ANOTHER Facebook Content Moderator: ‘We Rig the Game for the Left’ ‘[Trump Supporters Are] A Bunch of Sh*tty F*cking Rednecks’

They’re doing it. All. Over. The Country!

In a second #ExposeFacebook video, featuring a new whistleblower discussing rampant political censorship by Facebook content moderators.

This video also exposes the biases held by these Facebook content moderators.

Click HERE to view the video.

  • Facebook Whistleblower: ‘I was seeing them interfering on a global level in elections’
  • Facebook Insider: Facebook Categorizes Trump Supporters With ‘Hate Organizations, Hitler, Nazis, MAGA’
  • Former Google HR Contractor, Now Senior Human Resources Business Partner at Facebook: ‘No One Has the White Man’s Back Anymore’
  • Facebook Content Moderator Israel Amparan: ‘Trump Supporters Are F*cking Crazy *ss *ssh*les’
  • Amparan: ‘[Trump Supporters Are] A Bunch of Sh*tty F*cking Rednecks’
  • Facebook Content Moderator Kassi Cimo: “Americans Should Take Iran’s $80 Million” Bounty on President Donald Trump “If It’s Gonna Save the Country, Why Not Do It?”

Arizona-based Facebook content moderator Ryan Hartwig reached out to Project Veritas to report on the outrageous behavior.

Hartwig is ANOTHER employee of Cognizant, the third-party company Facebook has contracted to conduct content moderation, who is speaking out. Earlier this week, Facebook Whistleblower Zach McElroy detailed a similar work environment across the country in Florida.

Insiders, like Ryan, have every incentive to keep quiet. Yet, instead of just going along to get along, Ryan and the other Insiders decided to be brave and do something about the wrongdoing in their workplace.

Ryan’s footage shows Steve Grimmett, a Team Lead at Facebook-Cognizant’s content review, stating Trump supporters are in the same speech category as Hitler, under the Facebook policy on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations.

Ryan believes he was targeted for being a white male. This cultural bias was documented in a previous Project Veritas undercover investigation, when Leslie Brown, Senior Human Resources Business Partner at Facebook spoke of the ease of firing a white male without repercussions or any due diligence requirements.

Journalist: I mean, they were able to fire him without having to worry about discrimination.

Leslie Brown, Human Resources Executive: Due diligence, right. Because he’s a white man. Yeah, white man. No problem. You can’t do it that easily if there are other issues.

Journalist: Oh, it’s easier when they’re-   

Leslie Brown, Human Resources Executive: White man. 

Journalist: Yeah, no protected class. 

Leslie Brown, Human Resources Executive: No one has the white man’s back anymore.

It is quite clear that social media giants think they can get away with anything. That is precisely why Project Veritas will not stop investigating Facebook and others—and those investigations are propelled by insiders like Ryan and the other Facebook insider Zach McElroy, who was featured in the first investigation into Facebook’s content moderation policies and practices.

Yours in truth,

James

P.S. WE NEED YOU! Insiders who are willing to Be Brave and Do Something.

You might have thought about it yourself.

There are many ways to reach me, but you have to take the first step: veritastips@protonmail.com or calling our tip line: (914) 653-3110 or contact us on Signal, Telegram or Wire using the handle: @veritastips.

America’s Top 20 Cities for Crime, and What Party Runs Them

Annoyed that Senate Democrats are blocking a police reform bill, President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the 20 U.S. cities with the highest crime rates are all run by Democrats.

“The Senate Republicans want very much to pass a bill on police reform,” Trump said during a Rose Garden press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda. “I would like to see it happen. We won’t sacrifice. We won’t do that. We won’t do anything that is going to hurt our police.”

The president added:

We have a record positive rating on crime, a record positive rating on crime this year. The best. You hear about certain places like Chicago and you hear about what’s going on in Detroit and other cities, all Democrat-run. Every one of them is Democrat-run. The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat-run.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


A quick fact check shows that Trump is at least mostly correct. One ranking says the top 20 most dangerous cities are run by 18 Democrat mayors and two mayors who were elected in nonpartisan races.

According to the website Neighborhood Scout, which in January published a list of the 100 most dangerous cities in America, heavily Democrat Detroit tops the list. At No. 20 is Chester, Pennsylvania, also with a Democrat mayor.

Trump went on to refer to the so-called autonomous zone in central Seattle, where extremists have taken over six city blocks.

“We have one city, two cities in particular, worse than Honduras, worse than Afghanistan. These are cities within the United States, Democrat-run. Radical left-run. You see what’s going on in Seattle. Seattle of all places, who would even think that’s possible,” he said, adding:

The Democrats want to weaken very substantially our law enforcement, our police. Frankly, they want to defund [police departments], at least largely. Some want to defund and abolish our police. If nothing happens with [police reform], it’s one of those things. We had different philosophies. They want open borders. They want sanctuary cities. We don’t.

Here is the Neighborhood Scout ranking of the most crime-ridden cities and their mayors.

1. Detroit

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 20.0

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 50

Mayor: Michael Edward Duggan, Democrat

2. Memphis, Tennessee

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 51

Mayor: Jim Strickland, Democrat

3. Birmingham, Alabama

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.3

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 52

Mayor: Randall Woodfin, Democrat

4. Baltimore

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.5

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 54

Mayor: Jack Young, Democrat

5. Flint, Michigan

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.3

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 55

Mayor: Karen Weaver, Democrat

6. St. Louis 

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.2

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 55

Mayor: Lyda Krewson, Democrat

7. Danville, Illinois

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.0

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 55

Mayor: Ricky Williams Jr. (nonpartisan election)

8. Saginaw, Michigan

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.7

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 60

Mayor: Floyd Kloc (nonpartisan election)

9. Wilmington, Delaware 

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.3

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 61

Mayor: Mike Purzycki, Democrat

10. Camden, New Jersey

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.2

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 62

Mayor: Francisco Moran, Democrat

11. Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.0

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 62

Mayor: Shirley Washington, Democrat

12. Kansas City, Missouri

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.9

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 63

Mayor: Quinton Lucas, Democrat

13. San Bernardino, California

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.3

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 65

Mayor: John Valdivia, Democrat

14. Alexandria, Louisiana 

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.6

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 68

Mayor: Jacques Roy, Democrat

15. Little Rock, Arkansas 

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.6

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 68

Mayor: Frank Scott Jr., Democrat

16. Cleveland

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.5

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 69

Mayor: Frank Jackson, Democrat

17. Milwaukee 

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.3

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 70

Mayor: Tom Barrett, Democrat

18. Stockton, California

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.2

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 70

Mayor: Michael Tubbs, Democrat

19. Monroe, Louisiana

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.1

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 71

Mayor: James Earl Mayo, Democrat

20. Chester, Pennsylvania

Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.0

Odds of being a victim: 1 in 71

Mayor: Thaddeus Kirkland, Democrat

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Criminals Tearing Down DC Statues Should Be Prosecuted. Here Are the Laws They’re Violating.

RELATED VIDEO:


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

Criminals Tearing Down DC Statues Should Be Prosecuted. Here Are the Laws They’re Violating.

It seems like every day angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of people they don’t like. And it is not just limited to statues of Confederate soldiers. Mobs have attacked statues of Mahatma Gandhi and former presidents Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant.

The attempt to topple the statue of Jackson—which fortunately was foiled—occurred in Lafayette Square, right across the street from the White House.

On Tuesday, the president tweeted that the federal government would use a little-known federal statute to prosecute criminals who destroy statues that are covered by that law.

He stated that he has “authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue, or other such Federal property,” adding, “There will be no exceptions!”


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


That law, the Veterans’ Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003, (found at 18 U.S. Code § 1369) makes it a federal crime for anyone to willfully injure or destroy, or attempt to injure or destroy, “any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States.”

The items must be located on property owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the federal government. While this obviously would not apply to all the statues that are being desecrated—although state laws would certainly apply to those that are not covered—it will apply to many of them.

If convicted, the defendant can receive up to 10 years in federal prison.

While many current Democratic senators—including Dianne Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden, Jack Reed, and Patrick Leahy (not to mention then-Sen. Joe Biden)—voted in favor of that law, it remains to be seen how many of them will support enforcement of the very act they supported.

As one would expect, many of these statues and monuments are located in the nation’s capital. The District of Columbia is a federal enclave, subject to federal law and criminal laws passed by the District of Columbia government.

Those laws are enforced by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, who is both the federal prosecutor responsible for prosecuting federal crimes and ostensibly the local district attorney, who handles violations of the D.C. criminal code.

So regardless of whether the scofflaws and statue-destroyers violate the Veterans’ Memorial and Preservation Act, there is ample law under the criminal code in D.C. to hold criminals accountable.

Depending on the facts and circumstances, prosecutors could consider filing any of the following charges against criminal scofflaws under D.C. Code.

Malicious Burning, Destruction, or Injury of Another’s Property (22-303).

Anyone who “maliciously injures or breaks or destroys, or attempts to injure or break or destroy, by fire or otherwise, any public or private property, whether real or personal, not his or her own, of the value of $1,000 or more” is guilty, and subject to 10 years in jail or fined. If the property has “some value,” then they can get 180 days in jail and/or a fine if convicted.

Assault on members of police forces, campus or university special police, or fire departments (22-405).

Anyone who “without justifiable and excusable cause assaults a law enforcement officer on account of, or while that law enforcement officer is engaged in, the performance of his or her official duties” is guilty, and if convicted, can get six months in jail or a fine.

A “law enforcement officer” is broadly defined, and includes any officer or member of any police force operating and authorized to act in the District of Columbia, including any reserve officer or designated civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police Department, any licensed special police officer, and any officer or member of any fire department operating in the District of Columbia, among others.

And if the person causes significant bodily injury to the law enforcement officer, or commits a violent act that creates a grave risk of causing significant bodily injury to the officer, he is guilty of a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Throwing stones or other missiles (22-1309).

Anyone within the District of Columbia who throws any stone or other missile in any street, avenue, alley, road, or highway, or open space, or public square, or enclosure, or throws any stone or other missile from any place into any street, avenue, road, or highway, alley, open space, public square, or enclosure can be found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined up to $500.

Disorderly conduct (§ 22-1321).

It is unlawful for anyone, in any place open to the general public, to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner as to cause another person to be in reasonable fear that a person or property in a person’s immediate possession is likely to be harmed or taken.”

Furthermore, you cannot incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that violence will ensue. You can’t “direct abusive or offensive language or gestures at another person (other than a law enforcement officer while acting in his or her official capacity) in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation or violence by that person or another person.”

It’s pretty obvious, from watching the videos of the mobs, that many people are engaged in disorderly conduct.

Under the statute, it is also “unlawful for a person to engage in loud, threatening, or abusive language, or disruptive conduct, with the intent and effect of impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of a lawful public gathering, or of a congregation of people engaged in any religious service or in worship, a funeral, or similar proceeding.”

Sound familiar? The statute covers other such abusive behavior.

The penalty if convicted of disorderly conduct is imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine.

Disorderly conduct in public buildings or grounds; injury to or destruction of United States property (22-3311).

This statute seems to cover a lot of the criminal behavior of rioters in D.C. It states in part: “Any person guilty of disorderly and unlawful conduct in or about the public buildings and public grounds belonging to the United States within the District of Columbia, or who shall willfully injure the buildings or shrubs, or shall pull down, impair, or otherwise injure any fence, wall, or other enclosure, or shall injure any sink, culvert, pipe, hydrant, cistern, lamp, or bridge, or shall remove any stone, gravel, sand, or other property of the United States, or any other part of the public grounds or lots belonging to the United States in the District of Columbia” is guilty of this statute. If convicted, the person can get six months in jail and/or a fine.

We have had debates before about whether to remove certain statues because of the feelings they evoke in some observers. We will no doubt have those conversations again. But one should never give into a mob.

These hoodlums should be prosecuted. As the president said, there should be no exceptions.

COMMENTARY BY

Charles “Cully” Stimson is a leading expert in national security, homeland security, crime control, immigration, and drug policy at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Roots of America’s ‘New Anarchy,’ According to a College Professor

Fact Check: Is Trump Correct About 20 Worst Crime Cities Being Run by Democrats?

Park Police Won’t Say Whether They’ll Prevent Toppling of Lincoln Statue

Wisconsin Vandals Tear Down Statue of Civil War Hero Who Fought To End Slavery


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

PODCAST: Are We Forgetting the Pledge of Allegiance?

Like most of you, I learned the Pledge of Allegiance during grade school (aka, elementary). For me, I was pleased to stand by my desk, put my right hand over my heart, and recite the pledge with gusto. I found it to be a patriotic message and denoted my commitment to the country. I was pleased to do it, and still do so at several meetings I attend. As an aside, back then it was considered an honor to hold and present the flag before the class during the Pledge.

The pledge was originally devised in 1892 as a means to promote Americanism, something sorely needed at the time. Since then, it has been modified over the years, adopted by Congress in 1942, and the pledge we know today was finalized in 1954.

Today, I’m not sure people think of the meaning of the Pledge anymore, but rather recite it as a rote exercise. In other words, little thought goes into its meaning. I started to think about this recently and decided to dissect the pledge; here it is in its entirety:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

  1. The initial part, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…” represents a commitment by the person to the flag as it is an important symbol or icon representing our country, more specifically, “the Republic.” This is important as it clearly shows we are not a Democracy, but a Republic instead, something most young people fail to understand.
  2. “one Nation under God” – the “under God” expression represents the last modification to the Pledge in 1954, and was intended to thwart communism, which practices atheism. This was a growing concern at the time as we entered the Cold War.
  3. “indivisible” – meaning we stand united as a people, particularly in times of peril. I would like to believe this is true, but recent events dividing the nation casts doubt over the validity of this idea. Many people would like to see us divided and the country transformed into some other form of government.
  4. “with liberty and justice for all.” – this implies we are to be treated equally under the law and entitled to certain freedoms. It also suggests we respect the rule of law and apply it fairly and equitably.

The Pledge is one simple sentence consisting of 31 words (and 139 letters), yet it says a lot and the person who recites it should understand its meaning and not treat it frivolously as it is an expression of our belief in and commitment to the country.

Due to the freedom of speech and expression, citizens are not required to recite the Pledge, but willfully failing to do so suggests the person does not believe the contents of the Pledge and implies the person is anti-American.

As for me, I’m still proud to stand for my flag as I know it represents the overall Republic and the Constitution from which it is based. Reciting the Pledge is but one small way to show my respect and appreciation for this country. I, for one, do not take it for granted. God bless it.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Appeals Court Orders Judge To Dismiss Michael Flynn Case

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered a federal judge to dismiss charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The three-judge panel voted 2-1 against U.S. District Court Judge Emmet J. Sullivan, who sought to force the Justice Department to defend its decision to drop its case against Flynn.

The Justice Department filed a motion on May 7 seeking to dismiss a false statements charge against Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to the count on Dec. 1, 2017.

Flynn admitted in his plea agreement that he made false statements to the FBI during a White House interview on Jan. 24, 2017 regarding his conversations weeks earlier with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn retracted his admission of guilt on Jan. 29, saying that he did not lie to the FBI and that he struck a plea deal in order to protect his son from criminal charges.

Attorney General William Barr directed Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review Flynn’s case. Jensen discovered several pieces of evidence that Barr has said are exculpatory for Flynn.

The appellate court’s decision is a major victory for President Donald Trump, who has long decried the prosecution of his former national security adviser.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Democrats Exposed as the Racists They’ve Always Been

They say that out of every bad thing comes a good thing. Ask any mother who has been through a 20-hour labor!

The same can be said of the criminal behavior of the Marxist-inspired radicals––Antifa and Black Lives Matters––which eclipsed the legitimate outrage that followed the horrific murder of George Floyd by a white policeman, Derek Chauvin, in Minneapolis, MN.

This crime called for reform of the Minneapolis Police Department, which had ignored 18 grievances against Chauvin. But that is not what happened.

Instead, the peaceful protests against this savage act were obliterated by the professionally orchestrated, bountifully financed rampage of the above-mentioned anarchists-cum-terrorists through American cities and suburbs, leaving a massive swath of destruction that included dozens of black-owned businesses and dozens of white-owned businesses that employed black citizens. So much for Black Lives Matter!

What a beautiful tribute to George Floyd––God spare all of us such a memoriam!

A SHAMEFUL EXPOSÉ

However, the good that came out of this disgraceful, destructive, criminal behavior was the willingness of many black conservative commentators and writers to tell the American public what Democrats and their leftist media lackeys have been concealing from the public for decades.

  1. Since the 1960s, the welfare system rewarded single black mothers with lifetime financial support which resulted in every generation for the last 60 years with fatherless homes–in short, the destruction of the black family. When the mothers worked outside the home to make ends meet, their children were left to the streets to admire the rich pimps, drug pushers and other criminals who became their role models….a doomsday scenario for every child.
  2. Public schools run by Democrat-controlled unions and benefits-infatuated teachers and administrators allowed generations of illiterate students to “graduate” without the knowledge or skills necessary to be productive members of society. Just mention the name Eva Moskowitz to any leftist and you will be assaulted with vile language and the deep hatred Democrats feel toward the woman who runs upward of 25 Charter Schools in New York City, schools attended by children from black ghettos who pass the Regents with flying colors, score high marks on the SATs, graduate from high school and go on to top-flight colleges (without the “benefit” of Affirmative Action). This is tragically unlike the children who attend public schools and go on to survive either through lives of crime or welfare dependency.
  3. The result: a disproportionate number of blacks––mostly men––in prison, representing a complete waste of potentially vibrant and contributory lives.
  4. And the women? Most Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods… on purpose! In fact, 25 percent of abortions performed each year are on black women. The founder of these baby-destroying factories, Margaret Sanger, as John Nolte reports, was an impassioned eugenicist  who spoke before Ku Klux Klan groups. On December 10, 1939, in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society––in the context of discussing the Negro Project, which she developed in concert with white birth-control reformers––Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…” The Planned Parenthood Federation of America aborted 345,672 babies during the 2018 fiscal year, which equals approximately 86,500 dead black babies. So much for Black Lives Matter!
  5. Democrats conceived of and implemented Sanctuary Cities which flout federal immigration law in protecting illegal aliens from deportation and prosecution. These laws go further in providing cradle-to-grave benefits like taxpayer-funded free food, free housing, free medical care, free schooling, and of course welfare payments. The result, of course, is that the states who subscribe to this communist philosophy are both crime-ridden and bankrupt. The cost is in the multibillions of dollars, which could and should have been spent on better schools, jobs and living conditions for black citizens, but never is and never was. So much for Black Lives Matter!

John Nolte asks what the following cities have in common:

Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Fayetteville, Atlanta, New York, Nashville, Seattle, Portland, Philadelphia,  Chicago, Milwaukee, Salt Lake, Washington DC, Detroit, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Kansas City, Houston, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Denver, Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa, Baltimore, Oakland, Louisville…

  1. They’re all run by Democrats, many for generations.
  2. They’ve all been looted and burned by left-wing Antifa terrorists and other Marxist groups over the past few weeks.
  3. These riots are wholly owned, supported, indeed applauded by the Democrat Party.

Here is but one example:

Make no mistake: all of the above actions were taken with one overriding goal in mind: to accumulate votes for Democrat candidates. The strategy was obviously to keep minority populations dumb and dependent, the better to convince them that hope for a better future lay right around the corner.

If you go to horrible schools, you’re not going to keep up on politics and you are going to listen to sermon-spouting “reverends”––like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright, et al––who tell you what to think and who to vote for, while they are making millions and their gullible acolytes are barely getting by. So much for Black Lives Matter!

TO THE RESCUE

But now that President Trump enacted the unprecedented prison-reform First Step Act, and created an economy in which black people have enjoyed the highest employment rate in American history––money in their pockets, unlimited opportunity, increased awareness of the slave mentality of the Democrats––which political party will this minority population vote for?

As I said, good comes out of bad. A black vote of 20 percent, and quite possibly 30 percent for President Trump, will teach the Democrats that even their most cherished “value”––abortion––is not enough to keep the black population loyal to their historically empty promises and innate racism.

©All rights reserved.

Gorsuch the Pharisee and Textualist Tomfoolery

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination offers protections for the “LGBT” groups has raised eyebrows and ire. But it’s not surprising: The decision’s author, Justice Neil Gorsuch, long ago made clear that he operates from false premises. One of these is what’s called “textualism,” which is not at all the same as originalism.

Conservatives also err, in my view, in claiming that Gorsuch has “redefined ‘sex.’” In reality, his ruling is instead based on a certain rationalization. Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, while essentially applauding Gorsuch’s lawyer-craft, explained it well.

“As applied to Title VII, the classic 1964 anti-discrimination law, the textualist idea is very simple,” he wrote June 15. “The law prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’ To discriminate against somebody because of sexual orientation necessarily entails discriminating on the basis of sex. After all, if you’re discriminating against a man because he is attracted to men, you would not be discriminating against him if he were a woman who is attracted to men.”

“The same is true for transgender status,” he continued. “if [sic] you are discriminating against somebody for identifying with a gender that differs from their biological sex at birth, you are necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex — because you would not be discriminating against the person if they had the opposite biological sex.”

(Note: By this logic, bisexuals wouldn’t be protected because the behavior a person could be fired for — being attracted to both sexes — would be the same for both sexes. Although, some future judge will no doubt spin this, too.)

Now, realize that the above isn’t even necessarily dictated by textualism, the legal theory holding that a law’s application should be based on a plain reading of its text, as opposed to its framers’ original intent or some other guide. After all, there’s a difference between discriminating “on the basis of sex” and on the basis of sexual attraction or “gender identification.”

Consider: If an employer won’t hire anyone with same-sex sexual attraction, there is no “sex discrimination” because he will reject lesbians along with homosexuals (he only might be engaging in sex discrimination if he applied the “no same-sex sexual attraction” prohibition to only one sex).

Not only is the same true of so-called “transgenderism” — an employer could reject all people identifying as the sex they’re not — but there’s another factor: The business owner could simply be rejecting anyone who misrepresents himself.

Some may now respond that a man claiming womanhood really is a woman. But this proposition’s validity is irrelevant. The fact remains that the hypothetical employer is discriminating based on perceived misrepresentation, not sex. This is just as how an employer rejecting someone with “species dysphoria,” who claims to be a ferret, isn’t discriminating based on species, but possibly misrepresentation or concerns about the prospective hire’s mental stability. (Though Gorsuch would no doubt say that such discrimination is okay because the employer wouldn’t hire an actual ferret, either.)

Of course, some will still prefer Gorsuch’s argument. Yet this conflict and confusion merely illustrate how textualism doesn’t live up to its billing. Late Justice Antonin Scalia is known for pushing the theory (one of his great mistakes), which he did because in “his mind, textualism discouraged judges from using interpretation to make the law say something different from what the law actually said,” explained Feldman.

Yet while Scalia would no doubt disapprove of Gorsuch’s textual interpretation, this is yet another example of how there just is no simple formula for preventing judicial activism; a judge lacking intellectual honesty and philosophical soundness can always tendentiously spin a ruling.

This said, Gorsuch’s opinion might not have been rendered if he adhered to the only legitimate legal philosophy: originalism. As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissent, no one in 1964 even imagined that banning sex discrimination would include prohibitions against “homophobic” or “transphobic” discrimination; in fact, neither of these terms even existed, and “transgender” status hadn’t been conjured up yet.

By the way, Gorsuch essentially admitted as much, writing in his opinion that when “the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Moreover, he also rather haughtily insisted that “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

Now, the contrast between textual tomfoolery and sound judicial theory can be illustrated with a simple analogy: 10-year-old twins Timmy and Oliver and five-year-old Malcolm are siblings. One day mom hears Malcolm crying wretchedly, investigates, and learns that the two older boys had been punching him.

After scolding the twins, the mother warns, “Now, stop hitting Malcolm! If you hit him again and I come in here and find him bawling, you’re gonna’ be in big trouble!”

Yet an hour later Malcolm is crying his eyes out, again. The mother learns that Oliver understood not to hurt his kid brother and that Timmy is the culprit. Instead of being contrite, however, Timmy says, “Mommy, you said not to hit Malcolm; you didn’t say anything about not choking him and twisting his arm…and that’s all I did!”

Then too-clever-by-half Timmy adds, “The limits of your imagination, mommy, are no reason to ignore your rule’s demands. Only what you said matters — and I’m entitled to the rule’s benefits!”

In the above analogy, Oliver is the originalist, understanding and accepting his mother’s command’s spirit. Timmy is the textualist, doing things not expressly forbidden by her rule’s language even while knowing it contravenes her intent.

The problem with this “philosophy” is that insofar as you don’t consider what was intended, you increase the chances of experiencing the unintended. Gorsuch’s approach is every bit as maddening as Timmy’s (because it’s the same), as it places an unrealistic burden on legislators. If their laws are to meet Gorsuch’s textualist standard for being applied as intended, the legislators must have godlike capabilities: They must see into the future so they can craft language covering every social innovation, bizarre fashion or collective insanity that may eventually, one day, manifest itself.

So it’s bad enough we have the “law of unintended consequences.” Now we have textualists turning the law of unintended consequences into a legal philosophy and legislating it from the bench.

I don’t know Gorsuch personally, but he wouldn’t be a very pleasant person to associate with if he were a Timmy the Textualist in everyday life. Would you thus conduct yourself, parsing every friend’s words to seek a loophole and essentially punishing him for not being a seer who speaks like Mr. Spock? You’d have few friends and deserve none.

Interestingly, Gorsuch and his fellow travelers aren’t the first textualists. Two-thousand years ago they were called Pharisees, a group of pseudo-intellectuals whom Jesus excoriated for following the letter of the law, but ignoring its spirit. It’s tragic that we’re back to that, but convenient for today’s Pharisees.

It is ironic, though, that in order to avoid abiding by the intent of laws from a half century ago, some today are resorting to a mistake from two millennia ago.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©All rights reserved.

A Farrakhan Supporter Led the LA Black Lives Matter Rally That Became a Pogrom

“It’s no coincidence that the riots here escalated in Fairfax, the icon of the Jewish community. I saw the Watts and the Rodney King riots. They never touched a synagogue or house of prayer. The graffiti showed blatant antisemitism. It’s Kristallnacht all over again,” Rabbi Shimon Raichik, a Chabad Rabbi in Los Angeles, wrote.

These scenes from what the media has falsely called peaceful protests and the Jewish community in the Fairfax neighborhood of Los Angeles has called the Shavuot Riots, after the biblical holiday during which the worst of the attacks on the community occurred, has fundamentally divided Los Angeles Jews.

Allyson Rowen Taylor, the former Associate Director of the American Jewish Congress in LA, and a co-founder of StandWithUs, passed on an account of hearing chants of, “F___ the police and kill the Jews.”

“The antisemitic chants are not being widely reported.  This is insane and very, very scary,” she noted.

After the conclusion of Shavuot and the Shabbat, members of the Jewish community went to pick up the pieces, battling looters and checking out the damage. Even synagogues that had been untouched began evacuating their Torah scrolls to places of safety, unprecedented outside of a major natural disaster.

Aryeh Rosenfeld, an Orthodox Jewish small business owner in the area, described to the Jerusalem Post hearing screams of, “F___ Jews” during the riots and looting as he tried to protect his store.

The looting not only devastated countless small businesses in the area, but graffiti, some of it explicitly anti-Semitic, was scrawled across at least 5 Orthodox Jewish synagogues and 3 religious schools.

“The attack on our community last night was vicious and criminal. Fairfax is the center of the oldest Jewish community in Los Angeles,” Councilman Paul Koretz said. “As we watched the fires and looting, what didn’t get covered were the anti-Semitic hate crimes and incidents.”

Melina Abdullah, the lead organizer of Black Lives Matter in LA and a professor of Pan-African Studies at Cal State, had been very clear about her motive for bringing her hateful campaign to the area.

“We’ve been very deliberate in saying that the violence and pain and hurt that’s experienced on a daily basis by black folks at the hands of a repressive system should also be visited upon, to a degree, to those who think that they can just retreat to white affluence,” the BLM-LA co-founder ranted.

Melina Abdullah has a hateful record of appearing at Farrakhan and Nation of Islam events and praising the antisemitic hate group and its leader. When Facebook decided to remove Farrakhan over his hateful rhetoric toward Jews, the Black Lives Matter LA co-founder came to his defense.

“Facebook and Instagram’s decision to ban The Honorable Minister Farrakhan along with known white-supremacists represents the ultimate in false equivalencies,” Abdullah complained. “As a Black community, we should be very wary when others attempt to silence our leaders. We should also think about how to organize beyond social media. I continue to appreciate the Minister’s fearless leadership and intense love for our people.”

Farrakhan has praised Hitler, compared Jews to termites, and had declared, “Those who call themselves ‘Jews,’ who are not really Jews, but are in fact Satan”, claimed, “Hitler was trying to destroy the international bankers controlling Europe”, and boasted, “there has not been a black leader in America locked in a struggle with the Jewish community, but Louis Farrakhan.”

And Abdullah has made no secret of sharing Farrakhan’s hostility toward Jews.

When CNN parted ways with Marc Lamont Hill after he once again endorsed the murder of Jews, Abdullah accused CNN of standing “with a Zionist Israel that murders and terrorizes the Palestinian people.” The BLM-LA leader had complained that the Women’s March included “Zionists”.

At the Women’s March, Thandiwe Abdullah, her daughter, now the co-founder of the BLM Youth Vanguard, had said that as a “black Muslim girl, it is very important to me that Black Lives Matter also values the lives of the Muslim women in Palestine” and accused Israel of “genocide”.

Thandiwe also spoke at the Fairfax Black Lives Matter protest, where she ranted, “I know you want to tear some s___ up… if you want to set some corporations on fire, you know what? I don’t care about Target burning. I don’t care that capitalism burns. I don’t care that white people in their f____ office buildings are upset.”

Not just Melina, but Black Lives Matter LA, had partnered with the Nation of Islam, as she had noted in the past, “Minister Farrakhan was calling on folks not to spend their dollars with the White corporations that keep us oppressed, and so we partnered with the Nation and helped to amplify that call.”

The media not only failed to report the scale of vandalism against Jewish synagogues and schools, but treated it as a mysterious aberration while failing to report that BLM LA’s lead organizer had a history of anti-Semitism, and that BLM-LA had allied with one of the most vicious anti-Semitic hate groups around.

It did not note her own statement that “violence and pain and hurt” should also be “visited” on the people living and working in an area which included one of LA’s major Jewish communities.

The media repeatedly described Abdullah as an activist against police violence while ignoring her affinity for a racist black supremacist hate group whose leader has described Jews as satanic and subhuman.

The level of duplicity and malpractice by the media which covered this up is its own hate crime.

Imagine if a rally by a supporter of the KKK had turned into attacks on black churches and stores. The media would not be pretending that the two events were somehow separate and unrelated.

The national media, the local media, and even the local Jewish media failed to cover these facts.

In the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter riots, Los Angeles Jews, like millions of other Americans, found themselves deeply divided between standing with the rioters or their victims. And that unfortunately included some in the Modern Orthodox Jewish community.

After the attacks on synagogues in Fairfax, the major Modern Orthodox synagogues in nearby Beverlywood, the more modern counterpart of the community, conducted Black Lives Matter sessions. Even though these same synagogues had to rush out their Torah scrolls to protect them from a racist mob, they did not voice any pain or outrage, or offer solidarity to their fellow vandalized synagogues.

Unlike the statements by Young Israel and the Agudah, the Orthodox Union failed to even address the attacks on synagogues. Local leaders urged Orthodox Jews, who were the victims of the racist violence, to atone for their imaginary crimes of racism and to take up the hateful slogan of Black Lives Matter.

On a street in Beverlywood, high school kids from one of the more liberal schools in the area chalked slogans denouncing “white silence” and the same police who keep the mansions of their parents safe.

In Fairfax, the more traditional Orthodox Jews, in black pants and white shirts, in dangling tzitzit and black hats, had cheered the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies as they rolled in after the pogrom, and Persian Jews handed out donuts and snacks to the members of the National Guard.

There is an unbridgeable moral gap between the Chabad synagogue that opened its doors to the National Guard and the Modern Orthodox synagogues that opened their doors to black nationalists. And that gap in the Orthodox community can be seen in those teens cheering the LAPD in Fairfax and those chalking slogans against it in Beverlywood. That gap will determine which community has a future.

A community that teaches its children that they are privileged racists and that standing up for Israel and for their own homes and synagogues has to take a back seat to black nationalism, has no future.

As Rabbi Pini Dunner, of the Young Israel of North Beverly Hills, wrote, “If supporting BLM means collective suicide, you can count me out.”

Those Jews who have had the courage to speak up have been told that now is not a Jewish moment. This is a time for empathizing with criminals, not for standing up for the victims of anti-Semitism.

Jay Sanderson, the president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, worried that focusing on the attacks on synagogues would detract from the important cause of the protests.

“This is not about us,” Los Angeles Jews have been told.

And yet the vandalism of synagogues and businesses, the cries of, “F___ Jews”, and the “F___ Israel” graffiti on a synagogue eloquently testify to the inescapable truth of anti-Semitism that it is about Jews.

And if Jews don’t stand up when their synagogues and stores are attacked, who will?

Paint can be cleaned off, glass can be swept away, and family savings and dreams can be put away, but there is a bigger price to be paid for failing to stand up to the rise of someone like Melina Abdullah. Bigoted mobs don’t go away when you fail to stand up to them. They gain power and legitimacy. And the price of standing up to them grows while the toll they take with each attack becomes unbearable.

The true moral cost of the Los Angeles Pogrom can be measured in the fact that racists were able to get away with attacking synagogues while intimidating some Jews into keeping quiet and supporting them.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Toppling of Grant Statue Shows the Vandals’ True Agenda

Palestinian school texts prepare children for “continuous and long-range confrontation against Israel”

US soldier plots “jihadi attack” on his own Army unit, gives info to al-Qaeda and Nazi group that idolizes Osama

“American Muslim Agenda: Muslims Together Building A Cohesive America”: Genuine Reform or Smokescreen?

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Joe Biden Is Either Incapable, Or Unwilling, To Stand Up To The Radical Leftist Mob

President Donald Trump is back on the road to energize and connect directly with the American people. The president is most at home when he is outside the swamp, sharing his aspirational vision for the future.

As America continues toward a safe and full reopening, it’s more important than ever before to contrast President Trump’s bold leadership throughout the pandemic and recovery, with Joe Biden’s weakness and blatant attempt to politicize the pandemic for political gain.

While President Trump hosted his first rally in months Saturday from Oklahoma, Biden has now gone 82 days without a press conference and the media should be asking — at what point will Biden subject himself to the scrutiny American voters deserve when considering who to elect as the next President of the United States?

Biden’s weakness and inability to lead the country is a threat to us all. He’s unfit to be president.

While President Trump and his administration focus on safely reopening the greatest economy in the world, Joe Biden continues to lob ineffective attacks from his basement while continuing to try and score cheap political points through divisive rhetoric and fear.

Defunding and dismantling the police is now a serious policy proposal being pushed by leading Democrats, such as Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, and Joe Biden has been slow to push back in any meaningful way.

For example, Biden remains silent on the professional anarchists and radical leftists currently occupying a major section of downtown Seattle.

Despite campaign press releases and incomplete statements, Joe Biden owns the radical left’s mission to defund and eliminate law enforcement as the standard bearer for the Democrat Party. By refusing to denounce the dangerous rhetoric of others within his party, Biden is leaving open the door for a future where law enforcement’s ability to protect and serve is severely diminished.

Contrast Biden’s weakness to President Trump’s strength. The president stands with America’s law enforcement communities while recognizing the need to constantly stay up on policies and procedures to keep communities safe and allow law enforcement to do their jobs.

And while Biden is hesitant to criticize objectively dangerous and destructive policies that will hurt the American people, especially the most vulnerable among us, he has no problem criticizing the men and women of law enforcement if he thinks it’ll serve his political ambitions.

In Seattle, police are unable to respond to emergencies, and had to shut down a precinct, which is tripling response times and leading to unresolved criminal behavior.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden remains silent even as Seattle’s Police Chief reports how conditions have quickly deteriorated in what the radical left is calling the “Autonomous Zone.”

“Rapes, robberies and all sorts of violent acts have been occurring in the area and we’re not able to get to them,” Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best recently said.

Joe Biden’s refusal to acknowledge anti-American behavior by radical-left wing provocateurs and professional anarchists behind the violence is telling — he is incapable of leading from the front, choosing instead to capitulate to the radical left in order to advance his own political ambitions.

While President Trump gears up for a full travel schedule to speak directly to the American people, Joe Biden sticks mostly to the basement of his home.

The contrast between President Trump’s pro-growth policies that protect economic opportunity for all Americans, and Joe Biden’s slow-growth, job-killing policies that decimated once great American cities and hurt working families could not be clearer.

President Trump ushered in a new era of innovation, economic opportunity, and economic growth that supercharged the American economy before it was artificially shut down by a global pandemic.

Biden, who has championed policies that shuttered small businesses and cost millions of Americans their jobs, sees the White House as just the next step in his half-century political career.

COLUMN BY

MERCEDES V. SCHLAPP

Mercedes Schlapp Co-Founder, Cove Strategies and is Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On Twitter, @mercedesschlapp.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘These Were Peaceful Shootings’: Jesse Watters Mocks Seattle Mayor For Underplaying Danger Of CHAZ

Seattle To End ‘CHOP,’ Mayor Says It’s Against ‘Justice and Equity’

Trump Claims ‘Anyone Who Vandalizes’ Monuments On Federal Property Will Be Arrested And Face 10 Years In Jail

Twitter Flags Trump For Warning Activists Not To Build An Autonomous Zone In DC

RELATED VIDEO:

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

Seattle, Columbus, and Historical Fictions

Chief Seattle, who gave his name to the currently troubled city in the State of Washington, was pure Native American (father Suquamish, mother Duwamish). A mighty warrior, he essentially eliminated the rival Chimakum tribe in a battle on what is now the Quimper Peninsula. Like other native chiefs, he owned slaves. And he was a convert, probably in his fifties, to Roman Catholicism.

I learned about him more than 30 years ago, when I was researching my very first book, 1492 and All That, as controversy was raging about the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ first voyage to the New World. Seattle’s story shows how complex, to say the least, are our individual lives – and how false and disrespectful of those lives it is to use past historical figures in what are manufactured, simple-minded, ideological morality plays.

Native Americans are not supposed to have been violent, like “white men.” Or at least not against other Native Americans, because all those different peoples must have been One Harmonious Anti-White Thing, no?

And his tribe, as “people of color” (which for the moment seems to include Hispanic descendants of Spanish conquistadores), couldn’t have owned slaves or perpetrated “genocide” against another tribe.

And how could such a man, as a successful and mature adult, choose to become, of all things, a Catholic?

Yet he was hardly unique in these and many other ways. And, properly understood, is still a great and noteworthy figure whose name (and statue) should remain, undisturbed, in Seattle.

We’re all fallen creatures, in need of forgiveness and mercy, not least those who don’t know it. Shakespeare’s Hamlet had the old Christian wisdom and human decency exactly right: “Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?”

I say this not out of any desire to deny Seattle’s – or anyone’s – sins, but to point out that he was more than those faults, even than the slavery. I said as much during a panel discussion on Columbus in the 1990s and was – still am – a bit shocked that one participant responded, “Well, slavery worked for them,” a black historian – who knew that the Indian cultures were not to be criticized.

Christopher Columbus is getting a bad rap, again, at this moment. And truth be told, he too indulged in a bit of the “noble savage” myth. In his report about his first voyage, he told Queen Isabella of the Tainos he encountered in the Caribbean: “They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal. . . .They love their neighbors as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.”

Later, when the difficulty of two such different cultures meeting and mingling became clear, and his men were clashing with Native Americans, he sang a different tune: “I should be judged as a captain who went from Spain to the Indies to conquer a people numerous and warlike, whose manners and religion are very different from ours, who live in sierras and mountains, without fixed settlements.”

It’s curious that those who want to use such clashes to blame Columbus for every human evil that followed 1492 would never dream of giving him credit for all the marvelous things that have happened in the Americas since he joined two very different worlds previously unknown to one another.

We might even want to extend some credit to the overall legacies of St. Louis, Junipero Serra, Washington, Jefferson, Churchill, and many other fellow human beings currently being threatened with banishment from society.

Decent people do not judge others now living by groups – black, white, female, Jewish, Asian, etc. And it’s only right to try getting individual historical figures, even early Europeans who came to the Americas, in clear focus.

The great Dominican “defender of the Indians,” Bartolomé de las Casas knew Columbus personally and spoke of his “sweetness and benignity.” Cortez could be brutal, but ended in a monastery doing penance for his sins. Pizzaro was a psychopath.

Imagine, white people, even back then, differed from one another.

Columbus was something other than a “white” conqueror; despite the unprecedented difficulties he faced in the new cultures he encountered, there were remarkably few instances of his mistreating anyone and some touching moments of understanding. He was usually unsure of himself, as we ourselves often are. Las Casas said of him, “Truly. I would not dare blame the admiral’s intentions for I knew him well and I knew his intentions were good.”

In a way, this is no great surprise because Columbus was a serious, almost obsessive, Christian. Indeed, there’s considerable evidence that he had some sort of revelation about making his first voyage, even though he probably knew through his scientific studies that “the Indies” were farther than he let on. He finished his days dressed as an Observatine Franciscan.

These and similar facts are well known to historians. But you’d never know it from current public discussions.

I gave dozens of lectures at universities after my book on Columbus appeared  – a memorable one in a packed room at Princeton on October 12, 1992 organized by our friend Fr. John McCloskey, who was chaplain there at the time. I heard, quietly but multiple times, from history professors at whichever institution I happened to be visiting: We’re glad you said all that. We can’t.

My modest 1492 and All That was the only book of mine ever to be reviewed in the prestigious New York Review of Books. Oxford historian J.H. Elliott, who did the review, remarked at the time that it was regrettable that such a book even had to be written. But it did.

And still does. I’ve just agreed with Sophia Institute Press to do an updated and expanded second edition, which will appear on Columbus Day this year.

It’s almost forty years since the first edition, and we’ve not only learned nothing, we’ve forgotten what little we once knew and thrown away much of the human decency we still possessed. And there are many furiously busy today trying to make sure we never tell the whole truth. But when you cut the roots, it’s just a matter of time before the whole thing comes crashing down.

COLUMN BY

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: Facebook Employee, ‘If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them for Terrorism’

Project Veritas today released one of our most critical undercover investigation reports—this time our whistleblowers used hidden cameras to document rampant censorship of Facebook posts.

  • Facebook Whistleblower Zach McElroy: I Will Testify Before Congress About the Facebook Bias I Witnessed Against Trump Supporters, Conservative Causes
  • McElroy: Seventy-five to 80 Percent of Posts selected by Facebook’s Algorithm for Content Moderator Review Support President Donald Trump, Republicans and Conservative Causes
  • Facebook Content Moderator on Targeting Trump Supporters: “If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them for Terrorism”
  • Facebook Content Review Lead: “It’s a Very Progressive Company, Who’s Very Anti-MAGA”
  • Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe: Videos and Screenshots by Facebook Whistleblowers Contradict Mark Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill testimony
  • Facebook’s Human-Directed Restriction of Free Speech Raises Questions Regarding Company’s Protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act

I want you to see for yourself in this video based our Facebook investigation:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress that Facebook is a politically neutral platform and that he is working to root out any of his employees, who are restricting speech on Facebook based on Silicon Valley’s overwhelmingly biased culture.

However, Zach McElroy’s story raises serious doubts about Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill testimony, that gave lawmakers the impression that his company only takes down content that could cause harm, such as relating to terrorism or hate speech, but never for politics.

Facebook Could Lose Its ‘Section 230’ Immunity

Facebook and other social media platforms are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, because they claim that unlike traditional publishers that do not actively edit content—they say they are like the phone company just stringing wires on poles.

Facebook’s $400 billion market capitalization is tied to this protection and our report shows for the first time anywhere Facebook’s robust and human-directed process for restricting the marketplace of ideas, which calls into question their CDA 230 immunity.

Zuckerberg’s Capitol Hill Testimony at Odds with Project Veritas Insider’s Account

Zuckerberg told lawmakers, who repeatedly asked him to explain how conservatives were singled out for sanction, that each of their specific examples, such as shutting down the Facebook page of vloggers Diamond and Silk, were mistakes.

At a hearing of the combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on April 10, 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz (R.-Texas) brought this up with Zuckerberg:

Cruz: Gizmodo reported that Facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news, including stories about CPAC, including stories about Mitt Romney, including stories about the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, including stories about Glenn Beck.

In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page, has blocked a post of a Fox News reporter, has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page, with 1.2 million Facebook followers, after determining their content and brand were, quote, “unsafe to the community.” 

To a great many Americans that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment? 

Zuckerberg: First, I understand where that concern is coming from, because Facebook in the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place, and I — this is actually a concern that I have and that I try to root out in the company, is making sure that we do not have any bias in the work that we do, and I think it is a fair concern that people would at least wonder about.

The next day, Zuckerberg testified in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Rep. Stephen J. Scalise (R.-La.), the GOP whip, asked the social media mogul if his company’s artificial intelligence program was unfair to conservatives.

Scalise: You can determine whether you want to write an algorithm to sort data, to compartmentalize data, but you can also put a bias in if that’s the directive. Was there a directive to put a bias in? And first, are you aware of this bias that many people have looked at and analyzed and seen?

Zuckerberg: There is absolutely no directive in any of the changes that we make to have a bias in anything that we do. To the contrary, our goal is to be a platform for all ideas.

Later, in the same hearing, Rep. Timothy L. Walberg (R.-Mich.) asked Zuckerberg if he could assure the congressman that Facebook did not restrict ads based on political views. Under oath, Zuckerberg gave that assurance.

Walberg: Can you assure me that ads and content are not being denied based on particular views?

Zuckerberg: Congressman, yes, politically. Although, I think what you — when I hear that, what I hear is, kind of, normal political speech. We certainly are not going to allow ads for terrorist content, for example, so we would be banning those views. But I think that that is something that we would all expect.

Help Project Veritas continue its investigations

There was a time when investigative reporters practiced the craft locally and nationally for print and broadcast outlets exposing corruption and immoral conduct.

Today, Project Veritas stands alone—and some of the very outlets that used to do their own undercover reporting are the ones trying to knock us down.

This investigation was not easy, nor cheap, but it is exactly the journalism we have the capacity to accomplish because of your support. Thank you for your support and I encourage you to share this video and other Project Veritas posts on social media.

Yours in truth,

James

P.S. I need your help finding Insiders who would be willing to Be Brave and Do Something. You might have thought about it yourself. There are many ways to reach me, but you have to take the first step: veritastips@protonmail.com or calling our tip line: (914) 653-3110 or reaching me on Signal, Telegram or Wire using the handle: @veritastips.

PODCAST: Spread Conservative Values . . . Please Share!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

GEORGE LANDRITH

George Landrith, President and CEO of Frontiers of Freedom – a public policy think tank devoted to promoting a strong national defense, free markets, individual liberty, and constitutionally limited government. In 1994 and 1996, Landrith was the Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District. His work has been printed across the nation, including: Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Daily News, National Review, Sacramento Bee, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Providence Journal, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, Townhall, and Human Events. George Landrith is also a co-host here on the Conservative Commandos Radio Show.

DR. NASIR SHAIKH

Dr. Nasir Shaikh is a Reagan Conservative, is a second generation American Muslim. Dr. Shaikh’s passion for politics were shaped by President Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, his silent “Conservative Mentors”. Dr. Shaikh attended Westminster College and graduated from Ross School of Medicine. Dr. Shaikh is a staunch President Trump supporter since the very first day and was one of the very few political pundits who correctly predicted and guaranteed a huge Trump electoral college victory on his Facebook video blog on pre-election night. Dr. Shaikh is in his 3rd year of co-hosting the Conservative Commandos Radio Show. His signature sign-off is “When you’re Right your Right, and when you’re Left your Wrong”!!

TikTok Weaponized to Disrupt Tulsa Rally

On Sunday night, President Trump’s political rally was disrupted by TikTok users who weaponized the social media platform to misdirect audience attendance.

President Trump’s Tulsa, Oklahoma rally had close to one million attendees registered. However, at the time of the rally, just roughly 6,200 were in attendance. (A record 7.7 million people watched the rally on live television.)

While event organizers know there’s always a margin of error between registration and attendance, the significant gap between 6,200 and one million is largely being attributed to TikTok users.

TikTok, a social media platform that mainly focuses on short videos, had users organize to strategically disrupt the Trump rally, as seen below with instructions on just how to do it. The plan was for people to sign up to attend the rally with no intention of ever showing up for it.

@maryjolauppDid you know you can make sure there are empty seats at Trump’s rally? ##BLM.♬ original sound – maryjolaupp

As for mass organization disruption, this was a uniquely interesting case of the next phase of mass protest in the wake of a season of protests and riots. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez says that the political disruption was at the hands of “teens on TikTok,” whom she called Zoomers.

President Trump’s campaign team indicated the low turnout was due to protesters, despite there being no evidence of protests that would have put such a significant dent in the attendance numbers.

The COVID-19 lockdowns forced many people to become familiar with and rely on the digital sphere for many of their daily activities. What we are now seeing is how groups have shifted to online spaces which they are managing to weaponize for political actions previously unheard of.

RELATED STORIES

Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History?

Peer Policing: The Next Dangerous Step in Silencing Our Voices

China Shuts Down American Teen on TikTok

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Rioters Clash With DC Police, Try To Tear Down Andrew Jackson Monument, Set Up ‘Black House Autonomous Zone’

Rioters gathered Monday in Lafayette Square before the White House where they clashed with police as they attempted to tear down a monument to former U.S. President Andrew Jackson and set up a “Black House Autonomous Zone.”

Video footage from on the ground Daily Caller reporters shows rioters attempting to pull down the monument to Jackson early on in the evening. The protesters chanted, “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Andrew Jackson’s got to go,” Fox News reported. The rioters were unsuccessful in tearing down the monument before police arrived on the scene.

WATCH:

As the rioters were forced to move further away from the statue, they began to get more angry and indignant and began to fight the police, reporters on the ground said.

Subsequent footage shows the rioters clashing with police, who used a chemical irritant believed to be pepper spray, their shields, and a bicycle wall to push the rioters back away from the monument, WUSA9 reports.

Several reporters, including Daily Caller video editor Richie McGinniss, were hit by the pepper spray.

WATCH:

The rioters then proceeded to vandalize St. John’s church, which has previously been vandalized in riots earlier during the summer. Rioters spray painted “BHAZ” on the historic church, which stands for “Black House Autonomous Zone.”

Footage shows that some rioters lit a fire on the ground, which others quickly put out, sparking arguments.

“Defund the Police,” a rioter shouts into a megaphone at a group of police officers, many of whom are kneeling. “Fuck all y’all.”

WATCH:

COLUMN BY

MARY MARGARET OLOHAN

Social issues reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Daily Caller Reporters Go Inside Seattle’s CHAZ

‘I Was Just Yelling … Come And Help Me’: Reporter Details Alleged Assault While Filming Inside ‘CHAZ

Historic St. John’s Church Set Ablaze In DC As Another Night Of Riots Engulfs Country

Victim Of Rioting Says She Is Being Threatened For Helping Police Find People Who Destroyed Her Store

Police Arrest 2 St. Louis Women After Protesters Paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ On The Street

Communist Emblem Spray Painted On North Carolina WWII Memorial

RELATED VIDEO: Anni Cyrus Video – The Riots in the Context of My Own Enslavement.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Boston “Man” Nabbed for Stealing Millions from the Paycheck Protection Program

Reader Tom sent me a story from Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse about how Elijah Majak Buoi has been busy amassing millions of dollars meant to help small businesses survive the Chinese virus crisis.

The Conservative Treehouse story is here.  And the press release from the US Justice Department is here.

There is lots of coverage of the “man” who I am guessing is a ‘new American’ from Africa (Sudan maybe?), but I was searching for a story that might have a photo and found this one at Universal Hub:

Area man charged with $2 million in coronavirus loan fraud

Federal prosecutors today charged a Winchester man with wire fraud for his four applications for federal loans aimed at helping small businesses continue to make payroll despite losses related to Covid-19, alleging he made up employee numbers and that the few employees he does have are all based in India.

According to a federal complaint unsealed today, Elijah Majak Buoi of Winchester was rejected for three of his applications for Paycheck Protection Program loans – which can be converted to grants – but was granted $2 million on the fourth, despite giving different employee and payroll numbers on the applications.

In addition to having Buoi arrested today, the US Attorney’s office is asking a judge to freeze his bank accounts so he cannot transfer the money he received out of the country. At his arraignment, a federal magistrate judge in Worcester set cash bail of $15,000.

[….]

The affidavit*** states that Buoi first filed a PPP application with Bank of America in April for $7.5 million, based on the 353 employees he said he had, all allegedly in Massachusetts. After the bank rejected his request, he tried again with three other lenders, asking each for $2 million, with his employee count on applications ranging from 18 to 96 employees.

The first two lenders also rejected his requests, but the final one, to which he claimed he had 96 US employees, approved his request and he had $2 million deposited in his Bank of America checking account earlier this month.

According to the affidavit, Buoi’s LinkedIn page says he has just five employees, and all are in India, making them ineligible for PPP coverage.

[….]

According to the affidavit, Buoi transferred some $1.2 million of the PPP payment from one Bank of America account to another and has withdrawn $27,000 of it – $20,000 in a wire transfer to India.

More here.

The US government was able to get most of our money back.

***Affidavit is attached to the article.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nebraska: Chinese Teaching Assistant Arrested in Sexual Assault Case

Trump Victory: CHOP Being Dismantled

Trump Triggers Leftists Again

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.