It’s not just conservative US websites that are being targeted and banned.
The Voice of Europe, a a European website against unlimited migration and Islamic radicalism, was banned and censored recently by Facebook.
No conservative thought will be allowed.
Voice of Europe reported:
We were one of the fastest growing European news sites on Facebook with at least 30,000 people joining us every month. On some days 5,000 people joined us, but those days are gone after Facebook decided to censor us, suspend us and threaten us.
While we’ve changed nothing in our postings, Facebook’s behaviour towards us changed. Several innocent postings were a reason for Facebook to suspend our moderators.
For example posting a picture of Poles protesting behind a banner with ‘Mohammed not welcome’ was a reason to suspend one of our moderators for 24 hours and we had to delete content as well. But it would become much worse..
This week we were even banned for posting our own news and our moderator received a suspension for 30 days! While we understand news can be ‘hate speech’ as well, we don’t think this was the case here.
We’ve posted book review of a former Czech president who said: “The migrant influx is comparable to the barbarian invasions of Europe.”
While the article heavily criticises migration, it is news, like any other article on our site. But not according to Facebook: The article was removed, we received a 30-day suspension and Facebook threatened to remove our page over it. But something even more strange happened.
Leave a comment
Wait… so now we’re not declassifying the Carter Page FISA docs?
On Thursday we were discussing the pending declassification and release of various FISA documents, text messages and FBI notes pertaining to the investigation of Carter Page. At the time I noted that every Democrat in the Gang of Eight was up in arms and demanding some sort of delay so they could review the situation. It didn’t seem as if those protests were going to carry much weight since, in the end, it’s up to the President and his intelligence advisers to determine what material is or isn’t classified. And given Trump’s history of, shall we say… determination on such matters, it sounded like a done deal.
Goes to show how much I know, huh? On Friday, the President turned around and put on the brakes, citing a variety of reasons for further review being required. (Boston Globe)
In a rare retreat, President Trump on Friday reversed himself and said he was no longer demanding that documents related to the Russia investigation be immediately declassified and released to the public.
Taking to Twitter on Friday morning, Trump said that instead of an immediate release, Justice Department officials would review the documents, adding that “in the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary.”
“I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, the Inspector General has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me — and everyone!”
I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release. Therefore, the Inspector General…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018
….has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me – and everyone!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018
So what happened in the past 48 hours to change the President’s mind or at least slow him down? I think we can rule out any concerns about a “perceived negative impact on the Russia probe.” In fact, that one is just laughable. If anything, a negative impact on the Russia investigation would probably just speed the documents out the door. Nobody seems to have much insight on this yet, but let’s just put out a couple guesses, shall we?
One possibility might be that Trump’s finally had a look at the documents himself and doesn’t find them as helpful as he’d been told. Keep in mind that as recently as Tuesday the President admitted he hadn’t even read them himself. He’s been taking the word of senior members like Devin Nunes, who really want those documents out in the public’s eye. If Trump’s legal team looked them over and found them less than helpful (or potentially even hurting his cause?) he might want to slow this train down.
Alternatively, I suppose it’s possible that some foreign allies weighed in and begged him to keep a lid on it. But who? Theresa May? Macron? Is there any way that their governments had their fingers in the pie when the Steele dossier was being shopped around and they don’t want that connection exposed? But since when has Donald Trump worried overly much about stepping on the toes of foreign leaders? Anything’s possible I suppose, but that line doesn’t sound very realistic.
Trump is leaving himself the option of releasing them “later” but that’s not usually his style. If he was ready to go with the disclosure and then put the whole operation on hold overnight, I’m willing to bet there’s something in there which wouldn’t play in his favor. And if that’s the case, “later” may turn out to be never.
Leave a comment
Christine Blasey Ford Hires Andrew McCabe Lawyer Who Was Iran Contra Assoc. Counsel
The Deep State push to block the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh just got reinforcements with the hiring by accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of Michael Bromwich, a lawyer representing fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and whose work in Washington goes back to the Iran Contra investigation where he served as Associate Counsel and prosecuted Oliver North. Bromwich also heads a consulting firm that specializes in crisis and government investigation communications.
Bromwich will be joining Blasey Ford’s current attorneys on the case, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks.
Michael R. Bromwich, image via Twitter avatar.
CNN Justice Department reporter Laura Jarrett, the daughter of Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, broke the news Saturday afternoon on Twitter, “News – former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich has joined Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team. (Note he also represents former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe). He has just resigned from his law firm effective immediately in light of objections within the partnership.” (Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP)
News – former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich has joined Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team. (Note he also represents former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe). He has just resigned from his law firm effective immediately in light of objections within the partnership.
— Laura Jarrett (@LauraAJarrett) September 22, 2018
Jarrett added an image of Bromwich’s statement.
— Laura Jarrett (@LauraAJarrett) September 22, 2018
— Melissa Schwartz (@MSchwartz3) September 22, 2018
Bromwich added, “I’m honored to be joining Debra Katz and Lisa Banks in representing Dr. Ford”
I’m honored to be joining Debra Katz and Lisa Banks in representing Dr. Ford https://t.co/WdhWj0qmSw
— Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) September 22, 2018
Schwartz is COO of the Bromwich Group, a consulting firm founded by Bromwich in 2012. Schwartz’s about page details some of her work for the Bromwich Group’s clients:
Provided strategic and tactical advice in the face of adverse media coverage;
Served as spokesperson for clients dealing with regulatory and congressional investigations;
Developed comprehensive communications plans, messaging and materials for large-scale communications initiatives;
Built and implemented media, internal, external and online communication and outreach strategies to tell a client’s story and shape public perception of the organization;
Created diverse media strategies to complement litigation settlements; and
Organized and directed media relations in connection with events.
Bromwich’s Twitter bio reads, “former DOJ IG; Asst US Attorney, SDNY; Assoc. Independent Counsel: Iran-Contra; independent monitor x 4; law enforcement consultant; lifelong Dodgers/Lakers fan” His about page at the Bromwich Group goes into greater detail.
…Over the course of a career that has spanned more than 35 years, Mr. Bromwich has tackled a variety of challenging assignments. He has been a federal prosecutor, a special prosecutor, an inspector general, the country’s top offshore drilling regulator, the compliance monitor of major public companies and public agencies, and a lawyer who has practiced with some of the most widely-respected law firms in the country. He has been called on countless times – by public corporations, private companies, federal, state, and local governments, cabinet secretaries, and the President of the United States – to deal with issues and problems of the greatest private and public significance. “…
Blasey Ford has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, but her lawyers are still negotiating such details as which day.
Leave a comment
New Cruz ad: Can you believe O’Rourke is siding with the guy who got shot by a cop in his own home for no reason?
He’s getting creamed for this, justifiably, and not only by liberals. The best part is the presented-without-comment framing, as though O’Rourke had been caught denying the Holocaust or saying something so similarly outlandish that no explanation is needed for why it should offend you.
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 21, 2018
This is the second time he’s gone after the Democrat over the Botham Jean shooting, one of the most bananas cases of lethal force by a cop you’ll ever encounter. You probably know the facts by now but in case not: A white Dallas police officer came home after a 15-hour shift at work, found the door to her apartment slightly ajar, walked in and saw a man standing in the darkness. Thinking he was a burglar, she pulled her pistol, gave him “verbal commands” to freeze, then fired when he didn’t comply. He died. When she turned on the lights she realized it wasn’t her apartment at all; she had entered the unit directly above her own, which had an identical layout. The “burglar,” a black man, was in his own home, not hers.
This is the cop’s own version of events, let me stress. Neighbors claim they heard a woman yelling “let me in” before the shots were fired and there’s reason to believe that all doors in their apartment complex shut automatically, eliminating the possibility that the cop arrived to find “her” door open a crack such that she could breeze in without meeting resistance from the lock. Even the cop doesn’t claim that the victim, Botham Jean, was doing anything wrong. The narrative that’s *most* favorable to her, her own self-serving account, is that she strolled into another person’s home and ended up blowing him away, falsely believing she was in her own pad and that he was there committing some sort of crime. She’s been charged with manslaughter but the charges may be increased to murder.
And the kicker, as O’Rourke notes in the clip, is that somehow the fact that the dead man had marijuana in his apartment was leaked afterward to the media even though it had nothing to do with the incident. I wrote about that 10 days ago, struck by the fact that left and right seemed to react to the leak the same way. There was bipartisan outrage that a person who’d been gunned down in his own home was now being smeared postmortem as a criminal, apparently to try to make the cop’s actions — which were based on a horrendous misjudgment by her own admission — seem reasonable-ish.
So which part of what O’Rourke said is so outrageous that Cruz thought it would work as-is as an attack ad for his own campaign? What’s the message here? Two possibilities:
1. Anyone who’d take sides against a cop in a shooting, irrespective of the facts, is anti-cop.
2. Anyone who’d take sides against a white cop in the shooting of a black victim, irrespective of the facts, is anti-white.
That’s a very Trump-y message. (Some critics wondered whether it’s a coincidence that the video of O’Rourke that Cruz chose for his ad just happens to involve a cheering black audience, per point two.) A “constitutional conservative” who’s naturally skeptical of state power, which is how Cruz sold himself throughout the tea-party era and beyond, shouldn’t naturally gravitate to white identity politics and mindless respect for armed authority in analyzing a case in which an agent of the state killed an innocent man for no good reason. But this is how Republican politics operates in the Trump era, or at least how Cruz thinks it operates. That’s also why he’s been hammering O’Rourke for defending the NFL players who kneel during the anthem to protest police brutality. Same underlying themes as in this new ad: Blacks are complaining about how they’re being treated by bad white cops and the Democratic candidate sure is eager to side with them. He’s not “one of us.” Which leaves the question hanging in the air: Who’s the “us” he’s talking about? In the NFL example you could say it’s people who respect the flag and the national anthem. Who’s the “us” in this new ad that O’Rourke is supposedly against, though?
Bear in mind that a white cop was convicted of murder in the Dallas area for killing an unarmed black teen just within the past month. Inspired by that and the Botham Jean case, David French wrote recently about how his own view of police shootings has changed over time. He too used to approach it as an “us vs. them” issue, with the cops on one side and the Bad People on the other. It isn’t.
Truth be told, the way I covered this issue in 2015 and much of 2016 shed more heat than light. Here’s what I did. I looked at the riots in Ferguson, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Charlotte, the extremism of the formal Black Lives Matter organization (which referred to convicted cop-killers as “brothers” and “mama” and said its explicit goal was to “disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure”), and the continued use of debunked claims, including “hands up, don’t shoot,” and I focused on these excesses largely to the exclusion of everything else.
Yes, I used all the proper “to be sure” language — there are some racist cops, not every shooting is justified, etc. — but my work in its totality minimized the vital quest for individual justice, the evidence that does exist of systematic racial bias, and I failed to seriously consider the very real problems that contribute to the sheer number of police killings in the U.S.
To put it bluntly, when I look back at my older writings, I see them as contributing more to a particular partisan narrative than to a tough, clear-eyed search for truth.
That’s the most charitable possibility for what Cruz is after here. The standard “partisan narrative” when a cop shoots an unnamed man is that the left sides with the victim and the right sides with authority. The new ad is merely another way, however cloddish, of signaling to Texas’s Republican majority how left-wing O’Rourke is. Look, he’s pushing the message that Team Blue typically pushes, not the one that Team Red does! He’s not one of us. Which really only circles you back to French’s point: Why should we require someone to defend a cop in every circumstance to qualify as “one of us,” including and especially a case where the cop herself admits she screwed up?
It’s commonly accepted (including by me) that Cruz isn’t really in danger of losing the Texas race. O’Rourke’s giving him a scare and no doubt the final margin will be tighter than most elections in Texas usually are, but Democrats simply don’t have the numbers to pull this off. If that’s so, though, why would Cruz stoop to this? Why take an innocent dead man and use O’Rourke’s justifiable outrage on his behalf and use it as some lowest-common-denominator Trumpian play on race and authority a la Trump’s infamous newspaper ad back in the day about the Central Park Five? It’s no sure thing that populist Republicans will respond well to this ad; like I said up top, they jeered the attempt to smear Jean after his death by leaking that he had weed in his apartment. But it’s unquestionably true that Cruz believes populist Republicans will respond well to it. Who does he think his base is at this point? What lessons did he take about the Republican electorate from his destruction at Trump’s hands in 2016?
My suspicion is that Cruz took the presented-without-comment approach to what O’Rourke said not because he felt it was so outrageous that it didn’t require further comment but rather the opposite. He couldn’t mount a good-faith argument against it but he knows, or believes, that many righties will find something offensive in it — “Beto hates cops,” “Beto hates whites” — so he’s running it up the flagpole for those people to salute. Am I giving him too much credit in suspecting that or not enough?
Leave a comment
Like us on Facebook
Politics11 months ago
IT’S OVER!! ESPN’s Next Move Will Rain DEATH On The NFL… They’ll NEVER Bounce Back
News4 months ago
OH BOY! Iranian Regime Threatens to Release Names of Western Officials Who Took Bribes to Pass Nuke Deal
News10 months ago
Democrat Conyers Threatens to Take the Whole Damn Swamp Down With Him!
Politics11 months ago
After Bashing Trump All Summer, George Clooney Gets Humiliated By Middle America
News2 months ago
Adam Schiff Hits Panic Button After Trump-Putin Presser Drops Bombshell on US Intel and Clinton Campaign
News8 months ago
Bill Clinton Says Haiti Relief Funds Didn’t Pay for Chelsea’s Wedding… Then Wikileaks Drops This Bomb
News9 months ago
Congresswoman Who Stole Other Passenger’s United Airlines Seat Plays Race Card
News3 months ago
Report: Witness Prepared to Identify Two Killers of Seth Rich