VIDEO: ‘Afghan refugee’ shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ charges German Chancellor Angela Merkel

By Kyle Olson

German Chancellor Angela Merkel loves the Muslim refugees flooding into her country — but there may be one less in that category after a man charged her shouting “Allahu Akbar” this week.

Video shows Merkel exiting a building and approaching an awaiting car as a belligerent man being wrestled to the ground by security forces.

The man is reportedly an Afghan refugee. reports (translated):

It happened on Wednesday morning at the exit of the Berlin Reichstag building. After her re-election, Merkel was about to get into her limousine when the stranger ran towards her . After all that has happened in European cities in recent years, after all the assassinations and knife attacks, often accompanied by “Allahu Akbar” calls, the scene had to scare anyone who stood by or watched the scene on a video screen.

The news site reports the 23-year-old man is from Afghanistan.

But the Germans appear to be in denial about his motive.

According to media reports, his surge towards the chancellor and shouting “Allahu Akbar” was “not political.”

The man was reportedly not known to police.

When the camera panned back to Markel, she had already entered the car, apparently not interested in stopping to give the poor refugee an embrace.

Pew Forum reports Germany has let in 1.2 million asylum seekers.

Of those, 900,000, or 74 percent are Muslim.


Gaetz wants Sessions to ‘RENOUNCE’ his recusal, FORCE Mueller to put out his evidence!

Rep. Gaetz appears to have given up on getting Sessions fired, and now he wants Sessions to “renounce” his recusal, reinstate his power over the Department of Justice, and force Mueller to put out whatever evidence he has.

Watch below:

It’s interesting how they toss out trial balloons. It’s probably an attempt to persuade Sessions, and thus far, he has been unpersuadable. Unfortunately for Trump, he picked a guy with real principles that he believes in and sticks to. He basically has to fire him.

Here’s the rest of the interview:

#DeleteFacebook trending as users fume over Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal

The hashtag #DeleteFacebook is trending, after it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica bought data harvested from 50 million Facebook users and used it to target voters during the 2016 US presidential election.

The data mining was revealed on Saturday by the Observer, which found that the firm – which worked with Donald Trump’s election team – worked with a company called Global Science Research to obtain the data. Cambridge Analytica has denied knowing the data was improperly gathered.

Facebook users weren’t exactly thrilled to find out that they had been analyzed in such a way. They’ve now taken to Twitter to express their anger under the hashtag #DeleteFacebook. The campaign is calling for users to unsubscribe from everything related to Facebook, including Instagram and WhatsApp.

Stock market trader and political analyst @Ian56789 accused Facebook of being “part of the Big Brother system of control,” while referencing George Orwell’s novel ‘1984.’ He added that it sells data to governments and corporations, manipulates what see and don’t see online, and “even tries to manipulate your current mood.”


Author and physician Rachel Clarke took to Twitter to deliver a reversed version of the age-old break-up line to Facebook.“It’s not me, it’s you. Goodbye,” she wrote.


Stand-up comedian Joe Heenan brought a bit of humor to the situation, saying that deleting Facebook would take away his ability to see “racist comments” from people he hated in high school.


Meanwhile, Mark Davyd, founder and CEO of the Music Venue Trust in the UK, noted the irony of #DeleteFacebook trending on Twitter. In true music industry fashion, he highlighted that irony by including a screenshot from the music video of Alanis Morissette’s smash 1996 hit ‘Ironic.’

Others took the opportunity to share their experience with deleting Facebook, encouraging others to do the same. “I deleted Facebook New Year‘s Eve 2014. It was the best decision I’ve made and I can safely say I do not miss it. Life is so much better without it,” Twitter user @CEdwardsEsq wrote.

“I deleted my Facebook account over a year ago and noticed a very real drop in anxiety. I…hadn’t realised how deeply entrenched I had become in what is essentially an addictive game with shit graphics,” Twitter user Kavus Torabi wrote.


However, journalist and author Fabio Chiusi was less optimistic about the effect of deleting Facebook. “#DeleteFacebook if you wish, but please don’t pretend this is a solution to surveillance capitalism. What we need is a restructuring of the data economy, not opening up a market for the next Facebook – which, btw, will be as bad, without changing the rules of the game.”


Whether those who are deleting their Facebook accounts will stick to their commitment over the long-term remains unknown. For many, the desire to receive Happy Birthday messages from people they never speak to may prove to be too strong.


Meanwhile, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg continues to remain silent while the company deals with a 6.77 percent drop in shares as a result of the breach. The drop knocked $36 billion off the company’s valuation, and $5.5 billion off Zuckerberg’s personal fortune, according to Forbes’ live tracker of the world’s wealthiest people.

Toxic nothingburger: Cambridge Analytica exposé is dangerous political attack posing as journalism

Seeing Donald Trump’s media and political critics, who for years feted “big data,” suddenly pretend it’s a crime, is hard to stomach. And the feigned outrage is being used as a weapon of establishment control over social media.

READ MORE: US Federal Trade Commission to probe Facebook for use of personal data – Bloomberg

Before being repackaged by two leading liberal-leaning outlets to produce a media firestorm that has wiped tens of billions off Facebook’s valuation and could usher in a new wave of investigations and regulation, the actual facts of Cambridge Analytica’s data collection had been known since 2015. What has changed is the language: what the Guardian called “psychological profiling” and “behavioral microtargeting” before Donald Trump was elected, in the latest reports from the same newspaper becomes “psyops,” the sinister-sounding “harvesting,” the alarming “data breach,” and most gloriously “Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare mindf**k tool.”


Behind the grand claims, the germ of the story remains – by tech standards – almost disappointingly quotidian. In 2014, the upstart data analysis company Cambridge Analytica developed a psychological quiz app that over 270,000 users of the world’s biggest social network downloaded and completed. As well as passing their own data to the UK-headquartered firm, the test-takers agreed to share limited information about their friends – age, location and likes – as in line with Facebook’s policy at the time, producing the much-cited but unverified figure of 50 million users that were profiled.

Mark Zuckerberg © Stephen Lam / Reuters

Whether and to what extent this constituted legal wrongdoing or a violation of service terms is still to be ruled on. Facebook says that users “knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked” and that Cambridge Analytica merely used the data beyond its original purpose, and was told to delete it, and has suspended it from its platform. Cambridge Analytica counters that it was misled and got rid of the data as it was instructed. Facebook argues that it did not violate its users’ self-selected privacy settings when it gave away their data, though regulators may argue otherwise.

But despite the lengths of text expended, none of this is a “gotcha”moment. Thousands of apps, including those with a wider user base, such as Tinder or Farmville, also collected the same data from Facebook through the same consent protocols, until the company changed its policy in April 2015, and similar information is still being directly gathered from users who decide to download apps today, or even simply log into a website using Facebook. Just check your own list of apps on the network and see how many firms you are letting “scrape” your personal info – all voluntarily.

It is also unclear if the data swayed any key election. In the 2016 cycle it was first employed by Ted Cruz, whose campaign barely dented frontrunner Trump’s popularity, and then by Trump himself. The work it did for the winning candidate, as described by both their CEO Alexander Nix and the New York Times piece, also seems standard-issue rather than ingenious or devious – designing who to target with fund-raising and voting appeals, research modeling, and data-driven campaigning, such as deciding where Trump and Pence should canvass. The much-vaunted psychographics – which contentiously claim to be able to understand people through their personal preferences and other indirect data – were not even used in 2016, according to Nix, as there wasn’t enough time. In fact, while he says that Cambridge Analytica played a “pivotal” role in helping to get a lackadaisical campaign moving, the company insists it did not deploy the 2014 Facebook data at all in Trump’s march to the White House.

Cambridge Analytics CEO Alexander Nix / Reuters

It used to be cool once

The more interesting part of the story – and, ironically, the real “psychological warfare mindf**k tool” – is how the concerning but dry, old and not particularly secret revelations have been pitched up into a hysteria.

The secret ingredient is persistence – growing allegations delivered in an ever more shrill tone.

The Guardian, in particular, has repeatedly tried to pin down Cambridge Analytica, particularly with its piece in May last year, headlined“The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked,” which earned it a defamation lawsuit from the data company. Though Cambridge Analytica has been culpable itself, happy to play up to its shadowy all-powerful puppet master image, as long as it got them notoriety and clients, and now left furiously tweeting denials when it may be too late.


Last month, the New York Times was wondering if firms like Cambridge Analytica made a difference; now it declares the “operation at the heart of Trump’s campaign was ethically nihilistic and quite possibly criminal in ways that even its harshest critics hadn’t suspected.”

“Has the rise of micro-targeting become a threat to democracy?”inquires the Guardian, adding in its claims against Facebook that “Frankenstein’s monster is not under any human’s control.”

The concern seems somewhat new-found.

Here is another article from the same newspaper, from 2012 under the headline “Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship” – which even social media fans would find a little Orwellian.

Enthusiastically, it describes as “consciously or otherwise, the individual [Obama campaign] volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.” Sound familiar?


There are dozens of perfectly accessible articles across most mainstream media, detailing with enthusiasm, Barack Obama becoming the first Twitter president, his campaign using people’s DVR histories to determine which voters to target (doesn’t seem to be much consent there) or his “audacious adventure in persuasion” that selected potentially pliable voters, who would then be persistently called and doorstepped by campaigners. Evidently, micro-targeting wasn’t as much of a threat to democracy from him (or Hillary Clinton).

Shadows of other recent partisan campaigns lurk everywhere.

The Guardian has published an article highlighting the links between Aleksandr Kogan, the data scientist at the heart of the to-and-fro between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and St. Petersburg University, Vladimir Putin’s alma mater.

Adam Schiff, the Democrat House representative, has asked Christopher Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica employee who fleshed out the weekend’s exposés with his colorful personal tales, to testify in Congress as part of the Russia meddling allegations, though there appears to be no tangible link.

First they came for Cambridge Analytica

Yet, however sexed up the news value of the story, or murky its motivations, it has broken through. Theresa May is “very concerned,” UK MPs want Mark Zuckerberg to testify, Cambridge Analytica’s offices will be searched, the US Federal Trade Commission is investigating Facebook, the EU has labeled the allegations “horrifying.” Facebook security officer Alex Stamos is already the first head to roll, leaving the company, and Nix has also offered to resign.

Of course, many will relish a blow to Facebook, a platform vocally disliked even by many of its avid users, regardless of who is delivering it. The issues of data security and privacy still remain uncharted and important for the future, and the California giant has always skirted as close to the line as the law and its users have let it. As for Cambridge Analytica, no one will shed a tear, particularly after the Channel 4 hitpiece on the company, which even if it used entrapment, made its staff look criminal or amateur.

But schadenfreude comes at a price. US social media giants have been under increasing pressure to exert greater control over the content their users see. Whether it is through claims of Russian bots, excessive exposure to RT, pro-AFD groups on Facebook, or Steve Bannon’s banner ads, the establishment, both ruling and media, senses a loss of control over the narrative and the width of the political spectrum. With a single change in its algorithm – either enforced from above to stave off further regulation, and self-inflicted as it tries to save its skin – Facebook could cut off not just a post you don’t want to click, but those you also do. And media-fueled public outrage has always been as good a pathway to censorship as any.