Facebook Employee: He ran away from me on his bike . . .

/in , , , , , /by
WATCH
James O’Keefe in California. Photo: Screen shot.

Yesterday, Veritas published documents from a brave former Facebook insider which show how conservatives’ pages are targeted and “deboosted.”  These documents also reveal plans to suppress distribution, and they appear to conflate conservative speech with abusive “troll behavior.”

When Facebook commented on our investigations, they didn’t refute our documents, instead, they attacked our insider.  And when they tried to reject our conclusions, they contradicted themselves. 

Facebook told The Verge that their ActionDeboostLiveDistribution tag is used to “deboost” content uploaded through the API as live content that is not actually live content. 

Veritas has learned from people on the inside of Facebook that SIGMA: ActionDeboostLiveDistribution was created for the purpose of ferreting out suicide and self-injury content. 

So which is it?  

How has this tool been used for political purposes?

And when it happens — why aren’t users being notified? 

I figured Veritas should ask the people behind these documents to explain themselves, so I took a trip to California.

When I questioned two of these Facebook employees about their actions, well — take a look for yourself . . . 

They were so shocked that a journalist is trying to hold a tech giant accountable that one of them said:

 “I’m a little worried for my safety given the way that you’re stalking me.”

The irony!

What about how our brave insider feels? 

She has been attacked and ridiculed by one of the most powerful companies in the world.  Facebook, which has billions of daily users — now has her in their crosshairs.

At any rate, after asking more questions of him, the Facebook employee got so upset he got on his bike and quickly peddled away!

Click HERE to watch. 

In Truth, 

James O’Keefe

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas column with video and images is republished with permission. The featured image is by geralt from Pixabay.

Congress Orders ‘Shields Down’ by Blocking Emergency Declaration

/in , , , , , /by

It has been said that “Timing is everything.”

On February 26, 2019 the House of Representatives voted to block President Trump’s declaration of an emergency on the southern border.  Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that the declaration was a violation of the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution.

It would appear that failures to secure our nation’s borders against the entry of massive numbers of illegal aliens is a clear violation of our Constitution.

Article IV, Section 4 states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Invasion is defined, part as:

An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity:  an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.

Furthermore, there would have been no need for any additional action by the administration if Congress had simply voted to fund the construction of a barrier to protect our nation from the illegal and un-inspected entry of people and contraband including narcotics and weapons, into the United States.

Congress failed to act responsibly and in accordance with the oaths of office that each member took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by preventing invasion and domestic violence.

The media was quick to pick up on the Congressional response to the President’s action to fund the construction of a barrier to protect the vulnerable and highly porous U.S./Mexican border.

On February 26, 2019 Mass Live reported, “Mass. Democrats vote to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.”  Of course it was not just Massachusetts Democrats who voted against the declaration, but the comments in the article are worth considering.

Also on February 26th, the New York Times reported, “House Votes to Block Trump’s National Emergency Declaration About the Border.”

The action by Congress was not the only story making headlines, on February 26, 2019, however.

On that same day, that the Democrats and some Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the Presidential declaration of emergency, ABC News reported, “26 years ago: 6 die in 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

Finally, on February 26, 2019 the Washington Post reported, “Again, 9/11 first responders are pleading with Congress to fund their health care. Again, Jon Stewart is joining them.”

If we were to play the game of “connect the dots,” there is a common thread that connects these news reports: the issue of national security and the threats posed to America and Americans by terrorism and the consequences of failures of the immigration system that enabled foreign terrorists to enter the United States and carry out deadly terror attacks in 1993 and again in September 11, 2001.

While a barrier on the U.S./Mexican border wouldn’t, by itself solve the immigration crisis, it is a vital element of what must be a multi-pronged approach to secure our nation and protect our citizens.

After the attacks of 9/11, politicians from both parties demanded to know, “Why weren’t the dots connected?”

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 the dots have been repeatedly connected, all too often in the wake of additional deadly terror attacks conducted by alien terrorists who easily gained entry into the United States by a variety of means.

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the leader of the extremely violent Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel was just convicted of smuggling huge quantities of narcotics into the United States across the U.S./Mexican border.  His organization is responsible for numerous murders and crimes of violence and corruption.

There have been a long list of Congressional hearings and official government reports that warn that among the numerous threats that the U.S. faces around the world, many of those threats emanate from Latin America.

On January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, “World-Wide Threat Assessment,” that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.

Here is an excerpt from that report:

Transnational Organized Crime

Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.

Drug Trafficking

The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.

Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.

Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.

Other Organized Crime Activities

Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.

Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.

Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.

Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.

Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.

The first paragraph of the preface of the official report,  9/11 and Terrorist Travel, will provide my “closing argument” against the Congressional betrayal that America is now witnessing:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

RELATED ARTICLES:

German Intelligence Warns of “Extremely Brutal” Nigerian Mafia in Germany as Fake Refugee Invasion Continues

2 Republican Senators Join with Democrats in Attempt To Halt Trump’s Emergency Declaration

Gaffney on America’s Porous Southern Border: “The reality is, it is an emergency and the president is absolutely right to declare it as such”

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission.

Trayvon Martin Hate Hoax Created Modern Identity Politics

/in , , , , /by

The final take-away from what follows is that America is a pretty frickin’ amazing country when it comes to racism and bigotry.

It’s so good, in fact, that a small but booming industry has sprung up creating hoaxes to perpetuate the illusion of a bigoted country when the fact that there are so many hoaxes is one of the strong proofs of how little there is in reality.

The Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax — he paid Nigerians to pretend to attack him, pour bleach on him and put a noose around his neck — is just the latest. It follows in a long line of hate crime hoaxes being perpetrated by the left, Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, creating an industry that was super fueled by the Trayvon Martin race hoax.

But Trayvon was only the start. Fuel was added in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. And all of the straight up hoaxes or race-baiting misrepresentations and grew into wildfires with the belching bellows of a credulous, fellow-traveling media.

This running annual survey by Gallup Poll on race relations shows the damage done by a series of hate crime hoaxes starting in 2013.

What happened in 2013? It’s what happened in 2012 that led to 2013. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, after Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground. It was self defense. That was the initial State’s Attorney decision after interviews with witnesses and examining all of the physical evidence. No charges.

But 2012, you may recall, was an election year. Barack Obama was in the midst of his re-election campaign and had already shown himself more than willing to stoke racial tensions — both purposely and incidentally — for his own purposes. The national media, and we all understand they are aligned with Democratic politicians and were major allies of Obama, ginned up the story of outrage that a white man had killed a young black teen in cold blood and was walking away scot free. Pictures of Trayvon in the media were from when he was 13 and pretty young and innocent looking.

The problem was that Trayvon was 18 and a filled out man. His social media accounts showed a full-size young man brooding in a hoodie or giving us all the finger — pictures the media refused to run, sticking with the five-year-old photo of a skinny kid. The other problem: Zimmerman was not white. He was Hispanic.

The photo the media ran most often:

Photos of the young man who actually attacked Zimmerman:

No matter. The narrative was set. This is not to say it was OK to shoot him because of the photos. His actions apparently dictated that.

It is to say that the media was particularly egregious on this hoax, actively participating in it. Beyond just absurd credulity and using the wrong photo, CNN and NBC News were both caught manipulating Zimmerman’s 911 tape to twist him into a racist by badly taking things out of context and warping some of the words. ABC News actually airbrushed a photo of Zimmerman’s bloodied scalp to remove the wounds he received from Martin.

The narrative whipping up the public, prosecutors ended up charging Zimmerman with murder — a wild overreach that was doomed from the beginning. It went to trial and Zimmerman was duly acquitted after a full-fledged circus because while the race-inflaming industry had changed the narrative and the charges, the evidence itself had not changed.

But the damage was done. Florida was branded again as racist. America was racist. Black men were being gunned down on the streets. And the racial tensions that had been finally healing were cut back open again because it benefitted Obama and the Democratic, race-hustling machine let by Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

Gallup’s poll showed a plunge in American attitudes on race relations the following year when it was taken. All based on a hate crime hoax.

It got worse. In 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a black community, part of the St. Louis metro area, a black teen named Michael Brown was shot by a white cop and killed, his body laying in the street until paramedics arrived. The race-baiting industry, led by the media megaphone portion, went into high gear, including reporting that Brown had put his hands up and said don’t shoot. “Hands up don’t shoot” became the mantra of activists and many in the media. Riots ensued. The police officer went into hiding and Black Lives Matter was birthed.

But this too was a hate crime hoax. It turns out, when the investigation was done and all the evidence in, even Obama’s race-driven Justice Department found no cause against the police officer because “hands up don’t shoot” never happened. What actually took place was that Brown, always called a teen despite being a nearly 300-pound 19-year-old man, had just robbed a Korean grocery store and threatened the owner. It’s on tape.

