THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA.
In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
House Republicans are pushing to bar any person or business associated with the Chinese Communist Party from purchasing agricultural land in the United States, an effort gaining traction on the Hill as lawmakers look to retaliate against China over its spy-balloon incursion.
Reps. Dan Newhouse (R., Wash.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), alongside more than 40 cosponsors, last week proposed legislation that would prohibit any purchase of public or private agricultural real estate in the United States and its territories by "nonresident aliens, foreign businesses, or any agent, trustee, or fiduciary associated with the Government of the People's Republic of China."
The legislation, known as the Prohibition of Agricultural Land for the People's Republic of China Act, would also bar those entities from involvement in Department of Agriculture programs.
Ownership of U.S. farmland by CCP-connected individuals and companies has risen more than 20-fold since 2010, Fox Business reported, accounting for at least 383,000 acres worth billions of dollars. Newhouse warned that China's investments in other countries' food supplies have enabled Beijing to exert control over those countries—a strategy China is likely pursuing in the United States.
"Imagine if the Chinese Communist Party had just one of the links of our food supply chain under their control, how quickly they could literally starve us," Newhouse told the Washington Free Beacon. "In other countries they make investments, build infrastructure, control sources of agricultural products. … We don't want to see that happen in the United States of America."
The legislation comes as House members on Thursday unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Chinese government's deployment of a spy balloon over America, calling it a "brazen violation of United States sovereignty." The high-profile instance of Chinese interference has prompted lawmakers in states such as Montana and North Dakota to consider resolutions to outlaw land purchases by foreign entities. In Washington, D.C., alarm over the spy balloon could put necessary steam behind the land purchase legislation, which Newhouse first proposed in May but which died in the last Congress.
The Senate is considering a similar bill, introduced last week by Sens. Mike Rounds (R., S.D.) and Jon Tester (D., Mont.), that would ban China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran from owning U.S. farmland.
While China owns just a fraction of all U.S. farmland, Republicans warn that Beijing can still wreak havoc by controlling key segments of the U.S. food supply chain. For example, Virginia-based pork giant Smithfield Foods, which employs tens of thousands of Americans, is wholly owned by a Chinese conglomerate that is the largest meat producer in China.
China's purchase of U.S. farmland has also raised alarms among military leadership. The Chinese company Fufeng Group bought 370 acres of land 12 miles from an Air Force base in eastern North Dakota, a purchase that "presents a significant threat to national security," the Air Force last month told Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.). The Grand Fork City Council, citing the national security risk, on Monday voted unanimously to block the Chinese company from opening a corn mill on the property.
"To allow China, governed by the Chinese Communist Party, to acquire farmland near and around key military and otherwise strategic areas of the United States, is as dumb as it gets," said Rep. David Rouzer (R., N.C.), who cosponsored the Republican legislation.
In 2020, China Privately Told Biden Ally They Wanted Joe To Win
Chinese president Xi Jinping and then-U.S. vice president Joe Biden / AP
The Chinese Communist Party was pulling for Joe Biden to win the 2020 presidential election, according to former president Barack Obama's ambassador to China.
Max Baucus, who is on the payroll of several CCP-connected firms, said in an interview with Politico published Friday that CCP officials were optimistic about Biden softening relations between the United States and China.
"I had some very good Chinese friends—high up in the government—and I talked to them before the [2020] election, and they said they hoped Biden would win the election and not [Donald] Trump," Baucus said. "Why? Because they said, 'We could deal with Biden.' They thought because he's steeped in foreign policy and he was chairman of that Foreign Relations Committee, he's reasonable, whereas … you never know where Trump is going to go."
Few former senior government officials have closer ties to the CCP than Baucus, who runs a consulting firm for Chinese companies and serves on the board of Alibaba, a Chinese tech company. Baucus was a vocal critic of Trump's policies toward China, even appearing on Chinese state television to bash the administration's policies. While vice president, Biden advocated for Baucus's appointment as ambassador to China, likely prompting Baucus to endorse Biden's 2020 presidential bid.
