Monday, May 11, 2020



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

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.
At least.
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 ampliļ¬cation 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.

Tech Investor Jeffrey Wernick Blasts Facebook’s Oversight Board as ‘Technofascism’

575Alex Wong/Getty Images
9 May 2020242
Tech 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.
Facebook’s 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 Adolf Hitler.
Other members include a former aide to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and three people who have documented ties to leftist billionaire George Soros.
A 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 principles.
Jeffrey 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.”
Other 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 virus.
April 30, 2020 
Daniel Greenfield
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 they should.
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 paranoia.
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 curtain.
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 hunt.
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, spend money.
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

30 Apr 20208
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.
Facebook 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.
The result is a Facebook CEO and chairman more actively and visibly in charge than he has been in years.
Mr. 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.
As 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 platform.
As 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 “misinformation.”
Are you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address 
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

Facebook is Spending Millions to Plant Radical Activists in Local Newspapers
Renting out newsrooms to a left-wing agenda.
April 29, 2020 
Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism
When 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.
“Will 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 pro-illegal stories.
In 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.”
While 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.
Leah 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".
The 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.
The lack of transparency is dishonest, unethical, and a new low even in the era of fake news.
The 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.
“Local 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.”
Except 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.
Report 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 are predictable.
Facebook 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.
Most newspapers are happy with the arrangement: it’s the readers who are cheated.
Facebook 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.
This isn’t philanthropy, it’s politics.
Not 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.
The 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.
The conflicts of interest here are so convoluted that they require their own flow chart.
A 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.
Fact 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.
Or, 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.
Like 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.
Or, 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.
Here's a sample of Clara's commitment to truth and facts, "Spoiler: Trump's racist rhetoric has encouraged violence in America."
The 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.
Brokering 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.
The 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.
The 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.
Report 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.
Despite 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.
Corrupting, prostituting, and weaponizing journalism is helping destroy what little integrity it has.
RTA 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.
And the whole thing is funded by the dot com monopolies who helped destroy journalism.

Free Speech Platform Parler: ‘Facebook Egregiously Spun Their Six-Year Web of Lies’

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
29 Apr 20209
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.
Facebook 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.
The 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.
Parler said in a statement Tuesday that $5 billion is inadequate given Facebook’s valuation, which exceeds $550 billion, and the seriousness of the offense.
“Facebook 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.
“They 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?”
Facebook 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.
“Ultimately, 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.”
Parler, which launched in 2018, promotes itself as a politically unbiased platform that protects its users’ rights.
Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at

Facebook Admits Banning Users for Saying They Are ‘Proud to Be English’4 Lee Haywood via Flickr (Creative Commons)
27 Apr 2020306

Facebook has admitted to banning swathes of users for posting messages saying they were “Proud to be English” on St George’s Day.
As 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 imperialism.
Someone, 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 media platform.
An 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“.
Users 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 and organisations”.
UK Health Sec Thanks Muslims for Lockdown ‘Sacrifice’ on St George’s Day, Doesn’t Mention St George’s Day
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) April 24, 2020
Facebook 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”.
“We’re 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.
“We have removed any restrictions placed on the impacted accounts,” they continued, adding that “We apologise for any upset caused.”
Hostility 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.
Home of Couple Celebrating St George's Day Defaced with Dog Dirt and 'NAZI' Graffiti
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) April 26, 2020
Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

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


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

In an interview on The Realignment podcast, Hawley said that “long gone are the days where” American workers can depend on big business to look out for their needs and the needs of their communities.

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