WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eric Schmidt of Google and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook have now openly expressed their open border, anti-Trump sentiments, raising new questions about the political motives behind the Internet giants joining forces with David Brock of Media Matters to wage war on conservative and libertarian media, including Infowars.com.

On Thursday evening, in reporting that the ultra-liberal U.S. Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco had ruled unanimously to uphold the temporary injunction barring enforcement of President Trump’s executive order to block immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries for ninety days, Bloomberg noted the victory was also a victory for Google and Facebook.

Careful observers of the legal process noted Google and Facebook had both signed an “amicus curiae” [“friend of the court”] brief signed by some 100 companies opposing President Trump’s Jan. 27 executive memorandum suspending indefinitely the entry into the United States of refugees from Syria and suspending for 90 days the entry into the United States of refugees from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

The decision of Google and Facebook to sign onto the amicus curiae brief is yet another indication of the ideological chasm that divides the conservative “silent majority” that voted for Donald Trump to be president from the left-leaning supporters of Hilliary Clinton.

In 2016, both Schmidt and Zuckerberg openly supported Clinton for president, with Wikileaks-released emails showing Schmidt had angled to become Hillary’s “head outside adviser” in her presidential race.

As Infowars.com previously reported, Google and Facebook have become co-conspirators, signing onto the “Fake News” war waged by David Brock, the hard-left founder of Media Matters, against conservative and libertarian Internet news media not in lock-step conformity with the hard-left’s political ideology.

That both companies have also joined forces to oppose President Trump on immigration leaves no doubt top executives in both Google and Facebook are comfortable positioning their corporations in alignment with the hard-left’s anti-Trump agenda.

Immediately after President Trump’s executive orders on immigration began surfacing with a Jan. 25 executive order tightening border security and immigration enforcement improvement, Google’s Eric Schmidt spoke out.

Using politically charged language, Schmidt openly attacked Trump on the issue of border security, using a company forum to inform Google employees that President Trump is going to do “evil things as they’ve done in the immigration area.”

Zuckerberg, who pledged $20 million during the 2016 presidential campaign in a failed effort to keep Trump from the White House, joined Schmidt in attacking President Trump on border security.

“Like many of you, I’m concerned about the impact of the recent executive orders signed by President Trump,” Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post dated Jan. 27, in which Zuckerberg noted his immigrant background – that his great grandparents came from Germany, Austria, and Poland.

“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “Expanding the focus of law enforcement beyond people who are real threats would make all Americans less safe by diverting resources, while millions of undocumented folks who don’t pose a threat will live in fear of deportation.”

Zuckerberg also included his wife in the comments, noting that Priscilla’s parents were refugees from China and Vietnam.

“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” he continued. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”

Neither Schmidt nor Zuckerberg addressed the lax enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama administration as a national security problem nor the fact that President Trump’s imposition of a ban on travel from the seven predominately-Muslim countries listed above was a temporary ban.

Even with Syria, President Trump’s executive order noted the ban was of indefinite length, but was not specified to be permanent.


Related Articles


Comments