[ April 16, 2024 ]
Having been one of the early targets of social media censorship on Facebook, YouTube et al, I have advocated for anti-trust action against these bullying behemoths. It is good to see establishment outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review coming to the same conclusion, or at least asking the same questions.
We had to go back to the drawing board in our lawsuit against these social media giant. The basis of our suit was challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.
Facebook and Google take in roughly half of all Internet ad revenue.
Story continues below advertisement
In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; and Amazon.com Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems.
Both companies routinely censor and spy on their customers, “massaging everything from the daily news to what we should buy.” In the last century, the telephone was our “computer,” and Ma Bell was how we communicated. That said, would the American people (or the government) have tolerated ATT spying on our phone calls and then pulling our communication privileges if we expressed dissenting opinions? That is exactly what we are suffering today.
Ma Bell was broken up by the government, albeit for different reasons. But it can and should be done. I am not interested in their revenue as much as insuring our rights, our first amendment rights.
- An investigation revealed Facebook moderators make the wrong call on almost half of posts deemed offensive.
- Facebook launches new guide for Muslims to help them report “hate speech”
A chief officer from a major American communications company went to the terror state of Pakistan to assure the Pakistani government that Facebook would adhere to the sharia. The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan, who called on Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Facebook has reiterated its commitment to keep the platform safe and promote values that are in congruence with its community standards.”
Why the block? Because under Islamic law, you cannot criticize Islam. Facebook adhering to the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth should trouble all of us, because Mark Zuckerberg has immense power. He controls the flow of information.
Early last year I wrote:
The US government has used anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. They ought to break up Facebook. Section 2 of the Sherman Act highlights particular results deemed anticompetitive by nature and prohibits actions that “shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” Couldn’t the same be applied to information? The United States government took down Standard Oil, Alcoa, Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company and many others without nearly the power that Facebook has.
NRO has come to that same conclusion:
Tech companies such as Google and Facebook are also utilities of sorts that provide essential services. They depend on the free use of public airwaves. Yet they are subject to little oversight; they simply make up their own rules as they go along. Antitrust laws prohibit one corporation from unfairly devouring its competition, capturing most of its market, and then price-gouging as it sees fit without fear of competition. Google has all but destroyed its search-engine competitors in the same manner that Facebook has driven out competing social media.
Clearly Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and Jeff Bezos are contemporary “robber barons.” So why are they not smeared, defamed and reviled like the robber barons of yesteryear?
Why are huge tech companies seemingly exempt from the rules that older corporations must follow? First, their CEOs wisely cultivate the image of hipsters. The public sees them more as aging teenagers in T-shirts, turtlenecks, and flip-flops than as updated versions of J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, or other robber barons of the past. Second, the tech industry’s hierarchy is politically progressive.
In brilliant marketing fashion, the Internet, laptops, tablets, and smartphones have meshed with the hip youth culture of music, television, the movies, universities, and fashion. Think Woodstock rather than Wall Street. Corporate spokesmen at companies such as Twitter and YouTube brag about their social awareness, especially on issues such as radical environmentalism, identity politics, and feminism. Given that the regulatory deep state is mostly a liberal enterprise, the tech industry is seen as an ally of federal bureaucrats and regulators. Think more of Hollywood, the media, and universities than Exxon, General Motors, Koch Industries, and Philip Morris. (NRO)
The groovy t-shirt-turtleneck vibe may keep the great unwashed under their spell, but it’s the shared political ideology with the left that keeps these corporate managers free from accountability. The WSJ writes that antitrust regulators have a narrow test: Does their size leave consumers worse off? Surmising that if that’s the test, “there isn’t a clear case for going after big tech.” I disagree. The consumer is far worse off. If we are not free to speak and think in what is today’s Gutenberg press, than we could not be worse off.
From a Facebook admin:
From a Facebook member:
Post after post “violated community standards”. It’s Orwellian. 
More:
I 100% know anything shared by your website www.gellerreport.com is being blocked by facebook. We have +32k followers, so there is no mathematical probability only 93 people were reached from hosting a news story that linked to your website.
Here are 2 screen shots…
First one is your page, second (…-01) is a typical story posted just previous.
Please add us to your lawsuit against FB.
The Antitrust Case Against Facebook, Google and Amazon
A few technology giants dominate their worlds just as Standard Oil and AT&T once did. Should they be broken up?
By Greg Ip, January 18, 2018:
Standard Oil Co. and American Telephone and Telegraph Co. were the technological titans of their day, commanding more than 80% of their markets.
Today’s tech giants are just as dominant: In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; and Amazon.com Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems.
A growing number of critics think these tech giants need to be broken up or regulated as Standard Oil and AT&T once were. Their alleged sins run the gamut from disseminating fake news and fostering addiction to laying waste to small towns’ shopping districts. But antitrust regulators have a narrow test: Does their size leave consumers worse off?
By that standard, there isn’t a clear case for going after big tech—at least for now. They are driving down prices and rolling out new and often improved products and services every week.
Read the rest.
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
74 Comments
6 years ago
Go Pamela! Give them hell!
6 years ago
facebook , twitter, even Google has joined Islamofascist gang http://tinyurl.com/lgp28rs
To censor conservative and Anti-jihadi news to push the islamisation agenda of the Left/Liberal/jihadis funded by saudi/qataris
And conservatives don’t want to fund the alternative media, nor unite to pursue the issue politically or legally then act surprised their First amendment is not getting up and fighting for them !
6 years ago
The question is not should we go after FB and Google, the question is how…
The social graph owned by FB and the web index owned by Google are much less useful to consumers if they are simply broken up and split between different companies. We need to approach this like the AT&T break up. Pieces (long distance in the case of AT&T) separated from the utility portion of the business (local lines). We can do the same with FB and Google, leaving the utilities (social graph and web index) available to any company and the ad sales and services moved to a new company that would have to compete with new companies.
6 years ago
Reply to
Michael S
AT&T was control. Google and Facebook are not. They simply built the best mousetrap.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
@aemoreira1981:disqus
Sorry, but I disagree. Just like AT&T the cost of building a new social graph from scratch is prohibitive. If we want to apply anti-trust regulations to these companies, then we have to do it smart.
6 years ago
Reply to
Michael S
Facebook didn’t become dominant overnight. I joined back when it was restricted to certain schools. It took years. A competitor will need to be in it for the long haul. Antitrust regulations would not apply at all.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Neither did AT&T. There were numerous regional, and local, telephone companies. Why don’t you be a good little girl and go back to “playing lawyer”, as opposed to attempting to converse with your social and intellectual betters.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Wouldn’t apply? Just where are you getting your tainted info? This is exactly where something like antitrust law could be brought in.
6 years ago
Reply to
santashandler
No…only when it prevents competitors from entering the market. Otherwise, one is punishing entrepreneurship.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Well, what do you think is happening here? Not only are they doing that but, they are stifling free speech. It’s not “punishing entrepreneurship at all.
6 years ago
Reply to
santashandler
Well, what do you think is happening here?
Well, there isn’t prevention of anyone from entering the market. Someone like the Koch Brothers could fund a startup competitor. The lack of competitive entrepreneurship does not mean preventing competition. As for free speech, that does not apply since Facebook and Google aren’t arms of the government.
6 years ago
Reply to
santashandler
Hi, santashandler. aemoreira1981 is back to playing “pretend lawyer”. Just let it humiliate itself. It is SO much fun to laugh AT.
6 years ago
I hate to say it but governments make too much off of their tax dollars to break them up and they are willing to censor for governments. There is just too much greed in the modern world for laws to prevail. The best thing to do is to not use those services or to download ublock origin if you must browse their wesbites.
6 years ago
Finally
– glad Pamela points out the obvious
– if they collude and it’s socially disruptive
– then it’s an anti-trust issue
6 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
She is a beautiful courageous woman.
Thank God for Ms. Geller.
She has more balls than most men out there.
Too many males happily sign up for
DECONSTRUCTION of being a male.
6 years ago
face book and twitter need to be chopped into little bitty pieces and fed to maggots. The fact that they are spying on private citizens then trying to black mail them into a corporate political and social mindset is reprehensible. Openly telling people that they have their communications monitored and recorded as they do not fit the liberal socialist narrative must stop. One way or another.
D
6 years ago
I think Islam is the enemy of America, Israel and the West. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Thewe traitors need to be dealt with. Use antitrust to go after them and then dissolve antitrust after that. Ideally, congress should have hearings on the evil and subversive n ature of those three entities, but except perhaps or the President, congress doesn’t know how to fight and;or is too cowardly to do so.
6 years ago
Reply to
Underzog
There was a time when the Houses of Congress held power. That became a thing of the past, when AG Holder was found In Contempt of Congress and of perjuring himself under oath. The House of Representatives has no power and the matter had to be turned over to DOJ for prosecution. Of course, DOJ stated that it would not pursue that matter. The House of Representatives and Senate can complain all that they desire. However, at this point in time, there is NOTHING that they can do.
6 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohammedan
Holder broke the law. That does not nullify the law. Holder however should be in trouble
6 years ago
Reply to
Yonit Gefen
The point is that the House of Representatives held him in contempt and convicted him of perpetrating perjury, under oath … but they could not do a damned thing.
6 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohammedan
The States have the power to do something. The Senators represent the States. The Senators failed .
6 years ago
Reply to
marlene
It wasn’t the Senate. It was the House of Representatives. Holder was placed “In Contempt of Congress” and convicted of perpetrating perjury, under oath (Yes, Congress can convict on that offense). The Congress, whether Senate or House of Representatives, have no enforcement powers. The DOJ, although it falls under the administration, is the only enforcement arm of the Congress.
The House did its job. That was as far as they could go. Obama’s DOJ, headed by Holder, simply gave our legislative branch the “middle finger”. No blame, for that abject atrocity, can be placed on the legislative branch. They have NO power.
6 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohammedan
The DOJ is part of the federal government. The States have power, with regard to this issue, over the federal government. Again, the Senate represents the States so the Senate can do something about it. I believe they are giving us the runaround and that they should abide by our Constitution to settle this matter once and for all.
6 years ago
Reply to
marlene
Contempt of Congress is not a state crime. It is a federal crime. Under what existing state statute (name the state, any state) is there a crime under which this could be prosecuted. Again, this was the House of Representatives, NOT the Senate. Which, really makes no difference. Neither the House of Representatives or the Senate has ANY enforcement power. They are toothless tigers.
6 years ago
Reply to
marlene
You have to grasp the fact, marlene, that Congress can do NOTHING. They held Holder in contempt and convicted him of perpetrating perjury, under oath, before Congress. But, they have NO enforcement power. NONE.
6 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohammedan
They can convene a grand jury, give it to the supreme court, or petition the states to sign on. Congress can pass another (although superfluous) law that gives them the power to do whatever it takes. The President also has the power to establish a decree, memorandum, or executive order. Obama turned the DOJ into the rogue it is today. It can be reversed.
6 years ago
Reply to
marlene
Congress does not have the authority to convene a Grand Jury. Existing law had already been violated, with reckless willingness. The president, at that time, was obimbo. The president has the authority, constitutionally, to have forced the issue, but that was then and this is now. Not only was Holder found in contempt (2012), but Lois Lerner was as well (2014). Here’s an interesting take … Laws be damned …
6 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohammedan
there’s always a way. that’s how they got capone. on taxes. they couldn’t get him any other way. now we have the racketeering laws. our entire system has to be vacuumed and cleaned of the dirt that piled up during eight years of an aberrant anti american administration. the corruption causes rot at the root. clean it up and we’ll have a healthy congress again.
6 years ago
Reply to
JGray1
If the Department of Justice refuses to pursue charges .. there ain’t a darned thing that Congress can do. They are toothless tigers. The DOJ didn’t refuse to pursue charges against Capone. He was charged and convicted. If DOJ would have refused to bring charges … how could they ever have “gotten him”?
I’m not saying that either House of Congress is healthy or otherwise. Rather, just making a statement of fact that Congress can do nothing ….
6 years ago
Reply to
Underzog
That’s not what the framers meant. For that to apply, Congress would have to formally declare war against Islam. As for being enemies of Israel or the Western world (outside of the USA)…doesn’t apply to US law.
D
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
And that is why one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, got tired of kissing the Isalmic derriere and had his undeclared war against the Barbary pirates. Maybe Thomas Jefferson in his courageous effort to stop paying tribute to the Bey Also, Ayn Rand’s former lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer,, wrote a book that pointed out that Jane Fonda could have been executed for treason if the Nixon administration only had the guts to prosecute her. As a lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer, might know something about the law.
6 years ago
Reply to
Underzog
The case against Fonda was much stronger than this could be, because freedom of association would be a block against prosecuting someone just for Islam.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
There’s no such thing as “just for islam” when islam is engaging in terrorism, represents terrorism, and their book dictates that muslims “kill all infidels wherever you find them.” There so-called “religion” cannot be separated from what they actually practice. Sharia itself is islam’s law. Muslims coming into America with their own laws are a clear and present danger to our safety, security and sovereignty.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Now that’s a good girl, aemoreira1981. You’re back to playing “pretend lawyer”. Please, keep HUMILIATING yourself. You are SO much fun to laugh AT.
D
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
This is war and the enemy we face is greater than the Communist (theb)North Vietnamese. The ends justify the means to them? Well they should get the same treatment, too. If Congress had ny cojones, they would hold congressional investigation into Soviet agent wannabes such as Sergey Brin, but Congress is too afraid of being called racist and MCCarthyite for that; therefore, antitrust needs to be done.
6 years ago
Reply to
Underzog
Brin could easily invoke the 10th Amendment and refuse to recognize the hearing as legitimate. As for antitrust, since such a case is terrorism using the legal system (no legitimate case), those endorsing such a lawsuit are absolutely enemies of capitalism and should be executed in the back of the head.
D
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Soviet agent wannabe Brin could invoke his fifth amendment rights. If he pullked the crap that you’re suggesting, then he should be held in contempt of congress and thrown in jail, as Thomas Parnell did to the Hollywood 10 Commies. Those celebrated people also tried to spread an evil ideology — mostly by slipping little Commie messages in and keeping anti Communist movies off the silver screen. Besides — THERE IS NO LAW! There is just name claling and, intimidation, vicioss job firing plus the murder by their Islamic hheroes. It is war and our side (albeit not your side) should fight back and not put up with it. Saul Ainsky and Bakunian say the ends justify the means? Well, it will go for them, too. And we must resists the attempts by you or any other appeaser to lay a guilt trip on us!
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Hello, aemoreira1981. Such a good girl, as you’re back to playing “pretend lawyer” again. Please keep it up. You, humiliating yourself is priceless … and laughter (at you) is the best medicine.
6 years ago
Facebook and Google were created by DARPA with our tax dollars. Yes , we should have a say.
6 years ago
This is really PISSING ME OFF!
This is outright digital FASCISM!
Obama did this too and NO ONE OBJECTED.
The Tea Party being denied status by the IRS is one example and what did Jeff Sessions do? They apologized and had NO CONSEQUENCES!
Would Holder or Lynch allow the opposite?
Censorship against the LEFT? LOL!
WHERE THE F in JEFF SESSIONS??????
This is anti trust and discrimination!
The longer it goes on the worse it is getting.
They are using AI with their biased algorithms.
In other words the algorithms they are using are letting AI create other algorithms for more censorship beyond key words. It eliminates more people and they can HIDE more of what they are doing. When CAUGHT for censorship they often, feign, oh it was a mistake…. No it was intentional.
6 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
IRS is a government agency. Facebook and Google are not. Apples and oranges. One can create an alternative instead.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
that is not the case. facebook and google are utilities and quasi governmental. taxpayer monies funded their emergence as did special tax advantages they still enjoy. you can create your moslem alternative, instead.
6 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
Trump and Sessions have their hands full and perhaps somewhat tied as long as they still have to contend with the deep state (O-hole appointees and holdovers). Look at all the leaks and unmasking the T administration had to deal with.
Also, look at Trump. I think one of the most difficult things he has EVER had to deal with is NOT fire everybody or purge and downsize the gov’t the way he wants to. I think he decided to wait and let Mueller’s efforts implode before he can really do what he’s wanted to do for a long time. At this point, I’m still willing to support Trump (and Sessions).
6 years ago
Reply to
felix1999
It is also unconstitutional. ALL speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Protection of speech that is found to be offensive to some, AKA “hate speech” by the left is the very reason that the 1st Amendment was drafted. This is axiomatic as SPEECH THAT OFFENDS NO ONE NEEDS NO LEGAL PROTECTION.
6 years ago
TWITTER is just as bad!
Facebook, Google Google and Twitter need to GO!
Facebook sells ALL your personal information.
When you post pictures, they are using BIOMETRICS for IDENTIFICATION in a database. They SELL this information without your permission and in most cases knowledge. Do you really want the LEFT having this information on YOU!
Biometrics is the measurement and statistical analysis of people’s unique physical and behavioral characteristics. The technology is mainly used for identification and access control, or for identifying individuals who are under surveillance. The basic premise of biometric authentication is that every person can be accurately identified by his or her intrinsic physical or behavioral traits.
…
The two main types of biometric identifiers depend on either physiological characteristics or behavioral characteristics.
Physiological identifiers relate to the composition of the user being authenticated and include facial recognition, fingerprints, finger geometry (the size and position of fingers), iris recognition, vein recognition, retina scanning, voice recognition and DNA matching.
Behavioral identifiers include the unique ways in which individuals act, including recognition of typing patterns, walking gait and other gestures. Some of these behavioral identifiers can be used to provide continuous authentication instead of a single one-off authentication check.
6 years ago
Facebook launches new guide for Muslims to help them report “hate speech”
… just open monster’s book of hate, e.g. ‘amputate hands’ https://quran.com/5/38-40
6 years ago
Neither is a monopoly…missing is control. Dominate and control are not synonymous.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
From a legal perspective, case law can be given, dominate and control are synonymous. But, at least you’re trying to play “pretend lawyer”. Now be a good little girl and cease your attempts to address your social and intellectual betters.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
Thanks for the vocabulary tip. But then this is not an english class and case law rather than the dictionary will be the arbiter
6 years ago
Reply to
Yonit Gefen
There is no case law on this topic as no case has been brought regarding organic growth. Fighting Google but giving Sinclair Broadcasting a pass on a horizontal merger is akin to a double standard.
6 years ago
GO GETT’M!!! It’s so wrong.
6 years ago
I posted one of Pamela Geller’s posts today and Farcebook removed it as spam right away..
6 years ago
Reply to
Michael Barnett Radovsky
Had left FB around 2012, for the same reason that I could not post anything of Pamela Geller without my account being frozen. At best, FB edited my post to near nothing.
6 years ago
How can we help make this happen
6 years ago
Why is Mark *uckerberg supporting Islam and Moslems? They wish death upon you and/or forced indoctrination? Are you naive or under the spell of SATAN??
Their violence and destruction are historical facts and legendary. LAYING WASTE to any non-Moslem area. And these current bunch show no sign of abating this wondrous goal of theirs.
6 years ago
LONG OVERDUE for FACEBOOK & GOOGLE!
The OVERHEARD CONVERSATION of MERKEL -ZUKERMAN should have heralded at lest an INVESTIGATION!
It is outrageous that MERKEL & ZUKERMAN can OPENTLY CONSPIRE to SHUT DOWN LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS ON IMMIGRATION for THAT TOPIC ALONE!
6 years ago
F-ing Zuckerberg stole FB from the Winklevoss brothers and never looked back. By his own doing, he’s a backstabbing POS, he continues to destroy America and all that gave him opportunity to be successful. Bozos suppossedly wants to have more influence in DC giving people the impression he’ll set up his new Amazon facility close by. Rcently said he’d help pay for “dreamers” college education. Run the a-holes out of business along with Soros, the Koch brothers, Bloomberg,….
6 years ago
Reply to
Dagonet
They got (I think) a $60 million settlement from it while Zuck now has billions and billions.
6 years ago
Reply to
Dagonet
this is the real thing. psychotic fascist persons with no conscience and no remorse or regret for their actions against others. they have no ideology. they are simply power crazy and most people can’t rally against them quickly enough because their activities and actions are so egregious it blindsides normal people. studies with ant colonies has shown that a colony will suddenly attack a peaceable colony for no reason and no reward other than destruction. ants. the kind that march thru table sugar. the great apes do something similar. if you don’t fight back you’re dead. we have to fight back.
6 years ago
Reply to
JGray1
“the great apes do something similar.” Prof Garrett Fagan has spoken of this when he’s lectured on the theories of the origins if war among men. Prof Barbara King says that man did NOT evolve from apes, we have the SAME ancestor. I do not mind exterminating individuals that not only act as pisslamists do, but may actually be evolving into a Godless heathen. King tells us that we evolve or change in part because of our environments. Pisslam is and has been so deeply rooted in Mecca (and the ME) that these dogs stew in their sick ideology (isn’t pisslam their “ideology”?) and have been doing so for hundreds and hundreds of years. They have never really known anything else, were never allowed to think for themselves, never allowed or taught to tolerate others, and now when they are taken in by Merkel and the west, they just don’t fit. For me, there is evidence enough that we are seeing a new creature that may be more than unwilling to think like us, peacefully fit in and (attempt to) contribute to humanity. I will step up and say that they simply may not be able to live with us and contribute anything. I have no problem were exterminating vermin that worship such intolerance and lies (“allah is the great deceiver.”) They are a problem and it would in our best interest to nip it in the bud. As far as acting quickly enough, it saddens me that we’ve let things come to the horror of today that we see all around the world in the name of allah after 1400 years of their S-. The crusades fell short of complete destruction, they fell short where we should not. Do you think I’m “extreme”, perhaps I’m simply willing to fight fire with fire. Can anyone tell me that ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Sunnis, or Shi’ites wouldn’t want to conquer the world under their rule? Have pisslamiats stopped migrating? Aren’t they willing to strike fear and commit suicide (bombings) to accomplish their ultimate goal?
Pam Gellar brings us story after story of atrocious pisslamists all over the world, our gov’ts and world leaders allow it to continue.
D
6 years ago
I’ve recently had two comments that I entered on two different politicans web sites that were called spam. I’ve tried to contact FB following their directions (they say that to write a them re. their designation that there is a ^ in the upper right hand corner of my comment) as the comments were definitely not spam (unless they are calling the web sites that I posted with my comments spam which they weren’t). Regardless, somehow there never seems to be a ^ there. Anyone have any idea where I may be going wrong?
6 years ago
For shame! The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is immoral. Laissez Faire! The only moral justification of government is to uphold inalienable rights. No other person, group of people, or government has the right to force Facebook or Google or any other business to change their business practices unless they were forcing people to use their business or the Internet et al was regulated to where there was no alternative but to use those businesses. For example, the managers of the Jihad Watch website suspended my account for questioning the opinion of Robert Spencer, which they have a right to do. I have no right to force them to publish whatever I want to say! Ayn Rand is right!
6 years ago
Some of the best literature came out of severe censorship. I suggest we learn to tweak our speech to avoid the algorhythms…….The Irish have a saying “Diplomacy is the ability to tell a man to go to Hell so that he looks forward to making the trip” – that is my solution.
6 years ago
facebook especially is an entity sorely in need of compliance with our nation’s laws regarding freedom of speech and the high level of evidence that meets the criteria of hate speech. however this is accomplished, the fact is it has become larger than life and compromises our ability to communicate news and events freely. facebook monitors those whose following is in the thousands and follows us around like muggers hiding in doorways. my posts lately have been reported back to me as being removed due to being spam. anything i uploaded from pamela geller was removed and branded spam. something has to be done about this. very soon. we need a class action suit desperately. it is a utility and just like con ed the electricity supplier in new york city, quasi governmental.
6 years ago
Reply to
JGray1
Develop an alternative. That’s what civilized people in free countries do.
6 years ago
Too long have the power elites held sway over our society and so many others…their influence must come to an end!
6 years ago
Facebook and Twitter should be taken to court for impeding the first amendment as follows: (wikipedia)”Internet access
In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites impermissibly restricted lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.[147] The Court held that “a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.”[148][149] …..Here is clear proof that it is the right of every US citizen to have freedom to speak and listen lawfully under your constitution and these social media giants FAKEBOOK & TWATTERS are clearly pushing Socialist Marxist/Leninist ideology into silencing people. Time for all decent folk to stand up to these communist thugs of the internet & take them to court via class action for their disgraceful attack on freedom of the (social) press.
