Posted on

“Everything About This Is Insane” – Begging Big Tech To Be Arbiters Of Truth Will Ultimately Backfire

"Everything About This Is Insane" – Begging Big Tech To Be Arbiters Of Truth Will Ultimately Backfire

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 16:45

‘Be careful what you wish for’.  To all those calling for more censorship of "the Other’s" voices – urging Big Tech companies to become managers in the ministry of truth to rescue the world from dissent, disagreement, and dissolution – there is a simple message – it will ultimately backfire in ways even Huxley and Orwell could not imagine.

As Evan Greer argues below "we need to address the problem of viral disinformation at its root."

In the United States, progressive groups and lawmakers rightly concerned about the rise of far right online activity, and attempts by state actors to manipulate elections, have increasingly turned to calls for Internet censorship, deplatforming, and more aggressive moderation by companies like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

These calls are well intentioned but ultimately misguided.

These comments come just hours after controversy was exposed about the sudden and purely coincidental deletion of numerous Hong Kong dissident Twitter accounts after Li Fei-Fei was appointed to Twitter’s board.

As Liberty Bltizkrieg’s Mike Krieger noted so perfectly, "everything about this is insane."

"The tech giants are out of control, actively laundering national security state talking points via mass media "fact checker" censorship. It’s only gonna get worse."

Authored by Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, via Medium,

Okay I’ll admit it. I still use Facebook. When I logged on last night I saw something I had never seen before: a notification that read “Partly false information found in your post by independent fact checkers.” I was surprised, but figured maybe it was a glitch or related to some joke meme I had posted or something like that. I clicked it to learn more.

Screenshot of the notification Facebook sent me.

It turned out that “Independent fact-checkers” at USA TODAY had flagged a VICE article that I shared, and am quoted in, about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the ongoing fight around amendments to rein in mass government surveillance. This is an issue that my organization, Fight for the Future, has been working on for the better part of a decade. The post now contains a prominent flag shown to everyone who sees it, effectively censoring the original article and replacing it with a large link to the USA TODAY “fact checking” piece instead.

Screenshot of my original post, now containing Facebook’s flag.

I clicked through to read why exactly they had decided the article was “partly false.” When it comes down to it, the “independent fact checker” at USA TODAY was quibbling about semantics. The VICE headline read, “Senate Votes to Allow FBI to Look At Your Web Browsing History Without A Warrant.” The article is referring to the Senate passing the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act, which reauthorizes several Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance authorities — while failing to pass an amendment offered by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Daines (R-MT). The amendment would have required the FBI to get a warrant before snooping on Internet activity like web browsing and search history. The headline is provocative, but it is 100% true. And the article itself elaborates and explains the nuance. The fact checker is essentially claiming that the post is misinformation because the Senate didn’t “vote to allow” — they just “didn’t vote to not allow.”

Even if that were true, it would be a pretty tenuous justification for effectively censoring information on a platform used by billions of people. But it’s not true — the amendment was tacked on to the underlying bill, which reauthorizes FISA surveillance powers that are set to expire. So the Senators who voted to reauthorize Section 215, and voted against the amendment, absolutely did “vote to allow” warrantless government surveillance of Internet activity. The USA TODAY piece is significantly more “false” than the VICE piece.

Not only did Facebook put a notification on my post linking to a blatantly slanted “fact check” article, they sent a notification to everyone who interacted with the post, linking to the same.

It appears that the USA TODAY fact checker first discovered the VICE article via a viral post from the Facebook page “Being Libertarian.” The fact checker took issue with some of the specific language that that page used when sharing the article. But it appears that Facebook has applied the “partly false” flag not just to that page’s post, but to anyone who posts the same article.

The USA TODAY piece relies heavily on “an email exchange” with Stewart Baker, the former top lawyer for the National Security Agency and a staunch defender of mass government surveillance programs. They did not attempt to contact my organization Fight for the Future, or experts from the ACLU, Free Press, Demand Progress, or any of the dozens of other reputable civil society organizations who have issued public statements that closely mirror the article’s framing. It also does not appear that they attempted to contact Senators Wyden or Daines, VICE, or the journalist who wrote the piece. In the end, they claim that the article is “partly false” based on a fairly generous read of how the FISA court works and their best guess at how a reader might interpret the headline and article. Without due process or a meaningful way to appeal the decision, this “fact checker” became judge, jury, and executioner, killing the spread of an organically viral post about government surveillance at a time when activists are working around the clock to inform the public about an upcoming vote that impacts their most basic rights.

