Investor slides shared by Musk say that the daily inflow of new users has reached two million, while “user active minutes per day” likewise reached eight billion. The company now has more than 250 million monetizable daily active users, Musk says. All three metrics exceed previous company records.
Purported hate speech impressions have been lower since Musk acquired the platform. Musk, who claimed he purchased Twitter to promote free expression and peaceful dialogue across the political spectrum, revealed last week that the company is still defining hate speech with “the same list of terms” implemented before the acquisition.
Musk also hinted at a number of new offerings from “Twitter 2.0,” including enhanced video content, long-form tweets, encrypted direct messages, and entertaining advertisements.
Musk has remarked that widespread coverage of the acquisition and his subsequent attempts to reform the company, including negative reports from mainstream outlets, has contributed to usage reaching record levels. He said his number-one priority is the removal of child exploitation ( I think I know of 4 or 5 people who were part of this. White Progressives. ) content from Twitter, which previous management neglected to accomplish. Several advertisers paused campaigns on the platform two months ago after a report showed that child sexual abuse material had appeared alongside major advertisers’ profiles.
I have seen my likes and followers grow, so I’m happy the direction Twitter is going in.
Coal that will be burned to generate electricity moves down a conveyor belt at the American Electric Power Co. (AEP) coal-fired John E. Amos Power Plant in Winfield, West Virginia, U.S., on Wednesday, July 18, 2018. American Electric Power Co., Duke Energy Corp., and others say they can't recoup money they spent to meet requirements to cut mercury and other air toxics from their facilities and therefore want the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to retain the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule as is. Photographer: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Visits: 12
Thirteen attorneys general and Consumers’ Research on Tuesday filed two motions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to stop Vanguard from purchasing shares in publicly traded utilities.
Both motions argue that Vanguard’s Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment advocacy puts politics before consumers and that FERC should reject Vanguard’s authorization unless Vanguard can prove that its policies will not impact energy consumers. Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, the three largest asset managers, apply for blanket authorization before FERC every three years. The attorneys general and Consumers’ Research intervened to block Vanguard’s authorization.
ESG investing is the latest vector through which large corporations, especially the big three asset managers, can exert their undue influence upon publicly trade companies to have them adopt left-wing causes such as green energy or diversity requirements the companies otherwise would not adopt.
Kentucky Attorney General said in a written statement that Vanguard’s commitment to net-zero emissions requirement for public utilities would only hurt consumers:
Kentucky joined a coalition of attorneys general, led by Indiana and Utah, in challenging Vanguard’s application to extend its blanket authorization under the Federal Power Act for the acquisition of certain securities of publicly traded utilities. Consumers across our country are already feeling the sting of skyrocketing electricity bills, and Vanguard’s request to extend its authorization, coupled with its commitment to imposing net-zero requirements on publicly traded utilities, would only increase these costs. Kentuckians and Americans deserve access to affordable and reliable utilities, and we will oppose any effort that will undermine Kentucky’s economy, destroy good paying jobs, and make it harder for Kentuckians to heat their homes and feed their families.
Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, a consumers advocacy group, said that BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street use to leverage the utilities’ shares to force them to adopt left-wing policies that spike energy bills:
We took this action on behalf of American energy consumers because time and time again we see massive wall street firms pretending to “passively” manage their shares, but instead they use those assets to bully utility companies into adopting radical left-wing policies that drive up electric bills and risk the stability of our power grid. Affordable, reliable energy production is the foundation of America’s economy and the quality of life we enjoy. FERC’s job is to defend utilities from exactly this type of reckless interference. They should act to protect these utilities and American consumers from fat cat wall street wreckers who blithely endanger our electricity supply.
