Democrats are now calling Trump Supporters cult members and domestic terrorist, while big Tech social media platforms like twitter and facebook continue to censor free speech, kicking off tens of thousands off conservatives, not allowing anyone to post Hunter Biden’s colorful history internationally and are aligned with the Democrat Party, the House and Senate in the hands of Democrats bent on impeaching Trump now that he’s out of office.
Democrats are now calling Trump Supporters cult members and domestic terrorist, while big Tech social media platforms like twitter and facebook continue to censor free speech, kicking off tens of thousands off conservatives, not allowing anyone to post Hunter Biden’s colorful history internationally and are aligned with the Democrat Party, the House and Senate in the hands of Democrats bent on impeaching Trump now that he’s out of office.
America polices and Trump supporters must now be re programmed so as to accept the new deal, Socialism - By Bruce Wayne Henion - January 21, 2021
President Trump’s 60 or so law suites for election fraud during the 2020 Presidential Elections failed to un seat President elect Biden as the federal courts did not want to rule on the cases.
The Congress did not want to rule on election fraud, and those elected officials who wanted election verification for counting legal ballots were said to be part of the reason why a mob broke into the State Capital Building while electoral votes were being counted.
Any over haul of states ballot counting will half to come from thee states.
Any over haul of states ballot counting will half to come from thee states.
During the Electoral Votes counting at the Capital Building a mob took it over.
(Natural News) A prominent progressive activist and Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioter who was seen leading people into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 during that day’s civil unrest has been charged by the Department of Justice.
According to the Justice Department, John Earle Sullivan, 26, has been charged with one count of knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and one count of interfering with law enforcement who are engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of civil disorder.
Sullivan, who was arrested Thursday, Jan. 14 in his hometown of Provo, Utah, faces jail time if he is convicted.
Sullivan was one of the first people to illegally enter the Capitol
According to a court filing, Sullivan told agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that he was at the Capitol during the unrest and was one of the first people to illegally enter the federal building. He said he entered it through a window that had been broken by someone in the crowd and once inside he pushed past several Capitol police officers.
The complaint also alleges that video footage from other people inside the Capitol proves that Sullivan was there and that he was wearing a ballistics vest and a gas mask. Furthermore, he admitted to being present at the scene when Trump supporter and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt was shot by a Capitol police officer.
Sullivan took several videos while he was inside the Capitol. He showed this footage to the federal agents. One of the videos showed him and other people breaking through a barricade. He was caught on the recording saying:
“There are so many people. Let’s go. This [expletive] is ours. [Expletive] yeah. We accomplished this [expletive]. We did this together. [Expletive] yeah. We are all a part of this history. Let’s burn this [expletive] down.”
Other videos from the incident show Sullivan helping others climb over Capitol walls and enter the Capitol through the same broken window he entered through.
“In at least two encounters, Sullivan can be heard on the video arguing with the officers, telling them to stand down so that they do not get hurt,” read the charges. “Among other things, Sullivan can be heard telling officers, ‘You are putting yourself in harm’s way,’ ‘The people have spoken’ and ‘There are too many people, you gotta stand down, the people out there that tried to do that [expletive], they got hurt. I saw it. I’m caring about you.”
As the crowd was trying to enter a different part of the Capitol, Sullivan reportedly told people that he had a knife. He asked them to let him get to the front, supposedly to use the knife to break through. However, he was not able to squeeze his way through the crowd.
In one other video, he was seen attempting to threaten officers guarding the Speaker’s Lobby to go home. “Bro, I’ve seen people out there get hurt,” he said, insinuating that he or other members of the crowd will hurt the officers if they did not let them pass.
Sullivan identifies as member of Antifa and has extensive criminal record
Sullivan is one of the founders of a left-wing social justice group known as Insurgence USA. The group identifies itself as anti-fascist and is affiliated with both Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Their activities include supposedly protesting incidents of police brutality.
“The lack of care for the human life was unacceptable, so we set out to end police brutality,” read the group’s website. “We then set out to empower and uplifting Black and Indigenous voices.”
Immediately after the events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol, Sullivan spoke to every media outlet that was willing to interview him. (Related: WATCH: CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviews BLM/Antifa leader who was part of Capitol siege, recently arrested for RIOTING, caught on video threatening to beat a woman … Treats him like he was a reporter on the scene.)
He previously told alternative news outlet The Epoch Times that he took steps to blend in with the crowd of President Donald Trump’s supporters so that he would not “get beat up.”
Sullivan has also bragged about being well known in the left-wing activist community as being a member of the far-left, anarcho-communist organization Antifa, although he has denied being a member.
A day after speaking with the media, he was detained by Washington, D.C. police. He claimed at the time that he was only there to document the event. However, he admitted during questioning that he does not have any press credentials. Police investigations also noted that Sullivan has no connection with any journalistic organizations.
His claims of being a journalist were further torn down after federal investigators said that Sullivan’s voice could be frequently heard encouraging the pro-Trump protesters to break the law while they were inside the Capitol.
In fact, FBI agent Matthew Foulger alleged in an affidavit he signed on Wednesday that Sullivan “knowingly and willfully joined a crowd of individuals who forcibly entered the U.S. Capitol and impeded, disrupted and disturbed the orderly conduct of business by the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.”
Sullivan is facing charges in Utah County, Utah for organizing a demonstration in Provo last summer during the height of the engineered George Floyd riots. One person was shot and injured during that demonstration.
Sullivan has not responded to requests for comments from several alternative media outlets.
Learn more about the Antifa and Black Lives Matter-organized and led riots occurring all over the country by reading the latest articles at Rioting.news.
Dr. Gold was present with her megaphone to deliver a speech about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines, urging listeners to instead take advantage of safe, effective and inexpensive remedies like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
Believing the Capitol to have been open to the public, she says, Dr. Gold, who runs a clinic in Los Angeles, entered the building and stayed neatly within the velvet ropes of the rotunda as she warned those around her not to fall for the Chinese virus vaccine hoax.
Because she was merely seen at the so-called “insurrection,” Dr. Gold is being treated like a “domestic terrorist.” Two others who were with her, 52-year-old Gina Bisignano and 37-year-old John Strand, are also facing charges simply because of their presence at Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally.
Back in the summer, Dr. Gold appeared alongside other doctors at the America’s Frontline Doctors “White Coat Summit” to talk about remedies for the China flu that the medical deep state does not want people knowing about using.
Dr. Gold also published her own “white paper” on HCQ explaining how the generic anti-malaria drug works to treat coronaviruses. You can read the paper at this link.
For more related news, check out FalseFlag.news.
Trump led his followers right into the trap
Like tens of thousands of others, Dr. Gold was present in Washington, D.C., because Trump told them to be there in support of “freedom.” He promised that the event would be “wild,” and boy was it ever.
Anyone who was spotted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, inside or outside the building, is now being pursued for prosecution, even as Trump and his family sail off into the Florida sunset unscathed.
Many are demanding answers as to why Trump left his followers holding the bag that day, especially since people are losing their jobs and careers due to the spectacle.
The whole thing was a false flag hoax staged by the left, we now know. Innocent, good-hearted people like Dr. Gold and her colleagues were not there to commit any type of violence, and appear to have walked right into the Capitol with CNN‘s Jade Sacker and far-left activist John Sullivan, for whom Capitol police opened up the gates and rolled out the red carpet.
This writer, based on the evidence brought forth thus far, believes Dr. Gold’s claim that she had no idea there was a “siege” taking place. She and others were seen peacefully walking through the Capitol, again staying within the bounds of the velvet ropes, as part of a peaceful protest.
Unlike the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa riots that destroyed numerous major cities back in the summer, including Washington, D.C., Dr. Gold’s protest was calm and quite frankly protected by the First Amendment, which is now on the chopping block under the new regime.
Dr. Gold and her colleagues need our prayers because they are being unfairly persecuted as part of a wider crackdown on conservative free speech. They were clearly set up on Jan. 6 to take the fall as part of a deep state plot to usher in a PATRIOT Act 2.0 – and Trump, quite frankly, is responsible and should be ashamed of himself for betraying those who trusted him all these years.
“Just like some of us have been saying all along, it’s nothing but a play being acted out in front of us,” wrote one of our own commenters.
“We all want to believe in good beating evil, but we know this only happens on judgment day when the only True King returns: Yeshua the Messiah and the One Righteous Judge. The blood will drip on that glorious day.”
Sources for this article include:
Any one who questioned the election Guilty of in citing a mob who attempted an in secretion against the Capital Building, now classifying Trump Supporters as cult members and domestic terrorist?
President Trump impeached by the House without trial for Guilty of in citing a mob who attempted an in secretion against the Capital Building, With hundreds of thousands of Trump Supporters present rallied in front of the Capital Building and 67 to a few hundred who broke into and stood on the balcony, our representatives are panicky.
With as many as Trump Supporters that were there, a very small amount of folks breached the building, while at least a hundred folks were on the balcony and stairs.
Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riot in historic second charge - January 14, 2021
Donald Trump has become the first president in US history to be impeached twice, after being charged with "incitement of insurrection" over last week's deadly storming of Congress.
The House of Representatives accused Mr Trump of encouraging violence with his false claims of election fraud.
He now faces trial in the upper chamber, the Senate, but not before he leaves office next Wednesday.
Senators can vote to bar him from ever holding public office again.
In a video released after the vote in the House on Wednesday, Mr Trump called on his followers to remain peaceful, without mentioning his impeachment.
"Violence and vandalism have no place in our country... No true supporter of mine would ever endorse political violence," he said, striking a sombre and conciliatory tone.
The FBI has warned of possible armed protests planned for Washington DC and all 50 US state capitals in the days before Joe Biden, a Democrat, is inaugurated as the new US president.
media captionTrump: 'Violence and vandalism have no place in our country'
What was Trump charged with?
Impeachment charges are political, not criminal. The president was accused by the House of inciting the storming of the Capitol - the seat of the US Congress - with a speech on 6 January to supporters outside the White House.
He urged them to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard, but also to "fight like hell" against an election that he falsely told them had been stolen.
Following Mr Trump's remarks, his supporters broke into the Capitol, forcing lawmakers to suspend certification of election results and take shelter. The building was placed on lockdown and five people died in the melee.
The article of impeachment stated that Mr Trump "repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were fraudulent and should not be accepted".
It says he then repeated these claims and "wilfully made statements to the crowd that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol", leading to the violence and loss of life.
"President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government, threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperilled a coequal branch of government."
Last week, 139 Republicans voted against accepting the result of the 2020 election and Mr Trump's defeat.
Impeachment: The basics
· What is impeachment? Impeachment is when a sitting president is charged with crimes. In this case, President Trump was charged with inciting insurrection by encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol
· Could Trump be removed from office? The House of Representatives has impeached him, moving the case to the Senate for a trial. But a trial will not be carried out before Mr Trump leaves office on 20 January
So what does it mean? A trial can happen after his term ends, and senators can vote to bar him from holding public office again
What did lawmakers say during the debate?
For two hours on Wednesday, members of the Democratic-controlled House made statements for and against the vote in the same chamber where they hid under chairs and donned gas masks as rioters tried to force their way inside last week.
National Guard troops kept watch inside and outside the Capitol. Ten of Mr Trump's Republican party joined Democrats to impeach him by 232-197.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said on the House floor: "The president of the United States incited this insurrection, this armed rebellion against our common country. He must go. He is a clear and present danger to the nation that we all love."
Democratic congressman Julian Castro called Mr Trump "the most dangerous man to ever occupy the Oval Office".
How did Republicans defend Trump - and who voted to impeach?
Most Republicans did not seek to defend Mr Trump's rhetoric, instead arguing that the impeachment had bypassed the customary hearings and calling on Democrats to drop it for the sake of national unity.
"Impeaching the president in such a short time frame would be a mistake," said Kevin McCarthy, the House's top Republican. "That doesn't mean the president's free from fault. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters."
Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, accused Democrats of recklessly dividing the country to pursue a political vendetta. "This is about getting the president of the United States. It's always been about getting the president, no matter what. It's an obsession."
Among members of the president's party who voted to impeach him was the third-ranking House Republican, Liz Cheney. The Wyoming representative, the daughter of former Vice-President Dick Cheney, said of the riot that "there has never been a greater betrayal by a president".
Trump makes history once again
Donald Trump has made history once again, this time as the first president to be impeached twice.
A year ago, the move was opposed in lockstep by the Republican Party. This time, a handful of conservatives backed the move. It is a reflection not only of the gravity of the moment, but also the president's declining influence in the final days of his administration.
Impeachment sets up a Senate trial for Mr Trump that now appears destined to stretch into the early days of Joe Biden's presidency, creating yet another challenge for the incoming president. It also will stoke an ongoing debate among Republicans over the direction their party takes in the days ahead.
The party is on a path that splits in two very different directions. On one side is continued allegiance to the president's brand of politics - one that created a new coalition of voters that delivered the White House and Congress in 2016, but lost both in 2020.
On the other is an uncertain future - but one free from the president's unique style of heat and rhetoric - unfiltered invective that even many Republicans now believe contributed to last week's Capitol riot
What happens next?
The impeachment article will head to the Senate, which will hold a trial to determine the president's guilt. A two-thirds majority is needed to convict Mr Trump, meaning at least 17 Republicans would have to vote with Democrats in the evenly split, 100-seat chamber.
As many as 20 Senate Republicans are open to convicting the president, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.
If Mr Trump is convicted by the Senate, lawmakers could hold another vote to block him from running for elected office again - which he has indicated he planned to do in 2024.
But the trial will not come during Mr Trump's remaining week in office.
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement: "Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week."
He said it would best serve the interests of the nation if Congress focused on a safe and orderly transition of power for the incoming Biden administration. In a note to colleagues, Mr McConnell also said he had not made a final decision on how he would vote.
Mindful that his first days in office could become mired in the impeachment drama, Mr Biden said he hoped senators would not neglect the "other urgent business of this nation", such as approving his cabinet nominees, coronavirus relief and the nationwide vaccination programme.
However, a Republican congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, announced she would file articles of impeachment against Mr Biden, accusing him of abuse of power, the day after his inauguration.
No US president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. Mr Trump was impeached by the House in 2019 over his dealings in Ukraine, but acquitted by the Senate. So was Bill Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868.
GREENWALD: The new domestic war on terror is coming - Article republished from Greenwald.Substack.com - January 20, 2021
(Natural News) The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting “terrorism” that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This trend shows no sign of receding as we move farther from the January 6 Capitol riot. The opposite is true: it is intensifying.
We have witnessed an orgy of censorship from Silicon Valley monopolies with calls for far more aggressive speech policing, a visibly militarized Washington, D.C. featuring a non-ironically named “Green Zone,” vows from the incoming president and his key allies for a new anti-domestic terrorism bill, and frequent accusations of “sedition,” “treason,” and “terrorism” against members of Congress and citizens. This is all driven by a radical expansion of the meaning of “incitement to violence.” It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (See Something, Say Something!) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance.
Underlying all of this are immediate insinuations that anyone questioning any of this must, by virtue of these doubts, harbor sympathy for the Terrorists and their neo-Nazi, white supremacist ideology. Liberals have spent so many years now in a tight alliance with neocons and the CIA that they are making the 2002
version of John Ashcroft look like the President of the (old-school) ACLU.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security website, touting a trademarked phrase licensed to it in 2010 by the City of New York, urging citizens to report “suspicious activity” to the FBI and other security state agencies
The more honest proponents of this new domestic War on Terror are explicitly admitting that they want to model it on the first one. A New York Times reporter noted on Monday that a “former intelligence official on PBS NewsHour” said “that the US should think about a ‘9/11 Commission’ for domestic extremism and consider applying some of the lessons from the fight against Al Qaeda here at home.” More amazingly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — for years head of Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of the war in Afghanistan — explicitly compared that war to this new one, speaking to Yahoo News:
I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America….I think we’re much further along in this radicalization process, and facing a much deeper problem as a country, than most Americans realize.”
Anyone who, despite all this, still harbors lingering doubts that the Capitol riot is and will be the neoliberal 9/11, and that a new War on Terror is being implemented in its name, need only watch the two short video clips below, which will clear their doubts for good. It is like being catapulted by an unholy time machine back to Paul Wolfowitz’s 2002 messaging lab.
The first video, flagged by Tom Elliott, is from Monday morning’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC (the show that arguably did more to help Donald Trump become the GOP nominee than any other). It features Jeremy Bash — one of the seemingly countless employees of TV news networks who previously worked in Obama’s CIA and Pentagon — demanding that, in response to the Capitol riot, “we reset our entire intelligence approach,” including “look[ing] at greater surveillance of them,” adding: “the FBI is going to have to run confidential sources.” See if you detect any differences between what CIA operatives and neocons were saying in 2002 when demanding the Patriot Act and greater FBI and NSA surveillance and what this CIA-official-turned-NBC-News-analyst is saying here:
The second video features the amazing declaration from former Facebook security official Alex Stamos, talking to the very concerned CNN host Brian Stelter, about the need for social media companies to use the same tactics against U.S. citizens that they used to remove ISIS from the internet — “in collaboration with law enforcement” — and that those tactics should be directly aimed at what he calls extremist “conservative influencers.”
“Press freedoms are being abused by these actors,” the former Facebook executive proclaimed. Stamos noted how generous he and his comrades have been up until now: “We have given a lot of leeway — both in the traditional media and in social media — to people with a very broad range of views.” But no more. Now is the time to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”
In a moment of unintended candor, Stamos noted the real problem: “there are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger audience than people on daytime CNN” — and it’s time for CNN and other mainstream outlets to seize the monopoly on information dissemination to which they are divinely entitled by taking away the platforms of those whom people actually want to watch and listen to:
(If still not convinced, and if you can endure it, you can also watch MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski literally screaming that one needed remedy to the Capitol riot is that the Biden administration must “shutdown” Facebook. Shutdown Facebook).
Calls for a War on Terror sequel — a domestic version complete with surveillance and censorship — are not confined to ratings-deprived cable hosts and ghouls from the security state. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”
Meanwhile, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) — not just one of the most dishonest members of Congress but also one of the most militaristic and authoritarian — has had a bill proposed since 2019 to simply amend the existing foreign anti-terrorism bill to allow the U.S. Government to invoke exactly the same powers at home against “domestic terrorists.”
Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new “domestic terrorism” laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because — just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws — their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.
US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) flanked by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) (R) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), speaks at a press conference on Capitol Hill (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
The answer to this question — what needs to be criminalized that is not already a crime? — scarcely seems to matter. Media and political elites have placed as many Americans as they can — and it is a lot — into full-blown fear and panic mode, and when that happens, people are willing to acquiesce to anything claimed necessary to stop that threat, as the first War on Terror, still going strong twenty years later, decisively proved.
An entire book could — and probably should — be written on why all of this is so concerning. For the moment, two points are vital to emphasize.
First, much of the alarmism and fear-mongering is being driven by a deliberate distortion of what it means for speech to “incite violence.” The bastardizing of this phrase was the basis for President Trump’s rushed impeachment last week. It is also what is driving calls for dozens of members of Congress to be expelled and even prosecuted on “sedition” charges for having objected to the Electoral College certification, and is also at the heart of the spate of censorship actions already undertaken and further repressive measures being urged.
This phrase — “inciting violence” — was also what drove many of the worst War on Terror abuses. I spent years reporting on how numerous young American Muslims were prosecuted under new, draconian anti-terrorism laws for uploading anti-U.S.-foreign-policy YouTube videos or giving rousing anti-American speeches deemed to “incite violence” and thus provide “material support” to terrorist groups — the exact theory which Rep. Schiff is seeking to import into the new domestic War on Terror.
It is vital to ask what it means for speech to constitute “incitement to violence” to the point that it can be banned or criminalized. The expression of any political viewpoint, especially one passionately expressed, has the potential to “incite” someone else to get so riled up that they engage in violence.
If you rail against the threats to free speech posed by Silicon Valley monopolies, someone hearing you may get so filled with rage that they decide to bomb an Amazon warehouse or a Facebook office. If you write a blistering screed accusing pro-life activists of endangering the lives of women by forcing them back into unsafe back-alley abortions, or if you argue that abortion is murder, you may very well inspire someone to engage in violence against a pro-life group or an abortion clinic. If you start a protest movement to object to the injustice of Wall Street bailouts — whether you call it “Occupy Wall Street” or the Tea Party — you may cause someone to go hunt down Goldman Sachs or Citibank executives who they believe are destroying the economic future of millions of people.
If you claim that George W. Bush stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections — as many Democrats, including members of Congress, did — you may inspire civic unrest or violence against Bush and his supporters. The same is true if you claim the 2016 or 2020 elections were fraudulent or illegitimate. If you rage against the racist brutality of the police, people may go burn down buildings in protest — or murder randomly selected police officers whom they have become convinced are agents of a racist genocidal state.
The Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer and hard-core Democratic partisan, James Hodgkinson, who went to a softball field in June, 2017 to murder Republican Congress members — and almost succeeded in fatally shooting Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) — had spent months listening to radical Sanders supporters and participating in Facebook groups with names like “Terminate the Republican Party” and “Trump is a Traitor.”
Hodgkinson had heard over and over that Republicans were not merely misguided but were “traitors” and grave threats to the Republic. As CNN reported, “his favorite television shows were listed as ‘Real Time with Bill Maher;’ ‘The Rachel Maddow Show;’ ‘Democracy Now!’ and other left-leaning programs.” All of the political rhetoric to which he was exposed — from the pro-Sanders Facebook groups, MSNBC and left-leaning shows — undoubtedly played a major role in triggering his violent assault and decision to murder pro-Trump Republican Congress members.
Despite the potential of all of those views to motivate others to commit violence in their name — potential that has sometimes been realized — none of the people expressing those views, no matter how passionately, can be validly characterized as “inciting violence” either legally or ethically. That is because all of that speech is protected, legitimate speech. None of it advocates violence. None of it urges others to commit violence in its name. The fact that it may “inspire” or “motivate” some mentally unwell person or a genuine fanatic to commit violence does not make the person espousing those views and engaging in that non-violent speech guilty of “inciting violence” in any meaningful sense.
To illustrate this point, I have often cited the crucial and brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. In the 1960s and 1970s, the State of Mississippi tried to hold local NAACP leaders liable on the ground that their fiery speeches urging a boycott of white-owned stores “incited” their followers to burn down stores and violently attack patrons who did not honor the protest. The state’s argument was that the NAACP leaders knew that they were metaphorically pouring gasoline on a fire with their inflammatory rhetoric to rile up and angry crowds.
But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining that free speech will die if people are held responsible not for their own violent acts but for those committed by others who heard them speak and were motivated to commit crimes in the name of that cause (emphasis added):
Civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. . . .
[A]ny such theory fails for the simple reason that there is no evidence — apart from the speeches themselves — that [the NAACP leader sued by the State] authorized, ratified, or directly threatened acts of violence. . . . . To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment. . . .
While the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity. Only those losses proximately caused by unlawful conduct may be recovered.
The First Amendment similarly restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual solely because of his association with another.
The Claiborne court relied upon the iconic First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader who had publicly advocated the possibility of violence against politicians. Even explicitly advocating the need or justifiability of violence for political ends is protected speech, ruled the court. They carved out a very narrow exception: “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — meaning someone is explicitly urging an already assembled mob to specific violence with the expectation that they will do so more or less immediately (such as standing outside someone’s home and telling the gathered mob: it’s time to burn it down).
It goes without saying that First Amendment jurisprudence on “incitement” governs what a state can do when punishing or restricting speech, not what a Congress can do in impeaching a president or expelling its own members, and certainly not social media companies seeking to ban people from their platforms.
But that does not make these principles of how to understand “incitement to violence” irrelevant when applied to other contexts. Indeed, the central reasoning of these cases is vital to preserve everywhere: that if speech is classified as “incitement to violence” despite not explicitly advocating violence, it will sweep up any political speech which those wielding this term wish it to encompass. No political speech will be safe from this term when interpreted and applied so broadly and carelessly.
And that is directly relevant to the second point. Continuing to process Washington debates of this sort primarily through the prism of “Democrat v. Republican” or even “left v. right” is a sure ticket to the destruction of core rights. There are times when powers of repression and censorship are aimed more at the left and times when they are aimed more at the right, but it is neither inherently a left-wing nor a right-wing tactic. It is a ruling class tactic, and it will be deployed against anyone perceived to be a dissident to ruling class interests and orthodoxies no matter where on the ideological spectrum they reside.
The last several months of politician-and-journalist-demanded Silicon Valley censorship has targeted the right, but prior to that and simultaneously it has often targeted those perceived as on the left. The government has frequently declared right-wing domestic groups “terrorists,” while in the 1960s and 1970s it was left-wing groups devoted to anti-war activism which bore that designation. In 2011, British police designated the London version of Occupy Wall Street a “terrorist” group. In the 1980s, the African National Congress was so designated. “Terrorism” is an amorphous term that was created, and will always be used, to outlaw formidable dissent no matter its source or ideology.
If you identify as a conservative and continue to believe that your prime enemies are ordinary leftists, or you identify as a leftist and believe your prime enemies are Republican citizens, you will fall perfectly into the trap set for you. Namely, you will ignore your real enemies, the ones who actually wield power at your expense: ruling class elites, who really do not care about “right v. left” and most definitely do not care about “Republican v. Democrat” — as evidenced by the fact that they fund both parties — but instead care only about one thing: stability, or preservation of the prevailing neoliberal order.
Unlike so many ordinary citizens addicted to trivial partisan warfare, these ruling class elites know who their real enemies are: anyone who steps outside the limits and rules of the game they have crafted and who seeks to disrupt the system that preserves their prerogatives and status. The one who put this best was probably Barack Obama when he was president, when he observed — correctly — that the perceived warfare between establishment Democratic and Republican elites was mostly theater, and on the question of what they actually believe, they’re both “fighting inside the 40 yard line” together:
A standard Goldman Sachs banker or Silicon Valley executive has far more in common, and is far more comfortable, with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan than they do with the ordinary American citizen. Except when it means a mildly disruptive presence — like Trump — they barely care whether Democrats or Republicans rule various organs of government, or whether people who call themselves “liberals” or “conservatives” ascend to power. Some left-wing members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have said they oppose a new domestic terrorism law, but Democrats will have no trouble forming a majority by partnering with their neocon GOP allies like Liz Cheney to get it done, as they did earlier this year to stop the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.
Neoliberalism and imperialism do not care about the pseudo-fights between the two parties or the cable TV bickering of the day. They do not like the far left or the far right. They do not like extremism of any kind. They do not support Communism and they do not support neo-Nazism or some fascist revolution. They care only about one thing: disempowering and crushing anyone who dissents from and threatens their hegemony. They care about stopping dissidents. All the weapons they build and institutions they assemble — the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, oligarchical power — exist for that sole and exclusive purpose, to fortify their power by rewarding those who accede to their pieties and crushing those who do not.
No matter your views on the threat posed by international Islamic radicalism, huge excesses were committed in the name of stopping it — or, more accurately, the fears it generated were exploited to empower and entrench existing financial and political elites. The Authorization to Use Military Force — responsible for twenty-years-and-counting of war — was approved by the House three days after the 9/11 attack with just one dissenting vote. The Patriot Act — which radically expanded government surveillance powers — was enacted a mere six weeks after that attack, based on the promise that it would be temporary and “sunset” in four years. Like the wars spawned by 9/11, it is still in full force, virtually never debated any longer and predictably expanded far beyond how it was originally depicted.
The first War on Terror ended up being wielded primarily on foreign soil but it has increasingly been imported onto domestic soil against Americans. This New War on Terror — one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” among American citizens on U.S. soil — presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-01-20-new-domestic-war-on-terror-is-coming.html
Trump supporters aren’t inciting violence – the media is - Ethan Huff - January 21, 2021
(Natural News) Word on the street is that all Trump supporters are violent domestic terrorists who hate American institutions so much that they are willing to storm the Capitol building in protest. The reality, however, is that the mainstream media is the real terrorist threat, as it has been trying to incite a violent overthrow of the nation for many decades.
An entire generation of American media consumers has been told by the likes of CNN and MSNBC that Congress, presidents, police officers and other foundational tenets of civil society need to be abolished. The fake news brigade has been goading viewers into hating the country and everything it stands for since it first came into existence, only to now switch its tune in a last-ditch effort to smear the president and his supporters.
Millions upon millions have broken the matrix and seen right through the charades. Still millions of others have not, and are completely in the dark about how they have been manipulated and lied to about who their real enemies are (hint: the Constitution is not your enemy).
It takes many years to cultivate the type of civil unrest that the media claims took place on Jan. 6. The same goes for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa riots that plagued our nation for months on end, all bankrolled by the very same people that are now pretending to care about maintaining “decency” and “civility.”
suggest the median radicalization time is over four years long, with 10 percent of those studied taking a decade or longer to influence with extremist propaganda,” writes Raheem Kassam for The National Pulse, citing a 2016 study out of Brandeis University that found it takes about 52 months on average to fully radicalize someone.
Seeing as how President Donald Trump had not yet even taken the stage to speak at his “Stop the Steal” rally when his alleged “supporters,” who turned out to be far-left agitators looking for a fight, were let inside the Capitol building, there is no way the president can be blamed for what took place that day.
Leftists bear full responsibility for Capitol violence
The mathematical science laid out in the Brandeis study points straight to the media as the responsible party for the Capitol “riot,” not Trump. The timing fits and so does common sense.
“If we track this timeframe back, it lands within a period of time when the media’s campaign against Congress was reaching a fever pitch, and only just as President Trump was emerging onto the scene,” Kassam explains.
“One could claim Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’ rhetoric contributed to the cavalcade of criticism, as outlined below, but it makes scant sense for thousands of Trump supporters to suddenly turn on the very same people they were defending a few months prior: the police.”
Despite all their whining and belly-aching about how scary it was to have to potentially face their constituents unannounced, politicians did not bear the brunt of the clash – police did. And conservatives are the ones who, generally speaking, support them, while the left wants to defund them.
The media is also guilty of projecting onto Trump what it has been doing to him and his supporters for years. Efforts to dehumanize Trump and his supporters while delegitimizing Trump’s campaign and agenda have been going strong for more than four years now unabated, escalating over time into a fever pitch.
The media’s assault on many other American institutions goes back even further. For at least the past decade, we have been getting a steady diet of anti-police, anti-law, and anti-Christ propaganda thrown in our faces on a constant basis. If it upholds order and stability, it is demonized.
“Guilty of precisely what they now accuse President Trump of, the media had embarked on a dehumanizing and delegitimizing campaign against American institutions over the course of a decade,” Kassam explains. “The latest, against the police, was its most brutal. But its longest-lasting was against the United States Congress.”
“The phrases ‘worst Congress’ and ‘worst Congress ever’ bring up tens of thousands of results on search engines, and Google trends shows the phrase obtaining spikes in user searches whenever the media has promoted stories of that nature … In other words, public interest in the phrase directly correlates with the media’s insistence on the matter.”
The media has never accepted election results where Republicans won
In accordance with the First Amendment to the Constitution, the media, along with all Americans, maintain the right to criticize Congress, the police, or whomever else they choose without persecution. The problem is when the media actively incites violence against American institutions while falsely accusing its political opposition of doing it.
During the Obama years when the electorate picked up a whopping 63 seats during the midterm elections of 2010, the media incited hatred and violence against Congress, whom the people elected, accusing it of blocking Obama’s “progressive” agenda.
Rather than support the will of the people as the media is now insisting Americans do in response to Joe Biden’s presidential election “win,” fake news outlets have time and time again rejected that will while provoking leftists to protest and riot. This makes any call by the media now for “unity” and “healing”
Kassam’s full analysis of the study and its findings is available at this link. It is worth your time as it tells a completely different version of reality than the one being peddled by the lying establishment.
More news about staged false flag events like the Capitol “siege” can be found at FalseFlag.news.
Sources for this article include:
America up in flames like Democrat-run cities across America is the left’s goal for Joe Biden’s presidency - By Don Boys republished from AllNewsPipeline.com - January 21, 2021
(Natural News) Informed people know that the far left has desires, designs, and determination to overthrow America because we have been a beacon of freedom for hundreds of years. They want that light extinguished forever. The light has grown dim in recent years and is now flickering. Traitors, dupes, and fellow travelers have been at work and the results are obvious in Washington, D.C.
What has been happening in Democrat-controlled cities is not accidental. It’s called treason. The desired result is revolution.
Historian Will Durant wrote in the Age of Napoleon that the Jacobins and all Frenchmen who had rejected divine revelation and were now dependent on reason “all concurred in hoping that devotion to the young republic would become the religion of the people; that Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity would replace God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that the furtherance of the new Trinity could be made the overriding aim of social order and the final test of morality.”
But it was not to be.
Abbe Augustin Barruel was an honest, scholarly, informed apologist and defender of Christian morality and Roman Catholic Church’s rights. He was a Jesuit priest and famous writer during the French Revolution who charged that the Revolution was planned and executed by secret societies and had been planned for decades, beginning with Voltaire. Voltaire, Rousseau, and other philosophers conspired with secret societies to destroy Catholicism and France’s monarchy.
The philosophers’ writings had a significant influence on those who would lead the Revolution, and Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and their followers were responsible for the training of budding revolutionaries. However, they would have been horrified had they lived to see the results of their diatribes against the church, the crown, and the cottage.
It is charged that Barruel developed the above as a conspiracy theory because of his hatred of the Illuminati. Still, even if he hated or feared the Illuminati, that does not mean his information is faulty. The Illuminati refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, a secret society founded on May 1, 1776, in Bavaria, now a part of Germany. The secret group opposed all religious influence over public life and what they considered abuses of state power. Moreover, they believed any kind of government was unnecessary because of the perfectibility of man. There was no need for the church, crown, or cottage.
Highly principled and respected leaders in Europe and England, living at the time, had high praise for Barruel’s work in exposing the conspiracy. The much-respected Englishman Edmund Burke wrote to Barruel in praise of his book, declaring, “I have known myself, personally, five of your principal conspirators; and I can undertake to say from my own certain knowledge, that as far back as the year 1773, they were busy in the plot you have so well described, and in the manner, and on the principle you have so truly represented. To this I can speak as a witness.”
A contemporary of Burke in England, the Scottish scientist John Robison, published Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. Robison reported the same as Burke as to secret societies and their involvement in the Revolution.
Winston Churchill wrote of the Illuminati in a February 8, 1920 article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald and referred to it as “this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization.”
This alone does not prove that the Illuminati were a significant cause of the French Revolution, but it does demonstrate the group existed at the time and exercised enormous influence. It was not a group of nutty men who had more toes than teeth, but the opposite—the Illuminati were the leaders in the universities and some European governments. The Illuminati were such a threat that various governments outlawed them.
In his Lectures on the French Revolution, Lord Acton observed, “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke, we perceive the evidence of calculating organisation. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first.”
The first two volumes by Abbe Barruel published in 1797 and the other two in 1798, following the French Revolution in 1789, took great pains to document that Jacobins, Freemasons, the Illuminati, and others carefully planned on removing from France all government authority, all churches, and the father-led family. The conspirators used the peasants’ resentment toward the special privileges of the Church and nobles and gave the people the reason for self-justification for the extremism that followed.
The philosophers, trying to change public opinion, decided to publish a multi-volume Encyclopédie consisting of general knowledge. It was co-founded and edited by Denise Diderot, who thought he was moral because he had only one mistress at a time. They began publishing in 1751 and had profound political, social, and intellectual repercussions in France just before the Revolution. Its contributors were called Encyclopédistes.
The Encyclopédie’s purpose was “to change the way people think” based upon human reason, not divine revelation. Chief Editor Diderot expressed the radical philosophy of many revolutionaries by having one of his characters in a drama say, “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” That was the tone of many of the articles that were published and prepared France for revolution.
It would have been a surprise if a revolution had not happened.
Among the skepticism and humanism in the publication, there was much useful information. Of course, a little poison can make a pot of soup deadly. The writers had a big job to corrupt the nation since the people (especially outside Paris, Versailles, and Marseilles) had marinated for centuries in family traditions, the Roman Church, and respect for the king. For decades, they and their children had been educated by the Catholic Jesuits.
Barruel defined philosophism as “the error of every man who, judging of all things by the standard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authority that is not derived from the light of nature.” The political termites believed mankind must rely on reason, not revelation since the elitists thought only fools trust revelation over reason. So, religion (the Roman Catholic Church) and the monarchy based on the divine right of kings must be denigrated, denied, and destroyed.
Barruel believed the volumes of the Encyclopédie were successful in controlling the minds of intellectuals and creating public opinion against the church and crown. The various writers were men dedicated to expanding science and secular thought, laying a foundation for the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was reasonable, reforming, and eventually revolutionary.
Barruel and others declared the publication was an intellectual introduction to the French Revolution. He and others believed the volumes of the Encyclopédie were successful in controlling the minds of young intellectuals and creating public opinion against the church and crown and cottage.
The skepticism and lack of support for the Church and the Bible in the Encyclopédie brought much criticism and opposition from Church leaders from its first volume. The Catholic Jesuits especially fought the offensive publication, and the group was made illegal in France in 1764 as they were in Portugal, Hungary, Austria, and other nations.
The Encyclopédie’s publication was opposed by Church and government officials and was censored and repressed in 1752. In 1759, the government denied permission for publication. The Revolution started in earnest in 1789 and lasted until the late 1790s ending with Napoleon’s dictatorship.
The volatile, vicious, and often vile authors fed into the common people’s hatred and envy against the Church and anyone wearing silk knee-breeches, the nobility. Aldous Huxley correctly asserted, “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’— this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
The Revolution was an attack upon all authority and gave frustrated, angry, resentful, and hungry people an excuse to take their licks on those people and groups they hated.
America has been softened by pious preachers, purring politicians, pathetic professors, and a perverted press to where few people think for themselves or think critically. They long ago rejected revelation and climbed into bed with reason.
We are ripe for the Second American Revolution, and the chaos around us was planned by the radical left; and they are charging Trump and his followers of doing what the left itself has successfully accomplished. Democrats have traditionally accused Republicans of what the Democrats have been doing.
I don’t want to shout fire in a crowded theater, but folks, we are surrounded by an uncontrolled conflagration, and leftists have cut the water hose. It is time to form bucket brigades, and everyone does their part to extinguish the flames.
America is at risk.
Read more at: AllNewsPipeline.com
Due to high Tech censorship of conservative voices on twitter and facebook, banning President Trump and tens of thousands of others, free speech is now censored by social media giants.
(Natural News) Following Facebook and Twitter banning both former President Donald Trump and other conservatives, many migrated to alternative social media app Parler. But in a supposed effort to prevent further incitements of violence, both Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores while Amazon shut of the services’ web servers.
The big tech companies had deemed Parler dangerous with Google calling it an “ongoing urgent public safety thread.” Meanwhile, Apple quickly rejected as insufficient a plan by the company to moderate its content. On the other hand, Amazon’s employees has asked that the company “deny Parler services until it removes posts inciting violence, including at the Presidential inauguration.”
The restrictions on Parler demonstrate how much power big tech companies have over public conversation, even over apps operated by other companies. For years, these companies have avoided such debates by claiming to be content-neutral. But the events of the past few years leading up to last week’s breach of the U.S. Capitol and Trump’s banning for supposedly inciting it, show that they and their software algorithms and content moderation have real-world impact.
Parler CEO says that it did not tolerate content that incited violence
Prior to the site being taken down, Parlet CEO John Matze said that it would not cave in to pressure from other tech companies.
“We will not cave to pressure from anti-competitive actors!” he wrote on a post on the site Friday. “We WON’T cave to politically motivated companies and those authoritarians who hate free speech!”
But despite his objections, Matze did not have much choice but to simply watch his site be taken down. First by Google and Apple removing it from their stores, then eventually by Amazon refusing to host Parler on its cloud services.
In response, Matze has stated that the companies have misrepresented him and that inciting violence – the main reason all these companies have shut Parler down – was something that he did not encourage on the site. (Related: ADL and the fake news media are pressuring Parler to censor ‘hate speech’ accounts.)
“In an interview this week, some believe I gave the impression that I somehow did not care whether Parler is used to incite violence. I want to set the record straight: That interpretation could not be further from the truth,” he said in a statement Sunday, Jan. 10, after the crackdown on the app.
“We do not condone or accept violence on our platform and we never will,” he added.
Matze reiterated that Parler’s community guidelines expressly prohibit threats of violence or incitement. He also added that the company had been hard at work to enforce those rules before the service was shut down.
“Parler is not a surveillance app, so we can’t just write a few algorithms that will quickly locate 100% of objectionable content, especially during periods of rapid growth and the seemingly coordinated malicious attacks that accompany that growth,” he explained. “But that doesn’t mean we haven’t been effective. Up until Friday afternoon, it seemed that Apple, Amazon, and Google agreed.”
Big tech’s control over online discourse under scrutiny
Big tech’s monopoly-like powers have already gone under scrutiny by U.S. lawmakers with both Google and Facebook facing government antitrust lawsuits. Meanwhile, other leaders, including the former President Trump, have called for a review of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects these companies from liability from content their user’s posts.
But at the same time, others have criticized these companies for being too lax in their content moderation, saying that they’ve been to permissive when it comes to incendiary speech that can lead to real-world violence or illegal activity.
While some critics and government officials have applauded the tech companies’ moves, some advocates are worried by the subjective nature of the latter.
“It should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” said Americal Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane in a statement after Trump was banned on the platforms. “It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone.”
Follow Censorship.news for more on how big tech is blocking conservative viewpoints.
(Natural News) Social media giant Twitter’s shares dropped by 12 percent on Monday, Jan. 11, after the company banned former President Donald Trump and other conservatives from their platform. The company’s shares dropped after the market opened, reaching a low of $45.17.
According to Twitter, it had removed Trump’s account on Friday because some of the president’s recent posts were seen as glorifying violence. The move echoed statements made by critics who have attempted to connect Trump’s rhetoric with the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Jan. 7.
In response, Trump accused Twitter of coordinating with the “Democrats and the Radical Left” to remove his account from their platform.
In addition to Trump, Twitter had also banned other prominent conservatives including election lawyer Sidney Powell and former national security advisor Michael Flynn. At the same time, a number of other users, who weren’t banned, also left the platform, such as radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.
Some conservatives still on the platform have called for a shift to Parler, a Twitter alternative that has since gone offline after Amazon Web Services refused to continue hosting its servers. Others have fled to Gab, another Twitter competitor, who’s userbase has been skyrocketing since the bans.
Stock price drop comes as fears of further regulation surface
The drop in Twitter’s stock price comes amid concerns from investors about possible future regulation. Some are worried that the company’s actions could reignite legislation to revoke Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act – legislation that protects internet companies from liability for content users post.
Not only has Trump voiced his disdain for Section 230, but politicians on both sides of the aisle have also complained about it. (Related: Trump reiterates need for Section 230 immunity protections to be stripped from Big Tech.)
“While a Democratic administration may be less focused on significant reform of Section 230, recent events may make content legislation more likely,” stated BofA Securities analysts in a note to clients. That said, the firm still reiterated its positive rating on the stock.
“We would anticipate new proposed legislation in Congress on Social Media content given recent events,” the analysts wrote. “But note content concerns are not new and we think that new laws will provide social media companies with better guidelines and less uncertainty.”
At the same time, analysts from Bernstein stated that more “regulatory activity” was “likely.”
Other social media sites and services also move to censor Trump and pro-Trump speech
Twitter wasn’t the only social media platform to take a harder-line stance against Trump and other conservative accounts.
Facebook recently banned Trump for at least two weeks while also banning any mention of the phrase “stop the steal.” Following this shares of Facebook sank as much as 4.5 percent. The slide saw $33.6 billion erased from Facebook’s market capitalization.
Other services that have been Trump’s accounts include Snapchat, Twitch, Tiktok, Instagram and YouTube. Other services, such as Reddit, Discord and Pinterest have banned pro-Trump account or blocked groups and topics related to Trump and “Stop the Steal.” Meanwhile, Stripe has stated that it will stop processing payments for Trump’s campaign while Shopify has taken down stores affiliated with Trump.
Meanwhile, some of these companies have also targetted other services that continue to allow conservative and pro-Trump voices. Amazon Web Services recently stopped providing cloud services to social media app Parler. The latter had attracted a lot of conservatives who had become disenfranchised by Twitter. In addition, Google and Apple both pulled Parler’s app from their storefronts while user authentication service provider Okta pulled Parler’s free trial of their product.
But it has yet to be seen if these companies will experience the same stock price drops as Twitter and Facebook.
Follow BigTech.news for more on how Silicon Valley is working to silence conservatives.
(Natural News) Social media giant Facebook has said that it removing all content mentioning “stop the steal” as part of a raft of measures to supposedly stem misinformation and incitements of violence on its platform.
Facebook made this statement after confirming that it would uphold its decision last week to suspend former President Donald Trump from posting for at least two weeks. The company’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that, at the time, the purported risks of the president using the service during this period were too great.
In addition, the company said on Monday, Jan. 11, that it would also continue to pause all U.S. ads about politics and elections, including those from Trump.
“With continued attempts to organize events against the outcome of the U.S. presidential election that can lead to violence, and use of the [‘stop the steal’] term by those involved in Wednesday’s violence in DC, we’re taking this additional step in the lead up to the inauguration,” Guy Rosen, the company’s vice president of integrity and Monika Bickert, its vice president of global policy management wrote in a company blog post.
“It may take some time to scale up our enforcement of this new step but we have already removed a significant number of posts,” they added.
Facebook ban follows censorship moves from other tech companies
Facebook is just one of the many big tech companies that have taken steps in recent days to silence the president’s personal accounts or online communities devoted to him, citing rules prohibiting content that incites violence. Others include Twitter, Snap and Reddit.
These moves followed the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. These companies claim that the president and his allies urged those involved to march on Capitol Hill as lawmakers convened to certify the electoral college vote from the November elections.
“In this moment, the risk to our democracy was too big that we felt we had to take the unprecedented step of what is an indefinite ban, and I’m glad we did,” Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg told Reuters in an interview Monday.
“This shows that the president is not above the policies we have,” Sandberg said to Reuters Breakingviews columnist Gina Chon.
In addition, the company also claims that it’s doing so as part of protective efforts against violence and misinformation in the lead-up to the presidential inauguration following last week’s events on Capitol Hill.
“We began preparing for Inauguration Day last year. But our planning took on new urgency after last week’s violence in Washington, D.C., and we are treating the next two weeks as a major civic event,” Rosen and Bickert wrote.
Facebook started censoring after backlash, but now faces backlash from investors
Facebook has long taken a light touch to policing speech posted by politicians, especially compared to other social media services, such as Twitter.
The company started reversing course from that position and started applying labels to the president’s posts this summer. This was due to backlash that the company received, including an advertiser boycott when it declined to act against Trump’s supposedly incendiary rhetoric around the Black Lives Matter protests that sprung up throughout the United States. (Related: Facebook smoking gun: Conservatives targeted for censorship because of their political beliefs… Facebook rigging elections.)
But now the company is facing a different form of backlash. Facebook’s stocks fell by as much as much as 4.5 percent on Monday. Many investors balked at the company’s moves to ban Trump which were seen to raise concerns about future regulation.
Despite this, the company remains adamant with Sandberg stating that the company has “no plans” to lift the ban for now.
Follow Censorship.news for more on how social media companies are suppressing conservative voices.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to take action against Big Tech censorship - By Ramon Tomey - Thursday, January 21, 2021
(Natural News) The Republican governor of Florida has announced that his administration will look into Big Tech censorship. Gov. Ron DeSantis told an audience in Austin, Texas that Florida is considering ways to respond to technology firms’ recent censorship. DeSantis stated that the role Big Tech companies play in the lives of Americans made the issue “much more pressing.”
DeSantis made the remarks during a keynote luncheon hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The governor commented that tech companies censoring reports specifically from the New York Post bothered him. “I was very disturbed to see credible articles [from the Post] about Hunter Biden actively suppressed by these Big Tech oligarchs … [which] had an impact on the presidential election,” he said.
The Florida governor said the events that unfolded since the beginning of 2021 were “really chilling.” DeSantis referenced Twitter’s banning of President Donald Trump, which he called a “big deal.” However, the governor said that the actions toward alternative social media platform Parler bothered him more than Trump’s suspension.
DeSantis explained that Parler was a response to Twitter’s conservative censorship. The platform had gained traction in recent months, with users jumping there from Twitter. But Apple and Google have since removed Parler from their app store and Amazon terminated the site’s web hosting contract on its servers.
Dubbing the actions toward Parler as a “coordinated assault,” DeSantis condemned the Big Tech oligarchy as being “more powerful than the government itself.”
The governor warned that Big Tech firms were already “serving as judge, jury and executioner with no due process” and could “effectively wipe someone’s livelihood off the map.”
Given these actions by Big Tech, DeSantis put forward protections for people against Big Tech. “I think there needs to be protections for people. I don’t think we can have a couple of these far-left-wing tech oligarchs control the information in our country. I’m not going to accept that and I don’t think any of you are going to accept that. So, we’re thinking through what we can do to provide people some protections,” the governor elaborated.
DeSantis now supports an overhaul of Section 230 protections
Back when DeSantis served as a U.S. congressman for Florida, he had already been concerned about Big Tech censorship and how these companies hide behind Section 230 protections. “I was somebody that … supported [Section] 230, all that stuff when I was in Congress to repeal it,” he recounted.
The now-Florida governor then shared that Section 230 needed to be fully thought over. He explained that if conservatives could be censored for having views that challenge the Silicon Valley-approved narrative, it would mean that the core freedoms and values protected by the First Amendment are being threatened.
“I want a society in which we have a robust flow of information,” he added.
DeSantis concluded that his state was going to take action on the issue, alongside Texas, staing: “We’re thinking very, very deeply about this. I think it’s probably the most important legislative issue that we’re going to have to get right this year and next year in Florida.”
The Florida governor appears to have an ally in Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, his GOP party mate. Cruz has been an outspoken critic of Big Tech and its biased censorship. Back in October 2020, he slammed Big Tech censorship as “the single greatest threat to free speech and democracy” in America.
Speaking to Breitbart News Daily host Alex Marlow, the Texas lawmaker warned that “brazen” Silicon Valley billionaires have “amassed more power than ever seen before over information, the public square [and] discourse.” Cruz continued that these same billionaires have used their newfound power toward “shamelessly silencing and censoring conservatives.” (Related: Ted Cruz: Big Tech believes it has authority over what the press is allowed to report.)
The Texas senator exhorted President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice to use “enforcement and protection actions” to ensure First Amendment protections are maintained.
Later that month, Cruz slammed Twitter for its censorship of the Post‘s stories on Hunter Biden. In a strongly-worded letter, the lawmaker claimed the social media site’s decision to suppress the stories as “hypocritical.” According to Cruz, the company has allowed plenty of other stories with dubious stories to be posted on the site. (Related: WATCH: Ted Cruz eviscerates Jack Dorsey over whether Twitter is a “publisher.”)
John Brennan: Biden “nominees and appointees are moving in laser-like fashion” to target and “root-out” political opposition, including libertarians - By Sundance republished from TheConservativeTreehouse.com - January 21, 2021
(Natural News) Former CIA Director John Brennan, the man who weaponized the CIA to target Hillary Clinton’s political opposition, appears on MSNBC to outline the intention of the JoeBama administration to identify political enemies; label them domestic terrorists; and remove them from the population. Amid the groups to be targeted are libertarians.
In addition media outlets and social media giants refuse to allow any one to publish any thing relating to Biden and his families alleged corruption.
Socialism on the rise and many believe President Biden will one day be arrested because he and his son and brother are corrupt and crooks.
Pamela Harris would have to pardon Joe Biden, Harris becoming President.
I don’t see how President Biden will unite Americans by claiming white people are white supremacy, racist and in need of reprogramming in you voted for Trump.
Is it possible the FBI is the left hand of the Democrat Party or Chinas political ideologies the right hand? You have to decide for yourself whether the FBI has been taken over. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-01-21-john-brennan-biden-nominees-target-political-opposition.html
(Natural News) The Establishment Who Control US Media and Universities Are Determined to Destroy Trump Supporters
Go to Harvard University and Learn to be a Totalitarian.
Graduate students and alumni of the Harvard Kennedy School have dishonored the name of President Kennedy by demanding:
“Harvard must revoke the degrees of alumni whose incendiary language and subversion of democratic processes — rooted in a history of white supremacist voter suppression — incited the violent insurrection on January 6.”
As this demand reveals, Harvard no longer produces educated people. It produces indoctrinated and brainwashed people full of hatred.
It produces presstitutes that only lie and never tell the truth.
The First Thing All Totalitarian Revolutions Do Is Ban Free Speech
Americans will never again hear the other side.
OUTRAGEOUS: The FBI is renting billboards around the country to pervert reality and promote Democrat lies that President Trump and his supporters are violent - By Joe Hoft republished from TheGatewayPundit.com - January 21, 2021
(Natural News) FBI Billboards are everywhere. The corrupt FBI is advertising across the nation on billboards requesting information on individuals who attended the Capitol protests on January 6th. By doing so they promote the lie that Trump and his supporters are violent.
The FBI is so corrupt now it really needs to be shut down and rebuilt from the bottom up. The individuals leading this agency are not honest and often participate in criminal acts themselves (see Mueller Russia Collusion sham). So it is no surprise that this corrupt agency is advertising on billboards across the country insinuating the Capital protests a few weeks ago the most egregious act since 9-11. They do this by advertising the event. Something we have never seen before from this corrupt agency.
The above billboard was in Florida. Others have been reported across the country. Syracuse. com reports:
The FBI has put up a billboard on Interstate 690 near Syracuse as part of a national campaign to identify those involved in the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol.
The billboard, which went up Friday near the interchange of I-690 and the New York State Thruway in the town of Geddes, asks passing motorists to call or leave an online tip identifying people who participated in the insurrection that resulted in five deaths.
What the above report does not tell you is that one policeman who is included in the death count at the Capitol died the next day of natural causes. The remaining individuals were innocent Trump supporters who we still don’t have much information on how they died. One Trump supporter was shot dead by a Capitol policeman whose name has remained hidden. This is believed to be because of his suspected prior allegiances to BLM. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-01-21-fbi-is-renting-billboards-to-pervert-reality.html
(Natural News) Joe Biden was not even “inaugurated” yet and the far-left propaganda machine was already busy ramping up the racist rhetoric about how the next regime’s “spy agencies” need to launch a crusade to end “white terror.”
Because other countries have “domestic spy agencies” that “fight extremists at home,” The Daily Beast‘s Jeff Stein believes the United States needs to follow suit. After all, supporters of Donald Trump, or so we are told, entered the Capitol building on Jan. 6 during Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally, and this can never again be allowed to happen.
Just as predicted, the plan all along was obviously to stage a “wild” – Trump’s words – false flag event on Jan. 6 that would usher in a PATRIOT Act 2.0. Trump has now handed the baton to Biden, who was teed up to execute it when the time was right.
Stein’s first paragraph, in fact, makes a reference to the Sept. 11 “terror attacks,” which he says occurred because of “intelligence failures” – meaning the deep state did not yet have enough unconstitutional power under its belt to spy on the citizenry.
That quickly changed when George W. Bush executed the PATRIOT Act 1.0, forever changing the way Americans lived by stripping them of many of their constitutional rights. Now, the same thing is scheduled to happen following the Capitol false flag.
Stein says the Democrat-led Congress is right now studying whether America needs yet another spy agency, or what Stein calls “an independent counter-subversion agency to infiltrate and neutralize armed domestic extremists.”
Goodbye, America. You will be missed by many.
Many Americans who saw right through the QAnon psy-op could see this coming a mile away. What we are witnessing is yet another classic case of problem, reaction, solution false flag by America’s ruling class, which will stop at nothing until every last human neck is under their knee.
“It is not enough to just condemn hate. We need to equip law enforcement with the tools needed to identify threats and prevent violent acts of domestic terrorism,” declared Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) on the House floor while introducing the so-called “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.”
This bill, as revealed by Schneider and other co-sponsors, will expand “coordination between our federal agencies” to ensure that they are “focused on the most serious domestic threats.”
In other words, the formerly free United States of America is rapidly becoming an Israeli-style police state where rights and liberties are completely nonexistent because Americans have apparently chosen, or are not willing or able to fight back against, “safety” and “security” over freedom and liberty.
If you are a white person and have the means, now is probably the time to think about fleeing America’s borders to somewhere that will not treat you like a “terrorist” simply because of the color of your skin – if such a place even exists.
It is abundantly obvious that white people no longer have any place in American society, unless of course they coalesce to Black Lives Matter (BLM) or some other domestic terrorist group that will allow them to grovel and bow down in exchange for mere tolerance of their existence.
These are dark days for America, and increasingly so as the left, with the help of the neocons, goes for the kill shot. We were all warned this day would come, but many people mistakenly put their faith in what is perhaps the biggest populist con that has ever been perpetrated on a people group.
More of the latest news about the incoming regime’s tyrannous plans for America in 2021 and beyond can be found at Tyranny.news.
Sources for this article include:
Maybe the FBI will help them?
Four years of alleged Russian involvement with Trump to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming President, resulting in Trumps first impeachment tuned out to be a scam, signed off by Hillary herself so folks would over look her email scandal.
And now were finding out the FBI was involved in Hillary’s Russian scam to defeat Trump and with the FBI Directors help.
Hillary was not prosecuted because she was said to have no criminal intent when she disclosed classified information or when she shredded emails, destroyed hard drives and lied to everyone to include the congress.
Obamagate involved spying on Trump using the FBI. Intelligence Agencies of the U. S. were involved in corruption and Congressman Shift, kept the Russian scandal alive even though they knew it was false.
Email and Internet based Business