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:



Source Article from

How They Do It– ‘Criminalizing free speech and free inquiry on the issue of the Holocaust isn’t the way to deal with the past’

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

Join 5,871 other followers

Source Article from

Trump calls Democrats "Selfish, Treasonous, un-American" for SOTU Speech Silence


On Monday, US President Donald Trump called Democratic members of Congress “treasonous” for their chilly reactions during his State of the Union speech last week, when he listed his achievements during the last year.

“They were like death, and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘Treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess why not,” the president said during a Monday speech at a manufacturing plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, to promote tax cuts.

“Can we call that treason? Why not?” he added. “I mean they certainly didn’t seem to love our country that much.”

Trump also said that Democrats would prefer to see him “do badly than our country to do well,” a behavior he called “very selfish.”

“It got to a point where I really didn’t even want to look too much during the speech over to that side, because honestly it was bad energy. No, it was bad energy,” the president added.

Trump criticized US House of Representatives’ Democratic Party leader Nancy Pelosi for calling the $1,000 bonuses with which some companies have rewarded their employees after Trump’s recently passed tax overhaul “crumbs.” He also referred to Pelosi as the Republicans’ “secret weapon.”

Last fall, Pelosi criticized Trump’s tax cuts as favoring the rich. She said, “You’ve set a banquet for the wealthy and corporate America and thrown a few crumbs” to the middle class.

During his speech, Trump also appeared to take credit for the fact that no football players kneeled on Super Bowl Sunday during the national anthem.

“There was nobody kneeling at the beginning of the Super Bowl,” Trump said, referring to the game between the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles. “We’ve made a lot of improvement, haven’t we?”

Trump has repeatedly upbraided NFL players who kneel during the national anthem in protest of unfair police treatment of minorities, arguing that the gesture is disrespectful to the military.

As Trump made his speech on Monday, cable networks showed a falling Dow Jones industrial average. Ironically, Trump has repeatedly pointed to the rising stock market since he came into office as one of his great achievements.

The Dow ended up closing down 4.6 percent, and experiencing its most dramatic points drop during a single day in its history: at one point, the Dow had fallen 1,579 points, before recovering to close about 1,175 points lower than the previous day’s trading.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

UK Jewish Chronicle Editor Stephen Pollard and freedom of speech

Gilad Atzmon writes:

Stephen Pollard, the caricature of an editor for the rabid Zionist Jewish Chronicle, an outlet that operates as an Israeli mouthpiece and has openly waged intense campaigns against freedom of speech, has once again expressed his support for elementary rights, including the right to offend. In today’s Daily Mail, Pollard writes: “Snowflakes? They’re today’s fascists!”

Pollard often champions “freedom of speech”. This time he was probably trying to gain credit with the UK Prime Minister’s Office following the attack on Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg as he attempted to give a talk to students at Bristol University. I need not mention that I didn’t see Pollard or the Jewish Chronicle denouncing Zionist hooligans who interfered with my right to play Jazz. Nor did I see the Jewish Chronicle or Pollard fight for Alison Chabloz’s right to perform her cabaret. Maybe in Pollard’s universe freedom of speech is an exclusive realm.

When Pollard writes “through editing the newspaper (the Jewish Chronicle), I am confronted daily with the legacy of that unique evil, including the suppression of debate, the distortion of truth and even the burning of books at the heart of that terrible chapter in our history”, it is hard to figure out whether he is describing the “Third Reich’s totalitarian impulse”, as he calls it, or his own editorial decisions. After all, before my literature event at Reading International Festival two months ago, Pollard’s Jewish Chronicle published the following headline: “‘Horror’ over appearance of Gilad Atzmon at Reading International Festival.”

Pollard’s Jewish Chronicle wrote: “Berkshire Jews are ‘horrified’ over the scheduled appearance of an anti-Semitic author at the Reading International Festival.” Is this how Pollard defines “welcoming debate”? In my universe the above line fits nicely within “suppression of debate” and is an extreme form of book burning. I can see a clear contradiction between Stephen Pollard “the advocate of freedom of speech” and the outlet which he edits that employs every trick in the Hasbara book to close debate on Israel, Zionism, Jewish identity politics, Jewish lobbying and the holocaust. 

Pollard, article in the Daily Mail makes a surprising pivot and repeats the arguments I raised in my recent book, Being in Time. “We are now witnessing our own version of Newspeak, in which a form of cultural fascism masquerades as caring concern.” 

In November Pollard’s paper campaigned to suppress a proposed debate on my book, and now he repeats the message of that book almost word for word. But, in my opinion, Pollard makes an error in his use of terminology. It is not “cultural fascism” that introduced the current tyranny of correctness. It was cultural Marxism, a bunch of post-Marxist tribal ideologists who thought and still think that it is down to them and only to them to decide who deserves a platform and what are the boundaries of freedom.

Listen to Stephen Pollard in advocacy of “freedom of speech”. His point seems to be: “You can say whatever you see the need to say as long as I can denounce you as an anti-Semite, a racist and a bigot.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Source Article from

Students Hate Trump’s SOTU Speech, Until They Realize It’s Obama’s

Home » North America, Politics » Students Hate Trump’s SOTU Speech, Until They Realize It’s Obama’s


Some students reacted negatively to quotes they believed were from President Donald Trump’s recent State of the Union Address, until realizing they were actually quoting Barack Obama.

Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips spoke to students outside John Jay College in New York City, who unanimously criticized the supposed Trump quotes, describing them as “warmongering,” “aggressive,” and “immature.”

The quotes, taken from some of Obama’s State of the Union addresses, included threats to destroy the Islamic State, statements of America’s military strength, and attacking China’s economic policy.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

Dr Duke and Striker on Nehlen’s Jewish List & On the State of DisUnion Speech!

Dr Duke and Striker on Nehlen’s Jewish List & On the State of DisUnion Speech!


Today Dr. Duke had Daily Stormer journalist Eric Striker as his guest for the hour. The discussed the massive attack that Congressional candidate Paul Nehlen has come under from Jews for daring to appear on shows like the David Duke Show. Meanwhile, Atlantic Monthly editor in chief Jeffery Goldberg was a prison guard in Israel’s notoriously torturous prisons, but he was granted five interviews with President Obama. Paul Nehlen is running for the Congressional seat currently (((occupied))) by House Speaker Eddie Munster


They also went into the details of President Trump’s State of the Union address, including his tax bill, his immigration proposals, and his inability to publicly give any recognition to the majority white population in this country, which is the constituency that put him in office.

This show is a powerful show. Please share it widely. And please keep us on the air and on-line. Please visit our contribution page or send your contribution to:

P.O. Box 188, Mandeville, LA 70470

Thank you.

Click here and look for the show dated 2-1-18.

Our show is aired live at 11 am replayed at ET 4pm Eastern

Please watch Dr. Duke’s video “Israel: The Promised Land for Organized Crime”

Here is Mark Collett’s latest video :

Be sure to check out Mark’s Twitter feed. And follow him while you’re at it.

Source Article from

Jewish groups criticize Trump’s State of the Union speech and his position on immigration and 2nd Amendment

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

Join 5,871 other followers

Source Article from

Trump Great State of Union Speech Pros and Cons & The Real Unspoken Critical Issues!

Trump Great State of Union Speech Pros and Cons & The Real Unspoken Critical Issues!


Today Dr. Duke and Dr. Slattery broke down President Trump’s State of the Union speech, analyzing what he did say and reading between the lines for what he really means. They agree that he looked presidential and gave what was overall a good address. It was of particular note that, while addressing the immigration issue, he said that native born Americans can “be dreamers too” in that they have a right to their own American Dream. He thus emphasized that America first also means Americans first.

US President Donald Trump listens to applause before giving the State of the Union address at the Capitol in Washington. Vice President Pence and outgoing House Speaker Eddie Munster clap from the podium. Munster has all but conceded his Congressional seat to American First champion Paul Nehlen.

Of course, the speech was not without it’s downside. The bluffing and brinkmanship around his immigration proposal involves buying into the idea that amnesty for the “dreamers” is an issue of morality, even if his ultimate goal is to use them as a bargaining chip to revoke the 1965 immigration act. Also, he was unnecessarily belligerent towards North Korea, and his declaration of an open-ended commitment to the 16-year-old Afghan War is a mistake. Dr. Slattery pointed out that these negative aspects of Trump’s foreign policy are a direct result of the Russia Hoax investigation hijacking his foreign policy by preventing a detente with President Putin and ousting General Flynn as his National Security Advisor.

This show is a powerful show. Please share it widely. And please keep us on the air and on-line. Please visit our contribution page or send your contribution to:

P.O. Box 188, Mandeville, LA 70470

Thank you.

Click here and look for the show dated 1-31-18.

Our show is aired live at 11 am replayed at ET 4pm Eastern

Please watch Dr. Duke’s video “Israel: The Promised Land for Organized Crime”

Here is Mark Collett’s latest video :

Be sure to check out Mark’s Twitter feed. And follow him while you’re at it.

Source Article from

Ron Paul Just Destroyed Trump’s Hypocritical Speech in an EPIC Tweet Storm


Champion of freedom and liberty, Dr. Ron Paul, decided to grade President Donald Trump’s speech last night, in real time. The final result of his series of tweets is nothing short of incredible and highlights how blinded some have become to the grandiose persona of The Donald — ignoring all his broken promises and audaciously excusing his championing of the police and warfare states.

When I saw the following tweet in my Twitter feed last night, I got giddy like a kid on Christmas as I know that Ron Paul is the one person who refuses to compromise on principle and is unafraid of backlash for calling out the hypocrisy and warmongering of the establishment — including Trump.

While applause rang out during the speech, those of us who are able to see through the lies saw the dog and pony show for what it is—a glorification of war and the fleecing of American people.

Opening up his speech Trump appealed to bipartisanship which was an unusual move given his constant divisive rhetoric. But Ron Paul saw right through it as the issues Republicans and Democrats agree on are the things that hurt Americans the most like foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, insane military budgets, and war.

As Trump moved on—briefly—to health care, he hypocritically claimed that Americans with “terminal conditions should have access to experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives.”

However, Trump remains entirely silent as his Attorney General wages war on a plant that has been proven to save lives—marijuana.

Later on in his speech, Trump declared that it is the federal government’s job to keep Americans safe—completely ignoring the fact that safety is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

“My duty, and the sacred duty of every elected official in this chamber, is to defend Americans — to protect their safety, their families, their communities, and their right to the American Dream. Because Americans are dreamers too,” said Trump, to which Paul retorted.

Indeed, “liberty” is a forgotten word and it was only mentioned once during Trump’s entire speech and only in regards to “religious liberty.”

Also, the word “freedom” was only mentioned six times and it was purely symbolic, referring to foreign countries and statues in Washington.

The word “drug” was mentioned far more times than freedom and unfortunately, it was in regard to Trump expanding the war on drugs. Sadly, he has changed his stance since running for president and an increase in the war on drugs will only serve to create more crime, fuel more gangs, and cause more overdoses.

Ron Paul understands this fact.

Another word mentioned more than liberty was the word “power,” of which Trump declared he needed more.

“Unmatched power is the surest means of our defense,” declared Trump. Again, Paul stated the obvious.

Part of the power that Trump wanted to increase was America’s already insanely large nuclear arsenal. Currently, the United States has enough nuclear weapons to lay waste to every major city on the planet—but to Trump—that’s not enough.

“As part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully never having to use it, but making it so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression,” Trump noted.

After declaring he wanted a more nuclear power, Trump declared he wanted more power to detain terrorists and essentially declared endless war by doing away with “artificial timelines.”

“I am also asking the Congress to ensure that, in the fight against ISIS and al-Qa’ida, we continue to have all necessary power to detain terrorists — wherever we chase them down. Our warriors in Afghanistan also have new rules of engagement. Along with their heroic Afghan partners, our military is no longer undermined by artificial timelines, and we no longer tell our enemies our plans,” said Trump.

Sadly, it is that policy which has fostered terrorism and perpetuated conflict over the past two decades and the military industrial complex knows this.

After declaring endless war and demanding to have the most nuclear weapons, Trump ensured the military-industrial complex that their cold war is here and here to stay by fear-mongering over Iran and North Korea.

As Ron Paul noted, the “Cold War is alive and well! Military-industrial complex and Deep State still in charge.”

Wrapping up his Tweet storm on the state of the union, Paul called out the hypocrisy of the federal government and their failure to defend our freedoms against the domestic threats.

The state of the union was little more than a celebration of the military-industrial complex and the police state—just like every other state of the union—and, as the endless applause illustrated, our fearless rulers in DC couldn’t be more happy about it.

Source Article from

NBC Trashes ‘Subdued,’ ‘Tired’ SOTU Speech Full of ‘Hyperbole’ for Fact-Checkers

Here’s the relevant transcript from NBC’s State of the Union 2018 coverage on January 30:

NBC’s State of the Union 2018 coverage
January 30, 2018
10:31 p.m. Eastern

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Well, I thought in terms of tone, the President did what he said it was going to do. It was optimistic, it was bright, it was conciliatory. In terms of its substance, I don’t know, when you look at some of the specifics on immigration, for example. I mean, he definitely led with the issues that come up with regard to crime, MS-13, it was heavy on that, he didn’t get to the DREAMers until the end. But, I mean, the state of the Union, in terms of what he had to do, I think he did it. I mean, he set a tone and he was positive and he — he trumpeted the economy and I think that’s exactly what he wanted to do. 

LESTER HOLT: Chuck Todd. 

CHUCK TODD: I thought he oversold what they told us today at that lunch. I expected a lot more actual outreach. It was a few things at the beginning, but then it was, you know — he didn’t lead with a conciliatory tone on immigration. He didn’t lead with a conciliatory tone on Gitmo. He didn’t lead with a conciliatory tone even on some things like the infrastructure plan. It was — I felt like he spoke more to his base than I expected him to, particularly on immigration and that could be part of his sales pitch. Maybe he knows that amnesty for 1.8 million is something his base doesn’t like, so he led with the, let me paint the picture of the — this mythical immigrant criminal here that I want everybody to get fired up about. I have to say, I felt like they forced too much applause, and the speech dragged. The President’s problem is that’s not the Donald Trump we see every day and so while he can sound presidential in a moment like this, because it’s not what we’re used to seeing, I don’t know if it has the same effect they would like it to have. 

HOLT: I think some — some may read this as tired. Some may read this as measured, but at whatever rate, it was — 

TODD: Dragged.

HOLT: — a slower speech. Megyn Kelly, you — at the outset of the evening, you weren’t expecting much. 

MEGYN KELLY: No, and I think he did a fine job, but I think he’s going to tweet something and we’ll forget all about it. I mean, these things just don’t tend to be particularly memorable. There wasn’t anything in this one that stood out to me as an exception to that rule. I mean, he was subdued. His manner was interesting, he was subdued, he was almost reserved. It was long, it was very long, query I don’t know how many people stayed up to watch this. The President has a habit of clapping for himself which was a little distracting and strange to listen to. 

TODD: Especially if you have it in your ear. 

KELLY: Yeah. Exactly. 

TODD: We got the —

KELLY: But I thought it was a smart speech because he started with the personalized stories which were very effective, those personalized stories throughout the speech were very effective, and really made you feel something. The family in Long Island who lost their daughters with the dad crying, Ji Sung-Ho with the crutches at the end was an incredible moment and so he took some of his controversial stances and told them people through people that you could really relate to. 

HOLT: There were some really emotional moments there.

KELLY: Right and that was very effective at that, but I completely agree with Chuck, this was a speech for the base. 

HOLT: Alright. Andrea Mitchell, this is a President that’s given to hyperbole often. You were taking a lot of notes. How did he do on that score? 

ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, I — again, I think the personal stories were so affecting that that lifted the rhetoric and redeemed the speech, but the fact checkers are really going to be busy. When he talks about clean coal, when he brags about the tax cut, again, exaggerating the facts and not pointing out that the individual tax cuts expire, whereas the corporate tax cuts are permanent. And he talks about saving the auto industry, which really was saved under the Obama White House and we’ve known that companies — foreign companies are building factories here in America, that has gone back decades and decades. So there was a lot of exaggeration, a lot of hyperbole. Congress can’t fix the Iran nuclear deal from his perspective, even, because it’s not a congressional — it’s not a treaty, it’s not up to Congress to fix it. It’s a multilateral agreement. There’s a lot there for the fact checkers. Only 41 people detainees, by the way, are left in Guantanamo after 780 were there over the decade. That said, I think his rhetoric and his tone will appeal to a lot of people. But as Chuck said, the base. 

HOLT: Let me bring in Tom Brokaw. 

TOM BROKAW: Well, what I thought was this is the kind of speech that his supporters have longed to hear from him. I mean, they have, as I talk to them, they’re always saying, we like the policies, can’t he shut up? Will he just stop twittering because it’s very hard to defend that? At the same time, there were a lot of conditional clauses in his offer about, for example, immigration. You’re going to have to have a college degree and be able to solve the world’s problems before you can get in here, but he did say I want to work with you on doing this. We’ll see what happens in the next 24 hours or so. It’s an issue with me, obviously we’ve got a real problem with some of these gangs that have come into America and killing people and murdering people and dealing drugs. We forget to say that they come here because there’s an appetite for drugs in America, and we’re not doing anything about that. The other thing is, there’s been no mention from this administration, after the initial comments, about what happened in Las Vegas, about what happened in Texas. We had 11 school shootings in the last a couple of weeks. That’s a national crisis in this country and I’ve said this before, I’m a gun owner, but we’ve got to do something about what’s going on around the country, and they don’t want to go there and I really do think that that is an enormous absence on the part of all Republicans, not just the President. A lot of Democrats as well. 

TODD: By the way, there’s one other notable missing topic here and that is the Russian aggression in our democracy. 

MITCHELL: Exactly. 

TODD: We know why he doesn’t say it, because it leads to the investigation. But no mention about Putin at all. No mention of Russian aggression when his own CIA Director is telling the BBC, yeah, we’re really worried about this in 2018.

MITCHELL: And that it’s still going on and it’s going to affect our midterms, but the President won’t acknowledge it. 


MITCHELL: I think the headlines tomorrow may well be about Russia, because that is still the shadow overhanging this entire administration. 

HOLT: Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, said only yesterday the Russians will interfere with the midterm elections. 

MITCHELL: And are interfering already now — 

HOLT: And it wasn’t just tonight.

MITCHELL: — online and it was not mentioned tonight. He will not address the Russian threat. 

HOLT: Is it a reluctance to separate the two, the investigation versus reality? 

MITCHELL: I think he believes that any criticism of Russia somehow emboldens those who want to undercut his legitimacy, even though it’s completely separate and doesn’t. No one is questioning that he is president of the United States. 

HOLT: Megyn?

KELLY: Just a word on the Democratic response. I think he got at the dichotomy of President Trump and one of the reasons why he is so controversial, because he has huge support in the Republican Party right now. 90 percent, 91 percent of those who voted for him support what he’s doing, high 80s with the rest of the Republican Party and on paper he looks like, quote, a normal Republican in terms of his policies. It’s his character. It’s his — it’s the way he treats people that is so controversial and he got to that in the feeling of no matter what your political believes are, this is not right, what we’ve been feeling in the country.

Source Article from