Exposing spam, fraud, corruption, censorship, and propaganda

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:

Short Q&A with Dave Van Zandt of Media Bias/Fact Check

Media Bias/Fact Check Blinded by Science Feedback? (Updated)

Review this person (edit or delete anytime):

6 thoughts on "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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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

*The vast majority of people listed in this database are just “normal” business people, therefore no negative connotation is insinuated nor should misdeeds be assumed based on existing in our business directory. Our underlying goal is exposing misdeeds and fraud, but to accomplish this we often must first identity “honest” business people. This is because of things like similar names, impersonation, copyright infringement, and other reasons. Thus, the vast majority of people in our database are not being accused of anything shady. For this reason, profiles are now “noindexed” by default until comments exist on any given profile, since many of them are unnotable.

DISCLAIMER: ALL INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE WAS OBTAINED LEGALLY VIA PUBLIC RECORDS AND WEB PAGES. This public interest website functions as a transparency engine to expose relationships between individuals and entities (e.g. brands and organizations). Under no circumstances do we publish confidential data about an individual such as ID numbers, medical records, health status, or financial information, including contact details such as personal email addresses and phone numbers, residential addresses, or personal media (e.g. photos/videos). If you discover any such information on our website (including in public comments or reviews), please let us know so that it can be removed immediately. (This does not apply to business-related phone/email, office locations, or other contact information that was used as part of a spam/fraud/etc campaign.) We explicity discourage using this internet directory in any effort to harm or harass any individual or entity, regardless of the reason. We also do not accept or solicit payments or other forms of value in exchange for removing or altering pages that are published here. Anyone is allowed to register a free account on and publish reviews at anytime, as long as they use their real name and abide by our Terms, as well as all relevant laws of the United States and any local jurisdictions. Reviews can be edited or deleted at anytime at the discretion of the review author, and we strongly encourage updating the content whenever appropriate (e.g. if no longer accurate, or if new information exists). Users are also allowed to review themselves. Any comments that do not include the author’s full (real) name will be deleted. By posting on this site (under your real name), you therefore take legal responsibility for your words, and you understand that other people might therefore choose to dispute the nature of your words in a relevant court of law (thus commenters shall not hide behind Section 230). Reviews should be relevant to the subject’s career and not mundane/personal events. We encourage honesty, humility, and good humor, whenever possible.

Common searches: owner, founder, ceo, boss, associate, whois, info, huckster, scammer, spammer, liar, true, reviews, experiences, reputation, before, known for, profile, deadname, real name, birth name, original name, who was, gender, beliefs, history, etc.

Be brave! Login now and report any spam, fraud, or censorship you have witnessed. If you don’t say something, then nothing changes.

Legal caution: we fight (and expose) all fraudulent DMCA+ takedown notices submitted against our website. Any agency, freelancer, or lawyer who is party to “takedown” fraud will be aggressively exposed by our team. Please do not assist the scumbags in our directory unless you’re willing to be publicly exposed, thank you.