communist China’s dirty little secret is that it doesn’t work.
Its fake economy is built on massive thievery and fraud. If the United States
ever stopped buying its own stolen property back from the Commies, along with
the rest of the world, the whole thing would collapse as badly as Mao’s sparrow
American technocrats who insist that we imitate China are
falling for a fraud. And every time the Democrats try to sincerely imitate a
fraud, the whole thing fails miserably on them like all their high-speed rail
projects that never get off the ground and only do one thing at high speed,
High-speed rail, like an internet run by a handful of
monopolies, seems very appealing to control freaks. But the American model is
two cars in every garage and a decentralized web that has room for everyone.
The pandemic solution championed by American technocrats envisions one lockdown
for everyone and one token ring to bind them all. People, both Commies and dot
commies often assume, are interchangeable. What holds true in New York will be
just as true in South Carolina or Wyoming.
The Wuhan Virus is a wake-up call about globalization and
centralization. America isn’t just a gear in a global machine, and states
aren’t interchangeable parts in a national puzzle. Americans are as
individualistic as their communities. We’re not glowing dots to be herded by
drones, barked at by public safety announcements, and lied to for our own good
by dot com and gov public-private partnerships.
The tech industry’s monopolies have built a dystopian culture
that has divided neighbors, families and a nation. It’s time to break up
the dystopia, end the monopolies, and rebuild the American community.
WSJ: Mark Zuckerberg Is Tightening His Control over Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg’s personal control
over the operation of Facebook and its affiliated tech platforms is growing,
according to an in-depth report in the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal reports that
Zuckerberg is “pushing aside dissenters” as he reasserts control over the
company he founded, and is taking new power over Facebook-owned services like
Instagram and WhatsApp, despite earlier promises to leave the acquired
platforms relatively independent.
announced the departure of two directors, and added a longtime friend of Mr.
Zuckerberg’s to the board. The moves were the culmination of the chief
executive’s campaign over the past two years to consolidate decision-making at
the company he co-founded 16 years ago. The 35-year-old tycoon also jumped into
action steering Facebook into a high-profile campaign in the coronavirus
response, while putting himself in the spotlight interviewing prominent health
officials and politicians.
result is a Facebook CEO and chairman more actively and visibly in charge than
he has been in years.
Zuckerberg in 2018 took on the role of a wartime
leader who needed to act quickly and, sometimes, unilaterally. He
announced a series of products that took Facebook in new directions, starting
with the March 2019 announcement that the company would emphasize private,
encrypted messaging instead of the public posts that made it famous.
Breitbart News covered in a
column last week, Zuckerberg’s tightening control over the social media giant
coincides with a series of unprecedented acts of censorship, including the
censoring of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. The Facebook CEO has
also described anti-lockdown
protests as “misinformation,” as his company proactively reached out to state
governments to collude in the suppression of the protests’ organization on the
Zuckerberg’s control over Facebook grows, so too does Facebook’s control over
the global flow of information — aided by the ongoing panic over coronavirus
you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who
wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company?
Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email
Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
Facebook is Spending Millions to Plant Radical
Activists in Local Newspapers
out newsrooms to a left-wing agenda.
April 29, 2020
a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism
the Alliance Defending Freedom helped a local church sue Chattanooga for
banning its drive-in prayer service, the article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press repeated
the Southern Poverty Law Center's smear of the religious civil rights organization
as a hate group. But the reporter who wrote the article was no ordinary
employee. Wyatt Massey was one of the 225 members of Report for America's
'corps' who are planted in local newsrooms to promote the radical agendas of
the left-wing group.
Trump’s new public charge rule close door on immigrants’ hope of the American
dream?” Manuel Obed asked at The
Dallas News. Obed has been with the RFA ‘corps’ pushing out
1976, William Garrison, along with two other thugs, broke into a home in
Detroit, killed a man, and shot two other people. When Garrison recently died
of coronavirus, the Detroit
Free Press article treating him like a victim was written by
Angie Jackson, another 'corps' member. Jackson’s beat, according to Report for
America, is “formerly incarcerated citizens re-entering the community.”
Report for America claims that it’s funding local journalism, what it’s
actually doing is embedding social justice activists in local papers who are
often targeted at pursuing a narrow political agenda.
Willingham was placed at the Associated
Press to focus on the "Mississippi state
legislature" and its "actions affecting the poor", Kyeland
Jackson was planted in Twin Cities Public Television to cover the "causes,
effects and solutions to racial disparities in Minnesota", Shivani Patel
was dispatched to the Ventura
County Star to write about “equity in education in the
county”, and Devna Bose was shoved into The
Charlotte Observer to report on "poor and minority
communities in prosperous Charlotte".
agenda is often built into the very description of what Report for America’s
activists are doing. Or at least it is to Report for America’s donors who are
told what the activists they fund are doing. But ordinary readers of local
publications and stations are often not told that what they’re reading isn’t
real local reporting: it’s the work of activists funded by a national
organization and its wealthy backers.
lack of transparency is dishonest, unethical, and a new low even in the era of
left-wing foundations and donors aren’t funding journalism, they’re buying
coverage that fits their agenda. And local newspapers are renting out their
newsrooms to wealthy left-wing organizations. Beyond the usual radical foundations like the Ford
Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Knight Foundation, the Facebook
Journalism Project has poured millions of dollars into RFA.
journalists are providing us with an extraordinary public service 24 hours a
day,” Facebook's Campbell Brown, falsely claimed. “We all need to understand
how the virus is impacting the communities where we live—it’s vital information
that’s helping keep our friends and families safe, and we’re proud to support
Report for America in this effort.”
that Report for America’s model is finding young activists and parachuting them
into local communities to purse some narrow political agenda. That’s not
journalism. 6 of the activists from RFA’s current class will be covering
‘climate change’, 9 will be covering poverty, and 4 will be covering prisons.
for America's focus on identity politics and its base of white lefties
parachuting in to produce agitprop sometimes results ludicrous pairings like
Samuel Bojarski, a Jewish freelance writer from Pittsburgh, being dumped
into The Haitian
Times to cover the Haitian community. But mostly its activists
are young women, some have worked for lefty organizations, and their politics
has often been accused of spreading fake news. Here it, along with the Google
News Initiative, which kicked in $400,000, is literally financing a fake news
project which pays half the salaries of the reporters it embeds in local
newsrooms, while its own funding comes from wealthy left-wing groups.
newspapers are happy with the arrangement: it’s the readers who are cheated.
has claimed that its Journalism Project will fight fake news, instead it’s
funding it. If the social media monopoly giant wanted to support journalism, it
could do so in any number of ways. By financing Report for America’s activism,
it’s helping fund papers on the condition that they run propaganda.
isn’t philanthropy, it’s politics.
only is Facebook financing a political agenda, its funding of RFA represents an
even deeper conflict of interest when the embedded activists from the left-wing
group start functioning as fact checkers. The social media monopoly has used
media fact checkers in an on and off way to censor conservatives.
current RFA 'corps' class embedded Clara Hendrickson, of the left-wing
Brookings Institute think tank, into the Detroit Free Press, where she’s tasked with
'fact checking' Michigan politicians for the paper and for the PolitiFact site.
conflicts of interest here are so convoluted that they require their own flow
research analyst for a partisan think tank is funded by a left-wing
organization to ‘fact check’ political candidates for a major newspaper which
has already accepted two other embedded RFA activists. PolitiFact then intends
to treat her attacks on Republicans as ‘facts’, and Facebook, which is funding
the whole shebang, will censor conservatives on social media based on her
partisan hit pieces.
checking already consists of partisan attacks by the media under the guise of
objectivity. RFA is helping the media shelve even the thinnest pretenses of
objectivity and ethics in pursuit of its goals.
as Hendrickson tweeted, “I'm thrilled to say I'll be joining @freep in
partnership with @PolitiFact as a @report4america corps member, fact-checking
federal, state and local candidates in a key swing state ahead of the 2020
election.” Is ‘fact checking’ federal candidates any more important in a swing
state? It is if your goal isn’t searching for the truth, but helping Joe Biden
win the White House.
its activist, RFA zeroed in on the ‘key swing state’ element to justify
Hendrickson’s role, explaining that, “Michigan’s need for fact-checking is
particularly critical because it has been identified as one of only four true
“swing” states in the 2020 presidential election… additionally, there is a
Senate race in Michigan in 2020 that is widely considered a toss-up.” This
isn’t journalism, it’s an election strategy.
as PolitiFact Editor Angie Drobnic Holan noted in her gushing statement about
the 'fact checking' site's partnership with a left-wing group, "We intend
to fact-check the messaging of the presidential election, as well as the race
for U.S. Senate." Actual journalists check their own facts. Activists
redefine activism, partisan messaging, and hit pieces as fact checking because
it still fools some people.
a sample of Clara's commitment to truth and facts, "Spoiler: Trump's
racist rhetoric has encouraged violence in America."
only thing the PolitiFact partnership demonstrates is that ‘fact checkers’ are
just as eager to rent out their coverage to wealthy donors as newspapers as
long as it’s for the same left-wing causes.
complicated entanglements between wealthy lefty donors, lefty non-profits, and
newspapers into unethical conflicts of interest is one of the few things that
Report for America does well.
