Congress called Faceboook CEO, Mark Zuckergbr, to ‘testify‘ today regarding Facebook’s role in the Cambridge University data mining ‘scandal.’ I say ‘testify‘ because — according to reports — Zuckergerb was not placed under oath. This means he was not under any threat of perjury, which means he was free to say whatever he wished. I say ‘scandal‘ because — in spite of claims to the contrary — people praised the Obama campaign for their ‘technical savvy’ when they were allowed to ‘suck up’ the whole of Facebook’s user data to help Obama win his elections. This means the people at the highest levels of our government are picking and choosing who has ‘broken’ the law. In truth, what we saw today was less about fact finding or the rule of law and more about putting on a good piece of political theater. I suppose we could all just shrug it off as just that — an act — but there is just one problem. This business is deadly deadly serious. What we are witnessing is nothing less than a slide into a draconian tyranny very similar to that in George Orwell’s book, “1984.”
So, what is actually going on here and how can we know what the truth is? Well, we can start by asking ourselves why Zuckerberg was never put under oath. Unless a person is sworn in, then the appearance of anything resembling the rule of law is just that: an appearance. That person is free to lie at will and there is nothing that can be done to them. So, the question remains: why wasn’t Zuckerberg put under oath? Well, this might have something to do with it:
The next thing we should ask ourselves is what laws Cambridge Analytical actually broke? So far as I have been able to determine, Cambridge Analytica did not actually break any laws, nor violate any Facebook policies. And, if it is a violation of Facebook policy for one party to sell Facebook data to a third party, then Facebook should be going after the company that sold the information to Cambridge Analytica, not Cambridge Analytica, itself. This is because the seller would be in violation, not the buyer, and Cambridge was the buyer. Furthermore, Cambridge Analytica has explained its position and it seems quite reasonable:
Data analytics firm says it licensed Facebook user data from a company that obtained it legally.
Facebook has said that a Cambridge University lecturer named Aleksandr Kogan collected the data legitimately through a personality quiz app but then violated Facebook’s terms by sharing the information with Cambridge Analytica, a firm later hired by the Trump presidential campaign during the 2016 US election.
From this, it would appear that the information was obtained legally. But there is something else here that I suspect is the answer we seek. Did you notice this line?
…a firm later hired by the Trump presidential campaign during the 2016 US election.
There is the real motivation behind this entire ‘scandal:’ Trump used Facebook to help him win the 2016 election. This whole thing is part of the on-going campaign to destroy a duly elected President simply because he represents an opposition to the political agenda of the Left. But how can we ‘prove’ this is actually the case? Well, we can prove it indirectly by looking at what is being ignored and/or left out of this whole equation.
The problem here for the Left is the fact that Facebook actually helped the Obama campaign ‘suck up’ a great deal more of Facebook’s user data than Cambridge Analytica gathered. And where Trump used the data in his primary, Obama actually used it to influence the general election. What’s more, Facebook most likely broke the law. In fact, it may have broken several laws. However, nothing was said about this at the time. Why? The answer is simple: Obama and Facebook are both on the Left.
If you will remember, at the time the Obama campaign was ‘sucking up’ all our user data off Facebook, they were being praised for their ‘technical savvy:’
In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.
According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, “it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and ‘likes.’ “
The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.
If anything, Facebook made it easy for Obama to do so. A former campaign director, Carol Davidsen, tweeted that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.”
This means, if you downloaded this app without asking your friends if they wanted their information shared, that was just too bad for your friends: Obama got their information anyway. This means Facebook knowingly allowed the Obama campaign to take its users’ information without their knowledge or consent, and free of charge. Then, when a company they sold some user information to turns around and sells that information to a third party working for the Trump campaign, Facebook and the government are suddenly worried about the privacy of its users.There is a clear double standard here, and the common denominator is that ‘Conservatives’ are censured for using data for which they paid while ‘Liberals’ are allowed to use data given to them without charge or user knowledge.
Still, we need to keep going. We need to see if we have evidence that the Obama campaign was given this information — without the user’s knowledge or approval — and that data was then used to target these users for political advertisement. Luckily, these people like to boast, so we have a great deal of evidence suggesting this is exactly what happened. According to the Obama campaign, their use of taking user data and using it to target individuals was more than 75% effective in getting those targets to vote for Obama. Obama didn’t pay for this data or the adds, Facebook just ‘allowed’ them to take the data, then use Facebook to send their political messaging. This is called a ‘donation in kind’ and it is illegal on several counts. And, as I said, the Obama people boasted about it:
Now, I understand that this woman claims individuals were not targeted, but — honestly — that is a bald faced lie! Watch the whole video: she admits they collected information on people — often without them even knowing about it — then used that information to ‘target’ them — through their friends — for political adds. That is not only targeting, it is a ‘campaign contribution in kind.’ It is assisting a political campaign by giving it something of real monetary value. In this case, that was the data on Facebook’s users as well as the political videos and emails. This is essentially the same thing for which Mueller apparently wants to prosecute Cohen, President Trump’s attorney. Only, in the case of Cohen, it may well have been part of a normal, on-going business practice for Cohen. That is yet to be determined. But, in the case of Facebook, it was a deliberate act — by Facebook — to aid the Obama campaign — and on a much, much larger scale than anything they claim Cohen may or may not have done. Again, in the case of Facebook, the crime was not only ignored, it was cheered by Obama supporters of all types:
Apparently, Facebook knew its user data was being harvested en masse, but didn’t care….
She also said that Facebook officials came to the campaign offices after the election recruiting Obama’s tech team, and that “they were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
This wasn’t entirely new news, by the way. The New York Times reported in 2013, in another glowing piece on Obama’s tech team, how “The campaign’s exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site’s internal safeguards.” Facebook’s response, according to one campaign official: “They’d sigh and say, ‘You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.'”
That’s where the potential legal trouble starts. Despite all the hosannas for Obama’s technical prowess, the arrangement between the campaign and Facebook might have been outside the law.
According to Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky, federal law “bans corporations from making ‘direct or indirect’ contributions to federal candidates.”
I understand many people will claim that the Obama campaign did not break the law, and neither did Facebook. This is where the Mueller attack on Cohen enters into the equation. If Cohen violated campaign finance laws by paying a porn star to remain silent about an alleged affair with Donald Trump, then the ‘contribution in kind’ (i.e. monetary value) Facebook gave to the Obama campaign most certainly violated those same laws. This is because, if Cohen was donating to the Trump campaign by paying someone in a legal settlement, then the monetary value of what Facebook allowed the Obama campaign to do (which would have been in the $Millions) is also a campaign donation! Furthermore, this doesn’t even address the possibility of Facebook breaking the law mentioned by the Heritage Foundation. There are two different laws in question, but neither has even been mentioned, let alone investigated. Since it was known that Obama and Facebook colluded to do this, why, then, is the Federal government going after Cohen for doing the same thing, only in a much smaller way, but not Facebook or Obama?
Unfortunately, this is not the biggest problem with this story. Zuckerberg has clearly chosen a political side in the public debate, and he is using his company to wage a political war against anyone who holds an opinion with which he disagrees. There is no question that Zuckerberg has been setting his company policy to justify silencing politically opposing voices on Facebook. There is no question that Zuckergeberg has allowed supporting voices to remain on Facebook — even when they fall under the government guidelines for ‘hate speech’ or actually advocate or openly call for violence. This has all been well documented. However, as bad as this practice is, it is not the worse part of this story.
It is now apparent to any rational observer that the Federal government has also chosen sides. Not only have Obama and Zuckerberg been given a pass (yes, if Zuckerberg is guilty, then, as the head of his campaign, so is Obama), but Hillary, her campaign and her lawyers have also been allowed to walk away from numerous felonies. As we now know, the ‘supposed’ investigation into Hillary’s illegal servers was yet another political play. She was given immunity before or at the time she was interviewed and well before any conclusion could have been drawn. She was also protected from an investigation into her selling of U.S. uranium to the Russians in return for political favors and/or campaign donations. What’s more, she was protected by the very same people who are now trying to pin collusion charges on President trump.
Now consider this: many past scandals where the government was allowed to break the law are actually related to this Facebook story. Obama used the IRS to target political enemies. When Nixon tried to do this, the media and the government went after him — and rightfully so. But this time, since the media and the ‘Deep State’ are now openly siding with the political Left in America, Obama was defended and the crime was ignored. We had public evidence that Obama and Hillary were giving military aid to Al Qaeda in Libya and to ISIS in Syria, but that was never even mentioned in the media. We even saw our President ad State Department put an innocent man in jail to cover up for their gun running. There were crimes committed in every one of these cases, but there we no real investigations, the media sided with the Left, and nothing happened. But, somehow, we have time to go after someone for allegedly having an affair with a porn star years before they ran for office? I’m sorry, but I seem to remember that many of the people going after Trump for his affair were the very same people telling us that sex doesn’t mean anything — even when the President is doing an intern with a cigar in the oval office (for you younger readers, this is exactly what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky). I’m sorry for those who cannot see it, but there is a clear double-standard here, and it crosses the line of credulity.
As I said: any rational person who looks upon our government can draw only one reasonable conclusion: the U.S. government has chosen sides. I know that some will say that the reason no one has gone after people on the Left is because they haven’t broken any laws, but any such claims would be in contradiction with what are now known facts! The truth is, nearly every part of the Federal government has been weaponized and, now, it is being used to destroy anyone who is perceived to be a threat to the Deep State. To add fuel to this fire, the government is also coordinating with our schools and media to launch a campaign aimed at disarming the American people. Anyone with a decent grasp of history can do the math on this equation. What do you get when you have a One-Party system that has been integrated into the nation’s schools and media and together, they have all been weaponized and turned on any and all political opposition while, at the same time, that government and its allies in the schools and media are trying to disarm the people… Well, let’s be honest with ourselves, shall we: it points to a growing tyranny — at the very least.
Dear reader, do not kid yourself: the rule of law is dead in the United States, and the Facebook story is just the latest in a chain of evidence showing this to be true. We may look at it and think it is nothing more than partisan politics, or ‘the hypocrisy of the other side,’ but it is more than that — much more! It is evidence that they no longer care to even keep up the appearance of objectivity. Heck, even the notion of ‘democracy’ is dead. Sure, the Left talks about ‘democracy,’ but look at what is happening here. We have the Federal government, our schools and the media all working together for the stated purpose of overturn a duly elected President. That is not democracy, it is subversion! We are witnessing a massive explosion of lawlessness in this country, and — if left un-checked — it will destroy us. But then, that is actually the stated goal of the people pushing this attack on the rule of law: to destroy America as founded so they can remake it closer to their hearts’ desires. We are living under a soft tyranny: we have been for a while now. This can no longer be denied, not by any rational person who knows and understands history, anyway. The question before us now is, how much longer before this soft tyranny turns hard? And make no mistake: it will turn hard. As soon as they convince themselves that they have destroyed the last vestiges of ‘the rule of law‘ in this country, or they convince enough people that the rule of law is ‘old and antiquated and needs to be replaced,’ or both, they will throw off the last of their masks and openly move to take over this nation.