The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating the national Black Lives Matter organization over allegations that the group’s leadership defrauded donors. Federal agents are probing the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation after years of financial scandals and infighting at the group. Officials have issued multiple subpoenas and carried out at least one search warrant against the foundation and other leftist groups in recent weeks, according to the Associated Press. The investigation began under former President Joe Biden, according to the AP. In a statement, the foundation denied that it is the subject of a “federal criminal investigation.” “We remain committed to full transparency, accountability, and the responsible stewardship of resources dedicated to building a better future for Black communities,” the foundation told the AP. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California in Los Angeles is leading the investigation into the foundation, according to Fox News. Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now. The Black Lives Matter foundation received a cascade of donations following the death of George Floyd, a chronic drug abuser and repeat criminal, during his arrest in Minneapolis in 2020. The foundation received an estimated $90 million in contributions following Floyd’s death, which kicked off nationwide protests and riots over alleged systemic racism within law enforcement that resulted in over $1 billion in damages. No criminal charges have been filed in the investigation into the foundation or related groups. The investigation itself is part of the Trump administration’s effort to probe potential illegal activity within leftist organizations and identify the financial interests behind violent riots spurred by political agendas, according to National Review. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has been rocked by allegations of scandal and the abuse of donor funds in recent years. In 2022, the national foundation hemorrhaged funds while paying out substantial paychecks to its former executive director Patrisse Cullors and a number of her family members and friends. Part of the $90 million trove the national foundation raised in the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death went toward luxury homes in Los Angeles and Toronto together worth about $12 million. Another nearly $11 million was paid out for contracts, many of which went to companies run by Cullors’ family and friends. For instance, Cullors’ brother, a graffiti artist, received $1.6 million between two companies for providing “professional security services” for Black Lives Matter. The national group and its offshoots, particularly Black Lives Matter Grassroots, have suffered from infighting within the Black Lives Matter movement over millions of dollars-worth of donations that have seemed to go missing.

'That is where the core of the problem is'

Mid-Atlantic and Northeast were drenched by a low pressure system

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A retired police officer from rural Tennessee spent more than a month behind bars over a Facebook post that authorities said hinted at school violence, a charge now thrown out, but one that has raised new concerns about criminalizing speech online. Larry Bushart, 61, a longtime resident of Perry County and a familiar face in local Facebook debates, was arrested in late September after sharing a meme that officials said some interpreted as a threat. The post appeared in a community group following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The meme that landed Bushart in trouble was not new. It featured an image of President Donald Trump and the words “We have to get over it,” referencing his comment after a school shooting in Perry, Iowa, last year. Beneath the image, and lacking the context, a caption read, “Donald Trump, on the Perry High School mass shooting, one day after.” Bushart had added only a brief remark: “This seems relevant today…” According to Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems, some residents saw the post and believed it referred to their own Perry County High School. Channel 5 News pressed Sheriff Nick Weems on the origins of the meme that led to Bushart’s arrest. The image, which referenced a school shooting in Perry, Iowa, had circulated widely online before Bushart shared it. “It says ‘Perry High School mass shooting one day after,’ ok? That led people to believe in our county that he’s talking about Perry County High School – because it doesn’t say ‘Iowa’ either,” Weems explained. When reporters pointed out that the meme was already known to be an existing post from the internet, Weems acknowledged, “Correct.” “So it’s clear that he’s not talking about Perry County High School,” the reporter pressed. “We knew,” the sheriff admitted. “The public did not know.” Weems said calls poured into his office, and when Bushart declined to delete the meme, he was charged with recklessly threatening mass violence, a felony that carried the potential for years in prison. Body camera footage captured the moment Bushart was taken into custody. “I’ve been in Facebook jail,” he told an officer with disbelief. “But I’m really in it now.” His bail was set at an extraordinary $2 million. For over four weeks, he remained locked up as local officials insisted that the post crossed a legal line. But on Wednesday, prosecutors abruptly dropped the case and secured his release. Court documents confirm the dismissal, though no explanation was given for why the charges were abandoned. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Tennessee Man Jailed Over Facebook Meme Has Charges Dropped After Outcry appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. What many assumed was the end of Stanford University’s involvement in online speech regulation now appears to have been only a pause. When donor Frank McCourt withdrew his funding from the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) last year, many observers believed the university had distanced itself from the contentious programs that worked with government agencies to monitor public discourse. The SIO had been identified in the Twitter Files and congressional investigations as a major conduit for flagging and suppressing Americans’ online conversations about elections and COVID-19, often in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). At that time, McCourt’s move was interpreted as a full disengagement. According to new findings by Public, Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center recently hosted a confidential gathering that brought together officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil. The meeting, held in September, focused on coordinating international strategies to control online content. It was not publicly listed, and its existence was revealed only after a whistleblower shared internal materials with congressional investigators. The surprising detail: the event was funded by Frank McCourt’s new organization, the Project Liberty Institute. For Americans weary of years of online suppression tied to government partnerships, this revelation suggests that the machinery of censorship continues under new labels. Frustration has grown over the lack of accountability for officials and agencies that have sought to narrow the scope of lawful speech under the pretext of maintaining “integrity” and “safety.” Jordan’s committee has continued to uncover connections between federal authorities, major tech companies, and academic programs involved in online moderation. Evidence gathered so far shows that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms were routinely pressured by government offices to suppress lawful opinions. After the Stanford meeting came to light, Jordan sent a formal request to Jeff Hancock, head of the Cyber Policy Center, demanding all communications and documentation related to the September 24 session. He described the event as one that “brought together foreign officials who have directly targeted American speech and represent a serious threat to the First Amendment.” Among those in attendance was Julie Inman-Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, known for advocating worldwide coordination of speech restrictions. Jordan’s office characterized the Stanford session as a “roundtable” that included officials from “some of the entities with the worst track records of extraterritorial censorship, including the United Kingdom’s (UK) Ofcom, the EU, and Brazil.” His letter accused Stanford of helping foreign regulators “to vitiate the First Amendment.” The Committee ordered Stanford to preserve all related records and respond by November 5, warning that failure to cooperate could lead to a subpoena, a tool Jordan previously used when Stanford resisted document requests during an earlier inquiry into the Internet Observatory. “This collaboration with foreign censorship officials is even more alarming in light of Stanford’s past efforts to facilitate domestic government censorship of lawful speech,” Jordan wrote. He noted that earlier investigations exposed how the SIO and its Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) “laundered government censorship requests to social media platforms.” Get the full details from Public here. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Jim Jordan Probes Stanford’s Secret Meeting with Foreign Regulators over Alleged Coordination of Online Censorship Efforts appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.” He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure. “Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.” He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.” Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction. “While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.” He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube. But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.” Erickson also alleged that Google has a record of resisting censorship demands from foreign governments, citing its refusal to remove politically sensitive videos in Russia despite threats of imprisonment against employees and fines “that exceed more than the world’s GDP.” Neil Potts, Meta’s Vice President of Public Policy, took a more reflective stance. He reiterated that Meta has a “foundational commitment to free expression” and acknowledged that the company had yielded to “repeated pressure” from the Biden White House to restrict COVID-related posts, including satire and humor. “We believe that government pressure was wrong and wish we had been more outspoken about it,” Potts said. He added that Meta “should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.” Potts pointed to policy changes the company has made since then, such as ending its third-party fact-checking program, reducing restrictions on political topics, and adopting what he described as “a more personalized approach to political content.” These steps, he said, were intended to “return to our ideals about free expression” and “allow for more speech.” Senator Cruz pressed both executives on whether their companies regretted complying with government demands. Potts responded that Meta “do[es] regret our actions for not speaking out more forcefully.” Erickson, however, declined to use similar language, saying Google regularly receives “outreach from a lot of actors” and evaluates flagged material independently. The exchange grew more pointed as Cruz questioned Google’s removal of a YouTube video that compiled election-fraud claims made by both major parties. Erickson conceded, “Yes, that is news,” when Cruz asked whether statements by presidential candidates about election integrity should be considered newsworthy. But Erickson defended YouTube’s policies during the 2020 election, saying that after states had certified results, the company acted against “claims of widespread fraud” due to potential “real-world harm.” Cruz accused Google of ideological bias and suggested the company was “unwilling to express regret for anything at all.” He contrasted that with Meta’s statement of remorse and concluded that Google’s position reflected “a level of contempt for free speech that does not reflect well.” Where Erickson had insisted that Google “continued to develop and enforce our policies independently,” the company’s letter to Congress acknowledged that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of COVID-19 content that did not violate platform rules. This was somewhat of a departure from the defensive posture Google maintained before the Senate. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is Under Investigation for Fraud

Trump Officials Flee to Military Bases: Left-Wing Threats Force Miller, Rubio, and Noem into Hiding

Ranting Jasmine Crockett Unintentionally Praises Reasonable Republicans Voting for Clean CRs Under Biden

Refuse Fascism Plans to Surround White House With Millions of Activists on November 5