When the officer responding to the call saw him walking down the street, he told him to stop. Brown ultimately ended up attacking the officer, punched him in the face and tried to take his gun. The officer shot Brown multiple times and killed him. There’s no disputing this as even Obama’s team had to admit this is what happened.

But the burning, looting and rioting that resulted from the irresponsible (at best) media hoax reporting had done more damage to American race relations. In 2014 and 2015, Gallup’s poll fell further. It leveled out at a much worse place by 2016 and has actually stayed steady at that point through 2018. So six years ago, the number of blacks who thought race relations between blacks and white was bad nearly doubled, from 29 percent in 2012 to 53 percent by 2015. It actually dropped a little by 2018 to 47 percent, but still very high. Whites track that trajectory.   

Hoax hate crimes are nothing really new. They’ve been used to further the left’s agenda for decades. In 1987, Al Sharpton created the Tawana Brawley hoax, which claimed that four white men raped a black girl. It never happened, it finally came out. But riots and at least one actual death stemmed from the hoax.

Sharpton has been well-rewarded for lying and creating hysteria over the hoax. He got national recognition and displaced Jesse Jackson as the ultimate race hustler. He made millions of dollars, was given a television show, a talk radio show and even ran for president in 2004. Oh, and he was invited to Obama’s White House 82 times — to advise on matters of race. Frankly, it appears Obama took his advice.

The Daily Caller has compiled a list of 21 of the most egregious hate crime hoaxes just during the Trump administration. (Other sites have the total, including small ones, at nearly 400.) There are many more, but these are a few that stand out. They range from racist hate crime hoaxes to anti-gay hate crime hoaxes to anti-Muslim hate crime hoaxes. Basically, the full panoply of the left.

Note, that these all disappeared from the news immediately upon being determined by authorities to be hoaxes. But the media continues to jump on the next one. Remember way back to the Covington school boys hate crime hoax, before the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax?

Of course, unless you file a false police report, and the police decide to actually charge you with that — there is no downside to hoaxing and a lot of upside potential. The cost-benefit analysis for the hoaxer is very positive.

There will be more, and the media will leap to believe them. And American race relations and divisions will either remain bad or get deeper.

Wait, here’s one new hot off the presses. Two days ago, The Detroit Free Press reported that a transgender, gay-rights activist who had fought for a local anti-discrimination ordinance in Jackson, Michigan, and had his house burned down in 2017, blamed haters, was just charged with arson for setting the fire himself. It’s like clockwork.

Notice that the hate crime hoaxes are not just regarding blacks, although they are an important part of intersectional politics of the left. It is also gays, Muslims and so on. This has helped fuel intersectional politics, continuing the broad hoax that America is a racist, bigoted place.

The really ironic part is that progressive Democrats have to continually keep making up these hoaxes, because there is so little racism and bigotry left in the United States. Yet the perceptions are wildly different. We know why, and we know who benefits.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by
jorgophotography on Pixabay.

Spike Lee’s Disservice to Black America

/in , , /by

I stopped stomaching the Academy Awards TV show years ago. I caught Spike Lee’s hate-filled Oscar acceptance speech on YouTube. I am a black man who is a grateful and proud American. One could argue that Spike Lee has achieved his $40 million net worth at the expense of his fellow blacks, selling them the lie that America is a hellhole of racism against them. Lies about America are furthered in most of Lee’s movies; blacks will never be treated fairly; cops shoot blacks on sight and whitey schemes 24/7 conceiving roadblocks to keep blacks down.

In his speech, Lee cited that slavery in America began 400 years ago. And yet, while standing on stage receiving an Oscar, Lee, a black man, acts like slavery still continues today. Lee said his grandmother funded his college education. He said his grandmother was the daughter of a slave and a college graduate. Doesn’t Spike Lee’s and his grandmother’s success confirm the truth that America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it?

As I watched Spike Lee, I thought, what is wrong with this man? Does he actually believe his anti-America garbage or is it simply his niche to make movies. Promoting her movie, “Selma”, billionaire black woman Oprah Winfrey spread the lie that blacks are still suffering the 1965 racism featured in her movie. White moviegoers have made black actor, Samuel L. Jackson worth $220 million. Like Spike Lee, Jackson whines about how blacks can’t catch a break in racist America.

While 90% of blacks voted for Obama, blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population. The fact that white America gave horrible black president Obama two terms and the fact that Trump has ushered in an unprecedented new era of prosperity for blacks means nothing to Spike Lee, Samuel L. Jackson and Oprah. Behaving like brain-dead zombies, these rich blacks parrot the Democratic party’s lie; Trump and every American who voted for him are racists who wear MAGA caps.

I’ve had a problem with Spike Lee’s thinking ever since his breakout movie, “Do the Right Thing”. Lee’s movie ended with blacks burning down the business of a white small business owner in their neighborhood. The movie implied that this was justified. I thought, this is wrong. That white business owner served that black community. In his Oscar speech, Lee senselessly told America to “do the right thing” by voting out racist president Trump in 2020; the best presidential friend of black Americans since Lincoln.

When I was a kid in Baltimore, it seemed like grocery stores owned by Jews were on every other street corner in black neighborhoods. When I was around 10 years old, my Aunt Bummie sent me to purchase two cigarettes for her from the corner store. The Jewish owner opened his book and put the cigarettes on her account.

In later years, Asians began opening convenience stores in black neighborhoods with 14 family members living upstairs above their business. I never understood my fellow blacks’ hatred for these people. Nothing was stopping blacks from opening businesses in our neighborhoods.

Exposing their bigotry of low expectations, leftists say racism stops blacks from opening businesses. But that is not true. Born in 1867, the child of a former slave, Madam C. J. Walker was one of the first American self-made millionairess. Today, leftists absurdly define everything as racism and white privilege. Black hair care products entrepreneur, Ms Walker achieved extraordinary success at a time in America when real, not faux, racism was the norm. 

The greatest Nemesis of black Americans are negative, victim and entitlement mindsets instilled into them by Democrats and leftists. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Proverb 23:7) In other words, if blacks think they can achieve success in America, they will. If blacks believe they cannot succeed, they will not. This is why successful black Americans like Spike Lee, Samuel L. Jackson and Oprah Winfrey preaching their America-is-against-you lie is extremely destructive; a major disservice to their fellow blacks.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Andrew Robinson on Unsplash.

The Truth About Immigration Can Unite All Americans

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

America has become dangerously polarized and immigration has become one of the most divisive issues.

In this climate of strident and aggressive confrontations, Americans are reluctant to engage in an open discussion. They have been intimidated by the radical left.

Who could ever forget Congresswoman Maxine Waters exhorting her followers to confront members of the Trump administration in public, or New York’s Governor Cuomo vilifying ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents, calling them thugs, inciting attacks on ICE agents.

Providing the truth about immigration would unite all Americans irrespective of their political orientations, in the understanding that border security and fair but effective immigration law enforcement are vital for national security, public safety, the livelihoods and wages of American workers, and a host of other issues.

The acrimonious arguments about immigration are not based on facts but on a fiction created by globalists whose tactics and use of deceptive language come directly from George Orwell’s “1984,” blurring the distinction between illegal aliens and lawful immigrants. This is damaging and insulting to lawful immigrants.

To provide a bit of clarity, the difference between an illegal alien and a lawful immigrant is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

We often refer to America as a “nation of immigrants” and, in point of fact, last year the United States, even under the Trump administration that has been falsely accused of being “anti-immigrant,” admitted more than one million lawful immigrants — that is more than the rest of the world combined.

President Jimmy Carter cynically mandated that INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees substitute the bogus term “Undocumented Immigrants” for the term “Illegal Aliens.”

The term “Alien” is not a pejorative. It is a legal term that simply means, “Any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”

Over time Carter’s deceptive language profoundly skewed public perceptions about immigration law enforcement.

I addressed these tactics “sleight of tongue” in my article, “Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship.”

The immigration system has become a highly efficient delivery system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap and exploitable labor, an unlimited supply of foreign tourists, a nearly unlimited supply of foreign students, and a limitless supply of clients for immigration lawyers.

Consider that a massive amnesty program would not get the illegal aliens “out of the shadows” but into the waiting rooms of immigration law firms across America.

This why both the Democrats and the Republicans claim that since we cannot arrest and deport 11 million illegal aliens, ostensibly, the best “solution” is to provide them with lawful status.

This is a “bait and switch” tactic that takes immigration law enforcement off the table as a means of countering massive levels of immigration law violations, replacing it with a debate about whether to place these heretofore illegal aliens on pathways to citizenship or “only” provide illegal aliens with lawful status, permission to work, and the right to bring their families to the United States.

The Democrats have created Sanctuary Cities and called for dismantling of ICE. However, neither party has ever proposed hiring more ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to address the immigration crisis. Currently there are about 6,000 ICE agents for the entire United States of America and more than half of ICE’s resources are focused on customs law enforcement and other law violations that have nothing to do with immigration.

Contrast that ridiculous number with the 45,000 employees of the TSA and the NYPD’s more than 37,000 police officers to protect New York City.

Mandatory E-Verify has been proposed but never approved. However, even with mandatory E-Verify, without ICE agents to conduct field investigation, unscrupulous employers could simply successfully hire their illegal workforce “off the books.”

As Americans we all share common goals. We must emphasize those common goals in discussions with our fellow Americans to combat the “divide and conquer” strategies of the globalists of both parties.

All Americans, irrespective of superficial factors such as race, religion, or ethnicity, want our military to keep our enemies as far from our shores as possible, our police to keep our communities safe, and our schools to effectively educate our children so that any child willing to study hard, work hard, and benefit from a bit of luck can write the next success story.

Many decent and compassionate Americans have been conned into believing that those who support secure borders and effective but fair immigration law enforcement are bigots, xenophobes, and racists when nothing could be further from the truth.

Our fellow Americans are not our adversaries but our allies, if we can win them over. The truth, the facts, laws, commonsense, and morality are all on our side.

Effective but fair immigration law enforcement is essential for all of those goals noted above.

Let the fact-based discussions begin!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on NewsMax. It is republished with permission. The featured image is by Capri23auto on Pixabay.

The Protected Class of Celebrities and Politicians Want You Disarmed and Vulnerable

/in , , , , /by

“In the eyes of America’s socialist leaders they, and they alone, are the protected class. It’s why Nancy Pelosi can in the morning, say that a border wall is immoral and tell law-abiding Americans that you shouldn’t own guns. And then at night, sleep soundly in a home protected by walls and, of course, secret service agents with guns. Because for Nancy Pelosi, she is the protected class. And we are not.” —Grant Stinchfield

Reject Socialist Disarmament. Join the NRA.

Episode Transcript

When elitist politicians refuse to stand and clap as our President declares that America will never be a socialist country, here is what they’re really saying: that they believe in the redistribution of your freedoms, to them. That only they deserve to feel safe and secure. We don’t. Because in the eyes of America’s socialist leaders they, and they alone, are the protected class.

It’s why Nancy Pelosi can in the morning, say that a border wall is immoral and tell law-abiding Americans that you shouldn’t own guns. And then at night, sleep soundly in a home protected by walls and, of course, secret service agents with guns. Because for Nancy Pelosi, she is the protected class. And we are not.

It’s why Michael Bloomberg funds politicians and extremist organizations that do whatever they can to block school safety measures. That fight against the right of teachers to train and arm themselves so that they may defend children from a potential killer. And then use children as political pawns in the aftermath of a massacre, never admitting the reason our schools are still soft targets is the result of their political anti-gun, anti-NRA stance. Because for Michael Bloomberg, he and his children are the protected class, while we and our children, are not.

It’s why Kamala Harris has the audacity to compare ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan. It’s why she wants to ban your semi-automatic firearms. Yet she’s lived for decades in a state protected by ICE agents. Now she works in the United States Senate, government buildings protected by the very firearms she insists you don’t deserve. Because for Kamala Harris, she is the protected class. And we are not.

Socialist arrogance is why Gavin Newsom is disarming law-abiding Californians by any means necessary, while he opens the doors of his state to illegal aliens, giving drug dealers, rapists and murderers sanctuary. Sanctuary everywhere in California except at his doorstep, where he is protected, again, by walls and guns. Because for Gavin Newsom, he is the protected class. And we are not.

It’s why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to disarm hard-working Americans, while giving those “unwilling to work” our money. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Saul Alinsky in a pant suit, who calls the firearms that protect our families weapons of war. While she smiles and pushes the same socialist disarmament policies that have led to war in the streets of Venezuela. Because for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is the protected class. And we are not.

These people are just the first drops of rain in the coming the socialist storm. A movement of elitists who want to force you to abandon your freedom for the false promise of free stuff. These are the people who want to disarm you. Guns in the hands of good people equals power. Power they want to take from you and harness for themselves.

But here is my guarantee: they will fail. America will never be a socialist country. Because of us. The NRA. The world’s oldest civil rights organization and the greatest defender of individual freedom the world has ever known. We as members will never let it happen. This is America. Where the right to self-protection is God-given, not socialist-driven. We know a firearm is the great equalizer. That every law-abiding American deserves the same right to safety and security the socialist protected class receives every day.

We will always fight for the Second Amendment and all our rights because it’s what we have always fought for: Freedom.

We will never relent on our quest to protect the Constitution. Because we are an unstoppable force. We are the NRA. Join our fight against this socialist storm. Stand on the frontlines with us. And together, we will protect this country from the arrogant protected class that tries to tear it apart.

Grant StinchfieldHost

VIDEO: PANODRAMA — The BBC is Fake News!

/in , , , , , , /by

Tommy Robinson produced a documentary titled “Panodrama.” It is about fake news in Great Britain. Because Tommy has stood up against mass immigration he has been completely blocked from Facebook and Instagram.

On his website TR.NEWS Tommy writes:

Most of you are now probably already aware that I have now been completely removed from Facebook and Instagram as of  (26/02/2019).  The claims and reasons behind this decision given are absolutely false and are being used as an attempt to try and completely silence me for good!

This of course follows the previous removal of my PayPal and Twitter platforms, however, what is most disturbing is the fact that this recent and biggest platform removal has taken place as I am about to expose the murky elements of the mainstream media and the bias propaganda machine which perpetuates “engineered” news to you, the public on a colossal scale!!

Rest assured that I am fighting back and im now more fired up than ever to stand up to these giants in the name of free speech, democracy and the will of the people!!

TR. News is on the way to you and this is where you will be able to follow my every move and I will continue to bring you the things that the mainstream media giants purposely refuse to.

Please, I urge you to sign up now as this is the only place i will be able to connect with you and if you are able to help and support me in this in any way it will make a huge difference!

Watch Panodrama:

RELATED VIDEO: Coming Soon – TR.NEWS.

Action Alert: Apple Needs Ideological Diversity

/in , , , , , /by

Apple, Inc. (1 – Liberal) supports the left’s agenda on every single issue. From pulling Pro-Life prayer apps from the App Store to funding the Center for American Progress to opposing religious liberty protections, it is clear that Apple’s decision makers have no regard for conservative values. We think it is time for a change and so do our friends at the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP).

On Friday, March 1st, FEP’s “True Board Diversity Policy” proposal will come up for a vote by shareholders at Apple’s annual meeting in California. The proposal calls for “meaningful disclosure” of potential board members’ backgrounds so that investors can consider the diverse perspectives and critical thinking candidates will bring to company leadership.

On Friday, March 1st, FEP’s “True Board Diversity Policy” proposal will come up for a vote by shareholders at Apple’s annual meeting in California. The proposal calls for “meaningful disclosure” of potential board members’ backgrounds so that investors can consider the diverse perspectives and critical thinking candidates will bring to company leadership.

Click here to Tweet at Apple!

Liberal activists at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have successfully forced tech companies like Amazon to adopt race and gender based “diversity” mandates in leadership and are working to push this agenda throughout Silicon Valley. However, as our friends at FEP say, “True diversity comes from diversity of thought.”

If companies like Apple were to bring in new board members who understand conservative values, it stands to reason we could see the beginning of a corporate shift back to Neutral. Then, we would proudly tell the 380,000 2ndVote subscribers why a company like Apple deserved their business.

First, if you know any Apple shareholders, make sure they know to support FEP’s proposal.

Second, help us tell Apple that Ideological Diversity is a good thing. Use the links provided to Tweet directly at Apple and let them know we will be watching on March 1st.

Tell Apple to adopt FEP’s proposal.

Will you help us reach more people with this critical information and grow our movement?

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by kropekk_pl from Pixabay.

The Stakes are Being Raised: The Attempt to Normalize Homosexual Clergy

/in , , , , , /by

Stephen P. White notes a shift away from denying a link between homosexuality and the abuse crisis and towards an attempt to normalize homosexual clergy.

Last week’s summit in Rome did not address the problem of clergy harassing and abusing adults. It did not address the issue, which Pope Francis has acknowledged, of gay subcultures among the clergy. It did not say much about the virtue of chastity. What the summit in Rome did focus on was protecting minors from sexual abuse by members of the clergy: the most glaring and widely acknowledged facet of the current crisis and the primary source of the Church’s loss of credibility with the faithful. Which is to say, the Rome summit was a start.

There is, of course, very good reason to distinguish, both morally and legally, between the abuse of a minor and the abuse of an adult. And the fact is that the Church in the United States is (hard though it may be to believe) ahead of the global curve when it comes to treating the sexual abuse of children as the grave matter it is. But it is also the case – and the last eight months should have made this perfectly clear – that when the Church says it has “zero tolerance” for the abuse of minors without the stomach for rooting out or addressing the abuse of those who just happen to be past the age of majority, the result is a credibility gap.

When Theodore McCarrick was accused last summer of having abused a seventeen-year-old boy – the first accusation against him involving a minor – the Church acted swiftly. But of course, McCarrick had been accused for years of molesting “adult” seminarians – two dioceses paid out settlements – and the repercussions for McCarrick were mild and ineffectual. He was even for a while allowed to live in a seminary.

Which brings us to another cause of the credibility gap: The Church’s reluctance to address the fact that the vast majority of those abused, at least in the United States, have been male. After 2002 the “gay priests question” became an ecclesiastical third rail. Surely no bishop wants to be accused of conducting a witch-hunt. And by many accounts, there are a significant number of Catholic priests today – and presumably at least some bishops – who experience same-sex attraction.

Meanwhile, Catholics who express concern about a “gay lobby” in the Church are often dismissed as homophobic ideologues for suggesting that clerical sexual abuse might have something to do with disordered sexual desires among clergy. A 2011 John Jay report, which concluded there was no causal relationship between homosexuality and the abuse of minors, seemed to put a lid on things. For a time.

CLICK HERE FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA GRAND JURY REPORT,

Then came McCarrick, and the Pennsylvania grand jury report, and a summer of disturbing stories of abuse and homosexual subcultures in seminaries in Newark, Boston, Philadelphia, and Lincoln. The matter is suddenly not so settled anymore. But now, it’s not just the usual “conservative” voices calling for the Church to look more closely at the connection between homosexual clergy and the abuse crisis.


Activists in Dublin, Ireland in August 2018 [Clodagh Kilcoyne, Reuters]

Last July, the Catholic journalist Robert Mickens wrote in The Washington Post, “[T]here is no denying that homosexuality is a key component to the clergy sex abuse (and now sexual harassment) crisis. With such a high percentage of priests with a homosexual orientation, this should not be surprising.” Mickens wasn’t defending the Church’s prohibition on admitting men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies to the priesthood. Mickens was arguing the opposite: that the Church has aggravated the abuse crisis by driving priests and seminarians deeper into the closet.

More recently, a Dutch group called the “Working Group of Catholic Gay Pastors” published an open letter to Pope Francis in which they wrote, “We believe that the current major crisis with respect to [the sexual abuse of children and minors] is primarily the result of the disapproval, suppression, denial and the poor integration of sexuality, and especially homosexuality, on the part of many individual priests and within our Church as a whole.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times ran a lengthy piece under the heading: “‘It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out.” Like Mickens and the Dutch priests’ letter, the Times piece insists there is no causal connection between homosexual tendencies and the abuse of children. But like the others, the Times piece also concedes that there are many homosexual priests, that this has in some way contributed to the current crisis, and that the solution is not to keep gay men out of the priesthood or in the closet, but to allow them to live their lives “freely, openly, and honestly.”

[T]hey find ways to encourage one another. They share books like Father James Martin’s groundbreaking “Building a Bridge,” on the relationship between the Catholic and L.G.B.T. communities. Some have signed petitions against church-sponsored conversion therapy programs, or have met on private retreats, after figuring out how to conceal them on their church calendars. Occasionally, a priest may even take off his collar and offer to unofficially bless a gay couple’s marriage.

Some may call this rebellion. But “it is not a cabal,” one priest said. “It is a support group.”

These three pieces represent a shift away from denying a connection between homosexuality and the abuse crisis and toward an open attempt to normalize homosexuality among clergy. The stakes, in other words, have been raised.

Pope Francis, for his part, has reiterated (more than once) the Church’s prohibition on admitting men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies to seminaries. He reportedly told the Italian bishops, “If you have even the slightest doubt, it is better not to let them in.” He has upset activists by saying of homosexual priests and religious, “It would be better if they left the ministry or consecrated life rather than live a double life.”

Last week’s summit in Rome focused on protecting minors from sexual abuse. It was a start. But it was, in many ways, very far from the end.

COLUMN BY

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope Francis’ Summit On Clerical Sexual Abuse Was A Charade

FACT CHECK: Is Homosexuality Illegal In More Than 70 Countries?

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — What Did We Learn?

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing article with images is republished with permission. © 2019 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. The featured image is by WenPhotos on Pixabay.

Effort to Abandon Electoral College Gains Steam. Here’s What It Would Ruin for America.

/in , , , , , , /by

Colorado is joining a list of states attempting to overturn the way Americans have selected their presidents for over two centuries.

The Colorado Legislature recently passed a bill to join an interstate effort called the “interstate compact,” to attempt to sidestep the Electoral College system defined by the Constitution. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic” and vowed to sign the bill into law.

So far, 12 states representing 172 Electoral College votes have passed the initiative into law. With the addition of Colorado (which has nine votes), that number will rise to 181. They need 270 for the compact to go into effect. It would then undoubtedly be challenged in the courts.

Some major voices on the left were gleeful about the potential change.

While the Constitution, intentionally, gives wide latitude to states to create their own electoral systems, the law passed in Colorado, along with the rest of this effort, would be unprecedented. It would be the first time states potentially outsource their Electoral College votes to the will of the nation as a whole, rather than having elections determined by their own voters. The result of this, ironically, could be very undemocratic.

For instance, if the people of Colorado vote overwhelmingly for a Democrat, yet the total popular vote of the nation goes Republican, all of the state’s votes would go to the Republican, essentially overturning the will of the people in Colorado.

The Electoral College is already fairly democratic. Nearly every state switched to direct, democratic elections of electoral votes in the early 19th century, as opposed to selection by state legislatures. What the national popular vote would do is overturn the concept of federalism, which recognizes that states have unique interests that deserve representation in the electoral system. We are not just a nation of individuals, but a nation of communities and states.

Some have dismissed the Electoral College system as outmoded and unjust. But they are mistaken—the Electoral College system remains highly relevant and necessary today. The 2016 election actually demonstrated that.

In 2016, states that had gone Democratic in presidential politics for a generation flipped to Republican, in large part because of a unique candidate who appealed to their interests. While one candidate capitalized on their support, the other took them for granted and focused elsewhere. The result was a startling upset that demonstrates why the Framers wanted an Electoral College.

Without an Electoral College, candidates could more easily write off certain constituencies located in limited areas. The Electoral College binds those votes up with a larger mass of votes so that in order to win the whole, candidates have to appeal to the interests of more constituents.

Under a popular vote system, candidates could ignore entire localities and focus on driving up votes among their natural supporters.

Many on the left have also complained that the Electoral College gives an undue weight to small states, which, in their minds, are conservative. 

It’s true that small states are given a boost because Electoral College votes are based on population and Senate votes. Since every state automatically has two senators, small states do get slightly more weight per their population. But in practice, this ends up benefitting Democrats just as much as Republicans.

In 2018, for instance, the 10 smallest states sent 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans to the Senate, and the 10 largest states sent 11 Democrats and nine Republicans to the Senate.

This system of electors is not perfect, of course. But it is the best system for a large and diverse country like the United States, as it favors candidates who do the best job of appealing to diverse interests and not just the big population centers.

In fact, while the Founding Fathers disagreed on many things, the Electoral College was one thing that received the most wide acceptance, as Alexander Hamilton recorded in Federalist 68:

The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system … which has escaped without severe censure. … I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.

In addition to protecting diverse interests, the diffused federal nature of the Electoral College is also a vital tool to counteract election fraud and contentious recounts that could undo the public will. 

Imagine if the 2000 recount of the presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush included not just Florida, but the entire nation. That’s what would have happened if the Electoral College weren’t in place to isolate election systems from each other.

It doesn’t take long to see how the new system that the Colorado bill aims for could become a nightmare to deal with in other ways, too, especially in tightly contested races.

This Twitter thread explains one highly plausible scenario in which the national popular vote is decided by around 100,000 votes—a tiny margin given the nation’s population is over 320 million.

If Colorado were to narrowly choose a Democrat, while the other states chose the Republican by a wide margin, Colorado would have no way of making the other states conduct a recount.

The people of Colorado would essentially be forced to throw the election to a candidate they didn’t support.

Even more problematic is the effort in New Jersey to strip President Donald Trump from the state ballot over his refusal to release his tax returns. This will likely be ruled unconstitutional, but consider what it would do if implemented under a national popular vote: With Trump off the ballot in all of New Jersey, it would skew the vote for the entire nation.

Interestingly, stripping a candidate from the ballot has been used as a tactic against a Republican presidential candidate before. Southern states made it nearly impossible to create ballots for Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election, which severely depressed his support in those states.

Fortunately, because of the Electoral College, Lincoln was able to win without these states, even though he ended up with only around 39 percent of the popular vote.

If the nation had simply taken a popular vote at the time, Lincoln may never have been elected president.

At the end of the day, the Colorado law is unlikely to ever be put into effect, despite the best efforts of activists.

It’s important to note that while Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly voiced support for abolishing the Electoral College, she has said it would take a constitutional amendment to do so.

“There are some things that I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said in 2017 when asked about things she’d change in the Constitution. “But that would require a constitutional amendment and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do.”

Given the unlikeliness of such an amendment—which, according to Gallup, actually reached a high point of popularity after the 2016 election—national popular vote activists have turned to more indirect means to accomplish their ends.

This misguided attempt to subvert the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College has been cooked up for partisan purposes. It is based on the false notion that Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 reflected a failure in our electoral system—not an abysmal candidate—and that this “relic” from the founding stands in the way of progressive dominance of U.S. politics.

Such a view is not only partisan, but historically ignorant. It overlooks all that the Electoral College has produced—chiefly, a stable political system that forces politicians to reckon with our nation’s diverse needs.

We would be wise to cling to that system and reject these machinations to upend it.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Carter on Unsplash.

WARNING: CBD is everywhere, but scientists still don’t know much about it

/in , , , , , , , /by

Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of roughly 100 chemicals contained in marijuana called cannabinoids, meaning they are unique to the cannabis plant (which contains several hundred more chemicals in addition to cannabinoids). Unlike THC, the psychoactive marijuana component primarily responsible for producing the “high,” CBD is not psychoactive.

Manufacturers tout CBD as a magic bullet that cures or relieves symptoms of a multitude of diseases and conditions and as a “wellness” product that improves health. Hundreds of CBD products — oils, salves, sprays, tinctures, even gummies – are available. But little science supports CBD’s medical claims.

“It is a kind of a new snake oil in the sense that there are a lot of claims and not so much evidence,” says Dustin Lee, an assistant professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University. He is planning a clinical trial to see if CBD can help smokers quit.

Last summer. the FDA approved Epidiolex, the only form of pharmaceutical CBD that has met FDA standards of safety and efficacy, to treat two rare forms of epilepsy. Because CBD is a drug, it cannot be sold in food or drinks, and several states and cities have ordered restaurants to stop adding it to “lattes, smoothies, muffins, and other foods.”

That hasn’t stopped producers from selling CBD gummies, lollipops, and peanut butter, however. Google “CBD,” click on “Images,” and scroll sideways to “edibles” to see the wide array of commercial food products available.

Dr. Yasmin Hurd, who directs the Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai and is professor at the Icahn School of Medicine, has studied CBD extensively. She says there is potential for CBD to reduce heroin cravings in those recovering from addiction. But “let’s do the research,” she says. “It’s crazy that this substance is being consumed by everybody, yet we still don’t know the mechanism of action.”

Dr. Lee adds that procuring high quality, uncontaminated CBD for research remains a daunting task. “It might be available at the local 7-11 in Pennsylvania, but any product you get on the market is not federally regulated by the FDA, so the purity and safety and quality are questionable.”

A recent study of CBD products ordered online found that nearly 70 percent were inaccurately labeled and contained either higher or lower amounts of CBD than indicated on the label.

Says Dr. Hurd, “People are making it out to be a nirvana kind of drug, and that’s a problem. One compound cannot cure everything.”

Read the New York Times article here.

Limited access marijuana laws for medical use

Here is a table compiled by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Network for Public Health Law that lists the states that have legalized limited access to CBD oils and the amounts of THC they permit them to contain.

CBD can be extracted from both marijuana and hemp. Hemp is the marijuana plant but contains only a minute amount of THC (0.3% — three-tenths of one percent). Any amount of THC over 0.3% is marijuana.

Access Table here.

EDITORS NOTE: The Marijuana Report is a weekly e-newsletter published by National Families in Action in partnership with SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana). Visit National Families in Action’s website, The Marijuana Report.Org, to learn more about the marijuana story unfolding across the nation. Subscribe to The Marijuana Report e-newsletter. The featured images is courtesy of Marijuana Break.

Ilhan Omar: Poster Child for the Red-Green Axis

/in , , , /by

Ilhan Omar (D-MN), along with her comrades Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), has gotten a lot of press since winning a seat in Congress. Despite her non-apology for bigoted, anti-Semitic statements she made earlier this month, Omar remains a virulent anti-Semite. But it is much worse than that: In addition to likely criminality, her extreme Left positions and connections to terrorists make her a security risk.

Some have demanded she be removed from the House Foreign Relations Committee, a position awarded to her by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But she has no business in Congress at all, and should at the very least be investigated for numerous crimes committed over a period of years.

Omar’s position on Israel is long-established and well-known. She supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, and is overtly anti-Zionist. The 2012 tweet below — which she only deleted in the past few days — reiterates the incessant Arab narrative that casts Israel as an invader and abuser of Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

Exactly the opposite is true. In every case where Israel uses military force, it has responded to provocations from Arab terrorists of Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, and other factions. How is it that Israel endures weeks-long barrages of rockets from Palestinian-controlled areas and almost daily terrorist attacks against its citizens, yet those governments face no condemnation? Meanwhile, a worldwide push exists to destroy Israel through BDS: Who has hypnotized whom?

During her campaign for Congress, Omar claimed she opposed BDS, however, within days after winning her election, she publicly stated her support for it. Omar also claims Israel is an “apartheid” state. The Communist newspaper In These Times defended Omar, reiterating the theme that Israel is “an apartheid system built on violent theft of Palestinian land and decades of oppression.” Let me repeat that: the Communist newspaper In These Times calls Israel an apartheid state. Considering the source, that’s a LOL moment and should immediately cause the reader to reject the message out of hand. False propaganda that stands reality on its head is the Communists’ stock in trade, and this is one of their favorites.

Palestinian-controlled areas are the ones under “decades of oppression”; both the PA and Hamas practice a smothering socialism. The litany of corruption, poverty, and despotic rule Palestinians endure under these regimes is endless. And their leaders constantly provoke Israel while hiding themselves among civilians, both to use them as human shields and to score propaganda points when civilians inadvertently get in the crossfire. Meanwhile, Palestinian children are systematically indoctrinated to hate Jews — and trained for suicide missions in Israel.

Conversely, Arabs living in Israel enjoy a freedom and prosperity unknown in Palestinian controlled areas. There are Arab members of the Knesset and Supreme Court, Arab generals in the military, many Arab newspapers, and Israeli companies place no employment barriers to Arabs. In fact, there are many affirmative action programs in Israel catering to the Arab population. Among them:

  • A five-year plan starting in 2015 to develop the Arab sector’s economy, to which the government allocated $4 billion.
  • A government resolution to have at least 10% representation in government positions from Israeli Arabs.
  • Innovation Authority technology training programs for the Arab sector.
  • A Ministry of Education program to enhance science and math studies of Bedouins in the south of the country.
  • Ministry of Labor programs to improve the skills of workers in the Arab sector
  • Programs by state-funded universities to boost the number of Arab students in graduate schools
  • A designated Commissioner in the Ministry of Labor to combat discrimination against Arabs in the private and public sectors
  • Government funding for non-profit organizations catering to the Arabs.

This is a partial list, but gives you the picture of the efforts taken by the Israeli government to combat discrimination against Arabs and to improve participation in the workforce.

This is not the description of “apartheid.” I suggest that label is better applied to Palestinian-controlled areas.

Some Palestinians receive social security and pensions from Israel. The PA is negotiating with Israel to take over these retirement funds and is creating a social security system of its own. Palestinians have demonstrated against this — believing that the corrupt PA will  misuse or steal their retirement.

When I wrote Who Was Yasser Arafat? shortly following his death in 2004, I came across a survey of Arabs living in Israel. Some 70 percent responded that they would take up arms rather than be forced to live in areas controlled by the PA.

Omar’s most recent tweets, claiming that Israel is only supported in Congress because “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” parrot the familiar “Jewish money controls the world” narrative. Omar was denounced by some in her own party; Nancy Pelosi demanded she apologize. Omar issued a half-hearted apology, but later that same day retweeted a comment by another Democrat who condemned Pelosi for not defending Omar. It read: “I am deeply disappointed in @SpeakerPelosi for her failure today … ”. So Omar gets to have her cake and eat it, too.

True to the mark, the Washington Post used the Omar fiasco as yet another opportunity to lambast Republicans as the source of real bigotry, saying: “Those who believe in a tolerant, multicultural America need to speak with one voice against the scapegoating of minorities by the likes of Trump and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — not quarrel among themselves.” Sure, and Jussie Smollett really is a victim.

President Trump weighed in, calling for Omar’s resignation:

What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology — and that’s what it was; it was lame, and she didn’t mean a word of it — was just not appropriate. I think she should resign from Congress, frankly. But at a minimum, she shouldn’t be on committees, and certainly that committee.

Any Republican making such statements would already have been forced to resign by his or her own party. Rep. Steve King was removed from all Committee assignments for one comment suggesting he supported white supremacists, a charge he adamantly denies. However, Democrat double standards, subversive political calculations, and sheer vindictiveness, enabled by a complicit media, not only preclude such an event but virtually guarantee that Omar will remain on the House Foreign Relations Committee. And that is a real problem.

Ilhan Omar is a poster child for the Red-Green Axis — the unholy alliance between the radical Left and terror-connected, anti-American Muslim groups. She has been supported by, and is networked with, some of its most virulent members.

On the heels of her non-apology, Omar will shortly share the stage at a Florida fundraising event with Yousef Abdallah, who has rejoiced at the murder of Jews on his social media posts. The event is sponsored by Islamic Relief USA. Quin Hillyer writes in the Washington Examiner that IRUSA “has been branded a terrorist financier by the governments of the United Arab Emirates and Israel,” and that “Russian authorities, the Swiss bank UBS, the British bank HSBC, and reports by governmental entities in Germany and Sweden all have determined that Islamic Relief has supported radical Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One month later, Omar will speak at another Florida fundraiser sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood group fronting for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in the United States, and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terror financing trial. CAIR founder Nihad Awad led the student branch of the Communist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in America before switching to Hamas in 1994. CAIR called Omar’s statements about Jewish political donations courageous.

Omar will share the stage with Hassan Shibly, executive director for CAIR-Florida. Shibly has emphatically stated that Hamas and Lebanon-based Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations. That would be laugh-out-loud funny, but it was stated by someone running a branch of an organization that some naïve politicians call “moderate.” Wiser nations, like the United Arab Emirates, characterize CAIR as a terrorist organization.

CAIR pursues “litigation jihad,” among other forms, though none overtly violent yet. For example, Jaylani Hussein, executive director of CAIR-Minnesota — which is completely in bed with Omar — bragged that his group filed 360 lawsuits in 2017 alone. Lawfare is one of CAIR’s favorite tactics, along with threatening speakers — like yours truly — who expose their underbelly. Last year, CAIR national jumped on the bandwagon with extreme Left groups in suing the FBI, Customs & Border Protection, and other agencies charged with homeland security.

At least one state legislature has some sense: The Arkansas House just passed a resolution demanding state law enforcement suspend interactions with CAIR. We’ll see if it has wings.

During her campaign, Omar partnered with the vicious, anti-American, anti-Semitic Linda Sarsour, whose mentor Siraj Wahhaj was an alleged co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj’s son faces prosecution in New Mexico for starving and abusing 11 children and allowing his own three-year-old son to die at an Islamic cult compound he ran.

In interviews, Omar has mocked concerns over terrorism. She says members of al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab are “normal citizens,” and “don’t mean anything evil.” Omar has also stated she thinks their actions are justified.

Omar’s district — MN-5, formerly held by the Islamo-Marxist Keith Ellison who is now, incomprehensibly, Minnesota’s attorney general — has been dubbed the “Terrorist Recruitment Capital of the United States.” An astounding 45 Somali men from this one district either joined ISIS or Somalia’s al-Shabaab.

Twelve were arrested seeking to join ISIS. Omar defended nine of the 12 during sentencing, claiming their intended violence was in response to “direct marginalization” and “systematic alienation.” She actually wrote a letter to the judge, arguing that “[t]he best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.”

When the Somalian terrorist group al-Shabaab attacked the Kenyan Westgate shopping mall in 2013, killing 67 and wounding more than 175, Omar blamed America, saying it was “our involvement in other people’s affairs” that precipitated the attack.

So terrorists can do no wrong while America gets the blame. But it is not for lack of trying. Omar’s District 5 encompasses the Minneapolis area that has the largest population of Somalis anywhere in the nation — and the local government has bent over backwards to accommodate the Somalis.

For example, in 2017, a bipartisan group of state senators proposed an $18 million grant program for “Somali community development,” based on the errant notion that poverty creates terrorism. As a then-state representative, Ilhan Omar co-sponsored the House companion bill. Another bill proposed $400,000 over two years to build a Somali museum. In 2019, another bill grants $4 million over two years specifically for “the east African community economic development pilot grant program.” Another permanent annual grant set at $2 million per year for the next two years has been proposed for one private foundation specifically focused on low-income neighborhoods in Minnesota — which are almost entirely Somali neighborhoods in Minneapolis.

Such freebees almost never work. Minnesota Somalis already use welfare at astronomical rates, and there has been an ongoing, active criminal enterprise fleecing the state welfare program of $100 million or more annually, much of which is likely going to finance al Shabaab. Millions are stuffed in suitcases on regular flights headed for Somalia. As Fox News reported: “In 2015, investigators documented $14 million in carry on cash. By 2016, it had mushroomed to $84 million. Then last year, $100 million.”

The Minneapolis housing board allows for minimal back-rent payments for Somalis who go for extended, months-long vacations to Somalia. Note that since virtually all first-generation Somali U.S. citizens originally immigrated as refugees or asylees supposedly fleeing for their lives, these trips suggest most came under false pretenses. In fact, the State Department’s refugee “family reunification” program for northern Africa was shut down from 2008 to 2012 following a DNA study that found a confirmed fraud rate of over 80 percent — and possibly close to 100 percent — in that program. Experts say the entire refugee/asylum system is similarly infected.

And Omar has her own legal problems. David Steinberg has published, in a series of investigative pieces at PJ Media, documentary evidence of immigration fraud, perjury, and financial fraud. Omar apparently married her own brother, one Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, in 2009 so he could gain legal access to the U.S. and obtain student loans. Both then moved to North Dakota to attend school. Omar denies Elmi is her brother, and filing for divorce in 2017, Omar swore she had not been in contact with Elmi since 2011.

According to her own testimony, Omar was in a common-law marriage since 2002 to another man, Ahmed Hirsi, and had children by him. She claimed to have left Hirsi in 2008, and then married Elmi. But new evidence has surfaced — including Omar’s own social media posts which she has since deleted — that she never left Hirsi, and that in fact she, Hirsi, and Elmi all lived together in North Dakota between 2009 and 2011. Further evidence indicates she conversed regularly with Elmi on social media after 2011, and even flew to London to visit him in 2015. Finally, Elmi apparently lived with Omar’s father in Minneapolis years before their “marriage,” and graduated from high school there in 2003. Few have noticed that Omar is back with Hirsi, her first, or more likely never parted, husband, who is seen with her regularly at public events.

All of this evidence suggests multiple instances of criminal behavior. Steinberg writes:

Immigration fraud, marriage fraud, federal student loan fraud, several instances of perjury, tax fraud on every filing for eight years, even fraud on her disclosure forms while serving as a state representative: all of this could potentially be in the mix based on the current evidence. Add that to an open investigation into her campaign finances.

Omar seems to have a predilection for helping other relatives, too. She publicly backed the candidacy of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, a former New York Transportation employee who improbably won election as president of Somalia in February 2017. It has been termed one of the most corrupt elections in Somalia’s history, a nation racked by corruption for ages. Omar also supported Hassan Ali Khayre, a candidate for prime minister who is suspected of illegal activities as director of a Russian-controlled oil company in Somalia, and is under investigation for links to terrorists, including al-Shabaab. Omar subsequently spoke at an event in Minneapolis congratulating President Mohamed, and mentioning Ali Khayre. Two days later, Ali Khayre was voted prime minister by the Somali parliament.

Two days after that, Omar’s brother-in-law was appointed permanent secretary to Ali Khayre.

Will Omar use this conduit to share classified information she obtains on her Foreign Relations Committee seat? Will that classified information reach terrorists? I think that’s a rhetorical question … all with Speaker Pelosi’s blessings.

Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and BDS

Omar also reflects the increasingly virulent anti-Semitism of the Left, and by extension, the Democrat Party that the Left now owns. This is visible every day on college campuses throughout the U.S., but especially at the 600-odd campuses housing chapters of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) — the oldest Muslim Brotherhood front group in the United States. The movie Hate Spaces documents the frightening, overt anti-Semitism on college campuses today.

A favorite tactic of the Left is to create a “strawman” enemy it can use to vilify opponents and excuse all kinds of excessive behavior (think Antifa). In this case, the Left has come up with the slogan “Zionism is Racism.” To accentuate the “Zionism is Racism” theme, they declare Israel to be an “apartheid regime,” drumming up images of old South Africa, and the Palestinians as an “oppressed people” for which we must have “compassion,” or else we are just as racist as the Zionists.

This in turn gives the Left the pretext to launch a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement as Western nations used to take down South Africa. On the most radical Left front, it activates groups like the International Solidarity Movement, which aligns with American communist groups to oppose Israel, and engages in violent and illegal activity to support Hamas. American ISM activists launched the “Gaza Flotilla” to run Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. In 2010, they provoked a skirmish with Israeli commandos who had boarded one of six flotilla ships that had refused to stop. Nine activists were killed in the resulting gun battle. In 2011, another flotilla was launched but was prevented from completing the trip when Turkey intercepted the vessels en route.

But like so much of the Left’s propaganda, not a shred of the “Zionism is Racism” meme is even remotely true. In fact, the opposite is true. Zionism is merely the Jewish aspiration for a homeland. This is no different than the Kurds and Balochi people, both of whom lobby and fight for their own homelands. Greeks living on the Turkish side of Cyprus yearn to be reunited with the Greek side. The Polisario Front, a Socialist group in Western Sahara, seeks its own homeland, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic — currently a part of Morocco.

There are similar nationalist movements all over the globe that the Left has supported. Why not Israel?

During a rare moment of honesty in June 2017, Senator Chuck Schumer praised French President Emmanuel Macron, who had equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Schumer said:

The idea that all other peoples can seek and defend their right to self-determination but the Jewish people cannot; that other nations have a right to exist but the Jewish State of Israel does not, that, too, is a modern form of anti-Semitism, just as President Macron said this weekend.

Schumer also criticized BDS against Israel. Unsurprisingly, he’s gone silent about Omar. However his statement was correct. David Harsanyi writes in The Federalist:

It’s true, of course, that anti-Zionism isn’t “the same” as common anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is the most significant and consequential form of anti-Semitism that exists in the world today. Anti-Zionism has done more to undermine Jewish safety than all the ugly tweets, dog whistles, and white nationalist marches combined. It is the predominant justification for violence, murder, and hatred against Jews in Europe and the Middle East. And it’s now infiltrating American politics.

To deny Jews a homeland is to deny history. On the other hand, Palestinians, as a people, are a modern invention created for the specific purpose of prosecuting a war against the Jewish state. There is no specific Palestinian heritage, culture, or language. There has never been a Palestinian state ruled by Palestinian leaders. Palestinians are simply Arabs living in the boundaries of a region mandated to Britain following WWI that was given the name “Palestine.” In more honest days, Zahir Muhsein, a leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) admitted it. He said:

The Palestinian people does not [sic] exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

Bingo! The “Arab unity” concept is also embedded in the PLO Charter, which explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel. So all of the misinformation, slurs and activism against Israel are simply different fronts on a multi-front offensive to destroy the Jewish state.

Yasser Arafat admitted that, too. He said:

Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.

Arafat said this to reassure Arab media on the same day he shook hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn to celebrate the Oslo Accords that created the Palestinian Authority.

It explains why, despite the West bending over backwards to accommodate the Arabs with a two-state solution, the Palestinians reject it every time. Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass. Not good enough, they want it all, and with it, the elimination of the Jewish people.

Why has the world never heard of this? Serial media malpractice.

Don’t expect House Speaker Pelosi to rein Omar, Tlaib, Cortez, and the other extremists in her Party. Though spoken of as an “establishment Democrat,” Pelosi is every bit as much an extremist as all of them, and always has been.

For example, as far back as the 1980s, Pelosi allied herself with Communist organizations like Nicaragua Network and the Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). CISPES was founded by U.S.-based Cuban agents and Farid Handal, brother of the Salvadoran Communist guerrilla leader, Schafik Handal. If you still have any doubts, note that Pelosi just threatened that a future Democrat president might use the emergency powers President Trump just invoked to confiscate privately owned firearms.

No, Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez are not marginalized within the Democratic Party, despite some criticism from Party members. They actually serve a very specific purpose for Democrats as the Party drifts further and further Left. Omar in particular has openly demonstrated her pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic sentiments. She has likely committed numerous crimes. She has established networks in Somalia to one of its most corrupt governments in history, likely connected to al-Shabaab terrorists and thus the entire Middle East terrorist network. She is an existential threat to national security, and should at the very least be removed from the Foreign Affairs Committee, if not thrown out of Congress altogether. But without significant public pressure and prosecution for her crimes, it probably won’t happen.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in PJ Media. It is republished with permission. The featured image is of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., left, and Cory Booker, D-N.J., conduct a news conference in the Capitol to introduce a legislative package that would lower prescription drug prices in the U.S. on January 10, 2019. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

Humanists: Tear Down That Cross!

/in , , , , /by

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments about a large memorial cross on a busy highway in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association argues that it is an assault on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The Bladensburg Cross was built primarily by a group of mothers after World War I who mourned the loss of their sons in the Great War. Forty-nine men from Prince George’s County in Maryland are memorialized on the cross which was built in their honor in 1925.

Later a highway was constructed that passed the cross, making it widely visible. Jeremy Dys, Deputy General Counsel of First Liberty Institute, which is defending the cross before the Supreme Court said in an interview for our television program: “They mimicked the design of the gravestones that their sons were buried under in Europe. And so it stood there without any complaint until about five years ago when some atheist groups got together and decided that the presence of that memorial on public property is offensive in violating the Constitution. The Fourth Circuit has agreed with them.”

The Humanists’ website states, “…the longer a constitutional violation like this persists, the greater the harm to non-Christian residents forced to encounter the cross year after year.”

Does the Constitution mandate that the cross be torn down? An honest look at our history shows the atheists are the ones out of step with our traditions, as opposed to the 84 percent of Americans who support that cross.

Was the establishment clause violated when:

  • The Constitution was signed “in the Year of Our Lord” (as in Jesus)?
  • George Washington became the first president under the Constitution, and was sworn in on the Bible, which he leaned over and kissed? Then in his First Inaugural Address in New York City, he mentioned his gratitude to God repeatedly. Then he led the cabinet and the Congressional members and Supreme Court justices over to St. Paul’s Chapel for a two hour Christian worship service, which included communion, in which he also partook.
  • The same men who gave us the First Amendment hired chaplains for the military and chaplains for the House and Senate? This practice has been challenged, all the way up to the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS ruled in favor of the chaplains (1983)—since such a practice predated the Constitution itself.
  • Jefferson approved and regularly attended the Sunday morning Christian worship services held in the U. S. Capitol building as president? Jefferson even made a suggestion or two on potential preachers for pulpit supply.
  • James Madison also regularly attended those services when he was president as well?

These last two facts are significant because if the ACLU and the American Humanist Association and their ilk had patron saints, they would be Jefferson and Madison.

  • President Abraham Lincoln called for the annual holiday of Thanksgiving (to God), which we continue to celebrate year after year? He also called for a day of prayer on March 30, 1863, in which he declared: “It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God . . . and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
  • FDR issued copies of the New Testament and the Psalms to servicemen in World War II? He also gave out a Jewish version which had passages from the Old Testament. He wrote:  “As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.” I have copy of one of these New Testaments. It was my dad’s, who served in the Navy in World War II.

And on it goes.

Joseph Story, a Harvard Law professor and Supreme Court Justice in the early 1800s, wrote a massive commentary on the Constitution. He said about the First Amendment: “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.” Yet that’s exactly the false interpretation of the First Amendment that the humanists are demanding.

What the American Humanist Association and the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation are trying to do is to remake America into something the settlers and founders of this nation never intended it to be—a secular wasteland.

Perhaps Ike said it best. In 1955, President Eisenhower said, “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land

6 Key Exchanges From the Peace Cross Oral Argument

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by sspiehs3 from Pixabay.

My Family Fled Communism When I Was 6. Now We Fear Our Nightmare Has Followed Us Here

/in , , , , , , /by

Can my cow fat skin-creams make me a target here in the United States similar to my dad in communist Romania?

Following the State of the Union address, I found the state of the nation surreal. I kept skimming past articles about the Democratic Party’s proposed economic stimulus packages, collectively known as the Green New Deal.

They propose to fund unsustainable sectors like solar panels—which are already heavily government-backed—by targeting more self-sufficient industries, like meat production. In order to earmark raiding the cookie jar of productive businesses to fund those that aren’t paying for themselves, Democrats have to demonize the target in order to implement punitive measures such as meat taxes.

I know the Green New Deal is based on non-truths and artfully doled misinformation, like the deforestation myth, but most people believe we are losing forest land in this country to the meat industry. That’s one of the lies told to them by our leaders in order to take advantage of the public support and vote. They need a mob to rob. 

How did we get to this choke point of punishing meat consumption, as one NJ radical animal rights activist senator proposes, in the form of a tax? 

I think I recognize a pendulum swinging back at me. Mom and Dad left everything they had to bring me and my younger brother to the United States. In this country, I am able to experience freedoms such as shopping for food, owning material things, and starting my own business. But that independence comes with heavy financial costs due to already overzealous, arbitrary, and crippling rules and laws.

