Then-President Donald Trump speaks to the media after signing a bill for border funding in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2019. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Donald Trump
Former President Donald Trump, in a new interview on Thursday, accused Facebook and other tech giants of engaging in “total censorship” after his interview with Lara Trump for her podcast was taken down by Facebook.
“What’s happening now in this country, nobody ever thought would happen,” he told Dr. Gina Loudon in an interview. “It is total censorship.”
“You don’t have free speech in this country. But you know what happens, they take it off and now people talk about it more,” he said, describing the video that was taken down as a “very nice interview” with Lara Trump, his daughter-in-law.
A source close to the Trump Organization earlier this week confirmed to The Epoch Times that Facebook took down Lara Trump’s interview with the former commander-in-chief 20 minutes after it was posted on Tuesday. Facebook has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Lara Trump on Wednesday posted screenshots that purportedly show an email from a Facebook representative saying that the video was removed because it “featured President Trump speaking” and the “voice of Donald Trump.”
“In line with the block we placed on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed and result in additional limitations on the accounts,” the alleged email said.
After the Jan. 6 capitol incident, Trump was suspended by Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other platforms, who alleged that the president’s speech to supporters incited violence. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Trump’s ban because he used “our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.”
Later, a Twitter executive said in an interview that Trump’s ban would be permanent.
Trump, during several recent interviews, said he prefers not to use Twitter, where he had amassed 80 million followers, and said the social media website is hemorrhaging users because it’s too “boring.” Advisers to the former president said they would be launching a new social media website in the coming weeks, although details about the platform are scant.
Former President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 28, 2021. (Joe Skipper/Reuters) Donald Trump
Former President Donald Trump on April 2 urged people to boycott Major League Baseball (MLB), Coca-Cola, Delta, and other corporations which are openly opposing election reforms enacted by Republicans in Georgia.
“Baseball is already losing tremendous numbers of fans, and now they leave Atlanta with their All-Star Game because they are afraid of the Radical Left Democrats who do not want voter I.D., which is desperately needed, to have anything to do with our elections,” Trump wrote in a statement released by his Save America political action committee. “Boycott baseball and all of the woke companies that are interfering with Free and Fair Elections. Are you listening Coke, Delta, and all!”
MLB on Friday announced that it will move its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of the election reform package passed by the state’s Republicans last month. MLB Commissioner Robert D. Manfred Jr. announced the move in a news release saying that the decision was the best way to “demonstrate our values as a sport.”
MLB, Coca-Cola, and Delta did not respond to requests for comment.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed a package of election reforms into law last month which expanded voting hours and access to early voting. The new law also requires absentee voters to provide a copy of their ID alongside their ballot, something the state had already required for in-person voters.
Georgia was one of six states where Trump challenged the outcome of the 2020 election. That state ultimately certified President Joe Biden as the winner after several recounts. Trump claimed that the election in Georgia was tainted by fraud and was run by rules put in place through an unconstitutional process.
Minutes prior to the boycott message, the former president released a statement about election fraud.
“Why is it that every time the 2020 ELECTION FRAUD is discussed, the Fake News Media consistently states that such charges are baseless, unfounded, unwarranted, etc.? Sadly, there was massive fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election, and many very angry people understand that. With each passing day, and unfortunately for the Radical Left CRAZIES, more and more facts are coming out,” Trump said “Other than that, Happy Easter!”
Georgia’s election reforms have become the target of left-wing criticism, including false claims by Biden about the law requiring the polls to close by 5 p.m. The bill actually expanded the voting hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Corporations including Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola joined the chorus, issuing statements from top executives criticizing the bill.
Biden said on March 31 that he would support the MLB moving the All-star game from Atlanta in response to the election reform legislation.
“I think that today’s professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly. I would strongly support them doing that,” Biden said. “People look to them, they’re leaders. Look at what’s happened with the NBA as well. Look at what’s happened across the board. The people who’ve been victimized the most are the people who are the leaders in these various sports and it’s just not right.”
Kemp said it was “obvious” that neither Biden nor his advisers familiarized themselves with the content of the bill.
“It is obvious that neither President Biden nor his handlers have actually read SB 202, which I signed into law yesterday,” Kemp told The Epoch Times via email on March 27 referring to the bill by its legislative ID number. “This bill expands voting access, streamlines vote-counting procedures, and ensures election integrity.”
Janita Kan, Mimi Nguyen Ly, and Samuel Allegri contributed to this report.
Thirteen states launched legal action against the Biden administration over a provision in the CCP virus relief package that prohibits states from using the funds to pay for tax breaks.
The Democrats’ $1.9 trillion relief package to combat the impacts of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (pdf), carries a provision that says states cannot use relief funds to offset decreased tax revenue that is due to any tax cuts—including by cutting rates, rebates, deductions, credits, or otherwise—and any tax delays.
The 13-state bipartisan coalition filed the federal lawsuit late Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. They argued that the provision is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit () says the provision in the relief package is “one of the most egregious power grabs by the federal government in the nation’s history.” It argues that the provision, by stipulating how states use federal funds with regard to tax cuts, is akin to forcing states to relinquish control of their taxing authority, which is not allowed under the Tenth Amendment. The lawsuit also accuses the federal government of violating the conditional spending doctrine and the anti-commandeering doctrine.
The complaint in the lawsuit alleges that the provision, also referred to as the Federal Tax Mandate, “disables States from decreasing taxes on their citizens for a period of over three years” and in doing so, “usurps” the ability of the states to reduce their tax burdens. It also “creates an impermissible chilling effect” on the states’ officials to do the same “based on a threat that the federal government may claw back some or all of the States’ share” of funding from CCP virus relief package.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the states of West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. The defendants in the lawsuit are Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Treasury Department Inspector General Richard Delmar.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, leads the 13-state coalition.
“Never before has the federal government attempted such a complete takeover of state finances,” Morrisey said in a statement. “We cannot stand for such overreach. The Constitution envisions co-sovereign states, not a federal government that forces state legislatures to forfeit one of their core constitutional functions in exchange for a large check equal to approximately 25 percent of their annual respective general budgets.”
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey speaks during a press conference at the Department of Justice in Washington on Feb. 27, 2018. (Toya Sarno Jordan/Getty Images)
The specific provision of concern reads in full as follows: “A state or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to this section to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such state of territory resulting from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.”
Previously, attorneys general from 21 states wrote to Yellen on March 16 seeking clarity over the provision as written in the law and sought to confirm that the restriction would not strip states of their taxing authority. In their letter (pdf), they said that the legislation’s language that prohibits against offsetting reductions in state tax revenue is “unclear,” including with regard to how the Treasury would interpret the word “indirectly” as contained in the provision.
They said the prohibition on “indirectly” offsetting tax breaks “could also be read to prohibit tax cuts or relief of any stripe, even if wholly unrelated to and independent of the availability of relief funds.”
“After all, money is fungible, and States must balance their budgets. So, in a sense, any tax relief enacted by a state legislature after the State has received relief funds could be viewed as “using” those funds as an “offset” that allows the State to provide that tax relief,” the 21 attorneys general wrote.
In her response on March 23, Yellen wrote, “The limitation affects States’ ability to retain only those federal funds used to offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from certain changes in state law.”
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks during a virtual roundtable in Washington on Feb. 5, 2021. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
She added, “It is also important to note that States choosing to use the federal funds to offset a reduction in net tax revenue do not thereby forfeit their entire allocation of funds appropriated under this statute.”
“It is well established that Congress may place such reasonable conditions on how States may use federal funding,” she wrote.
“If States lower certain taxes but do not use funds under the Act to offset those cuts-for example, by replacing the lost revenue through other means-the limitation in the Act is not implicated,” Yellen also said.
But the Montana and West Virginia attorneys general’s offices pointedout in their statements that Yellen “failed to place limits on the vague provision.”
Morrisey’s office said that the issue “directly impacts” whether the law will infringe upon the state legislature’s consideration of a state proposal to eliminate income tax. He also took issue with how Treasury would interpret the word “indirectly” in the provision.
“Our lawsuit is designed to protect West Virginia from federal overreach,” Morrisey said. “This ensures our citizens aren’t stuck with an unforeseen bill from the feds years from now.”
The latest lawsuit comes amid a slew of other actions taken by states against the Biden administration, claiming federal overreach.
Previously, 21 states sued the Biden administration on March 17 over President Joe Biden’s decisions to revoke the federal permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The administration was later sued by 14 states on March 24 over Biden’s executive action pausing new oil and gas drilling on federal land.
The Biden administration was also targeted for Biden’s climate change related executive order in a lawsuit on March 8 filed by 12 states saying that the move could severely affect their economies. A day later, the administration was sued by Arizona and Montana over immigration policies.
YouTube has deleted about 2.5 million ‘dislikes’ from videos on the official White House channel of President Joe Biden, according to data collected and posted online by a researcher who wished to remain anonymous. YouTube recently announced that it’s testing a new page design that hides the dislike count.
The Google-owned video platform allows users to give videos either a thumb up (like) or thumb down (dislike). For at least two years, it’s had a policy to remove likes and dislikes it considers spam.
“We have policies and systems in place to ensure that the engagement on YouTube is authentic, and remove any fraudulent metrics,” a YouTube spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email, but when asked, wouldn’t go into details on what criteria it uses to make these calls.
The White House videos have seen these kinds of interventions on an ongoing basis, but it appears it’s only the dislikes that are disappearing.
The channel has posted more than 300 videos that have garnered nearly 3.7 million dislikes of which nearly 2.5 million were removed, according to data posted on the website 81m.org. The author of the website started to track the engagement on January 26 and has published all the data as well as the methodology used to collect it, but wouldn’t comment on his or her identity when asked via email.
YouTube is deleting close to 8,000 dislikes per video on average. Not a single like was removed, the data indicates.
Even after the interventions, the videos have nearly six times more dislikes than likes on average, the data shows. Without intervention the ratio would be over 17 dislikes for every like.
Posts on social media indicate that some supporters of former President Donald Trump make a point of disliking the Biden White House videos. The videos often get thousands of dislikes shortly after popping online, only for a large portion of the dislikes being deleted later.
In some cases, batches of dislikes would be removed about once an hour, keeping the dislike count around the same number. In other cases, a large portion of dislikes would be chopped down at once, the data indicates.
The website 81m.org lists results of the same analysis for several other YouTube channels with large followings. None of them exhibited dislike removals of this magnitude.
Videos of PewDiePie, one of the most popular channels on the platform, do show some like and dislike removals, but never more than a few dozen per video, based on a review of the data for the past more than two dozen videos on the channel.
YouTube recently announced testing of a design that still includes the dislike button, but no longer shows the number of dislikes.
“This is a test for a small group of users and is a response to creator feedback that the visible count may impact their wellbeing,” a spokesperson said via email.
YouTube and its owner, Google, have long faced accusations of political bias. The companies have said their products are developed and run as politically neutral, but employee accounts and leaked internal materials indicate the companies are infusing their politics into their products.
According to research psychologist Robert Epstein, Google shifted millions of votes in the Nov. 3 election by skewing its search results and other tools, compared to competitors.
“Google search results were strongly biased in favor of liberals and Democrats. This was not true on Bing or Yahoo,” Epstein told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, referring to data from more than 700 voters who worked with him to monitor what results they were receiving from channels such as search results, reminders, search suggestions, and newsfeeds ahead of the election.
Google previously rejected Epstein’s research results.
A syringe is prepared with COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic in Montreal, on March 15, 2021. The two provinces hit hardest by COVID-19 are weighing stricter restrictions amid surging case counts, as health officials and politicians urge Canadians to stay home over the upcoming Easter holiday. (Paul Chiasson / The Canadian Press) Vaccines
One of the largest and oldest civil liberties groups panned proposals by governments and corporations to introduce so-called “vaccine passports,” or documentation that shows people they are vaccinated.
“There is a difference between a standardized system for presenting proof of vaccination, and a digital system for doing so,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote. “With more and more of our credentials being displayed through apps on our phones—from airline boarding passes to concert tickets to gym memberships—it strikes many people as an obvious and overdue step to create a similar digital credential for those occasions when a person has to prove that they’ve been vaccinated.”
Last week, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki confirmed to reporters that the Biden administration is working with private companies regarding a vaccine passport system, although she said there is no federal mandate to implement such a system. New York state is also planning to roll out its “Excelsior” system that would allow people to enter certain events, concerts, and more.
The ACLU noted that a digital system is problematic because numerous people don’t own a smartphone, meaning they cannot display a vaccine passport document digitally or via an app.
“As a result, any vaccine credential system would need to include a paper-based version for those who don’t have a smartphone or simply don’t want to use one,” the group wrote on March 31.
Such a system also should “not allow for tracking or the creation of new databases” with the caveat that the “vaccine credential system is completely decentralized and user-centric.”
