Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Social Media’

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Facebook had unpublished all of Matt’s pages.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.”

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.

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.”

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.

Islamic State Facts Every American Must Know


waving flagby Mary Chastain  7 Dec 2015

The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) has been terrorizing the Middle East for almost three years. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and President Barack Obama act as if they want the public to remain ignorant about a radical Islamic group so horrific that al-Qaeda does not want anything to do with them.

These are the facts that every American must know.

1. ISIS IS WINNING THE SOCIAL MEDIA WAR

Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. If it is a social media outlet, ISIS knows how to use it to amp up their recruits and spread their message.

In February, former National Security Council staffer Hillary Mann Leverett claimed the terrorist group sends out 90,000 social media messages a day. While that seems like a lot, others believe the number is actually double that number.

“My best estimate is something over 200,000 a day, including retweets, but that comes with a lot of caveats,” explained J.M. Berger, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution. “It is not entirely possible to break down members vs. fanboys and the bulk of accounts don’t visibly differentiate. But a plurality of the accounts we examined for the study appeared to be based in Iraq and Syria.”

Breitbart News regularly reports how militants use social media to recruit Westerners, especially women. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College discovered that the feeling of “sisterhood” was just as much of a draw as finding a mujahid groom for the majority of women from the West.

2. ISIS RAKES IN BETWEEN $25 TO $90 MILLION A MONTH FROM OIL SALES

Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 1.07.06 PM

The squabble between Turkey and Russia pushed the subject of ISIS-controlled oil fields into the headlines. Both countries accuse each other of purchasing oil from ISIS, but how much does that give the group?

In July 2014, experts believed oil earned ISIS at least $3 million a day, or roughly $90 million a month. The group captured numerous oil fields in Syria’s Diar Alzour province, including the Omar oil field. Almost a year later, the U.S. claimed ISIS was weakening, but militants “seized most of the Baiji oil refinery, the largest in Iraq.”

Other analysts said that ISIS only makes $2 million a month from oil, which is around $24 million a year.

3. ISIS CALIPHATE SPANS UP TO 35,000 SQUARE MILES

On, November 17, GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush tweeted out this picture of the caliphate.

The picture shows the state ISIS has formed so far is about the size of Indiana, with over 8 million residents. They established Raqqa, Syria, as the capital of their caliphate. In 2014, one publication said the the caliphate sized at 12,000 square miles while others put it at 35,000 miles. Either way, one thing remains constant: “They would like the entire world to be Muslim, but they want the world to be Muslim in a very, very narrowly defined manner,” said William Beeman, chair of the anthropology department at the University of Minnesota. “They are fundamentalist Muslims and their idea of Islam is quite different from the rest of the Islamic world.”

4. FBI RUNNING OVER 900 INVESTIGATIONS OF ISIS OPERATIVES IN THE 50 STATES

In October, FBI Director James Comey told intelligence officials his department is currently running at least 900 investigations against alleged ISIS operatives in America. However, the stats also showed that the majority of Americans are not fleeing to ISIS. That only means the domestic threat rises if they stay in the states.

5. THOSE INVESTIGATIONS SPAN TO ALL 50 STATES

Comey also alerted the nation that ISIS “tentacles” spread to all 50 states. Unfortunately, though, potential recruits and ISIS use encrypted software to communicate.

“ISIS is sending a poisonous message that buzzes in the pockets of troubled souls, unmoored people, all day long,” said Comey. “The challenge we face is finding those needles in a nationwide haystack, assessing where they are on a spectrum between consuming this poison and acting on it, and disrupting them before they act.”

6. 72 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMPLOYEES ON FEDERAL WATCHLIST

The second amendment clearly states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But Sunday night, President Barack Obama pushed for more gun control at the federal level by urging Congress to make sure people on the federal no-fly list can buy a gun. However, that list is far from perfect.

On December 1,

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) revealed an investigation in August showed 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security were on the watch list. This led to Lynch and other Democrats voting with Republicans on a bill to “ramp up screening requirements for Syrian and Iraqi refugees.” He said:

Back in August, we did an investigation—the inspector General did—of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security. The director had to resign because of that. Then we went further and did and eight-airport investigation. We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95 percent failure rate. We had folks—this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate.

Which leads us to the final fact:

7. ZERO SAN BERNARDINO TERRORISTS WERE ON THAT NO-FLY LIST

The no-fly list mentioned 72 Homeland Security employees. In the past, the name “T. Kennedy” appeared on the list, causing troubles for former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Civil Rights icon

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) ended up on the list, which caused numerous headaches and travel delays. Babies and toddlers remained on the list.

But Obama and Democrats want to rely on the list, even though San Bernardino terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik never appeared on the list. They slaughtered 14 people in cold blood. Investigators believe Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS. Others said the bombs the couple made mirrored those in al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine. CBS confirmed reports that both of the attackers viewed ISIS propaganda online.

They never once appeared on the no-fly list.

Do you want America are you really paying attention In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: