THE BILLIONAIRE
CLASS WAGES WAR ON AMERICA!
"GOP estb. is using
the $5 billion border-wall fight to hide up to four blue/white-
collar cheap-labor
programs in lame-duck DHS budget. Donors are worried that
salaries are too
damn high, & estb. media does not want to know."
TOP EVIL CORPORATIONS LOOTING AMERICA
Goldman Sachs TRUMP CRONIES – CLINTON CRONIES
JPMorgan Chase OBAMA CRONIES
ExxonMobil
Halliburton BUSH CRIME FAMILY CRONIES
British American Tobacco
Dow Chemical
DuPont
Bayer
Microsoft
Google CLINTON CRONIES
Facebook OBAMA CRONIES
Amazon
Walmart
GOOGLE
WORKED TO RIG ELECTION FOR SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON TO KEEP THE FOREIGN
INVADERS COMING!
http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html
1.
Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists
that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world,
“globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”
2.
Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An
executive nearly broke down cryingbecause
of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay
at her defeat.
3.
Immigration: Maintaining liberal
immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.
LEAKED AUDIO: Google Discusses ‘Steering’ the Conservative Movement
6:29
Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.”
The comments came to light in leaked audio files allegedly of a company-wide meeting at Google, part of which is now exclusively reported by Breitbart News. Another part of the transcript was released last Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, while further snippets revealing Google’s funding of establishment conservative think-tanks were published by the left-leaning tech magazine Wired in December.
The alleged meeting took place in the wake of Google’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018, which triggered an internal rebellion from left-wing employees of the tech giant. Breitbart News exclusively reported on the revolt at the time, in which radical left-wingers inside Google accused CPAC of “ethno-nationalism” and “hate.”
Google has not denied the authenticity of the leaked material.
In the clips, the transcripts of which posted in full below, Kovacevich portrayed CPAC as a conference with a “dual identity,” one being a “premier gathering” that features a “whole swath of conservatives,” including “national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates.”
In the audio clip, the other side of CPAC was described in disparaging terms by Kovacevich as featuring a “sideshow circus-like element” which “CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference.”
“I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right?” continued Kovacevich. “We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach.”
“And I think it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC.”
In another audio clip of the same conversation provided to Breitbart News, Kovacevich appeared to describe the importance of reaching out to conservatives in order to counter conservative media, including Breitbart News. Kovacevich warned of “growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government.” He went on to accuse conservative media of “pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives.”
“And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone.”
The full transcript follows below:
Yeah, it’s a great question Greg. I appreciate the question. I think one of the big themes – I think picking up on your question – that I saw in some internal listservs and one of the Dory questions focused on the question of the other speakers, right? What are we saying in terms of sponsoring a conference where you have sort of incendiary speakers, right, and I think it’s a very valid question, one we’ve talked a lot about here. I think, to be candida, one of the challenges we face with CPAC is that the conference itself has a kind of a dual identity. So on the one hand, it’s really the premier gathering of sort of big-tent conservatives. Especially in non-presidential years it sort of in some ways takes the place of the annual Republican National Convention. You have a whole swath of conservatives: national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates who attend the conference. The conference is attended by about 10,000 people. And so one of the other things is that the Republican Party and I think conservatism, in general, is also going through a lot of internal debates about what it should be, right, what should be sort of the position of the party. And I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, want probably — the majority of Googlers would want to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more sort of nationalistic incendiary comments, nativist comments and things like that. But it has been a very valuable place for us to reach a lot of the people and the big tent of conservatism.On the other hand, and sort of to get to the point of the dual identity, in recent years with CPAC there has also been this kind of sideshow circus-like element, right, that I think the CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference. I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right? We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach. And I think that it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC. I think one of the things that — we also face this question in other areas, by the way. So in the realm of sort of politics, there’s always going to — there’s often going to be someone at some event we sponsor who will say something we don’t agree with. Last year, a group that we support, the New America Foundation, had your guys’s, one of your Senators, Elizabeth Warren. She spoke, and she called for the breakup of Google at that [laughter] conference, right? The conference of an organization we support. Obviously we don’t support that position.
In another audio clip provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Kovacevich discusses “growing negative attention” from conservative media, including Breitbart News.
