Just two days after taking control of Twitter, owner and CEO Elon Musk is launching a wave of layoffs ahead of an expected stock grant to employees, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Twitter employees are scheduled to receive the grant on Nov. 1, which comprises a “significant portion” of employees’ compensation, according to the NYT, which cited four anonymous sources. By firing employees before Nov. 1, Musk may be able to avoid paying for some grants, which were set to be paid out in cash under the conditions of Musk’s deal with Twitter to take the company private.
“I was told to expect somewhere around 50 percent of people will be laid off,” Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, told the NYT. Gerber, whose firm has invested less than $1 million in Musk’s takeover, claims to have been informed of the layoffs by Jared Birchall, the head of Musk’s family office.
Some managers are being asked to prepare lists of employees to be cut, and layoffs may begin as soon as Saturday, the NYT reported. The cuts are expected to be company-wide as part of Musk’s efforts to enhance profitability, which include looking for new ways to monetize the platform through advertisements and other means.
Musk on Wednesday denied reports that he intended to lay off 75% of the social media platform’s staff, but was expected to make some cuts to the company, according to Bloomberg. If confirmed, the layoffs would follow Musk’s decision to fire a variety of top executives as he took the helm, including former CEO Parag Agrawal and Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal.
JUST IN: Elon Musk has reportedly planned to begin laying off workers at Twitter as soon as today, per the NYT, with managers being asked to draw up lists of employees to cut before a Nov. 1 date when employees were scheduled to receive stock grants as part of their compensation.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk intends to end the practice of permanently banning users from the platform, according to a report by Bloomberg.
Musk, whose months long bid to buy Twitter involved several attempts to escape a deal first brokered in April, apparently does not believe in permanently banning users for their speech, Bloomberg reported Friday, citing an anonymous source familiar with the matter. People who had previously been banned, such as former U.S. President Donald Trump, might be allowed to return under this new policy.
“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints,” Musk announced Friday afternoon, hours after the report broke. “No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.”
The report comes one day after Musk promised advertisers that, despite his commitment to turn Twitter into a “digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner,” that “Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape,” in a Thursday morning tweet. Twitter would attempt to show ads that are as targeted as possible to users, since the more relevant the ad is, the more engaging it becomes, Musk said.
“Fundamentally, Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising platform in the world,” said Musk Thursday. Some advertisers are reportedly planning to suspend advertising on the platform should Trump’s ban be reversed, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints.
No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.
One Twitter user, who has over 853,000 followers at time of writing, alleged in a Thursday evening tweet that they remain “[s]hadowbanned, ghostbanned, searchbanned” on the platform, referring to a variety of alleged moderation techniques that surreptitiously reduce a user’s online presence, and that the platform was removing their followers. Musk promised in a Friday morning tweet that he was “digging in more today.”
Musk became the sole owner of the social media giant following the closure of a $44 billion takeover attempt that concluded on Thursday, with one of Musk’s first actions reportedly being to fire several top Twitter executives. At the moment, Musk has taken over as CEO, but may give the role up in the future, Bloomberg reported.
Twitter did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
After a months long legal battle, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk officially reached a deal with Twitter on Thursday to become the sole owner of the social media giant in a historic shakeup of the tech industry, according to multiple sources.
The deal, initially agreed upon in April, takes Twitter private at $54.20 per share, a roughly $44 billion transaction that the tech mogul has previously attempted to escape over claims that he was misled about the number of spam or “bot” accounts on the platform. As one of his first moves, Musk reportedly fired several top executives, including CEO Parag Agrawal, chief financial officer Ned Segal, and Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust, and safety, The Washington Post reported.
Gadde oversaw many content moderation decisions, drawing criticism from conservatives and Republicans for a censorship-heavy approach, and was heavily involved in the decision to kick off former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.
Buying Twitter is an accelerant to creating X, the everything app
While Musk’s exact plans for the platform are not yet known at time of writing, he has made several public comments, primarily on Twitter itself, stressing the importance of the medium as a forum that protects “free speech,” according to The Washington Post. However, Musk has clearly stated that he intends to reverse the ban on former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account, a decision he characterized as “flat out stupid,” at an event hosted by the Financial Times.
“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral,” Musk tweeted on April 27, weeks after the initial deal was made. “which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.”
Musk has also reportedly told investors supporting his bid to purchase the company that he intends to lay off roughly 75% of the tech giant’s staff, cutting the company to just 2,000 workers, The Washington Post reported. Musk has publicly commented that he believes the company is overstaffed, but former Twitter employees and tech analysts have criticized the move as being too drastic, potentially exposing the company to security and moderation issues.
Musk has been vocal about his intention to use Twitter as a stepping stone to create an app known as X, which he describes as “the everything app.” When a Twitter user claimed that it would have been less difficult to simply build X from scratch, Musk countered that the purchase would shave 3 to 5 years of development time, although he hedged the claim by admitting “I could be wrong.”
Critics have argued that a Musk takeover will cause the platform to be more prone to spreading misinformation and incentivize or encourage dangerous practices that will harm women and people of color on the platform, The Hill reported. Angelo Carusone, president of left-wing media watchdog Media Matters, compared Musk’s attempted acquisition to the formation of Fox News, an organization he characterized as having a “distorting effect” on U.S. media, in an interview with The Hill.
“Elon Musk is about to rip open Pandora’s box and flood the internet once again with hate, misogyny, racism and conspiracy theories,” said Bridget Todd, communications director of feminist advocacy organization UltraViolet in an Oct. 4 statement. “We should all be terrified.”
The most underreported story of the last 50 years.
Recently both Pope Francis and Elon Musk have warned of depopulation.
Speaking of the declining birth rate in Italy, the Pontiff said:
“This is a new poverty that scares me. It is the generative poverty of those who discount the desire for happiness in their hearts, of those who resign themselves to watering down their greatest aspirations [family], of those who are content with little and stop hoping for something great.”
And here’s billionaire Musk on Twitter: “A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.”
As expected, PC corporate media pushed back against both the pro-natalist Pontiff and the flaky father-of-nine world’s richest man.
In the midst of this comes yet another survey on the opinions of Americans about having children. The study in the journal Scientific Reports, “Prevalence, age of decision, and interpersonal warmth judgements of childfree adults,” is authored by Michigan State University professors Zachary P. Neal and Jennifer Watling Neal. It grabbed headlines.
The headline? “More than 1 in 5 US adults don’t want children.”
As the authors more accurately explain:
In a 2022 study of 1,500 adults in Michigan, wefound that 21.64% of adults do not want to have children and therefore are choosing to be childfree. While our survey wasn’t nationally representative, the 2021 Census showed that Michigan is demographically similar to the United States in terms of age, race, education and income. If the pattern we have observed in Michigan reflects national trends, it would mean 50 million to 60 million American adults are childfree.
Given the times, this is not surprising. In many quarters it is considered thoroughly modern, environmentally conscious, and propitiously PC to foreswear progeny. While Pope Francis and Elon Musk see it differently, what do they know? (Sarcasm, OK?)
The authors describe those not wanting to have children as “childfree” and those unable to have children as “childless.” The semantic implications are obvious. Being “free” of something, as in debt-free or disease-free, is considered positive. “Childfree” carries a similar semantic connotation.
Some say that willfully not having children – aka “childfree” – is exercising “reproductive freedom.” The American Civil Liberties Union defines reproductive freedom as the right that “every person can make the best decision for themselves and their family about whether and when to have a child without undue political interference.”
Reproductive freedom is the right to have children. Let’s talk about that.
The globalist establishment’s colossal cash cow, the American middle class, is being milked dry. For generations the American family has been under all-out attack. Debased entertainment, a debilitating social welfare system, callous manipulation by big business, big government (including education) and big media are bad enough. Then there is “pride” propaganda celebrating practically any social arrangement other than the loving traditional nuclear family.
America’s families are ensnared in a real-life Big Squeeze: besieged by woke anti-family propaganda on one side and an exploitive, corrupt crony capitalism masquerading as a “free market economy” on the other. Brainwashed up-and-comers believe such a regime is “the free enterprise system.” In their blind naivety they happily condone wage slavery as vociferously as they would condemn chattel slavery.
Reproductive freedom? The problem is a profound one of social priorities. The family is no longer the focal point of life in America. Money and lifestyle are. Family values are supplanted by hedonism and greed, those glittering globalist assault weapons pounding the American family.
The family is by far the most battle-scarred victim of globalism’s fanatical philarguria (that’s Biblical Greek for greed on steroids). The days when a middle-class parent could stay home and care for children are long gone. Think that affects reproductive freedom?
Women may enjoy their work but work they must. Fine – but safeguard their reproductive freedom by not making it professionally ruinous to bring a child into this world.
Then there are the usual family pressures, such as the ever-present specter of unemployment, escalating debt and the demand for employee fealty to the point where supervisors come before spouses. Talk about skewed priorities! Any wonder that broken homes, broken lives, drug addiction and other social pathologies increase? How does that impact reproductive freedom?
Bottom line: Where do families most feel the pinch? They are being denied their reproductive freedom. The pernicious reality is that there is no specific law prohibiting procreation, but rather the circumstantial deprivation of that basic human right by a thousand cuts, driven by a fashionably materialistic anti-natalist worldview.
How so? Having children is (1) unaffordable — not enough money and (2) struggling to make ends meet, so not enough time for children. Plus, the relentless tsunami of PC negativity about our heritage, “antiracist” guilt propaganda, environmental scaremongering, etc. discourages legions of impressionable young people from aspiring to have a family.
Multitudes have borne the sadness and loss of being unable to have the children they desire – a wholesale robbery of reproductive freedom. That is the biggest and most underreported story of the last 50 years.
Pope Francis and Elon Musk understand this.
So the next time you hear folks yapping about reproductive freedom, remember that means the right to have children, and the deprivation of that basic human right in any way is viciously anti-family. Period.
Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… More by Louis T. March
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - A Compass for Common Sensehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - A Compass for Common Sense2022-08-10 10:34:032022-08-10 10:35:57Reproductive choice is a choice to have children. Anything else is a fraud. Period.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk canceled his bid to purchase Twitter Friday, according to a letter from his lawyers published in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
Twitter “appears to have made false and misleading representations” and “has not complied with its contractual obligations,” according to the letter. Mike Ringler, attorney for Skadden Arps, accused the company of refusing to provide information requested by Musk, including what percent of its monetizable users were fake or spam accounts.
Musk threatened to cancel his deal with Twitter June 6 after the company reportedly refused to hand over user data reports he had requested. The company has claimed that only 5% of its accounts are fake or spam, but Musk speculated that number could be four times higher.
“We are committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plan to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery,” the Twitter board said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Twitter Board is committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plans to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
“Twitter has not provided information that Mr. Musk has requested for nearly two months notwithstanding his repeated, detailed clarifications intended to simplify Twitter’s identification, collection, and disclosure of the most relevant information sought in Mr. Musk’s original requests,” the letter from Musk’s attorney read.
Musk agreed to buy Twitter for about $44 billion April 25 after the company attempted to thwart his buyout efforts.
This story is breaking and will be updated as the situation develops. Please check back for updates.
Twitter’s board unanimously recommended Tuesday that shareholders approve billionaire Elon Musk’s offer to buy the social media site for $44 billion.
Musk told Twitter employees earlier in June that he still planned to move forward with the purchase, despite shares in the company remaining significantly lower than his offer price, The Associated Press reported. He noted on Tuesday that approval of the purchase by shareholders was one of a number of unresolved matters halting his purchase, the outlet continued.
The Tesla billionaire’s offer would net a profit of $15.22 per share for investors if it closed now, the AP noted. Musk offered to pay $54.20 per share, despite them falling short of this number upon opening bell Tuesday, the outlet reported.
Twitter’s board of directors said in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that it “unanimously recommends that you vote (for) the adoption of the merger agreement.”
Musk has previously said that Twitter “will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.” He then offered to buy the entirety of the company in order to “unlock” the “extraordinary potential” of the social media platform. Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey has praised Musk’s decision to purchase the platform and has also said that he will “never be CEO again.”
Believe it or not, this is some great advice from Musk, and given the insane hostility in our country right now, there’s no better time to remember it.
Every day you wake up in America, you’re already better off than the rest of the world. Don’t waste it. There are billions of people who would gladly trade places with you.
If you woke up this morning in America, you’re already better off than the vast majority of the world.
Be grateful, be thankful, be kind and live a life that would make all those who came before you proud.
Furthermore, happiness is truly a choice, and if you’re not happy, find a way to fix it. Find some hobbies, get a different job, add a few friends or just crack a few beers.
Whatever it is that puts a smile on your face, chase it.
Republican Wisconsin Rep. Scott Fitzgerald sent a letter Tuesday to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Lina Khan demanding answers about Elon Musk’s attempt to purchase Twitter for $44 billion, saying the review process must be done fairly and without partisanship.
The Daily Caller first obtained the letter, which was signed by four other Republicans. In the letter, the lawmakers expressed their concerns with “politicization seen at the FTC” during the Biden administration, saying they worry it will delay or halt Musk’s attempt to lead Twitter.
They also mentioned issues they have with the FTC under Biden, such as “suspending early termination of merger review transactions with no competitive concerns for well over a year, using a zombie vote to adopt prior approval for merging parties and divestiture buyers on future transactions for 10 years” and more.
“Big Tech is no friend of conservatives and neither is the President Biden’s FTC. The Left has made clear its discontent with Elon Musk’s attempt to restore free speech on Twitter. We must ensure that his bid to purchase the social media company receives a fair review well above the partisan fray by the Commission,” Fitzgerald told the Daily Caller before sending the letter.
The group of Republicans also called for a number of documents and communication, such as:
All documents and communication between or among the Federal Trade Commission and any third-party organizations referring or relating to Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter
All documents and communication between or among the Federal Trade Commission and members and staff of the White House Competition Council referring or relating to Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter
All documents and communications, including all plans, proposals, or other communications, referring or relating to the FTC’s purpose in making inquiries related to Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter that deviate from typical reviews
The lawmakers asked for a response to their inquiry no later than May 31, 2022.
The other Republicans who signed the letter were Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert.
The Daily Caller contacted the FTC about the letter, to which the Office of Public Affairs replied by saying: “I’m sorry but the FTC does not comment on letters it receives from members of Congress. The agency will respond, and when it does, the recipients may or may not choose to make the response public.”
Elon Musk tore into the Democratic Party in a Wednesday tweet calling them the party of “division and hate.”
“In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party,” Musk said. “But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold.”
In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party.
But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.
Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold … 🍿
The multibillionaire said he will vote Republican for likely the first time in his life in the 2022 midterm election after overwhelmingly voting Democrat in the past. He said the Democratic Party is controlled by unions and trial lawyers.
“I might never have voted for a Republican, just to be clear,” Musk said during a Tuesday “All-In” podcast. “Now this election, I will.”
“It definitely feels like this is not right,” Musk added. “The issue here is that the Democratic Party is overly controlled by the unions and by trial lawyers, particularly class-action lawyers. … In the case of Biden, he is simply too much captured by the unions, which was not the case with Obama.”
Liberal media pundits and Democratic lawmakers have warned of the supposed dangers of Musk’s vow to foster free speech on Twitter in the midst of his $44.3 billion takeover. MSNBC host Joy Reid previously accused the Tesla CEO in a April 26 segment of “The ReidOut” of wanting the “old South Africa of the ’80s” back, in reference to the Apartheid.
“There was a time when people had the double hashtags around their names because they were Jewish and right-wingers were saying ‘get in the oven’ anytime you made any benign comment on Twitter,” Reid said. “They attacked women, the misogyny was crazy on Twitter for a while. Elon Musk, I guess he misses the old South Africa in the ’80s, he wants that back.”
Musk trolled Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after claiming she has to “collectively stress” about an increase in hate crimes due to his takeover. Musk responded, “stop hitting on me, I’m really shy.”
Liberals have not taken kindly to Musk vowing to allow former President Donald Trump return to the platform when he officially takes over the social media company. Then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration is determined to prevent platforms from spreading disinformation at a May 10 briefing.
Musk has been highly critical of the left, recently stating “the far left hates everyone, themselves included,” noting that he does not support the far-right either.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said Musk’s Twitter takeover will lead him to seek “freedom from accountability” in an April 24 tweet.
Technology billionaire Elon Musk said Monday that he will be voting Republican in 2022 for the first time possibly ever.
On a livestream for the “All-In” podcast, Musk told hosts that “the reality is that Twitter at this point has a very far-left bias.” Musk classifies himself as a moderate, “neither Republican nor Democrat,” and has overwhelmingly voted Democrat.
“I might never have voted for a Republican, just to be clear,” Musk continued. “Now this election, I will.” His comments were met with laughter and applause from the crowd after Musk made the statement.
“This is not some right-wing take over,” Musk clarified. He described his purchase of Twitter as a “moderate take over and an attempt to ensure that people of all political beliefs feel welcome on a digital town square and they can express their beliefs without fear of being banned or shadow banned.”
“Free speech is important for a healthy democracy,” Musk continued, noting that free speech matters the most when it’s “someone you don’t like, saying something you don’t like.”
Elon went on to say that he gets “trashed by the media all the time,” and that he “couldn’t care less.” Despite his resources, Musk notes that he can’t get the media to stop trashing him, but that is “actually a good thing,” as it means America still has free speech.
The podcast hosts then pivoted the conversation back to politics, stating that Musk has been a life-long democrat and even donated to former President Barack Obama. The host compared Musk to podcaster Joe Rogan, who was also a life-long democrat.
“The Democratic Party has been openly hostile to Joe Rogan and Biden can’t even say the word Tesla or invite you to the White House when they do an EV summit,” the host continued. “I’m curious, on a very personal basis, what does it feel like to have that experience where the party you supported won’t even say the name of your company, or invite you there. They should be celebrating the work that you’re doing.”
“It definitely feel like this is not right,” Musk responded. “The issue here is that the Democratic Party is overly controlled by the union and by trial lawyers, particularly class-action lawyers… In the case of Biden, he is simply too much captured by the union, which was not the case with Obama.”
Musk concluded his response by saying that Obama was more reasonable than President Joe Biden, and that Obama was able to see the “bigger issues,” which Biden does not.
Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition — which can be summed up as the world’s wealthiest person buying one of the most powerful social media and news platforms — underscores one of the big problems with Big Tech.
In the absence of modernized anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, Big Tech companies in the U.S. have amassed far too much economic and political control over society, and especially over the news and publishing industries.
The power at Big Tech companies with respect to their management of sites like Facebook News and Google News – is held by a few individuals who are often times more motivated by a desire to turn profits and promote their own ideology or world view, rather than by a genuine desire to guarantee a free and diverse press.
Due to Big Tech’s market manipulation in the news and publishing industries, thousands of local and smaller news operators — including many conservative publications — have been forced to shutter their doors in recent years.
This forsakes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus, is a threat to our democracy.
Importantly, new survey research shows that the American public recognizes this threat, and wants their elected officials to act on it.
New polling by Schoen Cooperman Research — conducted among a representative sample of U.S. adults and commissioned by News Media Alliance — reveals widespread concern surrounding Big Tech’s power and manipulative practices, as well as strong support for reforms to rein in these monopolies.
Notably, strong majorities of Americans are concerned about the economic and political power of Big Tech companies (74%) and are supportive of increased government regulations on Big Tech companies in order to curb their economic and political power (63%).
With respect to news and publishing specifically, nearly 4-in-5 Americans are concerned that Big Tech companies have too much power over these industries (79%) and manipulate these industries for their own gain (78%).
To that end, three-in-four Americans agree that “Big Tech’s monopoly over the news and publishing industries is a threat to the free press and unfair to publishers, especially to small and local outlets.” (76%)
In addition to being broadly concerned about this problem, Americans are supportive of Congress taking action to restore fairness, balance, and freedom to the press.
Respondents were asked about a specific piece of legislation proposed in Congress known as the Journalism, Competition, and Preservation Act (JCPA). The JCPA would provide a legal basis for news publishers to negotiate fair terms for use of their content by Big Tech companies — and thus, would demonstrably curb the economic and political power of these companies.
Remarkably, 7-in-10 Americans support Congress passing the JCPA (70%) and believe it is important for Congress to pass the JCPA (64%) after reading a brief description of the bill. And by a four-to-one margin, U.S. adults would be more likely, rather than less likely, to back a candidate for Congress who supported the JCPA.
In my experience as a professional pollster who has worked in opinion research for over four decades, it is rare for an issue or piece of legislation to garner this level of public support.
Our findings present a clear call-to-action to Congress, and elected officials in both parties now have a mandate from the public to rein in Big Tech by pursuing the JCPA or similar reforms.
Moreover, the very survival of American democracy is contingent on our leaders safeguarding free speech and ensuring a fair economy.
Congress must fulfill its duty by passing legislation like the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act into law.
Contributor. Douglas E. Schoen is a Democratic pollster and strategist. He is the author of “The Political Fix: Changing the Game of American Democracy, From the Grass Roots to the White House.” The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-05-09 05:27:352022-05-09 05:30:03SCHOEN: Americans Are Sounding The Alarm Over Big Tech
Free speech on the internet endangers democracy, Barack Obama told Stanford University.
The widely hailed speech at Big Tech’s favorite university claimed that autocrats are “subverting democracy” and that democracies have “grown dangerously complacent.” In the slow parade of teleprompter clichés he even warned that “too often we’ve taken freedom for granted.”
To Obama, the threat to democracy doesn’t come from government power, but the lack of it.
“You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won,” he summed up.
Like every Obama speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm” didn’t offer anything new, just a distillation of familiar talking points and misplaced assumptions.
The assumption at the heart of Obama’s speech and that of the range of arguments depicting free speech as a cultural and national threat is that the purpose of discourse is state power.
Obama, like many post-liberal lefty critics of free speech, reduces speech to its social impact and its social impact to its political impact. This holistic integration is so fundamental to Marxists and many lefties that they don’t even think twice about the idea that everything we do is reducible to a move on the great abacus of social justice. The food you eat, the car you buy, and the words you say have the potential to either save or damn the planet and humanity.
This quasi-religious conception of mass social mobilization pervades American society. It’s the precondition for wokeness because the only possible moral justification for terrorizing random people on social media is the conviction that governance isn’t political, it’s social, and that the only way to avert climate change and social inequality is by controlling what everyone believes.
Wokeness collapses the distinction between the private and public spheres, and between government and individuals. In a national social crisis, the only conceptual framework through which the Left ever really governs, there’s no time for such liberal niceties as private spheres.
Obama’s speech neatly illustrates the fascism at the heart of this panopticon political project.
Introduce disagreement and you “raise enough questions” that people “no longer know what to believe” and then “lose trust in their leaders”, “mainstream media” and even “truth”. Stripped of all the Brookings Institute globalist prose, what Obama is really saying is that individual disagreement undermines the state. And that truth is dependent on public faith in the state.
This is a value system utterly at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one which envisions an intimate link between individual speech and state authority that would have horrified King George III, but absolutely delighted Hitler or Stalin.
It assumes that there can be no other legitimate points of view other than the official one and that there should be no leaders except those who share them. Limiting the range of opinions is necessary to protect state power because there is no distinction between them and the state.
Or as a certain Austrian artist once put it, “One people, One state, One leader”.
When he was promoting his last book two years ago, Obama made the same arguments. “If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.”
The assumption that the democratic process leads to truth rather than choice, absolute rightness rather than people power, is an undemocratic paradigm. Its inevitable conclusion becomes that of Obama, that democracy must be protected by controlling the people.
Not only elections, but ideas, are too important to be left to the public.
Obama doesn’t want a marketplace of ideas because people might get the wrong idea and vote him and his political allies out of office. The explicit goal of internet censorship is to control election outcomes by filtering what information the public is able to access.
Like the provenance of a certain Delaware artist’s laptop.
Narrowing the range of acceptable information in order to narrow the range of acceptable opinions, candidates and political systems is the first fundamental trick of tyrannies. It takes a certain chutzpah and a stock of Orwellian buzzwords to redefine that as protecting democracy.
Obama complains, “China’s built a great firewall around the Internet, turning it into a vehicle for domestic indoctrination” and proposes a democratic firewall around the internet under a “regulatory structure” to be designed with “communities of color” to slow “the spread of harmful content.” The democratic people of color firewall will be so much better than China’s firewall.
Pro-censorship elites have the same assumptions as China about the interaction between speech, society, and the state which is why they, like Obama, arrive at the same conclusions. They can dress up those conclusions in buzzwords about “democracy” and “people of color”, but those are differences of style, not substance. The trains all end up at the same station.
Obama speaks about “bugs” in the Constitution. While he is always happy to critique America, the particular totalitarian bug here is deeply embedded into the leftist worldview which denies that people have individual agency, insists that everyone is a prisoner of their social context, and contends that the purpose of the society and the state is an enlightened intertwining. The bug, which is really more of a feature, directly leads to the same outcome as in China or Stanford.
A free society requires healthy breathing spaces between politics and life. The difference between a politicized society and a tyranny is only time. The question at the heart of this debate is “What is discourse for” which is really the question of, “What are people here for?” To believe, as the Left does, that people primarily exist as vehicles for political change is to enslave them.
That’s why every leftist revolution invariably slides toward tyranny along the same worn tracks.
The Founding Fathers believed that people would self-define their purposes. That was why America’s revolution uniquely led to freedom and why leftist revolutions lead to tyranny.
America defined freedom as individual power while lefties define it by the power of the state.
Obama is simply replaying what happens when liberation is treated as a collective enterprise, a journey toward rather than from, that can only be achieved collectively, through the exercise of state power rather than individually through personal choices. The internet, once individualistic, has become collective, and social media, the ultimate embodiment of that collectivism, has become the battleground between individualist expressers and collectivist censors.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-05-05 07:42:132022-05-05 07:46:51Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy
Elon Musk did a broad interview (below) that was published on IsraelUnwired.com’s website by Phil Schneider. Elon Musk discussed during the interview the need for nuclear energy and re-opening any nuclear plants that have been shut down.
America’s energy future is not in solar and wind power. Rather our energy needs are best met by oil, natural gas and nuclear power.
Let’s look at the current numbers to see where Americans get their energy from.
Here is a chart showing how much U.S. energy is produced by coal and coal byproducts.
ENERGY SOURCE
BILLION KWH
SHARE OF TOTAL
Coal
899
21.8%
Petroleum (total)
19
0.5%
Petroleum liquids
11
0.3%
Petroleum coke
7
0.2%
Here is a chart on how much of our energy is produced by solar and wind.
NOTE: hydropower is classified as a renewable. 1. Take away hydropower and wind and solar only account for 12.5% share. 2. When the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing, solar and wind fail to produce power:
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) there are, as of December 31, 2020, 94 nuclear reactors operating at 56 nuclear power plants in 28 states. Thirty-two of the plants have two reactors, and three plants have three reactors. Nuclear power plants have supplied about 20% of total annual U.S. electricity since 1990.
America has not built any new nuclear power plants since 1990.
The EIA notes:
The United States generates more nuclear power than any other country
In 2019, 31 countries had commercial nuclear power plants, and in 14 of the countries, nuclear energy supplied at least 20% of their total annual electricity generation. The United States had the largest nuclear electricity generation capacity and generated more nuclear electricity than any other country. France, with the second-largest nuclear electricity generation capacity and second-highest nuclear electricity generation, had the largest share—about 70%—of total annual electricity generation from nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is clean, efficient and reliable. It is also carbon free.
If America, like France, made the wise decision to begin building nuclear power plants to meet 100% of our power we would need to build an additional 500, plus or minus, nuclear power plants.
This national initiative would allow the United States to then use its oil and natural gas resources to fuel our cars, SUVs, trucks, trains, airplanes and other gasoline and diesel driven equipment, such as generators, and become energy independent.
We could also export all of our coal for use by other nations to meet their energy needs.
American consumers will continue to buy new and used vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. Thus we as a nation must maintain and expand our ability to produce our own oil via on and off-shore drilling and fracking.
As more consumers go to all electric vehicles (EVs) and the charging stations needed to keep them running, whether in the home or on the road, the strain on our electric grid will increase.
We need more, not less, cheap and reliable power to fuel our economy, our communities and our nation.
Not to provide cheap and reliable power will lead to what we are seeing now, war in Ukraine.
The Bottom Line
America’s power lies in its ability to provide power to the engines of our current and future economic growth.
Starving America of power, makes America powerless. Starving our citizens of cheap and reliable power is a direct threat to our fiscal and national security.
To be powerful America needs powerful sources of energy. Nuclear, oil (for gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels) and natural gas are the best and most accessible means to energy independence.
Energy independence translates into life, liberty and the pursuit of our collective happiness.
Without cheap and reliable power sources the lights in that city on the hill will most certainly go out – for everyone.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2022-04-27 15:00:112024-02-29 04:55:47Elon Musk: ‘We should not shut down nuclear power plants, we should reopen the ones that we’ve shut down’
Twitter’s board accepted billionaire Elon Musk’s offer to buy the social media company and take it private, the company confirmed.
The announcement ends a weeks-long saga Musk kicked off when he offered to buy the company at $54.20 per share, his “best and final.”
Twitter’s board sought to fend off a hostile takeover by adopting a so-called poison pill.
Twitter’s board has accepted an offer from billionaire Elon Musk to buy the social media company and take it private, the company announced Monday.
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said in a statement included in the press release announcing the $44 billion deal. “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”
Here’s the full announcement from Twitter:
Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by an entity wholly owned by Elon Musk, for $54.20 per share in cash in a transaction valued at approximately $44 billion. Upon completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a privately held company.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of Twitter common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction. The purchase price represents a 38% premium to Twitter’s closing stock price on April 1, 2022, which was the last trading day before Mr. Musk disclosed his approximately 9% stake in Twitter.
Bret Taylor, Twitter’s Independent Board Chair, said, “The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon’s proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing. The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter’s stockholders.”
Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s CEO, said, “Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world. Deeply proud of our teams and inspired by the work that has never been more important.”
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” said Mr. Musk. “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”
Transaction Terms and Financing The transaction, which has been unanimously approved by the Twitter Board of Directors, is expected to close in 2022, subject to the approval of Twitter stockholders, the receipt of applicable regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions.
Mr. Musk has secured $25.5 billion of fully committed debt and margin loan financing and is providing an approximately $21.0 billion equity commitment. There are no financing conditions to the closing of the transaction.
For further information regarding all terms and conditions contained in the definitive transaction agreement, please see Twitter’s Current Report on Form 8-K, which will be filed in connection with the transaction.
First Quarter 2022 Earnings Results Twitter plans to release its first quarter fiscal year 2022 results before market open on April 28, 2022. In light of the pending transaction announced today, Twitter will not hold a corresponding conference call.
Advisors Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan, and Allen & Co. are serving as financial advisors to Twitter, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP are serving as legal counsel. Morgan Stanley is acting as lead financial advisor to Mr. Musk. BofA Securities and Barclays are also acting as financial advisors. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is serving as legal counsel.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.
Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
The Twitterverse is aflutter. One step closer to freedom. #TeamElon
Funny how the left is all in on Mark Zuckerberg owning a majority of the most significant social media platforms but is somehow aghast at the thought of Musk taking over the reins of Twitter. LOL.
Twitter is reportedly re-examining SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $43 billion offer to buy the Big Tech company after he revealed that he has now secured $46.5 billion for the potential buyout. According to The Wall Street Journal, Twitter had been ready to reject the offer, but will take a new look at it after the business magnate revealed his filing with the SEC showing that he has lined up financing for the offer.
The financing includes $22.5 billion which will come from his own equities.
People familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal that the revelation makes it more likely for Twitter to seek to negative the offer with Musk. “The situation is fast-moving and it is still far from guaranteed Twitter will do so,” The Wall Street Journal noted. Some of the people said that Twitter is still working on an estimate of its own value, and could also insist on sweeteners for the deal such as Musk covering breakup costs if the deal falls through.
The two sides are reportedly meeting on Sunday to discuss Musk’s offer.
The company is expected to address on the bid when it reports first-quarter earnings Thursday, if not sooner, the people said.
Their response could leave the door open to other bidders, or negotiating with Musk on terms not included in the price.
The people told The Wall Street Journal that Musk remains firm on his offer of $54.20-a-share.
The potential turnaround from Twitter comes as Musk met with several shareholders of the company privately on Friday to talk up his proposal through a series of video calls.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Musk reportedly has a few shareholders behind him following the meetings.
Lauri Brunner, who manages Thrivent Asset Management LLC’s large-cap growth fund, said. “He has an established track record at Tesla,” she said. “He is the catalyst to deliver strong operating performance at Twitter.”
Musk has reportedly said he is considering taking his bid directly to shareholders by launching a tender offer, but even if he was to get significant shareholder support, he would still have to work around the company’s “poison pill.”
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.
Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.