activistpost--2020-01-22--Deplatformed: How Big Tech Companies & Corporate America Subvert the Second Amendment

Anyone familiar with the Bible is familiar with the Mark of the Beast : Without this mark , no man may buy or sell .
Regardless of one ’ s religious faith or lack thereof , there is an illustrative case in this biblical story : When one can not buy or sell , one is metaphorically up the creek .
Short of producing everything one needs oneself , buying and selling are necessary parts of virtually every modern person ’ s life .
In our modern world , we can begin to see a sort of Mark of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t banned , they are increasingly difficult to come by , not due to government fiat , but due to the machinations of corporations hostile to the American values of freedom .
One can be in favor of the free market while recognizing a simple truth : There is no way that America ’ s Founding Fathers would have sat on their hands while five corporations dominated American discourse and commerce .
It is hard to imagine , for example , the Founders suffering a single private bank processing most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusing to do business with gun merchants .
Alternately , one can scarcely imagine that the Founders would have sat still for three companies – all of them hostile toward American values and the Constitution – dominating political discourse and deplatforming anyone who opposed them .
This is the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation today : Guns are not illegal , but private companies will make it increasingly difficult to buy , sell or own them – up to and including pulling your bank account .
You have all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but prepare to be deplatformed or have your voice buried by large tech corporations with their thumb on the scale of American discourse .
As the American economy has become more corporatist – such that the market is controlled by the interrelation between monolithic mega-corporations , Wall Street and the state – and less capitalistic and dynamic , the American press and economy are now being dominated by forces hostile toward the American public and American values .
No less an authority than James Madison warned Americans that the First Amendment alone was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Federalist No .
47 and Federalist No .
51 , he argued that the separation of powers was necessary to protect free speech by preventing one branch of government from accumulating too much power at the expense of the others and , indeed , the rest of society at large .
This is an important point to remember when considering the First Amendment implications of Big Tech and its war on free speech and gun freedom .
The Founding Fathers did not live in a world where a few large corporations had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and power impoverished ) government had , either at the federal or the state level .
It ’ s doubtful that they could have conceived of such a thing .
But they did carefully consider the problem of centralized power as it pertained to the rights enshrined in the Constitution .
At the end of the day , the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to enforce itself .
What ’ s more , if the Founders did not address the notion that the private sector could meaningfully and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was simply because they could not conceive of such a thing , not because they were writing the private sector a blank check .
Who needs to pass gun control laws anymore ?
The left can simply appeal to payment systems , banks and processors as a method of non-state gun control .
Case in point : Andrew Ross Sorkin ’ s December 2018 article decrying credit card companies for “ financing ” mass shootings .
As with many arguments from the left , the premise is flawed , but very simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that killed more than 10 people in the 2010s involved a credit card purchase ( though , as always , it is worth asking what counts as a mass shooting and what is being left out of the tally – more on this here ) , credit card companies have a responsibility to step up and stop allowing their customers to make purchases for firearms using credit cards .
This effectively amounts to a request for banks to begin surveilling the legal economic activity of their customers .
It ’ s not far-fetched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been facilitated by credit card purchases .
The Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen as well as Aurora theater shooter James Holmes used credit cards to purchase the weapons and ammunition they ultimately used to commit mass murder .
But mass shootings , particularly those not part of urban gang warfare , are incredibly rare , despite the overwhelming amount of media attention paid to them .
What ’ s more , while statistics for such would be difficult to formulate , the vast , overwhelming majority of firearms and ammunition purchases made with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for entirely legal purposes .
For most Americans , firearms purchases can be a spike in their normal spending for the month .
And what of it ?
The call for credit card companies and other payment processors to monitor the economic activity of law-abiding citizens would cause an outrage if the government were to do it , so why is the American public supposed to sit still for an invasion of their privacy simply because a private company is performing the surveillance ?
Anyone who has ever made a firearms purchase knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The oft-demonized AR-15 can easily top $ 4,000 when the price of a scope , rifle case and a decent cache of ammunition are added to the bill .
Even a humble handgun purchase can quickly hit over $ 1,000 when a good holster and ammo are tacked on .
This means that millions of Americans purchasing firearms for no reason other than recreation or self defense are going to have their personal finances investigated by a corporate Big Brother , with all the lack of transparency one can expect from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty until proven innocent.
” The attempt by the left to get banks to snoop on legal purchases amounts to nothing more than the stigmatization of the exercise of one of the rights enshrined in our Constitution .
And while some would argue that the Constitution only limits the government ’ s actions , it must constantly be asked why we should allow for such an intrusion into our private lives simply because a private company is doing it .
“ If you don ’ t like it , just make your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Mark of the Beast After the Parkland Shooting , the American media entered into another round of its “ something must be done ” ( read as : your guns must be taken away ) propaganda .
One result of this was some of the biggest banks in the United States dropping or scaling back their relations with gun manufacturers .
JPMorgan Chase ’ s Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake crowed to reporters that the company ’ s relationship with firearms manufacturers “ have come down significantly and are pretty limited.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop extending credit to business clients manufacturing “ military-style weapons.
” One must , of course , ask if this applies to companies engaged in supplying the United States military itself or the increasingly militarized police found in our nation ’ s cities .
Bank of America stopped short at stigmatizing the retailers who sell such weapons .
Citigroup , however , took the step of requiring any of its business partners to restrict firearms sales to those over the age of 21 , as well as those who have not passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their partners from selling so-called “ high capacity magazines ” and bump stocks , which were later banned .
Amalgamated Bank went perhaps the furthest of all , refusing to invest any of its assets in companies involved in the manufacture of “ firearms , weaponry and ammunition.
” This leads into another aspect of corporate gun control : Not only is the left demanding that big banks snoop around in your legal purchases , the banks are also starting to make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to obtain the financial services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other law-abiding company simply on the basis of what they sell .
There is , of course , consumer push-back .
For example , the somewhat successful boycott of Dick ’ s Sporting Goods after it ceased selling so-called “ assault weapons.
” But Dick ’ s is still in business and still not selling scary black rifles .
And while you can do your business with a competitor , it still doesn ’ t change the fact that the message has been sent : Companies can remove legal items from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no meaningful consequences .
There is also the growing specter of private companies banning customers from carrying in their stores .
Huffington Post compiled a list of seven companies who do not want legal firearms being carried in their businesses .
Outback Steakhouse was at the center of a story where a law enforcement officer was asked to leave because he was carrying , something that he is required to do when he is in uniform .
Salesforce , a popular software platform for online retailers , will no longer do business with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semi-automatic weapons .
Microsoft has put language in its Code of Conduct that prevents users from using them “ in any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms.
” This is another sweeping example of corporate attempts to infringe upon America ’ s Second Amendment rights .
There is nothing illegal or immoral about owning , selling or promoting firearms .
Indeed , the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment .
This is a form of corporate coercion that shows the limitations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free market to ensure one ’ s rights are respected .
It ’ s hard to imagine that the Founders would simply have thrown up their hands and accepted that corporations were making it impossible for them to exercise their rights simply because there was nothing “ unconstitutional ” about it .
Beyond this , however , there are two rather frightening developments .
The first is several liberal state governments skinning the cat from the other end .
Rather than making it difficult or impossible to purchase firearms , they are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many well-meaning people in the Second Amendment movement consider the NRA to be weak tea ( and not without good reason ) , the fact remains that the NRA is the most public and prominent opponent of gun grabbers .