The attorneys general wrote in their motion to intervene to FERC that Vanguard may have “breached” its promises to the commission by engaging in environmental activism:
The Commission granted the 2019 Authorization based on assurances from Vanguard that it would refrain from investing “for the purpose of managing” utility companies.4 Vanguard also guaranteed that it would not seek to “exercise any control over the day-to-day management” of utility companies nor take any action “affecting the prices at which power is transmitted or sold.”5 Now, Vanguard’s own public commitments and other statements have at the very least created the appearance that Vanguard has breached its promises to the Commission by engaging in environmental activism and using its financial influence to manipulate the activities of the utility companies in its portfolio.
While Consumers’ Research notes in its motion to intervene that BlackRock is the most “notorious spear carrier” concerning corporate activism, the group noted that Vanguard also plays an instrumental role in advancing climate change policies on a corporate level.
Consumers’ Research elaborated:
In publications on its website, Vanguard details its “important role” in promoting “meaningful progress across both [its] actively managed and index-based products” such that portfolio companies adopt its climate goals.15 To be sure, it is not the case that Vanguard pursues its environmental agenda only through special “ESG” investment vehicles, while passively managing its other funds. Rather, according to Vanguard, even those funds “without explicit ESG mandates [] nonetheless align to net zero [carbon] objectives because of the existing philosophy and process used by the investment managers.”16 Even supposedly passive index funds are managed by Vanguard’s “investment stewardship teams” that pressure portfolio companies to adopt “emission reduction goals.”1
Consumers’ Research concluded in its motion to intervene, “With each passing day, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street exert greater influence on U.S. energy markets under the guise of “passive investing.” Because Vanguard should not have a blank check to dictate energy policy in America, Consumers’ Research moves to intervene, protests, and urges the Commission to deny the Application.”
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
Arresting criminals.
ICE/JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Visits: 21
In all of his craziness Last year ( February 2021 ) Biden declared that ICE agents could not arrest or deport most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. unless they are considered a threat to public safety, a threat to national security, or arrived sometime after November 2020.
Well the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments where states are seeking to block President Joe Biden’s so-called “sanctuary country” orders from being implemented.
In August 2021, Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, halting the implementation of the orders, after Texas and Louisiana sued the Biden administration. That injunction was put on hold by a three-judge panel in September 2021 but the full 17-judge Fifth Circuit vacated that decision.
Tuesday, SCOTUS will hear arguments from the Biden administration where they attest that the orders have only “incidental effects” on states in terms of needing more public resources to deal with a growing illegal alien population that is largely exempt from arrest and deportation.
“… a State may not sue the federal government based on such indirect, derivative effects,” the Biden administration is set to argue:
Federal policies routinely have incidental effects on States’ expenditures, revenues, and other activities. Yet such effects have never been viewed as judicially cognizable injuries. As the recent explosion in state suits vividly illustrates, respondents’ contrary view would allow any State to sue the federal government about virtually any policy—sharply undermining Article III’s requirements and the separation of powers principles they serve. [Emphasis added]
Meanwhile, the states will argue that the orders are unlawful for three reasons:
First, it is contrary to law because sections 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2) mandate detention, as this Court has repeatedly stated. DHS identifies no INA provision that prevents this Court from reaching that conclusion. Second, the Final Memorandum is arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider important aspects of the problems criminal aliens create, including recidivism and States’ reliance interests. Third, the Final Memorandum is procedurally invalid because it was not adopted through notice-and-comment procedures, which are required where agency action substantively changes a regulatory regime. [Emphasis added]
Not so long ago the left just loved Twitter. Why? They for the most part would single out Conservatives and use a broad brush when they would call something racist or misinformation. But recently that changed. Gone are the days when COVID looked at from a scientific point of view was banned. Gone when you would be banned for calling the undocumented illegals.
Twitter has missed a few far right loons, but they also are still allowing race baiters and progressive racists spew their hate. So I guess it’s an even trade off. But I FOR ONE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH TWITTER.
Raphael Warnock’s campaign called US Veteran and homeless advocate Dom Lucre this weekend and asked him to vote for far left Senator Warnock in the December runoff election. Dom Lucre lives in Tennessee.
And Dom recorded the entire call. The caller had the nerve to feed Dom the liberal lies about Republicans and their power and dark money, blah-blah-blah… Dom shot back that Democrats control everything. They control Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the media and all Republicans have is FOX News.
In a country where the authorities valued integrity, honesty, and fairness, this call would immediately be investigated and Warnock’s campaign would be punished. But we don’t have that today in the United States. You can commit any criminal act of voter fraud if you are a Democrat and it will not even be investigated.
So Senator Warnock’s campaign called me, A TN Resident to Vote in his GA election. Everyone has asked me to upload the full video. Here it is pic.twitter.com/nz5R4I0mWt
Now 80, Jones has owned the Cowboys for more than three decades and is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (Andy Jacobsohn for The Washington Post)
Visits: 70
A family member of mine sent me this link to a Sports Illustrated article. I saw this and thought the Woke crowd strikes again. I can not stand Jerry Jones and do not like America’s Team.
To go after a person who was only 14 back in 1957 is ridiculous. Well they mention a WP article as their source and it’s totally shit bat crazy. They use that incident back in 1957 as a reason Dallas never had a black coach under Jerry Jones. The headlines from the Post article.
Jerry Jones helped transform the NFL, except when it comes to race
Decades after standing on the frontlines of one of Little Rock’s darkest segregation clashes, the Dallas Cowboys owner has led the league toward new revenue models but has yet to hire a Black head coach
Liz Wheeler wrote, “If Apple & Google boot Twitter from their app stores, @elonmusk should produce his own smartphone. Half the country would happily ditch the biased, snooping iPhone & Android. The man builds rockets to Mars, a silly little smartphone should be easy, right?” https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1596222793388945408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1596268804413476864%7Ctwgr%5Eff8546a879b1ae3687ce73fc28500373ecc27f4d%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthepostmillennial.com%2Fbreaking-elon-musk-says-he-will-make-an-alternative-phone-if-apple-google-ban-twitter
Musk replied, “I certainly hope it does not come to that, but, yes, if there is no other choice, I will make an alternative phone.”
On Friday, Taylor Lorenz used her latest column in the Washington Post to call for Apple and Google app stores to pull Twitter from their stores. This came after Musk announced that there will be a general amnesty for all banned accounts, following a poll of Twitter users..
Lorenz complains that Musk brought back conservative Christian satire site The Babylon Bee, who was banned by noting that Rachel Levine is a biological male. After Time Magazine awarded Levine “woman of the year,” The Babylon Bee awarded Levine “man of the year.”
On November 18, Musk noted how Apple and Google through their vertical integration have a duopoly on the market and wrote, “App store fees are obviously too high due to the iOS/Android duopoly. It is a hidden 30 percent tax on the Internet.”
Epic Says Google Paid Activision Millions Not To Launch Rival App Store https://t.co/zwNJoKEkKe
San Francisco elections official released from contact because he is white, male.
Visits: 35
“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan.”
The San Francisco elections director is out of a job after the Elections Commission voted not to renew his contract despite his successful 20-year record because he is a white male.
In a 4-2 vote in a closed session last week, the commission declined to renew a fifth five-year contract for John Arntz so that the city could “take action” on its “racial equity plan.”
Commission officials recognized Arntz’s impeccable service, but said the decision came down to racial equity.
Commission president Chris Jerdonek wrote in an email obtained by local outlets, “Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position.”
This is the same commission that in 2021 wrote to the mayor that “San Francisco runs one of the best elections in the country and we believe this transparent process has allowed us to continue to improve our elections.”
In 2020, it wrote a commendation to Arntz “for his incredible leadership … The Department successfully ran two elections this year while facing significant challenges, including national threats to election security, mandatory vote-by-mail operations to all registered voters, the anticipated increase in voter participation, budget cuts, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The city’s Democratic Mayor London Breed objected to the commission’s vote and said, “John Arntz has served San Francisco with integrity, and professionalism and has stayed completely independent.”
“He’s remained impartial and has avoided getting caught up in the web of City politics, which is what we are seeing now as a result of this unnecessary vote. Rather than working on key issues to recover and rebuild our City, this is a good example of unfair politicization of a key part of our government that is working well for the voters of this city.”
Division Manager Mayank Patel said in an email to the department, which included a letter signed by 11 other division managers supporting Arntz’s renewal, “We are gravely concerned that the Elections Commission is actively seeking to remove John Arntz from his employment as the Director of Elections.”
“Under the leadership of Director Arntz, our department successfully conducted over thirty public elections and rebuilt the public’s confidence in the city’s elections processes from the ground up. All of us have worked with Director Arntz and we know that under his experienced and proven leadership, we will continue to provide city voters with excellent service while fulfilling our mission of conducting free, fair, and functional elections for many years to come.” City Attorney David Chiu said he was “mystified” by the commission’s decision noting, “some folks have forgotten the history of this department.” He added, “Before Director Arntz, we had five directors in as many years, ballot boxes floating in the bay, and an intense lack of confidence in city elections.”
Five more Antifa members have admitted to having a role in violent felonies in San Diego, Calif. in January 2021 where beachgoers, Trump supporters, and a dog were violently assaulted. At a court hearing on Nov. 18, five accepted plea deals instead of going to trial.
Visits: 49
Their plea deals were made more than a month after trans Antifa member Erich Louis “Nikki” Yach, 38, made a plea deal in September. Yach was the first of 11 defendants to plead guilty, and pleaded guilty to three violent felonies, including conspiracy to riot, and was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison earlier this month. Yach has a prior violent criminal record that was a factor in the sentencing.
Prior convicted felon Erich Louis “Nikki” Yach was recently sentenced to nearly five years in prison.
In the five new plea deals, court paperwork reveals that Antifa members Christian Martinez, Bryan Rivera, Joseph Austin Gaskins, Samuel Howard Ogden, and Alexander Akridge-Jacobs all agreed to two years probation, a fourth amendment search waiver that includes electronic devices, and to not associate with any co-defendant. Any actual custody time will be determined by the judge at a sentencing hearing in three months. Until then, all five defendants will remain at liberty on their own recognizance.
Christian Martinez, 24, pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to riot with his Antifa co-defendants, plus felony assault on victim 7, likely to produce great bodily injury. He also admitted to the special allegation that he was armed with a weapon, a full can of Twisted Tea. The prosecutor told the grand jury that he threw this beverage can so hard at the victim that the can actually broke open. Martinez’s maximum possible sentence is four years and eight months in state prison, plus 3 years parole. Martinez was arrested in December 2021 at his family’s home in Los Angeles, and police found Antifa symbols in his bedroom, according to testimony before a grand jury.
In June, a secret grand jury indicted 11 alleged Antifa members accused of being part of a network of violent cells in southern California that planned and carried out brutal assaults during a riot in Pacific Beach, Calif. on Jan. 9, 2021. Video recorded at the riot showed the mob in black bloc assaulting multiple victims with weapons. Trump supporters, minors, a photojournalist, and a man and his dog walking on the beach were all hurt during the attacks. Multiple weapons and firearms were seized from suspects during executed search warrants. This shocking conspiracy case involving Antifa has largely been ignored by establishment media which furthers the false claim that Antifa “doesn’t exist.”
Sentencing for the five who pleaded guilty is scheduled for March 1, 2023, at the central courthouse in downtown San Diego before Honorable judge Daniel Goldstein.
The five remaining defendants out of 11 have pleaded not guilty to all charges. Faraz Martin Talab has a trial date of March 1, 2023. Jesse Cannon, Brian Cortez Lightfoot Jr., Jeremy Jonathan White, and Luis Francisco Mora have the same trial date of April 3, 2023.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks in Washington on May 11, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Visits: 59
Dr. Anthony Fauci said he could not recall key details about his actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to one of the officials who questioned him on Nov. 23.
Fauci, the director National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 and President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, was deposed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, both Republicans.
“It was amazing, literally, that we spent seven hours with Dr. Fauci—this is a man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon ‘the science, follow the science.’—and over the course of seven hours, we discovered that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his COVID response,” Landry told The Epoch Times after leaving the deposition. “He just said, ‘I can’t recall, I haven’t seen that. And I think we need to put these documents into context,’” Landry added.
“It was extremely troubling to realize that this is a man who advises presidents of the United States and yet couldn’t recall information he put out, information he discussed, press conferences he held dealing with the COVID-19 response,” Landry added later.
Fauci and NIAID did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Landry declined to provide specific details about the deposition until it is made public, which will happen at a future date. But he said officials would be able to take some of what they learned to advance their case.
Landry and Schmitt sued the U.S. government in May, alleging it violated people’s First Amendment rights by pressuring big tech companies to censor speech. Documents produced by the government in response bolstered the claims. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, the Trump appointee overseeing the case, recently ordered Fauci and seven other officials to testify under oath about their knowledge of the censorship.
Doughty concluded that plaintiffs showed Fauci “has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19.”
While Fauci qualified as a high-ranking official, the burden of him being deposed was outweighed by the court’s need for information before ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, Doughty said.
Wednesday was the first time Fauci testified under oath about his interactions with big tech firms, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
Before the deposition, Landry said in a statement, “We all deserve to know how involved Dr. Fauci was in the censorship of the American people during the COVID pandemic; tomorrow, I hope to find out.”
“We’re going to follow the evidence everywhere it goes to get down to exactly what has happened, to get down to the fact that our government used private entities to suppress the speech of Americans,” Landry told The Epoch Times.
Other Depositions
The government moved to block some of the depositions, but not Fauci’s. It just won an order blocking the depositions of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly, and Rob Flaherty, a deputy assistant to Biden.
Similar efforts to block the depositions of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki and FBI official Elvis Chan have been unsuccessful.
Chan is scheduled to answer questions next week. Psaki is scheduled to be deposed on Dec. 8.
Chan was involved in communicating with Facebook, LinkedIn, and other big tech firms about content moderation, according to evidence developed in the case and public statements he’s made. Psaki publicly said while still in the White House that platforms should step up against alleged mis- and disinformation.
Plaintiffs have already deposed several officials including Daniel Kimmage, an official at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.
That center worked with Easterly’s agency to create a coalition of nonprofits called the Election Integrity Partnership, which pushed social media companies to censor speech.
Kimmage was also responsible for meetings during which censorship was discussed, with State Department official Samaruddin Stewart acting on his orders, according to documents produced by LinkedIn.
Motion to Dismiss
Earlier Wednesday, the government asked Doughty to throw out the case, asserting that plaintiffs have not shown the government engaged in coercion against the companies.
Even if government officials “urged social media companies do more to contain misinformation, any content moderation decisions made by social media companies ultimately ‘rested with’ those companies,” U.S. lawyers said.
“Even emphatic requests or strongly worded urging, see … (President Biden saying failing to take action against misinformation results in ‘killing people’), do not plausibly amount to coercion,” the lawyers added.
Plaintiffs are crafting a response to the motion.
Both sides are also preparing briefs regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision that blocked the Murthy, Easterly, and Flaherty depositions.
The appeals court said Doughty had not adequately considered whether alternative means of obtaining the information sought exist, such as deposing lower-level officials or seeking written answers from higher-level officials.
Doughty ordered plaintiffs to file a brief by Nov. 29. The government has until Dec. 2 to respond. Plaintiffs may reply to that response by Dec. 5.
Funny how he can’t recall things that are already documented as happening.
256
