The Role Of The Internal Revenue Service In Elections

On Sunday, The American Thinker posted an article about the role the Internal Revenue Service has played in American elections.

The article notes:

Should the projections of a Republican tsunami at the midterms prove true, there are so many things that a Republican Congress must prioritize. Not the least of which is revising the civil-service laws to permit removing incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats, cutting drastically the federal bureaucracy, and reforming, among other agencies, the CDC, NIH, FBI, and the IRS.

I’m focusing now on the IRS, which first hit my radar screen when with no consequences whatsoever.  Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice declined to press criminal charges against Lois Lerner, whose outfit delayed and denied the Tea Party reform groups the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled, hamstringing them against the very well-financed (probably including illegal funds from abroad) Obama crowd. 

This time, pay attention to Black Lives Matter, an utterly corrupt outfit whose riots and lootings destroyed so many cities and wreaked havoc on the black communities and their businesses.

The damage continues to this day as the riots fueled the defund police movement, a ridiculous effort that leaves the poor and the black communities particularly vulnerable to violent crime, and as another consequence caused an exodus of needed businesses from those places.

On her own, the mayor of D.C. ordered one street painted in huge letters “Black Lives Matter.” School kids were urged to walk out to support the group, while big corporations sent them money. All told, the group reportedly raised $90 million in 2020.

The article concludes:

While the IRS makes it harder for you to get your refunds, Black Lives Matter is not the only sketchy Democrat-controlled election-rigging outfit whose tax-exempt status the IRS has not looked into. David Horowitz and John Perazzo detail how Mark Zuckerberg funneled $419.5 million to tax-exempt outfits (Center for Election Innovation and Research and the “Safe Elections” Project of the Center for Technology and Civic Life through yet a third tax-exempt outfit, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.)

The purpose of these grants was obvious — it was to tip the scales for the Democrats in the 2020 election despite the fact that such tax-exempt foundations are “barred from contributing their resources to election campaigns.”

The grants to these two outfits and the ways they used them to tip the election for Biden are well laid out in this article. 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

The existence of such a regulation is meaningless, however, if it is not enforced. Consequently, this ban on campaign activities by “charitable” organizations didn’t daunt Facebook billionaire and Democrat Party patron Mark Zuckerberg and his wife when they plotted a massive campaign to swing the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrat, Joe Biden.

The Facebook couple donated to two left-wing tax-exempt foundations “with the intention of tipping the result to Biden by launching “get-out-the-vote” campaigns focused on Democrat precincts in battleground states.” And they achieved that purpose.

The authors contend that none of these travesties could have taken place “without the seditious collusion of I.R.S. Commissioner Charles Rettig and his 63,000 agents“ who neglect their duty to protect our tax laws and elections.

I find their argument compelling. On the one hand, they tied the hands of the Tea Party, on the other, they put on blinders to the patent corruption of the BLM and Zuckerberg-funded outfits.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. If we don’t vote the current crooks (in both parties) out of office in November, I fear we will lose our country.

What Happens Next?

On Tuesday, The Federalist reported that the Wisconsin Office of Special Counsel, headed by retired state Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman, has concluded that nearly $9 million in Zuckerberg grant funds directed solely to five Democratic strongholds in Wisconsin violated the state’s election code’s prohibition on bribery.

The article reports:

Last August, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos authorized the Office of Special Counsel, headed by retired state Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman, to investigate concerns about election integrity and the 2020 election. Gableman delivered an interim report to the state assembly on November 10, 2021. Earlier today, the special counsel provided a second interim report to the state legislative body, noting the report “is final in the sense that it provides a list of recommendations with time for the Legislature to act before the close of its session in March.”

The article also notes:

The Zuckerberg 5 also violated the federal and state constitutional guarantee of equal protection, according to the special counsel report. The grant money targeted specific voters for special voting privileges, to the disadvantage of similarly situated voters located in other Wisconsin counties. The report also detailed troubling evidence the Zuckerberg 5 counties allowing private groups working with the granting organization, the Center for Tech and Civic Life, to “unlawfully administer aspects of the election,” including in one county where one organization was unlawfully embedded in local government election administration.

The special counsel’s report also highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) illegal directive to clerks to ignore the state election code governing voting in nursing homes. In several nursing home locations throughout the state, 100 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election—an unheard-of rate that included many ineligible voters.

Non-citizen and incapacitated citizens also remained listed on Wisconsin’s voting rolls, in violation of the law, according to the report. Because some non-citizens qualify for driver’s licenses, the law requires non-citizens’ names be removed from the master roll, but that was not done, according to the special counsel. Likewise, individuals declared incompetent must, by law, be removed from the master list, but again that did not occur.

I suspect the problems in Wisconsin are not unique. I also suspect that these problems are simply the tip of the iceberg. I have personally seen evidence of strange things happening in calculating voting totals via Dominican voting machines and other computer anomalies that are also cause for suspicion. We need to take a really good look at how we vote and how those votes are counted before the mid-term election. Election integrity is important and needs to be upheld by our courts and our representatives.

Check With The Experts Before You Change Your Name

Some of us are old enough to remember when Chevrolet introduced its new “Nova.” It was a cute, compact car that was marketed to compete with the Ford Falcon. However, there was a small problem marketing the Nova in Spanish-speaking countries. “No va” in Spanish translates loosely to “it doesn’t go.” Not a great name for a car. Well, it seems as if Mark Zuckerberg has made a similar mistake renaming Facebook.

The Western Journal reported the following today:

Giggles, snickers and some awkwardness greeted Facebook’s decision to change its corporate name to Meta.

Jokesters poked fun at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, because “meta” is pronounced like the feminine form of the Hebrew word for “dead,”, according to the Times of Israel.

“In Hebrew, *Meta* means *Dead*,” Dr. Nirit Weiss-Blatt, a tech expert, tweeted on Thursday. “The Jewish community will ridicule this name for years to come.”

…Zuckerberg said the name Facebook does not cover “everything we do” at a time when his empire includes Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, its Quest VR headset, its Horizon VR platform and more. Zuckerberg explained that the metaverse is a form of the virtual world where everyone is connected by virtual reality headsets, augmented reality glasses and phone apps.

The article also notes:

In Portuguese and Spanish, the word is not so troubling because it means “goal.” In Brazil, however, the word has a sexual connotation, according to Bloomberg.

Zuckerberg’s announcement was a boon for Nova Scotia-based Meta Materials. The company’s stock rose 26 percent in after-hours trading on Thursday, when Zuckerberg made his announcement, and another 6 percent on Friday, according to Reuters.

The article concludes:

Name changes can often fail in translation.

Kentucky Fried Chicken learned that when it entered the Chinese market in the 1980s, according to the BBC.

The restaurant’s “finger lickin’ good” motto, when translated into Mandarin, came out “eat your fingers off.”

It’s probably a good idea to use a translation application of some sort before you make a significant name change. Sometimes mistakes can be very misleading!

 

How Freedom Of Speech Dies

On Friday Newt Gingrich posted an article illustrating the discrepancies in the censorship policies of Facebook.

The article reports:

The hypocrisy of Facebook’s so called internal “supreme court” decision to uphold former President Donald Trump’s ban from the platform is astounding. However, this decision will ultimately help President Trump because it makes him a martyr for standing in defense of constitutional American freedoms.

Every American should take note of this decision. If the Facebook oligarchs can silence someone who served as President of the United States and received nearly 75 million votes, then they can silence anyone.

But to understand the depth of the hypocrisy and anti-Americanism of the Facebook elites, it is more revealing to look at who they are not removing from the platform.

The article lists the people who have not been removed from Facebook:

Let’s start with the Chinese Communist totalitarian dictatorship. Xinhua News Agency– a state-run propaganda outlet – has 90.2 million followers on Facebook. The People’s Daily and the Global Times, which are Chinese Communist Party propaganda outlets, have 86.5 million and 62.9 million followers, respectively. The state-run television network, China Central Television, and its international arm, China Global Television Network, have 49.8 and 116.8 million followers. All of these organizations have been designated by the U.S. State Department as foreign missions.

To Facebook, a former American president is more dangerous than the Chinese Communist dictatorship, which is actively committing genocide and religious persecution, has taken over Hong Kong and threatened Taiwan, and openly says it intends to be the world’s dominant superpower by 2049.

The article notes that The “Movement in Support of Vladimir Putin” page has 3.1 million followers.

The list continues:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, representing a country where its Congress openly chants “death to America,” has 883,829 Facebook followers. The corrupt Venezuelan dictator, President Nicolás Maduro, has 1.2 million followers on Facebook. Raul Castro’s replacement as the leader of Cuban Communist Party, President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermudez, has 24,261 Facebook followers.

The article concludes:

This is just a sample. It is disgusting that Mark Zuckerberg – who was made a billionaire by the freedom found in the United States, who has relied on the stature of this country, and whose business exists because of the freedom of speech – would preside over this phony, dishonest process in order to keep President Trump off of Facebook, while allowing real dictators to post freely.

This should be a national scandal. Zuckerberg and the Facebook oligarchs have violated fundamental American freedoms and betrayed their own country.

The Silicon Valley is looking a lot more like the Silicon Swamp—hostile to Americans and friendly to dictatorships.

One wonders if those responsible for making decisions on banning people from Facebook have thought through the implications of those decisions.

Not Surprising, But Sad

On Wednesday, American Greatness reported the following:

The Wisconsin House of Representatives on Wednesday held a hearing to review election irregularities after newly revealed documents obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight revealed that Democrat activists, funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were able to infiltrate the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin’s five largest cities.

In Green Bay, a Democrat activist was actually given keys to the room where absentee ballots were stored before the 2020 presidential election.

The city received a total of $1.6 million in grant funding from the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, according to Wisconsin Spotlight. A Democrat operative from New York named Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein became a “grant mentor.”

Spitzer-Rubenstein was the Wisconsin head of the left-wing National Vote at Home Institute, and has worked for several Democrat Party candidates.  The Democrat mayor’s office gave the liberal activist access to Green Bay’s absentee ballots just days before the election.

The Wisconsin Spotlight’s report has prompted several Wisconsin lawmakers to call for the resignation of Green Bay’s mayor, and for an investigation into the city’s handling of the November presidential election.

According to the report, the emails show that Green Bay’s “highly partisan” Democrat Mayor Eric Genrich and his staff usurped city Clerk Kris Teske’s authority and let the Zuckerberg-funded “grant team” take over in “a clear violation of Wisconsin election statutes.”

The article concludes:

“Unable to learn from his mistakes, Mayor Genrich and his staff deliberately, forcefully, and repeatedly interfered in November’s election administration. Is that why Green Bay’s Clerk and Deputy Clerk resigned?,” Bernier said. “He has shown himself unfit as an executive and should himself resign immediately from the position of Mayor of Green Bay.”

State Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay),urged Brown County District Attorney David Lasee to examine whether “these allegations were part of any sort of pay-for-play scheme.”

“Every American should have confidence in how their elections are run. This massive abuse of power significantly damages that trust, and we must ensure that situations like this cannot occur in the future,” Wimberger said in a statement.

“I’m still shaking my head that the keys were given to someone who was not a municipal employee,” Juno testified at the hearing. “It doesn’t smell right.”

No kidding.

In Case You Had Any Doubts About His Political Leaning

Just the News is reporting today that Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have gifted a quarter of a billion dollars to an election activist group pushing major government voting initiatives in several Democratic strongholds in the battleground state of Wisconsin. They are legally entitled to do that, but it does confirm the theory that the founder of Facebook is definitely a Democrat. It also gives credence to the idea that Facebook might skew its site to limit conservative speech and promote liberal speech.

The article reports:

Notably, the CTCL has already poured a significant sum of money into a voting initiative in five Wisconsin cities. The organization announced in early July that it had partnered with the cities to implement the Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan, a “vision for a safe, inclusive, and secure voting process in 2020 elections” proposed by the mayors of those cities.

The mayors of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine requested and received a collective $6.3 million from the organization in order to facilitate their respective election machines. A plurality of those funds — about 40% — went to support both vote-by-mail and early voting efforts. Around a million dollars went to “voter outreach and education efforts.” 

The Center for Tech and Civic Life last month also distributed a $10 million grant to the city of Philadelphia for a similar initiative. The city in its grant request pledged to spend over half of those funds on “mail-in and absentee and processing equipment,” along with roughly a quarter of the grant on “satellite election offices for in-person mail-in voting.” 

The key to victory in the upcoming election will be getting out the vote. The problem is that there are elements of our political class who are intent on getting out both the legal and illegal vote. Because every illegal vote cancels out a legal vote, all Americans should be concerned about making sure that only those eligible to vote cast a ballot in the upcoming election vote.

Misusing The Power Of Social Media

PJ Media posted an article yesterday about a recent statement by Mark Zuckerberg.

The article reports:

During this year’s Aspen Ideas Festival, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that Facebook is increasingly trying to work with governments to determine what political speech it does and does not allow. Oh sorry, I mean: what kind of political ads it is willing to approve.

In the particular example Zuckerberg cited, in 2018, American pro-life groups wanted to run advertisements for Facebook users in Ireland. This is because the Irish were about to vote in a referendum on whether abortion should be legalized.

When Facebook saw the ad requests, the company contacted the Irish government asking whether this should or should not be allowed. “Their response at the time was, ‘we don’t currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.'”

In other words, Facebook could do as it pleased. There was no legal reason to disallow the ads. But what did Facebook do? You guessed it:

“We ended up not allowing the ads.”

When Mark Zuckerberg made this decision, Facebook became a publication–not a platform. The decision was an editorial decision–not a legal decision. The decision was consistent with the political ideology that Facebook has supported in the past. This is the point at which Facebook becomes dangerous. Much of the younger generation gets their news through social media. If Facebook is making editorial decisions based on political ideology, they are not acting as an honest broker of news. Our younger generations are not hearing the complete story–they are hearing a politically biased version–no different from the mainstream media.

There are no laws against Facebook making editorial decisions, but its users need to be aware that they are not getting both sides of any story.

It Is Becoming An Honor To Be Put In Facebook Jail

It is becoming obvious that Facebook is doing what it can to limit conservative speech. Their labeling of Diamond and Silk as “unsafe to the community” would have been hilarious if it wasn’t a threat to free speech. Facebook is a private company and has the right to post what they want. We as consumers have the right to use Facebook or not use Facebook. I won’t be boycotting Facebook–it keeps me up to date as to what my grandchildren are up to, but I do understand that the information playing field on Facebook is not level. Please follow the link to The Gateway Pundit to see the actual numbers on the censorship that has already taken place–it is stunning.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article headlined, “Zuckerberg’s Announcement Means Final Remaining Conservative Voices on Facebook Will Be Eliminated by Election Day.”

The article included the following:

Top conservative websites have seen a stunning drop in their Facebook traffic. This was no accident. This was the plan.

In January 2017, Facebook began making algorithm changes to make sure conservative news was no longer so influential. The Gateway Pundit Facebook traffic has consistently decreased with each algorithm change.

A March 2018 study by The Outline organization found conservative publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes. The study also showed that The Gateway Pundit was hit the hardest.

In March 2018 Western Journal also published a study that found conservative publishers were hit the hardest by the recent Facebook algorithm changes. The report found that liberal publishers actually saw a 2 percent increase in traffic. Conservative publishers lost an average of 14 percent in traffic.

Facebook official Campbell Brown, a former anchor on NBC and CNN, told attendees at a recent technology and publishing conference that Facebook would be censoring news publishers based on its own internal biases. And they did.

The best way to counter this is to form a conservative Facebook. I am sure some entrepreneur somewhere is already working on that!

 

At Least They Are Correcting Some Of Their Fake News

President Obama has often accused the conservative media of fake news. I wonder if he will speak out against the latest example of fake news by the liberal media.

Fox News reported yesterday that The Washington Post has issued a correction of one of their ‘breaking news’ stories.

The article reports:

The Washington Post has made a correction to an explosive cover story that undermines the entire premise of Monday’s front-page article headlined, “Obama sought to prod Facebook on Russia role.”

The problem, according to a Facebook executive, is that when Obama reached out to the social media giant in 2016 to discuss political disinformation spreading on the site, he didn’t actually call out Russia – essentially making the Post’s headline misleading and inaccurate. Or, as President Trump would call it, “fake news.”

As first reported by Axios, the Post added significant information to the digital version of the story with the disclaimer, “This story has been updated with an additional response from Facebook.” The response from Facebook that didn’t make the paper’s print edition is vital and changed the story enough that the word “Russia” was removed from the updated headline.

The story detailed how then-President Obama gave Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a “wake-up call” regarding fake news spreading on his social media platform. After reporting that Obama “made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously,” the paper has added that Obama “did not single out Russia specifically.”

The story reported that Obama and his top aides “quietly agonized on how to respond to Russia’s brazen intervention on behalf of the Donald Trump campaign without making matters worse.” 

Well, not quite.

This is the important paragraph in the article:

The paper also added a statement from Facebook’s vice president of communications, Elliot Schrage, which it received after the front-page story was published. Schrage told the Post that Obama’s talk with Zuckerberg was about “misinformation and false news” and “did not include any references to possible foreign interference or suggestions about confronting threats to Facebook.”

The Russian connection has been fizzling out for some time. What we can expect is to see Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller charge Paul Manafort with some sort of process crime or questionable act totally unrelated to the original reasons for a special prosecutor. The thing to remember here is that despite the fact that James Comey stated numerous times that President Trump was not under investigation to the Senate, some senators chose to mislead the American people into believing that President Trump was under investigation. What Robert Mueller is doing is conducting a very expensive witch hunt based on a story which has been proved questionable at best. The mainstream media is attempting to relive their glory days of bringing down Richard Nixon, and there is a group of people in America with little regard for the U.S. Constitution that is willing to use violence to bring about the change they want. We have a choice here. Either we believe in the U.S. Constitution, the elected government, and the rule of law, or we do not. If we want our country to stand, the rule of law has to stand. The media does not understand that if the government is brought down, they will also be destroyed in the chaos that follows.

These Were Not The Study Results They Had Hoped For

Breitbart posted an article today about a study done by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg‘s open borders organization. The study was initiated to show the hardships that would be caused by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.This is the program that affects people who were brought to America illegally as children and have no relationship or association with the countries they came from. In many cases they don’t even speak the language of the country they were born in. Obviously these people do need some sort of special consideration, but whatever consideration they are given has to be done in a way that limits fraud and does not interfere with those seeking to come to America legally.

Meanwhile, back at the study.

The article reports:

According to the FWD.us study, if DACA is repealed it would mean potentially 700,000 American jobs could open up for American citizens.

The study claims that on average, if Trump were to repeal DACA, 30,000 American job opportunities would open up each month. FWD.us President Todd Schulte touted the results of the study as a loss for America’s business community, saying it would have “severe consequences” on the economy.

“Eliminating DACA would have immediate and severe consequences for not only the 800,000 Dreamers enrolled in the program, but for the millions of Americans who live, work, and study with these young people every single day,” Schulte said in a statement.

Immigration hawks have long argued the booming illegal alien population–estimated between 12 to 30 million–and high levels of legal immigration, where the U.S. admits more than one million a year, contribute to the displacement of American workers and wage stagnation.

The situation with DACA is a mess. We need to find a way to help these people become citizens without penalizing American workers and people who come here legally. However, legal Americans need to be given priority in finding employment.