Dems Want Social Platform Censorship by Blaming Russians – AGAIN

John R. Houk

© January 25, 2018

Yesterday I stumbled upon a Fox News story in which Dems Senator Feinstein and Rep. Schiff have publicly called for Twitter, Facebook and now I read – Google, to investigate Russian bots spreading the meme #ReleaseTheMemo. My least favorite Fox host Shepherd Smith seemed to move story to agree with the Dems. Here’s the 4:30 minute segment on Youtube:


VIDEO: Top Democrats claim Russian bots are pushing #ReleaseTheMemo


Posted by Fox News

Published on Jan 24, 2018


Rep. Schiff and Sen. Feinstein say the classified memo prepared by staffers working for Devin Nunes is misleading and is being pushed online as part of a smear campaign against law enforcement officials investigating Team Trump; insight from Axios reporter Alayna Treene.


FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as READ THE REST


In essence my first reaction the Dems were trying to get off the hook about corruption among Obama/Hillary cadres in the FBI and DOJ. Indeed, after Googling “Russian Bots,” I found MSM after MSM site pushing the Dem meme of Russian Bots. Just like loyal Leftist Pravda spreading Communist propaganda, the MSM pushed the Dem assertion Russia was involved in the American legal system to taint the FBI and the Mueller investigation purportedly investigating the Trump Campaign for President colluded with Russia to win said Campaign.


I felt the Dems were pulling the Russia-Russia-Russia load of crap to deflect from the real collusion story of Dems and Dem-favoring FBI and DOJ trying to discredit President Trump for an idiotic excuse to impeach him on FALSE evidence.


It turns out I am CORRECT! The Daily Caller picked up on a story from the Left-leaning Daily Beast which substantiates that an overwhelming majority of the viral message of “#ReleaseTheMail” was driven by red-blooded Americans rather than Russian Bots:


DC VIDEO: No Russian Bots …



According to The Beast:


A knowledgeable source says that Twitter’s internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is either predominantly Russian.


In short, according to this source, who would not speak to The Daily Beast for attribution, the retweets are coming from inside the country. (No, Russian Bots Weren’t Behind The #ReleaseTheMemo Hashtag; By Chuck Ross; Daily Caller; 1/23/18 6:27 PM)


Now you realize that Twitter management is not exactly a Right-leaning Social Platform, right? Ergo, you must understand that the Dems – particularly Senator Feinstein and Rep. Schiff – are calling for Twitter, Facebook and Google to censor Conservative dialog on the Social Platforms used by Americans.


The best details I have found pertaining to the Dem Fake News propaganda trying to Censor my fellow Conservatives is at The Federalist.


JRH 1/25/18

Please Support NCCR


The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech


By David Harsanyi

JANUARY25, 2018

The Federalist

UNITED STATES – JUNE 16: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference in the Capitol on Democratic on gun control measures, June 16, 2016. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Last week Republicans began to call for the release of a memo authored by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes that purports to lay out a series of abuses connected to the FBI surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. As often happens these days, a Twitter hashtag evolved around the effort, #ReleaseTheMemo, and was widely retweeted by Republicans and elected officials.


It didn’t take long for a report to emerge claiming that Russian-sponsored Twitter accounts and bots were the real driving force behind the viral call for the release of the memo. Without worrying about the veracity of this convenient claim, all the usual suspects giddily spread the story across social media — probably because they have such a deep reverence for truth in the Era of Trump.


The report also prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, both Democrats, to pull out every fearmongering catchphrase available to demand that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg perform an “in-depth forensic examination” on the “ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process.”


It’s difficult, it seems, for some people to embrace neutral principles nowadays. But if you genuinely believe that Donald Trump’s distasteful tweets are attacks on the foundations of free expression, how can you not be alarmed by a pair of powerful elected officials demanding social media companies hand over information about their users? What would they say if the president had sent a letter to Google insisting they give the executive branch an “in-depth forensic examination” of his political opponent’s searches?


As it turns out, reports today say that Twitter’s internal analysis found that it was mostly Americans, not creepy Slavic mind-control robots, who were behind the hashtags. Not that it really matters, anyway. If a group of Americans have a legitimate issue to rally around, how are they supposed to control what outsiders do? It’s not as if #ReleaseTheMemo was a secret or illegal. Republican politicians were openly using it.


Yet, if Feinstein and Schiff had their way, Twitter and Facebook would have moved to quash the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag for what turned out to be apparently solely partisan reasons. Sounds like a power that can be abused. Even if the two had been genuinely troubled by Russian hashtags — yes, suspend your disbelief — the source of fake news is not always easily discernible. Sometimes it comes to you from an anonymous Russian bot, and sometimes it’s retweeted by a prominent journalist.


Democrats have manufactured panic over amateurish Russian propaganda to not only claim that Vlad Putin was “meddling” in the election, but also to argue that interference had the power to turn the election to Trump. With this risible idea in hand, they have created paranoia about social media interactions and rationalized infringements on expression.


