Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts

Friday, October 30, 2020


As anyone who reads this publication, listens to our radio show or our various locations of podcast and video productions knows - we have been wrongfully accused and censored by these moderators. 

We at RTR Truth Media are preparing  to sue Google/YouTube over their blatant and comparable violations of their own community guidelines rules.

I am calling out YouTube

YOUR STAFF LIED. I have lost entire channels. Years of work, economically robbed of our work product and income, terrorized demeaned and defamed. 

Here is a prime example of what I am referring to:

Saturday, September 5, 2020

Orwellian Censorship Won’t Stop the Awakening - If we don’t let it

Global demonstrations - while these faux protests began prior to said demonstrations. 
Seattle, Portland ... testing grounds for this lunacy. But mass global demonstrations seem to be winning in the sphere of convincing the people that government has become a threat to the world itself. Time the people of the world do a re-set... and I don’t mean a financial one. 
Tell them RTR sent ya!!! RTR TRUTH MEDIA

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Sharing content of individuals not members of our team does not mean we agree with or stand behind everything they stand for. We share news, as well as what we believe our readers need to know. Truth is truth, whomever may speak it.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

ADL Found Guilty Of Spying By California Court - The YouTube Censors are Unaccountable Foreign Govt Espionage Group

ADL Found Guilty Of Spying
By California Court
By Barbara Ferguson
Arab News Correspondent

This is who YouTube has adjusting algorythims and censoring the American people. I am NOT ok with that.
Tom - RTR

WASHINGTON - The San Francisco Superior Court has awarded former Congressman Pete McCloskey, R-California, a $150,000 court judgment against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

McCloskey, the attorney in the case, represented one of three civil lawsuits filed in San Francisco against the ADL in 1993. The lawsuit came after raids were made by the San Francisco Police Department and the FBI on offices of the ADL in both San Francisco and Los Angeles, which found that the ADL was engaged in extensive domestic spying operations on a vast number of individuals and institutions around the country.

During the course of the inquiry in San Francisco, the SFPD and FBI determined the ADL had computerized files on nearly 10,000 people across the country, and that more than 75 percent of the information had been illegally obtained from police, FBI files and state drivers, license data banks.

Much of the stolen information had been provided by Tom Gerard of the San Francisco Police Department, who sold, or gave, the information to Ray Bullock, ADL,s top undercover operative.

The investigation also determined that the ADL conduit, Gerard, was also working with the CIA.

Two other similar suits against ADL were settled some years ago, and the ADL was found guilty in both cases, but the McCloskey suit continued to drag through the courts until last month.

In the McCloskey case, the ADL agreed to pay (from its annual multi-million budget) $50,000 to each of the three plaintiffs - Jeffrey Blankfort, Steve Zeltzer and Anne Poirier - who continued to press charges against the ADL, despite a continuing series of judicial roadblocks that forced 14 of the original defendants to withdraw. Another two died during the proceedings.

The ADL, which calls itself a civil rights group, continued to claim it did nothing wrong in monitoring their activities. Although the ADL presents itself as a group that defends the interests of Jews, two of three ADL victims are Jewish.

Blankfort and Zeltzer were targeted by the ADL because they were critical of Israel,s policies toward the Palestinians.

The third ADL victim in the McCloskey case, Poirier, was not involved in any activities related to Israel or the Middle East. Poirier ran a scholarship program for South African exiles who were fighting the apartheid system in South Africa.

At the time, the ADL worked closely with the then anti-apartheid government of South Africa, and ADL,s operative Bullock provided ADL with illegally obtained data on Poirier and her associates to the South African government.

But the conclusion of McCloskey's case does not mean the end to the ADL's legal problems.

On March 31, 2001, US District Judge Edward Nottingham of Denver, Colorado, upheld most of a $10.5 million defamation judgment that a federal jury in Denver had levied against the ADL in April of 2000.

The jury hit the ADL with the massive judgment after finding it had falsely labeled Evergreen, Colorado residents - William and Dorothy Quigley - as "anti-Semites." The ADL is appealing the judgment.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Sharing content of individuals not members of our team does not mean we agree with or stand behind everything they stand for. We share news, as well as what we believe our readers need to know. Truth is truth, whomever may speak it.

