Category Archives: News

News

What do the Democrats who run Google and YouTube believe about sexual assault?

1 Comment

A very interesting story came out recently from China, where a star tennis player named Peng Shuai disappeared after accusing a high-up Chinese politician of rape. Western journalists made a video to talk about the facts of the case, and posted it to YouTube. But the Democrats who run YouTube (which is owned by Google) took action against the video, showing their real views on sexual assault.

The Federalist explains:

YouTube and its parent company Google targeted a video about the suspicious disappearance of Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai by journalists Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball on Thursday, in a continuation of the tech company’s running interference for communist China.

In a 10-minute “Breaking Points” video titled “Chinese Tennis Star VANISHES After Rape Accusation,” Enjeti and Ball discuss Shuai’s allegations that China’s former Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli sexually assaulted her. “After she posted that, overnight, she was disappeared from the Chinese social media,” Enjeti says in the video.

Enjeti also noted that a Chinese state media outlet had released a statement purported to be from Shuai, denying the allegations and insisting, “I’m not missing” and “everything is fine.”

“I hope to promote Chinese tennis with you all if I have a chance in the future,” the statement continued. Enjeti said the statement only increased concerns of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) about Shuai’s statements.

“Reports are that if you even post about her or about this official or even say things like ‘tennis’ on … their version of Twitter, then that will be censored and blocked,” Ball added, noting that Shuai’s original post alleging the assault was taken down by Chinese censors within 30 minutes.

Everyone expects the communists to disappear people, enslave them, throw them into gulags, rape them and kill them. But did you know what Google / YouTube’s view on all that is?

Here:

But after “Breaking Points” posted the video about censorship in communist China, Enjeti said YouTube notified the journalists that their video had been found not “suitable for all advertisers” and “as a result, it will continue to run limited or no ads.”

The notification also said the video had been “manually review[ed],” confirming that no accidental algorithmic error was responsible.

I was going to come up with a long list of censorship performed by Google / YouTube, but the rest of The Federalist article has everything I would tell you and more:

The incident isn’t the first time Google has worked in tandem with Chinese censors. The Intercept reported in 2018 that Google would be introducing “Project Dragonfly,” a censored search engine in China, “which will block searches related to free speech, human rights, and democracy” and “reportedly link any searches entered by a user directly to his or her phone number, allowing Chinese authorities to easily track citizens seeking out blacklisted information,” as Mitchell Gunter wrote for The Federalist at the time.

The same summer, Google refused to work with U.S. authorities at the Pentagon when the company “announced it wouldn’t renew a contract to do artificial intelligence work for the U.S. military after some strong opposition from its employees.”

Censorship of Enjeti and Ball’s video is also only the latest in a long line of censorship by Google and YouTube. In September, Google moved to ban advertisements about abortion pill reversal by pro-life groups like Live Action. Earlier this year, Google-owned YouTube deplatformed another pro-life group, LifeSiteNews.

In June 2020, YouTube removed a video from the Heritage Foundation in which Walt Heyer discussed his regret over his transgender-identifying past.

That same month, Google colluded with NBC News in an attempt to deplatform The Federalist, which Google then claimed was based on content in the comments section of The Federalist’s articles.

In 2019, Google barred the conservative Claremont Institute from buying ads for its 40th-anniversary gala. And when the pro-life film “Unplanned” came out, Google labeled it “Propaganda” while leaving a “History/War” label on an actual Nazi propaganda video from 1935.

YouTube has also censored Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul for challenging the effectiveness of cloth masks and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson for discussing the early treatment of COVID-19. Other content targeted by the video platform includes all videos highlighting voter fraud, videos of former President Donald Trump’s speech at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference, and videos about COVID-19 from Sky News Australia.

Now me. In 2016, just before Trump won the election, I was getting about 1000 page views per day from traffic from the Google search engine. These days, it’s less than 20 per day. I get more traffic from Bing and DuckDuckGo than from Google. They are clearly involved in censoring conservative, Christian voices.

But, censorship doesn’t bother me. I’m doing what I do to act as an authentic Christian before God. I’m not going to be lumped in with the secular leftist pedophiles in Hell when it’s my turn to get judged. But that’s where the people who run Google and YouTube are going. And I’m so happy about that. That’s where they belong. With no parole, and no early release. No release at all.

News

College professors donate to Democrats over Republicans 95 to 1

Leave a comment
Where do college professors send their political donations?
Where do college professors send their political donations?

Why is it that college students, including Christian college students, are becoming so progressive? It’s because their professors are all progressive. This isn’t just my opinion. You can look at the breakdown of political donations made by college professors to see how many of them donate to Republicans vs Democrats.

Here is the latest from Campus Reform:

A recent study found that U.S. college professors donate exclusively to Democrats over Republicans by a 95:1 ratio.

Two researchers, Heterodox Academy Director of Research Sean Stevens and Brooklyn College Professor Mitchell Langbert conducted the study, published by the National Association of Scholars. They looked at the political donations of 12,372 college professors at universities in 31 states and the District of Columbia during the past two election cycles in 2015-16 and 2017-18.

Stevens and Langbert conducted their study by looking at political donation data available from the Federal Election Commission.

Of those professors, 2,112 made political donations, 2,081 of which were donated to Democrats. Just 22 of those 2,112 professors donated to Republicans. Nine professors donated to both Republicans and Democrats, according to the study.

The findings indicate that professors donated to Democrats more than Republicans by a 95:1 ratio. In addition to the number of professors who donated to Democrats versus Republicans, the study also revealed how many professors are registered to vote as Democrats compared with professors who are registered as Republicans. Nearly half of the 12,372 professors — 48.5 percent — are registered Democrats while just 5.7 percent are registered Republicans.

Given that, it’s not hard to see why Democrats like Elizabeth Warren want to provide those college professors with $1.3 trillion of taxpayer money – which is what the student loan bailout does.

What explains all of this?

Consider this essay by secular libertarian professor Robert Nozick who explains why university professors are liberal.

Excerpt:

What factor produced feelings of superior value on the part of intellectuals? I want to focus on one institution in particular: schools. As book knowledge became increasingly important, schooling–the education together in classes of young people in reading and book knowledge–spread. Schools became the major institution outside of the family to shape the attitudes of young people, and almost all those who later became intellectuals went through schools. There they were successful. They were judged against others and deemed superior. They were praised and rewarded, the teacher’s favorites. How could they fail to see themselves as superior? Daily, they experienced differences in facility with ideas, in quick-wittedness. The schools told them, and showed them, they were better.

The schools, too, exhibited and thereby taught the principle of reward in accordance with (intellectual) merit. To the intellectually meritorious went the praise, the teacher’s smiles, and the highest grades. In the currency the schools had to offer, the smartest constituted the upper class. Though not part of the official curricula, in the schools the intellectuals learned the lessons of their own greater value in comparison with the others, and of how this greater value entitled them to greater rewards.

The wider market society, however, taught a different lesson. There the greatest rewards did not go to the verbally brightest. There the intellectual skills were not most highly valued. Schooled in the lesson that they were most valuable, the most deserving of reward, the most entitled to reward, how could the intellectuals, by and large, fail to resent the capitalist society which deprived them of the just deserts to which their superiority “entitled” them? Is it surprising that what the schooled intellectuals felt for capitalist society was a deep and sullen animus that, although clothed with various publicly appropriate reasons, continued even when those particular reasons were shown to be inadequate?

It’s very important to understand what is motivating university professors, especially ones who are in departments divorced from reality, like English and victim studies of various sorts. They are literally teaching classes in topic that have no accountability to reality. It’s just indoctrination in what the professor believes. These professors think they are smart, but they don’t earn anything like productive people in the private sector, e.g. – software engineers. It creates a deep sense of inferiority that makes them hostile to the capitalist system. Their only hope is a powerful government that redirects money from those who serve customers (private sector companies) to “wordsmiths” like themselves.

News

How much does Joe Biden’s Build Back Better stimulus cost, and who benefits?

Leave a comment

Joe Biden is planning to make the inflation in this country much worse, by having the federal government spend  trillions of dollars on Democrat priorities. How much will it cost? Who will benefit from all this spending? And who will get the bill ? Let’s start with a new report about the cost of the plan. Does it really cost “zero” like Joe Biden says?

The Washington Times reports:

The mission of the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) “is to provide non-partisan, research-based analysis to inform the country’s budget.”

To that end, PWBM has proven successful. In recent years, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), among many others, have sung its praises.

[…]“Under an alternative, illustrative scenario in which all spending provisions in the White House framework are permanent except the clean energy tax credits, new spending would instead increase by $4.26 trillion, and new revenue would still increase by $1.56 trillion over the 10-year budget window. The federal debt would be 25.2% higher and GDP 2.8% lower in 2050, relative to current law.”

The Biden administration offers a lower figure by claiming that their spending on social programs is “temporary”, but historically speaking, there is nothing as permanent as a “temporary” vote-buying program. Voters get addicted to benefits, and it all gets added to the debt.

Another report from Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concurs with the $4 trillion plus figure:

The Build Back Better Act relies on a number of arbitrary sunsets and expirations to lower the official cost of the bill. These include extending the American Rescue Plan’s Child Tax Credit (CTC) increase and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) expansion for a year, setting universal pre-K and child care subsidies to expire after six years, making the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansions available through 2025, delaying the requirement that businesses amortize research and experimentation (R&E) costs until 2026, and setting several other provisions – from targeted tax credits to school lunch programs – to expire prematurely.

Their figure for the total cost of the bill, with these stipulations in place, is $4.9 trillion.

But the rich are going to pay for it all right? That’s what we’re being told. But the reality is somewhat different. Actually, the bill cuts taxes for the wealthy, living in many blue states, by raising the cap on State and Local Tax deductions.

This article from the far-left Washington Post explains:

The measurewould allow households to increase their deduction from state and local taxes from $10,000 to $80,000 through 2026, and then impose a new deduction cap through 2031. It’s the second-most expensive item in the legislation over the next five years… according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The tax cut would partially reverse a tax hike from President Donald Trump’s signature 2017 tax bill that was particularly burdensome to high-income, high-tax states.

Over the next five years, raising the SALT cap would provide a tax cut only to those who itemize their taxes and pay more than $10,000 in state and local taxes — a group overwhelmingly made up of the wealthy. A recent analysis from the Tax Policy Center says the tax cut will benefit primarily the top 10 percent of income earners, with almost nothing flowing to middle- and lower-income families.”

Raising the SALT cap would more than offset other tax increases for the wealthy in 2022, according to a report from the Tax Foundation.

This isn’t surprising. Remember, Joe Biden is the father of Hunter Biden. And we need to set aside 10% for The Big Guy, right?

So, we’re adding trillions to the debt. Who is going to get the bill for all this spending? The spending is intended to buy the votes of Americans in the 2022 and 2024 elections – the next 5 years. But the paying back of the money will be done by your children. Not by the children of the wealthy, though. By the children of the middle class. Your children. There are too few wealthy people in this country to pay for trillions of dollars of spending. You’re going to pay for it. You and your children. You’re paying right now, and you’re going to pay more.