Friday, May 21, 2021

MAN OF MANY POISONS VLADIMIR PUTIN THREATENS TO 'KNOCK TEETH OUT OF COUNTRIES THREATENING RUSSIA' - BUT WHO IS A GREATER THREAT TO RUSSIAN THAN PUTIN?

 And basically what Joe Biden has decided is pipelines in America, bad. Jobs in America, bad. Pipelines in Russia, good. Jobs in Russia, good.


BIG SCARY RUNT!


Vladimir Putin Vows to ‘Knock Teeth Out’ of Countries Threatening Russia

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin gestures as he speaks during his annual question and answer TV marathon session with Russian citizens in Moscow on December 16, 2010. Putin on December 16 issued a chilling message to jailed tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky as he held a presidential-style question and answer session with …
ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP via Getty Images
3:34

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Thursday Russia would “knock the teeth out” of everyone who tries to take a “bite” out of his country’s vast territory.

“Everyone wants to bite us somewhere or to bite off something from us. But they — those who are going to do it — should know that we will knock their teeth out so that they cannot bite. This is quite obvious, and the key to this is the development of our armed forces,” Putin said during a televised virtual meeting of Russia’s National Security Council on May 20.

“But I want to stress once again that we are not following the path of militarizing our economy,” he added:

“No matter what we do, no matter how we strive to satisfy the appetites of those who are trying to restrain us, all the same, the restrictive policy will continue because many of our opponents, as we shall call them, simply do not need a country like Russia,” Putin said during the meeting, as quoted by the Russian state-controlled TV network Ruptly. He added, “But we need it, our people need it, the citizens of the Russian federation [need it]. We will do everything not only to preserve it, but also to consolidate and strengthen it.”

“Putin also said that Western sanctions against Russia are continuing a longtime historic trend of containing a powerful rival and alleged that some critics of Moscow whom he didn’t name have argued that it’s unfair for Russia to keep its vast natural riches all to itself,” according to the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

“Even after we lost one-third of our potential, Russia is still too big for some,” Putin said, referring to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which saw former Soviet republics gain independence.

Western countries, including the U.S. and European Union (E.U.) member states, have regularly imposed and extended sanctions on Russia for the past six years. Reasons for the sanctions include Russia’s colonization of Crimea out of Ukraine in 2014 and a long list of human rights abuses against its own people. In April, Washington announced a wide range of sanctions against Moscow for its alleged “harmful foreign activities,” including its “ongoing occupation and repression in Crimea.”

Putin’s remarks on Thursday came shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke at an Arctic Council meeting in Reykjavik, which Russia chaired this year.

“The Arctic is a region for strategic competition that has seized the world’s attention,” Blinken said on May 20.

“But the Arctic is more than a strategically or economically significant region. It’s home to our people, its hallmark has been and must remain peaceful cooperation. It’s our responsibility to protect that peaceful cooperation and to build on it,” he added.

Blinken “stressed the importance of enacting ‘effective governance and the rule of law’ to ensure that the ‘Arctic remains a region free of conflict where countries act responsibly,'” according to Reuters.

Three Russian submarines “broke through Arctic ice during a military exercise in late March – a sophisticated maneuver designed to show its attempts to beef up military defenses in the region,” the news agency noted.

Russia has made a concerted effort to increase its military and trade capabilities in the Arctic in recent years as the Kremlin believes that melting Arctic ice, allegedly caused by climate change, has opened up new pathways of opportunity in the region.

IS JOE BIDEN UP PUTIN'S ASS LIKE HE IS CHINA'S RED ASS?

Biden: Pipelines for Putin, just not for America

Joe Biden's been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades," as Bob Gates wrote in his memoir, so here we go again.

This time, he sanctioned the wrong country, giving Vladimir Putin a pass on his energy pipeline to Europe, while sanctioning America's pipeline from Canada.  Only bad guys get sanctions, see, so guess who Biden's bad guy is.

According to Axios:

The Biden administration will waive sanctions on the corporate entity and CEO overseeing the construction of Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline into Germany, according to two sources briefed on the decision.

Why it matters: The decision indicates the Biden administration is not willing to compromise its relationship with Germany over this pipeline, and it underscores the difficulties President Biden faces in matching actions to rhetoric on a tougher approach to Russia.

Driving the news: The State Department will imminently send its mandatory 90-day report to Congress listing entities involved in Nord Stream 2 that deserve sanctions. Sources familiar with the drafting of the report tell Axios the State Department plans to call for sanctions against a handful of Russian ships.

As Axios noted: 

This planned move seems at odds with Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statement, made during his confirmation hearing: "I am determined to do whatever we can to prevent that completion" of Nord Stream 2.

Number one, I doubt it was planned, given the New York Times' reporting on senile Joe's foggy decision-making style, with its long ditherings punctuated by flashes of furious impulse.

More to the point, it's inchoate as foreign policy goes. 

Axios believes that the idea is to keep our ally Germany, a country that squelched its own nuclear power industry with the idea of "going green," and then found itself in Putin's palm for its bona fide energy needs, happy.

Biden's call is also going to make Putin happy, snickering to himself that Biden is powerless to stop his plan to get Germany on Russia's string for energy.  Axios notes that Putin has a history of cutting off energy to countries that don't play ball with it on other issues, as has done on numerous occasions to Ukraine.  What Putin did to Ukraine with its energy shutoffs, it will now be empowered to do to Germany, too.

And by empowering Russia as an energy petro-tyrant with America's critical ally in Germany, it certainly brings up questions as to what Putin, through his still-world class intelligence agencies, might have on Biden, given the grotesque dribs and drabs of corruption involving foreigners just in his son Hunter's abandoned laptop.  Hunter's laptop could be the tip of an iceberg based on all the evidence out there of House Biden corruption.

It's certainly been noticed in Congress.

Here's a third thing: it certainly makes Iran happy, too, given that Biden's favor to Putin signals that he's getting Russia on his good side in order to lay the groundwork for restarting the hideous Iran deal.  That empowers both Iran and Russia (historic allies) at the expense of America, Israel, and the decent Arab states in the region.

Geopolitics aside, it's not gone unnoticed that as Biden waves through Russia's pipeline project with Germany, he's squelched America's pipeline project with Canada, which, like the Nord Stream project, has been years in the planning and making.  Some 10,000 jobs are expected to be lost with this one, with Joe telling the workers to go get work capping wells, installing Chinese-made solar panels made with slave labor, or learning to code.

This comes at a time when Biden's greenie nonsense against America is causing it to lose its pre-eminence as an energy exporter, and making America, too, like Germany, now dependent on foreign petro-tyrants for its energy needs, all in the name of going green.  As Biden shuts down America's pipelines from its good ally Canada (which has zero history of cutting off energy to its neighbors over foreign policy disputes), it gives the green light to Putin to go ahead.

This comes at a bad time.  A critical U.S. pipeline was subject to a ransomware attack by dark-web thieves, possibly Russian gangsters, who got away with it.  They were last heard from planning more attacks.

The U.S., meanwhile, has lost its potential leverage over neighbors as an energy-exporter, should it want to do that, by Biden's war on energy-producers, shutting down not just the Keystone XL pipeline with Canada, but drilling on federal lands.  The Axios piece talks of Biden retaining "leverage" with Germany by retaining the threat of sanctions, as if he were some great strategic thinker, but this is bee ess in light of Biden's self-disarmament of America's own energy leverage in his pipeline shutdowns.  What a master strategic thinker!

Call it an America-last, Putin-first foreign policy.  The Russians must be laughing.  Bob Gates, despite what he's said recently, must be nodding ruefully, too.  Pipeline for thee, but not for me — what a winner this clown in the White House has come up with.


Biden's Decision to Waive Sanctions on Putin’s Russia-to-Germany Pipeline Slammed as ‘Unacceptable’

By Patrick Goodenough | May 20, 2021 | 3:36am EDT
 

A sign near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline landfall facility in northern Germany. (Photo by Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images)
A sign near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline landfall facility in northern Germany. (Photo by Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) – The Biden administration’s decision to waive sanctions against the main players in the controversial Russia-Germany gas pipeline project has been welcomed by Germany and Russia, but critics in Washington are appalled.

“Biden has vastly strengthened Putin’s hands at the expense of the rest of the Free World,” tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of two Republicans who authored sanctions legislation in 2019 that helped freeze work on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline through most of last year.

“This is a huge win for Putin and a blow to the security of our Eastern European allies,” commented Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), while House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called the move “wholly unacceptable” and “irresponsible.”

Calling on President Biden to lift the waivers immediately, McCaul reiterated concerns that Nord Stream 2 will “threaten Ukraine’s security, deepen Europe’s dangerous energy dependence on the Kremlin and further enrich the corrupt Putin regime.”

Those same concerns have been stated, repeatedly, by the Biden administration, with officials calling the pipeline a “bad idea,” and a “Russian malign influence project.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken did so again on Wednesday, in a statement confirming the department’s statutorily required periodic report to Congress.

“We will continue to oppose the completion of this project, which would weaken European energy security and that of Ukraine and Eastern flank NATO and E.U. countries,” he said. “Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering.”

A sign near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline landfall facility in northern Germany. (Photo by Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images)
The pipeline links Russia and Germany along the Baltic Sea bed. (Image: Nord Stream 2 AG)

The $11 billion Nord Stream 2 project aims to pipe natural gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, doubling the annual supply from the existing Nord Stream pipeline, which began operating in late 2011.

Critics in the U.S. and European Union worry it will heighten European dependence on Russia for energy supplies, boosting Moscow’s economic and political leverage. The Kremlin has a track record of using its energy resources as a political lever in bilateral disputes.

Ukraine, whose government is deeply at odds with Russia, fears the new pipeline may jeopardize billions of dollars Kyiv now earns in transit fees for Russian gas piped westward across Ukrainian territory.

Germany and other supporters say the project is a purely commercial one that will benefit Europeans.

That message has not resonated across the E.U., however. The European Parliament has now voted three times in opposition to Nord Stream 2, most recently last January.

Despite the Biden administration’s stated opposition to Nord Stream 2, and even as the administration claims to be “committing to using all available diplomatic tools to make sure” the pipeline isn’t completed – in the words of State Department deputy spokesperson Jalina Porter on Wednesday – it has chosen to waive sanctions on the parties at the core of President Vladimir Putin’s pet project.

While sanctions will go ahead against four ships and several other entities involved in the construction, Blinken said he had “determined that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO Matthias Warnig, and Nord Stream 2 AG’s corporate officers.”

Nord Stream 2 AG, the company leading the project, is a consortium led by the Russian state-owned Gazprom.

Warnig is a controversial figure, whose shadowy past includes a career in the former East Germany’s notorious Stasi intelligence agency and a longstanding relationship with Putin, himself a former KGB officer.

(Warnig’s official bio on the company website says he “had several functions in the German Democratic Republic’s government from 1981 to 1990, including roles in the foreign trade ministry and the Cabinet.” It is silent on the years prior to 1981. He reportedly began working for the Stasi in 1974.)

Blinken provided no reason in his statement for the “national interest” justification for waiving sanctions against the company responsible for the pipeline and its CEO. But Germany is a close U.S. ally, and the Biden administration has touted its focus on strong transatlantic ties, even as it voices opposition to Nord Stream 2.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters on Wednesday Berlin saw the waiver decision as “constructive,” saying that it took into consideration “the extraordinarily good relations that have been established with the Biden administration.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, speaking before Blinken’s statement was issued, said Moscow was awaiting official confirmation, but viewed reports anticipating the decision in a positive light.

Blinken’s announcement was issued hours before he was scheduled to hold his first meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on the sidelines of an Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Iceland.

‘If Donald Trump did this …’

Former President Trump’s vocal opposition to Nord Stream 2 caused a chill with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Coupled with his criticism over Germany’s defense spending, it played a key role in Trump’s decision to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Germany – a move reversed under Biden.

“Germany pays Russia billions of dollars a year for Energy, and we are supposed to protect Germany from Russia,” he tweeted last summer. “What’s that all about?”

U.S. opposition went beyond rhetoric on Twitter. Under legislation Trump signed into law at the end of 2019 – authored by Cruz and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and inserted into a defense policy bill – construction of the pipeline came to an abrupt halt under threat of sanctions.

Work only resumed last December – after the U.S. presidential election – and is now reportedly 95 percent complete.

Biden and the Democrats repeatedly characterized Trump as pro-Russia and pro-Putin (and charged that his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election – an allegation which special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was unable to substantiate.)

“If Donald Trump did this, Nancy Pelosi would be launching a third impeachment effort today,” Gary Bauer, president of the conservative think tank American Values, commented on Wednesday in response to the sanctions waiver reports.


Cruz: Four Months into It, Biden Is ‘Crawling in Bed’ with Putin, Russia

2:02

Wednesday on FNC’s “Hannity,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned the Biden administration’s double standard that applies to energy policy.

Cruz not only took issue with the administration’s handling of the Colonial Pipeline hack but signing off on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline connecting Germany and Russia while opposing the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Partial transcript as follows:

CRUZ: Sadly, I can’t shed a lot of light on it. It’s absolutely crazy what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doing.

On day one in office, Joe Biden shut down the Keystone pipeline. He destroyed 11,000 jobs, high-paying jobs, including 8,000 union jobs.

Then Biden sat by and allowed Russian hackers to hack the Colonial Pipelines, producing gas lines up and down the Eastern Seaboard. He did nothing to defend it. He sat by while they paid a ransom to hackers.

And now, his reward to Russia for Russian hackers shutting down a major infrastructure pipeline in the Eastern Seaboard, is today he signed a waiver basically greenlighting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a pipeline from Russia to Germany.

Congress has twice passed bipartisan sanctions to stop this pipeline. I authored those sanctions. We stopped it. For a year, it was shut down. It was a piece of metal at the bottom of the ocean. Putin began rebuilding the pipeline right after Biden was elected. Today, he issued a waiver.

And basically what Joe Biden has decided is pipelines in America, bad. Jobs in America, bad. Pipelines in Russia, good. Jobs in Russia, good.

And this is exactly backward. It is asinine. And four months into it, Joe Biden is crawling in bed with Putin and Russia and the enemies of America. It doesn’t make any sense.

THE BIDEN DOCTRINE - FINISH OFF THE GOP WITH HORDES OF DEM VOTING ILLEGALS WHO WILL WORK CHEAP AND SERVE THE BANKSTER AND TECH BILLIONAIRE REGIME OF JOE BIDEN

 "This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY


Exclusive—Sen. Tom Cotton: The Democrats’ H.R.1 Would Permanently Rig Our Elections

FILE - In this April 20, 2021, file photo, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on voting rights, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Republicans trying to drive a wedge between Democrats and chip away at President Joe Biden’s support are zeroing in on the violence …
Evelyn Hockstein/Pool via AP

President Biden is presiding over a disaster at our southern border, as waves of illegal immigrants surge into our country, overwhelming law enforcement. While Biden’s border crisis spirals out of control, Democrats in Congress are pushing an elections bill called the “For the People Act” (or H.R.1) that would shred critical safeguards on our elections, allowing individuals to vote without providing any hard proof of who they are or even whether they are legally allowed to be in our country.

It’s hardly a coincidence that Democrats are ignoring the Biden border crisis while weakening our election laws. The For the People Act might as well have been tailormade to encourage voter fraud and ensure Democrats rule the Swamp for generations to come.

The bill would federalize our elections so that states have little control over how voting proceeds within their jurisdiction. Red states like Arkansas and Florida would no longer be able to take extra precautions to ensure the integrity of their elections. Instead, election law would be dictated from Washington, D.C. in uniform—and uniformly terrible—fashion.

For example, the bill would invalidate states’ voter ID laws, which require individuals to present valid photo identification, such as a driver’s license, in order to vote. Democrats and their allies in the media like to pretend that voter ID laws are “racist,” just as they pretend that every policy and person they oppose is racist. Thankfully, the American people see through this smear. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, three-quarters of American voters support photo ID requirements, including nearly 70 percent of black voters.

If the Democrats’ election bill passes, voters would only need to self-certify that they are who they claim to be in order to vote. That means an illegal immigrant or disenfranchised felon could walk up to a polling place, make up a name, and cast a ballot, unchallenged and undetected. They could then go to every other polling place in the area and do the same thing. That’s a recipe for disaster that would encourage voter fraud on a massive scale.

The Democrats’ bill would also make permanent many of the vote-by-mail expansions that were rushed through as emergency measures during the pandemic. The free-for-all of ballot harvesting and mail-in-voting during the 2020 elections caused many Americans to have doubts and suspicions about the integrity of the vote. Shredding limitations on mail-in ballots in all future elections will only convince more voters that the electoral process is rigged and that their votes do not count. Responsible politicians should be trying to assuage voters’ fears by implementing adequate safeguards on our elections. Like electoral arsonists, the Democrats are instead pouring fuel on the fire by eliminating even the most basic protections against fraud.

Finally, the Democrats’ election bill would create a slush fund to funnel public money to political campaigns. This provision would give $6 of public funds to certain candidates for every $1 they raise from grassroots donors; it would also give some voters cash vouchers to spend on candidates of their choosing. This system will inevitably be abused by fraudsters and dishonest partisans. Congress should be investing in our military or the border wall— we could even try to pay off the federal debt that is hanging over the heads of our children like the sword of Damocles. Instead, the Democrats want some of that money to go to politicians—that’s pure pork for the powerful.

This bill is called the “For the People Act.” The right question to ask is: which people? It’s clear that the Democrats didn’t have the American people as a whole in mind when drafting this bill. This is a partisan bill intended to secure cynical political advantage for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

Apparently, Democrats agree with President Trump that fraud benefits their party. That is the only explanation for this bill.  Republicans must stop it.

Tom Cotton is a U.S. senator from Arkansas.

The funding support from the super-wealth

Zuckerberg couple — and from FWD.us

members — is complemented by indirect

donations from other wealthy billionaires.

“I think the Biden administration is going to be surprising to progressives in some ways and disappointing in others, and the agency review teams reflect that,” Dayen says. During the summer, the American Prospect published a lengthy exposé about Biden’s foreign policy advisers’ lucrative foray into corporate America. Many are set to return to the highest echelons of official Washington. 

It doesn’t help matters that, today, tech giants are distrusted by conservatives and progressives alike. Firms that were run out of Palo Alto garages now chafe at antitrust laws like the railroad companies of a century ago.  ALEXANDER NAZARYAN

The influence was highlighted on May 14 when Biden met with several migrants who were given work permits by President Barack Obama’s 2012 DACA directive. The six migrants were led by Maria Praeli, who works as the government relations manager for the many wealthy investors in Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group.

The ‘New Soros’: Marlow Media Exposé Reveals Immense Secret Power of Tech Heiress Laurene Powell Jobs

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SEPTEMBER 20: Emerson Collective Founder and President Laurene Powell Jobs speaks onstage during TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2017 at Pier 48 on September 20, 2017 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Steve Jennings/Getty Images for TechCrunch) FILE - In this Sept. 24, 2010 file photo, George Soros, …
Steve Jennings/Getty Images, AP Photo Manuel Balce Ceneta
6:50

Laurene Powell Jobs, whom Vox describes as “one of the world’s most important philanthropists,” is the widow of Apple founder and billionaire computer guru Steve Jobs. She has become a secret superpower behind a vast network of left-wing media outlets, organizations, and politicians. Forbes lists Jobs as one of the ten richest women on earth, with a net worth of around $16 billion, mostly from her family stakes in two of the world’s biggest companies: Apple and Disney.

I investigated Jobs’ growing influence in my new book, Breaking the New: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruptions, which exposes the hidden connections between the establishment media and the activist left.

If there’s a well-known persona comparable to Laurene Powell Jobs, it’s Hungarian billionaire George Soros. Soros is branded a “philanthropist,” but he also functions as a one-man piggy bank for the globalist far-left. Much like Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the main vehicle for Jobs’ influence is Emerson Collective (EC), the philanthropic outfit she founded and leads. The Emerson Collective, according to Forbes, is “a hybrid philanthropic and investing limited liability company.” That’s a pretty murky description, which appears to allow them to engage in business and charity without ever being terribly explicit about which is which. I’m not sure which of the two categories it falls under, but EC also happens to own the Atlantic.

Inside Philanthropy named Jobs 2019’s “Least Transparent Mega-giver.”

EC functions primarily as a private business owned by Jobs’s personal trust. This shields it from IRS disclosure rules and allows it to more freely engage in political activity.

It’s sly and devious, but considering how many media outlets are aligned with Jobs either financially or ideologically, it’s no surprise that little reporting has been done on these connections.

After all, if you’re in media, she might be your boss one day. Maybe she already is.

The Atlantic published what is perhaps the single fakest fake news story of the 2020 election. On September 3, 2020, editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg posted an article with the bombshell headline “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers.’” The piece alleged that Donald Trump, while in France to commemorate American Marines who died in World War II, denigrated American soldiers who died in combat.

Though the content of the article relied only on anonymous sources, was never proven, and was refuted by myriad on-record sources including several Trump-haters, it had undeniable power in the news cycle. The timing was impeccable. So good, in fact, it raised suspicions that the Atlantic had coordinated with the Biden campaign. The piece ran on a Thursday evening, and by the following morning a left-wing group called VoteVets already had cut an anti-Trump ad around it, which aired on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. (You can read my full break down of this “Fake News Instant Classic” and see the rest of the “Fake News Hall of Shame” in Breaking the News.)

Though the Atlantic may be the crown jewel in Jobs’ media empire, it’s hardly alone. Jobs is also an investor in Axios, a prestige D.C. news outlet with an HBO television show. She also funds Mother Jones and ProPublica, both of which are part of the activist left but also does substantial reporting. The Emerson Collective has also partnered with NowThis, a hyperpartisan left-wing viral news video operation targeted at millennials.

Jobs also has funded ACRONYM, a Democratic technology venture, which pumped $25 million into Courier Newsroom, which claims to fund independent local newsrooms across the country. In reality, Courier is much more partisan. Bloomberg’s Joshua Green described Courier as “the Left’s plan to slip vote-swaying news into Facebook Feeds” under the guise of “hypertargeted hometown news.” Left-of-center media watchdog NewsGuard was even more cynical: “Courier and Acronym are exploiting the widespread loss of local journalism to create and disseminate something we really don’t need: hyperlocal partisan propaganda.”

They are right. The decline of print and independent media has created an opportunity for monied partisans to launder their political activism through established media brands. Courier seemingly shows how far that exploitation has gone.

In addition to backing major media brands, Emerson Collective actively supports the Democratic Party.

For example, in 2016, EC gave $2.5 million to DNC super-PAC Priorities Action USA. But Jobs is more than just a major Democrat donor. Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan and general services administrator Dan Tangherlini are part of EC. Jobs is said to have a “tight” personal relationship with Kamala Harris, who was a California senator before becoming vice president. Naturally, the Atlantic has lavished praise on Harris, barely stopping short of endorsing her during the 2019–20 Democrat primaries.

Laurene Powell Jobs went to the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford, she worked for Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, she married well and inherited a lot of money, and her wealth is tied up in some of world’s biggest companies. She is the establishment.

Her most prestigious publication, the Atlantic, was founded by Emerson Collective namesake Ralph Waldo Emerson; it had the founding motto “of no party or clique.” That sentiment is laughable today under Jobs’s leadership. It is one of the corporate Democrat establishment’s favorite weapons. The Emerson Collective office features a mural inspired by Malcolm X’s famed “Ballot or the Bullet” speech; the speech, largely about civil rights and black nationalism, is highly critical of the Democrat Party and powerful whites. What would these men think of a plutocrat tech heiress appropriating their names and legacies as part of a tenebrous political power play?

No one knows, and Laurene Powell Jobs certainly doesn’t care.

This article was adapted from Breaking the News, now available in bookstores. 

Alex Marlow is the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News, the host of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM’s Patriot Channel 125, and the author of the new book, Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruption. You can follow Alex on FacebookInstagram, and Twitter at @AlexMarlow.

The Treason Party’s Swiss Banker

The foreign election interference that Democrats love.

  32 comments

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The Nazis had a Swiss banker and so do the Democrats.

During President Trump’s first year in office, Indivisible, which the New York Times had described as a left-wing version of the Tea Party, launched a smear campaign falsely accusing President Trump of being subject to Russian foreign financial influence.

“Is Trump colluding with Russia?" the leftist group insinuated. "Until we see Trump’s tax returns, we cannot be certain that foreign governments don’t have leverage over Trump.”

Indivisible repeated this slander a few years later when it held a “Nobody is Above the Law Day”, and demanded “full and total transparency” from Trump even while refusing to name its backers.

The leftist group was pushing the same big Russiagate lie that had originated in the Steele dossier assembled by the Hillary Clinton campaign and was taken up by the Mueller investigation. It was part of a coordinated campaign to slander President Trump as a Russian agent.

At the same time, Indivisible was being funded by Hansjörg Wyss: the richest man in Switzerland.

When Indivisible was asked where its money was coming from it refused to be transparent, invoking "privacy" concerns. The privacy was that of its billionaire foreign donor.

Like Soros, Wyss is a European member of the Democracy Alliance with a troubling past as the CEO of a company accused of medical experiments on patients that led to 5 deaths.

Unlike Soros, he’s financing the radical agenda of the Democrats without the pretense of being an American. As the New York Times noted, the Swiss billionaire “has not disclosed publicly whether he holds citizenship or permanent residency in the United States”.

That hasn’t stopped the Treason Party from taking his money to finance their relentless attempts to stage a political coup.

Wyss’ Berger Action Fund plowed $135 million into one of the Left’s biggest dark money machines which funded everything from the smear campaign against Justice Kavanaugh to efforts to change state election laws to benefit the Democrats. The dark money machine is called the Sixteen Thirty Fund. It’s impossible to understand the irregularities in the 2020 election without also understanding the role of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

Nevada’s automatic voter registration ballot measure, backed by the ‘Fund’, added over 140,000 “new voters” in a state that Biden won by less than 40,000 votes.

The richest man in Switzerland has made no secret of his hostility to President Trump. “I consider the actions of the Trump administration to be a catastrophe,” he has said.

Wyss’ Berger Action Fund was a major donor to Eric Holder's National Redistricting Action Fund (NRAF) aimed at reshaping the electoral map to benefit Democrats, and plowed cash into the Fund for a Better Future advocating for a “fair 2020 election” and redistricting.

Then there’s The Hub Project, a Wyss operation which used more dark money to go after Republicans and “dramatically shift the public debate and policy positions of core decision makers.” The Hub Project also operates out of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

Hub fronts like Floridians for a Fair Shake, Keep Iowa Healthy, and North Carolinians for a Fair Economy were part of a machine that went after 19 Republican seats in 2018 on behalf of Wyss and the Democrats.

But the “Floridians” and “North Carolinians” were actually the agents and beneficiaries of a secretive foreign billionaire.

Now the Sixteen Thirty Fund is spending big to push the Democrat plot to rig the vote nationwide with H.R.1 giving them totalitarian control over state elections. Pelosi’s legislative scheme would be a playground for massive voter fraud with automatic and same-day voter registration, a welfare-to-voting pipeline, a ban on Voter IDs and a requirement that every state to allow criminals to vote.

Democrats and their media don’t care if the money for their coup is coming from foreign nationals. Their goal is more important: to turn America into a one-party state.

Nor do they care where Hansjörg Wyss got his money in the first place.

Wyss co-founded Synthes, a medical device manufacturer focused on repairing broken bones. In 2010, Synthes pled guilty to illegally experimenting on patients: its president, and its spine division president and two other executives were sentenced to prison. Even though a manager testified that Wyss had made the decision not to go through clinical trials, and owned half the company he was not charged, and went on pumping his fortune into the agendas of the Left.

The 5 people who died were not so lucky.

Citizens United filed for paperwork demanding to know why the Obama DOJ ignored the federal grand jury indictment which listed Wyss as "Person No. 7." One potential reason was the relationship between Wyss and John Podesta: an Obama adviser who went on to chair Hillary's failed 2016 presidential campaign. Wyss still sits on the board of Podesta’s Center for American Progress alongside Stacey Abrams, Neera Tanden, and Julian Castro.

What does Wyss have in common with them? The $6 million he plowed into the Center.

The elderly patients who died on operating tables, some while representatives of Wyss’ company looked on and watched them suffer, matter a lot less to these progressives than Wyss’ millions.

And whether it was George Soros’ Nazi collaboration, Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predations,  Jeffrey Epstein’s child abuse, the role of megadonors Herbert and Marion Sandler in the financial crisis of ‘08, or the deaths of elderly patients used as human guinea pigs by Wyss’ company, the Democrats have never cared how dirty their donors are.

The dirtier the money, the better. Especially when dark money goes into an even darker network where no light can reach.

“Nobody knows me, and I hope that it stays like this,” Wyss once told a newspaper.

Wyss' action fund donated to the Fund for a Better Future which funded The Democracy Integrity Project: which has worked with Fusion GPS, the smear company behind the Steele dossier, and made large payments to Steele and his associates.

Steele’s dossier spread the big lie that President Trump was beholden to foreign interests, while the Treason Party was quietly on the payroll of a ruthless Swiss billionaire.

Just as the DOJ gave Wyss a pass over the Synthes deaths, the IRS and the FEC have ignored a situation in which a foreigner appears to be spending a fortune to influence US elections.

And is now in a position to finance H.R.1’s coup to turn America into a one-party state.

Democrats and their media spent years lying that President Trump was subject to foreign influence and that he was turning America into a dictatorship. The truth has always been that they were the real treason party and they were the ones funded by foreign interests.

The anti-Trump smear campaign was backed by foreign money and their plot to undermine our elections and turn America into a dictatorship of D.C. bureaucrats is funded by foreign money.

But as Wyss said in a speech while quoting Plato, "Those who tell the stories rule society."

It’s time to stop telling the Treason Party’s stories and tell the truth.

Dark Money Group Backed by Facebook Targets Josh Hawley – on Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg Capitol Hill
Getty/Chip Somodevilla
2:22

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), one of the most vocal critics of Big Tech in the Senate, is being targeted with political attack ads on Facebook — by a Facebook-backed dark money group.

The advocacy group, American Edge, began running ads against Hawley this week, and has so far spent around $800 on messaging microtargeted to residents of the Washington D.C. area. The ads from the Big Tech-backed group accuse the Senator of threatening the “vibrant start-up and small business economy.”

As Breitbart News reported last year, American Edge was set up with backing from Facebook.

Facebook is helping set up a new political advocacy group in D.C., called “American Edge,” hoping to dissuade lawmakers against regulating big tech companies, according to a report in the Washington Post.

According to the report, the Facebook-backed lobbying group will attempt to convince federal lawmakers that big tech companies are “essential to the U.S. economy and the future of free speech.

Facebook confirmed its participation in a comment to the [Washington] Post, saying the aim of the new organization is to “help build support for our industry.”

The creation of the advocacy group comes at a time when big tech faces unprecedented scrutiny over political censorship, election interference, and competition. Facebook alone is currently subject to an antitrust probe as well as lawsuits from the targets of its political censorship.

In a tweet, Sen. Hawley called out “monopolists” for their ad campaign.

“The monopolists are squirming! Here’s ⁦Facebook⁩’s dark money group running ads on Facebook (of course) attacking my calls for trust busting.”

The Senator recently introduced a bill named the “Bust Up Big Tech Act,” which would prohibit companies that operate search engines, marketplaces, and exchanges, from also operating hosting and internet infrastructure services — a measure aimed at reining in Google and Amazon, which are frequently accused of favoring their own services in search results.

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.

Biden's  open border advocate Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.

Can Josh Hawley Break the Internet?

REVIEW: ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’

 • May 16, 2021 4:58 am

The Tyranny of Big Tech, Senator Josh Hawley’s excoriation of corporate power, created a media firestorm before it even came out. The original publisher, Simon & Schuster, dropped the book amid the January 6 riots and the Missouri Republican’s insistence on contesting the 2020 election results. Now snatched up by conservative publisher Regnery, it’s selling well—the latest example of cancel culture’s Streisand effect.

In form and structure, Tyranny mirrors a recent book on the same topic by Hawley’s Antitrust Committee colleague and chairwoman, Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar. Antitrust (reviewed in these pages), also tried to frame vigorous antitrust as recovering an American tradition shared by Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Teddy Roosevelt, among others.

The two books also share a few political prescriptions. Both senators critique the "Chicago School" of antitrust theory, which takes a friendly view of most mergers. Both, in their own ways, emphasize the dangers of corporate size in itself, even before they address specific harms caused by large companies.

