Cult-like tech giants openly collude with left-wing media to silence conservative speech, warns Margaret Howell


Image: Cult-like tech giants openly collude with left-wing media to silence conservative speech, warns Margaret Howell

(Natural News)
The Social Media Neutrality Panel was held earlier this week at the Newseum in Washington D.C. The panel included several prominent conservatives and entrepreneurs including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller of The Geller Report, Oleg Atbashian from The People’s Cube, tech entrepreneur Marlene Jaeckel, and Margaret Howell of Rightside Broadcasting, and topics ranged from the current tech climate to social media bias.

At one point during the event, Margaret Howell, who heads Right Side Broadcasting Network as their D.C. bureau chief, commented that tech giants like Facebook, Google and YouTube seem to be collaborating with left wing media outlets in order to censor conservative voices. Howell provided multiple examples to back up her argument, reminding us that many of these companies will go as far as to ban live video and video clips – even ones that don’t contain any political context whatsoever – all because they want to prevent any potential message that doesn’t align with the progressive agenda from getting through their gates.

Howell went on to describe a time when a video that she recorded during a White House press briefing was censored by YouTube, even though the mainstream media is allowed to broadcast identical coverage across all platforms. You can watch Howell’s full remarks in the video below:

This is hardly the first time that YouTube (which is owned by Google) has been accused of suppressing conservative content on their video sharing platform. In fact, back in October of last year, the conservative digital media organization PragerU filed a lawsuit against YouTube for unlawful censorship and free speech discrimination. Nearly 40 videos produced and published by PragerU on YouTube have been restricted as of October, including “Why America Must Lead,” “The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War,” and “The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians.”

“It looks like it’s the videos they don’t agree with ideologically,” explained PragerU CEO Marissa Streit in an interview with TheBlaze, adding that since PragerU’s videos are specifically designed to reach young people with its conservative message, the censorship hurts all the more. “As the person who runs this organization, I want fair treatment,” Streit went on to say. “I don’t want to be discriminated against… Our hope is to make a correction that will lead to goodness.” (Related: Is it time for the government to regulate Internet giants like Facebook and Google to prevent thought monopolies?)

But it’s not only PragerU that has been targeted by YouTube for censorship. As the Daily Caller reported back in August, a number of other conservative voices are having their free speech rights infringed upon as well. One of these conservatives is right-wing journalist Lauren Southern, who believes that “it would be insane to suggest there’s not an active effort to censor conservative and independent voices.” Southern added, “Considering most of Silicon Valley participates in the censorship of alleged ‘hate speech,’ diversity hiring and inclusivity committees. Their entire model is based around a far-left outline. There’s no merit hiring, there’s no support of free speech and there certainly is not an equal representation of political views at these companies.” (Related: If Google and Facebook are not regulated, their politically-motivated censorship will lead to open warfare in the streets.)

It’s now abundantly clear that Silicon Valley is actively trying to suppress conservative points of view, and as Margaret Howell pointed out, it’s likely that they are working with the liberal mainstream media to accomplish this goal. They care very little, if at all, about the freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and if this is allowed to continue, then one day the freedom of speech on the Internet won’t exist at all. Conservatives viewpoints will essentially be banned from the world wide web, and the liberals will have full control over what information the American people are allowed to view. We simply cannot let this happen.

Sources include:

TheGatewayPundit.com

TheBlaze.com

DailyCaller.com

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-16-cult-like-tech-giants-openly-collude-with-left-wing-media-to-silence-conservative-speech-warns-margaret-howell.html

Jared Kushner Was Right To Collude With Russia — Because He Did It For Israel

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,848 other followers

Source Article from https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/jared-kushner-was-right-to-collude-with-russia-because-he-did-it-for-israel/

Did an EPA Official Collude with Monsanto by Tilting Research?

The EPA’s inspector general has launched an investigation into possible collusion between a former high-ranking EPA official and Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp. [1]

The probe was initiated in response to a request from Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, for an investigation into whether the EPA official colluded with the biotech giant to tilt research on glyphosate in favor of Monsanto’s claim that the chemical does not cause cancer in humans.

This, despite Monsanto having never conducted carcinogenicity studies on RoundUp.

Source: Zero Hedge

Lieu’s request was based on media reports of documents released as part of a lawsuit against Monsanto alleging that glyphosate is carcinogenic and that the company may have spun research and hired scientists to cover it up.

Read: EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto “Kill” Glyphosate-Cancer Link

Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. wrote in a letter he sent to a lawmaker on 31 May, 2017:

“As you are you aware, there is considerable public interest regarding allegations of such collusion. As a result, I have asked the EPA OIG Office of Investigations to conduct an inquiry into several agency review-related matters.” [1]

The lawsuit-related documents refer to internal Monsanto e-mails that mention Jess Rowland, a former manager in the EPA’s pesticide division.

In a press release, the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting endangered species, notes that the documents contain these potentially incriminating revelations:

  • The chair [Rowland] of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee on glyphosate was in regular contact with Monsanto, providing insider information that guided Monsanto’s messaging;
  • The chair warned Monsanto that the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm had found glyphosate to be probably carcinogenic months before the 2015 determination became public, allowing the pesticide-maker to mount a public relations attack on the finding;
  • The chair promised to thwart the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ review of glyphosate’s safety, saying that if he was successful he deserved a medal. The department never did review glyphosate’s safety;
  • A Monsanto executive e-mailed other company officials that they could hire academics to put their names on glyphosate research papers written by Monsanto, citing a previous instance where this was done. The referenced paper was used in the EPA pesticide program’s own cancer analysis.
Source: Zero Hedge

It appears that at the time the original e-mail was sent, Monsanto was trying to recruit Rowland to help shut down a review of glyphosate within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry division.

Rowland has since retired after spending 26 years at the agency, and plaintiffs’ lawyers have been deposing him about accusations that Monsanto may have paid him off for his efforts via third parties. [1] [2]

OIG investigators will likely begin interviewing Rowland’s former colleagues and bosses, pulling records and poring through e-mails, according to Michael Hubbard, a retired Special Agent in Charge for the EPA’s criminal investigations division. It’s also likely that investigators at the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section will be pulled into the mix. Additionally, subpoenas could be granted to allow access to Rowland’s bank records.

Said Hubbard:

“You want to start looking at money trails. Has he benefitted from Monsanto? Was the money changing hands with him or his significant other?” [1]

It wouldn’t be shocking to learn that Monsanto was working with an EPA official to quash damaging research. This is the same company that allegedly has its own department of Internet “trolls” tasked with trashing negative articles and comments about RoundUp.

Monsanto will do anything to cover up the toxic truth about glyphosate. After the IARC declared glyphosate “probably carcinogenic,” the company pressured the WHO agency to reassess the herbicide, and continues to insist that “there is no evidence of carcinogenicity” in RoundUp’s main ingredient.

Sources:

[1] The Huffington Post

[2] Center for Biological Diversity

Images Source:

Zero Hedge


Storable FoodStorable Food


About Julie Fidler:

Author ImageAuthor Image

Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Source Article from http://naturalsociety.com/epa-inspector-general-epa-official-collude-monsanto-1484/

By ignoring Hersh chemical weapons report media collude in Washington’s propaganda war on Syria

    

If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant, then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical decisions: first to reject Hersh’s latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two stories on the very issue Hersh’s investigation addresses.

These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as “spoilers” to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.

So what did Hersh’s investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told him the official narrative that Syria’s Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.

It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official narrative. Hersh’s version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law but might have dragged Assad’s main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential to trigger a serious confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers.

But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist’s journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag.

There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications ignored Hersh’s story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh’s story, and none seem willing to do that.

Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.

His story has spawned two clear “spoiler” responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh’s revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh’s investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh’s alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.

The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh’s story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.

Here is how the Guardian reported the US threats:

The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the White House that the Syrian regime would ‘pay a heavy price’ for further use of the weapons.

And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats “confirmed” that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances.

There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy about them.

There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no “chain of custody” – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted. Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.

Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster the official narrative that Hersh’s investigation had thrown into doubt.

In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.

No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic practice, and not make reference to Hersh’s claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories. In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.

Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh’s revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV station.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/355315-By-ignoring-Hersh-chemical-weapons-report-media-collude-in-Washingtons-propaganda-war-on-Syria