Whatever Democrats accuse their opponents of doing, it is they, in fact, who are doing it.
Facebook can do whatever it wants, it’s a “private company” that obeys “Silicon Valley values.” That’s the position of Facebook Oversight Board trustee Kristina Arriaga, who defended the decision to keep former President Donald Trump suspended — for now.
Arriaga touted herself as an advocate for liberty, but failed to fight for it.
Arriaga claimed conservatives have “lost sight” of the fact that Facebook is a “private company” in her May 9, appearance on Newsmax’s “Save the Nation.” She told host and FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon that Facebook’s freedom to censor conservatives is similar to the freedom of conservative businesses to act based upon their values.
“[J]ust a few years ago, conservatives and religious people argued before the Supreme Court that Hobby Lobby … should be able to operate its business according to its religious principles,” Arriaga recounted. “[W]e all agreed that when you start a corporation, when you start a business, you don’t leave your values behind.” She then declared: “It is true that Facebook values are Silicon Valley values.”
Arriaga defended Facebook’s current trajectory with the Oversight Board: “The only way that you can have clean concise and transparent rules anywhere are either by government regulation, which no conservative would want, by abiding to the UN human rights system — and we all know that the UN is corrupt — or by doing what Facebook did, which is create an independent agency at the tune of 130 million dollars to ensure that Facebook is listening to all of its users and has mechanisms to make sure its policies are clear.”
There’s just one hitch: Facebook is directly taking cues from the UN.
The Board noted that Facebook announced its commitment to adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights on March 16. The Board indicated that it used UN rules to decide Trump’s case, even though the case was instigated on Jan. 6, more than two months before Facebook’s commitment to the principles.
Brandon then asked Arriaga what the next step would be for trying to get Trump reinstated to Facebook in the future. Arriaga responded that the next step would have massive consequences for the platform:
“The next step for Facebook is Facebook now has six months to figure out consistent and clear policies and apply those policies to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump could be reinstated any time between now and the six months, or Mr. Trump could be banned permanently.”
Facebook suspended then-President Trump indefinitely, even as he called for “peace” amidst the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact the Facebook Oversight Board on Twitter or Facebook and demand that Big Tech be held to account to provide clarity on “hate speech” and mirror the First Amendment. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
“They do whatever they want, take whatever documents they want from you … maybe they can start wiretapping you, who knows?”
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussed Friday, Judicial Watch is fighting to overturn a recent court ruling which alleges the House of Representatives enjoys “absolute immunity from inquiries about the subpoenas” they ordered on Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Devin Nunes, and a number of other prominent conservatives. As Fitton explained, Rep. Adam Schiff committed “a radical abuse of the impeachment power [when] he issued secret subpoenas.” The attorney representing Rep. Schiff, who Fitton argues obtained the records by trampling on the Fourth Amendment rights of several U.S. citizens, recently argued that the court cannot be given the subpoenas due to possible privacy rights infringements. The Judge responded by stating:
“Well, I do think it’s, if not ironic, noteworthy that one of the interests you’ve just put forward is the invasion of privacy when the whole claim of Judicial Watch is that this Committee invaded the privacy of private citizens in the first place.”
As Fitton observed, “the Pelosi/Schiff House asserts it has an unlimited government surveillance power and an unlimited ability to invade the privacy of any American with zero accountability and transparency.” “Those Fourth Amendment protections you have against unlawful search and seizure… Congress thinks they don’t apply to them.” Fitton concluded by stating:
“The courts should reject Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi’s corrupt cover-up of the unconstitutional subpoenas that abused the civil rights of then-President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, journalists and other American citizens.”
Judicial Watch’s Senior Attorney, James Peterson, is fighting in the U.S. Court of Appeals – District of Columbia Circuit to challenge what Fitton describes as a “disgusting abuse of power.” If you support safeguarding your constitutional rights against unlawful secret subpoenas, support Judicial Watch’s work today.
Whatever happened after all the media hype about gun-control activist David Hogg starting a pillow company? We haven’t heard a peep in more than a month, since several outlets sounded the trumpets of hope….and ka-ching.
Meryl Kornfield of the Washington Post went into a state of high gush on February 10 as she excitedly announced that “Parkland survivor David Hogg launches his own company in a ‘pillow fight’ against Mike Lindell.” There is a GoodPillow handle on Twitter but it has been as silent as Hogg himself since the day you gushed over both.
…he is attempting to create a pillow company to compete against MyPillow, which is led by staunch Trump supporter Mike Lindell. The idea for the company, first tweeted as a joke by Hogg’s partner, software developer William LeGate, is becoming increasingly firm: The pair announced the name of their company, Good Pillow, on Tuesday night. Yet many aspects of the company are not fully formed and critics have thrown a wet blanket on the plan.
The CBS station in Miami echoed the hopes:
Newsweek’s Matt Cannon triumphantly announced on February 10 (remember that date) that “David Hogg’s Good Pillow Already Has More Twitter Followers Than MyPillow Ever Did.”
Wow! Good Pillow has more Twitter followers than MyPillow? So does this mean instant revenue for a company that was started as a joke?
Cannon goes on to blow a note of triumph for a victory that has yet to happen…and thanks to his Newsweek story will probably never happen under the Good Pillow name.
Two progressives have struck the first blow in their pillow fight with Donald Trump supporter Mike Lindell.
Good Pillow was launched online this week to rival the Lindell-run bedding giant MyPillow.
The startup was established by gun-control activist David Hogg and software engineer William LeGate as Lindell continues to face heavy criticism for spreading election conspiracy theories.
Okay, and now we come to the sentence in which Cannon probably destroyed Hogg’s Good Pillow before it was even born:
A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database does not reveal any new company being registered under the name Good Pillow or a variant.
Hmmm… So anybody reading that article would be alerted to the fact that Hogg and partner had not even bothered to register the name of their company. Therefore somebody who wanted to could go ahead and register that name, thus depriving Hogg of its use unless he paid (dearly?) for it.
Well, guess what? A subsequent search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database reveals that on February 11, a day after the heads up provided by Newsweek, that “Good Pillow” was indeed registered by a Mr. Robert Holland of North Carolina. Congratulations, Bob! You might be the only person who ends up making money from “Good Pillow.”
When you are completely friendly media dependent, you could end up with a business plan that looks like this:
Hogg-gnome business plan
1.Tweet a trending hashtag #goodpillow
— Comrade Snoobage (@ElizaKellee) February 10, 2021
Whatever your view on President Trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6th, it was still stunning to hear Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York City on Jonathan Capehart’s MSNBC Sunday Show this morning, argue that the Senate should interpret Trump’s declining to testify as “incriminating.” Asked by Capehart whether President Trump should testify, Jeffries responded:
“He should testify and defend himself. But because he has clearly refused to do so, in my view, there should be an adverse impact, an inference drawn that anything he would have had to say would have actually not been exonerating. It would have been incriminating.”
Even if an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial per se, stripping the right against self-incrimination would run counter to fundamental principles of American justice, and flout the spirit of the 5th Amendment.
In Griffin v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant’s declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
Capehart didn’t utter a peep of protest to Jeffries’ outrageous suggestion. Rather, he moved right along, asking Dem Sen. Richard Blumenthal the same question of whether President Trump should testify.
Capehart then claimed it would be “absolutely, patently ridiculous” for Trump’s lawyers to analogize the Capitol breach to the 2020 BLM riots.
Jeffries was only too happy to agree, and repeated Capehart’s claim from earlier in the show that an “independent analysis” found that the BLM protests were “93% peaceful.” Only 7% violent! Sort of like the building in Minneapolis burning behind Ali Velshi as he proclaimed the riot “not unruly.”
How do you think Capehart or Jeffries [a lawyer who clerked for a federal judge] would have reacted if someone suggested that the declining to testify by BLM members charged in rioting, looting, arson and other crimes in 2020 should be taken by the jury as “incriminating?” Rhetorical question. But because Jeffries is a partisan Democrat, he would strip Trump of the constitutional protections that apply to all citizens.
Capehart concluded the segment by saying it was “a great way to start The Sunday Show.” But of course.
Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, arguing that the Senate should draw the “inference” from President Trump declining to testify at the trial that his testimony would have been “incriminating” was sponsored in part by Tide, Proctor & Gamble, maker of Secret, Liberty Mutual, and Xfinity.
Here’s the transcript.
The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart
10:08 am ET
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Congressman Jeffries, in the first impeachment trial, then-President Trump was not called to — was not called to testify. I’m just wondering, now that we’re facing the second impeachment trial, and the House impeachment managers this go-around sent a letter asking for President–Donald Trump–to testify. He declined. Do you think he should?
HAKEEM JEFFRIES: Well, I think the president claims to be innocent, to have had nothing to do with the fact that a violent mob attacked the Capitol, resulting in the spilling of American blood. He presumably still believes that he actually won the election, and the presidency was stolen from him and artificially handed to Joe Biden.
He should testify and defend himself. But because he has clearly refused to do so, in my view, there should be an adverse impact, an inference drawn that anything he would have had to say would have actually not been exonerating. It would have been incriminating.
Whatever craziness may be happening on Earth, the coming year promises to be a spectacular one across the solar system.
It appears that Facebook is willing to do whatever it can to get on former Vice President Joe Biden’s good side.
Facebook is reportedly planning to promote the COVID-19 vaccine and the Paris climate agreement in order to “charm” Biden, the Financial Times reported.
“Company executives are planning a major push to encourage users to take a coronavirus vaccine, as well as incentivising people to share content related to the Paris climate agreement, which Joe Biden has promised to rejoin, in the hopes of winning favour in Washington,” said the Times.
Facebook has already “displayed warnings on about 167 million pieces of content on Facebook based on COVID-19 related debunking articles,” Facebook’s Vice President of Integrity, Guy Rosen, bragged in a Nov. 19 call with reporters.
The New York Times reported that, after the election, Facebook began to change its algorithm “to make sure authoritative news appeared more prominently, said three people with knowledge of the decision, who were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.
Reclaim the Net reported: “The pro-coronavirus vaccine messaging is reportedly going to be part of a ‘major push’ and Facebook is considering publishing a banner ad at the top of users’ News Feeds that encourages them to take a coronavirus vaccine after it has been approved.”
Facebook is not only planning to promote the COVID-19 vaccine. “The company is also working on how to promote action on climate change, including a range of new stickers, buttons and other functions to encourage users to share content about the Paris climate agreement, which Mr. Biden has promised to re-join,” said the Times.
Although Biden has not laid out many specific policy positions on Big Tech, he does not appear to be a fan of Facebook, or its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. In January, Biden told The New York Times Editorial Board that Section 230 should be “revoked, immediately.” In the same interview, he said “I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at 1-650-308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.