But they differ in whom exactly they want to target. While Klobuchar is a critic of corporate power generally, Hawley knows exactly whom he wants to go after: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google (Twitter, though much smaller, comes in for some heat as well). The book’s greatest strength is also its weakness: Hawley genuinely thinks these companies cause more harm than good and doesn’t shy away from saying so. Tyranny doesn’t vacillate, but it also comes off at times as shortsighted, unwilling to flesh out an approach to big tech companies that might also implicate other nefarious corporate actors.

Hawley’s "corporate barons" are the inheritors of the Gilded Age robber barons, except these corporate barons don’t even create real physical things. "[T]oday’s tech oligarchs wield immense power, thanks to a combination of government aid and monopoly; like the barons, they are utterly convinced of their own righteousness and their right to govern America."

The book’s main targets are the attention economy these oligarchs created and their censorious behavior. In Hawley’s reading of the big tech economic model, users are "sources of information to be mined" for as long as possible. As a result of this shift, we increasingly see a new hierarchy of jobs, with the digital world of content creation reigning over the real-world labors of the "Jeffersonian middle class." Hawley suggests that this world of "modern horrors" has been foisted on American citizens, who otherwise wouldn’t choose constant invasions of their privacy.

For Hawley, this paradigm is fundamentally dangerous to a republican mode of governance, both because it turns citizens into consumptive drones and because it allows tech to monopolize the flow of information. Jon Askonas points out that Hawley’s targets are disseminators of information, rather than companies like Microsoft, which have tremendous market power in other domains. Hawley is less concerned with unaccountable corporations generally, and more concerned with "corporate liberalism," specifically the ideological valence of the platforms that censor speech.

It’s a book short on trade-offs. Hawley correctly brings up the shocking censorship of political dissents Facebook engages in, but many observers believe his proposed solution (Section 230 reform) would mean a massive spike in just this kind of censorship. The antitrust arguments in Tyranny are also rather confusing to follow, as Hawley both criticizes the dangers of the attention economy and complains that monopolies make it harder for competitors to thrive in the same morally questionable businesses.

The policy prescriptions he outlines vary from reasonable to misguided. Hawley believes our current standard for "market power" in antitrust law is too limited: He’s appalled that the law doesn’t look closer at Facebook’s 83 percent share of consumers’ time spent on social media, for instance. At other points, he lambasts platform features like autoplay or sorting by relevance, which plenty of social media users find valuable.

Perhaps Hawley’s most aggressive proposal is to eliminate Section 230 protections for any company that engages in behavioral advertising (that is, all of them). According to Hawley, "behavioral ads drive many of tech platforms’ worst pathologies—the surveillance, the addiction race, the data pilfering." The move would break big tech platforms completely, and Hawley suggests that outcome wouldn’t be so bad.

In the most intriguing passages, Hawley suggests a kind of alternate history for tech, in which different legal principles at the dawn of the internet age could have created a decentralized internet, free of coercion or censorship. But this slim volume doesn’t discuss the flowering of decentralized social media or internet applications happening now—one wonders what the senator has to say about Discord, Bluesky, or cryptocurrency.

Tyranny lays out a program that would cut off big tech companies at the knees. But whether Americans care enough about targeted advertising, censorship, and the perils of the attention economy to endorse this program is another question. If Hawley is right, and we have been turned from citizens to consumers and inputs into the big data machine, it may be too late for his suite of solutions.

The Tyranny of Big Tech
by Josh Hawley
Regnery, 200 pp., $29.99


Sen. Josh Hawley writing book: 'The Tyranny of Big Tech.'

 

Associated PressOctober 16, 2020 

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Sen. Josh Hawley is working on a book about one of the Missouri Republican's ongoing targets.

Simon & Schuster announced Friday that Hawley's “The Tyranny of Big Tech” will be released June 21. Hawley has frequently criticized Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants for everything from alleged anti-conservative bias to monopolistic control of the online market.

“At a time when these platforms are determining elections, banning inconvenient political views, lining politicians’ pockets with hundreds of millions of dollars, and addicting our kids to screens, I want to draw attention to the robber barons of the modern era,” Hawley said in a statement. “This is the fight to recover America’s populist democracy. That is why I am writing this book.”

Earlier this week, Hawley attacked Facebook and Twitter for limiting the spread of an unverified political story about Hunter Biden, son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, that was published by the conservative New York Post. Soon after he was elected Missouri's attorney general, in 2016, he launched investigations into Facebook and Google for alleged antitrust and consumer protection violations.

 

Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

 

“We’ve got to avoid a prolonged period of high levels of unemployment, and it’s a very real prospect,” he said. “It is not at all assured that we will get a return of tight labour markets even with traditional macroeconomic policy being properly applied.”

The paper continued: “This suggests that, even if a vaccine cures everyone in a year, the COVID-19 crisis will leave its mark on the US economy for many years to come.

Fear and uncertainty dominate Jackson Hole central bankers’ meeting


31 August 2020

The annual Jackson Hole conclave of central bankers, which concluded over the weekend, underscored the incapacity of global financial authorities to devise any policies either to bring about economic growth or counter the mounting contradictions in the financial system.

Reporting on the meeting, held in virtual format this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Times noted: “It was the head of Singapore’s monetary authority who best summed up the biggest fear gripping the virtual Jackson Hole conference this year.

“‘We’re not going back to the same world,’ Tharman Shanmugaratnam warned.’”

The central initiative at the gathering was the decision by the Fed’s key policy-making body to maintain interest rates at their ultra-low levels for an indefinite period and keep pumping money into the financial system.

The decision, announced by the Federal Open Market Committee as the conclave opened and elaborated on in a keynote speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, was in effect a guarantee to Wall Street that its demand for “forward guidance”—lower interest rates for longer—would be met.

The Fed said it would no longer be guided by a 2 percent inflation rate limit in determining its interest policy, but would instead focus on an “average” rate of 2 percent, meaning that the cheap money regime could continue even if prices rose above that level.

As for dealing with the slump in the global economy—the most serious since the Great Depression—and combating the potential for further storms in the financial system following the market meltdown in mid-March, there were no answers, as underscored by the remarks of the Singapore finance minister.

“We’ve got to avoid a prolonged period of high levels of unemployment, and it’s a very real prospect,” he said. “It is not at all assured that we will get a return of tight labour markets even with traditional macroeconomic policy being properly applied.”

It was a significant comment because one of main themes in remarks by central bank chiefs was that monetary policy alone would not be sufficient to restore growth, and government intervention was needed to boost the economy. But, as Shanmugaratnam noted, even if “properly applied,” there were no guarantees of success.

According to the Financial Times, the notion that central bankers “need to face the reality of permanent upheaval and long-term economic damage” was the “main theme” of the event.

One of the most frequently cited academic papers produced for the meeting was prepared earlier this month by Colombia University academic Laura Veldkamp on the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper said that the biggest economic effects of the pandemic “could arise from changes in behaviour long after the immediate health crisis is resolved.” A potential source of such a long-lived change was a shift in the “perceived probability of an extreme, negative shock in the future,” and that “long-run cost for the US economy from this channel is many times higher than the estimates of the short-run losses in output.”

The paper continued: “This suggests that, even if a vaccine cures everyone in a year, the COVID-19 crisis will leave its mark on the US economy for many years to come.”

In other words, the pandemic was not only a trigger event, acting on the contradictions that had built up in the economy and financial system, but a transformative one as well.

With the Fed now having formally committed itself to the endless supply of cheap money to Wall Street, attention will turn to the European Central Bank (ECB), which is also conducting a strategic policy review, to see whether it goes down the same road.

While the governing council, under the presidency of Christine Lagarde, may be inclined to move in the same direction as the Fed, it would face certain opposition from Germany’s Bundesbank, which has expressed opposition to the easing of monetary policy.

A member of the governing council told the Financial Times, “we will look at it,” but the Bundesbank would be “very nervous” about it.

“We are not out of firepower by any means, and to be honest, it looks from today’s vantage point that we were too cautious about our remaining firepower pre-COVID,” he said, adding that there are times when we “need to go big and go fast.”

The actions of the Fed have done nothing to boost the real economy, as an increasing number of companies announce that temporary layoffs will be made permanent.

The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that a survey conducted by Randstad RiseSmart found that “nearly half of US employers that had furloughed or laid off staff because of COVID-19 are considering additional workplace cuts in the next 12 months.”

This indicates that the pandemic has been a trigger for a major restructuring of employment conditions.

The effects of the Fed’s policies and the further monetary easing to come are focused on the stock market, with Wall Street indexes rising to the record levels they achieved in February. The main beneficiaries have been the high tech companies—Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (the owner of Google) and Facebook—which together comprise more than a fifth of the Nasdaq index.

The extent of their rise and growing financial and monopoly power is indicated by the results of an analysis carried out by Bank of America Global Research, reported by the business channel CNBC. It found that the market capitalization of the major US tech firms, now standing at $9.1 trillion, was greater than the market capitalization of the entire European market, including the UK and Switzerland, at $8.9 trillion. In an indication of the massive shift that has taken place, the research note pointed out that in 2007, total European market capitalization was four times that of US technology stocks.

 

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

JOHN BINDER

 

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


Tucker Carlson Exposes D.C. ‘Conservatives’ for Doing Big Tech’s Bidding

Rich Polk/Getty

ALLUM BOKHARI

Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed establishment conservatives for taking money from big tech companies to do their bidding, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Friday night.

The popular host, known for his no-holds-barred denunciations of establishment conservatives as well as Democrats, revealed massive spending by the establishment conservative Koch Foundation to protect big tech in Washington.

Tucker revealed that Americans for Prosperity, a “purportedly conservative group” controlled by the Kochs, launched an ad campaign trying to stave off the closing net of antitrust enforcement against Google and Facebook. The ads targeted Republican and Democrat state attorneys general that were investigating alleged antitrust violations by big tech companies.

The Koch-funded group also targeted members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with digital ads urging them to “oppose any effort to use antitrust laws to break up America’s innovative tech companies,” reported Carlson.

The Fox host ran through a laundry list of allegedly “conservative” D.C. think tanks that take money from big tech, and often advocate against regulating them over political bias or any other matter.

“In all, the Koch network quietly spent at least $10 million defending Silicon Valley companies that work to silence conservatives.”


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

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would "love" Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg -- seen here at the US Congress -- to be grilled by Australian lawmakers
CHIP SOMODEVILLA/Getty
2:54

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at NBC News here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com

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

And like those companies, they know how to use their influence. In 2019 alone, two of the biggest and most influential technology firms — Amazon and Facebook — each spent $17 million on “government affairs,” better known as lobbying.

“I think the Biden administration is going to be surprising to progressives in some ways and disappointing in others, and the agency review teams reflect that,” Dayen says. During the summer, the American Prospect published a lengthy exposé about Biden’s foreign policy advisers’ lucrative foray into corporate America. Many are set to return to the highest echelons of official Washington. 

It doesn’t help matters that, today, tech giants are distrusted by conservatives and progressives alike. Firms that were run out of Palo Alto garages now chafe at antitrust laws like the railroad companies of a century ago.  ALEXANDER NAZARYAN

And like those companies, they know how to use their influence. In 2019 alone, two of the biggest and most influential technology firms — Amazon and Facebook — each spent $17 million on “government affairs,” better known as lobbyingAlexander Nazaryan a

dministration

“Joe Biden’s transition is absolutely staked with tech industry players,” noted Protocol, an online publication that covers technology.


SERVING THEIR RICH - If Biden and Harris win, the country will devolve to a kingdom of  state and regional duchies composed of  often semi-hereditary rulers in the pay of the rich, donor class, the clerisy (media scribblers, complaisant judicial appointees and academic rent seekers who promote favored policies and shut out the dissenters), an impoverished, smaller, and powerless middle class and a vast layer of muzzled, docile poor serfs (ILLEGALS). CLARICE FELDMAN

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/11/biden-minister-of-propaganda-neo.html

The Democratic Party has made it abundantly clear that they are the party of immigration lawlessness, mass legal and illegal immigration, and do not care about the impacts on working Americans.  NEIL MUNRO

 

The funding support from the super-wealth

Zuckerberg couple — and from FWD.us

members — is complemented by indirect

donations from other wealthy billionaires.


“Joe Biden is great on immigration. I guess depends on your perspective. If you’re a human trafficker, or drug dealer, you’d give him an A-plus, but the American people would give him an F. The crisis at our border was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted. I predicted that if you campaign all year long on open borders, amnesty, and health care for illegals, you’re going to get more migrants at the border. That’s what’s happened since the election.”

                                                                                           SEN. TOM COTTON


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

josh-hawley-family-fb
Josh Hawley / Facebook
1:46

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

(Listen from 12:14)

A transcript is as follows:

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

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

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

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

US Republican Senator from Missouri Josh Hawley listens to questions from members of the media at a hotel in Hong Kong on October 14, 2019. - Strife-torn Hong Kong is sliding towards a police state, US senator Josh Hawley warned on October 14, as the financial hub braces for a …
MOHD RASFAN/AFP via Getty Images
2:38

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

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

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

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

LISTEN:

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

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

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

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

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

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


A flood of money from the Facebook founder

gave Dems an unfair and illegal advantage.

Tue Dec 22, 2020 

Matthew Vadum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kline is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

JOHN BINDER


Big tech’s lobbying arm and the Koch

 brothers’ network of donor class organizations

 are cheering on President Joe Biden’s amnesty

 plan that would pack the United States labor

 market with more foreign visa workers for

 business to hire over American graduates and

 professionals.


This week, Biden’s amnesty plan was introduced in

 Congress by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) as

 Democrats look to increase foreign competition in

 the U.S. workforce while more than 17 million

 Americans are jobless.


Among other things, the plan would:

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

· Provide $4 billion in foreign aid to Central America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg Funds Groups Staging Amnesty Marches

Mark Zuckerberg has funded many of the pro-migration groups now staging street marches for amnesties that would redirect more wealth and power to billionaires.
Annie Spratt via Unsplash
7:19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 1, the We Are Home campaign announced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2:39

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent


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

JUNO BEACH, FLORIDA - MAY 07: Former U.S. President George W. Bush speaks during the flag raising ceremony prior to The Walker Cup at Seminole Golf Club on May 07, 2021 in Juno Beach, Florida. (Photo by Cliff Hawkins/Getty Images)
Cliff Hawkins/Getty Images
6:17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This opposition is multiracialcross-sexnon-racistclass-basedintra-Democraticrational, and recognizes the solidarity Americans owe to each other.

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

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

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

GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS: PARTY OF BILLIONAIRES, BANKSTERS and open BORDERS.

I was reminded after reading that 131 billionaires who are pouring millions into Joe Biden’s campaign in their mindless obsession to defeat Trump in November.  Among the prominent are Jeff Skoll, of eBay who has contributed $4.5 million; Laurene Powell Jobs of Apple and owner of The Atlantic magazine has donated $1.2 million,  and Josh Bekenstein, of Bain Capital (co-founded by Mitt Romney), $5 million.  STEVE McCANN

 

Tech Elites Endorse Joe Biden to Secure more Foreign Workers for U.S. Jobs

The pro-amnesty article’s author is Alida Garcia. She works for Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group as a director of coalitions and policy. Zuckerberg’s group was created to pass the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty that would have transferred even more wealth from wage earners to investors. The founding members and donors include many wealthy investors, such as Eric Schmidt, the former chief of Google, and Greg Penner, the chairman of Walmart.

FWD.us is now chaired by David Plouffe, a Zuckerberg advisor who also seems to have played a critical role in spiking urban turnout for Biden in several states.

FWD.us director Todd Schulte touted Garcia’s claim as a “really important OpEd.”

FWD.us supports multiple campaigns to get cheap labor for investors. For example, the group funded the p.r. campaign

Or to the 40 or so members of the Biden transition who are current or recent lobbyists.

 

“I think the Biden administration is going to be surprising to progressives in some ways and disappointing in others, and the agency review teams reflect that,” Dayen says. During the summer, the American Prospect published a lengthy exposé about Biden’s foreign policy advisers’ lucrative foray into corporate America. Many are set to return to the highest echelons of official Washington. 

It doesn’t help matters that, today, tech giants are distrusted by conservatives and progressives alike. Firms that were run out of Palo Alto garages now chafe at antitrust laws like the railroad companies of a century ago.  ALEXANDER NAZARYAN

And like those companies, they know how to use their influence. In 2019 alone, two of the biggest and most influential technology firms — Amazon and Facebook — each spent $17 million on “government affairs,” better known as lobbyingAlexander Nazaryan administration

“Joe Biden’s transition is absolutely staked with tech industry players,” noted Protocol, an online publication that covers technology.

SERVING THEIR RICH - If Biden and Harris win, the country will devolve to a kingdom of  state and regional duchies composed of  often semi-hereditary rulers in the pay of the rich, donor class, the clerisy (media scribblers, complaisant judicial appointees and academic rent seekers who promote favored policies and shut out the dissenters), an impoverished, smaller, and powerless middle class and a vast layer of muzzled, docile poor serfs (ILLEGALS). CLARICE FELDMAN

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/11/biden-minister-of-propaganda-neo.html

 

And no less than four individuals, serving in various capacities, are drawn from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is co-owned by Facebook oligarch Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

The composition of Biden’s agency review teams exposes and refutes all of the pseudo-left and opportunist groups in the orbit of the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucracies, which have throughout the year attempted to persuade American workers that Biden, the Democratic Party and the unions represented some sort of channel through which they could advance their own independent interests.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos congratulates

 

Biden as the president-elect packs his

 

transition teams with servants of the

 

corporate oligarchy

 

Amazon oligarch and COVID-19 profiteer Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, congratulated president-elect Joe Biden following the declaration four days after the November 3 vote that Biden had won the US presidential election.

“Unity, empathy and decency are not characteristics of a bygone era,” Bezos wrote on Instagram, congratulating Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “By voting in record numbers, the American people proved again that our democracy is strong.”

This sentiment was echoed on November 7 by the Business Roundtable, including Bezos as well as the chief executives of Apple, Cisco, Microsoft and Salesforce. The big business organization issued a statement that said: “Business Roundtable congratulates President-elect Biden on his election as 46th President of the United States. We also congratulate Vice President-elect Harris on her historic accomplishment as the first woman, Black woman and person of South Asian descent to be elected Vice President of the United States… We look forward to working with the incoming Biden Administration and all federal and state policymakers.”

Last week, Biden’s transition team posted the names and most recent employers of members of its agency review teams on the website buildbackbetter.org. Given the composition of these teams, it is easy to see why Bezos and his fellow oligarchs are in a congratulatory mood.

The individuals who have been appointed are listed alongside the company for which they most recently worked, and organized into “teams” based on the government operations they are tasked with reviewing, such as the departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, State and Homeland Security.

The composition of these agency review teams demonstrates the intersection, if not outright integration, of the technology monopolies, academic aristocracy, beltway think tanks, trade union bureaucracies, giant law firms and the military-intelligence apparatus of war and repression at home and abroad.

Amazon will have not one, but two seats on the transition teams. Tom Sullivan, Amazon’s director of international tax planning, will sit on Biden’s Department of State team. In addition to Sullivan, Mark Schwartz, an “enterprise strategist” for Amazon Web Services, will serve on the extremely powerful Office of Management and Budget (OMB) team. The OMB oversees the $5 trillion federal budget and exerts influence across a broad range of federal regulatory frameworks.

In addition to figures from Amazon, Nicole Isaac, senior director of North American policy at LinkedIn, will sit on the Department of Treasury team. Brandon Belford from Lyft will serve on the Office of Management and Budget team, along with Divya Kumaraiah from Airbnb.

Shara Mohtadi of Bloomberg Philanthropies, which is funded by the donations of billionaire oligarch Michael R. Bloomberg, will sit on the Council on Environmental Quality. And no less than four individuals, serving in various capacities, are drawn from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is co-owned by Facebook oligarch Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

Arun Venkataraman from Visa will sit on the team tasked with reviewing the Office of the United States Trade Representative, which will also review the US International Trade Commission and the US Trade and Development Agency. This team will also include Ted Dean from Dropbox.

The labor bureaucracies will also have seats at the table, demonstrating their complete integration into the apparatus of capitalist rule. Beth Antunez, Shital Shah and Marla Ucelli-Kashyap of the American Federation of Teachers, together with Donna Harris-Aikens of the National Education Association, will sit on the Department of Education team.

The labor bureaucracies are also represented by LaQuita Honeysucker from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, who will be on the Department of Agriculture review team, while Josh Nassar of the United Auto Workers will sit on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau team.

Brad Markell of the AFL-CIO will sit on the Department of Energy Team. His name appears right before that of Trisha Miller from the venture capital firm Gates Ventures.

On the Department of Labor team will be Jennifer Abruzzo of the Communications Workers of America, Dora Chen of the Service Employees International Union, Jessica Chu of the Amalgamated Transit Union International, Nadia Marin-Molina of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and Shaun O’Brien of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, among others.

The major academic institutions represented on the list include Harvard Law School, the University of Michigan Law School, New York University School of Law, Duke University, Stanford University, Georgetown University and others. Major law firms and consulting firms include Deloitte Consulting; DLA Piper; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Sidley Austin; Covington & Burling; and Latham & Watkins.

The racial and identity politics promoted by the Democratic Party did not fail to be reflected on the list, with Bonnie Jenkins appointed to the Department of State team from an organization titled Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security. Jenkins, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, previously served as the coordinator for threat reduction programs in the Obama administration’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.

The Department of Defense team will be led by Kathy Hicks from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who will be joined by Melissa Dalton and Andrew Hunter, also from the CSIS; Stacie Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian from the RAND Corporation; Ely Ratner from the Center for a New American Security; and Lisa Sawyer of JPMorgan Chase, among others.

The composition of Biden’s agency review teams exposes and refutes all of the pseudo-left and opportunist groups in the orbit of the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucracies, which have throughout the year attempted to persuade American workers that Biden, the Democratic Party and the unions represented some sort of channel through which they could advance their own independent interests.

The parade of lobbyists, servants and agents of the capitalist class into the incoming Biden administration prompted a defensive article in the New York Times on Thursday, titled “Progressives Press Biden to Limit Corporate Influence in Administration.”

The title of the article essentially acknowledges that “corporate influence” (i.e., corruption) is playing a pervasive role in the formation of the incoming administration, and suggests “limits” on that influence.

The article concedes that “Mr. Biden’s team included executives from Amazon Web Services, Lyft, Airbnb and a vice president of WestExec Advisors, a Washington consulting firm whose secretive list of clients includes financial services, technology and pharmaceutical companies.”

The Times then points to the efforts of “progressive Democrats” who are advocating “for tighter ethics rules.” This is nothing but a fig leaf for the otherwise naked domination of the Democratic Party by the interests of the military-intelligence-corporate-financial oligarchy.

The facts presented in the Times article themselves paint a devastating picture of how the so-called “left” wing of the party is being shoved aside as the fat cats shoulder their way into the new administration. In a joint letter sent Thursday, a number of organizations associated with the so-called “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party pleaded with Biden not to “nominate or hire corporate executives, lobbyists, and prominent corporate consultants,” and to adopt “ethics” rules to limit corruption.

These and other feeble efforts by the “progressive Democrats” are being unceremoniously ignored. The Times itself was compelled to acknowledge that “Mr. Biden has not always shared the left’s concerns about lobbying.”

Tendencies like the Democratic Socialists of America were used by the Democratic Party during the election campaign to further the Democrats’ electoral prospects, but within days of the vote they were tossed aside and roundly denounced for having supposedly cost the Democrats votes and positions with their “radical” and “socialist” rhetoric.

These “socialist” elements had been promised “space” in a Biden administration, but they showed up after the election only to find their “Green New Deal” and other promised reforms piled up in trash bags by the curb.

There is nothing unexpected about the emerging right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall Street composition of the incoming Biden administration. Biden himself spent decades in Washington as a corrupt bag-man for wealthy interests in the state of Delaware, the legal headquarters of hundreds of thousands of corporations that take advantage of its business-friendly laws.

As vice president, Biden was reportedly opposed even to the barebones rules against corruption that were imposed during the Obama presidency. In the words of the Times: “When he was vice president under Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden bristled at the strict lobbying rules, which he contended would deprive their nascent administration of experienced talent.”

From the moment Biden secured a lead in the voting results, the Democratic Party swung viciously to the right, attacking “socialism” and the “left” in general. On a conference call with House Democrats after the election, former CIA agent Abigail Spanberger, now a representative from Virginia, shouted: “We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again.”

While the “socialists” have been escorted out of the back door, the front door has been thrown open to corporate executives, lobbyists and consultants to staff the new administration.

Tech Elites Endorse Joe Biden to Secure more Foreign Workers for U.S. Jobs

SERVING THEIR RICH - If Biden and Harris win, the country will devolve to a kingdom of  state and regional duchies composed of  often semi-hereditary rulers in the pay of the rich, donor class, the clerisy (media scribblers, complaisant judicial appointees and academic rent seekers who promote favored policies and shut out the dissenters), an impoverished, smaller, and powerless middle class and a vast layer of muzzled, docile poor serfs (ILLEGALS). CLARICE FELDMAN

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/11/biden-minister-of-propaganda-neo.html

 

Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are ScrewingAmerica's Best & Brightest

By Michelle Malkin and John Miano

Analysis conducted in 2018 discovered that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley, California, are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers. Up to 99 percent of H-1B visa workers imported by the top eight outsourcing firms are from India.

Joe Biden’s Donor List Includes More than 30 Executives Tied to Wall Street

JOHN BINDER

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has more than 30 business executives on his donor list that have connections to Wall Street.

Analysis of Biden’s more than 800 big donors, those who have bundled contributions for his presidential bid against President Trump, found that more than 30 of the executives listed have ties to Wall Street.

CNBC reports:

CNBC reviewed a new list of more than 800 Biden bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for the campaign, and found that several of them had links to financial firms. A few had been mentioned on the initial list of Biden fundraisers that was released in 2019 during the Democratic primary contests. [Emphasis added]

Beyond those from Wall Street, Biden’s campaign saw fundraising help from leaders in Silicon Valley, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Ron Conway. [Emphasis added]

Those executives with ties to Wall Street funding Biden’s campaign include:

Frank Baker, Brett Barth, Jim Chanos, Mark Chorazak, David Clunie, William Derrough, Roger Altman, Blair Effron, Jon Feigelson, Mark Gallogly, John Rogers, Jon Gray, Tony James, Jon Henes, Sonny Kalsi, Orin Kramer, Brad Krap, Brian Kreiter, Marc Lasry, Nate Loewenthall, Eric Mindich, Kara Moore, Charles Myers, Alan Patricof, Deven Parekh, Robert Rubin, Evan Roth, Faiza Saeed, Rajen Shah, Jay Snyder, Rob Stavis, and Jeff Zients.

As Breitbart News reported, Biden’s campaign is being backed by nearly “all the big banks” on Wall Street, according to CNN analysis, and Wall Street executives and employees have donated more than $74 million to elect the former vice president.

Trump, on the other hand, has accepted far less money from Wall Street — taking just a little over $18 million dollars from financial firms. This is a whopping $56 million less than what Biden has accepted from Wall Street.

Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania.

In a post on Sunday, Biden wrote that “Donald Trump sees the world from Park Avenue,” whereas he sees the world “from where I came from: Scranton, Pennsylvania.” In fact, Biden has raised over $1 million from wealthy Park Avenue donors, more than eight times the less than $130,000 that Trump has taken from Park Avenue residents.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter 

Big Tech and Big Law dominate Biden transition teams, tempering progressive hopes

Alexander Nazaryan administration takes office in January.

WASHINGTON — For six years, Brandon Belford worked as an economic policy adviser to President Barack Obama in the White House and federal agencies. He moved to the Bay Area when Donald Trump became president, part of a massive flight of Obama officials from Washington to Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Hollywood. He took high-ranking positions with Apple and then Lyft, where he is currently the ride-sharing company’s chief of staff.

Now Belford is back, as part of one of the “transition teams” named by President-elect Joe Biden to restock a federal government that has been battered after four years of Trump by hiring new officials and advising the incoming administration on what its first governing steps should be. 

Those steps could be timid, judging by the composition of those teams, where Obama-era centrism prevails. That has some progressives worried that Biden represents nothing more than a return to normal, at a time when many of them believe the nation is ready to embrace policy ideas well to the left of center. 

“The status quo is killing us,” says former Bernie Sanders press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, who now hosts a podcast called “Bad Faith.” 

Belford is joined by dozens of other Democratic operatives who have spent the past four years working at prestigious law firms and think tanks. On these “agency review teams” are high-ranking executives from Amazon, partners at white-shoe law firms like Covington & Burling and enough experts from D.C. center-left think tanks — including six from the Brookings Institution alone — to fill a center-left think tank.

Progressives knew this was coming. “I am very concerned about the role Uber executives would play in this administration,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., told Yahoo News. Even though she also effusively praised the appointment of Ron Klain as the incoming White House chief of staff, Ocasio-Cortez vowed that corporate America would not “pull the wool over our eyes” when it came to crafting the Biden presidency.

Some have put it less bluntly. “Biden’s transition team is full of wealthy corporate executives who are completely disconnected from the struggles of the working class,” complains left-leaning activist Ryan Knight, whose Twitter handle is @ProudSocialist. 

App-based drivers from Uber and Lyft protest in a caravan in front of City Hall in Los Angeles on October 22, 2020 where elected leaders hold a conference urging voters to reject on the November 3 election, Proposition 22, that would classify app-based drivers as independent contractors and not employees or agents. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)More

He was presumably referring to the two dozen agency review team officials who come from law firms like Arnold & Porter. Or to the 40 or so members of the Biden transition who are current or recent lobbyists.

The agency review teams are not exactly settling into their cubicles just yet. For one, President Trump has not yet conceded the election, and the transition has been hindered in part by Republican operatives at the General Services Administration. And agency review is an enormously complex process, one that actually began months ago. The transition teams are supposed to ensure a “smooth transfer of power,” in large part by making sure that capable officials are ready to get to work in their respective agencies the moment Biden lifts his hand from the Lincoln Bible.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one member of the Biden campaign working on agency-related matters says teams were primarily tasked with surveying the landscape of the federal bureaucracy. She says that the transition teams would make some hiring recommendations, but only as a secondary function.

With a single exception, the agency review team members mentioned in this article did not respond to requests for comment.

One with a typically impressive biography is that of Aneesh Chopra, who served as the U.S. chief technology officer for Obama before starting his own medical data logistics company, CareJourney. Now he is on the transition team for the U.S. Postal Service, where he will presumably work to undo the alleged damage by another logistics maven: Trump appointee Louis DeJoy.  

Of course, most progressives are glad that there’s a Biden transition to speak of, instead of a second Trump term. But they also recognize their own role in the Democratic candidate’s victory.

“Everyone fell into line and did everything they could to get Joe Biden elected,” says Max Berger, a progressive activist who worked for Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign and Justice Democrats, the group that helped elect Ocasio-Cortez to the House in 2018. 

Berger recognizes that progressives will be a “junior partner” to the establishment Democrats with whom Biden has been ideologically and temperamentally aligned for a good half-century. They want to be partners all the same, not just the loyal opposition.

Many are cheered by some of the agency review teams. For one, they are notably more diverse, a stark contrast to Trump’s reliance on white males for so much of his advice. On the transition team for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is Jedidah Isler, the Dartmouth professor who in 2014 became the first Black woman to earn a doctorate in astrophysics from Yale. The transition team for the Small Business Administration includes Jorge Silva Puras, a political leader in Puerto Rico who also teaches entrepreneurship at a community college in the Bronx. 

“The presence of labor officials throughout many of the groups is notable,” says David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect. In the Department of Education team, for example, are several executives from the American Federation of Teachers.

He called the Federal Reserve and Treasury teams “all-stars,” a sentiment shared by other progressives interviewed for this article. On the Treasury team is Mehrsa Baradaran, a progressive economist who has written on the racial wealth gap. She is also on the Federal Reserve team, along with Reena Aggarwal, a corporate governance expert.

Progressive strategist Elizabeth Spiers says the finance-related teams are not “not quite Elizabeth Warren levels of aggressiveness but also not stuffed with finance people.” Biden’s advisers appear to have learned the lessons of his former boss. During Obama’s first year, he relied on banking executives to help quell the financial crisis. They did so in ways that steered the new president away from progressive proposals, such as nationalizing those very same banks

There is not a single current executive from Citibank or Goldman Sachs on any of the transition teams. Bank of America has also been shut out. JPMorgan can boast a single toehold in the agency review process: Lisa Sawyer of the Pentagon team. A spokesman for JPMorgan told Yahoo News that the bank was “following the appropriate election laws” and that Sawyer was “not on an agency review team that will touch any banking issues.”

