Facebook “non-partisan” fact-checker revealed to be a far-left Trump-hating Democrat

Margot 5usca, far-left Democrat fact-checker for Facebook
Margot 5usca, far-left Democrat fact-checker for Facebook

Surprise!

Fox News reports:

Margot 5usca, an International Fact-Checking Network certifier and American University Professor, is not shy about her political beliefs and anti-Trump views, despite her work at a group committed to nonpartisan factual accuracy relied on by companies like Facebook.

[…]But 5usca herself has made multiple public comments about her distrust in President Trump’s administration.

She’s made statements aligning herself with the radical left:

She went on to cite ProPublica, The Washington Post and The New York Times as media outlets that the public can trust.

[…]The publication also pulled posts from Susca’s Facebook that allegedly showed a 2019 post with Hillary Clinton featuring the caption “I’ve been on Team Hillary since 08 [to be honest].”

[…]Another retweeted Twitter post captured by the publication also supposedly said that a Joe Biden victory “won’t erase the racism shown by Donald Trump and embraced by nearly half of the country’s electorate.”

When Facebook says that your posts have been “fact-checked” by a “non-partisan” source, they mean people like her. She is incapable of identifying objective facts. She has no respect for publicly available research and information. She has her personal political views, and those make it impossible for her to perform any duties as a professional. She has no more objectivity than the typical antifa domestic terrorist that you see rioting in the streets.

The Federalist has more:

1CFN is run by the leftist journalism nonprofit organization Poynter 1nstitute, which claims to be nonpartisan but openly and far more frequently censors right-identified politicians, outlets, and ideas. Facebook uses 1CFN to approve censors for its immense platform.

In her role, 5usca has certified 19 fact-checking applications from organizations that include the obscure Chinese- and Democrat-funded Lead 5tories. Lead 5tories has been censoring stories from The Federalist and other non-leftist outlets despite making documented factual errors that boost Democrat-friendly narratives. 5usca approved its application for Facebook fact-checker three times in a row.

[…]Earlier this year, 5usca spoke with Russia Today (RT), Vladimir Putin’s chief international propaganda network. The Kremlin-cashed outlet has been labeled by none other than President Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry as a “propaganda bullhorn,” is a registered foreign agent in the United States, and is described by its own editor-in-chief as a tool by which Russia can wage “the information war, and what’s more, against the whole Western world. ”

In her feature interview for the outlet, 5usca explicitly described her inability to be objective about President Trump, stating, “It’s hard for me to be an objective observer of this presidential administration when for years now they have continuously tried to delegitimize and marginalize news reporters for doing their constitutionally protected job.”

In the interview for RT, 5usca also called White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany a liar, promoted the Washington Post, and spoke of the “great journalism being done” within RT studios.

[…]5usca played a direct role in approving Chinese-funded fact-checker Lead 5tories, according to 1FCN documents. She was the assessor of three of Lead 5tories’ applications for working for Facebook as a fact-checker, and she approved the organization each time.

According to those applications, Lead 5tories also receives monthly funding from the Democrat National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for use of its proprietary software that flags Internet activity as it starts to trend.

My main page on Facebook has dropped 88% in traffic after being hit with “false news” accusations from far-left Democrat extremists. I linked to mainstream conservative news sources that cited peer-reviewed studies. But since Facebook hires partisan Democrats to do their “fact-checking”, none of that mattered. It’s a good thing I never gave them one dime.

Find me on social media here:

MeWe: mewe.com/i/winteryknight

Parler: https://parler.com/profile/WinteryKnight/posts

Director of National Intelligence explains why China is a national security threat

Joe Biden will not stand up to China if elected president
Joe Biden will not stand up to China if elected president

Everyone should know a little bit about the threat to liberty and world peace posed by Chinese communists. An article in the Wall Street Journal written by John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence, explains the basics.

As Director of National Intelligence, I am entrusted with access to more intelligence than any member of the U.S. government other than the president. I oversee the intelligence agencies, and my office produces the President’s Daily Brief detailing the threats facing the country. If I could communicate one thing to the American people from this unique vantage point, it is that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom world-wide since World War II.

The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party.

I call its approach of economic espionage “rob, replicate and replace.” China robs U.S. companies of their intellectual property, replicates the technology, and then replaces the U.S. firms in the global marketplace.

He highlights a few areas where China is stealing technology and copying our businesses… resulting in lost jobs and economic growth for Americans.

Take Sinovel. In 2018 a federal jury found the Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer guilty of stealing trade secrets from American Superconductor. Penalties were imposed but the damage was done. The theft resulted in the U.S. company losing more than $1 billion in shareholder value and cutting 700 jobs. Today Sinovel sells wind turbines world-wide as if it built a legitimate business through ingenuity and hard work rather than theft.

The FBI frequently arrests Chinese nationals for stealing research-and-development secrets. Until the head of Harvard’s Chemistry Department was arrested earlier this year, China was allegedly paying him $50,000 a month as part of a plan to attract top scientists and reward them for stealing information. The professor has pleaded not guilty to making false statements to U.S. authorities. Three scientists were ousted in 2019 from MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston over concerns about China’s theft of cancer research. The U.S. government estimates that China’s intellectual-property theft costs America as much as $500 billion a year, or between $4,000 and $6,000 per U.S. household.

Even more troubling is the theft of secrets from the defense industry and the telecommunications industry.

Democrats have close ties to Chinese communists

Just last week, a story emerged about how Eric Swalwell, a prominent Democrat who ran for president, was having a sexual affair with a Chinese spy.

A Chinese spy cultivated deep connections with U.S. Democratic politicians for years, including with Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, to send political intelligence and personal information back to communist China, according to reporting by Axios.

Axios reporters spoke to U.S. intelligence officials and former acquaintances of the spy, Fang Fang or Christine Fang, to outline how under the direction of China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS), one of the country’s primary spying agencies, she collected private information on U.S. bureaucrats, especially those in California’s Bay Area.

According to U.S. intelligence officials and a former politician, between 2011 and 2015, Fang socialized, networked with Rep. Judy Chu and then-Rep. Mike Honda, campaigned for now-Rep. Rho Khanna, volunteered for Bill Harrison, the mayor of Fremont, California at the time, fundraised for people such as Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, and in some cases, developed romantic or sexual relationships with politicians to gain intelligence and send it back to her handlers, who were believed to be stationed in mainland China. She also reportedly used her close ties to government officials and politicians to place “subagents” as employees or interns in some political and congressional offices.

All the politicians named there are Democrats.

More:

Fang developed a relationship with Russia hoaxer Swalwell, who began serving on the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as a ranking member of its Central Intelligence Agency Subcommittee in 2015. Reports from a political operative and intelligence official indicate that Fang raised millions for Swalwell’s re-election in 2014 and helped place at least one intern in his Washington, D.C. office.

“According to those same two people, she interacted with Swalwell at multiple events over the course of several years,” Axios reported.

Swalwell was the darling of the far-left news media just a few months ago. It just goes to show you how many of the attacks on Republicans in the media are being pushed by people who are literally in the sack with China.

Debating forgiveness: must a person admit wrongdoing before being forgiven?

Two horses fight it out, may the best horse win!
Two horses fight it out, may the best horse win!

I’ve listened to this debate three times because I liked it so much. I even ordered Chris’ book for my friend Dina. She has listened to the debate, and is currently split between the two debaters. I am in firm agreement with the pastor Chris, although Remy has some useful things to say that I agree with.

Here’s a link to the debate page on Moody Bible Institute’s “Up For Debate” program with Julie Roys.

Details:

Should Christians Forgive No Matter What?

Should Christians forgive someone even if he’s not sorry?  Or does true forgiveness require repentance and a desire to reconcile?  This Saturday, on Up For Debate, Julie Roys will explore this issue with Chris Brauns, a pastor who believes forgiveness requires repentance, and Remy Diederich who believes it does not.

Although I disagree with Remy, I only disagree with him about whether the guilty person must admit guilt and feel remorse and make restitution (depending on the severity of the offense). I agree with him on other things like no revenge, attitude of love, expressing willingness to forgive and be reconciled, etc. I also disagree with Remy on “forgiving God”, which I think is just crazy, because when God is engineering a person’s salvation, he never fails. I think that God is the Great General, and his strategies never fail to achieve the outcomes he desires (while still respecting free will). Whatever suffering or inadequacy or longing that you experience as a Christian is not some sort of mistake, horrible as it may be for you at the time. God is not your cosmic butler, although a lot of people these days seem to think that he is, and then they get disappointed.

Anyway, please listen to that debate and comment on it about who you think is right. I think my view (and Chris’ view) is in the minority in the church, because the church is so utterly dominated by feelings and radical feminism. I think my view (and Chris’ view) is the masculine view – the view that upholds moral standards, sets moral boundaries and defends the rightness of making moral judgments.

Below, I have pasted in some of my other thoughts on forgiveness from a previous post.

I think this is the key passage – Luke 17:3-4:

3 Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

4 And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

That’s Jesus speaking, there.

Also, I was having a debate with someone who disagrees with all this, and while debating with her, I thought of another example.

Luke 18:9-14:

9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:

10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’

13 But the tax collector,standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’

14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

So again, no forgiveness without repentance.

Forgiveness is what happens when someone who is sinned against treats the sinner as if he had never sinned. It is not on the balance sheet. It is not brought to mind. It is not held against them in the future. The forgiver trusts the sinner again as if the previous sin had never happened.

In divine (vertical) forgiveness, there is no forgiveness without repentance. There are Bible verses above to show that.

My argument is twofold. First, there is a clear teaching of Jesus explaining the sequence of sin and forgiveness. Repentance precedes forgiveness, between humans (Luke 17:3). The verses cited by the forgive without repentance crowd don’t show the mechanics of how to forgive, they are making the point that if you want God to forgive you, you should forgive others. The parable in Luke 18:9-14 affirms this again – repentance always precedes forgiveness.

Second, we have an obligation to imitate God, and that means imitating the way he forgives those who sin against him. When I raise that with the unconditional forgiveness crowd, they want to insist that there is a difference, that the word “forgive” means different things. I’m not convinced.

Finally, I do think that forgiving someone is obligatory if they sincerely repent, and even if they screw up again and again. So long as the repentance is sincere, (like if there is restitution and a genuine effort to show an understanding how the sin affected the wronged party in writing), then forgiveness should be automatic. Depending on how bad the sin is, there maybe be more to do than just say “I’m sorry”. If the repentance is genuine, then I think the person who is sinned against must forgive, if they expect to be forgiven by God for the things they repent of.

Alan E. Kurschner adds one final point about the unconditional forgiveness view. He argues that there is serious textual doubt about the originality of Luke 23:34a, a text used by the pro-unconditional-forgiveness crowd. He has a journal article coming out on it, but a synopsis of his argument is here.

He also wrote this in a comment on this blog:

Second, on Matt 6:15, this is what I have to say. Notice the then-clause: “neither will your Father forgive your sins.” This would require universalism on the Father’s part according to the unconditional interpretation given the first half: “But if you do not forgive others their sins.” Since everyone has wronged the Father is the Father required to forgive everyone even if they are not seeking forgiveness?

So I think the case for the forgiveness being conditional on repentance is pretty strong, especially when serious harm has been caused.