The fall of the NRA at the hands of gun grabbers ( as opposed to more principled pro-Second Amendment groups ) would spell disaster for gun rights in America , setting a precedent that would be used against other organizations protecting gun freedom .
The State of New York , led by Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered by the NRA to its members .
He has also attempted to threaten every insurer and bank in the state to not do business with the NRA .
It is important to remember that the banking industry is largely centered in New York , meaning that the governor of that state has an outsized influence on how banking is done across the nation .
Another chilling example of corporate coercion goes beyond the Second Amendment and into the First : Popular veteran rights and gun blog “ No Lawyers , Only Guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a blogging platform owned by Google , on the grounds that it “ promoted or sold regulated items.
” The website was later restored with the explanation that it was removed by an automated system .
PayPal , the biggest payment processing system on the Internet , can not be used for any exercise of your Second Amendment rights , nor to pay for dissident thinkers ’ services such as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones or even Wikileaks .
One is not obligated to support or defend the beliefs of any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dangerous precedent is being set .
However , these are neither the first nor the only times that Big Tech has attempted to censor conservatives , libertarians , pro-gun freedom forces and others with opinions to the right of John McCain .
Some have argued , not without solid evidence , that Big Tech is involved in a full-throttle war against conservatives and free speech on the Internet .
We ’ re inclined to agree .
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge , not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet .
It ’ s less true to say that Facebook , Google and other Big Tech platforms “ lean left ” than it is to say that they push a globalist , neoliberal , corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth .
Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for the sake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cancer cell .
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years .
Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones .
But the real test case was not him , it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer , commonly known by his handle “ weev.
” weev ( always lowercase ) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints .
To wit , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chest .
However , proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn ’ t be concerned with what weev thinks or says , because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it .
But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters .
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow banning and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the web .
Mainstream , establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “ I ’ m not a Nazi ” for two reasons .
First , it doesn ’ t matter if you ’ re a Nazi or not .
All legal speech should be allowed on social media , or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator , which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there .
This means that your ex-spouse lying about how you missed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook can be construed as defamation , for which Facebook is liable because they didn ’ t remove the status update .
Facebook ’ s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform , a claim that is patently false , is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack .
But the other reason is that for many on the left , there is not a tangible difference between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michelle Malkin , Ann Coulter , Wayne LaPierre , Ted Cruz , Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States .
Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist , a fascist apologist , or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology .
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual , self-avowed fascists , nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists , edgy conservatives , or even “ respectable ” centrist types like Dave Rubin .
To throw the far right under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech ’ s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming , which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law .
Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi , or pretend not to because it ’ s politically expedient .
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users .
The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the government about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ informs users that the government is sniffing around about them , and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies .
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “ potential right-wing terrorists ” or “ right-wing extremists ” ( to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists ) , they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech , who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government , with minimal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feds .
Take , for example , the Philadelphia synagogue shooter .
Self-proclaimed “ free speech ” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked .
Sure , no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter .
But the point is that these platforms , even the ones who allegedly have your back , have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing just how many mainstream , run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it ’ s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door .
Indeed , we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “ hate speech , ” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech .
Here are some examples that are worth considering : • Pastor Rich Penkoski : This pastor runs a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ.
” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag .
He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims .
• Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages : In July 2017 , Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers .
Most were based in Brazil .
Facebook removed the pages without explanation .
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn : Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming .
Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood .
• Alveda King : Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King ’ s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade .
• Ryan T. Anderson : Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson .
Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology .
• Robert Spencer : The head of JihadWatch.org , a website covering radical Islam , was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in results for searches about “ jihad.
” • Brian Fisher : The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter ’ s narrow , anti-First Amendment guidelines .
• PragerU : PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream , run-of-the-mill , completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet .
Despite this , they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is suing YouTube .
He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn ’ t say “ conservatives can ’ t fly with us , ” but YouTube , ostensibly a neutral platform , is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can ’ t use their services .
• David Kyle Foster : David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ ex-gay ” movement , a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “ cured ” their homosexuality .
His Vimeo channel , featuring over 700 personal testimonials , was pulled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “ hate speech ” due to their “ filtering program.
” Yes , really .
Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted .
Moderates and leftists who don ’ t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo , Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning .
Deplatforming is not limited to social media .
Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services .
This returns us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments .
And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay ?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money ’ s no good because you have a concealed carry permit .
Sound far-fetched ?
So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist .
Of course , it ’ s important to ask for a list of left-wing groups who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somehow , left-wing groups – even those who violate the terms of service , such as several accounts dedicated to doxing right-wing accounts and inciting violence against conservatives , libertarians and others on the right – are allowed to operate with impunity .
Indeed , it is worth asking who decides what is against the rules at Facebook , Twitter , etc .
There is an answer to this question : For Twitter , it ’ s a “ Trust and Safety Council ” comprised of 12 left-wing groups and one conservative group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Network of Enlightened Women .
The 12 left-wing groups include the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD , both of whom have labeled mainstream conservative groups as “ hate groups.
” For Facebook , they rely upon a “ fact-checking ” process that leverages Snopes and PolitiFact as impartial “ fact checkers.
” YouTube uses the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center , both left-wing groups known for their attacks on mainstream conservative organizations .
Facebook , for its part , deleted 57 of over 200 “ hate groups ” demanded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is To Be Done ?
The question after reading this becomes : What should be done , if anything ?
It ’ s difficult to imagine a situation where government interference in Big Tech is going to have the desired outcome .
The result might be more and greater censorship than existed before .
However , it is worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz , not exactly known as a proponent of Big Government , has been at the forefront of attempts to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship of conservative voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s quite possible that new laws and regulations are not required .
What is instead required is a more rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations that are already on the books .
To wit : Are Facebook , Twitter and YouTube content-neutral platforms or are they editorial platforms ?
If the former , then it would seem that their case for being able to censor legal speech on their platforms is legally flimsy .
If the latter , then they are responsible for everything posted on their platforms by every user .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its results to yield a politicized result , that is likely in violation of existing telecommunications statutes .
The American shift from capitalism to corporatism has had dire unintended consequences : Power has coalesced in both Washington , D.C. and many tech and media companies , such that the latter can undermine American rights and manipulate American political opinion with impunity , while the former abdicates its oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies , both foreign and domestic .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

Op-Ed by Sam Jacobs
Anyone familiar with the Bible is familiar with the Mark of the Beast: Without this mark, no man may buy or sell.
Regardless of one’s religious faith or lack thereof, there is an illustrative case in this biblical story: When one cannot buy or sell, one is metaphorically up the creek. Short of producing everything one needs oneself, buying and selling are necessary parts of virtually every modern person’s life.
In our modern world, we can begin to see a sort of Mark of the Beast: While ideas and even objects aren’t banned, they are increasingly difficult to come by, not due to government fiat, but due to the machinations of corporations hostile to the American values of freedom.
One can be in favor of the free market while recognizing a simple truth: There is no way that America’s Founding Fathers would have sat on their hands while five corporations dominated American discourse and commerce. It is hard to imagine, for example, the Founders suffering a single private bank processing most of the payments in the United States and refusing to do business with gun merchants. Alternately, one can scarcely imagine that the Founders would have sat still for three companies – all of them hostile toward American values and the Constitution – dominating political discourse and deplatforming anyone who opposed them.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation today: Guns are not illegal, but private companies will make it increasingly difficult to buy, sell or own them – up to and including pulling your bank account. You have all the freedom of speech you like, but prepare to be deplatformed or have your voice buried by large tech corporations with their thumb on the scale of American discourse.
As the American economy has become more corporatist – such that the market is controlled by the interrelation between monolithic mega-corporations, Wall Street and the state – and less capitalistic and dynamic, the American press and economy are now being dominated by forces hostile toward the American public and American values.
No less an authority than James Madison warned Americans that the First Amendment alone was not enough to protect free speech. In Federalist No. 47 and Federalist No. 51, he argued that the separation of powers was necessary to protect free speech by preventing one branch of government from accumulating too much power at the expense of the others and, indeed, the rest of society at large.
This is an important point to remember when considering the First Amendment implications of Big Tech and its war on free speech and gun freedom. The Founding Fathers did not live in a world where a few large corporations had more power than the (incredibly limited and power impoverished) government had, either at the federal or the state level. It’s doubtful that they could have conceived of such a thing.
But they did carefully consider the problem of centralized power as it pertained to the rights enshrined in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no ability to enforce itself. What’s more, if the Founders did not address the notion that the private sector could meaningfully and substantially circumvent rights for all Americans, it was simply because they could not conceive of such a thing, not because they were writing the private sector a blank check.
Corporate Big Brother: Banks as Gun Control
Who needs to pass gun control laws anymore? The left can simply appeal to payment systems, banks and processors as a method of non-state gun control.
Case in point: Andrew Ross Sorkin’s December 2018 article decrying credit card companies for “financing” mass shootings. As with many arguments from the left, the premise is flawed, but very simple: Because eight out of 13 shootings that killed more than 10 people in the 2010s involved a credit card purchase (though, as always, it is worth asking what counts as a mass shooting and what is being left out of the tally – more on this here), credit card companies have a responsibility to step up and stop allowing their customers to make purchases for firearms using credit cards.
This effectively amounts to a request for banks to begin surveilling the legal economic activity of their customers.
It’s not far-fetched to consider that some mass shootings have been facilitated by credit card purchases. The Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen as well as Aurora theater shooter James Holmes used credit cards to purchase the weapons and ammunition they ultimately used to commit mass murder.
But mass shootings, particularly those not part of urban gang warfare, are incredibly rare, despite the overwhelming amount of media attention paid to them. What’s more, while statistics for such would be difficult to formulate, the vast, overwhelming majority of firearms and ammunition purchases made with credit cards are made by law-abiding citizens for entirely legal purposes. For most Americans, firearms purchases can be a spike in their normal spending for the month. And what of it? The call for credit card companies and other payment processors to monitor the economic activity of law-abiding citizens would cause an outrage if the government were to do it, so why is the American public supposed to sit still for an invasion of their privacy simply because a private company is performing the surveillance?
Anyone who has ever made a firearms purchase knows that the bill can add up quickly. The oft-demonized AR-15 can easily top $4,000 when the price of a scope, rifle case and a decent cache of ammunition are added to the bill. Even a humble handgun purchase can quickly hit over $1,000 when a good holster and ammo are tacked on. This means that millions of Americans purchasing firearms for no reason other than recreation or self defense are going to have their personal finances investigated by a corporate Big Brother, with all the lack of transparency one can expect from a massive bank whose starting premise is “guilty until proven innocent.”
The attempt by the left to get banks to snoop on legal purchases amounts to nothing more than the stigmatization of the exercise of one of the rights enshrined in our Constitution. And while some would argue that the Constitution only limits the government’s actions, it must constantly be asked why we should allow for such an intrusion into our private lives simply because a private company is doing it.
“If you don’t like it, just make your own credit card company.”
Hardly.
Corporate Gun Control and the Mark of the Beast
After the Parkland Shooting, the American media entered into another round of its “something must be done” (read as: your guns must be taken away) propaganda. One result of this was some of the biggest banks in the United States dropping or scaling back their relations with gun manufacturers.
JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Financial Officer Marianne Lake crowed to reporters that the company’s relationship with firearms manufacturers “have come down significantly and are pretty limited.” Bank of America announced its intention to stop extending credit to business clients manufacturing “military-style weapons.” One must, of course, ask if this applies to companies engaged in supplying the United States military itself or the increasingly militarized police found in our nation’s cities.
Bank of America stopped short at stigmatizing the retailers who sell such weapons. Citigroup, however, took the step of requiring any of its business partners to restrict firearms sales to those over the age of 21, as well as those who have not passed a background check. They also barred their partners from selling so-called “high capacity magazines” and bump stocks, which were later banned.
Amalgamated Bank went perhaps the furthest of all, refusing to invest any of its assets in companies involved in the manufacture of “firearms, weaponry and ammunition.”
This leads into another aspect of corporate gun control: Not only is the left demanding that big banks snoop around in your legal purchases, the banks are also starting to make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to obtain the financial services banks would never dare to deny to any other law-abiding company simply on the basis of what they sell.
There is, of course, consumer push-back. For example, the somewhat successful boycott of Dick’s Sporting Goods after it ceased selling so-called “assault weapons.” But Dick’s is still in business and still not selling scary black rifles. And while you can do your business with a competitor, it still doesn’t change the fact that the message has been sent: Companies can remove legal items from their shelves in a politicized fashion with virtually no meaningful consequences.
There is also the growing specter of private companies banning customers from carrying in their stores. Huffington Post compiled a list of seven companies who do not want legal firearms being carried in their businesses. Outback Steakhouse was at the center of a story where a law enforcement officer was asked to leave because he was carrying, something that he is required to do when he is in uniform. Salesforce, a popular software platform for online retailers, will no longer do business with companies who sell virtually all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Microsoft has put language in its Code of Conduct that prevents users from using them “in any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms.” This is another sweeping example of corporate attempts to infringe upon America’s Second Amendment rights. There is nothing illegal or immoral about owning, selling or promoting firearms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment.
This is a form of corporate coercion that shows the limitations of simply relying upon the Constitution and the free market to ensure one’s rights are respected. It’s hard to imagine that the Founders would simply have thrown up their hands and accepted that corporations were making it impossible for them to exercise their rights simply because there was nothing “unconstitutional” about it.
Beyond this, however, there are two rather frightening developments.
The first is several liberal state governments skinning the cat from the other end. Rather than making it difficult or impossible to purchase firearms, they are going after the National Rifle Association. While many well-meaning people in the Second Amendment movement consider the NRA to be weak tea (and not without good reason), the fact remains that the NRA is the most public and prominent opponent of gun grabbers. The fall of the NRA at the hands of gun grabbers (as opposed to more principled pro-Second Amendment groups) would spell disaster for gun rights in America, setting a precedent that would be used against other organizations protecting gun freedom.
The State of New York, led by Andrew Cuomo, has started attacking insurance programs offered by the NRA to its members. He has also attempted to threaten every insurer and bank in the state to not do business with the NRA. It is important to remember that the banking industry is largely centered in New York, meaning that the governor of that state has an outsized influence on how banking is done across the nation.
Another chilling example of corporate coercion goes beyond the Second Amendment and into the First: Popular veteran rights and gun blog “No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money” was removed from Blogger, a blogging platform owned by Google, on the grounds that it “promoted or sold regulated items.” The website was later restored with the explanation that it was removed by an automated system.
PayPal, the biggest payment processing system on the Internet, cannot be used for any exercise of your Second Amendment rights, nor to pay for dissident thinkers’ services such as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones or even Wikileaks. One is not obligated to support or defend the beliefs of any of these people or groups to see that a dangerous precedent is being set.
However, these are neither the first nor the only times that Big Tech has attempted to censor conservatives, libertarians, pro-gun freedom forces and others with opinions to the right of John McCain. Some have argued, not without solid evidence, that Big Tech is involved in a full-throttle war against conservatives and free speech on the Internet. We’re inclined to agree.
Big Tech’s War on Free Speech
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging it. Congress has looked into this, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge, not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet.
It’s less true to say that Facebook, Google and other Big Tech platforms “lean left” than it is to say that they push a globalist, neoliberal, corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth. Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for the sake of growth is also the philosophy of the cancer cell.
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years. Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones. But the real test case was not him, it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer, commonly known by his handle “weev.”
weev (always lowercase) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints. To wit, he has a large swastika tattooed on his chest. However, proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn’t be concerned with what weev thinks or says, because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it. But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters.
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow banning and outright deplatforming of conservative voices all across the web. Mainstream, establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “I’m not a Nazi” for two reasons.
First, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Nazi or not. All legal speech should be allowed on social media, or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator, which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there. This means that your ex-spouse lying about how you missed Little Timmy’s baseball game on Facebook can be construed as defamation, for which Facebook is liable because they didn’t remove the status update. Facebook’s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform, a claim that is patently false, is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack.
But the other reason is that for many on the left, there is not a tangible difference between weev, MILO, Alex Jones, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Cruz, Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States. Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist, a fascist apologist, or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology.
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual, self-avowed fascists, nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists, edgy conservatives, or even “respectable” centrist types like Dave Rubin. To throw the far right under the bus in the hopes of satisfying Big Tech’s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming, which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi, or pretend not to because it’s politically expedient.
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users. The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the government about its users and their data, who informs users that the government is sniffing around about them, and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies.
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “potential right-wing terrorists” or “right-wing extremists” (to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists), they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech, who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government, with minimal or no arm-twisting on the part of the feds. Take, for example, the Philadelphia synagogue shooter. Self-proclaimed “free speech” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked.
Sure, no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter. But the point is that these platforms, even the ones who allegedly have your back, have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped up in the press.
Conservatives Censored on Social Media
It’s worth showing just how many mainstream, run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it’s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door. Indeed, we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “hate speech,” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech. Here are some examples that are worth considering:
Pastor Rich Penkoski : This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims.
This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims. Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages : In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation.
In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation. Rep. Marsha Blackburn : Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.
Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood. Alveda King : Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade.
Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade. Ryan T. Anderson : Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology.
Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology. Robert Spencer : The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.”
The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.” Brian Fisher : The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines.
The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines. PragerU : PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services.
PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services. David Kyle Foster: David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ex-gay” movement, a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “cured” their homosexuality. His Vimeo channel, featuring over 700 personal testimonials, was pulled from Vimeo for being “hateful.”
Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “hate speech” due to their “filtering program.” Yes, really. Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted. Moderates and leftists who don’t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo, Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning.
Deplatforming is not limited to social media. Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services. This returns us to the Mark of the Beast notion: What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments. And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money’s no good because you have a concealed carry permit. Sound far-fetched? So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? i.e., Who Watches the Watchers?
Of course, it’s important to ask for a list of left-wing groups who have been banned from social media. But somehow, left-wing groups – even those who violate the terms of service, such as several accounts dedicated to doxing right-wing accounts and inciting violence against conservatives, libertarians and others on the right – are allowed to operate with impunity.
Indeed, it is worth asking who decides what is against the rules at Facebook, Twitter, etc. There is an answer to this question: For Twitter, it’s a “Trust and Safety Council” comprised of 12 left-wing groups and one conservative group you’ve probably never heard of: The Network of Enlightened Women. The 12 left-wing groups include the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD, both of whom have labeled mainstream conservative groups as “hate groups.”
For Facebook, they rely upon a “fact-checking” process that leverages Snopes and PolitiFact as impartial “fact checkers.” YouTube uses the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both left-wing groups known for their attacks on mainstream conservative organizations. Facebook, for its part, deleted 57 of over 200 “hate groups” demanded by the SPLC in August 2017.
What Is To Be Done?
The question after reading this becomes: What should be done, if anything?
It’s difficult to imagine a situation where government interference in Big Tech is going to have the desired outcome. The result might be more and greater censorship than existed before. However, it is worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz, not exactly known as a proponent of Big Government, has been at the forefront of attempts to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship of conservative voices on the Internet.
But it’s quite possible that new laws and regulations are not required. What is instead required is a more rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations that are already on the books. To wit: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube content-neutral platforms or are they editorial platforms? If the former, then it would seem that their case for being able to censor legal speech on their platforms is legally flimsy. If the latter, then they are responsible for everything posted on their platforms by every user. Similarly, if Google is intentionally manipulating its results to yield a politicized result, that is likely in violation of existing telecommunications statutes.
The American shift from capitalism to corporatism has had dire unintended consequences: Power has coalesced in both Washington, D.C. and many tech and media companies, such that the latter can undermine American rights and manipulate American political opinion with impunity, while the former abdicates its oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Article source: Ammo.com
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-23--IMF Warning: Another Potential “Great Depression”

The International Monetary Fund has issued a warning that ’ s largely been brushed aside by mainstream media .
Kristalina Georgieva , the head of the IMF , is warning that the global economy risks another “ Great Depression.
” What makes things worse , is that the propaganda outlets in the United States are continuing to ignore the red flags of a looming disaster .
Mainstream Americans are blissfully unaware of what ’ s coming in this manipulated economy we are all forced to live under .
RT pointed out that , for instance , rudimentary Google searches suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have covered Georgieva ’ s comments at all .
It is very ethically questionable but also understandable , in a cynical sense , given their complete attachment to the doctrine of Neo-liberal economics and centralized banking .
The worst part is that once the next Great Depression strikes , the masses won ’ t put the blame where it belongs , on the ruling class and banking elitists .
The United States is ill-prepared for any kind of economic downturn , too , let alone a massive global depression designed to impoverish every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the ruling class .
Yet , Russia seems to be prepared , at least , by comparison .
Experts in the Russian capital have been saying for years : a major Western financial crash is both inevitable and reasonably imminent .
And it ’ s going to make the 2008 meltdown look mild by comparison .
The reasons are simple , according to insiders in Russia : western governments have accumulated too much debt over the past decade , and there are a number of concerning bubbles in the system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ British property , and the oversized valuations of tech companies , especially startups unlikely to ever return their costs .
Throw in aging workforces , wage stagnation , higher living costs , and disruption to traditional industries from IT innovation , and you have all the ingredients needed for a ‘ big bang ’ .
As Russian pundit Kirill Shamiev points out , “ in academia people have been quite vocal about [ a major recession ] since 2016-2017-ish , ” and Russia “ is in a more favorable position now than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliance on western markets.
” –RT Russia is preparing for a global depression ( and kill any U.S. sanctions at the same time ) by stockpiling gold .
Russia Plans To Beat US Sanctions By Stockpiling Gold Russia ’ s Most Potent Weapon : Rapidly “ Hoarding Gold ” As Global Currency War Is Upon Us And Russia is not the only country to be divesting from the U.S. dollar in favor of gold .
The fiat currencies are bound to collapse at some point , and some countries are well prepared for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold holdings by about 14 % since 2009 , ” Bloomberg reported last year , naming China and Poland as other big buyers .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Mac Slavo
The International Monetary Fund has issued a warning that’s largely been brushed aside by mainstream media. Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the IMF, is warning that the global economy risks another “Great Depression.”
What makes things worse, is that the propaganda outlets in the United States are continuing to ignore the red flags of a looming disaster. Mainstream Americans are blissfully unaware of what’s coming in this manipulated economy we are all forced to live under.
RT pointed out that, for instance, rudimentary Google searches suggest neither the Financial Times nor the Economist have covered Georgieva’s comments at all. It is very ethically questionable but also understandable, in a cynical sense, given their complete attachment to the doctrine of Neo-liberal economics and centralized banking. The worst part is that once the next Great Depression strikes, the masses won’t put the blame where it belongs, on the ruling class and banking elitists.
The United States is ill-prepared for any kind of economic downturn, too, let alone a massive global depression designed to impoverish every single person who isn’t a member of the ruling class. Yet, Russia seems to be prepared, at least, by comparison. Experts in the Russian capital have been saying for years: a major Western financial crash is both inevitable and reasonably imminent. And it’s going to make the 2008 meltdown look mild by comparison.
The reasons are simple, according to insiders in Russia: western governments have accumulated too much debt over the past decade, and there are a number of concerning bubbles in the system. These include US stocks, German and British property, and the oversized valuations of tech companies, especially startups unlikely to ever return their costs. Throw in aging workforces, wage stagnation, higher living costs, and disruption to traditional industries from IT innovation, and you have all the ingredients needed for a ‘big bang’. As Russian pundit Kirill Shamiev points out, “in academia people have been quite vocal about [a major recession] since 2016-2017-ish,” and Russia “is in a more favorable position now than it was in 2007/8 [with] less reliance on western markets.”–RT
People have been vocal about it for a while period. My point here is the actual pile of cash they’ve stacked — Anton Barbashin (@ABarbashin) January 21, 2020
Russia is preparing for a global depression (and kill any U.S. sanctions at the same time) by stockpiling gold.
Russia Plans To Beat US Sanctions By Stockpiling Gold
Russia’s Most Potent Weapon: Rapidly “Hoarding Gold” As Global Currency War Is Upon Us
And Russia is not the only country to be divesting from the U.S. dollar in favor of gold. The fiat currencies are bound to collapse at some point, and some countries are well prepared for the eventuality. “Nations have expanded gold holdings by about 14% since 2009,” Bloomberg reported last year, naming China and Poland as other big buyers.
Article source: SHTFPlan.com
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-23--Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense Sue FCC Over Wireless Radiation Exposure Health Gu

Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense Sue FCC Over Wireless Radiation Exposure Health Guidelines

The Federal Communication Commission ( FCC ) is not a health or environmental agency ; however , they are supposed to protect the public by regulating the telecom industry .
They ’ ve been doing a lousy job since long before the Trump administration ( see 1 , 2 ) .
It ’ s much worse now ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) .
Several lawsuits have been filed against them over the last year or so regarding the forced widespread installation of 5G ( see 1 , 2 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even telecom executives won ’ t say is safe .
Thanks to Robert Kennedy , Jr. and Children ’ s Health Defense for suing them for refusing to change wireless radiation exposure health guidelines .
Robert Kennedy , Jr. , Chairman of Children ’ s Health Defense ( CHD ) has committed to be proactive on the concerns regarding excessive exposure of our children to 5G and wireless radiation .
To fulfill this promise , CHD will be submitting a lawsuit on February 3rd against the FCC for its December 4 , 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines , and for its determination that the guidelines are protective of human health .
The Dec. 4 determination provides a rare opportunity to sue the FCC and expose its disregard for public health that has been causing so many injuries and deaths , including among children .
We will be representing the many children who have been injured .
This is the opportunity we have been waiting for ; a successful lawsuit on this will be a game changer .
We need your help to raise $ 100,000 to fund this effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succeeding , we have assembled an ideal team of Attorneys to lead this case !
Each one brings different strengths to the case : Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , CHD ’ s Chairman , is a leading Environmental Attorney who has been involved with many groundbreaking lawsuits including the recent successful cases against Monsanto .
He was a senior attorney for the NRDC and now leading cases for the protection of children ’ s health rights .
Scott W. McCollough is the Attorney who is representing the IRREGULATORS in their lawsuit against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose a multi-billion-dollar fraud by Telecom companies .
Scott has decades of experience as a Telecommunications and Administrative Law Attorney , leading the type of lawsuits we are submitting against the FCC .
Dafna Tachover is an expert on wireless and 5G health effects and has recently been brought on board at CHD to spearhead the Stop 5G effort .
Dafna brings specialized knowledge and experience for this case .
She is an Attorney , and holds a MBA , and has a Telecommunications background .
She has been involved in cases focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case in Israel against Wi-Fi in schools , a case that led to the first limitations on Wi-Fi worldwide !
We need to raise $ 100,000 and we hope that you will support this rare chance to take action against the FCC .
Any donation would be helpful .
Here is how to donate : If you would like to support our efforts by making a donation , please use one of the following methods : • Go to the Children ’ s Health Defense ‘ Donate ‘ page , and under ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ( see below ) .
• Authorize a wire transfer to the following bank account : Capital One Bank Routing number : 065000090 Account Number : 3027099268 When donating , please state that the donation is towards the “ Stop 5G Project ” On December 4 , 2019 , the FCC adopted an order affirming the adequacy of their 1996 wireless radiation exposure safety guidelines .
These guidelines are at the core of the fraud perpetrated on the public that wireless technology is safe .
Their guidelines ignore the overwhelming evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopting and maintaining irrelevant guidelines , the FCC has enabled and forced the uncontrolled proliferation of wireless technology and now 5G .
This has led to a growing epidemic of sickness among children and adults , and it has caused harm to animals , plants and the ecosystem at large .
In 2012 , the General Accountability Office of Congress published a report , recommending that the FCC reassess its 1996 guidelines .
As a result , in 2013 , the FCC opened docket 13-84 asking for public comment .
This docket was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 , 2019 , the FCC officially closed the docket and affirmed the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment .
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free @ @ @ @ @ @

By B.N. Frank
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is not a health or environmental agency; however, they are supposed to protect the public by regulating the telecom industry. They’ve been doing a lousy job since long before the Trump administration (see 1, 2). It’s much worse now (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Several lawsuits have been filed against them over the last year or so regarding the forced widespread installation of 5G (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which even telecom executives won’t say is safe.
Thanks to Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense for suing them for refusing to change wireless radiation exposure health guidelines.
Robert Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has committed to be proactive on the concerns regarding excessive exposure of our children to 5G and wireless radiation. To fulfill this promise, CHD will be submitting a lawsuit on February 3rd against the FCC for its December 4, 2019 decision to decline to review its 1996 guidelines, and for its determination that the guidelines are protective of human health.
The Dec. 4 determination provides a rare opportunity to sue the FCC and expose its disregard for public health that has been causing so many injuries and deaths, including among children. We will be representing the many children who have been injured. This is the opportunity we have been waiting for; a successful lawsuit on this will be a game changer.
We need your help to raise $100,000 to fund this effort.
To have the best chances of succeeding, we have assembled an ideal team of Attorneys to lead this case! Each one brings different strengths to the case:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s Chairman, is a leading Environmental Attorney who has been involved with many groundbreaking lawsuits including the recent successful cases against Monsanto. He was a senior attorney for the NRDC and now leading cases for the protection of children’s health rights.
Scott W. McCollough is the Attorney who is representing the IRREGULATORS in their lawsuit against the FCC, a case that will help expose a multi-billion-dollar fraud by Telecom companies. Scott has decades of experience as a Telecommunications and Administrative Law Attorney, leading the type of lawsuits we are submitting against the FCC.
Dafna Tachover is an expert on wireless and 5G health effects and has recently been brought on board at CHD to spearhead the Stop 5G effort. Dafna brings specialized knowledge and experience for this case. She is an Attorney, and holds a MBA, and has a Telecommunications background. She has been involved in cases focusing on wireless harms including a Supreme Court case in Israel against Wi-Fi in schools, a case that led to the first limitations on Wi-Fi worldwide!
We need to raise $100,000 and we hope that you will support this rare chance to take action against the FCC. Any donation would be helpful.
Here is how to donate:
If you would like to support our efforts by making a donation, please use one of the following methods:
Go to the Children’s Health Defense ‘Donate‘ page, and under ‘Funding Options’ choose ‘Stop 5G’ (see below). Mail a check to:
Children’s Health Defense
1227 N Peachtree Pkwy, Suite #202
Peachtree City, GA 30269 Authorize a wire transfer to the following bank account:
Capital One Bank
Routing number: 065000090
Account Number: 3027099268
When donating, please state that the donation is towards the “Stop 5G Project”
About The Case
On December 4, 2019, the FCC adopted an order affirming the adequacy of their 1996 wireless radiation exposure safety guidelines. These guidelines are at the core of the fraud perpetrated on the public that wireless technology is safe. Their guidelines ignore the overwhelming evidence of harm, scientific and human. By adopting and maintaining irrelevant guidelines, the FCC has enabled and forced the uncontrolled proliferation of wireless technology and now 5G. This has led to a growing epidemic of sickness among children and adults, and it has caused harm to animals, plants and the ecosystem at large.
In 2012, the General Accountability Office of Congress published a report, recommending that the FCC reassess its 1996 guidelines. As a result, in 2013, the FCC opened docket 13-84 asking for public comment. This docket was open for 6 years. On December 4, 2019, the FCC officially closed the docket and affirmed the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment.

Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-23--The Corporate Debt Bubble Is A Train Wreck In Slow Motion

There are two subjects that the mainstream media seems specifically determined to avoid discussing these days when it comes to the economy – the first is the problem of falling global demand for goods and services ; they absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that demand is going stagnant and will conjure all kinds of rationalizations to distract from the issue .
The other subject is the debt bubble , the corporate debt bubble in particular .
These two factors alone guarantee a massive shock to the global economy and the US economy are built into the system , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pillar of the false economy .
It has been utilized time and time again to keep the Everything Bubble from completely deflating ; however , the fundamentals are starting to catch up to the fantasy .
For example , in terms of stock markets , which are now meaningless as an indicator of the health of the real economy , corporate stock buybacks have been the single most vital mechanism for inflation .
Corporations buy their own stocks , often using cash borrowed from each other and from the Federal Reserve , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the market and artificially boost the value of the remaining shares .
This process is essentially legal manipulation of equities , and to be sure , it has been effective so far at keeping markets elevated .
The problem is that these same corporations are taking on more and more debt through interest payments in order to maintain the facade .
Over the period of a decade , corporate debt has skyrocketed back to levels not seen since 2007 , just before the credit crisis .
The official corporate debt load now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s not even counting derivatives exposure .
According to the Bank for International Settlements , the amount of derivatives still held by corporations stands at around $ 544 trillion in notional value ( theoretical value ) , while the current market value is only around $ 10 trillion .
This is a massive discrepancy that can only lead to disaster .
In terms of debt-to-GDP , the credit cycle peak has spiked beyond any other peak in the past 40 years .
This amount of borrowing always has consequences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a level similar to TARP , which saturated markets with $ 16 trillion in liquidity , the amount of cash needed is so immense and the economic returns so muted that such measures are ultimately a waste of time .
The Federal Reserve fueled this bubble , and now there is no stopping its demise .
Though , they ’ re behavior and minimal response to the problem suggests that they have no intention of stopping it anyway .
Currently , stock buybacks are set to decline this year , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations have decided they want to quit the tactic .
They have to quit , because the amount of debt they are accumulating is is now outpacing their falling profits .
Corporate profits peaked in the 3rd Quarter of 2018 and have been in decline ever since .
The Price-to-Earnings ratio as well as the Price-to-Sales ratio are now well above their historic peak during the dot-com bubble , meaning , stocks have never been more overvalued compared to the profits that corporations are actually bringing in .
As I warned back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a gift to corporations , not average people , and that gift was designed to be squandered as there was no doubt that companies would pour all extra cash into stock buybacks instead of innovation and new jobs .
This is exactly what happened .
While corporations , the Fed and Trump have been putting some effort into keeping stock markets from imploding , the real economy has been evaporating .
Global import/exports are crashing , US manufacturing is in recession territory , US GDP is in decline ( even according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlets are closing by the thousands , the poverty rate jumped in 30 % of US counties in the past year , and high paying jobs are disappearing and being replaced with minimum wage service sector jobs .
To be sure , this process did not start under Trump , it ’ s been a slow motion train wreck for over a decade .
But , it ’ s important to point out that Trump has done nothing to mitigate the crash and his obsession with the fraudulent stock market shows that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of time the tax cuts and debt increase bought was a couple of years .
That ’ s it .
With buybacks in decline , the question is what will keep the bubble afloat now ?
The Fed ?
That ’ s doubtful… Global corporations with the most VISIBLE debt include : Some companies , like Apple and Warren Buffet ’ s Berkshire Hathaway are holding extensive cash reserves , but most do not .
Also , the level of cash reserves held by certain top corporations suggests they know something is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cash when the stock market is a “ sure thing ” ?
Unless , the debt bubble is about to collapse and cash will be needed to absorb the damage ?
Stock buybacks , I believe , are the litmus test for how long the corporate world can hold out against the weight of the debt bubble .
2020 appears to be the year in which buybacks are set to crumble .
Corporate profits degraded over 2019 and the slide is set to continue this year .
This means profits are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stave off the explosion of the debt structure ( once again , the problems of demand and debt intertwine ) .
All that is left is the Fed , as the “ buyer of last resort ” becomes the buyer of only import .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income The list above , of course , does not include financial companies like JP Morgan and other banks that are suspected of harboring an extensive debt load and borrowing cash frantically through the Fed ’ s overnight repo markets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Fed has indicated it plans to tighten liquidity once again next month while returning to balance sheet cuts .
Interest rates remain well above zero , which means the more companies borrow through repo markets , the more interest they will accrue .
The Fed will have to institute a full QE program on the level of the TARP bailouts and cut interest rates to zero in order to end the constant repo liquidity threat and kick the can for a couple more years , and they ’ ve given no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time to stop the current crash .
For now , Fed repo intervention has achieved little except keeping stocks at all-time highs .
The rest of the economy is in disarray .
The real economy will start to drag down the establishment ’ s favorite distraction – The Dow , as this process continues .
The big question is always one of timing .
How long can the delusional euphoria keep the system levitated ?
The situation is one of complacency and condition .
If people are suddenly confronted with an enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ask “ What can we do to save ourselves ?
” But what if people are surrounded by a forest fire for ten years and it hasn ’ t quite reached them yet ?
You warn them that the winds have finally changed and it is about to expand and take their homes and they will say “ What forest fire ?
” It ’ s hard to imagine a scenario in which there are no major shocks to the financial structure for the rest of the year .
With the corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act as a support for the bubble , the fundamentals will start to take over again .
Geopolitical events will also have a more visible effect .
A whole year without escalation with Iran ?
Without escalation with North Korea ?
Without a pandemic threat like the coronavirus going global ?
Without threats of a liquidity crisis as banks starve for more and more repo loans ?
I think not… It ’ s important not to let complacency interfere with vigilance .
A slow motion train wreck is still ultimately a train @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigated by removing one ’ s self from the train , and preparing for the fallout .
Do not think that simply because the system has been able to drag its nearly lifeless body along for ten years that this means all is well .
All bubbles collapse , and corporate debt has already sealed the fate of the Everything Bubble .
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda , subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HERE .
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve , it ’ s no secret that inflation is primed to soar .
If your IRA or 401 ( k ) is exposed to this threat , it ’ s critical to act now !
That ’ s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA .
Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group .
It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold .
You can contact Brandon Smith at : [ email protected ] Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Brandon Smith
There are two subjects that the mainstream media seems specifically determined to avoid discussing these days when it comes to the economy – the first is the problem of falling global demand for goods and services; they absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that demand is going stagnant and will conjure all kinds of rationalizations to distract from the issue. The other subject is the debt bubble, the corporate debt bubble in particular.
These two factors alone guarantee a massive shock to the global economy and the US economy are built into the system, but I believe corporate debt is the key pillar of the false economy. It has been utilized time and time again to keep the Everything Bubble from completely deflating; however, the fundamentals are starting to catch up to the fantasy.
For example, in terms of stock markets, which are now meaningless as an indicator of the health of the real economy, corporate stock buybacks have been the single most vital mechanism for inflation. Corporations buy their own stocks, often using cash borrowed from each other and from the Federal Reserve, in order to reduce the number of shares on the market and artificially boost the value of the remaining shares. This process is essentially legal manipulation of equities, and to be sure, it has been effective so far at keeping markets elevated.
The problem is that these same corporations are taking on more and more debt through interest payments in order to maintain the facade. Over the period of a decade, corporate debt has skyrocketed back to levels not seen since 2007, just before the credit crisis. The official corporate debt load now stands at over $10 trillion, and that’s not even counting derivatives exposure. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the amount of derivatives still held by corporations stands at around $544 trillion in notional value (theoretical value), while the current market value is only around $10 trillion. This is a massive discrepancy that can only lead to disaster.
In terms of debt-to-GDP, the credit cycle peak has spiked beyond any other peak in the past 40 years. This amount of borrowing always has consequences. Even if central banks were to intervene on a level similar to TARP, which saturated markets with $16 trillion in liquidity, the amount of cash needed is so immense and the economic returns so muted that such measures are ultimately a waste of time. The Federal Reserve fueled this bubble, and now there is no stopping its demise. Though, they’re behavior and minimal response to the problem suggests that they have no intention of stopping it anyway.
Currently, stock buybacks are set to decline this year, and I don’t think this is because corporations have decided they want to quit the tactic. They have to quit, because the amount of debt they are accumulating is is now outpacing their falling profits. Corporate profits peaked in the 3rd Quarter of 2018 and have been in decline ever since. The Price-to-Earnings ratio as well as the Price-to-Sales ratio are now well above their historic peak during the dot-com bubble, meaning, stocks have never been more overvalued compared to the profits that corporations are actually bringing in.
As I warned back in 2018, Trump’s tax cuts were a gift to corporations, not average people, and that gift was designed to be squandered as there was no doubt that companies would pour all extra cash into stock buybacks instead of innovation and new jobs. This is exactly what happened.
While corporations, the Fed and Trump have been putting some effort into keeping stock markets from imploding, the real economy has been evaporating. Global import/exports are crashing, US manufacturing is in recession territory, US GDP is in decline (even according to rigged official numbers), US retail outlets are closing by the thousands, the poverty rate jumped in 30% of US counties in the past year, and high paying jobs are disappearing and being replaced with minimum wage service sector jobs.
To be sure, this process did not start under Trump, it’s been a slow motion train wreck for over a decade. But, it’s important to point out that Trump has done nothing to mitigate the crash and his obsession with the fraudulent stock market shows that he has no plans to try. The amount of time the tax cuts and debt increase bought was a couple of years. That’s it. With buybacks in decline, the question is what will keep the bubble afloat now? The Fed? That’s doubtful…
Global corporations with the most VISIBLE debt include:
AT&T with $180 billion
SoftBank with $154 billion
Apple with $136 billion
Verizon with $114 billion
Comcast with $112 billion
AbInbev with $110 billion
General Electric with $115 billion
Shell with $77 billion
Microsoft with $67 billion
Some companies, like Apple and Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway are holding extensive cash reserves, but most do not. Also, the level of cash reserves held by certain top corporations suggests they know something is on the horizon. Why hold piles of cash when the stock market is a “sure thing”? Unless, the debt bubble is about to collapse and cash will be needed to absorb the damage?
Stock buybacks, I believe, are the litmus test for how long the corporate world can hold out against the weight of the debt bubble. 2020 appears to be the year in which buybacks are set to crumble. Corporate profits degraded over 2019 and the slide is set to continue this year. This means profits are not going to come to the rescue and stave off the explosion of the debt structure (once again, the problems of demand and debt intertwine). All that is left is the Fed, as the “buyer of last resort” becomes the buyer of only import.
The list above, of course, does not include financial companies like JP Morgan and other banks that are suspected of harboring an extensive debt load and borrowing cash frantically through the Fed’s overnight repo markets.
These loans are now coming due, and the Fed has indicated it plans to tighten liquidity once again next month while returning to balance sheet cuts. Interest rates remain well above zero, which means the more companies borrow through repo markets, the more interest they will accrue. The Fed will have to institute a full QE program on the level of the TARP bailouts and cut interest rates to zero in order to end the constant repo liquidity threat and kick the can for a couple more years, and they’ve given no indication that they plan to do this in time to stop the current crash.
For now, Fed repo intervention has achieved little except keeping stocks at all-time highs. The rest of the economy is in disarray.
The real economy will start to drag down the establishment’s favorite distraction – The Dow, as this process continues. The big question is always one of timing. How long can the delusional euphoria keep the system levitated?
The situation is one of complacency and condition. If people are suddenly confronted with an enormous forest fire surrounding their city, they will ask “What can we do to save ourselves?” But what if people are surrounded by a forest fire for ten years and it hasn’t quite reached them yet? You warn them that the winds have finally changed and it is about to expand and take their homes and they will say “What forest fire?”
It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which there are no major shocks to the financial structure for the rest of the year. With the corporate system tapped out and no longer able to act as a support for the bubble, the fundamentals will start to take over again. Geopolitical events will also have a more visible effect. A whole year without escalation with Iran? Without escalation with North Korea? Without a pandemic threat like the coronavirus going global? Without threats of a liquidity crisis as banks starve for more and more repo loans? I think not…
It’s important not to let complacency interfere with vigilance. A slow motion train wreck is still ultimately a train wreck. The damage can only be mitigated by removing one’s self from the train, and preparing for the fallout. Do not think that simply because the system has been able to drag its nearly lifeless body along for ten years that this means all is well. All bubbles collapse, and corporate debt has already sealed the fate of the Everything Bubble.
Article source: Alt-Market.com
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-22--Can Local Governments Nullify State Law?

States – and their political subdivisions ( local governments ) – have a broad range of tools to undermine , @ @ @ @ @ nullify federal acts .
But can the same strategies be applied by localities in response @ @ @ @ @ can localities actually nullify state laws at all ?
• Anti-Commandeering : An overview of @ @ @ @ @ Michael Boldin [ send him email ] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center @ @ @ @ @ appeared .
He was raised in Milwaukee , WI , and currently resides in Los @ @ @ @ @ him on Twitter – @ michaelboldin and Facebook .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth @ @ @ @ @ news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month @ @ @ @ @ on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect @ @ @ @ @ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Michael Boldin
States – and their political subdivisions (local governments) – have a broad range of tools to undermine, reject, resist and effectively nullify federal acts.
But can the same strategies be applied by localities in response to state acts? And can localities actually nullify state laws at all?
SHOW LINKS:
Path to Liberty: January 22, 2020
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, where this video first appeared. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on Twitter – @michaelboldin and Facebook.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-22--Glenn Greenwald Responds To “Grave And Obvious Attack On Free Press” Following Charges

Glenn Greenwald responded to charges levied against him Tuesday by prosecutors in Brazil , who have accused the American journalist of cybercrimes for his role in publishing embarrassing text messages that exposed corruption within the Brazilian judicial system .
According to the government ’ s criminal complaint , Greenwald “ directly assisted , encouraged and guided ” his sources , who gained access to online chats between prosecutors and others involved in “ Operation Car Wash , ” which The Intercept describes as a ‘ yearslong , sprawling anti-corruption investigation that roiled Brazilian politics.
” Greenwald has denied the charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that concluded he committed no crimes – and in fact highlighted his “ careful and distant posture regarding the execution ” of the alleged hacks .
“ Less than two months ago , the Federal Police , examining all the same evidence cited by the Public Ministry , stated explicitly that not only have I never committed any crime but that I exercised extreme caution as a journalist never even to get close to any participation , ” said Greenwald , adding “ Even the Federal Police under Minister Moro ’ s command @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person : I did nothing more than do my job as a journalist — ethically and within the law.
” The political scandal at the heart of Greenwald ’ s corruption charge is Operation Car Wash – which led to the prosecution of major Brazilian construction firms and politicians .
Among its most controversial convictions was that of former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva , whose imprisonment on corruption charges removed him from contention in the 2018 presidential elections , despite leading in the polls .
Instead , Bolsonaro won the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge who convicted Lula , as his justice minister .
After the Secret Brazil Archive reporting , the Brazilian Supreme Court released Lula on the basis of a procedural argument , a stinging rebuke of Moro ’ s work .
–The Intercept The Intercept ‘ s reporting relied on a trove of leaked materials which revealed scheming by prosecutors to ensure that Bolsonaro ’ s opposition ( the Lula Workers ’ Party ) did not win the election .
Prosecutors were also profiting from the scandal .
The Brazilian federal prosecutor who filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Oliveira , who works in Moro ’ s Justice Ministry but has prosecutorial independence , wrote in the complaint that Greenwald had “ directly assisted , encouraged and guided the criminal group , DURING the criminal practice , acting as guarantor of the group , obtaining financial advantage with the conduct described here.
” Bolsonaro has himself previously suggested that he would like to deport Greenwald and threatened to imprison the journalist for his work .
At the time , The Intercept condemned the threat in a statement and reiterated that Greenwald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy free-press protections under the Brazilian constitution .
–The Intercept Greenwald ’ s charges have drawn rebuke from across the spectrum .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
Glenn Greenwald responded to charges levied against him Tuesday by prosecutors in Brazil, who have accused the American journalist of cybercrimes for his role in publishing embarrassing text messages that exposed corruption within the Brazilian judicial system.
According to the government’s criminal complaint, Greenwald “directly assisted, encouraged and guided” his sources, who gained access to online chats between prosecutors and others involved in “Operation Car Wash,” which The Intercept describes as a ‘yearslong, sprawling anti-corruption investigation that roiled Brazilian politics.”
Greenwald has denied the charges, citing a Brazilian Federal Police investigation that concluded he committed no crimes – and in fact highlighted his “careful and distant posture regarding the execution” of the alleged hacks.
“Less than two months ago, the Federal Police, examining all the same evidence cited by the Public Ministry, stated explicitly that not only have I never committed any crime but that I exercised extreme caution as a journalist never even to get close to any participation,” said Greenwald, adding “Even the Federal Police under Minister Moro’s command said what is clear to any rational person: I did nothing more than do my job as a journalist — ethically and within the law.”
Regarding the criminal charges brought by the Bolsonaro government: it’s a grave and obvious attack on a free press, brought by a far-right judge. We’re going to defend a free press, not be intimidated by authorities abusing their power. The reporting will continue. pic.twitter.com/kd9b8Kggx3 — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 21, 2020
Operation Car Wash
The political scandal at the heart of Greenwald’s corruption charge is Operation Car Wash – which led to the prosecution of major Brazilian construction firms and politicians.
Among its most controversial convictions was that of former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whose imprisonment on corruption charges removed him from contention in the 2018 presidential elections, despite leading in the polls. Instead, Bolsonaro won the office and quickly appointed Moro, the judge who convicted Lula, as his justice minister. After the Secret Brazil Archive reporting, the Brazilian Supreme Court released Lula on the basis of a procedural argument, a stinging rebuke of Moro’s work. –The Intercept
The Intercept‘s reporting relied on a trove of leaked materials which revealed scheming by prosecutors to ensure that Bolsonaro’s opposition (the Lula Workers’ Party) did not win the election. Prosecutors were also profiting from the scandal.
The Brazilian federal prosecutor who filed the criminal complaint, Wellington Divino Marques de Oliveira, who works in Moro’s Justice Ministry but has prosecutorial independence, wrote in the complaint that Greenwald had “directly assisted, encouraged and guided the criminal group, DURING the criminal practice, acting as guarantor of the group, obtaining financial advantage with the conduct described here.” Bolsonaro has himself previously suggested that he would like to deport Greenwald and threatened to imprison the journalist for his work. At the time, The Intercept condemned the threat in a statement and reiterated that Greenwald and The Intercept’s other reporters enjoy free-press protections under the Brazilian constitution. –The Intercept
Greenwald’s charges have drawn rebuke from across the spectrum.
The free press is never more important than when it exposes wrongdoing by the powerful. That is why President Bolsonaro is threatening Glenn Greenwald for the “crime” of doing journalism. I call on Brazil to end its authoritarian attack on press freedom and the rule of law. https://t.co/NfcVnxT50F — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 22, 2020
Glenn Greenwald has called me a “deceitful” mouthpiece of the national security state and I assure you I’ve rarely had a nice thing to say about him. But this is an outrageous assault on press freedom that should alarm every American. https://t.co/7LUKHAtPud — Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) January 21, 2020
Grossed out by all the “resistance” accounts cheering the Greenwald charges. If you’re reveling in the persecution of a journalist for exposing abuse and corruption, you’re aligning yourself with fascism. It doesn’t matter how many anti-Trump hashtags you put in your Twitter bio. — Radley Balko (@radleybalko) January 21, 2020
Important context for arrest of @ggreenwald — Brazilian President Bolsonaro has been threatening Greenwald for a long time because of his aggressive and excellent journalism https://t.co/lmuvs3v2dA — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 21, 2020
This is a particularly bad example, obviously, and I know some of the stuff I allude to above is more well-intentioned. But this from Josh Marshall is fucking abominable and it would be better to have said nothing than to have said this. https://t.co/YHMio2YCN6 — Luke Savage (@LukewSavage) January 21, 2020
Article source: Zerohedge.com
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.