GOV/MIL Leftists Call For New "Secret Police" Force To Spy On Trump Supporters (AN ABSOLUTELY MUST-READ THREAD)

Walrus Whisperer

Hope in chains...

"Even Libertarians": John Brennan Issues 'List' Of Ideologies Biden Intel Community Should Go After

WEDNESDAY, JAN 20, 2021 - 21:05
Well this is alarming and ominous to say the least... Former CIA Director John Brennan told MSNBC in an interview on inauguration day that the intelligence community under newly sworn in President Biden is "moving in laser-like fashion" to try and uncover dangerous plots against the country.

Naturally, there's been much of this worrisome commentary about what political ideologies should be targeted and monitored coming out of NatSec hawks in the wake of the Capitol Hill mayhem of January 6. But this is the first time such a broad array of groups have been so bluntly lumped into a Pro-Trump "insurgency" by an influential media pundit and former spook. Brennan expressly said they are "violent" and remain a domestic threat.

He said in the MSNBC interview without the least concern for violation of Americans' rights that intelligence agencies should look into "religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians...".

He said these belief systems have come together under the umbrella of a supposed pro-Trump movement capable of committing violence.
Ah yes, "even libertarians"...

"I had white knuckles because of the nature of the threats," he began by recalling his days as CIA Director. We've seen "the growth of this polarization in the United States and domestic violence and White supremacist groups," he continued.

Comparing this "threat" to a foreign insurgency which the US has lately battled overseas, he said it


He added: "And unfortunately I think there’s been this momentum that generated as a result of unfortunately the demagogic rhetoric of people that’s just departed government, but also those who continue in the halls of Congress and so I really do think that the law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence, and even the defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic."

Interestingly, Brennan spoke as if these groups are already being looked into and spotlighted by US intelligence under Biden. "Even Libertarians," apparently.

Increasingly, it looks like Inauguration Day for intelligence insiders like Brennan represents "Deep State back on top" in America.
Someone needs a dose of that make that constipation go away medicine. Look at that face!
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Ankeny parents sign petition threatening to unenroll students over mask mandate

By KCCI
Published: Sep. 23, 2021 at 4:35 AM PDT

ANKENY, Iowa (KCCI) - More than 1,300 parents in the Ankeny Community School District signed a petition threatening to unenroll their children if the district reinstates its mask mandate.

It comes after a tension-filled, three-hour meeting to gather public input on the matter ended with the district deciding to begin requiring masks again starting Thursday.

A paragraph in the online petition reads, “Ankeny parents signing this petition are opposed to a mandatory mask policy and willing to unenroll their children for the Oct. 1 enrollment certification date if mask are mandated again.”

KCCI reports unenrolling a student from the district before October 1 would cost the district more than $7,000 per student unenrolled.

That many students unenrolling could be financially devastating to the district and its students.
In a statement, the district said it’s aware of the petition.

“We recognize that parents and guardians have the right to unenroll their student(s) from the district at any time for any reason.”

A district parent told KCCI the decision on whether to mask or not should be up to the family and not the schools.

“I think it is 100 percent important, up to the parents, I should say,” Tyler Maldonado, parent of an Ankeny public school student, said.'

Maldonado has heard of the petition, but said he has not signed it.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

FRIDAY, SEP 24, 2021 - 06:00 PM
Authored by Ken Silva via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is touting a raft of new programs aimed to combat domestic extremism—many of which are raising red flags among interest groups across the political spectrum.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on terror threats to the United States in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington on Sept. 21, 2021. (Jim Lo Scalzo-Pool/Getty Images)

The new DHS plans follow a March intelligence community report that deems white supremacy and violent domestic extremism as the most dangerous terror threat to the homeland. Mayorkas made similar statements at a Sept. 21 Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on counterterrorism.
“Today, U.S.-based lone actors and small groups, including homegrown violent extremists and domestic violent extremists—who are inspired by a broad range of ideological motivations—pose the most significant and persistent terrorism-related threat to our country,” he said.
These “broad range of ideological motivations” include “racial bias, perceived government overreach, conspiracy theories promoting violence, and false narratives about unsubstantiated fraud in the 2020 presidential election,”

He didn’t elaborate on what he meant by “perceived government overreach” or “conspiracy theories promoting violence.” He did, however, assure lawmakers that his department is working hard to combat these perceived threats.

One of the major programs touted by Mayorkas is the newly branded DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), formerly known as the Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention. In conjunction with that, the DHS is in the midst of a $77 million grant program aimed to provide state and local institutions with tools to counter extremism.

The DHS first announced CP3 in May along with a new dedicated domestic terrorism branch within the Department’s Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A). Mayorkas told the Homeland Security panel that CP3 is helping expand the department’s ability to prevent terrorism and targeted violence “through the development of local prevention frameworks.”
“Through CP3, we are leveraging community-based partnerships and evidence-based tools to address early-risk factors and ensure individuals receive help before they radicalize to violence,” he said.
However, Mayorkas didn’t offer details about other elements of CP3—elements that various interest groups say pose a threat to liberty.

Among the details that weren’t discussed are what CP3 says on its own site—that it “leverages behavioral threat assessment and management tools, and addresses early-risk factors that can lead to radicalization to violence.”

According to human rights activist Ed Hasbrouck, consultant to the nonprofit Identity Project, this mission amounts to a pre-crime program.
“CP3’s attempts to predict future crimes are to be based on behavioral patterns— i.e., profiling—and on encouraging members of the public to inform on their families, friends, and classmates,” Hasbrouck wrote when CP3 was first announced.
“The problem, of course, is that the law does not permit prosecution based solely on patterns of lawful behavior,” he wrote. “With good reason: ‘precrime’ prediction is a figment of the imagination of the creators of a dystopian fantasy movie, ‘Minority Report.’”
The Brennan Center for Justice has expressed similar concerns. Far from a conservative group, the Brennan Center agrees with the DHS and FBI that domestic extremism is a rising threat.
“Over the past five years, from Charlottesville to Pittsburgh to El Paso, attacks by people who reject our multiracial democracy have shaken our country to its core and sparked conversation about how best to address far-right violence,” the group stated in a June report.


“The Trump administration, which stoked the flames of white supremacy, ended with the ransacking of the U.S. Capitol as Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.”
But the Brennan Center said CP3 and the Biden administration’s overall approach to countering domestic extremism—enhanced surveillance, profiling, and the like—are the same draconian tactics government used against Muslims post-9/11.

“At a time when jurisdictions around the country are considering how to reduce law enforcement involvement in mental health and social issues, CP3 prevention activities take the opposite approach. They create structures to bring a broad range of concerns about mental health and socioeconomic conditions to the attention of law enforcement as indicators of criminality without normal safeguards,” the Brennan Center stated in its June 69-page report on the issue.

Not only are the DHS-Biden plans a threat to civil liberties; they’re also proven to be ineffective, the Brennan Center said.

The Brennan Center report paid particular focus to DHS “fusion centers”—law enforcement compounds scattered throughout the United States that seek to integrate federal, state, and local intelligence. The goal of fusion centers is to create partnerships between varying agencies and the private sector to share intelligence on threats to public safety so law enforcement has the whole picture and can “connect the dots.”

Citing congressional reports from 2012, the Brennan Center stated that these fusion centers have proven to be ineffective. Those reports found that the DHS spent $289 million to $1.4 billion in public funds to support state and local fusion centers since 2003, with little results to show.
“Instead of looking for terrorist threats, fusion centers were monitoring lawful political and religious activity. That year, the Virginia Fusion Center described a Muslim get-out-the-vote campaign as ‘subversive,’” the Brennan Center stated in its June report. “In 2009, the North Central Texas Fusion Center identified lobbying by Muslim groups as a possible threat.”
Seemingly little has improved since then.

Earlier in September, NBC News revealed an investigation into fusion centers. The report starts with an anecdote of Mike Sena, the president of the National Fusion Center Association, bragging that the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) helped stop a mall shooting attack in Santa Clara.

NBC News found that Sena was apparently stretching the extent to which his fusion center helped.
“We don’t have any information showing that NCRIC was involved,” said Steven Aponte, a San Jose Police Department spokesperson.
The Brennan Center stated in its June report that the Biden administration is inappropriately involving law enforcement in social problems and should focus on “community investment, not criminalization.”

“Communities around the United States should not need to sign up for a counterterrorism program to get resources for their schools, universities, places of worship, or social institutions,” the Brennan Center stated.

“Government commitments should directly address these as social problems rather than treat those experiencing them as potential violent criminals, and should wall off programs addressing social ills from law enforcement across levels of government.”
 

marsh

TB Fanatic
[Long Article Read the rest on website]

Don’t Fall For The FBI’s “Civil War” Trap

September 23, 2021 (1d ago)



Guest Post by Scott Greer
Right-wingers of all stripes can never get enough of talking about the supposed civil war on the horizon. This topic got a boost in attention over the last month following America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some saw the Taliban’s defeat of the Globalist American Empire as a sign fed-up patriots can do the same in Appalachia. Comedian Sarah Silverman further sparked discussion last week on civil war after she called for a national divorce.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1437236890885754880
1:12 min

Many conservatives praised her for sharing this bold idea with the masses. They believe a peaceful national divorce is the only realistic option going forward.

However, the conditions for a civil war don’t exist in America. There’s too much prosperity, a very powerful government, an overtly content population, lots of bread and circuses, and no institutions or leaders to bring forth a separation. I’ve covered these reasons at length on my podcast.

Some readers will probably disagree with these arguments and insist civil war/national divorce is a viable option. But there’s one argument they can’t disagree with: The group that’s most eager for the Right to embrace civil war talk is federal law enforcement. That alone should make conservatives think twice about sharing Boogaloo memes.

Ever since Donald Trump’s election, the Globalist American Empire has sought to portray ordinary white Americans as the gravest threat to “our democracy.” They’ve been able to point at a few misfits and deranged mass shooters to make this point. Hate hoaxes were brandished as proof that racist marauders are attacking minorities with impunity thanks to Trump. A few insane gunmen killing in the name of some fringe ideology were blamed on the entirety of white America. Even protests and rallies were deemed acts of terrorism. See January 6. All of this has helped build the narrative that “white extremists” are the biggest threat to America.

Federal agencies can point to all this activity and declare a domestic war on terrorism. The White House categorized “white supremacists” and “militia violent extremists” as the “most persistent and lethal threats” to America in a summer memo. That memo called for the government to “prevent” and “disrupt” domestic terror attacks before they happen. All Americans would like the feds to stop violence before it happens. But Revolver readers should know that these plots stopped by feds are often created by feds in the first place.

This is the chief problem with civil war rhetoric. People who are encouraged in the false belief that war is right around the corner will do stupid things and make themselves easy targets for federal entrapment. At best, civil war rhetoric is nothing more than empty chest-thumping on Twitter. At worst, it gets you several years in federal prison.

Let’s take the example of the hapless souls arrested for the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. The anti-government militiamen were set up by federal agents and informants. Their plan was frankly insane. Any sensible person would’ve told them that it would’ve never worked and it would put them in jail for many years. But the 12 federal informants (at least) involved in the case kept pushing these misguided radicals in a disastrous direction. They told their targets this plot would work and it would lead to the civil conflict they craved. Instead, it led to the targets facing serious federal charges.

Informants persuaded the would-be revolutionaries with a lot of the rhetoric you’d see on the Internet. They prodded the targets to continue on with the plot and called them wimps if they had doubts. They even paid for rides and provided training for the fantasy scheme. While the feds were responsible for these misguided subjects committing a federal crime, that doesn’t excuse the rhetoric from the targets themselves. They truly believed they could pull off a civil war from what they read on social media. They believed they could “kidnap tyrants” and bring down the whole system. The feds encouraged them in these delusions.

But when it all came tumbling down, these would-be revolutionaries insisted they weren’t serious and it was all just talk. One of the leaders, Peter Musico, bawled in front of his defense attorney when they first met. This same man had bragged about killing cops just a few months earlier. Like most people who talk tough on the internet, he wasn’t ready for war. He was just spouting off. His civil war plans weren’t serious. This talk can be easily exploited by bad actors for their nefarious ends. If you aren’t ready to go to federal jail for a long time, you should probably not brag about how you’re ready to be a guerrilla.

