dailysignal--2020-10-19--Pelosi Bill to Remove President From Office Is a Needless Political Stunt

Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed earlier this month that President Donald Trump is “ in an altered state right now , ” she is the one who appears to be in an “ altered state ” if she thinks she can use congressional authority under the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office .
It seems that having failed to remove Trump through the impeachment process , Democrats led by Pelosi now want to try a different method .
Pelosi claims that new legislation she is backing , which would give a congressional commission authority to determine if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion ” of carrying out his duties , is “ not about President Trump.
” No , this “ legislation applies to future presidents , ” Pelosi said , although she added that she is taking this action because of the “ health of the current president.
” That is a revealing comment since , despite Trump ’ s COVID-19 diagnosis , there is no evidence that he has been physically or mentally disabled from carrying out his duties .
The issue here is that Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those duties .
This blatantly political move raises the issue of what , exactly , the 25th Amendment is—and what power Congress has under it .
Can it be used to remove a president elected by the American people ?
The 25th Amendment , ratified in 1967 , outlines what happens if the office of the presidency becomes vacant because the president is removed ( through impeachment ) , dies , resigns , or is temporarily or permanently “ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” As the Heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amendment was adopted because the original presidential succession clause contained in Article 2 , Section 1 of the Constitution was ambiguous .
It did not define what the meaning was of the “ inability ” of a president to discharge his duties or who makes that determination .
Did the vice president who succeeded a president become president for the rest of the presidential term ?
Or was he merely the “ acting president ?
” This important issue was not addressed in the Constitution before the adoption of the 25th Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the office of the vice president becomes vacant , the president nominates a new vice president , who can take office after being confirmed by both the House and Senate .
This procedure was used when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 and was replaced by then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford .
It was used again in 1974 when Ford became president following the resignation of President Richard Nixon and nominated former New York Gov .
Nelson Rockefeller to become vice president .
Section 3 provides for the vice president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the president sends a “ written declaration ” to the Senate and the House that “ he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” The vice president remains the acting president until the president sends notice to the Senate and House that he can once again assume his role as president .
This provision has been invoked three times—once by President Ronald Reagan and twice by President George W. Bush—when the president handed the reins of power temporarily to the vice president while undergoing a minor medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 is the provision of the amendment under which Pelosi is attempting to assert congressional authority .
It provides that when the “ Vice President and a majority of either the principle officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide ” send written notice to the Senate and the House that the president is “ unable ” to do his job , the vice president shall become the acting president .
The president can reclaim the duties of his office if he sends written notice that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless the same group—the vice president and a majority either of his Cabinet or some other body set up by Congress—disagrees within four days .
If that conflict arises , Congress has to assemble within 48 hours and has 21 days to decide who is right .
It takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to override the president ’ s assertion that he can once again resume his duties as president .
The bill Pelosi is supporting was drafted by Rep. Jamie Raskin , D-Md.
, and has 38 co-sponsors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition to Trump .
H.R .
8548 , if enacted , would establish the “ other body as Congress may provide ” in the form of a 17-member “ Commission on Presidential Capacity ” appointed by the leadership of Congress .
The commission would be given the power to authorize medical examinations “ to determine whether the President is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office ” when so directed by a resolution passed by Congress , and to file a report giving its opinion on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress has no constitutional authority to force the president to undergo a medical examination .
Even if this commission were to believe that the president was unable to do his job , it would still need the concurrence of the vice president in order to remove the president , even temporarily .
There is no reason to believe that such a commission would be in a better position to judge the president ’ s ability to carry out his duties than the members of the president ’ s own Cabinet who work with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 of the 25th Amendment would not be invoked unless something happens—like a heart attack or a stroke—that actually incapacitates the president .
Contrary to what some liberals seem to believe , the 25th Amendment—as professor John Feerick explains in the Heritage guide—was not intended to be used to “ cover political and policy differences or poor judgment , incompetence , laziness , ” or other such issues or criticisms that a president ’ s political opposition may have over his conduct as president .
The amendment was also not intended as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president through the impeachment process .
There is no need to change the current procedures that already exist under the 25th Amendment .
This bill is nothing more than a political stunt and a waste of time .

Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed earlier this month that President Donald Trump is “in an altered state right now,” she is the one who appears to be in an “altered state” if she thinks she can use congressional authority under the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.
It seems that having failed to remove Trump through the impeachment process, Democrats led by Pelosi now want to try a different method.
Pelosi claims that new legislation she is backing, which would give a congressional commission authority to determine if a president is incapable in its “opinion” of carrying out his duties, is “not about President Trump.”
No, this “legislation applies to future presidents,” Pelosi said, although she added that she is taking this action because of the “health of the current president.”
That is a revealing comment since, despite Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis, there is no evidence that he has been physically or mentally disabled from carrying out his duties. The issue here is that Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues don’t like the way Trump is carrying out those duties.
This blatantly political move raises the issue of what, exactly, the 25th Amendment is—and what power Congress has under it. Can it be used to remove a president elected by the American people?
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, outlines what happens if the office of the presidency becomes vacant because the president is removed (through impeachment), dies, resigns, or is temporarily or permanently “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
As the Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution explains, the amendment was adopted because the original presidential succession clause contained in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution was ambiguous. It did not define what the meaning was of the “inability” of a president to discharge his duties or who makes that determination.
Did the vice president who succeeded a president become president for the rest of the presidential term? Or was he merely the “acting president?” This important issue was not addressed in the Constitution before the adoption of the 25th Amendment.
The 25th Amendment also provides that if the office of the vice president becomes vacant, the president nominates a new vice president, who can take office after being confirmed by both the House and Senate.
This procedure was used when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 and was replaced by then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford. It was used again in 1974 when Ford became president following the resignation of President Richard Nixon and nominated former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to become vice president.
Section 3 provides for the vice president to take over as “Acting President” if the president sends a “written declaration” to the Senate and the House that “he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
The vice president remains the acting president until the president sends notice to the Senate and House that he can once again assume his role as president.
This provision has been invoked three times—once by President Ronald Reagan and twice by President George W. Bush—when the president handed the reins of power temporarily to the vice president while undergoing a minor medical procedure that required general anesthesia.
Section 4 is the provision of the amendment under which Pelosi is attempting to assert congressional authority. It provides that when the “Vice President and a majority of either the principle officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide” send written notice to the Senate and the House that the president is “unable” to do his job, the vice president shall become the acting president.
The president can reclaim the duties of his office if he sends written notice that he is capable of being president, unless the same group—the vice president and a majority either of his Cabinet or some other body set up by Congress—disagrees within four days.
If that conflict arises, Congress has to assemble within 48 hours and has 21 days to decide who is right. It takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to override the president’s assertion that he can once again resume his duties as president.
The bill Pelosi is supporting was drafted by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and has 38 co-sponsors, many of whom have expressed virulent opposition to Trump.
H.R. 8548, if enacted, would establish the “other body as Congress may provide” in the form of a 17-member “Commission on Presidential Capacity” appointed by the leadership of Congress.
The commission would be given the power to authorize medical examinations “to determine whether the President is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office” when so directed by a resolution passed by Congress, and to file a report giving its opinion on the capability of the president.
However, Congress has no constitutional authority to force the president to undergo a medical examination.
Even if this commission were to believe that the president was unable to do his job, it would still need the concurrence of the vice president in order to remove the president, even temporarily.
There is no reason to believe that such a commission would be in a better position to judge the president’s ability to carry out his duties than the members of the president’s own Cabinet who work with him.
The fact remains that Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would not be invoked unless something happens—like a heart attack or a stroke—that actually incapacitates the president.
Contrary to what some liberals seem to believe, the 25th Amendment—as professor John Feerick explains in the Heritage guide—was not intended to be used to “cover political and policy differences or poor judgment, incompetence, laziness,” or other such issues or criticisms that a president’s political opposition may have over his conduct as president.
The amendment was also not intended as a substitute for an unsuccessful attempt to remove a president through the impeachment process.
There is no need to change the current procedures that already exist under the 25th Amendment. This bill is nothing more than a political stunt and a waste of time.
Originally published by Fox News


dailysignal--2020-10-19--Tech Companies’ Election Interference Has Gone Too Far

The New York Post ’ s breaking news of emails purporting to show Hunter Biden scheming to make money off the family name has created a social media firestorm .
Twitter began blocking users from sharing it almost instantly .
Facebook didn ’ t block the story outright , but it did announce almost immediately that it was “ reducing its distribution on our platform.
” Even for the most sober observer , it sure seems like the social media platforms are interfering with the free flow of information relevant to our election .
This is all the more so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump , such as the anonymous leaks of his taxes , were not similarly blocked or throttled .
There are a few caveats needed to look at this objectively .
First , the Post story was interesting but not earth-shattering .
We have known for quite a while that Hunter Biden ’ s dealings in Ukraine were—to say the least—shady .
Only the most bitter Biden partisan would pretend that Hunter Biden got all that money for any other reason than that his father was vice president .
The new emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually met with Hunter Biden ’ s high-dollar Ukrainian client , Burisma .
If true , that ’ s a big advance to the story and means Joe Biden has been less than truthful to date .
None of this proves Biden did anything corrupt on behalf of his son , but it doesn ’ t look great .
Second , the sourcing of the Post story is odd and worthy of potential challenge .
The data in question was reportedly on a laptop that was left behind at a computer repair shop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shop owner had a right to examine the contents after it was abandoned for 90 days .
He says he called the FBI and also made a copy , which he somehow got to Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani and former Trump insider Steve Bannon .
Campaigns play games late in elections .
It ’ s fair to question all this , given the characters involved and the facts alleged .
What ’ s not fair is for purportedly neutral tech platforms to arbitrarily decide people should not see this information .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Twitter justified the decision in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation : “ In line with our Hacked Materials Policy , as well as our approach to blocking URLs , we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.
” Facebook issued a statement immediately upon publication calling for the Post piece to be fact-checked and indicating that its distribution would be reduced with no justification provided .
The platforms are in a tough spot .
Those who argue that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are arguing that these private companies must allow swastikas , pornography , and other content that would turn away customers and advertisers and reflect negatively on their brands .
That can ’ t be the solution .
No private company is going to do that , and normal people wouldn ’ t want to be on there if they did .
It ’ s undoubtedly true that there are both organized and organic efforts to spread all sorts of complete lies on the internet , especially on social media platforms .
My own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an approved fact-checker for Facebook .
We spend most of our time debunking bogus information .
Just recently , we debunked a viral post saying Trump admitted to picking Amy Coney Barrett because he wanted a good-looking woman on the court and another claiming Joe Biden was caught kneeling for the national anthem .
Neither of those claims is the least bit true .
Misinformation like that is all over the web .
It ’ s not unreasonable to set up a fact-checking system to call out this misinformation .
The one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonprofit Poynter Institute .
It requires us , among other things , to be completely transparent in our work and to explain our process .
It ’ s a free-speech solution to a free-speech problem .
Due to their scale , the giant social media platforms have become necessary to the dissemination of political speech in our country .
If they block you , most voters don ’ t hear you .
That ’ s an overwhelming level of power to wield in a democracy .
That power must be wielded fairly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , the platforms ’ behavior to date seems neither fair nor light .
This latest New York Post story is only the most recent example .
It ’ s unclear how this story violates Twitter ’ s hacking policy .
If the laptop in question was left at the store and forfeited after 90 days , then how is that hacking ?
Transparency and a sound explanation seem like very little to ask of a company making decisions that affect the flow of election information .
On the fairness score , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one on Trump ’ s taxes , to use just one example , not ?
There is another option available to the big platforms .
Resist the left ’ s calls for you to step on the election scales .
Let the voters get all this information and decide for themselves .
People are not stupid .
The Post story is a great case study .
The Daily Beast and other news outlets have already tracked down the computer store owner , who is now contradicting himself quite a bit .
That doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge it .
They already are .
Through this process of open exchange of free information , people can make up their own minds on what to believe .
This may not be a perfect solution , but it ’ s a hell of a lot better than a political staffer at some huge multinational company deciding what ’ s approved news and what ’ s not and providing little explanation or consistency in the application of these oblique standards .
Due to its overly aggressive censorship of this story , Twitter has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , numerous reporters , and even the president ’ s press secretary .
All this three weeks before a national election .
It ’ s as if it wants to invite federal regulation .

The New York Post’s breaking news of emails purporting to show Hunter Biden scheming to make money off the family name has created a social media firestorm.
Twitter began blocking users from sharing it almost instantly. Facebook didn’t block the story outright, but it did announce almost immediately that it was “reducing its distribution on our platform.”
Even for the most sober observer, it sure seems like the social media platforms are interfering with the free flow of information relevant to our election. This is all the more so when you consider that stories critical of President Donald Trump, such as the anonymous leaks of his taxes, were not similarly blocked or throttled.
There are a few caveats needed to look at this objectively.
First, the Post story was interesting but not earth-shattering. We have known for quite a while that Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine were—to say the least—shady. Only the most bitter Biden partisan would pretend that Hunter Biden got all that money for any other reason than that his father was vice president.
The new emails indicate that former Vice President Joe Biden actually met with Hunter Biden’s high-dollar Ukrainian client, Burisma. If true, that’s a big advance to the story and means Joe Biden has been less than truthful to date. None of this proves Biden did anything corrupt on behalf of his son, but it doesn’t look great.
Second, the sourcing of the Post story is odd and worthy of potential challenge. The data in question was reportedly on a laptop that was left behind at a computer repair shop and never picked up.
Apparently, the shop owner had a right to examine the contents after it was abandoned for 90 days. He says he called the FBI and also made a copy, which he somehow got to Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani and former Trump insider Steve Bannon.
Campaigns play games late in elections. It’s fair to question all this, given the characters involved and the facts alleged.
What’s not fair is for purportedly neutral tech platforms to arbitrarily decide people should not see this information. That’s what Twitter and Facebook did.
Twitter justified the decision in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation: “In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.”
Facebook issued a statement immediately upon publication calling for the Post piece to be fact-checked and indicating that its distribution would be reduced with no justification provided.
The platforms are in a tough spot. Those who argue that they should allow all speech with no regulation are arguing that these private companies must allow swastikas, pornography, and other content that would turn away customers and advertisers and reflect negatively on their brands. That can’t be the solution. No private company is going to do that, and normal people wouldn’t want to be on there if they did.
It’s undoubtedly true that there are both organized and organic efforts to spread all sorts of complete lies on the internet, especially on social media platforms. My own company’s Check Your Fact site is an approved fact-checker for Facebook. We spend most of our time debunking bogus information.
Just recently, we debunked a viral post saying Trump admitted to picking Amy Coney Barrett because he wanted a good-looking woman on the court and another claiming Joe Biden was caught kneeling for the national anthem. Neither of those claims is the least bit true.
Misinformation like that is all over the web. It’s not unreasonable to set up a fact-checking system to call out this misinformation. The one we work under is managed by the nonprofit Poynter Institute. It requires us, among other things, to be completely transparent in our work and to explain our process. It’s a free-speech solution to a free-speech problem.
Due to their scale, the giant social media platforms have become necessary to the dissemination of political speech in our country. If they block you, most voters don’t hear you. That’s an overwhelming level of power to wield in a democracy. That power must be wielded fairly and lightly, or it screams for regulation. Unfortunately, the platforms’ behavior to date seems neither fair nor light.
This latest New York Post story is only the most recent example. It’s unclear how this story violates Twitter’s hacking policy. If the laptop in question was left at the store and forfeited after 90 days, then how is that hacking?
Transparency and a sound explanation seem like very little to ask of a company making decisions that affect the flow of election information. On the fairness score, why is this story blocked and the one on Trump’s taxes, to use just one example, not?
There is another option available to the big platforms. Resist the left’s calls for you to step on the election scales. Let the voters get all this information and decide for themselves. People are not stupid.
The Post story is a great case study. The Daily Beast and other news outlets have already tracked down the computer store owner, who is now contradicting himself quite a bit. That doesn’t look great. People can judge it. They already are. Through this process of open exchange of free information, people can make up their own minds on what to believe.
This may not be a perfect solution, but it’s a hell of a lot better than a political staffer at some huge multinational company deciding what’s approved news and what’s not and providing little explanation or consistency in the application of these oblique standards.
Due to its overly aggressive censorship of this story, Twitter has now blocked the New York Post story, numerous reporters, and even the president’s press secretary. All this three weeks before a national election. It’s as if it wants to invite federal regulation.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-10-20--‘Tech Companies Have the Power to Decide Who Will and Who Won’t Be the President,’ Warns Brent Bozel

‘Tech Companies Have the Power to Decide Who Will and Who Won’t Be the President,’ Warns Brent Bozell

