Is The Voice, Activity and  Media Of The Lowest Form Of Humanity

Any Media That Permits Any Kind Of Hatred Has To Be Dissolved 

SASHA BARON COHEN  —  In a speech last night at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen attacked Facebook and other social media platforms for enabling the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation.  The speech was striking in its sincerity – Baron Cohen appeared as himself, rather than “in character” as one of his satirical personas – and its blistering tone.

Describing Facebook as “ The greatest propaganda machine in history”, Baron Cohen argued that the company, which does not vet political ads for truthfulness, would have allowed Hitler to run propaganda on its platform.

Here Is The Full Transcript, From His Prepared Remarks  —  Thank you, ADL, for this recognition and your work in fighting racism, hate and bigotry. And to be clear, when I say “ Racism, hate and bigotry” I’m not referring to the names of Stephen Miller’s Labradoodles.

Now, I realize that some of you may be thinking, what the hell is a comedian doing speaking at a conference like this! I certainly am.  I’ve spent most of the past two decades in character. In fact, this is the first time that I have ever stood up and given a speech as my least popular character, Sacha Baron Cohen. And I have to confess, it is terrifying.  I realize that my presence here may also be unexpected for another reason. At times, some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old stereotypes.

The truth is, I’ve been passionate about challenging bigotry and intolerance throughout my life. As a teenager in the UK, I marched against the fascist National Front and to abolish apartheid. As an undergraduate, I traveled around America and wrote my thesis about the civil rights movement, with the help of the archives of the ADL.  And as a comedian, I’ve tried to use my characters to get people to let down their guard and reveal what they actually believe, including their own prejudice.

Now, I’m not going to claim that everything I’ve done has been for a higher purpose.  Yes, some of my comedy, OK probably half my comedy, has been absolutely juvenile and the other half completely puerile. I admit, there was nothing particularly enlightening about me – as Borat from Kazakhstan, the first fake news journalist – running through a conference of mortgage brokers when I was completely naked.

But when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “Throw the Jew down the well,” it did reveal people’s indifference to antisemitism. When – as Bruno, the gay fashion reporter from Austria – I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas, nearly starting a riot, it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when – disguised as an ultra-woke developer – I proposed building a mosque in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist, against Muslims” – it showed the acceptance of Islamophobia.

That’s why I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. Today around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason – the era of evidential argument – is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.

What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.

The Greatest Propaganda Machine In History  —  

When far-right loons and insurrectionists decided that FOX News wasn’t nearly extreme enough for their conspiratorial beliefs, they created One American News (OAN) to openly spread dangerous lies and misinformation to their extremely targeted audience.  Verizon is the last remaining provider to carry OAN. 

One America News Network has intentionally misled their audience about the 2020 presidential election by spreading the ‘Big Lie’ that it was stolen from Trump, contributed to the spread of Covid-19 by countering the recommendations of actual medical experts, and openly mimicked pro-Russia propaganda in the midst of the brutal invasion of Ukraine. 

OAN is nothing more than a pro-Trump propaganda channel.  It’s no wonder insurrectionists and far-right extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz consistently praise the controversial network.

Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others – they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in history – the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”

On the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the BBC. The fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion look as valid as an ADL report. And the rantings of a lunatic seem as credible as the findings of a Nobel prize winner. We have lost, it seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.

When I, as the wannabe gangsta Ali G, asked the astronaut Buzz Aldrin “what woz it like to walk on de sun?” the joke worked, because we, the audience, shared the same facts. If you believe the moon landing was a hoax, the joke was not funny.

When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the audience shared the fact that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages.

But when, thanks to social media, conspiracies take hold, it’s easier for hate groups to recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections, and easier for a country like Myanmar to commit genocide against the Rohingya.

It’s actually quite shocking how easy it is to turn conspiracy thinking into violence. In my last show Who is America?,  I found an educated, normal guy who had held down a good job, but who, on social media, repeated many of the conspiracy theories that President Trump, using Twitter, has spread more than 1,700 times to his 67 million followers. The president even tweeted that he was considering designating Antifa – anti-fascists who march against the far right – as a terror organization.

So, disguised as an Israel anti-terrorism expert, Colonel Erran Morad, I told my interviewee that, at the Women’s March in San Francisco, Antifa were plotting to put hormones into babies’ diapers in order to “make them transgender”. And he believed it.

I instructed him to plant small devices on three innocent people at the march and explained that when he pushed a button, he’d trigger an explosion that would kill them all. They weren’t real explosives, of course, but he thought they were. I wanted to see – would he actually do it?

The answer was yes. He pushed the button and thought he had actually killed three human beings.  Voltaire was right: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to billions of people.

In their defense, these social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, but these steps have been mostly superficial.

I’m speaking up today because I believe that our pluralistic democracies are on a precipice and that the next 12 months, and the role of social media, could be determinant. 

  • British voters will go to the polls while online conspiracists promote the despicable theory of “great replacement” that white Christians are being deliberately replaced by Muslim immigrants. 
  • Americans will vote for president while trolls and bots perpetuate the disgusting lie of a “Hispanic invasion”. And after years of YouTube videos calling climate change a “hoax”, the United States is on track, a year from now, to formally withdraw from the Paris accords. A sewer of bigotry and vile conspiracy theories that threatens democracy and our planet – this cannot possibly be what the creators of the internet had in mind.

I believe it’s time for a fundamental rethink of social media and how it spreads hate, conspiracies and lies. Last month, however, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook delivered a major speech that, not surprisingly, warned against new laws and regulations on companies like his. Well, some of these arguments are simply absurd. Let’s count the ways.

  • First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as “choices … around free expression”. That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. 
  • Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, antisemites and child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
  • Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be to “pull back on free expression”. This is utter nonsense. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. 
  • We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms.
  • If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts threatening other customers and saying he wants kill Jews, would the owner of the restaurant be required to serve him an elegant eight-course meal? Of course not! The restaurant owner has every legal right and a moral obligation to kick the Nazi out, and so do these internet companies.
  • Third, Zuckerberg seemed to equate regulation of companies like his to the actions of “the most repressive societies”. Incredible. This, from one of the six people who decide what information so much of the world sees. Zuckerberg at Facebook, Sundar Pichai at Google, at its parent company Alphabet, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Brin’s ex-sister-in-law, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.
  • The Silicon Six – all billionaires, all Americans – who care more about boosting their share price than about protecting democracy. This is ideological imperialism – six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they’re above the reach of law. It’s like we’re living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At least that would explain his haircut.
  • Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people, of every democracy in the world, have at least some say.
  • Fourth, Zuckerberg speaks of welcoming a “diversity of ideas”, and last year he gave us an example. He said that he found posts denying the Holocaust “deeply offensive”, but he didn’t think Facebook should take them down “because I think there are things that different people get wrong”. 
  • At this very moment, there are still Holocaust deniers on Facebook, and Google still takes you to the most repulsive Holocaust denial sites with a simple click. One of the heads of Google once told me, incredibly, that these sites just show “both sides” of the issue. This is madness.
  • To quote Edward R Murrow, one “cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument”. We have millions of pieces of evidence for the Holocaust – it is an historical fact. And denying it is not some random opinion. Those who deny the Holocaust aim to encourage another one.
  • Still, Zuckerberg says that “people should decide what is credible, not tech companies.” But at a time when two-thirds of millennials say they haven’t even heard of Auschwitz, how are they supposed to know what’s “credible”? How are they supposed to know that the lie is a lie?
  • There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. And if these internet companies really want to make a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups like the ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their platforms.
  • Fifth, when discussing the difficulty of removing content, Zuckerberg asked “where do you draw the line?” Yes, drawing the line can be difficult. But here’s what he’s really saying: removing more of these lies and conspiracies is just too expensive.
  • These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in the world. They could fix these problems if they wanted to. Twitter could deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacist hate speech, but they reportedly haven’t because it would eject some very prominent politicians from their platform. Maybe that’s not a bad thing! The truth is, these companies won’t fundamentally change because their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.
  • It’s time to finally call these companies what they really are – the largest publishers in history. And here’s an idea for them: abide by basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines and TV news do every day. We have standards and practices in television and the movies; there are certain things we cannot say or do.
  • In England, I was told that Ali G could not curse when he appeared before 9pm. Here in the US, the Motion Picture Association of America regulates and rates what we see. I’ve had scenes in my movies cut or reduced to abide by those standards. If there are standards and practices for what cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices too.
  • Take the issue of political ads. Fortunately, Twitter finally banned them, and Google is making changes, too. But if you pay them, Facebook will run any “political” ad you want, even if it’s a lie. And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his “solution” to the “Jewish problem”. 
  • So here’s a good standard and practice: Facebook, start factchecking political ads before you run them, stop micro-targeted lies immediately, and when the ads are false, give back the money and don’t publish them.
  • Here’s another good practice: slow down. Every single post doesn’t need to be published immediately. Oscar Wilde once said that “we live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.” But is having every thought or video posted instantly online, even if it is racist or criminal or murderous, really a necessity? Of course not!
  • The shooter who massacred Muslims in New Zealand live-streamed his atrocity on Facebook where it then spread across the internet and was viewed likely millions of times. It was a snuff film, brought to you by social media. Why can’t we have more of a delay so this trauma-inducing filth can be caught and stopped before it’s posted in the first place?
  • Finally, Zuckerberg said that social media companies should “live up to their responsibilities”, but he’s totally silent about what should happen when they don’t. By now it’s pretty clear, they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. As with the Industrial Revolution, it’s time for regulation and legislation to curb the greed of these hi-tech robber barons.
  • In every other industry, a company can be held liable when their product is defective. When engines explode or seatbelts malfunction, car companies recall tens of thousands of vehicles, at a cost of billions of dollars. It only seems fair to say to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter: your product is defective, you are obliged to fix it, no matter how much it costs and no matter how many moderators you need to employ.
  • In every other industry, you can be sued for the harm you cause. Publishers can be sued for libel, people can be sued for defamation. I’ve been sued many times! I’m being sued right now by someone whose name I won’t mention because he might sue me again! But social media companies are largely protected from liability for the content their users post – no matter how indecent it is – by Section 230 of, get ready for it, the Communications Decency Act. Absurd!
  • Fortunately, internet companies can now be held responsible for pedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail
  • In the end, it all comes down to what kind of world we want. In his speech, Zuckerberg said that one of his main goals is to “uphold as wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible”. Yet our freedoms are not only an end in themselves, they’re also the means to another end – as you say here in the US, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But today these rights are threatened by hate, conspiracies and lies.
  • Allow me to leave you with a suggestion for a different aim for society. The ultimate aim of society should be to make sure that people are not targeted, not harassed and not murdered because of who they are, where they come from, who they love or how they pray.
  • If we make that our aim – if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses – then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine in history, we can save democracy, we can still have a place for free speech and free expression, and, most importantly, my jokes will still work.
  • Thank you all very much  —  

Sasha Baron Cohen



In my quest to expand relationships and at the pressure of many customers and friends to join their teams of  so-called  friends,  associates and acquaintances,  I succumbed to those who suggested my entire world would change after I joined FACEBOOK. It did and I regretted it.

I met more whores, titty, twerking,  dating and mental masterbation in pictures  on line in one day simply because I was widowed and single. My mistake was filing in the profile.  Then I tried to bow out. Took me two weeks.

And I got more junk mail for products and services than a normal person can handle.   It was a distraction, for nothing, it was not good for business, it opened doors to a lot of dead ends. I was not inclined to spend my days in the Mad Hatters Maze and make them rename it to "Alan in Wonderland" !

It was a haven for imaginary friends.  I suppose it's OK to have imaginary friends if you have an imaginary life.  But most of my friends and business associates whom I communicate normally and privately with, that is the real ones, I care a great deal about and like talking with them.  Part of language is communication and your voice and tone is a dead giveaway Luckily I saw this pattern quickly, and imagine the good I could have done with that time.  When a little investigation explained the trash mail and offers I do not need, that was it.  I guess it was the gal proudly showing me pictures of raking her back yard that I realized how frikken stupid this crew has become.

I value real friends and customers who pick up a phone, see how you are doing and wish you well.  It's so nice to hear a friendly voice.  So, back to 2010 when I dumped them with help from the legal pages posted under “ How to escape from Facebook", I happily hit the SUBMIT button for permanent removal. See YAHHHHHHHH.  

Oh I killed The Linked-in and Plaxo, the others they dumped me on too without asking and hopefully enough did not get through to the Gogglers and the other data miners. A goggler is a myopic Googler. Today, May 26th the Congress is "interviewing the President of Face Book" for simpler guidance and information disclosures.  Thats like a discussion with "Attila the Hun" on cake bake sales or asking Val the Impaler does he prefer Bamboo or Young Oak for impaling.


01/2022  —  HELLO, META  —  CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Thursday that Facebook the company is changing its name to Meta to reflect its growing focus on the metaverse. “From now on, we're going to be the Metaverse first, not Facebook first,” Zuckerberg said at the company's annual Connect Conference Thursday.  Are all wealthy people like this frikken arrogant scumbag?

FACEBOOK  — 50 Million Facebook Users Might Have Had Their Data Gathered And Used Improperly By A Political Research Organization And When The Smoke Clears - 50 Million Good Hits At Three Cents A Hit Equals If I Did The Math Right,  1.5 Million Dollars And Who Else Got Their Hands On It?


Class A Report CEO Mark Zuckerberg has drawn plenty of fire for being conspicuously silent since the news came out this week that as many as 50 million were compromised.

But any calls to admonish or even replace the 33-year-old chief executive would be extremely difficult, analysts and experts say.

That's because of Facebook's controversial dual-class stock structure that gives Zuckerberg a majority voting power of the stock. According to The Economist, Zuckerberg owns just about 16% of Facebook's stock, but controls 60% of the voting rights since the class B shares he owns convey 10 times the votes as the class A shares. 

WHISTLE BLOWER EXPOSED  —  The identity of the Facebook whistleblower who released tens of thousands of pages of internal research and documents — leading to a firestorm for the social media company in recent weeks — was revealed on "60 Minutes" Sunday night as Frances Haugen.

The 37-year-old former Facebook product manager who worked on civic integrity issues at the company says the documents show that Facebook knows its platforms are used to spread hate, violence and misinformation, and that the company has tried to hide that evidence. 

"The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook, and Facebook over and over again chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money," Haugen told "60 Minutes." 

"60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelly quoted one internal Facebook (FB) document as saying: "We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world.” 

Haugen, who started at Facebook in 2019 after previously working for other tech giants like Google (GOOGL GOOGLE) and Pinterest (PINS), is set to testify on Tuesday before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security.

"I've seen a bunch of social networks, and it was substantially worse at Facebook than anything I've seen before," Haugen said. "At some point in 2021, I realized I'm going to have to do this in a systemic way, that I'm going to have to get out enough [documents] that no one can question that this is real." 

Facebook has aggressively pushed back against the reports, calling many of the claims "misleading" and arguing that its apps do more good than harm.   "Every day our teams have to balance protecting the ability of billions of people to express themselves openly with the need to keep our platform a safe and positive place," Facebook spokesperson Lena Pietsch said in a statement to CNN Business immediately following the "60 Minutes" interview. "We continue to make significant improvements to tackle the spread of misinformation and harmful content. To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true." 

SIDEBAR:  Solution  —  It’s time to breakup Facebook, even dismiss Facebook, and bring some sense into the monster and if it means hanging a few execs out in the wilderness with a rope around their necks so be it , the harm has been done. But it should not go on.

FACEBOOK GRILLED BY SENATE OVER COMPANY'S IMPACT ON KIDS  —   "One of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is that it is optimizing for content that gets engagement, a reaction, but its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it's easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions," she said. She added that the company recognizes that "if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they'll click on less ads, and — as we always say follow the money  —


Facebook's Pietsch said in her Sunday night statement that the platform depends on "being used in ways that bring people closer together" to attract advertisers, adding, "protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits.”    In an internal memo obtained by the New York Times earlier Sunday, Clegg disputed claims that Facebook contributed to the January 6 riot.

"Social media has had a big impact on society in recent years, and Facebook is often a place where much of this debate plays out," Clegg said in the memo. "So it's natural for people to ask whether it is part of the problem. But the idea that Facebook is the chief cause of polarization isn't supported by the facts."

Haugen said that while "no one at Facebook is malevolent ... the incentives are misaligned."

"Facebook makes more money when you consume more content. People enjoy engaging with things that elicit an emotional reaction," she said. "And the more anger that they get exposed to, the more they interact and the more they consume.”   

“  Davis, who identified herself as a mother and former teacher, also pushed back on the idea that the report was a "bombshell" and did not commit to releasing a full research report, noting potential "privacy considerations." She said Facebook is "looking for ways to release more research.”

SIDEBAR  TRANSLATION  —  This statement means she needs more time to make up better lies  —  Listening to her was like listening to Ilse Koch, "The Bitch of Buchenwald”. A lying turnoff.  Just smoke, no truth.  Just hang the bitch with the rest of them.  If just one kid has been harmed in their environment —  

“If you need to do more research on this, you should fire everyone you paid to do research,” replied Markey. “IG stands for Instagram, but it also stands for Insta-greed.”

"For 2.5 hours, Ms. Davis offered evasions and misdirections, but refused to commit to a single substantive change or even greater transparency," Josh Golin, executive director at Fairplay, a child advocacy group formerly known as the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, said in a statement Thursday. "She also continued to push the fiction that Facebook's interest in Instagram Kids is driven by concern for children's safety when the company's own leaked documents make clear it's part of a larger strategy for growth and to compete with TikTok and Snap for young users.

“While Facebook publicly denies that Facebook is harmful for teens, privately Facebook experts and researchers have been ringing the alarm for years,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

Shortly afterward, the Journal published a more comprehensive series of slides than those that were released by Facebook, including a slideshow called “Teen Girls Body Image and Social Comparison on Instagram.” 

That report included a study showing that 66 percent of teen girls and 40 percent of teen boys on Instagram “experience negative social comparison.” When teen girls felt bad about their bodies, 32 percent said Instagram made them feel worse, according to the slides shared by the Journal. 

Davis said Facebook was trying to release more of its Instagram studies but did not provide a concrete commitment or timeline.                                         ED:   PISSED OFF SIDEBAR:  They pay this lying bitch?


In a rare move, US District Judge Richard Seeborg rejected the Department of Justice's recommendation of probation, and sentenced 71-year-old Michael Anthony Gallagher to four months behind bars.   Gallagher "spent some four years sending dozens of racist death threats on personalized, handmade postcards," the Mercury Newsreported Friday. 

He pleaded guilty in August to mailing a threatening postcard, signed "KKK," to California Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is Black. Gallagher's threat to Waters was among at least 75 he sent to politicians across the country who were critical of former president Donald T-RUMP. 

ED: In Al’s world four years of letters gets you four years of incarceration and the removal of your balls. As far as leniency goes, I would give him two Tylenol an hour early before we snipped him.

“We’re going to hang your head off the Washington Monument, you piece of Communist (expletive)," Gallagher once wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  He also threatened to shoot Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. 

Nevertheless, Assistant US Attorney Joseph Tartakovsky recommended a term of one year of probation. 

Proving once again “ Having a set of balls is not a requirement for employment at the DOJ.

“This is based on a number of factors, beginning with Mr. Gallagher’s prompt admission of guilt and genuine contrition, which includes his statement to an agent after the search of his house that he had been ‘scared straight,’" Tartakovsky wrote. “Other factors include his age, his lack of a prior record, the absence of evidence that he had any intent actually to carry out any of his threats, his insignificant likelihood of re-offending, and the sufficiency of the conviction itself to provide general and specific deterrence.”   What a Frikken crock of sh*t! — 

In an apology letter, Gallagher wrote: “Throughout the last presidency, I was impacted by the political polarization of our country. That’s when I started on the reproachable path of mailing threatening postcards, for which I am painfully sorry and ashamed.  I think I believed I was sending a message about my political views. But now I realize that these views and my conduct were terribly misguided and shameful.”   

Because the MF got caught, his contrition was not in the language he sent our Congress people, thus I do not believe those were his words.    Wasn’t enough, I do not care how sorry he is, like all the others when they get caught they find Jesus and are sorry for what they did.  He did damage for four years and provoked others with his rhetoric. And — It’s obvious his script, he was told what to say by his attorneys.   Anywhere else in this world he might not be breathing in March.

And—   I personally would volunteer to step forward with a pair of bull ball removal pliers and cut his balls off in public as a message to others,  “ Balls Have Meanings”  and a Registered Letter to the head of the KKK with a short note:  “ You are next” — 

INVESTIGATORS - MOTIVE IN TEXAS SYNAGOGUE HOSTAGE SITUATION —  The hostage-taker at the synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, Saturday was believed by US law enforcement to be motivated by the imprisonment of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani who is serving an 86-year sentence at a prison in Fort Worth. She was arrested by US forces in Afghanistan almost a decade and half ago, yet her arrest continues to reverberate today.

Screen Shot 2022-01-16 at 7.30.23 AM

Siddiqui's attorney, Marwa Elbially, released a statement Saturday condemning the hostage-taking at Congregation Beth Israel and urging the person responsible to release the hostages and turn himself in to law enforcement.  To most Americans Siddiqui is an obscure figure, but among Islamist terrorists the mother of three is an icon. 

After ISIS kidnapped American journalist James Foley in Syria in 2012 the terrorists sent an email to Foley's family in August 2014 demanding the release of Siddiqui.  In 2009, US soldier Bowe Bergdahl was taken hostage by the Taliban in Afghanistan. One of the key Taliban demands for Bergdhal's release was Siddiqui being freed from US custody. 

Siddiqui, a slight Pakistani in her mid-thirties, was arrested in eastern Afghanistan in July 2008. US officials said she was carrying documents about the manufacture of "dirty bombs," which are radiological weapons. They said she was also carrying notes about attacks against New York City landmarks such as the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Siddiqui, who lived in the United States between 1991 and 2002, graduated from top US universities with a degree in biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a PhD in neuroscience from Brandeis

ED: — AAFIA SIDDIQUI  AKA  “ LADY AL QUEDA” — Aafia Siddiqui is a Pakistani neuroscientist who was convicted of multiple felonies. She is serving an 86-year sentence at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.  Siddiqui was born in Pakistan to a Sunni Muslim family.

Born: March 2, 1972 (age 49 years), Karachi, Pakistan
Education: Brandeis UniversityMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Houston
Parents: Muhammad Salay Siddiqui
Ismet Faroochi

  • On the evening of 17 July 2008, a woman was approached by Ghazi Province police officers in the city of Ghazni outside the Ghazni governor's compound. She was holding two small bags at her side while crouching on the ground. This aroused the officer's suspicion, raising concerns that she might be concealing a bomb under her burqa.
  • Previously, a shopkeeper had noticed a woman in a burqa drawing a map, which is suspicious in Afghanistan where women are generally illiterate. There had also been a report that a Pakistani woman in a burqa with a boy were traveling in Afghanistan urging women to volunteer for suicide bombing.
  • She was accompanied by a young boy that she said was her adopted son. She said her name was Saliha, that she was from Multan in Pakistan, and that the boy's name was Ali Hassan.  Discovering that she did not speak either of Afghanistan's main languages, Pashtu or Dari, the officers regarded her as suspicious.   The woman was not identified as Siddiqui until after hospitalized and fingerprinted. 
  • In a bag she was carrying, the police found a number of documents in English and Urdu describing how to make explosives, chemical weapons, Ebola, dirty bombs, and radiological agents (which discussed the mortality rates of certain weapons), and handwritten notes referring to a "mass casualty attack" that listed various US locations. The Globe also mentioned one document about a "theoretical" biological weapon that did not harm children. 
Screen Shot 2022-01-16 at 7.26.14 AM
  • She also reportedly had documents about American military bases, excerpts from a bomb making manual, a one-gigabyte digital media storage device that contained over 500 electronic documents (including correspondence referring to attacks by "cells", describing the US as an enemy, and discussing recruitment of jihadists and training).
  • Maps of Ghazni and the provincial governor's compounds and nearby mosques, and photos of members of the Pakistani military.  Other notes described various ways to attack enemies, including by destroying reconnaissance drones, using underwater bombs, and using gliders.
  • She also had "numerous chemical substances in gel and liquid form sealed in bottles and glass jars", according to the later complaint against her, and about two pounds of sodium cyanide, a highly toxic poison.  
  • US prosecutors later said that sodium cyanide is lethal even when ingested in small doses (even less than five milligrams), and various of the other chemicals she had could be used in explosives.  Abdul Ghani, Ghazni's deputy police chief, said she later confessed she had planned a suicide attack against the governor of Ghazni Province.
  • American authorities said that two FBI agents, a US Army warrant officer, a US Army captain, and their US military interpreters arrived in Ghazni the following day on 18 July to interview Siddiqui at the Afghan National Police facility where she was being held. They reported they congregated in a meeting room that was partitioned by a curtain, but did not realise that Siddiqui was standing unsecured behind the curtain. The warrant officer sat down and put his loaded M4 carbine on the floor by his feet near the curtain.
  • Siddiqui drew back the curtain, picked up the rifle, and pointed it at the captain. "I could see the barrel of the rifle, the inner portion of the barrel of the weapon; that indicated to me that it was pointed straight at my head," he said. Then, she was said to have threatened them loudly in English, and yelled "Get the fuck out of here" and "May the blood of [unintelligible] be on your [head or hands]”.  
  • The captain dived for cover to his left as she yelled "Allah Akbar" and fired at least two shots at them, missing them.  An Afghan interpreter who was seated closest to her tried to disarm her.
  • At that point the warrant officer returned fire with a 9-millimeter pistol, hitting her in the torso, and one of the interpreters disarmed her. A Justice Department statement said that Siddiqui struck and kicked the officers during the ensuing struggle; "she shouted in English that she wanted to kill Americans" and then lost consciousness.