Anthony Stephen Fauci

Anthony Stephen Fauci is a traitor.

Anthony Stephen Fauci is a traitor.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) corrects untruthful assertions by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964.

In other words, the NIH corrected untruthful assertions by NIAID Director Anthony Faucet that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964. (Attached document below)

The NIH received the relevant documents in 2018 and reviewed the documents in 2020 and again in 2021. The NIH–specifically confirms Anthony Faucet treasonous lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the American people. Knowingly. Willfully. Brazenly.


Joseph “Joe” Robinette Biden

Joe Biden is a traitor.

Joseph “Joe” Robinette Biden is a traitor.

Joe Biden is the Most anti-American President in US History

Barack Obama made it abundantly clear that he not only loathed these United States, but he was also embarrassed by his own nation and its citizens. He did tremendous damage over his eight years in office. He treated our enemies like allies and our allies like enemies. He set race relations back at least fifty years having been indoctrinated in the odious Jeremiah Wright brand of anti-Americanism.

But who among us could have predicted how much damage a Biden administration could and would do in just a few months? All of us who revered President Trump and the tremendous strides he made on the economy, unemployment, Middle East peace, border security, and trade issues with China are gobsmacked by the destructive record of the Biden administration in just over two months. Trump was pro-American, an America-first modern day Founding Father. Trump loves this nation like the Founders did; they hoped their Constitution would prevail. Donald Trump was and is determined that it will remain the reigning document, the prescription for a free nation’s survival even when under attack by the totalitarian left that means to remake it into something resembling China.

The ruling left of today is actively undermining every aspect of our founding. We no longer enjoy free speech. We no longer are allowed the freedom of assembly or religion. The conservative embrace of Judeo-Christian values enrages the Democrats. From the Frankfurt School to Black Lives Matter, Western values are anathema to the left.

It did not use to be this way. There was a time when the Democrat party was pro-America. JFK loved his country. LBJ was as corrupt as Joe Biden but Jimmy Carter loved America. Even the careless and womanizing Bill Clinton did not set out to destroy the country.

But Obama set the left on a new and insidious course, the Cloward-Piven, Alinskyite path to totalitarianism. The Democrat party of today is overtly anti-American and having captured our educational system decades ago, has indoctrinated several generations who now believe that hating their own country is synonymous with virtue, with being sufficiently woke.

The left in America today opposes every single Judeo-Christian value this civilized nation was built upon, including the nuclear family. They eschew MLK’s wise and common sensical prescription that we be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. The left today is consumed with identity politics, the notion that skin color and sexual orientation are primary and that any minority, racial or sexual, is superior, deserving of elevation in society.

This is why they encouraged and defended the riots of BLM and Antifa throughout the summer but pretended that the demonstration of January 6th was an “insurrection.” It was nothing of the kind. It was an obvious set-up. They, Pelosi and her power-mad colleagues, are only disappointed that the Antifa/BLM recruits who infiltrated the pro-Trump people that day did not do more damage that could be blamed on all those peaceful Trump fans.

Biden has grossly abused his ability to govern and is doing it by decree. He issues Executive Orders like the church of old issued indulgences. Biden is doing this to reward his radical left supporters and/or payback to donors. Now he has announced six gun control “actions.” He said these orders do not infringe on the Second Amendment! Of course, they do. He said “[N]o amendment is absolute,” more proof that the left of today has nothing but contempt for our Constitution.

Cities run by Democrats have stopped confiscating guns from the criminals they’ve released onto their streets but want to deprive law-abiding citizens of their legally-purchased guns. No wonder people want to escape from New York, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Baltimore and DC. The left has determined that only the criminals should have guns. Use a gun in the commission of a crime? No cash bail. And in each of those cities (and others), the police have been demonized, demoralized and defunded. That is the left’s recipe for certain disaster. Is it a surprise to anyone that crime has escalated drastically in all these cities?

As for Covid, leftists are the shameless fearmongers. Despite the fact that lockdowns and mask mandates can do little or nothing to stop the spread of the virus, they use their propaganda media outlets to frighten and coerce the public to blindly obey their nonsensical restrictions.

The lockdowns have done far more damage than the virus, which has a nearly 98% recovery rate. Tens of thousands of small businesses have been shuttered while the big box stores and Amazon have become fabulously wealthier over the past year.

And exactly what is behind the irresponsible push to vaccinate every American, young and old, with an emergency-authorized, experimental, never-before-used-on-humans vaccine? Given the track record of those involved, Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, the possibilities are many, none of them good. Dr. Michael Yeardon, a former CEO at Pfizer, is suspicious.

The most serious damage Biden has done is to our border security. He opened the southern border on his first day in office and a catastrophic humanitarian crisis is the ongoing result. He was warned by the outgoing administration what would happen if he ceased the completion of the wall, but he ignored those warnings and began building new “shelters” on his third day in office. His administration knew what would happen. They planned on it. They are doing business with the drug cartels who control the human trafficking, the sex trafficking of children and the flow of all drugs, especially fentanyl, into the US.

Biden is purposefully doing terrible damage to this nation. He is purposefully importing a new and submissive electorate to replace and/or overwhelm the eighty million voters who supported Trump. He is flying and bussing these migrants into the interior of the country, particularly to red states. These people have no skills, little or no education, they’ve not been tested for Covid, but they are given money to begin their lives here. Thousands of others are being put up in hotels at taxpayer expense. And yet the always snarky but befuddled Jen Psaki and Nancy Pelosi claim “there is no crisis at the border.”

These people are so disconnected from reality it is truly frightening. Either that or they continue to assume the American people are very, very stupid when it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is the radical leftists who fraudulently got Biden into office and depend on him to read whatever they put on the teleprompter. They have set about destroying the once-greatest nation that ever existed on this planet. Trump had righted the country, put it back on the right course. Biden and his cohorts set out to undo all the good that Trump set in motion. Biden may think he is developing a legacy, but he will surely forever be known as the worst US president in American history. Let us hope that the country survives his sure-to-be brief tenancy at the White House, but he will surely be remembered as the most anti-American president ever to assume the office.


Additional Information

In 1994, John F. Kennedy, Jr. called Joe Biden a traitor.


Additional Information

Joe Biden Named Criminal Suspect In Ukrainian Court for Bribery – Treason Charges Possible in U.S.

Candidate Biden was named as a criminal suspect in the Ukrainian courts for BRIBERY on Wed, Nov 11, 2020. Officials report Biden may be charged with TREASON in the U.S.


Additional Information

Did Joe Biden commit treason? It appears he did!

Dear Friends,

I never dreamed I would be able to write this article now with such confidence. Indeed, this investigative reporter has known about the Biden corruption for many years. I am not part of the fake news, nor the biased media, nor the big tech cover-ups that are misrepresenting the truth all over America. I am from Delaware and I know who Joe Biden really is.

I am now 100% convinced, having done exhaustive research on Delaware’s former Senator and former U.S. Vice President, now the Democrat candidate for the highest office in the land, that Joe Biden is at the very best, the most unethical politician in United States history and at the worst guilty of selling access to his office and granting favors to foreign officials—actually influence peddling for profit to benefit his family and himself—which is a serious crime. To make things worse, it appears the FBI had access to all of this corrupt information and has done absolutely nothing about it.

Hunter Biden, son of Joseph Biden (Candidate for President of the United States), has been able, with his father’s help, to glean millions and millions of dollars for the benefit of the entire Biden family. The evidence so far is extremely clear and indeed has the appearance of serious crimes and misdemeanors, perhaps even treason. Here is what we do know: 1) Hunter Biden dropped his laptop off at a computer shop in Wilmington. 2) He signed an agreement (they got his signature) that if he didn’t pick up the computer in 90 days, he lost the computer. He never picked it up and forfeited ownership. 3) His lawyer requested the computer be returned in writing. So there is no doubt, the computer did belong to Hunter Biden. 4) the computer tech found the 40,000 emails so incriminating and so explicit that anybody with any reasonable logic would have to conclude there is distinct evidence of corruption and criminal activity. He handed the hard-drive over to the FBI and also to Rudy Giuliani. Thank God he did-as The NY Post was able to get a copy. 5) It has been verified that many of the emails were sent and received. 6) There is possible evidence of sex trafficking, suspected child porn, and drug use-including explicit photos.

One of the incriminating quotes, which I have copied, just as it was right from the computer with a typo or two—direct from the New York Post, is from Hunter Biden to his daughter:

“I love all of you. But I don’t receive any respect and that’s fine I guess—works for you apparently. I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything in this family. For 30 years, It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half of your salary.”

This is just one of many, some even break down the corrupt distributions, indicating $10 million kicked back to Joe Biden.

Folks, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, when you take into consideration the apparent corruption that is now the “Biden Crime Family”, the despicable defaming of Curtis Dunn (falsely accused by Biden of being drunk when Nelia Biden killed herself and her infant daughter by running a stop sign in 1972 and broad-siding a truck) when you consider the betrayal of his friend Bill Stevenson, the phony story he and Jill perpetrated about their seedy affair, and the revenge he brought on Stevenson later, and the despicable unmasking of General Mike Flynn by Joe Biden, should in its entirety, disqualify him from being President of the United States. Nobody with any integrity should vote for him.

Stay tuned, this is just the beginning!

I believe Joe Biden is a crook and he must be exposed. I am willing to debate these issues with anybody with the evidence I have. As always, your comments are welcome and appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted,

JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network


Additional Information

Is Joe Biden Guilty of Treason?

A little past noon on January 20, 2021, Joe Biden placed his left hand on a family Bible, raised his right hand in the air, and repeated the words spoken by Chief Justice John Roberts…

“I, Joseph Robinette Biden, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.”

He then gave a 21 minute and 12 second inaugural address that consisted of 2,525 words.

Later that day, the 46th President of the United States took up residence in the White House where, with the stroke of his pen, he issued 17 executive orders from behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. One of them reversed a Trump administration order that excluded undocumented immigrants from being counted in the Census, and another indefinitely halted construction of the border wall with Mexico. A third canceled the March 2019 permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have transported crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

In my opinion, not only did those three executive orders exceed his presidential authority, but they were borderline treasonous. Let me explain.

The six times that Joe Biden was sworn into office as a U.S. Senator and the two times he was sworn into office as Vice President of the United States, he recited the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The presidential oath includes a promise to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution… but from whom and from what? The answer to that question is seemingly provided by the congressional and vice-presidential oath, which mentions “all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

And yet, on his first day in office, President Biden chose to ignore the Constitution by granting illegal immigrants the same status as legal citizens in terms of congressional representation and apportionment. Not only that, but he also undermined our country’s defenses by reopening our already porous southern border and practically posting a welcome sign for the mass caravans of illegals emboldened by his new immigration policies.

Finally, by moving America from energy independence toward energy dependence, President Biden further compromised our national security. Russia, Iran, and other large oil and gas producers are not our friends, but we may soon find ourselves being held hostage by these totalitarian regimes because of President Biden’s disastrous energy policies.

We can argue the constitutionality of executive orders, but there is little question as to whether Joe Biden has abused that power. In his first 50 days, he has issued more than 50 EOs and executive actions. By comparison, Biden’s 45 predecessors averaged 58 such orders per year.

Strangely, not a single one of President Biden’s executive orders has done anything to bolster America’s defenses or to make our borders more secure. Quite on the contrary. Today, less than two months since Joe Biden took office, we are weaker as a nation and less able to repel a military or economic attack.

It seems to me that the top priority of America’s Commander-in-Chief should be to protect our citizenry. But how does opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants – some with criminal backgrounds and some who tested positive for COVID but were still released into our country – protect us? For that matter, how does filling our gas tanks with Iranian oil or heating our homes with Russian gas keep Americans safe?

The most notorious traitor in U.S. history was Benedict Arnold who, as commander of the American fort at West Point, offered to surrender it – and forfeit control of the Hudson River – to the British forces under Gen. Henry Clinton. While awaiting Clinton’s response to his financial demands, Arnold began to systematically weaken the fort’s defenses and military strength as well as its ability to withstand a siege.

How is Arnold’s betrayal any different than Biden’s? Benedict Arnold took steps to make West Point more vulnerable to an enemy attack by lowering its defenses and Joe Biden has done likewise by halting construction of our southern border wall. Arnold also purposely depleted West Point’s stockpile of supplies whereas President Biden has inexplicably crippled America’s energy supply chain by stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline in its tracks and pulling the plug on existing drilling contracts on federal lands and waters.

In addition to his West Point treachery, Benedict Arnold was court martialed on charges of profiteering during his time as military commander of Philadelphia. At the very least, Joe Biden should face a competency hearing because he is either in cahoots with China or mentally unfit to serve as President.


Elizabeth Lynne Cheney

Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is a traitor.

Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is a traitor.

Elizabeth Cheney is a treasonous politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Wyoming’s at-large congressional district since 2017. Cheney is the House Republican Conference Chair, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership.

In voting to impeach President Trump, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by declaring him guilty before due process.

Regarding the mob violence at the U. S. Capitol building, Rep. Cheney stated that the president “lit the flame of this attack.” To be sure, he enflamed the marchers to the Capitol, but he did not incite to a riot. The mob itself chose to do that.

The Constitution does not protect speech that incites a riot. Trump did not tell the marchers to march to the Capitol and engage in violence.

In fact, he stated to them, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Rep. Cheney declared, “Everything that followed” at the Capitol “was his doing.” No, it was not his doing; it was the doing itself of many of the mob. She makes a faulty leap of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: after his comments, therefore because of his comments. The law and the Constitution don’t work that way. Nowhere did the president state or imply that the marchers should next march to the Capitol for violent insurrection.

Rep. Cheney then charges the president with “betrayal… of his oath to the Constitution.” In unwitting irony, it is Cheney who betrays her oath to the Constitution by declaring guilt before due process.

She should have taken the route that Sen. Mitch McConnell carefully did: Wait to see what the evidence says — which implements due process.

On January 17, 2021 the Republican Party Central Committee in Carbon County, Wyoming voted unanimously with 45 votes to censure Cheney for her vote to impeach President Trump.

The Committee declared that “she voted in favor of the Democrats’ rushed impeachment article, denying President Trump due process.” The Committee was accurate in its charge.

It is understandable that one week later State Senator Anthony Boucher tossed his hat into the ring in the Republican primary against Rep. Cheney.

I want to relate a true story that explains the distinction between enflaming people and inciting a riot. These are constitutionally two entirely different things.

In the late ‘60s when I was a college professor at a mid-sized Michigan university, nearly every campus in America was protesting the country’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

One well-known and revered professor at my university decided in a Hyde Park manner to protest the war. He set up a PA system in the center of campus and blasted his protests of the war.

After dark, student mobs destroyed the campus. The destruction got so violent and widespread that military helicopters were flown in to tear-gas the entire campus, dispersing the students.

Was this the professor’s constitutional right to engage in free speech on a public, not private, campus, or did he incite a riot? He enflamed students, but he did not instruct or suggest that they should violently destroy much of the campus.

I take this as the professor’s constitutional right to free speech on a public campus — much as I take President Trump’s right to protest to his followers, even enflame them, but not incite them to mob violence and destruction.

I’ve always liked Liz Cheney’s politics and wish she would have made the critical distinction between Trump’s enflaming comments and incitement to riot.

With unanimous censure by her party leaders in Wyoming, she could lose her seat.


Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor.

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor, not just to this country, but to democracy everywhere.

As the CEO of Facebook, a business that has the attention of billions of people, Mark Zuckerberg has incredible power.

And that’s what makes the Facebook chief executive “the most dangerous person in the world,” New York University Stern School of Business professor Scott Galloway said on “Bloomberg Markets: The Close” on Wednesday, Aug 9, 2019.

Galloway, who teaches marketing and is a self-made millionaire entrepreneur, made the comment while discussing Facebook’s move to integrate the messenger services of the various platforms it owns: WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger. (Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.) While customers will still be able to use all three messenger apps individually, the three services will all be running off of the same back-end technical infrastructure when Zuckerberg’s plan is completed, either by the end of this year or in early 2020.

“Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram and the core platform, Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people,” Galloway said in the Bloomberg interview. “What could go wrong?”

Indeed, more than 2.7 billion people use at least one of those Facebook-owned services each month, the company says. And more than 2.1 billion use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger every day on average, according to Facebook.

“The notion that we are going to have one individual deciding the algorithms for an encrypted backbone of 2.7 billion people is frightening — regardless of that person’s intentions,” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

That’s because a variety of public voices and perspectives should, at least in theory, help keep the democratic process healthy, Galloway tells CNBC Make It.

A “key safeguard for society is diversity of media/viewpoints, checks and balance,” Galloway says. He adds that people should be concerned by “the notion that one set of algorithms, controlled by one person who cannot be removed from office” would have a significant influence over the platform through which billions of Facebook users around the world consume information every day. Another relevant matter of concern regarding Zuckerberg and Facebook, Galloway adds, is that the social networking giant has already faced high-profile criticism regarding “bad actors” (such as Russian propagandists) using the platform to spread misinformation and sow discord through Facebook and Instagram.

″[Zuckerberg] has not demonstrated ability, or will, to ensure the doomsday machine will not be weaponized (repeatedly) by bad actors,” Galloway says.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s move to integrate its messaging infrastructure could actually be an effort to build a defense against a possible pending antitrust case, Galloway argues.

At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice said it was opening an antitrust review of some of the nation’s largest tech companies, and while no companies were named specifically, the DOJ is launching the review based on “new Washington threats” from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Zuckerberg wants to get to the point where, if the government were to attempt to break up Facebook, the company would try claim it is not possible without killing the entire social network and taking out the economic benefits with it, Galloway says. “What Facebook is doing is taking prophylactic moves against any sort of antitrust so that [Zuckerberg] could say, ‘It would be impossible to unwind this now,’” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

This argument, though, is not likely to work, antitrust lawyer Steven Levitsky tells CNBC Make It. “No one likes to ‘unscramble the eggs’ of a corporate integration. But when companies have operated separately, and only now become integrated, it’s obvious that they can be separated again,” Levitsky says. “The cost of the separation is one that the defendant would have to bear.”

Facebook may also try to claim that if it were broken into smaller pieces it won’t be able to compete with Chinese tech behemoths, such as the Chinese messaging and mobile payment app WeChat and social media video app Tik Tok, Galloway tells CNBC Make It in a follow-up phone call.

This, Galloway says, is called the “national champions’ argument” in economics: “If you, in any way, diminish our size and power, we won’t be able to defend our shores against the Chinese companies that are coming for us,” Galloway says. He doesn’t by that argument. “Smaller, more nimble, agile companies have shown an ability to be just as effective countervailing forces than large lumbering ones,” he says.

“This is absolutely bad for the planet, bad for society and it is clear where they are going,” Galloway says. He also called the federal regulators’ approval of Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram a “failure.”

“I think we all probably regret that now,” Galloway said. To this, the Federal Trade Commission had no comment, a spokesperson told CNBC Make It.

Facebook did not respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.


Additional Information

Mark Zuckerberg’s Pact with the Devil

This is a column about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, but it starts with an old story about Intel and Monsanto from the book Accidental Empires. Stick with me here and you’ll soon understand why…

There was a time in the early 1980s when Intel suffered terrible quality problems. It was building microprocessors and other parts by the millions and by the millions these parts tested bad. The problem was caused by dust, the major enemy of computer chip makers.

Semiconductor companies fight dust by building their components in expensive clean rooms. Intel had plenty of clean rooms, but it still had a big dust problem, so the engineers cleverly decided that the wafers were probably dusty before they ever arrived at Intel. The wafers were made in the East by Monsanto. Suddenly it was Monsanto’s dust problem.

Monsanto engineers spent months and millions trying to eliminate every last speck of dust from their silicon wafer production facility in South Carolina. They made what they thought was terrific progress, too, though it didn’t show in Intel’s production yields, which were still terrible. The funny thing was that Monsanto’s other customers weren’t complaining. IBM, for example, wasn’t complaining, and IBM was a very picky customer, always asking for wafers that were extra big or extra small or triangular instead of round. IBM was having no dust problems.

If Monsanto was clean and Intel was clean, the only remaining possibility was that the wafers somehow got dusty on their trip between the two companies, so the Monsanto engineers hired a private investigator to tail the next shipment of wafers to Intel. Their private eye uncovered an Intel shipping clerk who was opening incoming boxes of super-clean silicon wafers and then counting out the wafers by hand into piles on his super-unclean desktop, just to make sure that Bob Noyce was getting every silicon wafer he was paying for.

There is a business axiom that management gurus spout and big-shot industrialists repeat to themselves as a mantra if they want to sleep well at night. The axiom says that when a business grows past $1 billion in annual sales it becomes too large for any one individual to have a significant impact. Alas, this is not true when it’s a $1 billion high-tech business, where too often the critical path goes right through the head of one particular programmer or engineer or even through the head of a well-meaning clerk down in the shipping department. Remember that Intel was already a $1+ billion company when it was brought to its knees by desk dust.

The reason that there are so many points at which a chip, a computer, or a program is dependent on just one person is that these tech companies lack depth. Like any other new industry, this is one staffed mainly by pioneers, who are, by definition, a small minority. People in critical positions in these organizations don’t usually have backup, so when they make a mistake, the whole company makes a mistake.

Which brings us back to Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook has been getting a lot of bad press lately because its platform has been a particularly effective medium for pushing extreme political positions backed by provable lies. The problem, say Facebook critics, is the company’s resistance to controlling such posters if they are, say, the President of the United States of America. While Facebook might shut down you or me if we tried to do the same thing, they haven’t shut down or edited President Trump, which the company says is all in the interest of free speech.

Yeah, right.

Facebook is under a siege of sorts as advertisers boycott the company’s platform over this issue. Facebook lives or dies by advertising so this is a real threat to the company if it grows and endures. It would be easy to solve the problem if Facebook just took a more rational policy, treating all posters the same, Presidents and paupers alike.

Why doesn’t Facebook just make this problem go away?

One theory is that the company fears President Trump, who is always happy to threaten any outfit he perceives as throttling his political message. If Facebook can just keep shuffling its feet until the election, the thinking goes, then Trump will lose and his threats will lose with him.

But I have a different theory. My theory is that Facebook’s policy on political free speech is entirely — and deliberately — attributable to Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s position is Zuck’s position and it will only change when Zuckerberg feels he has made his point, whatever that is.

To understand why this is the case, just look at Facebook’s stock structure. Yes, stock structure.

Facebook has two types of shares identified as A and B. A shares are the common shares the company sold when it went public in 2012. Each A share carries one vote at the company’s annual meeting. Facebook B shares are original founder shares, which aren’t traded on any exchange, but each B share gets 10 votes at the annual meeting.

Through his B shares, Mark Zuckerberg holds 57.9 percent of all possible Facebook shareholder votes. He, as an individual, has voting control of the entire enterprise. He can’t be fired. He can’t even be effectively opposed. Facebook will never face the wrath of an activist investor.

Looking back to that story about Intel and Monsanto, Mark Zuckerberg engineered a lifetime position as Facebook’s key man with every critical path going directly through him. Like de Gaulle said of France, Facebook literally is Zuckerberg.

Jump now to 2020 and we can see that Facebook’s free speech position is Zuckerberg’s position because of this Faustian deal. So why doesn’t he change it and be less of a dick? Because power doesn’t exist if it is not wielded.

Even if Facebook changes policies, it will do so very slowly, because Zuckerberg doesn’t want to look vulnerable.

I don’t know what’s happening inside Facebook, but I’d guess that this is an instance when Zuckerberg wants to remind everyone who is the boss.

That’s how Tony Soprano might have handled it.


Additional Information

Could Mark Zuckerberg be Executed by a Firing Squad?

Legal experts weigh in on the Facebook founder’s legal jeopardy

Many people have suggested lately that Zuckerberg could face jail time for his misleading testimony to Congress over the last few years.
Jail time? Is that really enough?

If it is true that Cambridge Analytica and the Russians had enough data to determine how each and every Facebook use in America was going to vote, and they provided that information to the Trump campaign, then some jurists have suggested that the offense of undermining democracy in America is traitorous and punishable by death.

“But it is highly unlikely a firing squad would be used,” explains one of the Winkelvoss twins, sorry don’t know which, can’t tell them apart. “The firing squad hasn’t been used since 2010 in Utah when Ronnie Lee was executed. But that was by the State of Utah. The federal government hasn’t used the firing squad since the famous deserter Eddie Slovik was executed in 1945 in France by a firing squad for running away from battle.”

Then the other Winkelvoss twin chimes in (man are they tall and handsome and strapping!).

“The traitor of all traitors, Benedict Arnold, was not even executed by firing squad,” says this Winkelvoss. “He in fact escaped and lived out his life in England, but his partner in sedition and treason, Major John Andre, was hanged for his crimes. What Zuckerberg has done is fairly on a par with Andre and Arnold. America’s enemy was the beneficiary in both cases. In Zuck’s case it was Russia.”

But it is highly unlikely that Mark Zuckerberg will be hanged. According to hanging expert Evan Spiegal, “The last time someone was hanged was Rainey Bethea in 1937, for the rape of a 70-year-old woman in Kentucky. This was more or less a lynching. Although the mob is angry at Zuckerberg, I can’t really see them stringing him up.”

But what about the guillotine?

“The guillotine was only used in North America only in the French Carribean, and was discontinued in the 1890s,” says a guy with French accent, who looks suspiciously like Chris Hughes with a fake mustache. “The only people to die of guillotine in the US have been suicides, in which case the guillotines were home-made by the suicides themselves.”
So it’s not likely that Zuckerberg will face the guillotine. What about just the plain axe? Off with his head like they did in England?

“The famous pirate Blackbeard was rumored to have been beheaded in North Carolina for his crimes in 1718 but he was also shot,” says Palmer Lucky, through a virtual reality machine.

“Most of the people beheaded in the British colonies were Native Americans,” continues Mr. Lucky. “Miles Standish, the famous pilgrim, executed the chief Wituwamat by beheading him in 1623 for resisting white settlement. That’s why we dress up as pilgrims and celebrate Thanksgiving every year by cutting the head off a turkey.”

I’m not sure about this Lucky guy — he’s rumored to be a Trump supporter after all. But it does seem unlikely that any of these barbaric methods of execution will be used against the Zuck.

“If he were executed,” says an expert in jurisprudence (always loved that word) Mr. Eduardo Saverin. “It would most likely be by lethal injection.”

Well, there you have it. Mark Zuckerberg may be fined, sternly chastened, or even criminally prosecuted for his corporate misbehavior, but it is highly unlikely that he will be blindfolded, given his last cigarette, and then shot twenty or thirty times.

But at least a few people we interviewed seem like they are kind of hoping for it.


Brian J. Smith

Brian J. Smith is a traitor.

Brian J. Smith is a traitor to our Nation byway of using his position as president and chief operating officer of The Coca-Cola Company. In this role, he is responsible for leading the company’s global field operations into an unconstitutional new world of diversity, inclusion and equity, the acronym DIE aptly applies. In other words, thanks to Brian J. Smith, the Coca-Cola Company has now been forced to adopt this socialist form of left-wing ideology.

Consequently, Coca-Cola has sent out notices to law firms demanding that the company will “require diversity among law firms who bill it for work in the United States and reduce payments if they do not comply.”

Because of pressure from the Marxist, anti-American Black Lives Matter, many Fortune 500 companies have pledged to address alleged racial inequality more aggressively.

In fact, there is almost a competition among firms to see who gets the highest score of diversity and inclusion.  How is this accomplished?

To determine the Best Workplaces for Diversity, Fortune partnered with Great Place to Work® to analyze anonymous survey feedback representing more than 4.8 million US employees.

The Best Workplaces for Diversity list focuses on the experiences of women, people of color, LGBTQ people, employees who are Boomers or older, and people who have disabilities. The ranking is based on what these employees themselves report in a 60-question Trust Index© survey about the trust, pride and camaraderie they experience in their workplace, and how those experiences compare to their colleagues’ reports of the same workplaces. Great Place to Work also consider[s] employees’ daily experiences of innovation, the company’s values, and the effectiveness of their leaders, to ensure they’re consistently experienced, as well.

The remaining 15 percent of the rank is based on the diversity of the company’s overall workforce and its management, senior leadership and board, taking into account industry trends.

Lori George Billingsley.is a traitor.

Coca Cola Company’s Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer, Lori George Billingsley, explains how Coca-Cola is creating a culture of diversity and inclusion.

The company that once touted “Red, White, and You,” has come a long way to now being a leading proponent of the racism that is the underbelly of diversity.

Thus, Coca-Cola’s general counsel is urging law firms to “effect real systemic change” by adhering to new requirements that [mandate that] outside counsel allocate a portion of work to diverse attorneys — specifically Black lawyers — or risk losing money or even future legal business.”

Dare I call this blackmail?  Dare I call it racist?

In essence, “Coke said it will require quarterly reporting about the makeup of legal teams that do work for it and self identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, women, Hispanic/Latinx, LGBTQ, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or persons with disabilities. For those working on new matters for Coke, ‘at least 30 percent of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from Black attorneys.'”

It said the percentages, which are roughly equal to those of the U.S. population overall, will be adjusted over time to eventually hit at least 50 percent of billed time coming from diverse attorneys, with half from Black attorneys.

Firms that fail to meet the targets will be docked 30 percent of their fees, and those who continue to come up short may no longer be considered for Coke work.

Apparently like everything that is radically left-wing, merit does not matter. This is identity politics on steroids.

The fact that there are fewer Black lawyers must be, according to Leftist group think, because of racism. It could never be because fewer Black people choose to enter the legal profession or that because of another brainchild of left-wing philosophy, affirmative action, fewer Blacks succeed in the field.

America already has many protections against discrimination, i.e., the EEOC, and yet the legal profession is now being told it must break the law so that Coca Cola can have the final say in its virtue signaling and its adherence to Black Lives Matter demands.

Of course, the natural result of this is many more people will suddenly self-identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, LGBTQ+, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or a person with disabilities.”

Heck, I should now claim Hispanic heritage because probably an ancestor of mine was one of the Spanish conversos who were exiled or murdered during the Spanish Inquisition!

Another result will be the deep resentment among different groups because one group is being promoted not based on merit but because of identity politics.

This is just another embodiment of Marxist class warfare now redefined.

This, of course, is always the aim of the Left.  They will mouth diversity, inclusion, and equity.  But anyone who sees through this will note that “equity is not equality. It is a substitute for equal rights. Equity requires the authorities to determine who gets what according to the race, the ethnicity or other status of the beneficiaries. It is updated Marxist claptrap  in which race replaces class.”

This is because the purveyors of this racist ideology couched in alleged empathy and compassion believe that a “lower than population percentage of blacks in any desirable category must be the result of systemic racism.”

What Coca Cola is touting is Critical Race Theory, which is now rampant in schools and businesses in America. Trump banned the use of Critical Race Theory but Biden reinstated it on the first day he issued his slew of executive orders.

We are now in the throes of a hideous left-wing takeover of this country. The term ‘diversity’ now excludes white straight males. Thus, to achieve equity, you first have to take away equality for individuals who were born in the wrong identity group. Merit has no bearing on anything any longer in this country. Consider that 85% of Biden’s new political appointees to the Office of Personnel Management identify as people of color, women or LGBTQ.

It is ironic that businesses, the mainstay of our economic engine, have now taken on the face of tyranny.

I would hope that Americans decide that Coca-Cola is no longer their choice of drink. I would request that these now-designated groups perceive that they are being held to the soft bigotry of low expectations. That to gain a foothold because of something they had no control over such as their race is an abiding insult that lowers self-esteem and pride and worth.

I pray that the legal minds push back hard on Coca-Cola and their dictatorial edicts . I would appeal to the lawyers to stand up and proclaim that such demands are completely contrary to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and are merely more tools in the leftist arsenal to weaken, eviscerate and eventually destroy America.


Additional Information

Maybe Coke Should Be Cancelled for Its Nazi Past. . .

Woke Coke seems less concerned with selling sugar water these days than selling Americans on the idea that whites are not worthy of respect or equal protection under the law. A few weeks ago, a whistleblower revealed Coca-Cola’s discriminatory employee training program equating racism with “whiteness.” In a series of online work assignments, Coke goes so far as to instruct its white employees to, “try to be less white.” How does one “be less white”? Coke answers that explicitly: by being less “oppressive,” “arrogant,” “certain,” “defensive,” and “ignorant,” and being more “humble” and “break[ing] with white solidarity.” For Coke, judging people based on the color of their skin is not only tolerated but also company policy.

If the company’s “de-whitening” efforts weren’t sufficient proof that Coca-Cola prioritizes a person’s skin color over a person’s talents and individual character, it drove the point home with a letter sent to its outside legal counsel demanding that law firms assign attorneys representing the Coca-Cola Company based, not upon the quality of lawyers’ work, but rather upon lawyers’ racial classification. Going forward, Coke will penalize and reduce its fees to law firms unable to hit certain racial quotas.

Now Coca-Cola’s CEO is joining other race hucksters to claim that sensible voter ID laws meant to curb fraud in Georgia’s elections should be seen as nothing short of white Americans’ attempt to disenfranchise black voters — a loaded accusation not based in reason or analysis of the law’s merits but rather in raw emotionalism intended to pit one group of Americans against another.

Surely a company that regurgitates nasty racial stereotypes against whites so effortlessly while seeking to eliminate them from its workforce doesn’t really believe white people can ever scrub all that icky whiteness away for good, no matter how many rounds of re-education they are forced to endure. As Coca-Cola’s training materials suggest, racism is just part of whites’ DNA. Perhaps the company could have saved future employees a lot of trouble by simply hanging a sign on its front door reading, “No Uppity Whites Allowed.”

Racial stereotypes, racial classifications and quotas, explicitly racist indoctrination — why is Coca-Cola so obsessed with discriminating against people based on the color of their skin rather than evaluating all of the individual characteristics that make each person a unique member of the human race? Perhaps racism is in the company’s own DNA, not at all different from the way the beverage company judges white Americans as racists for historical injustices in which they claimed no part.

Did you know that Nazi Germany was one of Coca-Cola’s biggest markets? Have you ever seen an official Coca-Cola advertisement promoting the company’s partnership with the Nazis during the 1936 Olympics under a jingoistic tagline — “One people, one country, one drink, Coke is it” — that must of made Adolf Hitler proud?

Does Coca-Cola not highlight its financial history with Nazi Germany when crowing about its racial purity tests today? Or the fact that Germany’s inconvenient declaration of war against the United States made it sufficiently difficult for Coca-Cola to maintain its prominent reputation within the Reich that the company’s German representatives repurposed the operations of hundreds of bottling plants toward the production of a new drink called Fanta to serve thirsty German soldiers throughout the war? Does the Coca-Cola Company not brag about Fanta’s wartime genesis as a Nazi beverage? How strange.

One would think that a company so dedicated to rooting out “white supremacy” that it forces its white employees into racial re-education training seminars would first want to take a hard look at its own rather awkward historical relationship with actual white supremacists intent on building a world-dominating “master race.” That’s what “racial justice” requires, right — the punishment of one generation of Americans for the sins of generations past? So why should Coca-Cola’s questionable corporate history be off-limits when it goes out of its way to demonize white Americans for no other reason than the color of their skin?

On the other hand, everything about Coca-Cola’s racial indoctrination program today sounds as if it could be ripped right from the pages of Nazi Germany’s own race laws, with Jews and other “undesirables” being crossed out and “whites” scribbled in their place. All the racial animosity that nearly destroyed humanity last century is back in “woke” form, and some of the same companies that underestimated the Nazi threat then are underestimating the evil intent of the new racialist agendas that are taking over the corporate world today. Isn’t that, after all, why Critical Race Theory exists — so that pretend intellectuals can repackage discredited race-based theories from the past into academic language that can be used once again to justify outright racism? If so, 2021 Coke and 1936 Coke still have much in common. The only thing really differentiating the symbolism of a Nazi swastika and a Black Lives Matter clenched fist, after all, is which racial group is being targeted and which racial group is doing the targeting.

There is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps if Coca-Cola were capable of seeing the similarity between the racial grievances of its old Nazi partners and those of its new “woke” ones, it wouldn’t be so enthusiastic to repeat history all over. And maybe if Coke remains so intent on “cancelling” white Americans for the problems it sees in America’s history, then Americans should cancel Coke for the problems it overlooked in Nazi Germany’s.


Additional Information

What Was More American than Coke and Baseball?

Until very recently, it would have been hard to imagine anything more iconic of American life than Coca-Cola and baseball. Today both remind me of Benito Mussolini’s corporatist – aka, fascist — game of merging of state and corporate power. The CEOs of these operations should hang their heads in shame and fire their public-relations teams. So should the CEOs of Delta and American Airlines, Black Rock, Cisco, American Express, and American Airlines, who have promoted President Biden’s false assertions that tightening election procedures to bring them back into line — and in accord with those of civilized Western governments elsewhere — is racist voter suppression. I’m fed up with this never-ending sham: partisan power grabs to weaken the most important features of American life being cloaked in virtuous anti-racism.

The immediate target of these corporate actions was efforts by Georgia and Texas to revise their election laws, laws which in many states have resulted in widespread disbelief that the 2020 elections were conducted on the up and up. When people believe election procedures are untrustworthy, it shatters voluntary acceptance of the election results. Under pressure from racist propagandists of the left and using COVID as an excuse, jurisdictions in several states so loosened the election rules that widespread fraud was made easier. One state in particular was Georgia, where asleep at the switch (or corrupt — your choice) officials permitted the sloppy, untrustworthy, opaque, and disputed election procedures.

In an effort to prevent a repeat, Georgia enacted a new election law. (In pdf form it’s 104 pages, and that makes it unlikely to me that any of the corporate bleating about it was made with knowledge of its contents.) Their response was certainly occasioned by a weak-kneed response to a small but loud group‘s pressure. In Tom Wolfe’s words, they successfully mau-maued the companies’ flak catchers.

Almost immediately upon its passage, President Biden attacked it as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “a blatant attack on the Constitution.”

“Instead of celebrating the rights of all Georgians to vote or winning campaigns on the merits of their ideas, Republicans in the state instead rushed through an un-American law to deny people the right to vote.”

He added: “This law, like so many others being pursued by Republicans in statehouses across the country, is a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience.”

One of the key provisions of the new law ensures ID requirements for requesting mail-in ballots. Seems to me this is a rather basic rule if votes from only eligible voters are to be counted. Race baiters love loose election procedures which make fraud almost certain and regularly (contra the evidence) target ID requirements, arguing absurdly that this suppresses the black vote. It’s a preposterous argument which ignores the fact that obtaining an ID is easy everywhere and a necessity for things like COVID vaccinations, drivers’ licenses, gun purchases, welfare benefits, medical treatments, air travel, and more.

Rasmussen Reports asked, “Should voters be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote”? The answer should put paid to the claim that its unduly burdensome:

    1000 National Likely Voters – Yes

    White – 74%

    Black – 69%

    Other Non-White – 82%

    All Voters – 75%

Georgia is not the only state shocked into writing more transparent, enforceable, and sensible laws to limit election fraud. Iowa has done so and per the BBC:

“There are currently 253 similar bills in 43 states, according to the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice think tank.”

James Quincey Chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company is a traitor.

Following Biden’s lead, the CEO of Coca Cola (a company already in the spotlight for its advice to its workers to “be less white”) James Quincey chimed in with this pablum:

Voting is a foundational right in America, and we have long championed efforts to make it easier to vote.

We want to be crystal clear and state unambiguously that we are disappointed in the outcome of the Georgia voting legislation. Throughout Georgia’s legislative session we provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting.

Our approach has always been to work with stakeholders to advocate for positive change, and we will continue to engage with legislators, advocacy groups, business leaders and others to work towards ensuring broad access to voting is available to every eligible voter in our home state.

Additionally, our focus is now on supporting federal legislation that protects voting access and addresses voter suppression across the country. We all have a duty to protect everyone’s right to vote, and we will continue to stand up for what is right in Georgia and across the U.S.

As an aside, I abhor the corporate use of the term “stakeholders” to cover the reality of partisan pressure. Corporate officials are by law required to consider the interests of shareholders and it seems to me they are not doing so in this case.

He was not alone. Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta Airlines, like Coke, headquartered in Atlanta, joined in covering their weakness in an unsubstantiated moral claim about a law he probably had not read:

    Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said in a memo to employees Wednesday that the law was “unacceptable” and “based on a lie” of widespread fraud in last November’s election.

Governor Brian Kemp was having none to it:

    Georgia’s Kemp shot back on Wednesday.

    “At no point did Delta share any opposition to expanding early voting, strengthening voter ID measures, increasing the use of secure drop boxes statewide, and making it easier for local election officials to administer elections — which is exactly what this bill does.

    “The last time I flew Delta, I had to present my photo ID,” Kemp said in a statement. “Today’s statement by Delta CEO Ed Bastian stands in stark contrast to our conversations with the company, ignores the content of the new law, and unfortunately continues to spread the same false attacks being repeated by partisan activists.”

Delta declined to comment further or specify which parts of the bill it tried to change. Maybe, instead of just running with these statements, reporters should demand that Quincey and Bastian specify their complaints. (Who am I kidding?)

The shuffling parade of weak corporate leaders continued.

There was American Express CEO Steve Squeri, who announced his company stands “against any efforts to suppress voting.” Black Rock’s Larry Fink, expressed concern about efforts that could limit access to the ballot.” And Cisco’s CEO Chuck Robbins: “Governments should be working to make it easier to vote, not harder.” None of these corporate wizards points to anything in the law that suppresses voting or makes it harder to vote. Indeed, they couldn’t because it doesn’t. What the law does try to do is strengthen accountability to make certain only eligible voters can vote and that their votes are securely kept and honestly counted.

This reminds me so much of the self-congratulatory, meaningless, signs that appeared on lawn signs in my wealthy neighborhood last year, announcing. “Hate has no home here.” As if it does in the rest of the neighborhood, which lack such signaling. As if the signs don’t express contempt for and claim moral superiority over those of us who don’t dot our lawn with vapid signs like this.

The corporate kneeling to BLM and Stacey Abrams, who never accepted her election defeat, continued with Major League Baseball, which announced it’ll move the All-star Game and draft out of Atlanta because it opposed the election law. I don’t know where they plan to hold it, but it certainly must not be in New York, which provides for fewer days of permissible early voting than Georgia. Nor can it be in Delaware (Biden’s home state) which doesn’t permit no-excuse absentee ballots like Georgia’s does.

The corporatist ninnies at American Airlines also are attacking Texas’s new election law, and they should know not to mess with Texas.

    Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick slammed American Airlines on Thursday evening after the airline called out the state’s new security measures to protect elections [snip] “Earlier this morning, the Texas State Senate passed legislation with provisions that limit voting access,” American Airlines said in a statement that echoed remarks made by leftists who have attacked recent measures to secure elections across the country. “To make American’s stance clear: We are strongly opposed to this bill and others like it.” [snip] As Lt. Governor of Texas, I am stunned that American Airlines would put out a statement saying ‘we are strongly opposed to this bill’ [Senate Bill 7] just minutes after their government relations representative called my office and admitted that neither he nor the American Airlines CEO had actually read the legislation,” Patrick said. “We heard these same outcries claiming voter suppression in 2011 when Texas passed the photo voter ID bill. In fact, just the opposite occurred. Voter turnout in Texas soared from 7,993,851 in 2012 to 11,144,040 in 2020, a 39 percent increase. Gubernatorial election voter turnout has increased by 76 percent since photo voter ID was passed.”

Brian Kemp was just as dismissive of Major League Baseball’s decision to move its all-star game and draft out of Atlanta.

    As MLB caves to themes of the woke left, the public should know how Georgia’s voting laws stack up against New York’s — where Major League Baseball is headquartered. In New York there are only 10 days of early voting under the Election Integrity Act. Georgia now has 17 days of mandatory early voting, with the option of two additional Sundays. New York requires an excuse for absentee voting. Georgia does not. And while New York just enacted automatic voter registration in December, Georgia has had it in place for years. Let’s be clear: MLB’s decision is not about access to voting. It’s about a lack of courage to stand up to the lies of a radical mob hellbent on distorting the truth for political gain. If MLB is worried about access to the ballot box, they should check their own backyard. They may be afraid of Jos Biden and Stacey Abrams, but I’m not.

Punch back twice as hard, like Kemp and Patrick, against efforts to undercut stronger election integrity. I’d skip the MLB’s All-Star game, switch to another beverage, and check my stock portfolio to be sure the CEOs of the companies I invest in were smarter, stronger, and more honest than these guys are.