Self-described Male Feminist and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in some serious trouble:
“A simmering political scandal involving Justin Trudeau and his ex-attorney general came to the boil dramatically this week. Now, people are calling on him to resign.
Mr Trudeau has been accused of pressuring his former attorney general to cut a deal with a company facing corruption charges – and retaliating when she refused to play ball.
The revelations could cost Trudeau the October general election, some pundits say.
The former AG says Trudeau and his staff spent months trying to convince her that taking the company to trial would cost Canadians jobs, and their party votes.
She also says she was subject to “veiled threats”, which she believes were made good when she was shuffled out of her department.”
The US media shrieks 24/7 about how Trump is insanely corrupt and how his impeachment is imminent despite finding no actual scandals, and yet it’s their Man Crush Monday Trudeau who is the corrupt one facing calls to resign over something resembling Obstruction of Justice, a term enemies of President Trump have lobbed at him:
“Canada’s former minister of justice and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould described a consistent, sustained and inappropriate effort by senior officials close to the prime minister who were attempting to dissuade her from prosecuting a Canadian engineering company accused of bribery.
In searing testimony to the justice committee on Wednesday, Wilson-Raybould said the pressure on her included “veiled threats” if she did not acquiesce.
“I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada in an inappropriate effort,” she said in her opening statement.
Wilson-Raybould’s appearance before the committee marked her first public comments on the scandal, which has become the biggest crisis of Trudeau’s administration.
Wilson-Raybould said she was “barraged” and subjected to “hounding” by members of the government. According to contemporaneous notes taken after each interaction, Wilson-Raybould recalled 10 phone calls and 10 meetings regarding the case.
Wilson-Raybould also detailed a meeting with Trudeau, in which the prime minister said that – as a member of parliament from Quebec – he was concerned by the issue of SNC Lavalin jobs in the province, and asked her to “help out” with the case.
“Are you politically interfering with my role as attorney general? I would strongly advise against it,” Wilson-Raybould recalled telling the prime minister.
Wow, a real #AdvocateForWomen this Trudeau fella persyn is, pressuring them and threatening them like this.
Trudeau denies any wrongdoing, but we must #BelieveWomen here and take Wilson-Raybould’s word over Trudeau’s.
Of course, the US “media,” which never misses an opportunity to fawn over Trudeau and his dreamy eyes, is largely silent. Google “Justin Trudeau Scandal” and you’ll find virtually nothing from the major “mainstream” US “media” outlets:
I guess Americans don’t need to know about this.
I’m sure CNN and NYT would treat Trump the same way!
Conservatives must reckon with the fact that multinational megacorporations, which are now found oppressing and marginalizing anyone to the right of Jonah Goldberg, were only allowed to get as large and powerful as they currently are because of Reaganomics.
This is a difficult pill to swallow because Reagan is the Messiah to the conservative right. In their telling, he saved and revitalized the economy which fell apart in the 1970s and particularly under Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s neoliberal, or “supply side,” economic policies began a 25-year economic boom that was largely uninterrupted until the collapse of 2008, bringing American prosperity and business to new, unparalleled heights.
Regan’s influence on the right’s economic philosophy is so absolute that even in the 2012 election–24 years after Reagan had left office and 8 years after his death–Republican Presidential candidates competed with each other to show they were the most like Reagan. They would take turns showering him with praise and promising to be just like Reagan. The whole primary campaign was like watching Tibetan Buddhists try to find the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama: who was the TRUE reincarnation of Ronald Reagan?!
A whole generation of Young Conservatives™ born in the years following Reagan’s presidency have grown up revering and worshipping Ronald Reagan, believing him to be completely beyond critique, and his policies having had no downsides.
But while it’s undeniable that Reagan’s policies were great for corporate profits and the stock market, and that a ton of wealth was created following the early 1980s, what’s rarely discussed (even by many of Reagan’s leftwing critics) is the fact that the neoliberal economic paradigm Reagan’s policies ushered in gave us the era of multinational megacorporations and all the troubles they have wrought today.
Reagan’s tax cuts, deregulation and general pro-business, pro-international free trade policies were the opening corporate America needed to take off to heights not seen since the age of the Robber Barrons at the turn of the century.
The difference today is that corporations are hugely influential over our personal lives. We live largely at their mercy, tech giants in particular.
Today, you need to have a social media presence, and yet if you’re a conservative banned from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, you essentially cannot.
We have reached a scary point in the history of our country, where major corporations are not only virtue signaling for the approval of the left via cynical “Faux Woke” ad campaigns and rainbow-flag social media avatars, but are actively working to oppress and victimize political dissidents.
It’s not just about pandering to a leftwing audience in search of higher profits; it’s about actively enforcing a political agenda, even if it means alienating and even directly oppressing millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Americans.
The largest American corporations now fully realize just how much leverage they can exert over our behavior, and have begun using that leverage to silence political dissent and punish the enemies of Politically Correct Uniparty Globalism.
They have become the primary enforcers for totalitarian leftism. It’s not about profits anymore; it’s about power.
If you’re banned from Twitter, Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, Chase Bank, Uber, PayPal, and Airbnb it is going to be difficult to live a normal life and have a successful career.
That’s seven companies that collectively have an enormous amount of control over your ability to live a normal life and have a successful career in 2019.
Do you really want to get on their bad side? Is supporting Donald Trump really worth all the suffering you’re going to endure? Think of how easy it would be to just give up and support the Uniparty. You’d get to keep your social media accounts, you’d get to keep your bank account, you don’t have to worry about being socially ostracized, you don’t have to worry about being fired for Thought Crime. Things would be much easier if you simply gave in and supported the Uniparty, American Consumer #221,543,906.
And that’s just how it is now: it’ll get worse in the future. Soon, hotels will start denying rooms to dissidents. Airlines will blacklist them. Dissidents won’t be able to travel. They won’t be able to bank and get loans.
It doesn’t make as much sense for Amazon to close the accounts of dissidents, given that Amazon would be stupid to ban people who directly give it money on a regular basis, but is it that far out of the realm of possibility? Absolutely not. In fact I’d bet on it happening in the next few years. As of now I’ve not heard of Amazon denying political dissidents the ability to shop on their site, but they have for a while now been banning books written by dissidents, notably those by Roosh Valizadeh—and at the behest of Huffington Post, of course.
Even scarier is the prospect of Facebook and Google, who know everything about everyone, starting to use their vast trove of data to blackmail people into conformity.
Corporations have always been powerful, but never have they exerted as much control over our personal lives as they do today. And it was Ronald Reagan’s economic policies and philosophy that allowed these companies to grow so big and powerful.
We can better understand the rise of multinational megacorporations since Reagan in the following five trends that have emerged:
First, there are now fewer publicly traded companies than there were in 1980, a time when America had a population of 225 million (100 million fewer people than today) and when the US GDP was only about $2.8 trillion.
Today, a shrinking number of megacorporations control more and more of a $20 trillion economy. At the peak in 1996, there were over 8000 public companies in the US. Today there are around 4,000, a decline of nearly 50%.
This is mainly due to mergers and acquisitions, closures due to foreign competition, and closures of domestic competition caused by unfair, anti-competition government regulations written in large part by the megacorporations.
Here’s the market cap of that shrinking number of companies:
The entire economy has essentially become a cartel. Larger pie, fewer slices.
Second, since the early 1980s, the number of banks in the country has fallen by nearly 75%. Increasingly, our only options are the major banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, US Bank and PNC.
More and more Americans use megabanks, and with fewer options for Americans, the banks are able to exert more control over our lives.
The name of the game is consolidation, both in banking and the economy overall. When did that begin? The 1980s.
Third, income inequality has taken off to the point where the top 1% of the country now holds more wealth than the bottom 90%:
Look where the divergence really begins: the early 1980s.
Median family income, which doubled from the end of WWII to 1970, has basically been flat for the past five decades:
Importantly, this is not a trend that began under Reagan, but the trend of income inequality largely did begin under Reagan:
Because while it’s technically accurate to say that real incomes for Americans haven’t really grown at all since the early 1970s, they have grown for the richest Americans.
The rich have left everyone in the dust; the actual gains that have been made since the early 1980s have gone to a small number of rich individuals and families at the top.
Fourth, global free trade has outsourced millions of jobs to cheap labor abroad. NAFTA may have been implemented in 1994 under Bill Clinton, but the negotiations began in 1988 under Reagan, continued under Reagan’s hand-picked successor George H.W. Bush and were completed under Clinton. NAFTA was Reagan’s idea originally, and in fact he made free trade a part of his campaign way back in 1979. NAFTA’s roots can undoubtedly be traced to Reagan.
This chart shows job outsourcing in the previous decade, the 2000s:
Multinational megacorporations added over 2 million jobs outside the US in the decade from 2000-2009 while cutting over 3 million jobs inside the US.
GE, for example, slightly increased its foreign workforce in the 2000s while reducing the size of its US workforce by 16%.
“In 2007, IBM reported having 121,000 workers in the United States. By 2009, this number had shrunk to 105,000, due to layoffs and outsourcing. But IBM is rapidly expanding its global workforce. Through a similar period in 2007, the company had 386,558 employees globally, a number which has since grown to 426,751.
But we don’t know how many U.S. employees it now has; IBM stopped publishing domestic statistics in late 2009, saying that it was no longer necessary because none of its competitors did.”
That’s because they’re all outsourcing like mad and don’t want anyone to know the true extent!
It is estimated that since China was allowed into the World Trade Organization in 2001 (one of the worst things to ever happen to American workers) over 3 million American jobs have been displaced:
Obviously Reagan was long gone by 2001, but China’s addition to the WTO was a lengthy process that began way back in 1986 and only culminated in 2001. Our trade imbalance with China and all the ills that accompany it began in the early 1990s:
You can see the divergence truly began in 1991 and is now completely out of control.
This has its origins in the neoliberal global capitalism/”free trade” philosophy that began under Reagan.
Fifth and finally, the rise of multinational megacorporations has coincided with the explosion of foreign immigration–both legal and illegal–into the US.
While the demographic transformation of America currently underway can be traced back to Ted Kennedy’s disastrous 1965 immigration overhaul, it was the big corporations that quickly realized they could exploit the left’s push for “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to obtain cheap foreign labor.
There is a massive amount of corporate support behind mass foreign immigration because big companies have realized that if they can’t ship your job overseas, they can bring someone from overseas here to do your job for cheaper.
The reason it has proven so difficult for Trump to stem the tide of foreign immigration is because there are a lot of powerful, wealthy businesses pushing back against him. They largely have Congress in their pockets.
Not only do mega corporations increasingly control our lives, they have also played a major role in destroying the fabric of this country via open borders immigration. Whether it’s cheap low-skilled labor from illegals or cheap high-skilled labor from the H1B visas, wage-killed immigration is in the best interest of the many big businesses that dominate this country.
So it’s no wonder our country is being flooded with third worlders: it is what’s best for the Big Corporations’ bottom lines.
All this goes back to Reagan and his ideology of neoliberal capitalism. It is virtually impossible to say otherwise.
If we are ever going to have any hope of salvaging our country, we must be honest about where the problems began.
Most importantly, the right must move on from the ideology of “free market capitalism.”
There may have been a time when “free market capitalism” truly meant “free market capitalism,” but it has now come to represent an oligarchy of multinational megacorporations.
This does not mean we have to embrace socialism. Not at all. It’s a false choice to suggest that we either have an oligarchy of multinational megacorporations or we have Full Blown Soviet-Style Communism, complete with gulags and Five Year Plans.
We must return to real capitalism. What we have now is basically an unholy alliance of big business and big government. This is not capitalism at all.
It’s not right to say that business is a good thing in and of itself. Small businesses are good, and even larger businesses can be good, but megacorporations are bad—especially when they work hand in hand with the government. Megacorporations spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Washington to write favorable regulations, which usually have the effect of warding off competition and entrenching the megacorporations even further.
“Pro-business” today usually ends up meaning “pro Big Business,” and that’s a bad thing. What we really need is pro-competitionpolicies.
And yes, we do need to reject the ideology of “free” trade because it’s killing us. Cheap Chinese shit has not been a worthwhile tradeoff given how many millions of jobs we’ve lost to outsourcing, and how much capital has been invested overseas instead of here in America.
“Free market economics” generally has a very positive connotation on the right, and conservatives will point to luminaries like Milton Friedman and Adam Smith to justify their views. I know because I used to be a devout, Reagan-worshipping “free market conservative,” believing that the free market was always and everywhere right and any form of government intervention was wrong.
Free market conservatives believe businesses almost always do the right thing, and that if simply left to their own devices, they will create a sort of perfectly efficient utopia in which all demands are met with supply, every problem is solved by an innovative entrepreneur or business, and no one is ever oppressed because only the government can oppress you. This last part about the government being the only institution with the power to oppress you is probably the single greatest blind spot of Reagan-worshipping free market capitalists.
And it’s pretty easy to see that when left to their own devices, businesses operating in a free market will not do what’s best for everyone. For instance, a long-held critique of Reaganomics from the left is that unregulated businesses don’t give a shit about the environment and will pollute and dump to their hearts’ content if the government doesn’t forbid them from doing so.
Free market conservatives, however, instead of simply admitting they don’t give a shit about the environment, often make the ridiculous argument that ackshually, businesses will naturally take better care of the environment because The Free Market is Jesus.
No. They will only care about the environment if it is profitable for them to do so.
Another example is labor costs: free marketers think businesses will care about wages if you simply removed government regulations.
No, they don’t care about wages: they care about profits. And everyone knows the single largest expenditure for businesses is labor. They are always and everywhere looking to cut costs and maximize profits, and when they can cut labor costs, they will.
This is why we have layoffs and outsourcing: if you can’t eliminate the job, find someone who will do it for cheaper.
If these big companies could, they would automate almost every job. Robots and AI are the ultimate cheap labor. But for now big companies have to settle for foreigners.
Before global free trade came around, companies were generally restricted to finding Americans who would do the jobs for cheaper. But now they’re not limited to just Americans: they can find Taiwanese kids in sweatshops who will do the job for way cheaper. Or they can move their plants to Mexico.
The ultimate example of post-Reagan neoliberal capitalism is Apple: Apple is the largest publicly traded company on earth with a market cap of $821 billion. Last year, before its more recent fall in share price, Apple became the first company to sport a trillion-dollar market cap. Yet Apple only directly employs about 50,000 workers here in the US. Foxconn, however–the Taiwanese company that makes Apple’s iPhones and iPads–employs over 800,000 people. And the reason Apple uses Foxconn is because they manufacture for dirt cheap.
(Walmart, in contrast to Apple, employs over 2 million people in the US. McDonald’s employs about 2 million Americans.)
So we’ve got a multinational megacorporation that is worth over $800 billion yet only employs about 50,000 people in the US. Apple is turning just stupid profits and the actual economic benefit to Americans in terms of jobs created is relatively tiny.
This is all because of the ideology of free market economics: just let businesses do whatever they want and trust that they act in America’s best interests.
It’s a faith-based ideology at heart. The Almighty Free Market will be our salvation.
But the past several years should show us all–especially conservatives–that big business is not our friend. The free market does not always get the best result for everyone.
Left to their own devices, companies will consolidate market share and power by gobbling up smaller competitors. They will cut labor costs by moving operations overseas, and they will use their might to lobby and influence Washington for favorable regulations and policies, which suppress, rather than encourage, competition.
We seem to have forgotten this sometime after the end of the first Roosevelt administration, but the primary tendency of unconstrained businesses is towards domination and monopoly. They don’t want competition, they want supremacy.
If the great Trust Buster himself Theodore Roosevelt came back to life and saw that the prevailing economic mindset among America’s modern day political class–especially among his Republican successors–was to simply sit back and allow companies to do whatever they want, under the presumption that businesses only ever act in our best interests and will never harm us, he would be furious. He would wonder if his time in the White House had been forgotten by history.
This all goes back to Reagan. His economic policies were anchored in the desire to fully unleash and unchain American businesses.
We did, and his philosophy took root among our political establishment. Neoliberal capitalism has been the dominant consensus of economic thinking in Washington for the past three decades. All of Reagans successors until Trump were disciples–yes, that includes Bill Clinton, and yes, that even includes Barack Obama, who made a lot of talk about the middle class and taxing the wealthy but ultimately presided over an economic recovery in which virtually all the gains went to the wealthy. From 2009-2017, big corporations saw their values and profits explode while regular Americans were largely forgotten.
It all goes back to Reagan.
I’m not saying we haven’t benefitted from neoliberal capitalism. We clearly have. Our economy is incredibly efficient, and costs on virtually all essential consumer goods have come down significantly over the past 35 years. Today the poorest Americans are much better off than the poorest Americans of prior generations. Today poor people have appliances, cellphones and even luxuries poor people of previous generations could have never dreamed of. Poor Americans today aren’t starving, instead they are actually more likely to be obese. We live in a land of plenty, and that is largely due to neoliberal capitalism that began under Reagan.
But it has all come at a great cost.
The bottom line is that increasingly, regular Americans—conservatives in particular—are out of options and at the mercy of the megacorporations, which they increasingly need to live normal lives. Nobody is self-sufficient anymore. We need big corporations for virtually everything.
The multinational megacorporations, after decades of plundering our economy, hoarding all the gains, importing millions of immigrants for cheap labor, and shipping millions more jobs overseas, are now actively oppressing those who dare speak out against them.
The megacorporations are out of control. This much we can agree on.
But when the question turns to, “How did we get here?” the uncomfortable truth for free market conservatives is that this all started under Ronald Reagan.
The rise of multinational corporations is a large part of the reason things have gotten so bad today—whether it be immigration, corporate censorship, the hollowing out of the economy, the greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%, the rise of the banking cartel—and the modern multinational corporation is a product of free market (or supply side) economics, i.e. Reaganomics, neoliberalism.
We need small businesses. We need thriving families that are not buried in debt. We need strong communities characterized by high-trust, assimilation and shared values and institutions.
Multinational megacorporations have eroded much of that.
We must disabuse Mainstream Conservatives of their belief that the free market is always and everywhere wonderful, and that big business always has our best interests in mind.
This begins by deconstructing the Reagan Mythology.
We will never make any progress on breaking up the modern day trusts until we convince the Free Market Conservatives that businesses can be bad and that the Free Market does not always deliver what’s best for everyone.
Reagan himself would be horrified by what the Big Corporations are doing to conservatives today. Reagan may have been a neoliberal capitalist, but first and foremost he was for individual liberty and the constitution. That’s why he hated communism and the Soviet Union so much.
Reagan would recognize that today’s multinational megacorporations are the very tyrants we feared the government would become.
It’s time to leave Reaganomics in the past and get to Trust Busting before it’s too late.
“The UK Conservative government is set to announce plans for the introduction of compulsory sex education that may include lessons on homosexuality and transgenderism in primary school, according to the Sunday Times.
The newspaper reports that the new curriculum has been finalized after a six-month consultation with the Department of Education, and will be rolled out across England’s schools starting from the 2020-21 educational year. It will be taught to pupils from the age of five.”
This is from the ruling “Conservative” Party, of course.
“While parents will be able to request to withdraw their children out of the classroom, the school would have to follow a set guidance to consider the move. Parents will not be able to withdraw kids from Relationship classes.
A popular petition to parliament demanding that the opt-out be retained for the length of the child’s school education will be debated in the House of Commons on Monday, though it is not expected to affect the schedule for the implementation of the legislation.
Editor’s note: The plan for the reform, rolled out on Monday after the article was published, says it is up to schools to decide at what age to teach about LGBT issues and clarified that parents have the right to withdraw kids from sex education classes in primary schools noting that previous drafts were ‘unclear’ on the subject.
We’ll see if parents really do have the option to withdraw their kids from learning about homosexuality or if this is just an attempt by the “Conservatives” to head off the well-deserved backlash from parents.
No more than 1-2% of the population is gay. So why is every five year old in the West required to learn about homosexuality?
It’s remarkable how homosexuality and transgenderism (even more uncommon than homosexuality) have come to dominate Western life.
It gets better:
“Among the teaching materials for primary school children who are currently being trialed at a predominantly-Muslim school in Birmingham are ‘Tango Makes Three,’ a book about two gay penguins who nurture an egg taken from another family, and ‘My Princess Boy,’ which celebrates a dark-skinned child who loves to cross-dress.”
It’s difficult to avoid concluding that they want to encourage homosexuality among children.
Just look at this:
It’s not about tolerance and understanding.
That’s a load of bull.
The Late Modern West is already more tolerant of homosexuality and transgenderism than any society since the Late Roman Empire (not a coincidence).
It’s practically a crime to insult gays and transgenders in Britain.
The real drive behind this is to undermine the traditional family and masculinity.
But that will never happen because the banking system in America is run by a small amount of Fed-supported megabanks (who were Too Big to Fail in 2008 and have only grown in size since then). You can’t just bust into the banking sector. It’s a cartel.
“It’s an interesting and provocative idea — and certainly one that has a lot of support in Neocon and Foreign Liberal Internationalist thinking. Those pillars of foreign policy establishment thinking have long claimed that “countries that trade together don’t go to war with each other,” and have sold trade deals only partly on the economics, seeing them mostly as instruments to create and preserve peace.
Well, then: shared commerce and finance keeps America knitted together in peace too, right?”
Presumably, but I have a feeling America is about to test that hypothesis.
“But what happens when major corporations, especially those involved in finance and the free exchange of ideas in order to further the aims of participatory democracy, decide they’re going to effectively exile half the country out of the normal systems of the country?
What happens when half of America won’t buy bread from the other half of America, and half of America won’t issue a mortgage to half of America based on their failing a Political Test and Corporate Loyalty Oath?
What happens to the idea that peoples that trade together can’t go to war with each other then?
The left is driving this nation to the brink of actual civil war, and the corporatist Neocons and #MuhPrinciples cucks are stupidly, ignorantly assisting them in doing so because they don’t like how half of the country voted in a single presidential election.”
What happens is we get civil war.
I have taken to calling it “21st Century Jim Crow,” Ace throws the term Apartheid around and that would also be applicable. American Apartheid:
“Tim Pool [often discusses] the “bifurcation” process going on in America, in which large corporations are forcing the populace to de-couple from each other and form their own parallel and separate communications and finance structures — permitting and even encouraging civil war (or at least civil violence).
If the left wants to be free of us, I understand — but then, we must negotiate a full and formal political separation. The left cannot attempt to exile us and yet keep us prisoner under their thumbs.
You want done with us? I could not rush to agree with your impulse any faster.
But done means DONE. We will not accept your plan of keeping us a second (at best) class citizens under your rule.
A national divorce? Absolutely.
Apartheid, with a ruling progressive class and subjugated conservatives? No.”
This is the most twisted part of it all: if the left cannot tolerate us at all, then at least allow us to go our separate way.
Instead, they want to torment and oppress us. It is sadistic.
“A Brazilian woman who made headlines this week after she was charged with assaulting a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat inside a Massachusetts restaurant has been taken into custody, officials said Tuesday.
Rosiane Santos, 41, was charged this month with disorderly conduct and assault and battery after police said she admitted to attacking a man because he supported President Trump.
Video submitted by 23-year-old Bryton Turner showed Ms. Santos yelling at him and knocking the red, “Make America Great Again” hat off his head at the Casa Vallarta restaurant in Falmouth. Ms. Santos told local media at the time that she was the victim in the situation, even though a bartender at the restaurant said Mr. Turner did nothing to provoke the alleged attack.
Of course the bitch tried to claim she was the victim.
But there’s a happy twist on this story: the Brazilian illegal alien was taken into custody alright–ICE Custody.
“On Tuesday, ICE officials took Ms. Santos into custody after determining that she was in the country illegally.”
We all know Michael Cohen is a liar, unscrupulous and not to be trusted. In fact, Michael Cohen has even been convicted for lying to Congress. In about two months, he will be locked up in jail. He is the book definition of a “non-credible witness.” Of course, NBC News’ article on Cohen buried these important facts 31 paragraphs down, because That’s Real Journalism™.
But Cohen is not a credible witness. Not even remotely. Any half decent prosecutor with any brains at all would disregard everything Cohen says.
The only difference now is he’s telling Democrats what they want to hear.
Credibility Status: RESTORED ✅
Cohen knows his only shot at avoiding major prison time, possibly rehabilitating his image and saving his career (given that he’s been disbarred by the State of New York) is getting on the left’s good side. They control pop culture, the “media,” entertainment and everything else and have the power to make or break you.
Additionally, as we’ve seen in the past few years, Democrats also don’t really have to obey the law, so the rat knows if he makes friends with powerful Democrats and tells them what they want to hear, perhaps they can shield him from the law and extend their Democrat Privilege to him. Or at least get him a lighter sentence.
Cohen probably doesn’t even have to worry about lying to Congress because Dems will never prosecute him for it.
It’s a good strategy, objectively, again because Democrats generally don’t have to obey the law. Unscrupulous, yes. Disgraceful, yes. But it’s probably Cohen’s only chance.
It is telling that the very first charge Cohen leveled against President Trump in his opening statement is that Twump Is Wacist!!!!!!
Cohen knows his audience. He knows there is no crime they care about more than whether a white person is Racist. He is pandering effectively. He knows that to Dems, there is no greater sin–nothing that gets their blood pumping more–than the prospect of calling Donald Trump a racist.
If you think Trump’s alleged RAAACISM is irrelevant to the actual subject matter of the investigation, that’s where you’re wrong. Every white person in America is on trial for racism 24/7/365, and accusation = guilt. Not only that, but it is impossible to be exonerated for the charge of RACISM.
Again, Cohen knows his audience. The Democrats and their propagandists in the media give more attention to alleged incidents of white racism than they do to murders.
As far as actual Russian “collusion”–you know, the suspicion that supposedly serves as the whole reason all these investigations are happening–Cohen didn’t have anything. He only has his own suspicions:
“I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone,” Cohen said in his opening statement before the House Oversight Committee.
“Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with [WikiLeaks founder] Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of ‘wouldn’t that be great.'”
Cohen, however, said that he knows of no direct evidence that Trump or his presidential campaign colluded with Russia.
“I do not. I want to be clear. But I have my suspicions,” he said.
This is a complete joke. There is no evidence for this claim Cohen made about Stone and Trump. Stone and Trump were the only other ones there for this alleged exchange, and if both deny it, it’s their word against Cohen’s–and again, Cohen is not credible at all.
There’s little reason to even discuss Cohen’s lurid accusations. All he’s doing is telling Democrats what they want to hear to save his own ass.
Don’t entertain this show trial as if it is actually legitimate.
The best part is like all Trump drama, this is just dumb shit only Acela and Hollywood Libs care about but won't matter at all and won't hurt Trump.
India and Pakistan escalate tensions in the highly disputed Kashmir region:
“(Bloomberg) — It’s the biggest escalation between South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals in decades and with a bitterly contested national election in India just weeks away, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to exploit his military’s air strikes on a terrorist camp inside Pakistan Tuesday.
Speaking to a huge, cheering crowd at an election rally in the state of Rajasthan, Modi twice stated that India was “in safe hands” and declared it a “glorious day,” without explicitly mentioning the attack.
India’s fighter jets destroyed a major terrorist camp in Pakistan early Tuesday “in the face of imminent danger,” Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale said in New Delhi. More than 300 people were killed in the air strikes on militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed, according to an Indian official speaking on condition of anonymity.”
Both nations are nuclear-armed.
Here is a map of the area:
Pakistan had its own version of events. After scrambling its jets in response to India’s early-morning incursion across the border, it released photographs of missile remnants it said had fallen on unoccupied territory. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s office said Pakistan would respond “at the time and place of its choosing,” rejecting India’s claim that it had hit a terror camp or inflicted heavy casualties. “Once again the Indian government has resorted to a self-serving, reckless and fictitious claim,” a statement from Khan’s office said.
Facing the first major geopolitical challenge of his term, Khan directed the country’s armed forces and the public to “remain prepared for all eventualities.”
Relations between the two countries have been tense since a Feb. 14 suicide car bombing in Kashmir, claimed by the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed, killed 40 members of India’s security forces.”
The question now is how will Pakistan respond.
“There will be some form of escalation,” Kamran Bokhari, the director of Strategy and Programs at Center for Global Policy with the University of Ottawa, said by phone. “Pakistan will have to strike back — I am not saying this will lead to an all out war, but I don’t see that it’s over.”
Today’s strikes represent the worst escalation since 2001, when Pakistan and India moved ballistic missiles and troops to their border following an attack on parliament in New Delhi that was also blamed on Jaish-e-Mohammad. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars since partition and independence in 1947.
“The last time the Indian Air Force crossed the line of control intentionally and publicly to conduct air strikes was 1971,” said Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT, referring to the Indo-Pakistan war over Bangladesh.”
“While details of the attack remain murky, we are already seeing India claiming a massive success while Pakistan is downplaying the true extent of the damages,” said Uzair Younus, a South Asia director at Washington-based consultancy Albright Stonebridge Group LLC. “The upside is that it’s likely that neither side will go up the escalation ladder following this attack.”
The airstrike may well have been a political move by Modi to appear tough on Pakistan, but that does not mean it is insignificant.
The bottom line is, if India and Pakistan go to war and nuke each other, the whole planet is fucked. 90% of all people will starve to death due to a giant smoke cloud covering the whole planet:
“PayPal CEO Dan Schulman admitted during an interview with the Wall Street Journal that PayPal works with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when it considers blacklisting conservatives.
After being asked by the Wall Street Journal what “values” PayPal identifies with,” Schulman replied, “Probably the most important value to us is diversity and inclusion.”
The leftist does not see any contradiction between “promoting diversity and inclusion” and blacklisting Republicans. Seriously, they do not.
When they say “diversity” they’re not talking about diversity of thought, only superficial diversity like skin color and gender. It doesn’t include political views.
Same with “inclusion”. They’ll include everyone who has the correct politics.
Underpinning all of this is an admission that they don’t believe in free speech. They believe there are certain viewpoints that should never see the light of day, and they are determined to silence these viewpoints wherever they find them.
As long as you hold the Correct Views, you have nothing to worry about.
“During the interview, Schulman also admitted that the far-left SPLC helps to inform “PayPal’s decisions.”
Wonderful. We all know the SPLC gives everyone a fair shake.
“There are those both on the right and left that help us. Southern Poverty Law Center has brought things. We don’t always agree. We have our debates with them. We are very respectful with everyone coming in. We will do the examination carefully,” Schulman explained. “We’ll talk when we don’t agree with a finding: We understand why you think that way, but it still goes into the realm of free speech for us.”
No, that’s not how free speech works. The moment you are discussing censoring anyone at all, you have killed free speech.
Free speech is an all-or-nothing deal: either everyone has it or it doesn’t exist.
The moment you get into picking and choosing who you will censor and who you allow to speak, you have killed free speech. Period.
Schulman is talking about when the SPLC will come to PayPal and say, “We think you should ban X, Y and Z.” And PayPal will respond, “No, we’re only going to ban X and Y, but not Z.”
That’s not “the realm of free speech.” Either X, Y and Z all have free speech, or nobody does. That’s how it works.
“Free speech” does not entail banning certain groups you’ve demonized as dangerous and “hateful” while permitting other groups you’ve deemed either Allies To The Cause or nonthreatening to say what they want.
Allowing only Allies to the Cause and nonthreatening “enemies” (i.e. the Fake Republicans who exist only to push for tax cuts, back down on immigration, bend the knee to political correctness and ultimately represent zero threat to the status quo) the ability to speak freely is not free speech at all. It’s controlled speech.
I used to think they censored us because they really and truly believe we’re extreme and so far off the deep end that their censorship of us is seen as a public service, protecting the vulnerable minds of the masses from “extremism” and dangerous ideas that could lead to violence if allowed to spread.
But the real reason they censor us is because we’re speaking the truth, and we threaten their grip on power.
The only danger we represent is to their grip on power.
What is the solution to 21st Century Jim Crow? We need to effectively expand the First Amendment with legislation guaranteeing the right to hold dissenting political views:
The New Fascists have found a way to circumvent the First Amendment: it’s not the government stifling our free speech, it’s private corporations.
They may not be violating the letter of the First Amendment, but they are unequivocally murdering the spirit of it.
We need legislation expressly prohibiting both private corporations and the government (because the Democrats will retake power eventually) from discriminating based on political views.
Otherwise, this will keep getting worse.
They began restricting free speech on the far right, and now they’re moving inward.
They got people (including self-professed conservatives) to accept the premise that some groups, like the mythical “Neo Nazis” and “White supremacists” they claim are running rampant, should not enjoy free speech.
They started dismantling free speech by picking on the groups nobody would defend, and then they gradually expanded their list of personae non gratae by saying “Y’know, these guys are dangerous, too. And so are these guys.”
The blacklist will keep growing unless Congress acts and passes legislation banning discrimination based on political views.
The Oscars were on last night. I’m sure none of you watched–I certainly didn’t–but from what I’ve heard the night was one leftwing anti-Trumper delivering #Brave and #Passionate speeches after another.
Spouting stale anti-Trump cliches to a room of Hollywood leftists who all agree with you; yes, that’s the definition of bravery alright.
Because Trump is just soo fascist and oppressive.
But as has been made obvious, the truth in this country is usually the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom holds. Namely, while most people assume minorities are oppressed and demonized, the reality is that it’s white people who are under assault. Conventional wisdom says women are second class citizens, but in reality it’s men who are losing the battle of the sexes.
And while Hollywood actors believe themselves to be brave countercultural rebels putting their lives and careers on the line to courageously speak out against and #Resist a fascist dictator, the reality is that the bravest public declaration and expression one can make today is support of President Trump.
Actors calling Trump and America #Racist is a multibillion dollar industry and often is the inside track to critical acclaim and Academy Awards. There’s nothing brave about it.
True bravery would have been some actor voicing support of the President despite the universal condemnation and booing it would’ve evoked, as well as the subsequent loss in social status and career opportunities.
True courage–truly speaking “truth to power”–is not popular, it’s not well-received, and one generally will not receive any accolades from major institutions or applause from large audiences.
Rule of thumb: if it’s the socially acceptable thing to say, it’s not brave. If there’s no threat of losing your friends or even your job, you’re not brave for saying it.
[I]ncreasingly monopolistic social media companies that have an inordinate amount of control over who gets heard and who doesn’t have started actively targeting conservatives and we just shrug or spout platitudes.
“If you don’t like the way they do it, take on those monopolies with hundreds of millions of users and billions in cash by building your own company.”
So, what happens when banks and credit card companies target people for their political views? Do we need to build our own banks, too?
Activist Laura Loomer, who has already been banned by PayPal, claims she had her account suspended by Chase Bank.
Enrique Tarrio, the black leader of the Proud Boys, a group that has laughably been branded a white supremacist organization by liberals, was also suspended by Chase. So was Martina Markota. And Joe Biggs, who made enough of a stink that Chase reluctantly gave him his account back.
Certainly, there are an awful lot of liberals who would love to see us enter a world [in which banks demanded proof of political correctness before providing services]. In fact, there was a column in the New York Times last year calling for weaponizing the financial industry in exactly this way to shut down the gun industry as part of an effort to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights.
Republicans in the Senate should demand that Chase executives come before them and answer some hard questions about targeting customers for their political views. Maybe we need to rewrite banking regulations to make sure this kind of discrimination can’t occur….
You may have heard someone say, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I would add to that “capitalism is not a suicide pact.” Breaking up monopolies is a conservative idea with a long track record.
This is the preeminent issue of our time outside of immigration.
We are increasingly not allowed to share and spread our views on social media. And now financial services companies and banks are denying us.
Things are increasingly getting to the point in this country where you are not allowed to live a normal life if you’re an outspoken conservative.
This is the New Jim Crow.
And of course Republican politicians–including President Trump–are not willing to do a damn thing about it:
“If conservatives are too complacent and lazy to address the challenges of the 21stcentury, maybe they should step aside for the socialists. They’re not complacent. They don’t sit around saying, “Gee, our people are being mistreated, but it would take work to do something about it and we might offend some powerful business owner if we fight back, so I guess we should let them trample us into the dust.” Conservatives with power need to stop mumbling platitudes about the free market and capitalism while their supporters are being stomped into the ground. They need to defend the real human beings, warts and all, who make it possible for conservatism to exist.
Republican politicians are willing to allow their voters to become second-class citizens in their own country. I don’t really know where else we can turn.
This is why I see no other outcome for the present state of affairs in America than a straight-up Yellow Vest-style popular revolt.
“CUCUTA, Venezuela/Colombia border – As Venezuela continues to crumble under the socialist dictatorship of President Nicolas Maduro, some are expressing words of warning – and resentment – against a six-year-old gun control bill that stripped citizens of their weapons.
“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”
Luckily for Maduro, his disarmed subjects cannot effectively fight back.
“Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.
Chavez initially ran a months-long amnesty program encouraging Venezuelans to trade their arms for electrical goods. That year, there were only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders, while the majority of seizures – more than 12,500 – were by force.
In 2014, with Nicolás Maduro at the helm following Chavez’s death but carrying through his socialist “Chavista” policies, the government invested more than $47 million enforcing the gun ban – which has since included grandiose displays of public weapons demolitions in the town square.”
And now look at the Venezuelans.
“Since April 2017, almost 200 pro-democracy protesters in Venezuela – armed mostly with stones – were shot dead by government forces in brutal retaliation to their call to end the oppressive socialist regime. The once oil-wealthy nation has continued its downward spiral into financial ruin, extreme violence, and mass human rights violations. An estimated three million Venezuelans have been forced to flee since 2015.”
I’m sure this will shock you but despite the gun ban, Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world:
“The violent crime rate, already high, soared. Almost 28,000 people were murdered in 2015 – with the homicide rate becoming the world’s highest. Compare that, according to GunPolicy.org – an international firearms prevention and policy research initiative – to just under 10,000 in 2012, and 6,500 in 2001, the year before Chavez came to power.
The total number of gun deaths in 2013 was estimated to 14,622, having steadily risen from 10,913 in 2002. While comprehensive data now goes unrecorded by the government, in September last year, Amnesty International declared Venezuela had a murder rate “worse than some war zones” – 89 people per 100,000 people – and three times that of its volatile neighbor Brazil.
To recap: already one of the most dangerous countries on earth, Venezuela instituted a gun ban over six years ago and saw its violent crime rate increase even further.
The gun ban may have failed to halt murders and kidnappings, but it was a tremendous success for the government, which now rules over a disarmed populace unable to effectively revolt.