“I think the Biden administration is going to be surprising to progressives in some ways and disappointing in others, and the agency review teams reflect that,” Dayen says. During the summer, the American Prospect published a lengthy exposé about Biden’s foreign policy advisers’ lucrative foray into corporate America. Many are set to return to the highest echelons of official Washington. 

“I have to be cautiously optimistic,” says Waleed Shahid, communications director for the Justice Democrats. 

Relatively young progressives like Shahid are less likely to wax romantic about the way things were in Washington. They are less interested in experience than conviction. But for many in Biden’s camp, a lack of experience was among the several fatal flaws of the Trump years.

“Everyone — right or left — has made the mistaken assumption for years that governing is easy,” says “The Death of Expertise” author Tom Nichols, who teaches at the Naval War College and is an ardently anti-Trump Republican.

“After having a bunch of nitwits and cronies loose in the government,” Nichols wrote in an email, “I think a lot of people on the left are really giving in to the assumption that as long as you’re not Trump, or not a complete idiot, anyone can do it.”

Given the title and theme of his book, Nicholas cautioned against that approach. “It’s a childish and silly approach to government, but it’s a bipartisan problem,” he told Yahoo News.

While progressive may not see their stars like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren occupying the Treasury Department, they do very much hope that a Biden presidency amounts to more than a third Obama term. It was unaddressed economic inequality, they believe, that bred the populist resentment that gave Trump an opening in 2016. The coronavirus has only made that inequality worse. That will only increase populist resentment, they worry, to be exploited by a Trump acolyte — or perhaps Trump himself, again — in 2024.

Addressing that inequality, for now, falls to transition team officials like Mark Schwartz of Amazon and Ted Dean of Dropbox, as well as Arun Venkataraman of Visa and David Holmes of defense contractor Rebellion Defense, in which Eric Schmidt of Google is an investor. Many of these officials are veterans of the Obama administration or Democratic offices on the Hill. 

“There is a lot of corporate influence there,” says Maurice Weeks, co-founder of the Action Center on Race and the Economy. “And that is troubling.” But he is encouraged by the presence of “hard-core progressives” like Sarah Miller, a former Treasury deputy who is both an anti-Facebook activist and the executive of the American Economic Liberties Project, which seeks to curb corporate power. She is now on the Treasury transition team.

In some ways, the difference is between former Obama officials who, like Miller, went on to become activists and those who moved on to become rich. The latter did only what many government officials had done before them. But at a time of mass unemployment, a stint at the corporate law firm Latham & Watkins (three transition team members) may not seem as impressive as it may have when Obama was president.

“We don’t just want to rewind the clock by four years,” Weeks says.

For many progressives, Trump was a singular threat to important institutions of the federal government, but rebuilding those institutions is simply not as important as rebuilding entire communities shattered by economic, social and racial inequalities. 

It doesn’t help matters that, today, tech giants are distrusted by conservatives and progressives alike. Firms that were run out of Palo Alto garages now chafe at antitrust laws like the railroad companies of a century ago. 

And like those companies, they know how to use their influence. In 2019 alone, two of the biggest and most influential technology firms — Amazon and Facebook — each spent $17 million on “government affairs,” better known as lobbying.

Ocasio-Cortez’s reference to Uber may have been a subtle warning to the incoming administration: The brother-in-law of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is Tony West, who worked for the Department of Justice under President Bill Clinton and is now the chief counsel at Uber. Jake Sullivan, another top Biden adviser, also worked for Uber

The company recently won a major victory in California with Proposition 22, a successful response to legal efforts to make Uber drivers and other “gig workers” employees, not contractors. That’s exactly the kind of labor policy, Ocasio-Cortez says, the Biden administration must avoid.

Many top Obama staffers went to Silicon Valley in 2017. They could be returning to Washington with a new appreciation for free market capitalism at a time when “socialism” is no longer a dirty word. 

“Joe Biden’s transition is absolutely stacked with tech industry players,” noted Protocol, an online publication that covers technology.

That’s exactly what worries Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, which tracks what Trump has called, without much affection, “the swamp.” He notes that the transition team for the Office of Management and Budget appears to have borrowed rather avidly from Silicon Valley, with team members hailing from Lyft, Airbnb and Amazon.  

The budget office wields an “enormous amount of power,” says Hauser, including in both how congressionally appropriated money is doled out and how certain rules are implemented. Though it had a supporting role in Trump’s impeachment drama over foreign aid, OMB is otherwise obscure, making it a perfect site for covert exercises of federal power. 

Hauser also didn’t like the prevalence of Big Law talent on the Department of Justice team, which signaled to him that the Biden administration could go soft on corporate malefactors. 

Watching the transition, Gray, the former Sanders adviser, recalled an old saying: “The fish rots from the head.” The head, in this case, is Joe Biden, of whom Gray has long been a skeptic.

“He’s a fundamentally conservative man,” Gray says. She reasons that if Biden was “unmoved by the largest protest movement in American history” to endorse Medicare for All, he can’t be trusted to do much for conservative causes like a $15 minimum wage and the Green New Deal.

Still, she believes that Biden can be made to hear the voices of progressives — if, Gray says, they are loud enough. She points out that there is widespread support for progressive legislation like the $15 minimum wage in Florida, even though Trump won the state. 

Biden easily won Oregon, but a push to legalize small amounts of drugs, known as Measure 110, was even more popular than he was.

She sees that as evidence that progressive ideas are more popular than Biden himself. “Progressives should never stop screaming that reality from the rooftops,” Gray told Yahoo News. And she vowed to keep fighting, even with Trump gone and a Democratic president in the Oval Office once again. 

“I don’t accept resignation,” she said.

Cover thumbnail photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

 

DO THE MATH! ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT OPEN BORDERS. ALL DEMOCRATS WANT GLOBALIST TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.

 

Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.

  

While America’s working and middle class have been subjected to compete for jobs against a constant flow of cheaper foreign workers — where more than 1.2 million mostly low-skilled immigrants are admitted to the country annually — the billionaire class has experienced historic salary gains." Sen. Josh Hawley 

 

"This is how they will destroy  America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of  our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY

 

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” THEODORE ROOSEVELT

 

Biden’s Chief of Staff Worked on Behalf of Big Tech for Endless H-1B Visas

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

13 Nov 2020314

3:13

Democrat Joe Biden has chosen Ronald Klain to be his chief of staff should he enter the White House in January. Klain worked on behalf of Silicon Valley executives and their interests, which include providing tech corporations with an endless supply of H-1B foreign visa workers and more free trade.

Klain, who was made Biden’s incoming chief of staff this week, served on the executive council of TechNet — a firm that promotes the interests of Silicon Valley’s tech corporations in Washington, D.C. Klain served on the council alongside executives from the Oracle Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Google, Visa, Apple, and Microsoft.

TechNet, most recently, joined a lawsuit against President Trump’s reforms to the H-1B visa program that sought to prioritize unemployed Americans for jobs rather than allowing businesses to continue importing foreign workers.

TechNet is one of the groups that has filed an amicus brief to oppose the new regulations on H-1B visas. https://t.co/ofY4GJ2sVR

— U.S. Tech Workers (@USTechWorkers) November 12, 2020

Trump’s seeking to force businesses to hire Americans over importing foreign visa workers is an affront to Silicon Valley’s tech corporations, those represented by TechNet, who advocate for an endless flow of H-1B foreign visa workers.

There are about 650,000 H-1B visa workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans are often laid off and forced to train their foreign replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News. More than 85,000 Americans annually potentially lose their jobs to foreign labor through the H-1B visa program.

Analysis conducted in 2018 discovered that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley, California, are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers. Up to 99 percent of H-1B visa workers imported by the top eight outsourcing firms are from India.

TechNet’s listed immigration goals include allowing corporations to dictate the annual level of legal immigration to the United States and the elimination of per-country caps that would effectively let India and China monopolize the U.S. green card system.

The group’s goals on trade are in direct opposition to President Trump’s economic nationalist agenda that has imposed tariffs on foreign imports from China, Canada, Europe, and other parts of the globe.

TechNet’s trade goals include reducing “tariff and non-tariff barriers to information, communications, and advanced energy technology products, services, and investments” as well as “protections for the free flow of data across borders…”

While Biden has vowed to flood the U.S. labor market with more foreign workers to compete against Americans for jobs, he has shied away from questions on whether he will eliminate tariffs on foreign imports that were imposed by Trump. Such elimination of tariffs would be a boon to multinational corporations that offshore their production and jobs overseas only to import their products back into the U.S. market, often with no penalties for doing so.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

 

Billionaires Back Claim That Only Amnesty and Illegals Can Save America

 

NEIL MUNRO

The United States’ complex economy cannot recover from the coronavirus crash without an amnesty for at least 11 million illegals, including the stoop labor in the fields, according to an article that was written, posted, and touted by advocates for billionaires.

The pro-amnesty article said:

Our economic recovery from the pandemic is entirely reliant on providing a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people currently living in the US. There’s no way forward without doing right by the undocumented individuals who are keeping all Americans alive as our country continues to combat the coronavirus crisis.

“It’s not just economic gibberish — it is demeaning to Americans,” responded Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

He added, “I don’t even know if that’s the way they mean it because they’re just lobbyists saying whatever they think is going to promote their issue. But it really does come across that way and, to use the cliche: This is why you got Trump.”

In reality, prosperity for ordinary Americans rose rapidly in Trump’s lower-migration economy, without any amnesty. Bloomberg reported October 30:

In 2016, real median household income was $62,898, just $257 above its level in 1999. Over the next three years it grew almost $6,000, to $68,703. That’s perhaps why, despite the pandemic, 56% of U.S. voters polled last month said their families were better off today than they were four years ago.

The pro-amnesty article’s author is Alida Garcia. She works for Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group as a director of coalitions and policy. Zuckerberg’s group was created to pass the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty that would have transferred even more wealth from wage earners to investors. The founding members and donors include many wealthy investors, such as Eric Schmidt, the former chief of Google, and Greg Penner, the chairman of Walmart.

FWD.us is now chaired by David Plouffe, a Zuckerberg advisor who also seems to have played a critical role in spiking urban turnout for Biden in several states.

FWD.us director Todd Schulte touted Garcia’s claim as a “really important OpEd.”

FWD.us supports multiple campaigns to get cheap labor for investors. For example, the group funded the p.r. campaign that got the Supreme Court to block Trump’s cancellation of President Barack Obama’s award of work permits to roughly 800,000 illegal migrants under the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” amnesty.

The Garcia article was posted by the Milken Institute, run by Michael Milkin. He earned a fortune — plus a 10-year jail sentence and a $600 million fine — while working on Wall Street.

The Milken Institute also touts cheap-labor migration into the United States and Europe. For example, Garcia’s article calls for an economy powered by immigrant workers and consumers, not by Americans, their children, and their work:

We should transform our immigration system fundamentally … Immigration can power the next century of American moral leadership, not just economic leadership.

We need individuals to be able to come to the US to contribute across a wide array of industries and skill levels, helping to infuse our country with talent, creativity, and innovative energy from all over the world.

The article comes as the billionaire groups prepare a 2020 blitz to shove a cheap labor bill through the House and Senate.

The push will likely showcase attractive young illegals while hiding the economic transfer in complexity and push polls. The lobbyists will also try to get their wealth-shifting measure through the legislative via a series of complex and obscure bills that will likely be ignored by the legacy media.

Garcia’s billionaire-boosted article is “opportunism secure in the knowledge that they won’t be mocked by legacy media figures … [so] they don’t realize when they verge into the preposterous,” Krikorian said. He added, “The legacy elite shares their perspective so that they’re not going to mock them the way they deserve to be mocked …. There’s nobody at their shop or even anyone that they talk to or interact with that would tell them, ‘This is comical; why don’t you dial it back just a little bit?'”

But the article is also “a continuation of the idea that Americans are inadequate … that without immigration, we can’t function,” said Krikorian. It is “insulting to everybody who’s not an illegal alien [to claim] that a vast continental nation with a third of a billion people can’t function without a few million illegal immigrants.”

The idea is also embedded in the establishment’s post-1950s insistence that the United States is only a “nation of immigrants,” instead of a nation of and for Americans.

Overall, open-ended migration is praised by business and progressives partly because migrants help transfer massive wealth from American wage-earners to stockholders.

Migration moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, and from the central states to the coastal states.

Migration also allows investors and CEOs to skimp on labor-saving technology, sideline U.S. minorities, ignore disabled peopleexploit stoop labor in the fields, shortchange labor in the cities, impose tight control and pay cuts on American professionals, corral technological innovation by minimizing the employment of American graduates, undermine labor rights, and redirect progressive journalists to cheerlead for Wall Street’s priorities and claims.

Progressives romanticize stoop labor as vibrantly diverse agriculture.
That condescension is great for companies b/c it perfumes their $$-decision to not buy labor-saving & clean machines.
Gov't should incentivize US mechanization over #H2a migration.https://t.co/tPbAhMaSKS

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) April 6, 2020

 

THE BIDEN AMNESTY

…or will it be continued non-enforcement? No matter, Wall Street will write it!

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/11/bidens-plan-to-fix-americas-jobless.html

THE BIDEN AMNESTY -  Migration also allows investors and CEOs to skimp on labor-saving technology, sideline U.S. minorities, ignore disabled peopleexploit stoop labor in the fields, shortchange labor in the cities, impose tight control and pay cuts on American professionals, corral technological innovation by minimizing the employment of American graduates, undermine labor rights, and even redirect progressive journalists to cheerlead for Wall Street’s priorities. NEIL MUNRO


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


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

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

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

  

Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us Pressures Joe Biden to Revive Amnesty Giveaway

MARCH 25th 2021: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google (Alphabet Inc.) CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testify before the United States Congress on combating online misinformation and disinformation. - File Photo by: zz/DJ/AAD/STAR MAX/IPx 2015 3/2/15 Facebook, Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg gives the keynote speech on the opening …
zz/DJ/AAD/STAR MAX/IPx
10:28

Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-migration group, FWD.us, is using its influence in President Joe Biden’s White House to save Zuckerberg’s immigration agenda from Biden’s border policies.

The influence was highlighted on May 14 when Biden met with several migrants who were given work permits by President Barack Obama’s 2012 DACA directive. The six migrants were led by Maria Praeli, who works as the government relations manager for the many wealthy investors in Zuckerberg’s FWD.us group.

Biden echoed FWD.us’ 2021 amnesty strategy in a statement after meeting Praeli and the other migrants:

Today, President Biden met with six DACA recipients who work in health care, education, and agriculture to discuss their experiences on the frontlines of the pandemic. President Biden reiterated his support for Dreamers, TPS holders, farmworkers, and other essential immigrant workers.

That meeting was followed by a provocative statement from the press secretary — “DACA recipients are … kind of what the American Dream represents” — but got little Friday evening attention in the establishment media.

But that limited publicity is just fine with the White House, responded Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies. He said:

The administration would like nothing more than to fully implement FWD.us’ agenda — but it is just that they have political concerns. They’re not stupid, they read the polls, they know that immigration is the President’s major weakness with voters.

[…] It’s a theatrical performance where they pretend to be reluctant and ambivalent while the outside groups like FWD.us push them [for more]. That serves both of their purposes because the administration gets to say [to voters]; “Look, we’re not crazy, we’re in the middle.”

The meeting is one example of FWD.us and its friends influencing Biden’s labor and migration policies, amid the animosity of many progressives towards Zuckerberg for Facebook’s pre-2021 refusal to muzzle then-President Donald Trump.

For example, Biden’s main immigration bill was introduced on January 20. It includes many changes championed by Zuckerberg and his wealthy coastal investors at FWD.us. Those changes include a rule allowing all employers to recruit an unlimited supply of foreign graduates with the dangled promise of green cards for a decade’s work. Similarly, Biden’s Department of Labor has blocked a Donald Trump-directed wage raise for visa workers that FWD.us opposed.

The blocked wage-raise reduces pressure on Fortune 500 companies to hire American graduates.

But Biden’s unpopular amnesty agenda has largely been swept aside by his unpopular border policy which opened the southern borders to a growing flood of economic migrants from Central America, South America, and other regions around the world. That border policy has created a humanitarian emergency in Mexico, and a rating crisis for him — despite the U.S. media’s eager focus on the smaller inflow of the left-behind children of illegal migrants — plus an easy excuse for GOP Senators to shrug off pro-amnesty pressure from their business donors.

Zuckerberg and other wealthy West Coast investors created FWD.us in 2013 to help to push the “Gang of Eight” amnesty and population-growth bill through Congress.

The group’s collective goals are simple: Pump up stock prices by importing extra consumers and workers, of whatever skill or age, regardless of the damage to the migrants’ home countries.

For example, the 2013 bill would have boosted many investors by delivering roughly 20 million extra consumers, workers, and renters. That inflow would have shifted many billions of dollars from wage earners to investors, according to a 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office.

The investors push for their goals regardless of the damage to their political allies. For example, the 2013 push was an electoral disaster for Democrats, who lost their Senate majority after 2014 voters ejected five Democratic senators. Similarly, President George W. Bush’s two amnesty bills helped get his ratings below 30 percent.

The breadth of investors who founded and funded FWD.us was hidden from casual visitors to the group’s website sometime in the last few months. But copies exist at the other sites.

Since 2014, FWD.us and its education fund have spent at least $50 million to build a nationwide network of organizers and allies.

Throughout President Donald Trump’s four years, the group’s funding and allied lawyers helped to slow and block many of Trump’s pro-American initiatives, including his plans to help American graduates win the many white-collar jobs that are now held by foreign visa-workers. For example, the FWD.us group led the campaign to save the DACA work-permit giveaway and won many state-level gains for the employers of illegal migrants.

The group spends heavily to promote the sympathy-inducing stories of pitiable migrants and minimize coverage of the huge economic distortions imposed on Americans by the federal government’s inflation of the nation’s labor supply and the demand for housing.

In 2021, FWD.us is playing a leading role in the progressives’ 2021 “We Are Home” amnesty campaign, and its allies cooperate with the cheap labor push by George W. Bush and the Koch network.

FWD.us reveals little about its management or spending. The group declined to answer questions from Breitbart News.

The board reportedly includes David Plouffe, the manager of Barack Obama’s historic 2008 campaign. Zuckerberg hired Plouffe as a political advisor shortly before President Donald Trump’s inauguration and gave him access to massive funding via the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. In 2020, Plouffe used Zuckerberg’s money to fund get-out-the-vote campaigns in many Democrat-dominated districts. That accomplishment may have reduced the widespread anti-Facebook mood among progressives during President Donald Trump’s four years.

The founders of FWD.us included investors Reid Hoffman, Sean Parker. and Ron Conway, who led advocacy efforts for Silicon Valley even before 2013. Until Biden was elected, Conway and Hoffman employed Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff.

Conway is now working with FWD.us member Sean Parker to spike housing prices by letting state governments and influential employers import foreign workers for jobs needed by Americans. Their proposal is also included in Biden’s January 20 immigration bill.

The President of FWD.us, Todd Schulte, is a career Democrat staffer. He was chief of staff at the Priorities USA Action pro-Obama group before joining FWD.us in 2013.

The deputy leader of FWD.us, Alida Garcia, sat on the steering committee for the progressive amnesty campaign. But she took a short-lived White House job in mid-March. The campaign announced March 19:

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

The group seems to have very close ties to Alejandro Mayorkas, the pro-migratio0n secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. FWD.us supported his nomination, and Mayorkas has since hired many migration activists from groups backed by FWD.us. For example, Mayorkas hired Lucas Guttentag, a pro-migration lawyer at Stanford and Yale whose anti-Trump project was backed by FWD.us.

FWD.us can also call upon a network of contractors, alumni — such as Mike Troncoso — and corporate allies to help shape White House policy.

Biden’s agencies are “loaded with [pro-migration] appointees from the various activist groups that FWD.us and other organizations fund and coordinate,” said Krikorian. “The White House is more cautious because it has to actually answer to the voters, and it has a broader agenda than just immigration.”

There have been few behind-the-scenes leaks from Biden’s White House, partly because Biden has hired far fewer D.C.-outsiders than did President Donald Trump. Biden’s core group of long-time staffers guard their boss and only leak vague descriptions of internal debates. For example, in April, media outlets struggled to understand Biden’s instant reversal after his staffers announced on April 16 the government would only accept 15,000 refugees in 2021.

But what is clear is that FWD.us and its allies sharply criticized the 15,000 decision as soon as it was announced, and before Biden reversed the policy:

At some of our best moments, America has been a beacon of hope and a nation that actively seeks to welcome those seeking refuge—and at some of our worst, we turned our back on those very people in their time of greatest need … today’s decision is not only morally wrong, but will make the forced migration situation from Central America worse.

We strongly urge President Biden to reverse this decision and commit to his prior promises to rebuild America’s refugee program.

FWD.us is rarely mentioned in the establishment media, despite its central role in labor policy, migration policies, and the amnesty debate.

When FWD.us does get mentioned, the coverage is very deferential. Few — if any — reporters are willing to identify the funders and purposes of the advocacy group.

The Associated Press, for example, merely described FWD.us as an “immigrant advocacy group.” HuffPost.com described Praeli as “a government manager at the immigrant rights group Fwd.us.” The New York Times‘ White House correspondent, Michael Shear, described it as “a pro-immigrants rights group.” Similarly, CNN interviewed Schulte on March 17, while describing him only as an “immigration and criminal justice advocate [with] a long history on this issue.”