Kansas City Star accepted three of RFA’s activists who
will all be tasked with finding solutions to gun violence. These solutions will
not involve locking up the shooters and throwing away the key. One of the RFA
activists at the Kansas City Star is Humera Lodhi, a Muslim blogger at the Huffington Post, with a
fellowship at the Marshall Project, a left-wing pro-crime think tank that
blames gun violence on guns.
Star not only managed to bring in an activist who is
funded by one left-wing organization, but two left-wing organizations, while
having her cover the very area of advocacy that is a major focus of the second
organization. It’s hard to imagine how this arrangement could be any more
biased and unethical. But there’s little doubt that Report for America will
find a way.
for America is an initiative of the Ground Truth Project, a non-profit, which
is partnering with for-profit papers, and the Project was born out GlobalPost,
a for-profit organization. GlobalPost was going to use GTP to produce reporting
for it. This conflict of interest went national when GTP was spun off into its
own non-profit and RTA is used to seed content into for-profit publications.
its peans to journalism, dumping a few activists into local papers and then
paying half their salaries won’t keep local news alive. If anything, it will
help alienate more of the remaining subscribers. RTA is just another venture by
former journalists to monetize the last remains of journalism by turning it
into a political weapon. There’s not much money in journalism, but lots of cash
flowing into politics.
prostituting, and weaponizing journalism is helping destroy what little
integrity it has.
is eliminating what little difference there is between the media and political
activism. It’s not alone in the field, but it’s the most successful
organization and has the best financed of any of its rivals. Its founders have
seen the bright future where journalism is a vestigial limb of political
non-profits who instead of buying election ads, buy the whole paper without
having to manage it or pay taxes on it.
the whole thing is funded by the dot com monopolies who helped destroy
Speech Platform Parler: ‘Facebook Egregiously Spun Their Six-Year Web of Lies’
Social media start-up
Parler is once again punching above its weight class, saying that Facebook
ought to pay more than the $5 billion fine recently approved by a federal judge
for the company’s violations of user privacy.
agreed last year to pay a record $5 billion fine to the Federal Trade
Commission to settle a government investigation into its privacy
practices. The settlement, which was approved last week by a federal court in
Washington, D.C., also requires Facebook to improve privacy protections for its
2 billion users and report to an independent oversight board.
social media giant was caught up in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which
the personal information of millions of Facebook users was used without their
consent ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
said in a statement Tuesday that $5 billion is inadequate given Facebook’s
valuation, which exceeds $550 billion, and the seriousness of the offense.
conned and misled its community members by using their private information to
build an empire” Parler Chief Marketing Officer Elise Rhodes said in a
statement this week.
got caught with their back against the wall and agreed to stop the abuse.
Facebook then made the conscious and intentional decision to keep exploiting,
plundering, and peddling their community member’s data for every possible penny
with the objective to extract every ounce of flesh. While Facebook egregiously
spun their six-year web of lies, their value exploded to nearly $600 billion.
In that perspective, what’s a $5 billion fine?”
has defended the settlement, saying last week that it goes beyond what the law
requires. “The agreement approved today goes beyond anything required by U.S.
law, and we believe that it can and should serve as a roadmap for more
comprehensive privacy regulation, as other parts of the world have explored. We
hope this leads to further progress on developing consistent legislation in the
U.S. and elsewhere,” Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Michel Protti said in a statement.
our goal is to honor people’s privacy and focus on doing what’s right for
people. We believe that’s what the billions of people who use our products
expect from us, and we’re going to keep doing that work for them.”
Facebook has admitted
to banning swathes of users for posting messages saying they were “Proud to be
English” on St George’s Day.
England’s patron saint, St George’s Day has long been celebrated as the English
national day — if with less official enthusiasm than St Patrick’s Day in
neighbouring Ireland, given the embarrassment of much of the academic, media,
and political establishment at expressions of “Englishness”, which they have
associated with racism and
some group, or some algorithm moderating also appears to have bought into this mentality,
with people who marked St George’s Day with messages expressing pride in the
country and their heritage reporting that they were banned from the social
image bearing the legend “Proud to Be English” and two crossed flagpoles carrying
the English St George’s Cross and the white lion on a red field — a banner
associated with Anglo-Saxons — appears to have proved particularly offensive to
the so-called “Masters of the Universe“.