Baucus told Politico that although Chinese government officials favored Biden during the 2020 campaign, they've now "changed their mind." Following Biden's win, Baucus said, the CCP concluded that "Biden's rhetoric isn't as anti-China as Trump's, but his policies are more anti-China than Trump's."
The Washington Examiner recently released a two-partreport on its investigation of self-proclaimed "disinformation"-tracking organizations that are targeting conservative media.
News outlets such as American Thinker, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Times, Newsmax, Hot Air, NewsBusters, LifeNews, Breitbart, etc., as well as news websites run by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. and even groups such as Judicial Watch were branded "false/misleading." Townhall.com was branded "offensive" and "reprehensible," while Breitbart TV was branded as "hate speech."
News aggregator RealClearPolitics.com was also targeted, perhaps because the site includes opinions expressed on conservative websites, even though it attempts to aggregate both sides fairly.
How does this work?
Corporate houses seeking to promote their products online seek the services of corporate digital ad companies to run their online advertisement campaigns.
These firms contract "disinformation" trackers to obtain private information about the "blacklisted" websites in order to avoid placing their advertisements on them.
GDI claims to want to "remove the financial incentive" of spreading "disinformation" by disseminating a "dynamic exclusion list" that rates media outlets according to their "risk" factor.
The "exclusion list" is a euphemism for a blacklist, which GDI shares with ad companies. They've compiled a list of 2,000 of them.
GDI's website site carried out a Disinformation Risk Assessment last year, where it ranks pro-Democrat mouthpieces such as NPR, the New York Times, ProPublica, etc. as low disinformation risk.
But it can be inferred from the content on GDI that any website that violates the Democrat groupthink will be branded as a "disinformation"-spreader and will be blacklisted.
How is the blacklist maintained?
GDI's "blacklist" was compiled by a group on the "board" for GDI. This includes opinion columnist Anne Applebaum, who branded the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop scoop as "not interesting."
How is the blacklist implemented?
We look at the influential ad company Xandr, which was acquired by Microsoft in 2021 for $1 billion, as an example.
Xandr subscribes to GDI's blacklist service.
Xandr informed corporate clients in September 2022 that it would begin adopting GDI's blacklist to exclude content from advertising spending that is "morally reprehensible or patently offensive," lacking "redeeming social value," or "could include false or misleading information."
Xandr also notified clients that "to enforce this change, Xandr is partnering with the GDI and will be adopting their exclusion list."
They also added an appeal "webform" to complete for companies that disagree with their "risk" rating.
This is a veiled warning to corporate houses.
Refusing to comply with GDI's blacklist will result in accusations of funding bigotry, hate, domestic terrorism, anti-scientific ideas, and disinformation. Most corporate houses do not want that kind of controversy, so they submit.
But if curbing falsehoods were really the goal, Democrat mouthpieces including CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, et al. would have been blacklisted. These outlets amplified the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and myriad other hoaxes on President Trump and participated in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
But instead, these well funded blacklisters are targeting conservative websites.
Are these just a few private operatives attempting to manipulate the public discourse? No, they are backed by governments.
Like most individuals and organizations who advocate for liberal causes, the ulterior motive appears to be pecuniary gains. The GDI received $330,000 from two State Department–backed entities linked to the highest levels of government. The State Department–backed group that supported GDI is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). NED receives most of its funding from annual congressional appropriations — i.e., taxpayer funds. According to financial statements, the NED received over $300 million from the State Department in 2021. Among those on NED's board of directors is liberal journalist Anne Applebaum, a dual U.S. citizen at best, who also sits on GDI's advisory panel.
GDI also receives funds from something called Disinfo Cloud. The State Department's official website states that "Disinfo Cloud is an unclassified platform used by the U.S. government, foreign partners, and technology providers to identify and learn about technologies to counter adversarial propaganda and disinformation." Disinfo Cloud was used between 2018 and 2021 by Congress and federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Treasury, and the FBI. In September 2021, the GEC and Disinfo Cloud announced that the Global Disinformation Index and two groups would split a $250,000 grant award as part of the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge.
The Washington Examiner revealed that GDI's two Texas-based affiliated nonprofit statuses generated handsome profits surpluses recently. Tax records show that GDI's U.S. charity organization posted $345,000 in revenue in 2020, while its affiliated private foundation saw its roughly $19,600 revenue jump in 2019 to over $569,000 in 2020.
There are many other groups such as GDI that perform an identical function, to great financial gains.
That the government is attempting to curb free expression, guaranteed by the First Amendment, citing disinformation as an excuse, should come as no surprise. Last year, Joe Biden's Homeland Security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, while testifying before Congress, inadvertently revealed that the DHS had set up a "Disinformation Governance Board," to be run by this TikTok enthusiast. Mayorkas wasn't clear about the powers that the Board would have, but he said that it would "work and to equip local communities, to identify individuals who could be descending into violence by reason of ideologies, hate, false narratives, or other disinformation." After the intense backlash, the Biden administration "paused" the unconstitutional board.
Clearly, myriad such initiatives must be operating covertly. We already know how Twitter executives colluded with government agencies to manipulate the "narrative" leading to the 2020 presidential elections and effectively rig the contest in favor of the Democrats.
Now for the Big Picture.
The income generated from online adverts is usually the lifeblood of independent news organizations. If this revenue stream is blocked, these websites will find it impossible to sustain. This blocking of adverts is a sly but sinister ploy to control the narrative, much the same way dictators deprive dissident newspaper outlets of newsprint as a means of driving them out of business. They don't always conduct raids and arrest reporters of adversarial news organization, unless they are revealing inconvenient facts about the Bidens. They just defund these outlets.
In a free market, the sole criteria for adverts should be the popularity of the website — i.e., how many visits per day.
This is another instance of the government interfering in the free market. The end goal is to have a total monopoly on the narrative with no counterpoint. They are trying to criminalize political opposition and differences of opinion.
The First Amendment clearly states that every individual and organization has a right to free expression.
Watchdog groups have the right to call out what they think of as misleading content. The media businesses have the right to challenge that claim.
Government-funded watchdog groups do not have the right to unilaterally blacklist any organization that leads to loss of revenue. Governments do not have the right to favor certain watchdogs seeking to censor critical opinions.
The ball once again is in the court of House Republicans. Their job is not only to investigate this blatant violation of the First Amendment and ensure that the violators are punished, but also to educate voters about these violations of democratic principles by the Biden administration.
If you’ve ever wondered why you can’t find common factual ground with liberal friends, the reason may be that not only have private outfits worked successfully to censor news, but that government agencies as well, from the CDC to the CIA, have successfully censored it by proxy. It’s not just the major media that have been corrupted by the government (acting as megaphones for government agencies and so fearful of offending their sources that they help them cover up wrongdoing), but the new media, which we had supposed would allow alternative sources of information to become more widely available, is severely compromised. This week, following the exposure of pre-Elon Musk-takeover Twitter and the revelations of government censorship of the website, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government began its hearings. The focus to start was on Twitter, but I cannot believe that higher-ranked sites like Facebook are any different. We just do not yet have access to their inner operations. (Speaking as one who never has bullied others or posted pornography or incited criminal behavior there, I am perpetually denied full exposure on Facebook for defying the unclear “community standards” which they claim to be enforcing.)
Yes, as usual, there were the cameo appearances of the now-fired Twitter executives who admitted they “erred” in suppressing news of Hunter Biden’s laptop and banning the NY Post for daring to report on it, but to my way of thinking, the key witness was law professor Jonathan Turley, who shares my concern about government censorship through website proxies, as was clearly the case with Twitter. His full written testimony is lengthy and I can only pick out some of the key points he made, none of which, I venture to presume, were ever fairly covered in your newspapers or TV news accounts.
He contends that such a role by government agencies violated the First Amendment, noting “Twitter and Facebook clearly had an impact [on our elections] by suppressing certain stories and viewpoints in our public discourse.”
He contends that while these media are private, they can be considered agents of government agencies which are forbidden by the Constitution the role of free speech censors. “‘The ‘marketplace of ideas’ is now largely digital. The question is whether the private bodies engaging in censorship are acting truly independently of the government.” And as we know from the Twitter files, we have good reason to believe they are not independent.
