Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Facebook’

Army chaplain under investigation over Facebook posts critical of transgender troops


Reported By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter 

U.S. Army soldiers pray on September 11, 2011, during a protestant service at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. Ten years after the 9/11 attacks in the United States and after almost a decade of war in Afghanistan, American soldiers gathered for church services in prayer and solemn observance of the tragic day. John Moore/Getty Images

A U.S. Army chaplain based in Texas faces an investigation after he made a social media post suggesting that transgender individuals are “mentally unfit” to serve in the military.

In a Jan. 26 tweet, the Army’s Security Force Assistance Command announced that “the recent comments posted to the Army Times Facebook page by Maj. Andrew Calvert regarding President Joe Biden’s policy on transgender service members are “under investigation.”

“How is rejecting reality (biology) not evidence that a person is mentally unfit (ill), and thus making that person unqualified to serve?” asked Calvert as he commented on a Facebook post from the Army Times.

A Twitter user flagged Calvert’s posts and argued that Calvert “cannot be trusted to support soldiers for another minute.”

In his post, Calvert argued that there is “little difference” between those who believe in transgenderism and “those who believe and argue for a ‘flat earth’ despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

“The motivation is different, but the argument is the same,” the chaplain stated. “This person is a MedBoard for Mental Wellness waiting to happen. What a waste of military resources and funding!”

In his Facebook profile, Calvert describes himself as a “Christian, Husband, Father, Pastor, Army Chaplain.” His profile also notes that he is employed as a brigade chaplain at the 3rd Security Force Assistance Brigade, located in Fort Hood, Texas. In a subsequent Facebook comment, Calvert argued that his position was “not extreme in the slightest.”

“The most nurturing counsel I can give to someone who is under the delusion of transgenderism (gender dysphoria) is to recommend professional counseling to assist in the healing process,” Calvert reportedly wrote in the post. “To not do so, and merely pander to make-believe social whims of the moment, is not only damaging but idiocy.”

Calvert’s Facebook posts came after Biden, who took office on Jan. 20, announced the reversal of  President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military. The former president cited the “tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail” as the justification for his decision. By doing so, Trump reversed an Obama-era policy allowing openly transgender individuals to serve in the Armed Forces.

Additionally, the Security Force Assistance Command’s post instructed members of the Army to “Always remember to ‘Think, Type, Post’ when it comes to engaging in conversation on social media platforms.”

“We are soldiers 24/7 and that means always treating people with dignity and respect,” the tweet reads.

A Christian professor has also faced consequences for his criticism of Biden’s reversal of Trump’s military transgender policy. Professor Robert Gagnon of Houston Baptist University was locked out of his Facebook account for 24 hours after referring to transgender ideology as a “religious cult” and a “pseudo-science” in a comment defending a friend’s satirical commentary about Biden’s reversal of the transgender military ban.

In addition to Calvert and Gagnon, prominent conservative organizations were also quick to criticize Biden’s executive order. Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative activist organization Family Research Council, asserted that by signing the executive order, Biden was “diverting precious dollars from mission-critical training to something as controversial as gender reassignment surgery.”

Perkins added that “the military cannot focus its efforts on preparing to fight and win wars when it is being used as a vehicle to advance the far-left agenda.”

“After considerable study, the previous administration found gender dysphoric people attempt suicide at about nine times the rate of the general population,” said Lt. Gen. Tom Spoehr, the director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense.

“Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria are also nine times more likely to have mental health encounters with a professional.”

Spoehr contends that it would be “immoral” to place individuals at higher risk from mental injury in situations “where they are likely to experience extraordinary stress.”

Calvert is hardly the first Army chaplain to face the prospect of punishment for holding to biblical Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality. Scott Squires, who served as an Army chaplain at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, faced the possibility of “career-ending punishment” in 2018 after telling a lesbian couple that they could not participate in a marriage retreat he was hosting because his religious beliefs taught him that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Ultimately, the couple was allowed to attend the retreat after another chaplain was tapped to host the event. While the U.S. Army initially recommended that Squires be charged with dereliction of duty, the chaplain was cleared of all charges a year later.

Facebook bans Christian prof. from platform for opposing Biden’s transgender military policy


Reported By Brandon Showalter, Christian Post Reporter 

The Instagram and Facebook logos are displayed at the 2018 CeBIT technology trade fair on June 12, 2018, in Hanover, Germany. Alexander Koerner/Getty Images

A Christian university professor has been suspended from Facebook for voicing disagreement with President Joe Biden’s executive order allowing trans-identifying individuals to serve in the U.S. military.

Robert Gagnon, who teaches New Testament theology at Houston Baptist University and is a renowned scholar on the subject of sexuality, was locked out of his Facebook account for 24 hours on Tuesday after he posted a comment in defense of a friend who posted a satirical commentary about Biden’s executive order. Facebook suspended Gagnon’s account for what it deemed as “incitement” to violence.

In his post, Gagnon said the executive order will endanger women, and noted that those who promote transgenderism are allowing males to invade women’s athletics and shelters. He also likened transgender ideology to a “religious cult” and said it “is indeed a pseudo-science,” in that it forces people to reject basic biology. That Facebook suspended his friend for similar comments proves the cult-like dimension, he said.

Facebook subsequently sent Gagnon a notice, informing him that his words violated their “Community Standards on violence and incitement.”

“There was absolutely no incitement to violence on our part. We abhor violence done to any person,” Gagnon told PJ Media on Tuesday. “This is just a thinly veiled and pathetic excuse for censorship of any critical views toward trans-tyranny over our consciences, religion, and reason.”

“Only one point of view is being allowed,” he continued. “Trump was not the great danger to the Republic. Left-wing canceling is.” 

After the day-long Facebook suspension was lifted, Gagnon posted on his page Thursday: “We are in the midst of rapidly accelerating public censorship of our views (with compelled speech) but we are not the victims. Neat trick.”

Gagnon’s friend, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, who was also banned from Facebook, had expressed her exasperation in a Facebook comment in which she pointed out that women who signed up to serve in the Armed Forces will now have to shower and bunk with males as a result of the executive order. Higgins referred to transgender advocacy as a “cult” whose goal is to spread “alchemical pseudo-science” globally “before the truth can pull up its pants” and continue to accuse Republicans as being “science-deniers.”

Higgins was banned from the social media platform for seven days and remains locked out of her account as of Thursday. The Christian Post reached out to Gagnon for additional comment on this article but did not receive a response by press time.

Conservative critics of Biden’s executive order have said that the change in policy imperils military readiness and that it’s tantamount to “social engineering.” Opposition to the order, however, spans the political spectrum.

In comments sent to CP earlier this week, Miriam Ben-Shalom, the first lesbian to ever be reinstated to the U.S. Army after being dismissed from service on the basis of sexuality, said she would “bet that no one thought to ask military women how they’d feel having an intact [male] in their barracks, showers, etc.”

“Military women already face difficulties when they serve — witness the recent spate of murders and the shocking statistics on rape in the military. Now, men have had the lack-witted brainlessness to add to the burden of military women. And wait until a female to trans wants to serve in the men’s barracks. What will the military do when such a woman is raped or assaulted — or killed?” she said.

Ben-Shalom, who describes herself as a “moderate independent” added that the move is a “slap in the face” to the military.

“This is pandering to a community that has many, many problems in terms of mental health and stability. This is pandering to Big Medicine, Big Pharma, and Big Money,” she said.

The Pentagon has said that approximately 9,000 service members identify as transgender, though independent estimates have put the number at around 16,000, according to The Wall Street Journal. Fewer than 1,000 have received a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

In 2016, the RAND Corporation published a study on Pentagon medical expenditures and found that the costs incurred by U.S. taxpayers to pay for trans-identifying service members’ medical costs fell somewhere between $2.4 million and $8.4 million each year. 

Exclusive: Facebook permanently bans retailer PatrioticMe from advertising pro-America products


LeeAnn Miller would like an explanation from Facebook after the ad account for her business was disabled by the tech giant seemingly for no other reason than being patriotic. Miller, 50, is a wife, mother, and a business owner. In 2019, when her youngest son, Hollis, started college, she decided that after spending many wonderful years as a stay-at-home mom raising children, she would like to get back to work and help contribute to the financial stability of her family. That year, Miller had an idea. Holding the conviction that there is no better place on Earth than the United States, and desiring to give back to her country, she founded PatrioticMe, an online retailer that sells various clothing items.

“It took about a year to get things exactly the way I wanted them, the products and the website,” Miller told TheBlaze in an interview.

The apparel sold by PatrioticMe has, well, an obvious patriotic flair. These are shirts adorned with red, white, and blue or an outline of the United States. Hoodies with the American flag. Hats you could proudly wear to your Fourth of July cookout and every other day too, just because you love America. And the business, which launched on Sept. 11, 2020, to honor the heroic American first responders of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was a success at first.

“I had been a stay-at-home mom for years, and I was glad to be back in the workforce doing a little something to contribute to my family’s income and future,” Miller said. “I believe in my product, I have a great product, I love the shirts, they’re comfortable. We get great reviews on them from the people who have bought them. And I really felt like I was doing something good for the country, to promote patriotism.”

A portion of every sale is donated to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, a charity founded to honor the sacrifice of New York City firefighter Stephen Siller, who gave his life to save others as a first responder on Sept. 11, 2001. Tunnel to Towers provides mortgage-free smart homes to veterans or first responders with catastrophic injuries suffered in the line of duty or to gold star families with surviving spouses and young children.

“I chose from the very beginning not to be partisan, at all,” she explained, noting that her products are for every American. “I feel like that is so important. I want everybody to be patriotic.”

The trouble with Facebook began the day after the election.

Miller, in partnership with Quantify, a business development firm, had advertised her products on Facebook. PatrioticMe’s advertisement was simple. It was made to look like a Facebook post with text before pictures featuring models wearing items for sale.

The text stated:

Loving your country shouldn’t be hidden.

Check out our new line of long sleeve shirts!

We have an attractive range of patriotic clothes to show that love off! 10% off on your order for a limited time!

Every time you purchase, We donate a portion of it to the tunnel to the tower foundation.

Miller provided a screenshot of her advertisement to TheBlaze:

On Nov. 4, 2020, she received an email from the Facebook Ads Team informing her that her advertisements did not comply with Facebook’s advertising policies or other standards.

“Ad Account Disabled for Policy Violation,” declared the subject line of the email, which was provided to TheBlaze.

“It appears your ad account was used to create one or more ads that don’t comply with our Advertising Policies or other standards,” the email stated.

“Our policies and standards help keep Facebook safe and welcoming for everyone. We use either technology or a review team to remove anything that doesn’t comply with our policies or standards as quickly as possible,” Facebook told Miller.

Instead of providing her with guidance as to which policies PatrioticMe’s ad violated, the email provided Miller with a link to the page outlining the entirety of Facebook’s advertising policies. She was also given two options: To take an “e-learning Blueprint course” called “Ad Policies for Content, Creative, and Targeting” to learn about the entirety of Facebook’s advertising policies, or to request a review of her ad account if she believed it shouldn’t be disabled.

The notice came as a shock.

“My shirts say, ‘U.S.A’, or ‘America’, or have the flag or outline the country. They’re all very benign,” Miller said.

Believing her advertisements were disabled in error, she contacted Facebook requesting a review of PatrioticMe’s account that very day. In response, she received a second email from Facebook, nearly identical to the first. After three requests for review, the Facebook Ads Team sent Miller a final notice on Nov. 24 that her restricted account would not be re-enabled.

“All ad accounts are evaluated for policy compliance and quality of ad content. Due to your ad account consistently promoting ads that don’t comply with our Advertising Policies or other standards, the ad account has been disabled,” the Facebook Ads Team told her.

Particularly frustrating for Miller is that throughout the review process, she was unable to speak with a live human being even once about why her ads were disabled.

“They never give anything other than kind of a canned response,” Miller told TheBlaze.

“We’ve never been able to get in touch with a live human. I have tried, and Quantify has tried on my behalf, and we have never been able to talk to a live human being about the problem and what we can do to fix it.”

Facebook’s final decision is that PatrioticMe can no longer advertise with its ad account and all of its advertisements and assets on Facebook will remain disabled.

It’s a decision that Miller said has cost PatrioticMe 94% of its traffic.

“I’ve hardly had any sales” since the ban, Miller explained. “What Facebook gave me the ability to do was to promote my business to people that I don’t know around the country, what I would call an ‘organic sale,’ somebody that saw my product, liked my product, and bought it and did not have a personal relationship with me.”

Without Facebook ads, PatrioticMe is having trouble reaching out beyond Miller’s immediate friends and family.

Upon review of Facebook’s advertisements policy and community standards, TheBlaze could not identify what content in Miller’s ad would violate either set of its policies. TheBlaze reached out to Facebook for clarification and for comment, but the company did not respond before this article was published.

Asked why she thinks her ads were disabled, Miller could only speculate that Facebook took issue with her products’ patriotic message.

“I have to believe that in the current climate they were taken down because a lot of people think patriotism is bad. A lot of people think the American flag scares people. It’s really hard for me to understand, but the only thing I really have to go on is what that first email said, that I violated the policy of, you know, Facebook providing a safe and welcoming environment,” she suggested.

“And to me, that’s absurd, that anybody in this country, even people that immigrate here, they come here for what that flag stands for: Freedom and prosperity, and everything that that flag has to offer, and that’s what that flag represents to me anyway. And it’s really hard for me to imagine that it scares people or makes people feel unwelcome.”

Miller wishes that a live human being representing Facebook would communicate with her business and say specifically what is wrong with her ads.

“Please show me the ads that are offensive and please tell me specifically what is offensive about them, and what would meet your community standards. What would I need to do to change my ads to make them acceptable for Facebook?”

“You can report Facebook ads if you think they are offensive. So I’m not really sure if somebody reported my ad, or if some bot picked it up and flagged it, or if an employee of Facebook did that,” she added.

For now, Miller says she is working with her business development partner Quantify to find new ways to advertise and expand PatrioticMe’s reach. But she still wonders why Facebook has rejected her business

“Here I am willing to pay them money to run ads, have they gotten so big that they don’t even care about making money?”

https://patrioticme.com/

The Trump Purge Makes Living In America More Like Living In China 


The Trump Purge Makes Living In America More Like Living In China 

After the terrifying ransack of the U.S. capitol Wednesday during a Donald Trump “stop the steal” rally, big tech companies are joining leftist elites in the media and government in their effort to squash the Trump movement once and for all. Seizing on the backlash from the riot, they have seamlessly banned President Trump from TwitterFacebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.