Monday, June 1, 2020


 The officer who killed George Floyd worked with him for years at the same club out of all the clubs in Minnesota. And Floyd used to be employed as an actor. An actor in porn, but an actor none-the-less. What are the odds? The officer was reported to be a hot head by other employees. What does all of this mean? I don't know, but what I do know is that the main stream media has not told any of you about this. Also we continue to hear about how black lives matter and are under attack, but really authoritarianism knows no color. We have seen black officers abusing black suspects. Does this mean they are that insanely ridiculous term "self hating"? No, its their training, and their personalities.

The following video report is frpom Brian Young of High Impact Flix

The excerpt below is from AZ Central

EJ Montini: There were no demonstrations after a jury acquitted a former Mesa officer of murdering an unarmed man. Should there have been?

There were no public demonstrations after the verdict in which former Mesa police officer Philip “Mitch” Brailsford was acquitted of murder and reckless manslaughter in the killing of an unarmed man.
Is that because the victim, Daniel Shaver, was white?
Brailsford, also a white man, was answering a call of someone pointing a gun out of a motel window.

Mesa police have released footage from Officer Philip "Mitch" Brailsford's body camera of the fatal shooting of an unarmed Texas man at a hotel in 2016. This edited video shows the moments leading up Daniel Shaver's death. Mesa Police Department
Deputy County Attorney Susie Charbel didn't buy Brailsford's claim that he feared for his life. She told the jury, "(Brailsford) doesn’t get a pass because he was wearing a police uniform that night." 
The jury sided with the officer.
They found Brailsford not guilty.
There has been a lot of interest in the case but nothing inflammatory.
In hindsight two things seem obvious:
Shaver should not be dead.
Brailsford should not have been in that hallway.
I have to question the suitability of an officer whose AR-15 rifle had etched on it the phrase “You’re F***ed.” And I question as well a department that permits him to do so.
The judge didn’t allow that information in the trial, finding it prejudicial.

If he was black, there'd be more noise

There were enough questions about the incident that Brailsford, who was fired by the department, should have been charged. Give Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery credit for allowing a jury to decide. 

If Shaver were a black man the verdict might have been exactly the same. But I'd guess there would have been a lot more noise.

Public demonstrations frighten us. And they can get ugly.
But if Shaver were black I suspect there would be activists talking loudly to the press and demonstrators forcing us to look very closely at policing policies in Mesa and the rest of the Valley, and causing politicians and law enforcement professionals to evaluate the systems they have in place for selecting officers and training them.
That wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Jeff Flake's 'country over party' ploy is too little, too late


And what about  :
The death of Samantha Ramsey 
Where were the national protests for Samantha?

occurred on April 26, 2014 at 2:13 am on a Saturday morning at a farm party on the 6600 block on River Road (KY-8) in Hebron, Kentucky, in Boone County, Kentucky. Tyler Brockman, Deputy Sheriff of Boone County, shot four rounds with his Glock 22, hitting her in six spots, including a bullet going through her heart's left ventricle, as she was pulling out of a driveway in her 2001 Subaru away from the farm party, after she allegedly failed to obey  Tyler Brockman's commands to stop. Samantha Ramsey died shortly after, at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Florence, Kentucky. There were three other passengers in the car, who witnessed the shooting

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Saturday, February 29, 2020


 I have long pointed out the hypocritical policies of YouTube, but in comparison to the latest insanity in Silicon Valley, that was nothing compared to this. An unlisted, uncirculated video that contained no commentary by the uploader and just some stock 911 footage and music. The video was deemed by Google, (YouTube) to be "hate speech". 

Question: How does one flag a video, be offended by it, or otherwise have reason to complain...
      WHEN THE VIDEO IS NOT EVEN IN VIEWABLE CIRCULATION? When the video is not even public?
Even by most Marxists' definition of "hate speech", as unAmerican and Bolshevik style in nature that this thought police concept is, the uploaded video comes nowhere near violating even that insane concept definition in reality, and in fact, it defames the content creator. YES. I am referring to myself.  They terminated my main channel with years of work and after creating a marketable audience (even though claiming my material was not marketable) but I had a few other channels for a variety of different purposes. I never intended on using them as a way to beat censorship when they were created. This latest wae of censorship must be met with litigation and prosecution. It is called defamation and is economic terrorism via the targeting of political ideology.

This is the same Googler that at least as if they are not still, taking military contract work paid for by taxpayers. I don't know if they are aware of it or not but after working for a private company that installed bullet and blast-proof glass at Federal courthouses and military bases, I can tell you that the company I worked for had to comply with certain guidelines regarding rights. I believe the time has come to fight back. This absolutely ridiculously blatant act comes after one other was set to expire. I did an interview with Wolfgang Halbig of Sandy Hook and Alex Jone's fame. We discussed nothing about the kids or the event of Sandy Hook, in fact, I really had him on to talk about the suit against he and Alex Jones as well as the fact that it was he who alleged that he sold the school Emergency plan to Marjory Stoneman Douglass High and more in Broward County. That is called NEWS. I never disparaged anyone. I never bullied anyone or advocated for anyone to bother anyone else. Yet in a blatant and total lie that is exactly what YouTube accused me of. I for one and sick of this corporation bullying folk who have a different outlook than they do. Because at best, that is 3xactly what they have become. BULLIES and ECONOMIC TERRORISTS. Those of us who have built our channels before they decided to go nuts should not have what equates to our own homegrown businesses destroyed by social engineering corporations.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Monday, November 5, 2018


It has come to our attention that an online group of ill informed reactionary trolls on Reddit has engaged in a deliberate harassment and false flagging campaign on YouTube against a conservative activist Adam Green of Know More News, who shares his views on Zionism and a very real problem among the Jewish community of those who believe they are supreme above all others. Adam Green is also someone who believes in the non aggression principle, so claiming he is in any way advocating violence, threatening, or harassing anyone is a bald faced and blatant lie. His criticism only reflects such upon a portion of Jews and non-Jews who advocate for political Zionism primarily of the Likud variety in particular.

Adam Green - Know More News Report on the attack:

The numbers of Jews themselves that oppose this supremacist ideology are many. And many Jews themselves acknowledge that it is among those supremacists that are the direct cause of what is called modern Antisemitism. Their use of this term is a complete abuse of the word itself as the definition of Antisemitism is:

Definition of anti-Semitism (Webster's Dictionary)
hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

So let us first identify that Mr. Green criticizes ideological perspectives that he believes and puts evidence forth to show how said ideologies enable a rationale of thinking that causes injury and harm to others. We will begin with the evidence collected in his report compilation of Main Stream reports and articles : To oppose such ideologies that are "among" Zionist and some sects of Jews, is in no way showing hostility to or discriminating against any religious, ethnic, or racial group in it's entirety. And as to the racial aspect, being Jewish is not a race. Political Zionism is political ideology infused with "aspects" of Jewish identity, but none the less is a political ideology. If Mr. Green did not openly have friends as I do who were Jewish, who respected him, and who also agreed with his presentations, then perhaps we could explore him being anti-Semitic. Seeing how he interviews politicians running for Knesset, as well as many Jewish Americans, these allegations against him are not only unfounded, but come from a place of hatred and loathing. Let us explore the actual attacks.
Below is a tweet from Adam Green regarding the faux outrage campaign. Why do I say faux outrage? Because people are being deliberately sent to the Know More News channel who have admittedly not seen, listened to or have been offended by any of the content. This is not harassment of them. This is the exact reverse. They as folks who identify as Jews, without sitting through the content and without providing facts to counter that of Mr. Green are moving to complain and flag videos they have never watched as you will see in the below image and in Know More News tweet. This is the abuse of the YouTube terms of service should they engage in this pattern of harassment. They are free to create content of their own to counter Mr. Green's presentations.

The most blatant of the photos Mr. Green has shared is the following:

Within this sub Reddit you can easily see that those who are engaged in this campaign have not watched Mr. Greens YouTube content, offer no facts of their own to prove that anything he presents is false, and are simply invoking a smear tactic buzz word to try and commit acts of economic terrorism and personal damage against him by using an online process. This is known in law as "cyber-bullying" and is a crime. 

Some states have enacted specific laws against stalking someone online. "Cyberstalking" generally refers to stalking someone through the internet, email, text messages, or other means of electronic communication. Many states have revised their harassment and/or stalking laws to explicitly include harassing electronic communications. Some states also punish actions akin to cyberstalking under laws aimed at improper uses of computers or electronic communications networks.

