"Fake news" hysteria prompts Facebook censorship of real news

Just like the left co-opted the word "hate" to apply to anyone who disagrees with their godless worldview, the left now is marginalizing any reporting of differing views as simply "fake."  Facebook officially jumped on this bandwagon when it announced plans to use a number of reputed fact-checker sites and otherwise liberal media entities to combat so-called “fake news.”

After taking stiff criticism for being a conduit in the recent spike in misinformation and hoaxes published to drive Internet traffic (e.g. headlines depicting famous people as recently dead, when they are, in fact, very much alive) Facebook will begin fact checking, labeling, and burying in its News Feed what it determines to be either a hoax or fake news.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last week that the website had the responsibility to make sure it “has the greatest positive impact on the world.” He added that “with any changes we make, we must fight to give all people a voice and resist the path of becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.”

It may sound good on the surface, but the concern lies in who exactly Facebook is partnering with to "monitor" the facts. Facebook has already been accused in the past of burying conservative-leaning information. It is now aligning with Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News and PolitiFact - all left of center entities - to manage its fact-checking activities. But how do we know these "fact checker" organizations won't take a story like the exposure of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts and determine it must be "fake news" simply because the details of a particular story don't gel with the worldview of the left?

All these third-party "fact-checkers" need to do is take it upon themselves to determine something to be fake, and the story then gets labeled as such and downgraded in the News Feed - in other words, buried so very few, if any, people will see it.

As reported by LifeSite News, while the third-party fact checkers are part of an international fact-checking network led by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida, there is some history among them of producing politically correct value judgments and reporting regarding things like abortion and other areas.  

In one recent instance, Politifact rated Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s October 2016 statement that Hillary Clinton supports abortion on-demand throughout pregnancy, along with partial birth abortion with taxpayer funding, as “false” even though Clinton has repeatedly stated her support for taxpayer-funded abortion and clearly confirmed her support for partial-birth abortion in the final presidential debate on October 18.

LifeSiteNews contacted Politifact in February requesting a correction of its classification of Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s statement during a presidential debate that Clinton supports legal abortion up through an unborn child’s due date as “false,” providing verification though Clinton’s previous statements and voting record. Politifact did not respond.

Politifact has exhibited bias as well when reporting on contraception and abortion, and in another recent instance concerning Planned Parenthood and mammograms. It also has reported that no link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Meanwhile, Snopes faced criticism more than once earlier this year for showing pro-Hillary Clinton bias in its reports during the presidential campaign.

“Fake news” has remained at the forefront of media coverage since before Donald Trump’s historic election win over Clinton last month, with Clinton supporters claiming such dubious information helped propel Trump to victory.

With Facebook and other media outlets moving to save face for their respective part in the recent tide of misinformation disseminated, the definition of the term “fake news” continues to become muddy in post-election fallout.

Facebook’s approach opens the door to abuse and censorship of conservative, pro-life and other traditional viewpoints by not limiting its initiative to simple detection of sites that may not be legitimate while at the same time handing off the task of defining “fake news” to essentially liberal entities for the purpose of affecting traffic on the site.

Maybe this is the time to create a new social media website to counter to Facebook, reducing it to the liberal mouthpiece that it seems to be on the road to becoming.

With all the hysteria on the left about the Electoral College, conspiracy theories about Russian hacking, and now, condemnation of "fake news", Facebook's proposed solution to put liberal media in charge of filtering out real news hardly seems to be the most reliable course to take. 

Stein should reimburse MI for recount folly

I hope when/if the Presidential election recount in Michigan is complete, that Jill Stein will reimburse Michigan counties the approximate $12 million this bogus, outrageous recount will cost them. Money that could and should be used for police, fire, roads and other necessities will instead be used to feed the bizarre leftist attempt to block the inevitable that the left just cannot face: that Donald Trump will become President of the United States on January 20, 2017.

Of course, Stein has no intention of reimbursing our state of the astonishing expense she is forcing on us. Of course Stein has no chance of winning the state of Michigan even with a recount - that is unless it turns out 99% of the votes were counted incorrectly and actually were meant for her.

What I find most appalling is that, during her anemic campaign, Stein couldn't even raise enough money to air a commercial ad. But in the few days after the election she managed to raise over $6 million to help launch a recount? Gee, I wonder who might be behind her tactics and helping her raise these amazingly huge funds.

By the way, since when does a federal judge have the jurisdiction to interfere with a state's election policy and procedure? Since there is no way Stein could have possibly won the state of MI even with some allegedly faulty vote counts, she has no business perpetrating this disgraceful injustice on our state. It was bad enough a federal judge was even brought into this, but it is beyond comprehension that he would have allowed the recount to go forward given the fact that Stein is in no way an aggrieved party in the issue.

I love how the left went nuts when Trump insinuated he would have to wait to see how the election turned out to see if he would accept the outcome. Hillary Clinton, in response, went on a self-righteous rampage about the importance of respecting our election process and standing by its validity. Where is she now in denouncing Stein, who had absolutely no chance of winning anything, yet is literally taking millions of dollars from Michigan county governments, money that could have been used for things so much more useful than her giant egotistical need to disrupt our nation?

Michigan lawmakers are now considering legislation to discourage futile recount efforts by candidates who lose their election bids by an incontestable amount, forcing the candidate to foot the bill for the recount. What sweet justice it would be to see Stein have to pay us back for this folly. Am not holding my breath at this point, though.

Once again, the "party of love" shows its venomous hate

In the name of "Love Trumps Hate", childish "adults" are blocking traffic, smashing windows, and publicly threatening and mocking elected officials and their wives. This is the "get a sticker just for breathing" generation come home to roost. 

When you don't keep score at children's sporting events, when you get a trophy just for being on a team, when you're allowed to throw tantrums at grocery stores because your parents are not allowed to spank you, you then grow up thinking that the way to deal with disappointment is to act like a spoiled child. Of course, however, these adult children believe it is all in the name of love. What I want to know is, if this is love, what on earth would hate look like in their eyes?

Following Donald Trump's presidential victory, high school students put on a skit, with teacher approval, depicting the assassination of Trump. Protesters across America took to the streets blocking workers from getting to their jobs while they beat the life out of innocent citizens, smashed windows, and burned Trump in effigy. Teachers in California proposed a curriculum depicting Trump as a racist, sexist bigot, while others disappointed with the presidential election have outright called for Trump's death.

Meanwhile, Brandon Victor Dixon, an actor in the Broadway smash hit 'Hamilton' publicly called out Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was in attendance at a recent performance of the show. In an attempt to educate Pence about values and law and rights, Dixon's comments lead to raucous boos by others present aimed at Pence, who was merely politely sitting in his seat. 

“We, sir," Dixon called out from the stage, "we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”

It's too bad Dixon doesn't seem to know that it is the Republicans who want to uphold those rights he claims to value so deeply. It's too bad that Dixon doesn't seem to know it is the Democrats who want to trounce on our freedoms of things like speech and self-defense. It's unfortunate that Dixon seems not to know that it is the Democrats who endanger our parents and our children in their sick support of euthanasia, abortion, and health-rationing ObamaCare. It's too bad the actor seems to have no idea that it is the Democrats who want open borders at the expense of security and safety for every citizen. And it's too bad that Dixon seems to be uninformed of the fact that it is the Democrats who hold the shameful history of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, and voter suppression, and that it is the Republicans who fought against these atrocities every step of the way.

Dixon's knowledge level seems to be as top-notch as the vapid model who hosted the "American Music Awards" Sunday night and felt the need to do an astonishingly disrespectful imitation of soon-to-be First Lady Melania Trump. What credentials this immature girl has to speak in such a public forum in the first place is beyond me. But more than that, what right does she have to mock anyone, let alone a legal immigrant who became a US citizen - an accomplishment the model should respect considering the fact that both her parents are immigrants?

It is unfathomable to witness the ignorant hatred of the left who then still have the audacity to claim, with a straight face, that they are the people of love.

So the left's cherished candidate didn't win. It's time to grow up and accept the outcome of the freedoms the left claims to hold so dear. If there were any actual leadership from the left, that leader would step up and tell these children-adults that vandalism, public mockery, depictions of and threats of assassination, and overall disrespect are not the ways to deal with disappointment. If nobody does step up to take the lead on proper behavior, the left will only continue to lose elections and power. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Electoral College not to blame for Clinton loss

I received a group email from a LinkedIn contact today asking me to sign a petition to have the electors of the Electoral College make Hillary Clinton president when they meet on Dec. 19 because, after all, she won the popular vote.

Yes, it's true Hillary received more votes overall than President-elect Donald Trump. But most of that is because Hillary won the states of New York and California, both of which have enormous populations (and, it's no secret, are very blue states). Trump won key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Fewer votes by population, perhaps, but a larger total of electoral votes. And that is a good thing, because it underscores that we are a Federal Republic, not a democracy. 

If we were a pure democracy that elected presidents based on popular vote only, those who live in smaller, less populated states would essentially have no say in a national election since the more populous states like New York and California could easily sway the election simply by their large numbers of voters. Candidates would focus all their attention only on those large states that could garner them the most votes, while ignoring the rest of the country. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to have our national elections decided largely by California and New York only.

For those blaming the Electoral College for Hillary's loss, think again. When you look at the country map after the election, it's a sea of red, punctuated by blue, heavily populated urban areas. What the Electoral College does is balance the influence of big and small states. The Founding Fathers did not want mob rule or "popular vote" elections for president. That would ensure the big states would elect the president. It is the same argument for having two houses of Congress: one voting by population, the House, and one voting by state with all states equal, the Senate. 

Think about it this way. If the Cleveland Indians won three games in the World Series by a 20-0 score in each game, and the Chicago Cubs won four games 1-0, by "popular vote" standards, the Indians should have been World Series champs. But it's not about how many runs you score, it's how many games you win that counts. With the Electoral College, the rural Kentucky voter has just as much chance of helping his preferred candidate win the state of Kentucky as the wealthy liberal Manhattan voter has of helping his preferred candidate win New York. And isn't it liberals who claim they are for all people, especially the "little guy"? Then they should celebrate the Electoral College for giving everyone equal power in the national election system.

Rest assured, Republicans have also questioned the Electoral College when it hasn't suited them. Nobody likes to lose, but if we were to base our elections just on where most people live, then we all lose because we are no longer a nation grounded in equality in one of the truest senses of the word: that everyone's vote counts. Why would we ever want to change that - unless we're all willing to move to places like California or New York. I'm happy where I am, thanks. 

Trumping evil - hope wins!

Despite the media and the entire left's bloodthirsty quest to sabotage the Donald Trump campaign, Trump's supporters prevailed to take our country back last night. Thanks be to God! Among many other things, Trump's victory snatched from the jaws of evil the likelihood of continued corruption and abuse of power, division & class warfare, recklessly open borders, the loss of America's sovereignty, a stacked, leftist Supreme Court, and the ungodly, unbarricaded pursuit of abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy.

There is not much to say right now except that evil was largely "Trumped" last night.  Of course, not all evil. Colorado, for instance, passed its assisted suicide ballot measure, and we do have to hold President-elect Donald Trump and all Republicans to their word to make America great again by reducing evils like ISIS, taxpayer-funded abortion, and the like. 

But the bottom line is that, with the election of Donald Trump, we still have work to do, but we have been given a chance, a safer context within which to do the work we must continue to do to ensure that conservative principles, values and common sense can once again lead America in the right direction. In other words, last night we were given the thing that President Obama promised, but failed to deliver: we were given hope.

Thank you to everyone who helped make this happen!

Vote: If for no other reason, for life itself

This is it.  Tomorrow either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be elected President of the United States.  No one else can win.

We know that Hillary Clinton should never be President. She is still proud of voting in favor of partial-birth abortion and she wants to use our tax dollars to pay for more and more of them.

Regardless of your party, there is no issue more important than life itself.

So please, please make sure you and everyone you know vote. And vote for Donald Trump who will appoint pro-life judges and support pro-life laws and religious liberty. Put aside your disdain for his personality and comments. This is not about us personally. It's not about how we feel, and it's not about making a statement against crassness. This is our one and only chance to stop Hillary and her incredible commitment to anti-life policies. Our only chance.
 
Please also vote pro-life in US House and Senate races. Pro-abortion Democrats should never control the US Senate or US House. 
 
Here is a comparison of the candidates on life.  Please share it and this message with all your contacts.

May God bless and protect the unborn, the elderly, and the USA.

Hillary plays the woman card with gender pay fear-mongering

On the campaign trail this past week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once again played the woman card by trying to depict women - once again - as victims. This time she pulled out the tired and untrue claim that women are systematically paid less than men. But let's look at it more closely in the hopes of bringing some truth to the issue.

Though there is a widespread perception that women are paid less than men on average, the perception goes wrong in thinking that such pay disparity is about cases when a woman doing the exact same job as a man for the same hours, in the same company or industry is paid less than her male co-worker. That is not, however, where the disparity lies. The "pay gap" simply looks at the median earnings of all men and women who are full-time workers, and because the average of men's earnings skew higher, feminists cry discrimination. But were they to take a closer look at the facts, they'd have to recant their accusation.

The fact is, men and women make different career choices for different reasons. A U.S. Department of Labor study found the average full-time working man works 8.14 hours a day, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Naturally, this would result in the man making more money.

Even more to the point, the natural differences between men and women result in different priorities, and therefore, different job ambitions. Women in general tend to seek jobs that offer comfortable and safe working conditions. In particular, women with children tend to choose lower paying jobs in return for companies that offer work-life balance packages that allow them to be more available for their children. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to seek work that can best support their families, which often means longer hours.

Men also are much more likely to take on dangerous or physically demanding jobs that most women simply don't want to do. You don't see many women working on oil rigs, construction sites, coal mines or the like. These jobs pay more because it's difficult to find people who are able and willing to do them. People crying discrimination need to understand that the oft-repeated statistic that women make on average "70 cents on the dollar compared to men" simply reflects an overall average of all pay for all jobs across the board.

But what do facts matter when Hillary can exploit an issue, using false premises, to score political points?