One of the other things we’re dealing with is also growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government. We have sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and Fox News who have been focusing on some of the tensions that we Googlers feel internally around — many of which became public after the Damore memo. And I think some of those media outlets are actively pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives. And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone. So one of the things we say out on our team is, in order to count on an ally in the political realm you have to make an ally. If we want policymakers to help us when we have a bad bill or a regulation pending, we have to build relationships with them ahead of time. I think part of our work in the DC office and across all of our team is building relationships not just with the people in power but also with the people who influence them.
In a followup question, Kovacevich also acknowledged the “pain” and “disappointment” of Google employees who were up in arms at the tech giant’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018. He went on to openly disparage sites like Breitbart and the Daily Caller as outlets that might be “perpetually” at odds with Google, and state “blatant mistruths.”
Questioner: Okay. Second question is– you mentioned Breitbart and The Daily Caller a couple of times before in the talk. Are we orienting our public image so that we will receive less negative and maybe more positive press from sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller?Kovacevich: I think it’s a complicated question. I mean, I think at a certain point our values are our values, right? Google stands for inclusiveness, we stand for tolerance, we stand for building products for everyone, and if certain outlets don’t like that, we are probably going to be at odds with them perpetually, right? On the other hand, sometimes some outlets and others just state blatant kind of mistruths, right, or they’ll shade something in sort of the most– you know, that has a legitimate explanation, they’ll shade something in sort of the most negative light possible, and that’s something that we try to avoid, if we can, consistent with our values. I think– and I want to probably wrap up because we’re almost at the hour– look, I appreciate that this is hard and I know that our sponsorship of this has caused pain, disappointment to many of you and we understand that, and I think appreciate those of you who have spoken up about that. I value that Google is the kind of company where people can voice their disappointment and their hopes for how the company can stay true to its ideals going forward in the future. We certainly didn’t mean to cause pain or that kind of disappointment in people. And we really do value the feedback and the input.
Breitbart News has reached out to Google for comment.
Who Will Guard the Social Media Guardians?
Facebook (top left) and Twitter (right) signup pages and an Amazon fulfillment center (bottom left) (Screenshots)
Creepy people at massive corporations imagine themselves as the policemen of public content, except they would never use such as gendered term as policemen to describe themselves.
A former Facebook worker revealed evidence to Project Veritas that the online platform secretly uses a “deboost” function to suppress conservative speech on the social media platform. “The ‘deboost’ tag appears after the word ‘Sigma,’ which Project Veritas has learned is an artificial intelligence system used to block potential suicide and self-harm posts,” the exposé explains.
Does this mean Facebook analysts rationalize the suppression of conservative speech on the grounds that it induces self-harm? The corporate behemoth refuses to say. Facebook responded to the Project Veritas revelations by noting that it had fired the whistleblower, as though this discredits her instead of credits her story of a company fixated on controlling information.
Online Goliaths that deny suppressing speech strangely openly boast of banning it.
Amazon just pulled Tommy Robinson’s book, "Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam." The UK Independence Party advisor and activist points out that although the online retailer suppressed his book it sells Mein Kampf. The book ban follows Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter permanently exiling Robinson.
Others enduring permanent bans on various social media platforms include Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Meghan Murphy, and Anthony Cumia.
Murphy wrote this week, “The social media behemoth has been suspending accounts, not because users break Twitter rules, but because they break rank. Despite repeated claims that the platform exists as a space for free speech, and the company’s professed public commitment to refrain from banning users for ideological reasons, Twitter is now doing just that.”
Murphy, it’s worth noting, generally supports liberal causes and identifies as a feminist. She objects to suspending scientific truths to placate transgender activists, which put her in Twitter’s doghouse.
“Does Fedex have the right to open packages and refuse delivery if they determine that a book inside is homophobic or Islamophobic just because they are not the post office?” asks John Zmirak, senior editor at the Stream and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. “Does your cell phone company have the right to disconnect calls that it finds to be politically or religiously obnoxious?”
Zmirak notes that social media giants depict themselves as neutral platforms to avoid libel suits. But at the same time, they act as publishers in editing content.
“Currently, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram pretend that they are not publishers to avoid lawsuits involving libel law,” Zmirak tells The American Spectator. “But they are acting like editors of magazines. If they are editing content based on it not being illegal but it being objectionable to them, they should lose their exemption. They have to pick, either they are neutral platforms or they are publishers.”
Given that a massive amount of people receive information from social media, the censorship presents a handicap to conservatives in the marketplace of ideas. One obvious solution would involve a billionaire introducing an alternative to Twitter or Facebook the way that Rupert Murdoch started Fox News Channel as an alternative to CBSNBCABCCNNMSNBC. Zmirak notes that compelling social media to behave as other media responsible for what they publish unless they agree to act strictly neutral in not editing anything for political content seems another possible solution.
A third solution involves antitrust violations. In the 1940s, the government forced NBC to break off its Blue Network, which became ABC. One of the many issues motivating the move involved the Blue Network’s policy of not selling airtime for “controversial” subject matter, a word many regarded as code for political advocacy to which the network objected.
The breakup of MaBell, for holding a monopoly over telephone communications, seems another precedent. While nobody accused MaBell of disconnecting calls based on the content of conversations, its stranglehold over one form of communications struck the government as monopolistic. Facebook owns Instagram, and its long-ago competitor MySpace no longer cracks the top thousand sites in the U.S. in terms of traffic. Leaving aside its questionable role as arbiter of what can and cannot be said, Facebook enjoys a monopoly not unlike MaBell. This, independent of its behavior as censor, could justify antitrust action.
A fourth, less popular option (my own) requires those objecting to the Orwellian thought control to refrain from tweeting, making any Facebook friends, or oversharing through Instagram. Increasingly, this strikes as impractical, particularly for one in media, as forgoing a telephone did a half century ago.
A few communications companies in the San Francisco Bay Area seek to at once attract users from across the world and impose the narrow mores of their place on as diverse a body as humanity. The goals appear in conflict. The world is not San Francisco — at least not yet.
Daniel J. Flynn, a senior editor of The American Spectator, is the author of “Cult City: Harvey Milk, Jim Jones, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco” (ISI Books, 2018), “The War on Football” (Regnery, 2013), “Blue Collar Intellectuals” (ISI Books, 2011), “A Conservative History of the American Left” (Crown Forum, 2008), “Intellectual Morons” (Crown Forum, 2004), and “Why the Left Hates America” (Prima Forum, 2002). His articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, New York Post, City Journal, National Review, and his own website, www.flynnfiles.com.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The American Spectator.
Trump Abandons ‘America First’ Reforms: ‘We Need’ More
Immigration to Grow Business Profits
Ahead
of the 2020 presidential election, President Trump is abandoning his prior
“America First” legal immigration reforms to support increases of legal
immigration levels in order to expand profits for businesses and corporations.
Globalist Business Groups Dominate Immigration Talks at
White House
Trump Abandons ‘America First’ Reforms: ‘We Need’ More
Immigration to Grow Business Profits
7:16
Ahead
of the 2020 presidential election, President Trump is abandoning his prior
“America First” legal immigration reforms to support increases of legal
immigration levels in order to expand profits for businesses and corporations.
For the fourth time in about a month, Trump suggested
increasing legal immigration levels. With Apple CEO Tim Cook sitting next to
him at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said he not only wanted more legal
immigration but that companies needed an expansion of new arrivals to grow
their business.
“We’re going to have a lot of people coming into the country. We
want a lot of people coming in. And we need it,” Trump said:
It’s not a question of do we want [more immigration], these folks are going to
have to sort of not expand too much. And if we tell them … these are very
ambitious people around this table. They don’t like the concept of not
expanding. We want to have the companies grow and the
only way they’re going to grow is if we give them the workers and
the only way we’re going to have the workers is to do exactly what we’re doing.
[Emphasis added]
The comments are a direct
rebuttal of the president’s commitments in 2015, 2016,
and 2017, where he vowed to reduce overall legal
immigration levels to boost the wages of U.S. workers and reduce the
displacement of America’s working and middle class.
In 2017, for instance, Trump touted Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and
Sen. David Perdue’s (R-GA) RAISE Act legislation, which would have cut legal
immigration down to about 500,000 arrivals a year rather than the current
admission of more than one million legal immigrants annually who compete
against working-class Americans for jobs.
