By now, we’re all painfully aware that facts and truth don’t matter to a lot of people if they don’t align with their views, and now this foundation, which was founded by actor George Clooney and his wife, human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, is trying to use legal processes to stop professionals from doing their jobs.

The Docket Project’s legal director, Anna Neistat, recently told Voice of America radio that they are attempting to obtain the arrest warrants by appealing to the European countries that have laws against “war propaganda.” She announced: “We are submitting requests to initiate criminal proceedings in countries where this provision exists in the criminal code.”

She added: “If the warrant is issued, it essentially becomes an EU-wide warrant through Europol. This means journalists could potentially be arrested and extradited to the country investigating them.”

She would not disclose the names of the journalists they are targeting but did admit that they were focusing on “the most prominent Russian propagandists.”

She seemed to take particular delight in the idea of catching the journalists they are targeting off guard, explaining how they are seeking secret warrants.

“We are asking prosecutors to issue secret arrest warrants… so the names are not revealed. We want these individuals to travel to other countries and be arrested there. It’s better if they are left guessing rather than receiving a clear warning,” she said.

They are also looking into asking the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate certain journalists’ involvement in what she termed “incitement to genocide.” Although she conceded that this is legally complex and the court is already overloaded, it appears they are looking into every avenue possible to censor reporters whose information they find inconvenient or unflattering.

Russian authorities complain of double standard

Russian authorities are complaining about a double standard here, saying that Western countries do nothing when Russian journalists are persecuted by Ukraine. Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, said that Kiev often boasts about killing Russian journalists. He listed several journalists who have recently died at the hands of Ukrainian special services, including Izvestia war correspondent Semyon Yeremin, who was killed in April by a Ukrainian kamikaze drone. He also named Sputnik war correspondent Rostislav Zhuravlev, Rossiya-24 war correspondent Boris Maksudov, Vladlen Tatarsky, and Darya Dugina.

Russian Security Council Deputy Chair Dmitry Medvedev called out Clooney and his foundation on social media in a posting on X that also denigrated his acting skills. He wrote: “A certain mediocre actor called George Clooney has decided to use his Foundation to hunt down Russian journalists all over the world and persecute them.”

He added: “The effort would be wasted, however: our professional journalists will find him first. They are very attentive and highly trained people. And they are going to have a chat “from dusk till dawn.”

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed the move. She pointed out that one of the stated goals of the Clooney Foundation for Justice is protecting journalists; to the Clooneys, this apparently means “hounding them by the means of politically and ethnically motivated criminal prosecution.”

Sources for this article include:

• SputnikGlobe.com
• TheDailyBeast.com

The media war on the low budget flick is so bizarre given this fact that I am immediately suspicious of their intentions. Not one political message, not one momentary critique of the political left, not one moment where MAGA or Trump or “Q-Anon” is mentioned, not one “conspiracy theory.” So why all the hate?

Before reading this review any further I highly recommend you check out some of the hatchet job articles published about Sound Of Freedom to get a sense of what I’m talking about – examples are here, here, here and here.

The first thing you’ll probably notice is that the majority of these vitriolic diatribes use the exact same talking points – They suggest that The Sound Of Freedom is based in conspiracy theory, far-right extremism and that it is funded by a subversive network of “Q-Anon adjacent” conservatives. Some journalists have even attacked the veracity of the film’s true story – the career of DHS agent Tim Ballard, who operated covertly to take down child sex traffickers in Central America.

The Guardian asserts:

“Caviezel stars as special agent Tim Ballard, a Homeland Security Investigations operative who really did work for the state busting up child-trafficking rings for more a decade. (Or so he claims – the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard’s employment history.) Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: “God’s children are not for sale.”

Rolling Stone fumes:

“Ballard, Caviezel, and others of their ilk had primed the public to accept Sound of Freedom as a documentary rather than delusion by fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated “epidemic” of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities. In short, I was at the movies with people who were there to see their worst fears confirmed.”

Perhaps Rolling Stone has never heard of Epstein’s Island? Why are they pretending like this global criminal enterprise is not a thing?

These reviews are dripping with venom, though a simple investigation into Tim Ballard reveals endless evidence that he did in fact quit his job at DHS to operate in Central America to stop child trafficking rings. And the sting that is the core of the film on an island Ballard set up as a trap to capture an entire network of pedophiles as well as save 120 kids? Yeah, that was real, too.

In fact, there’s a documentary about Tim Ballard’s successful sting called ‘Triple Take’ and the Sound Of Freedom movie includes real life arrest footage from that event. There is no question that almost every detail in Sound Of Freedom is real. Any media outlet that says otherwise is lying, and the fact that they are attempting to sow seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of Tim Ballard based on politics is villainous.

One interesting part of the the film that is NOT accurate was the depiction of a Latin billionaire funding Tim Ballard’s efforts. In reality, Ballard says that it was primarily conservative host Glenn Beck that raised money for his operations that led to the rescue of hundreds of children. Why Glenn Beck was not mentioned in the final cut of the film is hard to say, but Ballard’s connection to Beck might partly explain the media’s fury over the movie. How DARE these conservative men save children from sex slavery, right? It makes conservatives look like (GASP!) good guys.

But there’s something more going on here than mere envy on the part of leftist journalists. The campaign against the movie is far too coordinated and far too expansive (global). It is as if these people are interconnected and they all agreed together to try to subvert the film, or they were all ORDERED to subvert the film.

This kind of behavior suggests a personal stake in creating conditions for failure; it makes it seem like these journalists want to sabotage the movie because of its premise and message. Why would someone want to sabotage a movie which exposes child trafficking and pedophiles? Could it be that we need to check the hard drives of some of these establishment media writers and producers?

I think it’s important to note that such people have been criminally prosecuted for child sex abuse in the past. For example, long time CNN producer John Griffin was recently arrested and convicted of child rape, using online apps to connect with mothers willing to sell their children to him for thousands of dollars so he could abuse them at his Vermont vacation home.

Last year the FBI raided the home of renowned ABC News producer James Gordon Meek and arrested him on charges of transporting child pornography. Rolling Stone Magazine was later accused of trying to cover up the reason for the arrest with selective editing and omission. Rolling Stone is now one of the main outlets attacking Sound Of Freedom.

Maybe the movie makes these journalists angry because it exposes one of their favorite hobbies?

I’m a long time film buff and I can say with some authority that as a movie, Sound Of Freedom is well made and well executed. The overall acting is effective, the child performances are amazing, the editing is excellent and the cinematography is top notch. The film is good all around; it reminds me of  one my favorite movies of all time, a criminal procedural directed by Akira Kurosawa called ‘High And Low’ (also known as ‘Heaven And Hell’ in Japan) about police investigating a child kidnapping.

My only complaint is that I felt they should have shown Tim Ballard with his family a little more, so that when he makes the decision to go to Columbia and risk his life, the choice carries more weight.  Other than that, Sound Of Freedom is one of the best dramas I have seen in a long time, and at no point did I feel “preached at.” I can’t say the same for most Hollywood films the past several years, which are replete with non-stop leftist propaganda.

The depiction of the process of child trafficking is very uncomfortable, but it’s meant to be. I rarely squirm in my chair with discomfort or get angry at characters on a screen, but every time there was a scene with a pedophile all I could think was “That guy needs to go in a wood chipper.” That’s good film making.

So again, there are few if any valid criticisms to make about the production itself and the story is largely accurate. Why are leftist journalists raging against this movie? I think because it sheds light on the fact that pedophilia is not only about isolated cases of loners stalking school playgrounds, it’s an international industry worth billions upon billions of dollars, and there are very rich and powerful people involved in that industry (including people in mainstream journalism).

They don’t want people to consider the pervasive nature of this criminal underworld. They want people passive and unaware. For some reason, they want people to assume that child slavery is a conspiracy theory.

Another issue to consider is that the political left has been aggressively targeting children with sexualization for the past several years, primarily through the imposition of trans ideology. They are turning the sexualization of minors into an activist movement. Children as young as kindergarten are being indoctrinated with “gender identity” propaganda and HIGHLY pornographic books (with pornographic images) posing as educational LGBT content are being planted in public schools. We all know what the end game of this movement is – The normalization of pedophilia.

Leftists may be consciously or unconsciously hostile to Sound Of Freedom because when they see the organized networks of child groomers on the big screen, they see themselves.

To conclude: Go see this movie. The media attacks are clearly designed to dissuade people from watching it based on political bias. Check it out and you’ll realize quickly that all their claims are false. Furthermore, you’ll start to wonder aloud why they hate the film? The saying “Methinks thou dost protest too much…” comes to mind, as such journalists reveal there propensity for evil.

Article cross-posted from Alt-Market.

Love him or hate him, watching Elon Musk has proven to be very entertaining ever since he began his quest to own Twitter. Now that he’s the big boss, he has been flexing his CEO muscles far more often than some of us expected. The latest iteration came when he suspended prominent leftist journalists on Thursday, only to return their accounts late Friday night.

The details are below in an article by Tom Ozimek from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times, but I first wanted to explain why all of this happened. It seems that the vast majority of commentators (all of the ones I’ve read or heard so far) are completely missing the point of Musk’s actions. To truly understand them, we have to stipulate that Musk plays the role of whimsical billionaire when in reality he plans his moves out very carefully and well ahead of time.

For example, if you ask your average Twitter user how Musk came to the conclusion that he wanted to buy Twitter, they’ll tell you that was upset over the suspension of the Babylon Bee Twitter account. They’ll say that he Tweeted out a question to his many fans about what should be done, then based on the overwhelming number of responses calling on him to just buy Twitter, he did.

It’s a great story. The problem with it that most seem to miss is that he filed with the SEC to purchase 9% of Twitter two weeks BEFORE his famous inquiring Tweet. He already had his plan in motion before staging a whimsical move based on reactions from his fans. This is how Musk operates. By the time he starts asking questions on Twitter to get feedback from the people, his decisions had already been made.

Fast forward to the banning of journalists for doxxing and we’re seeing the exact same maneuver. Supposedly he was tired of getting doxxed so he took action against them. But in reality none of the journalists who were suspended were any more involved with doxxing him than any average joe who retweeted posts from his many stalkers.

The doxxing excuse was just a ploy. So too was the poll he posted asking when he should unsuspend the accounts, a poll that allegedly prompted their reinstatement. Here’s how he’s framing it:

The people have spoken.

Accounts who doxxed my location will have their suspension lifted now. https://t.co/MFdXbEQFCe

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2022

By doing it like this, he feigned a democratic feel to his site. “The people have spoken,” he posted, sending the message that he will go against his own decisions if the majority disagrees with him on Twitter’s very unscientific and easily manipulable polls. That’s ludicrous.

In reality, his plan since long before the suspensions was to update a rule about doxxing, suspend prominent journalists temporarily, throw up a poll, then unsuspend them. As he expected, the outrage over the suspensions prompted rebukes from media outlets as well as governments across the globe. Also as he expected, it was a major topic on pretty much every corporate media outlet in the English-speaking world.

He accomplished two missions with his move. The obvious one is that he and his company are getting the type of massive free publicity we haven’t seen since the 2016 Republican primary season when every move Donald Trump made was national news every day. Between the Twitter Files FBI bombshell and this move to suspend journalists for a day, he put a huge strain on his servers because of the masses of people hitting the site. That’s important because he will demonstrate soon once enough statistics are collected that since he bought Twitter, traffic to the site and the apps skyrocketed.

The second mission is less obvious but clearly more important to him. Even though most of the accounts have been reinstated after a very short suspension (I’ve been suspended for seven days before over Tweets that DIDN’T doxx him or anyone else), the message he sent was crystal clear: Journalists do not get free rein just because they’re journalists. They will be held accountable for their Tweets.

Prior to Thursday, corporate media journalists felt they could say pretty much anything on Twitter, truth and the law be damned. Now, they’re still trying to come to grips with the new development that they aren’t going to be protected on Elon Musk’s Twitter.

Just as he had planned.

By no means am I suggesting Musk doesn’t really care about doxxing. Those who truly doxx him or anyone else will be removed from the platform. But the Rogue’s Gallery of leftist journalists didn’t really doxx anyone. They were suspended so Musk could make a few points, most notably that being a journalist in corporate media will not protect anyone on Musk’s Twitter.

Here’s the article from The Epoch Times detailing what is publicly acknowledged as how it all went down. As you read it, keep in mind that Musk manufactured the excuse to slap down journalists so he could accomplish his goals.

Elon Musk Reinstates Journalists’ Accounts Suspended for Doxxing Policy Violations

Elon Musk has reinstated journalists’ accounts that were earlier suspended for allegedly doxxing his location in real-time, with the temporary suspensions earning the Wikipedia monicker “Thursday Night Massacre” and fueling questions over press freedom on the platform.

After Twitter updated its policy prohibiting sharing people’s location in real-time—known as doxxing—due to personal safety risks, nine journalist’s accounts were suspended, according to an Epoch Times tally. As of the time of reporting, eight of those have been reactivated.

Musk announced the reinstatement in a post on Twitter after running a poll that asked users whether the suspended accounts should be restored “now” or “in 7 days.”

The majority of respondents voted for an immediate reinstatement of the suspended accounts.

“The people have spoken,” Musk said. “Accounts who doxxed my location will have their suspension lifted now.”

The accounts that were suspended belonged to CNN’s politics and tech correspondent Donie O’Sullivan (@donie), New York Times technology reporter Ryan Mac (@rmac18), Washington Post technology reporter Drew Harwell (@drewharwell),  Mashable tech reporter Matt Binder (@mattbinder), The Intercept tech reporter Micah Lee (@micahflee), Voice of America’s Chief National Correspondent Steve Herman (@w7voa), journalist Aaron Rupar (@atrupar), and sports and political commentator Keith Olbermann (@Keitholbermann).

As of the time of reporting, the only account that remained blocked was Olbermann’s.

Some of the journalists disputed the claim that they had exposed Musk’s location in real time in violation of Twitter’s new anti-doxxing policy.

‘Thursday Night Massacre’

Twitter’s suspension of the accounts came after Musk unsuccessfully tried to persuade the Twitter account @ElonJet to stop sharing private jet movements in real time—which he repeatedly said posed a risk to his safety—and after what he described as a “crazy stalker” climbed onto a car carrying his 2-year-old son.

The account suspensions came a day after Twitter announced changes to its Private Information policy—commonly referred to as its doxxing policy—prohibiting the sharing of real-time location information or linking to external sources that share such data, citing a “risk of physical harm.”

The doxxing policy states that any account sharing real-time location information of private individuals (with the exception of the user themselves) would receive a temporary suspension of unspecified duration. The second time they do so, their account will be permanently suspended.

In line with the new policy, the @ElonJet account was suspended, along with a number of accounts tracking the private jets of high-profile individuals, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Some of the journalists disputed Musk’s claim that they had doxxed his location.

“To be clear, there was no ‘doxing’–even if an impulsive, accountable-to-nobody oligarch said so,” Webster said in a tweet shortly after his account was restored.

Rupar wrote on Substack Thursday night that he has “no idea what rules I purportedly broke” and that he has not had contact with Twitter regarding the suspension of his account.

Rupar also noted that prior to his suspension, he had posted a tweet regarding the @ElonJet account that was suspended from Twitter, which he said was “still active on Facebook, with a link to the Facebook page.”

“Perhaps that did it, but I still don’t know what policy that could’ve possibly violated,” he wrote.

Most of the journalists had talked about the owner of the suspended @ElonJet account, Jack Sweeney, or linked to the jet-tracking account in some way.

Musk also announced that he would be taking “legal action” against Sweeney.

Sweeney did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

‘Basically Assassination Coordinates’

Some critics framed the suspensions as an attempt on Musk’s part to muzzle journalists who have been critical of him, though he insisted otherwise: “Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not.”

“They posted my exact real-time location, basically assassination coordinates, in (obvious) direct violation of Twitter terms of service,” Musk added.

“If anyone posted real-time locations & addresses of NYT reporters, FBI would be investigating, there’d be hearings on Capitol Hill & Biden would give speeches about end of democracy!” he continued.

The suspensions drew backlash from government officials, advocacy groups, and journalism organizations from across the globe, with some claiming Twitter was jeopardizing press freedom.

The United Nations and the European Union condemned the suspensions, and the episode even received its own Wikipedia entry, “Thursday Night Massacre.”

Vera Jourova, a European Commission vice president, wrote on Twitter that the alleged “arbitrary suspension of journalists on Twitter is worrying,” adding that an EU regulatory act “requires respect of media freedom and fundamental rights.”

“This is reinforced under our #MediaFreedomAct. @elonmusk should be aware of that,” Jourova wrote. “There are red lines. And sanctions, soon.”

Jourova did not elaborate on what sanctions she had in mind, though under the EU’s Digital Services Acted that she cited, companies can be fined 6 percent of their global annual revenues for breaches.

Twitter did not reply to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

‘Paparazzi, Stalkers, & Fans’

Hours before Musk threatened to take legal action against Sweeney, he responded to Jim Hall, a self-described Tesla and SpaceX enthusiast and investor, who argued that Sweeney had made it easier for “nutjobs” to find Musk and his family.

Hall shared a video of “paparazzi, stalkers, & fans” waiting for Musk outside an airport.

“The more the hate being drummed up online against Elon grows the larger the threat to Elon & his family grows. Imagine all the crazies at the extreme of both political sides targeting you nonstop,” Hall wrote.

Musk responded, “Real-time posting of someone else’s location violates doxxing policy, but delayed posting of locations are ok.”

Twitter users added context to Musk’s tweet, noting that publishing flight records “is protected under the First Amendment,” citing a related Supreme Court ruling.

The contextual note added, however, that “Twitter’s TOS prohibits sharing ‘information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.’”

According to The Last Refuge:

Tucker Carlson used his opening monologue Friday evening to outline his perspective on the Elon Musk takeover of the social media platform Twitter. Generally, Carlson does a good job framing the big picture of national events; however, Carlson outdid himself on this contextualized delivery.

While the underlying premise of Carlson’s position is structured on a yet-to-be-seen possibility of free speech, the context for the importance of the moment is very well presented. I hope that Tucker Carlson is correct in regard to the altruistic intent of Mr. Musk.

It’s so true that leftist corporate media outlets and their terrified journalists aren’t mad because of free speech. They LOVE free speech as long as they have that market cornered, which they have had on Twitter for years. Musk represents an existential threat to their exclusive right to express their opinions without fear of being countered in a significant way.

Watch:

Take Carlos Maza, for instance, formerly of Vox. A graduate of Wake Forest University (WFU) in North Carolina, Maza is known for pushing extreme left-wing views – views so far-left, in fact, that Vox actually fired him.

Maza offered liberal takes on all sorts of issues, framing himself as one of the little guys. What nobody knew about him, though, is that he is a secret billionaire whose privileged family flies around on private jets to their multiple mansions and hops around private islands on their yachts.

It turns out that Maza’s parents are tech billionaires who raised him in a multimillion-dollar home in Boca Raton, Florida. But none of this was publicly available until after his firing from Vox because the family had some kind of secret arrangement with Google to censor this information from all search results.

“Until his termination at Vox, there was no Google result you could get that could tell you anything on Carlos Maza’s background. Nothing. A complete memory hole,” revealed the SGT Report.

“For almost 10 years he was able to use his massive platform to cancel anyone he saw fit to & abuse his power unchecked.”

Maza then tried, but failed, to launch a channel on YouTube. What matters, though, is that he is a complete phony in that he pretended to be a working-class socialist while basking in the extravagant wealth of crony capitalism, which on paper and in Vox he vehemently opposes.

Taylor Lorenz is another privileged “TikTok journalist” who gets special treatment online

Another journalistic hypocrite is the infamous Taylor Lorenz, whom we have reported on extensively. Lorenz may or may not be quite as rich as Maza – it is difficult to tell which family has more money stuffed away – but she is still way up there compared to what her work resume suggests.

We know that Lorenz was born to wealthy and privileged elitists in New York City, and was raised in the richest zip code in Connecticut. She attended a private boarding school in Switzerland and graduated from Hobart and William Smith College.

Other than that, there is very little information about Lorenz online – and that is no accident. Like Maza, Lorenz’s family holds major sway in Big Tech, having the ability to purge their private family information from most known corners of the internet.

Lorenz loves to dox people she does not like, including poor, weak and vulnerable people who do not have the same resources she and her family does. But when it comes to being doxed herself, Lorenz loves to cry rivers on the camera about how unfair life is.

Described by many as a “TikTok journalist,” Lorenz is one of the biggest hypocrites in media right now, having made a name for herself as a whining, complaining always-victim who does the very things to others that she herself claims are being done unfairly to her.

It turns out that Lorenz’s mom and uncle are the mega-rich children of R. McDonald, a very powerful politician who just so happens to also be the owner and founder of the WayBackMachine. This is how Lorenz is able to keep her own information private while destroying the lives of others.

“Trying to find info about any of these people on the internet is nearly impossible. Taylor Lorenz even had her uncle exempt her twitter account from the WayBackMachine,” said the SGT Report. “Once she deletes her tweets they are literally wiped from the internet forever. Now that’s power you can’t buy.”

The latest news about left-wing journalism can be found at Deception.news.

Sources for this article include:

• SGTreport.com
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS