humansarefree--2020-05-29--Anatomy of President Trump’s Executive Order to End Political Bias by the Tech Giants

The President of the USA , Donal Trump , has signed the Executive Order and the full text is now posted at the WhiteHouse.gov website .
This article summarizes the key points of the executive order , which stands as the first real action President Trump has taken against the extreme censorship that has been pursued for years by the techno-fascists from Silicon Valley .
– Establishes the fact that tech platforms are the modern-day “ public square ” in which public debate and free speech must be allowed to flourish .
– Confirms that protecting free speech is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is the exact point I ’ ve been making recently in articles and videos .
We can not have “ fair and free elections ” without a free speech landscape .
Under the current degree of censorship in America , all elections are null and void .
– States that the politically biased censorship of the tech giants is , “ un-American and anti-democratic.
” Characterizes Big Tech ’ s censorship as “ a dangerous power.
” – Points out how Big Tech is favoring China and even protecting the speech of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom-loving Americans .
“ Several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.
” See my related article , “ Big Tech Goes Pinko ” for more details .
Google , for example , created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party , which blacklisted searches for “ human rights , ” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party , and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance .
Google has also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook and Twitter have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese Government that spread false information about China ’ s mass imprisonment of religious minorities .
Twitter has also amplified China ’ s propaganda abroad , including by allowing Chinese government officials to use its platform to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong .
– Establishes that it is the policy of the U.S. government , “ that lawful content should be free from censorship in our digital marketplace of ideas .
As a Nation , we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where all Americans can and should have a voice.
” – Calls for the scope of Sec .
230 of the CDA to be “ clarified.
” States that the selective censorship and editorializing of the tech platforms causes those platforms to be , “ engaged in editorial conduct , ” from which they should not enjoy Sec .
230 legal immunity from lawsuits .
“ such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “ publisher or speaker ” under subsection 230 ( c ) ( 1 ) .
” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this strict interpretation to enforcing Sec .
230 , meaning that any tech platform that engages in political censorship or flagging of content for reasons related to viewpoints should be subject to civil lawsuits .
– Calls on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA ) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) , asking the FCC to clarify Sec .
230 interpretation in a way that would preclude political bias , viewpoint censorship or similar actions on the part of the tech giants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish rules under which users of tech platforms such as Facebook would have to be given adequate notice and an “ opportunity to be heard ” so that tech giants can ’ t merely blacklist entire channels without warning and without explanation .
– Calls for prohibiting all federal ad spending on digital platforms that do not respect this interpretation of Sec .
230 and free speech .
– Calls on “ large social media platforms , ” specifically naming Facebook and Twitter , to be considered the , “ functional equivalent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they , “ should not infringe on protected speech.
” In this context , the word “ protected ” implies First Amendment protections .
– Orders the creation of a new complaint department to be run by the White House Office of Digital Strategy which will forward censorship and bias complaints to the FCC .
“ The White House Office of Digital Strategy shall reestablish the White House Tech Bias Reporting Tool to collect complaints of online censorship and other potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices by online platforms and shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) .
” – Calls on the FTC to “ prohibit unfair and deceptive acts or practices ” that affect commerce .
This is a broad order with potentially enormous implications , especially considering that platforms like Facebook , which censor truthful speech about vaccine risks , for example , is run by people like Mark Zuckerberg who have a financial stake in vaccine companies .
Facebook ’ s censorship of speech that criticizes vaccines is , of course , anti-competitive and antitrust behavior which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
– Instructs the FTC to crack down on the deceptive promises made by social media platforms ( i.e .
telling users they are free to speak ) while in reality those platforms practice politically-motivated censorship that contradicts their public promises .
This constitutes “ deceptive practices ” which the FTC may choose to prosecute .
– Directs the FTC to consider criminal violations by Twitter and other large social media platforms which are engaging in deceptive and unfair marketing and commerce practices that violate U.S. law .
Calls for the FTC to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after investigating possible criminal violations .
– Calls on the DOJ to work with Attorneys General of U.S. states to create a “ working group ” to pursue Big Tech violations of state laws regarding unfair practices and “ deceptive acts.
” – Directs the White House Office of Digital Strategy to collect user complaints and forward those complaints to the DOJ working group that ’ s cooperating with state Attorneys General .
TEN URGENT ACTION ITEMS to defend your freedom… do this now or lose your liberty forever What ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel which will drive all these processes carried out by the White House , the FCC and the FTC will be user reports of censorship and bias .
In other words , even as Trump is laying out the framework for the federal government to aggressively crack down on censorship and bias by the tech giants , the government won ’ t be able to get much done without a flood of user complaints .
Thus , we are encouraging all readers to take the following actions : 1 ) DOCUMENT every instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de-platforming that has happened to you or your business over the last several years .
2 ) GATHER screen shots , on-screen messages , “ fact check ” flags and other evidence that can support your censorship complaint .
3 ) PREPARE to submit your complaints to the White House Office of Digital Strategy once a new complaint process is announced and made publicly available .
( We don ’ t know the timeline of this , but Trump appears to be motivated to move quickly ) .
4 ) ENCOURAGE all others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , un-American censorship of the tech giants to take these same actions and prepare their evidence and complaints .
5 ) SHARE this article if you are able .
While Facebook , Twitter , Google , YouTube and other tech giants have maliciously and repeatedly de-platformed my voice and my websites .
6 ) MOVE your channels to alternative platforms .
Leave Facebook and bring your followers to AllSocial.com .
Leave YouTube and bring your videos and viewers to Brighteon.com .
Consider the growing ecosystem of other independent platforms .
7 ) SELL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google , Twitter , Vimeo and other tech giants that engage in speech suppression and malicious censorship .
Do not invest your financial future in their model of oppressing basic human rights .
8 ) CONDEMN those who work for Google , Facebook , YouTube , Twitter , Wikipedia , Vimeo and other malicious censorship platforms for their complicity in empowering evil , authoritarian regimes that crush human freedom and censor important human rights voices like Jennifer Zeng .
Today , anyone who works for the tech giants is morally no different than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1939 , for example .
9 ) SUPPORT the efforts of Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Matt Gaetz for their passionate efforts to revoke Sec .
230 protections from the tech giants and restore a level playing field of free speech for America .
Tell your representatives in Congress that you demand the revocation of Sec .
230 and a new law to protect free speech across online platforms .
10 ) VOICE YOUR SUPPORT for President Trump ’ s actions to defend the free speech of all Americans .
Thank Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pursue it with courage , even if the stock prices of the tech giants fall .
There is no greater and more important fight for our future than the fight to defend the First Amendment and your right to speak without interference by malicious , communist-infiltrated corporations like Twitter and Facebook .
President Trump is taking bold action , and he desperately needs our encouragement and support to see this through .
If President Trump doesn ’ t win in November , free speech will be obliterated in America for generations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump loses the November election , a Democrat president will reverse all this and allow the tech giants to pursue an endless , aggressive expansion of malicious censorship .
That will no doubt end either in mass genocide or an armed uprising and civil war across America .
Neither outcome is good for our future .
It now appears that the political survival of President Trump in the upcoming election is , indeed , the only path by which the free speech of the American people can be restored .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Tech must be brought to an end :

The President of the USA, Donal Trump, has signed the Executive Order and the full text is now posted at the WhiteHouse.gov website.
This article summarizes the key points of the executive order, which stands as the first real action President Trump has taken against the extreme censorship that has been pursued for years by the techno-fascists from Silicon Valley.
Key elements of the executive order:
– Establishes the fact that tech platforms are the modern-day “public square” in which public debate and free speech must be allowed to flourish.
– Confirms that protecting free speech is “essentially to sustaining our democracy,” which is the exact point I’ve been making recently in articles and videos.
We cannot have “fair and free elections” without a free speech landscape. Under the current degree of censorship in America, all elections are null and void.
– States that the politically biased censorship of the tech giants is, “un-American and anti-democratic.” Characterizes Big Tech’s censorship as “a dangerous power.”
– Points out how Big Tech is favoring China and even protecting the speech of communist regimes while censoring the speech of freedom-loving Americans.
“Several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.” See my related article, “Big Tech Goes Pinko” for more details.
From the EO:
Google, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party, which blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.
Google has also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.
For their part, Facebook and Twitter have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese Government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities.
Twitter has also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use its platform to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
– Establishes that it is the policy of the U.S. government, “that lawful content should be free from censorship in our digital marketplace of ideas. As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.”
– Calls for the scope of Sec. 230 of the CDA to be “clarified.” States that the selective censorship and editorializing of the tech platforms causes those platforms to be, “engaged in editorial conduct,” from which they should not enjoy Sec. 230 legal immunity from lawsuits. “such a provider forfeits any protection from being deemed a “publisher or speaker” under subsection 230(c)(1).”
– Calls for all government regulators to apply this strict interpretation to enforcing Sec. 230, meaning that any tech platform that engages in political censorship or flagging of content for reasons related to viewpoints should be subject to civil lawsuits.
– Calls on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the FCC to clarify Sec. 230 interpretation in a way that would preclude political bias, viewpoint censorship or similar actions on the part of the tech giants.
– Furthermore calls on the FCC to establish rules under which users of tech platforms such as Facebook would have to be given adequate notice and an “opportunity to be heard” so that tech giants can’t merely blacklist entire channels without warning and without explanation.
– Calls for prohibiting all federal ad spending on digital platforms that do not respect this interpretation of Sec. 230 and free speech.
– Calls on “large social media platforms,” specifically naming Facebook and Twitter, to be considered the, “functional equivalent of a traditional public forum” and demands that they, “should not infringe on protected speech.” In this context, the word “protected” implies First Amendment protections.
– Orders the creation of a new complaint department to be run by the White House Office of Digital Strategy which will forward censorship and bias complaints to the FCC.
“The White House Office of Digital Strategy shall reestablish the White House Tech Bias Reporting Tool to collect complaints of online censorship and other potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices by online platforms and shall submit complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).”
– Calls on the FTC to “prohibit unfair and deceptive acts or practices” that affect commerce.
This is a broad order with potentially enormous implications, especially considering that platforms like Facebook, which censor truthful speech about jjab risks, for example, is run by people like Mark Zuckerberg who have a financial stake in jjab companies.
Facebook’s censorship of speech that criticizes jjabs is, of course, anti-competitive and antitrust behavior which is subject to prosecution by the FTC.
– Instructs the FTC to crack down on the deceptive promises made by social media platforms (i.e. telling users they are free to speak) while in reality those platforms practice politically-motivated censorship that contradicts their public promises.
This constitutes “deceptive practices” which the FTC may choose to prosecute.
– Directs the FTC to consider criminal violations by Twitter and other large social media platforms which are engaging in deceptive and unfair marketing and commerce practices that violate U.S. law.
Calls for the FTC to issue a public report about its findings after investigating possible criminal violations.
– Calls on the DOJ to work with Attorneys General of U.S. states to create a “working group” to pursue Big Tech violations of state laws regarding unfair practices and “deceptive acts.”
– Directs the White House Office of Digital Strategy to collect user complaints and forward those complaints to the DOJ working group that’s cooperating with state Attorneys General.
TEN URGENT ACTION ITEMS to defend your freedom… do this now or lose your liberty forever
What’s clear from this executive order is that the fuel which will drive all these processes carried out by the White House, the FCC and the FTC will be user reports of censorship and bias.
In other words, even as Trump is laying out the framework for the federal government to aggressively crack down on censorship and bias by the tech giants, the government won’t be able to get much done without a flood of user complaints.
Thus, we are encouraging all readers to take the following actions:
1) DOCUMENT every instance of censorship, bias, blacklisting and de-platforming that has happened to you or your business over the last several years.
2) GATHER screen shots, on-screen messages, “fact check” flags and other evidence that can support your censorship complaint.
3) PREPARE to submit your complaints to the White House Office of Digital Strategy once a new complaint process is announced and made publicly available. (We don’t know the timeline of this, but Trump appears to be motivated to move quickly).
4) ENCOURAGE all others who have been impacted by the malicious, un-American censorship of the tech giants to take these same actions and prepare their evidence and complaints.
5) SHARE this article if you are able. While Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube and other tech giants have maliciously and repeatedly de-platformed my voice and my websites.
6) MOVE your channels to alternative platforms. Leave Facebook and bring your followers to AllSocial.com. Leave YouTube and bring your videos and viewers to Brighteon.com. Consider the growing ecosystem of other independent platforms.
7) SELL all stocks of Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter, Vimeo and other tech giants that engage in speech suppression and malicious censorship. Do not invest your financial future in their model of oppressing basic human rights.
8) CONDEMN those who work for Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, Vimeo and other malicious censorship platforms for their complicity in empowering evil, authoritarian regimes that crush human freedom and censor important human rights voices like Jennifer Zeng.
Today, anyone who works for the tech giants is morally no different than someone who worked for the Nazi regime in 1939, for example.
9) SUPPORT the efforts of Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Matt Gaetz for their passionate efforts to revoke Sec. 230 protections from the tech giants and restore a level playing field of free speech for America. Tell your representatives in Congress that you demand the revocation of Sec. 230 and a new law to protect free speech across online platforms.
10) VOICE YOUR SUPPORT for President Trump’s actions to defend the free speech of all Americans.
Thank Trump for this decisive action and encourage him to pursue it with courage, even if the stock prices of the tech giants fall.
There is no greater and more important fight for our future than the fight to defend the First Amendment and your right to speak without interference by malicious, communist-infiltrated corporations like Twitter and Facebook.
President Trump is taking bold action, and he desperately needs our encouragement and support to see this through.
If President Trump doesn’t win in November, free speech will be obliterated in America for generations to come
Finally, realize that if President Trump loses the November election, a Democrat president will reverse all this and allow the tech giants to pursue an endless, aggressive expansion of malicious censorship.
That will no doubt end either in mass genocide or an armed uprising and civil war across America. Neither outcome is good for our future.
It now appears that the political survival of President Trump in the upcoming election is, indeed, the only path by which the free speech of the American people can be restored.
Here’s my take on why the tyranny of Big Tech must be brought to an end:
Sources: NaturalNews.com; Brighteon.com


humansarefree--2020-05-29--The Internet is the Modern Day Agora and Must Be Protected At All Costs

I wrote the following more than a year ago , and today it is more important than ever : The ongoing purge of dissenting voices , shadow censorship and outright ban is the trademark of the Deep State : a rogue faction that has infiltrated all aspects of government and is now taking over the United State of America .
The Republic is at risk .
We have never faced such a danger before .
The Internet is an integrated part of our society and it has a huge impact on our daily lives .
It is the modern day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conducting business , exchange of information , the center of the artistic , spiritual and political life .
The Internet must be protected at all costs !
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America , it is hereby ordered as follows : Section 1 .
Policy .
Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy .
Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution .
The freedom to express and debate ideas is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a free people .
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression , we can not allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet .
This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic .
When large , powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree , they exercise a dangerous power .
They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards , and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators .
The growth of online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology .
Today , many Americans follow the news , stay in touch with friends and family , and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms .
As a result , these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square .
Twitter , Facebook , Instagram , and YouTube wield immense , if not unprecedented , power to shape the interpretation of public events ; to censor , delete , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what people see or do not see .
As President , I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet .
Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities , our town halls , and our homes .
It is essential to sustaining our democracy .
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse .
Tens of thousands of Americans have reported , among other troubling behaviors , online platforms “ flagging ” content as inappropriate , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of service ; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints ; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning , no rationale , and no recourse .
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias .
As has been reported , Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician ’ s tweet .
As recently as last week , Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collusion Hoax , and Twitter did not flag those tweets .
Unsurprisingly , its officer in charge of so-called ‘ Site Integrity ’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets .
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent , irrational , and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans ’ speech here at home , several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China .
One United States company , for example , created a search engine for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ searches for “ human rights , ” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party , and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance .
It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military .
Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China ’ s mass imprisonment of religious minorities , thereby enabling these abuses of human rights .
They have also amplified China ’ s propaganda abroad , including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 pandemic , and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong .
As a Nation , we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today ’ s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice .
We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms , and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression .
Sec .
2 .
Protections Against Online Censorship .
( a ) It is the policy of the United States to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open debate on the internet .
Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230 ( c ) of the Communications Decency Act ( section 230 ( c ) ) .
47 U.S.C .
230 ( c ) .
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified : the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints .
Section 230 ( c ) was designed to address early court decisions holding that , if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others , it would thereby become a “ publisher ” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation .
As the title of section 230 ( c ) makes clear , the provision provides limited liability “ protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer service ( such as an online platform ) that engages in “ ‘ Good Samaritan ’ blocking ” of harmful content .
In particular , the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material .
The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “ forum for a true diversity of political discourse.
” 47 U.S.C .
230 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind .
In particular , subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) expressly addresses protections from “ civil liability ” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “ on account of ” its decision in “ good faith ” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “ obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing or otherwise objectionable.
” It is the policy of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent permissible under the law , this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “ good faith ” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions ( often contrary to their stated terms of service ) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree .
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate , and then to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike .
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , it is engaged in editorial conduct .
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( b ) To advance the policy described in subsection ( a ) of this section , all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230 ( c ) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard .
In addition , within 60 days of the date of this order , the Secretary of Commerce ( Secretary ) , in consultation with the Attorney General , and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA ) , shall file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communications Commission ( FCC ) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify : ( i ) the interaction between subparagraphs ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ( 2 ) of section 230 , in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph ( c ) ( 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider ’ s responsibility for its own editorial decisions ; ( ii ) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “ taken in good faith ” within the meaning of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) of section 230 , particularly whether actions can be “ taken in good faith ” if they are : ( A ) deceptive , pretextual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s terms of service ; or ( B ) taken after failing to provide adequate notice , reasoned explanation , or a meaningful opportunity to be heard ; and ( iii ) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection ( a ) of this section .
Sec .
3 .
Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech .
( a ) The head of each executive department and agency ( agency ) shall review its agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid to online platforms .
Such review shall include the amount of money spent , the online platforms that receive Federal dollars , and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars .
( b ) Within 30 days of the date of this order , the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget .
( c ) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination , deception to consumers , or other bad practices .
Sec .
4 .
Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices .
( a ) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms , such as Twitter and Facebook , as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today , should not restrict protected speech .
The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.
” Packingham v. North Carolina , 137 S. Ct. 1730 , 1737 ( 2017 ) .
Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy , including to petition elected leaders .
These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate .
Cf .
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins , 447 U.S. 74 , 85-89 ( 1980 ) .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship .
In just weeks , the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints .
The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) .
( c ) The FTC shall consider taking action , as appropriate and consistent with applicable law , to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to section 45 of title 15 , United States Code .
Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities ’ public representations about those practices .
( d ) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate , including the social media platform Twitter , the FTC shall also , consistent with its legal authority , consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available , consistent with applicable law .
Sec .
5 .
State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws .
( a ) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices .
The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and practices .
The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation , as appropriate and consistent with applicable law .
( b ) Complaints described in section 4 ( b ) of this order will be shared with the working group , consistent with applicable law .
The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following : ( i ) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow , or their interactions with other users ; ( ii ) algorithms to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political alignment or viewpoint ; ( iii ) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior , when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments ; ( iv ) reliance on third-party entities , including contractors , media organizations , and individuals , with indicia of bias to review content ; and ( v ) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated .
Sec .
6 .
Legislation .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order .
Sec .
7 .
Definition .
For purposes of this order , the term “ online platform ” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking , or any general search engine .
Sec .
8 .
General Provisions .
( a ) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect : ( i ) the authority granted by law to an executive department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; or ( ii ) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary , administrative , or legislative proposals .
( b ) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations .
( c ) This order is not intended to , and does not , create any right or benefit , substantive or procedural , enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States , its departments , agencies , or entities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or any other person .
Here are the censorship-free social media accounts where you can find me : • AllSocial.com ( all of your followers will see what you share )

I wrote the following more than a year ago, and today it is more important than ever:
The ongoing purge of dissenting voices, shadow censorship and outright ban is the trademark of the Deep State: a rogue faction that has infiltrated all aspects of government and is now taking over the United State of America. The Republic is at risk. We have never faced such a danger before.
The Internet is an integrated part of our society and it has a huge impact on our daily lives. It is the modern day agora — the principal medium for communication, conducting business, exchange of information, the center of the artistic, spiritual and political life.
The Internet must be protected at all costs!
Trump Signed Executive Order Stripping Social Media Companies Of “Liability Shield”:
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.
One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.
Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c).
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.
As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.
In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”
It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Here are the censorship-free social media accounts where you can find me:
Minds.com AllSocial.com (all of your followers will see what you share) MeWe.com gab.com
Source: WhiteHouse.gov


humansarefree--2020-05-30--Internet Suspects Cops Provoking Riots as Shadowy Man in Black Caught Smashing Up Autozone

Minneapolis , MN — Dozens of businesses and other buildings in Minneapolis , near the police department ’ s third precinct , were hit hard with vandalism this week , with some of them being completely burned to the ground .
There was undoubtedly some organic intent behind this destruction .
However , several videos of a highly suspicious man wearing a gas mask and carrying a hammer , paint an ominous picture of potential agent provocateurs stoking the rioting among the protesters .
Throughout the day , most of the protests in Minneapolis were peaceful with the exception of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the police department who refused to immediately charge George Floyd ’ s killers .
However , as was widely reported , the Autozone near the department was one of the first places to be looted and set on fire .
Now , we have the video of the first person to instigate the destruction — and he was definitely not part of the George Floyd protests .
Brad Svenson ( @ SvensonBrad on pscp.tv ) was streaming live Wednesday night .
As he filmed the protests , he took no interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protesters were peacefully chanting at the officers in front of them .
All of that quickly changed , however , when we hear a loud pop , followed by the sound of breaking glass .
When Svenson panned his camera around , we see a shady white guy , dressed in all black , holding an umbrella , a hammer , and a gas mask , shattering the windows out of the Autozone like he was getting paid to do it .
For those unaware , the black umbrella is a symbol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protesters used umbrellas as a tool for passive resistance to the police ’ s use of pepper spray to disperse the crowd during the occupation of the city over the 2014 elections .
What this man was doing was hardly passive .
It also looked like he Googled “ rioter ” and dressed up like the first picture he found .
Illustrating just how reluctant the protesters were to begin rioting and looting , they yelled at the shady man in black and confronted him as he began smashing windows .
“ Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the protesters yell .
As the man attempts to escape without being tackled or stopped by folks who did not want the rioting and looting to start , the man becomes confrontational and challenges one of the men pursuing him to a fight .
Then , in typical police officer fashion , the provocateur tries to swat the camera from the person filming him .
“ Get the f**k away from me , ” the agent provocateur says as he flees behind the Autozone .
He is chased about 100 feet away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pretty clear from the video that the protesters — at least before the provocateur smashed out windows — wanted nothing to do with looting and destroying local businesses .
However , after he smashed the windows of Autozone , it would set off a chain reaction , leading to a handful of others parting from the peaceful protests and begin looting .
Many folks have taken to social media to allege that he is a cop , with some claiming he fled into the police station .
Another post on Facebook claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cop as well .
Also , someone noted that his ex-girlfriend may have outed him .
Despite the internet claiming the man in the mask is Pederson , Heavy.com spoke to the St. Paul PD who claimed it was not him .
In a statement sent to Heavy , Steve Linders , public information officer for the Saint Paul Police Department , wrote that the post accusing Pederson was a “ false social media post.
” The man isn ’ t Pederson , he stated ( although he didn ’ t use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that . )
We are aware of the social media post that erroneously identifies one of our officers as the person caught on video breaking windows in Minneapolis .
We want to be perfectly clear about this : The person in the video is not our officer .
Our officer has been working hard , serving his community , keeping people and property safe , and protecting the right to peacefully assemble .
It ’ s unfortunate that people would post and share this untrue information , adding more confusion to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While we have no way of knowing who this man was or if he is a cop , it is apparent that many folks think he was a cop .
Also , many folks allege that he is Antifa or a white nationalist attempting to provoke a civil war .
Indeed , TFTP has been given screen shots of a conversation that discussed how similar tactics would be employed to sow divide .
Whomever this person was , the results of his actions by smashing the windows at Autozone were that of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above to YouTube who promptly pulled it down , claiming it went against Community Guidelines .
It showed a man smashing a window and nothing else .
Never did we claim the man was a cop or anything else .
This is the situation independent journalists deal with .
We have appealed their claim .
TFTP has reported on multiple instances of police officer provocateurs being caught in the act .
We even reported on one in which a cop disguised as a protester , was beaten and kidnapped by fellow cops who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As TFTP ’ s John Vibes previously pointed out , in most cases — like the protests on Tuesday — political protesters are nonviolent and do everything they possibly can to avoid clashes with the police .
Demonstrators are well aware that they are outmatched and are only assembling in groups and taking to the streets as a way of promoting their political ideas – this is the essence of free speech .
This is an extremely powerful political freedom , which is why it is met with such hostility from the establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public protest , the authorities are unsympathetic and use heavy force to discourage protests from taking place in the future .
However , they don ’ t attack the mob with guns blazing because they know it will further expose their oppressive nature and add credibility to the revolutionary movement .
So agent provocateurs — whether cops or those hell bent on causing conflict — instigate physical altercations between activists and authorities .
While undercover , these agents commit acts of violence and vandalism to give the police a pretense to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent smashes one window — like was done at Autozone — or throws one rock on behalf of the group they have infiltrated , the authorities are able to send in the cavalry and turn the demonstration into a war zone .
Proving this point is the fact that the National Guard was requested last night in Minneapolis .
After the provocation is complete , any legitimate peaceful protest intentions are smeared into oblivion as the rest of the world looks at the protesters like they ’ re violent criminals .
See how @ @ @

Minneapolis, MN — Dozens of businesses and other buildings in Minneapolis, near the police department’s third precinct, were hit hard with vandalism this week, with some of them being completely burned to the ground.
There was undoubtedly some organic intent behind this destruction.
However, several videos of a highly suspicious man wearing a gas mask and carrying a hammer, paint an ominous picture of potential agent provocateurs stoking the rioting among the protesters.
Throughout the day, most of the protests in Minneapolis were peaceful with the exception of protesters directing their anger and property destruction toward the police department who refused to immediately charge George Floyd’s killers.
However, as was widely reported, the Autozone near the department was one of the first places to be looted and set on fire.
Now, we have the video of the first person to instigate the destruction — and he was definitely not part of the George Floyd protests.
Brad Svenson (@SvensonBrad on pscp.tv) was streaming live Wednesday night. As he filmed the protests, he took no interest in the Autozone directly behind him as all the protesters were peacefully chanting at the officers in front of them.
All of that quickly changed, however, when we hear a loud pop, followed by the sound of breaking glass.
When Svenson panned his camera around, we see a shady white guy, dressed in all black, holding an umbrella, a hammer, and a gas mask, shattering the windows out of the Autozone like he was getting paid to do it.
For those unaware, the black umbrella is a symbol of the protests in Hong Kong.
Protesters used umbrellas as a tool for passive resistance to the police’s use of pepper spray to disperse the crowd during the occupation of the city over the 2014 elections.
What this man was doing was hardly passive. It also looked like he Googled “rioter” and dressed up like the first picture he found.
Illustrating just how reluctant the protesters were to begin rioting and looting, they yelled at the shady man in black and confronted him as he began smashing windows.
“Are you a cop?!” several of the protesters yell.
As the man attempts to escape without being tackled or stopped by folks who did not want the rioting and looting to start, the man becomes confrontational and challenges one of the men pursuing him to a fight.
Then, in typical police officer fashion, the provocateur tries to swat the camera from the person filming him.
“Get the f**k away from me,” the agent provocateur says as he flees behind the Autozone. He is chased about 100 feet away before the video cuts out.
It is pretty clear from the video that the protesters — at least before the provocateur smashed out windows — wanted nothing to do with looting and destroying local businesses.
However, after he smashed the windows of Autozone, it would set off a chain reaction, leading to a handful of others parting from the peaceful protests and begin looting.
Many folks have taken to social media to allege that he is a cop, with some claiming he fled into the police station.
That’s 100% a cop lmao — Mylo Ren Palpatine (@AmaelEtcheu) May 28, 2020
He's a cop — Pantsless "The Like Guy" Hero [SA]🌹✊💣 (@NerfZergShamans) May 28, 2020
Looks like a cop, acts like a cop. — 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗌 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗍𝖾 𝖠𝗌𝗌 (@vodkabooty) May 28, 2020
HOLY SHIT. The cop who started the vandalizing was outted by people who know him. His name is Jacob Pederson of the St. Paul PD. pic.twitter.com/vgw8EqKz5j — Dylan (@dyllyp) May 29, 2020
Update: It has been revealed that Officer Jacob Pederson of the St.Paul Police Department was the culprit responsible for kick starting the riot in South Minneapolis. He was captured on camera and identified by his Ex-wife. — 𓂀 Mama Minnie ☥ (@GypsyEyedBeauty) May 29, 2020
Another post on Facebook claimed to have possibly identified the man as a cop as well.
Also, someone noted that his ex-girlfriend may have outed him.
Despite the internet claiming the man in the mask is Pederson, Heavy.com spoke to the St. Paul PD who claimed it was not him.
In a statement sent to Heavy, Steve Linders, public information officer for the Saint Paul Police Department, wrote that the post accusing Pederson was a “false social media post.”
The man isn’t Pederson, he stated (although he didn’t use Pederson’s name, Heavy asked about that.)
The police statement read:
We are aware of the social media post that erroneously identifies one of our officers as the person caught on video breaking windows in Minneapolis.
We want to be perfectly clear about this: The person in the video is not our officer.
Our officer has been working hard, serving his community, keeping people and property safe, and protecting the right to peacefully assemble.
It’s unfortunate that people would post and share this untrue information, adding more confusion to an already painful time in our community.
While we have no way of knowing who this man was or if he is a cop, it is apparent that many folks think he was a cop.
Also, many folks allege that he is Antifa or a white nationalist attempting to provoke a civil war.
Indeed, TFTP has been given screen shots of a conversation that discussed how similar tactics would be employed to sow divide.
Whomever this person was, the results of his actions by smashing the windows at Autozone were that of an agent provocateur.
Divide And Conquer: The Agent Provocateur
TFTP uploaded the video above to YouTube who promptly pulled it down, claiming it went against Community Guidelines.
It showed a man smashing a window and nothing else. Never did we claim the man was a cop or anything else. This is the situation independent journalists deal with.
We have appealed their claim.
TFTP has reported on multiple instances of police officer provocateurs being caught in the act. We even reported on one in which a cop disguised as a protester, was beaten and kidnapped by fellow cops who did not know he was undercover.
As TFTP’s John Vibes previously pointed out, in most cases — like the protests on Tuesday — political protesters are nonviolent and do everything they possibly can to avoid clashes with the police.
Demonstrators are well aware that they are outmatched and are only assembling in groups and taking to the streets as a way of promoting their political ideas – this is the essence of free speech.
This is an extremely powerful political freedom, which is why it is met with such hostility from the establishment.
Almost every single time there is a public protest, the authorities are unsympathetic and use heavy force to discourage protests from taking place in the future.
However, they don’t attack the mob with guns blazing because they know it will further expose their oppressive nature and add credibility to the revolutionary movement.
So agent provocateurs — whether cops or those hell bent on causing conflict — instigate physical altercations between activists and authorities.
While undercover, these agents commit acts of violence and vandalism to give the police a pretense to use force against the demonstrators.
Once the agent smashes one window — like was done at Autozone — or throws one rock on behalf of the group they have infiltrated, the authorities are able to send in the cavalry and turn the demonstration into a war zone.
Proving this point is the fact that the National Guard was requested last night in Minneapolis.
After the provocation is complete, any legitimate peaceful protest intentions are smeared into oblivion as the rest of the world looks at the protesters like they’re violent criminals. See how that works?
Reference: Thefreethoughtproject.com


humansarefree--2020-05-30--The Agenda to Sexualize & Indoctrinate Children Continues: New Pixar Movie Promotes the LGBTQ Lifest

The Agenda to Sexualize & Indoctrinate Children Continues: New Pixar Movie Promotes the LGBTQ Lifestyle Directly to Kids

Gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now , from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries , and now in new Pixar Disney short film ‘ Out ’ FROM THE STREAM : “ We ’ ll get you through your children !
” These words were shouted to Norman Podhoretz in 1958 by beat poet and pioneer gay activist Allen Ginsberg at the end of an unsuccessful summit .
According to Daniel Oppenheimer in his book Exit Right , “ A decade later ( 1968 ) that threat would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Podhoretz would execute his hard pivot to the right.
” The Billionaires Behind The LGBTQ & Transgender Agenda : George Soros , Peter Buffett , Tim Gill And The Stryker Dynasty Have Donated HUNDREDS Of Millions To The Cause Ginsberg ’ s words have proven true .
Leftists and LGBTQ activists and their allies have waged an effective ideological war on our children , proclaiming that gay is good , that biological sex is changeable , and that heterosexual unions are really no dizfferent than homosexual unions .
Now , Pixar , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the culture wars , for the first time featuring an openly gay lead character .
In fact , his gayness is a central part of the story .
As explained in the New York Times , “ The animated film follows a gay man ’ s journey into acceptance as he prepares to move into a city with his boyfriend.
” And he comes out to his family with the help of his dog .
How delightful !
To be sure , this is just a 9-minute film , but there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 minutes to 90 minutes .
You might say , “ You need to chill !
What ’ s the big deal ?
This is not some full-length release , plus you can ’ t expect Pixar to quote the Bible.
” Well , if it ’ s so insignificant why are gay activists so excited about the film ?
And why is Disney Streaming , where the film was released , touting it so highly ?
As the Disney tweet announced last week , “ The latest heartwarming tale from @ Pixar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Out tomorrow on # DisneyPlus.
” This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely can not understand .
The Times quoted Jeremy Blacklow , director of entertainment media at Glaad , who said , “ Over the past few years , L.G.B.T.Q .
characters and stories have become common in the kids and family entertainment space with little controversy , but with large celebration from L.G.B.T.Q .
families with children who have longed to see themselves represented .
By centering on a young gay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bar for inclusion in kids and family programming.
” But this is not simply a matter of allegedly gay children seeing themselves represented in a movie .
This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely can not understand .
After all , what does a 5-year-old boy , who might really think he can have a conversation with his dog , understand about sexuality ?
Gay Activists Have Been Targeting Our Children for Years The fact is that gay activists have long recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they were doing it with ( in their minds ) the purest of intentions .
In other words , they would say they don ’ t want other kids to struggle the way they did when they were growing up .
Or they want other kids to be more tolerant and accepting .
Or they want to break down the gender binary , since not everyone fits into it .
Whatever the motivation might be , gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now , from sex-ed curricula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours in the libraries , and from Hollywood to social media platforms and beyond .
The headline to Daniel Villareal ’ s May , 2011 in Queerty article said it all : “ Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids ?
” “ They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say , ‘ NOOO !
We ’ re not gon na make kids learn about homosexuality , we swear !
It ’ s not like we ’ re trying to recruit your children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face it — that ’ s a lie .
We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality .
In fact , our very future depends on it.
” But of course !
He also said , “ Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal ?
” Yes , why else would they push these programs and classes ?
Yet here we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many LGBTQ activists still shy away from admitting that they are trying to indoctrinate or recruit our children .
Really ?
About two weeks ago , our grandson Connor , now 16-years-old , sent me the link to a Facebook page , celebrating a new , first of its kind , intensive , elective , LGBTQ history course for high school students .
But it ’ s a far cry from an elective class for high school students , as open and clear as its agenda will be , to a Pixar animated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gay man about to move in with his boyfriend .
Now is a great time to send a clear message to Pixar and Disney : If you want our business , please stop offending our values and please leave the culture wars to others .
And let ’ s be proactive and alert .
Ginsberg ’ s strategy , now over 60 years old , should not be catching us by surprise in 2020 .
( Source )

Gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now, from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries, and now in new Pixar Disney short film ‘Out’
FROM THE STREAM: “We’ll get you through your children!” These words were shouted to Norman Podhoretz in 1958 by beat poet and pioneer gay activist Allen Ginsberg at the end of an unsuccessful summit.
According to Daniel Oppenheimer in his book Exit Right,
“A decade later (1968) that threat would prove one of the fulcrums around which Podhoretz would execute his hard pivot to the right.”
The Billionaires Behind The LGBTQ & Transgender Agenda: George Soros, Peter Buffett, Tim Gill And The Stryker Dynasty Have Donated HUNDREDS Of Millions To The Cause
Ginsberg’s words have proven true. Leftists and LGBTQ activists and their allies have waged an effective ideological war on our children, proclaiming that gay is good, that biological sex is changeable, and that heterosexual unions are really no dizfferent than homosexual unions.
“A Gay Man’s Journey to Acceptance”
Now, Pixar, that incredibly gifted animation studio, is joining in the culture wars, for the first time featuring an openly gay lead character.
In fact, his gayness is a central part of the story. As explained in the New York Times,
“The animated film follows a gay man’s journey into acceptance as he prepares to move into a city with his boyfriend.”
And he comes out to his family with the help of his dog. How delightful! To be sure, this is just a 9-minute film, but there’s not much of a leap from 9 minutes to 90 minutes.
What’s the Big Deal?
You might say, “You need to chill! What’s the big deal? This is not some full-length release, plus you can’t expect Pixar to quote the Bible.”
Well, if it’s so insignificant why are gay activists so excited about the film? And why is Disney Streaming, where the film was released, touting it so highly?
As the Disney tweet announced last week, “The latest heartwarming tale from @Pixar’s #SparkShorts. Start streaming Out tomorrow on #DisneyPlus.”
(Yes, the name of the film is “Out.”)
This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely cannot understand.
The Times quoted Jeremy Blacklow, director of entertainment media at Glaad, who said,
“Over the past few years, L.G.B.T.Q. characters and stories have become common in the kids and family entertainment space with little controversy, but with large celebration from L.G.B.T.Q. families with children who have longed to see themselves represented. By centering on a young gay man, ‘Out’ just raised the bar for inclusion in kids and family programming.”
But this is not simply a matter of allegedly gay children seeing themselves represented in a movie. This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely cannot understand.
After all, what does a 5-year-old boy, who might really think he can have a conversation with his dog, understand about sexuality?
Gay Activists Have Been Targeting Our Children for Years
The fact is that gay activists have long recognized the importance of influencing children, even if they were doing it with (in their minds) the purest of intentions.
In other words, they would say they don’t want other kids to struggle the way they did when they were growing up. Or they want other kids to be more tolerant and accepting. Or they want to break down the gender binary, since not everyone fits into it.
Whatever the motivation might be, gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now, from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries, and from Hollywood to social media platforms and beyond.
The headline to Daniel Villareal’s May, 2011 in Queerty article said it all: “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?”
To quote Villareal directly,
“They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it — that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
But of course!
Activist Admits Goal: ‘Educate Children to Accept Queer Sexuality as Normal’
He also said,
“Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”
Yes, why else would they push these programs and classes? Yet here we are, almost 10 years later, and many LGBTQ activists still shy away from admitting that they are trying to indoctrinate or recruit our children. Really?
Let’s Be Proactive and Alert
About two weeks ago, our grandson Connor, now 16-years-old, sent me the link to a Facebook page, celebrating a new, first of its kind, intensive, elective, LGBTQ history course for high school students.
(He sent me the link because the program was being introduced in the county next to his, where my family once lived.)
But it’s a far cry from an elective class for high school students, as open and clear as its agenda will be, to a Pixar animated film for children telling the story of a gay man about to move in with his boyfriend.
Now is a great time to send a clear message to Pixar and Disney: If you want our business, please stop offending our values and please leave the culture wars to others. And let’s be proactive and alert. Ginsberg’s strategy, now over 60 years old, should not be catching us by surprise in 2020. (Source)
Source: Nowtheendbegins.com (excerpt)


humansarefree--2020-05-30--Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Ties to George Soros, Bill & Hillary Clinton, the World Health Organization, Bil

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Ties to George Soros, Bill & Hillary Clinton, the World Health Organization, Bill Gates & the ‘Big Pharma Mafia’

One of the greatest economic booms in our country ’ s history has been brought to its knees by a virus .
Over 80,000 souls have been lost to this pandemic , and our country is slowly collapsing .
The number of businesses lost to this virus is said to be about 100,000 that will never come back—one hundred thousand livelihoods and families that will no longer grace our towns and cities across this country .
The economic downturn has been devastating , and there are many of our fellow citizens that will never recover .
Dr. Anthony Fauci is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the resident “ expert ” that has all of America shut down .
It was his advice to President Trump that has locked down our country .
It is Dr. Fauci that has set the limits of what our country should do .
The damage is done when the experts are spreading fear and panic throughout the country and are allowed to set policy for the nation .
Dr , Fauci persuaded President Trump to “ lockdown ” the entire U.S. economy based on a false Imperial College model-based on the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model has since been deemed to be a model “ completely unusable for scientific purposes.
” If the model was so flawed , why did Dr. Fauci not look closer into the results and question the facts as they were presented ?
It has been agreed to by many , including software engineer Sue Denim , that the Ferguson model “ is garbage and can not be scientifically replicated.
” The results : a destroyed economy and over 30 million Americans out of work and on the edge of generational poverty is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of statements based on failure .
Another study that Dr. Fauci showed to the President as factual was the study from the University of Washington IHME , another project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
Once again , Fauci showed a preference for fault models and the meaningless havoc they would cause .
As the proclaimed “ infectious disease specialist , ” Fauci has had many failures of this Chinese virus .
On January 21 of this year , Fauci proclaimed the coronavirus was not a major threat and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
On February 29 , Fauci told NBC Today that there is no need to change anything you are doing on a day to day basis .
All these statements were based on World Health Organization statements , which Dr. Fauci parroted to the American People .
Perhaps it is informative that Fauci had signed a memo of understanding with the WHO in 2018 , stipulating that Fauci would rely on the WHO for information about China outbreaks .
Fauci ’ s failures go back to the HIV/Aids search for a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone with a reputation of being a skilled public health expert while battling AIDS in the 1980s .
The battle against AIDS has proven to be a total failure with no vaccine ever found to be effective .
To this day , Fauci claims that progress in vaccination therapy holds promise for an HIV/AIDS vaccine .
All attempts to find an HIV/Aids vaccine have failed .
The latest effort , funded by the NIAID ( Fauci ’ s employer ) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the tune of $ 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also Dr. Fauci , who gets to decide what therapeutics we should use for treatment .
It was in research done by the National Institutes of Health , where Dr. Fauci is the director , that Chloroquine was found to be an effective inhibitor of the coronavirus in 2015 .
It was during the SARS outbreak ( SARS-CoV ) that Chloroquine was found to be an effective agent , stopping SARS CoV completely .
The coronavirus now ravaging our nation has a genome designated as SARS CoV-2 and shared almost 80 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown to use the same host cell receptor , which allows the virus to infect the host victim .
In the Virology Journal , an official National Institute of Health published an article on August 22 , 2005 , that stated that “ Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SAR coronavirus infection and spread ” .
It was also shown to be effective before or after exposure .
Hydroxychloroquine , a milder form of Chloroquine , has been in use since 1952 with manageable side effects .
It has been used to not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent future cases .
It functions both as a vaccine and a cure if taken early enough .
This shows that the NIH , of which Dr. Fauci was director , knew as far back as 2005 that Chloroquine was effective against the coronavirus .
It was also Dr. Fauci who sent $ 3.7 million to the Lab in Wuhan to study the weaponization of the coronavirus that had been outlawed in U.S. research laboratories because of the inherent dangers .
The question then becomes , that if Dr. Fauci knew since 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why hasn ’ t it been used on a nationwide basis .
Could it be that the HCQ-ZPack treatment only costs about $ 20 per treatment that can be scaled nationally , which alternative treatments cost up to $ 20,000 and makes Big Pharma considerable profit ?
Rather than use the low cost and nationally available HCQ , Fauci has shown to a propensity to push for the implementation of the treatment using Remdesivir , designed to be the answer to Ebola and never gaining FDA approval .
Fauci is fast-tracking Remdesivir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and whose cost is $ 1000 per dose .
The success rate is about 50 % .
Fauci is ignoring the known fact that HCQ is 90 % effective when administered correctly .
Remdesiviris a product of Gilead Biosciences whose headquarters are at Wuxi Pharmaceuticals located in Shanghai and Suzhou and is owned by none other than George Soros .
Gilead has also endorsed the drug purchasing group UNITAID w fast-growing outgrowth of the UN Millennium Global Compact .
Donors to the Global Compact is George Soros , the World Health Organization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Clinton Health Access Initiative .
Dr. Fauci also has a direct connection to the Clinton Health Initiative .
Dr. Fauci looks to be in line for a profitable windfall if a COVID-19 vaccine is developed , and should be removed from the coronavirus task force for conflict of interest .
Through the NIAID , Dr. Fauci is cosponsoring with the Gates Foundation the project to procure a vaccine through Moderna , which Faucii s touting to go into clinical trials in April .
Notable is that the Moderna Vaccine candidate mRNA-1273 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months or years , and were sent to the NIH run by Fauci for testing .
Fauci and the Big Pharma lobbyists claim that without controlled trials , Cholorquine can not be used “ off label ” and refuse to look at the evidence that HCQ works as both a cure and a preventative .
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote a letter to Gov .
Doug Ducey ( D ) about the efficacy of the HCQ protocol declaring that the country can ’ t wait for a large body of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HCQ works .
Dr. Didier Raoult has great success using HCQ to treat victims of SARS CoV2 .
It has been proven the HCQ , along with azithromycin and zinc , was a cure for 79 of 80 patients .
A VA study claimed that HCQ was ineffective , until it was shown that the HCQ was administered to those in their 80 ’ s and only as a last resort .
It was not used in combination with the azithromycin ( Z-Pack ) or zinc , lowering the effectiveness .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is highly effective when given at the earliest showing of symptoms .
It doesn ’ t make sense to withhold treatment until it is too late for the procedure to be of any benefit .
Even with all these facts being known , the governors of New York , Nevada , and Michigan all banned the use of this treatment .
Fauci has been wrong many times , and no one is asking for him to explain his failures .
He claimed he warned President Trump about the Chinese virus in January , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV in February that is was not a significant threat .
Fauci compared the coronavirus to the bad flu .
He relied on faulty garbage models that were off by millions than later told reporters , “ you can ’ t rely on models ” .
On Easter , Fauci said that the economy should have been shut down in February when known U.S. cases were about 100 .
Fauci later walked back that remark .
The statement was in sharp contrast to Dr. Fauci said malles , movies , and gyms should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci did not account for the number of citizens already infected before calling for lockdown and not knowing its severity .
He tried to spread fear to slow the reopening of the country by claiming that Georgia would have a sharp spike in cases after opening .
The numbers have gone down .
Dr , Fauci has been wrong too often just to be considered incompetent .
Treated by the many in Congress and the media as the Oracle , he has shown that he is not the “ expert ” he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the connections in Big Pharma , Gates , Soros , and others , and it has shown there are many questions to be asked .
Perhaps the most critical question is why was he allowed to put himself in a position that he is running policy for the country .
The fact that we are still on lockdown when 30 million Americans are on the brink of poverty , and 30 % of small businesses will never recover from the draconian measures forced upon our country from his recommendations do not bode well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to correct .
By John C. Velisek , US Navy , Retired – All News Pipeline

One of the greatest economic booms in our country’s history has been brought to its knees by a virus. Over 80,000 souls have been lost to this pandemic, and our country is slowly collapsing.
The number of businesses lost to this virus is said to be about 100,000 that will never come back—one hundred thousand livelihoods and families that will no longer grace our towns and cities across this country.
The economic downturn has been devastating, and there are many of our fellow citizens that will never recover.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is tasked with leading us through this as the resident “expert” that has all of America shut down. It was his advice to President Trump that has locked down our country.
It is Dr. Fauci that has set the limits of what our country should do. The damage is done when the experts are spreading fear and panic throughout the country and are allowed to set policy for the nation.
Dr, Fauci persuaded President Trump to “lockdown” the entire U.S. economy based on a false Imperial College model-based on the work of Dr. Neil Ferguson. The Imperial College model has since been deemed to be a model “completely unusable for scientific purposes.”
If the model was so flawed, why did Dr. Fauci not look closer into the results and question the facts as they were presented?
It has been agreed to by many, including software engineer Sue Denim, that the Ferguson model “is garbage and can not be scientifically replicated.”
The results: a destroyed economy and over 30 million Americans out of work and on the edge of generational poverty is the result of Dr. Fauci not understanding the impact of statements based on failure.
Another study that Dr. Fauci showed to the President as factual was the study from the University of Washington IHME, another project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Once again, Fauci showed a preference for fault models and the meaningless havoc they would cause.
As the proclaimed “infectious disease specialist,” Fauci has had many failures of this Chinese virus. On January 21 of this year, Fauci proclaimed the coronavirus was not a major threat and was something the American people should worry about.
On February 29, Fauci told NBC Today that there is no need to change anything you are doing on a day to day basis. All these statements were based on World Health Organization statements, which Dr. Fauci parroted to the American People.
Perhaps it is informative that Fauci had signed a memo of understanding with the WHO in 2018, stipulating that Fauci would rely on the WHO for information about China outbreaks.
Fauci’s failures go back to the HIV/Aids search for a jjab. The Washington Post described Fauci as someone with a reputation of being a skilled public health expert while battling AIDS in the 1980s.
The battle against AIDS has proven to be a total failure with no jjab ever found to be effective. To this day, Fauci claims that progress in vaccination therapy holds promise for an HIV/AIDS jjab.
All attempts to find an HIV/Aids jjab have failed. The latest effort, funded by the NIAID (Fauci’s employer) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the tune of $100 million, also failed.
It is also Dr. Fauci, who gets to decide what therapeutics we should use for treatment. It was in research done by the National Institutes of Health, where Dr. Fauci is the director, that Chloroquine was found to be an effective inhibitor of the coronavirus in 2015.
It was during the SARS outbreak (SARS-CoV) that Chloroquine was found to be an effective agent, stopping SARS CoV completely. The coronavirus now ravaging our nation has a genome designated as SARS CoV-2 and shared almost 80% of the SARS genome.
Both have been shown to use the same host cell receptor, which allows the virus to infect the host victim.
In the Virology Journal, an official National Institute of Health published an article on August 22, 2005, that stated that “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SAR coronavirus infection and spread”. It was also shown to be effective before or after exposure.
Hydroxychloroquine, a milder form of Chloroquine, has been in use since 1952 with manageable side effects. It has been used to not only treat current cases but also to prevent future cases.
It functions both as a jjab and a cure if taken early enough. This shows that the NIH, of which Dr. Fauci was director, knew as far back as 2005 that Chloroquine was effective against the coronavirus.
It was also Dr. Fauci who sent $3.7 million to the Lab in Wuhan to study the weaponization of the coronavirus that had been outlawed in U.S. research laboratories because of the inherent dangers.
The question then becomes, that if Dr. Fauci knew since 2005, this was an effective treatment, why hasn’t it been used on a nationwide basis. Could it be that the HCQ-ZPack treatment only costs about $20 per treatment that can be scaled nationally, which alternative treatments cost up to $20,000 and makes Big Pharma considerable profit?
Rather than use the low cost and nationally available HCQ, Fauci has shown to a propensity to push for the implementation of the treatment using Remdesivir, designed to be the answer to Ebola and never gaining FDA approval.
Fauci is fast-tracking Remdesivir, a therapy that has never been approved and whose cost is $1000 per dose. The success rate is about 50%. Fauci is ignoring the known fact that HCQ is 90% effective when administered correctly.
Remdesiviris a product of Gilead Biosciences whose headquarters are at Wuxi Pharmaceuticals located in Shanghai and Suzhou and is owned by none other than George Soros.
Gilead has also endorsed the drug purchasing group UNITAID w fast-growing outgrowth of the UN Millennium Global Compact.
Donors to the Global Compact is George Soros, the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
Dr. Fauci also has a direct connection to the Clinton Health Initiative. Dr. Fauci looks to be in line for a profitable windfall if a COVID-19 jjab is developed, and should be removed from the coronavirus task force for conflict of interest.
Through the NIAID, Dr. Fauci is cosponsoring with the Gates Foundation the project to procure a jjab through Moderna, which Faucii s touting to go into clinical trials in April.
Notable is that the Moderna Vaccine candidate mRNA-1273 was rolled out in weeks, not months or years, and were sent to the NIH run by Fauci for testing.
Fauci and the Big Pharma lobbyists claim that without controlled trials, Cholorquine can not be used “off label” and refuse to look at the evidence that HCQ works as both a cure and a preventative.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote a letter to Gov. Doug Ducey (D) about the efficacy of the HCQ protocol declaring that the country can’t wait for a large body of clinical trials to draw the conclusion that HCQ works.
Dr. Didier Raoult has great success using HCQ to treat victims of SARS CoV2. It has been proven the HCQ, along with azithromycin and zinc, was a cure for 79 of 80 patients.
A VA study claimed that HCQ was ineffective, until it was shown that the HCQ was administered to those in their 80’s and only as a last resort.
It was not used in combination with the azithromycin (Z-Pack) or zinc, lowering the effectiveness.
It has clearly been shown that the HCQ-Zpack-Zinc combination is highly effective when given at the earliest showing of symptoms.
It doesn’t make sense to withhold treatment until it is too late for the procedure to be of any benefit.
Even with all these facts being known, the governors of New York, Nevada, and Michigan all banned the use of this treatment.
Fauci has been wrong many times, and no one is asking for him to explain his failures. He claimed he warned President Trump about the Chinese virus in January, but was found to have told Newsmax TV in February that is was not a significant threat.
Fauci compared the coronavirus to the bad flu. He relied on faulty garbage models that were off by millions than later told reporters, “you can’t rely on models”.
On Easter, Fauci said that the economy should have been shut down in February when known U.S. cases were about 100.
Fauci later walked back that remark. The statement was in sharp contrast to Dr. Fauci said malles, movies, and gyms should stay open on February 29.
Dr. Fauci did not account for the number of citizens already infected before calling for lockdown and not knowing its severity.
He tried to spread fear to slow the reopening of the country by claiming that Georgia would have a sharp spike in cases after opening. The numbers have gone down.
Dr, Fauci has been wrong too often just to be considered incompetent. Treated by the many in Congress and the media as the Oracle, he has shown that he is not the “expert” he is purported to be.
Connect that to the connections in Big Pharma, Gates, Soros, and others, and it has shown there are many questions to be asked.
Perhaps the most critical question is why was he allowed to put himself in a position that he is running policy for the country.
The fact that we are still on lockdown when 30 million Americans are on the brink of poverty, and 30% of small businesses will never recover from the draconian measures forced upon our country from his recommendations do not bode well.
The Fauci failures will take decades to correct.
By John C. Velisek, US Navy, Retired – All News Pipeline