WATCH: Joe Biden calls retired farmer “fat” at town hall event
Joe Biden has called an Iowa voter and retired farmer “fat” after he questioned the Democratic presidential candidate for his alleged Ukrainian nepotism incident.
During a town hall event, the Iowa voter who identified himself as a retired farmer asked Biden about his son, stating “you sent your son over there to work for a gas company that he had no experience for … your selling access to the president.”
A three-month-old puppy in California got stuck in a used tire. The poor little girl needed help from animal services in Riverside, California, but the animal service officers needed reinforcements from the nearby fire station.
The puppy’s neck had swelling, making the rescue attempt more difficult.
WCVB reports that “members of Riverside County Fire. Firefighters from Riverside County Fire Station No. 69 in Rancho Mirage took turns using a Sawzall to safely cut a piece in the wheel to provide enough space for an easier rescue. After a few moments, out came the Australian cattle dog.”
Tulsi Gabbard has file a lawsuit for defamation against Hilary Clinton of $100 million in damages after Clinton stated she thinks that Gabbard is a Russian plant in the 2020 U.S. election. These accusations were made by Clinton in an October interview with David Plouffe.
The Hawaiian congresswoman said she’s proven her loyalty to America via her service in the military in the Army National Guard. The charge claims that Clinton’s comments tarnish Gabbard’s presidential bid and that she must now focus energy on clearing her name. Gabbard believes the accusation comes as a retaliation for her previous endorsement of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary.
“Rep. Gabbard must defend her good name,” Gabbard’s lawyer said in a statement on Wednesday, according to the Daily Mail.
“In February 2016, Tulsi believed the best Democratic presidential candidate for our country was Senator Bernie Sanders. She also knew that Clinton had a stranglehold over the Democratic party and that crossing Clinton, who considered herself the ‘inevitable nominee’, could mean the end of her own political career. Yet Tulsi put the country before herself, and she publicly endorsed Senator Sanders, becoming the most prominent politician to do so at the time,” the complaint states.
“Clinton–a cutthroat politician by any account–has never forgotten this perceived slight. And in October 2019, she sought retribution by lying, publicly and loudly, about Tulsi Gabbard,” it adds.
Gabbard has reacted to the alleged defamation with a $100 million dollar lawsuit for monetary damages and legal fees. Gabbard claims to have already lost $50 million in damages due to the comments from the former secretary of state.
‘The Defamatory Statements have caused Tulsi to lose potential donors and potential voters who heard the Defamatory Statements. Tulsi has suffered significant actual damages, personally and professionally, that are estimated to exceed $50 million,’ the complaint reads.
An additional $50 million in special damages is to be awarded as well, argues the complaint, bringing the total to at least $100 million.
‘Tulsi is entitled to appropriate special and punitive damages of in view of Clinton’s malicious and unrepentant conduct. The amount of these damages will be proven at trial, but in no event should they be less than the amount of Tulsi’s actual damages,’ it reads.
Forbes magazine estimated that the combined net worth of Hillary and Bill Clinton was $240 million during the 2016 campaign and it is suffice to say it has risen since.
Nick Merill, Clinton’s spokesman called the lawsuit “ridiculous” according to CNN.
Gabbard stated in the lawsuit that Clinton is unable to get over the 2016 election and thus has a particularly “special hatred and animosity” for her.
“Clinton has not gotten over her loss in that election and still dwells on what happened. Clinton blames many persons for her loss,’ reads the complaint, adding: ‘Clinton reserves a special hatred and animosity for Tulsi – who never endorsed Clinton, did not campaign for her, and to top it off, gave the nomination speech for Senator Sanders at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.”
Gabbard also states in the complaint that there is no basis for the accusations Clinton has levelled against her.
“Clinton had no basis for making her false assertions about Tulsi – and indeed, there is no factual basis for Clinton’s conspiracy theory. Clinton’s peddling of this theory has harmed Tulsi, has harmed American voters, and has harmed American democracy. Tulsi brings this lawsuit to ensure that the truth prevails and to ensure this country’s political elites are held accountable for intentionally trying to distort the truth in the midst of a critical Presidential election,” the complaint states.
‘Tulsi has suffered anguish and damage to her reputation, with direct and substantial injury to her positions as United States Congresswoman; Presidential candidate; and officer in the Army National Guard,’ it adds.
Gabbard’s presidential campaign has failed to meet the qualifications for the last two primary debates and has been unable to gain momentum thus far. She is currently ranked second last for the Democratic nomination and according to RealClearPolitics holds a 1.3 percent approval rating.
Gabbard is choosing to focus on her presidential bid and therefore won’t see re-election to her congressional district in Hawaii.
I always thought that if there was a Jewish candidate for President, I would be excited to vote for them. Now, with a Jewish candidate as one of the top contenders, I am concerned more than anything else.
This past week, the The Seattle Times ran an article announcing that the Bernie Sanders campaign had hired former Seattle City Council candidate Shaun Scott as their Washington State Field Director. The article links to, but does not discuss, Scott’s positions on Seattle’s issues. To say that Scott is an extreme socialist would be an understatement. Scott has been very vocal about taxing everyone from businesses to people who drive to work everyday, opening heroin injection sites in Seattle, and eliminating the Police Department among other proposals. He ran on a slate with other socialist candidates Kshama Sawant and Tammy Morales.
While all this is concerning, what is even more concerning to me is that the Seattle Times article failed to mention that the Sanders campaign has brought into the fold another anti-Semite.
Shawn Scott has a history of hatred of the Jewish state and alliances with anti-Semitic organizations. In his endorsement questionnaire for the Seattle Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Scott was asked, “Do you support the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions, (BDS) Movement?” One could ask why this question is on an endorsement for Seattle City Council which has no control over foreign policy, but I believe it goes to the heart of the ideology of the DSA.
According to a report by stopantisemitism.org entitled “The New Anti Semites” there are “unprecedented similarities between the BDS movement and far-right groups to propagate anti-Semitism in the United States.” The report goes on to say, “Much of this hatred is often disguised under the veil of the delegitimization campaign against the Jewish State of Israel.” The report details that the BDS movement “directly drives anti-Semitism and radicalizes public discourse in Western democracies,” and documents over 100 examples in the United States and around the world. BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti, has said publicly that he’s working for Israel’s “euthanasia.” Hatem Bazian—the other major co-founder of BDS in America—has called for an armed struggle, an “intifada,” against the United States and spouted anti-Semitic stereotypes.
Scott answered the DSA question by saying that he “Wholly and unequivocally” supports the BDS movement and added a well-known anti-Semitic trope: “BDS is the least we can do to support the Palestinian people currently suffering under the apartheid state of Israel.” More concerning is that Scott, even with his public comments, was still endorsed by mainstream Democrat organizations.
Scott has worked with and supports Jewish Voice for Peace-Seattle (JVP) JVP is against the existence of the State of Israel and even hosted Rasmeah Odeh, a Palestinian woman convicted in a 1969 terror attack that killed two. According to the Anti Defamation League (ADL) “Jewish Voice for Peace is a radical anti-Israel activist group that advocates for a complete economic, cultural and academic boycott of the state of Israel. JVP considers supporters of Israel, or even critics of Israel who do not hew to JVP’s own extreme views, to be complicit in Israel’s purported acts of racist oppression of Palestinians. JVP leaders believe that expressing support for Israel, or not challenging mainstream Jewish organizations that support Israel, must also be viewed as an implicit attack on people of color and all marginalized groups in the United States. JVP’s energetic proselytizing of this view–especially among other social justice groups–has created a hostile environment for many progressive Jews. In a sense, JVP is extending its boycott agenda to include not just Israel but its American supporters as well.” The full ADL report on JVP including JVP’s attacks on liberal and progressive Jews can be viewed here.
The Sanders campaign has been dogged by accusations of surrounding itself with anti-Semites over the past year. The Sanders Campaign named Linda Sarsour as an “Official Surrogate” for the campaign. Sarsour, was ousted from the Women’s March for a history of anti-Semitic comments including: “Israel was built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everybody else.”
“How can you be against white supremacy in the United States of America and the idea of living in a supremacist state based on race and class, but then you support a state like Israel that is built on supremacy?”
Sarsour has been a supporter of rabid anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan and also supported terrorists like Rasmea Odeh. Sarsour has parroted anti-Semitic accusations of “dual loyalty” of Jews whenever she is called out on her comments and actions. In a time of rising anti-Semitic attacks across the country, with Jewish institutions begging for more police protection, like Scott, Sarsour is anti-police and even went so far as to praise cop killer Assata Shakur.
Sanders has frequently appeared with and accepted endorsements of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib. Both, have well documented histories of anti-Semitic and anti Israel statements.
As a Jew, I always thought if there would be a Jewish candidate for President, they would represent traditional Jewish values. It is clear to me that the Sanders campaign and Shaun Scott do not represent those values and instead ally themselves with enemies of the Jews.
Ari Hoffman is the vice president of Congregation Bikur Cholim Machzikay Hadath in Seattle and a former candidate for Seattle City Council. He has been featured on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper, Fox and Friends, The Dr. Drew Show and The Glen Beck Program.
2019 was a landmark year for controversial decisions by Google, YouTube (owned by Google), and Facebook, where their power to snuff out political free expression became more publicly known. More and more evidence is surfacing that suggests efforts from the Big Three to minimize, or stifle, conservative voices.
And with the 2020 presidential election not so far away, the question remains: what effect will these Internet behemoths have on voters?
One of the biggest reveals came from whistleblower Zachary Vorhies. The former Google programmer blew the lid off of Google’s political bias, revealing the manipulation of search placements to tilt toward certain democratic candidates, and an autocorrect to favour them. Armed with his 950 pages of leaked documents, Vorhies asserted that Google programmed its algorithms to scale down the search engine’s results for right-leaning media, Republicans and Christian media.
Vorhies warned, “that they were intending to sculpt the information landscape… I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company, and I realized that they were going to not only tamper with the elections, but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States.”
“If people don’t fall in line with their editorial agenda, their news articles get de-ranked. And if people do fall in line with their editorial agenda, it gets boosted and pushed to the top.”
Then there’s Project Veritas’ expose. Google executives were caught on undercover camera saying how they were going to influence the 2016 presidential election, and actively undermine Donald Trump. The video caught executives calling right-leaning personalities Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro “Nazis”.
The ramifications of data manipulation are just beginning to come to the surface. Confirming these theories, Dr. Robert Epstein spoke in 2019 to a Senate hearing to discuss his investigation into Google’s data intervention that he believes gave “at a minimum” 2.6 million more votes to Hillary Clinton.
The former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today is a visiting scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and the founder and director emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, Massachusetts.
The “very liberal” Clinton supporter dropped this bomb, too: the number one donator to the Clinton campaign of 2016 was Alphabet, a corporation formerly known as Google.
“You can bet all these companies will go all out… (The Big Three are) more powerful than anything I’ve seen in behavioural sciences,” he said in a 2019 government deposition.
He warned that 15 million votes could be shifted to the Democratic Party in the 2020 election due to data manipulation, and search engine tweaking.
But the Big Three’s crosshairs aren’t limited to votes or parties. Scores of “undesirable” media have been placed under the guillotine.
PragerU–a weekly online video series running since 2010 run by the charitable organization of the same name–has seen some 25 per cent of its 400-plus videos placed on YouTube’s “restricted” list. That means schools and libraries cannot view them. One of those is a lesson on “Thou Shalt Not Murder” from the Biblical Ten Commandments.
According to Google, who owns YouTube, teaching youngsters that it’s wrong to murder is off limits. PragerU claims it is censorship, and that Google’s rationale is really noble-sounding cover for squelching right-leaning voices.
PragerU isn’t the only casualty. According to Vorhies’ documents, Google further blacklisted hundreds of media that include Christian Post, Megyn Kelly’s website, Newsbusters, Rebel Media, Daily Caller, and Glenn Beck.
Facebook appears to be gunning down the same road. Brian Amerige, a senior Facebook engineer validated this, saying the media giant is “quick to attack–often in mobs–anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”
So it’s the perfect storm: the amount of power that the Big Three wields, married to the political agenda of those who run them, could mean a 2020 presidential campaign marred by technological tampering.
A right-leaning publication, Epoch Times, is the latest victim in what appears to be the cyber-gagging of those with differing political viewpoints.
Spurred by a Snopes investigation in December 2019, Facebook barred Epoch Times from advertising on the platform, owing to what they believe was a breach of terms of service. They claim this was mostly because Epoch Times has a connection to another outlet, Beauty of Life (BL), accused of inauthentic behavior, spam and misrepresentation, by advertising and posting using fake accounts.
The BL, now banned from Facebook, at one point oversaw 610 Facebook accounts, 89 pages, and 156 groups, says Facebook.
The Post Millennial previously reported on the Epoch Times controversy in reference to a different matter, noting similar results to Capital Research, which found zero connection between Epoch Times and the BL’s online activities. Another rebuttal is unpacked by Epoch’s editor, Steven Gregory, who has stated that there is no link whatsoever to BL.
To whatever extent there was a remotely tenuous connection, happened to be that the two organizations had hired each other’s employees at separate times.
Facebook’s head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, explained the issue (from their point of view) to NBC News: “What’s new here is that this is purportedly a U.S.-based media company leveraging foreign actors posing as Americans to push political content.”
Here’s the upper cut: Gleicher was also director of National Security Council, at the Obama White House, from 2013 to 2015. In 2007, he clerked with Democrat Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy.
So, if Facebook relies on “linkage”–tying two loosely-related organizations to the same thread–the same reasoning could be used for Gleicher. Might he have a vested interest in squelching conservative voices, given the liberal politics of his former employers?
Interestingly, Facebook, its investigators-for-hire Graphika, and the Digital Forensics Lab, appeared to overlook the tar-and-feathering by Snopes, laden with a political agenda.
In an NPR interview, Snopes VP of Operations Vinny Green highlighted positive coverage of President Trump as a problem. “What we saw was an extreme amount of pro-Trump content,” Green said. “Almost exclusively what we were looking at …was the amplification of pro-Trump media…” [emphasis mine]
This has the whiff of a politically-motivated hit job.
There’s reason the Big Three should be gnawing at their nails about Epoch Times. Its reach, resources, and readership are gaining a foothold.
At last year’s CPAC–the annual conservative megaconference–the media outlet scored major interviews with Republican politicians, conservative pundits, and Trump cabinet members. Overall, their videos have been viewed billions of times over social media, which analytics company Tubular says ranks eleventh “among all video creators across platforms, outranking every other traditional news publisher.”
And with ten million Facebook followers, “the Epoch Times now wields one of the biggest social media followings of any news outlet,” according to NBC.
All the more reason for any liberal organization to target it as persona non grata.
Seth Stephens-Davidowitz told me a sobering thought after he published his book Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are.
“I think there are, definitely, ethical concerns that come with this powerful data source. Big Data isn’t good or bad, it’s just powerful… we don’t really have any way to regulate what information they are allowed to use, and what information they are not allowed to use.”
Perhaps this sums up the 1984-like Big Brother, in the year 2020. Except now it’s called Big Data.