Exclusive — Mitch McConnell Blocked from Moving Media Cartel Bill JCPA via Hotline

Exclusive — Mitch McConnell Blocked from Moving Media Cartel Bill JCPA via Hotline

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell tried to move through the U.S. Senate a highly controversial plan called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) using a procedure called a “hotline,” Breitbart News has learned.

Before the close of business on Thursday, at least two GOP senators–including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)–objected to the effort and put a hold on the push. To stop a bill from being passed unanimously through the Senate via the “hotline” track, only one senator needs to object. Sources told Breitbart News that more Republican senators are racing to express opposition to the proposal, and they expect more holds to be placed in the coming hours and days ahead.

Jamming through such a controversial piece of legislation with this procedure in a lame duck session of Congress before the new Congress the American people elected in November’s midterm elections takes office on Jan. 3, 2023, would be a massive escalation in an already chaotic process for the JCPA the past two years.

The JCPA would carve out for establishment media outlets an antitrust exemption allowing them to form cartels to collectively bargain with Big Tech companies. Proponents of the plan argue it would even the scales and force the hand of Big Tech by making the tech giants pay media outlets for their content, but critics worry it could make many of the problems facing both industries much worse because of serious structural flaws in the bill.

Earlier this year, when the Senate Judiciary Committee moved to advance the bill, three different committee hearings were upended when an amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) undercut the coalition of GOP and Democrat senators who came together to draft the initial plan. However, Cruz eventually relented and betrayed conservatives by giving the proponents of the JCPA what they wanted and allowing the bill to advance.

The lead sponsors on the bill are Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on the Democrat side and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) on the GOP side. Kennedy’s support for this, and for moving on it during a lame duck session, which makes it even more controversial, could seriously hurt any chances he has at the governor’s mansion in Louisiana in the 2023, as Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has issued a clarion call to Americans to voice opposition to this legislation to their lawmakers. Landry is already running for governor and Kennedy may announce a campaign in the coming weeks or months ahead. If Kennedy runs, he would face Landry and whoever else runs in a jungle primary in November of next year.

Industry lobbyists pushing the JCPA ramped up their efforts last week and this week as this Congress enters its final month, and their hopes of getting this sweeping change to federal policy with regard to media and tech through Congress this year dwindle. The last ditch desperation push from industry insiders is putting heat on members of Congress, trying to get them to back the plan–or at least soften opposition–so they can get their handout through this year.

The pathways proponents might be able to get this structurally flawed legislation through Congress are limited in the final weeks before the new Congress takes over. They include trying to attach it to must-pass legislation like an omnibus spending bill or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)–both of these paths seem less likely though still possible now that several GOP senators have formally expressed opposition to the plan during the hotline process–but also the senate could try to take up and pass the bill on its own as well.

Passing it via a standalone process would be complicated as well as a nasty and convoluted battle, and it would cost the Senate serious time in the final weeks of this year. The decision on whether to embark on such a monumental undertaking rests with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is balancing interests of several other Democrats in the remaining weeks that Democrats have a House majority.

House Democrats are expected to begin consideration of the proposal in the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday, with outgoing chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) taking up the plan for a mark up in committee next week.

Source

Exclusive — Louisiana AG Jeff Landry on Media Cartel Bill JCPA: Americans Can ‘Beat by Calling Their U.S. Senators,’ Saying ‘Do Not Vote for This’

Exclusive — Louisiana AG Jeff Landry on Media Cartel Bill JCPA: Americans Can ‘Beat by Calling Their U.S. Senators,’ Saying ‘Do Not Vote for This’

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued a call to arms in an exclusive Breitbart News interview for Americans throughout Louisiana and across the country to begin burning down the phone lines and demanding their U.S. Senators oppose the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA).

“They beat it by calling their U.S. Senator, irrespective of whether they’re a Democrat or Republican, and saying ‘do not vote for this bill,’ but especially if they’re a Republican because if all the Republicans stuck together they couldn’t beat a filibuster,” Landry said. “They need 60 votes. Let me just add this one thing, think about this: This is a bill, this is Schumer’s bill right? Let me ask you a question: What party rails against big corporations, against monopolies? Who is the party who is allegedly for the little guy? Why in the world are the Democrats for this? If a Democrat is for this bill, a Republican should automatically say ‘no way I ain’t getting on that’ because it’s not good for anybody.”

The JCPA, a highly controversial proposal spearheaded by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and backed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, would hand media organizations a government-provided antitrust exemption to allow them to collectively bargain with Big Tech companies. While proponents argue that the cartels of media outlets the bill would create might stifle Big Tech’s power, critics worry that the bill would exacerbate the problem by empowering establishment media at the expense of more independent and especially conservative voices.

“It’s not surprising. The U.S. Congress won’t do anything with the drug cartels,” Landry told Breitbart News. “Why don’t they just give a couple other people cartels like Big Tech? Everything we’ve been fighting over in this last decade now in watching the rise of Big Tech and seeing the destruction and the manipulation those platforms can inflict on the American people, of course Congress—which is supposed to be our guardians—is going to just let them in and give them more power? This is absolutely a train wreck. No Republican should be on record in supporting this. None. It doesn’t matter who they are. There should not be one Republican U.S. Senator supporting this. In fact, I would argue there should be no U.S. Senator period both on the Republican or the Democrat side. I mean, because, think about where we were—it shows me where we are after a hundred years ago with the rise of the trusts and we had to go through a whole litany of federal laws to break up the monopolies and the trusts back then. Now, here we are and what we’re going to do is create some media cartel? While, think about this, at the same time the U.S. Senate is thinking about giving the media—certain people, certain sections of the media—antitrust exemptions, there are two attorneys general including one who’s getting ready to go into the U.S. Senate who are right now in court showing how the government colluded with social media. Now think about what the government can do when they combine themselves with a media cartel?”

The only way this bill passes Congress in the next few weeks during a last-ditch push by well-funded lobbyists is if Republicans in the U.S. Senate cave again to Democrats. Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are expected to, through Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), mark up the bill next week. From there, it is likely to be considered by the full House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate, meanwhile, has already passed the bill out of the Judiciary Committee after a protracted and nasty standoff produced a compromise earlier this fall. A great betrayal of conservatives by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) paved the way for the panel to clear the proposal, as an amendment by Cruz adopted in the committee after a weeks-long showdown helped the bill move forward. Cruz had originally been opposed to the plan but caved and helped Democrats advance the controversial proposal in committee shortly thereafter. But Cruz’s shocking turn against conservatives is hardly the only surprise move Republicans have made to help the Democrat agenda on this proposal over the past two years.

Landry, who is running for governor of Louisiana in the 2023 election, speaking out so aggressively is significant because in addition to Klobuchar being the lead Democrat sponsor of the bill in the U.S. Senate, the lead GOP sponsor is Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA). Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican whose colorful personality often lands him Fox News airtime, has been for the last two years working with Klobuchar to champion this bill that would in effect create more censorship of conservatives and deepen the establishment media’s already deep ties with Big Tech. Kennedy is reportedly considering his own run for governor of Louisiana—if he runs he would face Landry and anyone else who runs in the November 2023 jungle primary—but pushing this bill in the lame-duck session of Congress could severely harm Kennedy’s political prospects and undercut any hope he has of winning the governor’s mansion in Louisiana.

What’s particularly wild and unorthodox about this current push by industry insiders to salvage this proposal — which would completely upend the media and tech industries — is that they are doing it right after the 2022 midterm elections and before the new Congress takes office in what is called the lame duck session of Congress, where the old, just-ousted members serve for a few more weeks before leaving on Jan. 3, 2023. Proponents of the JCPA have two years to move the proposal and have repeatedly failed, but now in a last-ditch, desperate push, they are trying to jam through the large-scale plan during the lame-duck session. There are several pathways through which they could do it, such as by attaching it to a must-pass bill like the government funding vehicle that will be coming down the pipeline later in September or to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — even though this has nothing to do with defense policy. Or Democrats and their GOP enablers like Cruz and Kennedy could try to pass it on its own out of both the House and Senate. To achieve congressional passage through any of these pathways, though, Democrats would need at least 10 Senate Republicans to vote for the plan—either via a must-pass bill that it is attached to or as a standalone bill—to get past a Senate filibuster.

Landry is warning Republicans in the U.S. Senate to not give in and let the Democrats have this win. Since they had two years to get it done and failed, he argued Republicans should not enable a broken process by advancing this plan during the lame-duck session of Congress.

“Listen, that’s what they do in Congress. I just literally two weeks ago won a case at the Fifth Circuit—two cases—where in the dark of night in the COVID relief package two years ago or three years ago they tucked in a complete takeover of the horse racing industry by the federal government, which we just litigated, with no committee hearings, no debate,” Landry said. “That’s what they do at the end: They stick all these things in these big omnibus bills and short-circuit the normal process. You know why? It’s a telltale sign that it is bad for America and bad for the American citizens. Anytime they do that it’s ‘yup, that’s an automatic bad piece of legislation.’”

Kennedy’s catchy soundbites aside, his decision to side with Democrats here could hurt him big time back home if he decides to run for governor. With Landry’s very public opposition to this controversial proposal, if Kennedy does not back down immediately and withdraw support of the JCPA—and block Democrats’ efforts to jam it through in the lame duck before the incoming House GOP majority elected in the 2022 midterms takes office—this issue would very clearly become a major one in the 2023 governor race in Louisiana should Kennedy decide to run. What’s more, if Kennedy champions the flawed proposal through and it makes it into law, the American public will see by November 2023 just how problematic the JCPA is because by then, its structural issues would become apparent—and Kennedy will have been responsible for decimating conservative media if that’s how it plays out. In other words, while Kennedy may be able to hide behind talking points and platitudes for now, he will not be able to continue to do so if this comes to pass—and he has an off-ramp, blocking his own bill and muddling the process between now and the end of the year so that the new House GOP majority can fix it next year.

Landry, on the other hand, implicitly understands the stakes here and said this legislation would absolutely lead to more censorship of conservatives and represent the “end of the freedom of the press” in America.

“Let me tell you what that is: That bill is the end of the freedom of the press. The problem we got today, I hate to say this, is that Rush Limbaugh is dead,” Landry said. “If Limbaugh was alive, he would be destroying this bill from his microphone. This is exactly the kind of issue that folks like him—and thank God for y’all, okay?—that he would be exposing. Think about it in the context of the freedom of the press. What this bill basically does is it basically says there really is no freedom of the press anymore, it’s just freedom of a group of people who call themselves the press. It’s freedom of the press cartel, right? Who else would have access? Because, again, the virtual marketplace is controlled by the tech giants. Now they’re going to be embedded with the media giants? Really? What’s left for the average citizen to have an honest discussion about what’s going on in the country? That’s what we’re litigating in Louisiana in the censorship. Once you weld government to the monopoly of the media, there is no more freedom because there’s no exchange of ideas.”

Source

Children’s Health Defense Seeks Access to Sworn Depositions in Lawsuit Alleging Feds Colluded with Big Tech to Censor COVID Content

Children’s Health Defense Seeks Access to Sworn Depositions in Lawsuit Alleging Feds Colluded with Big Tech to Censor COVID Content

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and three other organizations are seeking open public access to critical sworn depositions and documents already produced on behalf of plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging the federal government colluded with several Big Tech firms to censor COVID-19-related content on social media.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger on Nov. 17 moved to intervene in the Missouri v. Biden First Amendment case on behalf of the public interest, themselves and their respective organizations: CHD, Mercola.com, The Truth About Vaccines and The Truth About Cancer.

The intervention will allow them — and the public at large — to gain access to specific discovery and depositions — including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Nov. 23 testimony — for use in pending litigation against social media platforms.

Commenting on the motion to intervene, Kennedy said:

“It’s neither beneficial to democracy nor public health that the audio-visual recordings of key depositions describing the secret communications between key government actors and social media executives remain hidden from the American people.

“Social media platforms continue to muzzle dissenters for exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize government policies while the proof of this illegal collaboration with government officials remains sealed.”

Kennedy, Mercola and Charlene and Ty Bollinger are among the 12 individuals singled out by the Center for Countering Digital Hate as belonging to the “Disinformation Dozen” due to content they shared on social media and websites regarding vaccines.

The motion to intervene explains that these free speech advocates and their organizations have been censored and de-platformed by major social media platforms that are working with — and taking orders from — the federal government.

According to the motion:

“These Defendants have colluded with private actors (1) to curb the Applicants’ criticism of government response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and (2) to silence the Applicants’ disfavored facts and opinions concerning a variety of subjects, including Covid-19’s possible lab-leak origin, the comparative benefits of early treatment and natural immunity, and the risks or inefficacy of Covid-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use.”

The materials sought by the groups are expected to capture top-level communications between the federal branch and social media tech executives to censor and suppress a wide swath of online COVID-19 news, criticism of the government’s vaccine mandates and lockdowns and discussion of the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins.

“If the Biden Administration instructed Big Tech to censor Bobby Kennedy, Children’s Health Defense, Mercola and the Bollingers, we need to see what they’ve said, and it must stop,” said CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland. “The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring its critics — full stop. This is what our democracy requires as the bedrock of all other freedoms.”

Missouri and Louisiana on May 5 sued the Biden administration in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging the government colluded with Big Tech firms Twitter, Meta(Facebook’s parent company), Youtube, Instagram and LinkedIn to censor certain viewpoints under the guise of preventing the circulation of “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

District Judge Terry Doughty fast-tracked the case toward a hearing to stop it in its tracks and enjoin the government-directed social media giants’ version of a “Ministry of Truth.”

“We were censored, shadowbanned, de-platformed for sharing stats, facts and scientific data about COVID-19, taken from the government’s own websites — the same facts the current director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fauci and others are now saying are true after two-plus years of denying these facts,” said Charlene Bollinger, founder and CEO of The Truth About Cancer & Vaccines.

Bollinger added:

“We were right all along. We should never have been censored. The world needs to hear our voices in order to make informed decisions about their health. What has happened to RFK Jr., Dr. Mercola, to us, and many others should never have happened.

“Our government has colluded to hide the truth about COVID, and we need the truth to ensure this never happens again. Lives are on the line. Informed consent and real science will save countless lives. It is our mission to reach everyone with the truth to support life.”

Judge Doughty allowed the state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to take depositions of key Biden administration officials, including Fauci, ex-White House press secretary Jen Psaki, White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan.

According to G. Shelly Maturin II, counsel for intervenors, the censorship case is “possibly the most important first amendment case of our lifetime, the outcome of which will determine whether we continue in the Orwellian/Huxley dystopian world” or whether we “take back our God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution.”

The plaintiffs and defendants must reply to the motion to intervene by Dec. 1, and Kennedy, Mercola and the Bollingers must respond by Dec. 8. Judge Doughty is expected to rule quickly thereafter.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from CHD


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

Source

A GOP With Backbone Would Support Elon Musk, Punish Apple, And Fight For Free Speech On Twitter

A GOP With Backbone Would Support Elon Musk, Punish Apple, And Fight For Free Speech On Twitter

Apple’s threat to remove Twitter from its App store for the crime of being a slightly more open forum for free speech under Elon Musk has been met with a chorus of outrage and substantive threats of congressional action by Republican leaders.

Just kidding. Republicans have barely said anything about it, and establishment Republicans have said nothing at all. With the exception of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who offered his opinion on a matter outside his purview as a governor, Apple’s threat to crush Twitter has been met more or less with silence, even from members of the GOP who consider themselves conservative. (Sen. Mike Lee, to his credit, tossed out a tweet saying Apple’s threat makes the case for the Open Apps Markets Act. But he’s the exception to the rule.) And though Apple leaders apparently smoothed over the “misunderstanding” with Musk on Wednesday afternoon, we have all seen this pattern: Big Tech’s anti-speech aggression always turns out to be a “mistake” or “misunderstanding” as soon as enough people notice.

This is why I’ve argued that actual conservatives, those who want to save the country and restore republic self-government, should stop calling themselves conservatives. At this point, the label amounts to an admission of failure and defeat, and might as well be the official title of those who desire above all to be the controlled opposition for a permanent leftist regime. 

The Apple situation perfectly illustrates why conservatives need to swap out their old labels for new ones even as they swap out old ways of thinking about government power for a candid recognition of new realities and new imperatives.

In this case, Apple and its CEO, Tim Cook, are squarely on the side of authoritarianism, here and abroad. They are certainly on the side of communist China, which right now is trying hard to suppress mass protests over the CCP’s draconian “zero Covid” policy. Chinese President Xi Jinping sent tanks into the eastern city of Xuzhou this week — not that you’ll read much coverage about it in the corporate press.

As it happens, China is working to quash protests and suppress free speech with Apple’s help. Earlier this month, news broke that the company eliminated the AirDrop wireless file-sharing on iPhones in China after the feature was used by protesters to coordinate and share information. For their part, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wrote a letter to Cook, branding Apple’s operations in China “unconscionable” and calling on the CEO to work toward halting them; Florida’s Marco Rubio, who is a co-sponsor on the Open Apps Markets Act with Hawley, chimed in with an anodyne tweet; and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, echoed what’s been abundantly clear: “Apple is fully in bed with Communist China.”

Since Apple is an active collaborator with China’s police state, it’s no surprise that Apple is also on the side of an increasingly authoritarian Democrat Party and a Biden administration that seems eager to use Big Tech to suppress online speech. Consider White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s recent comment that the administration is “keeping a close eye” on Twitter and Musk, “monitoring” the social media giant to ensure it suppresses “misinformation” and “hate.” And you know what that means. 

Given all this, it should be easy for Republican leaders like Rep. Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to come out swinging against Apple and in defense of Twitter and Musk, to propose legislation that breaks up tech giants such as Apple and Google, treats them as common carriers, or at the very least requires Apple and Google to make it easier for app developers to connect with customers directly, as the Open Apps Markets bill would do.

But the old conservatism remains so in thrall to free market libertarianism and big business that it cannot even contemplate any of that, which means that it has effectively outlived its usefulness and we should be done with it. The only kind of Republicans we need now are those who recognize not just that the left has captured our institutions but that for at least the last half-century it has been building a tyranny machine in the form of an aggressive administrative state, which is now colluding with the most powerful tech companies in the world to suppress speech, rig elections, and support authoritarianism abroad.

This fusion of the administrative state with Big Tech threatens to replace republican self-government with an unaccountable federal bureaucracy. Indeed, that process is already well underway. Those on the right who repose some hope in the Supreme Court stopping it are being naïve. The court has proven itself unwilling to smash this tyranny machine — and even if it tried, the left has signaled its willingness to pack the court if it feels its revolutionary project is truly under threat.

The task at hand, then, is nothing less than the restoration of republican self-government and the revival of first principles in American civic life. To do that, we need a plan to revive the other two badly atrophied branches of government so they can dismantle the federal bureaucracy or, where necessary and possible, use it as an instrument of renewal.

McCarthy, or whoever ends up as the next Republican speaker of the House, will have such a slender GOP majority that it will be limited to investigating the administrative state and blocking the Biden administration’s legislative agenda. It would be a monumental mistake to pursue any kind of bipartisan cooperation with the Democratic Party on any issue. It would likewise be a mistake to ignore calls to investigate and impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Asked about these things recently, McCarthy betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem, saying, “I think the country wants to heal and … start to see the system that actually works.”

But the system cannot work as long as Garland can use the Justice Department as a political weapon, branding parents who speak out at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” and sending the FBI to raid the homes of anti-abortion activists. The system cannot work when the DOJ is allowed to deploy a geofence dragnet warrant to intercept the communications and location data for thousands of peaceful protesters on Jan. 6, making a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. It cannot work as long as Mayorkas is free to ignore federal immigration law and maintain a de facto open border. And it cannot work if Apple and the White House are allowed to attack Twitter because Elon Musk decided to make it marginally more open to free speech.

There is a war underway for America’s future, and right now only one political party is fighting it. The political and cultural project of the left constitutes a cancer that’s killing our republic and must be cut out. It’s time for Republicans to start talking and acting like they understand that, or step aside and take their place in the ranks of a failed conservative movement. 


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Source

Twitter CEO Elon Musk Says He Will Publicly Reveal Twitter’s “Files on Free Speech,” and Implies Coordination with Government

CTH has not visited the various Twitter stories recently, quite frankly because we are ambivalent to them.  It just seems illogical for Elon Musk to have purchased Twitter without any idea of what was happening inside Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop, the public-private partnership that structures the operations of the social media company known as Twitter.

That said, some interesting developments recently as media rail against the platform and organized ultra-leftist groups demand advertising boycotts.  Apparently, Apple and Android are threatening to remove the Twitter App and Mr. Musk is doubling down on exposing the matrix of how the U.S. government was working with Twitter toward controlling speech that was against their interests.

This tweet about releasing internal “files” on “speech suppression” follow on the heels of Mr. Musk noting that government involvement in the blocking of speech is very troubling.

It’s not a secret that FBI and U.S. Dept of Homeland Security offices were in partnership with Twitter. Much has been written about how DHS collaborated with the platform on the definitions and removals of material adverse to their interests.

When Musk uses the word “files” he is probably referencing a set of guidelines from the U.S. government to Twitter for content enforcement.

We see a lot of shocked faces around this as if people are only just discovering the issue.  The general ‘surprise‘ seems rather weird.

It is worth remembering when Twitter became a tool of the U.S. government.  It was back during the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’, specifically the events in Egypt, when members from the Obama administration first solicited Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) for help.

The U.S. State Dept goal was to use these social media platforms as a way for citizens in Egypt and Libya to organize when the government was trying to put down protests.  President Obama wanted to assist the Muslim Brotherhood achieve the goal of removing Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Khaddaffi respectively.

Twitter and Facebook were instrumental in the organization of the protests which were then compromised by the more extreme political elements of political Islam from within the organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The relationship between the government and social media grew from there.

While the middle east uprisings were essentially the Beta test, everything in the relationship between govt and those companies evolved toward domestic use in the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

Twitter and Facebook began promoting the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” nonsense that was created for national media consumption by the Black Lives Matter group.  … and from that moment the public-private partnership was off to the races.

Fast forward a decade, and yes, now DHS is focused on domestic extremism as the greatest public threat.  Again, controlling speech that runs counter to the interest of government is part of a continuum of the same relationship.

It will be interesting to see what’s in the files.

Source

You Are Being Watched! More Security Cameras Per Capita in the U.S. than in China: Silicon Valley Whistleblower

You Are Being Watched! More Security Cameras Per Capita in the U.S. than in China: Silicon Valley Whistleblower

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Americans today seem to be mostly oblivious and unconcerned that they are being watched, listened to, and recorded every day by the the Big Tech Globalists.

I published an article on this topic earlier this month, and it is one of the least-read articles I have published this month. For some reason, even though most people seem to be aware that they are being tracked by the technology they use, they apparently do not believe it negatively affects them too much.

But I wonder how the people who were in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021, and were subsequently arrested and interrogated for simply being in the area where the Trump rally was taking place, simply because they were carrying a cell phone that tracked their location, which was then obtained from companies like Google, feel about the use of technology that spies on them?

It didn’t matter if you were there for the Trump rally or not, or if you loved or hated Trump, just being in the location and allowing Big Tech to monitor their location via their cell phone, even if the phone was on airplane mode in some cases, was enough to warrant an arrest and interrogation.

A Peek Inside the FBI’s Unprecedented January 6 Geofence Dragnet

Google provided investigators with location data for more than 5,000 devices as part of the federal investigation into the attack on the US Capitol.

The FBI’s biggest-ever investigation included the biggest-ever haul of phones from controversial geofence warrants, court records show. A filing in the case of one of the January 6 suspects, David Rhine, shows that Google initially identified 5,723 devices as being in or near the US Capitol during the riot. Only around 900 people have so far been charged with offenses relating to the siege.

The filing suggests that dozens of phones that were in airplane mode during the riot, or otherwise out of cell service, were caught up in the trawl. Nor could users erase their digital trails later. In fact, 37 people who attempted to delete their location data following the attacks were singled out by the FBI for greater scrutiny.

Geofence search warrants are intended to locate anyone in a given area using digital services. Because Google’s Location History system is both powerful and widely used, the company is served about 10,000 geofence warrants in the US each year. Location History leverages GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals to pinpoint a phone within a few yards. (Full article.)

I wonder how British journalist Thomas Hale feels about technology that spies on him, after he traveled to China and ended up in a COVID-19 quarantine camp against his will for 10 days, not because he tested positive for COVID, but because he was tracked through his cell phone as being close to someone else who tested positive for COVID. See:

Western Journalist Publishes Rare View Inside a China COVID-19 Quarantine Camp

A lawsuit was recently filed against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health for allegedly working with Google to install “spyware” onto the Android devices of a million state residents without their knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Source.)

So the technology used in China to confine people to quarantine camps exists here in the U.S. also. In fact, according to a Silicon Valley whistleblower, there are more security cameras per capita here in the U.S., right NOW, than there are in China!

This is most certainly an important issue that everyone needs to be educated about, and so I highly recommend you spend the time to watch this recent interview with Silicon Valley whistleblower Aman Jabbi who was recently interviewed by Maria Zeee.

I used to earn my living from Big Tech, and have been warning people for years that the biggest threat from Big Tech is NOT technology that is supposedly going to replace humans or breed new “transhumans,” but that the biggest threat was from using artificial intelligence (AI) to be able to monitor huge amounts of data to try and track every single person on the face of the planet.

But having been out of the technology field for many years now, even I learned many things from this interview with Aman Jabbi, who has since moved out of Silicon Valley to live in a remote area of Montana.

Aman’s area of expertise is in camera technology, and watching his presentation introduced me to new concepts I was not previously familiar with, such as geofencing, panopticon, talk pedometers, and LED incapacitators.

If you are not familiar with these terms, as I wasn’t, this video is must viewing. It was published a week ago and already has over 270,000 views at the time I am writing this.

One of the things Aman discussed was the fact that collecting data on children is a “BIG BUSINESS,” and parents are unwittingly supplying this data to Big Tech by using their products, such as the “Talk Pedometer.”

LENA technology is the industry standard for measuring talk with children, which is a critical factor in early brain development. LENA uses a small wearable device — often referred to as a “talk pedometer” — combined with cloud-based software to deliver detailed feedback that helps adults make proven, sustainable increases in interactive talk with children. (Source.)

This obviously opens up more doors for the State and the Child Welfare system to monitor parents and be able to medically kidnap their children if they are not raising their children according to pre-determined standards, as these parents are using devices connected to the Internet in their own home allowing Big Tech to spy on them.

Aman discusses things like “Prodigy Asset Groups” where investments are made on smart children with huge potentials. But there is even more money to be made on children with physical or special needs, by selling drugs and therapies. Parents who do not comply could lose their children to the State.

Another topic Aman covered in his presentation was “LED Capacitators” and “smart light poles.”

The colored LED capacitator that is shown on a light pole in this image above was allegedly sent to him by someone in Canada, and he doesn’t know how widespread they are yet.

But these are weapons, and the fact that these LED light weapons exist is not an area of dispute, as there is even a Wikipedia page about them, and law enforcement agencies are allegedly already using them.

A light emitting diode (LED) incapacitator is a weapon designed like a flashlight. It emits an extremely bright, rapid, and well-focused series of “differently-colored random pulses”. Before human eyes can focus in on one frequency, another frequency comes on, causing intracranial pressure, which results in headache, nausea, vomiting, disorientation, irritability, and visual impairment to the target.

The non-lethal weapon is intended as a means of protection by law enforcement officials such as police and border patrols. The light emitted is capable of rendering opponents temporarily blind so that they can be subdued more easily. (Source.)

Watch the full interview Maria Zeee and Aman Jabbi. I don’t agree with everything Aman says, especially his solutions. I was trying to look this guy up and find out if he had a blog or Substack available to subscribe to, but at the end of the interview when Maria asked how people can get a hold of him, he said via his Facebook page, which I found disconcerting.

Even during the interview he admitted that because they were using Microsoft’s Zoom software, that they were being recorded and it was affecting their social credit scores. And so why did he not recommend an alternative for video conferencing??

He also gives out the location where he lives, so for whatever reason, even though he is aware of what the technology does, he makes no effort to stop them from tracking him, and this is something I definitely disagree with him about, as would probably the people sitting in jail today who were in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021, and the British journalist who was forced to stay at a quarantine camp in China because he was carrying a cell phone.

Related (with some suggested solutions):

Is Big Tech Monitoring and Controlling You?

You can buy sliding cell phone and laptop camera covers like this online.

See Also:

Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through

How to Determine if you are a Disciple of Jesus Christ or Not

Synagogue of Satan: Why It’s Time to Leave the Corporate Christian Church

Is God Calling you to be a “Watchman” to Warn Others of What is Coming?

Does Your Family Believe You are “Out of Your Mind”? You’re in Good Company Because Jesus Faced the Same Thing with His Family

What Happens When a Holy and Righteous God Gets Angry? Lessons from History and the Prophet Jeremiah

Healing without Drugs: Western Culture has Lost its Way

The Most Important Truth about the Coming “New World Order” Almost Nobody is Discussing

Insider Exposes Freemasonry as the World’s Oldest Secret Religion and the Luciferian Plans for The New World Order

Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?

Published on November 28, 2022

Source

Elon Musk Wants Answers About Apple’s Support Of Censorship

Apple suspended most of its advertising on Twitter, according to the blue bird app’s new CEO Elon Musk on Monday. Now, Twitter’s chief is asking questions about Apple’s censorship practices to his more than 119 million followers.

“Apple has mostly stopped advertising on Twitter,” Must wrote. “Do they hate free speech in America?”

LBRY, a publisher that describes itself as the “bitcoin” of publishing, outlined the company’s own experience with Apple censorship in a response to Musk’s post.

“During Covid, Apple demanded our apps filter some search terms from being returned,” the company wrote back. “If we did not filter the terms, our apps would not be allowed in the store.”

The response caught Musk’s attention.

“Who else has Apple censored?” Musk wrote in a quote tweet to amplify the post.

Musk revealed a few minutes later that Apple threatened to suspend Twitter from its app store, “but won’t tell us why.”

Giving Twitter the boot over ambiguous standards would closely resemble the company’s decision to strip Parler, a pre-Musk free speech alternative to Twitter, from the Apple app store last year. Days after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Apple colluded with other tech conglomerates to take Parler offline. Apple and Google barred Parler from being downloaded on their devices while Amazon stripped the platform from its web hosting services.

As nationwide protests broke out in China over the weekend threatening to undermine the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping, Quartz revealed that Apple plugged a crack in the regime’s “Great Firewall” that dissidents exploited to communicate. Apple’s latest iOS update released in November placed new restrictions on “AirDrop,” a file-sharing feature on iPhones that allows users to share files directly from one phone to another (and consequently under the nose of government monitors). The update erased unlimited use for Chinese users only.

“Rather than listing new features, as it often does, the company simply said, ‘This update includes bug fixes and security updates and is recommended for all users,’” Quartz reported. “Hidden in the update was a change that only applies to iPhones sold in mainland China: AirDrop can only be set to receive messages from everyone for 10 minutes, before switching off. There’s no longer a way to keep the ‘everyone’ setting on permanently on Chinese iPhones.”

Apple’s new update to benefit the CCP is neither a recent development nor an isolated incident. According to a report from The New York Times last year, Apple routinely compromises privacy and security practices to appease communist leaders.

“Apple’s compromises have made it nearly impossible for the company to stop the Chinese government from gaining access to the emails, photos, documents, contacts and locations of millions of Chinese residents, according to the security experts and Apple engineers,” the Times reported.

In the United States, Apple remains one of the “Big Four” tech giants with a backdoor hand in censorship. Eliminating Parler from its app store over the company’s refusal to capitulate to demands from Silicon Valley was one example. By picking an apparent fight with fellow tech giant Twitter, whose new CEO has pledged to restore some kind of an open forum on the internet, Apple is showing its censorship regime to be even more brazen.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

Book Review: “Against the Great Reset”

To understand the diabolical nature of the Davos deities, read this book.

This is not the first book to appear in recent times critiquing the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and related matters. Some of these volumes I have already reviewed. But this is the newest and perhaps the best. At nearly 500 pages, the collection of essays found here is first-rate.

The editor has assembled a great lineup of leading intellectual heavyweights, including Douglas Murray, Victor Davis Hanson, Conrad Black, Roger Kimball, Angelo Codevilla, David Goldman and a number of others. All up the book has 16 important essays, plus introductory and concluding pieces by Walsh.

All the key issues are examined here: Covid tyranny, socialism, globalism, economics, politics, China and the social credit system, Big Tech, national sovereignty, the WHO, the WEF, Schwab, Bill Gates, critical theory, green energy, population matters, politicised science, cultural Marxism, climate alarmism, health fascism and so much more.

Against the Great Reset bookIt is good that all the bases are so carefully covered here. Given the rapid pace at which the nefarious agenda items of the Davos elitists are being realised, this book could not be more timely. The plans the activists have for their globalist utopia are not something that lies ahead — all this is already well underway.

Walsh explains early on why such a volume is so very much needed. It will be too late if we wait around for the history books to look back on the Great Reset. The issue NOW is whether “the formerly free world of the Western democracies will succumb to the paternalistic totalitarianism of the oligarchical Resetters.”

False Religion

He is right to speak of how the secular left West is so receptive to all this: “In an age of atheism and disbelief, note the religious fervour of neo- and cultural-Marxism and the messianic quality of Schwab’s anti-humanistic Great Reset.” Quite so. Once you ditch Christianity, plenty of false religions will rush in to take its place.

His closing paragraph nicely informs us of just where we are heading in the Schwabian dystopia:

“The satraps of Davos don’t want to simply reset a post-Covid world. Or a post-fossil fuels world. Or even a post-racial world. They want to run it, forever, and while they no longer have need of a god, they’ll always need an enemy. They may not believe in a power higher than themselves, but they certainly believe in demons, and their most irksome devil is you.”

Others pick up on the quasi-religious nature of all this. As Hanson puts it in his essay, “When ‘great’ is applied to a proposed transnational comprehensive revolution, we should also equate it with near-religious zealotry.” Marxism and radical greenism have both been pseudo-religions, and they come together in the Great Reset.

Absolute Control

He and others of course note how Schwab and Co have capitalised on Covid, and want the whole world under their thumb in order to ‘keep us safe’ from further pandemics, including climate change disasters they assure us are just around the corner.

Many of the writers give us terrific descriptions of who these folks are and what they want. But I especially like how Conrad Black characterises our Davos Divines:

Davos is for democracy, as long as everyone votes for increased public sector authority in pursuit of green egalitarianism and the homogenization of all peoples in a conformist world. …

The Covid-19 pandemic caused Davos Man to break out of his Alpine closet and reveal the secret but suspected plan: the whole world is to become a giant Davos — humorless, style-less, unspontaneous, unrelievedly materialistic, as long as the accumulation and application of capital is directed by the little Alpine gnomes of Davos and their underlings and disciples.

John Tierney carefully looks at how science and medicine were politicised during Covid, and concludes his chapter with this dismal outlook:

The Great Reseters will create jobs for the laptop class and subsidies for crony capitalists while stifling the economic growth that lifts people out of poverty. While promising “environmental justice,” they will burden the poor and the despised middle class with regressive taxes and higher energy costs. Their war on fossil fuels will be devastating to sub-Saharan Africa, where half the homes still lack electricity, but it won’t stop technocrats from flying to Davos for conferences on “climate equity.”

Hmm, did we not pretty much see all of that during the past few years? We will just be getting more of the same. The elites then, as during the past few years, will not feel any ill effects from this. It is us mere peons who will fully face the awful consequences.

Revisionism and Fake Compassion

History of course is under attack here. As Jeremy Black writes:

History’s place at the fore of culture wars is no surprise. The destruction of alternative values, of the sense of continuity, and of anything short of a self-righteous presentist internationalism, is central to the attempt at a “Great Reset”.

Moreover, in a variety of forms, including cultural Marxism and, particularly and very noisily at present, critical race theory, such a “reset” is part of a total assault on the past, one that is explicitly designed to lead the present, and determine the future.

With the assault on history goes an assault on open discussion and free debate. He continues:

“What is possibly most striking is the apparent suspension of any real sense of critique of the new order. Maybe, debate is so beneath you when you possess all truth. Much better just to steamroll people into compliance. Debate is seen as oppressive. Those who hold contrasting views are readily dismissed and shunned…”

Of course, freedom itself is going to be the biggest casualty here. As Walsh says in his concluding piece: “The Great Reset’s gambit is to mask and cloak itself, like an obedient handmaiden, in good intentions while stealing you blind and enslaving you. It positively radiates concern for its billions of fellow men even as it consigns them to indefinite house arrest.”

But on a lighter note, humourist Harry Stein manages to find a ray of hope in all this:

When the Soviets banned typewriters, the good guys produced samizdat by hand and continued on with the business of undermining an empire. We’ve now got podcasts and Substack and the emergence of alternative social-media platforms. We’ve got Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais, and The Babylon Bee. The truth is, we couldn’t be more fortunate in our enemy.

Dissident wise guys looking to bring down the Iron Curtain had only the likes of anabolic women weightlifters and a glowering Leonid Brezhnev as material, but in our current war with the elites we’ve got high school “girl” track stars with balls, a non compos mentis Biden, and largely peaceful demonstrators trashing our history and burning down our cities. Tell me that isn’t funny. Better yet, tell it to Klaus Schwab and his band of anti-merry men. We’re already laughing at them, too!

It should be noted that a wide spectrum of views is found here with the authors. Sure, they all oppose Schwab and the Davos madness big time. But other differences exist. Consider religious convictions: we have Christians and non-Christians writing here. Walsh for example prefers talking in terms of ‘Greek and Roman’ instead of ‘Judeo-Christian’. Contrast that with how James Poulos concludes his helpful chapter on Big Tech.

He says our “technoethical elites” are worried about whether they can “wield powers denied them by God. In this fateful moment, our digital politics is revealed to be a spiritual war. To survive victorious, we must remember: the greatest spiritual weapon against errant human reset is divine revelation.”

In sum, the revolutionaries always want to create a new world order, but always end up destroying man and civilisation in the process. Nothing new here. But the Davos elites have no interest in history. We should, however. If we will not learn from history, the prospect looks very bleak indeed. Hopefully, a volume like this will wake up enough people to take a united and forceful stand against this great globalist evil.

___

Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo: Natalie Behring/Wikimedia Commons

Thank the Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)