The entrapment scheme perfectly served the Globalist American Empire’s interests. Just before the election, feds and the media were able to scare the public into believing that right-wing extremists are the number one terror threat. These monsters tried to kidnap a governor and overthrow a state government! Of course, they didn’t mention that the feds were behind the whole affair or that these guys posed no threat to anyone. They were set up by bad actors, and their own mistaken desire for civil war pushed them into the feds’ trap. The Whitmer plot helped solidify the narrative the GAE pushes about domestic terror. Time magazine asserted:

“The Michigan Plot Lays Bare the Dangers of Ignoring the Far-Right Threat.” Their answer? Focus more on the “far-right threat,” even if there isn’t one and it’s entirely controlled by the feds.

There are other recent examples of wannabe insurgents getting ensnared in fed honeypots.

Atomwaffen and The Base are two such cases. Both neo-Nazi groups tried to be as edgy as possible, encouraging not only terrorism but genocide as well. They would constantly post that there is “no political solution” and the only thing to be done was to train for the upcoming civil war. Several members of both groups now sit in federal prison thanks to this rhetoric that was encouraged by federal agents and informers. Joshua Caleb Sutter, an influential figure and propagandist within Atomwaffen, was paid over $140,000 by the FBI to spy on white nationalists. He was paid $80,000 for his work on Atomwaffen. Sutter provided key evidence against Atomwaffen leaders to the FBI. Atomwaffen became a favorite media bogeyman during the Trump years due to their terror fetishism and alleged plots. Much of this was due to the work of a federal informant.

An undercover FBI agent was able to snare several members of The Base in a terror plot in 2020. The agent was able to access The Base’s encrypted online messaging platform and aid members in weapons training. He nabbed multiple members on serious state charges after they planned to kill Antifa members. It’s possible that the agent was the one who suggested this idea in the first place. The arrests were widely covered in the media and held up as another example of the threat of far-right extremists.

Most conservatives recognize the scrutiny of the federal government when it comes to protests. Very few people showed up to the Justice for J6 rally Saturday over fears it would be a trap. Based on the evidence of undercover cops mingling in the crowd, this fear was proven to be correct.

But if people are rightfully hesitant to show up to public demonstrations due to feds, why would they not have the same opinion of associating with people aiming for civil war? It’s easier to press federal charges for trumped up terror plots than it is for protesting. It’s also easier for the feds to warn of the danger from right-wing extremists with foiled terror plots rather than demonstrations. For some reason, a lot of conservatives don’t grasp this concept. They still fantasize that their little militia will avoid fed entrapment and be prepared to duke it out with the United States military. They’re far more skeptical of those organizing protests than they are of people organizing secessionist movements.

The feds are investing a ton of resources into persecuting conservative Americans. They need “threats” they can show to the public to prove their focus is warranted. The number of feds sent to the Justice for J6 rally shows how eager they are to prosecute anyone they can paint as a terrorist. Civil war hype helps their effort tremendously. The federal government isn’t threatened by people spouting off about separation or war on the Internet. The feds know they have the military, the courts, the media, and the police on their side. They even have the family and friends of “terrorists” on their side, as evidenced by the large number of J6 protesters who have been turned in and disowned by their family and friends. The government knows civil war is unrealistic—that’s why they encourage it.

Entrapping wayward youths and rednecks in terror plots doesn’t just secure the FBI’s budget. It also justifies censorship, hate speech laws, deplatforming, and policies designed to weaken the historic American nation. If the feds can claim the arrested terrorists organized online, that puts more pressure on Big Tech to shut down free speech. If they say the terrorists used any type of payment processor, that puts more pressure on financial institutions to cut off anyone deemed a right-wing extremist. If they say the suspected terrorists believed in the Great Replacement “conspiracy theory,” that puts pressure on politicians to open the borders to stick it to the terrorists. An ever-present terror threat allows the Globalist American Empire to seize more power and erase more of our civil liberties.

[Long Article Read the rest on website]
 

marsh

TB Fanatic
[Long article, continued on website]

Kyle Rittenhouse’s Trial Reveals Government’s Plan To Unleash “Thought Crimes” In Our Courts
September 24, 2021 ( ago)


More than a year has passed, but Kyle Rittenhouse still isn’t home free. The Illinois teenager is still in danger of spending the rest of his life in prison, if convicted on two homicide charges brought by the state of Wisconsin.

In a Friday court hearing, prosecutors revealed their strategy for putting Rittenhouse away forever: Tar him as a thought criminal.
Prosecutors in the Rittenhouse case asked the judge allow them to admit evidence of Rittenhouse’s meetings with members of the Proud Boys — including photos taken at a Mount Pleasant tavern showing him posing with members of the group, a right-wing organization that has been involved in violent protests and counter protests round the United States.
At the hearing, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said that the state has since learned that the men Rittenhouse met for lunch at the Pudgy’s tavern just off Highway 20 were leaders of the Proud Boys in Wisconsin. Binger said Rittenhouse also met in Miami with the national leaders of the Proud Boys. [Kenosha News]
The government’s strategy to destroy Kyle Rittenhouse’s life doesn’t just matter for his own case. It matters because these same strategies will be used to systematically strip the right to a fair trial from any American targeted by the ruling regime.

A few core facts, to jog your memory: On August 23 of the Summer of Floyd, Kenosha police shot Jacob Blake as he resisted arrest and attempted to drive away with children the police believed he was kidnapping. Though Blake survived, Kenosha erupted into “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” that left the downtown scorched.



On the third night of the riots, Rittenhouse, who turned out to protect local businesses and clean up vandalism, shot and killed two people amid the carnage.

Eyewitness accounts and video footage are clear about what happened. One of the rioters, an unstable man named Joseph Rosenbaum, began pursuing Rittenhouse. As Rittenhouse fled, he heard shots fired behind him (by whom remains unclear). Rittenhouse turned around and saw Rosenbaum lunging toward him (and toward his gun). Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum.

Then, as Rittenhouse continued attempting to flee the scene, several more people attacked him. After tripping to the ground, Rittenhouse shot and killed Anthony Huber after Huber hit him with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle. He wounded Gaige Grosskreutz after Grosskreutz lunged for him holding a handgun.

The video footage in both shootings is crystal clear. The three people Rittenhouse shot were all attacking him. Revolver News was one of the first media outlets to unequivocally argue that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Eventually, other media outlets came around and even the New York Times conceded that Revolver’s analysis was in essence correct.

It is simply indefensible to criminally charge Rittenhouse in light of the actual facts of his case. But charged he was, with two counts of first degree murder (and a bevy of lesser charges).

So what was the government’s plan? Simple — use a relentless character assassination campaign to make the clear fact of Rittenhouse’s self-defense irrelevant.

The government revealed its strategy in detail on Friday, during a preliminary hearing on the evidence that will be allowed during the November trial. Law and Crime reporter Colin Kalmbacher described the hearing at length on Twitter.

Phase 1 of the prosecution’s plan is to link Rittenhouse to the Proud Boys, and accuse him of racism for making the “okay” sign in a photo.


Kyle Rittenhouse meeting with Proud Boys members [Kenosha County DA]

“Most everyone there was there because of their beliefs, one way or the other, in regards to the shooting of Jacob Blake,” prosecutor Thomas Binger argued. “Chaos tourists like the defendant were drawn like a moth to the flame to our community. He was drawn to this incident because of his beliefs, which align with the Proud Boys. They take pride in using violence to achieve their means.”

[Long article, continued on website]
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Liberal Soros Connected Group Sends Letter to FCC Calling to “Shoot Republicans”

By Joe Hoft
Published September 26, 2021 at 9:00am

George Soros is behind numerous groups whose purpose is power. Two of these groups are the Center for American Progress and the Open Society Foundations. Another is Free Press.

Like all things left, whether bills or entity names, left-wing related entities, and policies always have grandiose names that represent the opposite of what they really are. Think about Obamacare that destroyed healthcare for millions of Americans, increased health care costs and taxes like never before, and distributed health care expenses from the poor to the wealthy, labeled the Affordable Care Act. Another example is the bill that will steal elections forever that is in the House, labeled ‘For the People Act’.

So it comes as no surprise that the left-wing Soros connected group, Center for American Progress, calls for shooting Americans who love their country.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

A left-wing group funded by the Center for American Progress and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations submitted a letter to the government that advocated for murdering Republicans.
Free Press, a well-funded liberal group that aims to “reshape media” in the United States, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission that included the question: “Are we going to have to shoot Republican to reclaim our democracy?”

The Free Press letter, which called on the FCC to “investigate its own history of racism and examine how its policy choices and actions have harmed black people and other communities of color,” was signed by just under 5,000 of the group’s members, who were given the opportunity to provide comment along with their signature. The call to “shoot” Republicans came from a California member named David Lyons, who further complained that “racist horseshit like FOX and the other ultraconservative outlets and Christians” owned “most of our media.”
Free Press formally withdrew the petition after FCC commissioner Brendan Carr said its inclusion of violent rhetoric was disqualifying.
These are the people who want to run this country and who believe they know better than you. Ask yourself, who acts more like Nazis, these people or conservatives who love freedom, fair elections, God, and their country?
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

[CANADA]
Pastor Artur Pawlowski arrested at Calgary Airport…

Posted by Kane on September 27, 2021 8:07 pm

View: https://youtu.be/KlBeTllOn6o
1:33 min

Artur Pawlowski arrested upon arrival in Calgary

Earlier today, police arrested Pastor Artur Pawlowski in a shocking raid at Calgary airport.

He was returning from a speaking tour in the United States. The police rushed onto the tarmac and the moment he stepped off the plane he was arrested, handcuffed and taken to prison.

View: https://youtu.be/2ewTGl7u-Z0
2:26 min

Church and family members at airport…

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1442583658850705415
.04 min


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1442610528073838595
1:31 min

1632802669583.png

View: https://youtu.be/7DYYIVH9NaE
55:40 min
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

The Left Virtual-Signals to Mask Its Intolerance

ByJeff Davidson
27 September 2021




In the 2020 election season, when driving through towns in central North Carolina, my adopted home state, you’d see signs on front lawns or in picture windows that say, “Love Trumps Hate,” “Love is the Answer,” or, “Hate Has No Home Here.” On car bumpers, you’d see stickers proclaiming, “No Hate in My State.” You probably saw the same thing.

Such virtue-signalers are quick to plant BLM signs too, just so you know that they are sufficiently ‘woke.’ They fervently believe that all conservatives—and President Trump in particular and anyone who voted for him—are a hate-filled, despicable, deplorable lot, who dislike immigrants, children, old people, dogs, and clean air.

Sheltered for decades in the Leftist mainstream media bubble, these yard-sign-bearers have a contorted world-view. For them, all news and information arrives filtered through the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, AP, Reuters, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

Erroneous Contentions Galore
The Left erroneously espouses that Trump hated immigrants, a contention that is simply wrong: Unlike Biden, he didn’t want endless floods of illegal immigrants arriving, especially when orchestrated by Leftist groups continually seeking to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Illegal immigrants storm our borders and overrun our facilities. Contrary to Leftist drivel, they account for a disproportionately high amount of crime. Democrats don’t care; they let illegals jump ahead of people who’ve been waiting in line legally for months, or years, to become U.S. citizens. The latter, you see, usually don’t vote Democrat.

The misguided Left contended that President Trump is an anti-Semite. This is ridiculous on its face, as Ivanka Trump Kushner, his politically prominent daughter, converted to Judaism to marry a Jew, and her three children – his three grandchildren – are all Jewish. Moreover, Trump’s support for Israel was unyielding, unlike Biden.

Even as his minority support tripled over that from 2016, the Left would have you believe that Donald Trump was a racist who harms Black people. Yet, before he ran for President, he was honored on numerous occasions by the NAACP and other African-American groups. Amazingly, the nano-second he announced his candidacy in 2015, that all changed!

Proclaiming Much, While Knowing Little
The Left always knows best, even when they know little, which is most of the time. If members of the Left occasionally proceeded beyond the mainstream media bubble, in which they are firmly ensconced, and read more widely, these cloistered folks might realize that it is Democrats, ‘Progressives’, and Leftists in general who promulgate most of the hate in society today.

‘Love Trumps Hate’ is a pleasant thought, and an intriguing notion. Thus, it is shameful that Leftists are so venomous. Here are a few items and issues, out of scores more, that many of those on the Left loathe:
  • People who disagree with them politically
  • fair and effective voter I.D. laws
  • acknowledging the cerebral differences between men and women
  • encountering acts of patriotism
  • free speech on campus (unless of course they agree with it)
  • merit-based college acceptance
  • acknowledging the rights of the unborn
  • anyone who does not conform to political ‘correctness’
  • maintaining U.S. sovereignty via secure borders, and
  • African-Americans who deign not to be Democrats.
Also:
  • news features about illegal immigrant crime
  • anyone who is deeply religious, except Muslims
  • school vouchers
  • returning power to state and local school boards
  • anyone who runs for, or wins, office as a Republican or Libertarian, and
  • seeing 20,000+ people at Trump (peaceful protest) rallies, with thousands more outside who want to attend—while Joe Biden only draws 10 to 50 people, if that many.
Less Tolerant than Conservatives
Pew Charitable Trust researchers found that those on the Left actually are less tolerant than conservatives, based on the Leftist’s tendency to “unfriend” or to stop following someone a social media site when their viewpoints are challenged.

“Roughly four-in-ten consistent liberals on Facebook (44%) indicated they have blocked or de-friended someone” because they “disagreed with something that person posted about politics.”

Only “31% of consistent conservatives” and 26% of Facebook users overall have acted similarly.

Could their ingrained lack of tolerance be the driving force behind their propensity to engage in virtue-signaling? I vote, yes! While Leftists outwardly feign tolerance, within them intolerance reigns.
 

Griz3752

Retired, practising Curmudgeon

[CANADA]
Pastor Artur Pawlowski arrested at Calgary Airport…

Posted by Kane on September 27, 2021 8:07 pm

View: https://youtu.be/KlBeTllOn6o
1:33 min

Artur Pawlowski arrested upon arrival in Calgary

Earlier today, police arrested Pastor Artur Pawlowski in a shocking raid at Calgary airport.

He was returning from a speaking tour in the United States. The police rushed onto the tarmac and the moment he stepped off the plane he was arrested, handcuffed and taken to prison.

View: https://youtu.be/2ewTGl7u-Z0
2:26 min

Church and family members at airport…

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1442583658850705415
.04 min


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1442610528073838595
1:31 min

View attachment 292534

View: https://youtu.be/7DYYIVH9NaE
55:40 min
But no idea of the actual charge or charges? I was aware of him but other than some small finger pointing dust up w/ the Mayor ( a Muslin in Cow Town, go figure), he wasn't very notable.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic
But no idea of the actual charge or charges? I was aware of him but other than some small finger pointing dust up w/ the Mayor ( a Muslin in Cow Town, go figure), he wasn't very notable.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1o4__XZM4
3:37 min starts at 1:36 min
Pastor kicks out police trying to shut down Easter Service
(It happened several times)
Premiered Apr 5, 2021

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJazwy-DQRA
4:47 min
Gestapo came again to intimidate the Church parishioners during the Passover!!! Unbelievable!

Premiered Apr 4, 2021

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Xbo-RB70A

The Gestapo came again attacking the Church!

Apr 24, 2021

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EJLrsQw7Q
8:19 min
Pastor Artur Pawlowski Arrested 10 Times For Feeding The Homeless In Calgary!
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

[WATCH]: 'FREEDOM' Video Featuring Joe Rogan Strikes a Nerve

BY GWENDOLYN SIMS SEP 28, 2021 7:09 PM ET

(AP Photo/David Duprey, File)
On Monday, outspoken podcast host/stand-up comic/mixed martial arts fanatic/psychedelic adventurer Joe Rogan posted the following badass video* to Instagram, and it looks like it struck a nerve with freedom-loving Americans:

*Warning: Strong Language

Login • Instagram 1:44 min

1632895961890.png
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

VA Dem Gov. Candidate Terry McAuliffe: “I Don’t Think Parents Should be Telling Schools What They Should Teach” (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published September 29, 2021 at 12:48pm


Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe said parents shouldn’t be telling schools what they should teach during Tuesday night’s debate with Republican Glenn Younkin.

Terry McAuliffe is an old Clintonite.

The Clintons are funding McAuliffe’s gubernatorial run…AGAIN.

Democrat McAuliffe doesn’t believe parents should have a say in what their kids are learning in school.

“The parents had the right to veto books… also take them off the shelves,” McAuliffe said. “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions.”

“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” McAuliffe added.

VIDEO:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1443252749571960833
.30 min
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

UCLA Prof. Gordon Klein Sues After Suspension and Smears For Refusing Preferential Exam Treatment For Black Students

“This dispute originated in June 2020 when a non-black student asked Plaintiff to grade his “Black classmates” differently than other students. Plaintiff rejected this request….

Posted by William A. JacobsonTuesday, September 28, 2021 at 09:40pm
https://youtu.be/fv6Y3a4BV6E


In the weeks and months after the death of George Floyd a vicious and malicious cancel culture purge swept academia, with professors who expressed views not in complete sync with radical campus opinion being subjected to firings and attempted firings, harassment and intimidation, and defamation.

Some of the cases we covered in that time period included St. Joseph’s Math Professor Gregory Manco, Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, Cornell Chemistry Prof. David Collum, UCF Psychology Prof. Charles Negy, U. Chicago Geophysicist Prof. Dorian Abbot, McGill Univ. Anthropology Emeritus Prof. Philip Carl Salzman, U. Miami Law Prof. Dan Ravicher, USC Business Prof. Greg Patton, Princeton Classics Prof. Joshua Katz, several Skidmore College professors, University of North Texas Music Theory Prof. Gregory Jackson, Michigan State Physics Prof. Stephen Hsu, and of course, me. Since then, the list has expanded.
In many if not most of the cases, Presidents, Deans, and other administrators were aiders and abetters.

But of all the cases, the attack on Prof. Gordon Klein at UCLA’s Anderson Business School was perhaps the most insane – truly other-worldly.

Prof. Klein’s alleged offense was that he insisted on treating black students equally. He refused a request by a white student to allow black students preferential treatment on final exams.

Because such a racial preference would violate UCLA’s anti-discrimination policies (and maybe even the law), Klein refused. Students then launched a defamatory campaign against Prof. Klein, and the cowards who run UCLA’s Anderson School capitulated, denouncing and suspending Klein. He eventually was reinstated — because he did absolutely nothing wrong — but not before his reputation and career were severely damaged.

Prof. Klein has just filed a lawsuit in California state court, and among the things he wants, is for UCLA administrators to be held personally liable.

In the Complaint, Prof. Klein alleges, among other things:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Gordon Klein (“Plaintiff”), a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA” or “University”), was severely punished by UCLA after he refused to implement a different grading policy solely for black students.
2. This dispute originated in June 2020 when a non-black student asked Plaintiff to grade his “Black classmates” differently than other students. Plaintiff rejected this request, knowing that his employment contract – and California law – required him to apply the same grading standards and requirements to all students. He also refused because his faculty supervisor recently had encouraged instructors to reject requests for special exam accommodations.
3. After Plaintiff’s email reply to the student was posted on social media, some furious individuals called Plaintiff “woefully racist” and organized an online campaign to attack Plaintiff and the UCLA Anderson School of Management (“Anderson School”), where Plaintiff teaches. The Anderson School hastily buckled under this pressure and sought permission from the University to impose disciplinary sanctions on Plaintiff, including terminating his employment.1 But, as noted below, the University rebuffed the Anderson School, warning that “the School may not take any action . . . at this time” against Plaintiff.
4. Despite this firm directive, the Anderson School administration abruptly suspended Plaintiff from his teaching duties, banned him from its campus, and hired others to replace him in future scheduled courses. Moreover, the Dean of the Anderson School, Defendant Antonio Bernardo (“Bernardo”), disparaged Plaintiff to alumni and the general public based on the private communications between Plaintiff and the student who had requested preferential race-based grading policies (“Student”). Dean Bernardo even went so far as to publicly disclose the adverse personnel action the School had improperly imposed on Plaintiff.
5. After examining the facts, the University eventually closed its investigation and reinstated Plaintiff.2 Later, the UCLA Senate Committee on Academic Freedom criticized the Anderson School administration, noting that it had violated Plaintiff’s rights and, more broadly, that such conduct “chills” instructors from expressing views that differ from prevailing campus orthodoxy.
6. Plaintiff brings this action not only to redress the wrongful conduct he has endured but also to protect academic freedom.
The Complaint provides details on the nature of preferential treatment demanded and the shameful capitulation at the Anderson School:
19. After the homicide of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, a group of students and others initiated a coordinated email campaign for the claimed purpose of encouraging UCLA instructors to grant final exam accommodations for their “Black classmates.”
20. These students circulated online a document entitled “Letter Writing for Finals Accommodations for Black Students.” This template asked professors to adopt grading policies that “exercise compassion and leniency with Black students.” In particular, according to the Student, an objective of this template was to encourage professors to give only black students optional, “no-harm” final exams. A “no-harm” exam is a test whose score is counted as part of a student’s course grade only if it raises the student’s overall blended course average, but not if it diminishes it.6 Students who take an exam on a “no-harm” basis thus tend to receive higher course grades than those who do not….
22. On or about June 1, 2020, in apparent response to this concerted email campaign, Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor at the Anderson School, Professor Judson Caskey (“Caskey”), circulated guidance “strongly encouraging” Anderson School instructors “to follow the normal procedures” if “students ask for accommodations such as assignment delays or exam cancellations.” That is, according to the University’s investigation, Caskey “advised faculty not to make exam-related adjustments” or grant “accommodations on the basis of race, protests, or police brutality.”
23. That same day, a faculty colleague informed Plaintiff that, if instructors did not capitulate to these students’ demands, they would be labeled with the hurtful and derogatory term “yt,” or “whitey,” and their supervisors’ contact information would be highlighted in red on a spreadsheet circulated among participants of the online email campaign. The color red signaled to allies that they should email complaints to the non-capitulating professors’ supervisors. In response, to protect individual faculty members from harassment, several UCLA academic departments banded together to issue joint statements of refusal. Notably, the Anderson School did not.
24. Plaintiff’s faculty colleague further told him on that occasion that, rather than resist this pressure campaign, many professors were giving away unearned “A” grades like “free candy at Halloween.” ….
31. Although UCLA has argued that the Student posed “reasonable exam administration inquiries,” in reality, the Student’s request was exceedingly unreasonable and, indeed, unworkable. For instance, offering black students “no-harm” exams effectively would give them the option to not take the final exam in a class where final exam performance was the entire basis for their course grade, leaving an instructor without any data on which to base course grades. Moreover, adoption of the Student’s request would have imposed on Plaintiff the unseemly and cumbersome task of determining which students studying remotely were black….
The Complaint then alleges as series of actions by the administration to publicly shame Klein, including public announcements, official tweets, and disclosure of employment action taken against Prof. Klein:
43. Bernardo knew or should have known that widespread public disclosure of his decision to place Plaintiff on administrative leave and relieve Plaintiff of his teaching duties (the “Confidential Personnel Action”) would have devastating consequences for Plaintiff. Moreover, Bernardo knew or should have known that public disclosure of the Confidential Personnel Action would violate the University’s admonition he had received the previous day that “further inquiry is warranted before action can be taken” against Plaintiff. And Bernardo knew or should have known that public disclosure of the Confidential Personnel Action would violate University rules prohibiting such disclosure.
44. Additionally, the above email created the false impression that Plaintiff was not committed to an equitable learning environment, that Plaintiff had demonstrated a disregard for the “core principle” of equal treatment for all, and that Plaintiff had engaged in an “abuse of power.” None of this was even remotely true….
47. Indeed, the extraordinary nature of the Confidential Personnel Action itself, combined with Bernardo’s accusations about Plaintiff, created the public misperception that Plaintiff’s conduct must have inflicted severe harm on a student and been so egregious that it rose to being an abuse of power untethered from the core principles of the University. Therefore, Defendants’ public disclosure of the Confidential Personnel Action – in and of itself – has resulted in substantial harm to Plaintiff, as herein alleged. Moreover, in our modern world of instantaneous and far-reaching online communication, it was reasonably foreseeable by Defendants that their accusations against Plaintiff and their public disclosure of the Confidential Personnel Action would be widely circulated online, thereby dramatically multiplying Plaintiff’s reputational damage.
Although he eventually was reinstated, Prof. Klein alleges continuing damages:
66. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct herein alleged, Plaintiff began losing clients of the Expert Witness Practice immediately following media reports in June 2020 of these actions and events. Media reports intensified after Defendants publicized the Confidential Personnel Action and undertook public attacks against Plaintiff. For example, on or about June 3, 2020, Plaintiff was interviewed for an expert witness engagement by lawyers from one of the premier law firm clients of the Expert Witness Practice, following which the attorney and client immediately agreed to retain Plaintiff. That day, an intermediary who arranged for the interview emailed Plaintiff stating: “Gordon, good news! [The attorney and client] would like to retain you for the [] case.” A few days later, however, after Defendants’ unlawful public disclosure of the Confidential Personnel Action had been widely reported by the media, Plaintiff’s engagement on the case was terminated. Plaintiff has not received any further work from this premier client. In addition, the intermediary with whom Plaintiff had a longstanding business relationship modified its website to eliminate any mention of its association with Plaintiff, and its marketing head has ceased all communications with Plaintiff.
67. Similarly, also on or about June 3, 2020, another longstanding elite law firm client of the Expert Witness Practice suddenly terminated Plaintiff’s existing engagement on a major antitrust case. This client even refused to pay an invoice that Plaintiff previously had transmitted for past services rendered regarding this ongoing case.
68. Simply put, the Expert Witness Practice largely dried up as a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct herein alleged.
The damage from weaponized students, often aided and abetted by woke faculty and weak administrators, has had a profound chilling effect in academia. People like Prof. Gordon Klein deserve hero status, they stood tall and refused to bend the knee or apologize for insisting on treating all people equally.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Turley On Free Speech Immunity: YouTube Bans Channels Airing Criticism of Vaccines

WEDNESDAY, SEP 29, 2021 - 05:20 PM
Authored by Jonathan Turley via Res ipsa loquitur (emphasis ours)

YouTube continued the expansion of corporate censorship on the Internet with the encouragement of leading Democratic leaders. The company has banned channels associated with anti-vaccine activists like Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Once again, rather than rebutting or refuting claims made by others, many sought to silence those with opposing views. YouTube will not allow people to hear views that do not comport with an approved range of opinions. The move magnifies concerns that we are seeing the emergence of a new type of state media as private companies conduct censorship operations barred by the Constitution for the government to conduct directly. This move comes days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) asked Amazon to steer customers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to avoid their exposure to “disinformation.” It also follows YouTube censoring videos of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny before Russia’s parliamentary elections. The move helped Putin and his authoritarian government crack down on pro-Democracy forces.



The Google-owned site is now openly engaged in viewpoint regulation to force users to view only those sources that are consistent with the corporate agenda. Facebook banned misinformation on all vaccines seven months ago and Twitter regularly bans those questioning vaccines.

These companies are being encouraged by many on the left to expand censorship.

Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.

Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

In one critical hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate to discuss censorship programs. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, but then pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it was not broad enough.

He noted that it was hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but the companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. “The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “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.”

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal also warned that he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” He demanded “the same kind of robust content modification” from the companies – the new Orwellian term for censorship.


This is the face of censorship. As demanded, the companies are now sanitizing their sites to remove opposing views on these subjects. Rather than offer a free forum for the full debate on such issues, anti-free speech advocates have again prevailed in silencing those with opposing views.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

NY Times Promotes Redesigned American Flags That Include Nods to 'Systemic Racism and 'Black National Anthem'


By Jack Davis September 29, 2021 at 11:00am

Claiming the American flag needs to be revised to represent a nation different from the one The New York Times thinks it ought to be, the paper has offered some new ideas that focus more on racism than patriotism.

Although a look at flags from the early decades of the United States’ existence shows that the traditional American flag of white stars on a blue field with alternating red and white stripes has always been the standard, even during the years when stripes were added for new states, the Times claimed the flag’s designed “shifted frequently until the early 1900s.”

That bit of fact dispensed with, the paper offered six alternative designs.

In Andrew Kuo’s design, red white and blue make it onto the flag, but a massive yellow square takes up one-quarter of the flag as a nod to “repairing systemic racism.”

Another quarter of the flag is green to represent “taking care of our planet.”

Kuo said his design “acknowledges the emotions that informed where our country has been and the spirit of where it may go, with joy and forgiveness as possibilities. We can’t ignore how we got here, but maybe we can move toward a different, even better place.”

The design from 2×4 is a fuzzy version of the current color scheme. The designers argued that “the American flag has been made and remade, evolving from a unifying emblem into a complex and contested vocabulary of symbols.”

“In this flag, the familiar symbolism falls out of focus, giving way to something ambiguous, vague and difficult to define,” they wrote.

Designer Na Kim had no problem defining what he wanted, putting white stars on a pale gray background.

“The colors of our flag are intended to stand for unity, valor and justice. The gray, monochrome flag represents America surrendering to its fall from power and loss of the ideals it once stood for. The American dream is being washed away,” she wrote.

Some of the designs tried a variation on the flag’s theme, but Hank Willis Thomas decided to throw Black Lives Matter into his design, along with a reference to the song “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” which is hailed as the “black national anthem.” Traces of the yellow Gadsden flag with its “Don’t Tread on Me” motto also made it into his design.

Jiminie Ha and With Projects Inc. designed a flag as a digital design whose colors “would be determined by relevant, collected data and would transform over a given period. The radiating shapes suggest the country’s growth or decline within these parameters.”

Joseph Han, Tom Elia and J.A. Ginsburg, Collins, decided that nothing makes a flag better than purple.

The American flag was once a unifying symbol; its red, white and blue belonged to everyone. But now, red and blue are tribal signals, and the flag seems to represent two factions forced to share a piece of fabric. By running a single purple bar across the middle, this flag reminds all of us of the constant potential and possibility inherent in America when red and blue come together as one,” the designers wrote.

The American flag has been a target of liberals before. In June, singer Macy Gray attacked the current flag and called for a replacement.

“The Confederate battle flag, which was crafted as a symbol of opposition to the abolishment of slavery, is just recently tired. We don’t see it much anymore. However, on the 6th, when the stormers rained on the nation’s most precious hut, waving Old Glory — the memo was received: the American flag is its replacement,” Gray wrote in an Op-Ed for MarketWatch, referring to the presence of American flags during the Jan. 6 incursion into the U.S. Capitol.

According to Gray, Old Glory “no longer represents democracy and freedom. It no longer represents ALL of us. It’s not fair to be forced to honor it. It’s time for a new flag.”

Gray claimed racism is the only reason there are only 50 states.

“Let’s look to the stars. There are 50, where there should be 52. D.C. and Puerto Rico have been lobbying for statehood for decades. Both have been denied, since statehood would allow each territory’s elected officials seats in the house,” she wrote.

Gray then offered her vision of a flag.

“What if the stripes were OFF-white? What if there were 52 stars to include D.C. and Puerto Rico? What if the stars were the colors of ALL of us — your skin tone and mine — like the melanin scale? The blue square represents vigilance and perseverance; and the red stripes stand for valor. America is all of those things. So, what if those elements on the flag remained? What if the flag looked like this?” she wrote.
 

Southside

Veteran Member
“Let’s look to the stars. There are 50, where there should be 52. D.C. and Puerto Rico have been lobbying for statehood for decades. Both have been denied, since statehood would allow each territory’s elected officials seats in the house,” she wrote.
DC? Statehood? It's a foreign country. Just like the Vatican & the City of London(Financial district).
And have to follow the Constitution?

Not a chance.
 

155 arty

Veteran Member

NY Times Promotes Redesigned American Flags That Include Nods to 'Systemic Racism and 'Black National Anthem'


By Jack Davis September 29, 2021 at 11:00am

Claiming the American flag needs to be revised to represent a nation different from the one The New York Times thinks it ought to be, the paper has offered some new ideas that focus more on racism than patriotism.

Although a look at flags from the early decades of the United States’ existence shows that the traditional American flag of white stars on a blue field with alternating red and white stripes has always been the standard, even during the years when stripes were added for new states, the Times claimed the flag’s designed “shifted frequently until the early 1900s.”

That bit of fact dispensed with, the paper offered six alternative designs.

In Andrew Kuo’s design, red white and blue make it onto the flag, but a massive yellow square takes up one-quarter of the flag as a nod to “repairing systemic racism.”

Another quarter of the flag is green to represent “taking care of our planet.”

Kuo said his design “acknowledges the emotions that informed where our country has been and the spirit of where it may go, with joy and forgiveness as possibilities. We can’t ignore how we got here, but maybe we can move toward a different, even better place.”

The design from 2×4 is a fuzzy version of the current color scheme. The designers argued that “the American flag has been made and remade, evolving from a unifying emblem into a complex and contested vocabulary of symbols.”

“In this flag, the familiar symbolism falls out of focus, giving way to something ambiguous, vague and difficult to define,” they wrote.

Designer Na Kim had no problem defining what he wanted, putting white stars on a pale gray background.

“The colors of our flag are intended to stand for unity, valor and justice. The gray, monochrome flag represents America surrendering to its fall from power and loss of the ideals it once stood for. The American dream is being washed away,” she wrote.

Some of the designs tried a variation on the flag’s theme, but Hank Willis Thomas decided to throw Black Lives Matter into his design, along with a reference to the song “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” which is hailed as the “black national anthem.” Traces of the yellow Gadsden flag with its “Don’t Tread on Me” motto also made it into his design.

Jiminie Ha and With Projects Inc. designed a flag as a digital design whose colors “would be determined by relevant, collected data and would transform over a given period. The radiating shapes suggest the country’s growth or decline within these parameters.”

Joseph Han, Tom Elia and J.A. Ginsburg, Collins, decided that nothing makes a flag better than purple.

The American flag was once a unifying symbol; its red, white and blue belonged to everyone. But now, red and blue are tribal signals, and the flag seems to represent two factions forced to share a piece of fabric. By running a single purple bar across the middle, this flag reminds all of us of the constant potential and possibility inherent in America when red and blue come together as one,” the designers wrote.

The American flag has been a target of liberals before. In June, singer Macy Gray attacked the current flag and called for a replacement.

“The Confederate battle flag, which was crafted as a symbol of opposition to the abolishment of slavery, is just recently tired. We don’t see it much anymore. However, on the 6th, when the stormers rained on the nation’s most precious hut, waving Old Glory — the memo was received: the American flag is its replacement,” Gray wrote in an Op-Ed for MarketWatch, referring to the presence of American flags during the Jan. 6 incursion into the U.S. Capitol.

According to Gray, Old Glory “no longer represents democracy and freedom. It no longer represents ALL of us. It’s not fair to be forced to honor it. It’s time for a new flag.”

Gray claimed racism is the only reason there are only 50 states.

“Let’s look to the stars. There are 50, where there should be 52. D.C. and Puerto Rico have been lobbying for statehood for decades. Both have been denied, since statehood would allow each territory’s elected officials seats in the house,” she wrote.

Gray then offered her vision of a flag.

“What if the stripes were OFF-white? What if there were 52 stars to include D.C. and Puerto Rico? What if the stars were the colors of ALL of us — your skin tone and mine — like the melanin scale? The blue square represents vigilance and perseverance; and the red stripes stand for valor. America is all of those things. So, what if those elements on the flag remained? What if the flag looked like this?” she wrote.
hey that's a great idea!
why don't you go shove it up your ass and let it incubate for about 20 years pull it out ,wrap your head in it then blow your brains out ! esad !!
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Leftist School Boards Association Begs Biden To Use Domestic Terrorism Laws To Target Concerned Parents

Leftist School Boards Association Begs Biden To Use Domestic Terrorism Laws To Target Concerned Parents

SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 By Jordan Davidson

The leftist National School Boards Association is begging President Joe Biden to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents who oppose anti-science mask mandates for children and the infiltration of racist curriculum in schools.

In a letter sent on Wednesday, NSBA asked the Biden administration and federal law enforcement to “deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.”

“Now, we ask that the federal government investigate, intercept, and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against our public school officials through existing statutes, executive authority, interagency and intergovernmental task forces, and other extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of our children and educators, to protect interstate commerce, and to preserve public school infrastructure and campuses,” the letter states.

NSBA said local and state law enforcement agencies are already working to “prevent further disruptions to educational services and school district operations,” but that “these threats and acts of violence have become more prevalent” and require assistance from federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Secret Service.

“We also request the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to intervene against threatening letters and cyberbullying attacks that have been transmitted to students, school board members, district administrators, and other educators,” the letter continues. “As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

These agencies, NSBA directed, should use laws designed to target domestic terrorism such as the PATRIOT Act, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, and the Conspiracy Against Rights statute. The group also requested an executive order “to enforce all applicable federal laws for the protection of students and public school district personnel, and any related measure.”

The organization cites recent “attacks” and “physical threats” against local school board members and other education officials based on what NSBA claims is “propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and
curricula” and anti-mask sentiments as the reason for intervention.

NSBA not only denies that racist teachings plague the nation’s public schools, despite countless reports indicating otherwise, but also claims that “extremist hate organizations” are protesting school board meetings and “inciting chaos.” The NSBA also characterized concerned parents’ attempts to hold school board members accountable through lists as simply “spreading misinformation.”

“These threats and acts of violence are affecting our nation’s democracy at the very foundational levels, causing school board members — many who are not paid — to resign immediately and/or discontinue their service after their respective terms,” the letter states.

“Further, this increasing violence is a clear and present danger to civic participation, in which other citizens who have been contemplating service as either an elected or appointed school board member have reconsidered their decision.”

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Biden’s Radical Education Secretary Miguel Cardona Says Parents Should Not Be the “Primary Stakeholder” in Their Kids’ Education (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published September 30, 2021 at 6:21pm


Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra testified on school reopenings before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Thursday.

The two officials discussed mask mandates in schools and other Covid protocols schools must follow to ‘keep kids safe.’

During Thursday’s testimony, Joe Biden’s Marxist Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said parents should not be the “primary stakeholder” in their kids’ education.

Cardona said he believes parents are “important stakeholders” and that educators must determine the programs.

VIDEO:
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1443624034323812356
.34 min

Democrat Terry McAuliffe said the same thing earlier this week during a debate.

Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe said parents shouldn’t be telling schools what they should teach during Tuesday night’s debate with Republican Glenn Younkin.

“The parents had the right to veto books… also take them off the shelves,” McAuliffe said. “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions.”

“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” McAuliffe added.

Democrats believe they own your child and know what’s best for them.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Enlightened Algos: Democrats Demand Increased Corporate Controls To Protect Citizens From Their Own Dangerous Curiosities

THURSDAY, SEP 30, 2021 - 07:00 PM
Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in USA Today on the recent call by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) for Amazon to steer readers to “true” books on climate change. It is the latest example of Democrat’s embracing a type of corporate governance model to carry out tasks barred to the government under the Constitution. Companies are now being asked to protect us from our own dangerous interests and inquiries. An array of enlightened algorithms will now watch over citizens to help them make good choices and read “true” things.



Here is the column:

Two centuries ago, rulers sought to convince subjects that they should embrace the notion of “enlightened despotism,” living without rights under the beneficent watch of overlords. Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II summed up the idea with the maxim “everything for the people, nothing by the people.”

Today, we seem to be living in an age of enlightened corporate despotism, where social media and technology companies watch over what we read and what we discuss to protect us from ourselves.

That corporate governance model was on display this month when Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called on Amazon CEO Andy Jassy to use algorithms to steer readers away from books that spew “misinformation.”

Enlightened algorithms are already responsible for large-scale censorship across social media platforms that reach global audiences. They “stand the wall” as sentinels against dangerous ideas.

Warren argued that people were not listening to the enlightened views of herself and leading experts.

Instead, they were reading views of vaccine skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books, including “falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures, including those written by the most prominent spreaders of misinformation.”

Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices:
“This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.”
In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.

What was most striking about this incident is that Warren was eager for others to see her efforts to promote a form of censorship.

Once considered unAmerican and authoritarian, censorship has become a rallying cry from the left. Indeed, a new poll shows roughly half of the public supports not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

In one critical hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate to discuss censorship programs. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, but then pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it was not broad enough.

He noted that it was hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but the companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. “The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “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.”

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal also warned that he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”

He demanded “the same kind of robust content modification” from the companies – the new Orwellian term for censorship.

Others have sought even more “robust” action. For years, Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, have called for corporate censorship on a variety of subjects.

Last year, Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney of California wrote a letter to cable carriers like AT&T to ask why they are still allowing people to watch FOX News. (For the record, I appear as a FOX legal analyst). The members stressed that “not all TV news sources are the same” and called the companies to account for their role in allowing such “dissemination.”

Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Max Boot also wrote that cable providers should “step in and kick FOX News off.” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.”

CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter has called for censorship as “a harm reduction model.”

Twitter, Facebook, and other companies have responded enthusiastically in banning those who question the official view of vaccines, climate change, elections or other subjects.

Calling for companies to protect us from ourselves is the ultimate in enlightened despotism. It is ironic that Warren has denounced the use of “racist” algorithms in biometric technology like facial recognition. She objects to the error rate in such algorithms but has few such concerns when other algorithms are used to curtail free speech.

The embrace of corporate censorship reflects a change in attitude of many toward free speech.

Once the very defining right of our constitutional system, it is now more often portrayed as an existential threat to that system. Speech is now “harmful” and allowing the expression of unpopular opinions is treated as an act of an accomplice.

Once free speech is defined as harmful or violent, the algorithms can take it from there.

At the urging of our leaders companies like Amazon can censor “everything for the people, nothing by the people.”


We can then live under the enlightened despotism of governing algorithms that protect us from our dangerous curiosities.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

‘Protesting your school board is now Domestic Terrorism’…
Posted by Kane on October 1, 2021 4:17 pm

View: https://youtu.be/WkupwZQ1OBA
4:29 min

Leftist School Boards Association Begs Biden To Use Domestic Terrorism Laws To Target Concerned Parents

The National School Boards Association (NSBA), claims that school board meetings now require the presence of “DOJ and Homeland Security departments as well as the FBI,” citing an incident in Loudoun County, Virginia.

The NSBA said in a letter to Joe Biden that school board members, officials and students across the nation are facing an increased amount of malice, violence and threats that amount to “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

“America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat,” Viola Garcia and Chip Slaven, the group’s president and interim executive director, said in a statement about the letter.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

What Happens When We Find Justice Isn’t Blind?
American history and her institutions are built on the central political idea of equal justice for all.
By Thaddeus G. McCotter

October 1, 2021

What happens when we find justice isn’t blind?

Premised upon the risible Steele dossier and other bogus documents and government leaks crafted to abet Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Democrats responded to her defeat by concocting a conspiracy that Donald Trump had colluded with Russian authoritarian Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election. Equally inane and insane, this leftist temper tantrum has been going on five years and counting—an unhinged attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the 2016 election and, thus, the presidency of Donald Trump.

In league with and abetted by their co-conspiring leftist media supplicants and sycophants, the Democrats subversively weaponized the police and surveillance powers of the state to promote the Russiagate collusion lie. Each day, the dinosaur and social media were riven by new “bombshell” allegations, each more outlandish and, ultimately, erroneous than the last. A special counsel and his Clinton supporting crew were appointed to get to the bottom of a crime that was devised as a campaign smear by . . . the Clinton campaign. Flashing forward, when the whole tawdry political conspiracy had been refuted, only one relatively minor bureaucratic player was held accountable for any misdeed. As for the corporate media, having staked whatever integrity they had on spoon-fed untruths, they have chosen the “if the truth falls in the forest but no one covers it” approach. And, on the whole, a majority of Democrats still believe some version of the Russiagate lie.

During this entire hoax not one person has been censored in corporate or social media for propagating blatant falsehoods (though some have received Pulitzer Prizes); and not one person has been deemed by the federal government to be a potential domestic terrorist for their irrational compulsion to cling to this disproven Democratic conspiracy theory.

Emboldened, the Democrats and the media moved onto the next opportunity to undermine an election and, this time, sought ways to make that undermining a permanent feature of government.

Commencing just in time for the pending presidential election, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and other leftist organizations and individuals took to the streets to protest (allegedly) police brutality, and, in general, America being a systemically racist country. Though some protests were peaceful, others devolved into looting, arson, the destruction and defacement of buildings and monuments, and even murders. These protests and the more deadly and destructive insurrections in American cities were rationalized, excused, and/or justified by the Democrats, the media, and—during the height of a pandemic—by public health officials, who claimed systemic racism was as dangerous, if not more so, than COVID-19. And while the cities lapsed into an uneasy calm prior to the election (after polling showing that the rioting was detrimental to the Democratic ticket), the Left was ready to deploy again should Trump try to “illegitimately” remain in office. Who would define “illegitimately”? Why the Left, of course.

At its radical root, these protests, the “systemic racism” lie itself, the intellectualized justification in Marxist-inspired critical race theory, and the overarching narrative of the “1619 Project” (an opinion piece passed off as pseudo-history, which, like the Russia-gate lie also garnered a Pulitzer Prize), all have the same aim: to undermine the very legitimacy of the foundations, institutions, history, and culture of the American republic and her citizens.

That history and those institutions are built on the central political idea of equal justice for all. That means that those who make the laws must live under the laws they make. And it means that no person or class of people may be designated as “illegitimate.” Yet day by day, the Biden Administration and our entire ruling class become ever bolder in rejecting this essential principle of free government.

In our free republic that is based upon God-given individual rights, the sovereign consent of the governed, and laws, not men, I ask again: What happens when we find justice isn’t blind?
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

We’ve Seen This Transformation Before: From Today’s Cancel Culture To Stalinist Russia

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But this must happen in such a way that no one become aware of it,” wrote Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince. It is this advice on political matters that I once used to describe the machinations of Bill Clinton during his presidency, and it is also the central idea at the heart of Russian Stalinism as explicated in Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.

Leo Strauss wrote of Machiavelli that he developed “a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, iron or poison, for achieving its ends.” The question I have today, surveying the political landscape in America, is whether we are becoming a latter-day reincarnation of Stalinist Russia.

My first inclination is to say, “No, of course not.” But then I start looking around.

Koestler’s Darkness at Noon tells the story of a lifelong Bolshevik, Nicolas Rubashov, who served his Party well for 40 years. Having participated in the Revolution and the ensuing Civil War, he rises to be a leading member of the Party, sitting just two seats down from Lenin himself at the first Party Congress. Stalin is way down at the end of the table.

But that was then. The narrative opens with the arrest of Rubashov for crimes against the State. It is a story about the Stalinist purges and Moscow show trials of the late 1930s. In the novel, Stalin is referred to simply as “No. 1.” Rubashov, according to Koestler, is a composite character of the many who ran afoul Stalin and were “liquidated,” including such leading figures as Leon Trotsky and Nikolai Bucharin.

The animating ideology of the Communist movement under Stalin is a deified notion of History. Recollecting a conversation with a German communist he would later denounce, Rubashov tells him that “The Party is the embodiment of the revolutionary idea in history. History knows no scruples and hesitation. Inert and unerring, she flows towards her goal…. History knows her way. She makes no mistakes. He who has not absolute faith in History does not belong in the Party’s ranks.”

For his part, Rubashov is accused of being susceptible to “sympathy, conscience, disgust, despair, repentance, and atonement,” all well-understood dispositions from before the Revolution. For Ivanov, his interrogator, they represent a “metaphysical brothel of emotions [that] are for us repellent debauchery.” Instead, it is History that must rule: “History is a priori amoral; it has no conscience.”

One day, when taken to be interrogated again, Ivanov is absent. In his place is Gletkin, who uses more strenuous methods, like sleep deprivation, to break down prisoner Rubashov. In the eyes of Rubashov, Gletkin is a part of “the generation which had started to think after the flood. It had no traditions, and no memories to bind it to the old, vanished world. It was a generation born without an umbilical cord.”

There is a Biblical image that is alluded to that is made explicit at the end of the novel. The Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness before entering and conquering Canaan. Early on, the Israelites are fearful of entering the Promised land.

Moses then begins their wilderness wanderings in order to slough off that generation who think like slaves. What is needed is a new generation of kick-ass Israelites that will enter Canaan and bring about the promise that was made long ago.

Russia, to Stalin’s way of thinking, needs to liquidate the Old Bolsheviks of pre-
Revolutionary Russia in order to create a society of Gletkins, a society of unquestioning true believers. At the end of the novel, before he is executed, Rubashov ponders what has happened after the 40 years of “threats and promises, with imaginary terrors and imaginary rewards.” And he is left wondering, “where was the Promised Land?”

A major element of Stalinist Russia represented in Darkness at Noon is the act of denouncing others. For a variety of reasons, people would denounce others which leads to executions and banishment to the Gulags of Siberia. It is a harsh, fearful environment in which people must live.

Another Russian novelist, Vasily Grossman, who first made a name for himself as a war correspondent writing for Red Star during World War II, has written a novel about the culture of denouncing, titled Everything Flows. It tells the stories of Gulag prisoners who returned to Moscow during the post-Stalin thaw under Khrushchev.

Suddenly, denouncers are being confronted with those whom they denounced. The novel was originally published in heavily censored form, not getting a full unexpurgated treatment until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In the novel, Grossman categorizes the motivations of the denouncers. A “Judas I” denounces another out of fear, trying to improve their own hazardous situation by bringing down others. A “Judas II” denounces in order to advance professionally by getting rid of the competition. This was rampant in Stalinist Russia, including the sorry affair of Trofim Lysenko, who rejected Mendelian genetics for a Lemarckian approach. He denounced the leading Mendelian geneticist at that time, Nikolai Vavilov, who was then removed and imprisoned. Lysenko had Stalin’s ear, and that is all that is needed. It sets Soviet science and agronomy back generations.

Grossman describes the “Judas III” as the most monstrous. They are the true believers, the Gletkins of the world, who investigate and denounce hundreds of fellow citizens. This was the professional security apparatus in the Soviet Union, identified with agents of the NKVD led by Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, and Lavrentiy Beria.

The “Judas IV” types are the most common and, in many ways, the most repulsive. These are the ones who denounce others in order to gain goods that would become available once those denounced were gone, like apartments, cars, clothing, stoves, etc.

These novels and this subject have been on my mind after reading an article in the Washington Free Beacon about a well-known clarinetist being fired at the Nashville Symphony Orchestra after being denounced by a couple of seemingly politically correct diversocrats.

The clarinetist, James Zimmermann, has national stature as a musician. Regardless, he runs afoul the powers-that-be when the Nashville Symphony, responding to calls for more diversity, hire on a temporary basis Titus Underwood as the principal oboist. In order for Underwood to gain the chair on a permanent basis, he’d have to compete in a blind audition.

Blind auditions are currently a source of controversy in many orchestras. Originally designed to make sure hires were based on merit rather than some other criterion, like race, it resulted in even fewer musicians of color and more Asians being hired than before. Thus there is a current movement to eliminate blind auditions and actively hire through affirmative action. That approach is anathema to those who regard quality in symphonic music as sacrosanct.

The day comes and Underwood performs in a blind audition. The hiring committee is not impressed. As it discusses the matter, it is leaning toward offering the auditioner a two-week temporary status to show he/she can perform at an adequate level meeting their standards. What they don’t realize, of course, is that they would thus be replacing Titus Underwood with –Titus Underwood. Before they made that final decision, a violinist let slip that it is Underwood behind the blind. Immediately, the hiring committee leans toward rejecting him outright. They’d already seen his work the past year and had had enough.

It is then, ironic in hindsight, that Zimmermann says they should do what they originally were leaning toward doing when the audition was still “blind,” giving him a two-week trial to prove himself, at the end of which there would be a vote to decide if he would be given the position permanently. He is persuasive, and that becomes the decision of the group.

There never was a vote.

It seems pressure is applied by the symphony board and HR muckety-mucks that Underwood must be hired. So without a vote, the orchestra conductor announces that decision. That does not sit well at all with other members of the orchestra. But it is a done deal.

Then things take a turn for the worse. As lead oboist, Underwood is responsible for the work of the entire woodwind section. Zimmermann, the perfectionist clarinetist, seeing Underwood struggling with his work, would often keep Underwood overtime to work out rough sections of a composition. Underwood sees it as racial harassment.

He complains to HR.

After hiring an “equity officer” the orchestra is put through a workshop on the “racial power dynamics in American orchestras.” On a tape of the session, Underwood can be heard saying that all Americans “live in a system of white supremacy” that’s existed since the time of the Founding Fathers. The orchestra then hires a close friend of Underwood’s, Emilio Carlo, who himself has been a beneficiary of several diversity-hiring programs with orchestras. Underwood and Carlo turn into a tag-team working against Zimmermann, including complaints to HR that Zimmermann is a threatening presence to them.

Bottom line, Zimmermann is fired. He is just another bit of flotsam subject to informant complaints to the bureaucratic fussbudgets in HR. Now, in defense of HR departments throughout the land, their primary concern has to do with avoiding at all costs confrontation with lawyers. Anything, anything at all, to avoid a possible lawsuit. Underwood presents that possibility. Given that, Zimmermann has to go.

But look at where we are. Many today remark on a “cancel culture” in which those able to manipulate the system are able to clear the path of competition, rigorous standards and criticism by playing the “aggrieved” card to improve and enhance their own position, much like the Judas II informers of Grossman’s Everything Flows. It does have a Stalinist stench to it. Anti-Stalin, prepare to be shot. Anti-Diversity, well, we won’t shoot you – yet – but we will eliminate you.

Go back to that notion of Stalinism deifying History. His name is unspoken, but G.W.F. Hegel has his fingerprints all over this. In his Phenomenology of the Spirit, Hegel develops his “dialectical method” to map out the entire history of human thought and development over time. History has a direction, he writes, and the ultimate goal, the telos, of this ongoing movement is to achieve “absolute Geist,” which can be translated as “mind” or “spirit.”

For the theologically-minded, this absolute spirit is God. For the atheistic-minded, it is the State. The philosophy of Hegel is at the root of both communism and fascism, both state totalitarian systems. The contrast is not between communism and fascism, but between those two totalitarian systems on the one hand, and a Western legacy that prizes the individual, and liberty, and free-thinking, and self-control, and economic independence.

Hegel has a helpful aphorism in Phenomenology of the Spirit: “The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.” There is a sense in which, both partaking of statism, the communists emphasized “the rational is the real” while the fascists focused on “the real is the rational.” That is what led to the distinction between “right-wing Hegelians” (i.e. fascists) and “left-wing Hegelians” (i.e. communists). The social philosopher Sidney Hook once remarked that the two wings of Hegelian theory met in mortal combat on the fields of Stalingrad.

In addition to fascists and communists, a Hegelian notion of History also pervades the Progressive movement in the United States. Every time you hear Obama speak of the need to be on “the right side of History,” that is what stands behind his thinking.

There is an inexorable thrust to History such that one either joins in or is relegated to that proverbial dustpan of History. You hear it in the language of Progressives all the time. There is no legitimate opposition or oppositional opinions. We’re right. You’re wrong. No argument. Period.

Kind of like the Gletkins of the world. Though seriously limited in knowledge and experience, some are emboldened and feel perfectly fine informing on those who stand in the way of their self-proclaimed righteousness, their diversity, equity, inclusion and “wokeness” in general. In short, those seen as “enemies” stand in the way of History. And if they lose their jobs or are otherwise castigated and destroyed, hey, as Ivanov told Rubashov, “History is a priori amoral; it has no conscience.”

It puts me in mind of William Butler Yeats’ prescient poem “The Second Coming”:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon (i.e. We, the People) cannot hear the falconer (i.e. God);
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


The poem ends with a trenchant and worrisome question: “What rough beast, its time come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?” What, indeed, is coming.

So, are we becoming Stalinist Russia? I guess at this point I would say: No – at least not quite yet.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

National School Boards Association Begs Biden To Label Outraged Parents “Domestic Terrorists” and Use The Patriot Act Against Them

By Julian Conradson
Published October 2, 2021 at 7:30am

Over the past year, school board meetings have become increasingly contentious events, as more and more outraged parents use their constitutionally protected rights to speak out against tyrannical covid mandates and the poisonous, anti-American critical race theory that is being taught to their children.

Instead of listening to the parents who pay their salaries, the woke school boards are responding by lobbying our dictator-in-chief to classify unruly parents who demand accountability as domestic terrorists.

The growing backlash at these meetings has prompted the National School Boards Association to send a letter to Biden on Wednesday that begs him to use federal law enforcement agencies against parents and investigate them for “domestic terrorism and hate crime threats.” They shamelessly claim the situation is so dire that he should use the Patriot Act, among other “enforceable actions” against them.

The NSBA represents every single public school board in the US, which includes over 14,000 districts and 90,000 board members.
“Dear Mr. President: America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) respectfully asks for federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.
Additionally, NSBA requests that such review examine appropriate enforceable actions against these crimes and acts of violence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws.”
According to the letter that was signed by NSBA president Viola Garcia and CEO Chip Slaven, school boards are already being assisted by local law enforcement in many communities, but the extra security and new policies designed to keep people out of meetings have not stopped parents from just-plain showing up to voice their displeasure.

The NSBA doesn’t want their members to be held accountable for their terrible handling of the educational system; instead, they would rather crush anyone who gets in their way by any means possible. School officials have actually become so frightened of the parents who disagree with their baseless policies that they would be willing to see them tried as criminal terrorists.

It’s sick. These people are unhinged and should have their citizenship revoked if they would be willing to put that evil misnomer on another American citizen for being concerned about their child. Absolutely disgraceful.

In the letter, they implored Biden to take a “proactive” approach by using every Federal Agency at his disposal, specifically asking for the FBI, DOJ, DHS, and the Secret Service to crush what they call “extremist hate organizations” (concerned parents exercising their right to free speech) that have been showing up at meetings.

In other words, the tyrants are begging the dictator to send in the goons to crush the rebellion.
“As the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue.
NSBA specifically solicits the expertise and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and its National Threat Assessment Center, regarding the level of risk to public schoolchildren, educators, board members, and facilities/campuses.”
If homeschooling your kids wasn’t a priority before, it should be now.

The full letter can be found here.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic
[UK]


UK Military Wants To Spy On Social Media To Detect "Change In Population Sentiment"

SATURDAY, OCT 02, 2021 - 10:30 AM
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The UK Ministry of Defence has inadvertently revealed its plan to spy on social media platforms in order to detect “change(s) in population sentiment.”


Despite ostensibly being about “better use of existing silos,” the MoD’s Data Strategy for Defence document explains how the military should move towards “Automated scanning of social media platforms” to detect “change in population sentiment.”
“Nowhere does the document explain why a strategy paper has gone so far off the beaten track that it promotes collecting data the MoD doesn’t have and using it for decidedly non-military purposes,” reports the Register.
Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, the military has increasingly turned its attention inward towards its own citizens rather than doing what it should do, which is fighting foreign adversaries.

As author Laura Dodsworth revealed, GCHQ has embroiled itself in anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging by targeting people who challenge the official COVID narrative online.
“She says some people believe they have been targeted by the 77th Brigade, part of the 6th Division of the Army,” reported the Telegraph.
According to the Ministry of Defence, the 77th Brigade uses “legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of the opposing forces and adversaries.”

The military’s main “adversaries” are now apparently British citizens who complain about lockdown while questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

Dodsworth said she “hit a brick wall” when attempting to get answers about the unit’s activities, noting, “and I find that when someone puts up a brick wall, it’s because that’s where the real story lies.”

The unit played its role in the broader agenda, facilitated by government-affiliated behavioral psychologists, to terrify the public into mass obedience to lockdown rules by exaggerating the threat posed by COVID.
 

155 arty

Veteran Member
[UK]


UK Military Wants To Spy On Social Media To Detect "Change In Population Sentiment"

SATURDAY, OCT 02, 2021 - 10:30 AM
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The UK Ministry of Defence has inadvertently revealed its plan to spy on social media platforms in order to detect “change(s) in population sentiment.”


Despite ostensibly being about “better use of existing silos,” the MoD’s Data Strategy for Defence document explains how the military should move towards “Automated scanning of social media platforms” to detect “change in population sentiment.”

Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, the military has increasingly turned its attention inward towards its own citizens rather than doing what it should do, which is fighting foreign adversaries.


As author Laura Dodsworth revealed, GCHQ has embroiled itself in anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging by targeting people who challenge the official COVID narrative online.

According to the Ministry of Defence, the 77th Brigade uses “legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of the opposing forces and adversaries.”

The military’s main “adversaries” are now apparently British citizens who complain about lockdown while questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

Dodsworth said she “hit a brick wall” when attempting to get answers about the unit’s activities, noting, “and I find that when someone puts up a brick wall, it’s because that’s where the real story lies.”

The unit played its role in the broader agenda, facilitated by government-affiliated behavioral psychologists, to terrify the public into mass obedience to lockdown rules by exaggerating the threat posed by COVID.
stop being tyrants and you won't have any worries, continue it and you'll have a nightmare
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Wokeness: Our Virtuous Betters Lowering Themselves To Point Out Their Superiority

The virtuous generously condescend to speak to their inferiors about their superiority.

Boredom is the normal response to the virtuous pontificator, unfortunately they are quite difficult to evade as they inhabit virtually every cranny of our society.

Virtue signaling and thought control are the basis of current social acceptance for the woke crowd. This creates a need for the trendy new politically correct virtue thesis of the day. The labeling of the normal citizen as deplorable is the easy way of avoiding critical thought about this new alleged crisis while creating a political motivator for the simple people.

The trauma of being called a racist is the ultimate condemnation and has risen to the top of the evils of society. These newly virtuous converts to anti-racism wish to trumpet their recently found conversion to everyone. This requires all normal people to suffer of course. The valium salesman is laughing all the way to the bank.

Using slang that has been common for generations is now verboten! Terms such as spic, honky, limey, frog, chink, slope, mick, kraut, Nigerian, camel jockey, faggot, wop, dyke, nerd, jock, and the ultimate insult “you Yankee,” were suddenly a symbol of evil.

Why should anyone be defensive about being called a racist because of terminology? Every race, nationality or activity has a derogatory nickname.

Categorizing people is easy and fast and often in error but it does not necessarily signify hatred, they are frequently used as adjectives. The terms are now used to rally thought which is popular with lefties as they have little other ability therein.

The next steps in the virtue pyramid were quickly introduced. Diversity is important so that everyone gets a trophy because mommy said I am great. Ask your doctor or airline pilot at the next opportunity if they use their diversity appointed fellows for their personal care or transportation.

Another virtue signaling point is that global warming will destroy the world in the year 2100. (That is the latest update.) We were instructed that the science revealed that if we did not change our evil ways by 2015, it would be too late, and the planet would be doomed. Well, at least the disciples shut up about it when they were proved to be in error. Oops, wrong again. At least they gained virtue by talking about it.

The previous attempts at societal and thought control by virtue signaling have basically been ignored by the normal people. The recent flips of the tail have been thrown on the table and been ignored. Virtue was not enough to move control forward. We are suffering through speeches about electric cars and solar panels and heat waves. The lectures about racism have not changed many attitudes. Laws are forcing some acquiescence but overall, we stumbled onward.

Some simple people are converted at every step, but their virtue is amusing to the regular citizen but has not extended societal control.

The most recent mantra is the Wu-Flu which is the last throw of the dice for global monopolistic control. You must believe or you will die! The shrieking of the biddies and old maids has reached incredible heights, but most normal citizens ignore the mandates. Their virtue is self-evident. Now our government has placed the final card on the table. Large businesses must vaccinate their employees or not get government contracts.

The thought and behavioral control to which workers are subjected is designed to create compliant serfs both economically and governmentally. This is the reason the war on small business has accelerated since the flu scam originated.

There are too many to be easily controlled. However, the new MBA managerial class lackeys on Wall Street show how they are easily maneuvered in the virtue acceptance game as wages and promotions are dependent on the party line.

“I am virtuous therefore I must be accepted into the group” is a great step towards our political oblivion.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

It Begins: Black History Month Website Labels White People “Genetically Defective Descendants of Albino Mutants” in Taxpayer Fund Ads

By Jim Hoft
Published October 4, 2021 at 7:29am


As the UK celebrates its 34th year of Black History Month with a theme “Proud to Be”, a taxpayer-funded advertisement featured on a prominent website labeled white people “genetically defective descendants of albino mutants”.

The Black History Month website that called white people genetically defective mutants has since deleted its anti-white propaganda after The Telegraph contacted them for a comment. It was later discovered that the website is managed by Ian Thomas, a white man. How ironic.

The campaigners are now distancing themselves from ‘loopy’ material on the website run by the white publisher according to The Telegraph‘s investigation team.

The website has a long history of promoting provocative and racist content against white people.

The Telegraph reported:
A Black History Month website controlled by a white man featured taxpayer-funded adverts alongside claims that white people are the “genetically defective descendants of albino mutants”, a Telegraph investigation has found.

Adverts for organisations such as the police and MI6 ran alongside the anti-white propaganda, which also included the claim that a white man can “fantasise that he is genetically equal to the black male”.
The Black History Month website, which is linked to a magazine of the same name, is the first to appear in online searches for Black History Month and has included content by renowned black figures, as well as the leaders of all major political parties.
On Friday, Linda Bellos, who was instrumental in launching the Black History Month celebration in the UK in the late Eighties, compared the website’s white ownership to “enslavement”.
“The whole purpose of Black History Month is to empower us [black people] … I don’t want some white man, or even white woman, playing that role,” she said. “The taking of ideas, and indeed the taking of people, was done very successfully by the British, it is called enslavement. I am not talking about his motives, but I am talking about the outcome.”
Mr Thomas described the Black History Month celebration as a “grassroots” organisation, and his commercial website as the “glue” which had come on the back of a long history of working for racial equality.

He said that the magazine and website had an editor, who decided what goes in them, but that he proof-read pages as the magazine’s managing editor and publisher.
He admitted that some of the anti-white content highlighted by The Telegraph was “dreadful” and removed a series of articles that had pledged to “broadcast the theories” of controversial American psychiatrist Dr Frances Cress Welsing, following her “tragic” death in 2016.
These included claims that a white man giving “gifts of chocolate candy with nuts” for Valentine’s Day can “fantasise that he is genetically equal to the black male” when their “sweetheart” eats them, and that the Holocaust was carried out “to illustrate to all non-white ethnicities that they are in peril of extermination”.
Mr Thomas did not remove a 2020 opinion piece by the Reach Society, which said that “Europeans have been encouraged to be morally monstrous to non-Europeans for so long, this behaviour has become second nature”.

“They’re a really respected body and that’s their view,” he said.
Dr Dwain Neil, the chairman of the Reach Society, also defended the piece.
Here are some of the reactions from Twitter users regarding this anti-white propaganda from the website:

One Twitter user said, “There’s albinism within every racial group. This is just sad race-baiting.”

1633382700622.png

Another said, “If that was the case then surely they would want to return to their country of origin rather than mix with genetically defective mutants. What can our attraction possibly be?”

1633382760494.png

One user said, “It’s amazing how so many white people have overcome their genetic defects and done so well in life.”

1633382816127.png

Another said, “The person who runs the website which published those comments is deliberately trying to wind people up interestingly that person is white. My view is don’t let those type of people divide us that’s their ultimate aim. It’s not a reflection on Black History Month.”

1633382881156.png
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Pennsylvania House Democrat Introduces Forced Sterilization – Three-Child Limit Legislation

By Jim Hoft
Published October 4, 2021 at 7:20am


Pennsylvania Democrat Christopher M. Rabb sent out a memorandum to all House members regarding his legislation that will enforce reproductive responsibility among men. The bill will force men to undergo vasectomies within 6 weeks from having their third child or their 40th birthday, whichever comes first.

This legislation includes a $10,000 reward to whoever snitches to the proper authority on those who have failed to submit to forced sterilization within the allotted time.


This bill will also include legal actions for unwanted pregnancies against inseminators who wrongfully conceive a child with them.

“As long as state legislatures continue to restrict the reproductive rights of cis women, trans men, and non-binary people, there should be laws that address the responsibility of men who impregnate them. Thus, my bill will also codify “wrongful conception” to include when a person has demonstrated negligence toward preventing conception during intercourse,” Rabb stated in his memorandum.

PA State Rep. David Rowe posted on his Facebook account regarding this horrendous bill:
If there was any doubt that today’s progressive left have utterly and completely disregarded your personal medical freedom, then let this be the nail in the coffin.
A legislator from Philadelphia has just introduced legislation that would limit how many children your family could have, dictate what age you could have a family, and would issue a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE for refusing to submit to forced sterilization after having three children. As a fourth-born child myself, I would have never existed under this law and neither would so many others.

This bill will never see the light of day as long as Republicans control the House, but I wanted you all to be aware how quickly policies that belong in Communist China would become the norm here if Democrats seized total control of State Government.
The left is pushing to make America a godless, communist country like their big boss China. This is utterly sickening population control and they do this while illegal immigrants and refugees are flooding across the open borders.

You can read the memorandum here:

House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda – PA House of Representatives by Jim Hoft on Scribd (Doc on website)
1633383182308.png
 
Last edited:

marsh

TB Fanatic

AG Merrick Garland Instructs FBI to Mobilize Against Parents Who Oppose Critical Race Theory, Covid Mandates in Public Schools

By Cristina Laila
Published October 4, 2021 at 8:32pm
ClouthubShare

AG Merrick Garland

The Biden Regime is targeting political opponents and using the might of the federal government to abolish the First Amendment by classifying dissent as “domestic terrorism.”

US Attorney General Merrick Garland has instructed the FBI to mobilize against parents who oppose Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Covid mandates, citing ‘threats.’

Merrick Garland’s letter to the FBI follows the National School Board Association’s request to classify protests as “domestic terrorism.”

“Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values,” wrote Attorney General Garland. “Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.”

Curiously, Garland’s letter didn’t actually specify any credible threats.

“Citing an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools, today Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend. These sessions will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response by law enforcement.” the DOJ’s press release read.

The DOJ will be creating a task force “consisting of representatives from the department’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs, to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes…”

1633403482027.png
1633403520798.png
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Whistleblower says Facebook needs to declare "moral bankruptcy" 13:36 min

Her name is Frances Haugen. That is a fact that Facebook has been anxious to know since last month when an anonymous former employee filed complaints with federal law enforcement. The complaints say Facebook's own research shows that it amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest—but the company hides what it knows. One complaint alleges that Facebook's Instagram harms teenage girls. What makes Haugen's complaints unprecedented is the trove of private Facebook research she took when she quit in May. The documents appeared first, last month, in the Wall Street Journal. But tonight, Frances Haugen is revealing her identity to explain why she became the Facebook whistleblower.

Frances Haugen: The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money.

Frances Haugen is 37, a data scientist from Iowa with a degree in computer engineering and a Harvard master's degree in business. For 15 years she's worked for companies including Google and Pinterest.

Frances Haugen: I've seen a bunch of social networks and it was substantially worse at Facebook than anything I'd seen before.

Scott Pelley: You know, someone else might have just quit and moved on. And I wonder why you take this stand.

Frances Haugen: Imagine you know what's going on inside of Facebook and you know no one on the outside knows. I knew what my future looked like if I continued to stay inside of Facebook, which is person after person after person has tackled this inside of Facebook and ground themselves to the ground.

Scott Pelley: When and how did it occur to you to take all of these documents out of the company?

Frances Haugen: At some point in 2021, I realized, "Okay, I'm gonna have to do this in a systemic way, and I have to get out enough that no one can question that this is real."

facebookvideo.jpg
Frances Haugen
She secretly copied tens of thousands of pages of Facebook internal research. She says evidence shows that the company is lying to the public about making significant progress against hate, violence and misinformation. One study she found, from this year, says, "we estimate that we may action as little as 3-5% of hate and about 6-tenths of 1% of V & I [violence and incitement] on Facebook despite being the best in the world at it."

Scott Pelley: To quote from another one of the documents you brought out, "We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world."

Frances Haugen: When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other, the version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.

'Ethnic violence' including Myanmar in 2018 when the military used Facebook to launch a genocide.

Frances Haugen told us she was recruited by Facebook in 2019. She says she agreed to take the job only if she could work against misinformation because she had lost a friend to online conspiracy theories.

Frances Haugen: I never wanted anyone to feel the pain that I had felt. And I had seen how high the stakes were in terms of making sure there was high quality information on Facebook.

At headquarters, she was assigned to Civic Integrity which worked on risks to elections including misinformation. But after this past election, there was a turning point.

Frances Haugen: They told us, "We're dissolving Civic Integrity." Like, they basically said, "Oh good, we made it through the election. There wasn't riots. We can get rid of Civic Integrity now." Fast forward a couple months, we got the insurrection. And when they got rid of Civic Integrity, it was the moment where I was like, "I don't trust that they're willing to actually invest what needs to be invested to keep Facebook from being dangerous."

Facebook says the work of Civic Integrity was distributed to other units. Haugen told us the root of Facebook's problem is in a change that it made in 2018 to its algorithms—the programming that decides what you see on your Facebook news feed.

Frances Haugen: So, you know, you have your phone. You might see only 100 pieces of content if you sit and scroll on for, you know, five minutes. But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you.

The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you've engaged with the most in the past.

Frances Haugen: And one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is it is -- optimizing for content that gets engagement, or reaction. But its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it's easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions.

Scott Pelley: Misinformation, angry content-- is enticing to people and keep--

Frances Haugen: Very enticing.

Scott Pelley:--keeps them on the platform.

Frances Haugen: Yes. Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they'll click on less ads, they'll make less money.

Haugen says Facebook understood the danger to the 2020 Election. So, it turned on safety systems to reduce misinformation—but many of those changes, she says, were temporary.

Frances Haugen: And as soon as the election was over, they turned them back off or they changed the settings back to what they were before, to prioritize growth over safety.

And that really feels like a betrayal of democracy to me.

Facebook says some of the safety systems remained. But, after the election, Facebook was used by some to organize the January 6th insurrection. Prosecutors cite Facebook posts as evidence--photos of armed partisans and text including, "by bullet or ballot restoration of the republic is coming!" Extremists used many platforms, but Facebook is a recurring theme.

After the attack, Facebook employees raged on an internal message board copied by Haugen. "…Haven't we had enough time to figure out how to manage discourse without enabling violence?" We looked for positive comments and found this, "I don't think our leadership team ignores data, ignores dissent, ignores truth…" but that drew this reply, "welcome to Facebook! I see you just joined in November 2020… we have been watching… wishy-washy actions of company leadership for years now." "…Colleagues… cannot conscience working for a company that does not do more to mitigate the negative effects of its platform."

Scott Pelley: Facebook essentially amplifies the worst of human nature.

Frances Haugen: It's one of these unfortunate consequences, right? No one at Facebook is malevolent, but the incentives are misaligned, right? Like, Facebook makes more money when you consume more content. People enjoy engaging with things that elicit an emotional reaction. And the more anger that they get exposed to, the more they interact and the more they consume.

That dynamic led to a complaint to Facebook by major political parties across Europe. This 2019 internal report obtained by Haugen says that the parties, "…feel strongly that the change to the algorithm has forced them to skew negative in their communications on Facebook… leading them into more extreme policy positions."

Scott Pelley: The European political parties were essentially saying to Facebook the way you've written your algorithm is changing the way we lead our countries.

Frances Haugen: Yes. You are forcing us to take positions that we don't like, that we know are bad for society. We know if we don't take those positions, we won't win in the marketplace of social media.

Evidence of harm, she says, extends to Facebook's Instagram app.

Scott Pelley: One of the Facebook internal studies that you found talks about how Instagram harms teenage girls. One study says 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse; 17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse.

Frances Haugen: And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this-- this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more. Facebook's own research says it is not just the Instagram is dangerous for teenagers, that it harms teenagers, it's that it is distinctly worse than other forms of social media.

Facebook said, just last week, it would postpone plans to create an Instagram for younger children.

Last month, Haugen's lawyers filed at least 8 complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission which enforces the law in financial markets. The complaints compare the internal research with the company's public face—often that of CEO Mark Zuckerberg—who testified remotely to Congress last March.

Mark Zuckerberg testimony on March 25:

We have removed content that could lead to imminent real-world harm. We have built an unprecedented third-party fact checking program. The system isn't perfect. But it is the best approach that we have found to address misinformation in line with our country's values.


One of Frances Haugen's lawyers, is John Tye. He's the founder of a Washington legal group, called "Whistleblower Aid."

Scott Pelley: What is the legal theory behind going to the SEC? What laws are you alleging have been broken?

John Tye: As a publicly-traded company, Facebook is required to not lie to its investors or even withhold material information. So, the SEC regularly brings enforcement actions, alleging that companies like Facebook and others are making material misstatements and omissions that affect investors adversely.

Scott Pelley: One of the things that Facebook might allege is that she stole company documents.

John Tye: The Dodd-Frank Act, passed over ten years ago at this point, created an Office of the Whistleblower inside the SEC. And one of the provisions of that law says that no company can prohibit its employees from communicating with the SEC and sharing internal corporate documents with the SEC.

Frances Haugen: I have a lot of empathy for Mark. and Mark has never set out to make a hateful platform. But he has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful, polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach.

Facebook declined an interview. But in a written statement to 60 Minutes it said, "every day our teams have to balance protecting the right of billions of people to express themselves openly with the need to keep our platform a safe and positive place. We continue to make significant improvements to tackle the spread of misinformation and harmful content. To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true."

"If any research had identified an exact solution to these complex challenges, the tech industry, governments, and society would have solved them a long time ago."

Facebook is a $1 trillion company. Just 17 years old, it has 2.8 billion users, which is 60% of all internet-connected people on Earth. Frances Haugen plans to testify before Congress this week. She believes the federal government should impose regulations.

Frances Haugen: Facebook has demonstrated they cannot act independently Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety. It is subsidizing, it is paying for its profits with our safety. I'm hoping that this will have had a big enough impact on the world that they get the fortitude and the motivation to actually go put those regulations into place. That's my hope.

Produced by Maria Gavrilovic and Alex Ortiz. Broadcast associate, Michelle Karim. Edited by Michael Mongulla.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

What a Surprise: Top Obama Official is Advising Anti-Trump Facebook ‘Whistleblower’

By Jim Hoft
Published October 5, 2021 at 9:25am

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, who wants conservative content openly shadow-banned or eliminated is working with former Obama deputy press secretary Bill Burton and his consulting firm, Bryson Gillette.

1633464284513.png

According to the Free Beacon — Burton’s involvement in helping to manage Haugen’s public debut suggests that her argument is part of a broader Democratic initiative. This much is clear as you listen to Haugen attack those who question the 2020 election. It smells like just another Democrat operation.

Frances Burton

Burton does not believe in free speech in America. She wants to control thought and content online. This makes her a tool of the left.

Eliana Johnson at The Free Beacon reported:
The Facebook whistleblower who revealed herself in a 60 Minutes interview is getting strategic communications guidance from a top Democratic operative, according to a source with direct knowledge of the relationship, which was confirmed by another half-dozen sources with indirect knowledge of the partnership.
Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee who has for the past 10 months fed internal documents to a top Wall Street Journal reporter, and who revealed her identity in a primetime broadcast on Sunday, is working with the political consultant and former Obama administration deputy press secretary Bill Burton and his consulting firm, Bryson Gillette. It is unclear when Haugen’s relationship with Burton and Bryson Gillette began, how big her communications team is, and whether it includes other political operatives.
But Burton is now deeply integrated with an emerging infrastructure on the left comprised of individuals and organizations, including the nonprofit Center for Humane Technology, seeking to press Facebook to more aggressively police political content.
In Haugen’s public testimony, industry and political insiders see a sophisticated communications campaign intended to put Facebook on defense, from a steady trickle of leaked internal documents that fueled a Wall Street Journal investigative series dubbed “The Facebook Files” to the blockbuster 60 Minutes interview to congressional testimony scheduled to begin Tuesday. Haugen on Sunday also debuted a slick personal website in part to field media requests.
“It does have the appearance of being an incredibly well-orchestrated communications campaign,” said the GOP operative Kevin McLaughlin, the former director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Far-Left Activist Masquerading as Facebook ‘Whistleblower’ Says Uncensored Social Media ‘Destabilizes Democracies’ (VIDEO)

By Cristina Laila
Published October 5, 2021 at 2:10pm

This was all planned. This was all deliberate.

Frances Haugen, a far-left activist masquerading as a Facebook ‘whistleblower’ said uncensored social media destabilizes democracies during Tuesday’s testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee.

Haugen, who wants conservative content openly shadow-banned or eliminated is working with former Obama deputy press secretary Bill Burton and his consulting firm, Bryson Gillette.

According to the Free Beacon — Burton’s involvement in helping to manage Haugen’s public debut suggests that her argument is part of a broader Democratic initiative. This much is clear as you listen to Haugen attack those who question the 2020 election. It smells like just another Democrat operation.

Haugen does not believe in free speech in America. She wants to control thought and content online. This makes her a tool of the left.

Facebook ‘mysteriously’ went down for several hours on Monday as this so-called whistleblower emerged.

The whistleblower was then whisked into a hearing to testify ahead of the 2022 election cycle.

Haugen claimed uncensored social media ‘destabilizes democracies.’

“For more than 5 hours, Facebook wasn’t used to deepen divides, destabilize democracies, and make young girls and women feel bad about their bodies,” Haugen said.

VIDEO:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1445397070328868876
.16 min

Just in time for the 2022 midterms.
 

marsh

TB Fanatic

Facebook ‘Whistleblower’ Donated 36 Times to Democrats, Including to Anti-Primary Extremists And AOC.

Looks like this 'whistleblower' is doing less whistling and more blowing.

by Natalie Winters and Raheem Kassam
October 4, 2021

Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen is a longtime Democrat donor, supporting campaigns for far-left extremists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She has also donated money to activist groups actively attempting to derail the U.S. primary process that allows ordinary members of the public to beat out establishment, career politicians, The National Pulse can reveal.

Blowing the Establishment.
Haugen’s “whistleblowing” has been lauded by the corporate media: a sure sign that rather than being a sole actor attempting to call out corporate abuse, she is likely backed by some hefty interests. Haugen first anonymously leaked internal documents before revealing her identity and calling for mass censorship on the Facebook, but only of political ideas she opposes.

The National Pulse has thus far identified 36 donations from Haugen during her time as an employee of Facebook, Pinterest, and Gigster. All of the donations, which total nearly $2,000 since December 2016, have gone to Democrats including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

On January 13th, 2020, Haugen sent money to Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign and a further contribution to her “Courage to Change” Political Action Committee (PAC).

“All endorsees will embody the ideals of racial, social, economic, and environmental justice,” promises the PAC.

Haugen’s most recent donation was August 4th, sending $100 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

Anti-Democracy Campaigners.
In-keeping with her wishes to purge political views other than hers from social media, Haugen has also donated to a left-wing “resistance” group which lists as one of its top priorities the dismantling of the U.S. primary process for elections.

America is somewhat unique on the world stage in its commitment to a decentralized process whereby ordinary citizens can become political party candidates. It is perhaps the most democratic part of U.S. elections.

But, in the words of the Haugen-backed “It Starts Today” campaign, “the modern partisan primary—particularly within the GOP—has turned out to have an unintended consequence: extremism in our elected officials and dysfunction in our legislatures.”

There is, of course, far more extremism on the political left in the U.S. Congress than on the political right. But as of June 2021, the group founded by ActBlue’s Jonathan Zucker decided that the way to beat Republicans was not to win the battle of ideas, but rather to stop real conservatives winning primaries.

Haugen donated twice to “It Starts Today,” and curiously claims that it “holds donations” for Democratic primary nominees until the end of the selection process.

Haugen’s loathing of free speech tracks with her disdain for the democratic process. Her previous roles include working at Google, which paid for her degree from the Harvard Business School
 
Last edited:

marsh

TB Fanatic
Top