Federal law makes it a crime to "transmit in interstate commerce" (which includes the internet) a communication containing a threat to kidnap or physically harm someone.
Criminal harassment is usually confined to state law. States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety.
When targeted online harassment includes behavior that causes harm regardless of it being physical or financial it is a crime. It is a deprivation of rights. 
While Mr. Green is critical of Israeli policies and while he does research and investigate ideologies that cause people to believe that they have a higher right to themselves than to Palestinians, and while these subjects are of much contention, when we allow those to use smear tactics to silence and damage we resign to entire populations the potential subjugation of those who are given this protective unreasonable layer. As a Christian conservative myself it has taken me years to understand the nature of the very real religious aspects to the war of ideologies. This online group has compared Mr. Green to the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter regardless of the fact that they apparently have no clue that Mr. Green is a non aggression principle advocate and that he condemned any violence against any people absolutely and completely. To compare him with a homicidal attacker because that attacker espoused beliefs that opposed Zionism is disgusting, inflammatory and defaming. And in the way it is being used in this cyberbullying attack, it is merely being used as a trick to get tech companies to falsely penalize Mr. Green. They allege that Adam Green is "clearly in agreement with the person who shot up a synagogue on Saturday", while not only not providing any facts to support this, but openly admitting the refusal of actually watching the content they refer to as seen in the image above. This proves them to be openly dishonest. Some of the information that the shooter disagreed with is open source facts he opposed. This in no way justifies a homicidal attack which is the "actual" crime he committed. What he thought or believed is irrelevant and again used as a tactic to suppress actual facts. In fact I posit that by allowing thought crimes to be weaponized in this way will only fuel their misuse by those who wish to silence. In other words you will have those who oppose something committing acts of false flag violence to kill the message rather than go after real crimes of violence as is a provable fact seen in Green's presentation "The Truth About AntiSemitism".

Here is a quote directly from Adam Green :

"The killing of anyone especially while they are worshiping is disgusting and should not be tolerated". 

Here is an example of the tactic I will now refer to as "weaponized faux antisemitic smears"explained by Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni -

Friday, November 2, 2018


I've been watching and subbed to Red Ice TV and Henrik Palmgren & Lana Lokteff,  for a long time. They speak a lot of truth. And imagine - they got hit with the Hammer and Sickle for an old report on a Zionist NGO that was aiding and abetting illegal immigration into Europe, following this recent shooting. The scrubbing of truth is on. I agree with them on a lot, not all but not once have I ever seen them tell a lie. We have to stick together as this censorship threatens the very nature of journalism. Please sub to all their links.

This is the original video while their channel is still up at the mark this one left off -
#RedIceTV #Censorship #Zionism
Subscribe to the RED ICE TV backup channel:
Main Website -

Join RED ICE Telegram group:

Subscribe to RED ICE BitChute:

Become a member:

Catch their live streams on Twitter:

Catch their live streams on Facebook:

#RedIceTV #Censorship #Zionism
Resurrect the Republic Truth Radio Broadcast
You can check us out on the following links
Donate -

Dead Backup Channel after Primary TERMINATION for TRUTH
Bitchute -
Facebook -
twitter -

Friday, October 19, 2018


When Facebook decided to purge pages for what seems to be completely murky reasons leading up to the midterm elections, I had my suspicions... but the evidence so far recovered by Western Journalism seems rather clear. 

Of the 220 pages uncovered by The Western Journal,
67 percent are conservative or pro-Trump pages,
22 percent are libertarian or non-aligned,
and 11 percent are liberal or anti-Trump pages.

Everyone knows that Libertarians are for limited government and thus lean right.
This would mean that it would appear that as so far -

89% are conservative/libertarian
with a very small percentage of this being non-aligned

It appears that Facebook had strategically briefed The New York Times and The Washington Post ahead of the removals, given that within minutes of Facebook’s announcement, both papers published lengthy pieces describing the purge that included screenshots of the pages, something that could only have been obtained before the pages were removed.

