BOTH COMEY AND BRENNAN VOTED COMMUNIST WHILE COLD WAR WAS RAGING

Both Comey And Brennan Voted Communist While Cold War Was Raging

Both voted for Communist Party candidates

Zero Hedge – MAY 16, 2019

The heads of Obama’s FBI and CIA both voted for communists during the Cold War, yet were somehow able to move up the ranks within the same US intelligence community that had spent decades fighting that very ideology.

Journalist Paul Sperry noted on Wednesday that former FBI Director James Comey admitted in a 2003 interview to having voted communist before casting his ballot for Jimmy Carter in 1980.

CAP

“In college, I was left of center,” Comey told New York Magazine, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

Of note, Comey’s wife and four daughters were all giant Hillary Clinton supporters who wanted her to win “really badly.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan, meanwhile, admitted in 2016 to voting communist in the 1970s. When asked at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual conference whether past activism would create a barrier for diverse candidates who want to enter the intelligence community, Brennan said that he was forced to admit to voting for communist Gus Hall for president in 1976, according to CNN.

“I froze, because I was getting so close to coming into CIA and said, ‘OK, here’s the choice, John. You can deny that, and the machine is probably going to go, you know, wacko, or I can acknowledge it and see what happens,” CNN quoted Brennan as saying.

Brennan (who was sworn in as CIA director on a draft of the US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, instead of a Bible) said that while he had voted Communist, he wasn’t an official member of the Communist Party – and was relieved that he had been accepted into the CIA.

“I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change. I said I’m not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, ‘OK,’ and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, ‘Well, I’m screwed.‘”

“So if back in 1980, John Brennan was allowed to say, ‘I voted for the Communist Party with Gus Hall‘ … and still got through, rest assured that your rights and your expressions and your freedom of speech as Americans is something that’s not going to be disqualifying of you as you pursue a career in government,” the former CIA Director concluded.

So two of President Obama’s spy chiefs voted communist, while Obama was influenced by the likes of radicals Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and his pastor – Jeremiah ‘God damn America’ Wright. Weeks before he died of a sudden heart attack at the age of 43, journalist Andrew Breitbart claimed to have a videos that would expose Obama as a communist radical.

None of the above sounds very “America First”

The CNN search engine? Google favors stories from liberal news sites, study finds

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.03.29 PM

When it comes to political bias online, left-leaning Facebook and Twitter have been the most common punching bags, but a new study confirms that Google’s search algorithms are also skewed in favor of liberal viewpoints.

Researchers from Northwestern University performed an “algorithm audit” of the ‘Google Top Stories’ box, which is a major driver of traffic to news publishers and therefore prime online real estate. They examined results for nearly 200 searches relating to news events for one month in late 2017 and found “a left-leaning ideological skew.”

ALSO ON RT.COMGoogle flipped seats, shifted millions of votes to Dems in 2018 midterms, researcher tells RT

 

The researchers did allow some leeway for Google to defend itself, however, saying that while the left-leaning bias was detected, it is possible that the dominance of particular sources is a result of “successful strategic behavior” by those sources to achieve “algorithmic recognizability” — but whatever the reason, liberal sources still far eclipsed conservatives ones.

CNN, perhaps the outlet most-reviled by conservatives, was Google’s overall favorite source. Of the 6,302 articles appearing on Google’s ‘top stories’ during the month in focus, more than 10 percent came from CNN. The New York Times and Washington Post were up next, garnering 6.5 and 5.6 percent of the results, respectively.

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.06.37 PM

Fox News, the most mainstream right-wing outlet, was the source for only 3 percent of stories appearing in the top box. Then it was back to liberal outlets, with the BBC, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Politico and ABC News filling out the rest of the top 10. Overall, 62.4 percent of the most common sources were left-leaning, while only 11.3 perfect were said to be right-leaning.

Ironically, despite the heavy promotion from Google in the online realm, CNN’s overall audience declined by a colossal 26 percent in April compared to a year earlier — and network boss Jeff Zucker admitted last November that CNN’s audience just “goes away” any time the channel switches from its (overwhelmingly negative) coverage of President Donald Trump to other topics. So it seems CNN is stuck in a vicious cycle; criticized for focusing too much on negative Trump stories, yet not being able to stop for fear of losing more viewers.

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.08.55 PM

Perhaps an even more damning indictment than Google’s detected liberal bias, however, is that nearly all (86 percent) of the stories promoted by the search giant came from just 20 sources across the entire internet, which doesn’t exactly display much of a commitment to diversity of information and opinion.

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Poisonous connection’ of big tech: Google staff confer over anti-Trump search tweak

Publishers selected for the top box receive “a significant boost in traffic” which demonstrates Google’s ability to “pick winners and losers” based on where they decide to direct most of our attention. Such power and bias in favor of major sources could also be linked to the decline of local news, which is competing in an unfair online environment, the study suggested.

The detection of Google’s left-leaning preferences will hardly come as a shock to conservatives, who have been complaining in recent years that powerful online platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google have all shown clear bias against conservative perspectives. The grumbling has not been without cause, either.

Most recently, Facebook slapped a number of popular conservative commentators with permanent lifetime bans — and Twitter has been caught out ‘shadowbanning’ Republicans and is accused of being quicker to suspend or ban conservative users over liberals for alleged rule-breaking.

Yet, while Facebook and Twitter have engaged in what many analysts and critics are calling direct political censorship, the story is more complicated when it comes to Google.

The researchers found that it’s not simply whether a source is left or right-leaning that determines whether it goes into the top stories box. Writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, one of the study authors acknowledged that there appears to be more news produced on the left overall, something which also affects the results. Even so, Google’s curation algorithms were still found to be “slightly magnifying” the already left-leaning skew in online news production.

Then there’s the bias toward timeliness; the fresher the story, the more likely it was to be promoted in the top box. The researchers called this Google’s “predilection towards recency” and said that huge news organizations like CNN which have the potential to quickly generate fresh content “may be better positioned” to garner more attention.

If Google really values diversity, the authors suggest it should acknowledge that high-quality journalism can have a longer shelf life and “consider relaxing the timeliness constraint to widen the scope of sources available to its curation algorithm.”

ALSO ON RT.COMFive examples that show internet censorship is as much a threat to the left as the right

The results put to bed the notion, promoted by many Democrats and liberals that Google algorithm bias is a myth. Rep. Jerry Nadler last year called the notion of liberal bias online a “delusion” and a “right-wing conspiracy theory” — although Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee is still a chief proponent of the disproven conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Google has always denied that it is politically biased or abusing its monopoly position, but it looks like the search engine has plenty of work to do on its curation algorithms before it can convince anyone of its fairness.

Facebook co-founder says it’s ‘time to break up’ the social media giant in scathing op-ed

CAP

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has called for the break-up of the social media behemoth and lamented the “staggering” and “unchecked” power of CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a lengthy and searing oped.

Hughes co-founded Facebook with Zuckerberg in a Harvard dorm room in 2004 and watched “in awe” as the company grew over the last 15 years — but said he now feels a “sense of anger and responsibility” about how all-powerful and out-of-control the social media giant has become.

Lashing out at the company, Hughes wrote in a piece published by the New York Times that Zuckerberg’s power and influence goes “far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government.”

See the source image

“There is no precedent for [Zuckerberg’s] ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.”

Hughes berates Facebook over “sloppy privacy practices,” “violent rhetoric and fake news,” and the “unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention.” It’s not that Zuckerberg is a bad person, he writes, but “he’s human” and his focus on growth “led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks.”

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burningHughes also bemoans the fact that the powerful CEO controls three core communications platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) and says that lack of competition, market or government regulation is a major problem. If a competitor crops up, Zuckerberg can simply choose to shut it down “by acquiring, blocking or copying it” in the manner it did with the Instagram and WhatsApp mergers.

The lack of competition means that “every time Facebook messes up, we repeat an exhausting pattern: first outrage, then disappointment and, finally, resignation.”

See the source image

“Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered.”

Hughes also worries that Zuckerberg has “surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.” He believes that neither Facebook’s offer to appoint a “privacy czar” or the expected Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine of $5 billion will be enough to rein in the company.

The answer and solution lies in more government regulation and subsequent market competition, Hughes says. But Facebook isn’t afraid of just “a few more rules,” so the action needs to be more dramatic, he suggests.

“The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.”

That will involve separating Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram into three individual companies and banning future acquisitions “for several years.”

The FTC should never have permitted these mergers, but it’s “not too late to act.” There is “precedent for correcting bad decisions,” he says, pointing to 2009 when Whole Foods settled antitrust complaints by selling off the Wild Oats brand and stores it had acquired years earlier.

ALSO ON RT.COMFacebook ban on Alex Jones and others is a form of modern-day book burningHe notes that time is of the essence, however, as Facebook has been working quickly to integrate the three platforms, precisely in order to make splitting them up more difficult.

“Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American. It is time to break up Facebook.”

Hughes also suggests the creation of a new government agency specifically to empower Congress to regulate tech companies and protect user privacy.

He says the agency should “create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media” while noting that the idea might seem “un-American” at first. The standards therefore should be “subject to the review of the courts” and would be similar to already accepted rules on speech like not shouting “fire” in a theater, provoking violence or making false statements to manipulate stock prices.

Ultimately, he says, an aggressive case taken now against Facebook would persuade other behemoths like Google and Amazon to “think twice” about stifling competition out of fear that “they could be next.”

Seattle School District Urges Teachers to Follow CAIR Guidelines on Blessing Muslim Students During Ramadan

NEW YORK, NY - JUNE 25: A young boy looks on as Muslims participate in a group prayer service during Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in Bensonhurst Park in the Brooklyn borough June 25, 2017 in New York City. Muslims around the …

By ALANA MASTRANGELO 

Dieringer School District in Seattle, Washington, is calling on its teachers to follow CAIR-issued guidelines regarding adherence to Islam. The school district is urging its teachers to bless Muslim students by reciting Arabic to them during Ramadan.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued an “Informative Letter on Upcoming Islamic Holidays and Religious Accommodations,” pressing school district officials to have their teachers recite “Ramadan Mubarak!” or “Ramadan Kareem” when welcoming Muslim students during Ramadan, according to the religious liberty advocacy group Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF).

The letter also instructs teachers to monitor Muslim students’ Ramadan fasting, as well as to refrain from scheduling tests during the Islamic holidays Eid Al-Fitr and Eid, adds FCDF.

One school district has reportedly reacted to the letter by urging its teachers to follow the CAIR-issued guidelines. FCDF says that Dieringer School District superintendent Judy Martinson enacted the CAIR letter as official District policy by distributing the guidelines to principals, who then distributed it to all teachers and staff.

“By urging teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic, the District is running roughshod over the First Amendment’s mandate of government neutrality toward religion,” said FCDF executive director Daniel Piedra.

“A school district would never order teachers to ‘welcome’ Catholic students during Easter with ‘He is risen, alleluia!’” added Piedra, “Singling out Muslim students for special treatment is blatantly unconstitutional.”

FCDF sent a legal memo to Martinson on Monday, warning the superintendent that the school district is likely violating the United States Constitution by favoring Muslim students, and that the advocacy group may take legal action if the district does not “rescind the Ramadan Policy within a reasonable time.”

“To be clear, nothing in the Constitution prohibits public schools from accommodating students’ religious exercise to the extent it would not interfere with educational interests,” states the memo, “‘But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors’ religious practice.”

“Here, by issuing the CAIR Letter to District employees, you acted under color of state law to create an official policy that has a primary effect of advancing religion,” adds the advocacy group, “The Ramadan Policy, in both adoption and implementation, plainly imposes liability on the District under the United States and Washington Constitutions.”

The letter also warns Martinson about CAIR’s anti-Semitic advocacy, as well as its ties to Islamist supremacists.

DIVaffirms the legal memo.

“These facts are not anti-Muslim conspiracy theories,” adds the letter, “Federal prosecutors have acknowledged that Muslim Brotherhood leaders founded CAIR and that it has conspired with Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to support terrorists.”

“CAIR is also noted for its anti-Semitic activism,” continued FCDF, citing a the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had published a “Profile” two years ago regarding CAIR and its chapters partnering “with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State.”

FCDF says that the CAIR-issued Ramadan guidelines are “yet another attempt by CAIR to infiltrate uninformed school districts so it can advance its subversive agenda.”

“CAIR must not be allowed to indoctrinate impressionable schoolchildren under the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘cultural awareness,’” states the advocacy group, “FCDF is committed to keeping CAIR out of our America’s public schools.”

Pelosi: We Cannot ‘Accept’ a Second Term for Donald Trump

By Pam Key

Tuesday at an event in New York City hosted by Cornell University’s Institute of Politics & Global Affairs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Democrats could not “accept a second term for President Donald Trump.”

Pelosi said, “We have to make sure — this will sound political but we have to make sure that the Constitution wins the next presidential election. We can’t be worrying about well, how long is this going to take? Well, that will take as long as it does. And we will press the case so that in the court of public opinion people will know what is right. But we cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump if we are going to be faithful to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States.”

She added, “And that is just the fact. So we have to operate on many fronts. We have to operate in the Congress, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, and we must win the next election.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