Advertisement

Facebook and Twitter should’ve thought twice before they censored the NEW YORK POST’s big story about the revelations on Hunter Biden’s laptop. The POST isn’t taking this lying down.

Editor Sohrab Ahmari is working on an expose about the censorship-related work going on at Facebook right now involving at least half a dozen Chinese nationals –- “machine learning” specialists working in America on H-1B visas –- on a team called (I am not kidding) Hate Speech Engineering.

Ahmari learned from a Facebook insider, a former employee who came forward last week, that this is where those mysterious algorithms are created that automatically suppress speech. Ahmari said on Tucker Carlson’s Tuesday night show that this person was “alarmed” at what Facebook had done to censor the POST and wanted to “shed light on the people who are actually behind the mechanics of how stories get censored on Facebook.”

The Hate Speech team is based mostly in Seattle, he said. Ahmari’s source provided him with a complete directory of those working on this, and that’s when he saw the number of Chinese nationals on the team. The concern, of course, is not that they’re Chinese, but that they’re here on loan from a nation ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, one of the most censorious governments on the planet. What skills did they bring with them to apply at Facebook, and what technology did they learn at Facebook to take back to their own repressive leaders?

Something interesting about the Biden story that Facebook and Twitter worked so hard to suppress: IT INVOLVES CHINA. Specifically, Chinese billionaires and the CCP were allegedly using Hunter Biden’s high-level U.S. government connections to make inroads. Facebook said in a statement that any allegations that these Chinese nationals “have an outsized influence on our broader policies is absurd.”

Okay, but it seems to me that the issue isn’t whether or not they’re influencing Facebook’s “broader policies” or if that influence might be “outsized,” however we might define that. Facebook surely shapes its own policy. The issue is whether Facebook’s policy involves censorship, especially of political speech, and whether the CCP shares those same ends enough to form a kind of partnership. I think in business the word is “synergy.”

The insider told Ahmari that Facebook is looking specifically to snag what they call “borderline content.” That’s not a reference to the dangerous content that needs to be dealt with responsibly, like nutzoid calls for violence and how-to’s for making bombs, but to opinions they don’t share. When you’re searching, they’ll give you the content THEY want you to see and put the “borderline content” way, way down at the very end. And if the engineers can get you to interact with what THEY want you to see, they receive “discretionary bonuses,” according to this insider.

This is not fiction; it’s life in 2020. Here’s another story on the Hate Speech Engineering team.

It’s not just Facebook doing this, of course. Twitter and Google don’t hide their efforts to shape the narrative and suppress speech they don’t like, either. Some good news: it’s taken a while, but as of Tuesday the Department of Justice is suing Google over its use of “anticompetitive tactics.” According to Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, “This is the biggest anti-trust case in a generation, maybe in a century.” He said that after we’ve seen them try to buy the election with all the money they’ve spent on the Biden campaign, this is about standing up to Big Tech and saying they don’t get to run this country. When he saw the title of the case, United States v. Google, he said, “God bless America!”

Can I hear an amen!

Michael Goodwin at the POST has a spectacular editorial on Big Tech and all the anti-Trump media working to pave the way for Biden.

As long as Michael Goodwin is on a roll, I also recommend his editorial from a few days ago on the allegations against the Bidens.

The way we try to tell the story here, and the way Goodwin and the folks at the POST are telling it, is simple, really. This is so transparent –- we see quite plainly what the Bidens have been doing for years, and it’s totally corrupt. That’s why those who are invested in a Biden win –- not to have him as President, of course, just to have him WIN –- have only one hope: that they can keep enough people out of reach of this information until after the election, or at least to lie and spin it enough to delay the inevitable. And that’s where Facebook, Twitter, Google and the rest of Big Tech and Big Media come in.

If you want to see how reporters are expected to slant their questions, Miranda Devine, also from the NEW YORK POST, tells how CBS reporter Bo Erickson was criticized by “journalism” instructor and news editor Steve Holzer after Erickson dared to ask Joe Biden about the emails on Hunter’s laptop. (That was the question that Joe responded to angrily, dismissing the story as a “smear.”) Holzer tweeted: “Bo, this is your News Director. The right question is, ‘What do you think of the report that Rudy Giuliani used Russian disinformation to try to smear your family 19 days before an election?”

Do you see what he did there? He took the emphasis off the real story –- the revelations on Hunter Biden’s laptop –- and turned it to tar Giuliani instead. He also “assumes facts not in evidence” by calling this Russian disinformation. Extra credit for making Biden the victim. If you see how this works and possess this level of skill, you get an A+ and are ready to go to work for CNN.

But...THIS IS NOT CNN...so here’s more on the real story: the emails and what they tell. It doesn’t look good. In these emails (not those on Hunter’s laptop but those obtained by Peter Schweizer), Hunter’s business associate Jason Galanis apparently refers to Joe Biden as the “other currency” they were bringing to the table. Reading between the lines, it seems Hunter’s business associates were simply using him as a “direct pipeline” to his father. Hunter’s own emails suggest that Joe “the big guy” Biden was getting a big cut.

It’s a fascinating read, one that many in the media would like to keep you from seeing. We apologize for all the hate speech.

Today’s Must-Read article is from the New Neo blog, where the anonymous female blogger (a former Democrat-turned-conservative surrounded by liberals in NYC) examines how liberals have become so blinded by groundless Trump hatred that they can no longer see dangerous realities, such as the rising anti-Semitism in their own party.

In particular, she cites a column in the Jewish magazine Tablet by Bari Weiss, whom you’d think might understand where the real danger is, since she was driven out of the New York Times for daring to express non-leftist groupthink-approved thoughts. She recognizes the dangers of the fascistic, anti-Semitic radical left, and that Biden will allow it to gain more power, but she can’t even bring herself to consider the possibility of doing the only thing to stop it: voting for Trump. She describes him in purple prose as an “obscenity” who has “normalized bigotry and cruelty in ways that have crippled American society.” As the blogger notes, she offers no specifics as to how he’s allegedly done that.

She then quotes Weiss describing the attributes of the classic liberal that she fears are being lost in the Democratic Party: “…the belief that everyone is equal because everyone is created in the image of God. The belief in the sacredness of the individual over the group or the tribe. The belief that the rule of law—and equality under that law—is the foundation of a free society. The belief that due process and the presumption of innocence are good and that mob violence is bad. The belief that pluralism is a source of our strength; that tolerance is a reason for pride; and that liberty of thought, faith, and speech are the bedrocks of democracy…”

As the blogger points out, those things aren’t under assault in the Democratic Party; they’ve been dead there for years. What Weiss is describing is a conservative Trump voter, but her visceral hatred for “Orange Man Bad” has blinded her to seeing it.

It’s well worth reading and sharing the whole piece. But if your Trump-hating relatives refuse to read it, you can get the basic idea across by coming to dinner in one of those T-shirts that has Trump’s picture on it with the caption, “In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

Unbiased?

October 21, 2020

Meet the unbiased moderator of this Thursday’s final Presidential debate.

She’s an NBC reporter with long ties to the Democratic Party, who once asked President Trump if he had ever worked for Russia, who quickly deleted her Twitter tweets after being chosen, and who is known for being caught on camera tipping off Hillary Clinton’s spokeswoman about a question she was going to ask. The New York Post quoted a senior White House official as saying that they consider her an activist, not a reporter, and that the press corps views her the same way they would if Nancy Pelosi or AOC walked into the room.

So, pretty much your stand Presidential Debate Commission choice for moderator. The Wall Street Journal has a good diagnosis of what went wrong with the Commission: like so many things, it started out with good intentions, then became a “creature of Washington’s political class,” and now, it’s hopelessly partisan. Their suggestion:

“This year should be its last as the arbiter of debates. If it won’t go away on its own, the next GOP nominee should refuse to cooperate and negotiate the rules and timing of the debates in 2024 with the Democratic nominee.”

I second that. To let them continue picking the moderators would be like a football team letting all the referees for the big game be chosen from the other team’s cheerleading squad.

There are a lot of misleading ads running right now, but one in particular irks me for the artful way in which it misleads viewers into thinking Republicans want to take away their health care. It’s also a great example of a certain genre of reprehensible campaign ads that try to win votes by frightening the vulnerable through slandering the innocent. So I thought I’d examine it more closely to show you the techniques used so you’ll understand how you’re being played, not only by this ad but by the many, many others that are similarly sneaky.

This TV spot is sponsored by a leftwing PAC called Future Forward USA. To play on the viewers’ emotions, it pairs dramatic music with images of worried-looking Americans of various backgrounds. It starts with a narrator telling us that 133 million Americans have pre-existing medical conditions. That’s likely true, but it doesn’t mention that the vast majority do have coverage for them, such as employer-provided policies, Medicare and Medicaid.

The narrator then says, “This Administration and Senate Republicans want to overturn laws requiring insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.” That’s only technically true. They want to overturn one specific bad law (the ACA, or “Obamacare”) that increased consumer costs while providing inferior coverage due to its one-size-fits-all government-mandated nature. It’s mostly gone now, but we need to remove the remaining shards so it can be replaced with something better that helps those who really can’t take care of themselves while using market forces to improve quality and lower prices for everyone else.

I’ve been in Republican politics for decades and can honestly say I’ve never met a single fellow Republican who dreams of taking away health care from people with preexisting conditions. We used to say that the parties mostly agreed on what needed to be done, we just differed on how to accomplish it. Now, if you disagree with the liberal approach (a giant government takeover), it means you want people to get sick and die. No.

Incidentally, I also know zero Republicans who want to take away your grandparents’ Medicare or slash their Social Security and make them eat cat food. I’ve been seeing campaign ads that make those claims since I was a small child. I’m now old enough for Medicare myself, yet after all that time, Medicare is still here and Social Security payments have only increased.

Next, the narrator says, “They’re rushing a lifetime appointment through the Supreme Court to change the law through the courts.” Conservatives don’t believe in “changing laws through the courts.” But they do believe it’s the duty of courts to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Even so, Judge Amy Coney Barrett and President Trump both insist that they have not discussed how she would rule on any future case, including Obamacare. And her appointment is not being “rushed.” The timeline is entirely in keeping with historical precedent.

Next, the narrator tells us, “70% of Americans want to keep protections for pre-existing conditions in place.” I’m surprised it’s not 100%. Again, I know of no one who wants to take health care away from sick people or seize Tiny Tim’s crutch and sell it on eBay. The argument is over how to do it effectively, cost-efficiently and constitutionally, in a way that helps those in need without destroying the system for everyone else.

It ends with an entreaty to call the White House and Senate and tell them to “stop playing games with our health care.” Nobody thinks it’s a game (see above.) It’s a serious issue that is being taken seriously by Republicans. Far more seriously, I might add, than Obamacare was when it was rammed through in the middle of the night and Nancy Pelosi told us they had to pass it first to find out what was in it.

It probably won’t surprise you to learn that the PAC that created this ad is supported by deep-pockets leftwing donors, including about $3 million from the leftist dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund and a million dollars from super-rich former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

This ad particularly incensed me because of its subject matter and misleading nature, but it’s hardly unique. Sadly, it’s one of far too many political ads that are based on the old cynic’s definition of advertising: it’s the art of disconnecting people’s brains long enough to sell them something. Or in this case, of poisoning people’s brains long enough to get them to vote a certain way.

While Project Veritas is exposing the worst-kept secret on the Internet (that Google skews search results left and anti-Trump), the second-worst-kept secret (the leftist, anti-Christian bias at Wikipedia) is also getting an airing.

Wikipedia has decided Christians who support traditional marriage will be banned from serving as volunteer editors or writers of articles. Breitbart reports that this started after leftist editors complained that having a badge on your profile page that says you believe marriage is between a man and woman is “discriminatory.”

Interestingly, this is precisely the response the Supreme Court acknowledged could happen (redefining traditional religious beliefs as "homophobia") and then ignored when they somehow “found” a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. They naively assumed that nobody would try to force people to give up their First Amendment right to practice their religious beliefs. Not since they waded into the question of when life begins in Roe v. Wade has the SCOTUS shown such staggering hubris and foolish lack of foresight.

In banning Christians from writing and editing articles (as the linked article shows, even the entry on Jesus is riddled with negativity and skepticism with no countervailing views), Wikipedia has not only proven, as its own disgusted co-founder recently stated, that its neutrality policy is dead, it’s now allowed the intolerant left to take over. In its quest to avoid “discrimination,” Wikipedia is openly discriminating against Christians. Discriminating Christians should therefore think twice before relying on or financially supporting it.

Google's extreme bias

October 20, 2020

There’s a new Project Veritas undercover expose video that really doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, it just confirms it. In it, a senior manager for Google, Ritesh Lakhkar, says he felt “suffocated” there by the extreme leftist culture, and admits that the search giant exercises God-like, politically partisan control over the information users see. He said if Trump says something you can call misinformation, you delete it; if a Democrat leader does that, you leave it; because “you are just plain and simple trying to play God…You’re like playing selective God.” He says they do the same at Google-owned YouTube.

He admits that if you search for “Donald Trump,” you get all negative stories; and if you search for “Joe Biden,” you get all positive stories, because the results are “skewed by the owners and the drivers of the algorithm.” Those Google workers who create the algorithm are so far-left and anti-Trump that when Trump won in 2016, they were crying in the corridors. HR arranged therapy sessions and they were given time off to deal with their grief. Now, he thinks that if Trump wins again, they’ll riot. He said he’d never seen anything like it: “When I worked for Caterpillar or Corning, politics didn’t really matter. You just do your job and, ‘Let’s make tractors, let’s make glass.’”

See more and the video at the link. As I said, it’s proof of what anyone who spends much time on the Internet looking up news already knows, but it’s good to have plenty of proof when you’re holding Senate hearings and writing new regulations and declaring out of control monopolies to be public utilities.

In the meantime, here are a couple of handy tips for you to get around Google’s extreme bias:

DuckDuckGo.com is an excellent search engine that doesn’t skew results or track your web browsing to invade your privacy like some I could name.

If you must search for a news story on Google, add a trusted sources’ name to your search terms. For instance, type in “Trump income taxes Foxnews.” That way, you’ll see the FoxNews.com write-up of that story. Goodness knows, if you don’t include a conservative source in your search, Google will never show it to you.

Just three days before the final Trump/Biden debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates changed the topics and rules, no doubt to repress questions about Biden’s involvement in lucrative family business ties with foreign adversaries. And these are BIG questions. It appears Biden sold his high office through a family intermediary for boatloads of money.

And no, CNN, there’s no evidence that this story is “Russian disinformation” or that Rudy Giuliani is a “Russian asset.”

No one denies the authenticity of the Hunter Biden emails. Adam Schiff, you are lying AGAIN about "Russia." As Glenn Greenwald says, you lie “the way other people change underwear.”

Nobody invested in a Biden win wants to hear about any of this, and they don’t want anyone else to, either. This rules change was obviously done to shut down the conversation –- just as Twitter and Facebook shut down the NEW YORK POST.

This is important because the debate might be the only chance many will have to hear of these serious allegations against Biden. They sure won’t get it from mainstream news, or from Twitter or Facebook, or late night TV, or their college friends, or any other non-conservative source of news you can name. There's a “lockdown” in place on it, just as surely as if it were a virus, and the truth is feared as much as COVID-19, maybe more.

Even liberal commentators in Britain see this for what it is. Here’s Piers Morgan’s take:

"Just hours after the POST story appeared, Facebook announced it would be limiting its spread on the social media platform while it used independent fact-checkers to verify the paper’s allegations. By taking these unprecedented actions, the tech firms were effectively abandoning any pretense at protecting free speech or the First Amendment.”

"U.S. mainstream and social media companies have reacted to this story in an outrageously partisan and deeply sinister manner that is diametrically opposed to how they would have reacted if the name ‘Biden’ were swapped for ‘Trump,’” Morgan said. “Shame on all of them.” He told the American media to “start doing your job.” He’s right --- if this were Trump, his political career would be DOA.

Until the debate Thursday, Biden’s campaign has “called a lid” on his appearances, purportedly to give him time to prepare. But, as I’ve said, someone who’s spent as much time as Biden has in politics does not need four-plus days to prepare for a debate. He's just hiding so he doesn’t have to answer questions.

Not Trump, though --- ask him anything.

According to the Trump campaign, the so-called “non-partisan” commission had originally decided to make foreign policy the “central focus” of the debate. That would’ve given Trump plenty of opportunity to confront Biden on the seriously corrupt relationships being discovered between the Bidens and Communist China, the Bidens and Ukraine, and more. But the commission rescued Biden; foreign policy is no longer a focus. (Note: the economy isn’t either! Topics include covid, climate change and race. Ugh.)

A Trump spokesperson said, “The commission’s pro-Biden antics have turned the entire debate season into a fiasco, and it is little wonder why the public has lost its faith in objectivity.”

The moderator, of course, was never expected to ask Biden anything about the material on his son’s laptop, which was abandoned at a Delaware computer store in 2019. The change of topics is just extra insurance to discourage it from coming up.

The moderator for the proposed second debate –- which fizzled because the commission rejected Trump’s condition to do it live onstage –- was Democrat and former Biden intern (!) Steve Scully, who was just suspended from C-SPAN after lying about being “hacked” to cover for a tweet he sent about handling debate questions for Biden. We now know that the NBC news moderator for the upcoming debate, Kristen Welker, is partisan, too. On Monday, Sean Hannity showed a Christmas photo of Welker and her father posing with President Obama and the First Lady in 2012. According to the NEW YORK POST, her parents have “deep Democratic ties” and have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrat candidates, including Biden.

Welker deactivated her Twitter account earlier this month after Steve Scully’s unfortunate Twitter escapade.

Can the commission not find ANYBODY to moderate their “debates” who isn’t taking a side (always the Democrat side)? Even Chris Wallace, who moderated the first Trump/Biden debate, had previously demonstrated a marked tendency to interrupt the President constantly while interviewing him, and he did this during the debate as well. Still, he wasn’t nearly as bad as Savannah Guthrie, who set a new record for badness at Trump’s recent townhall.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this about Big Tech on Monday’s INGRAHAM ANGLE: “Last week marked a major threshold --- it’s the first time they’ve directly stepped in and said to the media, ‘We are going to censor you, and if we don’t like what you’re saying, the American people don’t get to hear it, and you don’t get to say it.” And now, by limiting the topics for Thursday’s debate, the Debate Commission is doing the same thing.

Finally, I know I’ve been referencing George Orwell a lot lately, but that’s only because it seems that based on current events, a more prophetic title than “1984” might have been “2020.” (Orwell was so right, just off by a few decades.) Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich tweeted Saturday that a post-Trump commission, similar to South Africa’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” would “erase Trump lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”

Is he serious? If anything should make your blood run cold, this idea of a“post-Trump” administration is it.

Author J. D. Vance told Tucker Carlson on Monday that this would be less about reconciliation than revenge. “This is torn from a page in a George Orwell novel, he said, “because who can protest ‘truth and reconciliation’?” It’s a “really dark threat” that you’ll be punished for trying to implement your ideals and principles.

Twitter, Facebook, Google, mainstream news and culture, the Debate Commission, and untold numbers of political hacks such as Robert Reich assume there’s only one permissible view. Watch the moderator try to mute Trump’s microphone during the debate if he tries to correct a lie or venture off-topic.

Candidate Ronald Reagan, in a 1980 primary debate he’d financed himself, famously said when his mic was cut off by the moderator, “I am PAYING for this microphone!” Though Trump didn’t literally pay for his mic, as in writing a check, I say he’s entitled to the same reaction if they try to cut him off. As the victim of numerous lies and “false narratives” during his presidency, Trump has paid and paid in ways large and small. He has this one chance to set the record straight and ask his opponent whatever he darn well pleases, and I hope he does.

Sen. Ted Cruz has proposed a new Constitutional Amendment to prevent Democrats from trying to seize permanent power by packing the Supreme Court with additional liberal political appointees and turning it into a super-legislature. He calls it the “Keep Nine” Amendment. It simply reads: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.”

Cruz said if Democrats win the election, they will kill the filibuster and expand and pack the SCOTUS with radical liberal activists to entrench their power for generations and destroy the foundations of our democratic system. Supporter Sen. Martha McSally agreed, calling their refusal to confirm or deny that they plan to pack the court “frightening.”

Unfortunately, the Amendment isn’t likely to go anywhere, since it would take a two-thirds majority vote of both the House and Senate and then have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 state legislatures. There are too many Democrats in power to allow that. But ironically, if the Amendment were put to a national vote, chances are it would win by a two-thirds majority. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that only 32% of Americans (just under one third) favor packing the Supreme Court.

But then, if Democrats believed in letting the people have control over their own government, they wouldn’t be so keen to have us ruled by unelected judges who write laws from the bench that they can’t get passed through legislatures.