Tag Archives: 1984

Texas bill eliminates red light cameras

Posted on by

To which my Libertarian side replies: “excellent.”

First, the story from RedState.com:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott Recently Wiped Out Red Light Cameras Throughout The State

by Brandon Morse

With a stroke of his pen and smirk on his face, Texas Governor Greg Abbott made a short video of himself proving why he’s one of the most beloved Governors in the nations.

Abbott opened his video by saying that he was at the Texas Capitol in Austin signing bills, and described the one sitting in front of him.

“I’m about to sign this bill than bans red light cameras in Texas,” he said before putting his signature on the paper.

Abbott then held up the now former bill for everyone to see.

“Is now law,” said Abbott with a slight smile.

But wait, BZ. Ask any motor officer. They’ll tell you red light cameras save lives. Right?

Red light cameras have been a lucrative way for cities to garner extra cash from traffic violations. From 2007 to 20010, Texas cities accrued $100 million from 1.2 million camera tickets. However, red light cameras have two major problems.

For one, they’re unconstitutional. Upon receiving a citation from an officer, you are given the opportunity to fight it in court. The city or county has to prove your guilt. If it can’t, the ticket is thrown out. Red light cameras don’t work that way. If you get a ticket, you’re expected to pay it, due process be damned. It puts the onus on the driver to prove he’s innocent, not the authority to prove a citizen’s guilt.

But secondly, and most importantly, the safety reasons for these cameras to supposedly exist don’t even keep drivers safe. In fact, according to the Star-Telegram, they actually make intersections more dangerous:

As for the only legitimate argument in favor of the cameras — safety — a 12-year study released in 2018 by Case Western Reserve University in Ohio concludes there is “no evidence of a reduction in total accidents or injuries” attributable to red light cameras in Texas. In fact, the study says, by training motorists to “stop even when it would be safer to continue through the intersection,” red light cameras have actually increased rear-end collisions at such intersections: up 28 percent combined in Dallas and Houston.

“Intersections with cameras are likely to be among the most dangerous intersections,” the study says.

Because I am inquisitive and the internet is at my beck and call, I started to query red light camera safety. I discovered a few things. First, there are numerous articles and studies indicating that, no, red light cameras do not yield immediate traffic safety. In fact, some studies show the opposite.

Second, red light camera manufacturers get a cut of the ticket profits.

Third, various jurisdictions utilize red light camera systems as an agency cash cow. Screw traffic; we just like the profits. They’re fabulous.

It’s not just Texas; other states want to remove red light cameras.

Red-light cameras come under fire, at least 7 states trying to ban them

by Charlie Lapastora

Traffic stop law enforcement, in the form of photo enforcement, is at the center of a heated national debate – and it has both sides seeing red.

More than 500 communities in the U.S. have some type of red light or speed camera program to catch motorists who flout traffic laws. There are other municipalities who are either looking into starting to use them, or expanding their existing program.

But now, there are a growing number of areas who are starting to question whether the speed camera programs are effective. Critics even call them unconstitutional.

Seven states, including Arizona, are considering legislation to prohibit red light and speed camera use. They say those programs, which have grown in popularity the past few years, are ripe for abuse.

I mentioned safety or the lack thereof. Where are those articles and studies?

From Phys.org:

Red-light cameras don’t reduce traffic accidents or improve public safety: analysis

by Case Western Reserve University

Red-light cameras don’t reduce the number of traffic accidents or injuries at intersections where the devices are installed, according a new analysis by Case Western Reserve University.

Touted by supporters as a way increase public safety by ticketing drivers who continue through red lights, the cameras actually shift traffic patterns: More drivers tend to brake harder and more abruptly, increasing fender-benders and other so-called “non-angle” collisions.

“Once drivers knew about the cameras, they appeared to accept a higher accident risk from slamming on their brakes at yellow lights to avoid an expensive traffic citation—thereby decreasing safety for themselves and other drivers,” said Justin Gallagher, an assistant professor of economics at Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve.

From HarryBrownLaw.com:

DO RED LIGHT CAMERAS ACTUALLY KEEP US SAFE?

A study in St. Petersburg Florida determined that red light camera helps decrease side collision, but it also increased rear-end collisions. 

One of AAA’s New York Spokesperson Robert Sinclair key points to this topic initially was that side collision would decrease with red light cameras. He stated that some intersections need cameras because the risks are too high. He mentions that t-bone accidents, being hit by on the side, are the weakest point in the car and can lead to too many bad things. 

In later reports, Sinclair addresses the issue of amber light time. Amber light is the yellow light that is there to caution drivers when the light is changing from green to red.

Regarding amber lights, there were allegations that red light camera companies were reducing the time of yellow lights in intersections with cameras.

From ArsTechnica.com:

Major Chicago study finds red light cameras not safer, cause more rear-end injuries

by Megan Geuss

Chicago is the home of the nation’s largest red light camera program and encompasses 350 cameras at a variety of the city’s intersections. The red light camera program has been accused of mismanagement and embroiled the mayor’s office in a $2 million bribery scandal. But recently, administrators trotted out a seemingly redeeming statistic: that the introduction of the cameras had created a 47 percent reduction in the rate of right angle, or “T-bone,” injury crashes.

The Chicago Tribune in response commissioned a scientific study by two well-regarded transportation researchers, who found that the statistics promoted by the mayor’s office were misleading. According to the Tribune, the authors of the study found a statistically significant, but still smaller, reduction in angle and turning injury crashes by 15 percent, as well as “a statistically significant increase of 22 percent in rear-end injury collisions.” Overall, there was “a non-significant increase of 5 percent in the total number of injury crashes” that happened at intersections with red light cameras when comparing the injury crashes that occurred there before and after the cameras were present.

On a more granular level, the researchers found that there were no safety benefits from cameras that are installed at intersections where there have already been few crashes with injuries, and occasionally, there was evidence that red light cameras actually increased injury crashes at such intersections. “When intersections experiencing fewer than 4 injury crashes per year are considered, there is a significant increase in all crashes by 19 percent after the installation of RLCs,” the Tribune study found.

Then this little gem from the StarTelegram.com:

INTERSECTIONS WITH RED LIGHT CAMERAS ‘LIKELY TO BE AMONG MOST DANGEROUS,’ STUDY SAYS

by Anna M. Tinsley

Red light cameras don’t cut down on accidents or make intersections safer, a new study shows.

True, fewer motorists may blow through red lights, cutting down on T-bone type accidents. But the trade-off is that there are more rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid going into the intersection and are hit by vehicles from behind.

“We find that the cameras changed the (angle) of accidents, but (there is) no evidence of a reduction in total accidents or injuries,” according to a recent report by researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who reviewed Texas traffic data.

Does that make sense? Ask yourself the question: how many times, at the last second, have you approached an intersection only to see the cameras and then slammed on your brakes?

You want law enforcement by robot? By equipment? I don’t. And I was law enforcement for 41 years. Yes, I wrote traffic tickets.

Finally, it’s the Libertarian in me — little “L” — that’s emerging here. So few people have privacy and we’re willingly shedding more privacy week by week. Cameras everywhere, monitoring, checking, computers keeping data, license plate recognition systems archiving our plates, our cars, where we were at specific times — with this information shared by numerous law enforcement agencies. Companies like Ancestry keeping our DNA and then selling it to other companies. Facial recognition. Cameras in grocery stores following what we purchase.

It’s enough. Stop. We don’t need China’s “social points system” here in the United States, though no one can say it’s not already here with the existence of Alphabet, Google, Facebook, Twitter and their ilk. When a social media app is “free,” it’s never free.

Because YOU are the product being sold.

BZ

 

 Share

Is free speech moribund?

Posted on by

Cheap Trick sang of the Dream Police. We now have the Speech Police. Given technology it’s not unclear that we won’t, at some time in the near future, have the Thought Police.

From the Express.Co.UK:

PC GONE MAD: Criticising migration could become CRIMINAL offence under new plan

by Thomas Hunt

A leading MEP has warned EU citizens that they could be “jailed” for criticising migration policies if a new United Nations agreement is acted upon.

The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration seeks to make immigration a universal human right. MEP Marcel de Graaff said: “I would like to say some words on the global compact on migration. On the 10th and 11th of December there will be an international congress in Marrakesh Morocco. The participating countries are set to sign this agreement and although this joint agreement is not binding it is still meant to be the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.

What does this mean?

I will let MEP (Member of European Parliament, from the Netherlands) Marcel de Graaff speak for himself.

This is not a joke.

“One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.

“The agreement wants to criminalise migration speech. Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence.

“Media outlets that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.”

I repeat, at the risk of proffering something from the Department of Redundancy Dept: this is not a joke. Quote: “You will be jailed for hate speech.”

For those of you in the UK, you can rest easy knowing that Prime Minister Theresa May plans to sell you completely down the river, prioritizing immigrants legal or otherwise over you.

International Development Minister Alistair Burt said the UK “is supportive” of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration document which is the subject of a major UK meeting next week.

Mr Burt said: “The UK Government is supportive of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, both as a step forward in international co-operation to tackle irregular migration and as a framework to help us deliver our commitments under the sustainable development goals.

Perhaps it’s time to insert this timely graphic.

Some European nations are not so keen on the UN compact.

The document, to be signed in Morocco, seeks to make immigration a universal human right and has been met with fury by Italy, a nation that took in the second highest number of asylum seekers behind Germany last year. Italy is boycotting the meeting.

The United States via President Trump has an opinion. From FoxNews.com:

US leading the charge in pushing back against UN’s migration agenda

by Adam Shaw

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. is leading the charge in pushing back against the U.N.’s migration agenda — a move that is picking up support from other countries and giving political cover to those seeking to join them.

The Trump administration announced last December that it would withdraw from the U.N.’s Global Migration Compact — due to be adopted by an intergovernmental conference in Morocco next month. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson argued last year that the compact could undermine America’s right to enforce its immigration laws and secure its borders.

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” Tillerson said.

The U.S. was the first country to withdraw, but it was soon followed by a stream of other countries pulling out of the non-binding compact, officially called the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.” Hungary, Poland, Austria, Australia and Israel have all since announced they will not sign the accord, citing concerns that it will limit the ability of countries to set and enforce their own immigration policies.

I have five words: God bless President Donald Trump. And thank God that Hillary Clinton or some other politically-correct Leftist Demorat ass-kisser wasn’t anointed.

The UN and the EU don’t care about borders or a nation’s given ability or inability to absorb anyone and everyone they demand be taken. Not assimilated. Taken. There is a massive, massive difference. Perhaps a Teddy Roosevelt quote is appropriate here.

Europe: be afraid. Be very very afraid. Your ruination is in progress, abetted by the guilty, the ignorant, the historically illiterate.

BZ

PS:
Why not a little rock and roll?

 

 

 Share

Building the Leftist tsunami

Posted on by

Older man struck and injured by Antifa rioters in Berkeley, early 2017, for wearing a red baseball cap which read “make America great again.” Where would the American Media Maggots be if this were an older black man struck down during an “alt right” rally?

After the recent forcible and violent removal of various statues across the nation by elements of Antifa and aligned sympathizers — to include the City of Baltimore removing the Taney, Lee, Jackson and Confederate women’s statues in literally the dead of night . . .

. . . I and many others knew that we had to do what I term the Logical Extension: the waters will build to the point where one can only assume this will lead to the greater call for anything even remotely aligned with our Founding Fathers.

Just as President Trump suspected.

Because, after all, there was no blame on both sides. It was only the white supremacists who were fighting and becoming violent. Apparently they must have been fighting each other. To me, a startling revelation but good to know.

Who is violent again?

And, further, as Al Sharpton confirms.

Tucker Carlson spoke about what I said on my radio shows this past Tuesday and Thursday. Where are we going?

Would it shock you to know that the bulk of America — 62% — doesn’t want anything done with Confederate monuments, as in “let them be?”

But, for Leftists, it’s just the beginning. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” As I said, the Charlottesville event is peripheral to their ultimate goals. Goals that at once are clear and foggy, simultaneously. Clear because we know where Leftists wish to go. Foggy because much of their rhetoric and hate-filled bombast is predicated upon everything but history.

As I also said and wrote directly following Charlottesville, yes, this is about racism but actually — only peripherally. This is but one step in a prior set of steps and a continuing series of steps by Leftists. It’s all pointing to a much larger issue involving — just as Barack Hussein Obama publicly stated he wished to do — the fundamental changing of America.

By Leftists, of course. And some Republicans. But not Conservatives. [Excellent article by Peter Beinart here.]

Think: frog and boiling pot. For example, ambush killings on police are up 167%. Police officers shot and/or killed are up 56% per CBS. Just this past Friday, August 18th, six officers were shot and two were killed in Florida and Pennsylvania.

Leftists, Antifa and BLM members are cheering nationwide. Have no doubt.

This is direct reflection on the temper of the times and has been brewing the prior 8 years under Mr Obama, who both tacitly condoned and openly supported these eventualities. Would anyone dare to intimate that Mr Obama could not see the eventual results of his words writ large across the land? We’re suggesting he was that daft?

A condemnation of Cambridge Police “before all the facts are in” by Mr Obama as he and Professor Gates appear to “match.”

An equally biased support of Trayvon Martin before the case was in and prior to a verdict, in which George Zimmermann, not a Caucasoid but an Hispanic, was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. FDLE, DOJ and FBI cases were dropped for lack of evidence.

This is called a trend, one of many biased statements, identified as a pattern.

How would the press react if President Trump said, regarding a case involving a black police officer shooting a young white suspect, that “if I had another son, he’d look like ______”? There would be chaos for days if not weeks, aided and abetted by our favorite American Media Maggots.

I am certain, and you cannot convince me otherwise, that Mr Obama isn’t looking upon the events of the past two weeks or so and not applauding and smiling, calling like-minded friends and politicians, confident in knowing that what he set in motion, despite the loss of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is still in play to a growing extent.

  • It is time to read and become familiar with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.”
  • It is time to read and become familiar with the “Cloward-Piven Strategy.”
  • It is far past time to read Eric Arthur Blair’s “Animal Farm.”
  • And it is shockingly past time to read EAB’s “1984.”

[By the way, each link above is to a site where you can read each book for free.]

Please allow me to provide you with a few salient “1984” quotes.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

There are more.

But I think you get the gist.

The waves are building.

The tsunami is developing.

Will it be ameliorated or will it be abetted?

BZ

 

 Share

Berkeley riots: how many arrests from local cops?

Posted on by

As a result of the riots on the UC Berkeley, California campus Wednesday night, were there hundreds of resulting arrests? Fifty arrests? Thirty arrests? Ten arrests? Five arrests? How about this: one arrest. Few news outlets are even asking if there were arrests. Most news organizations are mentioning — purposely I submit — nothing about arrests. How do I know there was only one arrest? Because I telephoned the Alameda County jail and other associated numbers on Thursday and finally found a rushed bureaucrat who gave me that statistic. This was later confirmed on Friday by the American Media Maggots, or AMM. One arrest.

What about this from CampusReform.org? Paid cops who couldn’t perform their jobs.

We paid over $6,000 for over 100 police officers to ensure our constitutional right to free speech—as well as Milo Yiannopoulos—were protected, but all this was for naught.

Again: my opinion, I do not know this for a fact, but I go by what I term the “logical extension” and past history — I’ll wager the UC Berkeley campus police got a phone call from a “university administrator” (Janet Napolitano?) to its chief and the message was relayed from there to the watch commander, the Lieutenant then to the various Sergeants in the organization: stand down. Yes, there were riot-clad police present. But they stood by. I suspect Berkeley PD also received a telephone call and likewise stood down but eventually someone had to do their job and provide a token arrest.

One arrest. After hundreds of protesters rioted, lighted fires, burned trees and property, smashed windows. Sounds like a good idea to just stand by and watch the fun, eh wot? That’s how your local bay area law enforcement values the property and civil rights of taxpayers.

[As an aside, remember that it is Janet Napolitano who stated in January that she would continue to defy immigration laws by making the UC system “sanctuary campuses.” Milo Yiannopoulos was planning to use his Wednesday UC Berkeley speech to call for the withdrawal of federal funds from sanctuary campuses, such as UC Berkeley.] 

Free speech on UC campuses any more? Surely you jest. No such thing. Not there, and not on major campuses nationally.

Would you be shocked to know it is a UC Berkeley “researcher” who states the police always provoke violence at protests anyway? It’s never the protesters fault, you see.

Further, SFPD, the San Francisco Police Department, now says it won’t be coordinating any more with the FBI. From Breitbart.com:

Rebel San Francisco P.D. Cuts Ties with FBI on Counterterrorism

by AWR Hawkins

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is ending its coorperation with FBI counterterrorism efforts as part of the city’s larger rejection of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

On January 31, Breitbart News reported that San Francisco Police Chief William Scott, Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, and Mayor Ed Lee sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security informing them that city would not comply with the order.

The SFPD is now cutting ties with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), because it would couple SFPD officers with federal agents in carrying out the requirements of the immigration order.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the JTTF was formed in 2007,  “when the police force entered into an agreement with the FBI that authorized intelligence-gathering by San Francisco officers of people engaged in First Amendment activities such as religious services, protests and political assemblies.”

Opponent of Trump’s order — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding operation –sent a letter to the San Francisco officials in January, asking them to adhere to “city and state rules” when working with the federal government.

So SFPD did. Not shocking, since I’ve already written about the SFPD being gutless cowards.

Political correctness has now officially infiltrated our police departments, most certainly on the Left Coast and in Fornicalia. As a retired law enforcement officer of 41 years I am disgusted and sickened. The non-actions of the two “involved” law enforcement agencies is reprehensible. They dishonor their badges and their oaths. I am now actually beginning to wonder: can you truly count on Fornicalia law enforcement having the backs of taxpayers?

Anarchy is not unheard-of at the UC Berkeley campus, of course. Let’s hearken back to 1969 under then-Governor Ronald Reagan. One rioter was killed and a police officer was stabbed in the chest with a knife.

As a result of the riots in Berkeley this past Wednesday night, damage is estimated at $100,000 or more, to also include a damaged Starbucks shop which, honestly, I find highly ironical since Starbucks is a backer of most any half-cocked Leftist scheme and swears it will hire 10,000 refugees for its stores — instead of, for example, homeless veterans who oddly enough happen to desperately need jobs themselves.

For further illustration, here is an NYU professor — as she readily admits — going frothingly berserk in front of NYPD officers at a Gavin McInnes event at NYU. McInnes is a Libertarian and co-founder of VICE, a lovely little Leftist news organization that recently emerged with its own news channel on cable. Apparently the Antifa** rioters and protesters utterly failed to realize the background of McInnes. And these are supposed to be the “best and brightest” young persons in the country? FAIL.

From Breitbart.com, concerning the McInnes speech at NYU.

Four Arrested at Gavin McInnes Event as Antifa Protesters Become Violent

by Charlie Nash

Four people were arrested at a New York University event where libertarian commentator and VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes delivered a speech, after “anti-fascist” protesters started to become violent and throw punches.

Following a fight, which started after protesters started to assault McInnes as he entered the venue and ended in a stolen Make America Great Again hat being set on fire, protesters followed McInnes into the venue and attempted to disrupt his show with chants.

“The NYU Anti-Fascists organized the event on Facebook titled ‘Disrupt Gavin McInnes at NYU’,” reported Pix 11, however unlike the riot that anti-fascists started during Breitbart Senior Editor MILO’s show at UC Berkeley on Wednesday, New York police intervened and managed to prevent a large-scale incident from taking place.

Protesters made chants of “get out of here you Nazi scum,” at McInnes, and “hurled expletives at police,” and others who attempted to either enter the venue or keep students and attendees safe.

This tends to prove, as I pointed out above, that NYPD is primarily a professional law enforcement organization which knows how to conduct itself and keep people safe, setting up skirmish lines and making arrests, plural — as opposed to the UC Berkeley Police and the city of Berkeley Police Department, who have proven themselves to be nothing more than the timorous law un-enforcement arm of Leftist regimes and jurisdictions in Fornicalia. With purpose. Dancing at the ends of strings pulled by their Leftist Masters.

This will be the “new normal” around the nation. Free speech is moribund, and Leftists, anarchists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots all want it so.

Again I say, laughingly — because Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots are turning out to be such complicit, spittle-frothing boobs — please keep it all up.

Day by day you are doing three things: 1) Proving your further irrelevance; 2) Ensuring President Trump will be in place until 2024, and 3) Allowing the GOP to keep both the House and the Senate following mid-terms in two years.

You blubbering, simpering cretins.

All my love,

BZ

P.S.

**    “Antifa” is the name for “anti-fascists,” a loose collection of motley anarchist mongrels wearing black clothing and masks, too cowardly to allow themselves to be seen as, now, everyone has a camera and makes video at every event in the nation.

 

 

 Share

Leftists determine “fake news”

Posted on by

Is this “fake news”? I’d wager Snopes would conclude that it’s legitimate news.

Watch the video yourself and draw your own conclusions.

That solitary child just “happened” to be prominently featured in two entirely separate terror scenes, in two entirely separate locations (or were they?), with no pre-planning or forethought?

Did you also catch, when he was wearing the blue shirt, the child eyeball the camera to make sure it was adequately catching his caterwauling?

Leftist Facebook and Twitter, et al, are now saying they will be policing their sites for “fake news.” Really? And just who gets to determine what is real news and what is “fake news”?

Oh, naturally. Leftists.

From DailyCaller.com:

Snopes, Which Will Be Fact-Checking For Facebook, Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively

by Alex Pfeiffer and Peter Hasson

Snopes, which will now have the power to declare what news is or is not legitimate on the world’s largest online platform, almost exclusively employs leftists.

Facebook announced Thursday that mythbusting website Snopes will be one of a few fact-checking organizations allowed to label stories as “fake news.”

Well I am just gobsmacked. Leftists fact-checking Leftists. Who could possibly have seen that developing? I wonder on what side Snopes will fall?

Almost all of the writers churning out fact checks for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background. Snopes did not respond to a list of questions from The DC regarding the site’s ideological leaning.

Again, I stand stunned. Leftists refusing to actually embrace their nature? Leftists are the most cowardly of persons on the planet. They cannot even own what they are.

Leftists lack the capacity to even admit one incontrovertible truth to themselves. For years I listened to, for example, Hugh Hewitt interview obvious Leftist after Leftist on his radio show, all of which refused to state their votes, their registrations, their affiliations, consistently insisting that they could remain impartial in any situation encountered. Of course, they lied time and again. They are as impartial as a judge in a Sharia court.

Snopes managing editor Brooke Binkowski said on Twitter that Brexit supporters were “pandering to racist mouth-breather ‘Britain First’ types.”

That’s clearly impartial. What else?

Snopes fact-checker Arturo Garcia is an editor-at-large for Raw Story. Garcia is also a managing editor of Racialicious, a pro-Black Lives Matter blog. One of Garcia’s most recent stories at Raw Story was titled “The next time your right-wing uncle tries to ruin the holidays with ‘proof’ of creationism, show him these videos.”

Your “right-wing uncle,” eh wot? But hey, Arturo Garcia wouldn’t be biased in the slightest towards Mexican immigrant issues, would he? Nah. He is clearly, instead, the most unbiased and impartial fact-checker that Snopes can locate. Here is his Twitter site. And here is his other Twitter site, Racialicious. Nope. No bias there whatsoever.

That’s just one of numerous examples. Read the links.

Facebook routinely buried conservative news and topics from trending on the site and artificially made liberal topics part of the national discussion, former Facebook employees admitted last May. TheDC previously reported that the former Facebook trending news team was filled by liberals. It has since automated the Trending Topics section of its page.

Yeah. We’ll just see how well this will work out.

1984.

BZ

 

 Share