What happened at the capitol was an embarrassment for our country. Now, the hypocritical outcries from Democrats, who proudly condoned left-wing Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters as they terrorized American cities all summer, are ushering in a great reckoning.

The Jan. 6 demonstrators, the vast majority of whom were peaceful, were there to protest legitimate claims of election irregularities and voter fraud. But Google-owned YouTube doesn’t want you to know that. They announced Thursday that they will ban all videos about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

The one free speech haven, Parler, Apple is keying up to ban from its app store and bar from iOS devices, claiming content on the website contributed to the capitol unrest. Google has already jumped the gun, banning Parler yesterday.

Every corner of the Trump movement is being publicly purged from the internet. Thursday, Shopify stripped all online stores for President Trump, including the Trump Organization and Trump’s affiliated campaign account.

Anyone who has supported the president is in for it, as well. Rick Klein, the political director at ABC News, in a now-deleted tweet said that getting rid of Trump is “the easy part.” The more difficult task will be “cleansing the movement he commands.” Democrats have already created a “Trump Accountability Project,” an enemies list to ban, cancel, or fire anyone who staffed, donated to, endorsed, or supported President Trump and his administration.

Trump subverted the elites who run our country. He took on big pharma and China. He negotiated, renegotiated, and destroyed trade deals in his mission to put America and American workers first. He went to war with critical race theory institutionalized in our schools and in government.

He stood for things that those who run our biggest corporations and hold our highest government positions detest. For virtually his entire presidency, they tried everything to delegitimize his administration, beginning with the now-debunked Russiagate. Trump showed their corruption, and now he will pay.

The man, the administration, and his supporters will likely go down in history books as delusional and dangerous. Why? Because the left has a monopoly on power, so they can control what people see and therefore think.

As the left’s arbiters of “truth,” big tech has been banning users they don’t agree with and suppressing stories like The New York Post’s blockbuster investigation into Hunter Biden‘s laptop and sketchy deals with foreign governments and companies with ties to the Communist Chinese government. With the help of their partisan “independent fact checkers,” big tech and the media made sure average Americans never knew about this before they went to the polls.

Following the riot among Trump supporters in the capitol, Facebook removed President Trump’s video calling for peace and rule of law, claiming it instigated violence. Then Facebook de-platformed him. Trump’s speech didn’t fit the narrative that he was a pro-violence, lawlessness insurrectionist.

This disturbing reality we live in, where one political party now has the power to control the narrative in all aspects of our lives — school, work, social media, and government — might make us feel eerie echoes of living under Chinese Communist Party influence instead of in the United States of America.

Perhaps what’s most troubling, and something that we might not have even considered in the chaos of the last few days, is the long-term impact this will have on American children. Generation Z or Zoomers, aged 13 to 21, may be one of the first generations that is more influenced by what they see and read on social media and the internet than what they hear at the dinner table from mom and dad.

A Business Insider’s poll found that 59 percent of Zoomers listed social media as their top news source. While technology used to serve as a way to make information accessible, a way to have the world at your fingertips with just a quick search, it has become something much different. It is teaching the youngest and most impressionable among us that suppression is normal and personal censorship is an important survival mechanism.

Children are being taught to watch what they say and think, lest they be labeled a racist, white supremacist, homophobe, or xenophobe. Indeed, making a pro-Trump TikTok video can get your college admission rescinded and subject you to intense personal harassment. A three-second insensitive or politically incorrect Snapchat video from 2016 can get you featured in a New York Times article and your college admission rescinded, and subject you to bitter bullying.

For young people today, it’s becoming normal to see political leaders in our country deemed “dangerous” to be ousted from public platforms and ostracized from society. They watch their parents self-censor at work, fearful of backlash from employees or coworkers that could get them fired.

Americans used to support the right of people to hold and express opinions others disagree with. Yet the newest generation believes feelings are more valuable than freedom. Study after study finds that younger people are more supportive of limiting speech than are older generations.

A recent survey found that an overwhelming majority of students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison think the government should be able to punish “hate speech.” Of course, “hate speech” is simply the left’s ambiguous term for anything veering from the leftist orthodoxy on issues such as abortion, sex, race, and immigration.

Silicon Valley oligarchs have an agenda. They aren’t platforms, they are publishers, which should nullify the privileges they enjoy under Section 230. Will the Democrats who are now running our government do anything to stop big tech tyranny? Of course not.

This problem is not going away. America’s ethos of free speech and expression is going extinct at the hands of big tech and the leftists controlling media and government.

The U.S. Capitol riots are over, thanks to law enforcement. However, the censorship that followed has created a dangerous precedent.

For young people, their “normal” is beginning to feel increasingly like it’s heading towards life in China. It’s less free and tolerant than the America their parents grew up in. Imagine how much worse things will be when today’s youths are running the country.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Evita Duffy is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at the University of Chicago, where she studies American History. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, & her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1

What Big Tech Didn’t Want You To See On The Federalist In 2020


Reported by Joy Pullmann  29, 2020

Leftist media has skewed U.S. politics for decades, but Big Tech’s amplified influence over global discourse and governments is new. While Congress passed no legislation related to this political and national security emergency, we the people were held captive in lockdowns during a major election while crucial public information was filtered, hidden, and surveilled by unaccountable companies with no allegiance to the United States and obvious disdain for hundreds of millions of its inhabitants.

This is a huge social problem. Regaining our freedom to speak and to share and compare information may be the first task towards redressing our grievances against those who claim to govern us. For how can consent of the governed be truly granted when the people’s ability to inform their consent is manipulated? It cannot.

To regain our self-governance, then, we all need to develop new habits of information-gathering and -sharing. As a tiny part of and precursor to more of that effort, here is an accounting of Federalist work that Google, Facebook, and Twitter tried to keep people from seeing in 2020.

You will notice it fits the pattern of big tech censorship that big tech claims isn’t censorship: it all goes one way politically. All of it also comprises election-meddling by effectively promoting misinformation and disinformation on key voting issues.

Just Plain Hiding the News They Can’t Use

In June, a foreign think tank, NBC, and Google colluded in an attempt to demonetize The Federalist in retaliation for our coverage of Black Lives Matter rioting. The tech giant demanded we end our commenting section, and continues to refuse to allow it back. Google-owned YouTube also continues to shadowban Federalist content and choke our engagement.

In July, Google claimed it had “mistakenly” made it impossible for people to find a slew of conservative news sites, including CNSNews.com, The Washington Free Beacon, Breitbart, Twitchy, RedState, PJ Media, The Blaze, Townhall, LifeNews, PragerU, and The Daily Wire.

After the election, Instagram slapped a warning label on a post in which President Trump honored Pearl Harbor Day. Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, put an automatic “fact check” on Trump’s post that claimed Joe Biden won the election, although Trump’s post included nothing about the election results. Instagram later removed the “warning.”

In October, “Twitter suspended U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan for a post celebrating the success of the U.S. southern border wall keeping violent criminals from reaching American communities,” reported The Federalist’s Tristan Justice.

The online publisher banned Morgan, a public official, from communicating the elected president’s publicly stated priorities, telling him in an automated message the post violated the publisher’s “hateful conduct” policies. Morgan had written: “@CBP & @USACEHQ continue to build new wall every day. Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, walls work.” If this is hate speech, all conservatives are criminals.

Evidence of Biden Family Corruption

Infamously, Twitter and Facebook tampered with the 2020 election in October by immediately and actively suppressing public knowledge of a federal corruption investigation into Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, related to information found on a Delaware laptop.

Yesterday, the computer store owner who turned the laptop over to federal investigators sued Twitter for defamation. Twitter’s ban was predicated on alleging the laptop containing “hacked” material, even though, as The Federalist documented, Twitter regularly allows the circulation of hacked and hoax information. The laptop owner says he did not hack it, he owns it, and that Twitter claiming otherwise has significantly damaged his reputation and employment.

In October, Twitter openly admitted it was pre-emptively choking the story on their platform even before deploying their Chinese- and Democrat-funded “fact-checking” organizations to explain away what are obviously politically motivatedselectively enforced, anti-truth information operations designed to help Democrats control the United States.

Twitter also pre-emptively blocked The New York Post’s subsequent reporting on its Hunter Biden laptop scoop, despite those containing additional corroborating details, and although witnesses and additional evidence also surfaced to independently corroborate the story. Twitter banned members of Congress and the president’s campaign from posting information about the story. It kept the Post locked out of its Twitter account for weeks following the breaking story in the run-up to the election.

Lest we all become too dulled to this successful attempt to control the nation without the people’s consent because we’re all used to leftists refusing fair play and equal treatment, we all need to remember that enough Biden voters to swing the election decisively to Trump said they would have changed their votes if they knew about this corruption story. Big tech bias is not a trivial issue. It is the difference between a fair election and a corrupted one, between self-rule and a corrupted oligarchy.

Evidence of Election Tampering and Errors

From May 2018 to October 2020, Twitter and Facebook restricted posts from President Trump at least 65 times, according to a media study. They did this precisely zero times to Joe Biden (or Hillary Clinton), and it’s not because he’s the most accurate politician alive.

In June, the anti-Trump bias ridiculously caused Twitter to put a warning label on an obvious parody video about a “racist baby.” More seriously, at the same time Twitter repeatedly throttled as “false” President Trump’s claims that mail-in ballots are an insecure voting method. That is absolutely true and it made the 2020 election ripe for fraud, abuse, and contested results.

On election night, Twitter flagged a post from President Trump that said: “We are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election. We will never let them do it. Votes cannot be cast after the Polls are closed!” Twitter claimed this was “disputed and might be misleading” and banned users from sharing the tweet. Later it was shown that Pennsylvania indeed counted post-election ballots against its own law forbidding that.

On Nov. 4, Twitter slapped a “warning label” about “disputed information” in a tweet from Federalist Cofounder Sean Davis, whose offending tweet accurately summarized the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that ballots brought in after election day would be counted.

On Nov. 9, Twitter put a warning label on a quote from and link to an affidavit of sworn testimony alleging election fraud tweeted by Federalist Senior Contributor Ben Weingarten. “This claim about election fraud is disputed,” Twitter claimed, preventing people from retweeting it without adding their own comments. It later removed the choke without explanation.

In December, Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway explored the disqualifying errors in a “fact-check” done by one of Facebook’s partners of allegations of election fraud in Georgia. Facebook used the same fact-check she fisked to pre-emptively ban her article from its platform.

COVID-19

Big communications companies rabidly policed discussions about COVID-19 in 2020. Big tech seemed especially pouncy about information related to face masks. This included Amazon’s Nov. 24 ban of a book by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenstein’s book discussing the scientific evidence that mask mandates are ineffective.

It extended to repeated bans and chokes on Federalist content about masks, many by a supposed Facebook “fact check” that didn’t fact check any Federalist articles. It was just a generic fact check applied against anyone questioning the efficacy of cloth masks and generic mask mandates, even when such individuals cited scientific evidence from reputable sources.

Former White House Coronavirus Task Force advisor Dr. Scott Atlas was banned from publishing references to scientific studies on masks. CNN anchor Jake Tapper and CNN commentator Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a professor of neurosurgery, cheered Twitter on. Google-owned YouTube infamously pulled down a June interview of Atlas.

Weirdly, in April Facebook had blocked DIY cloth mask-making sites while banning the sale of medical-grade masks and sanitizer. Yet just a few months later Facebook’s blocking activities supported the use of makeshift masks made out of any material and blocked information, including from The Federalist, pointing out that all masks are not equally effective at virus and other particle filtering. Perhaps pointing out that research has found that gaiter-style or scarf masks actually may increase virus transmission may get this article banned too.

Social media bans on mask information from The Federalist included the well-read Oct. 29 article that quoted and linked to high-quality studies from reputable sources, “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID,” which was also throttled on LinkedIn.

YOU ALL MIGHT WANT TO TRY TWO NEWER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES. https://mewe.com/ and https://parler.com/

Spygate

In October, Twitter began publicly testing stronger information controls, which resulted in it warning users who tried to tweet a Federalist article breaking new information about the Spygate scandal. Spygate, of course, is the Obama administration’s documented and so far unpunished use of federal surveillance and policing powers to baselessly persecute, prosecute, and hamstring their political opponents.

The article Twitter impeded reported handwritten notes from Obama CIA Director John Brennan that showed President Obama was made aware months before the 2016 election that the Russian government may have been influencing Hillary Clinton’s false collusion smear against Donald Trump. Sean Davis reported more in that piece for The Federalist:

There is no evidence the FBI ever took any action to ensure that Russian knowledge of Clinton’s plans did not lead to infiltration of that campaign’s operation by Russian intelligence agents. The CIA referral, specifically its reference to a ‘CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell,’ suggests that the Obama administration’s anti-Trump investigation may not have been limited to the FBI, but may have included the use of CIA assets and surveillance capabilities, raising troubling questions about whether the nation’s top spy service was weaponized against a U.S. political campaign.

Seemingly Random Acts of Censorship

In September, Facebook employed abortionists to “fact-check” two videos from Live Action explaining why abortion is never medically necessary. Numerous obstetrics professionals and a national OB-GYN organization supported Live Action’s statement as accurate, but that didn’t matter to Facebook, which choked Live Action’s page.

In November, Instagram and Facebook’s sweeps caught up an innocent and completely apolitical local charity that used Facebook to coordinate donors and volunteers. Oathkeepers Causeplay may sound like it’s a conservative group, but it’s not (and even if it were, there’s nothing wrong with being conservative). It’s a group of people who dress up like TV and movie superheroes and other characters to cheer up disabled and sick children.

The act of random censorship hurt sick kids by depriving the charity of funds and volunteers. It also scared people away from associating with the charity — which, again, not only did nothing “wrong” but actively does good — out of fears they’d also lose their Facebook-mediated access to friendships and social activity. Good job, Facebook.

Also in October — see a pattern here? — Facebook users who searched for the Christian group Let Us Worship were given a warning message falsely claiming the group was affiliated with QAnon. “This is a peaceful movement from across the political spectrum and they are suppressing it by linking us to Q,” the group’s founder, Sean Feucht, told The Federalist. Facebook claimed the mislabeling was a glitch. Yet nobody shut down their traffic over their inaccurate statements despite the harm they caused others.

Again in October, Facebook demonetized the satire website Babylon Bee for making a Monty Python joke in a headline. Facebook claimed the Bee’s silly headline “Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch” “incited violence,” and refused to alter its decision after a review. In a self-parody that is impossible to top, Snopes and Twitter also frequently “fact-check” and throttle the clean satire site. I guess humor is now too conservative to allow.

It wasn’t just 2020, either. This has been going on for years. In fact, you might say Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others have been perfecting their ability to shut down non-leftist discourse and project public opinion cascades. In retrospect, earlier tech bans on speech look like dress rehearsals for the 2020 election bleep show.

In 2018, for example, The Federalist published a theologian’s story about how Facebook banned him from expressing Christian views about teaching young children about LGBT sex and gender identities. Earlier that year, Project Veritas released undercover video of a former Twitter employee verifying the company’s practice of “shadowbanning,” called that at the time because the practice was covert. In 2019, Google banned a conservative think tank from buying online advertising because a scholar affiliated with the think tank had critiqued multiculturalism.

Punishing the Conservative Base While Monetizing Them

Once a website’s content has begun to be flagged as “false” even if it is not, search engines and social media increasingly throttle traffic to the entire site, not just the flagged content. This further serves leftist information control by making publications reluctant to challenge what the unelected tech arbiters of reality have decided we must see and say. This means Google, Facebook, and Twitter ultimately don’t want you to see anything from The Federalist. They also hope you don’t notice.

“[S]tories from right-wing media outlets with false and misleading claims about discarded ballots, miscounted votes and skewed tallies were among the most popular news stories on” Facebook directly after the election, reported The New York Times. Facebook responded with deeper cuts into the reach of information from right-leaning outlets and greater amplification for articles from leftist media:

employees proposed an emergency change to the site’s news feed algorithm, which helps determine what more than two billion people see every day. It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls ‘news ecosystem quality’ scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

…The change was part of the ‘break glass’ plans Facebook had spent months developing for the aftermath of a contested election.

Unnamed sources told the New York Times Facebook is working on ways to control information while still keeping users, and that the tools it has developed for this mostly affect right-leaning content. The company may also make permanent some information control mechanisms developed specifically for the 2020 election. But they have to be careful about this, the NYT reported, because when people notice the information control they stop using Facebook so much.

Right-leaning information is consistently among the most popular content on Facebook and YouTube. This means people who consume right-leaning information provide Facebook and Twitter millions of dollars because their time spent on site lures advertising. This allows Facebook to put competing information outlets out of business by siphoning away all advertising revenue while not paying for the content creation that draws the eyeballs, reinforcing their information monopolies.

Nice little racket. Tailor-made for people who don’t believe Americans ought to be allowed to make their own decisions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebook is “The Family Read-Aloud Advent Calendar,” and her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

Daily Beast: Isn’t It Odd That The Hunter Biden Money-Laundering Probe Went “Largely Unnoticed” Until Now?


Reported by ED MORRISSEY | Posted at 11:15 am on December 10, 2020

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/daily-beast-isnt-it-odd-that-the-hunter-biden-money-laundering-probe-went-largely-unnoticed-until-now-2649440096.html/

Largely unnoticed,” purposely ignored, or actively suppressed? The Daily Beast’s reporting team on Hunter Biden’s legal woes sound somewhat surprised that the FBI’s money-laundering probe didn’t get noticed before the election:

The Justice Department’s announcement on Wednesday that it was investigating Hunter Biden, for what he deemed to be “tax affairs,” took root several years ago with a much broader inquiry that included possible money laundering, according to a report by CNN.

That inquiry reportedly fizzled, leading instead to a probe on tax matters that is now being led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware. But evidence of the larger probe was apparent in the markings on a series of documents that were made public—but went largely unnoticed—in the days leading up to the November election, according to two individuals familiar with the matter.

The word “unnoticed” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. Not only did it get noticed, it got reported by Sinclair TV’s James Rosen a few days before the election. A large number of online outlets — mostly conservative — picked up on Rosen’s report about the FBI’s criminal probe of Hunter Biden, including us. Rosen reported that Tony Bobulinski had cooperated in the probe, and that its focus was money laundering:

A U.S. Justice Department official has confirmed to Sinclair Broadcast Group that a 2019 FBI investigation into Hunter Biden, son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, is still active.

The 2019 criminal investigation looks into Hunter and his associates on allegations of money-laundering.

Sinclair investigative reporter James Rosen spoke with a central witness in these allegations, who suggested that former vice president Joe Biden knew more than he has acknowledged about his son’s overseas dealings.

That witness was Bobulinski, who went public about Hunter’s business dealings after the Biden campaign tried sloughing him off as a malcontent business partner. Rosen himself addressed this last night:

 

This didn’t go “largely unnoticed.” It was widely noticed, everywhere except in the mainstream media. Why? It started with the New York Post exposé of Hunter’s laptop, which Biden’s team claimed was Russian disinformation and social media platforms actively suppressed:

MacIsaac also said he copied the contents of one of the laptops for Giuliani. And, sure enough, those contents quickly made their way to conservative media personalities and outlets. Giuliani and others, including Steve Bannon, appeared on network television, stirring conspiracy theories and pushing unsubstantiated claims about Hunter’s overseas business dealings.

One of the main outlets pushing emails and pictures from the hard drive was the New York Post. And for one of its stories, the paper published what appeared to be federal law enforcement documents given to MacIsaac in return for his handing over the Biden laptops.

One of those documents—from the FBI— included a case number that had the code associated with an ongoing federal money laundering investigation in Delaware, according to several law enforcement officials who reviewed the document. Another document—one with a grand jury subpoena number—appeared to show the initials of two assistant U.S. attorneys linked to the Wilmington, Delaware, office.

Gee — you mean if media outlets had actually checked the details, they might have found a real story about corruption around Joe Biden? As in, acting like real journalistic organizations and speaking truth to power? The deuce you say. The excuse in this article for failing to report on this — even with Rosen’s report already made public — was that law enforcement wouldn’t comment and the Biden team stonewalled the Daily Beast. But the documents themselves apparently left that very big clue two months ago that they’re reporting …. now.

[Update: That’s too harsh in regard to the Daily Beast, actually. They did try to follow up. That puts them head and shoulders above other media outlets … like, for instance …]

As Glenn Greenwald says — memories …

It’s not just media outlets that should get the heat, either. Twitter and Facebook actively suppressed the New York Post article — and the New York Post itself — for days. Democrats called it Russian disinformation, and both Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey nearly twisted their ankles in a rush to suppress it. Now, and only after Hunter Biden issued a press release acknowledging the accuracy of Rosen’s reporting, have all of these “institutions” suddenly cured their myopia.

The clear conclusion is that the national media didn’t want to report anything detrimental to Joe Biden, no matter how accurate it might have been. Now that the election is over, they’ll tell their readers and viewers that the story went “largely unnoticed” [see update above as to TDB, which did at least notice it] as a passive-voice dodge to avoid responsibility for their active decision to ignore and in some cases suppress it. It’s an utter disgrace.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon Extended – Payback

The left-wing radicals helped get Joe Biden elected and now they want payback as in administration positions.

Radical left-wing PaybackPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Free Speech Ass-sassin

Democrats are willing to use leftist big tech to kill the free speech of conservative news organizations.

Big Tech Anti-Free SpeechPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Science As God: Tech Hearing And COVID Show Us Exactly Where Censorship Is Headed


Science As God: Tech Hearing And COVID Show Us Exactly Where Censorship Is Headed

In all the back and forth of Tuesday’s Big Tech hearing, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons’ exchange with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey stood out most starkly, offering a window into the next step of the left’s long-championed Big Tech censorship of scientific dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

“You do, Mr. Dorsey, have policies against deep fakes or manipulated media, against Covid-19 misinformation, against things that violate civic integrity,” the Delaware senator began, “but you don’t have a standalone climate change misinformation policy. Why not?”

Our policies are living documents,”Dorsey replied. “They will evolve, we will add to them, but we thought it important we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.” And then:

Well, Mr. Dorsey… I cannot think of a greater harm than climate change, which is transforming literally our planet and causing harm to our entire world. I think we’re experiencing significant harm as we speak. I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about Covid-19 manipulated media also cause harm but I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism in my view further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.

This has been ongoing for years in corporate media. In 2019, Chuck Todd pompously announced his show would no longer “give time to climate deniers.” Two years before that, when The New York Times’ Bret Stephens used his debut column to call out “The Climate of Complete Certainty” that seeks to shut down completely reasonable dissent, the paper faced vicious backlash labeling Stephens a “climate denier.” For more than a decade before this, more of the same — often trickling up, from activists to the reporters who sympathize to the powers that can truly silence voices.

Four years ago, reporters demanded then-President Barack censor fake news, pushing Press Secretary Josh Earnest into the awkward position of having to remind apparent journalists of the First Amendment four times. The targets that day were the Bat Boy-like farces they blamed for Her 2016 loss, but it was already obvious the definition of “fake news” would rapidly expand. Once President Donald Trump assumed office, corporate media and allied politicians bypassed the White House and turned to Silicon Valley, which fell in line quickly enough.

COVID-19 provided the first preview of the new alliance, where even doctors and scientists were censored for carefully — we once said “scientifically” — questioning the alarmists’ narrative of the day. At the same time, Democrats, corporate media, and even corrupt, foreign bodies like the World Health Organization have been permitted to push whatever information supports that day’s goal post.

Completely rational appeals are met with absurdities like “the science is decided,” as if constantly evolving experimentation in search of knowledge can be bottled into some oracle-like decree to support the mob’s latest demand. Rather than decided science, these decrees are mere hypotheses susceptible to support and opposition, but through the alliance of Democrats, corporate media, and Silicon Valley, they become unquestionable edicts ranging from No Business to Eternal Mask-Wearing to No Family For Thanksgiving.

Coons’s comments are a good reminder that what is COVID today is climate tomorrow. Indeed, COVID policy has offered Americans a perfect preview of what will happen if climate alarmists get their way: Science not as method, but as god. And not the strong and mysterious God of the Jewish and Christian faiths, but a shifting one, whose every dictum and desire is whispered to the kings and enforced at their whims.

Do you have a problem with that? You can take it up with The Science. And The Science is decided.

Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.

Report: Facebook Hires Chinese Nationals to Censor Platform


Reported by LUCAS NOLAN | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/21/report-facebook-hires-chinese-nationals-to-censor-platform/

Chinese President Xi Jinping, centre, talks with Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, right, as Lu Wei, left, China’s Internet czar, looks on at Microsoft’s main campus in 2015 / TED S. WARREN/AFP

The New York Post reports that a Facebook Insider told the publication that at least half a dozen “Chinese nationals who are working on censorship,” are employed at Facebook. The insider told the Post: “So at some point, they [Facebook bosses] thought, ‘Hey, we’re going to get them H-1B visas so they can do this work.’ ”

The insider provided the Post with an internal directory of the team that does much of the censorship work at Facebook. According to the Post, the job is referred to as “Hate-Speech Engineering” and most of its members are based out of Facebook’s Seattle offices. Many of those working there have Ph.D.s, and their work involves machine learning and AI.

At Facebook, this mainly pertains to teaching the Facebook algorithm to manage what content shows up in users’ newsfeeds. The Facebook insider states that this means making sure certain content “shows up dead-last.” The insider used New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari as an example of an average Facebook user, stating: “They take what Sohrab sees, and then they throw the newsfeed list into a machine-learning algorithm and neural networks that determine the ranking of the items.”

Facebook engineers reportedly test hundreds of different iterations of the rankings to determine an optimal outcome and remove what top executives refer to as “borderline content.” The insider stated: “What they don’t do is ban a specific pro-Trump hashtag. Content that is a little too conservative, they will down-rank. You can’t tell it’s censored.”

The Post notes that the employees on Facebook’s Hate-Speech Engineering team earned their degrees from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, Jilin University in northeast China, and Nanjing University in eastern China. Another engineer reportedly worked for Huawei, a company that has been labeled a security threat by the U.S. and Sweden.

The idea of one of America’s most powerful companies using Chinese censorship experts is troubling for reasons beyond the obvious. The Chinese nationals could be in a position to spy on both the company and its users. The National Security blog Lawfare notes that Chinese intelligence law allows the country to deputized any of its citizens into doing intelligence work such as acquiring data. Lawfare writes:

Article Seven stipulates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.” Article 14, in turn, grants intelligence agencies authority to insist on this support: “state intelligence work organs, when legally carrying forth intelligence work, may demand that concerned organs, organizations, or citizens provide needed support, assistance, and cooperation.” Organizations and citizens must also protect the secrecy of “any state intelligence work secrets of which they are aware.” These clauses appear to limit the obligations on individuals to Chinese citizens, but they do not stipulate that only Chinese “organizations” are subject to these requirements.

A Facebook spokesperson denied that these employees influence the site’s broad policies, stating: “We are a stronger company because our employees come from all over the world. Our standards and policies are public, including about our third-party fact-checking program, and designed to apply equally to content across the political spectrum. With over 35,000 people working on safety and security issues at Facebook, the insinuation that these employees have an outsized influence on our broader policies or technology is absurd.”

Read more about Facebook’s recent censorship scandals at Breitbart News here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Election Interference

Facebook and Twitter are interfering in the 2020 Election by censuring the New York Post Hunter Biden email story.

Social Media News BlackoutPolitical cartoon A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Image

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter Censor Viral Video of Doctors’ Capitol Hill Coronavirus Press Conference


Reported by ALLUM BOKHARI |

Facebook has removed a video posted by Breitbart News earlier today, which was the top-performing Facebook post in the world Monday afternoon, of a press conference in D.C. held by the group America’s Frontline Doctors and organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots. The press conference featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to the pandemic. YouTube (which is owned by Google) and Twitter subsequently removed footage of the press conference as well.

video source: Matt PerdieThe video accumulated over 17 million views during the eight hours it was hosted on Facebook, with over 185,000 concurrent viewers.

The livestream had accumulated over 17 million views by the time of its censorship by Facebook. 

In terms of viral velocity, the post was beating content from many other prominent accounts on Facebook today, including Hillary Clinton, Rev. Franklin Graham, and Kim Kardashian.

Over 185,000 viewers were concurrently watching the stream when it aired live Monday afternoon.

The event, hosted by the organization America’s Frontline Doctors, a group founded by Dr. Simone Gold, a board-certified physician and attorney, and made up of medical doctors, came together to address what the group calls a “massive disinformation campaign” about the coronavirus. Norman also spoke at the event.

“If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease,” reads the event’s information page.

The event was organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.

“We’ve removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19,” a Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News. The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be “false information,” who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.

Stone replied to New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose on Twitter regarding the video:

Stone then added that the platform would direct users who had interacted with the post to information on “myths debunked by the WHO.”

Facebook’s decision to censor the livestream was quickly followed by YouTube, the Google-owned video-sharing platform. The video had over 80,000 views on YouTube prior to its removal.

Following Facebook and YouTube’s removal of the video, Twitter followed suit, removing Breitbart News’s Periscope livestream of the press conference. Jack Dorsey’s platform also then limited the Breitbart News official account, indicating that tweets containing links to multiple stories about the press conference violate the platform’s COVID-19 policies.

Twitter limits Breitbart News account

Twitter limits Breitbart News account

Are you an insider at Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. His book #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election is out in September. 

Project Veritas Undercover Video: Facebook Content Moderator: ‘If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them For Terrorism’


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published June 23, 2020 at 10:47am

James O’Keefe strikes again!

Project Veritas on Tuesday released undercover videos documenting rampant anti-Trump bias at Facebook.

Facebook insider Zach McElroy told Project Veritas that he’s willing to testify before Congress about the Facebook bias he witnessed against Trump supporters and conservative causes.

’75-to-80 percent of Posts Selected by Facebook’s Algorithm for Moderator Review Support President Donald Trump, Republicans and Conservative Causes’ says McElroy.

Facebook content moderators were caught on hidden camera admitting they hate President Trump.

‘We gotta get the Cheeto out of office’ one moderator said.

Another content moderator laughed and said she deletes every pro-Trump post because she ‘gives no f*cks.’

Via Project Veritas:

One of the content moderators was asked if she deleted every Republican item that came up on her queue, she said: “Yes! I don’t give no f*cks, I’ll delete it.”

The same moderator said she does not take down anti-Trump content, even if it did not violate policy.

“You gotta take it down but I leave it up,” she said. “If you see something that’s not supposed to be up, it’s probably me.”

Another content moderator, Lara Kontakos, was asked what she did when she saw a posts supporting the president: “If someone is wearing a MAGA hat, I am going to delete them for terrorism.”

Then, Kontakos looked around at her colleagues: “I think we are all doing that.”

WATCH:

You can support James O’Keefe and Project Veritas by clicking here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Facebook Deletes One of the Largest Donald Trump Facebook Fan Pages with 3,276,000 Fans!


Posted by FreedomHeadlins.com | Friday, October 18, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://freedomheadlines.com/the-latest/facebook-deletes-one-of-the-largest-donald-trump-facebook-fan-pages-with-3276000-fans/

Facebook is stepping up their game to try and prevent Donald Trump from winning reelection. They are quite literally meddling in the election process by using their influence and reach to censor the internet and prevent people with opposing views from sharing anything from a conservative viewpoint.

The social network giant just removed one of the largest (if not the largest) pro-Trump Facebook fan pages.

They cited that it was because, “It looks like recent activity on your Page doesn’t follow the Facebook Page Policies regarding impersonation and pretending to be an individual or business.”

According to their Instagram Page,

“Donald Trump Us Our President” With 3,276,000 Fans, Which We Paid FB Around $100,000 To Build, Using ‘Page Like Ads’ Was Removed Yesterday. Please Help Me Spread The Word So We Can Help Facebook Know And Fix, What I Am Sure Is A Honest Mistake.

I Have Made My Identity Perfectly Clear, I Am, In No Way Associated With President Donald J. Trump, Nor Have I Ever Claimed To Be. This Was/Is A Fan Page, We Make That Abundantly Clear In Many Places On The Page.

On Top Of That Facebook Approved The Name Change Back In 2016 …. So Why Now, All Of A Sudden Has My Life’s Work Been ‘Unpublished.’ I’m Sure This Is A Mistake, But Please Help Me Alert FB So We Can Get This Cleared Up, Thank You! – Mark Sidney

In what way does the title, “Donald Trump Is Our President” violate these terms? How does simply saying that suggest that he/she/it/they are Donald Trump?

It doesn’t and it’s ridiculous.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Sick Willie

While the media tried to weave a sleazy fake-news Trump connection to Epstein they totally play down the Bill Clinton/Epstein meetings and plane rides over the years.

Clinton and EpsteinPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left order  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Heavyweights

Social media giants appear to have their thumbs on the scale of Right vs Left freedom of speech in hopes of tilting the balance in the Democrats favor this 2020 election.

Social Media SummitPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

The Jackasses At Facebook Just Got Some BAD Anti-Trust News – Here’s The 411


Written by K. Walker on June 4, 2019

Mark Zuckerberg can’t be happy about this development.

The Federal Trade Commission has secured the rights to investigate Facebook Inc for possible “unlawful monopolistic behavior.” This is in addition to the current FTC investigation into possible privacy violations committed by Facebook Inc.

Facebook isn’t alone, though. The Justice Department would oversee an investigation into Google and Apple for “anti-competitive practices.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will lead an antitrust investigation into how Facebook Inc’s practices affect its digital competition as part of an arrangement that would give the Justice Department control over possible Google and Apple probes, news of which caused stock prices to tumble on Monday, wiping more than $149.4 billion off the value of some of America’s biggest technology firms.

The FTC and the Justice Department both oversee antitrust issues in the U.S. and must establish who will take the lead in different investigations into competitive practices.

On Monday, after news of the possible investigations was made known, stock prices dropped for Google’s parent company, Alphabet, as well as for Apple Inc, Amazon, and Facebook Inc, which took the biggest nosedive with shares dropping 9.3 percent throughout the day.

U.S. antitrust regulators have divided oversight of Amazon.com Inc and Google, putting Amazon under the watch of the FTC, led by Chairman Joseph Simons, and Google under the Justice Department, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The DOJ has also landed control over any potential review of Apple, which exerts considerable dominance in the app development space.

The FTC and DOJ dividing up responsibility for examination of the entities doesn’t guarantee investigation, but does set the stage should the government choose to proceed with a review.
Source: Daily Mail

It’s quite something that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running on the “Break up Big Tech” platform while the FTC and DOJ of the current administration are paving the way for investigations to see if that does indeed need to be done.

I am no fan of Facebook after seeing how the company has abused access to users’ private information for their own profit, continues to allow terrorist organizations to openly post on their platforms while censoring conservatives, and how they’ve bullied their way into cornering the market by buying out competitors. Not to mention the Jekyll/Hyde persona of wanting to be both a “neutral platform” and a publisher able to make editorial decisions.

I say break them up into a hundred million pieces.

Let us know what you think in the comments or on MeWe.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

ClashDaily’s Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the ‘intersectional’ crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against ‘white privilege’ education in public schools. She’s also an amateur Playwright, occasional Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll

Why is Facebook Targeting Conservative History-based Sites?


Posted by    Saturday, April 6, 2019 at 6:00pm

URL of the original posting site: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/why-is-facebook-targeting-conservative-history-based-sites/

Donald Trump, Jr. took Facebook to task in a recent article, and the censorship may be worse than even he thought

Legal Insurrection readers are acutely aware of the deplatforming and silencing of conservative voices across social media and via outlets like Amazon.

The latest victim to get slammed by the iron-hand of Big Tech is President Trump’s chief social media guru, Dan Scavino. Facebook blocked his account for simply responding to a question from a reader.

The excuse was that his remark seemed like spam.

Scavino is responsible for several of the president’s and White House’s social media accounts. He has been with the president for years.

His accounts have a tremendous following, so a block on Facebook has a big reach. Already there are over 750 comments on his page, including:

“Cory Critser Dan Scavino Daniel Scavino Jr. … I think it’s time for some Senate hearings with Facebook on there attempts to influence the election.”

On a smaller scale, my personal website (Temple of Mut) was temporarily blocked from being linked in Facebook. The reason I was given: The website did not meet community standards.

Message to Leslie Eastman in my account

True . . . if your community consists merely of climate-change cultists and gender justice warriors. However, Facebook is supposed to be playing by the rules of a platform and not a publisher, so my science-based and news-focused content should be acceptable under any reasonable standard.

Additionally, the Canto Talk Show program that I help host on occasion was also hit with a Facebook ban. Silvio Canto, the mild-mannered, thoughtful host and author of historic, sports, and political analysis was deeply troubled when his show promotion posts were deemed “inappropriate.”

I am very angry. It took me several hours to calm down. They banned posts on World War II and baseball.What is offensive about that. Was it because I actually called Hitler “Hitler” instead of Trump? And my baseball piece was about Hank Aaron. How is that not appropriate? [transcript provided by author]

Barry Jacobson, a former Green Beret who fought to defend the Constitution (including his First Amendment rights), was also impacted by Facebook censorship. The social media giant recently stopped the promotion of his military history podcasts.

That Facebook deems discussion of WW-2 “in violation of community standards” is not only astonishing; it begs the question, what standard are they upholding? Ignorance? Put another way, is the banning of all discussion of the horrors caused by the Nazis somehow going to further the cause (which I assume Facebook supports) of hindering the spread of Nazi ideology?

I suspect that Facebook has tweaked its algorithms in such a way that anything even mildly conservative is now flagged. Donald Trump, Jr. recently published a detailed piece decrying Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives, which has steadily become more flagrant and overt.

Facebook appears to have deliberately tailored its algorithm to recognize the syntax and style popular among conservatives in order to “deboost” that content. “Mainstream media,” “SJW” (Social Justice Warrior) and “red pill” — all terms that conservatives often use to express themselves — were listed as red flags, according to the former Facebook insider.

Facebook engineers even cited BlazeTV host Lauren Chen’s video criticizing the social justice movement as an example of the kind of “red pills” that users just aren’t allowed to drop anymore. Mainstream conservative content was strangled in real time, yet fringe leftists such as the Young Turks enjoy free rein on the social media platform.

I would argue that the situation is even worse than the president’s son has stated if history-based blogs are now being silenced.

For those of you interested, listen to this Canto Talk podcast reviewing the current status of the Battle against Big Tech.

https://percolate.blogtalkradio.com/offsiteplayer?hostId=4735&episodeId=11250737

Armed with Assault Rifles, Black Panthers March for Stacey Abrams


Reported By Jason Hopkins | November 4, 2018 at 10:11am

Members of the Black Panther Party marched through the city of Atlanta, strapped with assault rifles and brandishing Stacey Abrams campaign signs. In a video posted on the group’s Facebook page on Saturday, members of the Black Panther Party are seen marching through the West End neighborhood of Atlanta in support of Stacey Abrams gubernatorial campaign. As they marched, the Black Panthers carried assault rifles and continually shouted slogans such as “black power” and “power to the people.”

The video shows the panthers marching for nearly 30 minutes through the city of Atlanta until they enter a local radio station.

When reached for comment by The Daily Caller News Foundation, the Abrams campaign forwarded a statement from spokeswoman Abigail Collazo. Her statement did not specifically address the Panthers’ march, but instead attacked Kemp.

“Brian Kemp is the only candidate in this race who has posed for pictures with supporters wearing racist, hate-filled t-shirts and refused to denounce them, while Abrams continues to condemn any racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise discriminatory words and actions,” Collazo said.

“Unlike Kemp, Abrams is a leader committed to running an inclusive campaign focused on bringing all Georgians together to find bold solutions on critical issues like health care, education, and the economy,” she continued.

At one point during the march, someone driving a vehicle stopped momentarily to speak to the Panthers.

One of the members can be heard saying afterward: “You need to march in your neighborhood. When we was (sic) in West Virginia, 99 percent crackers, stone cold crackers.”

Kemp’s campaign called on Abrams to immediately denounce the Black Panthers.

“It’s no surprise that militant Black Panthers are armed and patrolling the streets of Georgia for Stacey Abrams. The Black Panthers are a radical hate group with a racist and anti-semitic agenda. They are dangerous and encourage violence against our men and women in uniform,” Kemp spokesman Ryan Mahoney said in a statement to TheDCNF.

“Stacey Abrams should immediately denounce the Black Panthers and their hateful record of racism,” he continued. “She should stand against and condemn their attempts to intimidate hardworking Georgia voters just days before the election.”

The close race has brought star power from both sides of the aisle. Vice President Mike Pence campaigned for Kemp on Thursday — the same day Oprah Winfrey knocked on doors on behalf of Abrams.

The Panthers did not respond to a request for comment by TheDCNF.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 25-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit providing original investigative reporting from a team of professional reporters that operates for the public benefit.

Facebook Just Silenced Political Speech In America. And No One Seems To Care.


Reported By Shaun Hair and Randy DeSoto | October 19, 2018 at 2:07pm

Matt has operated his small digital publishing business since 2015. He spends his mornings like most business proprietors: After waking up, he reviews his numbers and checks messages to ensure his livelihood is running smoothly and as expected. It’s undoubtedly a more peaceful existence than Matt’s years in Army intelligence. His time in the military left him disabled, so his ability to work at least part of the time from his computer is a blessing.

It’s a good day for Matt when numbers are up and messages are down. As is usually the case for young entrepreneurs, no news is good news, because that means there are no fires to put out. But on October 11, Matt woke to the fire of his nightmares.

Matt is an online publisher. His business depends on his ability to drive page views to his website. Like many in the mid 2010s, Matt found Facebook to be good place to share articles and keep people coming back day after day. In those early days, growing Facebook pages was much easier. And getting more people to follow his Facebook page meant more people would see his articles.

Matt uses his website to tell stories about the thing that is most important to him — American politics. And his rise in online popularity proved he was not alone in his views. His activism mixed with his tough guy persona — “Do I look like a snowflake?” is his slogan on Twitter where he goes by “Matt Mountain” — resonated with many on Facebook. By last week, Matt had amassed an impressive 1.8 million Facebook followers on his pages.

But in a moment and without warning, Facebook took them all away.

