Connect with us

News

Koch Lackey Says There’s ‘No Credible Evidence That There is a Broad Campaign to Silence Conservatives Online’

Published

on

An interchangeable mouthpiece for the globalist Koch political network said that there is “no credible evidence that there is a broad campaign to silence conservatives online.”

Jesse Blumenthal, the “tech and innovation policy” lead for the Koch virus, made this comment recently to The Hill while accusing Republican lawmakers like Ted Cruz of “playing politics” by suggesting a crackdown on Silicon Valley tech companies, who are in turn cracking down on independent voices who go off-script.

So, do you banned and shadowbanned conservatives out there still think the Kochs are on your side? (If so, send a telegraph or reply to us by ham radio). What do the Kochs have to say about Laura Loomer, Milo, Charles Johnson, Roger Stone, and Alex Jones getting banned from Twitter, or Big League Politics getting banned from Reddit? Would they consider that “credible evidence” of a campaign to ban conservatives online? Apparently not.

Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats

Or maybe, those people — all of whom were integral in the populist movement to elect President Donald Trump, which the conservative establishment hated at the time– just aren’t the kind of “conservatives” the Kochs care about.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Though presented in the mainstream media as right-wingers who bankroll the conservative movement, the Kochs are a relatively new parasite in American politics and their agenda is clear: they want open borders and outsourcing of American jobs. The armies of millennials who work for Koch nonprofits are led to believe that this stems from some kind of conservative or libertarian ideology, when in reality it’s just the business model of the soul-sucking conglomerate known as Koch Industries.

The Koch group Americans For Prosperity — which advocates against American prosperity — is lobbying the Judiciary Committee in Congress to resist any antitrust measures against Big Tech. The Koch-funded Daily Caller is partnering with Facebook to “fact check” competitor sites to set them up for Zuckerberg-sanctioned censorship, which is a glaring conflict of interest that allows the Caller to artificially expand its market share on conservative outrage content. And all of this is good for the Kochs, because mass media has turned intra-conservative movement politics into a cutthroat numbers game and the establishment wants their approved people to be the ones churning out the movement’s approved talking points. Independent journalists and commentators are a liability — they might just say something interesting.

Look how this then-reporter for the Koch-funded Daily Caller reacted when Laura Loomer interrupted a congressional hearing to call attention to censorship — before she was banned from Twitter and other platforms for highlighting Ilhan Omar’s radical views. He cheered on Congress for drowning out her voice. He took the side of elected officials over a journalist making a brave point.

Here’s a Daily Caller editor disparaging Loomer for handcuffing herself to the Twitter office to protest her ban from the platform — which trended #1 on the very platform she was banned from.

FACT CHECK: Actually, Amber, Laura Loomer handcuffing herself to the Twitter office was awesome.

The Koch people are vicious totalitarians and there’s really no downside in me criticizing them because they already despise my friends and want to wipe us off the map — as made clear by Caller editor-in-chief Geoff Ingersoll calling my original Big League Politics reporter a fat “harlot” and Russian stooge (the Big Man then deleted his tweets amid outrage). But they are going to have to try harder to erase us (and in the meantime we’re likely to get more than a trillion dollars back from China for our home-grown exports, thanks to those tasty Trump tariffs 🙂

Read Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Twitter, which is the strongest case yet against the Silicon Valley giant:

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer filed a lawsuit Thursday against Twitter following her ban from the platform for comments about Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

Loomer is also suing the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which reportedly“complained to Twitter” about Loomer’s work on the platform prior to her ban. Loomer, renowned for ambush video interviews of Democrat politicians, amassed more than 250,000 followers on Twitter. She was first suspended without clear explanation in the days leading up to the 2018 midterm election, and later banned outright from the social media platform after the election in November during her efforts to expose voter fraud in Florida.

“Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish,” Loomer tweeted, referring to forced genital mutilation (FGM). That tweet was cited as the reason for her ban.

Loomer and her company Illoominate Media are being represented by attorney Ronald Coleman of the New Jersey-based law firm Mandelbaum Salsburg. Loomer’s legal defense fund can be found at FreeLoomer.com.

Loomer’s lawsuit can be READ HERE.

  1. This is an action for breach of contract, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, restraint of trade in violation of Fla. Stat. § 542.18, civil conspiracy and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. for which plaintiff seeks and is entitled to damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) exclusive of interest, special damages, costs or attorney fees.
  2. Plaintiff is a journalist and activist. In order to suppress plaintiff’s views regarding certain controversial political topics – in particular, the role of radical Islam and its proponents American public life and policy – defendants CAIR Florida, Inc. and CAIR Foundation, which have been established by the U.S. government and adjudicated as essentially American branches of the Mideast terrorist group Hamas, have acted in concert and conspired with defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) to cause her to be banned, and prevented her from making a living through the use of, the majority of social media platforms.
  3. These include not only Twitter and the blog platform Medium.com, but also major payment processors PayPal.com and Venmo, ride-sharing systems Uber (including Uber Eats) and Lyft, crowdfunding website GoFundMe, online custom merchandise platform Teespring.
  4. Twitter claims that Ms. Loomer was banned because she violated Twitter’s Terms of Service (“TOS”). But, as set forth below, this claim is implausible, because the TOS provide essentially no substantive guidance to all but the most extreme users regarding whether they will or will not be censored on Twitter.
  5. The reason for this is that the TOS are not only vague but are applied with so selectively and in such bad faith that they are meaningless except for purposes of providing Twitter with a pretext for wrongful, bad faith conduct such as is alleged here.
  6. Moreover, innumerable Twitter users, ranging from little-known or anonymous users with a handful of followers to major media organizations, non-governmental human rights and social activist organizations and popular commentators and celebrities, have made the same statements as Ms. Loomer at various times – and in many cases, repeatedly – without adverse action by Twitter.
  7. This conduct by Twitter demonstrates that its pretext for banning Ms. Loomer – because her tweets violated the TOS – is false, and that Twitter’s ban on her as well as Twitter’s explanation of it were made in bad faith.
  8. In fact, there is little serious debate that the Twitter TOS are mere window-dressing, pretexts for employing censorship policies that are either arbitrary and capricious or, far more frequently, and in the facts set forth here, driven by ideology or in coordination with favored or commercially influential advocacy groups, or both.
  9. Rather than being the result of a TOS violation, Ms. Loomer’s ban from Twitter was, upon information and belief, proximately caused by defendants CAIR Florida, organization the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified as the U.S. “face” of the Mideast terrorist group Hamas, and CAIR National (collectively, “CAIR” or “CAIR / Hamas”), which on information and belief acted in concert with Twitter to procure her elimination as a voice in opposition to them and their favored politicians and causes.
  10. As alleged further herein, the TOS are merely a pretext to place a “progressive” and positive gloss on Twitter’s bad faith, unjustified and unprivileged elimination of plaintiffs’ predominant publishing and fundraising platform, in concert with and at the behest of CAIR Florida and CAIR National, acting with or on behalf of their affiliate Hamas and their financial sponsor the Kingdom of Qatar and, on information, other parties not presently known to plaintiff, thereby effectively silencing Ms. Loomer, eliminating a vigorous and courageous journalistic and investigatory adversary from the public square, enabling defendants to benefit unfairly thereby and causing Ms. Loomer and Illoominate the harm set forth herein”….

 

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

News

Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?

Published

on

Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?

Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.

Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.

The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.

In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.

One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.

The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”

The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”

Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”

Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.

His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”

Sanders responded, “Yes.”

Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.

All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.

Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending