Category: Censorship

Leftists at U.S. colleges and universities increasing move to silence all defense of Israel

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/10/leftists-at-u-s-colleges-and-universities-increasing-moves-to-silence-all-defense-of-israel;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Fascists in action.

“College leftists expand the campaign to silence all talk of Zionism and Israel,” by Melanie Notkin, New York Post, October 15, 2022:

On college campuses across the nation, progressive activists have accelerated their efforts to silence and ban any talk of Zionism. Last month, in a campaign initiated by Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP) at Berkeley Law at the University of California Berkeley, nine progressive law groups amended their collective bylaws to exclude speakers that support “Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.” The LSJP claimed it as a win for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. 

Woke ideologues have decided that campus freedom of speech is only for those who agree with them without the possibility for debate. And this particularly impacts Jews — particularly those who are Zionist. How has this happened? Like so much of left-think, this campus debate is pitting the “oppressed” vs. “oppressors.” In this case, “oppressed” Palestinians who must be advocated for and kept safe from their pro-Israel “oppressors.”…

David L. Bernstein, founder and CEO of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV), and author of the new book “Woke Antisemitism: How Progressive Ideology Harms Jews” has studied the ways modern anti-Semitism has been rebranded as anti-Zionism — including on college campuses. “Oppressor v. Oppressed is always the default orientation of the woke left, whose ideologies equate power with depravity, and powerlessness with virtue,” writes Bernstein….

Of course, this being the left, race has also been added into the mix. By classifying Jews as “white” oppressors, Bernstein argues, progressives seek to erase the history of discrimination and anti-Semitism Jews have endured for centuries. And this effort is clearly working. In a national poll commissioned by Bernstein’s JILV of likely voters released this week, nearly half (45%) view Israel as an “occupier/colonizer” and 47 percent believe Israel has too much power.

The exile of Zionism from campus life is hardly limited to Berkeley Law. In August, Jewish on Campus, a national pro-Jewish student-led organization along with the Brandeis Center for Human Rights, filed a civil rights complaint after Jewish students were kicked out of a rape survivor support group at SUNY New Paltz because of their Zionist beliefs. More recently, a University of Vermont teaching assistant proudly posted on social media that she would be lowering the grades of “Zionist students.” The US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has since opened an investigation….

Meanwhile, just this week, Jewish students at George Washington University in Washington, DC were met with flyers posted around campus that read: “Zionists Fuck Off.” And later, anti-Israel protesters gathered outside the campus’ GW Hillel where a former IDF intelligence officer was scheduled to speak, calling for Intifadah (Arabic for “uprising”) and shouting “Israel is a terrorist state,” and “GW Hillel, you have blood on your hands.”…

California Passes COVID Policy Law Silencing Doctors

BY CAROLYN HENDLER, JD

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/10/california-passes-covid-policy-law-silencing-doctors/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

A new law in California will punish doctors if they give their patients information related to COVID-19 that does not conform to “contemporary scientific consensus” and can be deemed “misinformation” or “disinformation” by the California Medical Board or California Osteopathic Board.  Assembly Bill 2098 was sponsored by State Senator Richard Pan, a pediatrician, and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2022. It is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2023, and allows doctors to be charged with unprofessional conduct and put on probation of no less than five years or be suspended and lose their medical license.1 2 3 4

The California Medical Board and California Osteopath Board will have the authority to investigate and adjudicate claims that a doctor violated the law.5 If a physician is found to have departed from the government-approved “standard of care” policy related to COVID-19,  one of the California medical boards could revoke his or her medical license.6

COVID Standard of Care Policies Have Frequently Changed Over Time

The government, employers, schools, colleges, and universities have often changed their policies on masking and COVID vaccinations over the past three years, which demonstrates that the government’s position on COVID-19 facts and policies changes and what is considered “standard of care” may be true one day but not be true the next. Even so, doctors in California who dissent from the government’s official positions on COVID-19 prevention and treatment could lose their careers for using their best professional judgement in caring for their patients.7

Highlighting that the bill is another attempt to eliminate free speech, lawyer Jonathan Turley said:

The problem is they are targeting the very people that we want to feel free to express concerns and doubts. These are the people that we need to be part of the debate, and they are chilling that debate.8

This new law effectively maintains that the current government-backed “contemporary scientific consensus” is the only medical advice that a doctor should be allowed to share with their patients about the ever-evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus, whether or not that “scientific consensus” evolves over time or current government policy is considered by a doctor to place a patient at risk because, for example, it is contraindicated by the individual’s medical history.9

Even staunch supporters of the COVID shots and mask-wearing have expressed concern with this new law censoring doctors’ private conversations with and treatment of their patients. Eric Widera, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco warned:

… the standard of care has changed a lot in 2½ years… What was misinformation one day is the current scientific thinking another day.10

Newsom Signs Assembly Bill 2098 Into Law Claiming It is “Narrowly Tailored”

On Sept. 30, Gov. Newsom signed the bill into law stating:

Assembly Bill 2098 provides that the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19 by physicians and surgeons to a patient under their direct care constitutes unprofessional conduct.11

Gov. Newsom defended his actions claiming that the bill was…

narrowly tailored to apply only to those egregious instances in which a licensee is acting with malicious intent or clearly deviating from the required standard of care while interacting directly with a patient under their care.12

The governor’s opinion is not supported by the language of the bill itself. There is nothing in the bill to suggest that it is “narrowly tailored” and only applies to “those egregious instances in which a licensee is acting with malicious intent” as Gov. Newsom suggests.13

The bill sets forth…

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.14

The words “egregious instances” or “malicious intent” cited by Gov. Newsom are not mentioned anywhere in the text of the law. Perhaps that is because it is egregious to assume that a doctor, who shares a professional opinion about what would be in a patient’s best interest based on the individual’s medical history, is doing that with “malicious intent.”

Apparently, the California Medical Board plans to decide on a case-by-case basis what constitutes inappropriate professional behavior that requires punishment after receiving a complaint that a physician has disseminated “misinformation” or “disinformation” related to COVID-19 to a patient.15

According to California Medical Board spokesman Carlos Villatoro, when a complaint is received, the Board…

uses physicians who are experts in their field to review the individual facts and circumstances involved in the situation under investigation, and opine on the appropriate standard of care that should have been followed at that time. No two cases are the same, and the Board would make this determination based on the facts and circumstances of the given case.16

Since decisions will be made by California medical licensing boards based on facts and circumstances at the time of the complaint, doctors may unwittingly put their license on the line when they treat patients using their best professional judgment.17

Dr. Pan said that he proposed the bill to stop doctors like Simone Gold, MD, who founded America’s Frontline Doctors during the pandemic and formerly practiced in Beverly Hills, from providing patients with what he termed “misinformation” about COVID-19. Dr. Pan led the effort to remove the personal belief vaccine exemption from California public health laws in 2015 and, in describing this law, ominously said:

When someone blatantly provides misinformation, totally inaccurate information—especially with intention—that harms patients. That takes away the patient’s ability to make appropriate decisions.18

Dr. Pan’s statement raises two serious issues. First, it appears that he believes patients should only be allowed to receive COVID information and make “appropriate decisions” about their health care if he and the California Medical Board are the arbitrators of what constitutes an “appropriate decision.” In addition, the law does not speak about intention. If intention is not a component of the law, how can the California Medical Board infer or take a physician’s intention into consideration when doling out punishment?

Physician Critics of the New Law Speak Out

Jay Bhattacharya, MD, epidemiologist, and professor of Health Policy at Stanford University Medical School wrote an article warning:

The language of the bill itself is intentionally vague about what constitutes “misinformation,” which makes it even more damaging. Doctors, fearing loss of their livelihoods, will need to hew closely to the government line on Covid science and policy, even if that line does not track the scientific evidence… What is abundantly clear is that this bill represents a chilling interference with the practice of medicine. The bill itself is full of misinformation and a demonstration of what a disaster it would be to have the legislature dictate the practice of medicine.19

Dr. Bhattacharya points out that doctors have an obligation to treat their patients according to their individual needs and health history. This law contradicts that principle by requiring doctors to act as agents of the state, who are only allowed to repeat what some characterize as “scientific consensus” but others may characterize as government-backed propaganda.20

Legally, doctors owe a duty of care to their patients. This duty of care extends to warning and advising patients of the benefits, risks, and side effects of taking a medication or biological and allowing the patient to make an informed, voluntary decision about whether or not to take the risk, which supports the informed consent principle.21

When doctors are prevented from informing patients about the inherent risks of taking a novel vaccine or a drug that could potentially cause harm based on an individual’s health history, or a doctor is too afraid to say anything at all out of fear of being prosecuted for professional misconduct and losing the right to practice, it seems doubtful that this new law will protect doctors with a valid defense in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Liberal activist Leana Wen, MD wrote in a Washington Post column:

While well-intentioned, this legislation will have a chilling effect on medical practice, with widespread repercussions that could paradoxically worsen patient care… The problem is that medical practice is rarely black and white. Much of the time, broad recommendations are intended to be tailored to the individual patient… Indeed, another lesson from covid is that science is constantly evolving. In a public health emergency, official guidance often lags cutting-edge research. Consider how long it took the CDC to acknowledge that the coronavirus is airborne. Should doctors have been censured for recommending N95 masks before they were accepted as an effective method for reducing virus transmission?

Kevin Kiley a California Assembly member predicted the courts will not allow the new law to stand and tweeted:

On Friday Newsom took a sledgehammer to the First Amendment by signing the medical censorship bill. The courts will strike down AB 2098 in short order.22

Lawsuit Already Filed in US District Court by Two Physicians

Two California doctors, Mark McDonald, a psychiatrist, and Jeff Barke, a primary care physician have already filed the first lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asking for the law to be revoked. The doctors are represented by Liberty Justice Center and claim that the new law must be struck down because it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A motion seeking a preliminary injunction has also been filed.23

Daniel Suhr, managing attorney at Liberty Justice Center, explained:

We rely on our doctors to give us their best medical advice, yet the State of California is stopping doctors from doing just that. That’s not just wrong, it’s unconstitutional. Doctors enjoy the same free speech rights as other Americans. The State of California cannot define a so-called scientific consensus on an issue and then punish anyone who dares challenge it.24

It is difficult to believe that the law will survive constitutional challenges and leaves open the bigger question: how could a bill that is overtly vague and unconstitutional on its face have been signed into law in the first place?

