Category: Censorship

Categories
Biden Cartel Censorship Corruption Government Overreach Gun Control Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats.

Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats © Provided by America Insider

Views: 46

Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has ruled that a gun ban in New York City is unconstitutional, dealing a blow to Democrats pushing for stricter gun control.

The case involved a Brooklyn resident, Joseph Srour, whose applications to possess firearms in his home were denied based on city regulations.

The judge determined that the regulations granting broad discretion to licensing officials were not in line with historical traditions of firearm regulation and violated the Second Amendment.

“The reasons cited for the denial were Sections 3-03 and 5-10 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY),” the report found.

“The License Division’s Appeals Unit pointed to Srour’s prior arrests, his driving history, and allegations of false statements on his applications as the primary reasons for the denial.”

Judge John P. Cronan, who presided over the case, said the Second Amendment explicitly safeguards “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

“The court took umbrage with the provisions that permitted the denial of a firearm permit based on a City official’s subjective determination of the applicant’s ‘good moral character’ or if the official found ‘other good cause,’” the report added.

“These standards, as per the court’s findings, were overly broad and lacked restraint, with no historical foundation in the country to support them.”

The ruling has broader implications for gun rights and regulations.

The post Federal Judge Delivers Blow to Democrats appeared first on America Insider.

Loading

228
Post Views: 401
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Economy Education Elections Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon’s Censorship End-Around.

Government working with a hate group.

Views: 7

Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon’s Censorship End-Around.

The Consortium News lawsuit against a private news rating system lays out how the government can suppress speech by proxy.

By MATT TAIBBI

Monday, the independent website Consortium News filed suit against the United States of America and Newsguard Technologies. The complaint targeting both the government and a private media ratings service is an important one, putting the censorship-by-proxy system on trial.

On September 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense gave an award of $749,387 to Newsguard Technologies, a private service that scores media outlets on “reliability” and “trust.” According to the suit, roughly 40,000 subscribers buy Newsguard subscriptions, getting in return a system of “Nutrition Labels” supposedly emphasizing “safe” content. Importantly, Newsguard’s customers include universities and libraries, whose users are presented with labels warning you that CBS is great and Tucker Carlson is dangerous:

Consortium News was labeled a purveyor of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “false content,” and, worst of all, “anti-U.S.” This is despite the fact that, according to the suit, Newsguard only flagged six articles out of the tens of thousands Consortium News has published since the late award-winning reporter Robert Parry founded it in 1995. As Consortium News points out, Newsguard downgrades its entire 20,000+ library of available online articles with these flags based on the handful of edge cases, all of which involve criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

A particular irony is that Parry, a decorated AP and Newsweek reporter, founded Consortium News specifically to address topics suppressed by mainstream editors. Now Parry’s old site is being downgraded for dissenting reports on subjects like the 2014 Ukrainian coup and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, coincidentally topics that are “the subject of NewsGuard’s ‘Misinformation Fingerprints’ project that is under contract with the Cyber Command,” as the suit reads.

Newsguard denies it’s influenced by the government. In fact, its denials are part of the reason for the suit. When Michael Shellenberger and I testified before Congress in March, we mentioned Newsguard as a “government-funded” ratings service. I was quickly contacted by email by co-CEO Gordon Crovitz, who hastened to correct me: Newsguard isn’t government-funded, but merely an organization that receives government funds. He wrote:

As is public, our work for the Pentagon’s Cyber Command is focused on the identification and analysis of information operations targeting the US and its allies conducted by hostile governments, including Russia and China.

Our analysts alert officials in the US and in other democracies, including Ukraine, about new false narratives targeting America and its allies, and we provide an understanding of how this disinformation spreads online. We are proud of our work countering Russian and Chinese disinformation on behalf of Western democracies.

Crovitz added that “contrary to claims made in the hearings, we oppose any government involvement in rating news sources,” saying Newsguard “is entirely independent and free of any outside influence, including from the U.S. or any other government.”

The letter, CC’ed to co-CEO and editor Stephen Brill, was subject lined “Inaccuracies relating to NewsGuard.” I immediately wrote back:

Crovitz didn’t answer at the time, but Newsguard did simultaneously release the letter to the UK-based Press-Gazette. When I reached out for comment again after the filing of this litigation this week, asking once again how “government-funded” could be inaccurate, Crovitz finally answered, writing:

“We are ‘government funded’ in the same way that Verizon is ‘government funded: We have licensed data to the government for a fee, just as Verizon has provided telco services for a fee.”

He added:

The government pays us both for our commercial offerings. Our Pentagon contract is a single-digit percent of our revenues.

So, they are government-funded, just not wholly government-funded. These are the people rating others on accuracy, remember.

The conceit about funding isn’t complicated, but it works. Because Newsguard has other customers, it can claim to be an “independent” news service that just happens to downgrade news reports that contradict and/or criticize the policy of its major client, the Department of Defense. It’s censorship, but through a silencer. As the Consortium News suit reads:

NewsGuard and the United States in violation of the First Amendment are carrying out a governmental program under the “Misinformation Fingerprints” contract to publicly label, target and stigmatize news organizations as disfavored, unreliable, as journalistically not responsible… where said organizations differ or dissent from U.S. policy.

