Puppet MastersS


Bad Guys

Big Tech hearing: Much posturing, no meaningful answers for the American public

Jeff Bezos House Judiciary Subcommittee video conference
© REUTERS /Graeme JenningsAmazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks via video conference during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law in Washington, U.S., July 29, 2020.
While a much-awaited antitrust hearing was billed as an Inquisition for Big Tech kingpins, the CEOs were largely able to skirt questions and talk circles around lawmakers looking to bring web platforms under partisan control.

Wednesday's House antitrust subcommittee hearing saw representatives face down the billionaire heads of four tech giants - Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Apple's Tim Cook, Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Alphabet's Sundar Pichai - who fielded questions in nearly six hours of virtual testimony. Though countless empty slogans and assurances were offered in that time, little was actually said, however, as the reps tried and failed to press the CEOs on concerns of "anti-competitive" business practices and political bias on social media.

'Many a true word is spoken in jest'

Zuckerberg faced a flurry of questions on Facebook's penchant for buying up competitors. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colorado) grilled Zuckerberg on the company's acquisition of platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing Facebook had become a social media monopoly.
In fact, as [subcommittee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler] noted, you did tell one of Facebook's senior engineers in 2012 that you can, quote, 'likely buy, just buy any competitive startup, but it'll be a while before we can buy Google.' Do you recall writing that email?
Zuckerberg brushed off the claim, saying that while he did not remember the email, "it sounds like a joke." The congressmen, however, noted that it was sent "in regards to having just closed the Instagram sale" in April 2012.

Comment: See also: "Hate speech" is suppressed by Facebook before it's seen by anyone, admits Zuckerberg


Chess

Feds won't leave Portland 'until there is safety': Trump rejects Oregon governor's claim that 'occupying force' is leaving city

Portland riots
Less than a day after Oregon's governor claimed federal agents would leave Portland and let local officials handle Black Lives Matter protesters, President Donald Trump said they are going nowhere until things are under control.

In a Thursday morning tweet, Trump said Governor Kate Brown "isn't doing her job" and insisted that protesters must be cleared out and "in some cases" arrested. "If she can't do it, the Federal Government will do it for her. We will not be leaving until there is safety!" he wrote.


The tweet was posted less than a day after Brown announced she had reached an agreement with the Trump administration that would see a phased withdrawal of federal agents — who were originally deployed after demonstrators attempted to burn down a courthouse — from Portland, which has seen ongoing Black Lives Matter protests turn to rioting and violence.

Bad Guys

Barr hearing shows both Reps & Dems as rabid partisans playing zero-sum 'gotcha' game

Barr house judiciary hearing July 2020
© Pool via REUTERS / Chip SomodevillaU.S. Attorney General William Barr testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on July 28, 2020
Unwilling to put Americans' needs above politics

The appearance of Attorney General William Barr before the House Judiciary Committee has put on display for the entire world the level of highly-charged, partisan political dysfunction that has paralyzed the US.

The hearing was never going to end well. But even the most jaundiced of American political observers could not have predicted the venality and animus that tainted every aspect of Attorney General William Barr's appearance before the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee on July 28.

Barr, who had previously served as Attorney General under President George HW Bush, had never testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Anyone expecting a modicum of decorum befitting the inaugural appearance of the nation's premier law enforcement official before the legislative body, mandated to provide oversight of the American justice system, would have been greatly disappointed with the proceedings. The hearing was more than simply a travesty - it was a national embarrassment.

Comment:


Calculator

"A slight uptick": German and UK officials hype 'possible new wave of Covid-19'

Gatwick
© Matt Dunham/APParts of the European Union are at risk of a new wave of coronavirus cases, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson says. The bloc began lifting many internal border restrictions last month. Here, airline passengers walk out of a departures area last week at Gatwick Airport, south of London.
The European Union successfully flattened the curve of COVID-19 cases in the spring - but a second wave could be building in parts of the EU, according to both British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the head of Germany's disease agency.

"I'm afraid you are starting to see, in some places, the signs of a second wave of the pandemic" in Europe, Johnson said Tuesday.

"We don't know yet if this is the beginning of a second wave, but of course it could be," said Lothar Wieler, head of Germany's infectious disease agency, the Robert Koch Institute. His remarks were reported by Deutsche Welle.

Comment: So, despite flawed, mass testing the best those pushing the coronavirus agenda can claim is a "slight uptick" in cases, not deaths, all the while those countries enforcing the most draconian rules are witnessing their economies teetering on the brink of collapse:


Bullseye

Best of the Web: "No proven effectiveness": Dutch government will NOT force public to wear masks - Minister for Medical care

masked shopper
© Paul Grover for the Telegraph
The Dutch government on Wednesday said it will not advise the public to wear masks to slow the spread of coronavirus, asserting that their effectiveness has not been proven.

The decision was announced by Minister for Medical Care Tamara van Ark after a review by the country's National Institute for Health (RIVM). The government will instead seek better adherence to social distancing rules after a surge in coronavirus cases in the country this week, Van Ark said at a press conference in The Hague.