who shared the image reported receiving messages informing them they
had been subject to various bans and suspensions because they had posted
content which “goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals
UK Health Sec Thanks Muslims for Lockdown
‘Sacrifice’ on St George’s Day, Doesn’t Mention St George’s Day https://t.co/3Xg9E5XZUt
would eventually confirm that claims they were banning people for the “Proud to
be English” posts were true — but that this was “likely” a “mistake”.
investigating what happened. Our team reviews millions of pages, posts and
images each week and we occasionally make a mistake, as has likely happened
here,” a spokesman said in comments reported by The Sun.
have removed any restrictions placed on the impacted accounts,” they continued,
adding that “We apologise for any upset caused.”
to St George’s Day in 2020 was not just limited to Big Tech and establishment
figures, however, with one couple who celebrated the English national day by
putting up a model of the country’s patron saint holding a sign saying “The NHS
will slay Covid-19” — a reference to his legendary dragon-slaying exploits —
having their home vandalised with “NAZI” graffiti and
50 bags of dog faeces thrown into the garden.
Republican Party must defend America’s working and middle class against
“concentrated corporate power” and the monopolization of entire sectors of the United
States’ economy, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.
an interview on The Realignment podcast, Hawley said that “long gone
are the days where” American workers can depend on big business to look out for
their needs and the needs of their communities.
Hawley explained that increasing “concentrated corporate power” of whole
sectors of the American economy — specifically among Silicon Valley’s giant
tech conglomerates — is at the expense of working and middle class Americans.
of the things Republicans need to recover today is a defense of an open,
free-market, of a fair healthy competing market and the length between that and
Democratic citizenship,” Hawley said, and continued:
the end of the day, we are trying to support and sustain here a great
democracy. We’re not trying to make a select group of people rich. They’ve
already done that. The tech billionaires are already billionaires, they don’t
need any more help from government. I’m not interested in trying to help them
further. I’m interested in trying to help sustain the great middle of this
country that makes our democracy run and that’s the most important challenge of
have these businesses who for years now have said ‘Well, we’re based in the
United States, but we’re not actually an American company, we’re a global
company,'” Hawley said. “And you know, what has driven profits for some of our
biggest multinational corporations? It’s been … moving jobs overseas where it’s
cheaper … moving your profits out of this country so you don’t have to pay any
think that we have here at the same time that our economy has become more
concentrated, we have bigger and bigger corporations that control more and more
of our key sectors, those same corporations see themselves as less and less
American and frankly they are less committed to American workers and American
communities,” Hawley continued. “That’s turned out to be a problem which is one
of the reasons we need to restore good, healthy, robust competition in this
country that’s going to push up wages, that’s going to bring jobs back to the
middle parts of this country, and most importantly, to the middle and working
class of this country.”
multinational corporations monopolize industries, Hawley said the GOP must defend
working and middle class Americans and that big business interests should not
come before the needs of American communities:
free market is one where you can enter it, where there are new ideas, and also
by the way, where people can start a small family business, you shouldn’t have
to be gigantic in order to succeed in this country. Most people don’t want to
start a tech company. [Americans] maybe want to work in their family’s
business, which may be some corner shop in a small town … they want to be able
to make a living and then give that to their kids or give their kids an option
to do that. [Emphasis added]
problem with corporate concentration is that it tends to kill all of that. The
worst thing about corporate concentration is that it inevitably believes to a
partnership with big government. Big business and big government always
get together, always. And that is exactly what has happened now with the tech
sector, for instance, and arguably many other sectors where you have this
alliance between big government and big business … whatever you call it, it’s a
problem and it’s something we need to address. [Emphasis added]
blasted the free trade-at-all-costs doctrine that has dominated the Republican
and Democrat Party establishments for decades, crediting the globalist economic
model with hollowing “out entire industries, entire supply chains” and sending
them to China, among other countries.
thing is in this country is that not only do we not make very much stuff anymore,
we don’t even make the machines that make the stuff,” Hawley said. “The entire
supply chain up and down has gone overseas, and a lot of it to China, and this
is a result of policies over some decades now.”
Breitbart News reported, Hawley detailed in the interview how Republicans like
former President George H.W. Bush’s ‘New World Order’ agenda and Democrats have
helped to create a corporatist economy that disproportionately benefits the
nation’s richest executives and donor class.
billionaire class, the top 0.01 percent of earners, has enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as the
bottom 90 percent since 1979. That economy has been reinforced with federal
rules that largely benefits the wealthiest of wealthiest earners. A study released last month revealed that the richest
Americans are, in fact, paying a lower tax rate than all other Americans.
Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.