Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #26 

Apple, Twitter, Google, Instagram and other tech companies collude to defeat Trump

pic156.jpg

Liz Crokin (Observer) says there is no such thing as pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign.

My dad always told me that conservative candidates have to work twice as hard as their liberal opponents to win elections because they're fighting two opponents: the Democratic Party and the media.

The usual suspects from left-leaning major media outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and even entertainment networks are doing everything in their power to ensure a Clinton victory. Look no further than to Wolf Blitzer mincing around and drinking wine at the Democratic convention, celebrating Hillary's nomination. But the propaganda skewing this election runs much deeper than just the media: our iPhones, iPads, social media networks, Google and even video games are all in the tank for Hillary Clinton -- and it's chilling.

I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGAPod. The show's host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn't run his show without an "explicit" warning. Hammond's podcast didn't contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple's policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren't labeled as such.

On June 18, Hammond talked to Sandra, a representative from Apple. She explained that, since the description of his show is pro-Trump, his show is explicit in nature -- because the subject matter is Donald Trump. So, an Apple employee concluded the Republican presidential candidate is explicit.

iTunes has dozens of podcasts discussing Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler -- none of which is marked explicit. I encouraged Hammond to contact Apple again, via email to their podcast support team. Within 48 hours he received a response from "Tim," who informed Hammond that his podcast would be updated to "clean" within 24 hours.

Further digging on Apple revealed more evidence that the computer giant is feeding users pro-Hillary and anti-Trump propaganda.

Over the past year, Apple twice refused to publish a satirical Clinton Emailgate game, "Capitol HillAwry," claiming it was "offensive" and "mean spirited" even though the game's developer, John Matze, cited in communications with Apple that the game fits the standards of Apple's own satire policy. Apple has, however, approved dozens of games poking fun at Donald Trump -- including a game called "Dump Trump," which depicts the GOP nominee as a giant turd.

On July 25, Breitbart exposed this blatant double standard and favoritism toward Clinton. A few days after the article was released, Apple caved and published Capitol HillAwry, 15 months after Matze's first attempt to go live.

While it's commendable that Apple resolved both situations, Trump supporters and conservative users should never have faced such biased treatment in the first place.

Around the same time I was a guest on MAGAPod, a friend complained to me about how biased his Apple News feed is against Trump. I set up an Apple News account on my iPhone.

First step: select an outlet. Fox News. Conservative. But my news feed? Liberal.

And if there are articles above the fold from more right-leaning sites? They paint Trump in a negative light and Hillary in a positive light. Of all the channels listed in the Apple News politics section, only two of the 16 arguably lean right -- the rest are reliably left-wing.

This has, of course, been pointed out before, and anyone with an iPhone or iPad can go to Apple News to determine on his or her own if Apple is pushing leftist propaganda. Apple claims not to endorse candidates, but their actions suggest otherwise, and some of their executives -- including CEO Tim Cook -- actively support Clinton's campaign. Buzzfeed recently obtained an invitation to a private $50,000-per-plate fundraiser Cook is hosting for Clinton with his Apple colleague, Lisa Jackson, at the end of this month.

Apple isn't the only corporation doing Clinton's bidding. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is "directly engaged" in her campaign. It's been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt -- chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google -- to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the "engineering talent to win the election." He also pointed out that many members of Clinton's staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.

So it should come as no surprise that there have been multiple reports accusing Google of manipulating searches to bury negative stories about Clinton. SourceFed details how Google alters its auto-complete functions to paint Clinton in a positive light.

For example, when you type "Hillary Clinton cri" into other engines like Yahoo! or Bing, the most popular autofills are "Hillary Clinton criminal charges" but in Google it's "Hillary Clinton crime reform." Google denies they changed their algorithm to help Clinton, and insists the company does not favor any candidate. They also claim their algorithms don't show predicted queries that are offensive or disparaging.

But Google has gotten into hot water on multiple occasions for connecting Trump to Adolf Hitler. In June, when users searched "when Hitler was born" it generated the expected information on Hitler but also an image of Trump. In July, searches for Trump's book, Crippled America, returned images of Adolf Hitler's manifesto Mein Kempf. Google has since fixed both -- but again, why do these issues always conveniently disparage Trump and help Clinton?

Twitter is another culprit. The company has gotten a lot of slack for banning conservatives and Trump supporters such as Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos and, most recently, rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump. Twitter has provided vague answers as to why conservative voices have been banned while they've allowed other users to call for the killing of cops.

Just yesterday, Buzzfeed revealed that the social media giant's top executive personally protected the President from seeing critical messages last year. "In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama."

This year, Twitter isn't just banning conservatives -- the platform also changed its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.

The founders of some of the most popular pro-Trump Twitter handles -- including @USAforTrump2016 and @WeNeedTrump -- insist Twitter is censoring their content. They've pointed out that Twitter changes trending hashtags associated with negative tweets about Clinton (which has been reported before). On August 4, shortly after the hashtag "HillaryAccomplishment" began trending, it was taken over by anti-Clinton users, who used it to mention Benghazi or Emailgate. Eric Spracklen, @USAforTrump2016 founder, noticed the hashtag was quickly changed -- pluralized to #HillarysAccomplishments.

"They take away the hashtag that has negative tweets for Clinton and replace it with something that doesn't so the average person doesn't see what was really trending," Spracklen said. "This happens every day."

Jack Murphy, founder of @WeNeedTrump, says followers complain they often aren't able to retweet his pro-Trump tweets.

Instagram has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light. In June, a conservative comedy group called Toughen Up America was banned with no warning or explanation. Last week, the popular Australian-based graffiti artist, Lushsux, was banned from Instagram after he posted photos of a bikini-clad Clinton mural he painted.

"I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat, but the timing of the Hillary Clinton mural posting and the deletion that ensued can't just be a coincidence," he told the Daily Mail Australia. Lushsux has posted photos of way more graphic murals, including a topless Melania Trump and a naked Donald with his package in full sight. These images did not trigger any censorship from Instagram.

Facebook has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices like Black Lives Matter activists. The problem became so transparent that Sen. John Thune sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain their practices.

Facebook denies it discriminates against "any sources of ideological origin" and Zuckerberg did meet with conservatives in an attempt to resolve this issue. While some walked away from the meeting encouraged that Zuckerberg wants to repair their relationship, other prominent conservatives rejected the invitation as a publicity stunt. It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.