Turley summarized the known facts of Twitter interaction and cooperation with federal agencies in suppressing speech. It was extensive, and the federal censorship actions included, Yahoo, Twitch, Cloudflare, LinkedIn, and Wikimedia
The censorship was extensive and ever-increasing. It included “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos “deemed to be voicing ‘anti-Ukraine narratives.” Even jokes were nabbed by the social media at the behest of the FBI. Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, who was critical of the CDC’s positions on the COVID vaccinations, was eventually suspended after the White House wanted him banned. Others critical of the official government position on treating COVID, who argued for a more focused response to the virus than widespread lockdowns and mandates -- Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard) -- were censored. As more information becomes known of the enormous costs of the lockdowns and the limited efficacy of the vaccines and masks and social distancing, we can be truly sorry these voices were suppressed when their views were timely. If nothing else illustrates the significance of free speech, the censorship of the views of these men does.
Whether the censoring of views by Twitter was the result of payoffs, coercion, or consent, the site was, in Turley’s view, acting as an agent of the government.
Turley cautions that we still do not know the full extent of the massive censorship of Twitter and the other major social media, for example, whether the millions of dollars the FBI paid Twitter were “payment for censorship” Moreover, we do not know the extent of government coercion that was applied, but case law supports the argument that censorship by government agents which was achieved through coercion, if that was the case here, violates the Constitution. “In this case, federal officials are clearly acting in their official capacity. Indeed, that official capacity is part of the concern raised by the Twitter Files: The assignment of dozens of federal employees to support a massive censorship system”
These companies have carried out the largest censorship system in history, effectively governing the speech of billions of people.
Even if the claim of agency is not sustained, Turley argues, the government admits that it supported this massive censorship.
It is not enough to say the government is merely seeking to silence certain speakers in our collective name and using tax dollars to do so. The FBI and other agencies have massive powers and resources to amplify censorship efforts. The question is whether Congress and its individual members support censorship “whether carried out by corporate or government officials on social media platforms.”
Well, we’ll have to wait and see whether Congress finds this as serious a matter as Professor Turley does, and, if so, how they will act. While I hope they will find an effective means to do so, I note that major media are hardly sympathetic to this cause, providing little -- and if any, biased -- coverage of the hearings. And at least one congressperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was openly dismissive of Professor Turley, suggesting -- contra his contention that he was basing his arguments on “what we know from the Twitter files,” that he was offering no more than “opinion and pure conjecture” because he never worked at Twitter.
Rep. Matt Gaetz: ‘I Just Want an FBI that Goes and Stops Bad Guys,’ Not One That Tries to Shape Political Thought
People can think for themselves and don’t need the FBI and Justice Department trying to shape their political views, as they have done in recent elections, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Thursday.
In a Fox News Channel interview with Host Sean Hannity, Rep. Gaetz agreed with House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that “a well-designed and orchestrated censorship campaign by the FBI and Justice Department (DOJ) influenced the 2020 election.
Rep. Jordan, who is heading up an investigation into the government’s weaponization of its powers, said that the FBI and DOJ are continuing to practice “censorship by surrogate.”
Rep. Gaetz called the censorship campaign undeniable, “on the (Hunter Biden) laptop story alone” – and that was has been discovered so far is just the tip of the iceberg. What’s more, the FBI and DOJ are supposed to stop crime, not influence thought, Gaetz added:
“Undeniably, on the laptop story alone. But, we are just starting to learn all of the different features of shadow-banning and trying to shape political thought for people in this country.
“I just want an FBI that goes and stops the bad guys from committing crimes and holds them accountable when they do – not an FBI and Department of Justice that’s trying to shape the political thought of our fellow Americans.
“We can do that for ourselves. We can decide who we want to vote for without the FBI and the DOJ trying to manipulate the digital marketplace of ideas.”
Asked if the FBI can be “rescued,” Gaetz said that the solution is to “decentralize the power outside of Washington, D.C.”
Catholic League Condemns FBI Attack on ‘Traditionalist’ Catholics
Catholic League president Bill Donohue has denounced recent attacks by President Joe Biden’s FBI on what it calls “radical-traditionalist Catholics.”
Dr. Donohue cites a report by the FBI’s Richmond Field Office titled “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities.”
The report, leaked by an FBI whistle-blower, was published this week by Kyle Seraphin, who was a special agent at the bureau for six years before he was indefinitely suspended without pay in June 2022.
In his accompanying article, Seraphin notes that the report proposes that “a preference for the Catholic Mass in Latin instead of the vernacular and a number of more traditional views on other world religions can amount to an ‘adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.’”
As Donohue observes, as its prime source, the FBI report cites “the far-left and scandal ridden Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC),” cutting and pasting a direct copy of the SPLC list of “Radical Traditional Catholicism Hate Groups” as an appendix to its report.
In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the SPLC by name at the Religious Liberty Summit of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a successful Christian public interest law firm that the SPLC designates as a “hate group.”
The SPLC had dubbed the ADF an “Anti-LGBT Hate Group” after a string of Supreme Court victories, particularly the successful defense of a Christian Colorado baker who refused to adorn a cake with phrases condoning homosexual marriage.
“We have gotten to the point where … one group can actively target religious groups by labeling them a ‘hate group’ on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Sessions declared.
When I spoke to ADF last year, “I learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center had classified ADF as a ‘hate group,’” Sessions said. “Many in the media simply parroted it as fact. Amazon relied solely on the SPLC designation and removed ADF from its Smile program, which allows customers to donate to charities.”
“They have used this designation as a weapon, and they have wielded it against conservative organizations that refuse to accept their orthodoxy and choose instead to speak their conscience,” he continued. “They use it to bully and intimidate groups like yours which fight for the religious freedom, the civil rights, and the constitutional rights of others.”
In his essay, Donohue notes that the SPLC also calls the Family Research Council and the Ruth Institute hate groups, “which is a scurrilous lie.”
“Tony Perkins, who runs the former group, and Jennifer Roback Morse, who runs the latter, are both outstanding social conservatives. They are anything but hateful,” he adds.
In 2018, after the FBI admitted to working with the SPLC, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-FL, called the development “surprising and worrisome” since “the SPLC is known to use its platform in order to denigrate and disparage certain groups by labeling them ‘hate groups.’”
Gaetz said the SPLC has labeled organizations like the Christian Family Research Council (FRC) hate groups, while not bestowing this label on members of “Antifa.”
He also noted that Floyd Corkins, who shot an FRC employee, later said he targeted the group since the SPLC had labeled it an antigay group.
“The SPLC’s conflation of mainstream political advocacy groups with legitimate hate groups and domestic terror groups is absurd, frequently indiscriminate and dangerous,” Gaetz said.
Using lists from the SPLC, the FBI has now decided to target sincere Christians.
“The FBI as an organization has joined in the hunt for Christians; we have proof of it” Fox News host Tucker Carlson stated on his show Thursday evening.
“The FBI tried to manufacture crimes against sincere Catholics. The FBI’s Richmond field office recently published an internal document promising to punish ‘radical traditionalist Catholics’ and their ideology,” Carlson stated.
“The FBI has decided that if you are too sincere about your Catholicism, you are a criminal,” he added.
Appearing as a guest on Carlson’s show, Kyle Seraphin, himself a Catholic, said the recent FBI report is “appalling,” adding:
I have friends with people who love the Latin Mass. I went to a traditional school where I actually learned Latin in the 5th and 6th grade and all the way through high school, and it doesn’t seem reasonable but it is the state of the FBI at this point that they are so desperate to find white supremacists that they are going to look at the Catholic Church.
“They have found a gateway in what they think is fringe Catholicism in order to move into Christians in general and to declare them to be the actual criminals in this country or the potential terrorists,” Seraphin said.
“The whole document basically is written from the perspective of somebody who thinks there are significant abortion rights that need to be defended and also an LGBTQ agenda that has to be pushed down the American people’s throats and these are antithetical to Catholicism,” he added.
Related — Watch: Catholic Priest at March for Latin Mass: The Pope Is “Absolutely” “Pushing a Globalist, Leftist Agenda”
