Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

Left-wing nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to top management

The SPLC’s chief trial counsel Morris Dees / Getty Images

August 31, 2017 5:00 am

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a liberal, Alabama-based 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization that has gained prominence on the left for its “hate group” designations, pushes millions of dollars to offshore entities as part of its business dealings, records show.

Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of “fighting hate and bigotry” using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is perhaps best known for its “hate map,” a collection of organizations the nonprofit deems “domestic hate groups” that lists mainstream conservative organizations alongside racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and is often referenced in the media. A gunman opened fire at the Washington, D.C., offices of the conservative Family Research Council in 2012 after seeing it listed as an “anti-gay” group on SPLC’s website.

The SPLC has turned into a fundraising powerhouse, recording more than $50 million in contributions and $328 million in net assets on its 2015 Form 990, the most recently available tax form from the nonprofit. SPLC’s Form 990-T, its business income tax return, from the same year shows that they have “financial interests” in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Bermuda. No information is available beyond the acknowledgment of the interests at the bottom of the form.

However, the Washington Free Beacon discovered forms from 2014 that shed light on some of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s transfers to foreign entities.

The SPLC’s Form 8865, a Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, from 2014 shows that the nonprofit transferred hundreds of thousands to an account located in the Cayman Islands.

SPLC lists Tiger Global Management LLC, a New York-based private equity financial firm, as an agent on its form. The form shows a foreign partnership between the SPLC and Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P., a pooled investment fund in the Cayman Islands. SPLC transferred $960,000 in cash on Nov. 24, 2014 to Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P, its records show.

The SPLC’s Form 926, a Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation, from 2014 shows additional cash transactions that the nonprofit had sent to offshore funds.

The SPLC reported a $102,007 cash transfer on Dec. 24, 2014 to BPV-III Cayman X Limited, a foreign entity located in the Cayman Islands. The group then sent $157,574 in cash to BPV-III Cayman XI Limited on Dec. 31, 2014, an entity that lists the same PO Box address in Grand Cayman as the previous transfer.

The nonprofit pushed millions more into offshore funds at the beginning of 2015.

On March 1, 2015, SPLC sent $2,200,000 to an entity incorporated in Canana Bay, Cayman Islands, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records and run by a firm firm based in Greenwich, Ct. Another $2,200,000 cash transfer was made on the same day to another fund whose business is located at the same address as the previous fund in the Cayman Islands, according to SEC records.

No information is contained on its interests in Bermuda on the 2014 forms. SPLC’s financial stakes in the British Virgin Islands were not acknowledged until its 2015 tax form.

Lucinda Chappelle, a principal at Jackson Thornton, the public accounting firm in Montgomery, Ala., that prepared the SPLC’s tax forms, said she does not discuss client matters and hung up the phone when the Free Beacon contacted her in an attempt to get the most updated forms from the group in relation to its foreign business dealings.

Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.

“I’ve never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts,” said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. “My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with.”

“It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas,” said Casil. “I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts.”

“It seems extremely unusual for a ‘501(c)(3)’ concentrating upon reducing poverty in the American South to have multiple bank accounts in tax haven nations,” Charles Ortel, a former Wall Street analyst and financial advisor who helped uncover a 2009 financial scandal at General Electric, told the Free Beacon.

The nonprofit also pays lucrative salaries to its top leadership.

Richard Cohen, president and chief executive officer of the SPLC, was given $346,218 in base compensation in 2015, its tax forms show. Cohen received $20,000 more in other reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits. Morris Dees, SPLC’s chief trial counsel, received a salary of $329,560 with $42,000 in additional reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits.

The minimum amount paid to an officer, director, trustee, or key employee in 2015 was $140,000 in base salary, not including other compensation.  The group spent $20 million on salaries throughout the year.

The SPLC, which claims to boast a staff of 75 lawyers who practice in the area of children’s rights, economic justice, immigrant justice, LGBT rights, and criminal justice reform, reported spending only $61,000 on legal services in 2015.

Following recent violence in Charlottesville, Va., the group raised a great deal of money.

Apple CEO Tim Cook told his employees that the company is donating $1 million to the SPLC and would match employee contributions two to one. Cook also placed an SPLC donation button in its iTunes store. The company is additionally providing a $1 million donation to the Anti-Defamation League.

J.P Morgan Chase vowed to add a $500,000 donation for the group’s “work in tracking, exposing, and fighting hate groups and other extremist organizations.”

The Washington Times reported that CNN ran a wire story following the Charlottesville events originally titled, “Here are all the active hate groups where you live” using SPLC’s list of 917 groups.

Brad Dacus, the president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento-based group that defends “religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties without charge,” was listed on the “hate groups” list.

“Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing this? It’s simple. They want to vilify and isolate anyone that doesn’t agree with their very extremist leftist policy and ideology,” Dacus told the Times. “This isn’t about defending civil rights; this is about attacking civil rights.”

“I am shocked that CNN would publish such a false report on the heels of the Charlottesville tragedy,” added Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, a Christian nonprofit that provides pro bono assistance and representation, which is also featured on SPLC’s list. “To lump peaceful Christian organizations, which condemn violence and racism, in with the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists is offensive. This is the epitome of fake news and is why people no longer trust the media.”

CNN later changed its headline to, “The Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups.”

“The SPLC is an anti-conservative, anti-Christian hate group that the media have given pretend legitimacy to. One glance at their 990 tax forms is a reminder just what a fund-raising super-power it is,” Dan Gainor, vice president of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center, told the Free Beacon. “Its assets are over $328 million in 2015 and went up $13 million in just one year. It doesn’t need new liberal money. It could operate for at least six years and never raise a penny. It’s like a perpetual motion machine for fundraisers.”

The SPLC has also been hit with a number of lawsuits over “hate” defamation claims in recent days.

The Southern Poverty Law Center did not return a request for comment on its foreign financial dealings by press time.

Joe Schoffstall   Email Joe | Full Bio | RSS
Joe Schoffstall is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he spent three years with the Media Research Center and was most recently with the Capitol City Project. He can be reached at His Twitter handle is @JoeSchoffstall.

Why WORDPRESS is a fraud and a political sham!

Why WORDPRESS is a fraud and a political sham!



– WordPress claims to “support free speech” but it is as big a censorship tool as (and partner with) Google’s political propaganda scams



A small website tool was given away to hundreds of thousands of people. That software was called: “Wordpress”. Those people who got the free software built websites that were viewed by billions of people. The WordPress software turned out to be as infected as all of the devices revealed in the leaks that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange exposed about the CIA, FSB and NSA infections of the world’s internet devices.



WordPress now reaches the minds of over ¼ of the internet on Earth!



The infection that was embedded in WordPress was an actively managed effort by WordPress staff, financiers and executives to control the political ideology of the world, mostly in America.



The controllers of WordPress wanted to manipulate news and information, just like Google/YouTube, in order to control which candidates would be placed in office in order to pad their pockets with government payola.



WordPress executives hire armies of naive, emotionally unstable, ANTIFA Millennial kids to run their “Community Guardian” censorship programs. The, and Automattic senior staff that control WordPress use Scientology-like HR programming and socialization bubbles to create a Hitler Youth kind of blind obedience to a “grand design” of Utopian open society, drug culture and “green energy”. The bosses at WordPress care nothing about those crunchy granola things, though. They only care about the cash that they can scrape into their hidden trust funds, real estate REIT’s and offshore Cayman Islands stealth accounts.



The Millennial front kids see none of that big cash. They are tools and puppets in the WordPress bosses schemes.



After you get the free WordPress you are constantly being up-sold by WordPress to pay them money to get “more services”. Once you pay them money, WordPress deletes your entire Website, in many cases destroying years of work and reader acquisitions worth millions of dollars, if you ever publish anything that WordPress bosses are afraid that the public might read.



Let’s clarify that charge: WordPress regularly engages in illegal FRAUD against their customers, by pretending to be a neutral service, charging customers money and then destroying those customers rights, property, assets, customer and reader bases, DNS and SEO value with illegal U.S. Constitution First Amendment rights violations and a complete rape of the Freedom of the Press rights doctrines!



Many groups have now gone to war against WordPress’s abuse of the public.



Hackers have begun attacking every WordPress installation. According to Mark, at Wordfence, a security monitoring service, WordPress is now the most hacked and the most targeted software in the world. The biggest risk a company can now take is to install WordPress. Hackers have created an international system to detect and hack every WordPress installation within 10 minutes of activation, according to experts at DEFCON, the top hacker conference. WordPress is known, by many nations, to be an Obama/Clinton political tool and entire nations have targeted it for elimination. With the hackers running amuck inside WordPress and all of the WordPress modules, anyone would be a fool to use WordPress in the Post 2016 world.



On top of that, WordPress is an entirely corrupt operation that uses its workers, the internet and the public for political ideology manipulation.



On top of that, WordPress defrauds its customers. Everyone censored by WordPress should sue WordPress for fraud and human rights violations. One group has pre-authored law suit filings for any WordPress user to use to sue WordPress for Fraud, Censorship and Human Rights violations.



On top of that: One group placed a number of sites on WordPress servers that had been computer calculated to have no duplicate content on them that ever appeared on any other site on Earth. This was done as a “sting-operation” because WordPress had been continually deleted all sites that the group’s readers had commented on about political corruption involving WordPress financiers. WordPress diligently deleted each of these sites stating that they had “duplicate news stories” on them. In fact, by design, none of them had any duplicate content on them. As each site posted stories about racketeering and political corruption in the Obama Administration, WordPress deleted the entire sites without warning. The documentation of these incidents proves that WordPress is a George Soros/Debbie Wasserman political search engine gaming tool. WordPress systematically destroys search engine access to and Google results access to websites that WordPress bosses feel might expose their scheme.



On top of that: One group had thousands of public interest news blogs destroyed by WordPress within a 15 minute period as soon as the hundreds of thousands of authors on their blogs started posting public forensics details about criminal actions that WordPress insider’s Elon Musk, John Podesta, George Soros and that crowd were engaged in. This wholesale slaughter of Freedom of Speech and Human Rights, by WordPress, should guarantee the bankruptcy of Matt: the boss of WordPress, his financiers and all of the trust fund-hidden backers of WordPress.



On top of that: Google/YouTube and WordPress work together on internet news manipulation, fake news production for the MSM, the hiding of “wrongthink” news and information and the overall manipulation of information on the internet. If it does not fit into the John Podesta vision of the world, WordPress/Google/YouTube make it disappear from the internet. WordPress is NOT the friendly little public information software that it pretends to be. WordPress is an insidious censorship tool created with the most Fascist designs by the most sick and twisted oligarchs of Silicon Valley political corruption.



WordPress is evil and not benign. WordPress is the absolute worst of politics and insidious psychological warfare.



WordPress rigs internet search engines to game the system for Obama and against anyone who exposes Obama and Clinton crimes.




What can you do about the nightmare that WordPress is?:


1. Write your Congressional representatives and demand an investigation of WordPress and its backers.


2. Write the FCC and demand that WordPress be treated and regulated as a “public utility” because WordPress is a corrupt monopoly on free speech.


3. Re-print all of the exposures, investigations and doxing of WordPress staff, owners and financiers.


4. Write the regulatory agencies that investigate political finance and demand investigations of WordPress funding by corporations who then got political favors, oligarchs who got corruption perks, the payments in “services” to political candidates and the cover-ups of tens of millions of dollars of improperly reported campaign financing that was conduited through WordPress.


5. Call the FBI. James Comey and Christopher Wray at the FBI have both received detailed reports on this corruption. Ask the FBI how you can help get these cases brought to charges.


6. Sue WordPress, it’s staff, it’s executives and it’s financiers. Sue them for Fraud, Constitutional Rights Violations and Anti-Trust Law Violations.


7. Pay the costs for someone to sue WordPress.


8. If you are a lawyer, start a Class-Action lawsuit against WordPress. We guarantee there are more than enough members to fill a large Class.


9. Find the instructions for “How To Take-Down WordPress” in public document repositories online and use the 100% legal methods listed there.


10. Post counter-posts on blogs where WordPress is hyping itself as a “good internet citizen” and expose the dirty political scam that WordPress really is!


11. There are hundreds of other ways to help terminate and punish WordPress (for the abuse of the public) that you can find in most Non-Google searches under “how to fight corruption”. Look up all the many ways to shut down corrupt organizations.


12. Write to anybody who has a site that says it is “By WordPress” at the bootom of it and tell them about what a bunch of shit-balls WordPress is and tell them to move to Drupal, Weebly, Wix or any of the other free software that is not as contaminated as WordPress is.



p style=”margin-bottom:0;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%;”>13. Pass the word in your social media that WordPress is simply as evil as Google!


George Soros Controls WordPress and Has WordPress Censor All Conservative Sites and Postings

WordPress pretended to be a “free public service”, using the same scam as Google uses but, in reality, WordPress is controlled by George Soros and Debbie Wasserman Shultz with advisory operations by John Podesta.

All WORDPRESS users are advised to SUE WORDPRESS and AUTOMATTIC for Consitutional law violations when they get a sham email, from WORDPRESS, like this:

“Your site has been suspended for containing content that we consider to be spam, which we define as content created with the primary purpose of mass solicitation or increasing traffic of third-party sites. Content that falls into these categories includes, but is not limited to, unwanted promotional content, duplicate content, and content written for gaming search engines. This is a violation of our User Guidelines and our Terms of Service. You can learn more at the following links:

If you wish to continue to use WordPress for your site, you might consider a self-hosted WordPress installation. Please follow the guide located at to successfully transfer your content to a more suitable WordPress host."

This is a SHAM cover story by WORDPRESS to censor you using FAKE issues. Do not tolerate this violation of your free speech rights. Nobody who got such a message from WORDPRESS was conducting any spam, gaming or anything other than expressing an opinion which George Soros does not want you to hear.


Nancy Pelosi Orders Democrats To Call All Republicans “Nazi’s” and “Anti-Black” But Money Trail Leads Back To Her

IT’S ON: Christian Group Sues SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, AMAZON for Defamation of ‘Hate Group’ Designation… 
APPLE, JPMORGAN under fire for donations to SPLC…


Why Was The CIA Spying On The FBI?

Did CIA Create A Tool To Spy On NSA, FBI, And Homeland Security? New Vault7 Leak Reveals




CIA ExpressLane Wikileaks
At the latest, Wikileaks has unearthed another CIA spying tool. So, what else the tool offers other than being a spyware? According to Wikileaks, the project called ExpressLane might have been used by CIA to tunnel data from their liaison services partners, back in 2009.The spyware goes along with CIA’s liaison services, possibly offered to US security agencies like NSA, FBI, and Homeland Security among others. Through the liaison services, maintained by CIA’s OTS (Office of Technical Services) branch, the agency expects to harvest biometric data from the partners.


“But this ‘voluntary sharing’ obviously does not work or is considered insufficient by the CIA, because ExpressLane is a covert information collection tool that is used by the CIA to secretly exfiltrate data collections from such systems provided to liaison services,” writes WikiLeaks.

ExpressLane disguises itself as a software update for the biometric software. It is manually installed by CIA technicians (via secret partition on a USB drive) on to partner systems along with the biometrics collection system. Meanwhile, the partners being completely unaware of what other things are present on their system.

The spying tool transfers the information, that might not have been shared by the partners, to flash drive for the further examination by the technicians. They also have a kill-switch at hand, requiring the system to be physically restored after a specified amount of time, if the partner refuses the update.

ExpressLane adds to the set of CIA-related tools and services released by Wikileaks in the past. Check out more details about ExpressLane using this link.

What are your views on this? Drop your thoughts and feedback.

Also Read: Fappening 3.0: Private Pictures Of Dakota Johnson And Nicole Scherzinger Leaked


Aditya Tiwari

When he is not writing for Fossbytes, he is busy eating his daily cheat meal and finding content to binge watch. Please feel free to suggest him some good stuff on Netflix. Reach out at [email protected]

Linux-based security phone to ship with source code

Linux-based security phone to ship with source code

  by Eric Brown 

Tweet about this on TwitterGoogle+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit

Purism is crowdfunding a security minded “Librem 5” smartphone that runs Linux on an i.MX6 or i.MX8, and offers a 5-inch screen and privacy protections.

After the death of Firefox OS, the discontinuation of the Ubuntu Phone, and Samsung’s painfully slow rollout of its Tizen phones, the dream of establishing alternative Linux phone platforms not called Android appeared to be heading for the dustbin of history. Lately, however, several new projects have emerged such as the Raspberry Pi Zero based ZeroPhone and Halium OS project.


The latest is Purism’s Librem 5 smartphone. Purism, which offers a Librem line of secure, open source, Intel Skylake based laptops, has now launched a crowdfunding campaign for the Librem 5 smartphone. The $599 phone won’t ship until Jan. 2019. However, a $299 developer kit is expected in June 2018. The company claims to have a manufacturer already signed up — assuming the $1.5 million campaign succeeds within the next two months.

Librem 5 prototype
(click image to enlarge)
Unlike other phones that offer extensive security features and privacy controls, such as Bittium’s Bittium Tough Mobile, Silent Circle’s Blackphone 2, Motorola Solutions’s LEX L10, Sikur’s GranitePhone, TRI’s Turing Phone, and Sonim’s XP7 Public Safety, the Librem 5 runs Linux instead of Android. Like the Librem laptops, the 5-inch Librem 5 runs a mobile stack based on Purism’s security-minded, Debian-based PureOS Linux distribution. Billed as the world’s first ever IP-native mobile handset, the unlocked phone uses end-to-end encrypted decentralized communication, including encrypted calls, texts, and emails.

Librem 5 homepage (left) and video calling interface
(click image to enlarge)
The Librem 5 provides open source code, support for VPN services, and hardware kill switches for the camera, microphone, WiFi/Bluetooth radio, and baseband. The baseband supports 2G/3G/4G, GSM, UMTS, or LTE networks. Customers will be able to choose from a full carrier package, a cellular data plan with WiFi, or WiFi only. No carrier partners were listed.

The first version will be capable of voice calling, video, camera, messaging, email, and web browsing. The stack will “expand quickly to include the thousands of productivity, gaming, graphics, and photography applications already in PureOS,” says Purism.


The Librem 5 phone can run PureOS or any other GNU/Linux distro available with open source code on the NXP i.MX6 or i.MX8. The current design calls for a quad-core Cortex-A9-based i.MX6, but this may change to a quad -A53 i.MX8 SoC as the project progresses.


Either design enables the separation of the CPU from the baseband modem, letting the developers “dig deeper and deeper to protect your privacy and isolate components for a strong security hardware stack,” says Purism. PureOS “strives for the strictest of security and privacy protection, by releasing all the source code, and offering safe security and privacy defaults, as well as avoiding common security threats, such as ransomware, and data mining tools,” says the company.

Librem 5 messaging UI (left) and feature comparison chart
(click images to enlarge)
The specs are still under consideration, but currently include the “i.MX6/i.MX8” with Vivante GPU, which on the i.MX6, at least, is supported with the Etnaviv “free software accelerated driver.” There will also be a separate mobile baseband.

The Librem 5 will include 3GB of LPDDR3, plus 32GB eMMC storage and a microSD slot. No resolution was listed for the 5-inch touchscreen. The phone will provide WiFi, Bluetooth 4.x, a SIM slot, and GPS, as well as sensors including accelerometer, gyro, compass, ambient light, and proximity.


Front and back cameras will be included, along with an audio jack, mic, speaker, and volume controls. A USB host port will be available along with a battery, and debug interface.

Librem 5 development kit mainboard
The developer kit due to arrive next June will feature a mainboard, screen, and touchscreen, plus cabling and power supply. Other features will include cellular baseband, WiFi, GPS, sensors, and camera interface.

The PureOS distribution that runs on the Librem laptops is a derivative of Debian GNU/Linux main, and includes a GNOME 3 desktop with the Wayland display protocol. The stack includes a homegrown PureBrowser with the Tor browser, the Duck Duck Go search engine, the EFF Privacy Badger, and HTTPS: Everywhere.


The decentralized encryption available on the Librem 5 is enabled via a partnership with Matrix, which offers an open ecosystem for interoperable encrypted communication that supports over 2 million users with VoIP and Slack-style messaging. The Librem 5 is claimed to be the first Matrix-powered smartphone. The phone will also support HTML5 apps, which are isolated from running applications or any other component of the phone the user chooses to protect.


Although the phone’s software is open source, there is no promise that the hardware will be. “Our intention is to have everything freed down to the schematic level, but have not cleared all design, patents, legal, and contractual details,” says the FAQ. “We will continue to advance toward this goal as it aligns with our long-term beliefs.”


Further information

The Librem 5 is available now on Purism’s private crowdfunding page starting at $599 (due Jan. 2019), or $299 for the development kit (June 2018). Bundled offerings with keyboard, mouse, and 24-inch ($1,399) or 30-inch ($1,699) monitors will also ship in Jan. 2019. Volume discounts are also available. More information may be found on the Librem 5 crowdfunding page and the Purism website.




For over a decade, an alliance of investigators from has filed charges about Google’s criminally fraudulent operations. Now, their charges have been validated by industry experts.


Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard


Some advertisers question level of refunds, want more details about fraudulent traffic


The Google logo is seen at the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. Photo: Associated Press


Lara O’Reilly



Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -0.37% Google is issuing refunds to advertisers for ads bought through its platform that ran on sites with fake traffic, people familiar with the situation said, as the company develops a tool to give buyers more transparency about their purchases.

In the past few weeks, Google has informed hundreds of marketers and ad agency partners about the issue with invalid traffic, known in the industry as “ad fraud.” The ads were bought using the company’s DoubleClick Bid Manager.

Google’s refunds amount to only a fraction of the total ad spending served to invalid traffic, which has left some advertising executives unsatisfied, the people familiar with the situation said. Google has offered to repay its “platform fee,” which ad buyers said typically ranges from about 7% to 10% of the total ad buy.

The company says this is appropriate, because it doesn’t control the rest of the money. Typically, advertisers use DoubleClick Bid Manager to target audiences across vast numbers of websites in seconds by connecting to dozens of online ad exchanges, marketplaces that connect buyers and publishers through real-time auctions.

The ad spending flows through to the exchanges. The problems arise when ads run on publisher sites with fraudulent traffic, such as those where clicks are generated by software programs known as “bots” instead of humans. This is an issue of growing to concern to marketers. It is difficult to recoup the money paid to those sites when the issue is discovered too late.

Advertisers often receive small credits from Google and their other ad-tech vendors when they detect discrepancies, but in this case, for some buyers, the instance of fraud discovered was larger than usual.

Scott Spencer, director of product management for Google, acknowledged that refunds have been paid, but he declined to provide a dollar figure for the amount being returned. Some ad buyers said the refund amounts range from “less money than you would spend on a sandwich” to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Some agencies and advertisers would have been impacted more than others, depending on their level of spending during the period and the types of ads they bought.

“Today, we can’t disclose the information about third parties,” Mr. Spencer said. “So when we aren’t able to catch invalid traffic before it impacts our advertisers and we’re unable to refund their media spend, it hurts us, even if we’re not responsible.”

Google is working on a fix it hopes will provide some clarity over which technology providers in the ad-buying chain are responsible for issuing refunds. It is also working on technology to ensure advertisers automatically receive a full credit back from Google and its partners if incidents occur again.

The company said it is entering discussions with the 100-plus exchanges, ad networks and publishers DoubleClick Bid Manager plugs into and asking them to display to ad buyers whether they are willing to refund the entire media spend if ad-fraud instances occur. Buyers could then opt to filter out the sources of inventory that don’t have such a policy.

Mr. Spencer said Google expects “high rates of adoption” among exchanges, and that the ones it had spoken to so far had been “very supportive” of the effort.

Another point of contention among those receiving refunds is that they haven’t been given details about where their ads ended up or specific details about the exploits the fraudsters used, so that advertisers and agencies can apply their own safeguards in the future.

“We need to be very careful about commenting on or discussing specifics about bots or our detection,” Mr. Spencer said. “Often fraudsters will change their approaches and strategies based on our public comments.”

Of the billions of dollars flowing into online advertising each year, a percentage is inadvertently shown to sites with fake traffic, with fraudsters siphoning off advertisers’ money for themselves.

The industry’s efforts to rein in fraud appear to have an impact.Some $6.5 billion in ad spending will be wasted this year to fraud, down 10% from 2016, according to a report released in May by the Association of National Advertisers and ad-fraud detection firm WhiteOps.

The methods the fraudsters use are highly sophisticated. Some infect unsuspecting consumers’ computers with malware to form a “botnet” that clicks on ads in the background.

Fraudsters are often adept at covering their tracks, which can make their activity difficult to spot until after the event has occurred.

For years, Google has had teams dedicated to filtering out fraud before an advertiser makes a bid on an ad. Those teams can also prevent exchanges from being paid if an ad has already been bid on, but invalid traffic is quickly detected. The teams also work to discover historical instances of fraud, which is what happened in this particular case.

Google said the buyers it contacted in this instance were impacted by invalid traffic over the course of a few months this year, primarily in the second quarter. Part of that traffic affected video ads, which carry higher ad rates than typical display ads and are therefore an attractive target for fraudsters.

Google has also joined a number of industry initiatives, such as the “Ads.txt” project launched in May by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, an industry trade body. The tool lets premium publishers insert a text file on their web servers to list all the ad tech vendors authorized to sell their inventory so ad buyers can confirm which platforms are selling legitimate ads.

“When people talk about [ad fraud], there’s a big specter to it and a big concern about invalid traffic in digital,” said Mr. Spencer. “It’s not that large in terms of a percentage of what people are buying, but it can be a little bit scary to buyers, and our goal is to remove that to improve the trust overall in the ecosystem.”

—Alexandra Bruell contributed to this article

Write to Lara O’Reilly at lara.o’



p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 









Tech Goes From White House to Doghouse in Trump’s Washington




Todd Shields




Mark Bergen


, and


Ben Brody


  • Google, Facebook under scrutiny on size, political inclination

  • Issues include ‘fake news,’ net neutrality and search results




President Donald Trump is finding relations with business leaders strained as he disband his CEO advisory councils in the wake of his reaction to last weekend’s violence in Virginia. Bloomberg’s Kevin Cirilli reports on ‘Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas.’ (Source: Bloomberg)


Follow @bpolitics for all the latest news, and sign up for our daily Balance of Power newsletter.


Google once had Barack Obama’s ear, served as a revolving door for White House staff and saw its political agenda advance. In Donald Trump’s Washington, some conservatives say it’s gotten so powerful it should be regulated like a public utility.


Google is not alone in a fall from grace. Tech companies  — including Facebook Inc. and Inc. — that were previously lauded as innovators are facing increased scrutiny over their size, their hiring practices and whether online news feeds skew liberal.



Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move


“The mood in Washington, at least on the right side of the aisle, is more critical of companies like Google and Amazon,” said Fred Campbell, a former Republican FCC aide and director of Tech Knowledge, which promotes market-based policies.


The shift in tone comes as Congress and the Trump administration consider changing tax, energy and immigration policies important to Silicon Valley. A regulation that protects data flows is already slated for gutting by the Federal Communications Commission, and, in Congress, a law has been proposed that would bring internet companies under a privacy regulator. Another would increase legal liability for website operators as a way to combat online sex trafficking.


Meanwhile, tech’s made no secret of its distaste for Trump policies. Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Apple Inc. and Facebook issued critical statements after the president proposed a ban on transgender people in the military, stepped away from the Paris climate accords and issued a ban on travel from majority Muslim nations.


Advisory Councils


The Aug. 12 street violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, provoked another rift. After the president said “both sides” shared blame for the fighting, Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook told his staff he disagreed with Trump. So many executives, including Intel Corp.’s Chief Executive Officer Brian Krzanich, quit White House advisory councils last week in protest that Trump ended up disbanding them.


Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt – many jobs being lost!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017


Amid the turmoil, Trump unloaded on Amazon, tweeting that the company is hurting other retailers, and causing shares in the online retailer to fall. “Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt – many jobs being lost!” Trump said in the tweet.


It was the latest conservative broadside on the technology companies over their size, influence and promotion of social policies on immigration, transgender rights and other matters.


More: Trump Says in Tweet Amazon Does ‘Great Damage’ to Retailers


Oregon Republican Representative Greg Walden, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, challenged tech and broadband executives to appear next month as his committee considers undoing the Obama-era net neutrality rules that Silicon Valley supports. In what could be interpreted as a snub, executives didn’t respond to the invitation by the deadline — which has been extended.


“Republicans have always been fine with most of tech, because Republicans have usually defaulted pro-business,” said Bruce Mehlman, a Republican lobbyist and former Commerce Department official said in an interview. “This is less about any one issue and more about the new populist wing of the Republican party — populism is suspicious of bigness, and the biggest companies now are tech.”


In this atmosphere, public-policy asteroids can strike suddenly and dent tech’s image in the capital. Google dismissed James Damore, an engineer who wrote about gender differences and said the company had a “left bias” that silenced dissenters. Washington noticed.


Why Republicans Want to Nix U.S. Net Neutrality Rules: QuickTake


“The mistreatment of conservatives and libertarians by tech monopolies is a civil rights issue,” Representative Dana Rohrabacher said in a tweet using the hashtag #googlememo. The California Republican is concerned tech giants may be excluding top talent for political reasons, said his spokesman, Ken Grubbs.


Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway tweeted an op-ed that Damore wrote in the Wall Street Journal about his firing, in which he called Google “ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument.”


Fox News’s Tucker Carlson said Damore’s dismissal showed Google couldn’t be trusted, for instance in ways its algorithms determine where to rank fake news when returning search results. “Google should be regulated like the public utility it is, to make sure it doesn’t further distort the free flow of information to the rest of us,” Carlson said on his Aug. 14 show.


Others on the right are sounding similar themes. Dominant companies such as Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Google “represent themselves as politically neutral while systematically promoting liberal views and limiting or even banning conservatives,” Phil Kerpen, head of the American Commitment policy group said in a memo urging congressional action that was obtained by Bloomberg News.


Why Google’s Gender Struggle Echoes Across Tech: QuickTake


Kerpen advocated “clear disclosure of how traffic is treated” and “enforcement actions if they violate those representations,” according to his memo. Kerpen, a strategist who has worked for groups including the billionaire Koch brothersAmericans for Prosperity, didn’t return phone calls and emails.


Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.


Get our newsletter daily.



Amazon has become a target at least in part because of its size. The company with about 70 percent of all e-book sales and 30 percent of all U.S. e-commerce drew criticism from Trump that had started on the campaign trail when Trump said in February 2016: “Believe me, if I become president, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.” Trump’s also objected to coverage by the Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon’s Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos, for instance calling the newspaper “FAKE NEWS” in a June tweet.


In July, a Democratic lawmaker from Rhode Island, David Cicilline, called for hearings on the online retailer’s proposed purchase of grocer Whole Foods Market Inc. Experts and analysts have largely dismissed antitrust threats, in part because the food-store chain has just 1.6 percent of the U.S. grocery market, according to Euromonitor.


Trump, Tech Clash Over Visas for Skilled Immigrants: QuickTake


Democrats in their “Better Deal” package of policy proposals released in July called for tougher merger reviews. Regulators must “must explicitly consider the ways in which control of consumer data can be used to stifle competition or jeopardize consumer privacy,” according to the proposals.


Tech companies are spending more to make their case in the new Washington, and staffing up for better footholds in the Trump administration. Google hired Max Pappas, a veteran of Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s office and the libertarian FreedomWorks PAC.


Google boosted its lobbying expenditure to $9.5 million in the first half of this year, a nearly 18 percent increase from about $8 million a year earlier, according to disclosure filings. Facebook’s first-half lobbying expenditures rose too, by about 12 percent to $5.6 million from almost $5 million. Amazon spent $6.1 million, up from $5.7 million for the same period a year earlier.


Immediate challenges for Silicon Valley include the move by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican chosen by Trump, to weaken the Obama-era net neutrality rule that forbids broadband providers from blocking or slowing web traffic, for instance in order to give their video an edge over rivals’ programming.


Representative Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican who leads the House communications subcommittee, at a July 25 hearing took issue with the role played by web companies during an earlier online protest of Pai’s plans.


“Internet giants Amazon, Facebook and Google recently joined with websites such as Pornhub and dark money groups Fight for the Future, Demand Progress and Free Press for a day of action to claim Republicans would break the net,” Blackburn said. “Let me be clear — Republicans have always supported a free and open internet.”


Blackburn has introduced a bill to bring web companies and broadband providers alike under one privacy regulator. The Internet Association representing companies including Google and Facebook objected, saying the measure “has the potential to upend the consumer experience online and stifle innovation.”


Representative Walden called on the top executives of Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon, online video provider Netflix Inc. and others to appear before his committee at a Sept. 7 hearing on internet governance.


“It’s time they came before us and directly shared their positions,” Walden said.


Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon didn’t respond to emailed requests for comment or declined to comment. AT&T Inc. said it was checking the schedule of Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson; Charter Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. didn’t publicly respond.


— With assistance by Bill Allison, and Mark Gurman






Silicon Valley Isn’t Special


Tech has plenty of reasons to pretend it’s an industry of upstarts. That facade is crumbling.




Conor Sen





“Better to be a pirate than join the navy,” Steve Jobs said. Times have changed.


Photographer: Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg


Silicon Valley has a perception problem. Steve Jobs once said, speaking about the irreverent culture he helped create, that “it’s better to be a pirate than join the navy.” This ethos served the community well when its firms existed at “pirate scale.” But now Silicon Valley’s most successful companies have become some of the largest in the world. This culture must accept that it has become the navy, with its remaining pirates facing a choice — enlist, or walk the plank.


Perhaps no company is struggling with this reality more than Google. Founded in 1998, the company famously adopted the motto “Don’t be evil” around the year 2000. Ever since, whenever the company has run into controversy, such as its censorship disputes with China, or its recent decision to fire the author of a controversial 10-page memo, critics have lashed out at the company over its betrayal of its founding values.


But it’s not fair to hold Google, or its parent company Alphabet, to the same principles it adopted when it was a relatively inconsequential technology startup. In the year 2000, when it adopted “Don’t be evil,” Google had revenue of just over $19 million. In 2017, it will have revenue of over $100 billion. That’s higher than the gross domestic product of a dozen states. Google dropped the “Don’t be evil” motto in 2015.


Google is by no means alone in being a large technology company struggling to balance historical “pirate” cultures with growing responsibilities as powerful corporations. Facebook has gotten in trouble for allowing “fake news” on its platform, influencing the 2016 election. Twitter has struggled with harassment and hate groups. And Uber has clashed with regulators, its drivers, and the impact of its internal culture on women. 


Silicon Valley has a lot of self-interested reasons for preferring to maintain a facade that its culture is special, and that its industry is more innovative, virtuous and productive than every other industry. It serves as a great recruiting tool as the region competes for talent with other industries and areas. It allows insiders to maintain outsize control of their companies. And it is a way to prevent regulators from coming in and regulating Silicon Valley to the extent that it might otherwise seek to do.


But it’s time to drop the pretense that Silicon Valley deserves special treatment. Facebook and Google are content and advertising companies, digital evolutions of print and television companies that came before them. Amazon’s core e-commerce business is just a digital Wal-Mart. Apple’s iPhone product cycle, with its annual incremental improvements, has parallels to the personal computer industry in the 1990s or even the Detroit “Big Three” automakers in the 1960s. They deserve the same scrutiny from regulatory and labor watchdogs that their old-economy peers get.


They shouldn’t have multiple classes of shares that deprive investors of voting rights. Tesla and Amazon both show that investors are willing to look past a lack of near-term profitability if they believe in a company’s vision. As Snap, the latest IPO that has fizzled, may be showing, when a hot growth story turns cold and investors lack voting rights, there’s no opportunity for an activist or turnaround investor to come in and pressure management.


Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.



And employees should stop thinking that working for a large technology company is fundamentally different from working anywhere else. Despite what Silicon Valley would like you to believe, employees at Google and Facebook should have the same expectations that workers at Goldman Sachs, General Electric or McKinsey have in terms of adequate staffing of human resources departments and what is considered acceptable speech at work.


Uber’s CEO search, with leaders of “stodgy” companies having been floated as possible successors — Meg Whitman of HP, and Jeffrey Immelt, formerly of GE — shows that even the bad boy of tech may be getting the message. The sooner the whole industry wises up, the better.




To contact the author of this story:
Conor Sen at


To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Philip Gray at



p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 





In a series of tweets, OkCupid (owned by said it had kicked Cantwell off the platform after being alerted of his profile.


We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.


— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017


“We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid,” OkCupid wrote in a tweet. “Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.”


It then followed that tweet up with another one, writing: “There is no room for hate in a place where you’re looking for love.”


There is no room for hate in a place where you’re looking for love.


— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017


If any OkCupid members come across people involved in hate groups, please report it immediately


— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017


Cantwell has risen to infamy over the past week after a VICE Media documentary profiled him and his group at last weekend’s Charlottesville protests that ended in violent tragedy.


Cantwell, 36, has been banned from several other tech platforms, including Facebook for violating their terms of service, using it for hate speech.


On Wednesday, Cantwell posted a video to Youtube where he is seen crying after finding out there is a warrant out for his arrest.


“I called the Charlottesville Police Department and I said, ‘I have been told that there’s a warrant out for my arrest.’ They said that they wouldn’t confirm it but that I could find this out if I wanted to go a local magistrate or something,” Cantwell said on the video.


Cantwell further adds: “I’m terrified. I think you’re going to kill me.”


Separately, Bumble, the self-proclaimed “female-first social network,” said it was teaming up with the Anti-Defamation League “to proactively remove and ban all forms of hate speech and symbols from its platform of nearly 20 million users worldwide.”



p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 


Obama, Google, Gawker/Gizmodo and Elon Musk Conspired To Put Hit-Jobs On Americans And Now We Have The Proof

Obama, Google, Gawker/Gizmodo and Elon Musk Conspired To Put Hit-Jobs On Americans And Now We Have The Proof




By ProPublica Alliance




A Conspiracy Theory is no longer a theory when you have the facts in hand.



Nobody can deny the fact that Barack Obama, Google, the Gawker/Gizmodo tabloid facade and Elon Musk are all the primary financiers and beneficiaries of the manipulations of the DNC. All of these parties even admitted this in their own federal financial filings.



Even if you did not look at their own filings, or the massive sets of evidence files we now have in hand, each of these parties own words prove that assertion. You can see them verify this in thousands of TV and newspaper interviews.



New York and California State Judges and Senators mostly work for the DNC. Even if you did not look at their own filings or the massive sets of evidence files we now have in hand, each of these parties own words prove that assertion.



The energy industry is the third-largest industry in the United States (according to “The Energy Industry in the United States” USA Government. Retrieved 28 June2013.)  This market is expected to have an investment of over $700 billion over the next two decades according to Selectusa. 



The energy sector accounts for 4.6% of outstanding leveraged loans, compared with 3.1% a decade ago, while energy bonds make up 15.7% of the $1.3 trillion junk bond market, up from 4.3% over the same period.[2]



Since energy plays an essential role in industrial societies, the ownership and control of energy resources plays an increasing role in politics. At the national level, governments seek to influence the sharing (distribution) of energy resources among various sections of the society through pricing mechanisms; or even who owns resources within their borders. They may also seek to influence the use of energy by individuals and business in an attempt to tackle environmental issues.



The most recent international political controversy regarding energy resources is in the context of the Iraq wars. Some political analysts maintain that the hidden reason for both 1991 and 2003 wars can be traced to strategic control of international energy resources.[12] Others counter this analysis with the numbers related to its economics. According to the latter group of analysts, U.S. has spent about $336 billion in Iraq[13] as compared with a background current value of $25 billion per year budget for the entire U.S. oil import dependence[14]



The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2050, the world’s population will reach 9.4 billion, and per capita income will double. This will result in a doubling of energy demand, and in an age of growing concerns over climate change, the world is increasingly looking to renewable energy to power the economies of the future.



In addition, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), $2.55 trillion/year will have to be spent on global energy infrastructure and energy efficiency initiatives. This presents a massive potential investment opportunity but also comes with many risks. The Obama Administration sold Silicon Valley venture capitalists on the idea that Obama would give them exclusive access to this “coming green energy gold rushif they financed his political campaigns. Obama’s staff got together with the Silicon Valley VC’s to create a synthetic crisis based on climate data manipulation. While the climate does, indeed, change, the “crisis” that the Obama Team dreamed up was created in a way so that only Obama’s friends could solve it. Wasn’t that an ironic coincidence? Anybody who competed with Obama’s friends who were “solving this problem” had hit-jobs, industrial sabotage and character assassination launched against them by the Obama White House and Obama’s friends.


Why would they do such insane things? Why would they kill Seth Rich or any of the 42 different competitors who were murdered since 2008? For greed and sociopath-like power mongering.



According to the IEA’s 2012 World Energy Outlook report that Obama used to market his scheme: “…between 2012 and 2035, $6.4 trillion ($278 billion/year) will be spent on renewable energy as the share of electricity generated from environmentally-friendly sources nearly triples to 31%. The three largest areas of investment will include wind power ($2.1 trillion), hydroelectric ($1.5 trillion), and solar photovoltaics ($1.3 trillion)…all of that “green energy” was previously acquired by Obama’s friends and financiers based on tips from Obama staffers David Plouffe, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanual. This arrangement was created by Obama and the DNC in order to kick-back crony government payola. The amounts of money involved in these schemes is beyond the capacity of 99% of the population to even comprehend.The CleanTech Crash was a crony payola scam which paid off politicians in insider trading stock ownerships.



Hillary Clinton’s gal pal: Margaret Sullivan (Who is also Tom Steyer’s right-hand girl) was moved into leadership at the USAID, which pushed a manipulated report that said that Afghanistan was full of lithium ion battery mines for Obama financier Elon Musk. The Afghan mines were supposed to be a campaign trade, to Silicon Valley oligarchs in exchange for internet election rigging and campaign cash. This was just another portion of the CleanTech Crash crony payola scam with even more insider trading stock perk payola.



To cut to the chase: the energy industry is now a SEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR industry and, at least, 5 people per day are killed in wars and industrial “situations” in order to keep those energy dollars in certain people’s hands.



People do kill people over seven trillion dollars of profits. People do plant moles, saboteurs and operate character assassinations if they fear that a new technology or a new candidate might affect that seven trillion dollars.



Google, Gawker, Gizmodo and that media Cartel do run character assassinations, costing tens of millions of dollars, against individuals and start-up companies who, they think, might have innovations that shift the flow of that seven trillion. They are doing the same exact thing, in exactly the same exact ways, to the Trump Administration because Trump is not buying into their crony scams.



Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, John Doerr, Mark Zuckerberg and the Silicon Valley oligarchs paid for, and directed, those attacks. They used psychological warfare and subliminal message program on a scale never before seen in society. The Silicon Valley oligarchs and the DNC manipulators need to now face an epic punishment for their crimes.




p class=”western” style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;orphans:2;widows:2;” align=”left”>Democracy can never be allowed to be their play-thing again!


Join The Protest Against Google!

Free-Speech Supporters Plan 9-City “March on Google” Next Saturday, Aug. 19


Free speech marchers protest Google censorship, decry violence


Jerome Corsi |





Image Credits: Christophe Morin/IP3 / Getty.




WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of free speech supporters have organized a March On Google (#MarchOnGoogle), called for next Saturday, Aug. 19, to oppose Google “as an anti-free speech monopoly.”


#MarchOnGoogle plans a 9-city march next Saturday in nine cities, from 1:00 pm local time to 3:00 pm local time, to protest Google censorship of conservative and libertarian content, organized in large part by Jack Posobiec, a frequent contributor to


The cities scheduled for #MarchOnGoogle events include the following:


  • Washington, D.C.;

  • New York City;

  • Austin, Texas;

  • Boston, Massachusetts;

  • Mountain View-GooglePlex in Charleston Park;

  • Atlanta, Georgia;

  • Venice Beach in Los Angeles, California;

  • Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; and

  • Seattle, Washington.


The decision to schedule “MarchOnGoogle rallies was triggered by Google’s firing of software engineer James Damore, whose “manifesto” entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” questioned Google’s politically correct corporate culture Damore charged was determined to “perpetuate gender stereotypes” by advancing specious arguments to rationalize the gender gap reality that a relatively low number of women are advanced to high-paying technical positions in Google’s corporate hierarchy.


Following the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend, the organizers of the “March on Google” posted on their website calling for all marches next Saturday to be peaceful.


We, the organizers of the March on Google, join the President in condemning the actions in Charlottesville on August 12th,” the statement read.


Despite many false rumors from those seeking to discredit us we are in no way associated with any group who organized there,” the statement continued. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms any display of hatred and bigotry from any side. It has no place in America. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society.”


The statement noted that six weeks ago, “March on Google” held a “Rally for Peace” at the White House calling for an end to all political violence.


The March on Google stands for free speech and the open discussion of ideas,” the statement stressed.


We condemn violence and silencing free speech as a means of promoting any political agenda,” the statement concluded. “Any individual attempting to incite violence during the March on Google will not be part of our event. Freedom of Speech is a Human Right.”


On April 17, reported that since 2006 three entities – Google, George Soros’ Open Society Institution and the Ford Foundation – have contributed more than $72 million to non-profit leftist organizations that have been most active in promoting the idea the Internet needs to be regulated by the government as a “common carrier” public utility under Title II of the Communications Act – the same regulatory framework crafted some 80 years ago to regulate the old rotary phone system. has previously warned that Google and the largest communications giants on the Internet lobbied the federal government to define broadband under these 1930s-style regulations – a designation that would allow the government to regulate more rigorously the broadband providers that built the core network connecting users to the Internet as “common carriers.”


The deceptively-termed “net neutrality” strategy was designed to exempt content monopolies like Google and Facebook from the strict regulations the FCC would apply to common carriers – a scheme that would allow Google, Facebook and the other Internet portal giants to censor conservatives as “fake news,” while demanding that “common carriers” like AT&T and Verizon have no choice but to carry their censored content.


The implementation of these 2015 Obama-era “net neutrality” regulations, which were heavily pushed by Google in hundreds of closed-door meetings at the Obama White House, carved out Google and the other Silicon Valley behemoths, and secured their position as absolute information gatekeepers.


Since these 2015 regulations passed, Google and Facebook have moved to become the judge, jury and executioner of the content we read on the Internet, under the guise of eliminating “fake news.”


The “March on Google” in Washington, D.C. is scheduled to begin at 25 Massachusetts Avenue NW, the Google office in D.C., located near Union Station, scheduled to begin on Saturday, Aug. 19, at 1:00 pm ET to 3:00 pm ET.



p class=”western” style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;orphans:2;widows:2;”> 


Free-Speech Supporters Plan 9-City “March on Google” Next Saturday, Aug. 19

Free-Speech Supporters Plan 9-City “March on Google” Next Saturday, Aug. 19


Free speech marchers protest Google censorship, decry violence


Jerome Corsi |




Image Credits: Christophe Morin/IP3 / Getty.




WASHINGTON, D.C. – A group of free speech supporters have organized a March On Google (#MarchOnGoogle), called for next Saturday, Aug. 19, to oppose Google “as an anti-free speech monopoly.”


#MarchOnGoogle plans a 9-city march next Saturday in nine cities, from 1:00 pm local time to 3:00 pm local time, to protest Google censorship of conservative and libertarian content, organized in large part by Jack Posobiec, a frequent contributor to


The cities scheduled for #MarchOnGoogle events include the following:


  • Washington, D.C.;

  • New York City;

  • Austin, Texas;

  • Boston, Massachusetts;

  • Mountain View-GooglePlex in Charleston Park;

  • Atlanta, Georgia;

  • Venice Beach in Los Angeles, California;

  • Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; and

  • Seattle, Washington.


The decision to schedule “MarchOnGoogle rallies was triggered by Google’s firing of software engineer James Damore, whose “manifesto” entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” questioned Google’s politically correct corporate culture Damore charged was determined to “perpetuate gender stereotypes” by advancing specious arguments to rationalize the gender gap reality that a relatively low number of women are advanced to high-paying technical positions in Google’s corporate hierarchy.


Following the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend, the organizers of the “March on Google” posted on their website calling for all marches next Saturday to be peaceful.


“We, the organizers of the March on Google, join the President in condemning the actions in Charlottesville on August 12th,” the statement read.


“Despite many false rumors from those seeking to discredit us we are in no way associated with any group who organized there,” the statement continued. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms any display of hatred and bigotry from any side. It has no place in America. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society.”


The statement noted that six weeks ago, “March on Google” held a “Rally for Peace” at the White House calling for an end to all political violence.


“The March on Google stands for free speech and the open discussion of ideas,” the statement stressed.


“We condemn violence and silencing free speech as a means of promoting any political agenda,” the statement concluded. “Any individual attempting to incite violence during the March on Google will not be part of our event. Freedom of Speech is a Human Right.”


On April 17, reported that since 2006 three entities – Google, George Soros’ Open Society Institution and the Ford Foundation – have contributed more than $72 million to non-profit leftist organizations that have been most active in promoting the idea the Internet needs to be regulated by the government as a “common carrier” public utility under Title II of the Communications Act – the same regulatory framework crafted some 80 years ago to regulate the old rotary phone system. has previously warned that Google and the largest communications giants on the Internet lobbied the federal government to define broadband under these 1930s-style regulations – a designation that would allow the government to regulate more rigorously the broadband providers that built the core network connecting users to the Internet as “common carriers.”


The deceptively-termed “net neutrality” strategy was designed to exempt content monopolies like Google and Facebook from the strict regulations the FCC would apply to common carriers – a scheme that would allow Google, Facebook and the other Internet portal giants to censor conservatives as “fake news,” while demanding that “common carriers” like AT&T and Verizon have no choice but to carry their censored content.


The implementation of these 2015 Obama-era “net neutrality” regulations, which were heavily pushed by Google in hundreds of closed-door meetings at the Obama White House, carved out Google and the other Silicon Valley behemoths, and secured their position as absolute information gatekeepers.


Since these 2015 regulations passed, Google and Facebook have moved to become the judge, jury and executioner of the content we read on the Internet, under the guise of eliminating “fake news.”


The “March on Google” in Washington, D.C. is scheduled to begin at 25 Massachusetts Avenue NW, the Google office in D.C., located near Union Station, scheduled to begin on Saturday, Aug. 19, at 1:00 pm ET to 3:00 pm ET.



p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 


Everyone Wants Google’s CEO to resign or be fired!

Everyone Wants Google’s CEO to resign or be fired!

Sundar Pichai Google Google CEO Sundar Pichai. AP

As controversy continues to swirl around James Damore, the Google engineer who was fired after writing a memo about gender diversity at the company, the longtime New York Times columnist David Brooks has placed blame squarely on the shoulders of Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

In a new column out Friday titled “Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O.,” Brooks takes Pichai to task over his handling of Damore’s firing.

“There are many actors in the whole Google/diversity drama, but I’d say the one who’s behaved the worst is the C.E.O., Sundar Pichai,” Brooks wrote.

Brooks accuses Pichai of joining “the mob” that came after Damore and says he failed to stand up for “the free flow of information.”

“Either Pichai is unprepared to understand the research (unlikely), is not capable of handling complex data flows (a bad trait in a C.E.O.) or was simply too afraid to stand up to a mob,” Brooks wrote.

Damore was fired on Monday after his memo, which claimed that biological differences made women less suited for careers in tech, was circulated widely.

“To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” Pichai wrote in a companywide memo about Damore’s firing.

But many have come to Damore’s defense, particularly those who oppose what Damore called Google’s “left bias.” While Damore told Bloomberg TV that he didn’t identify with the so-called alt-right, many of his sympathizers are right-wing or far-right audiences who say Damore’s firing is a free-speech issue.

In his column, Brooks echoes the free-speech argument and says he agrees with Damore’s science-based arguments about gender differences.

You can read Brooks’ piece at The New York Times.




The firing of James Damore is increasingly starting to look like a bad move for Google. In fact it is starting to look like Gamergate 2.0, where the PC mob kept pushing and pushing until finally there was a massive backlash from gamers and others semi-autistic geeks and nerds that unleashed a firestorm that swept all before it and helped turbo-charge the Alt-Right. 
Now, as a response to Damore’s firing and a range of other oppressive moves by politically correct tech corporate whores, a new movement has been born — the heroic Alt-Tech Alliance. As they say in their inaugural announcement:

“The Alt Tech Alliance is a passionate group of brave engineers, product managers, investors and others who are tired of the status quo in the technology industry. We are the defenders of free speech, individual liberty, and truth.”

Rather than Twitter, which is heavily compromised, the new group made its announcement on Gab, the frog-branded Twitter rival that is committed to free speech. The statement calls out the big tech companies for their Orwellian censorship and shines a beacon of freedom, hope, and friendship calling for others to join:

“We are seeking engineers and technology industry workers from around the world who recognize the problems in tech, media, and our culture. We are offering 100 spots in a private invite-only community on Gab to network, share information, and discuss the future of alternative technology platforms that defend the liberties we all love.”

Who says revolutions don’t happen any more? Who says shots that ring round the World are no longer fired? I predict that in the months and years ahead you are going to hear a lot more from the Alt-Tech Alliance, so remember that name, and remember that all mills grind the corn of the Alt-Right.  

Read the full statement here or here:

If August 2017 has proven anything, it is that we are in a war to speak freely on the internet. The Alt Tech revolution has begun. There is no more dancing around this subject anymore. Silicon Valley companies are being propped up with billions of dollars from foreign interests. They are extraordinarily hostile to any form of conservatism, populism, and nationalism among other ideologies. Their employees, executives, and their users are all afraid to express themselves for fear of being fired or shamed by a dishonest and dsgusting establishment media oligarchy.

Over half of Google employees polled said that the company should not have fired James Damore for writing a manifesto on the ideological echo chamber that exists within Google. How many of the remaining 50% of the company felt that they could not share their true feelings on the subject out of fear of also being fired?

In the free market of ideas, the best ideas will always win. When those ideas start to rise and challenge the establishment, they have no choice but to silence and censor. They have no choice but to purge any ideology that does not conform to their own echo chamber bubble world. They do not and can not relate to the average middle class family that can barely put food on the table. They care only about three things: money, power, and control. Enough is enough. The time is now for patriots and free thinkers inside and outside of Silicon Valley to organize, communicate in a safe way, and start building.

We are seeking engineers and technology industry workers from around the world who recognize the problems in tech, media, and our culture. We are offering 100 spots in a private invite-only community on Gab to network, share information, and discuss the future of alternative technology platforms that defend the liberties we all love. In time we hope to expand this group and grow, but for now it is of critical importance that each member passes through several layers of extreme vetting to join. We want folks who are builders. We want folks who are brave. We want folks who understand the importance of what is going on.

The Alt Tech Alliance is a passionate group of brave engineers, product managers, investors and others who are tired of the status quo in the technology industry. We are the defenders of free speech, individual liberty, and truth

If that sounds like you, reach out to us on Gab at the Alt Tech Alliance account (@AltTech on Gab) and give the account a follow. Stay tuned for more information and our first round of applications.

The Hollywood/Silicon Valley Gay Sex Abuse Arm Of The California DNC

The Hollywood/Silicon Valley Gay Sex Abuse Arm Of The California DNC



The heads of Google, Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Kleiner Perkins, Greylock Capital, Covington and Burling and Most of Hollywood are Both DNC Financiers and Homosexual Abusers. They prove that “PizzaGate” is real and that gay politics are the seediest thing you ever came across.


Sex, Politics, Meth and Death in West Hollywood




 Ryan Gierach




The Los Angeles County Coroner has reported the death of Gemmel Moore, 26, of an accidental meth overdose at 7:22 p.m. on July 27 at the West Hollywood home of high-profile Democratic Party donor and political activist, Ed Buck. The youth’s death reportedly occurred just hours after he left his family in Texas in order to join Buck.


While a case detail report filed by the medical examiner lists the manner of Gemmel Moore’s death as an “accident” and its cause as “methamphetamine use,” the deceased man’s mother told the WeHo Times that something more nefarious may have occurred in the short hours between when her son hopped on a plane using a ticket she says was purchased by the well connected Buck, and the moment he took his final breath.


I called one of my son’s friends and was like, ‘who the hell is Edward Buck?’” LaTisha Nixon said, speaking from her home in Spring Texas during a phone interview.  “And my son’s friend was like, ‘oh my God, that’s that white guy, that wealthy white politician guy… he was like ‘oh my God…’”


Buck, a one-time Republican, came to Southern California from Arizona several years ago and gained a reputation for making generous donations to the California and L.A. County Democratic Party and chair of Stonewall Democratic Club’s Political Affairs Committee.


LaTisha Nixon says she learned that her son, who was unemployed, had recently been doing sex work. She told the WeHo Times that her son’s friend was also engaged in similar activity—and that they had a client in common.



When he calmed down, he told me that Ed Buck was one of my son’s clients and that Ed Buck was one of his clients as well,” Nixon said. “[Buck] would have my son to go out to… Santa Monica Boulevard looking for young gay black guys so he could inject them with drugs, see their reaction and how [they] would react and take pictures of them.”


Nixon says a detective from the West Hollywood Station of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who called her following her son’s death said no drugs or paraphernalia were found at Buck’s home.


Nevertheless, Nixon is steadfast in her accusations about the activist’s alleged fetish for getting young African American men high.


[He] would supply heroin, meth and other drugs to him to smoke or use with a needle,” Nixon alleges. “Buck would pleasure himself at the sight of my son using drugs…”


She asserted that Gemmel Moore’s friends told her, “the bigger the cloud of smoke,” the bigger the reward from Buck, who “would excitedly encourage [Gemmel] to increase his dosage by saying, ‘more, more, and I’ll give you $500 more.’”


Multiple attempts to reach Ed Buck for comment by phone had yielded no result as of publication time.


One of Moore’s friends with whom WeHo Times spoke described his relationship with the deceased man as one between “true, lifelong friends, not friends like you get in the gay world.”


The man, who gave WeHo Times his full name, but because of his vocation as a sex worker asked to be identified only as “Cameron,” says he also used drugs supplied by Ed Buck in the latter man’s apartment.


After accurately describing the interior of the apartment, with which this reporter is personally familiar, Cameron told WeHo Times Buck asked him if he’d ever “slammed,” a street term for intravenous meth use.


I told him no, and that would take more money,” Cameron said, describing Buck’s reaction as “excited.”


Cameron said Ed Buck seemed to “get off on getting you higher and higher.”


The trouble that led to Gemmel’s death last week may have had its genesis a year ago. That was when LaTisha Nixon heard from Gemmel by phone. He was in a panic.


My son filed a police report,” Nixon told WeHo Times. “…He filed a police report because he said that Buck had held him in his apartment or whatever and had shot him up with a needle with something he didn’t’ know what it was. He called me crying. Three minutes on the phone hollering and I’m like ‘What the hell is going on?’ He said ‘this man, he shot me up with something I don’t even know what it is,’ and I’m like, my son is having a breakdown or episode. But he sent me pictures of his arm, his arm was red.”


At the time of this publication, WeHo Times had not yet been able to obtain copies of the alleged police report nor of the photos Nixon claims depict her son’s arm after the alleged incident a year ago.


Gemmel got scared and at the urging of relatives and few close friends who knew of these outrageous encounters; my son came home to me in Texas to get away,” Nixon continued. “Yes, my son was an adult and didn’t live a fairy tale perfect life, but he didn’t deserve to die this way.”


Ed Buck cuts a formidable swath through West Hollywood, L.A. County and national Democratic Party politics. Beginning in 1987 Arizona politics as a registered Republican leading the charge to recall then-Governor Evan Mecham, Ed Buck’s move to West Hollywood and into the Democratic Party saw him closely supporting several congressional members, state and local officials with generous donations and political advice.


(In the video shown here, Buck and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie mix it up. This clip played on the national cable news networks – all of them.)


Buck gave $2700 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2015 and another $250 in 2016. He was also influential in the most recent city council races (to which he gave thousands of dollars to support the incumbents), making him one of California’s most prolific and substantial political donors.



Locally, his cash and influence wield outsized influence. In 2011, Buck teamed up with WeHo Council member John D’Amico in his first bid for office, organizing a “Fur Free WeHo” campaign to aid in Mr. D’Amico’s pursuit of a council seat.


The issue inspired volunteers, who walked precincts and made phone calls to support D’Amico’s legislative agenda, sending him into office with a landslide and a mandate.


In that heated political season, Buck also set off a minor controversy exposing credit card spending patterns at City Hall, resulting in an investigation into one council member’s spending for which he was exonerated.


LaTisha Nixon wonders if that political past, combined with Buck’s influence and perhaps even race—Ed Buck is white, while her son was African American—influenced in any way the head-spinning speed of the investigation into her son’s death.


To shoot young guys up with who knows what is evil,” Nixon said. She believes the investigation might not have been pursued as vigorously because of Ed Buck’s position in this city.


I honestly want him to go to jail and serve time to think about what he did.”


In the next moment, however, Nixon added: “I just want to say, as I’m researching this guy, he seems like a really nice person, like, you know?”


But she says she believes in accountability.


I plan to seek justice for my son in every way possible and intend for Buck to face the consequences of the California’s Drug Dealer Liability Act of 2005,” Nixon said.


Repeated telephone calls to and messages left for Mr. Buck were met with no answer and no reply.


(Disclosure: Ed Buck was a regular source, contributor, donor and confidant of Ryan Gierach’s while he was publisher of now-shuttered WeHo News.)



p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 


Women Demand That Google Be Exposed As Intolerant Echo Chamber

More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

Scandal over discrimination at the company deepens as dozens of current and former staff say they earned less than men despite equal qualifications
Google is still reeling from the leak of a male software engineer’s 10-page manifesto criticizing diversity initiatives.
Google is still reeling from the leak of a male software engineer’s 10-page manifesto criticizing diversity initiatives. Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters
Sam Levin in San Francisco
Wednesday 9 August 2017 02.12 BST Last modified on Wednesday 9 August 2017 02.19 BST
More than 60 current and former Google employees are considering bringing a class-action lawsuit alleging sexism and pay disparities against women, as the technology giant wrestles with a deepening crisis over alleged discrimination.
James Finberg, the civil rights attorney working on the possible legal action on behalf of the female employees, told the Guardian they contend they have earned less than men at Google despite equal qualifications and comparable positions.
Others, he said, have struggled in other ways to advance their careers at Google due to a “culture that is hostile to women”.
The Silicon Valley company is reeling from the leak over the weekend of a male software engineer’s 10-page manifesto criticizing diversity initiatives and arguing that men occupy more leadership roles than women in tech “biological differences”.
The document, which was widely condemned as misogynistic and scientifically inaccurate, prompted Google to eventually fire the author, James Damore, and reignited debate about discrimination and sexual harassment that critics say is rampant in the technology industry.
A class-action gender discrimination suit would build on a case brought by the US Department of Labor (DoL), which is arguing that Google systematically underpays women and recently convinced a judge to force the company to hand over a portion of the company’s salary records.
Google is vehemently denying that its salaries are discriminatory. However Finberg, who said he had interviewed around half of the 60 women who may be part of his lawsuit, said their testimony indicated there are clear disparities and prejudices that hurt women at the Mountain View company.
“They are concerned that women are channeled to levels and positions that pay less than men with similar education and experience,” Finberg said. Despite similar positions and qualifications, he said, some women said they make less than male counterparts in salaries, bonuses and stock options.
Several women he interviewed have said they make around $40,000 less than male colleagues doing the same work, with one woman saying she makes two-thirds of a male peer’s salary.
Of the more than 60 women who have reached out to the attorney in the last three weeks, about half still work for Google, according to Finberg, who said that more than a dozen claimed that discrimination played a role in their decision to leave the company.
One former senior manager who recently left Google told the Guardian she repeatedly learned of men at the same level as her earning tens of thousands of dollars more than her, and in one case, she said she had a male employee join her team with a higher salary despite the fact that she was his superior.
“It’s demoralizing,” said the worker, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. “There’s something subconsciously that happens where you do start to question the value that you’re adding to the company.”
The manager said that dealing with frequent sexism in the workplace and helping other women navigate the discrimination they were facing took a toll on her and contributed to her decision to quit. “After a while, it just became exhausting,” she said. “It takes emotional energy that builds up over time.”
Finberg argued that when men get higher compensation in the form of base salary and stocks “the big initial disparity turns into a larger and larger disparity every year”.
“I felt like I wasn’t playing the game in the ‘boys club’ environment,” said another woman who worked for two years as a user experience designer and recently left Google. She said she regularly dealt with sexist remarks, such as comments about her looks, and that she felt it was discriminatory when she was denied a promotion despite her achievements and large workload.
“I was watching male coworkers progress at a faster rate than myself. It was really disturbing,” said the designer, who also requested anonymity.
Google headquarters in Mountain View, California.
Google headquarters in Mountain View, California. Photograph: JasonDoiy/Getty Images
A Google spokesperson declined to comment on the pending class-action. However, in reference to the women considering legal action, the spokesperson said: “Sixtypeople is a really small sample size.” He added: “There are always going to be differences in salary based on location, role and performance, but the process is blind to gender.”
The women’s stories bolster the claims of labor department officials, who have said that a preliminary analysis found that women face “extreme” pay discrimination across the company and have recently raised concerns that Google’s strict confidentiality agreements are discouraging employees from speaking up.
While the DoL has not released details of its analysis or the scale of the pay gap it claims to have uncovered, its regional solicitor recently said that the agency’s initial audit has founded six to seven standard deviations between pay for men and women across the company.
What that means is that there is a one in 100m chance that the observed disparity is occurring randomly or by chance, said Janice Madden, a University of Pennsylvania sociology professor who has served as an expert witness in class-action employment cases.
If there are two standard deviations, the DoL considers the disparity statistically significant.
The former Google manager said it was upsetting to hear about the high standard deviations. “It just makes me feel a little sick,” she said. “That’s a lot of missed income for me personally and the people on my team.”
The Google spokesperson said the company could not comment on the standard deviations because it has not seen the DoL’s analysis.
Finberg said he hoped a class-action case could have a ripple effect in the industry.
“Google is not alone in Silicon Valley,” he said. “The goal of the case is to not only get Google to change its practices, but to encourage other Silicon Valley companies to change their pay practices as well.”
Email the author:

The Insanity Of The Silicon Valley Sociopath CEO Club

The Insanity Of The Silicon Valley Sociopath CEO Club


– A report to the White House and the U.S. Congress



There is a mad plot that Silicon Valley CEO’s have implemented. It is based half on strategic planning and half on frat house culture programming. Every tech CEO denies any knowledge of such shenanigans but 20 years of news stories and HR reports prove that this bubble of crazy digital anarchy is quite tangible.


There have been many stories written recently about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg doing a tour of America to try and find out what people all over the U.S. are thinking and are concerned with these days. He called it a fact-finding trip, and stated that it had no political focus…that was a lie by Zuckerberg. In the gold plated bubble that Zuck occupies, his handlers have convinced him that he is a demigod that can be The President of the United States and, thereby, give government money to Facebook’s venture capitalists. If only the public didn’t think Zuck was a Douche-bag. If only Zuckerberg had not called every one of his users “Dumb Fucks” for being stupid enough to fall for his internet privacy abuse schemes.















Tech execs who understand the role of technology on our future look at our current president and some members of Congress and see almost no understanding or vision of what a crucial time we are in our history.


But according to an article in Politico, Zuckerberg recently “hired a Democratic pollster, Joel Benenson, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, as a consultant, according to a person familiar with the hire. Benenson’s company, Benenson Strategy Group, will be conducting research for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple’s philanthropy.”… Zuck also hired bribery expert David Plouffe to scam up the DNC funds for him. Plouffe recently got caught in a bribery scheme, for Uber, with Rahm Emanual in Chicago.


While Zuckerberg denies overt political ambition, the belief here in Silicon Valley is that he is thinking more seriously of some type of political run or campaign that he could launch in the near future, or at least trying to understand how he can be more influential in guiding U.S. policy when it comes to the potential impact that technology will play in America’s future over the next 30 years.


There is some interesting history of this type of Silicon Valley political activity — Y Combinator president Sam Altman, who recently launched a political advocacy project called The United Slate, recently said he was considering running for California governor himself.


I wrote about this for Fast Company last fall, and here is a passage that explains the Valley’s early interest and influence on Washington:


“During my 35 years of covering the technology industry, I have seen firsthand how companies have tried to keep an arm’s-length relationship with the government. With some rare exceptions—the Pentagon’s cooperation and collaboration with industry brought us the internet—Silicon Valley has generally tried to avoid federal and state bureaucrats. After all, the less the government knew about what tech companies were doing, the fewer legal and legislative issues the industry would have to deal with. This dynamic no longer works.


In the mid 1990s, a group of technology heavyweights led by Cisco’s then-CEO, John Chambers, and Kleiner Perkins venture capital firm partner John Doerr, along with various other tech leaders, began to realize the Valley would need the partnership of government and politicians for their vision of the future to be realized to the fullest.


Chambers and Doerr et al also foresaw the dramatic impact that the internet and mobile technologies would have on the U.S. and the world. Already back then, Chambers was percolating his ideas of connected cities and the Internet of Things (IoT).


These executives began evangelizing these concepts within the Clinton administration and at the federal agency level. They made an effort to educate elected officials on how technology would impact every level of government, and how it would transform our cities, businesses, and system of education.


To their credit, Clinton and Vice President Al Gore understood what Chambers and Doerr were saying. Clinton and Gore opened lots of doors for the tech leaders in Washington, giving them a chance to share their vision of the future.


At the end of the Clinton era, when Al Gore battled George W. Bush for the presidency, Chambers, Doerr, and other Silicon Valley leaders wisely kept up their efforts to influence both candidates. It became clear that whoever became president would follow President Clinton’s lead and allow Silicon Valley leaders to continue pushing the tech agenda.”


In fact, John Doerr, Elon Musk and Al Gore created the Climate Change scheme which gutted the U.S. Department of Energy of hundreds of millions of dollars that went straight into their Silicon Valley VC funds. The very funds that financed Clinton and Obama. That was felony-class corruption. If you doubt that fact, meet with FBI Director Christopher Wray and me and the proof will flow like an avalanche. John Chambers built back-doors into every Cisco network device to allow all Americans to get spied on. This has led to the hacks of HBO, Sony and the CIA because Cisco did such a crap job of securing their hardware.


The heart of this recent interest in the tech world getting more involved in politics by either running for office or finding new ways to influence our politicians is the even greater understanding today of the impact of tech on our worlds future and how it could dramatically change American education, jobs, businesses and our personal lives over the next 30 or so years.


In a separate piece I did for Time Magazine before the last election, entitled “Why Our President Needs to Take Tech Seriously,” I wrote:


“With 5G, it will begin connecting people to devices, and devices to other devices. The latter is called the Internet of Things, and it’s primed to profoundly change our lives, much the way the regular Internet has. It’s also a potentially huge source of growth — Cisco estimates IoT gear and software will become a $14 trillion market over the next decade.


5G isn’t the only innovation on the horizon. Connected and autonomous cars will hit the streets in the next decade. In combination with the IoT, they’ll “speak” to one another and to public infrastructure, helping us build smarter cities. Tech companies will roll out new ways to track our health, connecting us to our doctors to help us stay healthy. Artificial intelligence will be applied to just about everything that technology already touches. Digital security will become an even more vital issue, as businesses and individuals will be increasingly targeted by hackers. The very nature of computers will change, too, as virtual and augmented reality will be established as the new interface of computing, delivering new forms of utility and entertainment.”


I also add to this AR, VR, Machine Learning, Robotics in manufacturing and new advances in medical science and you see that technology is on course to disrupt just about everything that is around us today and well into our future.


“However, for all these innovations to thrive — and deliver potentially huge economic benefits — they will need the help of our elected officials. Lawmakers need to understand these technologies, as they will be called upon to craft new laws and regulations to bring these technologies about smartly and safely.


Therein lies a problem. If you look at our lawmakers across the country, I would venture to guess that most are not very technologically savvy. For our country to truly enjoy the benefits of these new technologies, we’ll need politicians and officials who understand how these innovations work, and how they stand to change our lives.”


The lawmakers, through lack of technology awareness, have allowed Google and Facebook to operate a coup d’etat, right under their noses. The recent revelation of the Media Matters digital attack plan, only serves to prove that lawmakers have no clue about the digital anal rape tactics they are current enduring:


Media Matters is not just a George Soros East Coast thing, it is paid for an implemented by Silicon Valley tech CEO’s.


Silencing ALL opposition voices: Inside The Media Matters Playbook



Even to casual observers, it has been obvious for months that the left is orchestrating a tightly-coordinated campaign to undermine and delegitimize the current presidential administration.


As an extension of the decades-long campaign to wrestle the narrative away from conservatives, independents and centrists, they’re smearing right-leaning commentators with anything they can find. In the take-down of Bill O’Reilly and Monica Crowley and attempted hit on Sean Hannity, for example, it’s more than evident.


And just this week, the suspension of Fox’s Eric Bolling provides even more proof.


We now know how the left is running this non-stop smear campaign and who is pulling the puppet strings.


We now have the Media Matters Playbook.


In a 49-page document marked PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL, the entire anti-Trump plan is laid out. Called “DEMOCRACY MATTERS, Strategic Plan For Action”, it lists four leftist partner organizations: Media Matters, American Bridge 21st Century, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Shareblue.


These are some of the most well-funded, well-entrenched, and well known leftist organizations in America. Billionaire George Soros (pictured below) is a key backer.


So, what exactly do they want? Nothing less than complete control over political discourse in America.


They lay it out plainly in their introduction, saying,


We are going to contest every effort, at every level of government, to limit rights, rescind protections, entrench inequality, redistribute wealth upwards, or in any other way fundamentally undermine the tenets of egalitarianism that must serve as the bedrock of our democracy.





Their motivation is obvious: the continued erosion of our constitutional republic, forming a direct democracy with the elite left permanently in charge.


Of course, Media Matters and American Bridge have been doing this for years.


Of the latter, the introduction says:


American Bridge will cement itself as the standard-bearer of opposition research, build on its role as a progressive clearinghouse for information that drives the narrative on Republican officeholders and candidates, and be at the epicenter of Democrats’ work to regain power–starting in 2017 and building to 2020.


Here’s what success will look like:


-Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020.


-The balance of power will shift back to the Democrats. We will measurably impact US Senate, gubernatorial, and state legislative races.


-We will free ourselves from solely relying in the press. Our robust digital program will reach voters directly online.


This is typical for American Bridge, which was formed in 2010 and practically invented the “tracker” position – a paid position for left-leaning activists to record every Republican officeholder and candidate in every public forum they can get into, with the intent of finding any statement they can use against them.


Media Matters and American Bridge 21st Century were both founded by David Brock and receive funding from the network of public employee unions and liberal super-donors that includes George Soros, Tom Steyer, and many others.


Brock also serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for CREW, as well as holding a majority ownership stake in Shareblue.


All four organizations have assignments in the campaign. Media Matters is charged with “disarming right-wing disinformation, while leading the fight against the next generation of conservative disinformation.”


CREW is branded as a “leading non-profit ethics watchdog group” that will “demand ethical conduct from the administration and all parts of government, expose improper influence from powerful interests, and ensure accountability when the administration and others shirk ethical standards, rules, and laws.”


Shareblue will “take back social media for Democrats”. Their purpose is to “legitimize Donald Trump’s presidency by emboldening the opposition”.


It’s the mission of CREW that is most concerning. According to the playbook, here’s what success will entail:


-Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.


-The Trump Administration will be forced to defend illegal conduct in court.


-Powerful industries and interest groups will see their influence wane.


-Dark money will be a political liability in key states.


It is ironic that they point to dark money as a target, as all four of these organizations are the epicenter of those very campaigns that are fueling the war against conservatives and others in America.


You can read the full 49-page playbook here.



I am willing to bet that as more and more tech execs understand the magnitude of what has to be called the great tech revolution of this century, we will see some of them trying to find a greater way to influence our current politicians, and we’ll even see some begin to run for office in order to influence our government from within as much as possible.


Former Google Employee: ‘There Are Efforts to Demote Anything Non-PC from Search Results’


Google anonymous


by Allum Bokhari


Google was thrown into turmoil last night after the company fired James Damore, author of a manifesto defending viewpoint diversity and a fact-based approach to the alleged gender gap in tech. In exclusive interviews with Breitbart News, more Google employees are now speaking out in support of the manifesto.


Damore’s ten-page manifesto, which was met by an immediate backlash, described a climate of fear, in which employees who challenge prevailing leftist narratives at the company are faced with immediate threats to their career. Damore’s own experience appears to confirm this.


Breitbart News is exclusively publishing a series of interviews with current and former Google employees who contacted us in the wake of the manifesto’s publication.


The interview series, entitled “Rebels of Google,” will be published in full over the coming days. Because every employee who spoke to us fears for their job if their identities were made public, we have provided aliases in place of their real names.


In the first interview of the series, a Google employee (alias “Hal”) spoke of witch-hunts and intolerance at Google, as well as dysfunction at the company’s upper echelons.


Our second interview, published below, is the account of a former Google engineer (alias “Emmett”) who spent several years at the company. You can find a full transcript of our interview here.


We asked  Emmett if he could corroborate allegations that employees within Google’s Ad Sales department have expressed “a great deal of sympathy” with the Sleeping Giants campaign, which has sought to deny ad revenue to alternative media sites including Breitbart News and The Rebel Media.


According to Breitbart’s anonymous source, some Ad Sales employees are “openly encouraging Adwords customers to pull their ads from Breitbart and Rebel Media.”


Emmett concurs with our source. “A number of friends have privately confirmed this to me. I know there are efforts to demote anything non-PC, anti-Communist and anti-Islamic terror from search results. To what extent that has been successful, I don’t know.”


Emmett says he personally witnessed efforts from leftists within Google to bias YouTube’s algorithms to push anti-PC content off the platform’s “related videos” recommendations.


“I have read internal mailing list e-mail from SJWs absolutely incensed that there’d be, say, a Sargon of Akkad video appearing as a video related to one of their favorite SJW vloggers. This is what happens when you have unbiased algorithms, which at the time, was true. I don’t have to tell you that, in that e-mail, the SJW was quite literally asking that the ‘related videos’ function be perverted so that such a thing would stop happening.”


According to Emmett, the greatest threat is that ordinary users of Google and its related services won’t even be able to detect the censorship.


“The software could just astroturf your Related Videos section, and you would be none the wiser. Sure, if you know what to look for, perhaps you’d notice. But the vast majority of the viewership would never ever know. That’s the whole point of such a disinformation program, right? If you can tell it’s disinformation, you would never ever believe it.”


In Emmett’s view, it’s “only a matter of time” before Google begins to bias its search results against the Trump movement, Republicans, and right-leaning politicians.


“I don’t have to tell you that there was an internal meltdown at Google when the election was over. The hysteria has only ever reached a higher level once. That was throughout this weekend, thanks to the #GoogleManifesto scandal.”


According to Emmett, Google is “leaking people with integrity” who are “tired of having to cope with these corrupt ideologies and the people who proselytize them, support them, and punish people who disagree with them.”


“Who remains in charge, after that slow but certain evaporative cooling of beliefs? You do the math.”


Concurring with James Demore’s manifesto, Emmett speaks of a culture of fear at the company. He says that even speaking out against Democrat politicians is unwise for a Googler.


“Whether you dislike a Democratic party candidate, or have reservations about how Google ‘looks twice’ at the applications of certain candidates from privileged (“underrepresented”) minorities, or support free speech … if it’s something the SJWs don’t want to hear about, be very, very careful about opening your mouth to anyone.”


Emmett recalls one case in which a Google employee was actually punched for making a post that offended someone. Far from helping the Google employees who face left-wing harassment, Emmett alleges that the company’s Human Resources department assists them.


“Everybody knows it’s a quick trip to H.R. if you dare say anything against the ‘anti-social’ order. Or sometimes you get punched. I know at least one engineer did get punched in retaliation for something he posted.”


Predictably, Emmett confirms that racist and sexist incidents against white or male employees at Google are not taken seriously.


“I remember Colm Buckley (of #GoogleManifesto infamy) dismissing a well-written post by a colleague of mine, with the single sentence “Isn’t it nice to be white.” I also remember him being condescending to an employee who posted an innocuous message of skepticism about social justice. I should note that the employee Colm condescended to was eventually forced out of the company. ”


“I remember Peter Goett entirely unironically posting a reply to a list with over 10,000 Googlers: “congratulations on your white penis.” To my understanding, had someone posted “black vagina”, that person would have been summarily fired. Also to my understanding, Goett appears to have received no punishment.”


Emmett says the corruption at Google goes all the way to senior management.


Bias in support of these discriminatory and hostile behaviors goes pretty much all the way up, management’s just clever enough not to add to the fire (often) but just to let the lower ranks make it happen.”


“You have to remember these people are quite intelligent.”


This article is part of the “Rebels of Google” series. Read a full transcript of the interview here. 


Google is a criminal operation created to rig elections and steer ideologies and government cash back to Google.


The facts prove it. The employees prove it. The investigations prove. We are prepared to prove it in a civil suit, a Grand Jury hearing, A C-Span broadcast Senate hearing and in any public venue with equal access to resources.







p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>Quotes from: Tim Bajarin president of Creative Strategies Inc. Allum Bokhari on and add him on Facebook. Jeff Reynolds and Google employees and associates


California Governor Knowingly Helped Fake Tens Of Millions of Votes to Try To Protect Solyndra and Tesla Crony Payola Deals From Being Exposed

California Governor Knowingly Helped Fake Tens Of Millions of Votes to Try

To Protect Solyndra and Tesla Crony Payola Deals From Being Exposed




By LA Times Research Group




Get to know the name: Ken Alex.



He knows some dirt about the dirt in California. He is Jerry Brown’s inside manipulator.



Jim Hoft has been in a public disclosure effort about the fact that 10 of 11 California Counties With More Registered Voters than Voting Age Adults Are Democrat. This means that there are eleven counties in California with more registered voters than voting age adults in the county.



Ten of the Eleven counties voted for Hillary Clinton.


The counties include San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.


Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The letter reads, in part:


NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.

As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.


Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: “[T]here were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as high as 144%.


In June California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told the Trump administration the state will not cooperate with the election integrity commission because it would “only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud.”


One insider has testified: “A company I contracted for found the very same abnormalities in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. I personally audited South Texas voter records and found in some counties that the voter rolls were 2x the voter population. Our findings were sent to state departments who will start an investigation within the next 4 years. I was told it would be a minimum of 6 years before a fact finding committee would be established to address the allegations of voter fraud.”




The facts are: Data Show LA, San Diego, San Francisco Have More Registered Voters than Eligible Adult Citizens LA Voting Rolls Have 144% of the Total Number of Eligible Residents


Judicial Watch announced it sent a notice-of-violation letter to the state of California and 11 of its counties threatening to sue in federal court if it does not clean its voter registration lists as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Both the NVRA and the federal Help America Vote Act require states to take reasonable steps to maintain accurate voting rolls. The August 1 letter was sent on behalf of several Judicial Watch California supporters and the Election Integrity Project California, Inc.


In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).


In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”


Under Section 8 of the NVRA, states are required to make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from official lists due to “the death of the registrant” or “a change in the residence of the registrant,” and requires states to ensure noncitizens are not registered to vote.


There is “strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA,” Judicial Watch wrote in the notice letter sent to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.


Judicial Watch referred California officials to a settlement agreement it reached with the State of Ohio in which Ohio agreed to update and maintain its voter registration lists and to keep a current voter registration list online and available for public access.


“California’s voting rolls are an absolute mess that undermines the very idea of clean elections,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “It is urgent that California take reasonable steps to clean up its rolls. We will sue if state officials fail to act.”


In April, Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens.  The states are: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee.


On July 18, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the NVRA. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)).


Election Integrity Project California, Inc. is a registered non-profit corporation that seeks to preserve a government of, by, and for the people. To that end, Election Integrity Project California empowers citizen volunteers through education and training to protect the integrity of the electoral process in California.


The director of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project is senior attorney Robert Popper, who was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.


So why would the Governor of California, the Attorney General of California and the five biggest Senators in California conspire to fake a national election?



The answer is: Hookers!



Hookers and Rent-Boy sex services are very expensive. The variety of male and female prostitutes that California politicians use cost over $38,000.00 per month per politician. That gets you up to four or five different sex worker, per politician, disguised as “office aides” and “PR consultants”, per month.



That’s pricey!



If you are a sex addict California politician you will do anything to keep your conveyor belt of tan little beach blondes and Chinese “yoga instructors” from drying up. You, as a California politician, had gotten your cut of the Tesla and Solyndra stock market payola and you knew that crooked Hillary would keep those skims going and Donald Trump would cut those scams off.



Jerry Brown, Alex Padilla, Kamala Harris, Ken Alex, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, with the guidance of Debbie Wasserman and the DNC lied about tens of millions of votes in the Presidential elections.



They were financed in their effort by Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg and the Silicon Valley Cartel.



It is as simple as that!



Why won’t the feds send the FBI and a Special Prosecutor into California to clean this national stain up?





California refuses to purges it’s voter rolls of dead people …


No? Geez. Just more lies to deflect … There were no more voters, or even close to the number who … significant number of vote fraud cases in California or …




California Voting Fraud by the Numbers |


California Voting Fraud by the … California Voting Fraud by the Numbers. … I pointed out that that’s only because of a massive tax increase based on a lie ……




State officials refuse to turn over voters’ sensitive data to …


State officials refuse to turn over voters’ sensitive data to Donald Trump’s election panel. The information includes partial Social Security numbers, and voter




California has 11 counties where the number of registered …


Bill Maher compares Trump to ‘father of lies’ Satan; … California has 11 counties where the number of registered voters is greater than the number of voting-age …



p style=”margin-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%;”> 


Elon Musk: Master of Corruption

It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism


David Williams / /




Elon Musk, chairman of SolarCity and CEO of Tesla Motors, speaks Oct. 2, 2015, at SolarCity’s Inside Energy Summit in New York. Among SolarCity, Tesla, and SpaceX, Elon Musk’s interests got at least $4.9 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the past 10 years. (Photo: Rashid Umar Abbasi/Reuters/Newscom)


David Williams


David Williams is president of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a Washington-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that researches, and educates the public about, the government’s effects on the economy.


From Enron to Bernie Madoff, at the end of every great American financial scandal, the totality of the perpetrators’ greed seems to be matched only by the public’s incredulity at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.


And thanks to Elon Musk, there’s a good chance we may all be asking this question again soon.


The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have launched a probe into tax incentives paid to solar companies, according to The Wall Street Journal. The committee probes, led by their respective Republican chairmen, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have found an appropriate and disturbing target to begin this work.


SolarCity, a solar installation company set to be purchased by Tesla Motors Inc., is one of the seven companies named in the initial investigation.


Already grossly subsidized, Musk’s SolarCity has become an albatross of waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payer dollars. As legitimate earnings and cash become even scarcer for SolarCity, its entanglement in the Tesla empire suggests that a drastic reckoning not only is imminent, but in fact emboldening Musk to become more outlandish and reckless.


Notably, SolarCity is run by Musk’s cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive. During his chairmanship at SolarCity, Musk’s family enterprise has taken in billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies from both the federal and local governments. But the subsidies and sweetheart deals were not enough, as losses and missed projections continued to mount.


Ultimately, rather than endure the embarrassment of collapse and further damage to the public image of Musk and Tesla, the cousins conspired to have Tesla simply purchase SolarCity this year. The conditions of the deal screamed foul play.


To say nothing of what sense it might make for an automaker to purchase a solar installation company, Tesla stockholders were being forced to absorb a failing, cash-burning company and pay top dollar to do so.


While cost cutting and corporate restructuring should have been the priority for a company swimming in debt and burning through available cash, SolarCity in fact has been doubling down on the failed model of taxpayer support. The desperate thirst for handouts has manifested itself in some of the murkiest political waters imaginable.


Thanks to Musk’s cozy relationship with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, the state has granted at least $750 million of its taxpayers’ money to SolarCity, building the company a factory and charging it only $1 per year in rent.


It would be hard to imagine such an operation would not be lucrative for its shareholders. And yet somehow, SolarCity never has made a profit.


It’s not just in New York. In this year’s race for Arizona Corporation Commission, the state’s public utilities overseers, only one outside group funneled cash into the contest.


All of the $3 million donated by that group, Energy Choice for America, came from SolarCity. The beneficiaries are candidates who have signaled their willingness to be part of the “green machine” that greases the skids for lucrative government subsidies.


Burning through taxpayer dollars, buying elections, and expanding a network of crony capitalism has become so inherent to the SolarCity model that $3 million to a public commissioner’s race, brazen though it may be, is only a drop in the bucket for Musk and SolarCity.


In 2013 alone, SolarCity received $127.4 million in federal grants. The following year, in which it received only $342,000 from the same stimulus package, total revenue was just $176 million and the company posted a net loss of $375 million.


Despite an expansion of operations and claims to be the leader in the industry, SolarCity never has been able to survive without serious help from government subsidies and grants. The failure to responsibly turn taxpayer dollars into a profitable renewable energy provider has led to SolarCity’s collapse into the welcoming arms of Tesla.


And with Tesla, SolarCity in fact will be right at home, compounding a disastrous shell game that Elon Musk is playing with government resources.


It has been widely reported that among SolarCity, Tesla, and the rocket company SpaceX, Elon Musk’s confederacy of interests has gotten at least $4.9 billion in taxpayer support over the past 10 years.


This is almost half of Musk’s supposed net worth—taken from the pockets of American citizens and put into companies that can survive only by cannibalizing each other, spending without end, and promising that success is always just beyond the horizon and yet never arrives.


The American people are being taken on a ride by SolarCity, Tesla, and Musk. The ride is fueled by a cult of personality in Musk. And it costs billions of taxpayer dollars as he promises us not only the moon, but to harness the power of the sun and send us all to Mars.


In the cases of Enron and Bernie Madoff, in the end the cheated victims wished to have woken up sooner to the hubris that enabled such a downfall—or that at least regulators had pulled their heads out of the sand before the full impact of the collapse was realized.


We’ve seen this story before and we know how it ends.


The congressional investigations underway not only are necessary but a signal that more must be done, and soon. We may not be able to help Elon Musk stop himself from failing again, but we certainly shouldn’t be the ones to pay for it.


It’s past time for the American people to stand up to Musk and demand that our legislators and other elected officials bring him back to earth before spending one more dollar of our money. He’s wasted enough of it already.



Can we wean Elon Musk off government support already?


By Jenny Beth Martin




OPINION: Can we wean Elon Musk off government support already?

© Getty Images

Tesla’s new Model 3 has finally arrived, and not a moment too soon. The critics seem to love it, and Tesla management says it’s already received deposits for 500,000 of the vehicles. Perhaps now Elon Musk can finally get his hand out of U.S. taxpayers’ wallets?

Musk is, to be sure, an ideas man. Private, commercial space travel? Check. Washington to New York in less than half an hour in what he calls a “hyperloop” train that will travel at 800 miles per hour? Check. A new kind of tunneling engineering? Check. Solar energy? Check. Electric cars? Check, check.

As wide-ranging as these various entrepreneurial ventures may be, they all have one thing in common – not a single one of them would get funding in a competitive private capital market if it weren’t for massive (and I do mean massive) taxpayer-funded government subsidies.

A study published two years ago by The Los Angeles Times revealed that just three of Musk’s ventures – SolarCity Corp. (which manufactured and installed solar energy systems before its 2016 merger with Tesla Motors Inc.), Tesla Motors Inc. (which manufactures electric vehicles), and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX (which builds rocket ships) – had received $4.9 billion in government subsidies to that point in time. By now, Musk’s various ventures have sucked well over $5 billion from government coffers.

But granting literally billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Musk’s firms isn’t the worst of it. No, that honorific is reserved for this little gem: In order to induce car buyers to spend their money on electric vehicles, the federal government offers a $7,500 rebate on the purchase price.

Some states enhance that rebate with rebates of their own. In California, for instance, purchasers of electric vehicles get a state-funded rebate of $2,500 more.

There’s a phrase for that – it’s called “crony capitalism.” And it stinks.

Crony capitalism relies on government picking winners and losers. It depends on government choosing to move resources to a favored enterprise, even as it refuses to move resources to disfavored enterprises.

As such, it adds a political aspect to the economic criteria of the investment financing decision-making matrix. Those who can curry favor with key government officials have another avenue of funding available to them that those who cannot curry such favor do not.

By definition, that distorts the marketplace, and warps investment decisions better made by private stewards of finance unencumbered by political considerations, whose only fiduciary responsibility is to those whose funds they manage. By adding the political calculus to the decision-making matrix, it alters outcomes, and prevents the most economically efficient deployment of limited financial resources.

That’s all fancy economic professor talk I learned in college.

Here’s the question I hear when I’m talking to friends in Georgia who ask me to explain Washington to them: “Why should those guys in Washington take my hard-earned tax dollars and use them to lower the price of an electric car for some movie star in Hollywood?”

That’s a good question. Given that the average household income of a Tesla Model X owner is $503,000, that the average household income of a Tesla Model S owner is $267,000, and that we can only assume the average household income of a Model 3 owner will be somewhere in six-figure territory, it’s a tough question to answer. 

If Leonardo DiCaprio – who commands $20 million per movie (and there’s nothing at all wrong with that, if Hollywood studios think he’s worth the investment) – wants to buy a Tesla electric car, more power to him. But he certainly doesn’t need to be taking money out of the pockets of middle-income people elsewhere to do it. He can afford it on his own.

So that’s why I’m hoping Tesla’s Model 3 is a yuuuuuuuuge hit. I hope Elon Musk sells enough of those cars that he can make a profit on his own, without needing to dip any further into our pocketbooks and wallets.

Maybe then we could actually get a tax cut, and get some of our money back, so we can make our own choices about how best to spend them, rather than letting bureaucrats and politicians in Washington make those decisions for us.

President Trump, are you listening?







p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”>We witnessed Elon Musk and his investors engage in felony-class corruption with State and Federal tax money. James Comey and Eric Holder were informed of this, in writing, and they covered it up. Christopher Wray, the new head of the FBI, has now been informed of this, in writing!


A Letter To FBI Director Christopher Wray About An Interstate Crime!

A Letter To FBI Director Christopher Wray About An

Interstate Crime!




By Edward S.




Senators Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, and other public officials, took public salaries as their payment to work for all of the public in their districts. This is a fact.



Those Senators then made inside deals with Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, and Mark Zuckerberg to exclusively give, those three guys, billions of dollars of the public tax money and to cut out all of those three guys competitors in their districts. That is a fact, it provided “unjust gain” to those illicit parties and it is a crime.



On top of that, those Senators set-up construction companies, leasing companies, HR companies and other supply services which were contracted by Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, and Mark Zuckerberg. That is a fact, it provided “unjust gain” to those illicit parties and it is a crime.



On top of all of those things, those Senators were informed by the staff of Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, and Mark Zuckerberg as to which stock market funds to buy that Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, and Mark Zuckerberg were manipulating for unjust gain. That is a fact, it provided “unjust gain” to those illicit parties and it is a crime.



While those Senators were accepting these “layered bribes” and sabotaging the competitors of Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, and Mark Zuckerberg, those Senators were getting paid off in surreptitious manners by Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg and their staff. That is a fact, it provided “unjust gain” to those illicit parties and it is a crime.



These Senators did these crimes with the train contracts in California, The Post Office leases, the Department of Energy Cleantech “green cash”, The CIA and NSA contracts with Silicon Valley and many other scams. That is a fact, it provided “unjust gain” to those illicit parties and it is a crime.



The FBI has been provided with millions of pages of evidence that proves these charges to be fact. There are over 100,000 news articles, by respected reporters, which make these same assertions. That these Senators engaged in these crimes is indisputable.



When can the FBI arrest Senators Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and Elon Musk, Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg for these abuses of power and abuses of the law?



Hundreds of millions of voters would be very excited to see these arrests happen sooner than later.




Thank you.





p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 



  2. Reply to public response and misrepresentation
  4. I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
  6. TL:DR
  8. Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  9. This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  10. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  11. Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  12. Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  13. Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
  14. Background [1]
  16. People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
  18. Google’s biases
  20. At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
  22. Left Biases
  24. Compassion for the weak
  25. Disparities are due to injustices
  26. Humans are inherently cooperative
  27. Change is good (unstable)
  28. Open
  29. Idealist
  31. Right Biases
  33. Respect for the strong/authority
  34. Disparities are natural and just
  35. Humans are inherently competitive
  36. Change is dangerous (stable)
  37. Closed
  38. Pragmatic
  40. Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
  42. Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
  44. Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
  46. At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
  48. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
  49. They’re universal across human cultures
  50. They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  51. Biolgoical males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  52. The underlying traits are highly heritable
  53. They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
  54. Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
  56. Personality differences
  58. Women, on average, have more:
  59. Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  60. These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  61. Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  62. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  63. Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
  64. Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
  66. Men’s higher drive for status
  68. We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
  70. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
  72. Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
  74. Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
  75. Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  76. We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  78. Women on average are more cooperative
  80. Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  81. Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  82. Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  84. The male gender role is currently inflexible
  86. Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
  87. Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
  89. The Harm of Google’s biases
  91. I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
  92. Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  93. A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  94. Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  95. Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  96. Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
  97. These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.
  99. Why we’re blind
  101. We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
  103. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
  105. The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness{11}, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
  107. Suggestions
  109. I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
  111. My concrete suggestions are to:
  113. De-moralize diversity.
  115. As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
  116. Stop alienating conservatives.
  118. Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  119. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  120. Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservative tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
  122. Confront Google’s biases.
  124. I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  125. I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
  126. Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
  128. These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
  129. Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
  131. Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  132. There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  133. These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  134. I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
  136. Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
  138. We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  139. We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  140. Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
  142. De-emphasize empathy.
  144. I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain‚causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
  146. Prioritize intention.
  147. Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  148. Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
  150. Be open about the science of human nature.
  152. Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
  154. Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
  156. We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  157. Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  158. Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
  159. [1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
  161. [2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
  163. [3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
  165. [4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
  167. [5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
  169. [6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
  171. [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
  173. [8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
  175. [9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
  177. [10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
  179. [11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.




Last Wednesday, Tesla reported June-quarter sales of $2.3 billion. Despite a 25% gross margin on its cars, Tesla lost $336 million, or $2.04 a share, and that was after selling $100 million worth of “zero emissions” tax credits to other carmakers. Those losses and the capital spending for the Model 3 production line consumed more than $1 billion of cash in the quarter. Ramping capacity to build the Model 3 at an annual rate of 250,000 units will require another $2 billion in capital spending before year-end 2017.


Tesla’s capital-spending plans “will make your eyes water,” wrote Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas on Wednesday, adding that “time will tell if they are tears of joy.” In May, Jonas tamped his enthusiasm for the stock down to a Neutral rating when Tesla shares shot past his price target of $305. Bears like Cowen’s Osborne have targets far lower.

While Elon Musk Buys “reviews” from main stream media fraud news, the truth is out: Tesla is the most dangerous car maker on Earth

Tesla Cars Have More Deaths And Destruction Per Volume Than Any Car In History!


If Mentally Ill Teenagers Created A Newspaper It Would Be: BUZZFEED

Buzzfeed is what emotionally malnourished kids think the world might be like if they have never left their parents McMansion’s


5 Reasons Why BuzzFeed Sucks –

If you believe the things you read in a BuzzFeed article I highly question why I am … BuzzFeed is garbage that they sucker you into with dumb GIFs just so you click …

Disney, Google and Facebook Caught Manipulating the Minds of Millions Of Children and Adults

DISNEY Accused of Illegally Tracking Children Via Apps…

How Corporations Use A.I. To Alter Consumer Behavior…