Bill Gates says he has no plans to retire, ever, while joining the chorus for crackdowns on online speech

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Much work still to be done for man who talks about need for depopulation while investing in toxic mRNA shots under guise of ‘saving’ lives. Now he’s demanding digital IDs to rein in ‘misinformation’. 

For Bill Gates, the thought of growing older and having to scale back his work to less than full-time scares him to death.

In fact, he says he wants to work another 20 to 30 years.

Gates, who recently turned 68, says he hopes to follow in the footsteps of his longtime friend Warren Buffett, who serves as chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway at age 94 and has no imminent plans to retire. Buffet has donated at least $43 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation over the years, roughly half of all the money taken in by the foundation, so it’s easy to see why Bill Gates considers Buffett such a good friend.

Gates told CNBC:

“My friend Warren Buffett still comes into the office six days a week. So, I hope my health allows me to be like Warren.”

Gates told the outlet he still has so much he wants to accomplish. He remains a technology advisor for Microsoft and spends much of his time using his net worth — estimated at $128 billion— to fund potential solutions for the global issues he sees as most pressing. These include creating new synthetic mRNA “vaccines” for nearly every disease known to man, ending poverty, and pushing the climate change agenda, part of which involves a war on food (at least real food) and global depopulation.

Gates has openly called for depopulating the earth by “10 to 15 percent.”

So, unless the Lord decides otherwise, the world apparently has many more years to endure Bill Gates.

Folks like Gates, Fauci, Buffett, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab, they don’t tend to take their billions and ride off into the sunset. They stay busy. Kissinger lived to 100 and worked a full schedule almost to the end.

What’s that saying? Evil never rests?

Gates has also gone public recently with his antagonistic view of the First Amendment’s free speech protections, which he says hinder efforts to combat online “misinformation.”

According to Reclaim the Net, Gates erroneously cited the example that shouting “fire” in a crowded theater as an exception to free speech protections, a misrepresentation that has been clarified legally over time to be more nuanced in its application.

In his discussions, highlighted in an upcoming Netflix series and through dialogue with Stanford experts, Gates argues in favor of digital IDs to verify online identities to help curb this “misinformation.”

Reclaim the Net reports that the Gates Foundation has donated money to digital ID projects in the past, using parts of Africa as a testing ground. The outlet writes:

“Gates’ proposed approach ostensibly aims to curb the spread of fake content and ensure that only verified individuals can publish information which means that online content can be matched to real-life identities.

“However, this raises significant concerns about privacy and the potential for excessive surveillance and control over digital spaces, something Gates has never been too keen to defend.”

Gates explained, as reported by CNET:

“The US is a tough one because we have the notion of the First Amendment and what are the exceptions like yelling ‘fire’ in a theater.”

Reclaim the Net rightly notes that Gates’ commentary on the First Amendment, using the flawed “fire in a theater” analogy suggests a readiness to dilute foundational free speech principles to implement digital solutions.

Gates added:

“I do think over time, with things like deepfakes, most of the time you’re online you’re going to want to be in an environment where the people are truly identified, that is they’re connected to a real-world identity that you trust, instead of just people saying whatever they want.”

Imagine that. People “saying whatever they want.” That used to be a bedrock American freedom that everyone took for granted — the right to express one’s opinion, anonymously or not.

Gates is just one of many elitist globalists in the West who have decided it’s time to declare war on freedom of speech.

France just recently arrested Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, because his platform does not allow the government to have a back door into the Telegram system for censorship.

Brazil just banned Elon Musk’s X platform.

Antony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, recently admitted his federal agency is working on a project to use A.I. to monitor the internet and flag content considered by the federal government to be “misinformation.”

The United Nations has called for a crackdown on “misinformation” as has Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, a notorious globalist, has also taken up the cause, calling in a recent interview for further restrictions on online speech.

Now is the time to speak up louder and more boldly than ever in favor of free speech. It might not be around much longer even in the limited doses we see today.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

Please visit Leo’s Newsletter Substack.

CBS Journalist in Gaza Tied to Terror, Investigation Finds

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

News producer for CBS praised terrorists, had contacts with terrorists as a member of the Gaza City municipality council.

A CBS News journalist in Gaza praised terrorists at an official event of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and had contacts with terrorists as a member of the Gaza City municipality council, an HonestReporting investigation revealed.

Marwan al-Ghoul has been working as a CBS News producer in Gaza for more than two decades, and his affiliation with a proscribed terror group, as well as his official public role in the Hamas-ruled Strip, raise alarming questions regarding the network’s journalistic standards.

Here are the details of what HonestReporting has discovered, based on Arabic media reports and Al-Ghoul’s Facebook page. It is the latest in a series of exposes unmasking Gaza’s biased reporters.

PFLP Links

In 2018, Al-Ghoul was among the speakers at an official PFLP event commemorating one of the prominent members of the terror group who was also Al-Ghoul’s relative.

According to the PFLP website, Al-Ghoul spoke on behalf of the family, which “expressed their gratitude to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and their esteemed comrades everywhere in the Palestinian land . . . for their . . . commitment to continue the struggle.”

Al-Ghoul praised the group’s terrorists, emphasizing his relative’s dedication to “maintaining the noble national values established by the leading martyrs, such as Al-Hakim, Abu Ali Mustafa, and Wadie Haddad, and those who followed their path of struggle and martyrdom.”

The PFLP is a proscribed terror group whose members were involved in deadly attacks against Israelis, including suicide bombings, stabbings and shootings.

The fact that Al-Ghoul was invited to address an official event of the group suggests his (and his family’s) affiliation with it is deep. The effect such an affiliation might have on his “journalistic” work cannot be underestimated.

Official Role

Al-Ghoul also cozied up with the terror group’s officials as a member of the Gaza City municipality council.

In 2022, a news report showed him smiling next to Gaza City mayor Yahya Sarraj as they hosted a PFLP delegation to discuss “issues of concern to citizens and ways of cooperating.”

What could possibly be discussed in such a meeting? How to better embed terrorists amid the civilian population?

That would not be far-fetched to assume, considering that back in 2022, the IDF revealed that an Islamic Jihad rocket was launched from a location owned by the Gaza City municipality. It misfired and killed two Palestinians.

Referring to the Gaza City mayor, the IDF spokesperson’s unit said at the time that “Sarraj chose to take care of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad more than the residents of the city he heads, and he abused public space that belongs to the residents of the city for terror. This is how he harmed his citizens directly.”

According to an announcement on his Facebook page, Al-Ghoul resigned from his membership in the city council in November 2022. It’s not clear how long he served, why he resigned, whether he got paid to do the job, and if so by whom.

But according to a Fatah official quoted by WAFA, Gaza municipal council members are appointed by Hamas. And according to Reuters, Hamas is the body in charge of paying public sector workers.

The Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Local Government may be in charge on paper, but de-facto, Hamas runs the show.

In any case, AL-Ghoul’s profile photo still appears on the official website of the Gaza city municipality, with a bio that presents him as a “media professional working with several Arab and international channels,” as well as a “member of the Municipal Council.”

What’s clear is that such a public role, in an enclave ruled by terrorists and where terrorists are hosted by the mayor, cannot be done without problematic ties. Especially for a journalist who needs to cover political and civilian issues objectively.

Celebrated Journalist

None of that seemed to bother CBS News, which either turned a blind eye to Al-Ghoul’s activities, or had no idea about them.

The network relied heavily on his work at the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war and praised his “journalism.”

Unsurprisingly, Al-Ghoul’s reports from Gaza are typical — they include destruction and victims, not Hamas terrorists.

Perhaps this is because he prayed for the “victory” of these terrorists in a Facebook post on October 7, as they massacred Israeli women and children:

And it might also be because, as the head of the Mayadeen media Group, Al-Ghoul had long lasting ties with the Hamas-run Government Media Office. In 2008, he delivered a panel in a workshop organized by the office on “the freedom of journalistic work under the Israeli occupation” (although Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.)