"Because from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks, the Cabinet has decided that there will be no national obligation for wearing non-medical masks" Van Ark said.

Comment: Like elsewhere in Europe, Dutch cases have 'risen' simply because testing has increased. As for masks, regardless of how one wears them, they're not designed to protect one from viruses: Also check out SOTT radio's:


Toys

Bill Barr proclaims "I'm gonna answer the damn question" as Democrats beclown themselves

AG bill barr
© Matt McClain/The Washington Post via AP, PoolAttorney General William Barr testifies during a House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 28, 2020.
Today's hearing hosted by the House Judiciary Committee was an absolute disgrace. For hours, Democrats refused to let Bill Barr answer the questions they were purportedly asking, with Jerry Nadler going so far as to try to deny the Attorney General a bathroom break. To call this partisan politics at its worst would be too kind.

As I wrote earlier today, Jim Jordan opened up by rebutting much of the Democrat narrative, showing video of the rioting and pointing out that the left-wing media are gaslighting the country about it.

Things only escalated throughout the day, with Barr continually one-upping Democrat representatives who appeared to be far out of their league. For some examples, see our previous coverage here and here.

Comment: See also:


Propaganda

Russiagate is a 100-percent fake story

trump and putin
Part I - Some Thinking Required

On July 23rd, 2020, the Schiller Institute, an international human rights organization, and Executive Intelligence Review, a magazine founded by Lyndon LaRouche in 1974, held a news conference featuring former NSA analyst William ("Bill") Binney. The conference started with this proposition:
If it were shown, using competent forensic evidence, that there is no actual proof of Russian interference in the 2016 [US presidential] elections, by means of a Russian computer hack [into the servers] of the Democratic National Committee; If it were shown that it has always been knowable to the intelligence agencies of the United States and of Great Britain that no such hack ever occurred, and if it were shown that, though there was a request by the President of the United States, to have the analysts that have successively refuted that Russian hack story be interviewed; that their evidence then be presented to the President, and that that evidence, if proven true, be presented to the American people for their evaluation; so that justice could be done, though the heavens fall: if that directive were not carried out, would that defiance of such a Presidential directive in the pursuit of the truth, constitute a crime against the United States, a crime against the nation of Russia, and against the pursuit of world peace and the avoidance of war?"
The moderator of the news conference went on to note how the British Intelligence agencies summarized in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had gotten hold of uranium from Africa, ostensibly to build nuclear weapons. This intelligence helped propel the US and other powers into war with Iraq, killing more than 500,000 people, but the intelligence was not true. The Russian interference narrative has been pressed on the american people and all over the Western world for three years now, resulting in sanction after sanction against Russia, the refusal to let the Russian leadership state its own case, and the forcing of what appear to be hostile relations growing as the Russian Federation is forced into "tit for tat" moves against the United States.

Comment: See also:


Fire

Democrats 'are not coming out and condemning mob violence,' AG Barr says during hearing

AG Barr
© Fox News screenshot
Attorney General William Barr wondered why leaders of the Democratic Party "are not coming out and condemning mob violence" during his testimony Tuesday to the House Judiciary Committee.

Barr made the comments after being asked why he thought "autonomous zones," like the one that existed in Seattle for weeks, "are dangerous to America."

"What makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our great two political parties — the Democratic Party — are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts," Barr told the hearing.

Comment: See also:


Attention

#ExposeBillGates Day of Action 2

Bill Gates
© The Last American Vagabond
On June 13, 2020, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world participated in the first ever #ExposeBillGates Day of Action. The event was a success with #ExposeBillGates trending all day on Twitter, information about Bill Gates' agenda being translated in several languages, hundreds of protests and outreach events, and mainstream outlets taking notice. Now, it's time to do it again.


Watch this video on BitChute / LBRY / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4

Hammer

Election 2020: Is the worst case scenario the most likely one?

self destructive
The most frequently asked question I get these days is what is going to happen in November, 2020. The election seems to be on the majority of people's minds even more so that the coronavirus pandemic. In the summer of 2016 I accurately predicted that Donald Trump would enter the White House and met endless opposition to the idea. At the time, an overwhelming number of analysts in the liberty movement assumed Trump would lose, and that Clinton, by hook or by crook, would become president. Obviously this was not the case.

I made the call on a Trump presidency for a number of reasons. Set aside the fact that the majority of major elections are rigged from within because the elites choose candidates on BOTH sides to run, and lets just look at the simple campaign dynamic at the time.

For one, Clinton was the worst possible candidate that could have been chosen to run against Trump if they had actually intended on "winning". The DNC had rigged the primary process against Bernie Sanders in order to push Clinton through, yet she was universally hated not just by conservatives but also by moderate liberals. Democrats tend to draw a larger voter base by running "vibrant" candidates that appeal to younger Americans, yet they ran one of the most twisted and decrepit creatures they had on their roster. Though all the polling said Clinton would win in a landslide, the crowds at her campaign events were tiny and devoid of energy. It was clear that she had zero momentum.