Post anonymously on our new forum

Dave Van Zandt

A.k.a. David E. Van Zandt
Academic, Blogger, Globalist / Male / Center-Left

Dave Van Zandt is a center-left Academic and Blogger and Globalist who is a citizen of , and has been associated with the following entities as either a significant contributor, participant, promoter, or beneficiary, according to our OSINT research:

Brands: , ,
Domains: , ,

Google Adsense:

Google Analytics:

Google Analytics (2):

Google Analytics (3):

Google Analytics (4):

Google Analytics (5):

Google Analytics (6):

Google Analytics (7):

Google Analytics (8):

Google Analytics (9):

Google Tag Manager:

Google Tag Manager (2):

Google Tag Manager (3):

Google Tag Manager (4):

Google Tag Manager (5):

Public references:

Review this person (edit or delete anytime):

6 responses to “Dave Van Zandt”

  1. Jesse Nickles says:

    I think Dave does a pretty good job documenting various media outlets while providing clear references and sources. I mean anytime you are categorizing things, you’re going to have a bias, but Dave is honest about his project and his background and is pretty reasonable.

  2. Staff says:

    He is a member of the Globalist Organization called The Council on Foreign Relations or CFR, Don’t Believe a Word He Prints.

  3. Karen Pardue says:

    I really would like and I feel that I and others deserve a response to my comments.

    How did you decide on your definitions of what liberals and conservatives believe? Can you explain this to me?
    I am a conservative as are most of my friends and there beliefs you say are our views and what we stand for are mostly incorrect or might I say biased.
    To name a few of the views you say we have are not the views of the majority of conservatives:

    Do we believe in gay rights?
    Do we believe in the private schools system over public?
    Do we believe ALL abortion is wrong?
    Do we believe that ALL firearms should be legal?
    Do we believe that ALL health care should be private?
    Do we believe that there should be a government “safetynets” in certain situations,
    Do we believe there are many biases in our government?

    To list a few of ourviews are:
    Do we believe that our Constitution is and should be the basis of our government?
    Do we believe the government has overstepped it’s constitutional authority?
    Do we believe that the “rights” of a few should deny the “ rights” of the majority?
    Do we believe that the government is too controlling in our private lives?

    The way you write seems to me liberal oriented with liberal viewpoints being positive and conservatives mostly negative. In fact although I agree sometimes with your opinions I am finding they are very often not unbiased.
    All in all I feel insulted by your opinions of me, my friends and most of my family.

    • Yuri Bezmenov says:

      Your writing is so poorly worded and it’s unclear who you are referring to when you say “we”. Each time you ask, “Do we believe,” it’s not clear if “we” means conservatives as a whole, or if “we” means you plus your family and friends. If “we” is meant to represent conservatives as a whole, well then you are delusional because you don’t speak for conservatives, you speak only for yourself. I doubt your family and friends would want you to speak for them since you’re not the best at clearly articulating your ideas, not to mention your poor use of grammar. Therefore, you should probably allow most of your friends to speak for their own beliefs, rather than allowing yourself to speak on “there[sic] beliefs.”

      Also, the second amendment was meant to allow citizens to protect themselves against a corrupt government, which we see is not only possible, but is likely given enough time. You incorrectly said “firearms”, when the constitution clearly says the right to “keep and bear arms.” There should be absolutely no limits as to what “arms” a citizen should be able to keep in order to bear them as needed against a corrupt government. Anything less than that is an infringement on that right and defeats the intended purpose of the second amendment.

      Lastly, “Do we believe that the “rights” of a few should deny the “rights” of the majority?” is not a common question and you are likely confusing the concept of majority will vs minority rights. We live in a democratic constitutional republic, and will should never trample rights. Rights of the minority, therefore, should always be more important than popular opinion. With that said, however, your rights end where the rights of others begin.

      “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”-Samuel Adams
      As for Dave Van Zandt, he can pretend to be about objectivity all he likes, but he has a left leaning bias and is arrogant as well otherwise he wouldn’t dismiss criticism of mediabias factcheck as coming only from “Highly biased websites that are not always factual don’t like us exposing them.” It’s as if Dave Van Zandt refuses to even entertain any possibility of inherent flaws in his methods or the impact personal biases can have. He tries way too hard to act as though it’s been his noble endeavor to try and bring objectivity to something that is, and always will be, ruled by subjectivity and bias. Anyone so desperate to establish significant influence over what should or shouldn’t be trusted in the media, especially as it relates to politics, is going to be egotistical. In my opinion, the more objective he tries to paint his site the less he is to be trusted. World would be better without the smugness people like Dave bring to it.

    • Toby Keith says:

      No one cares about ANY of this. You’re commenting on an obscure website nobody gives a shit about. Your opinion means nothing to anyone. Congratulations on your ability to type and on your inability to recognize your own insignificance! Love you, babe.

  4. Reeree says:

    Funny! The initial comment leans right…& ppl from the right understand exactly what “we” means. So, it seems this reply to the initial reply leans way left & is nit-picking (get it! it’s a southern reference). And, it seems to imply how you think the left interprets the initial reply. Next,the Founding Fathers constitution was the first official governing document,thereby it actually created our government based on the people’s (Founding Fathers) decisions. That should count towards the 2nd amendment too. And whatever ‘arms’ was meant to mean, firearms/guns are included. I cannot understand the ‘rights’ response as written. The question is asked quite often, but less now bc laws are in place for minorities. I’m assuming he meant is that law right … to prevent a majority vote bc of minority rights. If that’s a correct assumption, then I see the point… and both sides of the coin. No need to explain though. Lastly, the 4th paragraph states your thoughts and implies your better than thou sentiments very well. Your smugness is reflected too in your criticism towards the person to whom you are replying & Dave too. Maybe we all should try replying with OUR own viewpoints … and not be so critical of others expressing their own viewpoints …. and/or how they say it. People just don’t have the same background, upbringings, educations, race, religions, political views, from various countries, & maybe just don’t put effort into being precise, etc. These making us ALL so different from each other. Ok. I’ve gone on for too long, so I’m done and moving on now! P.S. Geez… tell us what you really think about Dave! So hurtful & who are we to judge?!? Bye now!

Leave a Reply