Posts

VIDEO: Elon Musk Doesn’t Think He’s Ever Voted Republican. He Says He Will In 2022

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.

AUTHOR

KAY SMYTHE

Reporter.

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Audit Uncovers Shocking Truth About Biden’s Twitter Account

MSNBC Guest Calls On Democrats To ‘Brand Every Republican’ As Racist

Gates Claps Back At Musk, Talks Epstein, Vaccines And Conspiracies

Musk Trolls Trump

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

SCHOEN: Americans Are Sounding The Alarm Over Big Tech

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.

AUTHOR

DOUGLAS SCHOEN

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: THAYER: We Need To Rein In Big Tech, Not The EU

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

Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy

Won’t someone save democracy from the people?

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.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Critical Qur’an: ‘A Qur’an commentary that goes where others fear to tread’

Muslim cleric quotes Muhammad saying even women in labor must have sex if husband wants it

Italy: Muslim migrant cook beheads Muslim migrant dishwasher

Sweden: Almost 30% want to ban ‘offensive’ demonstrations after Muslims riot over Qur’an-burning

England and Wales raise marriage age to 18 in bid to protect Muslim girls

Why Should the UN Consider It Its Duty to Protect Islam from Criticism?

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

Twitter Board Caves — Free Speech Wins — Elon Musk New Owner of Twitter!

The tide has officially turned.

Elon, please reinstate Pamela Geller’s twitter account.

Key Points
    • 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.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump will not return to Twitter even as Elon Musk purchases platform

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

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.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

BREAKING: Twitter Reconsiders Elon Musk’s Takeover Bid After $46.5 Billion In Financing Secured

UPDATE:


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.

BREAKING: Twitter reconsiders Elon Musk’s takeover bid after $46.5 billion in financing secured

Both sides are reportedly meeting Sunday to discuss Musk’s proposal.

By: Hannah Nightingale,  The Post Millenial, April 24, 2022

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.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

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.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Elon Musk Becomes Largest Shareholder Of Twitter

Tesla CEO Elon Musk bought a 9.2% stake in Twitter Inc., according to an SEC filing posted Monday.

Musk purchased roughly 73.5 million shares, making him the largest shareholder, The Associated Press reported Monday, citing the filing.

Musk has questioned whether Twitter “rigorously adheres to” the principle of “free speech.” Musk posted a poll on Twitter and 70.4% of respondents said Twitter does not.

“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done?” Musk then tweeted.

Musk also said he was “giving serious thought” to creating a new platform with “free speech.”

The investment is considered passive, according to the AP.

Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities said in a client note Monday that the passive stake is likely “just the start of a broader [conversation] with the Twitter board/management that could ultimately lead to an active stake and a potential more aggressive ownership role of Twitter,” according to the AP.

Twitter shares spiked more than 20% following the announcement.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘It’s About Silencing Dissent’: Charlie Kirk Slams Twitter For Suspension Over Rachel Levine Tweet

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

Twitter Censors Tucker

Fox News host and Daily Caller cofounder Tucker Carlson was censored by Twitter after pointing out the factual accuracy of tweets regarding transgender Assistant Secretary for Health and “Woman of the Year” Rachel Levine.

Carlson posted screenshots Tuesday of tweets written by satirical news outlet The Babylon Bee as well as Turning Point USA founder and executive director Charlie Kirk. The Babylon Bee lost access to their Twitter account after publishing an article entitled “The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.” The tech company decided that the award violated its “hateful conduct policy.”

Similarly, Kirk was locked out of his account for “hateful conduct” until he removed a tweet where he accurately wrote, “Richard Levine spent 54 years of his life as a man. He had a wife and a family. He ‘transitioned’ to being a woman in 2011, Joe Biden appointed Levine to be a 4-Star Admiral and now USA Today has named ‘Rachel’ Levine as a ‘Woman of the Year’ Where are the feminists?”

Neither The Babylon Bee nor Kirk said anything incorrect in their tweets, which Carlson pointed out posting screenshots of the original tweets.

Carlson was subsequently censored, with Twitter stating that “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules” in a large blue banner on his personal account. Thankfully, Carlson is still able to tweet to his almost 5 million followers.

Some Twitter users were quick to denounce the move, one writing that, “after Tucker Carlson pointed out that the Babylon Bee & Charlie Kirk Tweets containing basic facts about human biology were accurate, Twitter decided to censor Tucker too,” sharing a screenshot of the banner now in place over the “hateful” tweet.

AUTHOR

KAY SMYTHE

Reporter.

RELATED VIDEO: Twitter also censored a Christian political satire site The Babylon Bee. CEO of The Babylon Bee Seth Dillon’s Appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

RELATED ARTICLE: Kid Rock Says ‘F**k Fauci’ During Interview With Tucker Carlson

RELATED TWEET:

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

Twitter blocks Babylon Bee for naming Rachel Levine its ‘Man of the Year’

“Truth is not hate speech,” says the Babylon Bee’s Seth Dillon. Gee, where have I heard that before? We used to say it all the time in defense of our work against jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women. The social media giants’ war against the freedom of speech today is based on actions against “Islamophobes” in years past.

Twitter suspends Babylon Bee for naming Rachel Levine ‘Man of the Year’

by Ariel Zilber, New York Post, March 21, 2022:

Twitter locked the account of a right-leaning parody site, The Babylon Bee, after it awarded Rachel Levine, the transgender Biden administration official, the title of “man of the year.”

The Babylon Bee story was a reaction to USA Today’s naming of Levine, who is US assistant secretary for health for the US Department of Health and Human Services, as one of its “women of the year” last week.

Twitter says it will restore the account, which has more than 1.3 million followers, if the Bee deletes the tweet, but Dillon says he has no intention of doing so.

“We’re not deleting anything,” Dillon tweeted from his personal account. “Truth is not hate speech. If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.”…

Twitter cited its policy on “hateful conduct,” which states: “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Twitter Suspends The Babylon Bee

Sweden: Muslim migrants try to force their way into Ukrainian refugee women’s accommodations

Germany: Migrant who stabbed another man turns out to be named ‘Mohammed,’ not ‘Elias’ as originally thought

Zelensky ‘Consolidates’ All Channels Into Government Propaganda, Bans 11 Political Parties

More jihad in Israel: Muslim stabs two cops in Jerusalem, Hamas applauds it as ‘heroic act’

Israel: Muslim rams his car into Israelis, then goes on stabbing spree, murders four people

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

Twitter’s Plan Bee: Censorship

“This is real life.” To Babylon Bee creator Adam Ford, it was important to make that distinction, since even the world’s greatest satirists couldn’t imagine a scenario like this one. Twitter, king of conservative censorship, wielder of the all-powerful on/off switch, had done it again. In the growing genre of it-sounds-like-fake-news-but-isn’t, Big Tech’s thought police locked the Bee’s account for recognizing something all of us have been tested on since high school: biology.

The offending post was meant to be a mockery of USA Today, which last week decided to name a female-identifying man, HHS’s Rachel Levine, as one of the newspaper’s “Women of the Year.” The announcement, which was second in absurdity only to Joe Biden appointing him in the first place, showed what kind of outrageous, science-defying dogma is being pushed on unwilling Americans. The Bee, seizing the moment to make a point as only it can, declared Levine its first-ever “Man of the Year,” writing: “Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services… He often wears a dress, which some people think is weird — but he doesn’t care one bit. Come on! Men in India wear dress-type garments, don’t they?”

Apparently, the sarcasm hit a nerve at Twitter, and the Silicon Valley titan — who has a reputation for pulling the plug on uncomfortable truths — let Bee CEO Seth Dillon know that its post violated the company’s “hateful content” policy. In a message to fans, Dillon confirmed, “We’re told our account will be restored in 12 hours, but the countdown won’t begin until we delete the truth that violates the Twitter rules.” But, he vowed, “We’re not deleting anything. Truth is not hate speech. If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.”

Of course, the irony of this whole uproar is that USA Today is the one “harassing other people on the basis of… gender.” What does it say to billions of real women — that they’re completely indistinguishable from men? That the sum total of being a woman is throwing on a dress and some make-up? The so-called “party of women” is now a party of make-believe. It’s one reason feminists, who stood outside the NCAA swim meet this weekend, now say they’re “politically homeless.” “I was historically liberal,” one woman vented outside of the girls’ collegiate championship where Lia Thomas was racing. Now? “I don’t think the Democrats care about women and girls. They [want] to put men in [women’s] prisons and men on [girls’] sports teams… I think that we’re going to have a lot of people walking away, really.”

The same Left who preaches that we shouldn’t judge people by their appearance in the race debate suddenly wants to define an entire gender by it. Forget the 6,500 genetic differences between the two sexes. Change your name and you can race as women, compete for jobs as women, win awards for women — erase women. And Babylon Bee doesn’t want any part of it. That would be “ideological surrender,” Dillon told NRO. Twitter could easily take down the tweet themselves, he pointed out, but instead, they want you to “bend the knee and admit wrongdoing by deleting the tweet yourself.”

“It’s not just that expressing these views is not allowed, you have to deny that you meant it. They want you to concede something. They’re forcing you to grovel and adopt an ideological position that you don’t actually hold,” Dillon shook his head. In this case, it’s not even an ideological position that Twitter demands submission to — it’s an outright lie. “We stated the fact that a man is a man and got [punished] for it,” Editor-in-Chief Kyle Mann tweeted. “We are living in a clown world.”

And from college pools to classrooms, Americans are refusing to play along. They feel confident confronting this culture of delusion because teams like the Babylon Bee are brave enough to do it too. Deep down, Twitter feels incredibly threatened by the growing number of people willing to challenge the woke agenda. If they can shut down the ring leaders — the Christians with the biggest microphones — they think they’ll have a much better chance of forcing the rest of us in line.

At FRC’s ProLifeCon earlier this year, Mann was frank about the hurdle of censorship. Big Tech, Big Government, the mainstream media, the fact-checkers, “They all kind of work together to silence us… And that’s obviously really scary for us,” he admitted, because that’s how they can “deplatform us.”

At the end of the day, though, the more cowardly we are as a movement, the more likely it is that the cancel culture will take over the marketplace of ideas. “And we don’t want that to happen. So I think we need to be more bold… and more open about [our] beliefs…” The best way you can help, Dillon agrees, is “never censor yourself. Insist that 2 and 2 make 4 even if Twitter tries to compel you to say otherwise…. Continue to say what’s true even if it has consequences. Make them ban tens of millions of us.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Senior Writer

Suzanne Bowdey returned to FRC in 2006 after a three-year absence. In her role as Senior Writer, she drafts commentary on topics such as life, religious freedom, media and entertainment, sexuality, education, and other issues that affect the institutions of marriage and family. Her op-eds have been featured in publications ranging from the Washington Times to the Christian Post. As part of the team that plans FRC Action’s Pray Vote Stand Summit (formerly the Values Voter Summit), she oversees the event’s schedule, speakers, and select publications.  Since 2020, she has also produced FRC’s weekly broadcast, “Pray Vote Stand.”

RELATED VIDEO:

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Twitter Is Allowing Iranian Government Officials to Issue Death Threats Against Trump

My latest in PJ Media:

Everyone knows that one Donald J. Trump of Palm Beach, Florida is the source and summit of evil in the modern world, but he has been banned from Twitter for over a year now, so the republic (you know, that thing the Democrats constantly refer to as “our democracy”) is safe. Twitter is nothing if not consistent: Trump is so extremely evil that Twitter is permitting official accounts of the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the world’s premier regimes of color, to threaten to murder Trump and officials from his administration without being banned or even suspended. Death threats are ordinarily not permitted, but when they’re against Trump, they serve wokeness; what could possibly be wrong with that?

On New Year’s Day, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, tweeted: “Martyr Soleimani is an eternal reality that will live on forever. His assassins – including Trump & the like – will go down in history’s garbage bin, but of course after receiving retribution in this world for the crime they committed.” That “retribution in this world” bit was a clear threat, but Twitter did nothing to restrict Khamenei’s account.

Nor did Twitter do anything to the account of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps when it tweeted: “The Islamic Republic of Iran considers vengeance against those responsible for the Baghdad crime to be the right of all believers; whether they are drops in the ocean or bits of sand in the desert they’ll seek vengeance next to the criminals’ homes.”

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) commented: “So, the leftist oligarchs at Twitter will allow the [Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps] to tweet death threats at President Trump, but will deplatform him for calling for a peaceful protest? Last I checked, making death threats is inciting violence.”

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), skewered Twitter’s hypocrisy: “In Twitter’s safety rules and polices, they say, ‘You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people.’ If this is the case, why is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, allowed to threaten to kill President Donald Trump? Not only is Twitter exclusively censoring conservatives, but now they are letting Iran’s armed forces issue death threats to a former sitting president. Twitter needs to consider following their own policies and immediately remove this tweet.”

When contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, “Twitter did not respond to a request for comment on why the tweet remains active and whether that tweet violates the company’s guidelines.” That’s not surprising. What could they possibly say? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who was recently banned from Twitter herself, called Twitter “an enemy to America and can’t handle the truth.” When Twitter allows Iranian officials who shout “Death to America” a platform to threaten an American and bans that same American on false pretenses, it’s hard to say that Greene is wrong.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOVT CENSORSHIP: Biden Tells Social Media Platforms to Crack Down on Free Speech

Iran provides new details about its arming of Palestinian jihad terrorists in Gaza

Iranian athletes call for canceling February match after pro-regime ‘Death to America’ chant

US warns of ‘severe consequences’ if Iran carries out revenge attack over Soleimani  

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

Iran’s Khamenei Threatens Trump on Twitter, Twitter Yawns

My latest in PJ Media:

On Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, tweeted:

“Martyr Soleimani is an eternal reality that will live on forever. His assassins – including Trump & the like – will go down in history’s garbage bin, but of course after receiving retribution in this world for the crime they committed.”

This is a clear threat, but Twitter has not banned or suspended Khamenei’s account. After all, he was threatening Donald Trump, and as far as Twitter is concerned, what could be wrong with that?

Khamenei was referring, of course, to Qasem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force commander who was killed in a Trump-ordered American airstrike on Jan. 3, 2020. Soleimani was killed near Baghdad International Airport shortly after an Iranian-backed militia attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, as a clear warning to Iran not to continue to target Americans and American installations.

The Islamic Republic, however, has consistently portrayed the killing of Soleimani as an unprovoked, gratuitous strike by the Great Satan. Yet the Supreme Leader’s belligerence is longstanding. Before Soleimani was killed, he was just as hostile to the United States and American leaders as he is now. Khamenei has also threatened Trump before. Iran’s state-controlled Ahlul Bayt News Agency reported on Jan. 23, 2021, that the Supreme Leader’s official website “posted a photo-montage of former US President Donald Trump playing golf under the shadow of a drone, vowing to avenge the assassination of Iran’s Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani.”

Khamenei also thundered in December 2020, “Revenge is certain.” He added, “The assassin of Soleimani and the one who ordered the murder should be punished. As an esteemed person said, Soleimani’s shoe is worth more than the assassin’s head and even decapitation of the assassin will not compensate for Soleimani’s shoe; but they did the wrong thing. They should be punished. The one who ordered and the assassin should know that they should be punished at any time possible.”

Trump was a favored Khamenei target even before Soleimani was killed. In February 2019, the Supreme Leader declared to a military gathering that “as long as America continues its wickedness, the Iranian nation will not abandon ‘Death to America.’ ‘Death to America’ means death to Trump, (National Security Adviser) John Bolton, and (Secretary of State Mike) Pompeo. It means death to American rulers.” Oh, well, then, that’s okay — at least with Twitter.

In May 2018, the Supreme Leader said in a speech, “A few days ago, Trump wrote a letter to the leaders of some Persian Gulf countries, to which we have access. In the letter, he indicated that he spent $7 trillion on these countries, so they must adhere to his orders. Well, Trump, you have spent all this money to dominate Syria and Iraq, but you couldn’t do it; you will go to hell with your failures. … This man’s corpse will also be worm food while IRI [the Islamic Republic of Iran] stands strong.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iranian hackers hack two Israeli news outlets, leave warning: ‘We are close to you where you do not think about it’

USC’s Very Different Treatment of Ben Shapiro and a Muslim Student Who Urged Killing Jews

Abolish the UN Human Rights Council

Italy: 30 foreigners surround 19-year-old woman, grope her and try to undress her

France: Muslims torture dog, spread the video on the Internet

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

With U.S. Foreign Policy In a Shambles, Secretary of State Blinken Finds Something to Celebrate

My latest in PJ Media:

Those who helped us out during our long military misadventure in Afghanistan only to be left behind in Kabul know that Joe Biden’s handlers are not the most reliable people in the world, but there is one thing they can always be counted on to be, and that is tone deaf. And so on Sunday morning, Secretary of State Antony Blinken looked out on what he had wrought. He saw China emboldened, Afghanistan lost, and Iran more aggressive than ever, and he took to Twitter to give us the perfect response to all the fires he and his colleagues have started or made rage hotter than ever. He tweeted: “Humbled to reach one million Twitter followers as Secretary of State — and especially so because it means that I can share the outstanding work of our @StateDept team with so many at home and around the world. It’s a privilege. Thank you.”

The “outstanding work” of our State Department? You have to admire the man’s chutzpah. To head the State Department during Joe Biden’s dumpster fire regency for Kamala Harris, with the Taliban enjoying billions of dollars’ worth of American military equipment, and China sending increasingly threatening signals about invading Taiwan, and the Islamic Republic of Iran growing more belligerent by the day, and to claim in the face of all that and more that the department is doing “outstanding work,” takes an oddly audacious dishonesty, or a resolute determination to deny the evidence of one’s senses, or both.

Even the fact that Blinken thinks that gaining one million Twitter followers is some kind of affirmation is ridiculous in itself and raises inevitable questions about the man’s priorities. Most of his Twitter feed gives the impression that he is simply a glorified goodwill ambassador; in another tweet on Sunday, Blinken wrote: “Such a pleasure chatting with Senegalese fashion industry icons Xalil and Milcos, who are both @StateIVLP alumni. They are doing dynamic work in Dakar and exemplify the important role artisans and entrepreneurs can play in growing their economies and increasing prosperity.” I’m sure Xalil and Milcos do wonderful work, but this is the Secretary of State of the United States; you’d think he would be embarrassed to be reduced to tweeting about something as world-historical as Senegalese fashion icons. But one of the many things that are beyond the capabilities of Biden’s handlers is embarrassment.

When Blinken does tweet about more pressing matters, he only underscores his own impotence. On November 19, he tweeted, “I condemn the Houthis’ detention of our staff and breach of the compound used by our Embassy in Sana’a prior to our 2015 suspension of operations. The Houthis must immediately release our staff unharmed and vacate the compound immediately.” This was over a week after the Houthis stormed the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a and even longer after they took hostages from among its staff. Why did it take Blinken so long to respond? What did he do beyond take to Twitter to issue this empty condemnation?

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Girl says she was beaten by Taliban jihadi for refusing sex, Taliban denies claim

Muslima who suffered burns while carrying out jihad terror attack demands Israel pay for nose reconstruction surgery

Uganda: Security forces shoot Muslim cleric accused of recruiting for jihad group behind recent massacres

France: Teen converts to Islam, plots jihad massacres at soccer stadium, bar, and shop

Muslim who armed jihadi Mohamed Merah, who murdered seven people, is still in France despite deportation order

France: Imam claims Qur’an translations are ‘not faithful to the original texts and have generated an inhuman Islam’

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

‘Will Sell Tesla Stock Right Now’: Elon Musk Challenges UN To Explain How $6 Billion Can Solve World Hunger

Elon Musk vowed Sunday to sell his Tesla stock if a United Nations (UN) official could prove the claim that a fraction of the billionaire’s wealth could put an end to world hunger.

Musk, who is currently the richest man in the world, reacted to a recent statement by UN World Food Program (WFP) Director David Beasley, in which the official asked for only 2% of Musk’s fortune to alleviate an acute hunger crisis.

“$6 billion to help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don’t reach them. It’s not complicated,” Beasley said at the time, according to CNN.

“If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk tweeted, adding that the data had to be “open source accounting” for the public to check its accuracy.

“Headline not accurate. $6B will not solve world hunger, but it WILL prevent geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation. An unprecedented crisis and a perfect storm due to Covid/conflict/climate crises,” Beasley responded in the thread.

The WFP director then proposed discussing the issue in person, quipping that the matter was not “as complicated as Falcon Heavy,” a SpaceX rocket, and promising to be “on the next flight” to Musk if he agreed.

“Please publish your current & proposed spending in detail so people can see exactly where money goes. Sunlight is a wonderful thing,” Musk replied to the proposal.

COLUMN BY

SHAKHZOD YULDOSHBOEV

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

REPORT: Elon Musk Is Living In A 375-Square-Foot Home

Sen. Barrasso: Joe Biden Going To G20 ‘To Wave The White Flag Of Surrender’ Over Energy Dependence

Energy Secretary Blows Off Biden’s Failure To Pass Infrastructure, Claims He’s Uniting Democrats

Taliban Leaders Freely Used Twitter and Facebook’s WhatsApp as They Took Power in Afghanistan

According to Reuters,

“The Taliban’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan poses a new challenge for big U.S. tech companies on handling content created by a group considered to be terrorists by some world governments.”

The challenge really isn’t about “handling content” at all. The solution is simple: strip jihadists of their accounts. Instead, Twitter and Facebook are now waffling, even though they rapidly swing into censorship mode to crack down on the content of conservatives, including even the former President of the United States, Donald Trump.

It isn’t the first time Twitter rolled out the red carpet for bloodthirsty jihadists. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameini celebrated jihad terror against Israel on Twitter.

Taliban soldiers are now going door to door forcibly marrying girls as young as 12, and forcing them into sex slavery, but to Facebook and Twitter, it’s a “content challenge” on whether or not to host the Taliban.

How do Facebook and Twitter now answer questions about their globalist, “progressive” bias in favor of the most barbaric human rights abusers, while continuing to crack down on and silence supporters of Judeo-Christian democracies, human rights defenders and truth-tellers? They have no answers, so they get their mainstream media cronies to minimize this serious issue for them, and buy time for them until the next news cycle.

To Facebook and Twitter, conservative truth-tellers are the “extremists” and “terrorists” (“Islamophobes,” too), not the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood.

WhatsApp shut down the Taliban’s helpline in Kabul. Much more must be done.

Taliban’s Afghanistan takeover presents fresh challenge for social media companies

by Elizabeth Culliford and Kanishka Singh, Reuters, August 16, 2021:

Aug 16 (Reuters) – The Taliban’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan poses a new challenge for big U.S. tech companies on handling content created by a group considered to be terrorists by some world governments.

Social media giant Facebook confirmed on Monday that it designates the Taliban a terrorist group and bans it and content supporting it from its platforms.

But Taliban members have reportedly continued to use Facebook’s end-to-end encrypted messaging service WhatsApp to communicate directly with Afghanis despite the company prohibiting it under rules against dangerous organizations.

A Facebook Inc (FB.O) spokesperson said the company was closely monitoring the situation in the country and that WhatsApp would take action on any accounts found to be linked with sanctioned organizations in Afghanistan, which could include account removal.

On Twitter Inc (TWTR.N), Taliban spokesmen with hundreds of thousands of followers have tweeted updates during the country’s takeover.

Asked about the Taliban’s use of the platform, the company pointed to its policies against violent organizations and hateful conduct but did not answer Reuters questions about how it makes its classifications. Twitter’s rules say it does not allow groups who promote terrorism or violence against civilians….

These include controversial blocks of former U.S. President Donald Trump for inciting violence around the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and bans on Myanmar’s military amid a coup in the country….

COLUMN BY

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope Francis says ‘dialogue’ is the only path to ‘peace and security’ in Afghanistan

Qatar and the Taliban: Longtime Allies

Woman are not safe in Imran Khan’s new Pakistan

Pope Francis says ‘dialogue’ is the only path to ‘peace and security’ in Afghanistan

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

Big Tech is Censoring Americans Using United Nations Law

The UN and Big Tech are running a secret “No Fly List” for the internet.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki warned that her administration was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” and urged, “you shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others.”

Psaki was not just advocating a theoretical approach, but discussing the shared infrastructure built by Big Tech monopolies, the United Nations and assorted governments for doing just that.

In his PJ Media article, Tyler O’Neil dug into the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) which is funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and currently chaired by Twitter. Its advisory committee members include the United Nations, the European Union, and the British, French, and Canadian governments as well as the National Security Council in the U.S.

GIFCT had been set up by the industry in response to pressure from governments to remove Jihadist propaganda, but its Hash Sharing Consortium, a secret database of terrorism content to be immediately removed when its 13 dot com companies come across it, is secret, and so there’s no way for anyone to know if they’ve been targeted and no appeal from the secret list.

The creation of a secret “No Fly List” for the internet by the biggest monopolies which control over 80% of social media content and much of the self-created video content on the internet would be troubling enough, but by 2019, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon had joined the Christchurch Call which advocates not just banning terrorist material, but fighting its root causes by strengthening “inclusiveness” and fighting “violent extremism”.

To that end, the Dynamic Matrix of Extremisms and Terrorism (DMET) was deployed which goes through 4 different levels beginning with “partisanship” and ending with terrorism. DMET defines the initial levels of violent extremism as using “dehumanizing language” which can be described as nearly any criticism of a group.

Big Tech has built its own matrix. And we’re all in it.

As O’Neil documented the resulting “matrix” is a dangerous and bizarre list which classifies Sinn Fein and the Scottish National Party, alongside NARAL and “Anti-Vaxxers” as partisans on the first level of DMET. It’s unclear what a top anti-abortion group, the ruling leftist party of Scotland, the political face for the IRA, and opponents of vaccination have in common, but out of such confusingly disparate material, Big Tech has built its censorship matrix.

At the second level, alongside Neo-Nazi groups like Combat 18, the Bundy Family (a family, not an organization) and the Animal Liberation Front, which actually is a terrorist organization, is Jihad Watch.

The respected counterterrorism blog by historian and researcher Robert Spencer and his associates (I have been among them) has been an invaluable resource for chronicling Islamic terrorism and colonialism and represents the opposite of violent extremism.

As Robert Spencer wrote on Jihad Watch, “This is pure libel. We have never advocated or approved of any violence or any illegal activity of any kind.”

The DMET is just a more sophisticated pseudoscientific database of the kind that the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose materials have contributed to it, has deployed over the years.

One such database listed my blog, Sultan Knish, as a hate group, alongside a brand of gun oil, and a bar sign in Pennsylvania. These databases may have a Kafkaesque absurdity, but the consequences to lives, livelihoods, and careers are all too real with my blog showing up on the Color of Change list pressuring Big Tech monopolies to cut off funding and access to my site, as well as Jihad Watch, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and many other conservative groups.

Big Tech companies have begun building their own databases in coordination with governments. And these secret databases determine who has access to the public square of the internet, who can earn a living, and who ends up being deplatformed and unpersoned.

“If we are ‘extremist,’ so is the U.S. Constitution, for we are trying to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law,” Robert Spencer wrote. But DMET, GFICT, and other interfaces between governments and tech monopolies aren’t using the Constitution. They’re censoring based on United Nations law.

When Facebook’s Oversight Board issued its verdict on censoring President Trump, it did not list a single item of United States law, including the First Amendment, but cited the Rabat Plan of Action, and articles of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

GFICT’s DMET matrix cites the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court to declare that preventing “dehumanization” is an  “imperative under international law”. Like Facebook’s decision to censor the former president, there’s no mention of the Constitution, but international law is repeatedly cited. Most disturbingly, a GFICT attempt to define terrorism collates a variety of definitions including attacks “against social cohesion” which the UN itself has noted is used to censor speech and political opponents as well as efforts to suppress Mohammed cartoons.

Tier 4 of the Content Taxonomy for what gets censored by Big Tech includes only one example targeting a group: “fear of Muslims is rational” thereby essentially banning most counterrorism, advocacy against unlimited immigration as well the Trump political campaign.

While Americans slept, Big Tech adopted UN standards to eliminate the Constitution.

Big Tech monopolies are no longer just enforcing local laws, moderating content in America or in the European Union based on the different standards in each country, instead all speech on the major platforms is being policed in line with the United Nations and its “international law”.

No black helicopters or blue helmets were needed. United Nations law came to the United States through the Big Tech monopolies that we turned over our speech and economy too.

Facebook now censors a former president in line with UN regulations. And censors all of us too.

GFICT is another example of UN regulations controlling our speech. We’re all drones living in the UN’s “Matrix” now as companies more powerful than governments impose international law.

Big Tech’s censorship matrix targets Robert Spencer and critics of Islam because censorship of dissenting religious views has been a longtime project of Islamic groups within the UN.

“They have all the power, and they mean to shut down dissent, and that means our days here are numbered,” Robert Spencer wrote. How long will it be until Did Muhammad Exist? Did An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, the newly revised and expanded version of Spencer’s classic work, is censored the way that Amazon, which dominates the ebook market, suppressed Ryan T. Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.

Libertarians and some establishment conservatives keep protesting that private companies have the right to censor whom they please. But the UN is the opposite of a private company.

When massive monopolies act in concert with governments and multinational alliances, like the EU and the UN, to eliminate free speech in line with UN international law, that’s not private action. If we don’t have the courage to confront the ‘matrix’ of big governments and Big Tech, of Google and the UN, or Amazon and the EU, we will lose our rights, our identity, and our nation.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Department Spokesman: Nothing Iran Does Will Stop Us From Negotiating With It

Germany detains Muslim migrant for grenade attack on civilians near Damascus

UK: CEO of group that picks up illegal Muslim migrants says he’s doing ‘humanitarian work of the highest order’

UK: Muslim rape gang police whistleblower says rape gang activity ‘is going on everywhere in the UK’

Bangladesh: ‘Will slaughter and sacrifice Hindus,’ say Muslims during clashes on Eid-al-Adha

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