Trump, at the time, said legal immigration levels needed to be
trimmed to “reduce poverty, increase wages, and save taxpayers billions and
billions of dollars,” arguing that the current importation of more than a
million legal immigrants every year “has placed substantial pressure on
American workers, taxpayers, and community resources.”
“Among those hit the hardest in recent years have been
immigrants, and very importantly, minority workers competing for jobs against
brand new arrivals,” Trump said in 2017 of current legal immigration levels.
“And it has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers.”
NumbersUSA’s Rosemary
Jenks said Trump supporters must remind the White House of the commitment that
the president made on the campaign trail when it comes to legal immigration
reforms.
“We need to remember all of the promises that candidate Trump
made on immigration. Which included, most importantly, putting
Americans first,” Jenks told Breitbart News.
“I would certainly hope, that in order to keep his campaign
promises that before even talking about expanding legal immigration, he would
work with employers to recruit the 50 million working-age Americans who are
outside the labor market,” Jenks said. “Or work with these companies to hire
laid-off GM workers. They’re Americans, they should come first.”
Trump’s newfound support for
increasing legal immigration levels has become part of his stump speech on the
issue, repeating the same sentiment most recently at the
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
There, Trump said the country needs more foreign workers to help
corporations.
“We need an immigration policy that’s going to be great for our
corporations and our great companies … we need workers to come in but
they’ve got to come in legally and they’ve got to come in through merit,” Trump
said.
Trump’s shift in legal
immigration views has coincided with the White House giving accessto a myriad of globalist
business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the George W. Bush
Center, and a number of libertarian organizations funded by the pro-mass
immigration billionaire Koch brothers.
Spokespeople for the Chamber of Commerce,
LULAC, George W. Bush Center, and Koch Industries dominate the immigration
talks in White House currently. breitbart.com/politics/2019/…
Globalist Business Groups Dominate Immigration Talks at
White House
Increasing
legal immigration beyond their already historically high levels would crush the wage and job gains that Trump’s
“Hire American” economy has made possible thus far. Nationwide, wages rose
3.0 percent in 2018. For Americans who switched jobs, wages rose by 4.6 percent
and by 5.2 percent in Minnesota where few migrant workers choose to live.
Though unemployment has
remained low, there continues to be at least 13 million working-age Americans who are
either unemployed, not in the labor force but want a job, or who are working
part-time jobs but want a good-paying full-time job.
“Increasing immigration is the one thing that can wipe out all
the wage gains, all the employment gains for those blue collar workers who
switched parties to vote for him,” Jenks said. “I hope someone in the White
House has his interest in mind who is telling him this.”
Out of those 13 million Americans who are available for U.S.
jobs, about 6.5 million are unemployed. Of those unemployed, close to 13
percent are American teenagers who are ready for entry-level U.S. jobs — the
exact jobs that low-skilled foreign workers generally tend to take.
About 1.6 million Americans are not in the labor force at all,
but they want a job, including about 426,000 discouraged American workers who
are demoralized by their job prospects. Also, there are 5.1 million Americans
who are working part-time jobs but who want full-time jobs. More than 1.4
million of these U.S. part-time workers said they had looked for full-time jobs
but could not find any.
Mass immigration, whether legal or illegal, puts downward
pressure on Americans’ wages, researchers have repeatedly noted.
Every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an
American workers’ occupation reduces their weekly wages by about 0.5 percent,
researcher Steven Camarotta has found. This means the average native-born
American worker today has their weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.5 percent
because of current legal immigration levels.
In a
state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor
force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by perhaps more than
12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor
force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.
Likewise, every one percent increase in the immigrant
composition of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent.
Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would
reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.
The mass importation of legal
immigrants — mostly due to President George H.W. Bush’s Immigration Act of
1990, which expanded legal immigration levels —
diminishes job opportunities for the roughly four million young American
graduates who enter the workforce every year wanting good-paying jobs.
In the last decade alone, the
U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants, forcing
American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage foreign
workers.
Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents living in
the U.S. by 2060. This would represent an unprecedented electoral gain for the
Left, as Democrats win about 90 percent of congressional
districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national average.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on
Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
No comments:
Post a Comment