Friday, October 19, 2018

Who Represents Your Values?

By Rich Kozlovich

Antifa, Black Lives Matter, left wing campus activists, violent mobs, leftists attacking Republicans and/or conservatives in public arenas.  Seeing leftist mobs violently attacking conservatives on campuses, meeting halls and in public has now become common place, and not only do Democrats defend them - they're encouraging them.

These are a scary bunch of people. They are a segment of society that only hates. They hate Jews, they hate Christians, they hate capitalists and capitalism, they hate the police, they hate the military, they hate the banks, they hate the pharmaceutical companies, they hate America, they hate Americans and they despise authority.   But they love Muslim fanatics and communists, who epitomize authority in its most tyrannical forms.  Their other big love affair is with environmentalism, which has killed almost as many people as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and Mao combined.

They rail against violence of any kind while they are perpetuating it themselves. How insane can all of that be? In truth, they hate humanity, and they hate themselves, because the left only has envy, greed, and hate as it's moral foundation.   To quote Dennis Prager; "People who are haters can't be happy and happy people can't be haters". How else can you explain why they do the things they do?  These people are scary, crazy, violent and self-righteous. What better definition can there be for fascists?

FYI: Fascists are the right wing of socialism and communism is the left wing, but they are still two sides of the same coin. We really do need to get that!

So, I have a few questions:
  • Who do you think really represents a stable society?
  • Who do you think represents an organized society?
  • Who do you think represents policies for long term stable economics?
  • Who do you think defends real personal freedoms?
  • Who do you think represents law and order?
  • Who do you think represents tyrannical government control over everyone's lives? 
  • Finally....who do you identify with?
Nuf Ced?

Cartoon of the Day


Did Elizabeth ‘She Who Lies Through Teeth’ just lose 2020?

 October 18, 2018 2 comments

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a liar. She’s long been a liar, but on Monday she decided to release proof that she’s a liar, in the form of DNA test results.

The Massachusetts Democrat has claimed for decades that she is part American Indian, that her mother has Indian ancestry. The way she tells the tale, the lineage was so recent that her father’s parents told him “you can’t marry [Warren’s mother] because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware.” They had to flee to be free from the racism they would suffer.

President Trump enjoys taunting Ms. Warren with the nickname “Pocahontas,” and it’s clearly gotten under her skin. So with her 2020 ambitions coming into view, Ms. Warren decided to get a DNA test to prove her longtime claim.

Oof. That did not go well.........To Read More.....

They’re Coming After the Prop. 13 ‘Loophole’

The 2018 midterms look dire enough, but liberal activists already are gathering signatures to place a massive tax hike on the 2020 ballot.

Steven Greenhut October 18, 2018

The award for the most ridiculous opening paragraph in a news story, this week anyway, goes to CBS Sacramento for its coverage of a 2020 ballot measure that the secretary of state has recently approved for signature gathering: “A ballot measure that would close a loophole in property taxes for commercial businesses has qualified for the 2020 ballot.” Granted the article echoed the language used by the initiative’s supporters, but this is not about closing a loophole.

A loophole is an “ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules,” per one dictionary definition. A tax loophole is basically some poorly drafted part of the tax code that enables taxpayers, often with the help of clever accountants, to legally reduce their tax liability. It’s a gap created by the inadequacy of lawmakers to draft language that grabs as much revenue as they had sought. Thank goodness for such loopholes — and for anything else that allows us to keep a few more dollars out of the grasp of those who prefer to spend it.

But the coming ballot initiative won’t attempt to correct some inadvertent tax language. It is, without doubt, a direct assault on one of the most clearly drafted and important laws in California history. It’s a bald-faced attempt to increase annual property taxes by $6 billion to $10 billion by undermining Proposition 13, which had long been considered the “third rail” of California politics. The big question is whether California voters can still be electrified by efforts to raise their taxes................ To Read More......

MEF Reveals Islamic Relief under Investigation; Congress Demands Answers

Middle East Forum October 18, 2018

Following the Middle East Forum’s exposé of a possible criminal investigation into Islamic Relief, the recipient of at least $700,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding, seven members of Congress have demanded answers from the federal government.

Islamic Relief is the largest Islamic charity in the West, with branches in more than 20 countries. Founded by students affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, it has received at least $80 million from Western governments and international bodies.

Citing an “extensive report by the Middle East Forum,” representatives Ted Budd, Chuck Fleischmann, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Debbie Lesko, Barry Loudermilk, and Walter Jones issued a letter to the directors of the FBI, IRS, and Office of Personnel Management (OPM):

As members of the legislative branch, we have a vital role in ensuring taxpayer money is spent wisely and certainly to ensure that such money is not spent on entities that are subsidizing terrorism. If the United States Government has information suggesting criminal or extremist activity by Islamic Relief, it is critically important that Congress be informed so we can make decisions concerning any funding that might go to Islamic Relief. That “extensive report” refers to a June 2018 MEF study on Islamic Relief’s extremism and terror connections. It reveals the response from OPM to a Freedom of Information Act request:
"We are withholding the records … as they were compiled for law enforcement purposes and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings, by—for example—suggesting the scope of an investigation and alerting potential subjects as to the nature of the Government’s evidence and strategy." ......To Read More....

Alumni and faculty demand that St. Lawrence revoke Susan Collins’ honorary degree

Washington Times October 18, 2018

More than a thousand alumni and faculty of St. Lawrence University are calling for Republican Sen. Susan Collins to be stripped of her honorary degree after voting to confirm Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Two letters were sent to the university’s President William Fox last week, but the signatories grew to include more than 1,800 alumni and dozens of faculty by Tuesday.

CBS News first reported on the petitions.

“St. Lawrence students, faculty, and alumni have long fought to hear victims of sexual assault on our own campus,” the alumni letter read. “We feel that Sen. Collins’ support of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is not in line with the core values of St. Lawrence University and the commitments of its faculty, students, and staff.”

The Maine senator received the degree from her own alma mater in 2017 for opposing the GOP’s effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Faculty and alumni now argue that her vote for Justice Kavanaugh undermined her commitment to university’s values..........To Read More.....

My Take - So, a leftist academic enclave's tolerance for the views of others is on display!

Belfast and the poison of identity politics

By Thomas Lifson October 18, 2018

I spent yesterday in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a city that nearly destroyed itself thanks to the embrace of identity politics. For three decades of the late twentieth century, physically indistinguishable Irish people slaughtered each other using terrorism based on their tribal identity as Catholics or Protestants. Terror bombings of pubs were a common tactic, as were kidnappings and torture. It wasn't even a religious conflict, for the correct path to salvation or any religious doctrine at all was never a point of dispute. The Protestant terrorists identified as British and wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, while the Catholic terrorists wanted to unite with their cousins to the south in a United Ireland. Despite common Irishness and Christianity, people in large numbers felt justified in slaughtering strangers in the name vengeance for wrongs of the past................Read more


Mob Rule — Endorsed by CNN, Democrats — Takes Ugly Turn

October 18, 2018

What did they think was going to happen? If harassment occurs, and it’s not disavowed, what do media outlets such as CNN and left-wing agitators such as Maxine Waters think will happen next?

If disrupting the lives of American citizens is not only not condemned but actually praised, then the only logical next step is physical violence. Guess what? The mob rule endorsed by the left is here. It’s happening. And people are getting hurt...............How did we get to this point? It’s quite simple. When Democrats can’t win at the ballot box, and their media counterparts can influence the general population like they used to, then threats, intimidation, and violence become the tools. It’s not an exaggeration. It’s reality.............To Read More........

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Can “renewables” dent the world’s need for Electricity?

By Ronald Stein and Todd Royal

All 7.8 billion on this planet want affordable, scalable, reliable electricity. And for countries like the United States, China, India, most of Africa and the European Union (EU) the cheapest way to produce electrons is by burning coal..............

Renewables, such as solar, wind, and biofuels, require taxpayer financial subsidies, need significant fossil fuel resources because of their intermittent nature and require countryside-devouring land mass sprawl due to their low-power density to produce significant power, i.e., precious land that will be required to feed the billions on this earth. On a planet where a child under the age ten dies of hunger every five minutes, to hijack land used to grow crops constitutes a crime against humanity.

Basic math tells us that intermittent electricity from the huge land mass requirements of wind and solar are driving up the cost of electricity. California households are already paying about 40 percent more than the national average for electricity according to 2016 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With all the world’s efforts to protect life and endangered species, United States wind farms are killing hundreds of thousands of birds, eagles, hawks, and bats every year, and it’s appalling that society has given the wind industry a FREE get-out-of-jail card! ..........To Read More....

Elizabeth Warren's DNA Test Tells Us Nothing

By Alex Berezow — October 15, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Health

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has taken flak for her claims to Native American ancestry, just released the results of a genetic test that definitively proves... well, nothing. She might be 1/32nd Native American. Or 1/1,024th. Nobody really knows.

The Boston Globe story, which is very well reported, explains some of the major caveats with genetic ancestry testing. For example, a person's genome sequence must be compared to someone else's, and accuracy requires a sufficiently large database. However, as the Boston Globe states, there is very little genetic data on Native Americans, and Sen. Warren's DNA had to be compared to that from Mexicans, Peruvians, and Colombians.

Using this data, the original analysis, which was prepared by a respected geneticist, determined that five segments of Sen. Warren's DNA -- totaling about 12.3 million bases ("letters") -- are of Native American ancestry. That might sound like a lot, but the human genome contains more than 3.2 billion bases, which means that only about 0.4% of Sen. Warren's DNA sequence can be attributed to Native American ancestry.

Thus, the vast, vast majority of her DNA is of European descent. Though her pedigree probably contains a Native American ancestor, he or she existed six to ten generations ago. If a generation is roughly 25 years, that means that Sen. Warren's (possibly one and only) Native American ancestor lived 150 to 250 years ago.

While that means that Sen. Warren is technically correct that she has Native American ancestry, it falls far short of her rather boastful claims: "I am very proud of my heritage... These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mamaw and my papaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it." She makes it sound as if she lived in a teepee and smoked peyote.

I'm proud of my heritage, as well. I might be related to Charlemagne. And Nefertiti. And you probably are, too. But most of us don't claim to be descended from conquerors or royalty, even though we may contain trace DNA segments indicating that we are.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Are a Bit Like Horoscopes

Consumer tests usually examine the Y chromosome (if the person is male), mitochondrial DNA, and a select number of "single nucleotide polymorphisms," which can be thought of as unique mutations scattered around the genome. In this case, the test examined nearly 765,000 data points from Sen. Warren's genome.

But these tests have limitations. For instance, the U.S. National Library of Medicine writes that "ethnicity estimates may not be consistent from one provider to another." That's why, as Science News says, DNA tests are just a starting point for genealogy. To really find out who your ancestors were, you must examine "marriage certificates, military rolls, census records, immigration documents, old photographs and other records."

Anything less than that, and -- as Ross Pomeroy at RealClearScience wrote -- you're basically just reading a horoscope.

Why are the media so interested in the Khashoggi death over so many other deaths?

By Jack Hellner

The media and other Democrats are extremely concerned about missing Jamal Khashoggi, as they should be, and they believe that the Saudis murdered him. I am just curious why they had so little concern about other people who have been killed and why there is so much coverage about Khashoggi in comparison.

On Dec. 14, 2010, border guard Brian Terry was murdered with an AK-47 provided by the Obama administration. President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, improperly withheld information from Congress for years, showing they had little empathy at all for Terry, while journalists throughout the country and other Democrats generally didn't care...............The reason why there is so much emphasis on Khashoggi is that they believe that it will harm Trump and help Democrats in the election. That is the goal of journalists every day. They should just admit that lives don't matter if they happen to harm Democrats or their agenda.............. Read more

Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in FY 2018; Still Run $779B Deficit

By Terence P. Jeffrey | October 15, 2018

The federal government collected a record $1,683,537,000,000 in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through September 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.  owever, the federal government also ran a deficit of $778,996,000,000 during the fiscal year, according to the statement.

(As CNSNews.com has previously reported, the debt of the federal government--as opposed to the deficit--increased by $1,271,158,167,126.72 in fiscal 2018, according to official data published by the Treasury.)

The previous record for individual income tax collections in a fiscal year was in fiscal 2015, when the Treasury collected $1,634,657,240.........To Read More.....


Gloria Steinem’s Rape Cover-Up?

The curious things feminists do to protect their political brand.

Second wave feminism, edgy, in-your-face, bra-burning feminism reached its crescendo in the late sixties and early seventies. The Pill hit the market at the same time which immediately opened a brave new world – a world where sex was de-coupled from reproduction. Almost overnight, marriage and motherhood were deemed to be “below” the aspirations of young girls who were encouraged to pursue careers rather than eligible men. Gloria Steinem’s Ms. magazine was at the forefront of this movement.
 
Marriage was out, children were out, free love was in, and it was definitely fun while it lasted.
Soon, however, feminism turned to an outright attack on men. Steinem herself famously quipped, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”...............the women’s movement is turned into simply another tool to smear a political opponent, it has lost its way. The backlash will be broad and deep, mark my words..............

In 1979-80, Phyllis Chesler took a position at the UN working for Davidson Nicol, a dignitary from Sierra Leone..........Though Nicol was married, he soon began pursuing Chesler (who re-buffed his advances) and then shockingly, he raped her..............Chesler begged Morgan and Steinem to help her confront her rapist, even long after the conference. No dice. Morgan maintained it would be bad for Ms. to accuse a black man, because quite simply, in the victim hierarchy of things, black, third-world men rate above white, first-world women. Ms. might be accused of racism – an even greater sin than sexism.............The hypocrisy is startling............Gloria Steinem might have some explaining to do......To Read More.....

Revolutionary Diplomacy’: Cuban Diplomats Shout Down US Event on Political Prisoners

By Patrick Goodenough | October 16, 2018 Cuban diplomats at the United Nations shouted down speakers and disrupted a U.S.-hosted event Tuesday highlighting the plight of Cuban political prisoners, prompting an American ambassador to say if the communist regime’s diplomats behave that way, one can only wonder how its police behave. 
“I have never in my life seen diplomats behave the way that the Cuban delegation did today,” Ambassador Kelley Currie told reporters outside. “It was really shocking and disturbing.”

“And it makes you wonder, that if the diplomats of this government behave this way, how do the police behave? You can understand very well why people feel afraid to speak their minds, why people are thrown in jail for speaking their minds, with this kind of government, this kind of thuggish behavior.”

The Cuban delegation, she said, “should be ashamed of themselves for the way that they behaved today.”..........To Read More...

The Frankenstein Unleashed by the Democratic Party Threatens Us All

Bob Barr  Oct 17, 2018

To most Americans, a large group of black-clad individuals blockading the streets and harassing motorists who disobey their commands would, quite naturally, be considered a mob. This also would be an apt and reasonable name given to groups of people stalking and screaming at others dining in a restaurant, destroying public monuments, or throwing Molotov cocktails in protest of speakers at a college campus. After all, by definition, a mob is “a large and disorderly crowd of people,” especially those “bent on riotous or destructive action”; and, these incidents are such examples.  As we lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur, “the matter speaks for itself.” 

The problem is, the Mainstream Media and congressional Democrats are not most Americans. In their Liberal La-La Land, like at CNN, one dares not speak “the ‘M’-word” (“mob”) when commenting on events such as these.  To these pundits, those roaming gangs and shouting crowds are not mobs, but merely concerned citizens understandably “motivated” by the dangerous actions of the Trump Administration.

Herein lies the existential crisis for Democrats, and the dirty little secret they refuse to acknowledge openly -- is mob rule what Democrats have become?  And is it what our country is becoming?........To Read More....

Shut Up, They Explain

John Stossel Oct 17, 2018

Gloria Alvarez, the young woman from Guatemala I wrote about last week, just got blocked by Facebook. Why? Because she criticizes socialism.

After Alvarez joined me in my American studio to make a video we titled "Socialism Fails Every Time," she flew to Mexico City to make a speech.

A few days later she wrote me that "some leftist 'students' posted on a fanpage called 'Marxist and Leninist Memes': 'BOYCOTT Gloria Alvarez in our University! We won't let her in!'".......To Read More......

Liberally Biased Press Coalition Sues President Trump For 'Stifling Free Speech And The Free Press'

Beth Baumann @eb454 Oct 16, 2018

PEN America, a nonprofit coalition of writers, including journalists, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against President Donald Trump. According to the group, Trump has used his official capacity as President of the United States to "stifle exercise of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press."

PEN America is partnering with Protect Democracy – which has a bunch of former Democratic staffers – and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Clinic to bring about the suit.  The organization explained their reasoning behind the lawsuit in a blog post on their website:
President Trump’s tirades against the press are not new. His cries of “fake news” are an almost daily occurrence. The White House has called for individual journalists to be fired, and the president has referred to the media as “the enemy of the American people.” This has created an environment of hostility toward the media wherein journalists have been subject to death threats, needed bodyguards to cover political rallies, and have faced attacks in their newsrooms. The president has also threatened book publishers and authors who have published critical volumes. While many media outlets are unrelenting in their robust coverage, individual writers may think twice before publishing pieces or commentary that could put them in the White House’s crosshairs..........To Read More....

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Analysis: Trump KO’s ’60 Minutes’ on ‘climate change’ – Trump’s skeptical remarks were ‘scientifically, politically and economically accurate’

By: - Climate Depot October 14, 2018

The mainstream media once again attempted to challenge President Donald Trump on “climate change,” but Trump emerged unscathed by refuting typical climate claims with accurate and remarkably scientific comments in an October 14, 2018, 60 Minutes interview. (Even the mainstream media acknowledged Trump’s overall interview victory: See:  Variety: ’60 Minutes’ Was Outmatched by Trump – ‘He won every segment of the interview’)

Video here: 

A Climate Depot analysis finds that President Trump’s climate remarks were scientifically, politically and economically accurate. Finally, the United States has a president who understands “global warming”! See: Full climate transcript: Trump: Scientists who promote ‘climate’ fears ‘have a very big political agenda’ – [As Variety noted, Trump understands how to battle the mainstream media: Reporter Lesley Stahl asked Trump about “the scientists who say [the effects of climate change are] worse than ever,” but was [she] unprepared to cite one; knowing, now, that the human factor will not work on Trump, a broadcaster should be prepared to cite hard facts in a faceoff with the President.]........More Here........

The Ugly Terror Truth About Jamal Khashoggi

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Tuesday, October 16, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog

In high school, Jamal Khashoggi had a good friend. His name was Osama bin Laden.

“We were hoping to establish an Islamic state anywhere,” Khashoggi reminisced about their time together in the Muslim Brotherhood. “We believed that the first one would lead to another, and that would have a domino effect which could reverse the history of mankind.”

The friendship endured with Jamal Khashoggi following Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. Khashoggi credited Adel Batterjee, listed at one time as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers” by the Treasury Department, with bringing him to Afghanistan to report on the fighting.

The media calls Khashoggi a journalist, but his writings from 80s Afghanistan read as Jihadist propaganda with titles like, "Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan II: Exemplifies the Unity of Islamic Ummah".

And when Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda, he called Khashoggi with the details.

After Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi went to work as a media adviser for former Saudi intel boss, Prince Turki bin Faisal, alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. Those allegations came from, among others, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged twentieth hijacker.

When the other 19 hijackers perpetrated the attacks of September 11, Khashoggi wrote that the Saudis would not “give in” to American “demands” for “unconditional condemnation” and “total cooperation”.

"Saudis tend to link the ugliness of what happened in New York and Washington with what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine. It is time that the United States comes to understand the effect of its foreign policy and the consequences of that policy," he declared.

"A Muslim cannot be happy with the suffering of others. Even if this suffering is that of Americans who neglected the suffering of Palestinians for half a century."

That’s the real Khashoggi, a cynical and manipulative apologist for Islamic terrorism, not the mythical martyred dissident whose disappearance the media has spent the worst part of a week raving about.

Jamal Khashoggi was not a moderate. Some describe him as the leader of the Saudi Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamist network admires Hitler and seeks to impose Islamic law around the world. Nor was he a supporter of freedom of the press. In one of his Al Jazeera appearances, he complained that the Saudi government was allowing some journalists to report positively on Israel.

His final project, DAWN or Democracy for the Arab World Now was meant to aid Islamists. According to Azzam Al-Tamimi, an old Muslim Brotherhood ally aiding Jamal, "The Muslim Brothers and Islamists were the biggest victims of the foiled Arab spring." Al-Tamimi has endorsed suicide bombings.

But unlike Osama bin Laden, Khashoggi did not use the Muslim Brotherhood as a gateway drug to the pure and uncut violence of Al Qaeda or ISIS. He was still betting on a political takeover.

As he recently put it, “Democracy and political Islam go together.”

Khashoggi went on making the case for the Islamic state of the Muslim Brotherhood. He went on making that case even as the Saudis decided that the Brotherhood had become too dangerous.

Like his old friend, Jamal Khashoggi went into exile in a friendly Islamist country. Osama bin Laden found refuge in Pakistan and Khashoggi ended up in Turkey. The Khashoggi family had originated from Turkey. And Turkey was swiftly becoming the leading Sunni Islamist power in the region. Living in Turkey put Khashoggi at the intersection of the Turkish-Qatari backers of the Brotherhood and the Western media.

His disappearance has touched off fury and anger from the Islamist regime that harbored him. And it has also set off an unprecedented firestorm of rage and grief by the American media which adored him.

Media spin describes Khashoggi as a dissident. And he certainly was that. But so was Osama bin Laden.

What Khashoggi wasn’t, was a moderate. No more so than the Muslim Brotherhood. He wasn’t a proponent of human rights, but of Islamic rule. He could be found on Al Jazeera, Qatar’s Jihadist propaganda network, bemoaning Saudi opposition to the Brotherhood and its friendliness to Israel.

"Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should get rid of his complex against the Muslim Brotherhood and stop treating them as the enemy or a threat to Saudi Arabia," he complained, and urged the Saudis to fight Israel instead.

Jamal Khashoggi’s career of spouting Muslim Brotherhood propaganda for his new Turkish and Qatari masters came to an end in a curious way. Before Khashoggi allegedly entered the Saudi embassy, from which Turkey claims that he disappeared, he told his Turkish fiancé to call Yasin Aktay if he didn’t return.

Before the summer coup of 2016, Turkey was said to have 50,000 political prisoners. Many of them were members of the country’s oppressed Kurdish minority which is deprived of its most basic civil rights. These include even the use of their own language. Doing so can carry a prison sentence.

In that terrible summer, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s Islamic tyrant, finished securing his absolute hold on power with the coup as his Reichstag fire. The alleged coup became a blank check for the mass arrest and torture of countless thousands of political prisoners. Amnesty International estimated that 50,000 had been detained. The UN listed a figure as high as 180,000. They included 300 journalists.

Lawyers described clients being brought to them covered in blood.

Erdogan went after professors, judges, law enforcement, the military and the last remnants of a free press. A Human Rights Watch report documented electric shocks, beatings with truncheons and rubber hoses, and rape by Erdogan’s Islamic thugs. Heads were banged against walls. Men were forced to kneel on burning hot asphalt. Medical reports showed skull fractures, damage to testicles and dehydration.

The media didn’t show any of the hysterical outrage at these crimes that it has over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. The media cares more about Khashoggi, a former media mouthpiece of the Saudi regime before it turned on his Muslim Brotherhood brothers, than about 300 Turkish reporters.

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s consistency.

Erdogan and Khashoggi are both militant Islamic activists. And their opponents, the victims of Erdogan’s Reichstag fire and the new Saudi king, had fallen afoul of them for being insufficiently militantly Islamist.

The media will always take the side of Islamists over non-Islamists. That’s why it bleeds for Khashoggi.

There was a reason why Jamal Khashoggi felt so comfortable in Turkey, while actual journalists in the country were terrified of being locked up, tortured and disappeared. If that was the fate that befell Khashoggi, it was a commonplace one in Turkey. And it may have been carried out by his own Turkish allies who decided that their Saudi subversive had more value as a false flag martyr than a house guest.

The media’s disproportionate outrage over Khashoggi has nothing to do with human rights. If it did, the media would have been just as outraged at the arrests and torture of tens of thousands in Turkey.

It’s not. And it won’t be.

And the politicians shrilly urging that we punish the Saudis never thought about curtailing arms sales to Turkey. Many of the same politicians were unhappy when President Trump used economic pressure on Erdogan in an effort to free American hostages, like Pastor Andrew Brunson, being held by Turkey.

This is about Islam.

The struggle between Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the one hand, and Turkey, Qatar and Iran on the other, is the next stage of the Arab Spring. And, from Yemen to Turkey, the media has made no secret of being on the Islamist side. Its outrage over Khashoggi, like its claims of a human rights crisis over the Saudi bombings in Yemen, are not journalism, they’re the political spin of the Islamist axis.

The media has reported every claim of victimhood by the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar’s Al Jazeera propaganda arm, while giving as little attention as possible to the victims of Muslim Brotherhood church bombings. Its coverage of Israel has been little more than terrorist propaganda since Osama was in diapers. Its coverage of the Khashoggi case is every bit as dishonest as its slanted attacks on the Saudi embargo of Qatar, as its propaganda about the wars in Yemen and Libya, and just as devoid of context.

The Khashoggi case demands context.

Before the media and the politicians who listen to it drag the United States into a conflict with Saudi Arabia over a Muslim Brotherhood activist based on the word of an enemy country still holding Americans hostage, we deserve the context.

And we deserve the truth.

The media wants the Saudis to answer questions about Jamal Khashoggi. But maybe the media should be forced to answer why the Washington Post was working with a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist?

The real mystery isn’t Khashoggi’s disappearance. It’s why Republicans aren’t asking those questions.

The media’s relationship with Khashoggi is far more damning than anything the Saudis might have done to him. And the media should be held accountable for its relationship with Osama bin Laden’s old friend.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.
 

The Anti-Trump Riots are a Smoke Screen The Real Goal – Eliminate the Electoral College

  Election

Many seem bewildered by the anti-Trump riots and demonstrations that have covered the nation since the 2016 election. And many keep trying to find a reasonable response. Give it up. You can’t reason with them with words.

Here is my take. They know full well that they aren’t going to overturn the election. These privately funded forces are being used to create pressure to destroy the Electoral College so they won’t have to deal with it next election. This is how the Left operates. Make a big deal over here to force the hidden agenda over there. The plan is to make enough trouble that Congress will move to abolish the EC to get some peace.

For clues on who is behind this effort one only has to watch to see which member of Congress would propose such action. The answer, of course, was California Senator Barbara Boxer. It only took a week after the election for her to come to the rescue of the broken and distraught Left.

The danger is real and gaining ground. But it didn’t start with the 2016 election result. A campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and “let the people elect the president,” has been gaining steam for several years. A group called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” started in 2006, has won commitments from eleven states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

These include Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, California, New York, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Connecticut. These states control 172 electoral votes. They only need states representing 98 more electoral votes to join and the Electoral College will be a thing of the past. Meanwhile, such legislation is under consideration in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arizona, to name a few.

When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.

As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s Democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing.  Get the picture?

The United States was created by the individual sovereign states. They were already free and independent governments on their own. As they came together to create a central government they feared it would grow too strong and overpower the states, making them subjugated to the central government. So, to prevent that, the states created the Electoral College to make the election of the President a STATE election.

Throughout history, certain factions have challenged the legality of the Electoral College. Opponents point out that our President is actually elected by 538 virtually unknown people who are members of 51 small delegations in fifty States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, in most states, the electors are not even bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In fact, many Constitutional scholars believe that’s just what the founders intended, 538 independent thinkers, bound to no one. There is reason and logic behind the idea.

The Founding Fathers, particularly those from small States, were very concerned that they would be smothered by the larger states. Under the representative republic (not a democracy) established by the founders, the United States is made up of fifty sovereign States. Under the Constitution, except for limited powers specifically defined for the central government, power for the rule of law is intended to reside in the States.

To deal with the problem, the founders decided on a compromise that would establish two chambers for the Congress; the House of Representatives, whose size would be dictated by the population in each state and the Senate in which every state would get two representatives, regardless of its size or population. You see, in the beginning, the states appointed Senators to be their representatives in Congress. But, like these so-called scholars of today who want to wreck the Electoral College, previous “experts” came up with the idea that Senators should be elected by the people – “It’s only fair,” went the mantra! The result is an imperial Senate that answers to no one but their own elite club members. That’s what happens when you mess with the real genius of the Constitution.

The same problem arose in deciding how to select a President, the one nationally-elected official. Here again, there was the fear that election by popular vote would overwhelm the will of smaller States. Again, a compromise was reached to address the issue in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain the power of the states. Each state was assigned a number of presidential electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and the Senate. In each state, the electors would vote for a President and Vice President. The candidate receiving the largest number of electoral votes would be elected.

Under the plan, the connection to the popular vote was the selection of state electors. The popular vote was to be used to select individuals trusted by the people to select the President. Each presidential candidate has a slate of electors committed to them. As the people vote for a candidate, they are actually electing his/her slate of electors. Again, the selection of electors goes directly to local control of the process. Under the Constitution, even the smallest state was assured at least three votes in the process. To provide a further check to protect the smaller states, in the event no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote, the names of the top five would go to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would cast one vote for one of the candidates. In this process each state, again, is equal.

To understand the Electoral College one must realize that the Founders considered the states as the dominant power in the nation. Election of the office of President was a bit like the selection of the Chairman of the Board, with the states serving as the board of directors for the nation. The great mistake Electoral College opponents make is to believe the President was supposed to be elected by the people. It was never the plan.

There are fundamental and often regional differences in how Americans view the role of government and the leaders they elect to run it. Little wonder those who seek to strengthen the power of the central government prefer that elections be decided by the popular vote. It’s a great sound bite- but the results will not give “the people” the “fair” result they desire.

Such a move will eliminate the power of individual states in favor of elections decided by the population of large, politically liberal cities. I’ve actually heard it said by residents of California, San Francisco, in particular, “why do we even let people in Ohio and Iowa vote?” Such elitism is behind the “National Popular Vote” movement which apparently believes that only the East and West Coasts count. The rest is just flyover country.

Keep these facts in mind as we watch the enforcement of Sustainable Development policies that lead to Smart Growth cities. The stated plans of such ideas are that most people will eventually be ‘persuaded” to leave the rural areas and migrate to the cities. In addition, we now are witnessing the invasion of illegal immigrants who normally land in such communities and swell their size.

The “feel good” propaganda of the National Popular Vote movement insists that a popular vote would not change the face of the nation. However, by design or not, the fact is their scheme plays right into the hands of the Sustainablists who openly seek top-down control through the establishment of megacities. By forcing the massive majority of citizens into such areas, a majority vote in just a few will drown any other area in the nation.

In such a planned agenda for the 21st Century, individuals living in the majority of the nation’s territory will quickly learn how little their “popular vote” counts if the Electoral College is abandoned by the “National Popular Vote” scheme. Those smaller states (and therefore their votes) may have no impact on the election of the President, just as our founders feared. Control by a few over the many can only be defined as tyranny.

The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation’s Northeastern sector, along with the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation’s leaders, the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.

Not happy to even let the states decide if they want to support the idea of the National Popular vote or not, the hard Left has manufactured the unrest in the streets to pressure a fast solution. In 2016 Senator Boxer answered the call with legislation to end the Electoral College. Such demands to end it masquerade as the answer to the people’s unrest. If achieved the end, the result will have nothing to do with Donald Trump. He is just the convenient excuse.

Allow that to happen now and the great silent majority of middle America in this nation will never again have a fair say in who is elected our president. And that is the true goal of today’s unrest.
Tom DeWeese
tom@americanpolicy.org
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

The Real Reason for Rising Red Ink

October 16, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
 
The Congressional Budget Office just released a Monthly Budget Review showing a $782 billion deficit for the 2018 fiscal year.

My recommendation is to mostly ignore data on red ink. Yes, it is possible that a country can get in trouble because of deficits and debt, but it’s far more important to look at what’s happening with government spending.

This is for two reasons.
  • First, spending is the most accurate way of measuring the fiscal burden of government. Regardless of whether it is financed by taxes or borrowing, spending is what requires resources to be diverted from the economy’s productive sector.
  • Second, the best way of predicting red ink is to look at what’s happening to spending. If the burden of government spending is growing faster than the private sector, that’s a very worrisome trend. In the long run, it leads to fiscal crisis.
With this in mind, I dug into the CBO numbers to see what’s really happening.

Lo and behold, we find that the deficit was falling rapidly when there was a de facto spending freeze between 2009 and 2014. But ever since 2014, spending has been growing more than twice the rate of inflation and the deficit is climbing.


Does tax revenue also play a role? Of course.

I’ve already explained that the Trump plan has a front-loaded tax cut, so that has an effect on short-run deficits. But I also noted that the tax cut gradually disappears because the revenue-raising provisions from last year’s legislation become more important in the long run.

In other words, America’s long-run fiscal challenge is entirely the result of a rising burden of government spending. And that’s very clear in the Congressional Budget Office numbers.

The bottom line is that America has a spending problem, not a red ink problem. Deficits and debt are symptoms, but the underlying disease is that the federal government is too big and that spending is growing too fast.

The solution is to follow my Golden Rule with a spending cap.

P.S. To help them understand this point, Republicans need shock therapy.

P.P.S. Maybe it’s difficult to educate Republicans because they’re part of the problem?

Smothered: Six Democratic Scandals That The Elite News Media Suffocated With A Pillow This Cycle

Matt Vespa @mvespa1 Oct 16, 2018

In the Trump era, liberal media bias is worse than ever. So, it shouldn’t shock us that the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters division probably has carpal tunnel syndrome from jotting down all the insanity that is transpiring across CNN, MSNBC, and the Big Three (CBS, NBC, and ABC). In this media bubble, Trump colluded with the Russians to win an election; he’s a tax cheat, a serial sexual abuser, and the most corrupt politician since Henry Clay and the corrupt bargain of 1824.

Outside of this glass case of emotion, the economy is growing at four percent. There are more jobs than job seekers, and job openings are at a whopping 7.1 million. Three million jobs have been created, new trade deals with Mexico and Canada are in motion, the Trump tax cuts have formed a solid base for growth, and more than three million working-class families have received bonuses of $1,000 or more. Oh, and consumer and small business confidence have reached 18-year highs. And did I mention that unemployment is at 3.7 percent. Yeah, things are going well, but the Democrat-media complex is hoping that the president fails, of course.

To better Democrats’ 2018 chances, there have been six rather major scandals that have hit some key candidates, which the elite media decided to smother with a pillow. From domestic abuse allegations to fraud and DUIs, Newsbusters’ Geoffrey Dickens found six major scandals, where the elite news media has devoted little to no coverage. ...........To Read More......

Fraud: Farmers Caught Selling Conventional Crops as Organic

By Alex Berezow — October 12, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Health

Comedy is an excellent tool for pointing out the absurdities of society.

Several years ago, Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullsh**! that examined the claims made by organic food enthusiasts. (See a clip here.) Though they didn't conduct a publication quality scientific experiment, they showed (rather convincingly and quite hilariously) that the average food snob simply can't tell the difference between conventionally grown food and organic food.

Their prank has been replicated by others. In one video, two guys attended a foodie convention and presented guests with a new "organic" alternative to fast food. The guests went on and on about how wonderful it was, completely oblivious to the fact that they were eating chicken nuggets and other food from McDonald's.

At the very end of the video, they presented their conclusion (translated from Dutch): "If you tell people that something is organic, they'll automatically believe it's organic." Indeed.

Farmers Busted for Marketing Conventional Crops as Certified Organic

Three farmers in Nebraska just plead guilty to a food fraud scheme in which they were selling conventionally grown corn and soybeans as organic. They pulled off this scheme from 2010 to 2017 and made nearly $11 million in the process. How could they get away with it for so long?

For starters, nobody can tell the difference between conventional and organic food. It's not as if organic corn and soybeans look, smell, or taste differently compared to their conventional counterparts. So, the only way to catch food fraud is by doing a chemical analysis. In this case, the analysis would look for the presence of pesticides that are banned according to organic agriculture's (completely arbitrary) rules.

These rules are supposedly enforced by the National Organic Program (NOP), which is part of the USDA. Obviously, it isn't doing a particularly good job. According to the Washington Post:
"[T]he [organic food] system suffers from multiple weaknesses in enforcement: Farmers hire their own inspection companies; most inspections are announced days or weeks in advance and lack the element of surprise; and testing for pesticides is the exception rather than the rule."
In other words, the USDA's policy is just to trust farmers and suppliers if they say their food is organic. As a result of such a lax attitude toward regulation, food fraud occurs, not just with homegrown crops but with imported ones, as well.

The organic industry is built upon a gigantic lie: that is, the notion that "natural" farming methods are safer and healthier while "unnatural" methods are dangerous. Worse, the organic industry perpetuates a myth that it does not use pesticides, when it absolutely does. It should surprise no one, therefore, that such a deceptive industry would attract its fair share of hucksters.
 

Bloodstream Infections And A Promising New Weapon Against Them

October 15, 2018 By Michael D. Shaw @ HealthNewsDigest

This column has discussed the matter of healthcare-associated infections on several occasions. The most recent such article examined the problems inherent to endoscope reprocessing.

As recently noted by infection control guru Lawrence Muscarella, PhD, a bronchoscope is linked again in the US to an outbreak of the feared CRE superbug. Recalls have been issued by the manufacturer for several models that could apply to thousands of devices in the field.

Bloodstream infections (BSI) are infectious diseases defined by the presence of viable bacterial or fungal microorganisms in the bloodstream (later demonstrated by the positivity of one or more blood cultures) that elicit or have elicited an inflammatory response characterized by the alteration of clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic parameters.

Most authorities agree that bloodstream infections (BSI) are the most serious form of healthcare associated infection, as they cause significant morbidity and mortality. It is no simple matter to get current statistics on BSI, so we refer to this widely cited CDC page posted in 2011. This article focuses on central line-associated bloodstream infections, which seem to be the type most actively tracked. Here are a few highlights, quoting numbers for the US:.........To Read More....
 
 

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Cartoon of the Day

Dems promise more goodies and fewer freedoms if they take power

October 15, 2018 By Ed Straker

Politico had a nice summary of all the things the Democrats are promising to do if elected. It was the usual mix of authoritarian-socialism.

1. Single-payer health care. Single-payer health care. Isn't that great? And only one payer! And I suppose one payer won't be any of us, right? In reality, all of us who pay taxes (and none of us who doesn't) will end up being the single payer. They really should call it "single-doctor" health care, because once health care becomes "free," demand will overwhelm supply. As in Cuba, everyone will have a "right" to health care, but few will actually receive it.
2. $15 minimum wage..........
3. Abolishing ICE........
4. Repealing the Trump tax cuts...........
5. Debt-free college...........
6. Net neutrality............
7. A $1-trillion "infrastructure" plan.........
8. Defense cuts...........
9. Limiting executive compensation........
10. Global warming tax........... Read more



Bernie Sanders Declines to Condemn Harassment, Violence Against Republicans

JOSHUA CAPLAN 15 Oct 2018

Sen. Bernie Sanders declined to condemn the harassment and violence against Republicans in an interview with CNN host Jake Tapper on Sunday — and instead called on Americans to “fight” for progressive causes.............. Since Donald Trump announced his run for president in 2015, Breitbart News has documented nearly 600 known instances of left-wing violence, threats, and rationalization of political violence and threats..........To Read More......

Boy, nine, ruins Supreme Court prospects

Teresa Sue Klein of Flatbush, Brooklyn, was in a convenience store when a mother and her two children went in and went past her. Klein then got highly upset, claiming that the nine-year-old boy had sexually assaulted her by grabbing her posterior. She immediately made a scene and called 911 for the police, demanding that the little boy be arrested for sexually assaulting her.

They all went outside the store, where bystanders got verbally involved, with Klein defiant. Multiple cellphone videos show the little boy and his younger sister wailing at the top of their lungs, obviously scared. The store videos show that the boy went past Klein with both hands in plain view, but his oversized backpack may have brushed against her. Fortunately, no arrests were made............

There are feminists who hate all men, deeply hate them............Some even wish that there was a concentration camp set up where all the men could be placed............There are feminists who also hate little boys, seeing them as future rapists. It would be really interesting to analyze any male who grew up with a feminist mother.

Camille Paglia famously and succinctly put it: “They’re insane, literally insane!” I have personally encountered several of these radical feminists and can vouch that they are indeed insane. All one has to do is listen to them and/or read their literary outputs, chock full of paranoia and delusions.

And, scary thought, they are all over.................Read more

My Take - Okay, where are the "I Believe" lunatics now?  We're told we must "believe" because women don't lie!  Really?  Well, women lie!  Women can be irrational! Women can be delusional!  Women make things up! Why?  Because women are people, and people will always be people. 

\However, if you saw the video there are two things that should easily come to mind.  Who in the world would be interested in this woman, and when did she get released from the asylum? 

Priest: 'Stupid Catholics' Who Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians Have 'Blood' On Their Hands

By Michael W. Chapman October 15, 2018

In a video message about the sanctity of human life and the moral responsibility of being a faithful Christian, Fr. Mark Goring, director of the Catholic Charismatic Center in Houston, Texas, explained that Catholics who vote for "aggressively pro-abortion politicians" are "stupid Catholics" and "they share the responsibility for the death of these unborn children."

The blood of aborted babies is "on your hands, if you vote for and support an aggressively pro-abortion politician," said Fr. Goring.

“Our western world is experiencing a devastating moral decline," said Fr. Goring in his message. "One of the things that I find absolutely incomprehensible is the number of Catholics who vote for an aggressively pro-abortion politician." ............To Read More......

Police investigating threats against republican candidate

By  
 
Vermont State Police are investigating a death threat mailed to a Vermont House candidate. Republican Deserae Morin says the threats were mailed to her home.
 
"I'm very outspoken. I'm very well spoken. I'm a real threat to socialism, and now socialism is a real threat to me," Morin said.

The threat sent to the Colchester mother of two is graphic. It starts with an expletive and goes on to say, "We are hunting you. My comrades will kill you and the Constitution. Socialism is here, open season for republican death in Vermont. Fear our revolution." It was signed AA.

"I'm trying not to take it too seriously, because it's most likely, it's just an empty threat," Morin said.
Morin is staying vigilant for her family. State Police have opened an investigation and Morin says there is also an internal Post Office task force looking into the letter. She says she also fears for her young female supporters.........To Read More......
 

WATCH: Antifa’s Latest Assault on Free Speech Included Bear Mace, Fisticuffs

By Andrew West October 15, 2018

There is no denying that the radical left has lost their sense of imbued liberty over the course of the Trump Era, and this is making for some fairly interesting developments in the world of Free Speech.

Of course, the most salient example of this so far has some to us from Berkeley, California, where anti-free speech riots took place early in 2017 over the scheduled appearance of gay, conservative author Milo Yiannopolous.  During the ensuing rampage of liberals, thousands of dollars in damage were done to the campus of UC Berkeley itself, and the reputation of the left side of the aisle would be forever tainted.

Now, as the militant Antifa wing of the democratic party continues to push for socialism and a re-imagining of the Bill of Rights, they’ve taken their tactics up a notch, now employing outright violence and non-lethal weaponry designed for use on angry Grizzly Bears.........To Read More....

Democrats vs. democrats

By Michael Widlanski October 15, 2018

To be a Democrat is not the same as to be a “democrat.” To be a Democrat means belonging to a party ruled by mood-swings and slogans: “I’m with her,” “Yes we can,” and “Me, too.”

To be a democrat means trusting the power of the people, but understanding that the power of the people is restrained by law, custom and due process. A majority cannot vote to rape Joan or to rob John.

A majority -- in Congress or on campus -- cannot silence Jill or Jim, because it really hates them or what they’re saying. To be a democrat demands maturity and emotional intelligence. It means knowing that not all problems quickly meet perfect solutions. A democrat understands less-than-perfect compromises must be made.

To be a Democrat means demanding the tools of power the way a child demands toys, then throwing a tantrum when the toy arrives late or not at all. Worse, being a Democrat means to destroy the “toy” if it has to be shared with someone else.............Read more

Dem Who Said, ‘I Stand for the Flag, I Kneel at the Cross’ Forced to Resign as Local Party Exec

By Craig Bannister | October 15, 2018

Mark Salvas has, reportedly been forced to resign his position as Democratic Party Executive Director in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania because of social media posts sympathetic to God, country, and an accused police officer.

As local station KDKA reports: A former Marine and Gulf War veteran, Salvas was just hired in September as executive director of the county party, long after he posted a picture of his wife and him on Facebook with the words, “I stand for the flag, I kneel at the cross.” ….

But some on social media called that inappropriate for a Democratic party leader, including a second post from Salvas’ wife asking for support for their close friends, the family of officer Michael Rosfeld, who is accused of killing Antwon Rose II. Salvas says he has known Rosfeld since the officer was three years old, and that he considers him “family”: .........To Read More.....

Monday, October 15, 2018

When the Google Dream Died

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Saturday, October 13, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Google is throwing itself a hell of a 20th birthday party. And everyone is bringing the gifts.

While the dot com giant puts up celebratory doodles and shows off its original garage headquarters, Attorney General Sessions had already convened 14 state attorney generals to discuss censorship, privacy issues and antitrust issues involving, among other tech monopolies, the cutesy corporation.

Few meetings between Sessions and AGs well to the left, like California’s Xavier Becerra, would have gone as well as this, but big tech monopolies were already controversial on the left, now they’re also being unfriended by Republicans. There’s a growing consensus that they’re just too big and powerful.

Google’s August search market share in America stood at 84%. That means it defines the internet.

Its secretive algorithms determine what people see when they search. It can unilaterally redefine an issue, such as when it shifted the search results for “Jihad” away from counterterrorist sites to favor Islamist and pro-Islamist media sites. It shapes how political leaders, including President Trump, are seen, and manufactures an ongoing consensus by simply choosing one set of results over another.

(During the election, its search engine provided more positive results for Democrats than Republicans.)

And then there are the constant privacy scandals.

Even as Google is trying to celebrate its anniversary, it’s under fire for automatically signing Gmail users into its Chrome browser (which is a key link in its chain of monopolies meant to lock users into its search engine). After the outcry, Google, as usual, offered a partial retreat.

The scandal is fairly typical of Google which runs on privacy violations and monopolistic abuses. Before Google was rigging search results for political reasons, it was rigging them to favor its products. Search for “mail” and the first result won’t be the post office, it won’t even be mail.com which actually predated Google by a few years, it will be Google’s own Gmail. And that’s how it always works.

Google searches drive users to Google products. And Google products drive users to Google Search.

Its monopolistic vision of the future is of an Internet of Things, a smart home run on Google with eternally watchful smart speakers in every room of your house, processing your questions through Google, and sending every conversation in your house back along its servers to be analyzed by machine learning to better target you with ads on your smart fridge. And then it really will be Google’s world.

Or Amazon’s world.

America’s political and cultural elites already live in one world or the other. But despite the wide range of both companies, many Americans are unhappy with the power and control they wield over their lives.

And so the utopia in which Google is your home, your car, your clothes, your entertainment and your life, may never arrive. The company has more power, but also more enemies, than ever before.

Even as Google aspires to run the world, investing in a variety of moonshot businesses, from self-driving cars (Waymo) to delivering internet by balloon (Loon) through Alphabet, its mothership company, its core business, search, that delivers most of its revenue through ads, is stagnating. While Google dreams of answering your questions before you ask them using machine learning and voice search, it’s doing a terrible job of answering them when you do ask of them. Like all monopolies, its product is mediocre.

Google Search was retuned for mobile search by making every search trending. Search for “Supreme Court”, and Google will deluge you with Kavanaugh hysteria and assorted lefty media background pieces delegitimizing a “Republican” Supreme Court from FDR’s day to modern times.

This isn’t just a monopolistic abuse of power for purely partisan purposes; it’s also a poor product.

Trending stories are friendlier to mobile users who have less time and patience for extended queries. It’s also simpler to deliver inaccurate results that fit the needs of the lowest common denominator user, who types in Supreme Court to see stories about Kavanaugh, than to deliver actual accurate results.

And Google is rigging search results to browbeat sites into orienting entirely toward mobile. Just as it will, before too long, dumb down search even further, to aid its voice search ambitions.

Turning search into a lowest common denominator exercise isn’t about serving users, but about securing Google’s hold on the future. And, in ways both great and petty (like forcibly logging users into its browser), it isn’t shy about herding its user products like sheep into its digital products.

Naked political bias was meant to cover Google’s silicon fundament from its greatest political threat. Republican administrations have offered little threat to the big tech companies. It was largely the left that was actively agitating for breaking them up or limiting their power. And Google focused on the left.

(In last year’s major Google scandal, former Google exec chairman Eric Schmidt allegedly convinced the New America Foundation, a lefty think tank, to purge Open Markets for its criticism of Google.)

And then President Trump showed up.

The famous video of Google’s elites mourning Trump’s victory isn’t just political bias. As the firing of James Damore showed us, lefty political intolerance is baked into Google’s political culture. And anyone at Google who wanted Trump to win has to keep quiet and leak videos. But President Hillary Clinton would have also been really good for Google’s business interests.

Eric Schmidt, who once responded to Google privacy concerns by sneering, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place”, was a close Hillary ally. His “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign” sent to Hillary’s people proposed a $1.5 billion operation that would create “a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.”

Schmidt was applying the Google ethos to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The unspoken back end of the pitch is that privacy violations can be harnessed for the good of powerful political interests. (The manufactured scandal over Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook scraping never touched the truly epic dot com privacy violators on the left.) Google’s vision of the end of privacy could be very good for President Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. So why regulate it?

That’s what Google elites were really mourning after Election Day.

They weren’t just crying because their lefty political movement lost, but because the vision of a Clinton-Google alliance running the country was lost.

President Trump has warned Google that it can’t expect to abuse its powers and avoid scrutiny. And the leading figures on the Democrat side are less promising for Google than Eric Schmidt’s pal.

Google was ranked as the single biggest employer of Bernie Sanders donors, and its search results were accused of favoring Sanders. As the Washington Post noted, “nine of his top 10 results were rated "very pro" in the analysis”. Google’s current top 10 for Trump, by contrast, includes a bonkers New York Mag conspiracy screed, “What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?” (In 1988, Bernie Sanders was honeymooning in the USSR, but Google doesn’t think that’s worth including in Bernie’s top 10.)

And while Bernie Sanders has been relentlessly attacking Amazon, a major Google rival, he has been fairly silent about Google. Meanwhile the Washington Post, owned by Amazon’s boss, has been critical of Bernie. But that doesn’t make him a reliable or ideal ally in Google’s war for the future.

Meanwhile Google faces the threat of Trump. A conventional non-populist Republican would have posed little threat to Google’s business interests. Elites love Google because of its shiny technocracy. Schmidt’s pitch to Hillary’s people is seductive to many in the GOP, but alienating to Trump and alien to his insurgent campaign which relied on populist enthusiasm rather than Big Brother level manipulation.

And Trump’s impact on the GOP has shifted it away from the unthinking worship of multinationals.

Google’s vision of the future is multinational, multilateral, multicultural and multi-everything. It’s a borderless world in which we’re no longer defined by nations, but by platforms. Every individual is a terabyte profile swimming among the vast server farm zettabytes in Finland, Singapore, the Dalles in Oregon and Quilicura, Chile, to be run on Google products designed by hipsters the Bay Area and manufacturerd by slave labor in China.

That was Hillary’s vision. That’s not Trump’s vision.

Trump’s economic nationalism is antithetical to everything that Google and the big dot coms stand for. Their borderless world requires the dismantling of nations into united markets governed by global treaties. There’s no room for national interest if Google or Amazon are to run the world.

America isn’t just at war with a nebulous left, but with a leftist vision embraced by the big tech companies that have defined how we talk to each other, what we read and what we know.

Google isn’t just leftist by accident. It’s leftist by design. Its vision is globalist, its scope is endless and the only thing standing in its way, besides its rivals, is the nation-state. America.

The confrontation between Google and Trump encapsulates the clash between the national and the multi-national, workers in red states and elites in blue cities, tradition and technocracy, the individual and the machine. The struggle will decide whether the future belongs to the individual or to Google.


Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Real-World Examples of How the Minimum Wage Destroys Jobs and Hurts Workers

October 14, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
 
Politicians can interfere with the laws of supply and demand (and they do, with distressing regularity), but they can’t repeal them.

The minimum wage issue is a tragic example. If lawmakers pass a law mandating wages of $10 per hour, that is going to have a very bad effect on low-skilled workers who can only generate, say, $8 of revenue per hour.

You don’t need to be a libertarian to realize this is a problem.
Catherine Rampell leans to the left, but she warned last year in the Washington Post about the danger of “helping” workers to the unemployment line.
…the left needs to think harder about the unintended consequences of…benevolent-seeming proposals. In isolation, each of these policies has the potential to make workers more costly to hire. Cumulatively, they almost certainly do. Which means that, unless carefully designed, a lefty “pro-labor” platform might actually encourage firms to hire less labor… It’s easier, or perhaps more politically convenient, to assume that “pro-worker” policies never hurt the workers they’re intended to help. Take the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour… raising wages in Seattle to $13 has produced sharp cuts in hours, leaving low-wage workers with smaller paychecks. And that’s in a high-cost city. Imagine what would happen if Congress raised the minimum wage to $15 nationwide. …Why wouldn’t you want to improve the living standards of as many people as possible? The answer: You won’t actually be helping them if making their labor much more expensive, much too quickly, results in their getting fired.
By the way, while I’m glad Ms. Rampell recognizes how big increases in the minimum wage will have an adverse impact, I think she is rather naive to believe that there are “carefully designed” options that wouldn’t be harmful.

Or does she have a cutoff point for acceptable casualties? Maybe the thinks that an increase in the minimum wage is bad if it throws 500,000 people into unemployment, but a small increase that leads to 200,000 fewer jobs is acceptable?

In any event, the voters of DC apparently didn’t read her column and they voted earlier this year to restrict the freedom of employers and employees in the restaurant sector to engage in voluntary exchange.

But then something interesting happened. Workers and owners united together and urged DC’s government to reverse the referendum.

The Wall Street Journal opined on this development.
…last week Washington, D.C.’s Democratic city councillors moved to overturn a mandatory minimum wage for tipped workers after bartenders, waiters and restaurant managers served up a lesson in economics. …The wage hike was billed as a way to give workers financial stability… But tipped workers realized the policy came with serious unintended consequences. …workers pushed for repeal. Though restaurants pay a $3.89 hourly wage to tipped workers, “we choose these jobs because we make far more than the standard minimum wage” from tips, bartender Valerie Graham told the City Council. …“Increasing the base wage for tipped workers who already make well above minimum wage threatens those who do not make tips,” such as cooks, dishwashers and table bussers, Rose’s Luxury bartender Chelsea Silber told the City Council. …Repeal requires a second council vote, but Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser says she agrees. Congratulations on the revolt of the restaurant masses.
Let’s review another example.

There’s now a mandate for a higher minimum wage in New York. Ellie Bufkin explains some of the consequences in a column for the Federalist.
This minimum wage spike has forced several New York City businesses to shutter their doors and will claim many more victims soon. Businesses must meet the $15 wage by the end of 2018, the culmination of mandatory increment increases that began in 2016. …For many businesses, this egregious law is not just an inconvenience, it is simply unaffordable. The most recent victim is long-time staple, The Coffee Shop… In explaining his decision to close following 28 years of high-volume business, owner Charles Milite told the New York Post, “The times have changed in our industry. The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees.” …Of all affected businesses, restaurants are at the greatest risk of losing their ability to operate under the strain of crushing financial demands. They run at the highest day-to-day operational costs of any business, partly because they must employ more people to run efficiently. …Eventually, minimum wage laws and other prohibitive regulations will cause the world-renowned restaurant life in cities like New York, DC, and San Francisco to cease to exist.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think restaurants will “cease to exist” because of mandates for higher minimum wages.

But there will definitely be fewer establishments with fewer workers.

Why? Because business aren’t charities. They hire workers to increase profits, so it’s unavoidable that we get bad results when government mandates result in some workers costing more than the revenue they generate.

Which is what we’re now seeing in Seattle.

I’ll close by recycling this debate clip from a few years ago. I made the point that faster growth is the right way to boost wages.



And I also gave a plug for federalism. If some states want to throw low-skilled workers out of jobs, I think that will be an awful outcome. But it won’t be as bad as a nationwide scheme to increase unemployment (especially for minorities).

P.S. As is so often the case, the “sensible Swiss” have the right perspective.

P.P.S. Here’s a video making the case against government wage mandates. And here’s another interview I did on the topic.