On this fall morning, as Matt began his early-morning check of his site, he was greeted with a notification from his Facebook app that read simply, “account disabled.” He was obviously worried, so he immediately called his wife, who helps run the site, and asked her if she could access her Facebook account. She could not.

Facebook had unpublished all of Matt’s pages. Every page was inaccessible — effectively wiped from existence. The 1.8 million followers Matt had worked to connect with were no longer a click away. The 1.8 million followers who over the last three years had chosen to follow Matt’s site could no longer read the stories they loved or comment on the page with their friends about what mattered to them.

Matt checked his records. He had received nothing from Facebook. No warning. No deadline. No ultimatum. With two simple words, many years and countless hours of Matt’s work were forever wiped from Facebook.

While Matt was scrambling to figure out what had happened, Facebook was announcing through a blog post that it had removed over 559 political pages and 251 accounts in a clampdown on what the company calls “inauthentic behavior” in the lead-up to the U.S midterm elections.

“Many were using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names and posted massive amounts of content across a network of Groups and Pages to drive traffic to their websites. Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was,” wrote Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, and product manager Oscar Rodriguez.

Facebook’s pre-midterm purge included pages and accounts that Facebook described as “ad farms” that used the platform to earn money and “to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing,” rather than engage in “legitimate political debate.”

It appears that Facebook had strategically briefed The New York Times and The Washington Post ahead of the removals, given that within minutes of Facebook’s announcement, both papers published lengthy pieces describing the purge that included screenshots of the pages, something that could only have been obtained before the pages were removed.

After the purge, Facebook provided media outlets with only the same few examples: The Resistance, Reasonable People Unite, Reverb Press, Nation in Distress and Snowflakes. Four of these pages were liberal, while one was conservative. When asked for a complete list of pages, Facebook has repeatedly refused to release it. Even knowing the names of these five pages, journalists visiting the page are greeted with a message “Sorry, content isn’t available right now,” with no ability to see the page, previously posted content or examples of alleged “spam” actions.

Facebook claims the purged pages fell on both sides of the political spectrum, and originally declined to say if there were more pages on the right or the left, but a Facebook spokesperson later told Axios that “the takedowns may have impacted more right-leaning hyper-partisan Pages.”

Because Facebook has refused to release a full list of the affected pages or any proof of alleged “spam” activity, The Western Journal has attempted to track down as many of the purged pages as possible.

Starting with the sparse list of pages that Facebook chose to release to media outlets and pages mentioned by individuals on social media, The Western Journal searched on Google which domains were most often shared by those pages. The Western Journal then found other sites with common Adsense and Google Analytics accounts. These domains were then searched on on Google’s cache of Facebook to locate pages that shared links from that site. Pages which showed the message “Sorry, content isn’t available right now,” a sign that the pages had been unpublished, rather than completely deleted, were added to The Western Journal’s list.

That list of pages confirmed as having been taken down by Facebook is now totaling 220. Of the 220 pages uncovered by The Western Journal, 67 percent are conservative or pro-Trump pages, 22 percent are libertarian or non-aligned, and 11 percent are liberal or anti-Trump pages.

Additionally, among the 147 conservative pages taken down, 26 specifically mention President Donald Trump or related topics like “MAGA,” “deplorables” or first lady Melania Trump.

Brian Kolfage, who ran Right Wing News’ Facebook page, sees the company’s purge of political sites as part of a “war on conservatives and a war on Trump.”

“It’s not by mistake, this happened weeks before the midterms,” contends the Air Force veteran, who was severely wounded while serving in Iraq.

“People are being punished for their simple beliefs — beliefs of freedom, beliefs of religion, beliefs on anything that differs from that status quo. If you have an alternate view, you’re attacked — physically, financially and socially,” he says.

“Now, it’s me, my family, and my young children in the line of fire,” Kolfage adds. “This isn’t the right to free speech I gave my legs and arm to defend. Three limbs wasn’t enough for some … now my livelihood is gone with it.”

Kolfage tells The Western Journal that he was in regular contact with Facebook, but was not told his page was out of compliance with the company’s rules before the purge.

Kurt Von Arnold, whose page IPhoneConservative (70,000 likes) was also a casualty of the purge, explained to The Western Journal that when he consulted with fellow page owners, a common thread emerged about Facebook’s actions.

“In the lead up to this coordinated removal of conservative pages, going back months before, all of us were required to verify our accounts and locations,” says Von Arnold. “This involved, under their direction, logging out of our accounts and then re-logging in using a code they provided, for each device used to access their platform.”

Von Arnold argues this drill was really a “Trojan Horse” to allow Facebook both to efficiently take down their sites and to prevent them from starting new ones from any of their known devices. He recounted that after his page was taken down Thursday, he published a new one.

“Within a few hours I had a couple of hundred page likes and though the loss of my 70k audience that I had built up over 10 years organically, never paying for boosts or spamming or ad-farming or any of the other tactics FB claimed it was acting against hurt very much,” says Von Arnold. “I consoled myself that I was back in the fight and with hard work I could build that audience again.”

“That was a fundamental mistake,” Von Arnold added with a sarcastic tone. “The new page which was starting to move suddenly went dead. All interaction on posts ceased, post reach went to 1 or 2 people in each post.”

Facebook has been unresponsive to the Von Arnold’s request for assistance.

“This is malicious harassment and a form of gaslighting which I wouldn’t wish on my worst political enemy,” Von Arnold argues. “Moreover it is proof positive, at least in my mind, of the persistent animus FB has shown to conservative pages on their platform.”

“I cherish the freedoms that have been bought so dearly,” he concludes. “I wanted to voice my concerns that those freedoms were becoming increasingly endangered. I started a page to give voice to those concerns and allow other to find their voice and Facebook punished me for it.”


Facebook’s purge of pages was not limited to last Thursday.

BJ Zeagler tells The Western Journal that her page, Donald J. Trump — President of the People, was taken down three weeks ago. (Because it had been affected before October 11, her page was not included in the previously mentioned list.)

Zeagler emphatically denies committing any violations that Facebook listed in its blog post last Thursday. The 74-year-old Nashville resident only ran one page, on which she posted articles from different sites, not owned by her. In other words, she made no money from her postings. The Tennessean had built up 2,000 likes over the last 10 years, originally starting her page in 2008 as a pro-retired Lt. Col. Allen West page, in hopes he would one day run for president.

“It was a really good page. I worked hours on it (each day),” Zeagler explains. “I did what I did because I loved this country.”

She posted articles from sources that she trusted like conservative talk radio personalities Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity.

“It was really sad to me. They removed by page,” she laments. “They removed the names of everybody that was coming there. They don’t know how to reach me. I don’t know how to reach them. It was dirty, and they didn’t tell me they were going to do it.”

The Times reported that concern over Facebook’s political bias against conservatives inspired Brian Amerige, a senior engineer with the company, to write a post to his co-workers in August.

“We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views,” he wrote. “We claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”

“We are entrusted by a great part of the world to be impartial and transparent carriers of people’s stories, ideas and commentary,” Amerige added. “Congress doesn’t think we can do this. The president doesn’t think we can do this. And like them or not, we deserve that criticism.”

The Times related that since the engineer’s post went up more than 100 Facebook employees had joined him to form an online group called ‘FB’ers for Political Diversity,’ based on two people within the company who had seen the page, but were not authorized to talk to the media.

The day before Facebook announced its purge, The Business Insider reported that Ameriage had left the company.

“I care too deeply about our role in supporting free expression and intellectual diversity to even whole-heartedly attempt the product stuff anymore, and that’s how I know it’s time to go,” he wrote in a memo to his fellow employees, announcing his departure.

Patrick Brown, editor-in-chief of The Western Journal, has called on Facebook to release the full list of the pages it has unpublished.

“If Facebook is deleting American-run political pages in run up to election, Facebook should release full list of pages affected, regardless if these pages were violating terms of service or not. Without that list we have no way to verify their claims,” he tweeted.

Although it is clear many of these page owners did violate Facebook’s prohibition against using multiple accounts, many of the owners say that once they were told it was a problem, they immediately stopped using those accounts and verified their single remaining accounts with Facebook. The owners also shared a similar complaint — that Facebook never told them that they had done anything so egregious as to have years of their work literally erased with no warning and little more than a vague, one-sentence explanation that raised more questions than it answered.

Even Facebook’s recent “war room” announcement referenced the company’s efforts to increase “accountability and transparency.” But the company has still yet to release more than 5 of the 559 pages that were purged.

The majority of the known pages suspended by Facebook were right-leaning. While there may be valid justification for all of Facebook’s actions, Facebook has not responded to The Western Journal’s request for comment or provided to any known media outlet a full list of suspended pages or any evidence that any of the pages had in fact violated any of the rules Facebook claims were the basis for their purge. And to date, neither The Times nor The Post, the two papers who received the early scoop of the purge along with the five examples of purged pages, have called for the entire list to be made public.

Facebook’s refusal to release the whole list or any proof of any violation of terms of service has many questioning if Facebook is being honest about its intentions.

Rhett Jones with Gizmodo noted, “the fact that Facebook is keeping almost all of the details about this action under wraps may save it some short-term pain, but it just gives everyone’s imagination the chance to run wild.”

Back at his computer, Matt Mountain is trying to make sense of Facebook’s recent actions. He is convinced that Facebook’s actions have little to do with violation of terms and conditions. “They have an agenda and they are twisting their terms and conditions to pursue that agenda.”

Matt argued that Facebook is desperate to avoid possible antitrust attention: “They are in the hot seat over politics. They are worried about regulation. I think they are conducting security theater — in other words, they are pretending to do something.”

“Facebook can decide who gets elected,” Matt warned. “Their staff has joked that they can control the outcome of a presidential election just by where they deploy the ‘I voted’ badge, because that badge influences friends to vote.”

The fact that Facebook’s purge happened only weeks before the important 2018 midterm elections did not go unnoticed by Matt, either. “(T)hey wipe out hundreds of the top activists, real Americans who have been working in politics for years, just a month before midterms.” According to Matt, Facebook “wiped out” more than 60 million followers. The main Facebook pages of CNN and Fox News combined have only 46 million followers. “I don’t think staff at Facebook, who we don’t know and have zero transparency, should have that much power without regulation.”

One last note: Matt is a self-described liberal. His site is LiberalMountain.com. Matt’s content is vehemently anti-Trump and he depicted Republicans as Nazis. But Brown underlines a key point in a tweet directed personally to Matt about why The Western Journal, a conservative site, cares that Matt’s pages were deleted: “This isn’t a left-right issue, this is a free speech issue.”

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Shaun Hair is the Executive Editor of The Western Journal and the Vice President of Digital Content for Liftable Media. He manages the content and social media presence of one of the most viewed online news sites in the world.
Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

‘F*** the Bible Voters’: Democratic Fundraiser Crosses Every Line Imaginable


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 9, 2018 at 10:40am

Democratic candidates Colin Allred, left, and Amy McGrath are running in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District and Texas’ 32nd District, respectively.

Democratic candidates Colin Allred, left, and Amy McGrath are running in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District and Texas’ 32nd District, respectively. (Colin Allred / Facebook; Amy McGrath / Facebook)

That’s it. I have come to the personal conclusion that liberals have completely lost their marbles.

This story reminds me of my mother trying to teach me as a young child that we are judged by the company we keep. I didn’t understand it then, but I certainly understand it now, especially as it applies in the world of politics.

However, that lesson is completely lost on the left.

The Washington Examiner published a piece by Ryan Girdusky on Monday that clearly illustrates that reality.

As he wrote, the Democrats have their sights set on overturning some Republican congressional districts in the November midterm elections by convincing voters their supposedly moderate candidates hold dear the center-right values of the voting demographic.

However, Democratic campaigns in Texas and Kentucky have teamed up with a motivational speaker “who has a history of hostile rhetoric and negative views of middle America,” Girdusky wrote.

That can’t possibly play well in those states.

“Retired Lt. Col. Amy McGrath and former Tennessee Titans linebacker Colin Allred are running in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District and Texas’ 32nd District, respectively,” he wrote. “Both candidates have been campaigning as centrists, and neither have endorsed extreme positions like, for example, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But despite their carefully crafted images, they have been working with far-left-wing activist and motivational speaker Laura Gassner Otting.”

And while her background seems harmless enough for a liberal, it hardly tells the entire story.

“According to her website, Otting is a professional motivational speaker who ‘helps innovators, idealists, and critics get “unstuck” in their thinking.’ Before becoming a motivational speaker, she was a political appointee for the Bill Clinton White House and then worked for several nonprofits,” Girdusky wrote.

Here’s where it gets sticky for Otting and Democrats.

Nothing ever dies completely on the internet. It never goes away. Girdusky found some old Facebook posts where Otting emotionally up-chucks all over conservatives and everything they stand for. How is she going to paint Democratic candidates as centrists when she holds core beliefs that are diametrically opposed to her target audiences?

The Examiner posted screen shots of some of her vile rants, explicit language and all. Her disdain for those who didn’t support Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is apparent in this post from August 2017.

“F— the patriarchy,” she began.

“F— the white males standing by in silence.

“F— the bible voters who looked away and believed the worst rumors about her instead of facing up to the worst facts about him.

“F— those who think they are being ‘replaced’ because they have to, for the first time in their privileged lives, compete with people who spend their days being twice, thrice, and four times as good to still just get table scraps.

“And f— those who didn’t vote, stayed out of the fray, considered themselves non-political, or couldn’t bring themselves to vote ‘for the lesser of two evils.’”

After Donald Trump won the election in November 2016, she went into a rant against “sexist” and “racist” America.

“So, America wants major change?” Otting wrote. “But, also overwhelmingly sent every ineffective male Republican incumbent back to the House and Senate? Don’t tell me this isn’t about misogyny.

“It turns out hate trumps love after all.

“Side note: who knew that America was even more sexist than racist? And jeez, it is racist.”

Girdusky connected the dots and noted that while Otting holds deeply disdainful feelings about conservatives and middle America, she held fundraisers for candidates Allred and McGrath at her home on June 25 and Sept. 25, respectively.

Girdusky said he attempted to reach out to the Allred and McGrath campaigns for an explanation, but representatives failed to return his calls.

Maybe the lesson here for Democrats is to be smarter about portraying themselves as something they aren’t. Americans are on to them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Police: Democrat Ended Political Argument by Driving to Man’s Home, Opening Fire


Reported By Kara Pendleton | September 12, 2018 at

2:46pm

Brian Sebring of Tampa, Florida, was arrested last month for allegedly shooting a man who he had a political disagreement with on social media. The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries.

Tampa Police DepartmentBrian Sebring of Tampa, Florida, was arrested last month for allegedly shooting a man after the two had a political argument on social media. The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries. (Tampa Police Department)

Perhaps when President Barack Obama, known for being divisive, left office, some held out hope for a more unified nation. Instead, there has been a ramping up of not only violent political rhetoric, but acts of violence, as well. Social media has been one place where that aggression has been seen surging. Take the example of a political disagreement on social media that resulted in a Florida man being shot.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, 44-year-old Brian Sebring — a registered Democrat — and Facebook friend Alex Stephens, 46, a convicted felon with no political registration, got into an online dispute last month involving politics. It ended with Sebring driving to Stephens’ home and shooting him.

“After receiving several explicit messages and threats, the defendant responded to the victim’s home to confront him (regarding) the messages,” according to a police report cited by the Tampa Bay Times. Sebring was arrested and told police that Stephens had threatened him, so he drove to his home in order to confront him.

However, Sebring took a Glock, in a waistband holster, and an AR-15 with him when he went to confront Stephens. After arriving at Stephen’s home, Sebring allegedly honked his truck horn and waited outside of the vehicle for Stephens. Stephens went outside and allegedly “charged at” Sebring. It was at this point that Sebring allegedly opened fire, hitting Stephens in the buttocks.

Despite Stephens fleeing and Sebring leaving the scene, police ultimately found and arrested Sebring for the shooting. He was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed firearm. His bail was set at $9,500.

“I’m not a bad guy,” Sebring said in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times a few days after the incident. “But I mean, this guy threatened to hurt my family, and I went off the deep end. I wasn’t thinking right. You know, after this I’m going to go see a therapist or something, man, because that’s some scary s—, that I could lose my temper like that and do something so stupid.”

The exact topic of the men’s dispute is not known, other than it had to do with politics. What we do know is that in the current political climate, violent rhetoric and violent acts are on the rise. And that makes it even more fool-hardy for anyone to make threats.

What we also know is that, overall, the violence is being perpetrated more heavily in one direction. And those violent threats and acts are leaning heavily against those on the right.

Breitbart has reported that instances ofviolence against the right are increasing as media outlets “amp up hate-rhetoric against Trump.” In July, Breitbart began documenting “acts of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump supporters.” The running total is now up to 564.

In mid-July, The Gateway Pundit noted that Breitbart’s running total at that time was just over 300. This means that in  approximately two month’s time, the number has almost doubled. And more reports of violence continue to pour in.

It has long-since gone beyond an increase in violent threats on social media to actual attacks in real life.

Meanwhile, few on the left have said anything to discourage such behavior. Some, such as Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, have been blamed for amping up the hate and violence.

Some believe the incitement is intentional, with the ultimate goal being that of a civil war. Others point to mental disorders on a mass scale, with such tags as “liberalism” and “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

While such labels are sometimes used in jest, the injuries sustained by victims of the violence is no laughing matter. Something needs to be done and it needs to include Democratic leadership and media taking responsibility.

Violent rhetoric and violent acts against political opponents are not OK. This should be something both sides of the political aisle can agree upon and commit to fighting against. What actually happens, as reports continue to pour in and public outrage continues to grow, is yet to be seen.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Specializing in news, politics and human interest stories, Kara Pendleton has been a professional writer and author since 2002. One of her proudest professional moments was landing an interview that even mainstream media couldn’t get.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Tech Got Your Tongue?

Tech giants Facebook, Twitter, Apple Inc, Google among others are on an all-out assault to silence conservative and libertarian speech.

High Tech Giants Attack Conservative SpeechPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

EXCLUSIVE: Facebook, Amazon, Google And Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC


disclaimerReported by Peter Hasson | Reporter | 1:37 AM 06/07/2018

  • The Southern Poverty Law Center helps Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter determine what organizations are “hate groups”
  • Amazon gave the SPLC the most direct authority while pretending to remain unbiased
  • The SPLC has been plagued by inaccuracies

Four of the world’s biggest tech platforms have working partnerships with a left-wing nonprofit that has a track record of inaccuracies and routinely labels conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter all work with or consult the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in policing their platforms for “hate speech” or “hate groups,” a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

The SPLC is on a list of “external experts and organizations” that Facebook works with “to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja told TheDCNF in an interview.

Facebook consults the outside organizations when developing changes to hate speech policies, Budhraja said, noting that Facebook representatives will typically hold between one and three meetings with the groups. 

Citing privacy concerns, the Facebook spokeswoman declined to name all the outside groups working with Facebook, but confirmed the SPLC’s participation.

Budhraja emphasized that Facebook’s definition of “hate group” is distinct from the SPLC’s definition and said that Facebook consults with groups across the political spectrum.

The SPLC accused Facebook in a May 8 article of not doing enough to censor “anti-Muslim hate” on the platform. That article did not disclose the SPLC’s working partnership with Facebook.

“We have our own process and our processes are different and I think that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja said.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process,” she said.

Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, TheDCNF found.

While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” an Amazon spokeswoman told TheDCNF.

Amazon grants the SPLC that power “because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever,” said the spokeswoman, who could not say whether Amazon considers the SPLC to be unbiased.

The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon. Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon.

Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.

Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom — which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the Supreme Courtare barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, TheDCNF found in May. (RELATED: Christian Baker Prevails At Supreme Court In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Dispute)

One month later, the anti-Semitic groups — but not the Alliance Defending Freedom — are still able to participate in the program.

Twitter lists the SPLC as a “safety partner” working with Twitter to combat “hateful conduct and harassment.”

The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which “provides input on our safety products, policies, and programs,” according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.

A Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment on the SPLC specifically, but said the company is “in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations].”

Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program, The Daily Caller reported in February, citing a source with knowledge of the agreement. Following that report, the SPLC confirmed they’re policing hate speech on YouTube.

The SPLC and other third-party groups in the “Trusted Flagger” program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.free speech def

First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program, the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements.

The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of “extremists” and “hate groups.” The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.

The well-funded nonprofit, which did not return a request for comment, deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats. All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.

The SPLC removed a controversial “anti-Muslim extremist” list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list. The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes. (RELATED: SPLC Pulls Controversial ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’ List After Legal Threats)

Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali also made the list.

Ali, a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice, is an award-winning human rights activist. But according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

Ali criticized Apple CEO Tim Cook in August 2017 for donating to the SPLC, which she described as “an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism.”

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who is now the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was surprised to find out in February 2015 that the SPLC had placed him on an “extremist watch list” for his conservative beliefs.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong. It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance,” Carson said in response.

“That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment,” he continued. “It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”Good evil and evil good

Following a backlash, the SPLC apologized and removed him from their list. Carson was on the list for four months before the SPLC removed the “extremist” label.

Floyd Lee Corkins, who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012, said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a “hate group.”

The SPLC has faced tough criticisms not just from conservatives, but from establishment publications, as well.

“At a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation,” Ben Schreckinger, now with GQ, wrote in a June 2017 piece for Politico.point counterpoint

Washington Post Reporter Megan McArdle, while still reporting for Bloomberg, similarly criticized the SPLC’s flimsy definition of “hate group” in  September 2017. Media outlets who trust the SPLC’s labels, McArdle warned, “will discredit themselves with conservative readers and donors.”

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

please likeand share and leave a comment

 

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and Memes for April-Friday the 13th, 2018


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Iron Fistbook

Zuckerberg plays dumb during the congressional hearings while his company, Facebook, works to silence conservatives on its social media platform.

Facebook Bans ConservativesPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Rep. Steve Scalise Grills Zuckerberg over Facebook’s Bias Against Conservatives


Reported By Joe Setyon | April 11, 2018 at 8:54am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/rep-steve-scalise-grills-zuckerberg-over-facebooks-bias-against-conservatives/

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise questioned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday over the social media giant’s alleged bias against conservatives. Zuckerberg appeared before Congress for the second consecutive day to answer questions related to Facebook’s data privacy practices.

When it was time for Scalise to speak, he asked the Facebook CEO whether or not the platform is biased against conservative news publishers, referencing a study from The Western Journal that looked into the matter. The Western Journal’s analysis found that Facebook’s much-publicized demotion of publishers’ content in users’ news feeds has negatively impacted conservative-leaning publishers significantly more than liberal-leaning outlets.

“I do want to ask you about a study that was done dealing with the algorithm that Facebook uses to describe what is fed to people through the newsfeed, and what they found was after this new algorithm was implemented was that there was a tremendous bias against conservative news and content and a favorable bias towards liberal content,” the Louisiana Republican said.

Noting that there was a “16-point disparity,” which he called “concerning,” Scalise — a former computer programmer himself — asked Zuckerberg who writes Facebook’s algorithm.

“Was there a directive to put this bias in?” he said, before asking if Zuckerberg was aware of such a bias.

In his response, Zuckerberg claimed there is “absolutely no directive in any of the changes that we make to have a bias in anything that we do. To the contrary, our goal is to be a platform for all ideas.”

Despite Zuckerberg’s claims, The Western Journal’s analysis indicated that Facebook’s algorithm change, intentional or not, has in effect censored conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the world. This change has ramifications that, in the short-term, are causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold completely, and in the long-term could swing elections in the United States and around the world toward liberal politicians and policies.

Facebook Algorithm Impact On Conservatives

Scalise was not the first GOP lawmaker to ask Zuckerberg about Facebook’s alleged bias against conservatives.

As The Western Journal reported, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz asked the Facebook CEO pointed questions Tuesday about Facebook’s political standpoint and the possible censorship of conservative views on the platform.

“Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?” Cruz asked. “Are you a First Amendment speaker expressing your views or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?”

Zuckerberg responded saying that there is certain content that is not allowed — hate speech, terrorist content, nudity — and that they refer to themselves as “a platform for all ideas.”

The senator pressed again, saying that it is a “simple question” whether or not Facebook is “engaged in political speech which is (their) right under the First Amendment.”

The Facebook CEO said that though the company’s “goal is certainly not to engage in political speech,” he was “just trying to lay out how broadly I think about this.”

Cruz then told Zuckerberg that there are many Americans who are concerned about Facebook’s political bias in what they show on their platform.

“There have been numerous instances with Facebook in May of 2016 as Gizmodo reported that Facebook had purposefully and routinely suppressed conservative stories from conservative news,” the senator pointed out. These stories include ones about CPAC, Mitt Romney and Rand Paul.

As Cruz pointed out, Facebook also had blocked a post from a Fox News reporter and “over two dozen” Catholic pages.

“This is actually a concern that I have, and that I try to root out at the company — is making sure that we don’t have any bias in the work that we do,” Zuckerberg responded. “I think it is a fair concern that people would at least wonder about.”

MORE Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for April 10, 2018


Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Mexican Standoff

Democrat Voter registration drive? A Caravan of Central American migrants is headed to the U.S. border with the blessings of the Democrats.

Caravan to the BorderPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

Big Brothers Are Watching

Facebook, Google, and Twitter are making a deliberate effort to silence conservatives on their social media platforms.

Social Media Against ConservativesPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 26, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and Memes for Thursday March 22, 2018


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday March 21, 2018


Former Employee: ‘Horrifying’ Misuse of User Data Was Routine at Facebook


Reported by Charlie Nash | 20 Mar 2018

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/20/former-employee-horrifying-misuse-of-user-data-was-routine-at-facebook/

Sandy Parakilas, a former Facebook platform operations manager, claimed the company’s “horrifying” misuse of user data was routine, and that Facebook preferred to have “no idea” what third parties were doing with the freely available data.

In their report, the Guardian noted that “hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica.”

“My concerns were that all of the data that left Facebook servers to developers could not be monitored by Facebook, so we had no idea what developers were doing with the data,” claimed Parakilas. “It has been painful watching… Because I know that they could have prevented it.”

“Once the data left Facebook servers there was not any control, and there was no insight into what was going on,” he continued, adding, “Facebook was in a stronger legal position if it didn’t know about the abuse that was happening.” 

“They felt that it was better not to know. I found that utterly shocking and horrifying,” Parakilas declared, also estimating that “a majority of Facebook users” probably had their data used by third party companies and developers.

In his interview with the Guardian, Parakilas even claimed that known “rogue developers” were rarely sanctioned for misusing data, and that app developers were encouraged to create apps on the platform by being offered user data by Facebook.

“In the time I was there, I didn’t see them conduct a single audit of a developer’s systems,” he proclaimed. “Facebook was giving data of people who had not authorised the app themselves, and was relying on terms of service and settings that people didn’t read or understand.”

“I didn’t feel that the company treated my concerns seriously. I didn’t speak out publicly for years out of self-interest, to be frank,” Parakilas expressed, before adding that the company only started to take action following the media’s allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“They treated it like a PR exercise,” he concluded. “They seemed to be entirely focused on limiting their liability and exposure rather than helping the country address a national security issue.”

Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington, or like his page at Facebook.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 19, 2018


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Stalinesque Evil

Evidence continues to mount that Google, Facebook, and twitter are making a deliberate effort to silence conservatives through their social media and search platforms.

Google Oppressing ConservativesPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

It’s Happening: Multiple Counties “Secede,” Declare “New California” as Ind. State


Reported By Chris Golden | January 17, 2018 at 3:34am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/multiple-counties-new-california/

California secession movements are right up there with new Jimmy Hoffa burial place claims: That’s great, but I’ve heard it all before, and please call me when there’s some actual evidence something’s going to happen this time.

So, when yet another secession proposal from the capital of high taxes, high homelessness, high residents and low hope of any prosperous future flashed across the news wire, you can probably imagine that I wasn’t exactly telling the folks in the newsroom to hold the presses. However, for once, the denizens of the Golden State might have come across a decent idea involving secession — and it could create a 51st state that Republicans can actually approve of.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, a movement called New California seeks to become the 51st state by divorcing the majority of the state’s territory from the liberal coastal counties that dominate the state’s political landscape.

“New California is a new state in development by egregiously aggrieved Californians exercising our Constitutional right to form a new state separate from the tyranny and lawlessness of the state of California,” the group says on its Facebook page.