The outcry over the Senate vote had an impact, and the House is now expected to vote on a similar amendment in a matter of days. Facebook and their fact checking partner’s arbitrary decision to flag the VICE article as “misinformation” could have a significant impact on that vote.

List of sources in the USA TODAY “fact check” piece

This is not some epic conspiracy. I’m sure the fact checker at USA TODAY did their best to research this complex topic and come to a determination they felt was fair. I doubt they’re secretly working for the surveillance state. Reporters will always bring their implicit biases to the ways they frame stories, which details they include and which ones they omit. In this case, clearly the VICE story was more sympathetic to civil liberties advocates working to limit government surveillance. The USA TODAY piece is more sympathetic to the government and intelligence agencies. Neither of them are “false,” and neither of them should be effectively censored by Facebook or buried by its non-transparent algorithm in the name of stopping disinformation. Facebook should not be putting its thumb on the scale, to say that one article is “more true” than the other, when such determinations can be incredibly subjective and have profound implications for the democratic process.

The spread of online hate and outright lies on platforms like Facebook is a real problem. And social media amplification of corrosive and violent ideologies like white nationalism and transphobia are causing real world harm right now, disproportionately affecting Black and brown people and trans women of color. We must not downplay or ignore the ways that indiscriminately giving platform to these ideologies in the name of free speech can result in making it unsafe for marginalized people to freely express themselves.

There are no easy answers.

But I would argue that these are deep societal problems that can only be addressed through organizing and community building, and that they can’t be fixed with more censorship or by demanding that Big Tech companies become the arbiters of what is and isn’t true.

Around the world, we’ve seen governments scrambling to stem the flow of “misinformation,” often by enacting policies that do more harm than good. Ethiopia’s “Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation” has been decried by activists there as being abused to stifle free expression and freedom of the press. Similar legislation in Egypt has raised alarm bells for human rights groups. YouTube’s attempt to remove white nationalist videos from its platform resulted in automated censorship of anti-racist videos from groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In the United States, progressive groups and lawmakers rightly concerned about the rise of far right online activity, and attempts by state actors to manipulate elections, have increasingly turned to calls for Internet censorship, deplatforming, and more aggressive moderation by companies like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. These calls are well intentioned but ultimately misguided.

Empowering for-profit companies to become the referees of speech and determine what we are and are not allowed to debate solidifies the status quo, and largely benefits the powerful while silencing the oppressed. And in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, this situation could easily get worse very quickly. Facebook has already admitted that it’s relying more on the use of artificial intelligence, and prioritizing the “removal of harmful content” over all else. Implied is that they are prioritizing removing “harmful” content over ensuring that their moderation systems don’t also remove legitimate content in the process. A software “bug” led Facebook to remove factual posts about COVID-19 from actual healthcare professionals, for example.

There is no silver bullet solution that will stop the spread of online misinformation without resulting in collateral damage and censorship of legitimate content and marginalized voices. Instead of calling for more aggressive moderation, we should address the problem at its root: Big Tech companies’ underlying business model of data harvesting, micro-targeting, and artificial algorithmic amplification maximized for engagement above all else. These inherent flaws have become societal crises as a tiny handful of companies have become so large that their policies become de facto law for the entire Internet, something that can only be addressed by either breaking them up or building decentralized alternatives.

The problem with Facebook is not that it’s a place where people can say what they want or share articles that may or may not be true. It’s that Facebook is not a town square — it’s a machine designed to make money by shoving content down the throats of people that Facebook thinks will engage with it, and thus generate advertising revenue, no matter what the cost. Politicians, pundits, racists, and scam artists have always lied in public. Facebook allows them to directly target those lies to the people most likely to believe them.

Facebook isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as intended. The product that Facebook has built is fundamentally incompatible with basic human rights and democracy -– and begging Mark Zuckerberg to take down things we don’t like won’t change that. Worse, if we fail to address the underlying problems and get caught in an endless game of partisan whack-a-mole or working the refs, we will continue to see more and more collateral damage, like with my post about the Patriot Act.

Facebook’s surveillance capitalist business model inadvertently helped prop up the US government’s surveillance state ahead of a crucial vote.

It’s hard to imagine a better example of how urgent it is that we hold Big Tech companies accountable and fight for policies that limit their ability to manipulate and control public debate, rather than giving them more power in name of truth.

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Posted on

Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality No Longer Exists, Favors Leftism

Conservatives have long been blowing the whistle on Wikipedia’s leftist bias. The site’s co-founder Larry Sanger apparently agrees with them.

In a blog post last week, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has abandoned all neutrality in the name of avoiding what activist journalists call the “false balance” – the idea that not all opposing views of an argument should be given equal time. He goes through several pages to support his thesis, noting the rather charged language often employed.

When comparing the pages for former President Barack Obama and the current President Donald Trump, the differences are night and day, with the former receiving overwhelmingly positive treatment while the latter is frequently portrayed negatively.

“The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing ‘Obamagate’ story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump,” argued Sanger.

“A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good,” he continued. “The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash.”

Though some might claim the information is “objectively correct,” Sanger asserted that nobody can claim they are objectively neutral. In contrast to Barack Obama’s glowing treatment, Donald Trump is treated as if he does only wrong.

“The idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke,” he wrote. “Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the ‘Presidency’ section. By contrast, the following ‘Public Profile’ (which the Obama article entirely lacks), ‘Investigations,’ and ‘Impeachment’ sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency.”

“Common words in the article are ‘false’ and ‘falsely’ (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are ‘false.’ Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution,” he continued. “You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as ‘false,’ very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.”

After going through several more pages, including some rather biased language in reference to the existence of Jesus Christ and the abortion argument, Sanger concludes by calling on Wikipedia to just come clean and admit it no longer practices fair neutrality.

“It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one,” Sanger wrote. “Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to concede any such thing; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.”

Sanger has been critical of Wikipedia’s practices since 2002.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Posted on

Watch: Mob Forces Woman Out of Stores for Not Wearing a Mask

A New York woman who was not wearing a mask while out shopping was shamed into leaving a store by a group of enraged customers in a video that has gone viral online.

The video was filmed in a Staten Island ShopRite location two weeks ago, CBS News reported, but it only recently caught fire online.

In the video, a group of shoppers use expletives and intimidation tactics to force a woman pushing a shopping cart out of the store empty-handed.

The thugs even went as far as to call her disgusting names as they intimidated her.

WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.

TRENDING: COVID Survivor Was Banned from Flying Trump Flag To Thank POTUS, New Tribute Is Much Better

The altercation occurred after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo made masks mandatory for New Yorkers who are unable to practice social distancing.

But Cuomo doesn’t need the help of law enforcement to enforce the order. Apparently some fearful citizens are willing to enforce the policy on each other.

Do you think the media’s politicization of the coronavirus pandemic has created a rift in American society?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

In the era of the coronavirus, people who make personal health choices or question the efficacy of wearing masks are being targeted.

In the Staten Island video, all that screaming and face touching probably created a more dangerous situation, at least with that we know this month about the spread of the coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But the official line is that if you don’t wear a mask, you’re a killer — and many people have latched onto the idea that they are heroic for wearing masks, and that those who don’t are monsters.

That is of course not to denigrate those who do choose to wear one, but people must be free to decide.

We don’t know the full context of the video, but how did these shoppers know this woman didn’t have an immunity to the virus?

RELATED: Politico Report Puts Spotlight on How Democrats Really Look at an Economic Turnaround

We can thank our media for politicizing the subject of masks and for stigmatizing those who don’t wear them — and we can blame mixed government messaging for partially creating an environment that would see a woman in an American store forced out by a mob for not covering her face.

If you’ll recall, public health experts initially warned us not to wear masks. While the experts are now touting facial coverings, their initial comments give people a reason to question the practice as they make their own health determinations.

But what’s more terrifying than inconsistent information from health officials is the praise the mask thuggery video is receiving online.

C-list Hollywood activist and formerly “credible sexual assault victims advocate” Alyssa Milano was one of many who supported the actions of the bullies. She shared the video on Twitter and praised the thugs.

“Never been prouder of growing up in Staten Island,” she commented on the video.

Here’s a question: Do the reporters and Democratic activists who peddle in fear believe that wearing face coverings will prevent themselves or others from contracting the coronavirus?

Gosh, it’s hard to tell.

Earlier this month, CNN White House reporter Kaitlan Collins, who is known for hectoring President Donald Trump for not wearing a mask, was filmed removing her mask in the briefing room when she apparently thought the cameras were off.

Likewise for ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who shames another reporter for not covering his face, yet enjoyed ordering food in public on Cinco de Mayo without wearing a mask.

Milano herself was widely mocked last week after she virtue signaled by posting an image of herself wearing a laughable face covering that was little more than a crocheted fashion statement.

The fanatical reaction to the coronavirus from far-left activists and the media has encouraged a panicked, fear-driven portion of the population to take their patrolling of online comment sections into stores.

These people do not like dissent and are willing to exact mob justice to intimidate people, and they are being encouraged by reporters and Hollywood has-beens, such as Milano.

These are the same people who apparently don’t believe in the efficacy of facial coverings.

Look no further than their behavior when they think nobody is looking, or when they are attempting to crown their fear as some sort of virtue that is woven in fabric.

Humiliating and bullying people for making their own choices about the coronavirus is wholly un-American.

The blame for what happened on Staten Island sits squarely on the shoulders of the sensational media, which continues to find new ways to divide Americans.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Posted on

Herman Cain: Four Reasons the Economic Resurgence Will Be Quicker than People Think

Op-Ed

Herman Cain: Four Reasons the Economic Resurgence Will Be Quicker than People Think

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett speaks to members of the media in front of the West Wing of the White House on May 22, 2020, in Washington, D.C.Alex Wong / Getty ImagesWhite House economic adviser Kevin Hassett speaks to members of the media in front of the West Wing of the White House on May 22, 2020, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong / Getty Images)

White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett is making a bold proclamation these days. He’s saying he not only expects things to get back to normal soon, but he also expects the economy to get back up to speed faster than normal.

That’s earning him the usual mocking and sneering from the media, but there are good reasons to believe he’s right.

Initially we were hoping for a so-called V-shaped recovery, in which things would bounce back upon the reopening as quickly as they tumbled. Lately economists have been downplaying the possibility of that happening.

But I think Hassett’s on to something in his belief that the current predictions are too pessimistic.

It’s true that the states’ responses to the coronavirus have done some serious damage to our nation’s economic infrastructure, but I think people are failing to appreciate just how much economic power there is – ready to be unleashed – in this economy.

TRENDING: COVID Survivor Was Banned from Flying Trump Flag To Thank POTUS, New Tribute Is Much Better

I see four specific reasons to think Hassett is right that the economy will get back up to speed more quickly than economists are predicting:

1. Many states are doing a gradual reopening.

They’re doing a follow-the-guidelines reopening.

You might think this argues for a slower recovery, but I think this will give states the time they need to rebuild their economic infrastructures.

Are you optimistic about economic recovery after the coronavirus crisis?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

That will inspire more confidence in the broader strategy, and I think that will make people feel more confident about spending their money.

2. Social distancing guidelines.

Many businesses are taking these guidelines seriously, even though it initially cuts down their capacity.

But by taking these guidelines seriously, you also assure your customer base that they are safe when they come and do business with you. If one of the threats to a quick rebound is that people will still be scared to go places, the application of these guidelines should help to ease that fear.

3. Workers want to work.

RELATED: Op-Ed: Democrats Made the COVID-19 Pandemic Even Worse for Small Business

With 33 million people out of work, that means we have a whole lot of people who want to get back to it.

The economy is measured in productivity, and we have a workforce that’s been denied the opportunity to be productive for more than two months. I expect them to return to work with determination and plenty of pent-up energy to deploy.

4. Consumers want to get out.

They’ve been home for a long time. They want to get out and establish some sort of normality relative to their daily activities. That will make them ready to patronize businesses and spend their money.

This is not to mention the fact that they’ve been delaying purchases and waiting on services they needed. I heard recently of a bike shop that just reopened, and was so overrun with repair requests it had to stop taking appointments until it could catch up. You will see a lot of that.

It will take some very hard work to get our economy quickly back up to speed. But you know what? People are going to be happy to do it. They’ve been out of work for a long time and they’re relishing the opportunity to jump back in and make things right.

I am optimistic about what’s going to happen as we move more fully toward a reopening.

You should be too. In fact, we need you to be. Optimism is one of the most powerful assets we can put to work in turning this thing around.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Posted on

Rick Scott Believes the Bill of Rights Trumps COVID Orders

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott leaves no doubts about where he stands.

He believes Americans are free to make their own decisions when it comes to wearing a mask or going to church amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

And he made his opinion on the matter clear to CNN’s Dana Bash during Sunday’s airing of “State of the Union.”

Scott told Bash that he believes the First Amendment supersedes any government degree aimed at restricting a person’s rights under the amendment, especially the right to worship.

“It doesn’t matter” what elected officials say, according to Scott.

TRENDING: COVID Survivor Was Banned from Flying Trump Flag To Thank POTUS, New Tribute Is Much Better

“We have the Bill of Rights. We have a right to worship. We have a right to get together, and respect — and we need to respect people’s religion,” the Florida Republican said.

“Do I believe that government should be telling us what to do? Do I believe government can tell us we don’t have a right to worship? I don’t believe they can,” Scott told Bash.

“All Floridians, all Americans, have a Bill of Rights, and we have a right to worship if we want to. I believe people are going to do it safely.”

His remarks came days after President Donald Trump declared that all churches are “essential,” and instructed authorities on Friday to allow them to reopen for this past Sunday.

American citizens should never be told they cannot gather to worship freely in this nation.

In fact, the right to worship freely is one of America’s founding ideals, as evidenced by its prominent placement at the beginning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Originally, we were told that social distancing recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and those in charge during the pandemic were part of an effort to flatten the curve and combat the coronavirus.

But these guidelines quickly evolved into government-imposed lockdown orders that forced churches to shut down in-person services.

RELATED: ‘Like the Soviet-Styled KGB,’ Armed Police Sent To Shut Down Black Baptist Church, Pastor Says

Do you think the First Amendment supersedes COVID-19 orders?

100% (1 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

Cooperation and leadership turned into tyranny and totalitarianism.

In recent months, churches have been ordered to close, people have been arrested for trying to make a living and ordinary Americans have been cited or threatened by authorities simply for going about their lives.

As for masks, Scott said he feels that wearing them is a good idea, but it also is a personal choice.

“Do I believe people ought to wear masks? Yep, I do believe people ought to wear masks. Do I believe people ought to social distance? Yes, I believe people ought to social distance,” he said, according to Politico.

“Do we need the president, the governors and all the local officials to tell us how to lead our lives every day? No. We’ll figure this out.”

Scott is absolutely correct when he says Americans should be allowed to make their own choices.

No person should be made to wear a mask, or ridiculed or even threatened by law enforcement if they choose not to wear one.

This is America, where each person is supposed to have the freedom to make his or her own choices.

The senator strongly believes that the American people are smart enough to live their own lives.

Scott is on the right and logical side of this issue, as he combined common sense with the Constitution to make an excellent argument.

It’s a winning combination, and more elected officials need to follow his lead.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Posted on

Twitter ‘Un-Verifies’ Journalist One Hour After He Tweets About Obama Spying On Journalists

Twitter ‘Un-Verifies’ Journalist One Hour After He Tweets About Obama Spying On Journalists

Tyler Durden

Tue, 05/26/2020 – 17:45

While Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey continues the search for his identity through meditation and fasting, his hyper-partisan San Francisco-based company has escalated its war on wrongthink.

The latest casualty, Mediaite journalist Rudy Takala, was stripped of his blue "verified" checkmark approximately one hour after tweeting his column about the Obama administration spying on journalists last Thursday, according to Breitbart‘s Allum Bokhari.

Takala’s article suggests that "Obamagate" is just the "latest development in nearly a decade-long battle" for journalists such as former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has long asserted that she was spied on by the feds from 2011-2014 as part of her reporting on the Obama DOJ’s "Fast and Furious" gun-running debacle, as well as her reporting on the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

While her case against the US government was tossed by a three-judge panel last year, Attkison moved to reopen the case in January after she told the court that a whistleblower had provided new information.

That information implicated five specific individuals, according to court filings — including Rod Rosenstein, a familiar target of Trump’s grievances. Court filings allege Rosenstein, who served as the Obama administration’s U.S. attorney for Maryland, “ordered the unlawful surveillance and hacking” of Attkisson’s devices. (He subsequently served as Trump’s deputy attorney general, a capacity in which he appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump’s staffers.) –Mediaite

For his insolence – providing yet another log on the mounting pyre of scandals in Obama’s "scandal-free" administration – Takala appears to have been punished by the Silicon Valley thought police with the removal of his coveted (by some) blue check.

Takala isn’t the only one… As Bokhari reports, podcast host Josh Lekach similarly lost his verified badge after interviewing Republican congressional candidate Laura Loomer – who is suing Twitter over politically biased censorship.

"I interviewed Laura Loomer yesterday, and today my Twitter verification badge is gone,? Lekach tweeted last week.

More:

Conservative app developer Doriano Carta, previously a writer for Mashable and GigaOm, reported that his verified badge had also disappeared.

It is unclear how many others have been deverified, or why. Twitter has yet to release any public statements on the matter, and has yet to respond to Breitbart News’ request for comment. –Breitbart

Did any liberal journalists lose their blue checkmarks for promoting debunked russiagate conspiracy theories about the Trump administration?

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Posted on

Obama’s Top Economist Says ‘Best Economic Data In History’ About To Happen In U.S.

“We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country.”

That’s what former president Jason Furman, a top economist in the Obama administration and now a professor at Harvard, told a large bipartisan group of top officials from both parties in a Zoom party last week, according to Politico.

The former cabinet secretaries and Federal Reserve chairs in the Zoom boxes were confused, though some of the Republicans may have been newly relieved and some of the Democrats suddenly concerned.

“Everyone looked puzzled and thought I had misspoken,” Furman said in an interview. Instead of forecasting a prolonged depression-level economic catastrophe, Furman laid out a detailed case for why the months preceding the November election could offer Trump the chance to brag — truthfully — about the most explosive monthly employment numbers and GDP growth ever.

Since the Zoom call, Furman has been making the same case to anyone who will listen, especially the close-knit network of Democratic wonks who have traversed the Clinton and Obama administrations together, including top members of the Biden campaign.

Unemployment is surging — the rate is at 14.6%, with more than 36 million Americans losing their jobs amid the coronavirus hype. The rate is expected to soar above 20% when the numbers come out next month.

Democrats are freaked.

 “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.”

Sanger is alarmed that the economy might rebound.

Consumption and hiring started to tick up “in gross terms, not in net terms,” Furman said, describing the phenomenon as a “partial rebound.” The bounce back “can be very very fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. It will look like a V.”

 

The post Obama’s Top Economist Says ‘Best Economic Data In History’ About To Happen In U.S. appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Trump’s NatSec Advisor Robert O’Brien Drains the Swamp, Cuts Staff to HALF of Obama-Era Levels


Robert O’Brien

National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien slashed the National Security Council staff to half of Obama-era levels.

The NatSec purge started in February when President Trump fired the Vindman twins from their National Security Council positions in the Trump White House.

The President also cut 70 Obama-era holdovers from the NatSec in February.

Trump’s goal is to cut the agency in half.

On Tuesday, the New York Post reported that Trump’s NatSec Advisor Robert O’Brien dramatically cut down the size of the NatSec Council.

President Trump’s national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien has dramatically slashed the size of the National Security Council — reducing the headcount to half of what it was during the Obama era, The Post has learned.

The job cuts are an attempt to streamline the foreign policy outfit, which ballooned under the Obama administration to almost 240 staffers — still up from 115 during Condoleezza Rice’s tenure as George W. Bush’s NSA in the early 2000s, a senior White House official said.

By the end of this summer, the NSC will consist of just 105 staff, the official said.

“Under previous administrations, the NSC more than doubled in size and duplicated many of the functions of DoD, State and the intelligence community,” O’Brien told The Post on Tuesday.

“Under President Trump, we have brought the NSC back to its proper size and role as a coordinating body,” he continued.

“To make that happen we require the best leaders, many of whom are women. Our goal is always to find the very best professionals for each job, and I am very proud of the team we have assembled at the NSC to further President Trump’s agenda,” he said.

The NatSec became a bloated bureaucracy under Obama and Obama holdovers such as Eric Ciaramella, Alex Vindman and Sean Misko worked together to “take out” Trump.

Rep. Nunes took it a step further and previously urged President Trump to move the entire NSC apparatus out of the White House and across the Potomac River.

The post Trump’s NatSec Advisor Robert O’Brien Drains the Swamp, Cuts Staff to HALF of Obama-Era Levels appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com