Tag: United States

President Joe Biden once again has gone after Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who took over the social media platform “X,” in a recent interview with Pro Publica.

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=”https://rumble.com/embedJS/u4870v”+(arguments[1].video?’.’+arguments[1].video:”)+”/?url=”+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+”&args=”+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, “script”, “Rumble”);

Rumble(“play”, {“video”:”v3jmsca”,”div”:”rumble_v3jmsca”});

“What about what Elon Musk has done to Twitter lowering guardrails against misinformation?” host John Harwood asked. “Does that contribute to it?”

“Yeah, it does,” Biden replied. “Look, one of the things, as I said to you, when I thought I wasn’t going to run, I was going to write a book about the changes taking place. And most of it’s directed over the years with these fundamental changes in society by changing technology. Gutenberg Printing and the printing press changed the way Europeans could talk to one another all the way to today.”

“Where do people get their news? They go on the internet, they go online, they go, and you have no notion whether it’s true or not,” he claimed.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk believes that the Biden administration is conducting multiple investigations into his companies due to potential animosity towards him, given his outspoken criticism of the president and the Democratic Party.

Musk shared a brief message on his social media platform, X, in response to a Wall Street Journal editorial titled “The Harassment of Elon Musk.”

The Journal’s editorial opened with the question, “Does the Biden Administration have a vendetta against Elon Musk?” Musk’s response was a straightforward, “It certainly appears that way.”

Sure seems that way

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 26, 2023

As noted in The Journal’s editorial, Musk has earned the title of “Progressive Enemy No. 1” due to his platform, X, allowing Americans to openly criticize Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

There is substantial evidence that the U.S. government is functioning like a cartel to silence those who might criticize government officials or disrupt its undemocratic agenda.

The editorial board of The Journal criticized the Biden administration for what they see as “regulatory harassment” directed at Musk, whose diverse array of businesses includes X, the electric car manufacturer Tesla, the space exploration company SpaceX, the neural implant tech firm Neuralink, and the tunnel construction venture known as the Boring Company.

“The Tesla CEO faces a remarkable number of government probes,” the Journal wrote Friday.

Musk has been increasingly outspoken pushing back against a Biden administration that has become increasingly hostile to Americans’ free speech rights.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk in March lit up President Biden, following a tweet boasting about the strides he made in his fight against climate change.

“In my first year in office, we protected more lands and waters than any president since John F. Kennedy,” Biden tweeted. “We’ve also made the largest investment to fight climate change – ever. Today, we’re building on that momentum by protecting additional natural wonders.”

Musk fired back at Biden’s climate change post. “@POTUS umm…the banks are melting,” he pointed out.

Propaganda has been an aspect of politics since the beginning of history. The government has been the primary and most damaging source of misinformation throughout history, as pointed out by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

“Do you know who is the greatest propagator of disinformation in the history of the world?” he asked at a Senate hearing. “U.S. government.”

In a 2023 Gallup survey, half of Americans said they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting.

This state of affairs has arisen due to independent news agencies and social media critics pointing out the numerous flaws in government narratives, which was traditionally the role that the legacy news media was meant to play in America.

The Americans have ample reason to distrust whether or not the legacy media is telling them the truth. Hunter Biden’s laptop was called the result of a Russian disinformation campaign by 51 former Intelligence Community officials, thus leading to the censorship of journalistic outlets like the New York Post on Twitter and other social media platforms. The Hunter Biden laptop was subsequently verified after the 2020 election.

There was also the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, which arose due to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee pointing to a Steele dossier they commissioned to smear a presidential candidate. The Steele dossier was a collection of unsubstantiated rumors and raw intelligence that was uncritically repeated in the U.S. media, which led to legacy outlets awarding journalists Pulitzer Prizes for misleading the public.

There are numerous other examples, such as the “fine people” hoax, which Biden has repeatedly pointed to as evidence that Donald Trump is a “racist,” even though Trump certainly condemned white supremacists after the Charlottesville tragedy. Thus, President Biden is guilty of spreading damaging misinformation. And the legacy media have been complicit in promoting his dishonest narratives on many occasions.

Independent journalists represent a secondary line of defense against a legacy media that is undoubtedly compromised; whether it be through radical ideological indoctrination in the colleges, the desire to maintain professionally beneficial relationships with sources in the U.S. government, or corporate media leadership colluding to push the government’s agenda, or a combination of all three, the American people need outside voices to be a check on this corrupt media complex.

Elon Musk has provided a potent and effective platform for that worthy and laudable project. Progressives believe such free speech platforms are a threat, but they are essential for the American people to hold government accountable.

Source

The United States government is reportedly concerned about the potential for violence and significant civil disturbances surrounding the upcoming election, and they are taking drastic measures to address this concern.

In an exclusive report from Newsweek today, it has been revealed that the FBI is closely monitoring supporters of former President Donald Trump as the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches.

As a result, a new category of extremists has been discreetly established, with a particular focus on the followers of Donald Trump who identify with the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement.

A current FBI official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the topic, commented, “The FBI is in an almost impossible position.” The official further explained that the FBI’s primary objective is to prevent domestic terrorism and any recurrence of the events that transpired on January 6, 2021, at the Capitol.

“Especially at a time when the White House is facing Congressional Republican opposition claiming that the Biden administration has ‘weaponized’ the Bureau against the right wing, it has to tread very carefully,” says the official.

However, it is noteworthy that a significant portion of their ongoing “anti-government” investigations is related to individuals who support Donald Trump, as revealed in classified data obtained by Newsweek.

Counter-terrorism experts contacted by Newsweek question the Biden narrative that the political opposition he faces are akin to “terrorists,” such as al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist threats that gave rise to the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

“The current political environment is not something that the FBI is necessarily responsible for, nor should it be,” says Brian Michael Jenkins, one of the world’s leading terrorism experts and senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation.

In a statement to Newsweek, the FBI added: “The threat posed by domestic violent extremists is persistent, evolving, and deadly. The FBI’s goal is to detect and stop terrorist attacks, and our focus is on potential criminal violations, violence and threats of violence. Anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism is one category of domestic terrorism, as well as one of the FBI’s top threat priorities.”

The FBI further claimed, “We are committed to protecting the safety and constitutional rights of all Americans and will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity, including a person’s political beliefs or affiliations.”

FBI whistleblowers have come forward to argue that the Biden administration is “exaggerating the threat of White supremacists and pressuring agents to cook up domestic terrorist cases involving racist extremists.”

“Current and former FBI agents told The Washington Times that the perceived White supremacist threat is overblown by the administration,” the report stated. “They said top bureau officials are pressuring FBI agents to create domestic terrorist cases and tag people as White supremacists to meet internal metrics.”

“The demand for White supremacy” in the FBI “vastly outstrips the supply of White supremacy,” said one agent, who spoke with the Washington Times on the condition of anonymity. “We have more people assigned to investigate White supremacists than we can actually find.”

The FBI agent said the bureau’s leaders “have already determined that White supremacy is a problem” and have set a policy to prioritize finding incidents of racial violence to fit into the mold of ‘domestic terrorism.’

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” one FBI agent said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

In 2021, the Biden administration infamously acted upon reports that concerned parents at school board meetings were akin to “domestic terrorists.” It was later discovered that the Department of Justice, run by Attorney General Merrick Garland, had assisted the National School Boards Association in reporting the so-called “terrorist” threat.

The Biden administration has also willfully turned a blind eye to left-wing violence that could fall under the textbook definition of “domestic terrorism.”  In November 2021, a BLM supporter named Darrell Brooks intentionally drove his vehicle into the Christmas parade in Waukesha, killing 5 people and injuring 40 others. Brooks’ social media posts strongly suggested that he was a black nationalist. Joe Biden did not visit Waukesha and said very little about the tragic incident.

If you examine the history of terrorist attacks against the United States, the stated ideologies or objectives of terrorists, in nearly all cases, have nothing to do with implementing or enforcing white dominance over other races.

As the START database from the University of Maryland shows, the overwhelming number of deaths from terrorism from the 1970s until 2016 (when Donald Trump took office) was categorized as “religious” (and primarily, Islamic extremist).

According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), there has been an increasing number of domestic terrorism “attacks and plots” without a corresponding increase in fatalities.

One example the CSIS cited as a “white supremacist” killer was Robert Aaron Long, who committed a string of spa killings in Atlanta, which killed eight people, and four of them Asian women. The diversity of the victims, and the killer’s own stated motive as related to “sex addiction,” rules out the motive as “white supremacist.”

This is but one example of the categorical stretching that analysts have been performing in order to pump up “White supremacist” and “far right terrorism” cases.

As far as “MAGA Extremism” goes, even if one takes the dubious case of January 6 as indicative of Trump support (even though the majority of Trump supporters were peaceful at every rally and did not support the disruption of the Electoral College), there wasn’t even a provable case of homicide committed by the unarmed protesters.

Contrast that with repeated Black Lives Matters protests that killed over 20 people, including White House protests that led to dozens of Secret Service agents being injured and drove President Trump into a nuclear bunker. There were also the violent J20 riots at Trump’s Inauguration, where celebrities made veiled death threats against the president. The Department of Justice overwhelmingly dropped the charges against all non-violent protesters, while J6 protesters languish in federal prison for months and years awaiting trial.

Source