Tag Archives: Democrat

Justice Department to begin antitrust investigation of anti-conservative Google

Google's new motto
Google’s new motto – we really need to start calling them “Goolag”

It’s troubling to me when large corporations ally with one political party or another. The videos of Google executives mourning Hillary’s loss, Google’s firing of non-Democrat engineers, and documented bias in Google’s products clearly indicate that Google favors the Democrat party. So, it’s about time for the government to step in and stop the corporate fascism.

Breitbart News reports:

The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to begin an antitrust investigation into Google that could see the tech giant come under a new wave of scrutiny from regulators. According to people familiar with the matter, the antitrust division of the Justice Department has been gathering information and preparing for the investigation for weeks.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shares antitrust authority with the Justice Department, has previously conducted antitrust investigations into Google on a broader scale but closed the investigation in 2013 with no action taken.

[…]The FTC and Justice Department have been discussing which group will oversee further antitrust investigations of Google, with the FTC agreeing to give the Justice Department full jurisdiction over Google. Now that an understanding has been reached between the two government bodies, the Justice Department is preparing to conduct an in-depth investigation into Google.

[…]Those familiar with the matter stated that the Justice Department has been in contact with third-party groups that have been critical of Google in the past.

Breitbart News had also reported on how Google used their products to influence elections:

New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.

The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.

The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings.

[…]Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.

That’s now the only study that’s been done on Google’s pro-Democrat bias.

Here’s another reported by the UK Daily Mail:

Google’s bias towards left-wing media outlets has been laid bare by an algorithm which detected that it favors sites including CNN and The New York Times over others.

According to data compiled by researchers from Northwestern University, the search engine promoted those sites over others repeatedly in November 2017.

Of the 6,302 articles that appeared in Google’s ‘top stories’ page that month after a term was searched, more than 10 percent were by CNN.

The New York Times was the second most favored and accounted for 6.5 percent of articles. The Washington Post was third with 5.6 percent.

By contrast, Fox News, the most right-wing outlet in mainstream media, was the source of just three percent of the stories which appeared.

See for yourself:

Study: Google uses its products and services to supports Democrat Party
Study: Google uses its products and services to supports Democrat Party

Just this week, another story came out about Google discriminating against employees who do not support the Democrat Party.

The Daily Caller reports:

A Republican Google software engineer has written an open letter describing a culture of left-wing “outrage mobs” that make use of the company’s anonymous bias reporting channels to shut down dissent.

The open letter, published Tuesday morning on Medium, was written by software engineer Mike Wacker, who was reported himself multiple times via the company’s anonymous reporting tools.

“If left unchecked,” Wacker wrote, “these outrage mobs will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda.”

In one case, Wacker describes a fellow Republican employee who was reported for saying nice things about the University of Toronto academic Jordan Peterson. He was given a note in writing that said, “One Googler raised a concern that you that you appeared to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns, and this made them feel unsafe at work.”

Wacker himself was twice reported via the company’s anonymous reporting channels.

The full article by Wacker is here on Medium. Keep in mind that we have so many stories like this coming out of Google. The James D’Amore story was big, but it’s not the only one.

Google executives caught on film

Here are some highlights of that sting video that I mentioned featuring Google executives crying about the Democrat election loss:

Alone, the video would be damning, but it just the latest in a sequence of news stories showing Google’s anti-American bias.

Previously on this blog, I’ve covered the following stories of Google bias:

I personally have seen Google search engine traffic for this blog go down literally 90% since Trump’s election. My search engine referrals from DuckDuckGo are higher than what I get from Google. I believe that’s when they decided to get serious about helping their allies in the Democrat party. What I’d like to see is the company broken up into small-cap units, and the executives investigated for possible criminal activities, e.g. – collusion with the Democrat Party and unlawful termination of non-Democrat employees. They used American liberty and the free market to make their fortunes, but they’re anti-American.

Senate Democrats block legislation protecting babies from being killed after birth

What does it really mean to be "pro-choice" on abortion?
What does it really mean to be “pro-choice” on abortion?

A lot of conservatives complain that Republicans don’t pass enough pro-life legislation when they hold the House, Senate and White House. The truth is, the House Republicans DID pass some pro-life legislation from 2016-2018. Some of it got signed into law, but most of it died in the Senate, because of the Democrats.

The Washington Times reports on a bill – Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act – that just died in the Senate:

An effort by Senate Republicans to enhance protections for newborns who survive abortions, spurred by New York and Virginia bills making it easier to perform late-term procedures, was blocked Monday by Democrats.

[…]“There are only two sides of the debate on the floor debate tonight: You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide,” said Mr. Sasse in his floor speech. “That is actually what the legislation is that’s before us.”

[…]The Sasse bill would require medical practitioners caring for infants born alive after botched abortions to “exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

“It also requires that the living child, after appropriate care has been given, be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital,” said the Sasse press release. “Currently federal law does not adequately protect a born child who survives an abortion.”

Unfortunately for the little babies, the bill did not pass:

Republicans said they would keep pressing for the bill, while pro-life groups denounced Democrats for standing in the way of the legislation.

“Senate Democrats had the chance today to prove they are not the party of infanticide, and instead they doubled down on extremism,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

It’s not unreasonable to request expedited processing for a bill that ought to pass unanimously. After all, who would vote against a born baby?

Here’s what “moderate” Democrat Dianne Feinstein had to say about infanticide:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, blasted the Sasse bill as “just the latest attack in the decades-long Republican effort to eliminate a woman’s right to control her own body.”

So, you make a bill outlawing infanticide, and 40 Republican senators co-sponsor it. But the bill dies anyway, because Democrats won’t support it.

The abortion debate was never about weeks or months or viability. Talking about when an unborn baby becomes a human being was just a rhetorical smokescreen to dehumanize unborn children, the same way that skin color was used to dehumanize slaves. Democrats always knew that unborn babies were human beings at every moment during pregnancy. They’re strong. The baby is weak. The baby is in their way. Who cares about reason and evidence? Who cares about right and wrong? If something gets in your way, just kill it, and then silence anyone who makes you feel bad about your selfishness.

I would be very careful about electing people who are willing to kill innocent children who get in the way of their pleasure-seeking. If they aren’t willing to control their hedonism to protect innocent children, they certainly aren’t going to put the brakes on for you.

Democrat Congressman proposes using nuclear weapons to enforce gun confiscation

Don't try to resist gun confiscation
Don’t resist confiscation of your semi-automatic, or Dems will nuke you

Do you have a semi-automatic gun? That’s a gun that fires one bullet for every one trigger pull. Most handguns and rifles are semi-automatic. Well, if you have one, then there’s a Democrat planning to confiscate it. And if you don’t want to give it up, then he says that he would use nuclear weapons to destroy you.

NBC News reports:

A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing [semi-automatic guns] and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.

[…]Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

In the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as “gun confiscation,” a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks.

Swalwell addressed these arguments directly, saying he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident.

The Washington Times reported on Swalwell’s plan to deal with those who refuse to disarm themselves:

Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.

After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend.”

“The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman tweeted. “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

People who purchase  firearms legally are among the most law-abiding people in the country. Make no mistake. This Democrat lawmaker isn’t threatening to take guns away from criminals. He is proposing to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans, who simply want to defend their families and their property from criminals.

It’s very interesting to think about all the law-abiding gun owners in states like Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, etc. who voted for Democrat senators in the 2018 mid-terms, isn’t it? What were they thinking, when they elected Democrats? Or maybe they weren’t thinking at all. When elections are happening, it’s important to look at the records of the candidates, not what they say in ads and at campaign events.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

I think that peer-reviewed studies should be useful for assessing gun control vs gun rights policy. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.

For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.

Democrat Michael Avenatti made famous by CNN arrested for domestic violence

Michael Avenatti, the great Democrat hero, defender of women
Michael Avenatti, Democrat hero, defender of women and women’s rights

Michael Avenatti is the lawyer connected to one of Trump’s accusers (Swetnick) who is now under FBI criminal investigation for “potentially false statements”. He appeared many times on CNN and MSNBC during the Kavanaugh hearings. He calls himself “an advocate for women’s rights”.

Here is the latest reported by The Federalist, and confirmed by tweets by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Excerpt:

Avenatti was arrested Wednesday after a woman reportedly filed felony domestic violence charges against him following an incident that allegedly occurred between the two on Tuesday, then a second confrontation the next day.

“We’re told her face was ‘swollen and bruised’ with ‘red marks’ on both cheeks,” TMZ reports.

We’re told security brought her inside the building, took her upstairs and Michael showed up 5 minutes later and ran into the building. He screamed repeatedly, ‘She hit me first.’

[…]Cops showed up and escorted Avenatti into a corner of the apartment lobby and spoke with him for 5 to 10 minutes and then took him into custody.

CNN loved to have Avenatti on to discuss women’s rights and how mean Republicans are to women. Even when there were more important news stories, they just kept bringing him on, and on, and on. How often?

The Washington Free Beacon noted:

The Washington Free Beacon analyzed 108 appearances by Avenatti on MSNBC and CNN over a 64-day period from March 7 to May 10. To calculate his earned media time, the Free Beacon multiplied the length of his appearances on a program by its “National Publicity Value” determination from media monitoring site TVEyes.com.

The total came out to $174,631,598.07 from at least 65 CNN appearances and 43 MSNBC appearances. Avenatti’s favorite shows include CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” (at least 20 interviews), MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” (14), CNN’s “New Day” (12), CNN’s “Tonight with Don Lemon” (eight), and MSNBC’s “Deadline White House” (seven).

65 appearances on CNN over a 64-day period? CNN really liked him.  Maybe they really liked what he had to say to their audience about women’s rights, and violence against women.

But other mainstream media shows also had him on to talk about how mean Republicans supposedly are to women:

 Avenatti has also been featured on CBS comedy show “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Showtime’s “The Circus,” NBC’s “Megyn Kelly Today,” ABC’s “The View,” HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and network morning shows “Today,” “CBS This Morning,” and “Good Morning America.”

In light of his arrest, consider these screenshots of Avenatti’s web site.

Michael Avenatti cares a lot about domestic violence against women
Michael Avenatti cares a lot about domestic violence against women
Michael Avenatti cares a lot about domestic violence against women
Michael Avenatti cares a lot about domestic violence against women

Would you say that he has what it takes to follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, and win the Democrat presidential nomination, as their anointed champion of women’s rights? It looks like he’s running for President in 2020. As a Democrat. Of course.

According to this tweet from a Daily Wire reporter, everyone except CNN reported on the arrest of CNN’s star lawyer promptly. I wonder what caused CNN to delay reporting on the arrest of their frequent guest? The delayed reporting makes me wonder what they really think about domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape.

Democrat women seem to really like bad boys like Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, John Conyers, Anthony Weiner… and the twice-divorced Michael Avenatti. They think that pro-abortion Democrat men are great defenders of “women’s rights”, and therefore very attractive and desirable. It never made sense to me, though, why women find a man’s willingness to kill his own innocent unborn children an attractive trait. If a man will stand by while a woman kills an “inconvenient” child, then it seems to me that he could do anything to a grown woman. Domestic violence is mild when compared to murdering an innocent unborn child. When Democrat pro-abortion men commit domestic violence against women, it certainly doesn’t surprise me. Why does it surprise the Democrat women who love them so much?

Nevada Senate candidate Jacky Rosen on gay rights, amnesty, abortion, tax cuts, spending, welfare

Heritage Action Scorecard for Democrat Jacky Rosen Nevada
Heritage Action Scorecard for Democrat Jacky Rosen Nevada

A lot of American voters tend to approach elections like they approach food, clothes and entertainment. They choose what they like “in the moment”. But feelings about appearances is not the right way to measure a candidate. The right way to measure is by looking at the voting record. So let’s do that with Democrat Senate candidate Jacky Rosen of Nevada.

Democrat Senate candidate Jacky Rosen of Nevada

The Heritage Foundation is a respected Washington think tank, and they’ve collected together all the votes of the candidates.

Here are some of the votes that I found the most interesting:

For wasteful government spending:

Bloated $855 Billion CROMNIBUS Spending Package09/26/2018Back in March, President Trump nearly vetoed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill promising the American people that he “will never sign another bill like this again.” One of the President’s objections to the omnibus was its lack of conservative policy riders – particularly sufficient funding for border security – combined with increases in the Democrats’ spending priorities. Six months later Republicans and the President find themselves in a similar situation.

Against cuts to wasteful government spending:

Rescissions Package to Cut Spending from Expired and Unnecessary Programs06/07/2018Today, the House will vote on the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act (H.R. 3), introduced by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), as modified by the Rules committee to adjust to a supplementary message from President Trump earlier this week.

Against repealing regulations that hurt small businesses:

Rollback of onerous bank regulations from the Dodd-Frank Act05/22/2018The House voted on the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155), introduced by Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). This bill provides targeted exemptions for smaller banks from various Dodd-Frank regulations put in place after the housing market collapse and financial crisis in 2008.

Against cutting subsidies for inefficient energy sources:

Biggs Farm Bill Amendment to Repeal Bioenergy Subsidy Program05/17/2018The House voted on and failed to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. This amendment would repeal all Department of Agriculture biofuel and energy subsidy programs contained within Title IX of the 2014 Farm Bill.

For welfare entitlements without work requirement:

McClintock Work Requirement Farm Bill Amendment05/17/2018The House voted on and failed to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. The McClintock proposal amends SNAP work requirements to repeal geographic area waivers and allow states to exempt only five percent of SNAP recipients. Additionally, the amendment sets the same work requirement for married parents as for single parents, reducing a long-standing marriage penalty.

Against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act:

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R.4712)01/19/2018This week, the House will vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 4712), introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). This legislation requires that appropriate medical care be given to any child who survived an attempted abortion, and establishes criminal penalties for health care practitioners that violate this requirement (the mother of a child born alive may not be prosecuted) and a civil right of action to enforce the law.

Against tax cuts:

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R.1)12/20/2017This week, the House and Senate will vote on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), the most significant tax reform and tax cut legislative initiative since the 1986 tax reform package passed under President Ronald Reagan. The bill would make sweeping changes to the individual and corporate codes, and eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty.

Against cutting funding for global warming alarmism:

Norman Amendment to Cut EPA Funding09/13/2017The House will vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) to H.R. 3354, the fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending measure. The amendment would reduce total appropriations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by $1,869,087,000.

Against cutting funding for wasteful government-run monopolies:

Budd Amendment to Eliminate $900 million Amtrak ‘Earmark’09/06/2017The House will vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) to H.R. 3354, the fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending measure. The amendment would eliminate $900 million in specifically designated spending contained in the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development (T-HUD) appropriations bill that would go directly to the Gateway project – a $29.5 billion tunnel, bridge and infrastructure project intended to improve Amtrak’s passenger rail service between Newark and New York City. Partial funding for this project comes from eliminating the wasteful Obama-era Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program.

Against allowing the U.S. Armed forces to use cost-effective, capable energy sources for their operations:

Buck NDAA Amendment to Alternative Energy Requirements07/13/2017The House will vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018. This amendment would prohibit funding for the renewable energy mandate at the Department of Defense (DOD) and prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing alternative energy unless it is equivalent to conventional energy in terms of cost and capability. Alternative energy research is exempted under this amendment.

Against prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used for sex change operations for members of military:

Hartzler NDAA Amendment on Gender Transition Funding07/13/2017The House will vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018. This amendment would prohibit funds from being used by the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide medical treatment (other than mental health treatment) related to gender transition for members of the military.

Against de-funding of Planned Parenthood:

This week the House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.J.Res. 43, sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), a disapproval resolution of the final rule submitted by Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to compliance with Title X requirements by project recipients in selecting sub-recipients. Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides federal funds to states for family planning grants. Once states receive the funds, they have the ability to prioritize sub-recipients, directing funds to organizations like community health centers and family health clinics. While federal law prohibits government funding for abortion, it does allows certain public dollars, like the Title X grants, to support abortion providers if the funds are directed to non-abortion related health services. Under this exception, Planned Parenthood has been eligible to receive Title X funds, per the states’ discretion.

Against the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Act:

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017 (H.R. 7)01/24/2017This week the House will vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017 (H.R. 7). Sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), the bill would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under Obamacare.

Against repeal of government-run health care:

Obamacare Repeal Budget Resolution01/13/2017On Friday, the House will consider a concurrent resolution (S. CON. RES. 3). While the resolution will technically set the congressional budget for the United States Government for the remaining eight months of fiscal year 2017, its only functional purpose will be to produce reconciliation instructions that unlock fast track authority that Congress can then use to repeal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Separately, there is an expectation that the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution will reflect the longstanding conservative values embedded in previous GOP budgets. But to be absolutely clear, adopting S. CON. RES 3 is the only way to expedite the repeal of Obamacare.

Against accountability and transparency  in government regulation:

REINS Act (H.R. 26)01/05/2017This week, the House will vote on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 (H.R. 26). The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) 79%, would increase accountability for and transparency in the federal regulatory process by requiring Congress to approve all new major regulations.

If you live in this state, please consider sharing this article to let everyone know how this candidate has voted in the past.