By Rick Wells

Zuckerberg’s trips to testify before Congress are a theatrical stunt to “legitimize” the next phase of attacks on conservative, patriotic speech. He’ll decide what speech can be heard…

Considering the vast scope of Facebook, effectively a privately owned global public utility monopoly that should be regulated and subject to antitrust scrutiny and sanctions, the upcoming theatrics due to play out this week are very important. The political futures of nations, including our own, may be at stake. With CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress, the all-out effort to prevent President Trump from being reelected through the stifling of the speech of American patriots is entering the next phase.

Once again the phantom Russian boogeyman is being used as a scapegoat, this time for “legitimizing” assaults on free speech, particularly those of conservatives opposed to the globalism of the left, the ideology of the elites Zuckerberg owes for his existence.

When analyzing his statement, it’s helpful to keep it in the context of what it truly is, an attack on conservatives who used the Internet to elect Donald Trump, who defeated the mainstream fake news media in 2016. Zuckerberg, Soros, Bezos and their leftist cabal intend to make certain that is not repeated in 2020. Zuckerberg is, through promises made to Congress, giving himself a blank check to trample on the Constitution and the rights of those he is politically opposed to, those who he will declare to be fake news and arbitrarily censored.

The example of “Diamond and Silk” came to the forefront yesterday, but Zuckerberg has been hitting all of us really since before the election and it’s accelerating on a monthly basis. Many have already been forced out. Many, including yours truly, are little more than a ham and egg sandwich away from that fate. Zuckerberg is attacking us to get to all patriots. And he’s going to Congress, not to be investigated, but to be empowered. After all, most of Congress work for the same people he does.

In his preliminary statement, Zuckerberg first blames Russia and a shadowy organization called the IRA. Not the Irish Republican Army, but the Internet Research Agency, the total impact of which during the last election was a mere 470 accounts and 80,000 Facebook posts over a two-year period. That represents about two minutes of actual Facebook traffic, with their over 2 billion users, but the numbers sound bigger and that is the false foundation upon which the subsequent attacks on free speech are based.

In crafting his speech, Zuckerberg’s writers attempt to make the arrogant little worm seem almost likeable, scripting an insincere, gag-inducing public servant basis for the existence of the company that has made him a multi-billionaire.

It states, “Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring. As Facebook has grown, people everywhere have gotten a powerful new tool to stay connected to the people they love, make their voices heard, and build communities and businesses.” Those who deal with the cutthroats on a daily basis understand just how false those claims are.

He then goes on to throw himself of the mercy of the court and to promise to do his best to eliminate the remnants of free speech that he hasn’t quite gotten to yet.

Zuckerberg says, “But it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as wellThat goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.

It’s not enough to just connect people, we have to make sure those connections are positive. It’s not enough to just give people a voice, we have to make sure people aren’t using it to hurt people or spread misinformation. It’s not enough to give people control of their information, we have to make sure developers they’ve given it to are protecting it too.

Actually it is enough to just connect people, Zuckerberg, without applying leftist filters and preventing people from being heard because their politics don’t match yours or those of George Soros and others. He claims a need to prevent the spread of misinformation, which is a subjective thing. Zuckerberg’s speech to Congress is misinformation in the opinion of this writer, can I deny him his right to spew? In what way has the lying weasel who sells the information of millions of Americans given us control over it without telling us, as his previous assertions claim.

With an eye towards stifling the speech of whatever conservatives they haven’t driven off by the 2020 campaign, Zuckerberg promises an increased investment in “security,” saying “We now have about 15,000 people working on security and content review. We’ll have more than 20,000 by the end of this year.

Ignore the portion of his next statement that deals with “fake accounts,” that’s a smokescreen. The meat is the part where he inhibits their growth. Zuckerberg stated, “We will also require people who manage large pages to be verified as well. This will make it much harder for people to run pages using fake accounts, [or with conservative voices] or to grow virally and spread misinformation or divisive content that way.

So if someone doesn’t agree with Zuckerberg’s leftists and is thereby labeled as spreading misinformation, in support of a conservative or conservative ideas, they won’t be offered the same opportunities for their message to be heard as others, say those supporting commie Democrats, like Kamala “Commiela” Harris or Joe Biden. His premise descends further into idiocy with the assertion that divisive content must be controlled. Few things are more divisive than politics, that’s the nature of the beast, yet he’s going to determine some political speech to be good and some bad? He will control what we hear from which politicians?

Zuckerberg pledges the censorship is coming soon, in time for the 2018 elections. He will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week. There are 55 members on that House committee, 46 of whom received campaign cash from their witness. Many of them are Democrats and RINOs who oppose our freedoms and our current President.

It’s not likely to be the toughest of grillings and the real issue of preventing the reelection of President Trump isn’t likely to come up. We’re not supposed to see what they’re doing, redneck flyover deplorables that we are.


Audio confirms Parkland students being given scripted liberal talking points to push gun control

A meeting between Parkland students and anti-gun activists mobilizing for the highly anticipated March For Our Lives event in Washington, D.C. this weekend was captured on hidden audio Tuesday evening in Broward County, Florida and provided exclusively to DANGEROUS.

The meeting, which was described as a non-partisan briefing for students, parents, and staff members from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who are attending the #MarchForOurLives, was quickly exposed as being hijacked by Democratic Party top brass and fraught with extreme anti-conservative bias, misappropriation of school resources, and heavy-handed coaching for students when dealing with the media.

Held at the Marriott Hotel in Coral Springs, FL, the meeting was organized by Debby Miller, who teaches at Beachside Montessori Village, a Broward County Public School. Miller introduced herself as a representative for the Giffords Foundation, which has decided to fund and sponsor over 200 students, staff, and parents from Parkland, Florida to attend the march in Washington. Miller stated at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting space was donated by the Marriott Hotel.

The Giffords Foundation, a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) non-profit founded by Gabby Giffords, the former Democratic congresswoman from Arizona, describes its mission as, “We research, write and propose policies that make Americans safer and mobilize voters and lawmakers in support of safer gun laws.”

During the meeting, Miller also revealed that “Southwest Airlines has decided to donate all of the seats” for everyone who is traveling to Washington with the Giffords Foundation for the illegal march.

In recent weeks, other airlines have entered into the political battleground where guns are concerned. Following the Parkland shooting, both United and Delta airlines cut their corporate ties to the National Rifle Association following the #BoycottNRA social media campaign that was launched by students in Parkland and liberal activists. However, the cutting of ties by these airlines quickly backlashed after Georgia lawmakers approved a bill that stripped out a $50 million tax break for Delta Air Lines by Republican lawmakers as a result of Delta’s new position on firearms.

Crocodile tears, via New York Times

When contacted for a statement regarding Miller’s claim that Southwest was bankrolling the anti-gun travel, Chris Mainz, a spokesperson for Southwest Airlines said, “That is not true. Southwest airlines is not providing any travel for students.”

Miller, who thought she was speaking to a room full of supporters with no cameras, revealed in the leaked audio what she called “top secret” information about the politically charged march, including Nancy Pelosi’s secret plans to participate in the anti-Trump and anti-Second Amendment protests.

“We’re also going to have things that are not on the agenda that are kind of top secret. So all of the press here just pretend like you’re not hearing this. We will be introduced on Capitol Hill by Nancy Pelosi, so that’s kind of cool. And it’s quite possible we are going to have a private meeting with Joe Biden. Don’t say anything to anyone,” Miller said.

Miller was caught saying to the students, “I want you to feel like it’s going to camp.” That “camp,” completely sponsored by some of the nation’s leading left-wing organizers and lawmakers, comes equipped with activist swag items such as Giffords t-shirts and backpacks. Students are required to wear the Giffords swag while traveling to D.C., Miller told them.

Listen to the full audio below

The other “super off-the-record” comment Miller told the students in attendance is that the Giffords Foundation failed to secure the proper permits that are required in order to hold a large march on Capitol Hill. For this reason, the “march” is illegal, unless they call it a “rally.”

“It was supposed to be a march, but shockingly they wouldn’t give permits for the march, so the march became a rally,” said Miller.

Despite failing to acquire proper permits for the event, Miller encouraged the students to break the law and march to the White House with their signs to “raise hell,” which would make students and other participants subject to arrest.

“Now I’ve heard rumors from kids that since the rally is right on Pennsylvania Avenue and the White

Student LARPers outside the White House this month, via the Wall Street Journal

House is like a twenty minute walk up the street, that that might happen So it’s conceivable that we could leave at the end of the rally and walk to the White House where we rally some more, and hold up our signs and say our piece, and create a little hell. And then go to the [National Education Association] building and have hot chocolate,” said Miller enthusiastically.

When reached for comment by DANGEROUS Miller doubled down, insisting she supports students breaking the law and marching without the required permits.

“I have no problem with civil disobedience,” she told DANGEROUS on Wednesday afternoon.   

In the recording Miller also told students, with full snark, that Republican politicians expressed interest in meeting with them. “Mitch McConnell is threatening to meet with us, not sure if he really means that or not, as is Marco Rubio, so we will see how that one goes.”

Last month at CNN’s so-called Town Hall about gun control in Broward County, CNN’s Jake Tapper sat back as a 17-year-old a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School told the Florida senator, “Senator Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down the barrel on an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz.”

At that event, Students also reportedly shouted “Burn her!” at NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch.

The Tuesday meeting exposes extreme anti-conservative bias as the Giffords Foundation, in coordination with the Broward County Public School System and its teachers, as they attempt to weaponize children for a large scale protest in the nation’s capitol. The adult leftwing activists are also ensuring the student-pawns are as media-savvy as possible.

The audio confirms what conservatives have been saying since the anti-gun media onslaught following the Valentines Day school massacre in Florida: That the Parkland students are in fact being given scripted liberal talking points to push gun control.

Smokin’ hot gun babe Dana Loesch, on fire in Florida.

“The media and reporters and legislators are going to listen to sound bites. That’s how they are going to hear you. They are going to hear you in bites. In little pieces. So you need to have your talking points ready,” Miller told students.

In perhaps the most bizarre comment of the evening, Miller was also caught on the audio recording insinuating that Jews control the politicians in D.C.

“I would say something about the politicians if the Jews were in charge of the weather, but that’s not right.”

When asked about the strange comment, Miller told DANGEROUS she is Jewish and “the truth is, I wasn’t really thinking about it. I was just making a joke.”

Miller also admitted on tape to abusing tax-payer resources designated for the operation of Broward County Public Schools. With a wink and a nod, Miller laughingly told attendees how she used school resources to print off nearly 200 copies of Giffords Foundation itineraries to organize the political event.

“If you don’t have an itinerary, it’s because when I got up to like 200, my principal was like, “I’m assuming that’s not for school,” and I was like “hmmm sure it is.”

When asked about her misuse of taxpayer resources to print propaganda, Miller said, “I was kidding. I was trying to be funny. I have never used the school printer for anything.”

Miller also told DANGEROUS she is not being paid by Giffords’s foundation.

A copy of the official #MarchForOurLives itinerary obtained by DANGEROUS’s Laura Loomer indicates that the Giffords Foundation has organized a three day leftwing political bonanza for the soon-to-be voting-age students.

Besides the failed march turned rally, the students will be participating in tours of several museums, group dinners, a press conference at the U.S. Capitol where Nancy Pelosi is expected to introduce them, a private meeting with Joe Biden, student delegation meetings on Capitol Hill, a Giffords student delegation luncheon at the Newseum, a “Stay Loud” concert at the Anthem in Washington, Ice Cream socials, pizza parties, a meeting with the National Education Association, and a tour of the monuments.

The official itinerary also notes the anti-gun protesters will be traveling with “plain clothed” private security officers who will be fully armed. Yes, with guns.■

Listen to the leaked recording here:

Laura Loomer is a conservative investigative journalist and activist. Originally from Arizona, Laura began her career working as an undercover journalist for Project Veritas from 2015-2017. She covers politics, anti-Semitism, immigration, terrorism, the Islamification of the West, and voter fraud. Loomer’s investigations have been broadcasted on every major national mainstream media outlet in the United States, as well as many international publications.

Dems eliminating superdelegates from nominating process? Dreams of Sanders-Warren…



On March 19,  Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will host a town meeting about income inequality that will feature Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), film producer and director Michael Moore and the New School economics professor Derrick Hamilton.

This subject is one of the most important issues facing all Americans in their daily lives. It strikes at the heart of the matter of jobs, wages, economic opportunity and the core fairness of the American economy.

In my column this week in The Hill, I urged Democrats to focus intensely on uniting the party and winning control of the House and Senate in November, in the most important midterm elections in a century.

Let’s consider the Democratic options for the presidential ticket in the 2020 elections, with emphasis on the possibility of a Democratic ticket in 2020 of Sanders for president and Warren for vice president.


Let’s consider three hypothetical Democratic tickets in 2020, which provide alternate models for how Democrats could regain the presidency and govern alongside a Democratic House and Senate after the presidential election.

Democrats are blessed with a large number of excellent potential candidates in 2020 and should consider and confront the mythology spread by Republicans and some insider Democrats that the most progressive Democratic candidates are not the most electable Democratic candidates.

The first model for a Democratic ticket in 2020 would be led by Sanders and Warren. This would be the progressive populist ticket offering the most bold and sweeping agenda.

The second model for a Democratic ticket would be led by former Vice President Joe Biden, running with a vice-presidential nominee such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on a ticket that combines vast presidential calibre experience and a widely respected younger generation progressive leader.

The third model for a Democratic ticket would be led by Rep. Joe KennedyIII (D-Mass.), a rising star of House Democrats, running with a vice presidential nominee such as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who formerly served as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus in Congress, or Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

This ticket would offer a bold and daring move for dramatic political and generational change.

Behind the scenes of the national Democratic Party, it is commonly accepted wisdom, though not proven by facts, that the most progressive candidates are not the most electable candidates. In some states and districts this might be true.

But, in terms of winning the national popular vote and an electoral vote majority, there is a credible case that the most clearly progressive and politically aggressive Democrats can indeed win, and potentially win big.

The most important and powerfully persuasive data in modern American politics is that virtually every poll in 2016 showed Sanders defeating Donald Trump by 10 percent or more. In the Real Clear Politics summary of 2016 polling, Sanders ran ahead of Trump by an average margin of more than 10 percent and often by much larger margins.

Whether one supports Sanders or any other potential candidate in 2020, the case is clear that a strong progressive program and message would give Democrats a decided advantage in any campaign against the scandal-ridden and crony-capitalist-dominated presidency of Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

The town meeting that will bring national attention to Sanders, Warren and Moore will dramatize why most voters will economically and financially benefit by a program that maximizes income equality, economic justice and fairness and economic opportunity for poor and middle-income voters in red and blue states alike.

While I could support Sanders, Warren or any of the progressive Democratic change candidates who could run on the ticket in 2020, it is important to disabuse the false notion, which is contrary to the facts demonstrated by national polling throughout 2016 and beyond, that progressive candidates are less electable.

Americans want a clear message of progressive change and would enthusiastically support a Sanders-Warren ticket, or any other ticket running on a similar program in 2020.

Whoever the Democratic nominee in 2020 is, he or she should, and almost certainly will, run a visionary and aggressive campaign that promises to bring the next great era of progressive leadership to America and could well realign American politics for a generation after the post-Trump era.

Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the U.S. House of Representatives. He holds an LLM in international financial law from the London School of Economics.

Soros & the £400k Question: What constitutes ‘foreign interference’ in democracy?

By Neil Clark

You’d have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh. The news that US billionaire Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day that YouTube said they found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit.

Repeat After Me (with robotic arm movements): “Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group – that’s no problem; it’s helping our democracy!”

You don’t have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we’ve been bombarded with Establishment-approved conspiracy theories – peddled in all the ’best’ newspapers – that Russia somehow ‘fixed’ Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning plot by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the ‘free world.’

Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms, seemed taken in by it. “By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin’s dream of the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation,” the noble Lord declared in July.

Never mind that we don’t have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly what The Vlad is thinking.

And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are “propaganda arms of the Russian government,” ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got Britain to vote ‘leave.’ The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference in Brexit. But it didn’t come from Moscow.

Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 11.48.43 AM

The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that if Britain exited the EU it would be “at the back of the queue” for trade deals with the US.

Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.

Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’ group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley – £250,000 each.

Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): “This is not foreign interference… This is not foreign interference!”

Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 11.49.37 AM

The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors to explode.

Let’s think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben Bradshaw told Parliament that it was highly probable that Russia had interfered with Brexit.

Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube’s public policy, Juniper Downs, said her company “had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference.”

Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a “Russian troll factory,” which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit – amounting to less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received “very low levels of engagement” from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets to persuade us to vote ‘leave,’ they didn’t really put much effort into it, did they?

Finally, Facebook said that only three “Kremlin-linked” accounts were found which spent the grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater “interference”? 72p or £400K? Erm… tough call, isn’t it?

You might have thought, given his concern with ‘foreign interference’ in British politics, that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging ‘Best for Britain’ to return George Soros’ donation. Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily Telegraph, and the BBC’s coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about ‘Russia meddling in Brexit’ but not Soros’ intervention aren’t concerned about ‘foreign interference’ in UK politics, only ‘foreign interference’ from countries they don’t approve of.

Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said: “Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him.”

That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except to shoot the messenger.

If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by ‘liberals’ and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. “I don’t know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They’ve attacked us. They’re trying to undermine our democracy,” film director Rob Reiner said.

But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.

While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over ‘Russiagate’ and getting terribly excited over ‘smoking guns’ which turn out – surprise, surprise – to be damp squibs, there’s been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe Biden on how he got the allegedly ‘independent’ Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor general in a few hours. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money…”

“I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars,” Biden said during a meeting of the US’ Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a b***h. He got fired.”

Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he used financial inducements to get another country’s Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson could be heard discussing who should or shouldn’t be in the new ‘democratic’ government of another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraineand the US Assistant Secretary of State doing exactly that in 2014 – and the ‘Russia is interfering in the Free World!’ brigade were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.

It’s fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that’s currently on show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian interference – Bad. Proven interference from other external sources – Good. What’s your problem?

Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66




In an epic final speech, Joe Biden warns that the progressive democratic world order is at risk of collapse

Vice President Joe Biden delivered an epic final speech Wednesday to the elites at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The gist of his speech was simple: At a time of “uncertainty” we must double down on the values that made Western democracies great, and not allow the “liberal world order” to be torn apart by destructive forces.

Biden went after Russian President Vladimir Putin by name, saying he is using “every tool” in his power to whittle away the European project, and undermine Western democracies. Biden accused Putin of wanting to “roll back decades of progress.”

Biden said Russia used “cyber aggression” to meddle in the U.S. election, an assertion supported by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. He also warned that we will see further interference from Russia in the future and said the “purpose is clear” — that Putin wants to see a “collapse of the international order.”

“Simply put, Putin has a different vision of the future,” the vice president warned.

At the outset of his speech, Biden implored the media to not hear his speech as a shot at President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on Friday. And, while what Biden said applies broadly to leaders in Europe, as well as the United States, there is no mistaking that his comments were a rebuttal to Trump’s friendly statements about the Russian president.

At a time when Trump and his advisors are talking about shaking up NATO, Biden said, we must “support our NATO allies. An attack on one is an attack on all. That can never be placed in question.”

Biden also warned that unlike Trump’s call for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, it’s not the time to build walls and live in fear.

Biden implored world leaders to work together to protect democracy from encroachments by Russia, Iran and others. Yet, Trump’s world view is “America First,” which runs counter to Biden’s view.

Biden didn’t merely urge the world leaders at Davos to maintain the status quo. He warned that the reason for the pressure on the democratic order is the rise in income inequality and the hollowing out of the middle class, as the rich get richer and people in developing nations see their lives gradually improve.

He said the top 1 percent is not paying their fair share, and as a result we are seeing social instability increase.

“We need to tap into the big heartedness,” Biden said. “This is a moment to lead boldly.”

See also: Biden to Davos: The 1% needs to pay up or else…