Those representing counties in the New California movement declared their secession from the state at large on Jan. 15, although that’s probably not going to impress too many people in the Sacramento statehouse. The group’s website notes that “(a)t the New California State County Representative meeting held in Marysville, CA, Riverside and Sacramento counties were certified by the representatives to join the ever increasing number of counties wanting to join the movement to create the 51st state in the Union.”

According to The Daily Caller, 21 of the 58 counties of California have offered support, even though the matter is doomed to fail in the state legislature because of Democrat infestation.

This is the map of the proposed New California in blue, with Old California (or California Classic, should they wish to emulate Coca-Cola’s marketing department) in yellow:

New California: Now with 100 percent less Ventura County

The group says that “years of over taxation, regulation, and mono party politics” have left the state “ungovernable.”

“The nature of the state becoming ungovernable has caused a decline in essential basic services such as education, law enforcement, fire protection, transportation, housing, health care, taxation, voter rights, banking, state pension systems, prisons, state parks, water resource management, home ownership, infrastructure and many more,” New California’s executive summary says.

California’s political status has been much in the news since President Donald Trump’s election; many liberals have proposed seceding from the union to form their own country, while conservatives who feel marginalized in the Golden State have re-entrenched themselves behind the idea of the state of Jefferson, a long-proposed 51st state incorporating conservative parts of two liberal states, California and Oregon.

Unfortunately, while one has sympathy for anyone somehow stuck in a state whose prospects for economic health and growth in the 21st century are right up there with those of Mama Cass running this year’s Los Angeles Marathon and winning, the Constitution is pretty plain about cleaving extant states into two new entities.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress,” Article IV of the Constitution reads.

In other words, they have to get both Congress and California as a whole to sign off on this. And while the GOP-led Congress might be more than happy to let the über-liberal coastal areas and Silicon Valley go their own way, the coastal swath of the state probably isn’t going to be so keen on letting the rest of the state loose as it’s is about to undergo a serious debt crisis.

However, we can’t help but give our tacit support to the people of the New California project, quixotic though their attempt may be. After all, it can’t be anywhere near as bad as the Old California — or California Classic, if they go with that.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday October 23, 2017


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from TOWNHALL.COM


Conservative Teacher Punished for Praising Trump on Her Facebook Page


waving flag disclaimerAuthored By Dave Jolly February 23, 2017

veronica fleming

‘Selective allowable discrimination’ is alive and well in America’s public school system. Liberal teachers literally get away with all kinds of highly questionable and unethical things, but let a conservative teacher express their views on their own private social media pages and they are punished for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Take for instance the case of teacher Michael Garrison and a former student. CJ Parsons is a black conservative and when he was 12-years-old, he produced a You Tube video that ripped Barack Obama apart for his views on ISIS and America.

“C.J. looked into the camera and stated: ‘President Obama – you don’t love America. If you really did love America, you would call ISIS what it really is – an assault on Christianity – an assault on America and a downright hate for the American values our country holds – of freedom of speech – freedom of religion and everything our country stands for’.”

“Within three days the video had gone viral, garnering 540,000 views and as of today, it has over 2.1 million. That and other videos by the young man have gained him celebrity status, as he’s met Ted Cruz, been on Fox’s “The Kelly File” as well as Sean Hannity’s show. Oh, and also being blocked on our child-president, Barack Obama’s Twitter page…”

Sadly, Parson’s received a lot of hate mail for his video as not everyone was supportive of him for his stand in defending America.

“It seems one of C.J.’s former teachers, Michael Garrison, told students that black conservative activist student C.J. Pearson thinks he’s ‘not worth saving in a fire,’ and he ‘hates him’.”radical-leftist-hater

The last I heard, nothing was done to Garrison for his harsh statement about his former student.

Meet Dana Dusbiber, an English teacher at Luther Burbank High School in Sacramento, California. She has decided to not teach her English students anything about the most famous English author of all time, William Shakespeare. Even though studying Shakespeare is a requirement for high school in the Common Core English Language Arts standards, Dusbiber says she will not teach any Shakespeare to her students because she is black and many of her students are black.

Dusbiber defended her stance in a letter she sent to The Washington Post, stating:

“I am a high school English teacher. I am not supposed to dislike Shakespeare. But I do. And not only do I dislike Shakespeare because of my own personal disinterest in reading stories written in an early form of the English language that I cannot always easily navigate, but also because there is a WORLD of really exciting literature out there that better speaks to the needs of my very ethnically-diverse and wonderfully curious modern-day students…”

“What I worry about is that as long as we continue to cling to ONE (white) MAN’S view of life as he lived it so long ago, we (perhaps unwittingly) promote the notion that other cultural perspectives are less important. In the 25 years that I have been a secondary teacher, I have heard countless times, from respected teachers (mostly white), that they will ALWAYS teach Shakespeare, because our students need Shakespeare and his teachings on the human condition.

“So, I ask, why not teach the oral tradition out of Africa, which includes an equally relevant commentary on human behavior? Why not teach translations of early writings or oral storytelling from Latin America or Southeast Asia other parts of the world? Many, many of our students come from these languages and traditions. Why do our students not deserve to study these ‘other’ literatures with equal time and value? And if time is the issue in our classrooms, perhaps we no longer have the time to study the Western canon that so many of us know and hold dear.”radical-leftist-hater

The last I knew, Dusbiber was not disciplined for forcing her racist views on her students. These are just a few of the instances where liberal teachers have allowed their personal agendas to infiltrate into their classrooms and influence their teaching and nothing is done to stop them.

But what happens to a conservative teacher who on their own time, expresses their personal opinion on their own social media page?

Meet Veronica Fleming:

“Parkside Elementary School computer lab instructor Veronica Fleming linked to a Chicago Tribune story about the nationwide protest and offered her take on the situation.’

“‘The funny part about immigrants staying home is the rest of us who pay for them are here at work like we’ve always been. Looks like less mouths to feed today. Have fun while you still can. So glad to hear about massive deportation. Let’s make America great again. Thanks Donald Trump!’”

“Collier County Public Schools spokesman Greg Turchetta told the Naples Daily News Fleming’s post didn’t sit well with parents of students at Parkside Elementary, 96 percent of which are minorities…”

“Juanita Perez, an immigrant mother of two, told NBC 2 she was ‘offended’ by Fleming’s online comments.”

“‘My feelings are hurt for our kids,’ she said. ‘I couldn’t even believe it. How could a teacher speak like that?’”radical-leftist-hater

Due to the complaints immigrant parents who have blindly believed the twisted truths of the liberal media, the school reassigned Fleming to an administrative job, taking her out of the classroom. She was accused of being a racist, but when real racists push their racist views in the classroom, nothing happens to them. They are not reassigned or taken out of the classroom. They are allowed to continue their racist indoctrination of young impressionable students, but conservative teachers are silenced and punished for expressing their conservative views.

This is another example of ‘selective allowable discrimination’ which only works in one direction.truth-hate-speech

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dave Jolly

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Teacher Complains about Christian Students on Facebook Calling Them ‘Cretins’


waving flagAuthored By Dave Jolly February 21, 2017

We’ve all heard the stories of students and employees who take to social media to rant about teachers, other students, employers and other employees.

In more than one case, students have been suspended and even arrested due to their rants on social media. Employees have faced punishment, demotions and even termination due to their social media rants. In other incidents, social media has censored postings that weren’t in line with the agenda of the social media executives.

One such incident happened last September when one prominent social media site shut down the account of a conservative site with nearly 700,000 likes, because the site posted items that criticized Islam and homosexuality. The same social media site allowed highly negative and derogatory posts against Christians, Jews, Republicans and other conservatives.

In another incident, the father of a two-month old baby son turned to a social media site in a campaign to raise funds to help pay for heart transplant for his infant son. He used a photo and video of his helpless son in the hospital, connected to tubes and monitors. Then he received a notice from the social media site saying that his post was too gory and graphic and evoked a negative response, so they closed his account.

In 2012, Political Media Inc. President Larry Ward posted a meme on same social media site, on behalf of SOS, Special Operations Speaks is an organization comprised mostly of military veterans who want to help other former and active military personnel in many areas. He was informed by the social media site in a short time that they were pulling the meme from the posting. Ward reposted the meme and again it was pulled and he was given a 24-hour suspension from the social media site. He was told that the meme violated site’s Rights and Responsibilities terms. The meme was on behalf of the Navy SEALS which showed an image of Osama bin Laden with the caption – ‘Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden’. There was also an image of Barrack Obama with the caption – ‘When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED’.

So, what should happen to a Florida teacher who took to her social media page to rant about Christian students in her class?

According to a report:

“The school district is investigating a school teacher for

CP 01

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

allegedly making disparaging remarks about her students on a closed Facebook page for local atheists.”

“Karen Tucker, a spokeswoman for Bay District Schools, said it is against school policy to criticize students either in person or on an Internet page.”

“In one of the posts, Susan Creamer, a teacher with Merritt Brown Middle School, states some of her middle school students ‘are taking turns either inviting me to church or leaving (anonymously) flyers inviting me to church events. … Every time any child sneezes, they loudly say ‘God Bless You!’ and look in my direction. I have complained twice to the principal — once last month and once today. She has spoken privately to one or two of the little cretins, but it seems to do NO GOOD’.”

 

“‘I am feeling bullied and harassed. It has become intolerable’.”AWWW Poor Baby

cretin FB post

A spokesperson for the school district says that they are investigating the remarks that Creamer made on her Facebook page along with other posts. They also issued the following statement:

‘Teachers are encouraged and trained, to keep clear boundaries between their personal and professional lives to ensure that the classroom remains a neutral and supportive environment,’ the statement reads. ‘This training and related School Board policy includes guidelines for interactions on all social media platforms including, but not limited to, Facebook. We do not condone the use of disparaging comments about our students in any form, on any social media platform or in any school’.”

Since when are public school classrooms neutral? There have been many reports of teachers using the classrooms to brainwash and influence their students. Public schools across the nation are teaching that homosexuality is normal and something they should all experiment with, without letting their parents know. Public schools are also the greatest brainwashing tool used to produce millions of young socialists.

cp 11

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

Again, I ask, what should happen to Creamer concerning her derogatory comments and name calling of Christians in her classroom? For one thing, she has no business teaching in a public school with that kind of attitude and animosity toward a specific group of students. No doubt, her atheist biases are most likely seeping into her class lessons with the purpose of persuading her students to believe as she does. Would you want your kids sitting in her classroom?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dave Jolly

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

George Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed’ Stories


waving flagAuthored by Aaron Klein, 16 Dec 2016

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with “third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.

Facebook says that if the “fact checking organizations” determine that a certain story is fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to the Facebook announcement, “there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”

IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy. Leftist Propagandist

Poynter’s IFCN is also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.  Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the U.S.

Another significant Poynter Institute donor is the Craig Newmark Foundation, the charitable organization established by Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark. On Monday, just days before the announcement of the Facebook partnership, Poynter issued a press release revealing that Newmark donated $1 million to the group to fund a faculty chair in journalism ethics.

States the press release:

The gift will support a five-year program at Poynter that focuses on verification, fact-checking and accountability in journalism. It’s the largest donation Poynter’s ever received from an individual foundation.

The Newmark Chair will expand on Poynter’s teaching in journalism ethics and develop certification programs for journalists that commit to ethical decision-making practices. The faculty member will also organize an annual conference on ethics issues at Poynter and be a regular contributor to Poynter.org.

Newmark funds scores of liberal groups also financed by Soros, including the Sierra Club, the New America Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation. Newmark also finances the investigative journalism group called the Center for Public Integrity, where he serves on the board.  Soros’ Open Society is another Public Integrity donor.

Soros has earned his megafortune in part by short selling currencies and causing economic crises. He is credited with breaking the pound on September 16, 1992 in a day that became known in Britain as “Black Wednesday.” He reportedly made $1.2 billion from that crisis.  In 2002, he was convicted for insider trading.

Poynter, meanwhile, has hosted controversial journalism programs in the past, including one that was accused of downplaying the threat of global Islamic terrorism. FoxNews.com reported the course suggested reporters “keep the death toll from Islamic terrorism in ‘context’ by comparing that toll to the number of people killed every year by malaria, HIV/AIDS and other factors.”What did you say 07.jpg

The course taught reporters that the term “jihad” means internal struggle, and it discussed what it claimed was the issue of “right-wing activists” attempting to link American Muslims to terrorism.

Continued FoxNews.com:

The section includes the good-journalism tip that reporters should check to see if experts they’re interviewing “have a bias or a stake in the story you are covering.” But then it only cites examples of anti-Muslim groups.

Truth The New Hate Speech

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

The course in Islam, Fox News reported, was supported by a group calling itself the Social Science Research Council, which has received funding from Soros-financed groups.

evil-soros-ecomomy-soros-dollar-evil-new-world-order-one-political-poster-1289584678

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

In response to the report, the Poynter Institute explained that it created the course “as a tool for journalists who want to be accurate in educating their audience about the religion and culture of Islam, Muslim communities in the U.S., and the distinctions between Islam as a political movement and the radical philosophies that inspire militant Islamists.”

“We believe there is a need to better understand the complexities of Muslim societies and the online course offered by Poynter and Washington State University is a vital resource toward that end,” Poynter added.

“The values underpinning the course are truth, accuracy, independence, fairness, minimizing harm and context — the core journalistic values on which we build all our teaching here at Poynter.”Leftist Propagandist

Poynter’s IFCN code of principles for news outlets, meanwhile, reads as follows:

1. A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS

We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.Bull

2. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES

We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.

3. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION

We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.Bull

4. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY

We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.Bull

5. A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS

We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.

Leftist Propagandist

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Joshua Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Dog and Pony Show

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/12/14/dog-pony-show/

 The Democrat’s new best friend Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook seems to favor liberal bias mainstream media news over conservative news.

Facebook Fake News / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Patriot Update here.

A.F. Branco 2017 Calendar <—- Order Here!

NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Female Reporter SACKED After Praising Trump and Criticising Obama


waving flagPosted on November 21, 2016

scarlett-fakhar-journo-734468Houston journalist Scarlett Fakhar, has lost her job after she spoke her mind on Facebook after the election. She said that Obama has made the “entire country hate one another” and was glad Trump won. Does the first amendment mean anything anymore?free speech def

In a Facebook post that has since been deleted, Scarlett Fakhar, a Fox 26 Houston journalist, said “God had a hand” in the election and she could “barely sleep from how happy and relieved she was” after Trump’s election victory.