The suit also details what I think is the more insidious part of the system. In the guise of an independent news service, Newsguard contacts outlets and interrogates them about disputed content, not-so-subtly pressing for retractions. Again, from the suit:

In the course of the government contract, NewsGuard and the United States have acted to retaliate against those news entities and media organizations that refuse to retract or correct their articles; such retaliation consists of the “false content” warnings, the red flag and associated content described in this Amended Complaint…

Racket received one of these irritating queries this year. Call it what you want, but it comes down to Pentagon Cyber Command giving a big check to “analysts” who happen to slap red revenue-sapping warning tags on outlets that report on controversial topics like war or government censorship.

As I wrote to Newsguard when they contacted me, “media outlets should gain and lose trust based on how they are evaluated by audiences, not paid services.” This system allows institutions like the Department of Defense that have no legal remit to meddle in the domestic news landscape to pressure private media outlets.

That’s over and above the DoD’s already hugest-on-earth-by-far public relations budget. Think of the scale of petty determination one must have to spend over $500 million a year on messaging and be so dissatisfied with the results that you feel the need to spend more on private services that downgrade independent news critics. It’s particularly grating that your tax dollars are spent hiring private services that label news outlets using terms like “anti-US.” State-sponsored impugning of patriotism is a bold stroke, even by the low moral standards of the anti-disinformation era.

“When media groups are condemned by the government as ‘anti-U.S.’,” said Bruce Afran, attorney for Consortium News, “the result is self-censorship and a destruction of the public debate intended by the First Amendment.”

I was remiss in not getting this story up before but will have more as the case goes on.

Consortium News is seeking “a permanent injunction… barring the government and NewsGuard from continuing such practices” and “more than $13 million in damages for defamation and civil rights violations.”  You can read their coverage here.

Loading

171
Post Views: 318
Categories
Censorship Commentary Free Speech How sick is this? Just my own thoughts Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Progressive Racism White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

It’s not US VS. THEM, It’s You VS. US.

going after the right. imgflip.com gif.

Views: 65

Recently a moderator on one of the new disqus house channels has decided to join fellow cultist in going after me and several other Conservatives. Disqus has been made aware of it’s personal hatred and name calling towards those who disagree with it.

It has a new group of friends ( being an all star has nothing to do with it.) Speaking of all stars, his feelings towards Conservative all stars.

People need to stop calling everyone my “friends” – It’s annoying and presumptive. Having a legacy All Star star doesn’t mean we’re friends – there are some super conservative people with Stars that I wouldn’t give the time of day, socially.  http://disq.us/p/2waxs6p

And what do his new found friends think of the disqus house channel it mods on? Here’s a little snippet.

Editor’s Note: Periodically, Jaye and I pop into the Disqus 2.0 shitholes Channels so you don’t have to. 

Now this moderator even uses the cultists phrase of us vs, them. Meaning that Conservative articles (mainly mine) is Conservative VS. Cultist  Progressive.  It gets upset claiming that I only give one side. When do Progressives give the other side?

I will even use Liberal websites and I give the links so you can see the whole story. Do progressives do the same? This moderator has a hard on against the right. Maybe he’ll come here and explain why it has such hatred.

I use it because I don’t know if the Moderator is male or female.

Loading

234
Post Views: 361
Categories
Censorship Commentary Just my own thoughts Uncategorized

What they’re afraid their regulars will find out.

Why they wish you didn't find out. What cowards

Views: 64

What they’re afraid their regulars will find out. Recently I started posting articles and comments on the disqus house channels. And yes I asked folks to not post there because I knew you would not receive a warm welcome. The moderators are left and extreme left.

Now there are a few good Conservatives who post and write really good articles. But by far the left controls the narrative.

But I remember when the websites were opened, two leftists asked their followers to not go there. Stay on the obscure website. What they didn’t tell their cult following was that they would go there and troll Conservatives, flag, and downvote.  Their goal was to get articles off topic and get Conservatives banned.

What they didn’t expect to happen was that many of their comments were deleted. Not banned but deleted. I called the one moderators bluff. It said that it was going to ban the two cultists and myself. It didn’t happen. So I’ll give updates as they happen.

 

Loading

216
Post Views: 337
Categories
Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Free Speech Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

The Westminster Declaration.

Free Speech for all.

Views: 27

The Westminster Declaration. One hundred and thirty-eight artists, public intellectuals, and journalists demand governments dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex

We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms.

Coming from the left, right, and centre, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms.

This abuse of these terms has resulted in the censorship of ordinary people, journalists, and dissidents in countries all over the world.

Such interference with the right to free speech suppresses valid discussion about matters of urgent public interest, and undermines the foundational principles of representative democracy.

Across the globe, government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. These large-scale coordinated efforts are sometimes referred to as the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’

This complex often operates through direct government policies. Authorities in India[1] and Turkey[2] have seized the power to remove political content from social media. The legislature in Germany[3] and the Supreme Court in Brazil[4] are criminalising political speech. In other countries, measures such as Ireland’s ‘Hate Speech’ Bill[5], Scotland’s Hate Crime Act[6], the UK’s Online Safety Bill[7], and Australia’s ‘Misinformation’ Bill[8] threaten to severely restrict expression and create a chilling effect.

But the Censorship Industrial Complex operates through more subtle methods. These include visibility filtering, labelling, and manipulation of search engine results. Through deplatforming and flagging, social media censors have already silenced lawful opinions on topics of national and geopolitical importance. They have done so with the full support of ‘disinformation experts’ and ‘fact-checkers’ in the mainstream media, who have abandoned the journalistic values of debate and intellectual inquiry.

As the Twitter Files revealed, tech companies often perform censorial ‘content moderation’ in coordination with government agencies and civil society. Soon, the European Union’s Digital Services Act will formalise this relationship by giving platform data to ‘vetted researchers’ from NGOs and academia, relegating our speech rights to the discretion of these unelected and unaccountable entities.

Some politicians and NGOs[9] are even aiming to target end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.[10] If end-to-end encryption is broken, we will have no remaining avenues for authentic private conversations in the digital sphere.

Although foreign disinformation between states is a real issue, agencies designed to combat these threats, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States, are increasingly being turned inward against the public. Under the guise of preventing harm and protecting truth, speech is being treated as a permitted activity rather than an inalienable right.

We recognize that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship. Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.

Speech protections are not just for views we agree with; we must strenuously protect speech for the views that we most strongly oppose. Only in the public square can these views be heard and properly challenged.

What’s more, time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom. By labelling certain political or scientific positions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’ our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defence against disinformation.

The attack on speech is not just about distorted rules and regulations – it is a crisis of humanity itself. Every equality and justice campaign in history has relied on an open forum to voice dissent. In countless examples, including the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, social progress has depended on freedom of expression.

We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds. We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly – a world that the founders of our democracies envisioned when they enshrined free speech into our laws and constitutions.

The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law. One need not agree with the U.S. on every issue to acknowledge that this is a vital ‘first liberty’ from which all other liberties follow. It is only through free speech that we can denounce violations of our rights and fight for new freedoms.

There also exists a clear and robust international protection for free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[11] was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II. Article 19 of the UDHR states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression.

As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error.

Censorship in the name of ‘preserving democracy’ inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalization, and de-legitimizes the democratic process.

In the course of human history, attacks on free speech have been a precursor to attacks on all other liberties. Regimes that eroded free speech have always inevitably weakened and damaged other core democratic structures. In the same fashion, the elites that push for censorship today are also undermining democracy. What has changed though, is the broad scale and technological tools through which censorship can be enacted.

We believe that free speech is essential for ensuring our safety from state abuses of power – abuses that have historically posed a far greater threat than the words of lone individuals or even organised groups. For the sake of human welfare and flourishing, we make the following 3 calls to action.

  • We call on governments and international organisations to fulfill their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.

  • We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion.

  • And finally, we call on the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people’s democratic rights. Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many. Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate.

We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all.

Censorship robs us of the richness of life itself. Free speech is the foundation for creating a life of meaning and a thriving humanity – through art, poetry, drama, story, philosophy, song, and more.

This declaration was the result of an initial meeting of free speech champions from around the world who met in Westminster, London, at the end of June 2023. As signatories of this statement, we have fundamental political and ideological disagreements. However, it is only by coming together that we will defeat the encroaching forces of censorship so that we can maintain our ability to openly debate and challenge one another. It is in the spirit of difference and debate that we sign the Westminster Declaration.

Signatories

  • Matt Taibbi, Journalist, US

  • Michael Shellenberger, Public, US

  • Jonathan Haidt, Social Psychologist, NYU, US

  • John McWhorter, Linguist, Columbia, Author, US

  • Steven Pinker, Psychologist, Harvard, US

  • Julian Assange, Editor, Founder of Wikileaks, Australia

  • Tim Robbins, Actor, Filmmaker, US

  • Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, NYLS, US

  • Glenn Loury, Economist, USA

  • Richard Dawkins, Biologist, UK

  • John Cleese, Comedian, Acrobat, UK

  • Slavoj Žižek, Philosopher, Author, Slovenia

  • Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, US

  • Oliver Stone, Filmmaker, US

  • Edward Snowden, Whistleblower, US

  • Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, USA

  • Stella Assange, Campaigner, UK

  • Glenn Greenwald, Journalist, US

  • Claire Fox, Founder of the Academy of Ideas, UK

  • Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Psychologist, Author, Canada

  • Bari Weiss, Journalist, USA

  • Peter Hitchens, Author, Journalist, UK

  • Niall Ferguson, Historian, Stanford, UK

  • Matt Ridley, Journalist, Author, UK

  • Melissa Chen, Journalist, Spectator, Singapore/US

  • Yanis Varoufakis, Economist, Greece

  • Peter Boghossian, Philosopher, Founding Faculty Fellow, University of Austin, US

  • Michael Shermer, Science Writer, US

  • Alan Sokal, Professor of Mathematics, UCL, UK

  • Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology, Oxford, UK

  • Jay Bhattacharya, Professor, Stanford, US

  • Martin Kulldorf, Professor of Medicine (on leave), Harvard, US

  • Aaron Kheiriaty, Psychiatrist, Author, USA

  • Chris Hedges, Journalist, Author, USA

  • Lee Fang, Independent Journalist, US

  • Alex Gutentag, Journalist, US

  • Iain McGilchrist, Psychiatrist, Philosopher, UK

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist, Author, Netherlands

  • Konstantin Kisin, Author, UK

  • Leighton Woodhouse, Public, US

  • Andrew Lowenthal, liber-net, Australia

  • Aaron Mate, Journalist, USA

  • Izabella Kaminska, Journalist, The Blind Spot, UK

  • Nina Power, Writer, UK

  • Kmele Foster, Journalist, Media Entrepreneur, USA

  • Toby Young, Journalist, Free Speech Union, UK

  • Winston Marshall, Journalist, The Spectator, UK

  • Jacob Siegel, Tablet, US/Israel

  • Ulrike Guerot, Founder of European Democracy Lab, Germany

  • Heather E. Heying, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Bret Weinstein, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Martina Pastorelli, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Leandro Narloch, Independent Journalist, Brazil

  • Ana Henkel, Independent Journalist, Brazil

  • Mia Ashton, Journalist, Canada

  • Micha Narberhaus, The Protopia Lab, Spain/Germany

  • Alex Sheridan, Free Speech Ireland

  • Ben Scallan, Gript Media, Ireland

  • Thomas Fazi, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Jean F. Queralt, Technologist, Founder @ The IO Foundation, Malaysia/Spain

  • Phil Shaw, Campaigner, Operation People, New Zealand

  • Jeremy Hildreth, Independent, UK

  • Craig Snider, Independent, US

  • Eve Kay, TV Producer, UK

  • Helen Joyce, Journalist, UK

  • Dietrich Brüggemann, Filmmaker, Germany

  • Adam B. Coleman, Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing, US

  • Helen Pluckrose, Author, US

  • Michael Nayna, Filmmaker, Australia

  • Paul Rossi, Educator, Vertex Partnership Academics, US

  • Juan Carlos Girauta, Politician, Spain

  • Andrew Neish, KC, UK

  • Steven Berkoff, Actor, Playright, UK

  • Patrick Hughes, Artist, UK

  • Adam Creighton, Journalist, Australia

  • Julia Hartley-Brewer, Journalist, UK

  • Robert Cibis, Filmmaker, Germany

  • Piers Robinson, Organization for Propaganda Studies, UK

  • Dirk Pohlmann, Journalist, Germany

  • Mathias Bröckers, Author, Journalist, Germany

  • Kira Phillips, Documentary Filmmaker, UK

  • Diane Atkinson, Historian, Biographer, UK

  • Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, Birkbeck, University of Buckingham, Canada

  • Laura Dodsworth, Journalist and Author, UK

  • Nellie Bowles, Journalist, USA

  • Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law, Swansea University,  UK

  • Julius Grower, Fellow, St. Hugh’s College, UK

  • Nick Dixon, Comedian, UK

  • Dominic Frisby, Comedian, UK

  • James Orr, Associate Professor, University of Cambridge, UK

  • Brendan O’Neill, Journalist, UK

  • Jan Jekielek, Journalist, Canada

  • Andrew Roberts, Historian, UK

  • Robert Tombs, Historian, UK

  • Ben Schwarz, Journalist, USA

  • Xavier Azalbert, Investigative Scientific Journalist, France

  • Doug Stokes, International Relations Professor, University of Exeter, UK

  • James Allan, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, UK

  • David McGrogan, Professor of Law, Northumbria University, UK

  • Jacob Mchangama, Author, Denmark

  • Nigel Biggar, Chairman, Free Speech Union, UK

  • David Goodhart, Journalist, Author, UK

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report, Netherlands

  • Matt Goodwin, Politics Professor, University of Kent, UK

  • Alan Miller, Together Association, UK

  • Catherine Liu, Cultural Theorist, Author, USA

  • Stefan Millius, Journalist, Switzerland

  • Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law, Columbia, USA

  • Rueben Kirkham, Co-Director, Free Speech Union of Australia, Australia

  • Jeffrey Tucker, Author, USA

  • Sarah Gon, Director, Free Speech Union, South Africa

  • Dara Macdonald, Co-Director, Free Speech Union, Australia

  • Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive, Free Speech Union, New Zealand

  • David Zweig, Journalist, Author, USA

  • Juan Soto Ivars, Author, Spain

  • Colin Wright, Evolutionary Biologist, USA

  • Gad Saad, Professor, Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist, Author, Canada

  • Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, USA

  • Jill Glasspool-Malone, PhD., USA

  • Jordi Pigem, Philosopher, Author, Spain

  • Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia

  • Michele Santoro, Journalist, TV Host, Presenter, Italy

  • Dr. James Smith, Podcaster, Literature Scholar, RHUL, UK

  • Francis Foster, Comedian, UK

  • Coleman Hughes, Writer, Podcaster, USA

  • Marco Bassani, Political Theorist, Historian, Milan University, Italy

  • Isabella Loiodice, Professor of Comparative Public Law, University of Bari, Italy

  • Luca Ricolfi, Professor, Sociologist, Turin University, Italy

  • Marcello Foa, Journalist, Former President of Rai, Italy

  • Andrea Zhok, Philosopher, University of Milan, Italy

  • Paolo Cesaretti, Professor of Byzantine Civilization, University of Bergamo, Italy

  • Alberto Contri, Mass Media Expert, Italy

  • Carlo Lottieri, Philosopher, University of Verona, Italy

  • Alessandro Di Battista, Political Activist, Writer, Italy

  • Paola Mastrocola, Writer, Italy

  • Carlo Freccero, Television Author, Media Expert, Italy

  • Giorgio Bianchi, Independent Journalist, Italy

  • Nello Preterossi, Professor, University of Salerno, Scientific Director of the Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies, Italy

  • Efrat Fenigson, Journalist, Podcaster, Israel

  • Eli Vieira, Journalist, Genetic Biologist, Brazil

  • Stephen Moore, Author and Analyst, Canada

https://westminsterdeclaration.org/

 

Loading

179
Post Views: 309
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Comer probing White House’s ‘incomplete and misleading’ Biden classified docs timeline.

Comer is demanding interviews with multiple White House staffers involved in the movement of boxes from the Penn Biden Center. AP

Views: 22

Comer probing White House’s ‘incomplete and misleading’ Biden classified docs timeline.

This article first appeared in the NY Post on October 11th.

James Comer is demanding that the White House explain why it put out an “incomplete and misleading” timeline related to the discovery of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center.

Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the panel obtained evidence that President Biden’s aides began inspecting the material at his private office nearly 20 months before the sensitive papers were said to be found.

“The Committee is concerned by the omissions in President Biden’s timeline based on the following discoveries,” Comer notes in a letter sent to White House Counsel Edward Siskel on Wednesday.

Annie Tomasini, the 80-year-old president’s senior adviser, was the first of five White House staffers and a Department of Defense employee, to rummage through the documents and materials at Biden’s Washington, DC, think tank office, Comer claims.

This incident occurred just two months after the president’s inauguration, on March 18, 2021.

Joe Biden
The House Oversight Committee says it has evidence that a White House employee inspected President Biden’s Penn Biden Center office in March 2021, earlier than previously known.
ZUMAPRESS.com

The Kentucky Republican details four other expeditions to retrieve material from the Penn Biden Center that was previously unknown.

On May 24, 2022, Comer claimed that former White House counsel and Assistant to the President Dana Remus contacted former Biden aide and Department of Defense employee Kathy Chung – via her personal email address – to retrieve the commander in chief’s papers at the Penn Biden Center.

A month later, on June 28, 2022, Chung packed up Biden’s things at the think tank office, according to Comer.

Penn Biden Center
A dozen classified documents were discovered at the Penn Biden Center on Nov. 2, 2022.
AFP via Getty Images

Then, on June 30, 2022,  Remus, White House staffer Anthony Bernal and another unknown White House employee went to Penn Biden Center to “take possession of the boxes of documents and materials but could not fit all of the boxes into their vehicle.”

“The next wave of assessing of files and looking at boxes,” according to the oversight chairman, began on Oct. 12, 2022, when White House staffer Ashley Williams and Biden’s personal attorney Pat Moore visited the president’s former office.

The following day, Williams returned to Penn Biden Center and left with “a few” of Biden’s boxes, and Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, texted Chung that Moore had begun sorting through the boxes.

“Each of the encounters above was omitted from the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s public statements,” Comer argues, noting that a January statement from Bauer included a timeline of event that “inexplicably” begins on Nov. 2, 2022 – when the lawyer claims he first stumbled upon classified material that was stored at the Penn Biden Center.

James Comer
Comer is demanding interviews with multiple White House staffers involved in the movement of boxes from the Penn Biden Center.
AP

“President Biden’s timeline was incomplete and misleading,” Comer writes. “It omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, Ms. Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials.”

The oversight chairman adds that “there is no reasonable explanation as to why this many White House employees and lawyers were so concerned with retrieving boxes they believed only contained personal documents and materials.”

Comer requests transcribed interviews with the White House staffers involved in the previously unknown activity at the Penn Biden Center, and access to all White House communications regarding the movement of material from the think tank and the drafting of public statements related to the discovery of sensitive documents.

The letter comes days after special counsel Robert Hur, who is overseeing the Justice Department’s probe into Biden’s mishandling of White House documents, conducted two “voluntary” interviews with the president at the executive mansion.

“As we have said from the beginning, the President and the White House are cooperating with this investigation, and as it has been appropriate, we have provided relevant updates publicly, being as transparent as we can consistent with protecting and preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, said Monday.

The Nov. 2, 2022,  discovery of at least a dozen classified documents – some related to the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Iran – at his old office near the US Capitol was kept under wraps by the White House through the 2022 midterm elections and for weeks after.

More sensitive documents were discovered in Biden’s Wimington home in January after an FBI search. The bureau also searched the president’s Rehoboth Beach, Del., home as part of the probe but did not turn up any additional documents.

Biden has dismissed the shocking findings as simply “stray papers” that ended up on his property and private office because of careless aides who packed up his White House office over a decade ago.

 

Loading

224
Post Views: 330
Categories
Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption COVID Links from other news sources. Medicine Science

What’s this tell us? Last year 17% of the population got the jab. This year so far 7%

COVID-19 vaccine maker says it's time to jab up.

Views: 31

What’s this tell us? Last year 17% of the population got the jab. This year so far 7%. So Reuters is reporting. I actually thought that last years numbers were much higher. It’s obvious that a lot changed after Musk bought Twitter and we found out how the administration was asking the social media to lie for them.

U.S. public health officials have been optimistic that Americans will get the new vaccines and have recommended that everyone ages 6 months and older receive one.

But demand has dropped sharply since 2021, when the shots were first introduced at the height of the pandemic.

About 17% of the U.S. population, or 56.5 million people, ultimately received last year’s version of the vaccines.

Loading

197
Post Views: 308
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

New evidence may destroy Biden’s defense in his classified documents case.

Sink Joey Boy's Ship. New evidence may destroy Biden’s defense in his classified documents case © Provided by The Hill

Views: 20

New evidence may destroy Biden’s defense in his classified documents case.

This month, the sudden appearance of Special Counsel Robert Hur caused as much of a stir as Bigfoot suddenly appearing on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Unlike his counterpart, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has been aggressively prosecuting former president Donald Trump, Hur has virtually disappeared since his appointment to investigate President Joe Biden. Hur surfaced to interview Biden over his possession of classified documents, including some that go back to his time as a U.S. senator.

I have referred to Hur as a “neutron prosecutor” — a special counsel with no possible charge, under Justice Department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president. If that was not enough of a problem, Hur may have growing evidence that accounts offered by the White House over the discovery of the documents are false.

The new evidence could prove transformative, not only for the criminal but the impeachment investigation of the president.

This week, the House Oversight Committee released a new timeline on the discovery of classified documents in various locations associated with Biden. From the outset, many of us flagged problems with the account that had been given by Biden, who insisted that he had no knowledge or involvement in the removal or use of the documents.

The most glaring problem is that, after they were removed at the end of his term as vice president, the documents were repeatedly moved and divided up. Some were found in the Penn Center office used by Biden in Washington, D.C. Others were found in his garage and reportedly in his library.

Biden made clear from the beginning that he expected the investigation to be perfunctory and brief. He publicly declared that he has “no regrets” over his own conduct and told the public that the documents investigation would soon peter out when it determined that “there is no ‘there’ there.”

Now, however, it appears that a critical claim by the White House in the scandal may not only be false, but was knowingly false at the time it was made. The White House and Biden’s counsel have long maintained that, as soon as documents were discovered in the D.C. office, they notified the national archives. Many asked why they did not call the FBI, but the White House has at least maintained that, unlike Trump, they took immediate action to notify authorities.

However, it now appears that this was not true. One of the closest aides to Biden and a close friend to Hunter Biden is Annie Tomasini. She referred to Hunter as her “brother” and signed off messages with “LY” or “love you.”

Tomasini was once a senior aide to Joe Biden and, according to the Oversight Committee, inspected the classified material on March 18, 2021, two months after Biden took office — nearly 20 months before they were said to be found by the Biden team.

The committee now alleges that the White House “omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, [Kathy] Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials. The timeline also omitted multiple visits from at least five White House employees, including Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams, Annie Tomasini, and an unknown staffer.”

If true, the evidence demolishes the timeline long maintained by the Biden team. That could have an immediate impact on both the criminal and impeachment investigations.

The timeline has been a critical distinction drawn by the White House in distinguishing this matter from the Trump indictment, in which Smith charged the former president with 37 counts, including retaining classified information, obstructing justice and making false statements, and other charges.

Biden insisted that he was entirely “surprised” by the discovery of the documents in Nov. 2021. He echoed the narrative of both his lawyers and the media at large: “And they did what they should have done,” he said. “They immediately called the Archives — immediately called the Archives, turned them over to the Archives, and I was briefed about this discovery.”

In reality, Biden’s counsel and associates conducted repeated searches and declared repeatedly that no further classified documents were found. That was repeatedly found to be untrue.

Moreover, the concern is that Biden’s lawyers, in the course of these private searches, may have consolidated material and contaminated the scene by the time FBI agents conducted their searches. This includes changing how documents were originally stored and whether classified markings were visible to anyone working around the Biden home or garage.

Now it appears that the discovery had actually been made months earlier. The timeline would now more closely mirror Trump’s timeline in the knowing retention of classified material, the failure to turn over all of the classified material despite assurances from counsel, and alleged false accounts about the document’s discovery.

It is not clear what Hur can do if he finds either from witnesses or forensic testing (including perhaps fingerprints on the documents) that President Biden lied.

I have long disagreed with the policy that the Justice Department has long held, that prosecutors should not indict a sitting president. Were he to seek an indictment, Hur would have to ask for reconsideration of the policy based on a decades-old memo issued by the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bill Clinton, who at the time faced calls for an indictment for perjury.

The DOJ policy will also put pressure on the House in its ongoing impeachment inquiry. In my recent testimony at the first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing, I mapped out four possible articles of impeachment. They included obstruction and abuse of power.

If this new timeline is accurate, the question is whether Biden knew that the account being put forward by his staff and counsel was false. It also raises the question of whether the president knowingly possessed classified documents and lied about their removal, use, and discovery. Finally, if Biden repeated his public denials to Hur, there could be added allegations of false statements to federal investigators, another commonly-charged federal crime.

We still have to see if there is evidence to support such crimes, but what is clear is that the past narrative may no longer suffice.

In his press conference announcing the criminal charges against Trump, Smith declared, “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone….Nothing more, nothing less.”

The question for Hur is whether they can also apply to a sitting president. Likewise, if these allegations are true and Biden knowingly committed these crimes, the question for Congress could be whether he should remain as president.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Loading

190
Post Views: 281
Categories
Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics

Winning. MSNBC loses 33% of their audience first week of Hamas attack on Israel.

MSNBC gets slammed for taking sides with the terrorists. MSNBC Photo

Views: 13

Winning. MSNBC loses 33% of their audience first week of Hamas attack on Israel. Some on MSNBC decided to take Hamas’s side on the attack of Israel. Well the first weeks numbers are in and it wasn’t pretty.

They lost 33% of their prime time viewers. FOX grew 42% and even CNN gained 17%.

 

Woke MSNBC DESTROYED! Loses 33% of viewers for WOKE coverage of Israel Hamas war! – YouTube

MSNBC Down, Fox News and CNN Up in Ratings Since Start of Israel-Hamas War (mediaite.com)

 

NewsNation host and Mediaite owner Dan Abrams slammed the network for its coverage, accusing hosts Ayman Mohyeldin, Mehdi Hasan, and Ali Velshi of turning the blame on the political decisions of Israel and the United States and shifting the focus on to Palestinians, away from the Israelis victimized by Hamas.

Meanwhile, NewsNation saw its ratings increase by 48 percent.

On Monday, Jonathan Greenblatt, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and lambasted the network on camera, unloading on anchor Jonathan Lemire over the coverage and asking “[W]ho’s writing the scripts? Hamas?”

Loading

178
Post Views: 305
Categories
Censorship How funny is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Stupid things people say or do. Un documented. WOKE

“You Can’t Say That!”: 18 Time-Honored Sayings Woke Culture Wants to Erase from History

Views: 69

Story by Elliot Peters for Man and Home 10-11-23

Wokism: A growing cultural consciousness that makes us think twice before using certain phrases. Our words shape our world, and while some old-school sayings might bring nostalgia, they can also encourage outdated or offensive views. So, let’s walk down memory lane and explore how some classic expressions have been reshaped – for better or for worse!

Hitting a Blind Spot and Not Just on the Road.

People often used the term “blind spot” in driving jargon, indicating that little area that mirrors just couldn’t capture. But when used metaphorically, it raised eyebrows. Connecting “blind” to “ignorance” can offend the visually impaired community. As society becomes more conscious of such subtleties, shifting from potentially insensitive idioms becomes key.

(Raises WHOSE eyebrows? I’m “visually impaired,” and I don’t have a problem with it,)

Indian Giver Is More Than Just a Take-Back

The term “Indian Giver” paints a misleading image of Native Americans, suggesting a tendency to retract gifts. Given the profound respect Native Americans have for giving and community, this phrase is a glaring misrepresentation. Today’s informed society is moving away from such misnomers, embracing accuracy and respect.

(Again, I have to take issue with this reasoning, since anyone with the least bit of American History know that the term at its core refers to Americans (usually the government) who gave Natives things then took them back. Every single Treaty the US Government made, they broke.)

Addict

While “addict” may have been tossed around easily in the past, it’s a narrow lens to view someone through. Addiction is a complex issue, and pigeonholing someone’s identity based solely on it is reductive. So, the world now leans towards more empathetic terms like “person with an addiction,” which better reflects the reality of the situation.

(Another indication of wanting to use more words to obscure a simple fact, like changing “homeless person” or” the homeless” to “person experiencing homelessness.” Seriously, are they going to start referring to abandoned or feral cats as “Felines experiencing homelessness” next?)

Lame Language? Time for an Upgrade!

Once, we wouldn’t think twice before labeling that less-than-thrilling movie as “lame.” But did you know this term originally described those with physical challenges? It’s high time we jazz up our vocabulary, don’t you think? There’s a whole world of words out there, from “mundane” to “uninspiring,” waiting to be used.

(Oh, PLEASE!)

Man Up? Let’s Think Bigger!

“Man up” – it might’ve been your coach’s favorite pep talk. Yet, it subtly hints that bravery is a man’s game. Newsflash! With our evolving understanding of gender fluidity and emotional strength, shouldn’t our idioms grow, too? Bravery isn’t just for one of the genders. Let’s cheer each other on in more inclusive ways.

(Yeah, let’s bring in woke concepts like “gender fluidity” instead.)

Decoding the Policeman Conundrum

In the past, “Hurry up! Get the policeman!” was a staple line from the movies. But with the increasing number of dedicated women in blue, that phrase can feel out of place, right? The term “police officer” bridges this gap. It’s unbiased, forward-thinking, and gives a nod of respect to every individual serving in the force, irrespective of their gender.

(Using “police officer” is okay, but again the ‘logic’ is misleading You’re much more likely to have heard “Call the Cops!” or “Call the police!” than “Hurry up! Get the policeman!” )

Hey, Guys! Or is it… Everyone?

Who hasn’t just called out, “Hey, guys!” upon entering a gathering? It was the ultimate casual greeting. However, on closer examination, “guys” might be boxing us into gender corners. With society’s expanding views on gender and inclusivity, it’s about time our everyday greetings got an upgrade. “Hello, folks” or “Hey, crew” has a fresh, inclusive ring to it, right?

(Oh, dear! “gender AND inclusivity?” What a crock!)

Don’t Be So Hysterical

Using “hysterical” to describe something extremely funny or exaggerated became second nature for many. However, a peek into the past reveals its association with women, suggesting an exaggerated emotional state. In our journey towards embracing gender fairness and shedding stereotypes, sidelining such terms feels right.

(Feels trump everything, right?”

Grandfathered Is a Term with Deep Roots .

On the surface, “grandfathered” shows a sense of legacy and timelessness. However, its historical roots connect it to policies that, unfortunately, sidelined Black communities during the post-Civil War period. As conversations around racial justice become louder, reassessing and recontextualizing some of our age-old terms seems the best option.

(What juvenile BS!)

Real Man, Real Woman? Let’s Rethink That! .

Ever wondered who came up with the criteria for a “real” man or woman? These phrases press people into molds they may not fit into. Instead of sticking to narrow definitions, it’s high time we acknowledged and celebrated every person’s individuality. After all, every person’s journey and identity are real and valid, regardless of societal expectations.

(I can’t decide whether the OP is being satirical or serious. For 99% of humans you’re either XX -female- or XY -male- and surgical mutilation does not change that. [I’m excluding the extremely rare hermaphrodites.)

Mastering a New Bedroom Terminology

Historically, the term “Master bedroom” sounded fancy. But dig a little deeper, and you uncover undertones of slavery and hierarchical dominance. As societies become more conscious and sensitive, many advocate for a terminology shift. “Primary bedroom” or “main suite” not only sounds contemporary but also lacks the baggage of the past.

(More regurgitated crap. Some snowflake’s feels might get hurt.)

Seeing Beyond ‘Colorblind’

In the past, proclaiming, “I’m colorblind” was a well-intended remark to show you were impartial about race. However, in today’s more nuanced world, this phrase might be seen as a way to gloss over individual racial experiences and challenges. It’s not about being blind to color but understanding and appreciating the stories each color tells.

(This stupidity needs no further comment.)

From Mankind to Humankind: An Inclusive Shift.

Once upon a time, “mankind” was a common phrase, representing all of humanity. But as our understanding of gender becomes more sophisticated and inclusive, this term feels a tad exclusive. The shift towards “humankind” is more than just linguistic. It’s a nod towards a future where everyone feels seen and acknowledged.

(There’s already a term for that: HUMANITY, FFS.)

The Whitelist Conundrum.

The term “Whitelist” was traditionally used to describe approved or safe items. However, against a backdrop of racial sensitivities, words that unconsciously encourage color biases are being reevaluated. So, it’s no surprise that “allow list” is gaining traction, emphasizing function over potentially problematic connotations.

(Has anyone ever seen “allow list” before? Or “disallow list”?)

Steering Clear of ‘Gyp’

To “gyp” someone out of something meant that you deceived them. But what many might not realize is that it’s rooted in stereotypes against the Romani people. With a broader understanding of cultural sensitivities, it’s only right that we retire such phrases and opt for words that don’t allow for such biases.

(This one I can agree with, but what’s next? Eliminate “con” because it offends people convicted of a crime?)

Humanizing Undocumented Individuals

Terms matter, especially when they concern human beings. Labeling someone as an “illegal alien” feels cold and strips them of their humanity. As conversations around immigration grow more compassionate, “undocumented individuals” emerges as a term that’s both accurate and respectful.

(They’re still here illegally, bunky.)

I’ can’t hear you! Nah nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you!

The ‘Crazy’ and ‘Insane’ Evolution

Calling an unexpected event “crazy” or “insane” was commonplace. But as society becomes more aware of the realities and challenges of mental health, such casual use can feel dismissive. When used out of context, these terms can trivialize genuine mental health issues. It reflects a society that’s growing more empathetic by the day.

(So, calling the Hamas 2023 mass murders “Insane” is inaccurate?)

Moving Away from Troubled Waters

Historically, the expression “sold down the river” was used casually to indicate betrayal. However, its origins trace back to the dark times of American slavery, where slaves were often literally sold down the Mississippi River. Today, with an emphasis on sensitivity and historical accuracy, it’s better to opt for alternatives like “betrayed” or “deceived.”

(Uhm, historically, it would have been UP the Mississippi. New Orleans was the port of entry, not someplace in Iowa or Illinois. Yet another woke distortion.)

As I said above, I’m not sure if the OP is being satirical or serious. Unfortunately, I think he’s serious.

Loading

275
Post Views: 389
Verified by MonsterInsights