— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (@COVIDSelect) July 13, 2023
Wow. This email is devastating to Fauci's credibility.
On Feb 1, he was privately acknowledging scientist concerns about Covid having mutations that did not seem natural and gain-of-function of function research in China that would encourage such mutations. https://t.co/8Br55hkLTb
Fauci would consistently diminish the possibility of a lab leak publicly after this: https://t.co/kOoVQWgYyg
If you look at many of his comments in April and later on Covid origins relative to this email, hard to see it as anything other than intentional dishonesty.
The entire mainstream press spent most of February 2020 accusing Senator Cotton of being a conspiracy theorist for raising the very same concerns/questions that Fauci was privately acknowledging were coming from other scientists back on February 1st: https://t.co/FELtSuVKDT
Lies, damn lies, and the lying liars who tell them….
FBI agents testified under oath that they were detailed to go to PT meetings and take down license plate numbers of parents and dig into their background, no one believes this pathetic statement.
The FBI, which repeatedly told tech companies to censor users who shared information or opinions on COVID policies that they didn’t like, claims they’re “not in the business of policing speech” https://t.co/jN8hBpGErh
How can the FBI be expected to uphold the law and carry out its duties in a non-partisan manner if it openly and freely lies on Twitter? And what are they lying about? Undermining the constitution by silencing political dissidents. https://t.co/bGnC3CzB2B
🚨 This is LinkedIn Co-Founder Reid Hoffman. He Went To Jeffery Epstein Island !!AFTER!! His CHILD PROSTITUTION CONVICTION! He just became one of the largest donors to Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign… pic.twitter.com/7gLIFU0z4i
And the media covers for them, thereby further enabling it.
LEAKED VIDEO: ABC News Killed An Interview w/ an Accuser of Jeffrey Epstein. ABC stopped its own anchor from reporting on Epstein’s crimes in order to preserve access to the royal family
“I’ve had this story for 3 years, I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would… pic.twitter.com/XGvwSixAQr
The person who wrote this Bloomberg opinion piece is leftist activist Noah Berlatsky @nberlat. He was the spokesperson for M.A.P. (minor-attracted person) advocacy group, Prostasia. In 2017, he tweeted that pedophiles are a stigmatized group who get designated as deviants for… https://t.co/SGqZ5CEqbBpic.twitter.com/6yq7LGqfgJ
“…. Parlaying that into the topic at hand, which is the biggest professional networking platform out there. LinkedIn, another social media application in its own right, is now being accused or found to have manipulated candidate pools for jobs that are available on the website based on race and other EEOC protected categories. And I think this is not, again, not a surprise. We’ve seen another big ruling that just came out reversing affirmative action. And I think things like this will continue where you still, you strike things down, but you’re gonna have admissions policies or LinkedIn, algorithms that are still gonna hold true to what they believe.
WAJ:
Well, this is something that we raised at Equal Protection Project, which is their diversity in recruiting program at LinkedIn. And what it is, they have tweaked their algorithms. Nobody sees it, nobody really knows what’s going on, but they do it, admit it. They tweak their algorithms so that when they present pools of potential employees, candidates, potential hires, job seekers to employers, they manipulate those pools to give a diverse pool.
So if you’re an engineer and you’re applying for a job, their algorithms don’t just look at your grades in college or your job experience, or where you worked or what your specialty is. It will also consider, if you’ve consented, which probably most people do, they check the box that LinkedIn can use your demographic information, they will then tweak that pool and take into account other things. So they’re basically discriminating against people on the base of race and other factors as part of this Diversity In Recruiting program. And that’s how they’re manipulating it.
And getting to your point about what the Supreme Court just decided, this is how the Supreme Court’s admonition that you can’t use race as a factor in admission and by implication other ways is going to be evaded. They’ll plug it into their algorithms, they’ll plug it into their artificial intelligence, they’ll plug it into their [computer] program, and you will never know. And that’s why I think what’s happening at LinkedIn is so important.
***
… It’s not even clear how much the employers know about what’s going on. LinkedIn has not been forthcoming with that information.
So what this does is it really skews the whole pool. If you qualify for their diversity criteria, then you in a sense, you get a plus factor. You will get promoted as they diversify the pool. Whereas if you don’t qualify for it, then you don’t get that promotion. So this is exactly, in many ways, it mirrors what Harvard was doing to the detriment, in Harvard’s case of, of Asian students, mostly, where they take that demographic information into account in order to achieve diversity. And the Supreme Court said, at least with regard to university admissions, you can’t do that.
So it’s really something that LinkedIn is not very transparent about. They don’t reveal exactly how they manipulate these pools, but they do admit that they adjust the pools. They don’t admit what the employers know, except they say the employers can’t use this to screen people. But what does that make a difference? Because LinkedIn is the one doing the screening based on these protected factors.
LinkedIn, throughout its website has repeated, promises that they don’t tolerate discrimination. And at almost every level they say that we do not discriminate. We don’t allow it, we don’t allow others to discriminate. If you make suggestions in your job postings that you might discriminate we’ll take you down and kick you out, yet this is exactly what LinkedIn is doing. So they’re, they’re violating their own promise to the users to maintain a discrimination free environment….”
𝗧𝗨𝗖𝗞𝗘𝗥: “No One Is Punished for Lying; People Are Only Punished for Telling the Truth”
“When something is clearly or very likely untrue, it poses no threat to anyone. What’s scary and what will elicit a response are true things,” remarked @TuckerCarlson. “No one is… pic.twitter.com/qnLd0XwK3f
“The Federal Trade Commission inappropriately pressured an independent third-party auditing firm to find Twitter had violated the terms of its settlement agreement with the FTC, a motion filed last week in federal court reveals. That misconduct and the FTC’s own repudiation of the terms of the settlement agreement entitle Twitter to vacate the consent order, its lawyers maintain.
This latest development holds significance beyond Twitter’s fight with the FTC, however, with the details providing further evidence that the Biden administration targeted Twitter because of its owner Elon Musk’s support for free speech on his platform.
I “felt as if the FTC was trying to influence the outcome of the engagement before it had started,” a CPA with nearly 30 years of experience with the Big Four accounting firm Ernst & Young (EY) testified last month. The FTC’s pressure campaign left EY partner David Roque so unsettled that he sought guidance from another partner concerning controlling ethical standards for CPAs to assess whether his independence had been compromised by the federal agency.
Roque’s testimony prompted attorneys for Twitter to seek documents from the FTC to assess whether the federal agency had repeated its pressure campaign with EY’s successors, but the agency refused to provide any details to the social media giant. Twitter responded last week by filing a “Motion for a Protective Order and Relief From Consent Order.”
That motion and its accompanying exhibits provide shocking details of an abusive agency targeting Twitter. When those facts are coupled with the report on the FTC issued earlier this year by the House Weaponization Subcommittee, it seems clear the Biden administration is targeting Twitter because Musk seceded from the Censorship-Industrial Complex.
FTC’s Pre-Musk Enforcement Actions
Thursday’s motion began with the background necessary to appreciate the gravity of the FTC’s scorched-earth campaign against Twitter. “
…Sen. Klobuchar ran for president on the promise that she would "end the hateful rhetoric that has become all too routine during the Trump Administration." Gov. Walz pledged to combat “the forces of hatred and bigotry.” Does that extend to Democrats like Ellison?
…Yet, because he follows a conservative jurisprudential view, he is called an "Uncle Tom" and "house slave" with little objection from liberal leaders who have portrayed themselves as champions against hateful and racist rhetoric.
I will never call another person trash, since we are all made in the image of God. However, I do disagree with most of what Keith Ellison does and find his comment disgusting. Not surprising, however.
Ellison is a nasty foe. He lacks wisdom and exudes entitlement.
Coach Boone got it right:
Coach Boone : Now I may be a mean cuss. But I’m the same mean cuss with everybody out there on that football field. The world don’t give a damn about how sensitive these kids are, especially the young black kids. You ain’t doin’ these kids a favor by patronizing them. You crippling them; You crippling them for life.
Wandering Views 
Told ya’.
Fauci has lied all along, as has our own govt.
“You’re conspiracy nuts” they said…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lies, damn lies, and the lying liars who tell them….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Democrats are the pervert party…
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the media covers for them, thereby further enabling it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democrats and the media support this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said…
The media supports, enables, and gives them a pulpit for their filth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The perv above, the co-founder of LinkedIn, is just largest donor, but that’s not all he’s doing for the Biden/Dem agenda.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/07/whats-happening-at-linkedin-is-so-important-because-discrimination-by-algorithm-is-the-future-of-affirmative-action/
“…. Parlaying that into the topic at hand, which is the biggest professional networking platform out there. LinkedIn, another social media application in its own right, is now being accused or found to have manipulated candidate pools for jobs that are available on the website based on race and other EEOC protected categories. And I think this is not, again, not a surprise. We’ve seen another big ruling that just came out reversing affirmative action. And I think things like this will continue where you still, you strike things down, but you’re gonna have admissions policies or LinkedIn, algorithms that are still gonna hold true to what they believe.
WAJ:
Well, this is something that we raised at Equal Protection Project, which is their diversity in recruiting program at LinkedIn. And what it is, they have tweaked their algorithms. Nobody sees it, nobody really knows what’s going on, but they do it, admit it. They tweak their algorithms so that when they present pools of potential employees, candidates, potential hires, job seekers to employers, they manipulate those pools to give a diverse pool.
So if you’re an engineer and you’re applying for a job, their algorithms don’t just look at your grades in college or your job experience, or where you worked or what your specialty is. It will also consider, if you’ve consented, which probably most people do, they check the box that LinkedIn can use your demographic information, they will then tweak that pool and take into account other things. So they’re basically discriminating against people on the base of race and other factors as part of this Diversity In Recruiting program. And that’s how they’re manipulating it.
And getting to your point about what the Supreme Court just decided, this is how the Supreme Court’s admonition that you can’t use race as a factor in admission and by implication other ways is going to be evaded. They’ll plug it into their algorithms, they’ll plug it into their artificial intelligence, they’ll plug it into their [computer] program, and you will never know. And that’s why I think what’s happening at LinkedIn is so important.
***
… It’s not even clear how much the employers know about what’s going on. LinkedIn has not been forthcoming with that information.
So what this does is it really skews the whole pool. If you qualify for their diversity criteria, then you in a sense, you get a plus factor. You will get promoted as they diversify the pool. Whereas if you don’t qualify for it, then you don’t get that promotion. So this is exactly, in many ways, it mirrors what Harvard was doing to the detriment, in Harvard’s case of, of Asian students, mostly, where they take that demographic information into account in order to achieve diversity. And the Supreme Court said, at least with regard to university admissions, you can’t do that.
So it’s really something that LinkedIn is not very transparent about. They don’t reveal exactly how they manipulate these pools, but they do admit that they adjust the pools. They don’t admit what the employers know, except they say the employers can’t use this to screen people. But what does that make a difference? Because LinkedIn is the one doing the screening based on these protected factors.
LinkedIn, throughout its website has repeated, promises that they don’t tolerate discrimination. And at almost every level they say that we do not discriminate. We don’t allow it, we don’t allow others to discriminate. If you make suggestions in your job postings that you might discriminate we’ll take you down and kick you out, yet this is exactly what LinkedIn is doing. So they’re, they’re violating their own promise to the users to maintain a discrimination free environment….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dissent will not be tolerated.
“A court filing provides further evidence that the Biden administration targeted Twitter because of Elon Musk’s support for free speech.”
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/17/bidens-ftc-punished-twitter-for-seceding-from-the-censorship-complex/
“The Federal Trade Commission inappropriately pressured an independent third-party auditing firm to find Twitter had violated the terms of its settlement agreement with the FTC, a motion filed last week in federal court reveals. That misconduct and the FTC’s own repudiation of the terms of the settlement agreement entitle Twitter to vacate the consent order, its lawyers maintain.
This latest development holds significance beyond Twitter’s fight with the FTC, however, with the details providing further evidence that the Biden administration targeted Twitter because of its owner Elon Musk’s support for free speech on his platform.
I “felt as if the FTC was trying to influence the outcome of the engagement before it had started,” a CPA with nearly 30 years of experience with the Big Four accounting firm Ernst & Young (EY) testified last month. The FTC’s pressure campaign left EY partner David Roque so unsettled that he sought guidance from another partner concerning controlling ethical standards for CPAs to assess whether his independence had been compromised by the federal agency.
Roque’s testimony prompted attorneys for Twitter to seek documents from the FTC to assess whether the federal agency had repeated its pressure campaign with EY’s successors, but the agency refused to provide any details to the social media giant. Twitter responded last week by filing a “Motion for a Protective Order and Relief From Consent Order.”
That motion and its accompanying exhibits provide shocking details of an abusive agency targeting Twitter. When those facts are coupled with the report on the FTC issued earlier this year by the House Weaponization Subcommittee, it seems clear the Biden administration is targeting Twitter because Musk seceded from the Censorship-Industrial Complex.
FTC’s Pre-Musk Enforcement Actions
Thursday’s motion began with the background necessary to appreciate the gravity of the FTC’s scorched-earth campaign against Twitter. “
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ellison is trash, always has been.
LikeLike
I will never call another person trash, since we are all made in the image of God. However, I do disagree with most of what Keith Ellison does and find his comment disgusting. Not surprising, however.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ellison is a nasty foe. He lacks wisdom and exudes entitlement.
Coach Boone got it right:
Coach Boone : Now I may be a mean cuss. But I’m the same mean cuss with everybody out there on that football field. The world don’t give a damn about how sensitive these kids are, especially the young black kids. You ain’t doin’ these kids a favor by patronizing them. You crippling them; You crippling them for life.
LikeLike