“If some big company is getting notified any time someone reads one of your credentials, that would let them track your movements and interests—the stores, concerts, and transportation venues you visit, and much more. In the absence of airtight legal protections for privacy, any such information could then be sold for commercial purposes or shared with law enforcement,” the ACLU wrote.
It added: “Fear of tracking could lead people to opt-out of participation, resulting in further marginalization as they are denied access to certain public spaces. Worse, without privacy protections strong enough to create public confidence, it could even deter people from getting vaccinated in the first place.”
Some states, meanwhile, have introduced proposals to bar such vaccine passports.
On Wednesday, for example, the Missouri state Senate took steps to ban COVID-19 passports in the state.
“No entity in this state shall require documentation of an individual having received a vaccination against any disease in order for the individual to access transportation systems or services,” according to the text of a proposed bill.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said he would take executive action to ban the passports, telling reporters last month that they’re a “terrible idea.”
The logos of mobile apps Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Messenger displayed on a tablet on Oct. 1, 2019. (Denis Charlet/AFP via Getty Images) Media & Big Tech
The Texas Senate passed a bill that forbids social media companies that have at least 100 million users per month to block, ban, demonetize, or discriminate against any of their users due to their political views.
Senate Bill 12, which is sponsored by Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, passed on Thursday and would apply to Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms.
Hughes said in a video posted on Twitter that the bill is going to “get Texans back online.”
“I think we all have to acknowledge, these social media companies are the new town square,” Hughes said.
“And a small group of people in San Francisco can’t dictate free speech for the rest of us. It needs to be an open exchange of ideas, and Senate Bill 12 is going to get Texans back online.”
He said that the bill is on its way to the state House and that it is expected to get a good consideration, adding that he hopes that the governor will sign it into law soon. https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=EpochTimes&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1377534968159698946&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Ftexas-senate-passes-bill-that-would-block-social-media-companies-from-banning-users-for-their-political-views_3758952.html&siteScreenName=EpochTimes&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px
The measure would require companies to make their moderation policies known, publish reports about the content blocked out by the platform, and create an appeals process for the removed content.
Hughes recognized that if the bill is signed into law, it would most likely face legal challenges.
“Even though they’re private actors, because they are common carriers, because they chose to enter this business and offer their services, then they are bound by certain rules,” Hughes told The Texas Tribune.
Two companion bills have already been sent to the House but have not yet moved ahead in the State Affairs Committee.
Hughes is very optimistic in regard to the bill. He said that their team is very strong and sharp, and is prepared to take the fight to court.
“We know we’re going to be sued if we pass this bill. Facebook is going to take us to court. Facebook and Google and Twitter have armies of lawyers and lobbyists who will be fighting us on this. But we’re on the right side, the law is on our side. Yes, we expect to see this bill passed, put in place, and protecting Texans’ free speech,” Hughes told NTD in February.
Hughes said that this problem “cries out for a federal solution,” but that they can’t wait for it. He believes this bill will thread the needle to get past federal limitations and will serve as a model for other states to do the same.
Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant addresses supporters during her inauguration and “Tax Amazon 2020 Kickoff” event in Seattle, Wash., on Jan. 13, 2020. (Jason Redmond/AFP via Getty Images) US News
The Washington state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that efforts to recall Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant can move forward.
Sawant, a socialist representing Capitol Hill and the Central District, faced a recall after being accused of abusing her office by letting a large group of protesters into city hall last year with her passkey, using city resources in promoting a ballot initiative to impose taxes on Amazon, and outsourcing decisions regarding the hiring and firing of city employees to her party’s executive committee.
She is also accused of violating code when she led a protest march to Mayor Jenny Durkan’s private residence even with the knowledge that the mayor’s address was protected under confidentiality laws because of threats from to her previous work as a U.S. attorney.
A county judge ruled in September 2020 that those four charges were “factually and legally sufficient for recall” efforts to proceed.
A group of Seattle residents who believe Sawant’s actions warrant her removal from office began the campaign to recall her, leading to the decision. Sawant appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court.
In the next 180 days, the petition to oust Sawant, which was first brought by Seattle resident Ernest Lou, must collect 10,000 signatures from residents of Sawant’s Council District 3 in order to get the recall on the ballot.
Sawant’s campaign fighting the push to remove her from office has blamed “big business” and “right wing” influence for the recall effort.
“Big biz and the right wing are furious about the impact of socialist politics and social movements in Seattle & how we have inspired working people around the country,” the Kshama Solidarity Campaign wrote on Twitter. “They are now trying to use the courts & their deep pockets to overturn Councilmember Sawant’s 2019 re-election.”
Henry Bridger II, campaign manager and chairman of the Recall Sawant committee, has pushed back against that claim. He describes himself as a Democrat and a liberal.
“I’m unemployed, I live in a studio apartment here on Capitol Hill,” Bridger said, The Seattle Times reported. “It’s not run by any right-wing anything.”
Sawant, who was first elected in 2013, and subsequently elected in 2015 and 2019, described the Washington state Supreme Court’s ruling as “completely unjust” in a statement.
“But we are not surprised,” Sawant said. “Working people and oppressed communities cannot rely on the capitalist courts for justice any more than they can on the police.” The far-left have continued pushing socialist arguments that private wealth and the police force are solely negative forces in society, while others may point to the good or bad intentions of the individual in a position of wealth or power among law-enforcement establishments.Read MoreCapitalism: How Capitalists Took the Word From Communists
If the group are able to gather the 10,000 signatures in the allotted 180 days, a vote would then be held to oust Sawant from office either with November’s general election, or by early next year, The Seattle Times reported.
Investigate journalist Sharyl Attkisson says combatting censorship in today’s media and big tech landscape requires Americans to “speak up” and stand firm against people and groups that seek to silence them.
“I think the most important single thing people can do is to speak up and not be bullied by the people that want to keep the voices silent so that it appears, in this artificial world that we live in online, that everybody’s on the same page and everybody thinks the same thing and this is okay,” Attkisson told The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders program.
“Don’t be kowtowed into not speaking out. Don’t act like that’s okay.”
Attkisson, author of “The Smear,” has been researching how information has been controlled in the United States, particularly by political and corporate interest groups. She said these groups began ramping up their efforts to control information once Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. But these groups, she argued, began realizing Americans were not “getting on board” with their messaging and, as a result, started to act out of desperation.
“The reason they’re being so heavy-handed about information and access is because people are not getting on board with what they’re supposed to think and do. They’re not acting the way they’re supposed to act after their information is controlled. And I think it was very frightening for them to see,” she said.
“As I said, they almost entirely controlled the media landscape in 2016 but Trump still won the election. How did that happen? Well, they blamed the internet.”
This comes as big tech companies have drawn intense scrutiny for perceived political bias and alleged unbalanced moderation of users content. Critics say much of the companies’ moderation in the past year has unfairly targeted conservative speech and speech from individuals deemed to be supporters of former President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, groups on the other side of the aisle have been taking issue with how social media companies are operating, claiming that the Silicon Valley companies have failed to adequately address “misinformation” that is being proliferated online.
Attkisson said these political and corporate interest groups spent the last four years—during Trump’s presidency—working “very hard to control the internet.” However, it still did not go their way. The 2020 presidential election became one of the most disputed elections and, although President Joe Biden ascended to the White House, Trump still received more votes “than they imagined he would get,” she argued.
“It’s sort of like the wind trying to blow the raincoat off the man when actually you can get the raincoat off with the sun. The harder they try to control the information, the harder some people work, and the more obvious their control is, and the more we resist in terms of wanting our information free and unfettered,” she said.
Despite their efforts, Attkisson said she believes the pendulum will eventually swing the other way. But in the meantime, Americans should not fall for their tactics by gathering all their information online. Instead, Americans should try living “outside of that box,” talk to people in the real world, and try to understand the extent of how disconnected the news and social media are from reality.
She said, for example, that when she traveled around the country in the past year, she encountered some small communities that did not experience any spikes or repercussions during the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic despite not ever locking down. She said that while the pandemic hit some places very hard, it did not affect other places at all.
“So, what you see on the news sometimes keeps us … hyper-focused, as if it’s, in an exaggerated sense, on phenomenons that are real and happening in some places but certainly not the story that’s being told of all of America. And I think that’s true of a lot of different issues that are being discussed today,” she said.
She also added that Americans should not succumb to attempts by these groups to ostracize individuals with differing viewpoints.
“They want you to think, they want to create this impression that if you have a viewpoint or you believe facts that they don’t want you to believe, that you’re an outlier, you’re sort of fringe,” she said. “That’s what they want you to think, even when you may not be, but it’s to create an impression online that you shouldn’t speak out or you shouldn’t say what you think or say what you believe because it’s so far out there and so off the norm when it’s not.”
Richard Torres-Estrada, a former Virginia diversity official, was hired in March by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as its chief of diversity and inclusion. When made aware of the post comparing Trump to Hitler, and other posts denigrating Republican officials, the Pentagon began an investigation.
Torres-Estrada is carrying out other duties at USSOCOM amid the probe, military spokesmen said.
“Mr. Torres-Estrada has been assigned to other duties pending the results of the investigation,” a USSOCOM spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.
Asked why USSOCOM didn’t immediately terminate Torres-Estrada, the spokesperson added: “Personnel actions for civilian personnel assigned to headquarters USSOCOM are governed by federal law and civilian personnel regulations from the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Air Force. Civilian employees have rights under those laws and regulations. When allegations are made about an employee, the command must determine what the facts are and what actions, if any, are appropriate under those laws and regulations before taking action.”
Special Operations Command claimed to be unaware of the activity before hiring the official.
Torres-Estrada didn’t immediately respond to requests by The Epoch Times for comment. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin supports the investigation, a Pentagon spokesman said this week.
“Obviously, we take the need to promote diversity and inclusion seriously here in the department,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters in Washington. “The secretary has spoken of that many times. And we certainly want that work to be transparent, to be credible, to be effective, and, of course, professional. We want everybody to take those duties and those responsibilities seriously and professionally.”
Lawmakers have expressed dismay over the hiring of Torres-Estrada, based on the posts.
“I am shocked at the hiring of Richard Torres-Estrada as Chief of Diversity and Inclusion at one of America’s functional combatant command headquarters. Comparing former President Trump, who was duly elected by the American people, to a genocidal madman directly responsible for killing six million Jewish men and women shows irredeemably poor judgment and the total inability to separate fact from fiction,” Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) said in a statement.
Johnson sent a letter to Austin asking for a detailed report on the official’s qualifications, and whether a background check had uncovered Torres-Estrada’s posts, which were made on his publicly available Facebook account.
“What do you think, will a ‘diversity and inclusion’ officer for our elite military units make America stronger? Or are China and Russia laughing at us?” added Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) in a tweet.
Eric Trump, Lara Yunaska Trump, Donald Trump, Barron Trump, Melania Trump, Vanessa Haydon Trump, Kai Madison Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Donald John Trump III, and Ivanka Trump pose for photos on stage in 2015. (Christopher Gregory/Getty Images) Donald Trump
Former President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law issued a warning after Facebook removed her interview with the former commander-in-chief earlier this week.
Lara Trump posted screenshots of alleged emails sent by a Facebook representative saying that content in the “voice of Donald Trump” will be removed. A person close to the Trump Organization confirmed to The Epoch Times on March 31 that a video of an interview with Trump was taken down by the social media giant.
“I know that people that dislike Donald Trump might celebrate this and think, ‘Well this is great, we don’t want to hear from him anyway,’” Lara Trump told Fox News on March 26. “Every American should be outraged by this because today it’s Donald Trump; tomorrow, it could be you.”
The censorship, she said, “is something that happens in communist countries” and added that “the message here is they want to erase Donald Trump.”
“They want you to forget he ever existed. They don’t want you to see him, they don’t want you to hear from him. Look away, move on, shut up, and go on about your lives, forget Donald Trump existed. This is really scary stuff,” continued Trump, who is married to Eric Trump, in the Fox interview.
According to screenshots of the purported emails, a Facebook representative told her: “We are reaching out to let you know that we removed content from Lara Trump’s Facebook page that featured President Trump speaking.
“In line with the block, we placed on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram account, further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed and result in additional limitations on the accounts.”
Facebook officials didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
Another email from a Facebook staffer gave a “reminder” that content “in the voice” of Trump isn’t allowed on the social media platform, according to Lara Trump’s Instagram post.
“The guidance applies to all campaign accounts and Pages, including Team Trump, other campaign messaging vehicles on our platforms, and former surrogates,” it read.
In January, the former president was suspended from Twitter, Facebook, and other Big Tech platforms, which claimed that Trump was inciting violence or would incite further violence following the Jan. 6 riots.
Trump told Lara Trump that Twitter has since become “boring” without him and asserted that “millions” of people have left while promoting his newfound practice of sending out emailed press statements. Meanwhile, his adviser Jason Miller told news outlets last month that the former president is working to create a new social media platform, although details are scant.