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

1 Purtil C. Doctors fear California law aimed at COVID-19 misinformation could do more harm than good. MSN Oct. 6, 2022.
2 Johnson R, Kory P. California Gov. Newsom must not declare war on doctors over so-called medical ‘misinformation’. Fox News Sept. 26, 2022.
3 Sacca P. Gavin Newsom signs bill making it easier to punish California doctors who spread COVID ‘misinformation,’ top epidemiologist warns: ‘Chilling interference with the practice of medicine’. The Blaze Oct. 2, 2022.
4 Ibid.
5 Purtil C. Doctors fear California law aimed at COVID-19 misinformation could do more harm than good. MSN Oct. 6, 2022.
6 Johnson R., Kory P. California Gov. Newsom must not declare war on doctors over so-called medical ‘misinformation’. Fox News Sept. 26, 2022.
7 Halon Y. California’s new bill that punishes doctors for COVID ‘misinformation’ is ‘chilling’ and ‘dangerous:’ Turley. MSN Oct. 3, 2022.
8 Ibid.
9 Johnson R, Kory P. California Gov. Newsom must not declare war on doctors over so-called medical ‘misinformation’. Fox News Sept. 26, 2022.
10 Purtil C. Doctors fear California law aimed at COVID-19 misinformation could do more harm than good. MSN Oct. 6, 2022.
11 Sacca P. Gavin Newsom signs bill making it easier to punish California doctors who spread COVID ‘misinformation,’ top epidemiologist warns: ‘Chilling interference with the practice of medicine’. The Blaze Oct. 2, 2022.
12 Newsom G. Statement to Members of the California State Assembly on the signing of Assembly Bill 2098 (Professional misconduct by physicians and surgeons in the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation to patients under their direct care related to COVID-19). State of California Office of the Governor. Sept. 30, 2022.
13 California Assembly Bill 2098
14 Ibid.
15 Purtil C. Doctors fear California law aimed at COVID-19 misinformation could do more harm than good. MSN Oct. 6, 2022.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Bhattacharya J. A Warning From Shanghai. Common Sense Apr. 12, 2022.
20 Ibid.
21 Nolo. A Doctor’s Legal Duty of Care Explained. All Law.
22 Sacca P. Gavin Newsom signs bill making it easier to punish California doctors who spread COVID ‘misinformation,’ top epidemiologist warns: ‘Chilling interference with the practice of medicine’. The Blaze Oct. 2, 2022.
23 Mark Mcdonald, Jeff Barke v. Kristina D. Lawson. Case 8:22-cv-01805 Document 1.
24 Doctors File Federal Lawsuit to Stop California Medical Censorship Law. Liberty Justice Center October 2022.

There’s a Public School Child Sexual Abuse Epidemic No One Is Talking About

BY MATT MARGOLIS

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/10/17/theres-a-public-school-child-sexual-abuse-epidemic-no-one-is-talking-about-n1637660;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Did you think Drag Queen Story Hours, transgender closets, and porn in school libraries were where sexually grooming kids ended in the public school system? Guess again. There is a widespread epidemic that has not gotten enough attention, and that’s the shocking number of public educators who have been arrested for child sex-related crimes this year.

Nearly 270 public educators have been arrested for child sex-related crimes in the first nine months of the year. These crimes have been against students of all ages, including anything from simple grooming to statutory rape.

According to Fox News Digital, one public school educator has been arrested every day this year. This includes four principals, two assistant principals, 226 teachers, 20 TAs, and 17 substitute teachers. The majority of the arrests (75%) were for alleged crimes committed against students. Roughly 80% of those detained were men.

Related: ‘Gays Against Groomers’ Organizes to Join Parents in the Fight Against Sexual Grooming in Schools

As disturbing as this is, the number of children whom public school officials and teachers have victimized is likely much higher, as the above numbers only represent those where an arrest has been made.

“The number of teachers arrested for child sex abuse is just the tip of the iceberg — much as it was for the Catholic Church prior to widespread exposure and investigation in the early 2000s,” Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital. “The best available academic research, published by the Department of Education, suggests that nearly 10% of public school students suffer from physical abuse between kindergarten and twelfth grade.”

“According to that research, the scale of sexual abuse in the public schools is nearly 100 times greater than that of the Catholic Church,” Rufo added. “The question for critics who seek to downplay the extent of public-school sexual abuse is this: How many arrests need to happen before you consider it a problem? How many children need to be sexually abused by teachers before you consider it a crisis?”

Bank Allegedly Closes Religious-freedom Group’s Account and Demands Donor List to Reinstate It

BY MICHAEL TENNANT

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/bank-allegedly-closes-religious-freedom-groups-account-and-demands-donor-list-to-reinstate-it/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

JPMorgan Chase Bank recently closed the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) without explanation, then offered to reinstate the account if the nonprofit would provide it with lists of its donors and endorsed political candidates, claims NCRF chairman Sam Brownback.

NCRF exists to protect religious freedom “by providing a critically needed political response to the ongoing attacks, in law and culture, on America’s First Freedom,” Brownback, former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, said in a January press release announcing the group’s formation.

Needing a place to store the NCRF’s funds, Brownback and the organization’s executive director “went into a Chase branch in the District of Columbia to open an account, no problem,” Brownback told Fox Business. “Then, several weeks later, I went to put another deposit in the account, and they said, ‘Your account has been canceled, we’ll be sending your money back to you.’”

In a September 27 letter to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Brownback wrote that the NCRF also received a letter “notifying us that Chase had decided to ‘end their relationship’ with the [NCRF] and that our account would be closed.”

According to Brownback, when the NCRF’s executive director called the bank about the matter, “the people said the decision was made at the corporate level, it’s secret, we’re not going to tell you why, and it’s irrevocable.”

“We were just stunned.”

The sudden, unexplained closure of the account was bad enough, but the story gets worse, at least in Brownback’s telling. In his letter, the NCRF chairman alleged that “someone from Chase eventually reached out to our Executive Director and informed him that Chase would be willing to reconsider doing business with the NCRF if we would provide our donor list, a list of political candidates we intended to support, and a full explanation of the criteria by which we would endorse and support those candidates.”

“Does Chase ask every customer what politicians they support and why before deciding whether or not to accept them as a customer?” he continued. “Are the same standards and scrutiny applied across the board to all non-profit organizations?”

Chase, for its part, isn’t commenting on the reason for the account’s closure. A spokesperson did, however, assure Fox Business that “we have never and would never exit a client relationship due to their political or religious affiliation.”

Brownback isn’t so sure. Although he wouldn’t speculate on Chase’s reasons for shuttering the NCRF’s account, he told Fox Business that he’s learned of similar things happening to other organizations, most of them conservative.

“We’ve just heard of way too many groups and entities, particularly religious-associated ones, that have been canceled by their providers,” he said. “And we want to start seeing some of these cases investigated.”

Indeed, Big Tech, Big Finance (including JPMorgan Chase), and Big Medicine have all been pushing for the cancellation — or even the prosecution — of dissenters from the “woke” zeitgeist. It would hardly come as a shock to learn that Chase did so in the case of the NCRF.

“I’ve done this work [on religious freedom] internationally for a long time,” Brownback told Fox Business. “Then I come back into the U.S., and I’m seeing this growing level of exclusion of people of faith, of putting them on the outside, and it really concerns me.”

“Any ground you lose on religious freedom here gets magnified around the world because everybody watches what we do,” he averred.

Brownback put Dimon on notice that his experience with Chase has led the NCRF to launch a project “to identify other organizations which have faced similar treatment on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The group has already begun the campaign with the hashtag #ChasedAway. They also plan to petition state attorneys general to get involved, Brownback told Fox Business.

Noting that Dimon recently told the Senate Banking Committee that “freedom of religion” was one of America’s “core values,” Brownback asked him, “Do you, and the bank you lead, truly respect religious freedom as a core value that binds all Americans? The recent actions of Chase Bank would seem to suggest otherwise.”

Dimon has not yet replied to Brownback’s letter, the former ambassador said.

Dan Ball WITH Tina Ramirez: UNHINGED ‘Journalist’ Calls CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES On Mom Over Columbus Day, 10/12/22

Journalist Calls CPS on Virginia Senate Candidate for Teaching Daughter About Christopher Columbus

Hundreds of Muslims Shut Down School Board Meeting Over LGBTQ+ Book Controversy

BY MEGAN FOX

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/culture/megan-fox/2022/10/13/watch-hundreds-of-muslims-shut-down-school-board-meeting-over-lgbtq-book-controversy-n1636713;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

This is the fight I’ve been waiting for. Let’s be totally honest. The only religious people the left is truly scared to offend are Muslims. Criticizing Muslims is completely off the table according to the left’s rules of engagement, so if Muslims are upset about something, the amount of twisting, back-bending, and acrobatics the left will perform in order not to offend them will be something to see.

So when hundreds of Muslim parents, upset at gay porn in the school libraries, showed up to a school board meeting in Dearborn, Mich., and it devolved into shouting and chaos with board members running away and gay protesters being chased to their cars, the fallout was absolutely hilarious. The headline in the Detroit Free Press after the event went haywire was “LGBTQ and Faith Communities Struggle for Unity.” BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Can you imagine what the headline would have been if it were a Baptist church chasing gay protesters to their cars? “Fascist White Supremacist Book Burners Bash Gay Man in Parking Lot,” or “Rabid Religious Zealots Terrorize Gay Man Defending Right to Read,” or something equally terrible. I don’t know about you, but I’m enjoying this disaster.

Enjoy this thread and all the videos in it. I know I did.

I’ll be going over this hysterical story on today’s live stream. I’m covering the Darrell Brooks trial (if I can get through it and more). Meet me there! 

PayPal Stock Plummets After Telling Users It Will Fine Them for “Misinformation”~PayPal Did NOT Back Down, STILL Threatens $2,500 Fines for Promoting ‘Hate’ and ‘Intolerance’

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/10/10/paypal-did-not-back-down-still-threatens-2500-fines-for-promoting-hate-and-intolerance-n1635846

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The story was shocking: As PJM’s Rick Moran stated Saturday, “The financial services company PayPal announced a controversial policy to deduct up to $2,500 from the accounts of users who spread ‘misinformation.’” But as the news of this astonishing plan circulated far and wide, PayPal experienced a swift backlash in the form of a blizzard of account cancellations, and quickly backed down, claiming that the announcement went out “in error” and adding: “PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy.” That’s terrific, or would be if it weren’t for the fact that PayPal’s current Acceptable Use Policy still threatens $2,500 fines per infraction for promoting “hate” and “intolerance” — language the Left regularly uses to characterize (and demonize) speech that is critical of its insane policies.

Eugene Volokh pointed out Sunday that PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy, which was last updated on Sept. 20, 2021, warns the unfortunate PayPal user that “you must adhere to the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy,” or else: “Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s) as outlined in the User Agreement (see ‘Restricted Activities and Holds’ section of the PayPal User Agreement).”

Click on that “Restricted Activities and Holds” section, and you’ll find a long list of “you must nots,” including the expected prohibitions of fraud, selling counterfeit goods, and the like. But included on the list of things you must not do is “Provide false, inaccurate or misleading information.” False, inaccurate, or misleading in the eyes of whom? Why, of PayPal’s Leftist hall monitors, of course, and no one else, including the person PayPal accuses: “If we believe that you’ve engaged in any of these activities, we may take a number of actions to protect PayPal, its customers and others at any time in our sole discretion.” No one else’s. You’ll have no appeal, no recourse, and no opportunity to present your side of the story.

And among the “Prohibited Activities” listed on the Acceptable Use Policy page, you’ll find forbidden “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that are discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime.” No problem, eh? You have never engaged in or ever plan to engage in any promotion of hatred, violence, or intolerance, so you’re in the clear, right? Wrong. Leftists routinely accuse patriots of promoting hate: Wanting a secure southern border is promoting hate. Not wanting to see our schools become platforms for genuinely hateful and false race grievance propaganda is promoting hate. Disagreeing with the Leftist dogma that Islam is a religion of peace is promoting hate. Not believing that Jan. 6 was an insurrection or that Donald Trump is a traitorous Russian puppet is promoting hate.

Related: [UPDATED] Could PayPal Policy Allow Them to Deduct Up to $2,500 From Your Account for Spreading ‘Misinformation’?

And so what PayPal’s still-in-force Acceptable Use Policy is saying is that at PayPal’s sole discretion, it can decide to start fining wrong thinkers and taking thousands of dollars from your account for the sole reason that you don’t toe the Left’s political line. PayPal backed down on fining you for spreading “misinformation,” but few people seem to have noticed at all that it still threatens to fine you for “hate” and “intolerance.” Don’t like drag queens sexualizing primary school children? If a PayPal wonk decides that’s “intolerance,” you could be out $2,500, and remember, that’s just for one infraction alone. If you dare to express your dissent more than once, you could be into PayPal for tens of thousands of dollars.

Can they do this? Will they do this? That depends on who wins the game of judicial roulette. Will a case challenging this get heard by a judge appointed by Obama or Biden, or by one whom Trump appointed? PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy is one indication of why Leftists are so avid to pack the Supreme Court and so incandescently enraged with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Give the Left a Supreme Court majority, and the ruling will come that PayPal is a private company that need not be bound by First Amendment considerations, and is free to put political pressure on its users however it may wish to do so.

It’s certainly time to ditch PayPal. But make no mistake: PayPal is not alone in this. They’re just out front on it. Before too long, every one of the social media giants and financial services will have similar policies, unless there comes to be such a change in the American customer base that these massive corporations see that woke fascism simply isn’t profitable for them, as tens of thousands of people, or more, stop using their services. That part is up to us.

 

Is This America? Jan. 6 Prisoners Ask for Transfer to Gitmo~When a U.S. administration treats Taliban prisoners better than American citizens.

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/is-this-america-jan-6-prisoners-ask-for-transfer-to-gitmo/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Since Jan. 20, 2021, America has gone swiftly from being a free republic to being an authoritarian regime in which foes of the rulers are locked up and subjected to conditions that are designed to destroy them and deter others from emulating them. Based on the false claim that the Jan. 6 entry into the Capitol constituted an “insurrection” aimed at nothing less than overthrowing the government, the Biden regime, chiefly Attorney General Merrick Garland, is working to criminalize legitimate political opposition to the Democrats’ far-Left agenda. In his infamous Sept. 1 speech before an ominous red-and-black backdrop and two Marines, Biden claimed that “MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Those were not mere words. The regime is acting upon them.

The Biden regime has decided to treat the Jan. 6 protesters, who are overwhelmingly patriotic Americans guilty of nothing more than supporting the former president and being concerned about the integrity of the 2020 election, as if they were dangerous enemies of the state. And so in America today, we not only have a Marxist regime that wants to crush all dissent; we have a gulag and political prisoners.

Last Sunday, Gateway Pundit published a letter from 34 of these prisoners to Garland, a rabid partisan and sinister authoritarian who has sicced the FBI on parents protesting the woke agenda at school board meetings, and who is virtually certain to ignore it and allow the inhuman treatment it describes to continue. The prisoners wrote:

When one considers a society that distinguishes itself upon the standards of a “First World Country” allocation among the other numerous Nations around the globe, while informing its citizens that they belong to a country that ensures “Liberty and Justice for All”, it’s difficult to imagine then, that The United States of America, supposedly the wealthiest Nation on the planet, would subjugate its own citizens to that of incarceration and injustice instead, all while administering medieval standards of living to the agonizing occupants of its “Correctional Facilities”.

The prisoners went on to charge that in the District of Columbia Jail, they were “all but slowly murdered in every way except for their very soul being ripped from their famished chests on behalf of this mercilessly sinister institution.” They added that “if this pale dungeon of Human Rights Violations dared to summon any honesty of hard choice pertaining to the abhorrent atrocities that take place behind these unforgiving doors, they should erect a sign above the front gate that says, ‘Abandon All Hope, Yee [sic] Who Enter Here.’”

These Americans, whose most serious crime is trespassing, state that they “have and will continue to endure” a long list of horrors, including “Begging for Help / Water / Medical Aid / Mercy through a 4-inch by 10-inch window of cold metal doors”; “No Visitations”; “No Religious Services”; “No Attorney Access”; and “Mail delayed 3-4 months prior to delivery.” Their laundry is returned “with brown stains, pubic hair, and or reeking of ripe urine.” They have found worms in their salads at mealtime, and the food is so poor that many are now suffering from a variety of ailments. In their cells, they endure black mold, cockroaches, and mice, and are denied “basic cleaning equipment to sanitize Living Space.” They have been “Stuck in Cells for 9 days without showers.” Medical professionals arrive months after they were requested, or not at all. They’re allowed to use tablets that are filled with “C.R.T. Propaganda”; “Re-Education Propaganda”; and “Racially Biased information.” They are made to endure “Solitary Confinement for 25 ½ hours or more at a time.” They have been “repeatedly Mocked and or Insulted for our skin color or “religious” documentation,” and have been “compared to ‘Beasts’, ‘Dogs’ and ‘Hogs by ‘The Final Call’ Magazine.” Jail staff mock them by wearing “Democrat, Black Lives Matter, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden related attire.” Meanwhile, they are “sent to ‘The Hole’ if we express any political views whatsoever.”

That isn’t even close to all of it; the prisoners even charge with physical and sexual assault by the guards. They accordingly ask Garland: “We hereby request to spend our precious and limited days, should the government continue to insist on holding us captive unconstitutionally as pre-trial detainees, to be transferred and reside at Guantanamo Bay, a detention facility that actually provides nutritional meals, routine sunlight exposure, top-notch medical care, is respectful of religious requirements, has centers for exercise/entertainment for its detainees despite the fact that those residents are malicious terrorists, real members of the Taliban and few are United States Citizens, instead of remaining trapped within the wretched confines of cruel and unusual punishment of the DC Jail.”

This is not grandstanding. The few remaining prisoners at Gitmo are treated far better. Biden’s handlers have a far more positive view of the Taliban than they do of conservative Americans. It is breathtaking that anything of this kind could happen in America, and it’s an indication of how far the Biden regime is from our founding principles. But this treatment will continue: the regime needs its scapegoats, and its bogus “insurrection” narrative, and so these unfairly persecuted people will continue to be made to pay for the crime of being in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.

FDA Withholds Autopsy Results of Those Who Died After COVID Shots

BY MARCO CACERES

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/10/fda-withholds-autopsy-results-of-those-who-died-after-covid-shots/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has refused a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to release the autopsy results of people whose deaths were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after receiving a COVID-19 shot. The FOIA request was submitted by The Epoch Times newspaper.1

“VAERS is a centralized vaccine reaction reporting system that was among the safety provisions secured by parents of DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) vaccine injured children in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986,” explains Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder-and-president-of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). It is jointly operated by the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).2 3

According to The Epoch Times, the FDA declined to release any autopsy reports of VAERS deaths, even redacted copies, citing FOIA section (8) (A) which allows federal agencies to withhold information from the public if an agency “reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption,” with the exemption being “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”1 4

FDA Refusal to Provide Autopsy Info Attributed to Concerns Over Personal Privacy

The FDA reportedly also cited federal law that blocks the release of “personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”1 4

One possible reason for the FDA’s reluctance is that neither officials at the FDA nor at the CDC have found (or at least openly admitted)  a “causal association” between the COVID shots and the post-COVID vaccination deaths reported to VAERS. A study published last year in the journal Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research stated:

These regulatory agencies have not found a causal association, and there is no reason to state that the COVID-19 vaccine causes death. Data from the VAERS and available clinical information (death certificates, autopsies, and medical records) does not establish cause and effect between deaths and reported deaths. Deaths following vaccination equated to deaths caused by vaccines are irresponsible, misleading and scientifically inaccurate.5

To release autopsy reports of people who died after receiving COVID shots might lead to uncomfortable questions about the conclusions reached by FDA and CDC officials and raise the specter of a national re-evaluation and lots of second opinions regarding the safety of the shots.

That does not appear to be a conversation these and other public health officials at the helm of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and, specifically, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), appear anxious to have.

Those responsible for operating these federal agencies, not to mention countless doctors, scientists, and politicians around the country, have staked their reputations on assuring the American public that the COVID shots do not cause harm, much less death. Why indeed would they want to investigate and give space to a conversation by asking legitimate questions and offering dissenting views?

More Deaths After COVID Shots Reported in VAERS Than Any Other Vaccine

It must already be difficult enough having to acknowledge the 16,516 deaths in the U.S. reported to VAERS after COVID vaccinations as of Sept. 14, 2022.1

Still, it is a public conversation that should be allowed to take place. After all, it is no minor thing that, as Fisher notes, “There have been more deaths reported to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccinations than for any other federally recommended vaccine since VAERS became operational in 1990.”2

All of the FDA’s stated concerns about protecting privacy seem rather bogus, as the autopsy results sought through the FOIA request could be released with personal information blacked out. “The personal information could easily be redacted without losing the potential learnings from [the] autopsy,” said Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as an adviser to the FDA.1

Besides, Witczak logically points out:

If someone submits their experience to VAERS they want and expect to have it investigated by the FDA. This includes autopsy reports. Autopsies can be an important part of postmortem analysis and should be done especially with increased deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.1

Why is transparency on this issue such a stumbling block for the FDA?

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

1 Stieber Z. EXCLUSIVE: FDA Withholding Autopsy Results on People Who Died After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines. The Epoch Times Sept. 30, 2022.
2 Fisher BL. More Deaths Reported to VAERS Following COVID-19 Vaccinations Than for Any Other Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction July 11, 2021.
3 TVR Staff. Only One Percent of Vaccine Reactions Reported to VAERS. The Vaccine Reaction Jan. 9, 2022.
4 The United States Department of Justice. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
5 Lamptey E. Post-vaccination COVID-19 deaths: a review of available evidence and recommendations for the global population. Clin Exp Vaccine Res September 2021; 10(3): 264–275.

Could PayPal Policy Allow Them to Deduct Up to $2,500 From Your Account for Spreading ‘Misinformation’?

WRONG THINK? THE ARBITER & MINISTRY OF TRUTH, COMMUNIST-STYLE!

DR. STEVE TURLEY: Woke PayPal May Go BANKRUPT!!!

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/10/08/paypal-policy-will-allow-them-to-deduct-up-to-2500-from-your-account-for-spreading-misinformation-n1635588;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

UPDATE 5:18 p.m.: PayPal says we misunderstood them, and they’re so sorry we got all riled up for no reason.“An AUP [acceptable use policy] notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy,” a PayPal spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused,” the spokesperson added.

This wasn’t a mistake. PayPal issued their revised AUP policy in September that included the stricture against “sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion, (a) are harmful, obscene, harassing, or objectionable, etc.” If nobody had said anything, they would have gone ahead with it.

Original story: 

The financial services company PayPal announced a controversial policy to deduct up to $2,500 from the accounts of users who spread “misinformation.”

Beginning November 3, the company will expand its list of “prohibited activities,” including “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation” or “present a risk to user safety or wellbeing.” Users will also be penalized for “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”

The kicker is, PayPal decides what’s “hate” speech, what’s “misinformation,” and what is “intolerant,” etc. Somehow, I don’t think their notion of “misinformation” would match yours or mine.

It’s apparently very expensive to oppress points of view the company disagrees with.

Daily Wire:

Deliberations will be made at the “sole discretion” of PayPal and may subject the user to “damages” — including the removal of $2,500 “debited directly from your PayPal account.” The company’s user agreement contains a provision in which account holders acknowledge that the figure is “presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages” due to the administrative cost of tracking violations and damage to the company’s reputation.

“Administrative costs” of $2,500 being a “reasonable minimum estimate” of damages? Haven’t these guys ever heard of the “internet”? Here’s a PayPal joke for you: How many PayPal employees does it take to do an internet search for violent language from one user? Answer: Whatever they say it is.

“Under existing law, PayPal has the ability as a private company to implement this type of viewpoint-discriminatory policy,” Aaron Terr, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, explained to The Daily Wire. “Whatever motivation PayPal has for establishing these vague new categories of prohibited expression, they will almost certainly have a severe chilling effect on users’ speech. As is often the case with ill-defined and viewpoint-discriminatory speech codes, those with unpopular or minority viewpoints will likely bear the brunt of these restrictions.”

Platforms such as Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook have formerly censored conservatives and others who subscribe to heterodox positions on controversial social issues, including transgenderism and homosexuality. GoFundMe seized millions in funds raised for trucker protests in Canada earlier this year, while Google recently began suppressing search results for crisis pregnancy centers.

“These kinds of policies are unwise, threaten free speech, and invite legal risk,” Jeremy Tedesco, vice president of corporate engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Wire. “When companies apply policies to restrict the religious speech of their customers, they could run afoul of prohibitions on religious discrimination that exist in many state and federal laws.”

This is why the left is terrified of someone like Elon Musk taking over Twitter. Musk is not a right-winger by any means, but neither is he a radical leftist, as most social media platforms are run by and answerable to. Musk would actually make an effort to be fair — an intolerable situation for those intolerant of other viewpoints.

Make no mistake, conservatives will have their beefs with Musk for suspending and deleting accounts on the right. He is not a free-speech absolutist by any means. But the left will not control him. And that’s what they’re up in arms about.

Professors in Connecticut Reject Parents’ Involvement in Their Children’s Education

Yet another instance of elitism and condescension in academia.

BY JAY BERGMAN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/professors-in-connecticut-reject-parents-involvement-in-their-childrens-education/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Last month an English teacher at Southington High School in Southington, Connecticut distributed to his students materials intended to facilitate “conversations about race, gender, equality, and inclusivity.”  Among the claims students were expected to accept without question is that in America racism is “a systemic issue,” and that while “no individual is personally responsible for what white people have done or for the historical decisions of the American government, you are responsible for whether you are upholding the systems that elevate white people over people of color.”

After the materials became public, and parents in Southington made known their objections to the school board and to the superintendent of schools, 72 faculty at Southern Connecticut State University (SCSU) sent a letter claiming that parents had no business objecting to their children’s education: determining what their education consists of was the sole prerogative of the school system, and any materials Southington students received in its furtherance were intended simply to spur discussions of issues in the public domain, such as “the American historical narrative and whether we are truly an individualistic meritocracy in which freedom and equality reign.”

If debate and discussion had been the objective, the stamp of approval the SCSU faculty provided would be warranted.  But what the English teacher intended – and what the SCSU faculty show they favor by supporting him — is indoctrination, not education.  Amidst the assurances in the SCSU letter that its signers favor a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom is a statement supporting “white privilege” in the curriculum as a means of helping students to “contextualize” literature.  But that would seem to suggest that white privilege in America exists, and that to question its existence is impermissible.

It is not an established fact that America today is systemically racist, favoring whites over people of other races, and that all whites, whether they know it or not, are complicit in this.  If the English teacher and his supporters on the SCSU faculty had merely done a Google Search, they would have come across incisive critiques of these claims; among the most eloquent are those of African-American scholars such as John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, and Thomas Sowell.  Moreover, if they had thought seriously about “systemic racism,” they might have realized how nonsensical it is: surely the ubiquity of Affirmative Action preferences favoring blacks and other “underrepresented” minorities in virtually every institution in America today proves its absence.  In fact, the whole notion flies in the face of simple logic: unless they were idiots or clinically insane, the white racists who supposedly control America would not install and perpetuate something so contrary to their own interests.

But what is most egregious about the SCSU letter is not its confusion of opinion for fact.  Rather, it is its condescending insinuation that since teachers should be autonomous in determining how subjects requiring special knowledge such as science, mathematics, and foreign languages should be taught, they should also be free to impose their own opinions or those of the school system on issues in history and the social sciences, on which people might fairly and legitimately disagree.  The signatories of the SCSU letter seem to consider teachers everywhere, not just in Southington, uniquely privy to The Truth, and anyone who dares to challenge their presumption of omniscience should simply shut their mouths.  To do otherwise, in the overheated language of the SCSU letter, is “to descend down the slippery slope of allowing parents to circumscribe and dictate the nature of public education.”  As if that would be the worst outcome imaginable!

The SCSU faculty who signed the letter are wrong.

No less an authority than the United Nations, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the General Assembly in December 1948, states that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”  The good parents of Southington, and parents everywhere else in America, should reclaim what is perhaps their most essential parental right and obligation, namely to guide the moral education of their children so that as adults they can act as independent and autonomous citizens in a free society, capable of resisting the imposition of any dogma by government, private organizations, school systems, or college faculties.

Jay Bergman is a Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University and serves on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Scholars.

The Berkeley ‘No Free Speech for Jews’ Movement

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/10/the-berkeley-no-free-speech-for-jews-movement;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Kenneth Marcus, who under Trump all too briefly served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Ed, calls the move by nine student affinity groups and organizations at Berkeley’s School of Law to ban Jewish speakers to be “Jewish-Free Zones.”

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

Tellingly, the rationale for this was the familiar one of safe spaces.

“In the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus,” allies of the anti-Israel accepting its antisemitic rationale, “will not invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

Safe spaces have become judenrein spaces. Much as they’ve become conservative-free, as they’ve purged women who believe in their own existence and anyone un-woke. Safety means total ideological tribalism and eliminating those who disagree.

And the free speech movement at Berkeley has become a no-free speech for Jews movement.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who had previously come out against the entire category of restricting ‘hate speech’, has offered criticisms of the move, but if a dozen organizations had effectively banned black speakers from campus by say adding a code stating that they will only accept black speakers who think that slavery was wonderful, the response would be more than criticism.

This kind of thing is a straightforward case of disparate impact. And disparate impact has been used to sue universities, including Berkeley, before. Any restriction that effectively bars Jewish students from participating in a good deal of student life and restricts their career opportunities is an actual apartheid move that should be met with serious legal actions, not mere words.

Those who know history may remember the ‘Ghetto Benches’ that Jewish students in Polish universities were subjected to before the Holocaust. Nationalist student groups demanded that Jewish students be banished to ‘ghetto benches’. When the administration didn’t give in, they rioted and assaulted Jewish students. Eventually, the administrations gave in and ghetto benches became widespread. A few courageous faculty members refused to go along, but most did. It was a preview of the Holocaust which would have as its epicenter not long thereafter the mass murder of Jews in Polish death camps.

History repeats itself.

AOC, Omar, Tlaib Largely Mum On Iranian Women’s Struggle

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/robert-spencer/2022/10/02/as-women-in-iran-are-shot-down-while-fighting-for-their-rights-the-squad-has-little-to-say-n1633915;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

What’s happening in Iran is the biggest women’s rights protest ever in the Islamic world. Yet the response from some of the leading feminists in the United States, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, has been strikingly muted. Each one has made what can be characterized at best as a tepid, pro forma response, one that contrasts sharply with their statements and actions during the Trump administration. It looks as if each one of these women regards Donald Trump as a far greater threat to women than the Islamic Republic of Iran is.

AOC tweeted on September 23: “Solidarity with the courageous women and allies in Iran protesting for their freedom. Mahsa Amini was senselessly murdered by the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over. The right to choose belongs to us all, from hijabs to reproductive care.” She also retweeted a tweet from Yassmin Abdel-Magid, a hijab-wearing Muslim writer in Australia: “To be (hijabi) or not be (hijabi) is the business of no state or man. Solidarity with women resisting patriarchal control, the world over.” Tlaib, meanwhile, retweeted AOC’s statement, and Omar retweeted Abdel-Magid’s. That’s it in terms of the public reactions of this trio to the uprising for women’s rights in Iran.

Neither AOC nor Abdel-Magid was going to come close to saying something about Islamic law, although that’s exactly what the protests in Iran are all about: women there don’t want to live under Islamic law anymore. But both are far too committed to the fictional concept of “Islamophobia,” and so they both made it all about patriarchy. That’s a much safer target for them, as patriarchy exists all over, not just in Iran, and not just among Muslims. So the very publicly practicing Muslims Omar and Tlaib could retweet their statements without fearing that they would be accused of criticizing Islam.

AOC also went further, equating the mullahs of Tehran with the pro-lifers in the United States. They’re “the same patriarchal and autocratic forces repressing women the world over,” daring to interfere with “the right to choose” in the fields of both “hijabs” and “reproductive care.” It’s a spectacular feat of illogic to equate a regime that is mowing down its own people in the streets with a Supreme Court decision that allows the individual states to determine whether to legalize or outlaw abortion, but that sort of incendiary rhetoric is how AOC keeps her rabid Left base ginned up with the requisite outrage that will drive these drug-addled slackers to the polls and to take other “social action.”

Related: No Matter What Happens in Iran, the Women Have Already Won

Yet AOC’s comparison, as you would expect, falls apart upon a moment’s thought. Pro-lifers, or at least the Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, are just like the Supreme Leader and his cohorts in the Islamic Republic. They’re both “patriarchal and autocratic forces,” you see. But from what ideological wellsprings does Iran’s patriarchal autocracy spring? AOC doesn’t dare get close to that question, for it is one of her most cherished dogmas that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism and Muslims are victims of “Islamophobia” who must accordingly be given special consideration and accommodation. And allowing restrictions on access to abortion in some localities is, as far as AOC is concerned, equivalent to shooting women to death for daring to uncover their heads? The mind reels.

This is the same Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who in October 2020 took umbrage at then-President Trump referring to her as AOC in one of his debates with Old Joe Biden. “I wonder,” she wrote at the time, “if Republicans understand how much they advertise their disrespect of women in debates when they consistently call women members of Congress by nicknames or first names while using titles & last names when referring to men of = stature. Women notice. It conveys a lot. AOC is a name given to me by [the] community & the people. Y’all can call me AOC.”

So the “community & the people,” i.e., Leftists, can call her AOC, but if Republicans do so, they “advertise their disrespect of women.” AOC didn’t even say that the mullahs were displaying any “disrespect of women.” You may recall Tlaib, meanwhile, back in 2016 screaming and yelling at a Trump rally until she had to be escorted out. Has she ever gotten so enraged and emotional at the mullahs? Not publicly and likely not privately, either. For her part, Ilhan Omar claimed that Trump’s criticism of her was an attack on all women. Has she said that the murder of Mahsa Amini was an attack on all women? No.

Do Omar, Tlaib, and AOC just want the Iran protests to go away because Iran’s repressive and bloodthirsty regime interferes with their “Islamophobia” narrative? Sure looks like it.

New York Times: We Should Criminalize Speech Like Germany

BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/09/new-york-times-we-should-criminalize-speech-like-germany;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The New York Times has been running an extended crusade for some years now to dispense with freedom of speech. It’s run op-eds arguing that speech is violence, that the First Amendment has been misunderstood… and that we should be more like Germany.

The story starts with this incident:

When the police pounded the door before dawn at a home in northwest Germany, a bleary-eyed young man in his boxer shorts answered. The officers asked for his father, who was at work.

They told him that his 51-year-old father was accused of violating laws against online hate speech, insults and misinformation. He had shared an image on Facebook with an inflammatory statement about immigration falsely attributed to a German politician. “Just because someone rapes, robs or is a serious criminal is not a reason for deportation,” the fake remark said.

The police then scoured the home for about 30 minutes, seizing a laptop and tablet as evidence, prosecutors said.

It’s hard to imagine a worse test case for censorship. But the New York Times decided to lead with someone sharing a sarcastic quote on Facebook mocking pro-migrant politicians.

Clearly, the Times would like to see this in America.

Hate speech, extremism, misogyny and misinformation are well-known byproducts of the internet. But the people behind the most toxic online behavior typically avoid any personal major real-world consequences. Most Western democracies like the United States have avoided policing the internet because of free speech rights, leaving a sea of slurs, targeted harassment and tweets telling public figures they’d be better off dead. At most, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter remove a post or suspend their account.

But over the past several years, Germany has forged another path, criminally prosecuting people for online hate speech.

Germany is known for forging another path. That said, most European countries will prosecute some kinds of speech and none have free speech. The police can come to your door in the UK and any number of European countries. Germany does this on a larger scale.

In doing so, they have flipped inside out what, to American ears, it means to protect free speech. The authorities in Germany argue that they are encouraging and defending free speech by providing a space where people can share opinions without fear of being attacked or abused.

This is the same “Censorship is Freedom” argument being used by Google, Facebook, and the Left.

What’s really telling are the examples in the article.

And it was that post that eventually led to the raid of that 51-year-old father’s house in northwest Germany. The father, whose name was not shared by authorities because of Germany’s strict privacy laws, is still under investigation in Lower Saxony as police examine the contents of his devices. Even if he did not know the comment attributed to Ms. Bause was fake, he still faces punishment because “the accused bears the risk of spreading a false quote without checking it,” prosecutors said.

So basically penalizing opponents of a leftist politician.

Swen Weiland, a software developer turned internet hate speech investigator, is in charge of unmasking people behind anonymous accounts. He hunts for clues about where a person lives and works, and connections to friends and family. After an unknown Twitter user compared Covid restrictions to the Holocaust, he used an online registry of licensed architects to help identify the culprit as a middle-aged woman.

“I try to find out what they do in their normal life,” Mr. Weiland said. “If I find where they live or their relatives then I can get the real person. The internet does not forget.”

It’s safe to say that woman was not a fan of the Nazis.

Last year, Christian Endt, a journalist in Berlin whose coverage of Covid drew a steady stream of insults online, reached a breaking point. After an anonymous Twitter user had called him “stupid” and mentally ill, he embarked on a mission to see if he could get the person prosecuted.

The person’s account did not include a real name, but it had a photo on the profile page. That allowed Mr. Endt to perform an image search to see where else on the internet the image could be found. It led him to a LinkedIn page of a small-business owner. From there, he found the individual’s company website, phone number and home address.

Mr. Endt compiled his finding in a memo and sent it to the local district attorney. In December, the case landed with the online hate unit in Lower Saxony, where the culprit lived. After reviewing the evidence, they sent the man a fine worth about €1,000.

Again, criticism of government COVID policies.

Last year, Andy Grote, a city senator responsible for public safety and the police in Hamburg, broke the local social distancing rules — which he was in charge of enforcing — by hosting a small election party in a downtown bar.

After Mr. Grote later made remarks admonishing others for hosting parties during the pandemic, a Twitter user wrote: “Du bist so 1 Pimmel” (“You are such a penis”).

Three months later, six police officers raided the house of the man who had posted the insult, looking for his electronic devices. The incident caused an uproar.

None of the incidents profiled involved any kind of Nazi association. This is about the government suppressing its own political opposition under the guise of fighting hate speech. The complaints seem to largely involve politicians, activists, and media figures.

It’s not hard to see why the media in this country thinks we should be more like Germany.

Ted Cruz strangely throws support behind left-wing legislation that will allow media, big tech to form censorship cartels

Image: Ted Cruz strangely throws support behind left-wing legislation that will allow media, big tech to form censorship cartels

BY J.D. HEYES

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-09-27-ted-cruz-strangely-throws-support-behind-left-wing-legislation.html;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) For some strange reason, ‘conservative’ Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is acting a lot like a left-wing Democrat these days when it comes to supporting a piece of legislation the vast majority of Republican senators want no part of.

Last week as it appeared that the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) was dead, Cruz stepped in and helped rescue it, even commending its authors.

“Let me commend the authors of this bill for the hard work they put in on an important issue,” said Cruz, who then claimed that the bill is a blow against the corporate power of Big Tech when really, it only deepens the already corrupt relationship between the ‘mainstream’ media and the tech giants.

Breitbart News reported:

The core of the bill, as is now widely known, is to allow media companies to form a legal cartel in the U.S., for the sole purpose of pressuring tech companies for special favors.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill today, Cruz said he worked closely with the lead Democrat sponsor of the bill, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (R-MN) to get his amendment through. Thanks to Cruz’s efforts, the media bailout bill was voted out of committee and may now face a floor vote.

“I’ve had extensive conversations with Senator Klobuchar, and sat down and heard her concerns, and we worked together on this amendment,” Cruz claimed.

But at a Senate hearing to discuss the legislation, a majority of Cruz’s Republican colleagues spoke out against it, including Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. While he voted in favor of the amendment Cruz offered, he voted against voting the legislation out of committee.

“I am a little bit confused by the sponsors’ support for the amendment,” said Lee. “I applaud anything that restricts censorship by Big Tech, [but] I don’t think it does what the sponsors think it does.

“The bill retains the fundamental flaw of attempting to improve competition by sanctioning the formation of cartels, something that our antitrust laws go out of their way to prohibit,” he added, according to Breitbart News. “Moreover, this bill ends up favoring large conglomerate publishers over smaller, local publishers.”

Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also voted against the legislation.

Other Republicans who opposed to the bill include House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who called it the “antithesis of conservatism.”

“Attempts by big media and Democrats in Congress to collude and monopolize economic models poses a tremendous threat to free speech and a free press,” McCarthy told Breitbart News. “Never before has the opportunity been as open for startup news outlets as it is today. Americans now have more choices to get information and make decisions for their communities and elected leaders.

“That makes Democracy stronger and creates a whole new class of entrepreneurs that will also drive job growth. As we have seen in other industries, disrupters make legacy players uneasy and those legacy players are often willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto their market share and power. This is the antithesis of conservatism and House conservatives will fight for an open and free market — especially one that advances free speech and a free press,” he noted further.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) added in a statement: “The Journalism Competition and Protection Act (JCPA) lets the media form a cartel to negotiate w/ big tech. Conservatives should oppose special treatment for favored industries, and a cartel will lead to more censorship. Republicans should vote NO on the JCPA.”

Sources include:

Breitbart.com

NaturalNews.com

‘CAlifornia AB2098 Passes Senate’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre

Sources:

https://americasfrontlinenews.com/post/medical-persecution-bill-passes-california-senate

https://americasfrontlinenews.com/post/california-poised-to-revoke-licenses-of-doctors-who-disseminate-covid-misinformation-and-disinformation

Untitled design 9

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Dear Patriots –

The AFLDS Legal Team will be providing you with an ongoing round-up of our projects, as well as recent rulings and news in the world of freedom law. The tables have started to turn recently. Here’s a report on recent projects and legal events:

Can’t Miss Resources for Back to School

AFLDS has been at the forefront of fighting for your medical freedom and bodily autonomy since day one. We have updated our resources to support you as you go back into the school year and face ever-changing exemption needs and mandates. Please check out our newest, in-depth policy brief Back to School in 2022 which has fantastic resources and outlines to prepare you and your loved ones as you return to school. We have also been at work updating our downloadable website resources on masks, vaccines, and religious exemptions. Links are in the brief!

California Medical Board

There appears to be no limit to the unethical behavior of The California Medical Board. As you know, its members have attacked our own Dr. Gold simply for speaking out about early treatment options for Covid-19. Free speech must be protected, which is AFLDS is supporting Attorney Richard Jaffe who is suing the California Medical Board on behalf of physicians who are being hunted for free speech. We encourage you to read the latest update on his case. Many medical boards have gone after doctors for Covid “disinformation,” but the California Medical Board has been one of the largest offenders. After some digging, Attorney Jaffe has uncovered how they are able to threaten so many doctors. Check out his full press release here.

Additionally, California’s Assembly Bill 2098 aimed at further targeting doctors' free speech passed the Senate on August 29th, 2022, and is awaiting being signed into law. This bill is dangerous to our freedoms and ability to receive quality, unbiased healthcare. Please read our original press release on this bill here to understand exactly how evil this is.

AFLDS Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Feds for Medical Freedom in Vaccine Mandate Case

America’s Frontline Doctors is proud to support plaintiff’s Fed for Medical Freedom, a group of over 6,000 federal employees challenging the legality of the federal vaccine mandate. See our full press release here. The hearing on this case was held on Tuesday, September 13th at 9am CT. This case is incredibly important to our rights as American Citizens. We will advise you of the ruling as soon as it is available.

Patriotically yours,

The AFLDS Legal Team

Fauci and Friends Must Produce Records of Government-BigTech Censorship Collusion

Fauci and Friends Ordered to Produce Records on Government-Big Tech Collusion to Censor COVID 'Deniers'

BY KEVIN DOWNEY, JR.

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/09/07/fauci-and-friends-ordered-to-produce-records-on-government-big-tech-collusion-to-censor-covid-deniers-n1627429;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Despite a lawsuit filed in May, Anthony Fauci has been reluctant to cough up records he has concerning the U.S. government and Big Tech allegedly conniving to censor social media users who spoke out against the official COVID narrative. So a judge gave wee Fauci a little pat on the back to help him spit them out.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, issued an order to a number of White House officials, including Fauci, Jen Psaki, Karine Jean-Pierre, and the “Big Guy” himself, Gropey Joe Biden. They have been ordered to produce any and all communications regarding Big Tech and government officials colluding to silence those who dared to deny “the science” on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri are suing more than 50 officials and 12 departments of the U.S. government, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Some of those mentioned in the suit have chosen not to play ball.

The feds argued that Fauci shouldn’t have to provide emails between himself and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Judge Doughty decided otherwise. What is Fauci hiding? Perhaps we are about to find out.

Related: House Republicans to Zuckerberg: Let’s Talk

Judge Doughty gave Fauci and Jean-Pierre 21 days to fork over any and all communications regarding the alleged censoring. Fauci was also ordered to answer questions regarding his role as the master-blaster at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

“We know from the previous round of discovery that efforts to censor the speech of those who disagree with the government on covid policy have come from the top,” Jenin Younes, attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance and several of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Americans deserve to know Anthony Fauci’s participation in this enterprise, especially since he has publicly demanded that specific individuals, including two of our clients, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, be censored on social media.”

BUSTED-O-RAMA! The CDC told Facebook that the “COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are effective at protecting people, including children ages 6 months to 4 years, from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and even dying.” However, there is no actual evidence to suggest the Bat-Stew Flu “vaccine” actually protects young kids from “severe illness and death.” Then the CDC and other government employees and agencies worked to delete Facebook users who disagreed with the bogus information.

This is just the latest gut punch for Fauci. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has had his sights set on the Fauchmeister for a long time over allegedly lying about “gain of function” research at the Wuhan lab. The attention-starved hobgoblin has decided to resign from his job in January — just after the Republicans, many of whom are Trump-endorsed “MAGA” Republicans, are expected to trounce the Democrats in the mid-term elections. Paul let Fauci know that he can run but he can’t hide.

Will any of this make a difference? Ask Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo was a media darling during the “pandemic.” He snagged a $5.1 million book deal detailing his “leadership skills” (immediately after he slaughtered almost 15,000 elderly people) and won an Emmy for his frequent TV appearances. Today, he is unemployed, Emmyless, and hiding at a friend’s house on Long Island after resigning over multiple allegations of sexual harassment. If Cuomo can get (figuratively) snuffed, so can Fauci.

If you think watching Fauci get called out from every corner is funny (and it is), you’ll love my friends at “Jokes and a Point.” They make brief, funny videos that’ll make you laugh. Remember, conservatives are way funnier than libs.

 

Leftists Want You to Shut Up About the Disaster They Are Provoking

As they lead us toward an American apocalypse.

BY KURT SCHLICHTER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/09/leftists-want-you-shut-about-disaster-they-are-kurt-schlichter-0/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Here’s something I bet you did not see coming either – Lindsey Graham was actually right about something, in this case when he warned the malicious morons of the left about the terrifying consequences of their desire to eliminate a political opponent by framing him in a jurisdiction that is 95% Democrat and where every juror either is, married to, or having a tacky fling with, a Biden administration Deputy Assistant Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Yam, Potato, and Brian Stelter Affairs.

Lindsey Graham – an Air Force colonel who served his country, unlike the vast majority of the Ukraine flag-waving, freshly-minted patriots of the Twitter left – told Fox News that “there literally will be riots in the street…I worry about the country” if President Donald Trump is indicted on some bull Schiff charge by the fully-fascist minions of President Kiddie Showers. Let’s leave aside that just a few months ago mostly peaceful protests were a moral imperative that even took precedence over COVID lockdowns, a sacrament of the prog establishment ranking just below infanticide. And let’s also leave aside how, suddenly, classified information – in this case, held by the guy who could declassify it on a whim – is now illegal to mishandle again. Let’s just cut to the chase – this is yet another ploy to frame Trump after multiple failed attempts to frame Trump.

We know it.

The people trying to frame him know it.

And the left cheers it.

It is all so unbelievably dangerous. 

This is a conspiracy to knock out one of Grandpa Badfinger’s political opponents, a shameless attempt to keep Americans voting on a candidate the establishment is terrified of that is accompanied by a symphony of caterwauling and croc tears about “Muh Democracy.”

Oh, it’s is about “Muh Democracy,” as in “Their Democracy.”

And the whining about Lindsey Graham pointing out the obvious, that this kind of banana republic shenanigan is destabilizing and threatens to provoke civil conflict, is designed for one purpose. That purpose is to place any discussion about the self-evidently foreseeable consequences of the regime’s litany of oppressions outside the range of permissible debate. Anyone with a glancing acquaintance with history – which excludes all the graduates of our allegedly prestigious universities (Tangent: Tax the endowments!) – understands that you cannot decide that half-the country, those “deplorables,” those “semi-fascists,” those “non-New Yorkers,” must be disenfranchised, then start doing it, and then expect them to just go along with it.

We just saw President Daddyshowers McDroolalot inform us that he’s going to set the F-15s on us uppity AR-packing patriots – right in time for the anniversary of his sorry behind getting chased out of Kabul by a much smaller number of degenerates with ancient AKs. But having him croak out this threat is part and parcel of the plan. Our garbage ruling class hates accountability and consequences for its misrule, so its solution to us pointing out the reality is to try to intimidate us into not speaking the truth about what lies down the road if they keep up doing what they are doing. Bravo Lindsey for telling it like it is despite their girlish moaning.

Pointing out the consequences of the ruling caste’s trek to tyranny is not supporting or endorsing those consequences. It’s the opposite. Lindsey Graham is not cheering on riots. He’s warning them. I had a similar experience with the invertebrate sissies of The Bulwark over my People's Republic series of conservative action novels that warn about America divorcing into red and blue nations (Kelly Turnbull returns in Book VII, INFERNO, October 15, 2022, BTW!). Those simps claimed I was in favor of ripping the country apart even though only an idiot would take that away from the novels, and my new non-fiction book We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America even has a whole chapter on why a national divorce is a terrible idea (and why Father-of the-Year Joe’s ideas about how a civil war might go are as dumb as his ideas about everything else). But their point was to shut me up on behalf of their pinko masters, just like the left wanted to shut Lindsey Graham up, and just like they want to shut you up.

But we won’t shut up. We can’t. Because these idiots, these corrupt morons, are the wrecking country they inherited. Remember, they did not build this country into the greatest nation in human history – they were handed it. And like most trust fund babies, they are unworthy of their inheritance. They are a bunch of marginally cleaner-shaven Hunter Bidens squandering their legacy as they huff hits of ideological meth.

These are bad people, and stupid people, and most of these coddled popinjays have never taken or given a punch. They think that they can preserve their power, position, and prestige by leveraging the wrath of the government to threaten, imprison and even kill their fellow citizens who refuse to comply and that they can use their kept media to inflict social sanctions to keep the normal behavior. But it is an illusion. It can work for a little while, but their undermining of the system is planting the seeds of their own destruction. After all, the institutions operate because of the consent of the governed. In the absence of earned loyalty, people obey only because of inertia, and when it becomes clear to the normals that the game is rigged, the people will stop playing.

Oh, they can arrest some of us and cancel others, but this suppression of dissent is an information operation, not a kinetic one, despite Crusty’s babbling about F-15s. Its effect is solely to sow fear – logistically, they can never arrest (or worse) enough normals to prevail if we simply refuse to be afraid and obey. There are 35,000 FBI agents. There are more normals in just New Hampshire with hunting licenses. 

We are far, far away from the line where violent resistance is justifiable, but every day the garbage elite seems determined to toss away another norm or rule that keeps this kind of catastrophe distant. If you go to a bar and find a big guy just minding his own business drinking a Coors and you push him, then push him again and again, at some point he will take a swing, and out go your lights.

Does our ridiculous elite get this? They grew up in a “use your words” world. They felt the giddy thrill of their catspaws in Antifa and BLM burning down working people’s homes and businesses in 2020, but for them, violence is theory. For a lot of normals – especially the ones who fought these establishment creeps’ disastrous wars over the last two decades – it’s practice.

These clowns ought to thank Lindsey Graham for drenching them with an ice-cold bucket of common sense. But they won’t. They can’t. They are manifestly unfit to rule, and the same stupidity that is risking the consequences Lindsey Graham warned about may well keep them from stopping themselves as they slouch toward an American apocalypse.

Google to ban all smartphone apps that tell the truth about health in latest bid to protect LIES of Big Pharma and the vaccine industry

Image: Google to ban all smartphone apps that tell the truth about health in latest bid to protect LIES of Big Pharma and the vaccine industry

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-09-02-google-bans-apps-misleading-health-claims-censorship.html;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) Google Play, the Android smartphone-based app store, has unveiled sweeping new rules that ban apps deemed to contain or promote “misleading health claims that contradict existing medical consensus, or (that) can cause harm to users.”

Issued on August 31, Google Play’s new “health misinformation” policy is an in-app censorship sweep that targets any and all apps that even so much as question official health policy about vaccines, including the idea that “vaccines can alter one’s DNA.”

Google is also going after apps that advocate for “harmful, unapproved treatments” such as vitamin C, vitamin D, ivermectin, or any number of other remedies that the government has deemed to be “misinformation.” (Related: Google no longer allows any mention of covid vaccines in Google Surveys.)

According to Google, “conversion therapy” is another “harmful health practice” that cannot be advocated for in any apps available on Google Play. One wonders if this means that Bible apps are now forbidden since the Holy Word addresses unnatural homosexual behavior.

Big Tech is the government’s Ministry of Truth

The timing of this new policy change coincides with a major shift in the government's position on things like masking and even vaccinating. Suddenly, the government is no longer pushing these things like it once was, which begs the question: Will Google be able to keep up with accurate censorship?

In 2020, Tony Fauci was insistent that Pfizer’s mRNA (messenger RNA) injection was 90 percent effective against the Fauci Flu, which he called extraordinary. Fast-forward to 2022 and now Deborah Birx is basically admitting that she, Fauci, and others lied about the shots.

The newest claim is that everyone “knew” that Chinese Virus injections were not effective at preventing infection. They all just lied about it to pad the pockets of Big Pharma and complete Operation Warp Speed.

Big Tech, meanwhile, has struggled to get the narrative right at any given time. On one day, social media and tech platforms are having to silence people for saying that the shots are ineffective, while the next the government itself is saying they are ineffective.

Still to this day, Facebook is banning users of notoriety who claims that covid injections might not keep a person safe from infection. YouTube is doing the same thing, even going against World Health Organization (WHO) directives about the shots.

“Even after the consensus changed and some of the censorship rules were quietly dropped, most of the censored posts and channels weren’t reinstated,” reports Reclaim the Net.

“The new health misinformation rules add to Google Play’s extensive set of existing misinformation rules which prohibit apps containing ‘election misinformation’ and ‘misleading’ content. Google Play has already removed thousands of apps under these existing rules.”

In the comment section, someone wrote that the type of censorship in which Google is now engaging “is just beyond insane.”

“Someone REALLY needs to develop a new censorship-free alternative to Google and Apple,” this person added.

Another asked where Google starts and the government ends. It is still unclear, this person added, whether Google is a private company or a government entity in disguise. Either way, Google equals technocratic fascism.

“There’s no virus,” added another. “Just a lab-made spike protein. And a fake test was used to create a scare-scam-demic.”

Someone else chimed in that the so-called “Great Reset” is obviously well underway. The question remains: Will it be successful, or will the tides turn just in the nick of time?

“It is no wonder that Google’s logo has a hidden 666,” wrote another.

The latest news coverage about Big Tech’s relentless fight against truth can be found at Censorship.news.

Sources for this article include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

NaturalNews.com

GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP: Biden White House officials and multiple federal agencies coordinated with FACEBOOK & Big Tech to censor Americans and cover up government crimes

Image: GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP: Biden White House officials and multiple federal agencies coordinated with Big Tech to censor Americans and cover up government crimes

BY LANCE D. JOHNSON

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-09-04-biden-officials-coordinated-with-big-tech-censor-americans.html;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) Not only did the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) coordinate with Mark Zuckerberg to censor reports on Biden family crimes in the leadup to the 2020 election, but the pre-appointed Biden regime also coordinated with Facebook and Twitter to censor individuals who posted about crimes committed by the CDC and Anthony Fauci.

According to newly released internal emails from Facebook and Twitter, the Biden regime coordinated with Big Tech to restrict the speech of individual Americans. This blatant violation of the First Amendment was uncovered by Attorneys General Eric Schmitt (MO) and Jeff Landry (LA). These revelations prove that the Biden regime is a fascist government, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

At least 45 Biden officials worked with Big Tech to silence Americans

More than one federal agency reached out to Facebook and Twitter employees, instructing the social media giants to flag specific information as “misinformation.” This vast censorship enterprise included at least 45 identified federal employees. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the Office of the Surgeon General were all involved. These agencies repeatedly pressured Facebook and Twitter to censor specific topics, and they even directed the platforms to suppress speech using official, government-approved narratives.

“We have already received a number of documents that clearly prove that the federal government has an incestuous relationship with social media companies and clearly coordinate to censor freedom of speech, but we’re not done,” said Schmitt in a joint statement. “The Department of Justice is cowering behind executive privilege and has refused to turn over communications between the highest-ranking Biden Administration officials and social media companies. That’s why, yesterday, we asked the Court to compel the Department of Justice to produce those records. We’re just getting started – stay tuned.”

CDC worked regularly with Facebook to control speech

A CDC official coordinated monthly meetings with Facebook employees to deploy “debunking” strategies. Facebook employees waited for official CDC narratives to be crafted before they went ahead and censored Americans with this “debunking” strategy. These “debunking strategies” were used to protect public health officials who were causing serious harm throughout society (e.g., Anthony Fauci). One White House Official coordinated with Facebook to take down parody accounts that exposed Anthony Fauci.

Instead of working on ways to improve public health, the CDC spent its resources on conducting regular “be on the lookout” calls. CDC employees surveilled social media to find messages that they wanted to censor. Most of the censored speech was speech that held the government accountable for all the fraud, deception, and malice they were causing as part of their covid-19 response.

Twitter was also in on these crimes, and even scheduled meetings with Biden White House officials to identify “vaccine misinformation.” Almost all of this “vaccine misinformation” from a year ago was either proven true at the time or would eventually be proven true. YouTube provided communications about content moderation that was directed by eleven federal officials, including officials with the Census Bureau and the White House.

The U.S. Surgeon General’s office devised a “misinformation health advisory” in July of 2021 and worked with a senior Facebook official to implement its conditions throughout social media. In the email, the Facebook official acknowledged Meta’s compliance with the speech directives. “I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.” That same Facebook official discussed numerous steps to censor freedom of speech with HHS officials.

For more on the feds' collusion with Big Tech, check out Censorship.News.

Sources include:

Zerohedge.com

AGO.MO.gov

The Death of the Disinformation Governance Board

And the Biden administration's continuing dedication to solidifying a Ministry of Truth

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/08/disinformation-governance-board-now-officially-robert-spencer/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

There should have been a victory parade and a nationwide celebration of the freedom of expression, but the great day came with no fanfare at all: the Department of Homeland Security has announced that its sinister little exercise in Orwellianism, the Disinformation Governance Board, as of Wednesday is officially and definitively dead. You may have thought this cynical attempt to criminalize dissent from the Left’s agenda had died long ago, but actually in mid-May the DHS only “paused” the Disinformation Governance Board, and there was every reason to believe that once the controversy had died down and Americans’ attention was elsewhere, it would be revived in some form or another. And make no mistake: that’s still true. It isn’t as if the Biden administration has suddenly discovered a new admiration for the freedom of speech.

The DHS announcement of the demise of the Ministry of Truth contained the seeds for its future revival, for it begins by reminding us of the alleged “threat” that “disinformation” poses to “the homeland,” that is, the embarrassment and irritation that news that isn’t approved by the political and media elites causes to those very same elites when it gets out to a large segment of the public: “The Department welcomes the recommendations of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which has concluded that countering disinformation that threatens the homeland and providing the public with accurate information in response, is critical to fulfilling the Department’s missions. We thank the Subcommittee for its work, which required extensive fact gathering and analysis over a short period of time.”

Right after claiming that “disinformation” is a big threat, the DHS announces that “Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas has terminated the Disinformation Governance Board and rescinded its charter effective today, August 24, 2022.” Well, that’s great, but if disinformation is such a big threat, then why are you deep-sixing your anti-disinformation apparatus, Mr. Secretary? No explanation is included in the announcement, which continues: “With the HSAC recommendations as a guide, the Department will continue to address threat streams that undermine the security of our country consistent with the law while upholding the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of the American people and promoting transparency in our work.”

So what the DHS statement amounts to is an affirmation that America faces a very big threat from “disinformation,” and it’s the government’s job to save us from this “disinformation” by informing us of what is true and what isn’t and presumably to censor the alleged disinformation in some way. But then the statement announces that the board that DHS set up for precisely that purpose is being terminated and then goes on to say that DHS will keep working against alleged threats to “the homeland.” So in three terse paragraphs, we have two declarations that DHS must fight threats, and one statement that a principal means to fight these threats is being terminated.

It would make more sense with the overall thrust of the announcement if the second paragraph had been about establishing the Disinformation Governance Board rather than disbanding it. And that’s just one reason why it’s virtually certain that the Board will be back under some new clumsy Orwellian name and with better PR but unmistakably the same thing as the first Board was: an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech of Americans and to control the public discourse so that only the Left’s perspective gets aired.

In fact, the Board may already be back. Back in June, the Biden administration announced, according to the New York Post, that a new disinformation team headed by none other than Kamala Harris would be focused on “developing programs and policies” that would protect “political figures” from “disinformation,” “abuse” and “harassment.” This disinformation panel includes Mayorkas, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Gestapo chief Merrick Garland and presumably is up and running, albeit with a studiously low profile, so as to avoid the outrage and uncomfortable First Amendment questions that did in the first Board.

Nonetheless, Harris’ panel is also on dangerous ground in terms of the First Amendment, as “abuse” and “harassment,” to say nothing of “disinformation,” are subjective terms. What is to prevent the person who is charged with judging what constitutes them — Harris, evidently — from considering sharp criticism, or even any criticism at all, no matter how accurate or justified, to be abuse or harassment? As the DHS continues to work on ways to counter the “threat” of “disinformation,” will it ever deign to explain to us peasants how it plans to distinguish actual disinformation from genuine disagreement on the facts or how it intends to ensure that its efforts against “disinformation” aren’t just an attempt to silence political disagreement?

No such explanations are likely to be forthcoming. But more efforts to shut down the freedom of speech? They’ll be coming for sure, and quickly.

Facebook Briefly Censors House GOP Members Critical of Biden’s Student Loan Plan

BY LINCOLN BROWN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lincolnbrown/2022/08/25/facebook-briefly-censors-house-gop-members-critical-of-bidens-student-loan-plan-n1624146;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

I recently found an ad on the back of one of the few actual hard-copy magazines I read. It was from Facebook, and it read, “Facebook is taking action to keep its platform safe. We have 40,000 people working on safety and security. That’s more than the size of the FBI.”

Photo by Lincoln Brown

That number may be more than the FBI, but it will be less than half that of the IRS. I don’t know about you, but I certainly sleep better at night knowing that Zuckerberg’s security team is making sure that what we see is carefully curated for our own good, including posts like this one from House Republicans that simply stated: “If you take out a loan, you pay it back. Period.”

Those words were posted on the House Judiciary GOP page on Wednesday. Not only were people unable to share it, but Facebook censored the post stating: “Your post goes against our Community Standards so only you can see it.” At least one person claimed to have gone directly to FB jail for trying to share the post. As of Thursday morning, the post was back up on the page, probably because enough people, particularly members of the House Judiciary GOP, complained.

Some people blamed the FB algorithm for the mistake, and that is probably a safe bet. But you can read, re-read, and even diagram the sentence: “If you take out a loan, you pay it back. Period.” and you won’t find anything inflammatory, revolutionary, or violent about it. Yes, the post is critical of Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, but it is not urging armed insurrection, massive civil disobedience, or even a boycott. If anything, it is pretty vanilla. Biden’s name isn’t even mentioned.

So what triggered the algorithm? An algorithm does not exercise judgment. It does what it is programmed to do, and in the case of the web, an algorithm looks for certain indicators and then executes an action based on those indicators. That is a very basic explanation based on my experience writing content websites for a private business.

So what is the algorithm programmed to see? That of course is up to the person who wrote it. Since there is nothing ostensibly triggering (if you will excuse the term) in the post, is it possible that the algorithm is set to flag anything from Republicans or conservatives for review? And if that is the case, did a member of Zuck’s Army with the requisite man-bun, a bio full of pronouns, and a hefty student loan tab decide to censor the post as a matter of principle, figuring they could get away with it? If so, how many things are never seen simply because no one ever challenges the powers that be?

Granted, Facebook is well on its way to the same graveyard as Myspace, thanks to TikTok and other apps. I once read a comment that Facebook was simply a place where “the olds share conspiracy theories.” That isn’t quite true or fair. There are plenty of other useless and banal things on Facebook besides conspiracy theories. But the people who are writing these algorithms are the ones who benefit from left-wing policies, and the ones who will control the channels of speech.

They are the people at Yale Law School who created so much chaos, including threats that led a panel discussion on finding common ground on free speech to be canceled and the panelists escorted from the room. They are people like Kristen Gonzalez, the winner of the primary for New York’s Senate District 59 who according to the Daily Caller said, “I know we’re saving the speeches for a little later, but today we really prove that socialism wins and we are not going anywhere… We are not going anywhere and we will not stop until we see a socialist slate across this city.”

These are the people who believe that freedom means they have the right to do what they want to do, while you have the right to shut up and condone and pay for it. And if you object, you may be suspended from social media. Or even subjected to the Yale Treatment.

In New Jersey, Parents Who Protest Leftist Agenda at School Board Meetings are ‘Extremist’

The authoritarians are just getting started.

A New Jersey teachers union condemned parents who confront school officials at school board meetings as "extremist" in a new advertisement this week.

The New Jersey chapter of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in America, posted the short ad on YouTube. The ad flips back and forth between colorful photos of teachers with students and black-and-white photos of parents, arguing that the latter are trying to fuse politics with education.

"When extremists start attacking our schools, that’s not who we are," the video says. "People who only want to fight to score political points should take that somewhere else."

Parents fired up over new state sex-ed standards

SEE VIDEO: https://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/film/

AND: https://www.noleftturn.us/

Do You know what They're Teaching your Children Yael Levin with Sebastian Gorka on AMERICA First

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/08/new-jersey-parents-who-protest-leftist-agenda-robert-spencer/;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Public schools even for the youngest children are becoming playgrounds for the woke, featuring drag queens, transgender closets, Critical Race Theory, and more, but if you say a word about it, the National Education Association (NEA) will destroy you. That is the message of a new YouTube ad from the NEA’s New Jersey chapter. According to Fox News Thursday,  “the ad flips back and forth between colorful photos of teachers with students and black-and-white photos of parents, arguing that the latter are trying to fuse politics with education.” Which, of course, the hard-Left, thoroughly politicized NEA itself would never ever do.

The NEA ad declares: “When extremists start attacking our schools, that’s not who we are. People who only want to fight to score political points should take that somewhere else.” Attacking our schools? Are parental mobs storming schools, taking teachers hostage, and destroying every rainbow banner in sight? Are administrations walking to their cars every afternoon in fear that some parental sniper will make it the last walk they’ll ever take? Are angry parents entering classrooms during school hours and ripping the LGBT propaganda out of unwary students’ hands?

None of that is happening, of course, and nothing like it. What the NEA would have us believe is happening was made clear in September 2021, when the National School Boards Association (NSBA) wrote to Old Joe Biden, claiming that “NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety…. 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…. As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

That was bad enough, but even worse, in January 2022, Fox News revealed that “Education Secretary Miguel Cardona solicited the much-criticized letter from the National School Boards Association that compared protesting parents to domestic terrorists,” according to an email exchange it had reviewed. Fox reported that “the email exchange indicates Cardona was more involved with the letter’s creation than previously known. President Biden’s Department of Justice relied on the NSBA letter, which suggested using the Patriot Act against parents, in creating its own memo directing the FBI to mobilize in support of local education officials.”

Yet there was nothing behind all this. PJ Media’s Megan Fox did a deep dive into the supposed “threats” that school board members had allegedly received that justified FBI intervention and came up empty. Fox concluded, “There isn’t one legitimate threat on the NSBA’s list or a situation that wasn’t handled easily by the police. What the NSBA wants to do is crack down on free speech and, stupidly, they attached to their letter every example of parents speaking freely and demanding that the FBI stop it.”

In light of that, Laura Zorc of Building Education for Students Together said of the NEA’s ad: “Defaming parents as ‘extremists’ for standing up for their children is right out of Merrick Garland and Randi Weingarten’s playbook. New Jersey’s parents deserve better than this NJEA (New Jersey Education Association) slander — standing up for your children is not a political point, it is a parent’s responsibility. The NJEA should be ashamed for pretending they care more about children than their parents.”

The “extremist” word is as carefully chosen as it is insidious. Back in 2011, the Obama administration removed all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training and refashioned the nation’s counterterror strategy as “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). CVE materials carefully refrained from making any mention of jihad at all and maintained that “extremists” were found in a wide variety of contexts. While broadly true, this assertion opened the door to the government branding any group as “extremist,” and treating it as terrorist. No one imagined in 2011, however, that it would take only ten years for angry parents at school board meetings to get the label. And make no mistake: they will by no means be the last to get the label. The authoritarians are just getting started.

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 40