Ann Coulter: Usually, frauds are only exposed when the asylum applicant makes the news. The pattern is: They make the news; we find out their asylum applications were total frauds.
Sofitel hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo falsely accused the head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, of rape. She had been granted asylum after memorizing a tape given to her by an American immigration activist about being gang raped in Guinea.
TheNew Yorkerarticle begins with “Caroline,” an illegal alien from a middle-class family in Africa, who passed herself off to U.S. immigration authorities as a victim of rape and torture. As she admitted to The New Yorker, while giggling: “I have never been raped.”
Fortunately, “Caroline had been tutored in how to act like a rape victim by her landlady in the Bronx, who hadn’t been raped, either, but had successfully applied for asylum.”
Journalists know absolutely nothing about immigration and refuse to learn, so when I cited the fraudulent “humanitarian” cases on TV Sunday night, I footnoted myself live on air, citing a New Yorkerarticle as well as my book, Adios, America, which has nearly 100 pages of footnotes. That should make it easy for even the stupidest reporters.
You haven’t met The Hill’s Jacqueline Thomsen! She was at a loss. The New Yorker? What’s that? Jacqueline thought and thought and thought, until her head hurt! Finally, she decided, as she wrote in The Hill, “It’s unclear what New Yorker article Coulter was referring to.”
Armed only with the information that there was an article in a tiny little publication known as “The New Yorker” about asylum applicants being coached on their fake asylum claims, how could an American reporter ever hope to locate “The Asylum Seeker” in the Aug. 1, 2011, New Yorker? Forget Adios, America, where it is cited, along with many, many other sources. I can’t read a BOOK, Thomsen thought to herself.
I Googled “New Yorker asylum,” and the article I was referring to came up as the third item in the list. Add “coaching” or “coached,” and it’s the very first item Google gives you. It took three seconds.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan: “Unless you take down hate messages, unless you take down fake news, we will fine you’.
Khan went on to reference German hate speech laws, put in place by Angela Merkel in response to growing resentment at her open-door migration policy, with companies now facing fines up to 50 million euros.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has warned major technology companies such as Facebook and Twitter to do more on the issue of “hate speech,” or face fines and greater regulation.
Talking to the BBC ahead of the South by Southwest (SXSW) technology festival in Austin, Texas, Khan said that companies must be “chivvied and cajoled to take action.”
“We have evolving economies, which means we should have evolving regulations,” he said. “For too long politicians and policymakers have allowed this revolution to take place around us and we’ve had our heads in the sand.”
He went on to reference German hate speech laws, put in place by Angela Merkel in response to growing resentment at her open-door migration policy, with companies now facing fines up to 50 million euros.
“Germany is an example of where the German government said ‘Enough,” he continued. “Unless you take down hate messages, unless you take down fake news, we will fine you’.
“I want to work with the tech companies, but you have to be responsible,” he added.
Khan also reiterated his opposition to President Donald Trump, claiming that Trump’s decision to retweet a member far-right activist group Britain First had led to increased levels of abuse directed at him.
If Facebook killed every conservative page overnight, there would be a huge outcry. On the other hand, if Facebook slowly strangled us to death, we’d fade away and would people even notice?
( Townhall ) Today, as you read this, my website Right Wing News is shutting down operations. It has been around since 2001, but became massive a few years ago because of Facebook.
Remember the mainstream media liberals going out of their minds because the Russians reached almost 150 million people with their $100,000 Facebook ad buy? In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people. Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, little ol’ Right Wing News (well, I guess nearly 3.6 million Facebook likes isn’t so little) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America. Barack Obama’s Facebook page was 36 times bigger than our page; yet we had 7 times as many people talking about our content.
Ironically, that’s a big part of what killed the website
You see, what Facebook giveth, Facebook can take away. So, why would Facebook want to kill extremely successful Facebook pages that its users enjoyed?
One of the reasons goes back to something I told multiple reporters during the 2016 election. I believe that all of the thriving right wing Facebook pages activated large numbers of what I like to think of as “instinctive conservatives.” You know, the sort of people who love God, guns and America, but who don’t follow politics day to day, read National Review or consume any of Milton Friedman’s books. From what I could see on Facebook, that group of people LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Donald Trump and I believe they were responsible for getting him the GOP nomination and probably even got him over the hump in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. I think the liberals that run Facebook came to that same conclusion.
Before the election season got into full swing, Facebook had already made some mild downgrades to reach. Afterwards, when liberal mainstream media outlets were screaming about Russian ad buys and “fake news,” Facebook systematically, methodically reduced the reach of all its pages with each algorithm change. By then, most of us understood where it was going long-term. If Facebook killed every conservative page overnight, there would be a huge outcry. On the other hand, if Facebook slowly strangled us to death, we’d fade away and would people even notice?
Social media IS the new public square. It’s the place you go when you want to reach out and find an audience.
( The Daily Caller ) Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.
No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.
And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.
When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”
Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”
In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.
Occupy Democrats is apparently the only popular content provider from that end of the political spectrum with a fact-checking section.
Big name publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times are even given a column showcasing all of the awards they have earned over the years.
( Breitbart ) In an op-ed recently published in the Wall Street Journal, Mark Epstein outlines why Facebook and Google’s control over the online advertising industry is bad for freedom of speech and diversity of thought. The piece echoes sentiments previously expressed on Breitbart News. Epstein opens the article with a quote from Robert Anton Wilson’s novel, Leviathan.
‘A monopoly on the means of communication,” Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson wrote in “Leviathan,” their 1975 novel, “may define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of ‘monopoly in the means of production.’ ” Bear that in mind when you hear this next statistic: In 2017 Google and Facebook have accounted for 84% of all digital advertising outside China, including 96% of its growth, according to an industry forecast this month from Zenith, Magna and GroupM.
Epstein then notes the massive control over data that Facebook and Google possess, how the majority of internet users get their news and information from these platforms and how dangerous that can be:
Beyond advertising, Google and Facebook control how millions of people find their news. Americans are far likelier, collectively, to encounter articles via search engines and social media than on a news site’s home page. Google is used for nearly 90% of online searches in the U.S. A Pew survey this summer found that the four most popular social-media sites for getting news are Facebook, YouTube (owned by Google), Twitter (which has a Google partnership), and Instagram (owned by Facebook). No more than 5% of Americans use another social-media platform to get news.
Epstein then notes how social media companies have been cracking down on opinions and thoughts that they consider, “hate speech.” Twitter, which is notorious for banning those that possess certain opinions, has even suspended the ad campaigns and tweets of immigration opponents:
Twitter has refused sponsored tweets from immigration opponents, saying its hate-speech policy is triggered by messages such as “the fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of €633.46b compares to total a cost of deportation of €105.34b.” Google, Facebook and Twitter place stricter content policies on advertisers than general users. There are legitimate reasons for this. The tech companies are sensitive to accusations that they not only profit from controversial content but also fund it by giving its creator a slice of the ad revenue.”
‘This is the girl that was hurt by a monster’: Rose McGowan slams Hollywood for ‘shaming her with silence’ over her claims that Harvey Weinstein raped her as he is FIRED from his own company
‘Because my ex sold our movie to my rapist for distribution,’
‘A (female) criminal attorney said because I’d done a sex scene in a film I would never win against the studio head.
( Daily Mail ) Rose McGowan once again lashed out at the Hollywood elite for remaining silent about the Harvey Weinstein Sexual Harassment Scandal as just as it was announced that the 65-year-old was ousted from his own company on Sunday night.
Weinstein, who has been referred to as ‘God’ by actors and actresses and has more than 300 Oscar nominations to his name, has reached at least eight settlements with women who have accused him of sexual harassment.
McGowan took to Twitter to share a photo of herself in her 20’s and wrote: ‘This is the girl that was hurt by a monster. This is the girl who you are shaming with your silence.’
In October of last year, the ‘Charmed’ starlet came forward with claims saying she had been raped by an unnamed studio executive. In a tweet, she posted the hashtag #WhyWomenDontReport.’
She further explained: ‘Because my ex sold our movie to my rapist for distribution,’ followed by, ‘A (female) criminal attorney said because I’d done a sex scene in a film I would never win against the studio head.’