Not long before demanding forensic investigations into hashtags, Feinstein was demanding Twitter, Facebook, and Google more tightly restrict its content, threatening, “Do something about it — or we will.” Democrats have attempted to control interactions through Fairness Doctrines or the IRS, and now the Russia scare. Part of living in a free country is dealing with messy, ugly misinformation.



Lots of people in the United States seem pretty impressed by how they do things in Europe. In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is launching “a rapid response unit” run by the state to “battle the proliferation of ‘fake news’ online.” A “National Security Communications Unit” will be tasked to combat misinformation — as if it has either the power or ability to do so. In France, President Emmanuel Macron is working on a plan to combat “fake news,” which includes the power to “emergency block” websites during elections. What could possibly go wrong.


Me? I’d rather we live with Russian troll bots feeding us nonsense than authoritarian senators dictating how we consume news. I mean, has anyone yet produced a single voter who lost his or her free will during the 2016 election because he had a Twitter interaction with an employee of a St. Petersburg troll farm? Or do voters tend to seek out the stories that back their own worldviews?


If your argument is that American are uninformed and easily misled, I’m with you. Just look at all the people who believe that a $46,000 buy on Facebook by the Russians was enough to destroy the pillars of our democracy. But if you want to live in a free and vibrant nation, you have to live with the externalities of that freedom.


David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.


Dems Want Social Platform Censorship by Blaming Russians – AGAIN

John R. Houk

© January 25, 2018


The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech


Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.


Left’s Free Speech War

Waged with Financial Institutions and Social Media


John R. Houk

© September 22, 2017


I don’t know if you have noticed the American Left has been trying to shut up Conservative and Counterjihad outlets by attack their pocketbooks based on the Marxist oriented SPLC hate list. The SPLC hate list places non-violent, Conservative/Biblically Christian values organizations as well as those that expose the violent nature inherent in Islamic revered writings on the same list as the violent KKK and the various Neo-Nazi organizations. Ironically the SPLC does not have violent ideologies like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panthers, Marxist-Racist Black Liberation Theology and the ilk on a Hate List.


If you are on the SPLC Hate List, financial organizations such as PayPal will terminate your account making it difficult to receive online donations from supporters of non-violent Patriot organizations, Christian Organizations, Counterjihadists, expose the Homosexual Agenda organizations and so on of non-violent charitable or non-profit organizations.


You could probably win a bet in saying the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) has not reported or extremely under-reported the Leftist attack on the financial situation of these organizations. This is the reason behind me wondering if you were aware of the financial attack.


Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer) and Pamela Geller were suspended. Then a few days later were reinstated (Jihad Watch & Geller) to PayPal. I suspect their following made such a big deal that PayPal felt compelled to reinstate them.


I use PayPal on my blogs. According to the SPLC I would be a propagator of hate because I would be categorized as a homophobe (Supportive Biblical Values), Pro-Life/anti-abortion thus categorized anti-women’s Rights, Islamophobic (Exposing violence in Islamic revered writings and correlating to today’s Muslim terrorism), Pro-Christian in government yet anti-government in Faith and probably lesser SPLC Marxist violations I can’t think of now at this moment.


If a Leftie complains to PayPal they would probably suspend my account. I don’t have a huge Spencer/Geller support base. I would be forced to look elsewhere for online support. Can any of you fellow small potatoes bloggers relate?


Bare Naked Islam (BNI) has a story on SPLC-hate related influence, listing other Leftist and Islamic-apologist websites creating their hate lists pushing financial institutions to dump ethical organizations that expose the Left and Pro-Islamist interests. For sure BNI does rub some folks the wrong way with their brusque literary style, but the info is valid.


I have found myself in Social Media jail with both Facebook and Google in the past. I always found the jail an interesting plight since I do not use profanity nor do I advocate any kind of violence especially murder, of those I highly disagree with. So, I was in Social Media jail for either being a Biblical Christian, the Leftist epithet of being a homophobe, the Islamic Apologist epithet of Islamophobe or whatever Conservative value upset a whiner who complained.


The pseudonymous Counterjihadist Bill Warner discovered Social Media jail recently and he has a much larger following than I. And has a story on the effects of SPLC Christian-bashing. I am cross posting the Warner email and the story.


JRH 9/22/17

Please Support NCCR


Strategy To Survive The Silencing Storm

The Life Preserver for the New Censored Web


Bill Warner


By Bill Warner

Sent via

Sent September 15, 2017, 8:09:48 AM CDT


Twitter put me on a 12-hour ban for mentioning Islamic doctrine (see “offensive” tweet below) and Germany banned my account for good with no explanation as to why.


Twitter Censorship of Political Islam


Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are no longer “friendly” to our message. Political correctness reigns on our major social media platforms and is suppressing free speech across the right and left spectrum of religion and politics. The Islamo-Left is adhering to the Sharia.

There is a distinct possibility that eventually I will be totally censored from these major social media platforms. We need to prepare for that day. The only method of communication that is entirely safe is newsletters. It is for this reason I ask you to forward my newsletters to others and urge them to sign up so the facts about political Islam can be known. I wish to thank those of you who do this now. We must be creative and stand firm for our rights of free speech and expression.


Here’s a great example by Pamela Geller & friends at AFDI. Seriously, “Can’t we talk about this?”

Vimeo VIDEO: Can’t We Talk About This?

The true story of the Islamic Supremacist war on free speech as told by those on the front lines fighting for our First Amendment rights, including Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Douglas Murray, Raheem Kassam, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Ezra Levant, Paul Weston, Milo Yiannopolous and cartoonists living under death threat Lars Vilks and Bosch Fawstin.


[Blog Editor: The rest of the Warner email is further resource and product promotion which I will not post. Except the promotional for a teaching video entitled, “The Half Truth of the Islamic Golden Age of Spain”.]


VIDEO: Bill Warner PhD: Half Truth of the Islamic Golden Age in Spain


Political Islam 

Published on Sep 16, 2017


The Hate Machine: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Is Cashing in by Bashing Christians


By Dale Hurd


CBN News


Once upon a time, the Southern Poverty Law Center served as a champion in the civil rights struggle. It’s said that the SPLC helped put the Ku Klux Klan out of business. Klan membership used to be in the millions. Today it’s only a few thousand.


But when you glance at the SPLC’s map of hate groups in America today, there are so many that one might think America is consumed with hate.


But is it?


Changing the Definition of ‘Hate’


When you’ve put the Klan out of business and won all your battles, but you’re not ready to close your doors, you’ve got to find new enemies to fight.


One of those new enemies is former Vanderbilt history professor Dr. Carol Swain. Swain grew up in the old South and fought poverty and racism to become a university professor. She’s an expert on white nationalism. But she has publicly attacked the SPLC, and Swain, a conservative Christian, found herself on the SPLC’s hate list as a supposed “apologist for white supremacists.”


Other SPLC targets have included Dr. Ben Carson – who was later removed from its hate list – female genital mutilation victim Hirsi Ali, and even small charities like the Ruth Institute, whose mission is to help families and children. The Ruth Institute said, “If this makes us a ‘hate group,’ so be it.”


The SPLC: A ‘Money-Making Machine’


Among the list of Christian groups on the SPLC’s Hate Map are many local churches. It’s usually because they oppose the gay agenda.


The list includes the Family Research Council. FRC Executive Vice President General Jerry Boykin doesn’t pull any punches, telling CBN News, “First of all, the SPLC, you have to understand, is probably one of the most evil groups in America. They’ve become a money-making machine and they’ve become an absolute Marxist, anarchist organization.”


Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, is also on the list. Kerri Kupec, ADF legal counsel and communications director said, the Southern Poverty Law Center once did good work, “but the SPLC lost its way a long time ago.”


Nothing ‘Poor’ About the Southern Poverty Law Center


Kupec dismisses the SPLC as a “direct mail scam,” but marvels at the SPLC’s revenues, with assets listed at $315 million.


“I have never heard of a group with ‘poverty’ in its name that has so much money,” Kupec said.


Apple, JP Morgan, and actor George Clooney are just a few who have given millions to the SPLC; there’s so much money coming in that some of it is going into offshore investments, a red flag for some, but offshore investing among charities is not uncommon.


The Link to Violence


What is more disturbing is what the SPLC’s opponents call a link to deadly violence against Christians and conservatives.


On August 15, 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins stormed into the Family Research Council’s Washington offices intending to kill. He wounded the building manager before he was stopped. A bullet hole still remains in a console in the lobby.


After his arrest, Corkins told the FBI where he heard about the Family Research Council’s Washington offices. On FBI video of his interrogation, Corkins says, “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online, did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”


Boykin adds, “Our people know coming here, based on reality and based on what happened here, they’re taking a risk.”


James T Hodgkinson, who shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and injured several others at a congressional softball practice this year, had “liked” the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Facebook page.


The SPLC later admitted, “We’re aware that the SPLC was among hundreds of groups that the man identified as the shooter ‘liked’ on Facebook. I want to be as clear as I can possibly be: The SPLC condemns all forms of violence.”


Is the SPLC Spreading Hate?


But after these attacks, some are asking the obvious: Does the Southern Poverty Law Center spread hate?


The SPLC did not respond to our invitation to be a part of this story and refute the claims made against it, but publicly remains unapologetic. The SPLC has stated repeatedly that their listing of Christian groups who oppose the LGBT agenda “is completely unrelated to religion, Christianity or the Bible. These groups are listed because they repeatedly lie in an effort to defame LGBT people.”


In 2007 former SPLC spokeman Mark Potok told a conference in Michigan, “I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”


  1. James Kennedy Ministries, also on the hate list, is suing the SPLC, and the charitable arm of Amazon, AmazonSmile, for dropping the ministry from their lists of eligible religious charities.


The news media has begun using the SPLC’s hate map in stories about racism and bigotry, giving the map even more clout and credibility.


CNN published the list under the headline “Here Are All the Hate Groups Active in Your Area” before taking it down.


Forty-seven conservative groups and Sen. James Lankford have written the media demanding that it stop using the SPLC hate map as a source.


Boykin said, “The SPLC has no authority, except the authority they’ve given themselves, to build a hate map or to list people or organizations as haters.”


But there is no sign the Southern Poverty Law Center is changing course when the Left supports it so strongly, the news media relies it, and the donations keep rolling in.


Left’s Free Speech War

Waged with Financial Institutions and Social Media


John R. Houk

© September 22, 2017


Strategy To Survive The Silencing Storm


Copyright © 2017 CSPI Publishing, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this, as you are a member of the CSPI Community or a friend of Dr. Bill Warner, PhD. We ask that you share this with a friend or colleague. Please visit us at

Our mailing address is:

CSPI Publishing

PO Box 90806

Nashville, Tn 37209


The Hate Machine: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Is Cashing in by Bashing Christians


© 2017 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.


CBN News


Social Censorship and Racism

John R. Houk

© January 16, 2017


I have had my issues of being placed in Facebook and G+ jail under the (FALSE) accusation of posting inappropriate thoughts that violate social community rules. I am guessing many other Conservatives and Counterjihad writers sharing the truth without profanity have also experienced a social ban here and there. Social Ban = Social Jail.


The social network via Yahoo Groups (ccpga – Restricted Group) posted a link that exposes this jail phenomenon. Sadly Yahoo Groups are not as active as other social groups; nevertheless, the relatively small members at ccpga are quite active. It is there where I found a link to exposing the idiotic censorship at Facebook.


The Facebook poster – Grant Phillips – wrote about the racism involved with teenage Black adults torturing a White disabled mentally challenged young man. Phillips’ thought was pertaining to the MSM not being outraged by “kids” torturing a disabled White man yet contrarily the MSM does not get steamed by the Obama Administration alerting the public to Islamic Terrorism after a terrorist murderer shouts Allahu Akbar. Or calling Black protesters destroying, looting and burning cities are just misunderstood people. Implying Black-Americans need to demonstrate such frustration because of years of oppression. The reality is such actions make Americans displeased and contribute more to racist reactions to show their displeasure.


Anyway, read the article which should go viral to protest Facebook censorship and I dare say a cover-up.


JRH 1/16/17

Please Support NCCR


Facebook Bans Yet Another Conservative Viral Post that Only Tells the Truth


By Onan Coca 

January 15, 2017


About a week ago a gentleman named Grant Phillips, who in and of himself is not famous or celebrated for any particular reason, posted an important and thoughtful note to Facebook.


His argument, written in the wake of the vile Chicago hate crime that saw four African-American adults livestream their kidnapping, abuse, and torture of a special needs white man, was well-written and completely factual. Here’s what Phillips had to say:


If you yell “f*ck white people” while torturing a special needs white kid, the city of Chicago won’t call it a hate crime and the superintendent will say it’s “just a bunch of kids.” If you yell “Allahu Akbar” right before blowing yourself up in a public area, POTUS won’t call you an Islamic terrorist. If you burn down cities and destroy property, you’re a misunderstood protester fighting oppression. But if you voted for Trump, you’re a violent racist and white supremacist.


Facebook to Phillips – Removed post



Mr. Phillips’ post quickly went viral reaching over 100,000 people without much pomp or circumstance, a true miracle considering Mr. Phillips lack of fame. The quick expansion of the message must have bothered someone at Facebook, though, because within a few days Facebook had removed the post for violating “community standards.” Apparently, Facebook’s community standards doesn’t appreciate completely honest, factual, and researchable information.


Now, on Facebook, Phillips and his friends, along with many other conservatives, are responding by reposting his message far and wide across the social media network. One of his friends argued, “Facebook is showing an increasing proclivity for punishing Conservative views. Let’s not let them get away with it.”


I agree, let’s make sure that Facebook knows we won’t let them get away with their suppression of conservative views.


Social Censorship and Racism

John R. Houk

© January 16, 2017


Facebook Bans Yet Another Conservative Viral Post that Only Tells the Truth


Onan Coca


Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at, and the managing partner at Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.


Copyright © 2017 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.


Geller: ‘Fake News’? Left-Wing War on Conservative Websites: Facebook, Google, LA Times, Obama Take Aim


I posted yesterday about Leftists using the Fake News meme to discredit Conservatives, in that case pertaining primarily to Pizzagate. Pamela Geller writes about the Leftist Conspiracy to shut down any news that disagrees with Leftist ideals or values as Fake News. (As if Leftist values is representative of traditional American values. I call hogwash!)


JRH 12/6/16

Please Support NCCR


Geller: ‘Fake News’? Left-Wing War on Conservative Websites: Facebook, Google, LA Times, Obama Take Aim



6 Dec 2016

Breitbart – Big Government


The left-wing elites and their running dogs in the enemedia are in one of their fictional publicity campaigns that they masquerade as urgent news. Their latest terror is “fake news sites.”


The New York Times reported shortly after the election that Google and Facebook “have faced mounting criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the presidential election’s outcome.”


That was fake news: “fake news” didn’t influence the presidential election’s outcome, all too real news about the wrong direction in which our nation was headed under Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, the Times said that “those companies responded by making it clear that they would not tolerate such misinformation by taking pointed aim at fake news sites’ revenue sources.”


How would they do that? “Google kicked off the action on Monday afternoon when the Silicon Valley search giant said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.”


A Facebook spokesman explained: “We have updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news. Our team will continue to closely vet all prospective publishers and monitor existing ones to ensure compliance.”


The “fake news” controversy has become a huge international story, with the Los Angeles Times among those leading the charge with headlines such as “Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid”; “Fake news writers: ‘Hillary Clinton, here are your deplorables’”; and “Fake news writers abuse the 1st Amendment and endanger democracy for personal profit.


There is conspiracy theory and there is conspiracy fact, and what we have on our hands is one mother of a left-wing conspiracy parading as a right wing conspiracy. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s diabolical. In the run-up to the election, I reported on a number of fake conservative new sites created by left-wing operatives in order to discredit the conservatives’ news sites. If you have a bogus conservative site, it makes a conservative site look questionable. “News sites” like the Baltimore Gazette and the National Report were dropping hoaxes for months to discredit conservatives who might pick up the story.


I always understood that the objective was to taint the conservative newssphere. Sites were created to spread disinformation and shame the right-wingers who jumped on it. This is classic disinformation. It’s always games, games, games… from the people who brought you Soros’ rent-a-mob — rioting, looting and destruction in cities, etc. even going so far as to risk a few deaths all for the cause. But what I didn’t see coming is their ultimate goal: the shut-down of free speech. The left wants to crush free speech, which has been in their cross-hairs for some time now.


The left is always preaching about true democracy, but they seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as they can. And they’re always harping about “controversial” matters that either don’t exist or are fabricated, or are of little import.


If a blogger or news writer gets a story wrong, does that designate him or her, or his or her site, as “fake news”? If that’s the case, they’ll have to shut down the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, etc. They get things wrong all the time. Every article written about my colleagues, my work, or myself is fake. Most of what they wrote and didn’t write about the Orlando mass slaughter at the gay nightclub was disinformation and deception.


If you issue a correction, does that somehow remove the fake news scarlet letter? This is all a big fat lie — it is an end-run around the First Amendment, and it’s disastrous. It is indeed true that Facebook has too much power, but banning “fake news” sites is hardly the solution. That’s Zuckerberg’s fix-it? It would be funny if it weren’t so Hitlerian. Facebook has too much power. Its news curators, mini-Goebbelians — are more frightening than Kafka’s antagonists. Facebook should be broken up like Ma Bell was. Facebook doesn’t decide what’s good and what’s forbidden. Left-wing fascists do not and must not decide what news people can and cannot see. But that’s exactly what we are seeing on Facebook.


Copyright © 2016 Breitbart


European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

Voltaire on Free Speech & Rulers

Intro to ‘European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

Edited by John R. Houk

May 3, 2016


I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by the Gatestone Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered another Gatestone Institute article by Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim refugees and immigrants.


The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:





  • Microsoft: Bill Gates and Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft, but then Steve Ballmer became the shot caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a decent synopsis of their influence:


… Microsoft are almost expected to have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers, operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological world. (How Microsoft Uses Social Media [CASE STUDY]; By CASEY FLEISCHMANN;


Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:


After the company’s IPO in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down, primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock in Google. (Google; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)


Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:


Silicon Valley – and Wall Street – have a new king. Alphabet, the company formerly known as Google, looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …



Commercially, when we say Alphabet, we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search, maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on the industries of the future but for today, it’s Google that pays the bills. (How Alphabet became the biggest company in the world; By Alex Hern; The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)


Wikipedia on Alphabet Inc.:


Alphabet Inc. (commonly known as Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as Google) is an American multinational conglomerate created in 2015 as the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by Google.[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based in Mountain View, California and headed by Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with Page serving as CEO and Brin as President.[10] The reorganization of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.[11] Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include GoogleCalicoGVGoogle CapitalX, and Google Fiber. Some of the subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while Sundar Pichai took his position as CEO of Google.[5][6] Shares of Google’s stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google’s former ticker symbols of “GOOG” and “GOOGL”.


The establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.[6][12] (Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)


In the 21st century, money is power. People this is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western culture in Europe and America.


JRH 6/3/16

Please Support NCCR


European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech


By Soeren Kern

June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute


  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.


  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”


  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.


  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.


The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.


Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.


Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.


Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”


The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:


“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.


“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”


Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:


“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….


“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.


“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.


“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:


  • “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.


  • “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.


  • “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”


The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”


The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:


“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”


Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:


“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”


NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:


“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”


In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:


“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.


“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.


“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”


A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:


“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.


“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”


Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”


Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.


In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.


In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”


Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:


“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.


Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:


“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”


In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:


“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.


“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”


Facebook Censorship & Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”



Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.



© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.


Blog Editor: If GI asks me to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a link you had better GI permission.


A Plea for Efficient Facebook Alternative

John R. Houk

© January 11, 2015

I have begun searching for viable alternatives to Facebook. The social giant Facebook has been blocking my Counterjihad expose Islam posts. The lamest reason is that I post is that I post too often. If that is the Facebook logic, then why do they allow people to join so many groups that share the same interests?

The only answer is CENSORSHIP.

Now let’s be realistic though. Facebook is a multibillion privately only corporation. They have the property right to limit what their owner/owners or Board finds objectionable to their ideology.

That being said, I think Facebook should be honest about the ideology they specifically reject. Why do they hide behind subterfuge in blocking or banning their members? It is my opinion that some other enterprising person, persons or more would realize there is a market to tap into which would lead toward someone developing a serious competitive social platform for Conservatives and Counterjihad writers, bloggers and individuals can post their concerns and exposés that Facebook has an ideological problem with.

In the last two days I have been prevented twice by Facebook from continuing Counterjihad blog posts. Each time the only response has been when the block penalty ends. Assuming the resumption times were in the Pacific Time Zone I was blocked yesterday until 6:14 PM. And today until 11:50 AM. In the Central Time zone I live in this means 8:14 PM and today at 1:50 PM.

I going to post this blog entry to see how many I can do to my groups until Facebook blocks me again.

Here are the two appeal messages I sent to Facebook via their links for that near useless protest:

Sent to Facebook Appeal


If I’m being blocked for ideological reasons, I’d sure like no know the reason. I am very critical of the Left and of the Quranic beliefs of Islam; however I use zero profanity and I never call for violent action against the Left or Muslims. Which is quite unlike both the Left and Muslims who don’t appreciate Conservative-American views exposing what those ideologies believe. If there nothing wrong with their ideology, I am more than willing to dialogue with the one who disagrees with me UNLESS that Leftist or Muslim Apologist dialogues back with profanity or physical threats.

I would like to know if Facebook has a problem with exposing what Conservatives believe to be are heinous beliefs. In which I will leave the Facebook groups and find another forum which is more agreeable to free speech conducive to the American Way.


Sent to Facebook Appeal

1/11/16 12:05pm

Dear God in Heaven let me know which group is complaining so I can leave it. I understand if there is a privacy issue with an individual, but surely you can let me know the group that is annoyed with me. I belong to groups that should be very accommodating with my thoughts. Ergo I was a little taken aback that there are complaints from group members. Also if Facebook is having a problem with me posting to all the groups I belong then why am I allowed to be a member of multiple groups? I’m just saying, the standard is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think?

And so I went on a search for a social platform I could live with that has some of the same applications as Facebook. To date I have not been successful. What I have ran into are some articles complaining or exposing Facebook. One such online web news service is one I have never heard of so I am a bit uncertain of their ideology. Nonetheless it does well to expose Facebook and that at least works for me now.

Mad World News exposes Facebook censorship against Counterjihadists. Go Mad World! I pray some capable person or Free Speech advocate can build and offer a social platform designed specifically for Free Speech with a Conservative and Counterjihad perspective in mind.

JRH 1/11/16

Please Support NCCR


If You Post This Anti-Islam Meme, You Might Kiss Your Facebook Profile Goodbye

By Robert Rich

January 10, 2016

Mad World News

With Facebook infringing upon our First Amendment rights more and more every day, it seems the social media giant has most recently hit a new low. As a Facebook page with almost 1 million fans has come to find out, if you post a certain Islam themed meme on Facebook, you could end up kissing your profile goodbye.

There’s an irrefutable line where the right to free speech stops and illegality ensues, but Facebook is redefining so-called acceptable speech. Proving just that, the owners of Mad World News were a bit surprised when logging into their account recently, only to receive a ban notice for the meme below, which “violated” the social media giant’s “community standards.”

Now, for most of us here, the picture might result in us clicking the like button before we continue scrolling through our feed, but for at least one person, they were offended by it. Apparently, they were so ticked off that they didn’t just keep scrolling or hide the post, they took the time to report the meme to Facebook.

In turn, it resulted in a 7-day ban for one of the Mad World News page administrators.

The post depicts the back of a man’s truck with a tailgate that reads, “Muslims go home and take Obama with you!!” Now, granted, the text implies that Muslims leave the country, but all it says is “go home.” Go home – that’s all it says. Furthermore, it’s a picture of a truck, not really a “meme” at all. However, Facebook has taken it upon themselves to censor a page simply because they didn’t like what it had to say.

We are under attack as Americans by people who seek to alter the face of our nation in a way that would make our Founding Fathers roll in their graves. The sad part is, they don’t even understand the implications of what they’re putting into place. Maybe they won’t realize it today or tomorrow, but one day, after the precedent in which they set forth snowballs into something else, then they’ll see – but by then it’ll be too late.

Now, for those unaware, Facebook will usually give you a short ban (1-3 days) for a first offense, and then a longer one (7-30 days) before they completely remove your page for good. There are some reasonable things that would constitute such action, such as posts conveying violent threats or pictures of someone naked, but Facebook is now aligning themselves politically.

As it turns out, despite the vast majority of Americans who are rightfully worried about Islam and the effect it is currently having on the world right now, Facebook is on the other side of things. Acting as human meat shields for the religion that is causing so much death and destruction, let alone their consistently abysmal treatment of women, the social media platform is seeking to shut down any naysayers who speak out against Muslims.

Over 57,000 subscribers, a 4.7 million post reach, and a platform for assisting those persecuted by Islamic tyranny — gone.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time that such an instance has occurred. Mad World News’ own, Dom the Conservative, has had her page shut down for good. With the page seeking to expose the truth about Islam with factual information, Facebook, being the irrational apologists that they are, naturally didn’t like what she had to say, so they shut her up.

Forget about the fact that she had tens of thousands of followers and that Americans have the right to free speech, Facebook is now censoring those rights in order to advance a political stance, hoping to push it on there many users.

This isn’t a debate – We the People have the right to say what we want (so long as if falls within the confines of the law) without persecution. As I said before, we are under attack, and if anything, this sick and increasingly frequent occurrence proves just that.

Our nation is headed for dark times. The only question is, will we sit idly by and watch as it happens or will we speak out together and do something to ensure the effort is squashed as it should be? Enough is enough, it’s time to get back to the roots this country was founded on.


A Plea for Efficient Facebook Alternative

John R. Houk

© January 11, 2015


If You Post This Anti-Islam Meme, You Might Kiss Your Facebook Profile Goodbye

About Robert Rich (2178 Articles)

Robert Rich is a husband, father, and political writer that seeks to defend Conservative ideals and protect the rights of all Americans in the face of an oppressive government. As a hardcore Conservative, he strives to keep in tact what made America so great to begin with and is an avid supporter of gun rights. After all, it is the Second that protects the rest. Feel free to use the link below to “like” him on Facebook.

About Mad World News

Mad World News is firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the liberal media.

1st Amendment Free Speech Under Attack by Radical Islam

Facistbook - Facebook

John R. Houk

© May 31, 2014


Sharia Unveiled cross posted an Examiner article about exposé writer/investigator Dave Gaubatz infiltrating a “Muslim Conference” and interviewing in stealth mode a person associated with Muslim Advocates. Until now I have never heard of this particular Muslim organization which typically as other Muslim-American organization wears the coat of moderation when in actually are stealth Jihad radical Muslims. Gaubatz tells the Examiner author he learned Muslim-American groups are actively hammering social media giants like Facebook to squelch Free Speech rights when the content exposes the darker side of Islam.


Here is the info from the about page on the Muslim Advocates website:


Muslim Advocates is a national legal advocacy and educational organization that works on the frontlines of civil rights to guarantee freedom and justice for Americans of all faiths.


We are experts with deep experience in the courtroom and powerful connections in Congress and the White House.  As a thoughtful voice in Washington, we ensure the concerns of American Muslims are heard by leaders at the highest levels of government.  As a watchdog of justice, we use the courts to bring to task those who threaten the rights of American Muslims.


Our team of legal advocates, policy experts and communications professionals:


> Counter anti-Muslim hate by challenging bigotry and hate crimes


> Empower communities by strengthening American Muslim charities and educating people about their legal rights


> Fight discrimination with high impact lawsuits against those who wrongfully target American Muslims


We are strategic in the battles we take on, so our resources have maximum impact.  We create coalitions with our allies inside and outside of government to tackle the most urgent issues facing the American Muslim community.


Join us on the frontlines of civil rights. (All of the bold text is from Muslim Advocates)


The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has a profile of Muslim Advocates focusing on the Muslim organization’s Executive Director Farhana Khera. That profile demonstrates that Muslim Advocates actually utilizes Legal Jihad (aka Lawfare) to protect people that has associated with Radical Muslims and/or Islamic terrorists.


If the Muslim Advocates truly challenged bigotry and hate crimes, that organization the justification Muslim families use to exact honor killings. That organization would advocate introspection of Muslim enclaves that promote Islamic Supremacism such as in Islamberg in NY State, Mahmoudberg in Texas and a list of 30 locations where Radical Islam is rampant.


These are the kind of people that Muslim Advocates provides legal protection for.


Now, at the risk of you and I being labeled an Islamophobic racist we need to stand up to this affront to our U.S. Constitution and the Rights of Free Speech encoded in our First Amendment. The very First Amendment that Radical Islam uses to exploit Religious Liberty as an excuse to shut up Free Speech.


In reality it may make no discernible impact, nonetheless complain to Facebook and other social media cooperating with Muslim organizations of the same ilk as Muslim Advocates. THEN as a voting constituent write to your Congressman and your two Senators to protect First Amendment Free Speech from any person or group that would suppress it to hide the truth.


JRH 5/31/14

Please Support NCCR


‘Muslim Mafia’ Author: ‘…Muslims Working With Facebook to Silence Critics of Islam….’


By Joe Newby

May 30, 2014

Sharia Unveiled


Original date: May 28, 2014


On Wednesday, Dave Gaubatz, a former Air Force investigator and author of “Muslim Mafia,” told that he “infiltrated” a Muslim conference held in Detroit earlier this month. While at the conference, he reportedly spoke to a representative of a group known as Muslim Advocates, who said the organization is working “closely” with social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to close down accounts of users critical of Islam.


“They are asking these groups to close the accounts of anyone who is critical of Islam,” he said. “This is considered serious hate speech and should not be allowed on the Internet.”


According to Gaubatz, the representative also said that “anyone critical of Islam and sharia law are haters.” Ditto for those who oppose either the construction or expansion of a mosque in the United States.


“We are experts with deep experience in the courtroom and powerful connections in Congress and the White House,” Gaubatz recalled being told by the Muslim Advocates representative.


“This should be of no surprise to anyone,” Gaubatz said.


Gaubatz also said the conference, which was attended by representatives and leaders from several groups, should have been named the “U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment are for MB terrorists and not for American Patriots.” For four days, he said, he stayed at the same hotel as leaders from over a dozen groups that support the Muslim Brotherhood.


He reportedly met and spoke with executives from the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust.


“I was informed that NAIT owned several hundred million dollars of property in America, and has the funding from 400 plus Islamic Centers in America,” he added.



But Gaubatz’ report of collusion between these groups and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter present a clear danger to the fundamental right of free speech and Americans’ ability to freely express themselves online. As we have reported multiple times, Muslim activists have called for global blasphemy bans and an end to free speech in the United States, despite the clear language of the First Amendment.


Last Wednesday, we reported that one page critical of Islam — “Islam Exposed” — was yanked by Facebook after administrators received death threats. Facebook later restored the page, saying it was yanked in error.


On Wednesday, a post at the page advising visitors to avoid hateful speech was removed by Facebook for allegedly violating the site’s community standards. Facebook did not explain why the post was pulled and one administrator received a 30-day ban.


But as we have reported, Facebook routinely turns a blind eye to threats from users with Muslim-sounding names. Last August, for example, Facebook told a conservative female they could not confirm direct threats she received violated their community standards. One threat reported to Facebook was quite specific: “We will kill you.”


Ironically, Facebook has said it supports free speech and reviews all complaints equally.


We contacted both Facebook and Muslim Advocates to verify Gaubatz’ claim and received no reply as of this writing.


Update: A few hours after this article was published, Facebook falsely flagged the link as “unsafe” in what appears to be a bid to keep it from being circulated. We have reached out to Facebook, but have not received a response.


Update #2: Muslim Advocates spokesperson Fatima Khan responded with an email claiming we misquoted their representative, even though we did not. The statement relayed to us was Gaubatz’s recollection, not a direct quote from MA or any of their representatives. We specifically asked Khan about the quote, and about allegations the group is working to shut down social media accounts of those critical of Islam. Khan never responded. The article was flagged by Facebook after our contact with Khan.


More on the incident can be seen here.


Suggested by the author


Facebook yanks, restores anti-Islam page after admins receive death threats



Female conservative says Facebook dismissed death threats, threats of rape



Muslim leaders seek global blasphemy ban, limits on free speech



Christians stoned by American Muslims in Dearborn as police watch



Muslims in Dearborn rally against free speech, call for anti-blasphemy laws



[VIDEO]: Domestic Terrorism 101: Muslim Mafia Author Dave Gaubatz



1st Amendment Free Speech Under Attack by Radical Islam

John R. Houk

© May 31, 2014


‘Muslim Mafia’ Author: ‘…Muslims Working With Facebook to Silence Critics of Islam….’


About Page labeled “The Truth


This site is dedicated to pulling back the veil that enshrouds the truth about islam and sharia law.  There is an evil core beneath the doctrine of al-Qur’an & al-Hadith and we will illuminate that darkness, as well as the minds of those who seek the truth.


Islam is a perversion of the truth.  It is a cult of indoctrination.  It is a method of spiritual enslavement and physical subjugation.  We do not speak against islam, but rather we allow islam to speak for itself:


Islam and sharia law teach, preach and carry out the following acts:


– In accordance with the surahs of al-qur’an and teachings of al-hadith


1.  STONING:  Burying women in the ground, up to their chest and stoning them to death.


2.  ACID BURNING:  Throwing acid on the faces of women and occasionally men, causing blindness, permanent severe disfiguration and sometimes death.


3.  HONOUR KILLING:  The murdering of young girls and women for “dishonouring” the family.  The most common methods used are:   Beheading, stabbing to death or setting the woman on fire and burning her to death.


4.  BEHEADING:  Cutting off the head with a knife or sword, at the neck/throat.  This act is usually carried out against “infidels” (non-muslims), Jewish People and Judeo-Christians.  Also, anyone who converts from Islam to another religion.


5.  FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION (FGM):  The practice of slicing off the genitalia of all very young muslim girls with a blade or piece of broken glass.  This includes the clitoris and labia minora.  This is a practice that the males in islam demand to prevent the females from receiving any pleasure from intercourse.  The males essentially believe that, “… if the woman is unable to derive pleasure from intercourse, she will not cheat and will remain faithful in marriage.”  – – (Keep in mind that muslim men are allowed to have as many wives and girlfriends as they desire.)


6.  ENSLAVEMENT:  Slavery is still practiced in almost every one of the 65 islamic nations of the world today.  Most of these slaves are of African descent.     


There is another veil that requires removal and that is the veil of deception that has been placed over the eye’s of the world.  We have ALL been indoctrinated by deception, conditioned by censorship and desensitized by lies… into believing islam is a “religion of love and peace.”  Hmmm… well, let’s see…

________________________ Entertainment | AXS Network | © 2006-2014 AXS Digital Group LLC d/b/a