Posted on 09/16/2020 1:50:16 PM PDT by Heartlander
The American mind is disorientated. It is in the midst of a regime crisis and the most contentious election in living memory. Which means precisely now is the time when the republican form of government, if it is to survive, requires free political speech directed at the most controversial issues threatening to tear our country apart. But the elites in charge of our largest corporations providing us the platforms we use to communicate are doubling down on politically motivated censorship. They clearly seek to influence the results of the presidential election in 2020 such that the Democrat Party wins.
Will Republicans continue to let them?
At the beginning of September, the affiliated PAC for my organization, American Principles Project (APP), launched a $4 million digital ad campaign highlighting the extremism of Joe Biden on the issue of gender ideology. One of the ads cites Biden’s support for the Equality Act, which would create a new protected class for “gender identity” that supersedes existing legal protections on the basis of biological sex—essentially applying the principles of the Bostock ruling beyond Title VII to all aspects of civil rights law.
This interpretation of the Equality Act is not controversial. The Left openly claims that gender is a self-actualized identity which should indeed supersede biological sex.
Political Ad:Not Fair
Our ad specifically focuses on how the Equality Act would impact Title IX and women’s sports. Give it a listen and you will hear the following:
All female athletes want is a fair shot at competition. At a scholarship. At a title. At victory. But what if that shot was taken away by a competitor who claims to be a girl but was born a boy? Senator Gary Peters and Joe Biden support legislation that would destroy girls’ sports. They call it Equality. Really? That’s not fair. Not fair at all. Vote against Gary Peters and Joe Biden. They’re too extreme for Michigan.
Following our release, two left-wing activist groups—the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD—condemned the ad and called on Facebook to remove it from their platform, labeling it “deceitful” “misinformation.” Media Matters also threw a fit. But rather than trot out the “misinformation” trope, they opted for a different tactic from the well-worn Stalinist playbook: they called our ad “hate speech” and proceeded to lament the fact that it had “earned more than one million impressions in just one week.”
We at APP suspect it was not a coincidence that shortly after the Media Matters tweet, we started hearing from the so-called “fact checkers.” On Tuesday morning, PolitiFact published one of these “fact checks.” In it, the author stated:
[APP PAC’s] specific criticism is that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on the basis of their gender identity would create an uneven playing field for student athletes and ultimately end girls’ and women’s sports. That’s a prediction we can’t fact-check ” (emphasis added).
Unfortunately for the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Media Matters, and all the other activists of our censorious ruling class, PolitiFact wasn’t able to rate the ad as “false” or “mostly false.” In fact, they didn’t rate the ad at all.
So we’re done here, right?
Not So Fast
Oh, no. That’s not how this works. Despite PolitiFact’s inability to identify factual problems with the ad or ways in which it was misleading, Facebook decided to take matters into their own hands. On Tuesday morning, Facebook slapped a warning label on our ad, urging our target audience that the ad wasn’t providing enough context. By Tuesday night, Facebook had removed the ad entirely.
The justification? Previously, Facebook had indicated they would take down ads that failed to pass a fact check from one of their “independent” fact checkers. Obviously APP’s ad passed the fact check, which PolitiFact admits. So Facebook added a brand new category to justify taking down demonstrably truthful political ads like ours: “Missing Context.” This newly invented rating seems to suggest we didn’t do enough to explain our opponent’s point of view. Objectively, of course, that could be said of every single campaign advertisement in the history of American politics. It certainly could be applied to every campaign advertisement being run by Joe Biden this cycle.
Will Facebook take down this ad, where the Biden campaign slams Donald Trump for concerns over mail-in voting but fails to provide the important context that some states, like New Jersey, are planning to send mail-in ballots to every voter on their voter rolls, whether or not they have applied for absentee ballots? Or what about this ad, where Biden accuses Donald Trump of “purposely downplaying” COVID-19 early on in the pandemic, without providing obvious context—that the president was trying to avoid creating a panic, and that he was far from the only one to undersell the virus’s potential to cause havoc?
A fair application of Facebook’s new policy regarding ads “Missing Context” would seem to disqualify both of these Biden ads. When can we expect the mass takedown to happen? Would love to hear from you, Andy Stone.
This is Not a Drill
But let’s get real. We all know that’s not going to happen. Biden’s ads are up. Ours are down. And there’s a reason for that.
This new “Missing Context” label is a way for Facebook to interfere directly in our elections with yet another thin pretense of “objectivity.” The arguments of favored activists and the woke ideology of the ruling class are redefined as needed “context,” toward which political advertisements are forced to bow in order to be deemed truthful.
This wasn’t a fact check. This was an ideology check. Are we to start airing our opponents’ arguments in full in our paid advertising? “The Equality Act would destroy women’s sports—yes—but also, some people say that women can have penises.”
And let’s be honest: there’s a more pressing reason for Facebook to remove our advertisement. The Left was absolutely terrified of it, and for good reason: it was working. As Media Matters pointed out, we were getting millions of impressions. We were targeting key swing voters in Michigan, perhaps the most important state for President Trump to win in November.
But that’s all for naught now. We’ll produce a new ad, and Facebook will reject that one, too. Maybe Politifact can write it for us. But then, of course, the goalposts will move again. Big Tech has appointed itself the sole arbiter of our elections, and American Principles Project PAC is not allowed to participate. Social conservatives are not allowed to participate. Anodyne Republicans will soon not be allowed to participate.
The only way out is through: with robust policy and political leadership. A free and honest public square can’t long survive living in Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket, or that of any Big Tech overlord. We need a political solution, and we need one fast. Is it Section 230 reform? Is it Antitrust? Is it something more radical? Maybe. The gatekeepers of speech are already willing to choke out certain arguments on their platforms to protect their social standing. We know what they will do with political arguments that threaten their actual power.
But until that power is threatened by a countervailing power—say, of politicians willing to use the force of law—the American Right can forget about making arguments in the public square.
This incident and many others like it which will follow as the election season unfolds are ultimately about the future of America—about whether or not we as a people can keep a representative form of government. As Abraham Lincoln once said:
With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.
Those who are not allowed to mold public sentiment by means of political speech are thereby not allowed to participate in the lawmaking or political decision-making process. They are effectively no longer citizens, but serfs living their lives according to the whim of overlords who alone can dictate the boundaries of governmental policy.
Those who think they are practicing the political virtues of prudence and moderation by refusing to acknowledge the political seriousness of the problem are, in truth, leading us down a path in which political speech no longer matters. Whenever citizens are prevented from attempting to persuade and debate one another, force and violence will be all they have left to stave off complete subjection and servitude.
The most dangerous efforts of “collusion” and the most subversive operations to exert undue “influence” on the 2020 election come not from foreign nations, but from within America itself. Americans do not want to be governed by oligarchs. Americans do not want the public square policed by woke cultists with credentials from elite colleges. But if political leaders on the American Right do not take action to protect political speech, what little political power they yet possess will soon be rendered meaningless.
Dems Unveil Bill To Protect Journalists
Townhall ^ | 3/13/2019 | Beth Baumann
FR Posted by BadLands59
A handful of Democrats on Tuesday introduced the Journalist Protection Act, which makes it a federal crime to cause bodily harm to a journalist or intimidate him or her from gathering information for a news report. The bill was brought about by Rep. Eric Swalwell (CA), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Bob Menendez (NJ).
According to the trio, it was important for them to introduce this bill because of President Donald Trump’s “extreme hostility toward the press.” The group cites Trump’s standoff with CNN over “fake news” and him calling the press “the enemy of the American people,” as examples.
The group believes Trump’s so-called rhetoric on the mainstream media is to blame for Americans’ stance on reporters and the news media. And, without coming out and directly saying it, they’re blaming Trump for journalists getting attacked in the field. In these legislators’ mind, these attacks wouldn’t take place if Trump didn’t use his rhetoric to wind people up.
“From tweeting #FakeNews to proclaiming his contempt for the media during campaign rallies, the President has created a hostile environment for members of the press,” Swalwell said. “A healthy democracy depends on a free press unencumbered by threats of violence. We must protect journalists in every corner of our country if they are attacked physically while doing their job, and send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated. That is what my bill, the Journalist Protection Act, would do.”
“Under this administration, reporters face a near-constant barrage of verbal threats, casting the media as enemies of the American people and possible targets of violence. This bill makes clear that engaging in any kind of violence against members of the media will simply not be tolerated,” Blumenthal said.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com …
Obama and AG Holder did more than seize a Fox News reporter’s emails while suggesting he was a criminal “co-conspirator” in a leak case — it did so under one of the most serious wartime laws in America, the Espionage Act. It is now well known that the Obama justice department has prosecuted more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined - in fact, double the number of all such prior prosecutions.
But as the controversy over the Obama and Holder’s pursuit of the phone records of AP reporters illustrated, this obsessive fixation in defense of secrecy also targets, and severely damages, journalists specifically and the news-gathering process in general.
New revelations emerged yesterday in the Washington Post that are perhaps the most extreme yet when it comes to the DOJ’s attacks on press freedoms. It involves the prosecution of State Department adviser Stephen Kim, a naturalized citizen from South Korea who was indicted in 2009 for allegedly telling Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, that US intelligence believed North Korea would respond to additional UN sanctions with more nuclear tests - something Rosen then reported. Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US.
Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist - something done every day in Washington - and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for “espionage”.
The focus of a Post report is that the Obama DOJ’s surveillance of Rosen extended far beyond even what Obama did to AP reporters. The FBI tracked Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, traced the timing of his calls, and - most amazingly - obtained a search warrant to read two days worth of his emails, as well as all of his emails with Kim. In this case, said the Post, “investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.” It added that “court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist”.
But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that Obama's DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that Fox's Rosen - a journalist - committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law.
Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]: “Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, ‘at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator’. That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a ‘covert communications plan’ and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . .
However, it remains an open question whether it’s ever illegal, given the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.” Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist an be guilty of crimes for “soliciting” the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.
These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama and Holder submitted official court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this. ---Snip---
Obama and Holder wouldnt lie to a court of law. Would they?
Journalists Dined at Top Clinton Staffers Homes Days Before Hillary’s announcement of her candidacy
Wikileaks via Breitbart ^ | October 17 2016 | Ezra Dulis / FR Posted by grey_whiskers
ITEM..... Several top journalists and TV news anchors RSVPed “yes” to attend a private, off-the-record gathering at the New York home of Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton, two days before she announced her candidacy in 2015, according to emails Wikileaks published from John Podesta’s accounts.
ITEM-—The guest list for an earlier event at the home of John Podesta was limited to reporters who were expected to cover Clinton on the campaign trail. —snip—
ITEM-—Wikileaks revealed earlier that late night talk host Stephen Colbert, and his team at Comedy Central, were making TV episodes at the request or order of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) back in April of 2013.
So, viewers thought they were vote-smart because they’re informed by a comedian, yet same said comedian was doing Hillary’s bidding the whole time.
ITEM——I hope talk hosts Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, Seth Myers, Trevor Noah and Conan O’Brien have their lawyers on retainer and speed dial.
ITEM....because if the Trump Administration uncovers that the DNC and the Clintons were directly working with any member of media and their writing staff during the 2016 Presidential election, they could be charged with violating Federal election laws.
DEMAND Podesta be placed under intense scrutiny.
L/E needs to (a) uncover Podesta’s hidden agenda, and, (b) determine exactly who is directing Podesta’s activities.
Podesta has been close to power for years, effortlessly getting numerous top level, high-powered govt jobs, and he even controls the media.
Podesta got rich trading on insider info, and is paid off for his powerful connections. Podesta received valuable stocks in a Russian- connected energy company.The Saudi Royal Court paid Podesta’s PR Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”. (verified to date).
People paying large sums of money expected payback if Hillary got elected. Powerful money interests could be directing Podesta to overturn the election to insure they get payback.
<><> Podesta chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
<><> Podesta is 2016 Hillary Clinton’s campaign Chair.
<><> Podesta was President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff 1998-2001.
<><> Podesta owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm (has a website).
<><> Podesta Chairs the Center for American Progress, his Washington DC-based think tank.
<><> Podesta headed Obama’s transition team in fall 2008.
<><> Podesta once served as Counselor to Obama.
<><> Podesta once worked at Hillary’s State Dept.
<><> Podesta serves as the Clinton Foundation decision-maker.
<><> Podesta had been tapped for Hillary’s COS, if elected.
<><> Podesta founded Progressive Media w/ CNN, HuffPo, MediaMatters, WaPo, Dem SPAC’s, etc.
Several top journalists and TV news anchors RSVPed “yes” to attend a private, off-the-record gathering at the New York home of Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton, two days before she announced her candidacy in 2015, according to emails Wikileaks published from John Podesta’s accounts.
The guest list for an earlier event at the home of her campaign manager, John Podesta, was limited to reporters who were expected to cover Clinton on the campaign trail. —snip—
ITEM-—Wikileaks revealed earlier that late night talk host Stephen Colbert, and his team at Comedy Central, were making TV episodes at the request or order of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) back in April of 2013. So, viewers thought they were vote-smart because they’re informed by a comedian, yet same said comedian was doing Hillary’s bidding the whole time.
ITEM——Talk hosts Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, Seth Myers, Trevor Noah and Conan O’Brien better have their lawyers on retainer and speed dial.
ITEM....that the DNC and the Clintons were directly working with members of the media and their writing staff during the 2016 Presidential election, they could be charged with violating Federal election laws. 2018 Nov 6 fr threaad on hanniyu and pitto w/ trump
================================================
================================================
Journos paid $20,000 to be listed by Clinton Foundation
Has since been deleted from Clinton Foundation archives.
Hey Eric Swalwell.
Trump has done nothing to hamper the “freedom of the press”. On the contrary, it was President Boobamba who did IRS hits on the press and disciplined their “free” speech. He even insulted the press at his last press conference, spitting in their faces by calling them sycophants. Then the syocophants proceeded to gush praise at the arrogant tyrant.
Trump has simply fought back against the constant lies the press publishes. Democracy also relies on the public having access to the truth.
And what about censorship and the tamp down of social media journalists on Twitter? Conservatives are not even allowed a fair platform across all media!
That’s all going to change in Trump’s next four years.
Swallow-well your utter defeat on November 3rd, Mr. Congressman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.