As a matter of recent personal developments, I started making my own beef tallow-based cosmetic creams and decided to turn my products into a small business. This process is an ancient form of cosmetic production, and part of the reason I did this was to connect people to the truth. I saw the threat to US food sovereignty—the safest, freest, most abundant, most reliable food producer in the world—coming in the form of untruthful propaganda planted by special interests. It comes in the form of false environmental claims like the threat of cow flatulence or pig feces.

Meanwhile, I work in NYC, and I see a different reality. Those urban-dwelling legislators blame cow and pig waste as they step over garbage on the street with plastic cups in hand. I see human waste in myriad forms coming from congested metropolises.

The waste is in plain view walking past storefronts. Constant construction to remodel commercial spaces after every tenant swap is in plain view. NYC takes at least 45,000 construction applications annually. Think of all the garbage from ripping out floors, walls, and ceilings and replacing them 45,000 times per year.

As city dwellers are packed in so tight in the street that they can’t traverse a sidewalk without bumping into one another like ants on an ant farm, we throw away more than 76 million pounds of garbage per day. Nine pounds per person per day of that waste is produced by people while at work. That’s a lot of to-go lunch boxes, cups, bags, and pulp from fresh juices. To what extent are the waste gases from discarded pulp considered agricultural waste?

I wonder about the environmental impact of a throw-away society. The throw-away society blames the ranchers: “We already pay for recycling and get fined when we don’t, so why shouldn’t they pay, too?”

So far, I haven’t sold one item, and God forbid I do before all levels of government have been duly compensated for ensuring the safety and well-being of the people from the threat of me and my hand cream. The local health department wants to inspect my kitchen “to make sure that your dog isn’t walking around getting hair onto the product or that you prepare your product on the same counter as your chicken.” 

They want me to state that I am a chemist because their fee system is based on the number of chemists on staff. 

They will refer me for registration with the FDA to have my products tested and my work facilities investigated some more. There are fees associated here, too. The government can’t provide free public services for free.

Naturally, the IRS will have to be notified and receive their dues. Now we may have a Green New Deal standing in line for my green, too.

With children in tow, my parents escaped oppression and a lack of human rights—the right to pursue happiness and the right to own property. They also escaped government-controlled death by not having to wait for health care under a communist regime.

Not for lack of resources, total government control in the name of the public interest—with no private business rights—kept everyone equally poor and longing for basic daily resources and comforts, like coffee, fruit, vegetables, meat, bread, dairy, cigarettes, clothes, fashion magazines, videos, and news.

The populace that hadn’t yet died on the inside existed with the frustration of simply not being allowed to live normal lives. They faced the threat of punitive repercussions if they displayed any personal initiative or resourcefulness. Those consequences included regular government raids and confiscation of personal property. 

The people waited in line for rations of flour and their monthly maximum of sugar and cooking oil; the political members—ruling elites—feasted on the produce and sheep they plundered from the farmers and ranchers. Then they exported the rest. Romania was the breadbasket of Europe. But it was the black market that supplied the nonconformists and enemy-of-the-state families with the forbidden goods the paternal government deemed unnecessary for the people—smuggled American cartoons and Nutella for the kids and Russian black caviar for a birthday party or gathering to impress connections.

They were the ones who risked getting shot at the border on their way out, for they wanted options for their children, who were considered the purview of the state—another resource to be plundered. Citizens were expected to remain and exist only to act as chattel for the benefit of the state. It was servitude for the good of the people. Socialism had already morphed into stage 4 cancer: communism. 

Fast forward 35 years plus 4,751.5 miles, and that nightmare hound is back to nip at the old couple’s heels, sending chills up their tired backs. It is certain that there is a power struggle over our American resources.

Certain special interests have taken it upon themselves to seize control of our abundantly rich, productive, efficient, and privately-owned agricultural sector by demonizing farmers and ranchers, all as a means of prying control from independently productive family businesses.

These nefarious wolves dressed in white are no gentle lambs. They aim to chip away at our personal freedoms in tiny increments until the entire foundation of the Constitution crumbles. The slobbering wolves in white are gaining ground by pulling the wool over our collective eyes with lies. They are salivating to plunder the world’s breadbasket.

Make no mistake: they may blame cow farts, but when you have given them the ranchers, they shall dine on the same meat they have deemed illegal for you and me. 

They buy us with empty promises to enact unconstitutional laws that entrap others into giving more and to tax the bad ones for the common good, ultimately entrapping all of us in that same net. As soon as we make more, we are taxed more for more social services that don’t ever solve the problems. Socialism is a crabs-in-a-barrel system where the political elites stand outside, watching some crabs pull the others down and the others give up at the bottom. 

As a former refugee from communism, a New Yorker, and someone who is intensely appreciative of the producers who make our world possible—the farmers and ranchers—my aim is to use a small business to connect urbanites with the natural perfection of the raw resources normally out of reach to them. But the Green New Deal would tell them I’m evil and shouldn’t be given the same free access to the market to compete.

Back under the Ceausescu regime, my father was under surveillance by the secret police. He had dual citizenship and traveled freely, which merited him heavy government monitoring. Thanks to the mainstream emergence of extremist environmentalism, militant activists, doxxing, and extremist legislators, I can’t help feeling the pending threat of that hungry hound. Can my nice cow fat skin-creams make me a target here in the United States similar to what my dad endured in communist Romania?

COLUMN BY

Andra Constantin

Andra Constantin

Andra Constantin is the enamored owner of an opinionated 20 year old gelding, who has opened her eyes to the differences between animal welfare and the extremist ideology of animal rights.

RELATED ARTICLE: Venezuela and the Myth of Kinder, Gentler Socialism

RELATED VIDEO: Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay.

Video Interview: Facebook Insider Explains ‘Deboosting’, ‘Troll Report’ & Political Targeting

/in , , , , , , /by

Today Project Veritas released a new video documenting an investigation into Facebook, the largest social media company in the world.  We introduce you to our Facebook insider, taking us behind the scenes of how the tech giant “demotes bad content”, “deboosts” conservative livestreams, classifies users, and triggers special features “close to elections.” 

She provided Project Veritas with documents showing the bias evident in Facebook’s policies and actions, and how software engineers go about censoring voices on the right. 

Here’s what the Facebook insider told Veritas: 

“I think that the biggest thing, that getting the documents, getting video or still pictures of what was going on that shows that it is actually happening.  This isn’t rumors, they talk about how right-wingers, they come up with all these crazy theories, and that’s not actually happening at these social media companies. They pooh pooh it.  But here it is and it’s in your face.“

You can view the full video HERE. 

For more information and a “deep dive” into the Facebook documents, you can view our report HERE.

Other brave individuals who would like to expose fraud, corruption, and wrongdoing can contact Project Veritas by clicking HERE.

In Truth, 

Project Veritas Team

UPDATE on our Facebook investigation.

You and I have Facebook on their heels. 

Facebook just released a comment in an article in The Verge in response to our latest investigation:

“We fired this person a year ago for breaking multiple employment policies and using her contractor role at Facebook to perform a stunt for Project Veritas.  Unsurprisingly, the claims she is making validate her agenda and ignore the processes we have in place to ensure Facebook remains a platform to give people a voice, regardless of their political ideology.”

The article continues:

But Facebook says the tag has a more straightforward meaning. Starting in 2016, Facebook gave a significant News Feed boost to live videos as a way of encouraging users to broadcast live. Some pages tried to game that system by uploading pre-recorded videos through the live API, a violation of Facebook’s policies. If moderators found such a video, the “ActionDeboostLiveDistribution” tag would be applied to undo the News Feed boost otherwise applied to Live videos.

Here’s why this response to our investigation is so fascinating:

  • Facebook verifies the existence of “deboosting” conservative pages.  Veritas reached out to one of the “deboosted” page owners, Steven Crowder, who told Veritas that Facebook’s claims were “ridiculous” and he does not upload pre-recorded videos through the live API.
  • Facebook does not deny censoring political comments for users.
  • Facebook does not deny the existence of their efforts to “Coordinate Trolling on Facebook.”
  • Facebook does not deny suppressing conservative pages.  

The reality is, Facebook does not deny any of the documents of our investigation.  

Instead, Facebook tries to discredit our insider.  And The Verge entertains their attacks by promoting the manufactured comments of a corporate spokesman over the firsthand account of a brave whistle blower.  It’s shameful.

You’ll be glad to know that Veritas will not back down.  Together, you and I will continue to promote truth above all.

Stay tuned — I visited a few Facebook engineers who had a bit more to say.

RELATED ARTICLE: Michelle Malkin: I’ve Been Silicon Valley Sharia’d By Tech Totalitarians

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video and column with images is republished with permission.