FACEBOOK SAYS RUSSIAN BASED ADS REACHED 10 MILLION AMERICAN USERS

Facebook says an estimated 10 million U.S. users viewed at least one of the over 3000 political ads it says were bought by accounts linked to the Russian government before, during, and after the 2016 election.

 

 

Facebook disclosed the figures for the first time on Monday. Political experts say this shows the effectiveness of Russian meddling with a minimal investment. CNN (@cnn) reports that the ad buyers spent a little over $100,000 over a two year period to target 10 million people, according to the figures that Facebook has provided about the buy ads. That’s an audience equivalent to the state of Michigan. More than half of the ads were seen after the 2016 presidential election, indicating that Russian efforts went well beyond meddling during the campaign, and probably continue to this day.

 

 

44% of the ads were seen before the U.S. election on Nov. 8, 2016. 56% were seen after the election, according to Elliot Schrange, Facebook’s Vice President For Policy & Communications. Schrange acknowledged that it was possible there were more Russian-bought political ads on the network that Facebook has yet to identify.

Advertisements

JAMES BLAKE BEING SUED BY COP WHO WRONGFULLY TACKLED AND ACCOSTED HIM

Pro tennis player James Blake is being sued by NYPD officer James Frascatore. Frascatore tackled Blake and arrested the tennis star in a case of mistaken identity. Frascatore is also suing the police department and the group prosecuting his misconduct case. In court papers Frascatore says city officials did not support him after video of the 2015 incident of him tackling and handcuffing Blake outside of a Manhattan hotel surfaced. Frascatore says Blake painted him as an “out of control and corrupt officer.” Blake wrote a book titled “Ways Of Grace” in which he described the 2015 incident. Frascatore said he was initially suspended, but then placed on desk duty. Frascatore claims that the prosecuting group leaked his disciplinary records to Blake, who then went on to do television interviews where he revealed the officers background, suggesting that he was “somehow a dangerous, violent officer.” By law, disciplinary records of police officers are supposed to be kept private. But as a citizen your records are not. When a police officer runs your identification during a traffic stop, he’ll instantly have the run down on your “disciplinary records.” I guess knowledge of one’s background is only supposed to go one way? Anyway, Frascatore’s lawsuit claims “Blake’s defamatory statements about Officer Frascatore were circulated to millions of readers and viewers in print, and online, and through mobile and social media.”

 

 

Police believed Blake was a suspect in a credit card ring back in 2015 when he was violently tackled and handcuffed by Frascatore, who treated Blake like he was guilty before even asking one question. Blake was later released after police realized they had made a mistake. It was Blake’s name and recognition of being a tennis superstar that probably ultimately led to his release without further legal action being taken by the police department. If this had been me or you, we most certainly would’ve been charged with whatever, and then had to go through the whole court process to prove our innocence. And if you happened to be unlucky enough not to be able to afford an expensive attorney to prove your innocence, then you probably would’ve just been shit out of luck. I’ve seen this movie before. Firsthand. Frascatore’s lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $75,000.

LAVAR BALL PULLING SON LAMELO FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO TRAIN HIM PERSONALLY?

Apparently so. Eric Sondheimer of the LA Times (@latimes) reports that Lamelo will be getting pulled from his Chino Hills High School on Tuesday. Lavar Ball said of the top high school prospect in the Country “I’m going to make him the best basketball player ever.” The 16 year-old will be home-schooled while he trains with his dad. Lamelo Ball once scored 92 points in a game last season. Lavar had been reportedly having some issues with Chino Hills new basketball coach Dennis Latimore. “It’s good for Melo. Less distractions. He just needs to focus.” The elder Ball added. The next time the public will get an opportunity to see Lamelo play will be next spring in “travel ball.” Lavar said Lamelo still intends to attend UCLA after high school. Lavar Ball is the owner of The Big Baller Brand. At only 16 years-old, Lamelo is already signed to his dad’s sneaker company. Lamelo also has his own signature shoe. Eldest Ball brother Lonzo is a rookie with the Los Angeles Lakers. Middle brother Liangelo will be a freshman at UCLA this year. There was some controversy a few months back about if Lamelo would still be able to play high school ball after he signed his sneaker deal. Turns out, he is still eligible to play high school ball. That is not the reason that Lavar is pulling Lamelo from high school. Since the Ball brothers and Papa Lavar have been in the spotlight, Lavar Ball has made some controversial statements and business moves, to say the least. Lavar has been an all-or-nothing gambler from day one. Most people can’t understand that. All some people can see is the “what if things go bad?” All-or-nothing gamblers never consider such things. All they can see is the payoff if things go right. Hate him or love him, Lavar Ball is an all-or-nothing gambler. If these risky moves he’s making should happen to pay off, they’re going to pay off BIG.

IS DOMESTIC TERRORISM A SELECTIVE PHRASE?

Kareem Rahman

 

 

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT ACT, acts of domestic terrorism are those which”(A) involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

 

This is not my definition of domestic terrorism or something I’ve heard. This is the FBI’s official definition of domestic terrorism. When Stephen Paddock fired off round after round from automatic weapons at concertgoers, from his 32nd floor hotel suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel last night at around 10 pm., he was in direct violation of section (A), (B), and (B-i) of the USA PATRIOT ACT. But you already knew that. I doubt that you needed to see the law written in this article to know that Stephen Paddock had committed an act of domestic terrorism. You’re probably not a lawyer or a news reporter. The two types of people, who I’m more than certain know these things by heart, considering their credibility and probably careers depend on knowing these type of things. If we all are aware of that, why was it not reported anywhere that what Stephen Paddock did last night was an act of domestic terrorism? The president of the United States seemed to have trouble bringing himself to call this incident such, as he spoke to the nation this morning. This, from a man who sitting at his desk, in Washington D.C, in the United States Of America, called the train bombing in London earlier this year an act of terrorism before it was even reported by the London authorities. Why is it so much easier for some people to call terrorism when an act comes from a person who does not look like them? It almost seems like some have reserved words like “terrorist” for certain groups of people. Racism is probably the easiest answer to why, but it still baffles me that people can allow themselves to think this way. How? It’s not like this is the first act of domestic terrorism committed in the United States by a “red-blooded, born and raised in the good ole’ U. S. of A., American citizen. So why is it so hard to believe that such a thing could happen? Common sense says that if it can happen once, it can happen again, right? I mean, we did say that we put a man on the moon before. Would it really be so hard to believe that we could send a man up there again? There is definitely some racism in the selective use of words like terrorism. I think that even more than racism, the selective use comes from a need by people to see things through the lens of good vs. evil. In their minds, I think they believe that good and evil is defined by entire races, statuses, or classes of people. When the perpetrator of such a horrendous crime easily falls into the category which they fit in, they feel extreme guilt. Most horrendous acts like this one are done by individuals with evil intentions. The fault does not fall on a whole race, religion, or creed of people for the actions of one, or a few. But this type of thinking does not fit the agenda of some. Therefore, when an action like this takes place, the first separation of self from the act they look for is race. Was the perpetrator of another race other than theirs?? If yes – see, I told you “those people” are animals. That’s why “we” need to get rid of them. If no, they’ll move on to the next separating factor on the list. Religion. Was the perpetrator of a religion other than theirs? If yes – see, I told you “that” religion preaches hate “we” need to get rid of them. If no, move on to the next separating factor on the list. The next and final separating factor on the list is political affiliation. Was the perpetrator of a political affiliation other than theirs? If yes – see, I told you “that” political affiliation is nothing but trouble, “we” need to get rid of them. But what happens when the perpetrator is of the same race, has no religious ties whatsoever, and has no political affiliations at all????? Well, you get what we have going on in the media right now. Selective speaking. People are being extra careful not to throw the “terrorist” label onto this person until they can find out if they can, or can not separate themselves from the perpetrator. The very definition of selective phrasing or wording.