Top researcher, a Democrat, warns Big Tech is stealing election from Trump

ORIGINAL LINK

President Donald J. Trump waves as he disembarks Air Force One at Miami International Airport Friday, July 10, 2020, and is greeted by state and local officials. (Official White House photo by Tia Dufour)

For Harvard-trained research psychologist and Democratic voter Robert Epstein, the question isn't whether or not Google and other Silicon Valley giants are manipulating their searches and feeds to make sure Donald Trump doesn't win reelection.

A supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, he told WND in an interview Wednesday he has statistical evidence to back up the tech titans' bias, derived from more than seven years of research, internal documents, emails, videos and the testimony of whistleblowers.

He has testified to Congress that Google manipulation of search results could have cost Trump 2.6 million votes in 2016. In 2020, he believes, as many as 15 million votes could be manipulated.

And as Silicon Valley CEOs testified to Congress Wednesday about their outsized influence, there was "anecdotal" evidence, such as the claim of Breitbart News that Google has manipulated its algorithm to curb traffic to the site and those of other conservative outlets. On May 1, for example, a Google search for "Joe Biden" resulted in 30,000 impressions for Breitbart News links. After May 5, it dropped to zero.

Robert Epstein

What is needed now, Epstein believes, is to follow up his research in 2016 and 2018 with a large-scale system of field agents in every swing state to monitor Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others in real time.

He had the funding lined up to launch the ambitious project in February, but the money "dried up" he said, when the coronavirus hit and "sucked all of the oxygen out of Washington."

Now, with interest returning to the election, he has the people and systems in place and just needs the money. Many small donations have come in, he said, but he needs much more to pull it off – about $10 million.

He emphasized to WND he is not a Trump supporter but a "supporter of democracy." He wants Joe Biden to win, but he wants the election to be fair, recognizing that in the future the tech giants could put their massive power behind a candidate he doesn't want.

"It's not in our interest to turn the election over to Google and the gang," he said. "To give them carte blanche is insane."

The goal of his monitoring project is to force the tech companies "to back off in the swing states."

"And when we do get them to back off, we will be able to detect that," he said.

But much more funding is needed "to do this in a credible way that would be taken seriously by the courts and also by mainstream media."

"We have people on standby, we have a very ambitious program of what we want to monitor," explained Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in Vista, California.

The plan is to do a "real time analysis so we can make announcements almost every day if we find bias in news feeds, tweet suppression and the sequence of YouTube videos."

All of that would be reported to Congress, journalists and the Federal Trade Commission.

He said he's getting calls from Congress members, senators, attorneys general and others, but there's no money.

"There is so much as stake here that I'm dumbfounded," he said. "This is the watershed year, where we either turn over democracy to the tech companies – and maybe never get it back again – or we fight them."

Epstein – who was famed behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner's last Ph.D. student at Harvard – has been a research psychologist for nearly 40 years. He has served in various editorial positions at Psychology Today magazine and Scientific American MIND. He's the author of 15 books and more than 300 scientific and mainstream articles on artificial intelligence and other topics.

'Serious threat to democracy'

In testimony one year ago to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, he emphasized he is "not a conservative."

"I am here today for three reasons: to explain why Google presents a serious threat to democracy and human autonomy, to explain how passive monitoring systems can protect us both now and in the future from companies like Google, and to tell you how Congress can immediately end Google’s worldwide monopoly on search."

Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies in a House hearing Dec. 11, 2018 (video screenshot)

He found in 2016 that biased results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton.

He based that on his preservation of more than 13,000
election-related searches conducted by a diverse group of Americans on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in the weeks leading up to the election.

Google search results were significantly biased in favor of Clinton, he found, in all 10 positions on the first page of search results in both blue states and red states.

Epstein said he knows the number of votes that shifted because he conducted dozens of controlled experiments in the U.S. and other countries that measure precisely how opinions and votes shift when search results favor one candidate, cause or company.

He calls the shift "SEME," for the Search Engine Manipulation Effect.

His first scientific paper on SEME was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2015. SEME, he noted, also has been replicated by a research team at one of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany.

Epstein warned that SEME is one of the most powerful forms of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, particularly because it is invisible to people, or subliminal, in effect.

"It leaves people thinking they have made up their own minds, which is very much an illusion," he told the Senate Committee. "It also leaves no paper trail for authorities to trace. Worse still, the very few people who can detect bias in search results shift even farther in the direction of the bias, so merely being able to see the bias doesn't protect you from it."

SEME, he said, is an example of an "ephemeral experience," deliberately engineered to change someone's thinking.

Epstein noted to WND on Wednesday that Google internal emails leaked to the Wall Street Journal showed the company created "ephemeral experiences" to change people's views about Trump's ban on travel from terrorist nations.

"These companies understand what's at stake and that's why they are being so brazen," he said. "If they are brazen about Breitbart, imagine what they are doing with ephemeral experiences and search results."

He also pointed to the power of YouTube's manipulation of videos through its "up-next" algorithm, which pushes to users subsequent videos of YouTube's choice.

Some 70% of videos people watch on YouTube are suggested by its up next algorithm, Epstein said.

He and his team are studying and measuring the power that algorithm possesses to influence votes and opinions.

"If a platform wants to shift people's views and votes, you can't counteract what they're doing," he said. "In most cases, you can't even see what they are doing – unless you are monitoring."

Epstein said a member of the Senate committee asked him for questions to pose to the Big Tech CEOs on Wednesday.

"Generally speaking they are not asking the right questions," he said of the lawmakers.

Epstein said he could give some of the CEOs, including Google parent Alphabet's Sundar Pichai, "a stroke on live TV ... because I know the truth."

"It's not just I know the numbers, but I've been talking to whistleblowers for quite a while and talking about people who are considering becoming whistleblowers," Epstein said.

He believes a significant way to hold the tech titans accountable is for states to bring charges for illegal in-kind contributions.

"If you are Facebook sending targeted messages only to Democrats to vote, that is a massive in-kind campaign contribution that is illegal," he contended.

'Debunked' study?

Last August, as WND reported, President Trump spotlighted Epstein's study concluding Google manipulated millions of votes in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The former secretary of state responded, contending the study had been "debunked."

Hillary Clinton speaking at the Brown & Black Presidential Forum at Sheslow Auditorium at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 11, 2016 (Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons)

Epstein, who voted for Clinton in 2016, fired back on Twitter, stating "to my knowledge no credible authority has ever 'debunked' either my 2016 and 2018 election monitoring projects or my controlled studies on internet influence."

Epstein pointed out his "2016 monitoring findings were based on an analysis of 13,207 election-related searches, along with the 98,044 web pages to which the search results linked."

He said the "pro-Hillary bias was significant at the .001 level."

In his testimony to the Senate in July, Epstein warned that Google is working to ensure that Trump does not win reelection in 2020.

In an interview with WND in December 2018, Epstein pointed to a video leaked in September 2018 that showed Google executives at their first weekly meeting after the election of Donald Trump in 2016 exhibiting panic and dismay while expressing their determination to thwart the new administration's agenda as well as the emerging global populist movement.

"You heard people saying it. It's not my imagination," Epstein said.

Noting again that he voted for Clinton, he told WND, "I don’t care whether I share those values or not, a private company not elected by the people should not have that kind of power."

But Google has that power in 200 countries around the world, not just in the U.S., he noted.

"That's obscene," Epstein said.

He estimated that the outcomes of about 25% of elections around the world are being determined by Google’s search algorithm.

Not politically neutral

A senior software engineer at Google admitted in a July 2019 interview with Project Veritas that the tech giants are not politically neutral and that his company manipulates search algorithms "to do what we want them to do."

"It's time to decide, do we run the technology, or does the technology run us?" said Greg Coppola, who worked on artificial intelligence and the popular Google Assistant software.

"Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?"

After the interview was published, Google put Coppola on administrative leave.

Project Veritas asked Coppola about CEO Pichai's testimony to Congress in December 2018 in which he insisted Google's algorithms are politically unbiased.

Coppola began by expressing his respect for Sundar as a manager and noted that the Google Assistant on which he works, the counterpart to Apple's Siri, "really doesn't have a political bias."

However, regarding Google's algorithms, he said it's "ridiculous to say that there's no bias."

"I think everyone who supports anything other than the Democrats, anyone who's pro-Trump or in any way deviates from what CNN and the New York Times are pushing, notices how bad it is," he said.

The post Top researcher, a Democrat, warns Big Tech is stealing election from Trump appeared first on WND.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

My Hydroxychloroquine Deep Dive : long thread Gotta start with this chart many of you have seen by now In early June after months of followi…

My Hydroxychloroquine Deep Dive - long thread Gotta start with this chart many of you have seen by now In early June after months of following articles, treatment protocols, declarations, etc. I was curious about how the countries lined up. For the most part, it's accurate

ORIGINAL LINK

U.S. Officials Disseminate Disinformation About 'Virus Disinformation'

ORIGINAL LINK
In another round of their anti-Russian disinformation campaign 'U.S. government officials' claim that some websites loselly connected to Russia are spreading 'virus disinformation'. However, no 'virus disinformation' can be found on those sites. The Associated Press as well as the...

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Why I’m leaving the National Post

ORIGINAL LINK

It’s been two decades since my first byline appeared in the Post. For a woman who already was well into middle age when her career began, the experience has been a thrill and a privilege. Perhaps more importantly, it’s been lively, energizing and fun. The National Post was conceived in 1998 as a safe haven from the stale pieties that dominated (and still dominate) the legacy Canadian media.

Unfortunately, the spirit now has gone out of the place. And I’ve decided to step away from my regular column, at least for now. I’ve been noticing for a while that much of the best writing about Canada is increasingly taking place on platforms that didn’t exist until recently (and in some cases aren’t even Canadian). Numerous international writers whom I admire have decided to find new ways to reach their audience.

I will now join their ranks.

There’s nothing the Canadian media loves more than stories about bitter infighting within its own ranks. And I wish I had a shocking tale of censorship or workplace bullying to supply to those media critics who trade on Schadenfreude. Alas, I don’t. In fact, I continue to respect and appreciate the Post editors who’ve worked with me over the years.

But the severe pressures they now experience no longer can be compartmentalized within their managerial sphere. They have spilled out into their relationship with their columnists, spoiling the weekly rites of editorial collaboration that once were one of the great joys of this job.

Thanks to the excommunication of James Bennet and (effectively) Bari Weiss from The New York Times, the vicious hounding of Margaret Wente at Massey College, and the CBC’s sadistic shaming of veteran broadcaster Wendy Mesley, the poisonous phenomenon I am describing here is by now well-known. Every editor feels like he is one tweet away from getting mobbed and fired. And so the range of permissible opinion shrinks daily.

Many columns now read as if they were stitched together from the same few dozen bromides that one is still allowed to say. In a Canadian media industry that regularly lauds itself for courageous truth-telling, the goal is now to hide one’s true opinion rather than declare it.

National Post editors Matt Gurney and Rob Roberts did their best to support me in recent months, even when my columns on charged topics were delayed or spiked. Days would pass between submission and publication, during which time the column shuffled from one editor to another for review.

As recently as today (July 24), my editor assured me that my job was not at risk. But every week seems to deliver new restrictions and anxieties. And a writer shouldn’t have to feel like she is imposing on her editor, or asking him to exert himself as a special favour, merely so she can give voice to mainstream principles that most Canadians believe. Even when my columns appear in the National Post without any kind of delay or objection, I feel a lingering worry that some stray word or phrase will cause an editor to suffer blowback. If I were a less experienced writer who needed the money or the exposure, these are concerns that I would accommodate. But I’m fortunate enough to not be in that position.

Since the early 2000s, journalists have anticipated the demise of their own industry. But we wrongly assumed that this decline would be driven exclusively by economic and technological factors. In recent months especially, it’s become clear that ideological purges have turned a gradual retreat into what now feels like a full-on rout. This is not a case of a lack of demand: The rise of popular new online sites shows that Canadians are eager for fresh voices and good reporting.

Rather, legacy outlets are collapsing from within because they’ve outsourced editorial direction to a vocal internal minority that systematically weaponizes social media to destroy internal workplace hierarchies, and which presents its demands in Manichean terms. During the various iterations of political correctness that appeared since the 1990s, National Post editors fought against this trend. But as the public shaming of Rex Murphy shows, some now feel they have no choice but to throw down their weapons and sue for peace.

One piece of good advice that every young writer gets is to illustrate broad principles with specific examples. So, by way of appendix, I include the last column I submitted to the National Post, consisting of a dispassionate review of Debra Soh’s new book, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity, which will be published next month by an imprint of Simon & Schuster. (Published separately on MercatorNet today.)

In outward respects, Soh is exactly the kind of writer whom progressives have lionized in recent years: a young woman of colour (and neuroscience PhD) who opines courageously about issues of sex and identity. Like me, she also happens to believe in concepts such as biology, sexual dimorphism, evidence-based clinical treatments, and the importance of peer-reviewed science. In a normal world, it wouldn’t matter that these concepts run afoul of ideological movements that venerate the revealed truths communicated by inwardly experienced sensations of gender.

But even many progressives (including those who signed the Harper’s “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” this month) now publicly acknowledge that these are not normal times. And if as famous and powerful a writer as J.K. Rowling can get smeared for stating that biology is a thing, it shouldn’t surprise readers to know that the submission below provided yet another occasion for Post editors to drag their feet.

We are experiencing a dark period for free thought in Canada. But extremist movements always work in cycles. And one already can hear the gears of counterrevolution grinding into motion. If my editors are amenable to it, I may choose to reappear in the pages of the Post when this movement is suitably advanced. Or not.

Either way, I will find other means to get my opinions out into the world. And however I choose to do so, I’ve promised myself that the experience will be, at the very least, lively, energizing and fun.

This has been republished from a Facebook post by the author with permission.

The post Why I’m leaving the National Post appeared first on MercatorNet.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

UN Takeover from Within

ORIGINAL LINK

Harry the Greek joins George Webb on the McDuff podcast to talk about Congress Bill 7120, the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020”, which passed in Congress on June 25th and is currently making its way to a Senate vote.

House Bill 7120 does to the US criminal justice system what the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) intended to do to US sovereignty, overall. Happily, Donald Trump withdrew from the Agreement in January 2017, in one of his first acts as President.

It’s obvious that the #CoronaHoax and the George Floyd riots were orchestrated to get 7120 passed, which cedes a great deal of US sovereignty to the UN. This is much in the same way 9/11 was orchestrated to pass the Patriot Act, written in 1995 by Joe Biden, which unleashed a surveillance state that was previously unimaginable. It was unimaginable because it aggressively violated the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

As Harry says here, “I just want to remind our viewers that the United Nations, NATO, the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization – they’re all the same thing – it’s one organization.”

What explanation is there for the Democrats and certain local governments to be calling for the complete dismantling the US criminal justice system – during a time of unprecedented domestic unrest – other than that these politicians are aggressively working to collapse the very structure they were elected to defend? This is a Globalist takeover from within and time will tell if it is successful.

The simple reason the George Floyd riots have been so persistent and destructive over the past couple of months is because dozens of District Attorneys, prosecutors, judges, mayors, governors and lawmakers are complicit in these terror acts.

George Soros spent millions over the past few years, placing his assets across the country to do his bidding, such as Kim Foxx, the Illinois State District Attorney in Cook County who shot to fame when she dropped 16 felony charges against Jussie Smollett. Foxx is now calling for prosecutors to drop felony charges against BLM protestors.

In St. Louis, Soros-backed prosecutor, Kim Gardner has charged the McCloskey couple with felonies for defending their home by displaying their legal guns to hundreds of protestors who had broken down their gate and threatened them on their front lawn.

Besides Soros, there are many UN-backed initiatives that seek to dismantle the US legal system. One of these is known as the Strong Cities Network, launched in 2015 by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, during an address she made to the United Nations General Assembly.

The Strong Cities Network is a move toward international integration of global law-enforcement agencies and it is antithetical to locally-controlled police, that are a part of, and accountable to the communities they serve. It also violates the Constitution.

The Strong Cities Network (SCN) is a program that hands over control of local law enforcement to a London-based think-tank called the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. The ISD is focused on abolishing civilian gun ownership (the 2nd Amendment) and local police departments. A quick search of the ISD’s website reveals a Board of Trustees comprised of a Who’s Who of top-tier Globalist, one-world government, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group power brokers.

Forty-six US cities, including New York, Los Angeles, San Diego and Louisville have already signed onto the SCN, which allocates US Taxpayer money to pay the UN to install Human Rights police review boards, because according to the UN, America is a “racist society” in need of intervention.

And who will be managing these Human Rights police review boards? Lifelong Communist, former President of Chile and Hillary Clinton BFF, Michelle Bachelet, who is now the UN’s High Commissioner of Human Rights.

What is Michelle Bachelet’s agenda? To get rid of police unions. Who agrees with her? Congress, which passed House Bill 7120 on June 25th.

House Bill 7120 gives the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet the power to dismiss police as soon as a complaint is filed, without an investigation and to fine the alleged wrongdoers. These fines are then awarded to the State – not to the people who were allegedly injured.

George Webb says this is a tried-and-true plan that NATO has used, in conjunction with the CIA for a takeover, city-by-city of all of a country’s police departments. It’s a tactic that was outlined in a book by Doug Valentine called ‘The Phoenix Program’.

He says what is proposed in House Bill 7120 has previously been done by UN Peacekeepers in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Haiti.

How could this happen in America? If House Bill 7120, which was passed by Congress, passes the Senate – and if former VP Joe Biden is elected President. Biden would sign it, because Trump would no longer be there to veto it.

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce

Contact

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

This is bigger than Covid. But few people are paying attention.

ORIGINAL LINK

Guest Post by Simon Black

Most people realize that 2020 has thrust two game-changing trends upon us that will change the world for years to come.

The first is Covid.

In less than six months, this virus has created extreme global hysteria and economic devastation.

Countless businesses have gone bust or are teetering on the edge. Tens of millions of jobs have been lost.

Government debt around the world has exploded higher. And their heavy-handed abuse of power has been astonishing… often incomprehensible.

Politicians and public health officials have suspended many of our most fundamental freedoms, threatened to come into our homes and take our family members away, and even banished us from our own private properties.

We’ve also seen a breakdown in basic social conventions.

Family and friends have stopped gathering together in person out of fear that someone may be a carrier. Weddings and funerals are virtual. And a simple handshake is practically considered an act of biological terrorism.

And, just like 9/11 nearly two decades ago, many effects of Covid will never return to ‘normal’.

Then there’s the social justice movement… which tore onto the world stage two months ago with a desire to make important cultural changes.

At its core, the movement is virtuous. After all, it’s supposed to be about freedom.

But it has quickly become divisive, menacing, and pointlessly violent.

Everything is offensive. Intellectual dissent must be immediately squashed. People lose their jobs, receive death threats, or are censored, merely for expressing completely valid (and even supportive) opinions.

And some of the largest corporations in the world have all submitted to the Twitter mob, like Nazi collaborators in France who began goose-stepping with the Wehrmacht the moment Hitler took Paris.

History is being rewritten. Vocabulary is being replaced. And any civil discourse results in persecution.

Just like lingering Covid effects, this social turmoil will also be with us for years. Don’t fool yourself into believing it’s some some flash in the pan that will be over in a few weeks.

But what I wanted to tell you today is that there is a THIRD, major trend brewing right now. And it could prove to be even bigger than Covid, bigger than the social justice movement.

It’s not one that evokes the same emotion. So you won’t see too many people marching in the streets or cowering in fear in their homes. There’s no hysteria.

This third major trend is rational. And that’s why it’s largely been ignored. But its impact could be far bigger and longer lasting.

I’m talking about conflict with China.

Over the past several months we’ve witnessed a minor trade dispute between the United States and China escalating into a major diplomatic conflict, and now, into full-blow Cold War.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo left no doubt about this when he essentially declared cold war against China’s communist party in a speech late last week:

“If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.

General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we   allow it.

Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that ‘the world cannot be safe until China changes.’Now it’s up to us to heed his words.

Today the danger is clear. And today the awakening is happening.

Today the free world must respond. We can never go back to the past.”

It’s pretty incredible how China has already managed to get most of the world to bend to its will.

There are so many examples of this; major US airlines like Delta and American, have scrubbed  references to “Taiwan” on their websites so as not to offend the Chinese communist party.

Hollywood, despite constantly thrusting its woke social justice politics in everyone’s faces, refuses to utter the slightest criticism of China, simply so they can squeeze out more box office revenue there.

And the National Basketball Association  squashed an executive for Tweeting support to Hong Kong protesters last year.

Even the league’s biggest and most outspoken star, Lebron James, meekishly told reporters that China has “a complicated issue with racial, socioeconomic and geopolitical layers” and that he saw “little upside in speaking up” against the Chinese communist party.

Comparing sports team owners to ‘slave owners’ is perfectly fine. But don’t say anything bad about China!

In addition to Pompeo’s speeech, the US-China conflict escalated last week when the US government ordered the Chinese to close its consulate in Houston, Texas.

The Chinese government retaliated by closing a US consulate in China.

This is after months of sanctions, asset seizures, tariffs, arrests, expelling of foreign journalists, and   plenty of tension about the Coronavirus.

I know there’s a lot of fear that an actual shooting war will break out between the US and China. And that is a possibility.

I’m probably biased as a West Point graduate, but I’m convinced that the US Marine Corps and Army Rangers are the most proficient fighting forces in the world.

But the reality is that China has a bigger army. It’s better equipped with newer, better technology. Its tanks are superior, and it has more of them.

China has also been investing heavily in its Navy and Air Force; it already has more ships than the US Navy, and it has also rolled out a fifth-generation fighter jet, the J-20, to compete head-to-head against the US military’s F-22 and F-35.

But that’s just conventional warfare. The next war will be highly unconventional… and the Chinese are dominant in “system destruction warfare”.

They could take down the US power grid, hack multiple defense and intelligence networks, and remotely disrupt key US command and control elements, before a single shot was fired.

This is not my assessment; the Pentagon has been wargaming conflict between the US and China for years. And in the words of one researcher who has participated in these scenarios, the US “gets its ass handed to it.”

Fortunately, a shooting war is unlikely. Why would China want to invade the US and deal with 400 million guns in the hands of the civilian population?

Why would the US want to invade China and deal with another Vietnam war?

War doesn’t benefit either nation, and on that basis it’s possible… but not probable.

What is likely is a total reset in the global financial system.

The current “Bretton Woods” financial system in which the US economy and US dollar are at the center of the global economy is decades old.

The US has derived extraordinary wealth and prosperity from this system for years.

Bretton Woods is the reason why the US national debt can be nearly $27 trillion (over 100% of GDP) without the dollar collapsing in value.

It’s the reason why the Federal Reserve can conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air and keep interest rates at 0% for years, but still be taken seriously.

Losing this advantage would be nothing short of catastrophic for the US economy.

And continued conflict with China is the one thing that is practically guaranteed to make it happen.

That’s why this trend– conflict with China– could be the biggest thing happening right now.

It’s not as scary as Covid, it’s not as emotional as social justice… but the effects may be permanently devastating.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Big Tech commits MEDICAL TREASON by censoring doctors’ video revealing covid-19 CURE being suppressed by Big Pharma / Big Science fraudsters

Big Tech, a massive criminal enterprise that colludes with Big Pharma to see Americans enslaved under a system of medical tyranny, has now committed an act of medical treason against all Americans.

ORIGINAL LINK

Secret documents reveal how tech giants crush competitors

ORIGINAL LINK

By Chris White
Daily Caller News Foundation

Rep. Pramila Jayapal said members of the House Judiciary Committee have seen documents that show Silicon Valley executives discussed ways to crush smaller competitors.

Evidence shows tech executives used a “copy-acquire-kill” strategy, Jayapal told The Washington Post on Monday. The committee has seen “very specific language from top-level executives about that,” Jayapal added without providing more details about the alleged strategy.

“We need to move very quickly, as a Congress, to reassert our authority into regulation of these tech companies and [their] anticompetitive practices,” the Washington Democrat said.

Jayapal’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for details about the alleged strategy. The documents will be revealed Wednesday, according to WaPo, as part of a hearing regarding Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple’s business models and whether they employ tactics that hurt competitors.

House lawmakers have gathered 1.3 million documents, conducted interviews and held five other hearings featuring industry executives, WaPo reported. Democrats, led by subcommittee chairman Rep. David Cicilline, plan to produce a report some party leaders think will show Silicon Valley sidestepped federal competition laws, the report added.

“It’s very clear to me there are very serious problems that must be addressed, and it’s very clear to me these large technology platforms are not going to regulate themselves,” Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat, told WaPo. “The responsibility falls to Congress to do that.”

In 2019, lawmakers announced plans to review Facebook and Google to determine if they are stifling competition, WaPo reported in June of that year.

The announcement came several days after a Wall Street Journal report noted on June 1 of that year that the Department of Justice was preparing an antitrust probe into Google’s business model. It’s the first such federal investigation since the Federal Trade Commission conducted a probe of Google, which closed in 2013 without taking action.

Google consistently accounts for roughly 90% of online information searches, Vox reported in May citing Google Trends. A DCNF report in 2018 showed the company’s employees have expressed willingness to artificially manipulate search results on the platform.

The Wall Street Journal reported in April that Amazon used data from independent sellers to develop competing products.

“Amazon only succeeds when sellers succeed and any claims to the contrary are simply wrong,” company spokesman Jack Evans told WaPo in 2019. “Sellers have full control of their business and make the decisions that are best from them, including the products they choose to sell, pricing, and how they choose to fulfill orders.”

Neither Google, Amazon, Apple, nor Facebook have responded to the DCNF’s request for comment about Jayapal’s comments.

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

The post Secret documents reveal how tech giants crush competitors appeared first on WND.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Let It All Burn (Or Not)

ORIGINAL LINK
Let It All Burn (Or Not) Tyler Durden Sun, 07/26/2020 - 23:30

Authored by Erick Erickson via TheResurgent.com,

There is no police power in the federal constitution. The police power is left to the states. To the extent the President can send federal officers into Portland, OR, it must be to protect federal buildings and laws.

The President cannot save Portland from itself and he should not.

I want a mask mandate, but there is no federal police power for the President to impose it. It must come from governors, who have way more expansive police powers than your average libertarian-leaning person would have you believe.

The President does not have that power.

But, beyond that, the people of Portland have a history of outlandish displays of protest and behavior, including nudity. The place is so bizarre there’s been an entire television show parodying Portland.

By sending federal troops to Portland, OR, the President and federal government are allowing Portland not just escape from their own democratic choices, but also allowing them a scapegoat to take the blame.

Portland can blame President Trump instead of the residents of the city. They can blame Washington instead of their mayor.

At some point, we must allow people to live with their choices and make it easy for those who want to escape to actually move. If we allow Portland to fester as it wants, it will either figure out it must change, or live with its consequences.

When people move out, the tax base collapses, and crime goes up, the people will either change their behavior or be democratically marginalized in their voting power. If life goes on as normal or more people move in to embrace what is happening, then they’ve chosen it or the problems have been exaggerated by conservatives, as they claim.

Let the market decision by letting the actions of a free people control their fate.

The President should withdraw from Portland immediately and let the city burn, if it will, or thrive if it will, but it is the choice of the people there.

A President sending in a police force to a city is a dangerous precedent that will be expanded upon even though the United States Constitution lacks a general police power. A city allowed to chose its own fate is a positive precedent from which we can all draw lessons.

Let Portland burn or not, but let it decide without intervention from Washington.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

US Economic Collapse: The Worst in US History

ORIGINAL LINK

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)

The myth of recovery ignores the  US economy’s dismal state.

Numbers calculated as they were pre-1990 before rigging them occurred tell all.

According to economist John Williams, real US …

The post US Economic Collapse: The Worst in US History appeared first on Global Research.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK