Another day, another White House “disinformation” task force.
The Biden administration on Thursday created a new internet policy task force — this one led by Vice President Kamala Harris — with goals including “developing programs and policies” to protect “political figures” and journalists from “disinformation,” “abuse” and “harassment.”
A presidential memorandum establishing the new task force describes a sweeping mission to protect people who seek out a role in public life from online critics.
“In the United States and around the world, women and LGBTQI+ political leaders, public figures, activists, and journalists are especially targeted by sexualized forms of online harassment and abuse, undermining their ability to exercise their human rights and participate in democracy, governance, and civic life,” the memo says.
“Online abuse and harassment, which aim to preclude women from political decision-making about their own lives and communities, undermine the functioning of democracy.”
The new task force’s members include other Biden heavy hitters, such as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The panel held its first meeting Thursday afternoon. Harris did not specifically use the term “disinformation” in her opening remarks, but declared, “all people deserve to use the Internet free from fear.”
“We still have so much more work to do to protect people from online harassment and abuse, which is why the work of this task force is so important,” Harris said.
“Context: Well, the Internet is an essential part of life in the 21st Century. Can’t get around it, can’t get around without it.”
Harris added: “One in three women under the age of 35 report being sexually harassed online. Over half of the LGBTQ+ people in our country are survivors of severe harassment. Nearly one in four Asian Americans report being called an offensive name.”
The vice president said “no one should have to endure abuse just because they are attempting to participate in society.”
Within 180 days, the panel will submit to President Biden a blueprint that “outlin[es] a whole-of-government approach to preventing and addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including concrete actions that executive departments, agencies, and offices have committed to take to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.”
Within a year, the board will issue a report with “additional recommendations and actions” advising broader steps that can be taken by Internet platforms, state and local governments and schools, the document says.
In April, Biden came under fire for the creation of what critics called a “dystopian” disinformation bureau under DHS, which many viewed as a way for the government to police free speech online.
Conservatives slammed the “Disinformation Governance Board” and noted its timing — coming after Elon Musk vowed to make Twitter a free speech haven through his $44 billion takeover of the social media platform notorious for selectively censoring right-leaning points of view.
The board’s chairperson, Nina Jankowicz, drew fire and ultimately withdrew from the project after it was revealed she repeatedly tried to spread doubt about The Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop, telling the Associated Press in October 2020 that it should be viewed as “a Trump campaign product.”
In addition, Jankowicz had pushed the since-debunked claim in 2016 that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump had a tie to Kremlin-linked Alfa-Bank, an allegation at the center of a trial of a Clinton campaign lawyer accused by special counsel John Durham of lying to the FBI.
The misinformation czar was also ripped for a bizarre TikTok performance from February 2021 in which she altered the lyrics to the “Mary Poppins” song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” to be about fake news.
On a Wednesday evening press call, a Biden administration official said the new task force contrasts with the Disinformation Government Board in that “we are particularly focused on online activities that are illegal conduct, such as cyber stalking or non consensual distribution of intimate images, or targeted harassment.”
However, the memo establishing the panel describes a broader mission and specifically invokes criticism of public figures — who in the US legal system have a more difficult time suing for defamation to allow room for political speech, and also because they sought out the spotlight.
The memo says, “The Task Force shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to assess and address online harassment and abuse that constitute technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including by … developing programs and policies to address online harassment, abuse, and disinformation campaigns targeting women and LGBTQI+ individuals who are public and political figures, government and civic leaders, activists, and journalists in the United States and globally.”
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, responding to a question from The Post at her regular briefing Thursday, said she wasn’t familiar with the degree to which the task force would focus on “disinformation.”
“I would need to talk to our team,” Jean-Pierre said, referring questions to Harris’ office, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In April, Taylor Lorenz, a reporter who specializes in covering internet culture at the Washington Post, gained significant attention by alleging online harassment — drawing sympathy from some and criticism from others who note that digital trolls come with the territory of working at major news outlets.
“Doxxing” is the term used to describe the act of posting the personal information of those who wish to remain anonymous. Critics accused Lorenz of hypocrisy after it was claimed that she showed up at the home of the woman’s relatives to ask questions.187
Lorenz defended her decision to reveal the woman’s identity, tweeting: “Reporters make phone calls, send messages, show up places, and knock on doors when reporting out a story. I reported this story out extensively, using every tool I had, to ensure I had the correct woman.”
From the moment the DHS disinformation governance board was discovered it was obvious the agency was created in order for Homeland Security to partner with social media platforms to control, monitor and track the speech of American citizens. DHS denied that was the intent; however, Senator Josh Hawley has discovered emails showing all suspicions were accurate.
Senator Hawley appeared on Tucker Carlson Wednesday night to discuss. WATCH:
Twitter Reverses Position, Will Allow Elon Musk Access to Background Data
June 8, 2022 Sundance
I think most people agree, the request from Elon Musk to see the background data from Twitter, used to evaluate bots and fake accounts, was entirely reasonable.
Twitter’s prior position that they would not permit Musk’s team to see the data stream was in ordinary violation of the terms of purchase. It would seem to be commonsense that Musk has every right to inspect the data and evaluate Twitter’s prior assertions.
WASHINGTON POST – After a weeks-long impasse, Twitter’s board plans to comply with Elon Musk’s demands for internal data by offering access to its full “firehose,” the massive stream of data comprising more than 500 million tweets posted each day, according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the state of negotiations.
The move aims to end a standoff with the billionaire, who has threatened to pull out of his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter unless the company provides access to data he says is necessary to evaluate the number of fake users on the platform.
The firehose could be provided as soon as this week, the person said. Currently some two dozen companies pay for access to the trove, which comprises not only a real-time record of tweets but the devices they tweet from, as well as information about the accounts that tweet.
[…] Twitter’s leaders are skeptical of Musk’s ability to use the fire hose to find previously undetected information: The data stream has been available for years to some two dozen companies, which pay Twitter for the ability to analyze it to find patterns and insights in the daily conversation. They, along with some analysts and Silicon Valley insiders, say that Musk is using the data requests as a pretext to wiggle out of the deal or to negotiate a lower price. (read more)
Australia has an eSafety Commissioner named Julie Inman-Grant. While delivering remarks to the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland, she outlined a new on-line era where free speech would need to be “recalibrated,” and the ability to be free from something called “on-line violence.” WATCH:
For the past several years we have noted a progressive, totalitarian, shift in speech, specifically a redefinition of the word “violence.” Speech the leftists do not like, they call violence; and violence the leftists support, they call speech. As a result, the overlay of a newly recalibrated on-line world for speech and violence would be modified accordingly.
Speech the Big Tech consortium would define as against their views would be considered on-line violence and thus controlled by the governmental guardians of the internet like the eSafety Commissioner. As you can see in the video below, “violence” now includes their perception of something happening on a metaphysical level. An emotional impact. They have a spiritual avatar that they feel the drive to defend from the viewpoints of the Others.
‘Jail or something worse’: Ex-Fox News reporter goes to war with Tucker Carlson
‘The U.S. government is going to have to stop the lying’
By Joe Kovacs May 23, 2022
Tucker Carlson of Fox News (video screenshot)
A former top reporter for Fox News is now going to war with Tucker Carlson, suggesting the highest-rated host at the popular network could end up in jail or “something worse” for what is aired on his program.
Carl Cameron, one-time chief political correspondent who left the Fox News Channel in 2017, was interviewed Saturday by Jim Acosta of CNN, and compared what Carlson airs on his show to falsely crying fire in a crowded movie theater.
“The fact of the matter is, if you disturb the peace by starting a riot in a movie theater, cops are going to arrest you and you might end up in jail or you might end up in something worse.”
Cameron even called on Joe Biden to take action against Carlson and those online who are likeminded.
“The president has to be more forceful and sooner or later the law enforcement and the U.S. government is going to have to stop the lying because it’s causing people’s deaths,” he indicated.
“It’s not just Fox, it’s social media in general. It’s on the internet. And we have to remember that a good portion of what we read is coming from folks who aren’t Americans, pretending to be Americans in order to gaslight them even worse.” WATCH:
Cameron’s remarks echoed what he told MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace on May 17 when the two were discussing the aftermath of mass shootings.
“What happens at Fox News when something like this happens?” Wallace asked Cameron.
“I can’t even imagine. It’s partly why I ended up gettin’ out of there,” Cameron responded.
Carl Cameron (Video screenshot)
“It really is kind of horrible to think that journalists with national and international capacity are putting together this type of nonsense.
“I think the president did a great job. I wish he had done a lot of this a lot sooner, and we need a lot more from the left and the middle, and we got to watch out because the Republicans have become the purveyors of misinformation, and when our two-party system is broken like that, democracy is seriously in trouble.
“The president acknowledged that it’s time to actually start doing things and maybe taking some names and putting people in jail.”
WATCH THE VIDEO:
In the wake of Cameron’s CNN interview Saturday, some online reaction included:
“If the police should stop people from lying then they should start with Carl Cameron.”
“Didn’t Jim and the left push Russian collision for 4 years?”
“CNN needs to jailed 😂 🤣 🤣”
“I love these Leftists praising the Constitution in one breath, then saying government needs to crush free speech in the next breath.”
“Nice propaganda piece here. They never specifically said what he was lying about.”
“Who are these two Nimrods?”
“I expect the comments to be disabled after people calling out CNNs bullsh**.”
After years of constantly praising The New York Times, capitulating to Liz Cheney and the Democrat leadership and kicking members who stand in the way of advancing a progressive agenda off of their committees, thereby crippling their ability to fundraise, inescapable karma is coming full circle for conniving House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, warns former Rep. Steve King.
“The New York Times is McCarthy’s Bible,” King told The Gateway Pundit in an exclusive interview. “McCarthy, more or less worshipped the NYT and the NYT reporter to me. He said the NYT would not make a mistake; they are professionals — they wouldn’t make a mistake even in punctuation. Now here we are, the NYT turned around and laid this on him.”
“He’s also said that he can remember every word, every pause, every punctuation that he ever said to the press in the last six months,” the former Iowa congressman added. “That’s Rainman stuff. There is no one that can do that.”
Last week, the New York Times leaked explosive secretly recorded audio from a private conversation between McCarthy and Liz Cheney on Jan 10, 2021. During the call, McCarthy assured Cheney he would advise Trump to resign following Cheney’s references to the events of January 6 and the 25th Amendment.
McCarthy also argued members of Congress who were complaining about the rigged election results should be censored and banned from social media platforms along with the sitting president of the United States.
Kings cautioned that the California politician longs to be Speaker of the House and with “cunning duplicity” will act as cutthroat as needed to get that position, primarily by derailing and unseating members that challenge him or the establishment’s agenda.
“Every move that he makes goes through the filter – the calculation of, ‘Does it hurt me or help my prospects to become Speaker of the House?’ That’s his abiding goal in life. Most of us that have been around him have recognized that for a number of years. Whatever heavy-handed stuff that he thinks he can get away with that advances that cause, that’s what he will do,” he said. “People being removed from committees was almost unheard of until McCarthy came on the scene.”
MCCARTHY’S ‘PAY TO PLAY’ SYSTEM
Just a handful of Republican members of Congress have called attention to the current crises that present existential threats to the U.S. Constitution and the republic. Any lawmaker who strays from McCarthy and the globalist agenda, dares to call attention to political prisoners who are languishing in solitary confinement for protesting glaring election theft on January 6, attempting to halt governmental “vaccines” mandate compulsory, or refusing to compromise their values, for example, face penalty.
King detailed McCarthy’s “pay to play” apparatus for distributing powerful positions in the House.
“Almost all of them are compromised – wherever they might stand on any of those issues,” explained the former chairman of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “Here’s how that works. A freshman gets elected and most of them are ideological, they want to go make a difference and they’ve got an agenda. They get in and leadership says to them, ‘Now, you elected people to come into Washington, we are going to give you orientation.’ For me, that was eleven days — two days of orientation and nine days of indoctrination.”
“And they’ll tell you this: ‘Your job is to raise money. You go to your committee and vote when you have to, go to the floor and vote when you have to. Otherwise, we’ll bring you over to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Pick up the phone and dial down through this list and raise money. Then you give the money to the party and that will have a lot to do with your next committee assignment and a lot to do with your pathways into leadership or your legislation that might be getting passed. And if you don’t do that, they will shut down your endeavor,” he continued. “They are policing it through all of this.”
While previous GOP Speakers of the House, John Boehner and Paul Ryan threw their lot in with the Trump-haters and leftists, “greedy” McCarthy takes the cake, King argued.
“I put this at the feet of McCarthy, and I’ve watched him for three years putting this together. It was served up to me in a blander way when I arrived than what it is now. Now, Kevin McCarthy gets to unilaterally make these decisions: what committees you will be on, whether you’ll have a role ever as a subcommittee chair, a full committee chair or an honorable role as the whip, the deputy whip or something along that nature – or maybe the chairman of the NRCC itself. He’ll make those decisions,” he said. “McCarthy controls every assignment. He will say the Steering Committee makes those decisions — that’s a flat-out lie. The Steering Committee is handpicked by McCarthy and their assignments depend also upon the goodwill of McCarthy. Every gavel, McCarthy can kill. He can bypass somebody that has 15 years of seniority over the second guy because he doesn’t like what they say or think. If he says to the PACs on K street, ‘Don’t send money to candidate X,’ they don’t send money.”
King explained how McCarthy controls the House GOP through fear.
“All of these members are afraid that their political careers are going to come to a halt,” King continued. “If you get leadership to endorse your legislation, it’s coming to the floor. McCarthy withholds that unless you play ball with him. He also decides whether you do foreign travel or not – that comes right out of the mouth of Kevin McCarthy. Then the non-governmental organizations out there, other organizations that are operating around the Hill, get that message. So, the invitations that you were getting to give speeches and build that network and support from the NGOs, stops, dries up and may even stop immediately.”
MCCARTHY COLLUDED WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES TO DEFAME KING
After serving in the U.S. House of Representatives for 17 years, King lost his re-election bid in 2020 following a hit piece on the conservative firebrand published by The New York Times.
During a 2019 phone call with NYT reporter Trip Gabriel, King discussed the perils of mass illegal immigration to Western civilization, as he had throughout his entire political career. Gabriel allegedly conflated King’s references to “Western civilization” with “white supremacy.”
“It was a 56-minute interview. There’s no tape. There are no notes. I thought that interview was going to be approved by my communications director and it hadn’t,” King explained. “Since 2000, I had never been quoted uttering those words, ‘white nationalism, white supremacy’ – I don’t think in those terms. But during that same period of time, I had been quoted saying ‘Western civilization’ 276 times.
“Gabriel admitted that he had been fed me those terms ‘white nationalism, white supremacist.’ If I said those words, it was to say, ‘Yeah, I understand how these got to be pejorative terms and they were weaponized by the Democrat Party.’ But Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?”
Carrying water for “the globalists and Never Trumpers,” the California lawmaker who aspires to ban his colleagues from the social media platforms, allegedly conspired with the New York Times to frame and oust the conservative firebrand and then refused to allow due process.
Just hours after the libel spread like wildfire, McCarthy shut down all paths that would allow King to set the record straight, removed King from all committees and shut down the longtime congressman’s ability to fundraise.
“People being removed from committees was almost unheard of until McCarthy came on the scene. Nobody in history was bounced for a misquote anywhere, or for what they said anywhere at any time. Every lawmaker that had been previously removed from the committees had convictions or indictments, and federal ones at that,” King said. “I never had any place that I could make my case. There was no due process of any kind. Every effort I made was shut down and blunted by Kevin McCarthy, his staff and Liz Cheney. This came down and all of a sudden I am utterly canceled. No one that had been removed from their committees by their own party has ever survived the next election. McCarthy knows that.”
King agreed that he should have recorded his conversation with the NYT to protect himself from libel and advised others to take the same precaution when engaging with dishonest media.
GOP Members of Congress quickly make enemies when they refuse to play ball or “stand in the way of the establishment’s agenda over and over again,” the ex-congressman admonished.
“I was elected to Congress in 2003, and then from that point forward, I carved out more and more independence. I emerged throughout those years as the “conscience of conservatives” in the House of Representatives,” King said. “I led on trying to kill Obamacare. After Obamacare passed, I led on the cutting off of all funding to implement or enforce Obamacare. I brought the first repeal legislation to repeal it. I drafted that and the morning after, it passed and was signed into law – as soon as the door opened, I was there.
“I was one of the handful of people that pushed John Boehner out of the speaker’s chair. He was cutting deals with Nancy Pelosi and trying to force-feed them to conservatives. It was clear to me that he wasn’t going to secure the border or repeal Obamacare. Those guys, they had me marked and they were going to kill everything I tried to do. So, I’d bring in my amendments rather than legislation. And I ended up with more amendments offered and a higher percentage of them passed than any active amendment offerors,” he continued. “I just went to battle every day. All of those things just irritated leadership.”
King described how McCarthy uses racial, ethnic and sexual quotas in his political calculations including the endorsement of candidates and selection of committee assignments.
While every Republican member of Congress is forced to raise money for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the NRCC uses the money to advance identity politics under the guise of “equity,” “diversity” and “affirmative action” and fund the campaigns of progressive candidates.
King’s refusal to fundraise for the left-wing causes of the National Republican Congressional Committee irked McCarthy. But aggravation between the GOP minority leader and renegade Iowa lawmaker came to a boiling point when King introduced the “heartbeat bill.”
“I brought the Heartbeat Protection Act to Congress. I had 174 cosponsors on that bill – that’s almost twice as many as you need to get a markup in a committee. I had a hundred percent promise to get the mark up in the Judiciary Committee, not a promise to go to the floor, but we had the votes to pass it,” King said. “Kevin McCarthy flat killed that bill in December 2018 while we had floor time to do it. I pushed the issue until I forced an answer, but he killed it. He did this damage to the pro-life movement. At that time, I was the strongest pro-life voice in the country, and he killed it off. McCarthy attacked me. He said that’s not the platform. He excoriated me for defending those babies.
“Then, Kevin McCarthy continued to agitate from behind the scenes. The establishment globalists decided they wanted to get rid of me and unloaded everything on me in the fall of 2018. They had already had a few million dollars lined up against me on the Democrat side – I could withstand all that they would throw at me on that side. But a week out from the elections, Steve Stivers, then-chairman of the NRCC, tried to politically assassinate me — calling me a ‘racist,’ ‘bigot’ and every kind of ‘phobe.’ My ‘close friends’ in the Republican Party started to say, ‘Steve King is going to lose his seat’ and undermining me.
King urged every Republican member of Congress to expose McCarthy and expel the aspiring Speaker of the House from the party.
“Every single institution in America has been influenced or corrupted by the leftists and new world order proponents. That explains the Never Trumpers and the elitists and the establishment. They are aggressive, they are well-funded and there’s a network of this,” he said. “Nothing changes until leadership changes. They will perpetuate this same thing over and over again.”
“This book – I couldn’t get anybody to publish it because they didn’t want my name on their website. I’m too ‘toxic.’ They’ve turned my career in public service which spans nearly a quarter of a century into toxicity. It so toxified me that my leverage has been reduced substantially,” he said. “This book should be required reading for every candidate for Congress and could be the very document that denies the speakership to Kevin McCarthy.”
White House NSA Organizes Security Summit With 50 Nation Peers to Discuss Future of the Internet
What could possibly go wrong when the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, organizes a “minister level launch of the Declaration for the Future of the Internet.” Put more succinctly, that would be 50 nation intelligence ministers getting together to decide what they will permit on the internet.
Apparently, a collective partner rule book is forthcoming. Big Tech will be given specific instructions on how to comply.
The global rulebook on how to handle, define and eliminate ‘disinformation’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ on the world-wide internet.
The metaphorical Jack had a great idea, open a coffee shop where the beverages were free and use internal advertising as the income subsidy to operate the business. Crowds came for the free coffee, comfy couches, fellowship, conversation and enjoyment.
It didn’t matter where Jack got the coffee, how he paid for it, or didn’t, or what product advertising the customers would be exposed to while there. Few people thought about such things. Curiously, it didn’t matter what size the crowd was; in the backroom of Jack’s Coffee Shop they were able to generate massive amounts of never-ending free coffee at extreme scales.
Over time, using the justification of parking lot capacity and township regulations, not everyone would be able to park and enter. Guards were placed at the entrance to pre-screen customers. A debate began.
Alternative coffee shops opened around town. It was entirely possible to duplicate Jacks Coffee Shop, yet no one could duplicate the business model for the free coffee. Indeed, there was something very unique about Jack’s Coffee Shop. Thus, some underlying suspicions were raised:
The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap. The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account. A public-private partnership.
If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.
The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database. The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.
♦ June 2013: […] “Cloud computing is one of the core components of the strategy to help the IC discover, access and share critical information in an era of seemingly infinite data.” … “A test scenario described by GAO in its June 2013 bid protest opinion suggests the CIA sought to compare how the solutions presented by IBM and Amazon Web Services (AWS) could crunch massive data sets, commonly referred to as big data.” … “Solutions had to provide a “hosting environment for applications which process vast amounts of information in parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware” using a platform called MapReduce. Through MapReduce, clusters were provisioned for computation and segmentation. Test runs assumed clusters were large enough to process 100 terabytes of raw input data. AWS’ solution received superior marks from CIA procurement officials”… (MORE)
♦ November 2013: […] “Twitter closed its first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013, at $44.90 a share. In the years since then, it briefly traded above $70, but more recently, it has struggled.”
Jack’s free coffee shop has been for sale, but there’s no viable business model in the private sector. No one has wanted to purchase Twitter – it is simply unsustainable; the data processing costs exceed the capacity of the platform to generate revenue – until now….
And suddenly, the people who work in the backroom of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop don’t want Jack to sell.
Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant. Twitter does not and cannot make money. Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.
There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.
What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.
Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.
Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.
♦ 2021,Public-Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazen they have made public admissions.
The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.
Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):
[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”
Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.
Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.
When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data-mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.
The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.
The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.
Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.
What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.
July 26, 2021, (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.
Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.
The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)
The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.
After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.
The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created, and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.
[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)
One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”
Rep. Jordan: ‘The First Amendment Is Not a Threat to Democracy, It’s What Preserves Democracy’
By Susan Jones | April 15, 2022
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has launched a hostile takeover bid for Twitter for the sake of free speech and “civilization” itself, he said. (Photo by PATRICK PLEUL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) – The possibility that Twitter might become a true free-speech zone sent panic through liberal enclaves on Thursday, after billionaire Elon Musk offered to buy the company for $54.20 a share.
“I think it’s very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech,” Musk said, insisting that his cash offer was his best and last offer.
Many conservatives are rooting for Musk, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) who told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, “The first amendment is not a threat to democracy, it’s what preserves democracy.” Jordan said he hopes Musk’s takeover bid will succeed, but he also doubts it will:
“I mean, understand the left’s position today,” Jordan said on Thursday night:
“The left’s position is, if you don’t agree with me, you’re not allowed to speak, and if you try, we are going to call you racist and we’re going to try to cancel you.
“So I don’t think they’ll let this go forward, because if they do, then they can’t suppress the Hunter Biden story; then they can’t kick President Trump off of Twitter; then they can’t throttle back Republicans who are trying to fund-raise on these big tech platforms, who are trying to get out their message.
“They can’t do all the things that they want to do and they’ve been doing, so I don’t think they’ll let it go forward. I hope they do. I hope it’s a victory for free speech.”
Jordan said the leftists are so committed to censorship and undermining the Constitution that they won’t stand for anything that gets in their way.
Even Musk has expressed doubt about whether his offer will be accepted.
Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud, one of Twitter’s largest shareholders, rejected Musk’s bid, tweeting: “I don’t believe that the proposed offer by @elonmusk ($54.20) comes close to the intrinsic value of @Twitter given its growth prospects. Being one of the largest & long-term shareholders of Twitter, @Kingdom_KHC & I reject this offer.”
Musk replied to the Saudi prince, tweeting: “Interesting. Just two questions, if I may. How much of Twitter does the Kingdom own, directly & indirectly? What are the Kingdom’s views on journalistic freedom of speech?”
As Musk indicated, freedom of speech does not flourish in the kingdom.
Hannity asked Jordan what Congress might be able to do about censorship if the Saudi prince is able to block the Twitter sale:
“Look, we’ve got to take away their liability protection at a minimum. We’ve got to pass that. I don’t think Joe Biden will sign it,” Jordan said.
“We’ve got to look at speeding up any type of antitrust action in the court system. We’ve got to have more transparency when they do censor you, throttle you back, we need to know that when it’s happening.
“And we may need, frankly, look at a private cause of action if they’re going to take people down and do things like they did to President Trump and others, so all that needs to happen…The First Amendment is not a threat to democracy, it’s what preserves democracy, and they are directly going at it.”
Jordan noted that for Twitter shareholders, “politics” may be more important than making money. “I think that’s a big issue here as well, so let’s see how this plays out. And I hope it’s successful, because we need all the forums we can have that are devoted to the public square being a place where the First Amendment is protected.”
A federal appeals court has ruled that a state has no right to punish parents who provide care for foster children for their religious beliefs about family, marriage and sex.
The ruling comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled in favor of Michael and Jennifer Lasche of New Jersey.
The state’s children welfare agency had removed the couple’s foster child and suspended their license after interrogating the couple, demanding details about their religious beliefs about human sexuality.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which worked on the couple’s case, said the opinion now will allow them to right to care for foster children without being required to hide their faith.
“The appellate court also affirmed, based on allegations in the complaint, that taking away the Lasches’ foster license simply because they shared their religious beliefs with a foster child violates constitutionally protected freedoms,” the ADF reported.
“The government cannot punish the Lasches—or any other American—simply because it disagrees with their religious views,” said Michael P. Laffey, an attorney allied with the organization.
“Michael and Jennifer are wonderful foster parents, and the child entrusted to them thrived under their loving care. And even though the foster child wanted to be a part of the couple’s religious life, the state sought to punish them for their Christian faith. We are pleased to see the 3rd Circuit affirm that they can continue fighting for their fundamental right to exercise their religious beliefs.”
The couple had sued the state after officials suspended their license and took custody of the child living with them. The state’s actions followed interrogations by officials about the Lasches’ beliefs.
The case ended up at the appeals court after a district judge dismissed the complaint.
“The Constitution protects Michael and Jennifer’s freedom to peacefully live out their religious beliefs in every area of life, including in the wonderful service they are providing as foster parents to children in need,” pointed out lawyer Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse.
The couple had served as foster parents for more than a decade and had hoped to adopt their foster child when the state Division of Child Protection and Permanency attacked their faith.
The court ruling said, “The First Amendment secures the ‘freedom to believe and [the] freedom to act.’ Consistent with that protection, the Lasches allege two forms of constitutionally protected activity—one involving religious belief, and the other, action inspired by religious belief. With respect to belief, the Lasches identify their religious opposition to same-sex marriage as constitutionally protected. That is correct: the Free Exercise Clause provides an absolute right to hold religious beliefs.”
The ruling also said the couple’s decision to share their beliefs was constitutionally protected conduct.
In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a football coach was prohibited from taking a knee and offering up a silent prayer on the field, after a game, because officials feared his actions could be misinterpreted as an endorsement of religion by the school. The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Kennedy calls on the Supreme Court to better distinguish between what constitutes a perceived endorsement of religion by a school official in violation of the Establishment Clause versus a personal, private expression of faith as protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
Affiliate attorney Christopher F. Moriarty assisted in advancing the First Amendment arguments in the brief.
“Where do First Amendment freedoms end and government censorship begin on the football field? Whether one is taking a knee in silent protest of police brutality or taking a knee in silent prayer, both should be protected by the Constitution,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “For too long, the forces of political correctness have been allowed to distort the spirit and meaning of the First Amendment beyond all recognition, turning the expressive right to freedom of religion into an oppressive act of state-sanctioned censorship.”
In 2008, Joseph Kennedy, a retired Marine and devout Christian, began working as a football coach for Bremerton High School in Washington. After each game, Kennedy took a knee at the 50-yard line and offered up a brief, silent prayer for his players’ safety, what the players accomplished, and the opportunity to be a part of their lives. When some players asked to join Kennedy in taking a knee after the games, he replied, “This is a free country.” The practice continued for years without raising any red flags. However, in September 2015, the superintendent sent Kennedy a letter informing him that any prayer must be physically separate from any student activity and that students could not join him. However, Kennedy persisted in taking a knee in silent prayer after football games and did not prohibit students from joining him if they wished to do so. As the conflict became public, in at least one instance, coaches and players from the opposing team, as well as members of the community, knelt alongside Kennedy on the field. The school district placed Kennedy on administrative leave, with the head coach recommending that he not be rehired due to failing to follow district policy by visibly praying on the field. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the school district’s actions, ruling that they were justified in prohibiting Kennedy from silently praying after games on the field in view of others due to the risk that someone might think the school was endorsing a religion. Weighing in with an amicus brief in Kennedy, The Rutherford Institute has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect individuals’ rights to freedom of speech and religion.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
The disturbing trend of silencing speakers who don’t speak the official narrative is causing angst for Joe and Jane citizen as big tech happily joins in on the censorship. This high tech lynching has recently been expanded to forcibly silencing congressmen and state legislators. This enforced silence does not allow the full range of ideas to be aired in public. This forced silence also violates a foundational principle of our Constitutional Republic and the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Enforced silence is a form of abuse. Abuse is known to cause fear, anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
Attorneys are taught that if you can’t win on the facts, argue the procedures.
Those who don’t have the facts on their side and feel insecure feel they have the right to forcibly silence opposing views.
Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas says that the “function of free speech … is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” In Terminiello v. Chicago, the Supreme Court limits the scope of the “fighting words” doctrine (1)
In what would become one of the most famous passages in First Amendment history, Justice Brennan announced our First Amendment freedoms represented a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” , the Supreme Court In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.(1)
Justice Louis Brandeis writes in his concurring opinion a passage that becomes a fundamental First Amendment principle: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence” in WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA (1)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Arguably, the First Amendment is also most important to the maintenance of our Constitutional Republic.
The first part of the First Amendment reflects the framers’ experience with the long history of religious strife in Europe. They realized that religious discord can be explosive and cause tremendous disruption in politics. It would be doubly so if one religious sect were favored over all others. So, they ensured that federal government cannot interfere in the citizens’ practice of their religion.
The freedoms of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government and seek redress of grievances proclaim that citizens have the right to hold the government accountable. Freedom of speech and press allows citizens to communicate their ideas verbally and in writing, while freedom of assembly lets them publicly express a common interest. The right to petition allows citizens to point out to the government where it did not follow the law, to seek changes, as well as damages for their missteps
“Liberty is to faction – [political parties or movements] what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires,” said James Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution. “But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.” (2)
Robust debate is essential to our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Without robust debate cigarette ads would still air on TV. Without robust debate Doctors would still be recommending certain cigarettes in TV ads. Without robust debate women could not own property. Without robust debate women would not have the right to Vote.
Let’s shut down enforced silence and return to honest robust debates.
Over the past year, school board meetings have become increasingly contentious events, as more and more outraged parents use their constitutionally protected rights to speak out against tyrannical covid mandates and the poisonous, anti-American critical race theory that is being taught to their children.
Instead of listening to the parents who pay their salaries, the woke school boards are responding by lobbying our dictator-in-chief to classify unruly parents who demand accountability as domestic terrorists.
The growing backlash at these meetings has prompted the National School Boards Association to send a letter to Biden on Wednesday that begs him to use federal law enforcement agencies against parents and investigate them for “domestic terrorism and hate crime threats.” They shamelessly claim the situation is so dire that he should use the Patriot Act, among other “enforceable actions” against them.
The NSBA represents every single public school board in the US, which includes over 14,000 districts and 90,000 board members.
“Dear Mr. President: America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) respectfully asks for federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.
Additionally, NSBA requests that such review examine appropriate enforceable actions against these crimes and acts of violence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute, the Conspiracy Against Rights statute, an Executive Order to enforce all applicable federal laws.”
According to the letter that was signed by NSBA president Viola Garcia and CEO Chip Slaven, school boards are already being assisted by local law enforcement in many communities, but the extra security and new policies designed to keep people out of meetings have not stopped parents from just-plain showing up to voice their displeasure.
The NSBA doesn’t want their members to be held accountable for their terrible handling of the educational system; instead, they would rather crush anyone who gets in their way by any means possible. School officials have actually become so frightened of the parents who disagree with their baseless policies that they would be willing to see them tried as criminal terrorists.
It’s sick. These people are unhinged and should have their citizenship revoked if they would be willing to put that evil misnomer on another American citizen for being concerned about their child. Absolutely disgraceful.
In the letter, they implored Biden to take a “proactive” approach by using every Federal Agency at his disposal, specifically asking for the FBI, DOJ, DHS, and the Secret Service to crush what they call “extremist hate organizations” (concerned parents exercising their right to free speech) that have been showing up at meetings.
In other words, the tyrants are begging the dictator to send in the goons to crush the rebellion.
“As the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue.
NSBA specifically solicits the expertise and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and its National Threat Assessment Center, regarding the level of risk to public schoolchildren, educators, board members, and facilities/campuses.”
If homeschooling your kids wasn’t a priority before, it should be now.
The full letter can be found below:
‘Do Not Interrupt My Time!’: Mom Unloads on ‘Pedophilia’ in High School Library
Sept 24, 2021 By Tré Goins-Phillips
A mother in northern Virginia unloaded on her city’s school board Thursday after discovering what she described as books filled with “pedophilia” on the shelves.
When she left a local high school library, Stacey Langton had two books: “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison and “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe. She told the board of Fairfax County Public Schools that, in each book, she found references that “include pedophilia, sex between men and boys” with entries chronicling — in explicit detail — sexual encounters between underage boys and adult males.
“Pornography is offensive to all people,” said Langton after she was interrupted by school board members chiding her for reading highly explicit sentences from the two books. “It is offensive to common decency.”
As her time drew to a close, board members told Langton she needed to censor herself because “there are children in the audience here.”
“Do not interrupt my time!” she replied. “I will stand here until my time is restored and my time is finished. These books are in stock and available in the libraries of Robinson, Langley, and Annandale High Schools.”
Earlier in her comments, the protective mother asserted the books’ placement in the high school libraries was “not an oversight” but was intentional.
Langton explained she decided to check the library to which her child has access after hearing about a Texas mother who rebuked board members in the Lake Travis Independent School District in Austin for allowing similarly explicit books in its middle school library.
In response, the Lake Travis ISD pulled the book and plans to review it, KXAN-TV reported.
Karl Frisch, the first openly LGBTQ person elected to a local office in Fairfax, made fun of Langton, describing her comments as “exorcisms.”
Communist Takeover Of America & The World! Here’s Why I Say That…
A Pennsylvania school overstepped its constitutional bounds when it punished a cheerleader for a profanity-laden social media post, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a decision released Wednesday, the high court ruled 8-1 that a former student named Brandi Levy was wrongfully kicked off her squad by a coach for posting a profanity-laced Snapchat message voicing her frustration with not making the varsity squad.
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the majority opinion, upholding a lower court ruling in favor of the student and concluding that “the school’s disciplinary action violated the First Amendment.”
While noting that there are times when schools can regulate student behavior that is off-campus, Breyer nevertheless concluded that “the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus.”
“Putting aside the vulgar language, the listener would hear criticism, of the team, the team’s coaches, and the school—in a word or two, criticism of the rules of a community of which B. L. forms a part,” wrote Breyer.
“This criticism did not involve features that would place it outside the First Amendment’s ordinary protection. B. L.’s posts, while crude, did not amount to fighting words.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that, historically, schools have been given broad powers to discipline students, even when they are off-campus.
“A school can regulate speech when it occurs off campus, so long as it has a proximate tendency to harm the school, its faculty or students, or its programs,” wrote Thomas.
“If there is a good constitutional reason to depart from this historical rule, the majority and the parties fail to identify it.”
Levy, identified in the case as “B.L.,” made the Mahanoy Area High School junior varsity cheerleading team as a rising freshman and wanted to make varsity in 2017 as a rising sophomore.
When she failed to do so, she vented her frustrations on Snapchat, going out to an audience of around 250 people, including classmates or fellow cheerleaders.
“[F***] school [f***] softball [f***] cheer [f***] everything,” read her Snapchat message, which was up for 24 hours and had a photo of her and a friend raising their middle fingers.
The message was brought to the attention of her school’s coaches by other students, eventually leading to Levy being kicked off the cheerleading team.
Levy and her parents sued the Mahanoy Area School District accusing school officials of violating their daughter’s First Amendment freedoms by restricting her off-campus speech.
Many groups, including the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, viewed the case as a matter of great importance when it came to the free speech rights of students.
“If you are a student with the dissenting viewpoint at your public school and you say or do something on the weekend that a public school administrator sees via social media and worries might cause a ‘disruption,’ however unreasonably, you risk punishment,” said Creeley.
“Even though this case is about a cheerleader’s profane Snapchat, the implications for student speech rights are far bigger and could reach a great deal of political, religious speech as well as just everyday students.”