Today on “ The Daily Signal Podcast , ” Rob Bluey , executive editor of The Daily Signal , speaks with Brent Bozell , founder and president of the Media Research Center , the largest media watchdog in America .
They discuss the latest news regarding media censorship , including the suppression by Twitter and Facebook of a New York Post article reporting the contents of the hard drive of a laptop the newspaper alleges belonged to Hunter Biden , son of former Vice President Joe Biden .
We also cover these stories : • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about another COVID-19 relief package for Americans .
• The Supreme Court says it will hear a case on whether military funding may be used to pay for building President Donald Trump ’ s wall along the border with Mexico , and whether those claiming asylum in the U.S. must stay in Mexico pending resolution of their requests .
• The Canadian border will remain closed to Americans for at least another month .
“ The Daily Signal Podcast ” is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] .
Enjoy the show !
Rob Bluey : Your organization has been very busy of late .
It seems like there ’ s not a day that goes by where there isn ’ t something to expose or cover .
And you ’ ve been doing it now for over 33 years , but lately it seems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going on with big tech and platforms like Facebook and Twitter and Google are increasingly shaping how Americans get their news .
So I want to start with this , last week we saw two of those , Facebook and Twitter , impose some restrictions or outright censorship on a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden .
Can you tell us your reaction to what happened and why the American people should be troubled about it ?
Brent Bozell : Sure .
Let ’ s look at the numbers first .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people worldwide .
Twitter is a the news source worldwide for everyone today .
If you want to get your story out , you can go to NBC News and they have 4 million , or you could go to Facebook .
Remember this statistic , they asked young people , where do they get their news ?
They didn ’ t say ABC News .
They didn ’ t say The New York Times .
Sixty-eight percent said Facebook .
That ’ s how powerful these tech companies are today .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So out comes this story .
It is explosive .
This is a story that ought to be covered or would be covered day and night if this were Donald Trump Jr. and Donald Trump Sr .
If Donald Trump Sr. were the big guy and Donald Trump Jr. … was having these crazy parties and going to these countries and walking away with these massive deals , every network would be camped outside the White House right now covering this .
And yet it ’ s crickets .
So along comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook first censors this .
Here ’ s the remarkable thing , Facebook has a policy , a very public policy , where it does not censor anything like this .
They had a fact-checking operation that they turned this over to and they have nine fact-checkers .
None of them were consulted on this .
Facebook did this , broke their own rules , so much so , at the Poynter Institute , which is one of these organizations that does do the fact-checking , blasted Facebook , blasted them for breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really disingenuous .
This shows the extent to which Facebook does not want that story up .
They didn ’ t wait for fact-checkers .
There ’ s nothing wrong with the story .
They just said , “ We ’ re not going to run it and that ’ s that.
” Bluey : Well , Brett , you recently launched Free Speech America and a corresponding called CensorTrack.org .
Can you tell us more about what you ’ re doing and how it impacts the work that you just spoke about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers … showed , and I was saying a minute ago , this big tech empire needs to be brought into its proper perspective .
It needs to be stopped .
I gave you the numbers for Facebook and Twitter .
Look at YouTube .
There are 5 billion , that ’ s a “ B , ” 5 billion videos that are aired every day on YouTube .
Google controls 92 % of search engines in the world today .
So what does that mean ?
Well , if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this incredible operation where you ’ ve got these videos that are just top-shelf , that could be run at SMU or Yale or some such place , they ’ re that good quality and they ’ re demonetized by YouTube .
And they come up with those incredible excuses for it .
He does one on the Ten Commandments and they say it ’ s too violent because of the fifth commandment .
And they take down , they demonetize it .
Google .
Google has been burying conservatives .
Dr. Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a liberal Democrat , … showing how by manipulation of the data , Google moved up to 3 million votes from [ Donald ] Trump to [ Hillary ] Clinton in the last election cycle .
And how , and he ’ s shown that in this election cycle , … Google is going to be able to move up to 15 million votes from the Trump camp to the [ Joe ] Biden camp through data manipulation .
This is serious stuff .
This is far more serious than anything we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that these tech companies have the power to decide who will and who won ’ t be the president of the United States .
And if that doesn ’ t scare people , nothing will .
That ’ s why we started Free Speech America .
Bluey : And the website , CensorTrack.org , is an excellent resource .
I have been talking about for years , the need for a comprehensive database , with examples , specific examples of anti-conservative bias .
We ’ ve actually shared with your team examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily Signal of when we ’ ve encountered that .
So as you ’ ve looked at these examples , do you have for our audience what the worst platform is , and if there ’ s a particular type of content that they tend to target most ?
Bozell : Well , first of all , thank you for what you said about CensorTrack .
We have so far documented and we analyze all the examples that come to us because sometimes , Rob , they ’ re not right .
Sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact that person didn ’ t have good content or that person didn ’ t know how to do it correctly .
And so we do go out of our way to investigate these .
We ’ ve come up with over a hundred examples of deliberate and a bias against conservatives .
I ’ ll show you one , it just came out today .
We just posted it today .
Facebook and Twitter , about 99 % of this is Twitter , since the start of the campaign have banned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many times they ’ ve banned Biden material ?
Bluey : Probably significantly less than that .
Bozell : Not once—65 to zero .
Tell me that there ’ s no bias there .
Tell me that there ’ s no agenda when it ’ s 65 to nothing .
We documented it there .
So what are some of the worst examples ?
Thematically our message to the pro-life movement is that you ’ re enemy No .
1 , the public enemy No .
1 .
The media , the tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want nothing to do with the pro-life movement .
Imagine this , the pro-life movement wasn ’ t able to put ads on Facebook advertising the right to life march , weren ’ t allowed to do even that .
Sen. Marsha Blackburn had ads that were supporting the right to life movement removed from Facebook .
It ’ s happened .
Live Action has had it ’ s stuff suspended .
And then finally , there ’ s the Covington kid , look what happened to him .
… Facebook , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be doing is getting on their knees and thanking them for Section 230 protection from libel and slander .
Because if you think that the Covington kid had a case against The Washington Post , where reportedly he got a very nice settlement , and is going after everyone else that slandered him , imagine what would be the trouble Facebook and Twitter and all the rest would be in if they didn ’ t have that protection and they were held to the same standards as everyone else .
My God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very wealthy today .
Bluey : Brent , … sometimes you do hear charges from the left , that , “ Oh , no , this is something that we encounter as well.
” I think that ’ s why it ’ s so important to have those specific examples .
I was going to reminisce for a moment .
You and I , in 2016 , had the opportunity to meet with Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook headquarters in California .
I think both of us left that meeting at least encouraged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our ideas and making some changes .
And yet here we are four years later , and it seems that things are even worse than they were then .
Where do you think things have gone wrong ?
And is there an opportunity to change the culture at these companies , which seem to be dominated by those on the left ?
Bozell : I believed Mark Zuckerberg , as I think you did .
I think that he , I mean , look , the very first thing he said to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know who you are.
” The second he said was , “ Remember , you ’ re sitting at ground zero of leftism in America.
” Those were two huge opening acknowledgements that he made .
He didn ’ t play any games as to where philosophically everyone stood on both sides of the table and proceeded to talk about his desire for Facebook to be the open marketplace of ideas .
And at the discussion we were having at that time was what kind of oversight and fact-checking ought to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that there should be none .
If you want it to be the open marketplace of ideas , what you do is you do censor egregious criminal activity , you do censor pedophilia , you do censor terrorism .
There are things , clear-cut things that you censor , but that ’ s it .
Stay out of the business of deciding what is morally true or not beyond that .
What is or what isn ’ t hate speech .
Who is and isn ’ t allowed to be on … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said he was going to do .
And he did , they got rid of all of these people , and they announced that .
But , it ’ s , I guess , like hemorrhoids , they keep coming back and you can ’ t get rid of them .
That ’ s the culture of these tech companies , dominated probably 99 % by leftists working in there .
And here ’ s another thing , Rob .
So many of these are great , basically young brats , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got a huge amount of power .
They don ’ t care what the corporation does or doesn ’ t do .
They don ’ t care the damage that they ’ re causing .
They ’ re the ones that are shadow-banning on Twitter .
They could care less what that might do to [ Twitter CEO ] Jack Dorsey and the stock of Twitter .
They just know that they have the ability to screw conservatives .
So there ’ s an arrogance coming out of there .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of there .
And I don ’ t know , I really don ’ t know that you could change that because if you ’ re one conservative and speak out , you ’ re fired the next day .
Bluey : Yeah .
It ’ s certainly troubling .
You ’ ve mentioned fact-checking a couple of times now , and Facebook seems to have weaponized fact-checking in a way that unfairly targets conservatives .
If you are a conservative publisher today , what are the things that you need ?
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know they went after the American Principles Project for an ad that they were running in Michigan using a fact check as the reason to take it down .
So what are some of the things that we as conservatives need to be aware of when it comes to these fact checks ?
Bozell : Understand how it ’ s evolving .
It ’ s currently like so many government issues , where the more government tries to fix something , the worse it gets .
Think about campaign finance reform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken place with Facebook .
The more they try to fine tune fact-checking , the worse it ’ s becoming .
They agreed to have fact-checking , OK .
They brought in nine organizations , wonderful .
One ’ s a conservative , eight are liberals , and that to them is balanced .
So conservatives complained about that and raised hell about that .
So solution , they ’ ve come up now with an oversight board .
Because look , remember this , Rob , they ’ re not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be incorporated in Delaware somewhere , but that ’ s not what they think they are .
They consider themselves a global community .
They use that term all the time .
Why is that important ?
Because their values are not American values .
Their values are more the European model that puts virtue over freedom , where we put freedom over virtue .
Problem with their virtue over freedom , which I might agree with except their virtue is very different than my virtues , their virtue is gay rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no guns , their virtue is no freedom of speech .
They don ’ t subscribe to the American model , which is based on the Constitution , which says you have a First Amendment , you have a Second Amendment , etc.
, etc .
They don ’ t subscribe to that .
That ’ s why their attitudes are different .
So they bring in this oversight board .
They ’ ve announced 20 , the first 20 of the 40 members .
Now this oversight board , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So if you appeal a fact-checker , it goes to the oversight board .
Rob , if you look at this oversight board , you will see the real ethos of Facebook .
Of the 20 , 19 are left-wing , 19 out of 20 .
There ’ s only one who could be seen as a conservative and he ’ s just a straight shooter .
And he ’ s one of the Americans .
There are five Americans .
… If The Daily Signal is censored by one of the fact-checkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oversight board .
Here ’ s one of the rubs , five anonymous oversight members will look at the Daily Signal case .
Only one of them can be an American .
So four out of five are people who don ’ t subscribe to the values of The Daily Signal of America .
So you ’ ve got an 80 % chance of having your appeal squashed .
Before you even start it ’ s an 80 % chance .
Further to this , if you look , and we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one after another has ties to George Soros .
Just extraordinary .
The operation that is running this thing is headed by a fellow who was funded by George Soros and the last operation .
So George Soros has his hands all over this oversight business .
So the answer in one sentence to you is : Conservatives have to understand that the whole deck of cards is stacked against them .
Bluey : Conservatives are also having a robust policy debate about certain remedies that they may be able to enact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .
I know that others fear that a future Democratic president may use that against conservatives in certain ways .
So how do you balance some of the free-market pressure with government action ?
What are some of the thoughts that you have on that right now ?
Bozell : OK. Let ’ s look at Section 230 .
I simply don ’ t understand , though , anybody who says that Section 230 , doing something about it somehow gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes away power from the federal government .
This is something conservatives ought to embrace .
Question is , how do you do it ?
And what do you do exactly ?
There are several bills that now are coming forward , which are all good .
They maybe need debating around the edges , but they ’ re 95 % good , not 100 % good .
Sen. Marsha Blackburn has come up with one with Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi .
Their bill I like so much because it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It gives the section 230 protection , which again , makes them immune to libel issues , provided they behave and providing their behavior .
The bill outlines specifically what they ’ re allowed to censor and anything else , if it doesn ’ t and if it isn ’ t reasonably objective , if they can ’ t prove it ’ s quote-unquote , “ reasonably objective , ” then they lose their Section 230 protection .
Just as simple as that .
You can do those things , terrorism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more .
And anything else you do , you don ’ t have protection for it .
And so if you do something that ’ s libelous , you ’ re going to be held to account .
I like that .
That ’ s a very , very clean thing because it allows them to do what they ought to be doing and getting protection for it and penalized if they don ’ t do what they ’ re supposed to be doing .
I think that ’ s a very simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get behind that .
Now , the second one is … [ an ] antitrust one .
Now , that ’ s dicier because there ’ s a conservative debate on that , on antitrust legislation , there ’ s a difference of opinion .
Some people believe that ’ s interference by government .
Other people believe that that is how you defend the free market , the free enterprise system .
So there ’ s a debate among conservatives .
But clearly , clearly there is a very much a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the argument that you can ’ t compete .
If Facebook wants something , Facebook gets something .
If Google wants , they swallow something .
To show you how powerful Google is , Microsoft tried to challenge Google .
They spent gazillions of millions or billions of dollars … on Bing .
And they captured 2 % of the market .
Not even they were able to do it .
And it ’ s not just those big four .
It ’ s all the other ones .
Instagram has got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the service industries , it ’ s Microsoft is getting involved .
Amazon is getting involved .
Apple is getting involved with different acts of censorship .
So you want to compete with Apple ?
Good luck , fella , when they ’ ve got a trillion dollars in cash .
So there really is a conversation that ’ s taking place and saying , are these giants , these are the biggest corporations in history , in the world , are they a fourth estate in American politics today ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brent , I want to end with this one because it goes right to the heart of what you just said .
I hear from social media users all the time about censorship .
They ’ re writing to me telling me they ’ d been banned or their reach is limited or some cases they ’ ve just given up because they are fed up with how they ’ re treated by Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , Google , you go down the list .
What is your advice to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I will tell them first , it ’ s worse than they think , because they ’ re talking about instances of censorship they ’ ve caught .
For everyone that ’ s been caught , how many have not been caught ?
God only knows .
Is shadow-banning continuing ?
How do we know it ’ s not continuing ?
Think about this one , Rob , can you name me a single act of censorship that was disclosed by the company committing a censorship ?
When they ’ re caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they always have , well , it was a technical snafu , but they themselves supposedly had never caught their own technical snafus .
It ’ s always someone who was censored who caught it .
So just think about that one for a second and you ’ ll know how deliberate this thing is .
People have to realize how important this is .
People need to understand that it should be the No .
1 priority of anyone who supports liberty .
You can ’ t have democracy if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uneducated public , if you ’ ve got a public that ’ s been manipulated to think in a way , and this is big brother stuff .
I mean , this is dangerous , dangerous stuff going on .
People have to become very outspoken .
They need to go to their legislators .
They need to go to them and say , “ There has to be a remedy.
” … Look , I ’ m a libertarian conservative , I hate the federal government .
I hate turning to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So I don ’ t want them for anything , but this is one of the few times where the federal government has to look at this and understand that this is a threat to freedom .
So what I tell our supporters , tell people all over the country , get involved in this .
This is the biggest internal threat to freedom in the history of the republic .
Bluey : Brent Bozell , thanks for your leadership of the Media Research Center .
The new initiative is called Free Speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thank you for joining “ The Daily Signal Podcast.
” Bozell : Thank you so much , Rob .
Thank you for everything you do .

Today on “The Daily Signal Podcast,” Rob Bluey, executive editor of The Daily Signal, speaks with Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, the largest media watchdog in America. They discuss the latest news regarding media censorship, including the suppression by Twitter and Facebook of a New York Post article reporting the contents of the hard drive of a laptop the newspaper alleges belonged to Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden.
We also cover these stories:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin talk by phone about another COVID-19 relief package for Americans.
The Supreme Court says it will hear a case on whether military funding may be used to pay for building President Donald Trump’s wall along the border with Mexico, and whether those claiming asylum in the U.S. must stay in Mexico pending resolution of their requests.
The Canadian border will remain closed to Americans for at least another month.
“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Rob Bluey: Your organization has been very busy of late. It seems like there’s not a day that goes by where there isn’t something to expose or cover. And you’ve been doing it now for over 33 years, but lately it seems that your attention has turned to what’s going on with big tech and platforms like Facebook and Twitter and Google are increasingly shaping how Americans get their news.
So I want to start with this, last week we saw two of those, Facebook and Twitter, impose some restrictions or outright censorship on a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden. Can you tell us your reaction to what happened and why the American people should be troubled about it?
Brent Bozell: Sure. Let’s look at the numbers first. Facebook has an audience of 2.7 billion people worldwide. Twitter is a the news source worldwide for everyone today. If you want to get your story out, you can go to NBC News and they have 4 million, or you could go to Facebook.
Remember this statistic, they asked young people, where do they get their news? They didn’t say ABC News. They didn’t say The New York Times. Sixty-eight percent said Facebook. That’s how powerful these tech companies are today. Much more powerful than the traditional news media.
So out comes this story. It is explosive. This is a story that ought to be covered or would be covered day and night if this were Donald Trump Jr. and Donald Trump Sr.
If Donald Trump Sr. were the big guy and Donald Trump Jr. … was having these crazy parties and going to these countries and walking away with these massive deals, every network would be camped outside the White House right now covering this. And yet it’s crickets.
So along comes Facebook. Facebook, for example, Facebook first censors this. Here’s the remarkable thing, Facebook has a policy, a very public policy, where it does not censor anything like this. They had a fact-checking operation that they turned this over to and they have nine fact-checkers. None of them were consulted on this.
Facebook did this, broke their own rules, so much so, at the Poynter Institute, which is one of these organizations that does do the fact-checking, blasted Facebook, blasted them for breaking their own rules.
So this was really disingenuous. This shows the extent to which Facebook does not want that story up. They didn’t wait for fact-checkers. There’s nothing wrong with the story. They just said, “We’re not going to run it and that’s that.”
Bluey: Well, Brett, you recently launched Free Speech America and a corresponding called CensorTrack.org. Can you tell us more about what you’re doing and how it impacts the work that you just spoke about?
Bozell: Sure. As the numbers … showed, and I was saying a minute ago, this big tech empire needs to be brought into its proper perspective. It needs to be stopped.
I gave you the numbers for Facebook and Twitter. Look at YouTube. There are 5 billion, that’s a “B,” 5 billion videos that are aired every day on YouTube. Google controls 92% of search engines in the world today.
So what does that mean? Well, if you’re Dennis Prager and you’ve got this incredible operation where you’ve got these videos that are just top-shelf, that could be run at SMU or Yale or some such place, they’re that good quality and they’re demonetized by YouTube.
And they come up with those incredible excuses for it. He does one on the Ten Commandments and they say it’s too violent because of the fifth commandment. And they take down, they demonetize it.
Google. Google has been burying conservatives. Dr. Robert Epstein did a study, he’s a liberal Democrat, … showing how by manipulation of the data, Google moved up to 3 million votes from [Donald] Trump to [Hillary] Clinton in the last election cycle.
And how, and he’s shown that in this election cycle, … Google is going to be able to move up to 15 million votes from the Trump camp to the [Joe] Biden camp through data manipulation.
This is serious stuff. This is far more serious than anything we’ve ever seen before. This shows that these tech companies have the power to decide who will and who won’t be the president of the United States. And if that doesn’t scare people, nothing will. That’s why we started Free Speech America.
Bluey: And the website, CensorTrack.org, is an excellent resource. I have been talking about for years, the need for a comprehensive database, with examples, specific examples of anti-conservative bias.
We’ve actually shared with your team examples from both The Heritage Foundation and The Daily Signal of when we’ve encountered that.
So as you’ve looked at these examples, do you have for our audience what the worst platform is, and if there’s a particular type of content that they tend to target most?
Bozell: Well, first of all, thank you for what you said about CensorTrack.
We have so far documented and we analyze all the examples that come to us because sometimes, Rob, they’re not right. Sometimes somebody is crying “censorship” when in fact that person didn’t have good content or that person didn’t know how to do it correctly. And so we do go out of our way to investigate these.
We’ve come up with over a hundred examples of deliberate and a bias against conservatives. I’ll show you one, it just came out today. We just posted it today.
Facebook and Twitter, about 99% of this is Twitter, since the start of the campaign have banned Trump material 65 times. Guess how many times they’ve banned Biden material?
Bluey: Probably significantly less than that.
Bozell: Not once.
Bluey: Not once?
Bozell: Not once—65 to zero. Tell me that there’s no bias there. Tell me that there’s no agenda when it’s 65 to nothing. We documented it there.
So what are some of the worst examples? Thematically our message to the pro-life movement is that you’re enemy No. 1, the public enemy No. 1.
The media, the tech companies despise the pro-life movement. They want nothing to do with the pro-life movement. Imagine this, the pro-life movement wasn’t able to put ads on Facebook advertising the right to life march, weren’t allowed to do even that.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn had ads that were supporting the right to life movement removed from Facebook. It’s happened. Live Action has had it’s stuff suspended.
And then finally, there’s the Covington kid, look what happened to him. … Facebook, if they believed in God, what they should be doing is getting on their knees and thanking them for Section 230 protection from libel and slander.
Because if you think that the Covington kid had a case against The Washington Post, where reportedly he got a very nice settlement, and is going after everyone else that slandered him, imagine what would be the trouble Facebook and Twitter and all the rest would be in if they didn’t have that protection and they were held to the same standards as everyone else. My God, that kid would be very, very wealthy today.
Bluey: Brent, … sometimes you do hear charges from the left, that, “Oh, no, this is something that we encounter as well.” I think that’s why it’s so important to have those specific examples.
I was going to reminisce for a moment. You and I, in 2016, had the opportunity to meet with Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook headquarters in California. I think both of us left that meeting at least encouraged that he was listening or open to listening to our ideas and making some changes. And yet here we are four years later, and it seems that things are even worse than they were then.
Where do you think things have gone wrong? And is there an opportunity to change the culture at these companies, which seem to be dominated by those on the left?
Bozell: I believed Mark Zuckerberg, as I think you did. I think that he, I mean, look, the very first thing he said to us was, “We don’t know who you are.” The second he said was, “Remember, you’re sitting at ground zero of leftism in America.”
Those were two huge opening acknowledgements that he made. He didn’t play any games as to where philosophically everyone stood on both sides of the table and proceeded to talk about his desire for Facebook to be the open marketplace of ideas.
And at the discussion we were having at that time was what kind of oversight and fact-checking ought to be advanced. And I pushed afterward the idea that there should be none.
If you want it to be the open marketplace of ideas, what you do is you do censor egregious criminal activity, you do censor pedophilia, you do censor terrorism. There are things, clear-cut things that you censor, but that’s it.
Stay out of the business of deciding what is morally true or not beyond that. What is or what isn’t hate speech. Who is and isn’t allowed to be on … the open marketplace of ideas, as he said he was going to do.
And he did, they got rid of all of these people, and they announced that. But, it’s, I guess, like hemorrhoids, they keep coming back and you can’t get rid of them. That’s the culture of these tech companies, dominated probably 99% by leftists working in there.
And here’s another thing, Rob. So many of these are great, basically young brats, these are 20-something millennials that understand they’ve got a huge amount of power.
They don’t care what the corporation does or doesn’t do. They don’t care the damage that they’re causing. They’re the ones that are shadow-banning on Twitter. They could care less what that might do to [Twitter CEO] Jack Dorsey and the stock of Twitter. They just know that they have the ability to screw conservatives.
So there’s an arrogance coming out of there. There’s an elitism that is coming out of there. And I don’t know, I really don’t know that you could change that because if you’re one conservative and speak out, you’re fired the next day.
Bluey: Yeah. It’s certainly troubling. You’ve mentioned fact-checking a couple of times now, and Facebook seems to have weaponized fact-checking in a way that unfairly targets conservatives.
If you are a conservative publisher today, what are the things that you need? Or frankly, a conservative organization, because I know they went after the American Principles Project for an ad that they were running in Michigan using a fact check as the reason to take it down.
So what are some of the things that we as conservatives need to be aware of when it comes to these fact checks?
Bozell: Understand how it’s evolving. It’s currently like so many government issues, where the more government tries to fix something, the worse it gets.
Think about campaign finance reform. It’s the same thing that has taken place with Facebook. The more they try to fine tune fact-checking, the worse it’s becoming.
They agreed to have fact-checking, OK. They brought in nine organizations, wonderful. One’s a conservative, eight are liberals, and that to them is balanced. So conservatives complained about that and raised hell about that. So solution, they’ve come up now with an oversight board.
Because look, remember this, Rob, they’re not an American corporation. Oh, they may be incorporated in Delaware somewhere, but that’s not what they think they are. They consider themselves a global community. They use that term all the time.
Why is that important? Because their values are not American values. Their values are more the European model that puts virtue over freedom, where we put freedom over virtue.
Problem with their virtue over freedom, which I might agree with except their virtue is very different than my virtues, their virtue is gay rights, their virtue is abortion, their virtue is no guns, their virtue is no freedom of speech.
They don’t subscribe to the American model, which is based on the Constitution, which says you have a First Amendment, you have a Second Amendment, etc., etc. They don’t subscribe to that. That’s why their attitudes are different.
So they bring in this oversight board. They’ve announced 20, the first 20 of the 40 members. Now this oversight board, according to Facebook, has the last say. So if you appeal a fact-checker, it goes to the oversight board.
Rob, if you look at this oversight board, you will see the real ethos of Facebook. Of the 20, 19 are left-wing, 19 out of 20. There’s only one who could be seen as a conservative and he’s just a straight shooter. And he’s one of the Americans. There are five Americans. …
If The Daily Signal is censored by one of the fact-checkers and appeals, it now goes to the oversight board. Here’s one of the rubs, five anonymous oversight members will look at the Daily Signal case. Only one of them can be an American.
So four out of five are people who don’t subscribe to the values of The Daily Signal of America. So you’ve got an 80% chance of having your appeal squashed. Before you even start it’s an 80% chance.
Further to this, if you look, and we have, … at these oversight people, one after another has ties to George Soros. Just extraordinary.
The operation that is running this thing is headed by a fellow who was funded by George Soros and the last operation. So George Soros has his hands all over this oversight business.
So the answer in one sentence to you is: Conservatives have to understand that the whole deck of cards is stacked against them.
Bluey: Conservatives are also having a robust policy debate about certain remedies that they may be able to enact.
President Trump, for instance, has called for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I know that others fear that a future Democratic president may use that against conservatives in certain ways.
So how do you balance some of the free-market pressure with government action? What are some of the thoughts that you have on that right now?
Bozell: OK. Let’s look at Section 230. I simply don’t understand, though, anybody who says that Section 230, doing something about it somehow gives government more power. In fact, it takes away power from the federal government. This is something conservatives ought to embrace. Question is, how do you do it? And what do you do exactly?
There are several bills that now are coming forward, which are all good. They maybe need debating around the edges, but they’re 95% good, not 100% good.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn has come up with one with Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi. Their bill I like so much because it doesn’t take away Section 230 protection.
It gives the section 230 protection, which again, makes them immune to libel issues, provided they behave and providing their behavior. The bill outlines specifically what they’re allowed to censor and anything else, if it doesn’t and if it isn’t reasonably objective, if they can’t prove it’s quote-unquote, “reasonably objective,” then they lose their Section 230 protection. Just as simple as that.
You can do those things, terrorism, egregious violence, pedophilia, but nothing more. And anything else you do, you don’t have protection for it. And so if you do something that’s libelous, you’re going to be held to account. I like that.
That’s a very, very clean thing because it allows them to do what they ought to be doing and getting protection for it and penalized if they don’t do what they’re supposed to be doing. I think that’s a very simple solution. I think people really ought to get behind that.
Now, the second one is … [an] antitrust one. Now, that’s dicier because there’s a conservative debate on that, on antitrust legislation, there’s a difference of opinion.
Some people believe that’s interference by government. Other people believe that that is how you defend the free market, the free enterprise system. So there’s a debate among conservatives.
But clearly, clearly there is a very much a move to break these companies up with the argument that you can’t compete. If Facebook wants something, Facebook gets something. If Google wants, they swallow something.
To show you how powerful Google is, Microsoft tried to challenge Google. They spent gazillions of millions or billions of dollars … on Bing. And they captured 2% of the market. Not even they were able to do it.
And it’s not just those big four. It’s all the other ones. Instagram has got a billion followers on it. It’s the service industries, it’s Microsoft is getting involved. Amazon is getting involved. Apple is getting involved with different acts of censorship. So you want to compete with Apple? Good luck, fella, when they’ve got a trillion dollars in cash.
So there really is a conversation that’s taking place and saying, are these giants, these are the biggest corporations in history, in the world, are they a fourth estate in American politics today? I think they are.
Bluey: And Brent, I want to end with this one because it goes right to the heart of what you just said. I hear from social media users all the time about censorship. They’re writing to me telling me they’d been banned or their reach is limited or some cases they’ve just given up because they are fed up with how they’re treated by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, you go down the list. What is your advice to them? What can they do?
Bozell: I will tell them first, it’s worse than they think, because they’re talking about instances of censorship they’ve caught. For everyone that’s been caught, how many have not been caught? God only knows. Is shadow-banning continuing? How do we know it’s not continuing?
Think about this one, Rob, can you name me a single act of censorship that was disclosed by the company committing a censorship? When they’re caught, and they’re always caught, they always have, well, it was a technical snafu, but they themselves supposedly had never caught their own technical snafus. It’s always someone who was censored who caught it.
So just think about that one for a second and you’ll know how deliberate this thing is.
People have to realize how important this is. People need to understand that it should be the No. 1 priority of anyone who supports liberty.
You can’t have democracy if you have this, if you have an uneducated public, if you’ve got a public that’s been manipulated to think in a way, and this is big brother stuff. I mean, this is dangerous, dangerous stuff going on.
People have to become very outspoken. They need to go to their legislators. They need to go to them and say, “There has to be a remedy.” …
Look, I’m a libertarian conservative, I hate the federal government. I hate turning to them for anything, 50/50 national defense. So I don’t want them for anything, but this is one of the few times where the federal government has to look at this and understand that this is a threat to freedom.
So what I tell our supporters, tell people all over the country, get involved in this. This is the biggest internal threat to freedom in the history of the republic.
Bluey: Brent Bozell, thanks for your leadership of the Media Research Center. The new initiative is called Free Speech America and the website is CensorTrack.org. Thank you for joining “The Daily Signal Podcast.”
Bozell: Thank you so much, Rob. Thank you for everything you do.


dailysignal--2020-10-20--Ted Cruz Says Twitter and Facebook Face ‘Serious’ Campaign Finance Violations for Censoring Stories

Ted Cruz Says Twitter and Facebook Face ‘Serious’ Campaign Finance Violations for Censoring Stories Critical of Biden

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told reporters Monday that Facebook and Twitter could face “ potentially serious campaign finance violations ” for censoring stories unfavorable of Democrats while letting critical coverage of Republicans run rampant on their platforms .
“ Giant multibillion-dollar corporations are making multibillion-dollar contributions to support [ Democratic presidential nominee Joe ] Biden , ” Cruz said in response to a question about Facebook and Twitter ’ s selective censorship of Republicans .
“ It is at a scale never before seen in our election.
” Cruz said the social media companies “ crossed a rubicon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crossing ” on Wednesday when they censored a New York Post story that reported an alleged meeting between then-Vice President Joe Biden , his son Hunter Biden , and an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma in 2015 based on emails obtained from a laptop supposedly owned by the younger Biden .
Twitter outright blocked users from posting tweets that contained links to the Post ’ s reporting on Wednesday .
The social media platform alleged , without evidence , that the story violated its Hacked Materials Policy .
Twitter updated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would block future articles only if they are “ directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them.
” The associate director for the International Fact-Checking Network , Christina Tardaguila , said Thursday that Facebook and Twitter ’ s rush to suppress the Post ’ s reporting before it had been properly fact-checked was “ dangerous , ” adding that those who didn ’ t see the risks were “ naive.
” Cruz said Monday that Facebook and Twitter ’ s censorship of the Post was a blatant attempt to interfere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech has taken the astonishing view that it has unlimited power to censor the media to prevent the American people from learning about these stories and to punish anyone who dares discuss facts that are inconvenient to the political narrative big tech favors , ” Cruz said .
“ This poses the single greatest threat to free speech in America today , ” Cruz added .
“ It poses the single greatest threat to democracy in America today.
” Republicans are censored at a far greater rate than Democrats are on Facebook and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Center , which reported Monday that President Donald Trump and his reelection campaign have been censored on the social media platforms at least 65 times since May 2018 .
Trump ’ s opponent , Joe Biden , had been censored zero times in the same time frame , the Media Research Center found .
Cruz , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said he expects Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify about the censorship of the Post ’ s story on their platforms before his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I don ’ t have an exact date to announce , but my expectation is we hear testimony from both of them before the election because this level of censorship and election interference is dramatically greater than big tech has ever attempted , ” Cruz said .
“ One way or another , either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena , they will testify and they will testify before the election , ” Cruz added .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told reporters Monday that Facebook and Twitter could face “potentially serious campaign finance violations” for censoring stories unfavorable of Democrats while letting critical coverage of Republicans run rampant on their platforms.
“Giant multibillion-dollar corporations are making multibillion-dollar contributions to support [Democratic presidential nominee Joe] Biden,” Cruz said in response to a question about Facebook and Twitter’s selective censorship of Republicans. “It is at a scale never before seen in our election.”
Cruz said the social media companies “crossed a rubicon that they had not previously even dreamed of crossing” on Wednesday when they censored a New York Post story that reported an alleged meeting between then-Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma in 2015 based on emails obtained from a laptop supposedly owned by the younger Biden.
Twitter outright blocked users from posting tweets that contained links to the Post’s reporting on Wednesday. The social media platform alleged, without evidence, that the story violated its Hacked Materials Policy. Twitter updated its policy on Friday, saying it would block future articles only if they are “directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them.”
The associate director for the International Fact-Checking Network, Christina Tardaguila, said Thursday that Facebook and Twitter’s rush to suppress the Post’s reporting before it had been properly fact-checked was “dangerous,” adding that those who didn’t see the risks were “naive.”
Cruz said Monday that Facebook and Twitter’s censorship of the Post was a blatant attempt to interfere in the 2020 election.
“Big tech has taken the astonishing view that it has unlimited power to censor the media to prevent the American people from learning about these stories and to punish anyone who dares discuss facts that are inconvenient to the political narrative big tech favors,” Cruz said.
“This poses the single greatest threat to free speech in America today,” Cruz added. “It poses the single greatest threat to democracy in America today.”
Republicans are censored at a far greater rate than Democrats are on Facebook and Twitter, according to the conservative Media Research Center, which reported Monday that President Donald Trump and his reelection campaign have been censored on the social media platforms at least 65 times since May 2018.
Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden, had been censored zero times in the same time frame, the Media Research Center found.
Cruz, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he expects Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify about the censorship of the Post’s story on their platforms before his committee prior to the November election.
“I don’t have an exact date to announce, but my expectation is we hear testimony from both of them before the election because this level of censorship and election interference is dramatically greater than big tech has ever attempted,” Cruz said.
“One way or another, either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, they will testify and they will testify before the election,” Cruz added.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-10-20--Biden’s Health Care Plans Would Spell End of Private Insurance

President Donald Trump ’ s key debating point on health policy is substantively correct : Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s health proposal would progressively eliminate Americans ’ private health insurance and back Americans into a single-payer system of government-controlled health insurance .
No need to take Trump ’ s word for it , either .
Weeks ago , the Biden campaign team confirmed that Trump ’ s assessment is correct .
According to an NBC News report , Biden campaign officials have already said that Biden ’ s public option—a specially advantaged government plan to compete against all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to a single-payer program in the future .
This latest version of the public option is the fruit of Biden ’ s recent policy collaboration with democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. Their Unity Task Force recommendations call for the creation of a robust public option—a new government health plan—that would be deployed in competition against private health insurance companies .
The target of this joint effort would include the employment-sponsored health plans covering approximately 156 million Americans—roughly half the country .
This is an old proposal .
Initially a provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a staple of progressive health policy for almost two decades .
Today , six major congressional bills meticulously detail the key components of this approach .
Like the Biden-Sanders proposal , these bills would deliberately rig the health insurance markets to guarantee the new government health plan advantages denied to private health plans .
Why ?
Because government health programs generally cost more than initially advertised .
And taxpayers can expect to pick up the tab , one way or another , to cover any financial losses incurred .
Forget fair competition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the congressional bills , the Unity Task Force proposal is a progressive political engineering project to distort health insurance markets ; it is designed to erode and eventually eliminate America ’ s private health plans .
This unity proposal , for example , would create new taxpayer subsidies for enrollment in the government plan , eliminate deductibles for primary care , and impose government payment schedules on doctors , nurses , and other medical professionals .
These government-enforced provider payment reductions would enable the new taxpayer-backed government health plan to undercut private plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal would thus set in motion dynamics to crowd out health plans in the nation ’ s individual markets and encourage employers to dump millions of workers and their families out of their existing job-based health coverage .
It ’ s not about expanding coverage ; it is about expanding federal control .
The supreme irony of the unity proposal is that it would also destroy the signature accomplishment of President Barack Obama ’ s administration : the Affordable Care Act of 2010 .
Though Biden routinely insists that he wants to preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical left would guarantee the destruction of the Obamacare plans in the nation ’ s individual markets .
The troubled law has already severely damaged the individual markets , which have lost significant middle-class enrollment and serious market competition .
It is inconceivable that today ’ s costly set of Obamacare plans , with narrow networks , high premiums , and deductibles , could even begin to compete with a new artificially cheap government health plan .
That plan would be taxpayer-subsidized and heavily armed with politically manipulated provider payment and premium rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-styled progressives in Congress have routinely charged the Trump administration with undermining Obamacare .
Strangely enough , this public option gambit , if implemented , would prove far more damaging as a weapon against Obamacare than anything they have accused the Trump administration of doing over the past three and a half years .
Unlike several progressive senators and the majority of House Democrats sponsoring legislation to take away Americans ’ existing health coverage , the Trump administration has aggressively pursued a program of addition , not subtraction .
The president has proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ association health plans , more affordable short-term plans to bridge gaps in coverage , and an expansion of job-based health reimbursement accounts .
For individuals and families , these initiatives provide more choices , not less .
Beyond that , under the Trump administration ’ s management , the previously explosive Affordable Care Act premiums have stabilized ( though they are still much too high ) and there has even been an upsurge in insurer participation in the severely damaged individual markets , where personal choice and health plan competition have previously collapsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , Americans must ignore the sound bites .
When progressives in Congress and elsewhere promise that a robust public option would enhance personal choice and competition in the nation ’ s health insurance markets , don ’ t believe a word of it .
In unguarded moments , they have admitted that the real agenda is a destruction of personal choice and private plan competition , and the subordination of American health care to an authoritarian system of centralized government control .

President Donald Trump’s key debating point on health policy is substantively correct: Former Vice President Joe Biden’s health proposal would progressively eliminate Americans’ private health insurance and back Americans into a single-payer system of government-controlled health insurance.
No need to take Trump’s word for it, either. Weeks ago, the Biden campaign team confirmed that Trump’s assessment is correct.
According to an NBC News report, Biden campaign officials have already said that Biden’s public option—a specially advantaged government plan to compete against all private health plans—could “pave the path” to a single-payer program in the future.
This latest version of the public option is the fruit of Biden’s recent policy collaboration with democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Their Unity Task Force recommendations call for the creation of a robust public option—a new government health plan—that would be deployed in competition against private health insurance companies.
The target of this joint effort would include the employment-sponsored health plans covering approximately 156 million Americans—roughly half the country.
This is an old proposal. Initially a provision of Obamacare, the public option has been a staple of progressive health policy for almost two decades.
Today, six major congressional bills meticulously detail the key components of this approach. Like the Biden-Sanders proposal, these bills would deliberately rig the health insurance markets to guarantee the new government health plan advantages denied to private health plans.
Why? Because government health programs generally cost more than initially advertised. And taxpayers can expect to pick up the tab, one way or another, to cover any financial losses incurred.
Forget fair competition on a level playing field. Like the congressional bills, the Unity Task Force proposal is a progressive political engineering project to distort health insurance markets; it is designed to erode and eventually eliminate America’s private health plans.
This unity proposal, for example, would create new taxpayer subsidies for enrollment in the government plan, eliminate deductibles for primary care, and impose government payment schedules on doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals.
These government-enforced provider payment reductions would enable the new taxpayer-backed government health plan to undercut private plan competition with artificially low premiums.
The proposal would thus set in motion dynamics to crowd out health plans in the nation’s individual markets and encourage employers to dump millions of workers and their families out of their existing job-based health coverage. It’s not about expanding coverage; it is about expanding federal control.
The supreme irony of the unity proposal is that it would also destroy the signature accomplishment of President Barack Obama’s administration: the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Though Biden routinely insists that he wants to preserve Obamacare, his Faustian bargain with the radical left would guarantee the destruction of the Obamacare plans in the nation’s individual markets. The troubled law has already severely damaged the individual markets, which have lost significant middle-class enrollment and serious market competition.
It is inconceivable that today’s costly set of Obamacare plans, with narrow networks, high premiums, and deductibles, could even begin to compete with a new artificially cheap government health plan. That plan would be taxpayer-subsidized and heavily armed with politically manipulated provider payment and premium rates.
Over the past four years, self-styled progressives in Congress have routinely charged the Trump administration with undermining Obamacare. Strangely enough, this public option gambit, if implemented, would prove far more damaging as a weapon against Obamacare than anything they have accused the Trump administration of doing over the past three and a half years.
Unlike several progressive senators and the majority of House Democrats sponsoring legislation to take away Americans’ existing health coverage, the Trump administration has aggressively pursued a program of addition, not subtraction.
The president has proposed additional health plan options, such as association health plans, more affordable short-term plans to bridge gaps in coverage, and an expansion of job-based health reimbursement accounts.
For individuals and families, these initiatives provide more choices, not less. Beyond that, under the Trump administration’s management, the previously explosive Affordable Care Act premiums have stabilized (though they are still much too high) and there has even been an upsurge in insurer participation in the severely damaged individual markets, where personal choice and health plan competition have previously collapsed.
When it comes to health care policy, Americans must ignore the sound bites. When progressives in Congress and elsewhere promise that a robust public option would enhance personal choice and competition in the nation’s health insurance markets, don’t believe a word of it.
In unguarded moments, they have admitted that the real agenda is a destruction of personal choice and private plan competition, and the subordination of American health care to an authoritarian system of centralized government control.
Originally published by The Kansas City Star


dailysignal--2020-10-21--Social Media’s Preemptive Spiking of New York Post Story Shows Bias Against Conservatives Continues

Twitter and Facebook are quickly backpedaling after suppressing a New York Post story damaging to former Vice President Joe Biden , but that doesn ’ t erase the fact that just weeks before an election , the social media platforms continue to enforce their rules differently for those with whom they disagree politically .
When the Post published a story last week that Biden ’ s son , Hunter Biden , allegedly made money from providing access to his father when he was vice president , it seemed like Twitter and Facebook all of a sudden “ got religion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The platforms said they spiked the story because it contained links to documents—allegedly from Hunter Biden ’ s personal computer—that they claimed might have been hacked or illegally obtained or that the story might be outright disinformation .
Boy , that ’ s a great standard to have , but it ’ s funny how they didn ’ t seem to have that same standard when it came to left-wing news outlets reporting on near-daily anonymous leaks from within the federal government and other stories that would seemingly fall under the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s excuses for taking down the Post link and blocking anyone who shared it just didn ’ t hold water .
The problem with the excuse that the article may have violated policies against sharing hacked material is that , so far , there ’ s no evidence the emails were hacked or otherwise illegally obtained .
In fact , neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden claimed Hunter Biden was hacked , nor did they dispute the facts of the reporting .
The Post reported that the computer was turned over to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which meant it became the property of the shop owner .
The other problem with that excuse is that Twitter allows hacked information from WikiLeaks and other sources all the time .
Even if down the road it turns out the Post was fed disinformation or the information was hacked , Twitter and Facebook preemptively took down the story before anyone could offer proof it wasn ’ t true .
Have Twitter and Facebook preemptively taken down stories from The New York Times , The Washington Post , BuzzFeed , or others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the article were due to the “ lack of authoritative reporting ” from the New York Post .
Although it has a conservative bent , the Post is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in the country .
Again , has Twitter expressed concern about the lack of authoritative reporting from The New York Times , The Washington Post , BuzzFeed , or others ?
Clearly , there is bias here .
The Heritage Foundation has seen firsthand how Big Tech companies block or otherwise limit the reach of our own content—even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information doesn ’ t agree with certain platforms ’ social or political agendas .
They do it through politicized fact checks , contrived labels , removing posts , or even blocking users .
We ’ ve also seen how just last week , Amazon Prime ’ s streaming service announced that it won ’ t carry conservative Shelby Steele ’ s new documentary “ What Killed Michael Brown ?
” The film examines the left ’ s use of a false racial narrative after Michael Brown ’ s 2014 death to divide a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Missouri , and around the country .
While the film is timely and informative , the narrative it debunks is the very narrative that Amazon and many in Big Tech have been promoting .
One can certainly understand that Twitter and Facebook and other platforms have rules to protect users , to prevent the spread of false information and foreign propaganda , and to otherwise provide a safe user experience .
But they have politicized these rules , and the evidence continues to mount that their application of these rules is dependent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s political viewpoint .
The result is a collapse in public trust and a significant impact on the American electoral process .
According to recent polling by Pew , an astounding 72 % of Americans think it ’ s likely that “ social media platforms actively censor political views that those companies find objectionable.
” While 85 % of those on the political right believe this bias is real , 62 % of those on the left also share this concern .
Regardless of one ’ s political views , the suppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputable news outlet is very troubling .
While Twitter said that it ’ s changing its policies to prevent similar incidents from happening again , Americans are no longer interested in repeated apologies or promises that these platforms will do better .
They demand action .
Social media platforms need to leave their biases out of their business models and apply their rules and standards fairly and impartially , or they risk being overtaken by a tidal wave of government action , public criticism , and competing alternatives the free market is already @ @ @ @ @ @

Twitter and Facebook are quickly backpedaling after suppressing a New York Post story damaging to former Vice President Joe Biden, but that doesn’t erase the fact that just weeks before an election, the social media platforms continue to enforce their rules differently for those with whom they disagree politically.
When the Post published a story last week that Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, allegedly made money from providing access to his father when he was vice president, it seemed like Twitter and Facebook all of a sudden “got religion,” as we say in the South.
The platforms said they spiked the story because it contained links to documents—allegedly from Hunter Biden’s personal computer—that they claimed might have been hacked or illegally obtained or that the story might be outright disinformation.
Boy, that’s a great standard to have, but it’s funny how they didn’t seem to have that same standard when it came to left-wing news outlets reporting on near-daily anonymous leaks from within the federal government and other stories that would seemingly fall under the same rules.
In particular, Twitter’s excuses for taking down the Post link and blocking anyone who shared it just didn’t hold water.
The problem with the excuse that the article may have violated policies against sharing hacked material is that, so far, there’s no evidence the emails were hacked or otherwise illegally obtained.
In fact, neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden claimed Hunter Biden was hacked, nor did they dispute the facts of the reporting. The Post reported that the computer was turned over to a computer shop for repairs and never claimed, which meant it became the property of the shop owner.
The other problem with that excuse is that Twitter allows hacked information from WikiLeaks and other sources all the time.
Even if down the road it turns out the Post was fed disinformation or the information was hacked, Twitter and Facebook preemptively took down the story before anyone could offer proof it wasn’t true. Have Twitter and Facebook preemptively taken down stories from The New York Times, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, or others?
Twitter also claimed that its concerns about the article were due to the “lack of authoritative reporting” from the New York Post. Although it has a conservative bent, the Post is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in the country.
Again, has Twitter expressed concern about the lack of authoritative reporting from The New York Times, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, or others?
Clearly, there is bias here.
The Heritage Foundation has seen firsthand how Big Tech companies block or otherwise limit the reach of our own content—even medical information provided by licensed doctors—because that information doesn’t agree with certain platforms’ social or political agendas. They do it through politicized fact checks, contrived labels, removing posts, or even blocking users.
We’ve also seen how just last week, Amazon Prime’s streaming service announced that it won’t carry conservative Shelby Steele’s new documentary “What Killed Michael Brown?”
The film examines the left’s use of a false racial narrative after Michael Brown’s 2014 death to divide a nation, setting off riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and around the country. While the film is timely and informative, the narrative it debunks is the very narrative that Amazon and many in Big Tech have been promoting.
One can certainly understand that Twitter and Facebook and other platforms have rules to protect users, to prevent the spread of false information and foreign propaganda, and to otherwise provide a safe user experience.
But they have politicized these rules, and the evidence continues to mount that their application of these rules is dependent on whether they agree with the user’s political viewpoint. The result is a collapse in public trust and a significant impact on the American electoral process.
According to recent polling by Pew, an astounding 72% of Americans think it’s likely that “social media platforms actively censor political views that those companies find objectionable.” While 85% of those on the political right believe this bias is real, 62% of those on the left also share this concern.
Regardless of one’s political views, the suppression of a major news story from a reputable news outlet is very troubling.
While Twitter said that it’s changing its policies to prevent similar incidents from happening again, Americans are no longer interested in repeated apologies or promises that these platforms will do better. They demand action.
Social media platforms need to leave their biases out of their business models and apply their rules and standards fairly and impartially, or they risk being overtaken by a tidal wave of government action, public criticism, and competing alternatives the free market is already creating to take their place.
Originally published by The Washington Times