Facebook hearing – the dog and pony show and the donations that were behind it

 

I watched a good portion of the Zuckerberg hearing. I came away from it thinking it was a dog and pony show. Most of the Senators were poorly lacking in having any real understanding of technology. They no doubt had their staff produce questions that were basically sound, then Zuckerberg would simply act as if he didn’t understand their question with the blank star and ask them to clarify. This of course left the Senators looking stupid. “How many categories of information do you collect?” “I don’t understand the question.”  People decide what is out there by what they place on their page.” Then he goes to his talking points of script. I can’t imagine the House hearing today. Why have almost 50 Senators asking questions, why not a handful that understand technology. But then again, all should be happy. He was very happy to support government regulation and would work with the Senators on it. One thing we did learn is that FB is working with the Special Counsel. But of course. Yes, we indeed want the thought police. Just like we have with YouTube. A previous post:

Southern Poverty Law Center secretly policing content for YouTube

The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in policing content on their platform, The Daily Caller has learned.

The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

 

But let’s look at the money:

Facebook PAC donation to senators

Ahead of more testimony from Zuckerberg today, why not check out the contributions that senators on the Judiciary and Commerce, Science and Transportation committees have received for their campaigns from Facebook’s PAC since it started making political donations in the 2012 election cycle.

The totals are based on an NBC review of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Check out the full interactive here. (Scroll down a good way on the page)

Here is a bit of analysis:

A MapLight analysis of contributions found that the ubiquitous social network and its employees have given more than $3.1 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates during the last decade.

Facebook donors gave more than $265,000 to members of the Senate Commerce panel, while senators on the Judiciary committee reported $284,600 during the decade. House committee members received about $323,800 from the company and its employees. Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Silicon Valley Democrat whose district is adjacent to the sprawling Facebook headquarters, received $51,050 in Facebook-related donations.

Trump, received $4,815 from eight Facebook employees. (Brave souls- wonder if they are still working)

Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who ran unsuccessfully for the 2016 GOP nomination and who currently is Trump’s housing secretary, ranked last among presidential candidates favored by Facebook donors, receiving only $250. H/T: Fast Company

Via Free Beacon:

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, has maxed out political donations to a number of Democratic candidates including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) this cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

In addition to the donations, Sandberg appeared in the hacked emails of John Podesta, the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

A pdf file discovered by the Free Beacon that was attached to one of the emails  spoke of ‘discreet conversations’ about forming ‘working relationships’ between the Clinton campaign and the likes of Facebook and Apple. That memo referenced the work being done for the Clinton campaign by a group linked to Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Alphabet, Google’s parent company.

Facebook told USA Today that it is important for the tech giant to “develop relationships with elected officials” when questioned on the company’s PAC contributions that have been given to members of the committees questioning Zuckerberg.

Advertisements

Did Clinton break the law with ‘takeover’ of DNC?

Attorney Cleta Mitchell itemizes one more criminal act of the Clintons in an interview with Tucker Carlson. This time taking complete control of the DNC early on. Mitchell gives the inside scoop of how Hillary moved and shook the DNC to the party to the core. Of course she did all she could to knock out any and all opponents. Sessions? Paging Jeff Sessions? Another good interview by Tucker.

One lawyer says the deal between the Clinton campaign and the DNC in August of 2015 – which essentially turned over control of the DNC to the Clinton campaign – was in violation of federal campaign finance law.

Fauxcahantas Warren and Cowgirl Rep Wilson – A Return to the West!

 

This sums up the week don’t you think? Talk about cultural appropriation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll throw in a couple of clips. In case you missed the Warren video, I’ll send it along as well as the theme from the Long Ranger.

 

The Western theme wouldn’t be complete without the Lone Ranger.

The Looney Left

by Mustang

No one I know on the right believes that capitalism is perfect.  No one I know on the right thinks that our economy should operate without any regulation or oversight.  What we do believe on the right is that they, who govern least, govern best.  And while I think there should be oversight, we should pay as much attention to those who are doing the oversight, as we are to those whose corporate behaviors we intend to monitor.  I am confounded by the fact that placing government in an oversight role is akin to hiring a fox to guard the hen house.

But what is it, exactly, that the leftist believes about the economy?  There are several variables, of course.  Some of these people are Keynesian ideologues who dream about a welfare state through industrial democracy.  Others believe government should nationalize the economy and govern through central planning.  One might recall that the Soviet Union tried central planning, too.  Yet, the American left persists with this twaddle.  It is the classical demonstration of insanity—at least according to Albert Einstein.  Still other leftists are anarchist communists.  Amazingly, while many of these people denounce globalization, they seek to impose it through their illogical support of the United Nations.

Still other leftists advocate in favor of Marxian economies.  They seek to make a distinction between Marx the philosopher, and Marx the economist.  I suspect they do this in order to mask their goal of imposing communism on the rest of us.  It is convoluted even for leftists, which is why the leftist mentality is at best inane.  If there is anything we can count on from the left, it is the regurgitation of talking points that make no sense to anyone, including the leftists themselves.

And then we are blessed with the left-leaning libertarians who demand a decentralized economy run by trade unions, worker’s councils, and cooperatives —people I like to think of as fascists wearing sheep’s clothing.  Leftist will argue that a society without substantial equality will distort the development of not only deprived persons, but also those who privileges undermine motivation and their sense of social responsibility.  It is a collectivist mentality, and might I add, the bane of a free society —for whom better to dictate to everyone else than the leftist with all the best ideas?

Ah, but there’s the catch.  Leftist ideas are not the best ideas; among clear-thinking people, they are unfathomable.  Who but a mentally deficient person, or a psychotic, can prefer regulation in place of free markets, or bureaucracies more than corporations, or government controlled insurance plans, rather than private insurances, and more government control over the economy rather than less.

We do have to acknowledge the consistency of the American left, however, for in spite of all that history tells us about the failure of communism and socialism in the 20th Century, American leftists remain committed to its irrational concepts.  Still, we must remind ourselves that it was not an easy task to produce such troglodytes: it has taken 100 years to brainwash these people.  As we have seen, leftists live in a bizarre world.  It is a world of opposites where progressive is regressive.  It is the land of Cheech and Chong.

When government policy seeks to diminish capital investments, no one in a proper mental state will want to risk their capital.  Without capital, businesses cannot remain competitive.  A non-competitive business is only a few steps away from closing its doors.  This doesn’t mater to leftists, however.  What matters is that government regulates businesses —for their own good— and when people begin losing their jobs, well … we can put them on government assistance programs.

Still, our topic is far too complex for the space allocated to a blog post.  For example, we have not even touched upon corrupt government, which forces corporations to find some way of profiting within a sullied framework.  If businesses want to survive in a corrupt environment, they have to find some way of accommodating the devil; and they do find ways.

Our question to the leftist provocateur remains: who will hire American workers when government bureaucracy replaces the American corporation?  Who will pay salaries when businesses have been taxed or regulated out of existence?  When businesses fold, when workers are unemployed, when the US no longer manufactures anything, when the economy is destroyed (we’re close to that now), then who will carry the tax burden for the United States?

Oops.  I guess the left didn’t think about that.  Maybe government will round everyone up and march them off to government-controlled factories, a la the Soviet Union.  Yes, that should work!

SPLC Revisited … Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

 

Last week we told you about the Southern Poverty Law Center in its quest for ignoring leftist hatred while doubling down on right extremists.  Today, the SPLC is back in the news.  It would seem that following the events at Charlottesville, so much money started rolling in to SPLC that they didn’t know what to do with it … so, they did what any not-for-profit public service agency would do: they sent it to their off-shore banking accounts.

Go ahead, enjoy the read:  Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

America’s left … dishonest as the year is long.

Earlier post by Mustang:

Excusing Leftist Hatred – SPLC

What is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)?  They were founded in the early 1970s by two Alabama lawyers by the names of Morris Dees and Joseph Levin.  Levin managed the SPLC for its initial few years, while Morris Dees was irrevocably convinced that America is a racist nation and needs his guiding hand to lead us into the light.  As psychotic as that sounds, it only gets worse.  The operating methodology of SPLC is to launch expensive lawsuits against fringe organizations, such as the KKK (Founded by a Democrat, of course) and others, at about the time when hardly anyone ever heard of these organizations. Keep Reading

Excusing Leftist Hatred – SPLC

Guest post by Mustang.

What is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)?  They were founded in the early 1970s by two Alabama lawyers by the names of Morris Dees and Joseph Levin.  Levin managed the SPLC for its initial few years, while Morris Dees was irrevocably convinced that America is a racist nation and needs his guiding hand to lead us into the light.  As psychotic as that sounds, it only gets worse.  The operating methodology of SPLC is to launch expensive lawsuits against fringe organizations, such as the KKK (Founded by a Democrat, of course) and others, at about the time when hardly anyone ever heard of these organizations.  Those who had heard of them repudiated them; their memberships were almost in single-digits.  In suddenly getting a lot of attention from the leftist media, the SPLC became the white knight of American race relations –well, er … maybe that’s not such a good analogy.

Since its beginning, SPLC made a transition to monitoring hate groups, committed to fighting hate and bigotry.  No one in America is exempt from such monitoring, except possibly the hate groups on the left, which insofar as I can tell, represents the mainstream of the progressive movement.  Let’s pause to review organizations monitored by the SPLC:

SPLC Groups Monitored

The interesting part is that most of these groups herald their beginnings from the Democratic Party … you know, the same group that used to hang uppity Negroes, beat the crap out of homosexuals for entertainment purposes, burn down black churches, and celebrate the birthday of Adolf Hitler by dressing up in SS uniforms.  I should also mention that a clear majority of these monitored groups only exist at a letter drop box and an internet website —which makes monitoring “pig simple.” In essence then, the founders and managers of the SPLC have made a business out of “monitoring hate groups,” and they do this for profit even if they have to make up hate groups to add to their curricula vitae.

Personally, I’ve always viewed the SPLC as a terrorist group; I don’t understand why they are not under scrutiny by the federal agencies … but then, I’m still trying to figure out why Barack Obama is not classified as a terrorist, as well.  Certainly, everyone who suffered from Arab Spring thinks of him as such.  And if the SPLC is not a terrorist organization, which is to say having direct ties to terrorist activities, then they most certainly are indirectly linked because they “enable” and “encourage” terrorist activities by the nimrods they seek to protect: Black Lives Matter (advocating the assassination of police officers), Code Pink (setting off bombs near military recruitment centers), CAIR (tied to Hamas and Hezbollah), MSA (Moslem Student Association), and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) (also connected to the Moslem Brotherhood, a Sufi-Islam terror group)

But the truth is that SPLC is part of the vast lie about conservative values, and when these are repeated often enough, most leftists (which is to say, individuals’ incapable of thinking for themselves) accept the lies as an unmitigated truth.

Are there any “haters” on the right?  Of course, there are … but they are fringe groups composed to seriously demented persons and they do not represent mainstream conservatives.  In contrast, the leftist politics of hatred is fundamental … it’s been with the left since the French Revolution, and it’s getting worse every single day.  Unlike the fringe right, leftist hatred exists in the American mainstream (placed there, and maintained by an adamantly biased media).  To people such as the standard CNN line-up, hatred is only a fault if it exists on the right.

The Liberal Contribution

 

The Liberal Contribution       Guest Post by Mustang

What have liberals given us? Let’s begin by defining liberalism, realizing that it must be a time-stamped definition. We should examine the term liberalism based on these two classifications: classic liberalism vs. neo-liberalism.

In the former classification, we mean to say a political philosophy involving liberty, equality, freedom of speech, a free press, religious tolerance, free-market capitalism, civil rights, and societal cooperation.

By neo-liberalism, we mean progressivism, which is the support of social reform, or the advancement of science, technology, economic development, and social organization. In practical terms, it means the adoption of a 170-year old notion supporting communism.

In classic liberalism, we are reminded of the early American founders, who gave us the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution). In the latter definition, we find the general acceptance of communism … embracing the philosophy of Karl Marx, or to be specific, the repudiation of classic-liberalism.

Thus, we define the political differences between Americans as those on the right (conservatives seeking to maintain classic liberalism), and those on the left (those seeking to change America from what its founders intended to Marxism). There are profound differences in these two camps. It is much more than a war on words; it is beneath the surface, what these words mean as expressed by those who utter them. Conservatives (those on the right) want to maintain the ideals of our founding fathers—as expressed in the American constitution (and Bill of Rights), while the liberals (those on the left) wish to redefine the Constitution and Bill of Rights according to how they envision America ought to be. In my view, how it ought to be, according to liberals, is nothing like how our founding fathers intended it.

What are the accomplishments of American conservatives?

Conservative ideology gave us federalism, independent courts, the Panama Canal, the Interstate Highway System, Labor Laws, environmental laws that take into account the interests of business and the welfare of the American people, space exploration, the suppression of fascist regimes throughout the world, public education, and the Hoover Dam Project. Conservatives favor the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, small government, law and order(1), preserving western civilization, religious freedom (which is to say theological accountability), the separation of government and religion, limited government regulation, strong national defense, opposition to the concept of globalism, and opposition to globalization.

Conservatives believe in the foundations of the American Republic. Liberals subscribe to expanding these views beyond the US Constitution, including national welfare, interference in State sovereignty, national healthcare, higher taxes, and liberal immigration policies.

What do conservatives advocate?

· Maintain traditional American values

· Support the values associated with western civilization

· Implementation of conservative economic policies

· Oppose global communism and Islamist extremism

· Foster individual liberty

· Limit government power and control over the people

· Oppose high taxes and limit government spending

We will now examine examples of neo-liberalism as a juxtaposition to conservative values. What we have observed among liberals over the past few years is anything but Americanism. Liberal groups have demanded curtailment of freedom of expression if, in the opinion of liberals, verbal or oral expression offends any group of people within society. Their notion is one that inhibits free expression, which is counter to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Their ideology is an updated rendition of Mao’s 1960’s cultural revolution; here I will offer several examples of liberal anti-Americanism(2):

· In June 2016, a liberal male was arrested in Las Vegas after attempting to grab a police officer’s weapon, telling authorities that he wanted the gun in order to kill Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

· In July 2016, a supporter of Hillary R. Clinton set an American flag on fire. In that same month, liberal protesters damaged automobiles and fought with supporters of Donald J. Trump in San Jose, California.

· In August 2016, anti-Trump protesters physically assaulted attendees at a Trump political rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

· In August 2016, a citizen was assaulted at a Tennessee garage sale because he was wearing a pro-Trump T-shirt. Later in the month, a New Jersey conservative was attacked with a crowbar during a political rally.

· Later in the year, a Republican Party office was firebombed and spray-painted with a Nazi symbol, a high school student was attacked for announcing on social media that she supported presidential candidate Trump, and in November, the president of College Republicans at Cornell University was assaulted by Hillary Clinton supporters.

· In December 2016, an “anti-bullying” “black lives matter” advocate was arrested after she shoved an injured a 74-year old man outside Trump Towers in New York City.

· In January 2017, a Trump supporter was knocked unconscious when anti-Republican protesters repeatedly beat him on the head.

· In April 2017, a parade in Oregon was cancelled after self-identified liberals threatened to use violence against anyone participating in the celebration.

· In May 2017, Republican Tom Garrett and his family received death threats. Later that month, the FBI arrested persons threatening to shoot Republican Representative Martha McSally.

· A college professor was arrested for assault and battery of people supporting Donald J. Trump. Three individuals were hospitalized in this assault.

· Democrat and Senator Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson shot five Republican members of congress during a GOP baseball practice.

· A riot in Charlottesville, Virginia resulted when so-called “anti-Fascist” and “Black Lives Matter” demonstrators attacked a group of rally-approved “white nationalist” activists. One liberal anti-Fascist demonstrator attacked the crowd with an automobile, killing one of his own demonstrators and injuring 19 other persons.

As to the foregoing, we have not credited the impact of the left-leaning/communist American press. Here is what we do know: the news media seriously distorts public reaction to Donald J. Trump and/or the conservative agenda. It is a matter of seeing only what they wish to see, which in order to make any sense at all, must be part of the leftist narrative. Choosing to publish stories that reflect the conservative right in a bad light while ignoring the atrocities of the liberal left is nothing more than professional malfeasance. Meanwhile, the American left continues to pursue the Law of Merited Impossibility, which holds that “even though it will never happen, you bigoted conservatives will deserve it.”

Postscript (1) and (2):

Let me add two postscripts: by “Law and Order,” I mean to suggest laws that apply to everyone equally. It does not mirror the leftist definition, otherwise Hillary Clinton would be in prison right now. In addition, research for the examples of anti-American behavior was provided by my good friend Bob Farmerie.

 

%d bloggers like this: