The Left’s Latest Copy-And-Paste Fake Grassroots Campaign

The Left is notorious for runaway gangbuster campaigns with massive grassroots groundswell support – that are actually not runaway gangbuster campaigns with massive grassroots groundswell support.

The Left’s ideas are awful. Because of this awfulness, their ideas aren’t very popular with We the People. Thus the Left isn’t any good at generating support. But they are absolutely GREAT at making it look like they are generating support.

In these fraudulent endeavors – they have many massive built-in advantages over we who fight for Reality-based public policy solutions that garner actual public support.

The Left gets sympathetic uber-amplification from the hominoid absurdities who infest Hollywood. The late, inordinately great Andrew Breitbart rightly observed: “Politics is downstream from culture.” Our politics is positively polluted by the Leftist claptrap Tinsel Town has for decades been spewing.

The Left gets sympathetic uber-amplification – and social media game-rigging – from the hominoid absurdities who infest the Silicon Valley. Time and again mega-companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook have been caught slanting searches and warping “news” feeds Leftward – and banning and blocking Rightists.

The Left gets TONS of cash from Communist mega-donors. George Soros and Tom Steyer alone have been good for billions of dollars. You can run all sorts of fake campaigns and purchase a whole lot of fake protesters with that kind of coin.

And the Left has received hundreds of billions of dollars in in-kind contributions from their Fellow Travelers in the pseudo-“news” media. No Leftist message is too absurd, no Leftist campaign too fake, no Leftist policy demand too insane. The “news” media qualm-lessly, instantaneously parrots and amplifies. Whatever the Left needs – the media delivers.

Which brings us to Nicholas Pyle, his lobby shop – and the Independent Bakers Association (IBA). Nicholas Pyle’s lobby shop isn’t actually, originally, his lobby shop. It was his father’s, and he inherited it:

“Nicholas Pyle, President, joined his father at Pyle & Associates to expand and diversify the client portfolio. He is a specialist in the areas of trade association management, government relations, issue advocacy and representation in many functional areas of the food industry and strategic defense materials. Over nearly three decades, Nick leads Pyle & Associates’ representation of some of the world’s largest food and metal companies as well as a national wholesale bakers trade association in government relations.”

For our purposes today, the key phrases therein are “issue advocacy” and “a national wholesale bakers trade association.” The latter is the IBA. In what types of “issue advocacy” is Pyle engaged on behalf of the IBA?

Well, just one kind and type, actually. Pyle – or someone for Pyle – penned a single, solitary editorial. Which was then copied and pasted with appropriate, pertinent Congressman or Senator name changes, over and over and over again. Into email after email after email. And then submitted to newspaper after newspaper after newspaper.

A brief, important aside: I buy groceries by writing for publications. What is almost a universal truth of the publication industry is the fact that just about every outlet wants exclusivity on what you submit. Meaning what you publish with them publishes only with them.

So how did Pyle get away with running the exact same editorial in forty-six different newspapers? Yes, they are mostly local papers, but come on. This is the Age of the Internet. All forty-six are available online. After, I don’t know, two dozen publishes, wouldn’t the subsequent “news”papers have executed a cursory Web search and rejected their versions of the exact same editorial?

You’d have to ask the newspapers if they searched. And if they didn’t, why they didn’t. And if they did, why they run the exact same thing over and over and over again. I can’t tell you what they were thinking (well, I can guess). I can’t think like a Leftist. When I try – my head hurts.

I can tell you that this overt rote repetition – duplicated time and again in the direction of elected official after elected official – creates a faux cacophony for Pyle’s fake messaging campaign. Our elected officials will talk with one another, and one may mention getting yelled at in their local paper about this fake campaign. Another responds “Gee, me too.” A third chimes in with “Wow, me too.”

The chances are pretty slim that these officials will check each other’s editorials – and thereby realize they are all being targeted by the exact same editorial from the exact same person. The chances are pretty good that it will leave all these officials with the false impression that this nonsense non-campaign is an actual campaign, with broad nationwide support.

So you all see how this phoniness works. Here’s hoping our elected officials do too.

[Originally Published at RedState]

Next Page »

Media Chickens of the Frankfurt School Have Come Home to Roost

By Michael Walsh

Last week’s press conference featuring the White House physician, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, ostensibly was about President Trump’s health. In reality, it was a physical and mental check-up on the White House press corps, whose jejunity, mental impairment, and ideological blindness bespoke a dangerous warning sign for both the White House and the nation. These people are sick, and getting sicker. And until they’re all in quarantine, we’re all in danger of catching what’s obviously now a deadly communicable disease.

According to Dr. Jackson, the president’s health is excellent, especially for a 71-year-old man who subsists on little sleep and an old-fashioned American diet. But that wasn’t what the media was there to hear. In fact, they weren’t there to hear much of anything at all, or indeed even to listen (since they had already mentally discounted anything the doctor was going to say). Rather they had come to speak, using Dr. Jackson as the foil for “questions” that stated and restated the same Leftist-narrative talking point: that Trump is physically and mentally unfit to lead the nation that elected him—much to their shock and anger—fifteen months ago.

You can watch the whole thing here. But do note a few things going in, including the relative youth of the media folk, especially the women—who seem to be, like the Eloi in The Time Machine, chosen for their freshness and beauty rather than the penetrating quality of their minds. The men, meanwhile, skew slightly older, although no less primped and blow-dried.

Their “questions”—which were not phrased to elicit information but to score political points—almost all contained an underlying premise: that the president is manifestly unsuited to his high office, and the burden of proof is on the doctor to prove otherwise. Even when he stated in unequivocal terms that there is nothing physically or mentally wrong with Trump, the press corps practically sneered in his face, like small children demanding to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sun will, in fact, rise in the east tomorrow. “Some people just have great genes,” said Dr. Jackson. But in the mechanistic world-view of “progressivism,” there can be no mysteries; everything must have a cause and effect, tied directly to diet, exercise, sex, race, and climate change.  Things cannot simply just be.

More Media #Resistance
The circus inside the White House briefing room was all part of the ongoing and increasingly brazen and dishonest “resistance” movement against the American people and our constitutional electoral system. Since themoment it dawned on them, late on the evening of Nov. 8, 2016, that Hillary Clinton’s triumphant waddle into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was not going to happen, the Democrat-Media Complex has waged all-out war on Trump and his administration. And not just the Democrats, but their allies-of-convenience, the “NeverTrumpers,” whose ranks not only include “conservative” columnists exposed as ideologically impotent, but also nominal members of the GOP as well, including soon-to-be-former senator, Jeff Flake, currently accepting the plaudits of the Left on his farewell tour of the Senate.

In Flake’s view, articulated in his Wednesday speech, it’s not the administration that’s under attack by a pack of howling media wolves—in fact, it’s just the opposite. “No longer can we compound attacks on truth with our silent acquiescence. No longer can we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to these assaults on our institutions,” he said. “An American president who cannot take criticism—who must constantly deflect and distort and distract—who must find someone else to blame—is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the President adds to the danger.”

Now Flake is a mendacious fool, who never would be have been re-elected in Arizona. Still, when he compares the sitting president to Josef Stalin and calls Trump’s derision of a manifestly dishonest media “an assault as unprecedented as it is unwarranted,” he’s also an ahistorical, ignorant fool.

Sarah Sanders provided a little pushback when she observed, “he’s criticizing the President because he has terrible poll numbers and he is looking for some attention. I think it’s unfortunate,” but a “more in sorrow” response is exactly wrong. This is a war that only one side can win—and which only one side is fighting in earnest at the moment.  The notoriously inept White House communications shop has, from the outset, played by Marquess of Queensberry rules, treating the ladies and gentlemen of the press as if they were, well, ladies and gentlemen, instead of credentialed but poorly educated, ideologically committed propagandists. It’s no accident that 90 percent of the press coverage of the Trump administration so far has been negative, with the media determined to present everything in the worst possible light.

How Do “Conservatives” Counter This?
Note the profusion of headlines these days that now include “sources say,” “seems to suggest,” “may,” “reportedly,” and other weasel words whose plain meaning isnot. The great scheisshole flap originated with exactly one individual, the proven fabulist Dick Durbin of Illinois, but now has been accepted as gospel by (as Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, says) the Democratic operatives with bylines. And the great “Russian collusion” hoax—which I pointed out from day one was a disinformation operation facilitated by rogue, but high-ranking, members of the intelligence community, the Democrats, the Clinton campaign, and their hacks and fellow-travelers in the media—has now gossamered away in the wind, having largely been supplanted by 25th Amendment fantasies, Michael Wolff’s book, and temper tantrums over Norway and the new tax tables.

And yet, they never stop, they never sleep, they never quit. To counter this, what do our so-called “conservatives” have? A White House press operation that issues hopeful but random talking points with wan pleas for influential columnists and bloggers to cite them? Sarah Sanders’ media follies? If the White House comm shop really wanted a game-changer, it could start by discontinuing the briefings and dispersing the correspondents back to covering the police beat in Dubuque and town meetings in western New York State, where they might actually learn to recognize and report news, instead of shoehorning it into the Narrative.

Trump himself showed the way yesterday with his “Fake News” Awards, which went to doom-‘n-gloomer Paul Krugman for his prediction that the stock market (now at 26,000) would “never” recover from Trump’s election; ABC’s hacktastic Brian Ross, demoted after sending markets briefly plummeting with a false report about when Trump had instructed former national security advisor Mike Flynn to make contact with the Russians; CNN’s “sourced” blunder (“confirmed” by two other news organizations) about when the Trumps got access to the Wikileaks dump; and eight more, including, at No. 11, the entire “Russian collusion” fantasy.

All Trump, All the Time
Still, the sad truth is that all news these days has become Washington political news—theNew York Times can hardly issue a tweet or a news alert without some mention of Trump—and for journalistic order to be restored, a refusal to indulge this monomania and the children who embody and promulgate it would be a good starting point both for Washington and for the profession. Meanwhile, the Left’s media machine goes 24/7—“Trump unfit, Trump unfit, this just in: Trump unfit”—and even when some of their number fall victim to the pervnado, they simply replace them and keep churning.

The Bloomberg story about Wolff’s unaccountable access to the White House sums the situation up in true tragicomic-opera fashion:  “Author Michael Wolff’s pitch to the White House to win cooperation for his book included a working title that signaled a sympathetic view, a counter-narrative to a slew of negative news stories early in Donald Trump’s presidency. He called it ‘The Great Transition: The First 100 Days of the Trump Administration.’ And in part due to that title, Wolff was able to exploit an inexperienced White House staff who mistakenly believed they could shape the book to the president’s liking.”

This perfectly sums up the first year of the administration. Starting with the president himself, who still believes he can charm the Beltway media the way he did the Manhattan media in his former life (“You have to understand,” one White House insider told me last summer, “the president likes Maggie Haberman”), the administration still largely ascribes good intentions to a group of politically and culturally deadly opponents who scoff at the notions of fair play, balance, common decency, and dispassion in the furtherance of their policy objectives.

Not smart enough to get into law school, they decided to “change the world” through the medium of journalism—the rooster graduate students and chicken teaching assistants of the Frankfurt School; after their long march through the institutions, they have come home to roost at the highest levels of academe, entertainment, the Democrat Party, and the media. Going forward,confronting and defeating these domestic sappers should be one of our highest priorities. The fate of the nation depends on it.

[Provided by the Center on American Greatness.]

Next Page »

Bill De Blasio’s Silly Climate Suit

By Steve Goreham

On January 10, the city of New York filed suit against BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. The suit accuses oil companies of causing dangerous climate change and damage to New York City, seeking monetary compensation. But history will rank this action high in the annals of human superstition.

The 67-page suit claims that burning of fossil fuels marketed by the oil industry changes the climate and that these changes are “injuring New York City.” The suit projects an increase in deaths from heat waves, flooding from extreme weather that would impact the city’s water supply system, increasing frequency of droughts that would diminish water to upstate New York reservoirs, and catastrophic flooding from rising oceans.

Hurricane Sandy is mentioned several times in the suit as an example of both extreme weather and rising oceans from human-caused warming. As a result of Sandy, New York launched a $20 billion effort to prepare for the effects of climate change in 2017. The city wants oil firms to pay for this effort, claiming they are causing “continuous and reoccurring injuries to the city.” But these claims border on the superstitious.

Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey and New York City on October 29, 2012 with Category 1 hurricane-force winds of 81 miles per hour. It came ashore at high tide causing extensive flooding. The storm resulted in 147 deaths and over $50 billion in assessed damage. But this has happened before.

More than 80 tropical or sub-tropical storms struck New York State during the last 300 years. An example was the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane of 1821. It hit New York City with Category 3 force winds, much stronger than Category 1 Sandy. Although it came ashore at low tide, when ocean levels were five feet lower than when Sandy hit, the 1821 storm flooded New York City up to Canal Street.

According to the National Hurricane Center, 170 hurricanes made US landfall during the twentieth century. Fifty-nine of these storms generated at least Category 3 wind speeds, stronger than Category 1 Sandy. How then was Hurricane Sandy evidence of human-caused global warming?

Ocean levels have risen about 120 meters (390 feet) in the last 20,000 years, according to data from NASA. Tidal gauges show a rise of about 7 inches per century over the last 150 years. No scientist can tell us when natural sea level rise stopped and man-made sea level rise began. New York City is correct to prepare for rising seas, but wrong to believe that greenhouse gases from burning oil are causing the rise.

Throughout history, people have believed that human actions can change the climate and cause extreme weather. The Aztecs of the 1500s practiced human sacrifice in an attempt to control the weather and to keep the Sun moving across the sky. After King Henry divorced his wife, Catherine, in 1533, the English believed that nine months of unusually heavy rainfall were a result of the divorce. During the cool climate of the Little Ice Age between the fourteenth and nineteen centuries, hundreds of thousands of people in Europe were executed for the crime of witchcraft, blamed for short growing seasons and crop failures.

Today we still live in a world of superstition. Climate advocates tell us that if we change our light bulbs we can save polar bears. If we erect wind turbines we can make the storms less severe. And if we drive electric cars we can stop the oceans from rising. Our modern witches are the oil and coal companies.

[Originally Published at the Washington Times]

Next Page »

Washington, DC’s Worship of Big Data Threatens Individual Liberty

 

By Bob Holland
In view of a recent bipartisan initiative in the Republican-led Congress to pool data from every federal agency on every American in the supposed interest of “evidence-based policymaking,” you have to wonder if a new motto is taking shape, whether ever explicitly enacted or not.
Call it, “In Big Data, We Trust.”
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (FEPA) breezed to House approval on a voice vote in mid-November, and likely will sail through the Senate with minimal, if any, debate. FEPA calls on all federal agencies to share the data they possess on individuals and to grant access to researchers working for assorted interests. The feds would write their own rules for all this data-sharing without having to obtain the informed consent of persons whose information is passed around and used—or abused.
A representative of grassroots groups opposing FEPA, lawyer Jane Robbins, made the excellent point that citizens who yield their information to a federal agency for a specific purpose don’t expect their data to be “repurposed” without their permission just because Washington wonks think they are achieving some transcending good.
“In a free society, the government is subordinate to the citizen,” Robbins wrote. “If it wants to use his data for something he didn’t agree to, it should first obtain his consent. FEPA operates according to the contrary principle – that government is entitled to do whatever it wants with a citizen’s data and shouldn’t be hindered by his objection.”
The Declaration of Independence remains clear on that point: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Absent that consent, governmental actions are illegitimate.
Of course, the chief sponsors of FEPA—House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)—see the issue quite differently, as one of Big Data aiding the government in rescuing people from a scourge such as poverty. Ryan, the ultimate policy nerd, has argued the consolidated data are needed to determine which poverty-fighting programs are working and which are not.
 
It is no secret Ryan and Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Education Committee, are fans of Big Data-driven policymaking (though they may have divergent visions of what kinds of policies would prevail). In March 2016, Ryan and Murray introduced bills in the House and Senate, respectively, to create an Evidence-Based Policy Commission charged with developing a strategy of implementation. On September 7, 2017, the commission issued what Ryan’s press office called a “groundbreaking report,” trumpeting it under under this modest headline: “Realizing the American Idea Through Evidence-Based Policymaking.”
 
On November 1, Ryan introduced FEPA based on the commission’s findings. On November 15, the House approved it on a voice vote, with normal rules suspended.
 
Cue the Johnny Cash classic “Folsom Prison Blues”: “I hear the train a comin,’ it’s rollin’ round the bend.”
 
Perhaps this fast-tracked measure could help verify why dozens of ultra-expensive federal programs constituting LBJ’s War on Poverty utterly failed. What is unclear is how a de facto national database would magically identify new poverty programs sure to work.
 
In essence, Ryan, Murray, and other friends of Big Data are asking Americans to trust the government to safeguard every speck of information the administrative state collects about them and their families. In that regard, it is instructive that in EdChoice’s latest public-opinion survey, only 10 percent of Americans believe they can trust the federal government to do what is right “always or most of the time.” And when it comes to protection of their most sensitive information from security breaches, why should they trust the feds?
 
Major data breaches have occurred at the National Security Agency, Department of Defense, Office of Personnel and Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of Education, among other giants in the federal establishment. Expanding the pool of information across the entire government and making it available to outside interests can only increase the threat to personal privacy.
The ultimate outrage is that this is happening largely without debate, hearings, or recorded votes. Those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution should program “consent of the governed” into their personal operating systems.
[Originally Published at Breitbart]

 

Next Page »

Government Is Legalized Force. Let’s Say It!

By Joe Bast

Jim Payne is a long-time Heartland policy advisor, author, donor, and friend. He’s written a really nice commentary on the true definition of “government” and why we so seldom hear it expressed today. His essay is here in PDF form. Here’s his definition:

Government is the organization that directs the regular, public use of physical force in a territory and makes rules upheld with the threat of force.

This is close to how Heartland’s founder Dave Padden would define government. We either accomplish things voluntarily and through persuasion, Dave said, or we resort to force. The free market is the institution that relies on voluntary exchange, while government is the only institution in society with a monopoly on the legal initiation of force. Dave often led discussions in which people would gradually come around to agreeing to his definition.

Defining the word really does change the way people view the world. Shouldn’t we try to find ways to solve problems peacefully and voluntarily before we resort to force? Is it really okay to use force to achieve trivial objectives? Wasn’t the American Revolution and the Constitution all about placing limits on the use of force in society? Come to think of it, wasn’t that a big part of the message of Christianity?

Good questions to ask in this new year!

[First posted at Freedom Pub.]

Next Page »

Can Twitter Be Trusted with Its New ‘Violent Images’ Rules?

By Billy Aouste

Do you trust Twitter?

On Monday, the social media giant began to roll out its plan to ban groups it deems too violent for its platform. It is unknown just how many accounts will be purged in the great reckoning, but a clear pattern is already emerging.

Alternative-right or ‘alt-right’ nationalist figureheads have been the first to fall. The American Renaissance—a white nationalist magazine—and its founder Jared Taylor have both been suspended. Leaders for Britain First, a British nationalist party most famous for its aggressive stance on immigration and a recent retweet from President Trump, were also suspended. League of the South, an Alabaman white nationalist group who wants an “Independent Southern Republic,” has been suspended. The Traditionalist Workers Party—a white nationalist, anti-Semitic group—has been suspended. And many more are sure to follow in their wake.

Twitter’s suspension strategy is obvious; it is going directly after fringe groups that promote violence. It would be tough for anyone to argue nationalist groups are not menacing and, on occasion, even violent, as demonstrated by the Charlottesville protests. Beneath the surface of Twitter’s strategy, however, is something far more disingenuous.

Twitter announced it is targeting “violent” groups, but one quick search shows the radical leftist group Antifa—the “anti-fascist” terrorist group known for starting riots, attacking peaceful protestors, and is currently under investigation by the FBI—has not yet been banned. Black Lives Matter—whose members have killed law enforcement officials, chanted for the killing of cops, and nearly destroyed all of Baltimore—has also not been banned.

Twitter is clearly taking a hardline stance against “right-wing” violence and radical political stances, but they are ignoring left-wing groups. Why would Twitter do this? And why has Twitter silenced some non-violent, non-racist conservative voices? This apparent bias isn’t limited to Twitter, either. YouTube has gone after popular conservative voices by demonetizing them, and Facebook supposedly has kept conservative outlets from trending.

Twitter is a massive company with an incredible ability to influence public opinion, and as such, it has a civic duty to protect the rights outlined in the First Amendment. Hate speech, no matter how much you may disagree with it, has a place in public discourse in a free society. Policies that protect all speech are not in place to protect those who espouse dangerous ideologies, but rather those who challenge any mainstream belief. Those who go against the grain should never be shut down simply because those in power disagree with a dissenting voice.

By cracking down on extremist figures, Twitter and other social media platforms are not solving any problems. They are only making it easier to eliminate more mainstream conservatives in the future, while protecting leftists—including radical, violent leftists.

Who is to say Twitter’s definition of “violence” or “dangerous” won’t become synonymous with important conservative ideas? Are right-to-life protestors at an abortion clinic “violent”? What if you have a negative opinion on the transgender movement and think children are too immature to make that life-altering decision? Anybody who disagrees can be removed from the online public sphere with just a click of the button. So, the question is, do you trust Twitter to fairly manage this process and only choose to remove the truly dangerous posters? I certainly don’t.

[First published at Freedom Pub.]

Next Page »

Net Neutrality: The Left Is Always Wrong – So Stop Listening To Them

By Seton Motley

The Left has a very long history of being very wrong.

The birth of modern Socialism-Communism took place a century ago – the Marxist Revolution in Russia. It spent the 20th Century murdering a mere one hundred million people – and consigning nations the world over to wanton terror and abject poverty.

Bizarrely, we in the free market mega-success story that is the United States – are infested with these Socialists-Communists (S-Cs). And have been since the birth of its stupidity. We have watched their worldview implode over and over and over – yet we remain infected by them. (Thanks, government schools and colleges/universities.)

Today’s US Socialists-Communists have wholly taken over a once semi-reasonable, semi-rational political Party. The Democrats – are fully gone around the bend.

Take a gander at the Democrat Party platform. It is an S-C manifesto. Well, person-ifesto. Xi-festo?

Today’s Congress is inundated with elected S-Cs. We just rid ourselves of one in the White House. We’ve been trying their ideas for decades and decades. Everything they’ve touched – has turned to lead. S-Cs – are the anti-Midas.

Social Security – broke. Medicare – broke. That’s 2/3 of the $4-trillion-per-year federal budget right there. S-C President Barack Obama’s Obamacare – well on the way to broke. The Post Office – broke. Amtrak – broke.

We could list S-C failures until the crack of doom. But you get the idea.

In advance of all of these failures – come the S-C pronouncements of guaranteed success. In the interest of brevity, let us just look at the S-C Obamacare assertions – all of which were the polar opposite of accurate.

36 Times Obama Said You Could Keep Your Health Care Plan

Obama Montage: If You Like Your Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor

Montage: Five Years of Obama Lies About Lowering Typical Family’s Premiums by $2,500

Oh: An S-C Nobel-Prize-winning economic “expert” said that if Donald Trump won the presidency – a global recession would ensue. Another S-C economic “expert” said that if “Trump wins you will see a stock market crash of historic proportions.”

How’d those S-C projections do?

World Trade Boom Sails Into 2018

Dow Gained More than 25% Since President Trump’s Election

The S-Cs – still batting -1.000.

With this century-plus history of S-C wrongness in focus, let us now turn to their mandated fixation with – and predictions about – Network Neutrality.

S-C President Barack Obama in 2015 unilaterally grabbed for the government massive new Internet regulatory and taxing power – hidden inside the Trojan Horse of Net Neutrality. President Trump is on Thursday going to undo said power grab.

What the Trump Administration is doing – is nothing more than restoring the pre-2015 two-decade-plus Web status quo. That freed up the private sector to grow the Internet from “What’s that?” – to 1/6 of our entire $18-trillion-per-year economy.

The S-Cs – are losing their minds. And yet again promising all sorts of things about what it means. None of which will happen now – because none of it happened in the two-decades-plus prior to the Obama S-C interlude imposition upon the free market Internet.

As you read this S-C cavalcade of inanity, please remember that the post-Trump-rollback Web – will be exactly the same as the pre-2015-pre-Obama-power-grab Web.

We have more than twenty years of free speech-free market Xanadu Internet – which belies all of the lies the S-Cs are now peddling.

The FCC Plans to Repeal Net Neutrality This Week – And It Could Ruin the Internet

Overwrought much? Again, this S-C clown – is describing the 1996-2015 Internet. Lots of verbs apply – “ruin”-ed does not.

Oh – and as we noted last week: “If a news story contains the word and concept of ‘could’ – it isn’t a news story. It’s rank speculation….(It’s) the journalistic equivalent of astrology. ‘What’s your sign?’ – is not a legitimate avenue of journalistic inquiry. Rolling back Net Neutrality – could also lead to the Internet’s continued mass expansion. The latter – is far more likely.”

In fact, the S-Cs rely a great deal on their “could” code word. It’s their ultimate out – for when they inevitably turn out to be oh-so-very-wrong.

A Look At What Net Neutrality Repeal Could Mean

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Bring Slow Internet

The 1996-2015 Internet delivered us out from under glacier-esque 14.4k dial-up…to lightening-fast 1GB. And climbing.

A return to that Web status quo ensures us continued massive speed increases – not what the S-Cs alternatively, lamely projects.

How a Net Neutrality Rollback Could Create a Tiered Internet

Except: “(I)n the two decades without these massive regulations – the Internet was never, ever tiered.”

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Let Internet Providers Block You from Using Your Favourite Services Unless You Pay More

Except nowhere on the 1996-2015 Internet did any Internet provider anywhere do that. Even the most virulent pro-Net Neutrality S-Cs – when they feel like being honest,…say when they are under oath – begrudgingly admit it.

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Hurt Web Businesses

Yes, the 1996-2015 Internet was AWFUL for Web businesses.

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Crush Small Businesses

Again – yes, the 1996-2015 Internet was AWFUL for Web businesses. And, of course, every large Web business – was once a small Web business. The pre-Obama Internet was simply terrible for small startups like Google, Facebook and Amazon.

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Damage Local News Startups

Yes, the 1996-2015 Internet led to oh-so-many fewer news sources – at all levels. Not really.

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Wreck Hollywood And Big Media

Wait a second – I thought the 1996-2015 Internet “could” damage local news – which would be great for their Big Media competitors. But repeal “could” also hurt Big Media, the S-Cs tell us.

As for Hollywood: The 1996-2015 Internet gave us a gaggle of online entertainment providers like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Livestream,…. And gave existing entertainment providers a whole new avenue of mass direct delivery of their content. All of which was simply awful for Hollywood, was it not? Hint: It was not.

Net Neutrality Repeal Could Impact College Students

Yes – it “could” make the Internet much better for students. And everyone else. In fact – it will.

These S-C flights of demented fantasy are nigh endless – and just a Web search away.

Thankfully, that Web search will continue to get better and better.

Because the Trump Administration is rightly, reasonably restoring the gangbusters 1996-2015 Internet status quo.

Meet the new Web – same as the old Web.

Only better. And better. And better. And….

[Originally Published at RedState]

Next Page »

Let’s Put an End to the Left’s Myths about the Liberal Arts

By Teresa Mull

The study of the liberal arts is increasingly becoming passé. Schools are encouraged by government grants to infiltrate the classrooms with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and computer science instruction, creating a generation of programmable techies who are proficient at clicking but not at thinking.

As a frequent cellphone and computer user, I certainly do appreciate technological advances. What bothers me, however, is that government is involved in persuading schools what to teach and telling students what to study. I’m also disturbed by the consistent naysayers who dismiss studying the humanities as some frivolous, artistic venture that contains about as much value as Kim Kardashian’s views on the Gulf War. As someone who majored in the liberal arts, I can say that’s absolutely not true.

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal just published a very interesting piece titled, “Liberal Arts Education Is Not (Necessarily) a Waste of Time.” In the article, George Leef points out, “The liberal arts can be a practical education, but at too many schools there isn’t much education going on in their programs.”

Leef retells a story of a student who was considering studying history at Harvard, but when the student’s parents found out, was told the liberal arts are “a house of pain.” Leef explains there is a prevailing perception that those students who study “history, literature, philosophy or anything else that doesn’t have a clear occupational path is just throwing away years of school time and a great deal of money. Focus instead,” people say, “on practical subjects that might at least lead to a job after college.”

My theory is that the “liberal arts is a waste of time” rumor was started by a bunch of progressive elites afraid of what might happen when people, especially young ones, started to develop their own conclusions instead of drinking the Kool-Aid served to them at government schools controlled by liberal, big-government types.

You may think such a claim is right-wing nonsense, or even silly, but before completely dismissing the idea, consider the following: First, liberals control the overwhelming majority of higher-education institutions in America, and yet many of them are the ones dismissing liberal arts and suggesting it’s useless. Second, liberals’ philosophy hinges on everyone working together like little cogs in a giant machine, an idea that fits well with advancing STEM, but doesn’t make much sense with the liberal arts. Third, liberal arts hinges on studying the classic thinkers of Western Civilization, most of whom the left has dismissed as racist, misogynistic, greedy, or homophobic.

In short, the liberal arts is a giant roadblock on the path to socialism, so why wouldn’t the left want to undermine it?

What about the claim there isn’t “much education going on” in most liberal arts programs anymore? What’s happened? I attended (shameless plug alert) the University of Dallas (UD), a small liberal arts Catholic college known for its core curriculum. At UD, for about two years students don’t choose any of their own classes. They’re required to complete pretty much all the same courses in literature, theology, philosophy, art, science, history, and language before they can begin to focus on higher-level classes specific to their majors.

“Our curriculum,” UD’s website says, “is based on a core that emphasizes the pursuit of truth and virtue in the classical Western tradition and the importance of academic rigor.”

How can the “pursuit of truth and virtue” have been diluted to such a point that those who make it their focus in college are, upon graduation, considered virtually unemployable? Philosophy is the “love of wisdom,” theology the study of God, yet these studies — once considered the purpose of human existence — are now looked at as mere frippery that’s not worth anyone’s time (unless you went to Stanford).

How can someone who has mastered the theories of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, as well as the history of Gaul, the nuances of Shakespeare, and other similar topics once considered to be essential, be worthless? Surely such a mind is capable of more than a narrow focus, yet such is the predominant and well-crafted misconception about liberal arts majors.

The truth is, liberal arts majors are not ill-equipped as employees and doomed to a life on food stamps. Wilson Peden wrote in Fortune magazine in 2015 (and backed his excellent article up with lots of data), “For the last time: No, earning a degree in English, philosophy, art history, name-your-humanities-discipline will not condemn you to a lifetime of unemployment and poverty… Persistent or not, the myth of the unemployed humanities major is just that: a myth, and an easily disproven one at that.”

A 2014 report from InsideHigherEd similarly reported, “Over the arc of a career,humanities and social science graduates earn as much or more than those in professional fields, new study shows, and are equally employed.”

The Wall Street Journal agreed. As did Time. And CNN. Fareed Zakaria wrote in the Washington Post in 2015, “America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous,” proclaiming, “This dismissal of broad-based learning… comes from a fundamental misreading of the facts — and puts America on a dangerously narrow path for the future.”

“Broad-based learning” is being dismissed because of an ever-deepening infiltration of left-wing radicals, who, like the public K–12 teachers unions folks, see academia as the perfect place to sink their teeth and finagle the future to their evil wills. Liberal professors outnumber conservative ones 12 to one. Even the straightforward, fact-based realm of engineering is not safe from these rabid manipulators.

The bottom line is this: The liberal arts are valuable. They’re beautiful and necessary. They have, however, at many colleges and universities, been perverted by people looking to advance their own ideological agenda — one that is nihilist at best and fascist at worst. But students drawn to the examination of truth, beauty, and goodness ought not to fear. You’ll enjoy college. You’ll find a job. You’ll make good money. You won’t be liberal. And you’ll be just fine.

[Originally Published at American Thinker]

Next Page »

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: The Truth About the Restoring Internet Freedom Order

ajit pai net neutralitu

In this episode of the Heartland Daily Podcast, managing editor and research fellow Jesse Hathaway talks with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai about the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, a proposed order that would undo the agency’s 2015 power grab taking control of the internet and help free-market principles go online.

For most of the internet’s history the government’s light-touch approach to internet regulation had facilitated innovation and growth, Pai says. FCC was wrong to get into the business of dominating the online world, and the Order will get the agency out of that business.

The debate over “net neutrality” isn’t really about net neutrality per se, Pai says, but is actually about something called “paid prioritization,” in which content producers can pay internet companies to ensure bits get to consumer faster, like taking a toll road to get somewhere instead of taking a public highway.

Instead of worrying about the fake problem of net neutrality, Pai says he wants to continue improving the internet for all consumers, encouraging companies to invest in infrastructure development and solving real problems.

[First published at Freedom Pub.]

Next Page »

Keystone Is Anti-hydrocarbon Zealotry in Microcosm

By Paul Driessen

The Nebraska Public Service Commission (NPSC) recently voted to approve the state’s segment of the 1,200-mile Keystone XL Pipeline. While that would appear to allow construction to move forward, more obstacles loom before KXL can finally bring North Dakota and Canadian crude oil to Texas refineries.

Commissioners who voted against approval have raised objections, some landowners still object to the pipeline crossing their lands, other landowners were not aware that the new route will cross their properties, and environmentalists plan more lawsuits to stop TransCanada’s plans to finish Keystone.

Further complicating matters, the NSPC-approved route is not the company’s preferred path through the Cornhusker State. A spokesman said project engineers will have to assess how much the newly revised route will affect construction schedules and costs, on top of the $3 billion it already spent on KXL.

The imbroglio is a tiny facet of the ideological green movement’s implacable opposition to carbon-based energy. Rooted in climate change dogma, its “keep it in the ground” mantra has become a rallying cry for nasty campaigns against pipeline construction, existing pipelines, drilling and even sand destined for fracking operations. Police increasingly have to deal with masked thugs, mountains of toxic trash, murder threats and even the possibility of improvised bombs hidden in “peaceful protesters” encampments.

The attitudes and actions underscore the increasing power and recalcitrance of $13-billion-per-year Big Green industry, and how little fundamental facts affect its thinking. If the radicals believe there is an ecological or climate risk, they feel justified in using intimidation, criminal sanctions, and even force, violence and eco-terror to impose their will. Whatever they cannot make off limits via Antiquities Act, wilderness or other land use designations, they intend to lock up or shut down by other means.

The most delayed and litigated pipeline in U.S. history, KXL has stirred controversy for over a decade. Proponents say it is a necessary, safe, effective way to transport crude oil to refineries that produce fuel for vehicles and raw materials for countless petrochemical products. In fact, segments of Keystone have already been in operation for several years, delivering crude oil to refineries in Illinois and Texas.

A new, shorter, more direct route – Keystone XL, running diagonally through Wyoming, the Dakotas and Nebraska – would be less expensive and safer. The northern portions were approved years ago, but the Nebraska section encountered prolonged opposition from climate alarmists and President Obama.

TransCanada had already agreed to move the route away from environmentally sensitive wetlands known as the Nebraska Sandhills. The NPSC decision shifted the pipeline further away from Sandhills. Diehard opponents say all pipelines are inherently unsafe, prolong the use of “climate-damaging” fossil fuels, and will become obsolete relics as America shifts entirely to renewable energy in a utopian decade or so.

The United States already has 160,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines, 300,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines, and 2,200,000 miles of local gas distribution pipelines. Skilled builders will use the latest steel, valve, monitoring and other technologies to build the KXL segment and prevent spills.

No one can guarantee that spills will never occur. A recent older Keystone pipeline break in South Dakota caused a 5,000-barrel leak. However, the Keystone and KXL lines traverse mostly rural areas, whereas truck and rail alternatives go along busy, congested highways and through towns and urban areas – with far greater potential for loss of human life and property.

A fiery 2013 derailment in Quebec killed 47 people and left many more badly burned; rail accidents in Colorado and Virginia resulted in significant oil spills but fortunately no deaths. By carrying 830,000 barrels of light and heavy crude every day, Keystone XL would eliminate the need for 1,225 railroad tanker cars per day (450,000 per year) or 3,500 semi-trailer tanker trucks daily (1,275,000 annually)!

More than 99.9% of oil moved by pipeline arrives safely at its destination, the Wall Street Journal notes. Rail transit is 2.5 times more likely to have an accident resulting in an oil spill, and trucks are six times more likely to do so – with both far more likely to injure, burn or kill many people. Indeed, the 5,000-barrel spill happened after the Keystone pipeline had safely delivered more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil, and TransCanada isolated the affected pipeline section within 15 minutes. No serious damage occurred.

Equally important, wind and solar substitutes for fossil fuels have their own major ecological impacts – which few environmentalists ever acknowledge. Using wind power to replace current US electricity generation and charge batteries for just seven windless days of backup power would require some 14 million towering 1.8-MW bird-and-bat-killing turbines, across acreage twice the size of California. The backup power would require over 650 million 100-kWh Tesla battery packs on still more acreage.

This does not consider what it would take to replace vehicles with electric versions – or coal and gas fuel in foundries, refineries and factories. The steel, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, fiberglass and other raw materials to build all those turbines, batteries and transmission lines would require massive quantities of earth removal, mining, processing, smelting and manufacturing – much of it in developing countries under dangerous, inhuman conditions. Renewable energy is not ecological or sustainable.

Activists who cry Climate Armageddon attempt to tie every temperature rise, hurricane and other extreme weather event to human greenhouse gas emissions. They ignore the record 12-year drought in Category 3-5 hurricanes striking the U.S. mainland, prior to Harvey – and the “warming hiatus” that has prevailed since 1998, except during the 2015-16 El Niño temperature spike.

Climate computer models falsely assume that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide drives climate change … and predict average global temperatures a full 1 degree F higher than have actually been observed by satellites and weather balloons, a gap that is widening every year. It now appears that Western Antarctic ice shelf instability is due to volcanic and magmatic activity beneath it – not climate change.

Heavily subsidized, sporadic, unreliable wind and solar combined provide less than 3% of all U.S. energy. One day, they (or some other as yet unimaginable energy source) may replace the fossil fuels that still account for 81% of the energy that makes US livelihoods, living standards and life spans possible – and is lifting billions out of abject poverty, malnutrition and disease. But that day has not yet arrived.

Fossil fuels provide feed stocks for paints, plastics, pharmaceuticals and other products that enrich and safeguard our lives. They keep our lights, heat and air conditioning on, and power the manufacturing centers that create computers, smart phones, healthcare technologies, vehicles and batteries. They take patients to hospitals, people to work and events, products to retailers and homes.

They are the most efficient, most affordable power source for the modern civilization which we Americans enjoy and take for granted – and to which all humans aspire. Pipelines are the fastest, safest, most direct, most economical way to get oil and natural gas supplies where they are needed.

Keystone XL is a vital addition to America’s pipeline system. It’s not perfect. But it is essential for a healthier, safer, more prosperous United States. Building it will create tens of thousands of jobs.

As to handling anarchists who think they are above the law, these suggestions may help. Ensure that there are sufficient police and National Guardsmen to maintain control. Require permits and multi-million-dollar surety bonds for every encampment, to ensure safety, lawful activities, and cleanup of human and other wastes. Prohibit wearing of ski masks and collect IDs, fingerprints and photos of every activist.

To prevent hypocrisy in anti-fossil fuel anarchist camps, prohibit all petroleum-based synthetic fibers (clothing, tents, sleeping bags); clothing derived from fibers grown, harvested and/or manufactured using fossil fuels; computers and cell phones with plastic housings; and transportation from protest sites in vehicles fueled or manufactured with hydrocarbons, in aircraft, or on asphalt roadways.

Allow only growing, harvesting, garment manufacturing, food, cooking and travel using all-natural pre-1900 technologies – so that campers can learn how wonderful life was back in the “good old days.”

[First published at Freedom Pub.]

Next Page »