Al-Ghoul is not a journalist. Like many other Gaza “reporters” who work for respected Western media outlets, he is a propagandist, at best, or a terror collaborator, at worst.

CBS News should not celebrate his work, but be ashamed of it.

EDITORS NOTE: This Honest Reporting column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Europe’s Free Speech Crackdown Could Be Coming For Americans Next, Advocates Warn

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The arrest of Telegram’s founder endangers the future of free expression and privacy rights, multiple civil liberties advocates told the Caller.

Durov’s arrest was spearheaded by France’s OFMIN, the agency tasked with protecting children from violence. Various governments — the U.S., U.K. and the European Union (E.U.) — have advanced legislation aimed at protecting children online. However, critics say these policies could be weaponized to chill freedom of speech and greenlight government censorship.

“[Kid’s] safety is a very useful pretext for censors,” the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO) told the Caller in a statement, comparing the issue to a “trojan horse.”

“Unlike other common excuses, like ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech,’ it is a real issue that the public is strongly concerned about.”

OFMIN issued the arrest warrant for a preliminary investigation into allegations of drug trafficking, fraud, cyberbullying, “organised crime and promotion of terrorism,” France 24 reported. Durov was ultimately charged Wednesday with complicity in the spread of sexual images of children.

Civil liberties groups decried the arrest and expressed concerns about the shaky future of free expression.

“Communications platforms like Telegram are a vital part of internet architecture and fundamental drivers of free speech,” Joe Mullin, Senior Policy Analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said in a statement.

He noted that if Durov was arrested for Telegram’s moderation policies, it jeopardizes the privacy and free speech rights of users. Mullin commented on the lack of details about Durov’s arrest, noting how Telegram is used by “hundreds of millions” of individuals globally.

“Those users’ rights to free expression are at stake,” he concluded.

France’s Tribunal Judiciaire De Paris released a statement Monday listing out the 12 charges facing Durov.

The French government investigated Telegram because of the site’s moderation policies and lack of cooperation with authorities, arguing Telegram was “complicit” in certain illegal activities, according to the French outlet TF1 Info.

“I think Pavel’s arrest is concerning,” Toby Young, Founder and General Secretary of the U.K.-based Free Speech Union (FSU) told the Caller. “Would you arrest the head of the telephone company if someone made a threatening phone call? Pavel cannot be held responsible for everything that’s said on Telegram.”

He added that although some individuals will abuse Telegram’s lack of censorship, the platform provides people with the freedom to criticize authoritarian regimes.

Durov was born in Russia and is also a citizen of France and the United Arab Emirates. He fled Russia in 2014 after he refused to hand over encrypted data from the Russian social network VKontakte (VK) — which Durov founded — to authorities. He also denied a request by Russian authorities to ban opposition parties from the platform. 

“The specific nature of the charges against Durov are unclear at this time,” Aaron Terr, Director of Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told the Caller in a statement. “But to the extent Durov was arrested simply for failing to moderate Telegram more aggressively, that raises concerns about government control over online speech.”

Telegram released a statement claiming it adheres to E.U. regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The objective of the DSA is to “prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation,” according to the European Commission.

“Arresting platform executives because of their alleged failures to sufficiently moderate content, even content as disturbing and harmful as content that harms children, starts us down a dangerous road that threatens free expression and gives too much power to the government to suppress speech,” Kate Ruane, the Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s (CDT) Free Expression Project, said in a statement to the Caller.

She explained how his arrest paves the way for governments to escalate censorship, threatening the privacy and freedom of expression of users.

“The dangers are all the more acute in the context of end-to-end encrypted services, where platforms do not even have access to the content of messages,” Ruane added.

The arrest of Durov is not the first time governments have taken action to address harmful online content, specifically for children.

A 2023 E.U. document obtained by WIRED detailed a proposal to force tech companies to scan users’ private messages for illegal content, potentially jeopardizing end-to-end encryption and digital privacy.

In the US, the Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) — a bill aimed at protecting children from harmful content online — in July. Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote a letter to his colleagues warning of the possible dangers of KOSA. He claimed it would stifle the First Amendment. Paul pointed to the bill’s vague text, also calling it a “trojan horse.”

“Protecting children from serious harm is crucial, but governments too often try to achieve that goal through overly broad and vague regulations that open the door to unchecked censorship,” FIRE’s Aaron Terr told the Caller.

Critics attacked KOSA as overly broad legislation that posed threats to online anonymity. KOSA would be overseen by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), thus subject to the whims of whichever administration is in power. (RELATED: Jonathan Turley Slams ‘Global Censors,’ Says Americans Should Be Afraid After Telegram Arrest)

“Consult the text of KOSA and similar bills in other countries, and you’ll find vaguely defined prohibitions against online ‘bullying’ and ‘harassment’ – both tried-and-true fig leaves for suppressing political speech,” FFO stated.

Similarly, the U.K. instituted the Online Safety Act in 2023 to implement protections for adults and children online. The bill was criticized for potentially enabling government censorship of the internet.

After riots swept across the U.K. this summer, the government is considering enhancing the Online Safety Act to tackle “incitements to violence or hate speech,” Reuters reported.

The FSU’s Toby Young said there are methods for platforms to protect people online, including age verification for children and adjustable safety settings for adults.

“People are the best judges of what’s ‘safe’ for them to see, not governments,” Young told the Caller.

AUTHOR

Eireann Van Natta

General assignment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FLASHBACK: Arrested Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Told Tucker US Government Wanted To Spy On His Users

REPORT: Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Arrested At French Airport

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why did Zuckerberg come clean on his collusion with feds to silence the voices of conservative Americans?

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Mark Zuckerberg says he suddenly “regrets” that his company, Meta, bowed to the Biden regime’s pressure to censor content on Facebook, saying in a letter that the interference was “wrong” and he plans to push back if it happens again.

Should we take him seriously? Is this a genuine mia culpa?

According to an article in Politico, Zuckerberg aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms. Zuckerberg detailed how senior administration officials leaned on the company to censor certain posts about Covid-19, including humor and satire, and “expressed a lot of frustration” when the social media platform resisted.

Zuckerberg wrote:

“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction — and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”

Zuckerberg also expressed regret in the letter for his company’s disgusting effort to memory-hole content related to coverage by the New York Post about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election. This is the story, you will remember, that the FBI falsely warned may have been planted as “Russian disinformation.”

“It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he wrote.

Republicans on the committee, led by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, celebrated the letter in a long series of posts on X, calling it a “big win for free speech.”

But is it? What, if anything, is Congress going to do about this revelation of guilt, which proves what we already knew about how the government outsources its violations of the First Amendment to its partners in the private sector known as Big Tech.

Robert F. Kennedy has an active lawsuit against the federal government and has explained to Tucker Carlson in a recent interview just how involved the feds were in monitoring the social media platforms and then pressuring them to delete or downplay information that the government didn’t want American citizens to know. It didn’t even matter if the information was true. In fact, it was the truth about Covd and the 2020 election that the government feared the most.

In the video below, fast-forward to the 15:47 mark and listen for the next five minutes or so.

<

If you look at Zuckerberg’s history, he tends to play ball with whatever government holds the reins of power. He cooperates with Chinese communists as easily as he does American globalists. Whatever he needs to do to keep raking in the billions.

Perhaps this is why Zuckerberg decided to come clean at this moment in time. He knows RFK Jr. has teamed up with Trump and the super-lawyer RFK will bring the receipts to the table regarding government censorship if given half a chance. What if Trump wins and makes RFK his attorney general? If Trump wins, Zuckerberg can now say he’s come clean and changed course. This is Zuckerberg covering all his bases. He is no friend of the First Amendment.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook Founder Confesses Censorship of Conservatives Was Ordered by Biden-Harris Admin.

Please visit LeoHohmann.com for:

Investigative reporting on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.