by Nate Jackson:  Did Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore engage in inappropriate sexual advances toward a 14-year-old in 1979? That’s what The Washington Post’s latest blockbuster story alleges. Not just one girl either; three other women told the Post that Moore pursued and/or engaged in relationships with them when they were minors, though only the first alleged non-consensual behavior.

          We’ll begin with this question: What did the Post reporters know and when did they know it?
          Given the prevalence in recent months of allegations of sexual harassment, assault and worse, it’s frankly no surprise that another man would find himself on the wrong end of such accusations. More pointedly, given that the Alabama special Senate election is just over a month away and Democrat Doug Jones is within striking distance, now is the perfect political timing to assassinate Moore’s Christian character. After all, Democrats are fresh off their wins in Virginia and New JerseyTuesday…
          Moore declared it was exactly that, saying in a statement, “These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign.” Furthermore, he insisted the story is “garbage” that is “the very definition of fake news and intentional defamation.”
          Senate Republicans, however, weren’t exactly quick to defend him. “If these allegations are true, he must step aside,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a formal statement on behalf of all Republican senators.
          If Moore is guilty, that’s the obvious course — at a minimum. But how is he supposed to prove his innocence in the current media environment of “guilty until proven innocent”? The statute of limitations on such crimes in Alabama is just three years, so Moore no longer has legal recourse to be declared innocent. In any case, as Rush Limbaugh has long put it, “It’s not the nature of the evidence; it’s the seriousness of the charge.”
          One interesting tidbit from the Post: None of the women sought out the paper to tell their story. “While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another.” The primary accuser also says she voted for Donald Trump.
          When were those “ensuing three weeks”? And what Democrat tipped off the Post’s reporter? Was it the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center?
          The Post certainly did a professional job with its liar-Clinton/DNC-style anti-Moore dossier. Reporters anticipated the questions opponents would ask and either answered them or obfuscated. On the other hand, there’s something about the report that seems credible. Moore married a woman 14 years his junior, lending weight to the idea that he preferred far younger women. And witnesses corroborate the other relationships at the time.
          But if the allegations of what would be molestation and pedophilia are true, how did the story sit in the closet for nearly 40 years, during which time Moore was, among other things, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, only to come out one month before a Senate election that could help tip the scales to Democrats?
          Whether or not any of this political bushwhack story is true, it doesn’t look good for Moore or the GOP — because he’s already been convicted in the media.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52359

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5639974270001

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/5640073664001

by Patriot Post Staff:  Veterans Day is set aside in honor of American Patriot Veterans who have carried the banner of Liberty forward since the first shots at Lexington and Concord. And it is now time for us to deliver this banner to the next generation.

          Millions of Patriots — American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguards men — have for generations honored their oaths to “support and defend” Liberty, as “endowed by our Creator” and enshrined in our Constitution.
          Today, and every day, we formally honor them. We remain a free people because they have stood bravely in harm’s way, and because millions remain on post today. For this, we, the American People, offer our heartfelt thanks.
          “Mighty men of valor, men trained for war, who could handle shield and spear, and whose faces were like the faces of lions.” —1 Chronicles 12:8
          “Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.” —Gen. Douglas MacArthur
          “War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” —John Stuart Mill
          “It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
          It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
          It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
          It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.” —Army Veteran Charles M. Province
          “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” —John 15:12-14
          We invite you to read Mark Alexander’s most recent Veterans Day essay, Patriot Veterans, Then and Now, and look back at the history of the Revolutionary War’s Overmountain Men.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52360

by Thomas Gallatin:  On Wednesday, Senate Democrats led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill that would ban the sale of more than 200 semi-automatic weapons and ammunition. Appealing to hoplophobia (fear of firearms) rather than sober reasoning and the facts, Feinstein advocated for further limiting Americans’ Second Amendment right to self-defense while at the same time promoting the flawed promise of statist utopia. Feinstein pontificated, “We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason — so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.”

          No, the real reason is that Feinstein is taking advantage of people’s emotions as a pretext to demand that Americans give up their rights and freedoms and bow to an elite ruling class which is powerless to protect them. Feinstein has completely ignored the fact that this latest mass shooting testifies to the limits of government’s ability to prevent crime. After all, the laws were on the books that should have prevented this mad man from purchasing the weapons in the first place. Where is the apology from the government for its gross failure?
          In this case the laws that should have presumably prevented this massacre failed, so now Feinstein wants to blame the availability of the tool? The same tool that was used to perpetrate this evil was also used for good in ending it and saving lives, but statists like Feinstein will never care about that inconvenient fact. Rather she holds out the absurd notion of a gun-free society, suggesting that then mass murders would be non-existent. Tell that to the eight people killed by a jihadi with a truck in New York. She and her gun-grabbing cohorts are again asserting that evil somehow originates only due to one’s proximity and access to a certain tool rather than from within that self-willed individual.
          Feinstein’s objective here is purely and unabashedly political. Eric Boehm of Reason writes, “This bill has been introduced for ‘one reason’: so Democrats can score political points by holding it up and waving it every time there’s a high-profile crime with a gun. Look! There’s a bill right here, ready for debate and a vote! Will the bill do anything to stop these horrific attacks from happening? Well, no, but that’s not the point.” There is nothing more despicable than those who seek to manipulate and prey upon the emotions of others by holding out empty promises designed only to further their own power.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52335

by Nate Jackson:  The U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School has been investigating a supposedly racist incident that happened in September and discovered it was a hoax. The Washington Times reports, “In September, racial slurs were found written on the dormitory message boards of five black cadet candidates at the prep school in Colorado Springs, sparking an investigation. The incident prompted a fiery speech by the school’s superintendent, Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria, who said cadets who can’t treat others with respect should leave.”

          Well, one of the black cadets who was allegedly targeted confessed to writing the slurs himself. That cadet is no longer a student at the school.
          Silveria didn’t back down from his condemnation, however, insisting, “Regardless of the circumstances under which those words were written, they were written, and that deserved to be addressed. You can never over-emphasize the need for a culture of dignity and respect — and those who don’t understand those concepts, aren’t welcome here.”
          Hate crime hoaxes are nothing new. Whether it’s as small as racist messages at various schools or a black man burning down a black church after scribbling “Vote Trump” on the side, there are some who wish to create more grievances for political gain. Ironically, this undermines their own case. Just as watering down language regarding sexual assault undermines legitimate allegations of violence, so do hate crime hoaxes undercut any real incidents of racism, few though they may be.
          Meanwhile, the Air Force would better solve this problem by rising above the political correctness message leftists keep pushing and refocusing on the deeper significance of their oaths.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52331

by Jordan Candler:  Some people refer to President Donald Trump’s jettisoning the Paris climate accord as a leadership failure, but we prefer to call it a return to American exceptionalism. This week, Syria — which up until now had been the only other holdout besides the U.S. — declared that it would partner with other Paris treaty participants. This means the U.S. is literally the sole exception to the rule. Of course, in terms of leadership, it also means a return to American exceptionalism (not that Syria’s non-committal had anything to do with leadership).

          According to Union of Concerned Scientists’ Alden Meyer, “Syria’s announcement that it will join the Paris agreement leaves President Trump in not-so-splendid isolation as a result of his irresponsible and ignorant decision to withdraw the United States from the most comprehensive effort ever to confront the mounting climate crisis.” The truth is that this is a treaty from which the U.S. is wisely isolating itself, because it’s ultimately a massive transfer of wealth. And since no nation is as wealthy as ours, the U.S. — by design — would feel a disproportionate affect.
          Syria’s timing coincides with a “bombshell” climate report that came out Friday. The report definitively blames humans for global warming and predicts an array of catastrophes like more extreme rains, more extreme temperatures and more extreme forest fires (we’re detecting a theme…). Put all this together, and the Leftmedia was shocked to learn that the Trump administration remains steadfast on deregulation. “EPA’s Pruitt vows to continue rolling back rules despite alarming climate report,” a USA Today headline blared. Good!
          It’s tough to be the only nation refusing to join what leftists call a “critical measure,” but it’s the right decision — one that takes guts. Transferring wealth won’t mitigate global warming, nor will it fix the ills of the world. It’s going to take a lot more than that. Namely, a return to American exceptionalism.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52320

by Lewis Morris:  It’s almost too easy to tweak leftist noses these days. They take themselves way too seriously, believe that their views are completely infallible, and can only seem to fall back on violence and rage when they meet any form of opposition, no matter how slight.

          Take for instance a recent prank that hit several college campuses this past week. A group on 4Chan, an anonymous Internet forum, launched a campaign to post signs declaring, “It’s okay to be white.” The goal was to prove that “leftists and journalists hate white people.” The outcome would be that middle-of-the-road people would turn against the left, creating a “massive victory for the right in the culture war.”
          The verdict on the outcome of the culture war is still out, but this particular campaign certainly stirred the hornet’s nest. In campuses around the country, students, faculty and administration, and in some cases entire communities melted down in what they all claimed was a racist attack against people who believe in diversity.
          Harvard, Princeton, Tulane, Western Washington, Auburn, the University of Kansas and Concordia College all reported seeing the signs on campus. Dutiful lefty students and administrators tore them down wherever they saw them, and every campus announced that there would be investigations into the incidents.
          Mary Womack, student body president at the University of Kansas voiced a typical response by the so-called injured masses: “I am deeply disgusted that this organized online campaign to divide university communities across the country has come to our campus. It is shameful that anyone would use these posters to promote a racist agenda.”
          So it’s racist to say, “It’s okay to be white”? Does one then logically conclude that it’s not okay to be white?
          Renay Johnson, principal of Montgomery Blair High School in Maryland where fliers were also found, went even further. “Our research so far has indicated that this may be part of a concerted national campaign to foment racial and political tension in our school and community,” Johnson said.
          Really? A national conspiracy to create racial division at a Maryland high school?
          The offended masses all claimed that the signs were meant to cause racial division. Of course, according to these students and the leftist professors who have indoctrinated them, it’s perfectly permissible to say that Black Lives Matter™, that Islam is a Religion of Peace™, and that we should be celebrating Indigenous Peoples’ Day™ instead of Christopher Columbus every October. But claiming that it’s okay to be white goes against this narrative. The leftist view of the world wants to put all of society’s problems past and present at the feet of white people. For their view to have merit, it cannot be okay to be white.
          The social media chair of the Auburn University Student Union, who would go only by the name Hunter, told the College Fix, a student-reported higher education website, “The overarching idea for the campaign was quite simple — post an innocent pro-white message which states a simple truth that anyone who doesn’t hate white people agrees with. … Because of this simple value statement, it is easy to identify that anyone who disagrees as prejudiced against white people. If the signs had said, ‘It’s Okay to be Black,’ anyone outraged by that wording would be labeled a racist.”
          We have been living with the double standards of the leftists for quite some time. This campaign, which easily and cleverly exploits double standards regarding race, angers the Left to no end because to a rational mind, their reaction is indefensible.
          The trouble is the mainstream media is not rational. It has bought and perpetuated the race-war mentality of the Left because reporters earned their degrees on the very college campuses that spew leftist hate speech and race-baiting.
          Concordia College president William Craft said on Facebook, “It is indeed okay to be white — and to be black, to be brown, to be Christian, to be Muslim, to be straight, to be gay, to be conservative, to be liberal, and so on. We are stronger for this diversity of identities.”
          But the Left doesn’t really want diversity. And therein lies the crux of the problem.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52303

by Political Editors:  When catering to a political ideology matters more than seeking after objective truth, then the credibility of one’s findings is properly questioned. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) issued and then retracted its analysis of the House Republicans’ Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) this week, stating, “TPC staff found an error in the preliminary distributional analysis of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that we released today. This error involved the additional child tax credit component of the proposed legislation.” The TPC had recently produced an analysis of the Republicans’ plan in which it claimed “at least 12% of taxpayers would pay higher taxes … in 2018 and at least 28% … would pay more in 2027.” Now the TPC is saying, oops, uh, never mind.

          The truth is that the TPC has a leftist anti-Republican bias. As Chris Edwards, a tax policy expert at the Cato Institute, explained, “The real issue is that the Tax Policy Center tilts to the left in the assumptions it uses in simulations of tax plans, and in the way it presents findings. The Tax Policy Center undercounts the dynamic efforts of economic growth from tax reform, and it presents study results in ways that appear to show high-earners do the best under Republican tax reform plans.”
          In early October after the TPC claimed that 50% of the GOP’s tax plan would benefit the top 1%, The Wall Street Journal in calling out the center’s leftist bias wrote, “The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute that the media routinely labels ‘nonpartisan.’ Its record of hostility to any GOP tax reform that cuts tax rates shows the opposite. And the latest evidence of bias is its willingness to jump to conclusions about the GOP plan before crucial details are known.” Like former FBI chief James Comey, and his mysteriously edited decision to exonerate liar-Hillary Clinton, it seems the TPC had already decided the TCJA plan was bad simply based on the fact that Republicans were creating it.
          Furthermore, like the Congressional Budget Office and its static analysis practices, the TPC seems to view taxes as government-created revenue, to which the only way to create more revenue is by raising taxes, rather than tax cuts that have been proven to grow revenue by growing the economy. The White House defended the GOP’s tax plan by pointing to a Tax Foundation study that found the Republican plan would spur GDP growth by 3.9%, eventually reaching 4.4% annual economic growth, while creating 975,000 full-time jobs.
          If tax cuts lead to more people working and earning more money, then that equals more people paying taxes, which in turn means more money going to the government. And theoretically, if more people are working, then there would be fewer people in need of welfare, costing the government less money. But then that would mean fewer people dependent upon the government. A bridge too far for Democrats?  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52315

by Jordan Candler:  Well this is certainly an interesting development. Suffice to say, something just doesn’t sit right when it comes to liar-Hillary Clinton’s consequence-free application of an unsecure email server — hence the GOP’s recent decision to dig deeper into why no charges were issued. It’s simply a question of putting together the pieces. And another clue may have just been revealed.

          According to a report in The Hill, last year then-FBI Director James Comey, who claimed that charges against liar-Clinton were unnecessary, initially felt otherwise. New evidence shows that in early May 2016, Comey drafted a memo in which he stated, “There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary liar-Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.”
          Contrast this with what Comey ultimately declared two months later: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary liar-Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
          As The Hill explains, “The change [to extremely careless] is significant, since federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) responded, “Apparently … Comey and other FBI officials believed the facts fit that gross negligence standard until later edits were made.”
          According to The Hill, “The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes. … Memos show that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and chief of staff Jim Rybicki.”
          The name McCabe should raise red flags. As we recently reported, McCabe was assistant FBI director under liar-nObama. His wife, who last year ran for the state senate in Virginia, received a massive $675,000 campaign contribution from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and prolific fundraiser for the liar-Clintons. Both McCabe and McAuliffe are being investigated for the suspicious transaction. Moreover, according to Judicial Watch, “We uncovered Justice Department records showing that McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, just one week prior to the presidential election!” Coincidence?
          McCabe’s name coming up again could all be happenstance, but someone clearly edited Comey’s initial words and cleared liar-Hillary’s name. Is McCabe that person? Heck, it could have been Comey himself who changed the term. Either way, it really probably goes even further up the chain. We’ve stated before that Comey was following Barack liar-nObama’s cue in exonerating liar-Clinton. But it was no doubt accomplished with the help of Comey’s close colleagues in addition to growing pressure. Don’t forget that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was also implicated when she met with liar-Bill Clinton on a tarmac. Bottom line: Whatever concerns Comey had were tempered his superiors.
          Finally, The Hill notes, “While Comey told Congress last year that he would never have prosecuted liar-Clinton without proof she intended to violate a law, the editing of his statement suggests there might have been dissent within the FBI about that decision.” There certainly was not much dissent among underlings at the FBI and DOJ, where agents were highly frustrated over the outcome of the investigation. But there was always dissent in the Democrat Party leadership. What the new memos offer is more proof that it wasn’t just liar-Clinton who was grossly negligent. As even Comey initially implied, she should be in jail. But someone higher up ensured that wouldn’t happen.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52283

by Louis DeBroux:  Congressional Republicans recently released their tax reform plan to mixed reviews. Democrats, unsurprisingly, hate the plan — the mere thought of allowing workers to save even a single extra penny of their earnings from the greedy hands of government causes Democrats to go apoplectic that the rich don’t pay their “fair share.”

          Most Republicans seem cautiously optimistic. Does this bill include everything conservatives want to see? No, but it provides a good working platform from which to begin. However, we’ll focus here on one provision that is raising concerns among fiscal and pro-life conservatives alike: the elimination of the adoption tax credit.
          Adoption in America is extraordinarily expensive, averaging $34,000 to $39,000 for families seeking to adopt. The adoption tax credit is a $13,570 non-refundable credit that phases out for high-income families, so it truly helps lower and middle class families faced with what, for them, are staggering costs related to adoption.
          It should be noted, clearly, that this is a tax credit, meaning a reduction in how much of a family’s earnings are confiscated by government. In other words, it’s not a payout to adoptive families; rather, it lets them deduct adoption costs — up to $13,570 — from their final tax bill. For many families, this can make the difference in whether or not they can adopt. And if they can’t afford to adopt, that’s one more child left in an orphanage or temporary foster home.
          Explaining the decision, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-CA), himself the father of two adopted children, says the credit is of almost no value to lower-income families, and the additional income middle class families will keep via lower taxes would offset the money they’d lose from the elimination of the adoption tax credit.
          Brady does have a valid argument… over the long run. Over a period of five or 10 years, tax simplification will more than offset in take-home pay what is lost by the tax credit. Unfortunately, the tax credit, like the costs associated with adopting, generally occur in a single year, which means adoption will be prohibitively expensive for many families.
          And because this is unavoidably a political as well as a fiscal issue, Republicans need to be aware that the optics of this provision are very bad for their base, undermining a pro-life policy that reduces federal revenues by $300 million, a rounding error in the federal budget. This is especially egregious when juxtaposed with Democrats’ successful fight for their anti-life priority of funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of more than $500 million per year.
          From a failure to defend long-held marriage laws, to funding the mass-murdering Planned Parenthood, Barack liar-nObama’s administration was overtly hostile to the traditional family. This hostility extended to the adoption tax credit, with the liar-nObama IRS auditing an astounding 69% of tax returns that claimed the credit, only to adjust tax bills by a few dollars here or there. Too bad liar-nObama didn’t expend that must energy ending the $140 billion in annual Medicaid fraud.
          Budgets reveal our priorities, and few priorities could be higher than helping abandoned children be placed in loving homes. The final bill will be a product of intense negotiations, but this provision is one Republicans should consider keeping.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52295

by Culture Beat:  As the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, responsible for unleashing one of the bloodiest and most oppressive epochs in world history, is upon us, a disturbing survey recently released by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation shows that a majority of Millennials favor socialism and communism over capitalism. The survey notes that 58% of Millennials would rather be living under some form of collectivist system than the free market-based system of capitalism.

          Marion Smith, executive director of the Victims of Communism, states, “Millennials now make up the largest generation in America, and we’re seeing some deeply worrisome trends. Millennials are increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.” Maybe even more troubling, the survey shows that nearly one in five Millennials view Josef Stalin as a “hero.” Out on a limb, but perhaps that’s because their public school education didn’t include the fact that Stalin killed tens of millions of his own citizens.
          Indeed, what are American kids being taught in school? If the idealization of communism isn’t an indictment against America’s poor educational standards, specifically relating to historical events, then we don’t know what is. Should we be surprised that a growing number of college students support restrictions to free speech rights?
          Much of the problem may lie with the fact that most Millennials have never truly experienced tyrannically oppressive and murderous government. Nor do they appreciate the very real dangers and threats posed by communist powers during the Cold War. Too often leftist teachers and professors fill students’ minds with the flawed notions of “fairness” of equal outcome rather than the justice of equal opportunity. Historian Sean McMeekin warns, “Today’s Western socialist, dreaming of a world where private property and inequality are outlawed, where rational economic development is planned by far-seeing intellectuals, should be careful what they wish for. They may just get it.”
          Factors for increasing numbers of Millennials disillusioned with capitalism may be due to the fact that a majority (53%) feel burdened by the economy, as it has been widely speculated that the Millennial generation will actually fare worse than their parents economically. A generation growing up with high levels of debt and lower earning power while being taught that they’re victims of “The System” will naturally seek to change it, rather than change themselves.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52261

by John J. Bastiat:  It’s long past time for government to break up Google and Facebook. Or so writes Yelp’s vice president of public policy, Luther Lowe, in The Wall Street Journal. Lowe spiritedly argues his case that Congress — or the executive branch, or somebody — needs to break up the Google and Facebook “monopolies.” How quaint: A veep of the site cornering a very sizable portion of the brick-and-mortar, ratings-and-reviews market says the government should shut down his competition. Of course it should. No doubt Ford and Chevy likely wouldn’t object to the same kind of treatment for Toyota and Honda, nor would a host of other contenders mind too much if the federal government weighed in against their competition, too. Even so, notwithstanding Lowe’s overtly self-serving op-ed, he raises a topic worth analyzing: Should Google and Facebook be broken up under antitrust laws — like Ma Bell, in the early ‘80s? If not, why not?

          Certainly, that case is being made. For instance, according to Lowe, 99 cents of every dollar spent on online advertising goes to Google and Facebook, collectively. This, along with the duping of the two sites into service as puppets in Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, is reason enough in Lowe’s mind to warrant federal action. Setting aside the “monopoly” argument to which we will shortly return, do any other “root causes” explain the sudden momentum change against these two giants? Indeed.
          Only two months ago, for example, we chronicled Google’s censoring efforts; we covered Facebook’s algorithm manipulation only a few months before that. It’s no secret neither company loves either conservatives or Republicans, but events like these — in which both efforts were designed to suppress conservative news and views — show the extent to which both companies have overplayed their left-orthodoxy hand. The broader public is starting to sit up and take notice — and not just our public.
          For instance, the European Union (EU) just pistol-whipped Google with a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine for breaking its antitrust laws, stating Google had “abused its dominant position by systematically favoring” its own shopping service in its search results. The penalty is almost three times the previous record, meted out to Intel in 2009. The EU’s precedent could open the door for even more litigation over Google’s basic search engine, and a much deeper legal dive into its search algorithms. Moreover, since Facebook is already under the gun for algorithm-tinkering, Google’s exposure before the EU will likely only amplify scrutiny of Facebook, as well.
          Nor is public opinion the two companies’ only setback. Ever since the Democrats’ blunt-trauma contact with the reality of the election of Donald Trump, party faithful have been relentlessly searching for a scapegoat sufficiently worthy to put their runaway train back on its ideological tracks. That scapegoat has variously taken the form of “Trump’s ‘collusion’ with the Russians,” “Russian meddling with the 2016 presidential election,” or some variation in between the two. Central to this truth-twisting group think has been notion the Google and Facebook ads were manipulated by the Russians to change the American voter’s mind. How else could Trump have won, they wonder. Never mind the fact Facebook, Twitter and Google have each stated the amount of Russian-backed content on their sites was negligible. Indeed, Facebook even quantified its assertion, noting the amount of news produced by the Russians under the auspices of the shill “Internet Research Agency” was less than a hundredth of 1%.
          Sadly, such facts do not dissuade such crack forensic experts as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Kookland). During a recent meeting of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, she told these social media conglomerates, “I must say, I don’t think you get it. Because you bear responsibility. You created the platforms … and now they’re being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it — or we will.” Of course: Congress needs to step in and censor, break up, or otherwise ruin yet another segment of our erstwhile “free” market society, because Democrats have been hurt by it … somehow. Just what the nation needs: More laws and more regulation from the same buffoons who haven’t even the slightest notion of how a free market economy works.
          That said, given the size and influence of these social-media monoliths, no one should be surprised at the general feeling — both from the Left and the Right — that they should be “brought in line.”
          But how? Given its abysmal track record on “fixing” problems —and by “problems” we mean any problem — is government really the answer? It is true Silicon Valley has proven time and time again it is wholly incapable of breaking out of its far-left-leaning box or restraining itself from censoring content it finds “offensive” (read: conservative viewpoints). But are these sufficient reasons to make good on Feinstein’s “do-something-about-it-or-we-will” threat? God help us if they are: The worst remedy to this problem is to summon the unholy demons of federal intervention. The proof: Simply observe this was the Democrats’ immediate, go-to play: The polar opposite  of that play is clearly the right move. That solution is the free market.
          We note at the outset of our free market rejoinder that true “monopolies” cannot exist apart from government intervention. One need only briefly survey the past two centuries’ worth of history on this topic to understand that once a company reaches a certain size, it is no longer capable of carving through economic landscapes with the speed and custom-tuned response demanded by newer, smaller customers. That is, “one-size-fits-all” answers to customer demands never prevail in the long term, absent government-imposed constraints limiting the available options.
          What then, is the conservative answer to the problems of Google and Facebook? As a philosophical first step, we would caution not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Both Google and Facebook serve worthy purposes, even from a conservative point of view. Second, remember the conservative concept of a “limiting principle”: Once Google, Facebook and Twitter are decimated, what’s to stop the onslaught against other e-giants? How about Amazon? Or, for that matter, Mr. Lowe, what about Yelp? Aren’t they, too, “monopolies” of a type? What is a “monopoly,” anyway, and how is one “broken up”? These questions allude to a more fundamental problem: Getting government involved in anything out of its lane — such as picking winners and losers in the so-called free market — makes a bad situation much worse.
          In contrast, free market solutions — alternative platforms and applications, public exposure of leftist ideologies and biases infused in search algorithms, public awareness initiatives on the value of free speech in social media, litigation campaigns which force Google, Facebook, Amazon and other online juggernauts to publicly admit their positions and beliefs, boycotts and social media blitzes designed to alert the public of censorship or bias activities by online platforms, etc. — are surely much more effective and much less damaging to the national economy than draconian government intervention. Remember, the government chose the winners and losers in the 2008 financial meltdown — not the free market. Today, the U.S. is still recovering from those hastily made and utterly foolish choices. Let’s not repeat such recklessness less than a decade hence.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52300

by Political Editors: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was attacked from behind by his neighbor as he was mowing his own lawn (think about that for a minute) in Bowling Green, Kentucky, last Friday. “Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it is now a matter for the police,” said Kelsey Cooper, Sen. Paul’s communications director. Paul suffered five broken ribs, including three displaced fractures. Clearly, that wasn’t very neighborly. And as details slowly emerge, it was worse than that.

          The lawyer for Rene Boucher, the neighbor who attacked Paul, claims the dispute that precipitated the attack had nothing to do with politics but was over some “trivial” matter. He insisted, “Senator Paul and Dr. Boucher have been next-door neighbors for 17 years. They are also prominent members of the local medical community and worked together when they were both practicing physicians. The unfortunate occurrence of November 3rd has absolutely nothing to do with either’s politics or political agendas.” Perhaps, but it’s no secret that Paul and his neighbor are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and evidently have not spoken to each other in years.
          There is an obvious reason why Boucher’s lawyer would seek to distance his client’s motivation from anything political. If it was political, then Boucher is looking at a federal rather than a state offense, and attacking a U.S. senator “on account of the performance of official duties” carries an 8 to 20 year prison term. At the very least, Boucher faces felony rather than misdemeanor charges due to the severity of the attack.
          Irrespective of how this particular incident plays out, the fact that we are questioning if politics was a motive says much about the current state of our national political climate — a political climate in which congressional Republicans are targeted for assassination by a socialist. When Democrats, the mainstream media and popular culture feel entirely justified to regularly and falsely paint Republicans and conservatives as the party of racists and bigots, when liar-Hillary Clinton labels Donald Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables,” and when the Left sees no problem resisting and calling for the impeachment of a justly elected president simply because they don’t like him, we have a real problem. This is type of hatred is the result of one side choosing to exploit identity politics. It remains to be seen if Paul’s neighbor was indeed driven by politically fueled hatred, but there is little question that on a national level America has a dangerously growing problem with “progressive” hate.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52275

by Todd Johnson:  While most of the mainstream media establishment continues to be fixated on tracking down the latest bit of minutiae pertaining to Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s Russian investigation, there is a momentous story happening in Washington, DC, that has all but been ignored by the fourth estate. As tomorrow marks one year since Donald Trump’s surprise election victory, it makes for a good opportunity to point it out.

          Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate successfully confirmed four of President Trump’s circuit court of appeals nominees, bringing their total to eight circuit court judges being approved this year. That number represents a 4.5% turnover of the 179 total appeals court judgeships available. More impressively, Trump has now tied President Ronald Reagan’s accomplishment of placing eight judges on the appeals courts in the first year of an administration.
          Perhaps contrary to popular belief, this track record of success has been primarily due to the dynamic partnership between the Trump White House and the Senate leadership — specifically Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. While the president deserves some criticism for his inability to fill executive branch jobs more quickly, his success with judicial candidates is laudable.
          When he entered office in January, Trump had about twice as many lower court vacancies as his predecessor. His ability to work with McConnell and the rest of the Republican Senate has afforded him the opportunity to really leave an imprint on the American judicial system and create a legacy that will long outlast his time in Washington.
          Arguably more impressive than Trump’s work with the GOP is his administration’s work with the Democrat Party. According to Trump’s adviser on Supreme Court and judicial nominations, “This is an administration that has taken extraordinary lengths to consult with Democrat senators, more than I remember in my professional life than with any other Republican or Democratic administration.” Trump’s willingness to work with both sides of the aisle exemplifies political growth and shows a man who is adapting to the political challenges of working with members of Congress.
          Contrary to the popular media narrative surrounding the Beltway, Trump has nominated excellent candidates for the judicial openings and Senate Republicans have done the heavy lifting needed to get qualified candidates through the arduous nominating process.
          And they will have plenty more chances to put more conservative judges on the bench. Another 23 appeals court judgeships are currently vacant or will be vacated in the near future, which gives Trump the opportunity to overhaul some 17% of the circuit court positions. In addition to those openings, he also needs to nominate another 130 people for open slots at other courts, with the vast majority of them being at the federal district court level.
          The only way that progress on these nominations will be stopped is if Democrats decide to invoke the cloture rule on nominations going forward. Cloture used to be a rarely used parliamentary procedure by which the Senate would vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other measure. Now it’s often used by the minority party in the Senate to drag out the process for judicial nominees. Democrats this year alone have utilized the tactic to delay 12 of 13 judicial nominees. Only time will tell if they will continue to obstruct Trump’s ability to fill vacancies.
          That’s why it is imperative that the Republicans in the Senate stay united and patient. No Republican has voted against any of the judicial nominees so far and they need to continue that perfect track record if they want to positively impact the nation long after they leave office.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52269

          Trump didn’t just promise to defend U.S. interests and allies, he took aim at Kim Jong-un’s regime in other ways. “North Korea is not the paradise your grandfather envisioned,” Trump said to Kim. “It is a hell that no person deserves.” He also took on the Kim regime for its human rights abuses, using words like “fascism,” “cult,” tyrant" and “sinister.”
          It’s hard to overestimate how unusual it is for anyone to speak so forcefully against North Korea from just across the border in South Korea. Trump’s words were a strong message in the face of communist tyranny, and a welcome sign of strength for U.S. foreign policy.
          Next up is continuing to deal with China. Trump went from Seoul to Beijing, where he is reportedly expected to push China to cut financial ties with North Korea.
          Trump made an effort to honor Chinese President Xi Jinping even while preparing to challenge him — honor is an important thing to keep in mind in Asian cultures. “I want to just say that President Xi … has been very helpful,” Trump said. “China is out trying very hard to solve the problem with North Korea.”
          In reality, of course, as Mark Alexander wrote in September, China is “using the Kim/NoKo nuclear threat as a king pawn to protect their own trade and foreign policy interests.” In other words, China benefits from keeping North Korea as a bargaining chip and insurance against economic action the Trump administration might take against China. The American Leftmedia continue to push the narrative that China is doing all it can, but the reality is Beijing is using Pyongyang’s saber rattling to its advantage.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52306

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/06/april_ryan_trump_fighting_back_by_galvanizing_his_base_of_white_males_the_uneducated.html

          Recall back in August when The New York Times claimed to have procured a draft copy that it asserted “has not yet been made public.” This was false — the draft had long been up for public review, which the Times later clarified — but it helped support the premise supplied by the Times’ headline: “Scientists Fear Trump Will Dismiss Blunt Climate Report.”
          As we reported at the time, this now-demonstrably fake news bolstered the narrative two-fold: It furthered the Times’ agenda of portraying Donald Trump as a Neanderthal who “could change or suppress the report” without the public’s knowledge, and it also helped portray ecofascists as brave whistleblowers who had no choice but to “leak” a report to save humanity. In reality, the report formally went out without a hitch. But hey — narrative!
          According to CBS, “The Trump administration did not seek to block its release, but the conclusion directly contradicts statements made by senior members of his cabinet.” That’s the difference between the liar-nObama and Trump administrations — the former pulled out all the stops to suppress every little thing with which it disagreed, while the latter respects debate and the Rule of Law. There are many ways to question and counter causation without pulling out an executive order, a practice that became Barack liar-nObama’s modus operandi. As Trump spokesman Raj Shah put it, “The Administration supports rigorous scientific analysis and debate and encourages public comment on the draft documents being released today.”
          Interestingly, not everyone on the Left agrees wholeheartedly with the report — and not because it lacks sensationalism. Even an liar-nObama-era official is calling into question some of the report’s findings. Physicist Steven E. Koonin, former undersecretary of energy under liar-nObama, addresses two specific issues in The Wall Street Journal, where he writes:
          One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.
          This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent today than in 1900. This artifice also appeared in the government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment, which emphasized a post-1980 increase in hurricane power without discussing the longer-term record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently stated that it has been unable to detect any human impact on hurricanes.
          Koonin rightly calls this dichotomy “the difference between science and advocacy.” It’s not like anything in this report is “news.” If anything, it’s a regurgitation of what we’ve been hearing for decades, only with fresh data and enhanced alarm. The report also should not be interpreted as a Trump administration flip-flop, as many of these agencies are controlled by career activists. More importantly, Trump officials — particularly EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — are enacting policies that jettison the agenda being propagated by climate activists. It’s for that reason climate reports will be sensationalized further in the years ahead, as holdovers work to demonize the Trump administration’s work.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52262