I’m re-posting this old post from 2022, to celebrate having my post about how to deal with your regrets censored by Facebook as “spam” this week. Just want to remind everyone how Zuck interferes with elections to help the Democrat party.

We have an election this year, and now seems like a good time to remind everyone about Facebook’s bias in favor of the Democrat party. Take a look at this article from The Federalist.

It says:

Nearly $9 million in Zuckerberg grant funds directed solely to five Democratic strongholds in Wisconsin violated the state’s election code’s prohibition on bribery. That conclusion represents but one of the many troubling findings detailed in the report submitted today by a state-appointed special counsel to the Wisconsin Assembly.

[…]The first unlawful action, according to the report, concerned the payment of grant funds to five Wisconsin counties that were used to facilitate voting. That arrangement, Gableman wrote, violated Wis. Stat. § 12.11, which prohibits election bribery by providing it is illegal to offer anything of value to or for any person in order to induce any elector to go to the polls or vote.

According to the report, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg providing financing that allowed the Center for Tech and Civic Life to offer nearly $9 million in “Zuck Bucks” to Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay counties. In exchange, the “Zuckerberg 5,” as the report called the counties, in effect, operated Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. Those grant funds then paid for illegal drop boxes to be placed in Democratic voting strongholds.

A week ago, Facebook was in trouble again for meddling in elections.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Facebook blocked Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate Chad Prather from accessing his page on the site only eight days before the primary election.

Prather told the Washington Examiner the ban resulted from a months-old comment discussing the events of Jan 6. A commentator, who Prather confirmed tends to “spam” his page and “comments nonstop,” called the events of the day an “insurrection.”

Prather responded by pointing out that even the FBI didn’t classify the event as an insurrection, further accusing the commentator of using “victimhood” in her favor.

As a result, Facebook banned him for “bullying.”

Facebook notified Prather he was banned from his page for seven days starting Feb 21. The primary election is March 1.

“They silenced my campaign on Facebook,” Prather said. “This is illegal. This is interference. This is absolutely a travesty to the political process of free and fair elections.”

Facebook / Meta uses partisan “fact-checkers” (censors) like Lead Stories, Politifact, etc. to suppress ideas that support the Republican party.

Here’s the about Politifact, reported by The Blaze:

Fact-checking website PolitiFact recently engaged in some head-scratching analysis in an attempt to discredit a claim made by Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo — but ended up doing the exact opposite.

[…]Bartiromo said this: “The United States is also reliant on Russian oil — we have doubled our imports from Russia in the last year. So, [there’s] no question why President Biden is begging OPEC and others to pump more oil.”

[…]In a Monday column, PolitiFact parachuted in to assess Bartiromo’s claim that the U.S. doubled oil imports from Russia as “mostly false.”

Normally, oil imports and energy imports — which include refined products — are categorized separately. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, which PolitiFact cites multiple times, shows as much by breaking down crude oil imports in a separate chart.

A spokesperson for Bartiromo evidently explained this to PolitiFact, resulting in the fact-checker admitting, “The U.S. more than doubled its crude oil imports from Russia, to about 208,000 barrels a day in the first 11 months of 2021, from 76,000 barrels a day in 2020.”

Amazingly, that wasn’t enough for the fact-checker to change its assessment, even while it openly admitted that Bartiromo’s specific claim was accurate.

The author of that “fact check” has a degree in English. ENGLISH. That’s the kind of imbecile that Facebook / Meta uses to censor conservatives, especially before elections.

Although Donald Trump was President for four years, he didn’t do much to rein in the power of Big Tech. But there are other Republicans running for President in 2024 who are taking action.

News Max reports:

Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Florida, has directed state officials to investigate Facebook for alleged election interference, it was announced Monday.

The governor’s action came after a report that Facebook possibly influenced numerous state and local races by exempting elite users from the social platform’s own rules.

“It’s no secret that Big Tech censors have long enforced their own rules inconsistently,” DeSantis said in a statement released by his office. “If this new report is true, Facebook has violated Florida law to put its thumb on the scale of numerous state and local races.”

[…]”Floridians deserve to know how much this corporate titan has influenced our elections,” he said. “That is why I am directing Secretary Lee to use all legal means to uncover violations of Florida’s election laws.

“The thought of Facebook clandestinely manipulating elections is an affront to the basic principles of our republic. We the people have the right to choose our representatives, whether or not Silicon Valley approves.”

On this blog, I’ve documented a long line of disturbing anti-American behavior by Facebook / Meta. We have an election coming up, and I don’t want to lose because of Big Tech interference. Make sure everyone knows what Facebook / Meta does.

Related posts

• Peer-reviewed medical journal blasts Facebook “fact checkers” for censorship
• Facebook has a long record of censoring speech critical of Democrats
• Facebook fact-checker caught plagiarizing 54 articles
• Facebook “non-partisan” fact-checker revealed to be a far-left Trump-hating Democrat
• Facebook “fact-checker” Politifact forced to retract “false” rating against Candace Owens
• When Facebook fact-checkers conflict with peer-reviewed studies, who is right?
• Potential violation of election law: Facebook and Twitter censor Biden scandal
• Facebook and Google removing content that harms Democrat party
• Facebook censors interview with abortion survivor to help Democrats win 2020 election
• Facebook uses pro-abortion “fact checkers” to label pro-life pages “fake news”
• Facebook bans Christian apologist David Wood for posting the death threats he received
• Facebook censors criticism of Democrat Party, especially before “important elections”
• Spotify joins Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter in censoring Prager University
• Facebook bans Franklin Graham for “hate speech”, Google YouTube shadow-bans pro-life videos
• Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter ally with leftist group linked to domestic terrorism
• Facebook enlists left-wing Politifact and Snopes to censor criticism of Democrats

Since Mark Zuckerberg decided to BAN yesterday’s post on Facebook, I decided to remind everyone about his $400 million of donations to “get out the vote” groups that had connections to the far-left. He was recently questioned about it in the House of Representatives by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. How did he respond?

Here’s the article from the New York Post.

It says:

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an organization led by Zuckerberg’s wife, Priscilla Chan, gave more than $350 million to the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) on the pretense of getting out the vote to everyone.

But the administrators of those groups had deep ties to the left, researchers told The Post, including CTCL founder Tiana Epps-Johnson, a former Obama Foundation fellow.

A study was done on how the money was spent, and here is Hayden Ludwig, director of research at Restoration News, to explain it.

The people who founded CTCL come from a defunct group called the New Organizing Institute, Ludwig notes. And back in 2014, CNN quoted a GOP operative who called the New Organizing Institute “the Left’s New Death Star.”

“These were people whose entire jobs were figuring out how to elect Democrats. Personally I think he went home and quietly congratulated himself on helping get Joe Biden elected. He found a big loophole and put $350 million into it,” Ludwig says.

The Zuck Bucks were overwhelmingly spent in Democrat-leaning counties, to get out their votes. Especially the ones that were expecting close races.

An analysis shows that Zuck Bucks were disproportionately spent getting out the vote in Democratic-leaning counties in Georgia, which Biden won by just 12,000 votes.

The same thing happened in Arizona, where Biden won by 10,000.

According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, Georgia received more than $31 million in Zuck Bucks for the general election alone, one of the highest amounts in the country.

It worked out to nearly 9 percent of all Zuckerberg funding, even though Georgia has just over 3 percent of the country’s population.

A county-by-county analysis in Georgia by the Foundation for Government Accountability revealed a spend of between $7 and $15 in Zuck Bucks per voter in six of the largest counties in the state, which were all won by Biden.

Meanwhile, there was a spend of $1 to $3 per voter in the top six counties won by Donald Trump.

In Wisconsin, which had previously voted for Trump, the CTCL spent $47 per voter in Green Bay, when normally the legislature spent $7 per voter there and $4 in rural areas of the state.

[…]“We looked at 8 or 9 battleground states and in every state we looked at we found the same pattern. CTCL cut checks that per person were significantly larger in big blue Democrat cities compared with rural Republican counties.

“Wisconsin CTCL grants averaged $3.75 per person in Biden counties versus 55 cents in Trump counties. The bottom line is that all this Zuckerberg money boosted turnout everywhere but it boosted turnout the highest in these big blue cities who got massive Zuck bucks from CTCL.”

Facebook has become a trash website, where stories that tell the truth about the Democrat party are marked as false news and disinformation. At the same time, stories that lie about the Republican party are marked as true and reliable.

When you look at Zuckerberg and his far-left wife’s donations, it becomes obvious what happened.

Recently, I posted a dating ad from a 39-year-old never-married single mother. She explained that she was now a Christian and was looking for a man to marry her, so that she could have a second child “the right way”. Some people thought we should take her conversion at face value. Others thought she was desperate and looking for a financial bailout. How can we tell if she is really sincere?

Well, I was still thinking about the comments on that post when I saw another great post from Laura, who writes at An Affair With Reason. Her post is about the feelings of regret that people have because of their past mistakes, and how Christians should deal with those regrets.

She writes:

As I thought about what to write I became distressed, sorrowful, angry, and even despondent over some of my own decisions. As I sobbed inconsolably, I noticed that every caustic thought began with, “If only….” That’s when I realized I was still carrying the burden of regret and I didn’t know how to let go. It wasn’t that I still needed God’s forgiveness or that I had any doubts about my standing with him; I knew I was forgiven. It was the lifelong consequences that I experience to this day which embittered my soul and squelched my joy.

The “if onlys” are a heavy burden to carry. They represent shattered dreams that will never be recovered in this life. They invoke feelings of discontentment, grief, and doubt. They cause us to sob with regret for what could have been, to pray for second chances that we know will not be granted.

So what do we do with the regrets that we must live with for the rest of our lives? Lately, as I’ve reflected on conversations I’ve had with many women who have made regretful decisions over the years and on the direction of our culture, I’ve noticed two very distinct paths:

1. Attempt to assuage our own guilt and regret by convincing others to make the same foolish, and even sinful, decisions we made.

 OR

2. Humble ourselves, grieve our losses, and commit to teaching the younger generations to choose a better way.

The first path is the wide and well-traveled one. Tragically and despicably, most people today seek to justify themselves and ease their consciences by getting others on board with their own ignorance, foolishness, and sinfulness.

She’s got quite a few examples of the kinds of regrets that men and women have, and different ways of dealing with those regrets. Some ways self-serving, others God-serving. Her examples are really interesting. It reminds me of “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis, where he explains why some people don’t resist God, and others do. Some people want to justify the past, and keep making decisions to benefit themselves. Others want to serve God. They want to take on the difficult work of opening up to others, and loving them by telling them the truth.

When I hear someone with a past say that they have now become a Christian, I normally ask “is this conversion just convenient for you or is it the result of some process where your mind was changed through study?” You can ask the person to show their work – how did they get to the right answer? And what has becoming a Christian cost them? How does it affect their relationships with non-Christians?

People “convert to Christianity” all the time based on need. Sometimes they’re trying to get something for themselves, e.g. – wanting to not be judged for their past, so they can attract a partner to financially support them. But other people spend years reading books and changing their minds page by page, debate by debate. Then they put their knowledge into practice.

I have mentored women who did this. One girl who contacted me through the blog wasn’t able to talk to her smart atheist brother about her faith. Then, she read a bunch of apologetics books about science and history, then called me and slipped the phone into her pocket and let me listen to her make a bold, informed stand for her Christian worldview for two hours. She won every point.

When people really become Christians, they don’t do it in order to be happy and or to be liked. They take on work, and they take on shame, because they have a Boss now. That’s how you can tell that real repentance has taken place. The letters of Paul in the New Testament are filled with advice for Christians who want to be bold, put themselves second, and advocate for their Boss. You should read them. When you read the Bible, try to put aside your feelings, your desires, and your concerns about what people will think. You’ll find that putting work for the Boss ahead of what you want is worth the price of being “second”. I would start with Philippians, then go on to 1 Peter.

By the way, this isn’t the first time I’ve linked to Laura’s posts. Here are some of the other times I’ve linked to her work on my blog: on voting, on Islam, on mentoring boys, on fighting with pastors, on learning what works when dealing with atheists. She had a 10 part series advising women how to choose a husband, which really made me feel good as a man. Today, most people see a husband as an accessory – like a handbag. He’s there to provide, or to be a handyman, or to complain at if the wife is unhappy. Men should read that series, and find out what we can do in a marriage, if we are valued for our distinctive male nature.