Many conservatives have come to expect this kind of thing from the mainstream media. CNN, which paints itself as the centrist antidote to right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC, has actually been among the most disingenuous offenders during this cycle, fully earning its derisive nickname "Clinton News Network." For example, as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, "CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday's New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign -- 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn't think much of the Wall Street Journal's revelationthat the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn't mention that the payment was sent on "an unmarked cargo plane." New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran."

Another favored CNN trick is to present a "balanced" panel comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats and a host, as they did on the afternoon of July 29, just to name one instance of a hundred. However, the Republican side always features one Trump supporter and one "Never Trump" Republican, with the host grilling the Trump Supporter -- often a beleaguered Jeffrey Lord -- in what amounts to a 4-on-1. So much for balance.

Right now, CNN has a story on its site called "Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?" There's no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump's Republican challengers.

No Republican willing to criticize Trump is too insignificant to merit coverage on CNN. When a minor Christie staffer announced on her personal Facebook that she'd be backing Hillary, she somehow merited a 1200 word story on CNN's website and euphoric coverage on the air by Brooke Baldwin for "splitting with her party."

So that's the traditional media. But this new strand, where one cannot even search for alternative viewpoints amid technology companies who stand to benefit from the free-trade policies and eased immigration regulations of a Clinton presidence, represents a dangerous sea change. There's absolutely no question the digital forums we use every day are censoring conservatives and favoring Clinton. You can't simply scroll through photos on Instagram, look for a video game in the App Store or do a quick Google search without being fed anti-Trump and pro-Clinton propaganda.

These companies are engaging in activity that can quickly lead down a very dangerous slippery slope and this should concern all freedom-loving Americans -- not just conservatives. If you don't know when the election is, no problem! Just Google it and see for yourself what comes up…


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #27 

FEC's anti-free speech Democrats plan Internet censorship of political speech

pic134.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that there is a plan by the FEC to regulate free online political sites to include free YouTube postings and blogs like Drudge and Sean Hannity and much smaller sites.

Free speech on the Internet has not been regulated but Democrats want to regulate it. It's an enormous overreach by government -- the FEC does not legitimately have the power to regulate free speech on the Internet.

All blogs, videos, and Internet sites would be affected by a move at the FEC to add burdensome regulations.

The FEC under Democrat Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel is poised to come up with rules governing political speech on the Internet. She wants to treat political blogs like PACs.

The terms have expired for the three GOP members and they are waiting to be replaced. Once the FEC is led by Democrats, you can expect all these regulations to go through. The Democrat party does not support free speech anywhere.

They tried to reach an agreement on Internet campaign speech Friday but the three GOP appointees voted against it.

Americans and interest groups have been free in this country to enjoy robust political conversation on the Internet without burdensome government registrations and monitoring or keeping and reporting or records of expenses.

Ravel has decided that this has led to a loophole for major political players so she wants to shut us all down. The regulations she's looking at will bump off the little guys like the Sentinel or even more significant bloggers like Drudge Report.

Ravel, a typical Democrat Socialist wants to shut down free speech under the guise of controlling major players.

She said the FEC should no longer "turn a blind eye to the Internet's growing force in the political arena," and she vowed to force a conversation next year on what changes to make.

The three Republican-backed commissioners, though, said in a joint statement that Ms. Ravel's plans would stifle what's become the "virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate."

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman said what Ms. Ravel is proposing would require a massive bureaucracy digging into the corners of the web to police what's posted about politics.

"I cannot imagine a regulatory regime that would put government censors on the Internet daily, culling YouTube video posts for violations of law — nothing short of a Chinese censorship board," Mr. Goodman said.

These people want to shut down speech they disagree with and what they call "lies." One case discussed concerned 2 ads in 2012 that accused Obama of lying about a Romney event and of Sherrod Brown of lying about the "war on coal."

They probably were lying.

That's what she wants to shut down.

It reminds one of the Attorneys General who are planning to prosecute climate deniers for their free speech and the hate speech laws Loretta Lynch wants.

They simply want to kill the First Amendment. If Hillary wins the presidency, it should be easy. God help our First Amendment if Hillary gets in.

Political committees and individuals or groups who pay to have their ads run online are still subject to disclosure requirements and there is no need for another bureaucracy.

Ravel isn't about to give up.

"Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone," said FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel in a statement. "As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense."

It makes sense if you want to keep the Internet free unlike everything else the government has ruined.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, described what Ms. Ravel wants as something like a Chinese censorship board.

He said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like "Obama Girl," and "Jib Jab" would also face regulations.

"I told you this was coming," he told Secrets. Earlier in 2014 he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #28 

Former CIA Director seems pretty sure that Russia and China stole Hillary Clinton's emails

pic100.jpg  

Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009), retired General Michael V. Hayden told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he believes Donald Trump is “erratic” and that relations between China and the U.S. represent “the most important geo-strategic question facing us.”

In a brief Q&A with TheDCNF, Hayden discussed Wikileaks, Russian intelligence, and what he thinks about the nominees.

TheDCNF: Do you think it is likely that Russia, Russian intelligence specifically, have seen Secretary Clinton’s emails and whether or not they have, why do you think they are targeting her?

Hayden: So, without concrete evidence, which I don’t have, and apparently the FBI doesn’t have either, what I have felt comfortable saying about this is that I would lose a whole lot of respect for a whole bunch of intelligence agencies around the world, if they hadn’t penetrated that server and gotten access to the emails. It’s what nation-states do to one another, and with emails of such an official, in that circumstance, I just think that would have been a natural magnet for a whole bunch of intelligence services, and the Russians are quite good at this.

TheDCNF: Secondly then, what do you think about Edward Snowden who has continually insinuated online that what he did and what Secretary Clinton did are equivalent? If they are different, if you believe they are different circumstances, what is the difference?

Hayden: Well, number one: what he [Snowden] did was intentional, what she [Clinton] did, I think the FBI Director’s comment was correct, it was “careless,” actually inexcusable. But she did not intend to make public, American secrets, so that’s one.

The second, there is no equivalency in scale here, in terms of the information that was pushed out globally in one case, Snowden, and which may have been acquired in another sense by intelligence services in another, [Clinton]. So again, the scale, we’re literally talking orders of magnitude in difference.

TheDCNF: What do you think about Wikileaks’ role in disseminating information regarding the hacks of the DNC? Also, what do you think about Wikileaks’ relationship with the Russian state?

Hayden: Well, again, you know, lacking specifics, my views are not fact-based, but you know, Wikileaks seems to be an organization that’s committed to revealing Western secrets, not Russian secrets, and one wonders why that is. Also, one would have to ask the question, wouldn’t Wikileaks think more than once with this arrangement where a reasonable person would at least make a hypothesis that they’re being used as a tool by Russian intelligence services that they would just be acting as an agent on their behalf.

TheDCNF: You have publicly stated that you believe Secretary Clinton would be the best candidate when it comes to foreign policy issues –

Hayden: Well, I said, given the choice of the two left. I had other choices, and I made them, but they’re no longer in the ring.

TheDCNF: That said, you have said that you are not ready to vote for Secretary Clinton and that you may not vote in November. What would make you vote in November? What do you need to see out of Secretary Clinton or out of Mr. Trump, to ultimately get your vote?

Hayden: Let me just say that I am uncomfortable with both and we’ll see what happens.

TheDCNF: Looking at the possibility of a Trump victory how would you see him and his foreign policy team handling the unfolding situation with ISIS and continued Russian aggression?

Hayden: Well, the problem is, I don’t know! I’ve used the term erratic to describe it. [Trump seems to say,] “Talk tough, not talk tough, recognize the annexation of Crimea in Ukraine, we’re not observing the North Atlantic alliance, I’m going to be very tough on ISIS and we’re going to do it quickly, and we’re not going to do nation-building and therefore not change the situation on the ground that created ISIS in the first place.”

So, it’s so erratic, that it scares our friends, helps our enemies, and confuses our citizens.

TheDCNF: Looking back on your time as CIA Director, what are your thoughts on the way that U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence handled their December 2014 Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program? Also, do you think that Sen. Dianne Feinstein in her statements about it versus what she knew at the time, did she among other Congressional leaders lie about what they claim was their lack of knowledge about the full extent of the program?

Hayden: Well, I never accused Sen. Feinstein of lying and I would not do that. She may have, not knowingly, said things that are factually incorrect, but that’s different than lying. My complaint about the report is that it is one-sided, that it did not talk to the human beings involved, and seemed really to have been a series of conclusions that worked backwards from the conclusions to marshal as much evidence they could gather just to support the conclusions.

TheDCNF: What do you think about the Senate Intelligence Committee having chosen not to interview anyone from the CIA and the claims that this would have conflicted with a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation?

Hayden: First of all, a lot of CIA seniors were not involved in the Justice Department investigation, and the investigation was concluded well before the report was concluded. So if that created an impediment, it wasn’t a total impediment and the impediment ended with plenty of time for interviews to be conducted.

TheDCNF: How would the Democratic Party taking back the Senate in November affect oversight regarding intelligence-gathering, versus a Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee?

Hayden: Well I hope that we return to our traditions with certain committees of Congress being above politics, that has historically been the tradition of the intelligence committees, and I’d hope that would be the case going forward. Besides, you know, the Democrats can control it, the Republicans can control it, those are domestic political questions, not my business. I carry no special expertise on that.

TheDCNF:  Much has been made recently about Russia during the U.S. election process, but turning to another geopolitical foe of the U.S., China, what should any administration, regardless of who wins, what are the pressing security challenges that the U.S. faces from China, particularly from an intelligence standpoint based on your experience, in your opinion?

Hayden: I think the Sino-American relationship is the most important geo-strategic question facing us. It’s not the most urgent due to terrorism and cyber-attacks and so on that grab the attention daily, but over the long-term, the Sino-American relationship and creating a space in the international system in which China is a positive contributor is I think the greatest challenge facing American diplomacy.

TheDCNF: As things stand, do you foresee a very real possibility of a second Cold War but this time between the U.S. and China or do you think that can and will be mitigated effectively in the near future?

Hayden: Our relations [with China] have turned a bit more frosty lately and I can see that happening but certainly not, it seems to me very unlikely that two nations whose economies are so intertwined, as the American and the Chinese economies are, to go back to anything like the Cold War we had with the Soviets.

TheDCNF: Lastly, looking at the evolving technologies involved in intelligence-gathering, among them, the use of drones, the Obama Administration seems to have concluded that it is more ethical or preferable to use lethal drones rather than interrogate and gain information from potential terrorists. Where do you stand on the increased militarization involved in executing decisions related to intelligence-gathering?

Hayden: So, my standard take on this is that we have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to detain people that we seem to default to taking them off the battlefield through direct action rather than capturing them.

TheDCNF: What do you make about incumbent CIA Director John Brennan saying recently that “we don’t steal secrets,” what do you think about those comments he made?

Hayden: I think John was simply trying to soften some rough edges in the Agency’s public image. We use words like “analyze” and “gather” and so on, but look, the core mission of the Agency is to steal other nations’ secrets and the secrets of enemies of the United States and I think that core mission will continue.

TheDCNF: When it comes to looking back on the way the Detention and Interrogation Program was handled, do you have any regrets in retrospect, how do you look back on that and how do you assess it in terms of your own legacy and the legacy of the Agency?

Hayden: More lessons learned than regrets. The lesson learned is that we should have involved the other political branch, the Congress, more fully, in the program earlier than we did. The Agency fulfilled the law, but the number of people in Congress who were informed, was quite limited. In retrospect, I’d have told more folks, more stuff, more early

TheDCNF: So the Agency did not break the law?

Hayden: No.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #29 

Julian Assange says "a lot more material" coming on US elections

Matthew Chance (CNN) is reporting that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Tuesday his whistleblowing website might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign.

Assange was speaking in a CNN interview following the release of nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee by suspected Russian hackers.

However, Assange refused to confirm or deny a Russian origin for the mass email leak, saying Wikileaks tries to create ambiguity to protect all its sources.

"Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are," Assange told CNN.

The Kremlin has rejected allegations its behind the hacking, calling suggestions it ordered the release of the emails to influence US politics the "usual fun and games" of the US election campaigns.

"This is not really good for bilateral relations," Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, added.

Speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he faces extradition over sexual assault allegations, Assange told CNN that Democratic Party officials were using the specter of Russian involvement to distract from the content of the emails, which have had tumultuous affect on the party at the start of its national convention, where it is expected to make Hillary Clinton its presidential nominee.

"It raises questions about the natural instincts of Clinton that when confronted with a serious domestic political scandal, she tries to blame the Russians, blame the Chinese, et cetera," Assange told CNN.

"Because if she does that while in government, it could lead to problems," he added.

Julian Assange reveals Hillary Clinton's relationships with Russian interests:

Rattansi: If there is any illegality in the pending emails you will release or malfesance in what you already released President Obama could presumably act on it and get Hillary Clinton charged? Regardless on whether you are about to release any email which would mean that James Comey and the FBI would have no alternative but to arrest Hillary Clinton?

Assange: Our view which we have already stated is if the evidence that the FBI has is enough for a grand jury to indict already… But a prosecutor has to ask a grand jury to indict. And if a prosecutor doesn’t ask, a grand jury won’t indict.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #30 

FBI warned Clinton campaign last spring of cyberattack

pic1011.jpg

Michael Isikoff (YahooNews) is reporting that the FBI warned the Clinton campaign that it was a target of a cyberattack last March, just weeks before the Democratic National Committee discovered it had been penetrated by hackers it now believes were working for Russian intelligence, two sources who have been briefed on the matter told Yahoo News.

In a meeting with senior officials at the campaign's Brooklyn headquarters, FBI agents laid out concerns that cyberhackers had used so-called spear-phishing emails as part of an attempt to penetrate the campaign's computers, the sources said. One of the sources said agents conducting a national security investigation asked the Clinton campaign to turn over internal computer logs as well as the personal email addresses of senior campaign officials. But the campaign, through its lawyers, declined to provide the data, deciding that the FBI's request for sensitive personal and campaign information data was too broad and intrusive, the source said.

A second source who had been briefed on the matter and who confirmed the Brooklyn meeting said agents provided no specific information to the campaign about the identity of the cyberhackers or whether they were associated with a foreign government. The source said the campaign was already aware of attempts to penetrate its computers and had taken steps to thwart them, emphasizing that there is still no evidence that the campaign's computers had actually been successfully penetrated.

But the potential that the intruders were associated with a foreign government should have come as no surprise to the Clinton campaign, said several sources knowledgeable about the investigation. Chinese intelligence hackers were widely reported to have penetrated both the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008.

The Brooklyn warning also could raise new questions about why the campaign and the DNC didn't take the matter more seriously. It came just four months after the DNC had also been contacted by FBI agents alerting its information technology specialists about a cyberattack on its computers, the sources told Yahoo News. As with the warning to the Clinton campaign, the FBI initially provided no details to the DNC.

As Yahoo News first reported this week, in early May a DNC consultant who was investigating Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort's work for pro-Putin political figures in Ukraine alerted senior committee officials that she had been notified by Yahoo security that her personal email account had been targeted by "state-sponsored actors." The DNC had already realized that it was the victim of a serious breach, but the red flag from the staffer prompted committee security officials to conclude for the first time that the suspected cyberhackers were likely associated with the Russian government.

By mid-May, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was telling reporters that US. Intelligence officials "already had some indications" of hacks into political campaigns that were likely linked to foreign governments and that "we'll probably have more."

In a talk at the Aspen Security Forum Thursday, Clapper said the U.S. government is not "quite ready yet" to "make a public call" on who was behind the cyberassault on the DNC, but he suggested one of "the usual suspects" is likely to blame. "We don't know enough [yet] to … ascribe a motivation, regardless of who it may have been," Clapper said.

Clapper's comments come amid a mounting debate within the Obama administration about whether to publicly blame the Russian government for the cyberattack on the DNC. (A senior law enforcement official told Yahoo News that the Russians were "most probably" involved in the cyberattack, but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing.) On Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, wrote President Obama calling for a stern response, asserting that if the accounts of Russian involvement are true, "It would represent an unprecedented attempt to meddle in American domestic politics."

But Clapper is reportedly among a number of U.S. intelligence officials who have resisted calls to publicly blame the Russians, viewing it as likely the kind of activity that most intelligence agencies engage in. "[I'm] taken aback a bit by … the hyperventilation over this," Clapper said during his Aspen appearance, adding in a sarcastic tone, "I'm shocked somebody did some hacking. That's never happened before."

The confirmation that the campaign was warned by the FBI as early as March of an attempted breach of its computers is a further indication that the scope of the possible Russian attack may have been far wider and extensive than the official DNC accounts.

The FBI's request to turn over internal computer logs and personal email information came at an awkward moment for the Clinton campaign, said the source, familiar with the campaign's internal deliberations. At the time, the FBI was still actively and aggressively conducting a criminal investigation into whether Clinton had compromised national security secrets by sending classified emails through a private computer server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. There were already press reports, to date unconfirmed, that the investigation might have expanded to include dealings relating to the Clinton Foundation. Campaign officials had reason to fear that any production of campaign computer logs and personal email accounts could be used to further such a probe. At the Brooklyn meeting, FBI agents emphasized that the request for data was unrelated to the separate probe into Clinton's email server. But after deliberating about the bureau's request, and in light of the lack of details provided by the FBI and the absence of a subpoena, the Clinton campaign chose to turn down the bureau's request, the source said.

Related:  Julian Assange says he has more material on Clinton

pic1013.jpg



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #31 
Didn't Bernie withdraw?  Man they really hate Republicans don't they.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #32 

Most blatant Google bias yet -- Trump missing from Google search of presidential candidates

Tiffany Gabbay (TruthRevolt) says "tell us again how 'the system' isn't rigged."

Google has been called out before on claims it manipulates its search engine to yield results favorable to Democrats. While some of the past allegations are clear, others remain slightly harder to substantiate. Not this time. The latest example of the tech giant's left-wing bias is irrefutable.

We're not sure when Google instituted its latest sleight of hand, but as of Wednesday morning a simple Google search of the words, "presidential candidates" yields the following results (screen shot below):

pic992.jpg 

I took the above screen-shot at 9:03 this morning.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #33 

Facebook could influence an election -- it's scary

The future is what they filter.

Mac Slavo (FreedomOutpost) says Silicon Valley has taken over, though ultimate control remains in the hands of bankers.

We have reached the point where Facebook is so powerful, experts admit it could rig an election just by geofiltering where voting reminders appear. Google search results can have a similar diminishing effect on democracy. These new elite have control of the information that our society is made up of.

You will vote for those whom they have selected, and you will read views which have been promoted. As the London Telegraph reports:

[Facebook shrugged off] controversy after being accused of deliberately suppressing conservative views in its trending topics section. "At the end of the day, there's nothing restraining Zuck's vision. One of the jokes we had was that Facebook could throw an election by showing reminders to go vote in certain districts but not others. That's the level of control it has. It's scary."

And if those results aren't credible, or popular, there could quickly be riots spreading across the country -- for instance, both if Donald Trump wins the election, or if he has been cheated out of winning. Regardless of the politics involved, Facebook or Google could swing an election by perhaps 20 points.

That's a tremendous amount of power that has scarcely been considered, and hardly accounted for. Their is little reason to trust the electoral process, as well as many other institutional processes, when corporate money and social programmers are involved.

The innocent image of quaint kids in hoodies making big money distracts from the underlying quest for power.

Beneath the Frat House-esque atmosphere, the company's elite are painted as sociopaths in hoodies, with an internal security division called 'The Sec' monitoring staff members' movements. Forget the dog-eat-dog capitalism of Wall Street -- these guys make Gordon Gekko look like Ghandi.

"Wall Street is the open ruthlessness of gladiatorial combat," says Martínez. "You're tossed in there, a lot of blood flows and one man triumphs. In Silicon Valley, it's more like this mafioso drama with a lot of aggressive behaviour and back-room dealing.

Their data collection and network pooling is worth a great deal to those engaged in spying, cyber warfare and intelligence work.

With the foreboding control that a handful of companies have over the Internet, many of Silicon Valley's wealthy entrepreneurs are strategically building up off grid compounds to escape from the chaotic hoards that are being stirred up, and take refuge in privacy and retreat.

Publicly, flashing cash is against the Facebook ethos -- Zuckerberg famously wears a grey t-shirt to work every day, claiming, "I feel like I'm not doing my job if I spend any of my energy on things that are silly or frivolous." Newly minted tech-millennials, therefore, are forced to set up private groups (on Facebook, of course), where they can discuss the pressing needs of the super rich, such as where to buy private aviation, the best five-star resorts in Maui and "how to buy a bunch of land then put it in a trust so people don't realize you're amassing a compound and you can maintain your privacy."

As SHTF has previously reported, the elite are concerned about growing inequality and the conditions of social unrest. Though banksters have deliberately stirred things up, the individuals working for that system certainly don't want to be caught up in that chaos.

They want to survive -- in style and comfort.

pic754.jpg

That is precisely where they are using private jets to escape to private bunkers and hideaway farms:

"I know hedge fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway," he said.

He added that the global economic situation may soon become intolerable for many, including people in the richest nations, because inequality appears steadily on the rise.

Wallis said, "Getaway cars the airstrips in New Zealand and all that sort of thing, so basically a way to get off. If they can get off, onto another planet, some of them would."

Hopefully you've got a place to hideaway, too. Because at this rate, chaos and unrest can't be far behind.

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #34 

Net Neutrality now means the federal government can do whatever it wants with the Internet

pic666.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that last week, the DC Circuit Court upheld a ruling confirming that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is allowed to do pretty much whatever it wants with respect to regulating the internet, a year after the takeover under Net Neutrality.

The government can now force companies to provide free Internet and we know who will pay for that new welfare program, which Obama has already done, and they can force them to provide free Internet to the government. The FCC can charge providers a "universal service fund" and it can impose price controls that are by their vague standards, "just and reasonable."

The government can CENSOR content it deems "obscene", no doubt it will be an attack on our free speech and our political speech.

It's in the statute and we've linked to it and reported about it many times.

We were skeptical at first when Ajit Pai warned us of the dangers of the new Net Neutrality laws that the Democratic-controlled commission was putting into the Internet regulations, treating it as a utility, but Pai wasn't underestimating the dangers.

The first dead giveaway should have been that it was a non-problem in search of a solution.

The new Democrat Party is not my grandfather's party. It is statist and it is controlling. The claim by the commissioners at the time is they would never use the powers but of course that would go against all they stand for. It's a taxpayer ATM machine waiting to be rifled.

The Act is getting very dangerous. We now give free ObamaNet to "select" and favored Democrat voters but it's worse than that still.

The goal was to create an "open Internet" free of discrimination and abuse. Unfortunately, that's not what the government does with its powers. It regulates and taxes, doing so without accountability.

Don't worry, the government says they won't do most of it so why is it there? In writing?

Ajit Pai warned us that broadband taxes are high on the government's list -- are you shocked? -- didn't think so.

Lawsuits opposing it are working their way through the courts and will reach the Supreme Court at some point. We don't have a constitutionally supportive SCOTUS currently and we might never again, certainly not if Hillary wins.

Without a judicial win, Congress and Obama and Hillary will do whatever they want.

So we here with a completely government-controlled unfair takeover of the Internet which will allow them to turn it into a welfare program, a highly taxed system and, best of all, it will run us down the rabbit hole of hate speech and controlled political speech.

Nothing free or open about it.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
azertis

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #35 
Just checked my spam file.
Google put all my emails from
Donaldjtrump
Huckabee
Michaelsavage
Bencarson
Rand Paul
Hermancain
Tea Party
Sheriff Joe
Into my spam file.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #36 

Users claim Google is putting Trump emails in their spam box

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) says GMail Users Beware! Google is reportedly putting Trump emails in your spam boxes.

Reader RB sent us this today:

pic630.jpg 
pic631.jpg 

Most likely getting similar info…thought might help confirm how widespread this is.
I found Emails from both Trump, and his son in Spam.
As a supporter, subscribed, donated, bought retail from Trump… so certain I am on all lists for contacting.
I have received oodles of Email, until this month (June).

For your eyes only… please don't distribute my personal info…
I have included SCREENSHOT OF MY SPAM EMAIL.
I am LIVID.

What can be done to hold Google responsible for their deceipt, manipulation of info?

Thanks. RB

This is not an isolated incident. The Daily Caller has more:

Gmail users are claiming that Google is filtering emails from Donald Trump's campaign into their spam boxes.

There have been previous reports, denied by Google, that the search engine was manipulating search autocomplete results in favor of Hillary Clinton. Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has previously said, "Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton's campaign."

In 2015, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt reportedly funded a startup, "The Groundwork," with the objective of helping Hillary Clinton get elected.

For the record… This is a similar tactic to what the Obama IRS did to Tea Party groups in 2012 -- making it impossible for them to raise money to campaign against the liberal big government globalist agenda.

"The Groundwork" is an under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt -- the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet -- to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

But campaigns -- lacking stock options and long-term job security -- find it hard to attract the elite engineering talent that Facebook, Google, and countless startups rely on. That's also part of the problem that Schmidt and the Groundwork are helping Clinton's team to solve.

The Groundwork is one of the Clinton campaign's biggest vendors, billing it for more than $177,000 in the second quarter of 2015, according to federal filings. Yet many political operatives know little about it. Its website consists entirely of a grey-on-black triangle logo that suggests “the digital roots of change” while also looking vaguely like the Illuminati symbol:

pic632.jpg

Guess where Barack Obama is today?

He's in San Francisco where he will meet privately with Mark Zuckerberg and entrepreneurs.

He will then participate in a Google Portal virtual conversation with another group of entrepreneurs.

Obviously, Obama is lining up the Internet giants and giving them their marching orders for how they can help Hillary win the election and cement Obama's "legacy."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #37 

Obama White House has had over 400 meetings with Google

img488.jpg

Aleister (ProgressivesToday) is reporting that this is important because Google has a major impact on how people search for information on the internet and which information they find while searching.

The coziness of this relationship deserves greater scrutiny.

The Hill reports:

Report finds hundreds of meetings between White House and Google

Google and its affiliates have had at least 427 meetings -- more than one per month -- at the White House during Barack Obama's tenure, according data from the Campaign for Accountability and The Intercept.

The data, gleaned from White House meeting logs, showed that in all, 169 Google employees have met in the White House with 182 government officials. Not surprisingly, Google's head of public policy, Johanna Shelton, had the most White House meetings of any Google employee, with 128.

The report highlights the access enjoyed by Google, which has a expansive lobbying operation in Washington and consistently ranks among the highest spenders. In just the first quarter of this year, Google spent $3.8 million to lobby the government.

The meetings data spans from the first month of Obama's presidency in 2009 to October 2015. Aside from Google staff and lobbyists, the data also takes into account White House meetings with companies Tomorrow Ventures and Civis Analytics.

Google's corporate motto is "Don't be evil."

There is no doubt in my mind that Google filters responses unfavorable to Obama.

Google doesn't necessarily omit negative responses, but they do push them down in the stack.

I don't use Google as a source.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #38 

Twitter won't take down ISIS accounts -- but is banning users who report terrorists

img97.jpg

Joshua Philipp (EpochTimes) is reporting that activists that oppose ISIS find their Twitter accounts suspended.

While Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.

In January, a Florida woman, Tamara Fields, filed a lawsuit against Twitter, alleging that it breached the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act by "spreading extremist propaganda," which caused an attack in Jordan that killed her husband, a private contractor, Lloyd "Carl" Fields Jr.

Facing bad press and a lawsuit, Twitter published a blog post on Feb. 5, saying that since mid-2015 it suspended 125,000 accounts for "threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS."

Members of the online anti-terrorist community were quick to fire back, however. They say that Twitter is taking credit for their work, and there are still many holes in its efforts to keep terrorist recruiters off its services.

Several hacker groups, including Anonymous, have rallied against ISIS under an online campaign they call #OpISIS. While most participants keep their identities hidden, most of their activities are public. They often publish lists of ISIS supporters and recruiters, and call on the community to report the accounts.

Through this campaign, Anonymous claims by Nov. 23, 2015 to have taken down more than 11,000 Twitter accounts linked to ISIS, according to a tweet from OpParisOfficial. GhostSec, another hacker group, claims it has reported 19,568 Twitter accounts promoting terrorism.

GhostSec was credited with helping prevent a terrorist attack in Tunisia, and may have helped stop another attack in New York City in 2015, according to Michael Smith, principal of national security company Kronos Advisory. Smith was GhostSec's go-between for law enforcement and intelligence officials.

"Who suspended 125,000 accounts? Anonymous, Anonymous affiliated groups, and everyday citizens," says a statement from WauchulaGhost, an anti-terrorist hacker with the hacker collective Anonymous, but was formerly with GhostSec.

"You do realize if we all stopped reporting terrorist accounts and graphic images, Twitter would be flooded with terrorists," WauchulaGhost says.

After Twitter made its announcement claiming to have shut down ISIS accounts, many participants in #OpISIS saw a very different development. Twitter began banning accounts of users who were trying to report online terrorism.

Members of the community have taken this as a slap in the face. While Twitter is telling the public it's working to stop ISIS recruitment on its services, it has been suspending accounts of the community who are doing the actual footwork.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #39 

Missing links

Toon78.jpg

Stilton Jarlsberg (HopeNChange) says rather than dwell on what we consider the hopelessly depressing results of this weekend's presidential primary voting (spoiler alert: approximately 75% of all voters are out of their freaking minds), Hope n' Change is looking at a sneakier but no less important threat to freedom being pushed by Barack "I Still Have a Year To Destroy You" Obama: The TPP.

The TPP (which allegedly stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership even though we're more familiar with those first two letters having a different and more accurate association) is the bizarre, mostly-secret trade agreement which our current anti-capitalist president is ramming through. It's long, complex, and, like Obamacare, deliberately written to be misunderstood - so we just want to focus on one  seemingly teeny-tiny element which was recently changed (and which the Obama administration is no doubt hoping will fly under the radar). 

You can read all about it here, but in a nutshell the TPP will allegedly extend "copyright protection" for things like online content by allowing the government to bring charges against anyone suspected of copyright infringement even if the "copying" (like a simple link to a news story) does no harm to the copyright owner and, indeed, may even be encouraged by the copyright owner

In other words, Hope n' Change could be shut down for linking to the dry story about the TPP above, let alone linking to stories about more sensitive issues like Hillary's criminal wrongdoing or how "Bathhouse Barry" got his nickname.  And if you share one of our cartoons, even though we explicitly encourage you to do so, the government could come and get YOU, too. A very tidy way to curtail bothersome political speech, don't you think?

Despite vagueness in many other areas, the TPP is quite clear about what the government can do to you if it finds you in potential (or even imaginary) violation of their new copyright standards:

•  Sentences of imprisonment as well as deterrent-level monetary fines
•  Higher penalties in more serious circumstances
•  Seizure of infringing items (ie, computers, phones, printers, office equipment)
•  Forfeiture or destruction of those items, materials, and implements (that's right, they'll crush them with a steamroller just to further honk you off)
•  Forfeiture of any assets (such as money) derived from the infringement
•  Assignment to a prison cell which you'll share with an angry muscular giant named Mohammed Mustafa "Ass Rammer of Death" X.  (Okay, the TPP doesn't specifically say this, but we think it's implied).



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #40 

Is Twitter silencing conservatives?

Morgan Brittany (Politichicks) is reporting that in an article by Jonathan Levin from the blog Legal Insurrection it has come to attention of many that Twitter has seemingly begun to take aim at conservatives and at those advocating conservative causes.

In early January, Brietbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos was stripped of his verification badge because they said that he had violated the anti-harassment terms of service.

Yiannopoulous reported this week:

Rumours that Twitter has begun "shadowbanning" politically inconvenient users have been confirmed by a source inside the company, who spoke exclusively to Breitbart Tech. His claim was corroborated by a senior editor at a major publisher. According to the source, Twitter maintains a "whitelist" of favored Twitter accounts and a "blacklist" of unfavored accounts.

Read more: http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/is-twitter-silencing-conservatives/


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #41 

Twitter's Ministry of Truth bans another conservative website

IMage967.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that The Other McCain, a conservative website, was suspended from Twitter and, while no reason was given, the reasons they suspend accounts would hardly apply to this website.

These are Twitter's reasons for suspension:

Spam: Most of the accounts we suspend are suspended because they are spammy, or just plain fake, and they introduce security risks for Twitter and all of our users. These types of accounts are against our Twitter Rules. Unfortunately, sometimes a real person's account gets suspended by mistake, and in those cases we'll work with the person to make sure the account is unsuspended.

Account security at risk: If we suspect an account has been hacked or compromised, we may suspend it until it can be secured and restored to the account owner in order to reduce potentially malicious activity caused by the compromise.

Abusive Tweets or behavior: We may suspend an account if it has been reported to us as violating our Rules surrounding abuse. When an account engages in abusive behavior, like sending threats to others or impersonating other accounts, we may suspend it temporarily or, in some cases, permanently.

None of these apply to this particular website.

Robert Stacy McCain believes the social justice warriors complained over the #Gamergate. Whatever the reason, it doesn't seem to happen to the left.

Tweet152.jpg

This goes on with Facebook as well. I was suspended over a photo of Nancy Pelosi someone didn't like as if I could help the way she looks. I worked hard to find just the right photo of her to go with my story at the time.

I have a very long list of Republicans, especially Conservatives and Libertarians, who have been banned from Twitter and Facebook without ever being given a reason or a chance to defend against it.

I and many others have been threatened with permanent suspension and none of us could tell you why.

Milo Yiannopoulos, editor of Breitbart Tech and frequent guest of Ricochet's Radio Free Delingpole, revealed that the financially troubled social platform is using a technique called "shadowbanning" to limit the reach of accounts that promote a non-PC message.

Social media is run by private companies who can do what they want but they have an obligation to uphold the principles of our First Amendment which they are not doing. It's also important to note that Conservatives are the ones being targeted.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #42 

Twitter is "embarking on a war against conservative points of view"

Image900.jpg

Speaking with host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Daily, Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos discussed the suppression of conservative voices by Twitter on the social media platform.

"Why are you beating up Twitter, and why are you saying that Twitter trying to suppress conservative voices, and why is Twitter's stock in a total free fall because Milo's taking them on?" Bannon asked. "Are you a bigger, badder guy than Jack Dorsey?"

"Yeah, of course I am," Yiannopoulos replied mischievously. "I'm absolute convinced that Twitter is embarking on a war against conservative points of view, a war against what we might call 'Generation Trump,' the dissident, mischievous voices of the new counter-cultural alternative right wing and libertarian youth."

"Look at who Twitter employs," he warned in reference to Twitter possibly influencing the 2016 presidential election. "You know, this guy used to work with Hillary, this guy used to work with Obama…"

"This is why Obama ran the tables with Google and with Facebook," Bannon agreed. "Let's talk about Facebook for a second. Why is Facebook suppressing voices in the continent of Europe about immigration. Why is Zuckerberg in bed with Merkel?"

Referring to the story of Facebook teaming up with the German government to censor debate over the influx of Middle Eastern migrants, Yiannopoulos said, "This is what the left does all over the world. They'll take ridicule and criticism and they'll rebrand it as abuse and harrassment or hate speech in some way."

"This mergence of technology and thought control, it's Orwellian," Bannon said. "Are you fighting a rearguard action, or can we have victory in this?"

Noting that Twitter is failing and "in its death throes," Yiannopoulos stated that Facebook is "more of a problem" and "the one we should really be worried about."

"Why is Facebook more of a problem?" Bannon asked.

"Because the company's not doing so badly," Yiannopoulos replied. "Twitter's influence is waning. We found out this week its monthly active users are going down. The stock price is tanking, partly as a result of their spat with me, I think. I don't worry too much about them."

"I do worry about Facebook. I worry about Facebook because it's not just Facebook we're talking about, they also own WhatsApp, and they also own Instagram," he explained. "This company owns the platforms on which young people are messaging one another, and it has shown itself to be untrustworthy when it comes to free speech."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #43 

Coming in April -- DoJ tyranny over websites -- and no one is talking about it

Image604.jpg

S. Noble is reporting that Hans Bader of Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) asks, "Can websites be forced to change to accommodate the disabled -- by using "simpler language" to appeal to the "intellectually disabled," or by making them accessible to the blind and deaf at considerable expense?

The answer is, Yes.

The tyrannical Department of Justice is planning to mandate "accessibility" of websites under the tyrannical Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

This is very alarming.

The basis for forcing websites to make their material accommodate every disabled person could one day be stretched to any number of groups. It's a violation of the First Amendment and it's more big government control of the once-free Internet.

CEI notes that the Supreme Court once ruled that the poem Jabberwocky is protected by the First Amendment, even though it makes no sense to most people. Suddenly, we're all responsible for making our material readable by everyone?

The Obama administration appears to be planning to use the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to force many websites to either accommodate the disabled, or shut down, CEI noted in June.

The U.S. Department of Justice -- the primary enforcer of the ADA -- has taken the position that Title III covers access to websites of public accommodations. They want to make it mandatory for everyone to abide by the voluntary standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium ("W3C").

The DoJ has said:

"Websites that do not accommodate assistive technology can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities, just as buildings not designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities can prevent some individuals from entering and accessing services … Although the Department has been clear that the ADA applies to websites of private entities that meet the definition of 'public accommodations,' inconsistent court decisions, differing standards for determining web accessibility, and repeated calls for Department action indicate remaining uncertainty regarding the applicability of the ADA to websites of entities covered by title III. For these reasons, the Department plans to propose amendments to its regulation so as to make clear to entities covered by the ADA their obligations to make their websites accessible."

The rationale is that private entities of all types are providing goods and services to the public through websites that operate as places of public accommodation under title III of the ADA. In other words, websites are places of public accommodation.

Websites will likely be required to include spoken descriptions of photos and text boxes for the blind, and captions and transcriptions of multimedia features for the deaf, among other numerous requirements.

If you want to sell anything from your website, you might have to hire accessibility experts, even if you are a small blogger.

The DoJ is using ADA settlements to impose its views of accessibility on businesses it sues.

The new rule is coming out in April of this year. Congress won't buck the ADA and once this is entrenched, it will be entrenched forever. Maybe it can be overturned in the courts.

CEI says that the defenders of expansive ADA interpretations insist that the government's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination against the disabled overrides any competing First Amendment rights.

It's a dangerous concept.

Lately, almost anything can override the First Amendment. Once you abandon the rule of law, anything can erode our rights.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #44 

Anonymous declares war on ISIS

image287.jpg

CNN Money is reporting that hundreds of social media accounts apparently linked to terrorist group ISIS have been shut down by Anonymous.

Hacking group Anonymous claimed responsibility for targeting nearly 800 Twitter accounts, 12 Facebook pages and over 50 email addresses because of their links with ISIS.

Twitter (TWTR, Tech30) did not respond to a request for comment. Facebook (FB, Tech30)said it had shut down 11 of the 12 pages listed by Anonymous because they breached its rules. It declined to comment on whether it had been alerted to the offending content by the hackers.

Anonymous declared war against Islamic extremists last month, saying in a YouTube video that they would track down their websites and social media networks and take them down. Here is the Twitter feed -- #OpISIS.

In a new video posted Friday, Anonymous sent another warning to ISIS:

"You will be treated like a virus, and we are the cure. We own the Internet."

Checks by CNNMoney found the vast majority of Twitter accounts mentioned by Anonymous were displaying a message saying they had been suspended or were not available.

Both Twitter and Facebook are known to take down accounts and content that are associated with terrorism, but it can be difficult to keep track of their millions of users. They often rely on complaints from others before making a move.

Anonymous has gained notoriety over the last few years for hacking websites belonging to government departments, companies and other organizations.

Its campaign against ISIS was triggered by the bloody attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January, in which 12 people were murdered. The group said in January:

"We, Anonymous around the world, have decided to declare war on you the terrorists."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #45 

Matt Drudge says copyright laws could outlaw linking to websites

Paul Joseph Watson is reporting that Matt Drudge warns that the very foundation of the free Internet is under severe threat from copyright laws that could ban independent media outlets, revealing that he was told directly by a Supreme Court Justice, "It's over for me."

Drudge asserted that copyright laws which prevent websites from even linking to news stories were being advanced.

"I had a Supreme Court Justice tell me it's over for me," said Drudge. "They've got the votes now to enforce copyright law, you're out of there. They're going to make it so you can't even use headlines."

"To have a Supreme Court Justice say to me it's over, they've got the votes, which means time is limited," he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating an independent website could be outlawed.

"That will end (it) for me -- fine -- I've had a hell of a run," said Drudge, adding that web users were being pushed into the cyber "ghettos" of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

This would be the end of it for me. Let's hope this doesn't happen -- at least until Obama retires to Hawaii.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #46 

Barack Obama proposes an Internet "kill switch" in America

Sasha Sutton is reporting that the internet has become an essential part of everyday life of a vast majority, allowing freedom of speech, expression and access to an array of information. But this freedom may be over soon as Obama has proposed the creation of a "kill switch," giving the FCC powers to cut off internet access in America, and other nations may also follow suit.

Intellihub reports that Obama has been pushing for the internet to become a "utility," essentially being easily cut off just like electricity or water, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will have the powers to activate this kill switch.

It is insisted that this will only be carried out at times of "civil unrest," "emergency" or a cyber threat, however many remain skeptical due to the reputation of the FCC, and most importantly, the shady and corrupt behavior of the US government.

Yet Obama announced that the plan simply involves "asking the FCC to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life."

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online," Obama added.

"The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day."

But the FCC is surrounded by controversy for abridging the right to freedom of speech, something also included in the First Amendment. The independent organization is responsible for censoring "obscene, indecent and profane broadcasts."

The controversy all began in the 1978 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, regarding a complaint about George Carlin’s iconic routine "Seven Words," where the comedian listed the "seven words you can never say on television." The court ruling began the FCC’s censorship powers over television and radio.

The American public are outraged by the new reforms, as it ignores a fundamental right in society. Plans for an internet kill switch aren't actually new, as Senate Homeland Security approved presidential authority over the cybersphere. Huffington Post reported in 2011, the committee approved the cybersecurity bill, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), giving Obama the power to shut down networks.

And other nations will follow suit. In January 2011, Egypt shut down its internet during anti-government protests as the authorities believed the uprising was being spurred by social media.

Wired reports that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak responded by shutting down around 88 per cent of the nation's internet access. And in September this year, International Business Times reports that Putin and members of the Russian security council announced plans to give the Kremlin powers to cut off the Russian internet from the rest of the world in times of "national emergency" -- including "military actions" and "serious protests."

Russian news website Vedomosti reports that the proposals will potentially see "special measures for internet governance, giving them the ability to disable Russia from the global network."

The shocking measures could potentially be the end of the internet as we know it and sheds light on governments' objectives for cyber command as they continue to control every aspect of humanity.

Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins, researchers from George Mason University, refer to the proposals as the "cyber doom". The rhetoric of "cyber doom" employed by proponents of increased federal intervention, however, lacks clear evidence of a serious threat that can be verified by the public, said the researchers.

"A cyber-industrial complex is emerging, much like the military-industrial complex of the Cold War."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #47 

Fox News is reporting that is putting plans in motion to give the Commerce Department authority to create an Internet ID for all Americans, a White House official told CNET.com.
 
White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt told the website it is "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet.
 
The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace is currently being drafted by the Obama administration and will be released by Obama in a few months.
 
"We are not talking about a national ID card.  We are not talking about a government-controlled system.  What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said at an event Friday at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, according to CNET.com.
 
Locke added that the Commerce Department will be setting up a national program office to work on this project.

The move has raised eyebrows about privacy issues.
 
"The government cannot create that identity infrastructure," Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology told the website.  "If I tried to, I wouldn't be trusted."
 
Schmidt stresses that anonymity will remain on the Internet, saying there's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge."

CNET.com addresses this issue here . . .

You have to love government double speak.  Are we are not talking about a government-controlled system when the Commerce Department, a government agency, is given the authority to create an Internet ID system? 

The government (Commerce Department) will build a database to contain those Internet IDs and their associated data.

 

The Government (Commerce Department) will build automated processes to store and retrieve those Internet IDs.

 

That is the definition of a government-controlled system.
 
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke is a liar.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved