Tag: liberals

Leftists with ‘disinformation’ links launch all-out war on conservative news sites

Activists linked to a left-wing disinformation network are pressuring advertisers to cut ties with conservative news sites.

Check My Ads, a group started by Sleeping Giants co-founder and activist Nandini Jammi and advertising consultant Claire Atkin, bills itself as “Adtech’s first watchdog” and claims to “cut disinformation off at the source.” The organization attempts to curb the spread of what it deems misleading or hateful content by pressuring advertisers and ad exchanges to sever business relationships with certain news and commentary sites.

The targets, almost invariably, are conservative publications such as Human Events and The Post Millennial, and right-wing media figures such as Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk.

Check My Ads recently took credit for helping to kick conservative talk show host Dan Bongino’s website, Bongino.com, off Google’s ad service Friday, with Jammi celebrating Google’s decision as a “final, devastating blow” to Bongino and exclaiming “we did it!”

The group is currently targeting conservative magazine Human Events, focusing on senior editor Jack Posobiec whom the group describes as a “white nationalist and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist.”

Keep reading

The Pressure Campaign on Spotify to Remove Joe Rogan Reveals the Religion of Liberals: Censorship

American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by “liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).

For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of “hate speech” to mean “views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech.” Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.

Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.

When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont’s heating system and Putin’s sexual blackmail over Trump to bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Biden email archive being “Russian disinformation,” and a magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is “disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID’s origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely.

This “disinformation” term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of “disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard.

The data proving a deeply radical authoritarian strain in Trump-era Democratic Party politics is ample and have been extensively reported here. Democrats overwhelmingly trust and love the FBI and CIA. Polls show they overwhelmingly favor censorship of the internet not only by Big Tech oligarchs but also by the state. Leading Democratic Party politicians have repeatedly subpoenaed social media executives and explicitly threatened them with legal and regulatory reprisals if they do not censor more aggressively — a likely violation of the First Amendment given decades of case law ruling that state officials are barred from coercing private actors to censor for them, in ways the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.

Democratic officials have used the pretexts of COVID, “the insurrection,” and Russia to justify their censorship demands. Both Joe Biden and his Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, have “urged” Silicon Valley to censor more when asked about Joe Rogan and others who air what they call “disinformation” about COVID. They cheered the use of pro-prosecutor tactics against Michael Flynn and other Russiagate targets; made a hero out of the Capitol Hill Police officer who shot and killed the unarmed Ashli Babbitt; voted for an additional $2 billion to expand the functions of the Capitol Police; have demanded and obtained lengthy prison sentences and solitary confinement even for non-violent 1/6 defendants; and even seek to import the War on Terror onto domestic soil.

Keep reading

The Neocons’ Primary War Tactic: Branding Opponents of U.S. Intervention as Traitors

One of the most bizarre but important dynamics of Trump-era U.S. politics is that the most fanatical war-hungry neocons, who shaped Bush/Cheney militarism, have become the most popular pundits and thought leaders in American liberalism. They have not changed in the slightest — they are employing the same tactics they have always invoked, and for the same causes — but they have correctly perceived that their agenda is better served by migrating back to the Democratic Party which originally spawned their bloodthirsty ideology.

The excuse offered by Democrats for their embrace of neocons — we did it only as a temporary coalition of convenience to oppose Trump — is false for many reasons. This unholy alliance pre-dated Trump. In 2014 — long before anyone envisioned Trump descending down an escalator on his path to the White House — the journalist Jacob Heilbrunn wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “The Next Act of the Neocons.” He predicted, correctly as it turned out, that “the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”

Keep reading

Leftist writer calls for parenthood to be abolished to achieve equity, says your children should be given to ‘homeless neighbors’ or to the state

A writer is proposing that California abolish parenthood so that the state can “achieve true equity.”

The outlandish proposal was presented in an article published in the “opinion” section of the Ventura County Star – a daily newspaper published in California. The publication is owned by Gannett – the largest newspaper company in the United States. The article titled “California should abolish parenthood, in the name of equity” was also republished by Yahoo in its “news” section.

The author of the piece is Joe Mathews – a co-president of the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, which is “dedicated to those active on issues of direct democracy, participation and citizens’ rights around the world.”

The article touts Californians as having the goal of “equity” to be their “greatest value.” However, Mathews notes that parenthood prevents true equity because “fathers and mothers with greater wealth and education are more likely to transfer these advantages to their children, compounding privilege over generations.”

Keep reading

America’s ‘white supremacy’ is a myth, and here’s the proof

Asian women are now more successful than white men in the United States, shattering the progressives’ narrative that the country is systemically racist. And the response of the left? To claim that Asians are actually white.

According to a recent US Department of Labour report, Asian women out-earned white men in six of the last nine quarters, and in the most recent quarter, Asian women on average earned 9.1% more than their white male counterparts ($1,224 per week compared to $1,122 per week).

And while that news may not mean much to the casual observer, the success of Asian women does, however, pose a problem for those keen to paint America as a land rife with systemic discrimination against women and particularly non-white people. But rather than give up the narrative of oppression, the left has instead offered increasingly impressive mental gymnastics to justify the disconnect between their ideology and our reality.

Keep reading