After the purge, Facebook provided media outlets with only the same few examples: The Resistance, Reasonable People Unite, Reverb Press, Nation in Distress and Snowflakes. Four of these pages were liberal, while one was conservative. When asked for a complete list of pages, Facebook has repeatedly refused to release it

Now while some of these appear non aligned, this means that only 11% were liberal pages. This is so far as we know at this point not only indicating that Facebook has interfered with and in and of itself engaged in election / public opinion censorship interference, but also has engaged in economic terrorism, and interrupting the flow of commerce by destroying years of hard work by many like the following...

Western Journalism

Early on October 11, Matt woke up to find his small business gone. There had been no warning, no smoke, no heat — but his business was now a smoldering heap of ash. Facebook had burnt it to the ground.

Matt has operated his small digital publishing business since 2015. He spends his mornings like most business proprietors: After waking up, he reviews his numbers and checks messages to ensure his livelihood is running smoothly and as expected. It’s undoubtedly a more peaceful existence than Matt’s years in Army intelligence. His time in the military left him disabled, so his ability to work at least part of the time from his computer is a blessing.

It’s a good day for Matt when numbers are up and messages are down. As is usually the case for young entrepreneurs, no news is good news, because that means there are no fires to put out. But on October 11, Matt woke to the fire of his nightmares.

Matt is an online publisher. His business depends on his ability to drive page views to his website. Like many in the mid 2010s, Matt found Facebook to be good place to share articles and keep people coming back day after day. In those early days, growing Facebook pages was much easier. And getting more people to follow his Facebook page meant more people would see his articles.

Matt uses his website to tell stories about the thing that is most important to him — American politics. And his rise in online popularity proved he was not alone in his views. His activism mixed with his tough guy persona — “Do I look like a snowflake?” is his slogan on Twitter where he goes by “Matt Mountain” — resonated with many on Facebook. By last week, Matt had amassed an impressive 1.8 million Facebook followers on his pages.

But in a moment and without warning, Facebook took them all away.

On this fall morning, as Matt began his early-morning check of his site, he was greeted with a notification from his Facebook app that read simply, “account disabled.” He was obviously worried, so he immediately called his wife, who helps run the site, and asked her if she could access her Facebook account. She could not.

Facebook had unpublished all of Matt’s pages. Every page was inaccessible — effectively wiped from existence. The 1.8 million followers Matt had worked to connect with were no longer a click away. The 1.8 million followers who over the last three years had chosen to follow Matt’s site could no longer read the stories they loved or comment on the page with their friends about what mattered to them.

Matt checked his records. He had received nothing from Facebook. No warning. No deadline. No ultimatum. With two simple words, many years and countless hours of Matt’s work were forever wiped from Facebook.While Matt was scrambling to figure out what had happened, Facebook was announcing through a blog post that it had removed over 559 political pages and 251 accounts in a clampdown on what the company calls “inauthentic behavior” in the lead-up to the U.S midterm elections.

“Many were using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names and posted massive amounts of content across a network of Groups and Pages to drive traffic to their websites. Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was,” wrote Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, and product manager Oscar Rodriguez.

Facebook’s pre-midterm purge included pages and accounts that Facebook described as “ad farms” that used the platform to earn money and “to mislead others about who they are, and what they are doing,” rather than engage in “legitimate political debate.”

It appears that Facebook had strategically briefed The New York Times and The Washington Post ahead of the removals, given that within minutes of Facebook’s announcement, both papers published lengthy pieces describing the purge that included screenshots of the pages, something that could only have been obtained before the pages were removed.

After the purge, Facebook provided media outlets with only the same few examples: The Resistance, Reasonable People Unite, Reverb Press, Nation in Distress and Snowflakes. Four of these pages were liberal, while one was conservative. When asked for a complete list of pages, Facebook has repeatedly refused to release it. Even knowing the names of these five pages, journalists visiting the page are greeted with a message “Sorry, content isn’t available right now,” with no ability to see the page, previously posted content or examples of alleged “spam” actions.

Facebook claims the purged pages fell on both sides of the political spectrum, and originally declined to say if there were more pages on the right or the left, but a Facebook spokesperson later told Axios that “the takedowns may have impacted more right-leaning hyper-partisan Pages.”

Read the full article here -

Saturday, September 29, 2018



While everyone was good and distracted by the carnival sideshow the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing became which asked no actual valid questions regarding any in depth policy decisions, surveillance, Patriot Act, but resorted to frivolous attacks of one's alleged teen years...
                                                                                         ... this was going down.

Even the main stream media can not ignore this -
An excerpt from:
 CNN -

Google has finally admitted that a "Project Dragonfly" is indeed in the works.

But that's about all a Google executive was willing to divulge Wednesday about the codenamed plan, which has been widely reported to be a search product the company is developing for China — one that would need to comply with government censorship.
The rumored existence of the Chinese search engine came up repeatedly during a Senate committee hearing in Washington, where several major technology and telecommunications executives were testifying about a potential federal law to regulate data privacy.
Photo: Ng Han Guan (AP)
The prospect of a Google-sanctioned search engine for China has become a hot-button issue. Reports began surfacing last month that Google was working on a product that would block sensitive websites and search terms in accordance with Chinese censorship.
The New York Times later reported that more than a thousand Google employees have questioned the plan. That criticism is ongoing — The Times reported early Wednesday that a former Google research scientist blasted the Chinese search product in a letter to lawmakers this week.


In a letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, former Google research scientist Jack Poulson details why he stepped down from the company in late August. The note, sent earlier this week, details growing concern over Project Dragonfly, the search giant’s attempt to enter the Chinese market in a meaningful way.
The letter arrived as the Senate prepared to question Google’s new chief privacy officer, Keith Enright, about data concerns. It seems likely that the subject of Dragonfly will be on the schedule for committee members. Nearly 1,400 employees signed a letter last month stating that the project, “raise[s] urgent moral and ethical issues.” 
“It is notable that Project Dragonfly was well underway at the time the company released its AI Principles,” Poulson writes in his own letter. “As has been widely understood, by human rights organizations, investigative reporters, Google employees, and the public, Project Dragonfly directly contradicts the AI Principles’ commitment to not ‘design or deploy’ any technology whose purpose ‘contravenes widely accepted principles of […] human rights.’ ”
Poulson highlights four specific issues that have caused concern internally at the company. The list includes tying search queries to phone numbers and a blacklist of search terms including “human rights,” “student protest” and “Nobel Prize,” developed in conjunction with the Chinese government. The former employee also highlights government control over air quality data and the “catastrophic failure of the internal privacy review process.”
Yesterday, reports surfaced that CEO Sundar Pichai will meet with Republican lawmakers to discuss Google’s China plans and GOP concerns over search bias. 

Read more:

General: Project Maven Is Just the Beginning of the Military’s Use of AI

An MQ-1B Predator, left, and an MQ-9 Reaper taxi to the runway in preparation for takeoff June 13, 2014, at Creech Air Force Base, Nev.
Air Combat Command chief invites tech firms to help build next-gen tools for the Pentagon. Also says dissent "is part of being an American."
A top Air Force general said the military needs to expand its use of artificial intelligence — like that being used in the controversial Project Maven effort — if it wants to stay ahead of peer competitors and deter war.
Gen. James Holmes, who leads Air Combat Command, is among the first flag officers to publicly defend the Pentagon’s algorithmic-image-analysis program since

Google said it would not renew its contract following an outcry by its employees.

“The benefit of this will be: it will free up people to focus on thinking about what they see and what it means in the intelligence field and on passing that information to decision makers more timely because you’re able to do it faster,” Holmes said Thursday at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington. “That’s a big part of our future and you’ll continue to see that expanded, with Project Maven being one of the first steps in bringing learning machines and algorithms in to be able to allow people to focus on things that people do best and let the machine do that repetitive task.”
Earlier this week, Robert Work, who chartered Project Maven before stepping down as deputy defense secretary last year, said that company employees who worry that the Pentagon’s artificial intelligence will kill people should should consider that it would increase risks for someone else.
“They say, ‘What if the work is ultimately used to take lives? But what if it saves American lives? 500 American lives? Or 500 lives of our allies?” Work said Tuesday at the Defense One Tech Summit.
Holmes said he was concerned that the dustup with Google might prompt others in Silicon Valley to not work with the Pentagon, but added: “this is part of being an American.”
“Americans have expectations about what their government does and whether the government uses technology and tools to infringe upon their rights or not,” he said. “We have really high standards as a nation that that things that we being forward as military tools have to live up to.”
Still, Holmes said the military needs to tap into the technology being developed in the Valley and elsewhere.

Read more:

 More relevant links:

Google reportedly leaving Project Maven military AI program after 2019
The company’s contract is set to expire next year, and it involves helping the government use machine learning to analyze drone footage.

Project Maven to Deploy Computer Algorithms to War Zone by Year’s End

Winning wars with computer algorithms and artificial intelligence were among the topics that Defense Department intelligence officials discussed during a recent Defense One Tech Summit here.
Read more -

Google Employees Protest Secret Work on Censored Search Engine for China

CreditCreditAly Song/Reuters
Google employees have signed a letter protesting the company’s building of a censored search engine for China.

Hundreds of Google employees, upset at the company’s decision to secretly build a censored version of its search engine for China, have signed a letter demanding more transparency to understand the ethical consequences of their work.

Google set to end controversial Project Maven military AI program, report says - FOX

Thursday, August 2, 2018


No better way to share where the main channel I will now be using is located than to share this video once again.

So, it's a wrap folks, I am officially finished with YouTube. This video and a few others have seen my main channel with millions of views and thousands of subscribers terminated, and now I am unable to even sign in to my backup channel that they were heavily suppressing according to a few people who came to let me know that even though they were subscribed they could not see any of them.

So as much of a royal pain it is to have to use another platform, Bitchute looks like a main stay, so I picked this video to share with you so you can check out the new channel as it is the single most important story to me right now regarding the political targeting of Americans.

So why am I, just a small fish in a big pond on YouTube, so dangerous? I do not go after anyone personally. I do not make threats. I do not engage in anything that would cause a "real" community guidelines violation. YouTube just admitted to me that the video that had my main channel terminated was an interview I did about a Pennsylvania Constable who questioned the official narrative of the Boston Bombing. Even though I have never advocated violence, and merely traveled to Pennsylvania to interview this decorated war veteran and constable, it was my channel that was terminated because I covered his account. It is news. There is an idiot who claims to b e a cat.... he is obviously not a cat. Should a channel be terminated for reporting that he is saying he is a cat. Well the Boston Bombing is far more complicated and many undeniable strange things occurred. So there we have it The Southern Poverty Law Center is obviously using their "hate list" which I have made it on to simply silence those who aren't far left Communists.

A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Charles Spurgeon

Half a truth is often a great lie.

Benjamin Franklin

 An RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Resurrect the Republic Production

Support my work -
Tom Lacovara-Stewart

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Thursday, July 5, 2018


Over the last couple of years major social media, news and video platforms have been actively engaged in the censorship of what they believe to be fake news and information. Often spearheaded by third-party review organizations known to have biased views, there have been countless examples of unpopular speech and commentary that has seen its distribution suppressed or outright banned.

While there is most certainly a human element involved in the review and flagging of information, mega Silicon Valley conglomerates have also implemented automated systems to identify potentially hateful and repulsive content.
To give you an idea of the kind of automation in play and what words and ideas are being identified as running contrary to the principles of media aggregators and distributors, consider that Facebook recently banned America’s founding document from being posted.
Since June 24, the Liberty County Vindicator of Liberty County, Texas, has been sharing daily excerpts from the Declaration of Independence in the run up to July Fourth. The idea was to encourage historical literacy among the Vindicator‘s readers.
The first nine such posts of the project went up without incident.
“But part 10,” writes Vindicator managing editor Casey Stinnett, “did not appear. Instead, The Vindicator received a notice from Facebook saying that the post ‘goes against our standards on hate speech.’”
The post in question contained paragraphs 27 through 31 of the Declaration of Independence, the grievance section of the document wherein the put-upon colonists detail all the irreconcilable differences they have with King George III.
Stinnett says that he cannot be sure which exact grievance ran afoul of Facebook’s policy, but he assumes that it’s paragraph 31, which excoriates the King for inciting “domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages.”
The removal of the post was an automated action, and Stinnett sent a “feedback message” to Facebook with the hopes of reaching a human being who could then exempt the Declaration of Independence from its hate speech restrictions.
The Vindicator took a screenshot of the post’s removal.
According to the Vindicator, the post was eventually restored after it was manually reviewed.
Reprinted with permission from