In place of the deleted post, Fakhar said: “Guess what fans!!?? FOX 26 Houston is trying to take my fan page down now! DON’T LET THEM! #FREEPRESS #FREESPEECH #FIRSTAMENDMENT”

A spokesman from the KRIV confirmed to a local US newspaper that the journalist was sacked, but declined to comment.

She wrote: “The media has made this a race issue, when in reality the matter boils down to a difference in political philosophy.’

“As a multiracial person myself, I never have been or never will be racist.”

Deleted post

DEAR AMERICA: There is an Image of a Black Panther BEHEADING a Cop… Should Facebook Remove it?


waving flagPosted on July 9, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/dear-america-there-is-an-image-of-a-black-panther-beheading-a-cop-should-facebook-remove-it/

On the Facebook page Micah X. ranted on days before killing 5 cops and wounding 6, there is a very GRAPHIC and disturbing image. It shows a Black Panther militant (who looks like an ISIS militant) BEHEADING a cop.

Facebook has refused to remove a sickening cartoon of a police officer having his throat slit from a Black Panther page used by Dallas cop killer Micah Xavier Johnson

Facebook has refused to remove a sickening cartoon of a police officer having his throat slit from a Black Panther page used by Dallas cop killer Micah Xavier Johnson.

The gruesome image shows a man dressed in black slashing a uniformed officer’s throat with a knife as blood spills out of the cop’s neck. It was posted on the ‘Black Panther Party Mississippi’ page, which Johnson posted a twisted rant on just days before he embarked on his massacre. The cartoon carries the words ‘as a R.B.G. killer panther I pledge to defend my black community by any means necessary’.

‘R.B.G’ stands for red, black and green and refers to the Pan-African flag, which is often seen being flown at civil rights protests.

The picture was posted on Facebook by a user called Prince Mamuhammad, whose profile includes posts talking of ‘war with the white male’.

The image has been reported to Facebook but the social media website refused to take it down, saying it does not violate the company’s ‘community standards’. Facebook ruled that the picture does not ‘promote graphic violence’.extra bowl of stupid

Its reply to the report said: ‘Reports like yours are an important rile in making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. ‘We reviewed the post you reported for promoting graphic violence and found it doesn’t violate our community standards.’

Daily Mail Online has contacted Facebook for further comment.

Johnson, who was a user of a host of Facebook pages dedicated to black militancy, posted a rant on the same Black Panther Party Mississippi page five days before he shot 12 police officers in Dallas, killing five.

The image has been reported to Facebook but the social media website refused to take it down, saying it does not violate the company's 'community standards'

fight Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

From the Pen of Michael Ramirez Today’s Politically INCORRECT Carton


waving flagMichael Ramirez – Tuesday, May 24, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/michaelramirez/

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

propaganda machine Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Former Chief Psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Has Bad News for Caitlyn Jenner


waving flagReported by Kim Smith on June 8, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/former-psychiatrist-brutal-news-jenner

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief for Johns PC TransHopkins Hospital, has an opinion about former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner’s recent announcement that is sure to upset the many crusading for the transgender movement. McHugh not only believes that changing sexes is biologically impossible, he also believes those identifying themselves as transgender actually have a mental disorder.

McHugh, author of six books and over 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles, wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece that surgery is not a solution for those wishing to live as the opposite sex.

McHugh wrote that these people believing they can choose their sex suffer from a “disorder of assumption.”

In the piece, he also quoted a study claiming that transgendered people undergoing reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non-transgendered people. (H/T BizPac Review)

McHugh also said that while Hollywood and the mainstream media promote transgenderism as normal, they are doing no favors to these people by treating their “confusions” as a right rather than treating them as a mental disorder that deserves treatment and prevention.definetly

The doctor considers the transgendered person’s “assumption” that they are “different than the physical reality of their body “a disorder similar to someone suffering anorexia nervosa.

McHugh claims that pro-transgender advocates do not want to accept the fact that studies indicate between 70 and 80 percent of children who express transgender feelings lose such feelings over time.

Changing sexes is impossible, according to the doctor and all transgendered people do is “become feminized men or masculinized women.”Transgender

In addition, those who had sexual reassignment surgery and felt satisfied with the results of that surgery fared no better in their psycho-social adjustments than those who didn’t have surgery.

Because of these studies, Hopkins stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, the doctor said.

While certain people will disagree with Dr. McHugh’s statements, more will probably agree. But the liberal media will likely try to smother those who find such transitions troubling and embrace actions that add to the moral decay of our country.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagFakebook News Dept.

Facebook News Dept. has been accused of filtering out important news that helps conservatives.

Facebook News Bias / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

SECRET IS OUT: Former Facebook Workers Say it Was Routine to Suppress Conservative News


waving flagPosted on May 9, 2016

No more guessing on this issue. Check out what the former employees were told to do.

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to thecompany’s claimsthat the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”free speech def

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealeddetails about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

UNBELIEVABLE! More From the SERIOUSLY DELUSIONAL File


waving flagFacebook’s Mark Zuckerberg: ‘Love’ will defeat ISIS

Mark_Zuckerberg_-_South_by_Southwest_2008_-_5According to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “love” will defeat ISIS, the militant Islamic group that has taken large areas of Iraq and Syria, brutally murdering anyone who holds a view different from theirs, Breitbart.com reported Tuesday, citing a post the tech mogul made on his own website.

“Each of these attacks were carried out with a goal to spread fear and distrust, and turn members of a community against each other,” he said, addressing recent attacks in Belgium, Turkey and Pakistan.

The “only sustainable way to fight back” against these militants is to “create a world” where everyone “feels cared for and loved,” he added.DELUSIONAL

On Easter Sunday, at least 70 people were murdered and 300 more were injured when a Taliban faction that supports ISIS detonated a bomb in a park filled with children.  The group said it had specifically targeted Christians in that attack.

As our own T.K. Whiteman reported, ISIS militants are plotting to murder Jewish children in Turkey.  Zuckerberg, by the way, is Jewish.

Islamic militants routinely post threats of violence, rape and murder on Facebook, yet the site does nothing.  Just ask Pam Geller.  In fact, Zuckerberg’s site routinely tells users that threats of violence do not violate their community standards.

According to the Religion of Peace blog, there have been 24 attacks in the week of March 19 – 25, resulting in 200 deaths and 395 more wounded.Do you want

Militant Islamic terrorism is nothing new, and Facebook’s response in recent years has primarily been to target those who report on it or those who oppose the idea of militant jihad.  This, by the way, is the subject of a book that Adina Kutnicki, an investigative journalist based in Israel, and I are currently working on.  That book is tentatively set to be published sometime this fall.

Zuckerberg is clearly living in a dream world if he thinks he can stop global militant jihad with a Coke and a stirring chorus of “Kumbaya.”

Alinsky affect Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberals Love Blacklists as Long as Conservatives are the Ones Being Blacklisted


waving flagWritten by Gary DeMar, Mar 1, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/liberals-love-blacklists-as-long-as-conservatives-are-the-ones-being-blacklisted

You may have heard the news report that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg “reprimanded employees for replacing ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogans with ‘All Lives Matter’ on the walls of the company’s headquarters in San Francisco.” “In a private Facebook post obtained by Gizmodo, Zuckerburg told employees that their behaviour was ‘malicious’ and ‘disrespectful,’ and reminded them that there are ‘specific issues affecting the black community in the United States.’” (H/T: Breitbart)

There are always “specific issues,” but not everyone has to agree with what those issues are or how they should be addressed. Facebook was built on the underlying principle that people could speak their mind to the world and not be molested about what they believed. That has changed.

Zuckerburg has joined the liberal blacklist brigade. Articles have been published on how Twitter is “shadowbanning” conservative tweets.

“A disturbing report from Breitbart reveals that Twitter has been ‘shadow banning’ some conservatives sites without telling the owners of the accounts that their tweets are being restricted. 

“According to the report, confirmed to Breitbart by a Twitter official, the company has a ‘white list’ and a ‘black list,’ with white list tweets getting favored search engine treatment while blacklisted accounts are left off timelines and virtually blocked from getting search engine coverage.” (H/T: American Thinker)

There isn’t enough space to describe how an unspoken blacklisting is rampant in today’s universities and the media. Try to get tenure at a major university if you’re a conservative.

In 2008, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich gave $1,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California. To a homosexual, it was like he gave money to Adolf Hitler or the Grand Kleagle of the KKK.

Other supporters faced the wrath of the Gaystapo for their support of Proposition 8.

Peter Vidmar, a double gold-medal winner in the 1984 Olympics in gymnastics, was forced to resign as Chairman of USA Gymnastics. Why? Because in 2008 he donated $2000 to support Proposition 8. The homosexual defamation machine went into action and put pressure on the Olympic Committee and its sponsors.

A letter writer to the San Francisco Chronicle who supported Prop 8 was intimidated when Internet search engines were used “to find the letter writer’s small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the ‘Comments’ section of SFGate.com — urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.”

The blacklist lives and thrives in the hands of liberals!

During the 1940s and 1950s, Hollywood producers, directors, and actors were being scrutinized for their political beliefs. The period of “red hysteria” put people’s jobs in the film industry in jeopardy. “Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist federal investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time.”

Writers and directors testified before Congress and the specially called House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). When a group of 10 writers and directors — the so-called Hollywood Ten — refused to testify before the committee, a Hollywood “blacklist” was instituted on November 25, 1947. On June 22, 1950, the journal Counterattack published Red Channels, a report on the “Communist Influence in Radio and Television.” The booklet identified 151 actors, writers, musicians, broadcast journalists, and others it believed were using the entertainment industry to spread Communist ideals. Even before publication, some on the list were already being denied employment because of their political beliefs. Beginning in May of 1947, the Counterattack newsletter published weekly information on the political views of entertainment figures.

On November 25, 1947 (the day after the House of Representatives approved citations of contempt for the Hollywood Ten because of their refusal to testify), Eric Johnston, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, issued a two-page press release that represented the views of the heads of the major studios. The “Waldorf Statement,” as it came to be called, announced the firing of the Hollywood Ten and stated:

“We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the 10 until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist. . . . We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States.”

Most people today would not recognize the names of the Hollywood Ten. The two-time Oscar-winner Dalton Trumbo (1905–1976) might be the exception since the release of the 2015 film Trumbo.

Read related article: Did You Know that According to the Film ‘Trumbo’ Communism is All about Sharing?

He started as one of the highest paid writers in Hollywood making $4000 per week and worked on a number of noted films: Kitty Foyle (1940), Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944), A Guy Named Joe (1943), Spartacus (1960), and Our Vines Have Tender Grapes (1945), starring Edward G. Robinson whose name was published in the Red Channels booklet, although Robinson was never “officially” blacklisted.

Trumbo’s 1939 anti-war novel, Johnny Got His Gun,1 won an American Book Sellers Award that year.2 It didn’t help Trumbo that the novel was serialized in the Communist periodical The Daily Worker in March 1940 and “became ‘a rally point for the left’ which had opposed involvement in World War II during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact.”

This and a visit from the FBI3 made Trumbo persona non grata among many in Hollywood, especially since, politics aside, bad publicity could doom a film that was written by a pacifist. How do you sell a movie to a patriotic public when the screenplay was written by a “Commie”? Hollywood was then and is now more about money than ideology. Left-leaning actors, writers, directors, and producers knew this, that’s why the movies they worked on did not espouse their radical ideology.

Let’s not forget that Communists, Trumbo included, had their own blacklists:

“When leftists have been in power, they, too, have eliminated their perceived ideological opponents from earning a living. Trumbo himself admitted to participating in the crushing of authors and works that did not agree with his ideology. Today, left-wingers on college campuses have all but eliminated anyone to their right from consideration for tenure-track employment. Facts like these would be welcome in any deep, rich, complex treatment of the life of a Dalton Trumbo.” (H/T: Front Page Mag)

Trumbo and his Communist friends made their money from the system of government and economies they hoped to replace with a failed political system. Little has changed in our day. Leftists extol the virtues of Che, Fidel, described as “Hollywood’s favorite tyrant,”4 and Hugo Chavez while failing to comprehend that their profession would be taken over and used for propaganda purposes.

Trumbo was still able to make a living while blacklisted since producers got his services at bargain-basement prices as long as his work went uncredited or was acknowledged under an assumed name (e.g., the film The Brave One). In fact, he had more work than he could handle.5

“The film blacklist ended in 1960 when Kirk Douglas, the star and executive producer of Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, credited blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo, of the Hollywood Ten, as the movie’s writer, using Trumbo’s real name. Ever since his blacklisting in 1947, Trumbo had been submitting scripts under the pseudonym Sam Jackson.  President-elect John Kennedy crossed American Legion picket lines to view Spartacus, thereby lending the credibility of the nation’s highest office to the effort to end blacklisting. . . .  Also in 1960, director Otto Preminger publicly announced that Trumbo had written his blockbuster film, Exodus.”6

The Hollywood blacklist era has outraged liberals for more than 60 years, but it hasn’t stopped modern-day liberals from creating their own blacklist of conservatives.


  1. The title comes from the line “Johnny get your gun” from the George M. Cohan song “Over There” (1917) that was used for recruitment for WW I and II. For the lyrics, go here. Watch the scene from Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) starring James Cagney who is shown singing the song along with soldiers marching in front of the White House. ↩
  2. In 1971, the novel was turned into a film of the same name and a low-budget Live On-Stage production in 2008. ↩
  3. Trumbo tells the circumstances surrounding the FBI visit in the Introduction to the 1959 edition of Johnny Got Your Gun (see here). ↩
  4. Humberto Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005). “The book criticizes American celebrities, particularly Hollywood actors, who support Fidel Castro’s government in Cuba and often travel to meet with Castro personally. Among those singled out are Jack Nicholson, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Chevy Chase, Steven Spielberg, Ted Turner, and Dan Rather.” ↩
  5. Ronald Radosh and Allis Radosh, Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), 208. ↩
  6. Richard A. Schwartz, “How the Film and Television Blacklists Worked.” ↩

Alinsky Rules for Radicals Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: