Deplorables Versus the Ruling Class: A Global Struggle

Consider the age of monarchs.  Squabbling barons select a supreme ruler – a king or an emperor — to suppress the squabbling.  Peace and prosperity return to the land.  The king makes policy but he can’t do everything.  His minions take care of the details. 

Minions mean bureaucracy.   The bureaucracy grows.  The king grows old and dies.  The dynasty continues.  The bureaucracy continues – always continues, and always grows.  The bureaucracy becomes an establishment kingdom unto itself.  The bureaucracy grows in power and serves its own interests.  The king diminishes in power.  The land grows restless under the increasing regulatory tyranny and taxes.  Legitimacy –what the Chinese called the “mandate of heaven” —  is lost and so is the dynasty.

Change the names and we are at the end of a similar cycle – a cycle that began with the guillotine.  This time it is a world-wide cycle.  The modern king is a modern tyrant – Stalin, Hitler, Mao were the worst.

The socialist idea had been kicking around since the 18th century.  This seemingly plausible notion shaped the various Marxist evils of the 20th century.  The Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Nazism, Fascism, and today’s imperious European Union, are all socialist tyrannies of one degree or another.

Bureaucratic agencies become ideal tools for tyrants.  A tyrant can point his agencies in a particular direction and unleash them.  They immediately glory in their new power.  Horrors ensue.  Nazi Germany gave us the Holocaust and war.  Stalin used betrayal.  Friends betrayed friends.  Children spied on parents.  During the Soviet show trials of the 1930’s Stalin’s innocent victims were forced to falsely confess in order to save the lives of their families.  Fear reigns. 

Sound familiar?  How about the FBI inducing General Flynn to plead guilty in order to protect his son?  Mao injected dark comedy by unleashing hordes of children to humiliate their elders.  No one was safe.  Fear reigns.  Sound familiar?  Antifa anyone?  Black Lives Matter anyone?  Greta anyone?  Mao lives!

The United States has become an undemocratic administrative state as well, but only by happenstance.  In this country Congress has ceded much of its power to unchecked regulatory agencies, allowing them to write their own laws — regulations which enable them to prosecute, and persecute, anyone who might stand in an agency’s way.  The agencies are powers unto themselves — judge, jury, and arresting police altogether.  Innocents are often victims.

It isn’t just the regulatory, or administrative, state that is the problem.  There is a growing sense that something is terribly wrong throughout society – throughout progressive liberal society, that is.  How about needles in the street?  How about sanctuary cities, counties and states?  How about the ruins of Detroit?  How about the weekly slaughter in Chicago?  How about suppression of free speech in academia?  How about the corrupt liberal media?  How about big tech bias and censorship?  It seems that our governments, and our intellectual establishments both, no longer serve the average citizen.  They serve only a leftist political ideology, and themselves.

Worst of all, the political ideology that the establishment promotes is antithetical to the native ideology of America.  America was founded as a society with spiritual values.  True America is a society where the family is paramount.  It is a society where a person is rewarded in proportion to his contribution.  It is a society devoted to the individual where the individual is inherently free because his rights derive from the Creator not from the government.  The purpose of government, according to the American ideology, is to serve the individual, not to be his master.  The collection of individuals is to be the master of the government.  This is classical liberalism – now a conservative ideal.  It is the opposite of “progressive liberalism.”

The true American ideology cautions against granting power to any bureaucratic establishment.  In its ever increasing hunger for power the establishment has gravitated to an alien progressive ideology – an ideology of ever bigger government and government control.  But the bossy progressive Left increasingly forbids Americans to be Americans.

Political turmoil is the consequence.  The barons are squabbling.  The Left openly advocates overthrowing the Constitution.  The Right counters with Donald Trump.  The Left politically assassinates him with impeachment.  The Right, with centrist allies, will reelect him anyway.  The Mandate of Heaven has been removed from the elitist establishment.  It is passing to the Deplorables.

It isn’t just in America.  The world as a whole is pivoting.  The dogmatic socialist established order is ending.  We enter the age of the Deplorables.  The Deplorables are ascending in America, with Trump, in Britain with Brexit, in Hong Kong, in much of Europe, in Latin America, in Iran.  Deplorables are the antidote to arrogant globalist socialists.  Deplorables everywhere say “from now on we will make our own decisions.”

Hong Kong Deplorables protest extradition bill (credit: Studio Incendo)

What is it with the Deplorables?  What gives them such power?  Three things, I believe, are elevating them.  Deplorables are pragmatic.  They are not wedded to any extreme ideology.  Deplorables will go with anything that works.  It is no wonder that the Deplorables began in America.  For, as Americans we inherit the pragmatism of our pioneering ancestors.

Second, the Deplorables adhere to the original American ideology of free individuals.  They reject the concentration of government power that has accumulated over the past century.

The third energizer is a technological miracle – the internet.  Establishments everywhere fear the internet.  And properly so.  For the first time we can instantly communicate across the world.  We can find like-minded people everywhere.  We have discovered just how very many people agree with us.

It follows that Deplorables are no longer just an American phenomenon, the phenomenon resonates with people everywhere.  People around the world are much the same.  They value their traditions and customs.  They value their families, their values, their spiritual heritage.  They value their nation.  They resent the imposition of intrusive government by strangers, by bureaucratic globalists.  They are becoming Deplorables.

Born in the still free parts of America, this new movement seems destined to chart the course for the whole world — for this century and beyond.

The Mandate of Heaven no longer rests with the condescending progressive bureaucratic establishment.  It is passing back to the people.  It is passing to Deplorables everywhere in the world.

Consider the age of monarchs.  Squabbling barons select a supreme ruler – a king or an emperor — to suppress the squabbling.  Peace and prosperity return to the land.  The king makes policy but he can’t do everything.  His minions take care of the details. 

Minions mean bureaucracy.   The bureaucracy grows.  The king grows old and dies.  The dynasty continues.  The bureaucracy continues – always continues, and always grows.  The bureaucracy becomes an establishment kingdom unto itself.  The bureaucracy grows in power and serves its own interests.  The king diminishes in power.  The land grows restless under the increasing regulatory tyranny and taxes.  Legitimacy –what the Chinese called the “mandate of heaven” —  is lost and so is the dynasty.

Change the names and we are at the end of a similar cycle – a cycle that began with the guillotine.  This time it is a world-wide cycle.  The modern king is a modern tyrant – Stalin, Hitler, Mao were the worst.

The socialist idea had been kicking around since the 18th century.  This seemingly plausible notion shaped the various Marxist evils of the 20th century.  The Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Nazism, Fascism, and today’s imperious European Union, are all socialist tyrannies of one degree or another.

Bureaucratic agencies become ideal tools for tyrants.  A tyrant can point his agencies in a particular direction and unleash them.  They immediately glory in their new power.  Horrors ensue.  Nazi Germany gave us the Holocaust and war.  Stalin used betrayal.  Friends betrayed friends.  Children spied on parents.  During the Soviet show trials of the 1930’s Stalin’s innocent victims were forced to falsely confess in order to save the lives of their families.  Fear reigns. 

Sound familiar?  How about the FBI inducing General Flynn to plead guilty in order to protect his son?  Mao injected dark comedy by unleashing hordes of children to humiliate their elders.  No one was safe.  Fear reigns.  Sound familiar?  Antifa anyone?  Black Lives Matter anyone?  Greta anyone?  Mao lives!

The United States has become an undemocratic administrative state as well, but only by happenstance.  In this country Congress has ceded much of its power to unchecked regulatory agencies, allowing them to write their own laws — regulations which enable them to prosecute, and persecute, anyone who might stand in an agency’s way.  The agencies are powers unto themselves — judge, jury, and arresting police altogether.  Innocents are often victims.

It isn’t just the regulatory, or administrative, state that is the problem.  There is a growing sense that something is terribly wrong throughout society – throughout progressive liberal society, that is.  How about needles in the street?  How about sanctuary cities, counties and states?  How about the ruins of Detroit?  How about the weekly slaughter in Chicago?  How about suppression of free speech in academia?  How about the corrupt liberal media?  How about big tech bias and censorship?  It seems that our governments, and our intellectual establishments both, no longer serve the average citizen.  They serve only a leftist political ideology, and themselves.

Worst of all, the political ideology that the establishment promotes is antithetical to the native ideology of America.  America was founded as a society with spiritual values.  True America is a society where the family is paramount.  It is a society where a person is rewarded in proportion to his contribution.  It is a society devoted to the individual where the individual is inherently free because his rights derive from the Creator not from the government.  The purpose of government, according to the American ideology, is to serve the individual, not to be his master.  The collection of individuals is to be the master of the government.  This is classical liberalism – now a conservative ideal.  It is the opposite of “progressive liberalism.”

The true American ideology cautions against granting power to any bureaucratic establishment.  In its ever increasing hunger for power the establishment has gravitated to an alien progressive ideology – an ideology of ever bigger government and government control.  But the bossy progressive Left increasingly forbids Americans to be Americans.

Political turmoil is the consequence.  The barons are squabbling.  The Left openly advocates overthrowing the Constitution.  The Right counters with Donald Trump.  The Left politically assassinates him with impeachment.  The Right, with centrist allies, will reelect him anyway.  The Mandate of Heaven has been removed from the elitist establishment.  It is passing to the Deplorables.

It isn’t just in America.  The world as a whole is pivoting.  The dogmatic socialist established order is ending.  We enter the age of the Deplorables.  The Deplorables are ascending in America, with Trump, in Britain with Brexit, in Hong Kong, in much of Europe, in Latin America, in Iran.  Deplorables are the antidote to arrogant globalist socialists.  Deplorables everywhere say “from now on we will make our own decisions.”

Hong Kong Deplorables protest extradition bill (credit: Studio Incendo)

What is it with the Deplorables?  What gives them such power?  Three things, I believe, are elevating them.  Deplorables are pragmatic.  They are not wedded to any extreme ideology.  Deplorables will go with anything that works.  It is no wonder that the Deplorables began in America.  For, as Americans we inherit the pragmatism of our pioneering ancestors.

Second, the Deplorables adhere to the original American ideology of free individuals.  They reject the concentration of government power that has accumulated over the past century.

The third energizer is a technological miracle – the internet.  Establishments everywhere fear the internet.  And properly so.  For the first time we can instantly communicate across the world.  We can find like-minded people everywhere.  We have discovered just how very many people agree with us.

It follows that Deplorables are no longer just an American phenomenon, the phenomenon resonates with people everywhere.  People around the world are much the same.  They value their traditions and customs.  They value their families, their values, their spiritual heritage.  They value their nation.  They resent the imposition of intrusive government by strangers, by bureaucratic globalists.  They are becoming Deplorables.

Born in the still free parts of America, this new movement seems destined to chart the course for the whole world — for this century and beyond.

The Mandate of Heaven no longer rests with the condescending progressive bureaucratic establishment.  It is passing back to the people.  It is passing to Deplorables everywhere in the world.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

The Carbon Tax: the Big City ‘Incentivizes’ Rural Vermonters

Progressive legislators, interest groups, and government entities are clamoring to impose their utopian climate change agenda on Vermont’s citizens when the legislature commences its 2020 session.  There are numerous Achilles heels in these well-laid (if foolish) plans, and they are easy to spot — ineffectiveness; damage to the economy; inequality; government bloat.

A key watchword in 2020 will be “incentivizing.”  Taxpayers must snap into alertness whenever they hear this shifty expression, because it masks true intent.  In Orwellian fashion, the word generally is presented as a positive, when in fact it is always a negative.  An accurate definition of the word in this context would be “changing behavior by government compulsion.”

For example, the current proposal for Vermont under the Transportation and  Climate Initiative (TCI) is to add 5-18 cents per gallon in tax to Vermonters’ fuels.  Proponents argue that this gas tax will “incentivize” citizens to drive less: a sin tax.  But who in the world thinks that an 18-cent-per-gallon “incentive” will curb consumption?  Advocates argue that it is axiomatic that a higher cost will reduce consumption — but gas averaged $3.99/gallon nationally in May 2011, and is now only about $2.60.

A degree in rocket science is unnecessary to see where this leads.  Once the 18 cents per gallon (presented now as a mere pittance) fails to impact consumption behaviors, the progressives will be back, explaining that the tax must be raised to achieve that goal — even though many low-income Vermonters are already squeezed to breaking point and use gas to travel to work.  The question then becomes how much legislators tax Vermonters to “save the planet.”  But the tax will only go up, always with the moral clarion call of saving the children.

The other end of the “incentivizing” scam comes when the government bureaucracy decides how to spend the money extorted through the gasoline and fuels taxes. The proposal is that the money will be invested in part to “incentivize” the purchase of electric vehicles.  These vehicles perform poorly in cold, rural environments. Yet even if they did perform adequately, this scheme is patently unfair.  As wealthy Vermonters are given an “incentive” to purchase a brand-new $40,000 car in the form of subsidies, perhaps through a sales tax exemption (one proposal), poor Vermonters will not be able to “take advantage” of these programs, and will still pay the same old sales tax every time they muster the meager funds to get another used vehicle.  The wealthy receive a beneficial (and optional) incentive to purchase; the poor pay the tab via forced subsidization.

In its January, 2019 discussion of these complex issues, Resources for the Future (“…an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC”) assesses the economic impact of various options:

When revenues are used to finance electricity subsidies, the change in economic welfare is about 20 percent smaller than the change in the policy with rebates; the subsidies reduce the economic impact of the carbon price by reducing the price of electricity…. Rural households are generally worse-off than urban households due to their higher share of energy expenditures, but the difference is not generally substantial. And, to the extent that rural households are also low-income, they may still be made better off (as discussed above).

Note the “may still be made better off” vagueness.  But if “revenues are used to finance electricity subsidies,” recipients will be “incentivized” to use more electricity, won’t they?  What of those many Vermonters who live off grid or purchased solar panels — they will be denied the electricity subsidies they were compelled to pay others who are still using grid power.  Resources for the Future also advocates for reductions in wage taxes to offset carbon taxes.  But wouldn’t that just give people more money to offset (afford) that gas tax — that is, cancel out that mysterious “incentive”?  It would also provide a windfall to wage earners who use mass transit or don’t drive a vehicle, and who thus never contributed toward the “revenues” being redistributed.  And what is being contemplated is not chump change — “A carbon pricing policy could generate $74.7–$433.8 million in annual [state government] revenue in 2025, depending on the carbon price amount and number of sectors covered.”  This enhances state coffers at the expense of economic welfare.

As Vermonters hold their breath in hopes that Governor Phil Scott will “hold the line” on these massive new tax and regulatory initiatives, they should recall who took their state over that line.  As Resources for the Future crafts Vermonters’ economic future for them, it identifies who opened the door:

In July 2017, Governor Scott issued Executive Order No. 12-17 to create the Vermont Climate Action Commission (VCAC), a committee of 21 representatives from a range of both for-profit and nonprofit organizations and various state, regional, and local government agencies. The governor directed the commission to “draft and recommend, for the Governor’s consideration, an action plan aimed at reaching the State’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals while driving economic growth, setting Vermonters on a path to affordability, and ensuring effective energy transition options exist for all Vermonters.”

Where could this Executive Order ever have led but where Vermont now finds itself, with bureaucrats and out-of-state “independents” dictating our farms’ and forests’ futures?  Vermonters are fatigued by the false mantra that imposing regulatory costs “drives economic growth” — ask Vermont’s Rutland County businesses, who were recently informed they must pony up $300 million to retrofit all paved surfaces exceeding three acres in area, to prevent surface stormwater run-off.  The progressives call this “economic growth,” citing the local contractors who have the (optional) opportunity to earn $300 million to perform the mandated excavation and construction work.  (One wonders what the climate impact is of re-paving all that acreage!).  There is currently no government funding of this mandatory implementation: a number of longstanding businesses are threatened with bankruptcy.  The contemplated fuel taxes employ the same foggy logic: that taxing people for driving is beneficial, because the money will be used to “drive economic growth.” 

The governor’s phrase “setting Vermonters on a path to affordability” is also getting tiresome, since all carbon tax studies acknowledge the inherent regressiveness of these taxes — they hurt the working poor the most.  This is why all carbon tax proposals strive to redistribute the wealth they admit they are taking from the poorest of our citizenry — to incentivize us all!

This is the tip of the carbon tax regulatory iceberg: it is far from melting.  In 2020, Vermonters will hear much about “incentivizing” their conduct, and will learn how mammoth this bulging iceberg has become.  Much like paying $10,000 each to out-of-staters to relocate to Vermont, these shenanigans must be called to a halt — voters must be incentivized to vote in 2020.

Vermonters are done being the guinea pigs for social and economic experimentation — Resources for the Future should focus on cleaning up the ecosystem in stinky D.C.  After they get all their “incentivizing” worked out down there, they can vacation in Vermont, where the air is already clean.

Progressive legislators, interest groups, and government entities are clamoring to impose their utopian climate change agenda on Vermont’s citizens when the legislature commences its 2020 session.  There are numerous Achilles heels in these well-laid (if foolish) plans, and they are easy to spot — ineffectiveness; damage to the economy; inequality; government bloat.

A key watchword in 2020 will be “incentivizing.”  Taxpayers must snap into alertness whenever they hear this shifty expression, because it masks true intent.  In Orwellian fashion, the word generally is presented as a positive, when in fact it is always a negative.  An accurate definition of the word in this context would be “changing behavior by government compulsion.”

For example, the current proposal for Vermont under the Transportation and  Climate Initiative (TCI) is to add 5-18 cents per gallon in tax to Vermonters’ fuels.  Proponents argue that this gas tax will “incentivize” citizens to drive less: a sin tax.  But who in the world thinks that an 18-cent-per-gallon “incentive” will curb consumption?  Advocates argue that it is axiomatic that a higher cost will reduce consumption — but gas averaged $3.99/gallon nationally in May 2011, and is now only about $2.60.

A degree in rocket science is unnecessary to see where this leads.  Once the 18 cents per gallon (presented now as a mere pittance) fails to impact consumption behaviors, the progressives will be back, explaining that the tax must be raised to achieve that goal — even though many low-income Vermonters are already squeezed to breaking point and use gas to travel to work.  The question then becomes how much legislators tax Vermonters to “save the planet.”  But the tax will only go up, always with the moral clarion call of saving the children.

The other end of the “incentivizing” scam comes when the government bureaucracy decides how to spend the money extorted through the gasoline and fuels taxes. The proposal is that the money will be invested in part to “incentivize” the purchase of electric vehicles.  These vehicles perform poorly in cold, rural environments. Yet even if they did perform adequately, this scheme is patently unfair.  As wealthy Vermonters are given an “incentive” to purchase a brand-new $40,000 car in the form of subsidies, perhaps through a sales tax exemption (one proposal), poor Vermonters will not be able to “take advantage” of these programs, and will still pay the same old sales tax every time they muster the meager funds to get another used vehicle.  The wealthy receive a beneficial (and optional) incentive to purchase; the poor pay the tab via forced subsidization.

In its January, 2019 discussion of these complex issues, Resources for the Future (“…an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC”) assesses the economic impact of various options:

When revenues are used to finance electricity subsidies, the change in economic welfare is about 20 percent smaller than the change in the policy with rebates; the subsidies reduce the economic impact of the carbon price by reducing the price of electricity…. Rural households are generally worse-off than urban households due to their higher share of energy expenditures, but the difference is not generally substantial. And, to the extent that rural households are also low-income, they may still be made better off (as discussed above).

Note the “may still be made better off” vagueness.  But if “revenues are used to finance electricity subsidies,” recipients will be “incentivized” to use more electricity, won’t they?  What of those many Vermonters who live off grid or purchased solar panels — they will be denied the electricity subsidies they were compelled to pay others who are still using grid power.  Resources for the Future also advocates for reductions in wage taxes to offset carbon taxes.  But wouldn’t that just give people more money to offset (afford) that gas tax — that is, cancel out that mysterious “incentive”?  It would also provide a windfall to wage earners who use mass transit or don’t drive a vehicle, and who thus never contributed toward the “revenues” being redistributed.  And what is being contemplated is not chump change — “A carbon pricing policy could generate $74.7–$433.8 million in annual [state government] revenue in 2025, depending on the carbon price amount and number of sectors covered.”  This enhances state coffers at the expense of economic welfare.

As Vermonters hold their breath in hopes that Governor Phil Scott will “hold the line” on these massive new tax and regulatory initiatives, they should recall who took their state over that line.  As Resources for the Future crafts Vermonters’ economic future for them, it identifies who opened the door:

In July 2017, Governor Scott issued Executive Order No. 12-17 to create the Vermont Climate Action Commission (VCAC), a committee of 21 representatives from a range of both for-profit and nonprofit organizations and various state, regional, and local government agencies. The governor directed the commission to “draft and recommend, for the Governor’s consideration, an action plan aimed at reaching the State’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals while driving economic growth, setting Vermonters on a path to affordability, and ensuring effective energy transition options exist for all Vermonters.”

Where could this Executive Order ever have led but where Vermont now finds itself, with bureaucrats and out-of-state “independents” dictating our farms’ and forests’ futures?  Vermonters are fatigued by the false mantra that imposing regulatory costs “drives economic growth” — ask Vermont’s Rutland County businesses, who were recently informed they must pony up $300 million to retrofit all paved surfaces exceeding three acres in area, to prevent surface stormwater run-off.  The progressives call this “economic growth,” citing the local contractors who have the (optional) opportunity to earn $300 million to perform the mandated excavation and construction work.  (One wonders what the climate impact is of re-paving all that acreage!).  There is currently no government funding of this mandatory implementation: a number of longstanding businesses are threatened with bankruptcy.  The contemplated fuel taxes employ the same foggy logic: that taxing people for driving is beneficial, because the money will be used to “drive economic growth.” 

The governor’s phrase “setting Vermonters on a path to affordability” is also getting tiresome, since all carbon tax studies acknowledge the inherent regressiveness of these taxes — they hurt the working poor the most.  This is why all carbon tax proposals strive to redistribute the wealth they admit they are taking from the poorest of our citizenry — to incentivize us all!

This is the tip of the carbon tax regulatory iceberg: it is far from melting.  In 2020, Vermonters will hear much about “incentivizing” their conduct, and will learn how mammoth this bulging iceberg has become.  Much like paying $10,000 each to out-of-staters to relocate to Vermont, these shenanigans must be called to a halt — voters must be incentivized to vote in 2020.

Vermonters are done being the guinea pigs for social and economic experimentation — Resources for the Future should focus on cleaning up the ecosystem in stinky D.C.  After they get all their “incentivizing” worked out down there, they can vacation in Vermont, where the air is already clean.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Vox Admits Trump’s Judicial Appointments More Qualified Than Obama’s

Although Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser spent much of his December 19 article, "What Trump has done to the courts, explained," worrying that "No president in recent memory has done more to change the judiciary than Donald Trump," he also granted the surprising concession that the judicial appointments have been highly qualified. Indeed, more qualified than the federal court picks of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Canada’s government-owned CBC so petty that it cut out Trump’s cameo role when broadcasting Home Alone 2

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a worldwide phenomenon affecting arrogant elites globally. And few elites are more arrogant and self-righteously progressive than the broadcasters at the three government-owned televisions networks in our Anglosphere cousins Britain, Australia, and Canada, the BBC, the ABC and the CBC, respectively. All three networks derive their mission from the notion of instructing and enlightening their viewers, using the tool of broadcasting to improve their minds.

Beware the government bureaucrat that thinks you need enlightenment. Almost inevitably such a charge leads to condescension, and with that superior attitude, to progressivism, founded on the notion that governments can alter human nature and move us toward utopia if only we hand enough power to governments.

But the CBC’s edit to Home Alone 2, a Christmas move broadcast yesterday, was particularly mean-spirited, slight to the POTUS who has mocked “Justin from Canada,” the former high school drama teacher who became Canuckistan’s prime minister. The CBC cut out a memorable, but brief (40 seconds) cameo in which the future president is asked for directions by McCauley Culkin after the child star enters the Plaza Hotel.

YouTube screen grab

You can watch the entire sequence here:

The edit was widely noted – positively and negatively — on Canadian social media:

 

 

 

 

Comicbook.com quizzed the CBC about the edit:

ComicBook.com reached out to the CBC for comment on why Trump was cut from their Home Alone 2 broadcast, and the CBC replied “As is often the case with features adapted for television, Home Alone 2 was edited to allow for commercial time within the format.”

Yeah, right. One of the most notable scenes in the movie, one offering a fun perspective on a future world leader didn’t make the cut. I call BS. This is what it is all about.

 

 

 

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a worldwide phenomenon affecting arrogant elites globally. And few elites are more arrogant and self-righteously progressive than the broadcasters at the three government-owned televisions networks in our Anglosphere cousins Britain, Australia, and Canada, the BBC, the ABC and the CBC, respectively. All three networks derive their mission from the notion of instructing and enlightening their viewers, using the tool of broadcasting to improve their minds.

Beware the government bureaucrat that thinks you need enlightenment. Almost inevitably such a charge leads to condescension, and with that superior attitude, to progressivism, founded on the notion that governments can alter human nature and move us toward utopia if only we hand enough power to governments.

But the CBC’s edit to Home Alone 2, a Christmas move broadcast yesterday, was particularly mean-spirited, slight to the POTUS who has mocked “Justin from Canada,” the former high school drama teacher who became Canuckistan’s prime minister. The CBC cut out a memorable, but brief (40 seconds) cameo in which the future president is asked for directions by McCauley Culkin after the child star enters the Plaza Hotel.

YouTube screen grab

You can watch the entire sequence here:

The edit was widely noted – positively and negatively — on Canadian social media:

 

 

 

 

Comicbook.com quizzed the CBC about the edit:

ComicBook.com reached out to the CBC for comment on why Trump was cut from their Home Alone 2 broadcast, and the CBC replied “As is often the case with features adapted for television, Home Alone 2 was edited to allow for commercial time within the format.”

Yeah, right. One of the most notable scenes in the movie, one offering a fun perspective on a future world leader didn’t make the cut. I call BS. This is what it is all about.

 

 

 

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Washington Post Hacks Into Chevy To Show How Much Cars Are Spying On Owners

The Washington Post hacked into a Chevy Volt several days ago with the help of a automotive technology expert to find out just how much automakers are spying on their owners and discovered that vehicles are recording their owners’ every move.

The Post used a 2017 Chevy Volt for its experiment and learned that the car collected a wide range of highly precise data ranging from the vehicles location to information about the driver’s cell phone, including call records — noting that many vehicles copy over personal data the moment that a smart phone is plugged into the vehicle.

The Post noted that the Chevy Volt did not inform drivers what information it was recording and did not make mention of it in the owner’s manual since there are no federal regulations protecting consumer’s privacy and data from automakers.

The Post went to Jim Mason, who has a PhD in engineering and reconstructs car accidents for a living by hacking into vehicles, for help hacking into the Chevy Volt.

Mason focused on hacking into the car’s infotainment system since it was the easiest computer, out of several computers in the vehicle, to physically get to inside the car.

After having to take a bit of the car apart to reach the computer, The Post found that Chevy collected the  following information:

There on a map was the precise location where I’d driven to take apart the Chevy. There were my other destinations, like the hardware store I’d stopped at to buy some tape.

Among the trove of data points were unique identifiers for my and Doug’s phones, and a detailed log of phone calls from the previous week. There was a long list of contacts, right down to people’s address, emails and even photos.

For a broader view, Mason also extracted the data from a Chevrolet infotainment computer that I bought used on eBay for $375. It contained enough data to reconstruct the Upstate New York travels and relationships of a total stranger. We know he or she frequently called someone listed as “Sweetie,” whose photo we also have. We could see the exact Gulf station where they bought gas, the restaurant where they ate (called Taste China) and the unique identifiers for their Samsung Galaxy Note phones.

The Post noted that GM would not reveal what information it was collecting on drivers and that the other computers in the vehicle, including the infotainment computer, collect far more information than what Mason was able to pull up.

The vehicle also collected information on “acceleration and braking style, beaming back reports to its maker General Motors over an always-on Internet connection,” The Post added. “Coming next: face data, used to personalize the vehicle and track driver attention.”

The Post reported that 20 automakers pledged in 2014 to voluntarily adhere to privacy standards that protected consumers privacy by protecting their data — although none of the 20 automakers followed through on their promises.

As 5G cellular technology becomes integrated into cars in the future it will become even more important for Americans to advocate for their privacy rights as China’s potential entry into 5G markets in the U.S. is a significant national security threat for the U.S.

Fears that vehicles could be hacked and taken over by someone outside the vehicle who has a sinister intent are not only legitimate, they are well-rooted in reality because it has happened.

In July 2015, The Washington Post reported on one such criminal instance:

The complaints that flooded into Texas Auto Center that maddening, mystifying week were all pretty much the same: Customers’ cars had gone haywire. Horns started honking in the middle of the night, angering neighbors, waking babies. Then when morning finally came, the cars refused to start.

The staff suspected malfunctions in a new Internet device, installed behind dashboards of second-hand cars, that allowed the dealership to remind customers of overdue payments by taking remote control of some vehicle functions. But a check of the dealership’s computers suggested something more sinister at work: Texas Auto Center had been hacked. …

… Police later reported more than 100 victims and charged a former dealership employee with computer crimes. …

…Widespread hacks on cars and other connected devices are destined to come, experts say, as they already have to nearly everything else online. It’s just a question of when the right hacking skills end up in the hands of people with sufficient motives.

Also in 2015, Andy Greenberg wrote at Wired about how his Jeep was completely taken over by Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, who hacked the vehicle as part of an experiment to which Greenberg agreed. Greenberg wrote:

I was driving 70 mph on the edge of downtown St. Louis when the exploit began to take hold.

Though I hadn’t touched the dashboard, the vents in the Jeep Cherokee started blasting cold air at the maximum setting, chilling the sweat on my back through the in-seat climate control system. Next the radio switched to the local hip hop station and began blaring Skee-lo at full volume. I spun the control knob left and hit the power button, to no avail. Then the windshield wipers turned on, and wiper fluid blurred the glass. …

… Their code is an automaker’s nightmare: software that lets hackers send commands through the Jeep’s entertainment system to its dashboard functions, steering, brakes, and transmission, all from a laptop that may be across the country.

The hackers were able to completely kill the transmission on the vehicle from miles away as it drove on the freeway, which is less than they did to Greenberg two years prior in 2013 when they “disabled [the] brakes, honked the horn, jerked the seat belt, and commandeered the steering wheel” on a couple of  different vehicles that they had Greenberg drive.

WikiLeaks released a trove of documents in 2017 that revealed that the U.S. government has extremely sophisticated hacking tools that it can use to spy on people through televisions, smartphones, and even anti-virus software.

“Tucked into WikiLeaks’ analysis of a trove of documents allegedly from the Central Intelligence Agency is a stunning line: That the agency has looked into hacking cars, which WikiLeaks asserts could be used to carry out ‘nearly undetectable assassinations,’” The Washington Post reported.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Police Wasted 1.5 Million on Electric Cars That Can’t Chase Criminals

Police forces in the United Kingdom have squandered over a million pounds on electric cars that are incapable of chasing criminals or performing emergency services because the eco-friendly vehicles are too slow and take too long to charge.

A freedom of information request found that police in the UK have spent £1.49 million on 448 green cars and vans. However, the actual cost of the eco-police fleets is likely much higher as many districts have not reported their purchases.

The official police reports admit that the battery-powered cars are incapable of fulfilling police duties such as chasing criminals or handling emergency response situations and often run out of power before a shift ends.

The vehicles are used almost exclusively in non-emergency situations or to drive police chiefs to work, reports the Daily Mail.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has bought dozens of electric cars. However, the force admitted in an internal report that: “The market has not yet sufficiently matured to offer alternatively fuelled vehicles capable of meeting the MPS requirements for the role of pursuit cars.”

Scotland Yard, which plans to have an entirely “green” fleet by the year 2050, has bought 134 green vehicles in large part to comply with the £12.50 daily Ultra Low Emission Zone charge imposed by Mayor Sadiq Khan.

A report from Staffordshire Police says: “Vehicles that are less damaging to the environment are struggling to cope with the arduous needs of emergency service; autonomous driving and safety systems are not conducive to pursuit or response driving.”

In an annual survey, the police force in Kent found that the Nissan Leaf and the BMW i3 had inadequate range and take too long to recharge.

Conservative Party MP David Davies, a former special constable, said that the police leadership should show some “common sense”.

“I’ve been in a police car on many occasions when an emergency call has come in. You can’t predict what is going to happen and so they need to be very careful when using electric cars,” Davies said.

Tim Rogers, the spokesman on pursuits for the Police Federation, said that the British public should not worry about police not being able to respond to emergencies “because their cars have run out of battery”, as the police “are still able to use other vehicles”.

Follow Kurt on Twitter at @KurtZindulka

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Davos Forum Elites to Demand Immediate Global Action on ‘Climate Change’

An impatient demand for the world to work harder to counter “climate change” will top the agenda at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting next month in Davos, Switzerland.

Organizers expect some 3,000 corporate and government representatives to fly in from around the world to broach climate issues at the luxury ski resort, with a squadron of some 1700 private jets providing transport for the bulk of the attendees.

The meeting’s theme in 2020 has been announced as “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” It aims to “drive governments and international institutions in tracking progress towards the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals, and facilitate discussions on technology and trade governance.”

“People are revolting against the economic ‘elites’ they believe have betrayed them, and our efforts to keep global warming limited to 1.5°C are falling dangerously short,” said Professor Klaus Schwab, WEF founder and executive chairman.

Schwab echoed the impatience of his peers that the world appears deaf to the entreaties of previous WEF gatherings for action on climate matters. He continued:

With the world at such critical crossroads, this year we must develop a ‘Davos Manifesto 2020’ to reimagine the purpose and scorecards for companies and governments. It is what the World Economic Forum was founded for 50 years ago, and it is what we want to contribute to for the next 50 years.

WEF meetings in Davos have traditionally drawn globalist elites to Switzerland for a week of talking. They represent the worlds of business, government, international aid, academia, arts and culture, and the media, however such high level chat is not cheap.

The WEF website reveals annual membership (required if you want to buy a ticket to Davos) is upwards of U.S.$60,000, depending on the institution or company’s “level of engagement”.

At the top are the 100 “strategic partner” companies – including Accenture, Barclays, Deloitte, KPMG and Unilever – who pay around U.S.$600,000 for annual membership, which entitles them to buy an access-all-sessions pass for themselves and five colleagues, including special privileges. But they still have to purchase actual tickets to the event.

WEF guests have long drawn accusations that CEOs are failing to back up their talk on fighting climate change, stamping an outsized carbon footprint with their luxury aircraft as they fly in to consider ways for the rest of the world to heed their calls.

The corporate world’s love of private jets over scheduled commercial alternatives is mirrored in their current record sale numbers, as Breitbart News reported.

Private jet lovers will fork out a combined $248 billion over the next ten years, buying 7,600 private planes according to a report quoted in the Guardian. The users span private, corporate, and government clients including the United Nations.

The new private jets are expected to be bought by multinational companies and the super-rich over the next decade, each of which will burn 40 times as much carbon per passenger as regular commercial flights, predicted a report by aviation firm Honeywell Aerospace.

About 690 new business jets were expected to take to the skies in 2019 alone, a nine percent increase on 2018, as businesses and the wealthy refresh their fleets with new models released by three of the world’s biggest private jet manufacturers.

A large proportion of all these new private jet buys will be on display at Davos airport and nearby civilian airfields from the first day of the WEF next month.

The 50th World Economic Forum annual meeting will run from 21—24 January, 2020, at Davos-Klosters, Switzerland.

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

The Worst of MSNBC in 2019

The Washington Free Beacon presents its seventh annual look at the worst MSNBC had to offer over the past year.

In one of the year’s few highlights, either Hardball host Chris Matthews or Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) farted loudly on the air on Nov. 18, and the show tried to cover it up by blaming the sound on a mug.

That was—sadly—about as good as it got.

The post The Worst of MSNBC in 2019 appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

These 15 GOP governors are asking for more refugee resettlement in their red states

Is there a single red state left in America?

While Republicans in Washington spent the month betraying conservatives on the budget and border fight, GOP governors who are even more liberal have been quietly undermining Trump’s promise to shut down the refugee resettlement racket. If conservative media is going to continue to put 100 percent of its focus on impeachment, the Left will succeed in getting every single governor and most county officials in the reddest states and counties to promote the broken refugee resettlement scam.

“As you know, for many years, leaders in Washington brought large numbers of refugees to your state from Somalia without considering the impact on schools and communities and taxpayers,” Trump said at a rally in Minneapolis on October 10. “You should be able to decide what is best for your own cities and for your own neighborhoods, and that’s what you have the right to do right now, and believe me, no other president would be doing that.”



Indeed, unlike with the budget and border fights, Trump actually fulfilled his promise to allow states and counties to veto refugee resettlement. But alas, when Trump is on our side, then we must contend with the rest of the broken party. Now, in states that Trump carried by massive margins, Republican governors are submitting letters to the State Department announcing their intent to accept refugees in their respective states.

The State Department has created a list of governors and county commissioners who have written formal letters to the department requesting refugee resettlement in their respective jurisdictions. Pursuant to executive order 13888, both the governor and county government must formally request resettlement before one of the resettlement contractors is allowed to resettle refugees in the given county.

As of today, the State Department has received formal letters from 18 governors requesting refugees, although many more have expressed support, and not a single governor has outright rejected resettlement. Between those on the State Department list and those who have publicly expressed intent to resettle refugees, there are 15 GOP governors who have joined the Soros bandwagon:

Except for New England, these are all states carried by Trump, some of them by a very wide margin. Trump won every single county in West Virginia and Oklahoma, for example. Why are conservatives with platforms not talking about this?

What is further disquieting is that Trump endorsed all these governors. He endorsed Oklahoma’s Kevin Stitt based on “crime and border” policy; now we know he is liberal on both.

Trump even endorsed Doug Ducey for governor in Arizona when he had a primary, even though Ducey had previously criticized him. Trump should criticize these governors for wanting more refugees after a record-breaking year of illegal immigration and when all the other humanitarian categories of immigration are at record high levels. Many of them ran on his agenda; now it’s time for him to hold them accountable.

The nine taxpayer-funded refugee resettlement contractors have until mid-January to get permission from jurisdictions for resettlement. They have their activists on the ground in all 3,000+ counties promoting resettlement, while “conservative” media figures and activists will continue to focus 100 percent of their attention on impeachment. Yet, unlike impeachment, this is a direct way for conservatives to actually affect the outcome of a major national issue at the local level.

What is particularly jarring are these phony evangelical groups and pastors who are writing letters to governors in deep red states demanding resettlement. The same “religious leaders” who couldn’t stand up and be counted when it comes to fighting the transgender agenda or actually defunding Planned Parenthood in the budget suddenly find their voices when it comes to transforming America into Europe.

Where is the compassion for the American citizen? Earlier this month, 659 “evangelical leaders,” who are clearly out of touch with those sitting in the pews, sent a letter to Tennessee Governor Bill Lee demanding he agree to refugee resettlement. Evidently, it worked. But there is no regard for how midsize cities like Nashville are being transformed.

The fundamental transformation of America is particularly pronounced in small to midsize cities. This new great wave has significantly altered the character of smaller cities. Refugee resettlement has played a big role. Nashville, Tennessee, best embodies this new reality.

A whopping 30 percent of the city’s public school children do not speak English as their first language. Spanish is by far the most common language among the foreign-born school children, but Arabic and Somali are numbers two and four respectively. There are now over 120 languages spoken in the Nashville school district, nearly as many as in New York City. Thanks to refugee resettlement over the past decade, Tennessee is one of the fastest-growing states for non-English speakers. Who ever voted for this, and why is it never factored into the equation?

Who needs George Soros when you have GOP governors endorsed by Trump doing his bidding, along with the help of so-called evangelical groups? Unless Trump becomes a voice for the people again, the citizenry of this country will be left without a voice.



The post These 15 GOP governors are asking for more refugee resettlement in their red states appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Prosecutors: Michael Avenatti Was in Massive Debt When He Tried To Extort $25 Million from Nike

News

Prosecutors: Michael Avenatti Was in Massive Debt When He Tried To Extort $25 Million from Nike

Michael Avenatti leaves a courthouse in New York on May 28, 2019.Seth Wenig / APMichael Avenatti leaves a courthouse in New York on May 28, 2019. Prosecutors say Avenatti was over $15 million in debt when he tried to extort up to $25 million from Nike. (Seth Wenig / AP)

Prosecutors say California attorney Michael Avenatti was over $15 million in debt when he tried to extort up to $25 million from Nike.

Meanwhile, Avenatti’s lawyers say the money he legally requested to conduct an internal probe of the sportswear giant was a bargain.

Both sides made the assertions in court papers filed late Tuesday in advance of a Jan. 22 criminal trial in Manhattan, giving U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe time to decide what the jury will be allowed to hear and see.

For Avenatti, it is the first of three scheduled trials in the next five months. He has denied all charges.

Criminal charges against him in other cases include allegations in New York that he defrauded ex-client porn star Stormy Daniels out of proceeds of a book deal and charges in Los Angeles that he defrauded clients of millions of dollars.

TRENDING: Americans Send Resounding Rebuke to Gun-Grabbing Democrats in Virginia

In their submission, federal prosecutors said they plan to show the jury that Avenatti owed “conservatively, in excess of $15 million.” Those debts were owed to former clients, one of more former law partners, both of his former spouses for child and spousal support in arrears and a lawyer the government has identified only as “Attorney-1,” they said.

Avenatti told The Associated Press on Wednesday that “any claim that I was $15 million in debt is ridiculous, absurd and laughable.”

Do you believe Avenatti’s claim that he’ll be exonerated?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“I look forward to the upcoming trial at which time I will be exonerated and the truth will be known,” he said.

Prosecutors, however, say they plan to prove the debts through documents and testimony from a witness who helped Avenatti manage his finances and a law enforcement witness.

The evidence will prove “that he had extraordinary indebtedness, and thus the need and motive to quickly generate substantial sums of money at the time when he engaged in the charged conduct,” prosecutors wrote.

They said the debts were relevant at trial to expose Avenatti’s motives, particularly because he has asserted that his motives were “benign or even altruistic.”

Avenatti’s lawyers asserted in their papers Tuesday that Avenatti late last winter was seeking between $15 and $20 million to conduct an internal probe within Nike after lawyers for the company indicated they were interested in such a probe.

Avenatti’s lawyers said thousands of pages of documents submitted to federal prosecutors by Nike in response to a 2017 grand jury subpoena revealed that payments by Nike for the benefit of amateur players “were pervasive,” including payments to high school players through at least 10 different coaches for a Nike-sponsored youth basketball league.

They cited a story by The New York Times that said internal investigations by companies can exceed $100 million, saying Avenatti had sent a link to the story to Mark Geragos, a lawyer he hired to help negotiate with Nike on behalf of an amateur coach who wanted corruption to end. Avenatti plans to seek testimony from Geragos at trial.

RELATED: Alex Trebek Pokes Fun at Michael Avenatti During ‘Jeopardy!’

Avenatti also plans to assert that Nike, knowing federal prosecutors were investigating its role in payments to young athletes and basketball coaches, was motivated to cooperate against a high-profile person “against whom the leader of the Executive Branch had expressed disdain.”

President Donald Trump and Avenatti had criticized one another on the internet at a time when Avenatti was appearing frequently on television while he represented Daniels. Daniels has said she had an affair with Trump before he became president. Trump has denied it.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com