Thursday, December 26, 2019


Baltimore On Pace to Break Homicide Rate Record in 2019

Baltimore may see the highest homicide rate ever recorded in the city by the end of 2019, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.
Police had recorded 338 homicides as of Tuesday, four shy of the 342 seen in 2017 and 2015. The city saw 353 homicides in 1993, the most of any year on record.
However, because the city had a larger population in the early 1990’s, the homicide rate per 100,000 residents in 2019 is nearing the rate from 1993, despite the lower total. If Baltimore sees 342 or more homicides by the end of 2019, the homicide rate will reach 57 per 100,000, surpassing the 1993 rate.
“It’s a major concern for me, not just as a hopeful man but as a citizen of Baltimore who grew up in inner city Baltimore,” Carmichael “Stokey” Cannady, a reformed drug dealer who became a community activist, told the AP. “I remember when a person had a conflict and would have a fight at best, now these young kids, at the age of 13, 14 years old, are finding handguns in their possession and they use them as toys.”
The homicide rate was declining before 2015. On April 12 of that year, 25-year-old Freddie Gray died while restrained in the back of a police van after officers arrested him on suspicion of illegally carrying a switchblade. The death sparked riots in the city after officers were accused of racism in the case. Gray was African-American.
The state attorney for Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby, charged the officers involved with murder, and said she would attempt to give voice to rioters’ chants of “no justice, no peace.” The six officers charged were eventually acquitted, and in 2016 prosecutors dropped all remaining charges.
The homicide rate in Baltimore has remained high since Gray’s death. In 2019 the city appointed current Police Commissioner Michael Harrison to revamp the department.
“People can expect [the homicide rate] to go down, we are building capacity, but we need to have some type of effect on the poverty, the housing, the education, the addiction, the skills, the jobs and the lack thereof, together at the same time,” Harrison told the AP. “All of that has to be addressed while prosecuting people who commit crimes and preventing other people from committing those crimes. Otherwise, it continues and then you ask the question, ‘When does it stop?’ without fixing the reason it starts.”
President Trump in July described the district in which the Freddie Gray incident took place as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.” Trump blasted the district’s longtime representative Elijah Cummings, who died in October, for what the President said was Cummings’s failure to address problems of crime in the district.


Those Amazon packages arriving for Christmas? They come at the expense of workers' rights.

The other day I saw a giant truck on the highway. It had the logo on it and read, “There’s more to Prime. A truck load more.” Indeed there should be more to Prime — but maybe not quite the way the corporation means it. 
Just like Amazon revolutionized e-commerce in the United States and worldwide, Amazon’s Prime membership took the corporation’s innovations to a whole new level. In the United States alone, there are more than 100 million Prime members, folks who pay $119 per year for faster delivery as well as access to Amazon’s video and music library, grocery delivery and more. And indeed, Prime members literally seem to get more; in 2018, Amazon Prime members averaged $1,400 annually in Amazon purchases, compared to $600 with Amazon spent by non-Prime members. 
It’s time for Prime members to demand more from the corporation they’re enthusiastically supporting. After all, Prime members were a big part of Amazon’s $11.2 billion in profits last year — on which the corporation, incidentally, paid $0 in income taxes. So can’t we, the people, demand more from Amazon — with Prime members leading the way?

Efficiency often comes at the cost of workers' wellbeing

In fact, arguably for Prime members who are both pushing and benefitting from the leading innovations of Amazon, speaking out for more just business practices is our duty. Amazon’s convenience comes at a high cost to working people. People working at Amazon face strenuous, sometimes impossible, demands inside warehouses, delivering packages, and even working as independent contractors. 

Amazon packages
Amazon packages

Warehouse workers are required to meet impossible quotas for how many items they “pick” every shift. They often receive few — if any — real breaks on the job, and the demands are so great, warehouse workers around the world have succumbed to exhaustion and some have even died on the warehouse floor. Drivers race against a tight clock to deliver an enormous amount of packages, putting their own — and the safety of others — on the road at risk. Amazon increasingly relies on contractors to make these deliveries, which limits the company’s liability if something goes wrong and lets Amazon avoid paying overtime or benefits, while drivers use their own cars to make deliveries.
That’s bad enough, but as Amazon expands its data services empire, its unjust business practices are setting the standard for the entire economy. And instead of using its profits to reward the working people who make Amazon work, the corporation pays politicians to do its bidding — rigging the rules of the economy to be better for Amazon but worse for our communities. The end result will be almost instantaneous delivery of a race-to-the-bottom economy that is bad for all of us.

You can speak up and still purchase Amazon products

Amazon needs its customers. But what are we getting in return? Sure, we get our packages. But we are also getting an unprecedented monopoly. Amazon's impact on our economy isn't just outsized — its a fundamental threat to our democracy. We can no longer wait to see if the company will voluntarily relinquish its power over our economy and alter business practices to avoid negatively impacting marketplaces, workers and neighbors. Consumers, working people, and communities have the power to set the terms and conditions for how Amazon conducts business now.
Through consumer regulatory boards, regional e-commerce commissions and community governance structures that center impacted people and workers, we can hold Amazon accountable. There’s no contradiction here. We may not all hold shares in Amazon, but we all have a stake. And it’s time we speak up and demand more.
Just like many of us who shop at grocery stores simultaneously pushed those stores to offer more organic and healthy options, just like many of us send our kids to public and private schools at the same time while pushing for those schools to be better and just like we vote and support certain elected officials at the same time we register our complaints and push them to do better, we can shop at Amazon while demanding the corporation do better — by consumers, workers, our country and our globe. 
The fact is there should be more to Prime — especially for working people, our communities and our economy. And if those of us who are Prime members use our voice to demand more, we’ll get it. 
Erica Smiley is the executive director of Jobs with Justice. Follow Jobs with Justice on Twitter: @jwjnational 
You can read diverse opinions from o

Concentrated Corporate Power: Liberal Metropolises, Monopolies Increasingly Dominate U.S. Economy

Drew Angerer/Getty Images
23 Dec 201918
Metropolises stationed in blue states and giant monopolies are increasingly dominating the American economy with their concentration of corporate power, research finds.
Analysis by Bloomberg News this month revealed that just 31 counties in the United States now make up more than 32 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) despite only being home to about 22 percent of the nation’s population and 26 percent of the workforce.
The report noted:
The nation’s economy is becoming increasingly concentrated in large cities and by the coasts — and less so in rural counties — spurring the question of whether rural areas will be increasingly left behind. The growing concentration of the country’s economic activity could impact a variety of things from infrastructure spending to labor mobility, but it’s unclear how rural areas will fare as their share of economic output continues to dwindle.
These 31 counties all include metropolises like Los Angeles, California; New York City, New York; San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; and Houston, Texas.
(Screenshot via Bloomberg News)
As a result, industries are increasingly concentrated in these metropolises along the coasts. The information and tech sectors, for example, are mostly settled in Silicon Valley, California and San Francisco. The financial sector continues to have a stronghold in Manhattan.
While the entertainment industry is less concentrated in Los Angeles, it is not because of a growing foothold in a smaller city or middle America state but rather because New York City has increased its share of the industry.
The concentration of economic power coincides with more concentration of corporate power as a handful of multinational corporations and executives increase their shares of the market.
Extensive research by the Open Markets Institute has detailed from pharmaceuticals to retail where just one or a few corporations dominate whole industries in the U.S.
Open Market Institute researchers write:
Today, a single corporation, Walmart, controls 72 percent of warehouse clubs and supercenters in the entire United States. In close to 40 metropolitan areas across America, Walmart sells more than half of all groceries. Amazon, meanwhile, dominates e-commerce in general, and many specific lines of business. The corporation, for instance, sells 74 percent of all e-books and 64 percent of all print books sold online.
In drug stores, CVS controls nearly 60 percent of the industry, while Walgreens controls about 31 percent. In tech, Google controls about 64 percent of desktop searchers and 94 percent of all global and mobile tablet searchers.
With airlines, mergers have allowed just four corporations — American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Southwest Airlines — to control about 80 percent of the market. The same is true of rental car companies, where Enterprise, Hertz, and Avis effectively controlling the entire market.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has said the concentration of economic power and wealth must be challenged by Republicans and Democrats in defense of America’s working and middle class:
I think that we have here at the same time that our economy has become more concentrated, we have bigger and bigger corporations that control more and more of our key sectors, those same corporations see themselves as less and less American and frankly they are less committed to American workers and American communities.
“That’s turned out to be a problem which is one of the reasons we need to restore good, healthy, robust competition in this country that’s going to push up wages, that’s going to bring jobs back to the middle parts of this country, and most importantly, to the middle and working-class of this country,” Hawley continued.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

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.”

They are willing to rend the fabric of this nation in order to protect their privilege and lifestyle.  While the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay the price, the current ruling class and their progeny will have far more to lose. 

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.

MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

Josh Hawley: GOP Must Defend Middle Class Americans Against ‘Concentrated Corporate Power,’ Tech Billionaires


The Republican Party must defend America’s working and middle class against “concentrated corporate power” and the monopolization of entire sectors of the United States’ economy, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.

In an interview on The Realignment podcast, Hawley said that “long gone are the days where” American workers can depend on big business to look out for their needs and the needs of their communities.
Instead, Hawley explained that increasing “concentrated corporate power” of whole sectors of the American economy — specifically among Silicon Valley’s giant tech conglomerates — is at the expense of working and middle class Americans.
“One of the things Republicans need to recover today is a defense of an open, free-market, of a fair healthy competing market and the length between that and Democratic citizenship,” Hawley said, and continued:
At the end of the day, we are trying to support and sustain here a great democracy. We’re not trying to make a select group of people rich. They’ve already done that. The tech billionaires are already billionaires, they don’t need any more help from government. I’m not interested in trying to help them further. I’m interested in trying to help sustain the great middle of this country that makes our democracy run and that’s the most important challenge of this day.
“You have these businesses who for years now have said ‘Well, we’re based in the United States, but we’re not actually an American company, we’re a global company,'” Hawley said. “And you know, what has driven profits for some of our biggest multinational corporations? It’s been … moving jobs overseas where it’s cheaper … moving your profits out of this country so you don’t have to pay any taxes.”
“I think that we have here at the same time that our economy has become more concentrated, we have bigger and bigger corporations that control more and more of our key sectors, those same corporations see themselves as less and less American and frankly they are less committed to American workers and American communities,” Hawley continued. “That’s turned out to be a problem which is one of the reasons we need to restore good, healthy, robust competition in this country that’s going to push up wages, that’s going to bring jobs back to the middle parts of this country, and most importantly, to the middle and working class of this country.”
While multinational corporations monopolize industries, Hawley said the GOP must defend working and middle class Americans and that big business interests should not come before the needs of American communities:
A free market is one where you can enter it, where there are new ideas, and also by the way, where people can start a small family business, you shouldn’t have to be gigantic in order to succeed in this country. Most people don’t want to start a tech company. [Americans] maybe want to work in their family’s business, which may be some corner shop in a small town … they want to be able to make a living and then give that to their kids or give their kids an option to do that. [Emphasis added]
The problem with corporate concentration is that it tends to kill all of that. The worst thing about corporate concentration is that it inevitably believes to a partnership with big government. Big business and big government always get together, always. And that is exactly what has happened now with the tech sector, for instance, and arguably many other sectors where you have this alliance between big government and big business … whatever you call it, it’s a problem and it’s something we need to address. [Emphasis added]
Hawley blasted the free trade-at-all-costs doctrine that has dominated the Republican and Democrat Party establishments for decades, crediting the globalist economic model with hollowing “out entire industries, entire supply chains” and sending them to China, among other countries.
“The thing is in this country is that not only do we not make very much stuff anymore, we don’t even make the machines that make the stuff,” Hawley said. “The entire supply chain up and down has gone overseas, and a lot of it to China, and this is a result of policies over some decades now.”
As Breitbart News reported, Hawley detailed in the interview how Republicans like former President George H.W. Bush’s ‘New World Order’ agenda and Democrats have helped to create a corporatist economy that disproportionately benefits the nation’s richest executives and donor class.
The billionaire class, the top 0.01 percent of earners, has enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as the bottom 90 percent since 1979. That economy has been reinforced with federal rules that largely benefits the wealthiest of wealthiest earners. A study released last month revealed that the richest Americans are, in fact, paying a lower tax rate than all other Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Tucker Carlson Exposes D.C. ‘Conservatives’ for Doing Big Tech’s Bidding

Rich Polk/Getty
21 Dec 20190
Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed establishment conservatives for taking money from big tech companies to do their bidding, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Friday night.
The popular host, known for his no-holds-barred denunciations of establishment conservatives as well as Democrats, revealed massive spending by the establishment conservative Koch Foundation to protect big tech in Washington.
Tucker revealed that Americans for Prosperity, a “purportedly conservative group” controlled by the Kochs, launched an ad campaign trying to stave off the closing net of antitrust enforcement against Google and Facebook. The ads targeted Republican and Democrat state attorneys general that were investigating alleged antitrust violations by big tech companies.
The Koch-funded group also targeted members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with digital ads urging them to “oppose any effort to use antitrust laws to break up America’s innovative tech companies,” reported Carlson.
The Fox host ran through a laundry list of allegedly “conservative” D.C. think tanks that take money from big tech, and often advocate against regulating them over political bias or any other matter.
“In all, the Koch network quietly spent at least $10 million defending Silicon Valley companies that work to silence conservatives.”

Tucker Carlson Slamming Conservative Inc. for Defending Big Tech

Tucker Calls Out
-Heritage Foundation
-American Conservative Union

"Big Tech Companies silence Conservatives, Conservative Non-Profits try to prevent the government from doing anything about it."

“Google has given money to at least 22 right-leaning institutions that are also funded by the Koch network,” reported Carlson.
“Those institutions include the American Conservative Union, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Review Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Mercatus Center.”
Carlson explained that this spending gets results.
“In September of 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and three other groups funded by Google and the Kochs sent a joint letter to the Attorney General at the time, Jeff Sessions, expressing grave concerns over the DoJ’s plans to look into whether search engines and social media were hurting competition and stifling speech.”
Carlson also called out The Heritage Foundation, arguing that its shilling for big tech meant that it “no longer represents the interest of conservatives, at least on the question of tech.”
“A recent paper by Heritage, entitled ‘Free Enterprise Is the Best Remedy For Online Bias Concerns,’ defends the special privileges that Congress has given to left-wing Silicon Valley monopolies. And if conservatives don’t like it, Heritage says, well they can just start their own Google!”
Evidence of big tech’s efforts to co-opt establishment conservatives has been accumulating for some time. In March, Breitbart News published leaked audio from a senior director of public policy at Google, talking about using funding of conservative institutions to “steer” the movement. Another part of the leaked audio transcript was also revealed on Tucker Carlson’s show at the same time.
The Heritage Foundation has continued to defend big tech against efforts to strip them of their special legal privileges, which were given to them by Congress in the 1990s and are enjoyed by no other type of company.
This is despite the fact that Google publicly snubbed the foundation last year, canceling the formation of a planned “A.I ethics” council after far-left employees of the tech company threw a hissy fit over the fact that Heritage president Kay Coles James was set to be one of its members.
Are you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

In truth, the Golden State is becoming a semi-feudal kingdom, with the nation’s widest gap between middle and upper incomes—72 percent, compared with the U.S. average of 57 percent—and its highest poverty rate. Roughly half of America’s homeless live in Los Angeles or San Francisco, which now has the highest property crime rate among major cities.
December 20, 2019 
California Preening
The Golden State is on a path to high-tech feudalism, but there’s still time to change course.
“We are the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta. California has the ideas of Athens and the power of Sparta,” declared then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. “Not only can we lead California into the future . . . we can show the nation and the world how to get there.” When a movie star who once played Hercules says so who’s to disagree? The idea of California as a model, of course, precedes the former governor’s tenure. Now the state’s anti-Trump resistance—in its zeal on matters concerning climate, technology, gender, or race—believes that it knows how to create a just, affluent, and enlightened society. “The future depends on us,” Governor Gavin Newsom said at his inauguration. “And we will seize this moment.”
In truth, the Golden State is becoming a semi-feudal kingdom, with the nation’s widest gap between middle and upper incomes—72 percent, compared with the U.S. average of 57 percent—and its highest poverty rate. Roughly half of America’s homeless live in Los Angeles or San Francisco, which now has the highest property crime rate among major cities. California hasn’t yet become a full-scale dystopia, of course, but it’s heading in a troubling direction.
This didn’t have to happen. No place on earth has more going for it than the Golden State. Unlike the East Coast and Midwest, California benefited from comparatively late industrialization, with an economy based less on auto manufacturing and steel than on science-based fields like aerospace, software, and semiconductors. In the mid-twentieth century, the state also gained from the best aspects of progressive rule, culminating in an elite public university system, a massive water system reminiscent of the Roman Empire, and a vast infrastructure network of highways, ports, and bridges. The state was fortunate, too, in drawing people from around the U.S. and the world. The eighteenth-century French traveler J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur described the American as “this new man,” and California—innovative, independent, and less bound by tradition or old prejudice—reflected that insight. Though remnants of this California still exist, its population is aging, less mobile, and more pessimistic, and its roads, schools, and universities are in decline.
In the second half of the twentieth century, California’s remarkably diverse economy spread prosperity from the coast into the state’s inland regions. Though pockets of severe poverty existed—urban barrios, south Los Angeles, the rural Central Valley—they were limited in scope. In fact, growth often favored suburban and exurban communities, where middle-class families, including minorities, settled after World War II.
In the last two decades, the state has adopted policies that undermine the basis for middle-class growth. State energy policies, for example, have made California’s gas and electricity prices among the steepest in the country. Since 2011, electricity prices have risen five times faster than the national average. Meantime, strict land-use controls have raised housing costs to the nation’s highest, while taxes—once average, considering California’s urban scale—now exceed those of virtually every state. At the same time, California’s economy has shed industrial diversity in favor of dependence on one industry: Big Tech. Just a decade before, the state’s largest firms included those in the aerospace, finance, energy, and service industries. Today’s 11 largest companies hail from the tech sector, while energy firms—excluding Chevron, which has moved much of its operations to Houston—have disappeared. Not a single top aerospace firm—the iconic industry of twentieth-century California—retains its headquarters here.
Though lionized in the press, this tech-oriented economy hasn’t resulted in that many middle- and high-paying job opportunities for Californians, particularly outside the Bay Area. Since 2008, notes Chapman University’s Marshall Toplansky, the state has created five times the number of low-paying, as opposed to high-wage, jobs. A remarkable 86 percent of new jobs paid below the median income, while almost half paid under $40,000. Moreover, California, including Silicon Valley, created fewer high-paying positions than the national average, and far less than prime competitors like Salt Lake City, Seattle, or Austin. Los Angeles County features the lowest pay of any of the nation’s 50 largest counties.
No state advertises its multicultural bona fides more than California, now a majority-minority state. This is evident at the University of California, where professors are required to prove their service to “people of color,” to the state’s high school curricula, with its new ethnic studies component. Much of California’s anti-Trump resistance has a racial context. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has sued the administration numerous times over immigration policy while he helps ensure California’s distinction as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. So far, more than 1 million illegal residents have received driver’s licenses, and they qualify for free health care, too. San Francisco now permits illegal immigrants to vote in local elections.
Such radical policies may make progressives feel better about themselves, though they seem less concerned about how these actions affect everyday people. California’s Latinos and African-Americans have seen good blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and energy vanish. According to one United Way study, over half of Latino households can barely pay their bills. “For Latinos,” notes long-time political consultant Mike Madrid, “the California Dream is becoming an unattainable fantasy.”
In the past, poorer Californians could count on education to help them move up. But today’s educators appear more interested in political indoctrination than results. Among the 50 states, California ranked 49th in the performance of low-income students. In wealthy San Francisco, test scores for black students are the worst of any California county. Many minority residents, especially African-Americans, are fleeing the state. In a recent UC Berkeley poll, 58 percent of black expressed interest in leaving California, a higher percentage than for any racial group, though approximately 45 percent of Asians and Latinos also considered moving out.
Perhaps the biggest demographic disaster is generational. For decades, California incubated youth culture, creating trends like beatniks, hippies, surfers, and Latino and Asian art, music, and cuisine. The state is a fountainhead of youthful wokeness and rebellion, but that may prove short-lived as millennials leave. From 2014 to 2018, notes demographer Wendell Cox, net domestic out-migration grew from 46,000 to 156,000. The exiles are increasingly in their family-formation years. In the 2010s, California suffered higher net declines in virtually every age category under 54, with the biggest rate of loss coming among the 35-to-44 cohort.
As families with children leave, and international migration slows to one-third of Texas’s level, the remaining population is rapidly aging. Since 2010, California’s fertility rate has dropped 60 percent, more than the national average; the state is now aging 50 percent more rapidly than the rest of the country. A growing number of tech firms and millennials have headed to the Intermountain West. Low rates of homeownership among younger people play a big role in this trend, with California millennials forced to rent, with little chance of buying their own home, while many of the state’s biggest metros lead the nation in long-term owners. California is increasingly a greying refuge for those who bought property when housing was affordable.
After Governor Schwarzenegger morphed into a progressive environmentalist, climate concerns began driving state policy. His successors have embraced California “leadership” on climate issues. Jerry Brown recently told a crowd in China that the rest of the world should follow California’s example. The state’s top Democrats, like state senate president pro tem Kevin DeLeon, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, and billionaire Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer, now compete for the green mantle.
Their policies have worsened conditions for many middle- and working-class Californians. Oblivious to these concerns, Greens ignore practical ideas—nuclear power, natural gas cars, job creation in affordable areas, home-based work—that could help reduce emissions without disrupting people’s lives. Ultra-green policies also work against the state’s proclaimed goal of building more than 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. In accordance with its efforts to reduce car use, the state mandates that most growth occurs in already-crowded coastal areas, where land prices are highest. But in cities like San Francisco, the cost of building one unit for a homeless person surpasses $700,000. California’s inland regions, though experiencing population gains, keep losing state funding for decrepit highways in favor of urban-centric, mass transit projects—yet transit use has stagnated, especially in greater Los Angeles.
The state, nevertheless, continues its pursuit of policies that would eliminate all fossil fuels and nuclear power—outpacing national or even Paris Accord levels and guaranteeing ever-rising energy prices. Mandating everything from electric cars to electric homes will only drive more working-class Californians into “energy poverty.” High energy prices also directly affect the manufacturing and logistics firms that employ blue-collar workers at decent wages. Business relocation expert Joe Vranich notes that industrial firms account for many of the 2,000 employers that left the state this decade. California’s industrial growth has fallen to the bottom tier of states; last year, it ranked 44th, with a rate of growth one-third to one-quarter that of prime competitors like Texas, Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida.
Similarly, the high energy prices tend to hit the interior counties that, besides being poorer, have far less temperate climates. Cities like Bakersfield, capital of the state’s once-vibrant oil industry, are particularly hard-hit. High energy prices will cost the region, northeast of the Los Angeles Basin, 14,000 generally high-paid jobs, even as the state continues to import oil from Saudi Arabia.
California’s leaders apply climate change to excuse virtually every failure of state policy. During the California drought, Brown and his minions blamed the “climate” for the dry period, refusing to take responsibility for insufficient water storage that would have helped farmers. When the rains returned and reservoirs filled, this argument was forgotten, and little effort has been made to conserve water for next time. Likewise, Newsom and his supporters in the media have blamed recent fires on changes in the global climate, but the disaster had as much to do with green mandates against controlled burns and brush clearance than anything occurring on a planetary scale. Brown joined greens and others in blocking such sensible policies.
Few climate advocates ever seem to ask if their policies actually help the planet. Indeed, California’s green policy, as one paper demonstrates, may be increasing total greenhouse-gas emissions by pushing people and industries to states with less mild climates. In the past decade, the state ranked 40th in per-capita reductions, and its global carbon footprint is minimal. Renewable energy may be expensive and unreliable, but state policy nevertheless enriches the green-energy investments of tech leaders, even when their efforts—like the Google-backed Ivanpah solar farm—fail to deliver affordable, reliable energy.
It’s not so surprising, given these enthusiasms, that progressive politicians like Garcetti—who leads a city with paralyzing traffic congestion, rampant inequality, a huge rat infestation, and proliferating homeless camps—would rather talk about becoming chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Reality is asserting itself, though. Tech firms already show signs of restlessness with the current regulatory regime and appear to be shifting employment to other states, notably TexasTennesseeNevadaColorado, and Arizona. Economic-modeling firm Emsi estimates that several states—Idaho, Tennessee, Washington, and Utah—are growing their tech employment faster than California. The state is losing momentum in professional and technical services—the largest high-wage sector—and now stands roughly in the middle of the pack behind other western states such as Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. And Assembly Bill 5, the state law regulating certain forms of contract labor, reclassifies part-time workers. Aimed initially at ride-sharing giants Uber and Lyft, the legislation also extends to independent contractors in industries from media to trucking.
At some point, as even Brown noted, the ultra-high capital gains returns will fall and, combined with the costs of an expanding welfare state, could leave the state in fiscal chaos. Big Tech could stumble, a possibility made more real by the recent $100 billion drop in the value of privately held “unicorn” companies, including WeWork. If the tech economy slows, a rift could develop between two of the state’s biggest forces—unions and the green establishment—over future levels of taxation. More than two-thirds of California cities don’t have any funds set aside for retiree health care and other retirement expenses. The state also confronts $1 trillion in pension debt, according to former Democratic state senator Joe NationU.S. News & Report ranks California, despite the tech boom, 42nd in fiscal health among the states.
The good news: some Californians are waking up. A recent PPIC poll found that increasing proportions of Californians believe that the state is headed in the wrong direction—a figure that exceeds 55 percent in the inland areas. And voters dislike the state legislature even more than they dislike Donald Trump. Newsom’s approval rating stands at 43 percent, placing him toward the bottom among the nation’s governors. A conservative-led campaign to recall him is unlikely to succeed, but surveys reveal growing opposition to the new tax hikes proposed by the legislature. There’s a growing concern about the state’s expanding homeless population.
And a rebellion against the state’s energy policies is already under way. Recently, 110 cities, with total population exceeding 8 million, have demanded changes in California’s drive to prevent new natural gas hookups. The state’s Chamber of Commerce and the three most prominent ethnic chambers—African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific—have joined this effort.
Californians need less bombast and progressive pretense from their leaders and more attention to policies that could counteract the economic and demographic tides threatening the state. On its current course, California increasingly resembles a model of what the late Taichi Sakaiya called “high-tech feudalism,” with a small population of wealthy residents and a growing mass of modern-day serfs. Delusion and preening ultimately have limits, as more Californians are beginning to recognize. As the 2020s beckon, the time for the state to change course is now.
Joel Kotkin is the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of UsHis book on the return to feudalism will be released next year.

Their banksters and billionaires demand wider open borders to keep wages depressed 
"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY



‘The Left Case Against Open Borders’: Liberal Author Pans ‘Useful Idiots of Big Business’

 22 Nov 20188

Progressives’ enthusiastic support for mass immigration has converted them into “useful idiots” for the nation’s business elites, says a left-wing writer.

Irish author Angela Nagle writes:
Today’s well-intentioned activists have become the useful idiots of big business. With their adoption of “open borders” advocacy—and a fierce moral absolutism that regards any limit to migration as an unspeakable evil—any criticism of the exploitative system of mass migration is effectively dismissed as blasphemy. Even solidly leftist politicians, like Bernie Sanders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, are accused of “nativism” by critics if they recognize the legitimacy of borders or migration restriction at any point. This open borders radicalism ultimately benefits the elites within the most powerful countries in the world, further disempowers organized labor, robs the developing world of desperately needed professionals, and turns workers against workers.
Nagle also argues that mass immigration operates extracts human talent from developing societies for the benefit of wealthy, comfortable U.S. elites:
Advocates of open borders often overlook the costs of mass migration for developing countries. Indeed, globalization often creates a vicious cycle: liberalized trade policies destroy a region’s economy, which in turn leads to mass emigration from that area, further eroding the potential of the origin country while depressing wages for the lowest paid workers in the destination country. One of the major causes of labor migration from Mexico to the United States has been the economic and social devastation caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement (nafta). Nafta forced Mexican farmers to compete with U.S. agriculture, with disastrous consequences for Mexico. Mexican imports doubled, and Mexico lost thousands of pig farms and corn growers to U.S. competition. When coffee prices fell below the cost of production, nafta prohibited state intervention to keep growers afloat. Additionally, U.S. companies were allowed to buy infrastructure in Mexico, including, for example, the country’s main north-south rail line. The railroad then discontinued passenger service, resulting in the decimation of the rail workforce after a wildcat strike was crushed. By 2002, Mexican wages had dropped by 22 percent, even though worker productivity increased by 45 percent.7 In regions like Oaxaca, emigration devastated local economies and communities, as men emigrated to work in America’s farm labor force and slaughterhouses, leaving behind women, children, and the elderly.
Left-wing servants of business elites spray claims of racism on the public to suppress their rational and reasonable opposition to immigration exploitation, Nagle argues:
The immigration expansionists have two key weapons. One is the big business and financial interests all working on their side, but an equally powerful weapon—wielded more expertly by the left-leaning immigration expansionists—is moral blackmail and public shame. People are right to see the mistreatment of migrants as morally wrong. Many people are concerned about the growth of racism and callousness toward minorities that often accompanies anti-immigration sentiment. But the open borders position does not even live up to its own professed moral code.
The tacit alliance of the wealthy against the middle prompt some invective by the Irish author;
In the wealthiest nations, open borders advocacy seems to function as a fanatical cult among true believers—a product of big business and free market lobbying is carried along by a larger group of the urban creative, tech, media, and knowledge economy class, who are serving their own objective class interests by keeping their transient lifestyles cheap and their careers intact as they parrot the institutional ideology of their industries. The truth is that mass migration is a tragedy, and upper-middle-class moralizing about it is a farce. Perhaps the ultra-wealthy can afford to live in the borderless world they aggressively advocate for, but most people need—and want—a coherent, sovereign political body to defend their rights as citizens.
Read it all here.
The establishment’s economic policy of using migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.



Millions of children go hungry as the super- rich gorge themselves and ILLEGALS SUCK IN BILLIONS IN WELFARE!


"The top 10 percent of Americans now own roughly three-quarters of all household wealth."


"While telling workers there is “not enough money” for wage increases, or to fund social programs, both parties hailed the recent construction of the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, a massive aircraft carrier that cost $13 billion to build, stuffing the pockets of numerous contractors and war profiteers."

Two Americas: De Blasio's Amazon vs. Trump's Walmart

That the Democrat Party is now the party of the rich is increasingly seen in its candidates. Forget the occasional Ocasio-Cortez. A Democrat candidate is more likely to be someone like Illinois’ new governor, J.B. Pritzer, who promises to complete Illinois’ financial collapse with single-payer insurance and a progressive income tax, promising to persist until he runs out of other people’s money:

John Edwards once spoke of “two Americas,” one “for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day”. One is reminded of this by New York City mayor Bill De Blasio’s full-throated shouting of “socialism for all” from the rooftops of buildings whose height his politburo would determine and whose rents and occupants his commissars would control.
Mayor Bill de Blasio cited his "socialistic impulse" in describing an ideal world where New York City government has control over all land and buildings in his city.
“I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be,” de Blasio said in a wide-ranging interview with New York Magazine. “I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs.”
To each according to their needs -- gee, where have we heard that before? One would be willing to believe De Blasio’s socialistic impulses arises out of genuine, if wrongheaded, concern for the working poor and the middle class, the people the Democrat “party of compassion” is allegedly the champion of,  if it were not for De Blasio’s  support for what some would call corporate welfare, welcoming cash-rich and taxpayer-subsidized Amazon’s new HQ to New York City while closing its borders to a Walmart invasion.
A listener asked just what the difference was between the two retail giants during the mayor’s weekly guest spot on WNYC radio:
“Amazon is… part of the American economy,” he continued. “I would ask every good progressive, every listener out there who has a concern about Amazon: How many are using Amazon as part of their daily lives? Whatever you like or dislike about Amazon, Walmart is an entirely different universe in terms of the efforts they’ve undertaken to not only undermine labor, small business, the environment… and obviously the politics of [Walmart’s owners] the Walton family to add to it,” referring to the Waltons’ track record of funneling megabucks to conservative causes.
Funny that De Blasio has no objection to the likes of billionaires Tom Steyer, Oprah Winfrey, and George Soros funneling big bucks to liberal candidates and causes. One of the takeaways from the 2018 midterms was the morphing of the Democrats to the party of the rich as those stinky Walmart shoppers lined up at Trump rallies. The GOP is now the party of the working class, or the deplorable bitter-clingers of Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Hussein Obama’s disdain. As deep state coup architect Peter Strzok infamously said in a text message to fellow agent Lisa Page:
“Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.”
Who wants Walmart greeters and cashiers moving to New York when you can have the high-rollers who work for Amazon?  Amazon promises to deliver 25,000 jobs with an average salary of $150,000, which is a lot more than the average Walmart greeter or cashier makes.
Wal-Mart gave people what they want at a price they can afford. Those “mom-and-pop” stores De Blasio champions were often inefficient, opportunistic price-gougers. Walmart believed a fair wage was and is one agreed upon between employee and employer. No one was forced to work or shop there.  It was efficient, innovative, successful, and non-union, and that is why it was and is hated for all these reasons. It is the poster child for roll-up-your-sleeves capitalism.
Founded as a single five-and-dime store in a small Arkansas town, its success story mirrors America’s. It is a poster child for capitalism and the American dream. It is ironic that Wal-Mart critics, who have long complained its employees live paycheck to paycheck, forget that many of its customers also live paycheck to paycheck, and seek quality merchandise at decent prices. They opposed “low” wages for Wal-Mart employees while in effect supporting higher prices for Wal-Mart customers.
That the Democrat Party is now the party of the rich is increasingly seen in its candidates. Forget the occasional Ocasio-Cortez. A Democrat candidate is more likely to be someone like Illinois’ new governor, J.B. Pritzer, who promises to complete Illinois’ financial collapse with single-payer insurance and a progressive income tax, promising to persist until he runs out of other people’s money:
This month saw the election of Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker as governor of Illinois. Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, is worth an estimated $3.2 billion, and spent $171.5 million to get himself elected, according to Money magazine.
Another winner was Edward M. "Ned" Lamont Jr., in the Connecticut governor's race. Lamont, an heir to the J.P. Morgan banking fortune of his great-grandfather Thomas Lamont, estimated his assets in 2006 at between $90 million and $300 million, and showed reporters tax returns last month with income totaling $18 million over 5 years.
The winner of the election for governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, filed financial disclosure forms as a member of the House of Representatives indicating estimated wealth of more than $300 million.
Pritzker, Lamont, and Polis are all Democrats…
Somehow, the wealth of Pritzker, Lamont, and Polis has gotten less attention, perhaps because it doesn't so easily fit the country-club Republican stereotype. Instead of writing about the limousine liberals who are so rich they make the Trump cabinet look like a bunch of paupers, the press has been obsessing about how a newly elected congresswoman from the Bronx, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, can't afford to rent a place in Washington until she starts collecting her congressional salary.
The socialism of the coastal elites of which De Blasio is a leader is akin to the old Soviet politburo who lived very well as they dictated what could be built and where, what people would make and where and how they would live. Everyone was equal but some were more equal than others.
I reject the Democrat Party of the rich in favor of the GOP party of the working poor and the middle class, the deplorable bitter clingers. God, how I love the smell of Walmart in the morning.
Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared inInvestor’s Business DailyHuman EventsReason Magazine and the ChicagoSun-Times among other publications.     



Report: ‘Impeachment’ Billionaire Tom Steyer Prepares to Launch Presidential Bid


Spencer Platt / Getty
19 Nov 20184,609

Left-wing billionaire Tom Steyer, who spent millions in the 2018 midterm elections pushing for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, is preparing to launch a campaign for president in 2020, according to Politico.

Politico’s Alex Thompson wrote Monday evening:
The former billionaire investor, climate activist and impeachment agitator Tom Steyer will take several steps toward a 2020 presidential bid Tuesday.
That will include a six-figure web ad buy on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram along with a full-page ad in USA Today and other Gannett newspapers outlining a political platform, a revamped, and the announcement of five town halls across the country, the first of which will be in the crucial early primary state of South Carolina, according to copies of the ad and platform provided to POLITICO.
The first town hall is set for Dec. 4 in Charleston, S.C., and the next will be in Fresno, Calif., sometime in December, according to Aleigha Cavalier, senior communications adviser for who also works for Steyer’s climate-focused group NextGen America. There will be one town hall for each of the “5 rights” on Steyer’s platform: the right to an equal vote, to clean air and water, to learn with pre-K education through college, to a living wage, and to health.
Steyer has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on other Democrats’ campaigns in recent years. He was the party’s top donor in 2014 — buying few wins but allowing him to force the party to stage an all-night talk session about climate change on the Senate floor.
In 2018, he spent over $100 million on an effort to push for impeachment, reinforcing that message the day after the election in a New York Times op-ed.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are extravagantly wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the downside of the invasion of millions of migrants, the crime or the financial burden.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY

Democrat Corruption is a Clear and Present Danger to America

On November 6, it seemed the Republicans might hold their majority in the Senate and in the House.  Sadly, they lost their majority in the House. The mystery is why so many Democrat candidates who are so obviously ethically challenged won in races that should not have even been close.  
How and why do Democrats continue to vote for unqualified, dishonest candidates?  Elizabeth Warren is a proven liar, a cheat who claimed Native American heritage in order to get a job at Harvard.  Her baby, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was her plan to wield control over all bank and non-bank institutions without Congressional interference. In short, she is a hard-left socialist who means to control how Americans earn, spend and borrow money, how they use their savings.  Warren is a blight on the Constitution and the guaranteed freedoms of US citizens. She is an advance operative for the socialist America the left envisions.  
Andrew Gillum, the left's choice to be Governor of Florida, is the failed mayor of Tallahassee.  He remains under FBI investigation for corruption.  Given the information about that investigation that has been released, he appears yet another greedy and corrupt Democrat pol in the Hillary Clinton mold.  The stability of Tallahassee declined catastrophically under his leadership;  crime and murder rose drastically.  
Gillum sold out his city for money, and cries racism when confronted with his crimes.  He should never have been the candidate for the Governor of Florida but the left cares only about race and power, not ethics or honor.  For progressives, race trumps everything else, even character.  If Gillum wins after the cheating Broward County is infamous for, Florida will suffer the slings and arrows that are inevitable under politicians like Gillum.  Why was this race even close?  Have half the nation's voters scuttled any semblance of  traditional values in order to win?  Yes.
Then there is Robert Menendez, the credibly accused pedophile senator of New Jersey.  He should be in prison but was saved by one juror in his corruption trial with whom he partied after his win on November 6.  Who votes for a man like this?  There is plenty of proof that he took bribes from a wealthy client for numerous favors, trips to  the Dominican Republic for sex with underage girls being one of them.  But New Jersey just re-elected this man.  They too have lost all sense of right vs. wrong.
Stacey Abrams, the still grasping gubernatorial contender in Georgia,  is a hard-left, anti-capitalist, anti-Second Amendment candidate.  She owes about $200K in credit card debt and wants to run Georgia?  She too is corrupt and incompetent.  She is also willing to cheat to win. Are Georgians ignorant of her many, many negatives? If they are, they voted for her anyway.  Again, skin color trumps everything.    
The left ignores fine men like John James, who ran for the House in Michigan against Debbie Stabenow.   The left  ignored Eddie Edwards who ran in New Hampshire.  Both men  are conservative African Americans.  The American left today pretends such candidates do not exist.  They have ignored fine people like James and Edwards as they have always ignored brilliant men like Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Jason Riley, and Larry Elder.  They revile the brilliant Clarence Thomas.  They don't like to be reminded of men like Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington.  Neither of them, like Sowell, Steele, Williams and Elder ever promoted the idea that African Americans were or would be perennial victims.  Each of them advocated for quite the opposite, for self-reliance and independence. 
This notion of personal responsibility is anathema to today's left; they need and promote subservience and dependency among their flock of reliable but uninformed voters.  This is why they encourage the immigration of so many millions of illegal migrants. They assume they will be able to win for them the right to vote.  Judging by the number of them who likely voted in the midterms, their plan is succeeding.  
This is how they will destroy America  from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are extravagantly wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to  the downside of the invasion of millions of migrants, the crime or the  financial burden.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us. 
Then there is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the thoroughly-ignorant-of-everything candidate who won her district  by 80%!  This young woman knows nothing about how any government works, let alone ours.  She is hopelessly uniformed; she knows even less about US history or the Constitution.  She is clueless about the economy.  When asked how she would pay for all the give-away programs she touts, she replied that that was  a "puzzling question"!  "You just pay for it"  she answers.  She has no idea; no idea about anything.  She thinks she will be "inaugurated" to the House!  Most fourth graders know more than she does about US history.   And yet she is already thinking about running for President!  This is a wholesale  indictment of our politicized, dumbed-down system of education.  Many of her constituents are immigrants; we are obviously not educating them at all.  They voted for all the free stuff -- college, medical care, basic income, housing,  that Ocasio-Cortez has promised to deliver.  This is what socialist Democrats dream about:  perpetual power over a populace too ignorant to rebel.  American as founded is at grave risk. 
In addition to ODasio-Cortez, Gillum, Ilhan OmarAbramsSinema, who very likely cheated to take  the Arizona Senate seat,  there is Linda Sanchez.  Kirsten Gillibrand is a Hillary clone; she only cares about her own political power. She speaks like a small child but is also considering a run for the presidency.  She was best pals with Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein until they were politically inconvenient.  Amy Klobuchar, who embraced the vicious and obviously false allegations against Judge Kavanagh, was re-elected!  Like every other Democrat member of the judiciary committee, she knew those accusations were false, without a shred of corroboration, but her constituents re-elected her!  Who are these voters?  How do they reconcile voting for people willing to destroy a fine man for political purposes?  She is exactly who every Democrat member of that committee is, who every member of the Democrat Party is:  nothing more than power-hungry political operatives out to ruin any and all opponents by any means necessary.   They are a clear and present danger to American as founded. 
Young people are no longer taught the truth of American history.  They are not taught the truth of the Holocaust.  Anti-Semitism is acceptable, even promoted,  by the Democrats.  They embrace Linda Sarsour and Louis Farrakhan without shame.  Young people don't know that communism killed over a hundred million people in the twentieth century.  Their calculated-by-leftists  ignorance is destroying our country. They try to sell the idea that gender is not a factor of biology!  They attempt to convince young people that climate change is man-made (a travesty) and that global warming causes wild fires (a lie).  Having control over academia, they have willfully brainwashed students for nearly two generations.  Unless your children are a strong-willed, independent thinkers, do not send them to college! 
How and why the American left has devolved into the kind of party one finds in a banana republic is a mystery.  That our media is so anxious to promote their corrupt candidates and the low-brow tactics they employ is a tragedy. Do they do it because they can no longer win by promulgating their Orwellian vision of a socialist state, mandated equality of outcome?  Perhaps.  They will never sell socialism to enough sentient Americans to win.  They need millions of uninformed voters to succeed.  
We must not let them cheat their way to power over the rest of us.  Their ongoing vote fraud must be stopped and the Democrats need to take a look at themselves and at what they have become. It's not a pretty picture.  What they have become threatens to destroy the greatest nation on the planet and they are doing it on purpose.  They have nothing but contempt for the US as founded and for those of us who love this country.



The best midterms that San Francisco donors could buy.

November 15, 2018

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
After President Trump took office, the Washington Post announced its new motto, “Democracy dies in darkness.” But it was the Washington Post, not Trump, that was guilty of undermining democracy.
President Trump had been legitimately elected by a majority of states. The Washington Post was an establishment paper in a government city owned by a dot com robber baron. There’s nothing more undemocratic than a paper owned by the richest man in the world working to overturn an election.
There was just as little democracy to the midterm elections in which wealthy donors from blue states and districts poured money into local races in red and purple states and districts. San Francisco and New York billionaires buying elections in Pennsylvania and Nevada is not democracy. It’s oligarchy.
American elected officials were meant to be elected by local communities to serve their needs. Instead the Left has nationalized local races by exploiting its cultural power. And when that didn’t produce the immediate results that it wanted, began overwhelming local elections with huge piles of outside cash.
The midterm elections were the best elections that San Francisco donors could buy.
Senate Democrats picked up $220 million in out-of-state donations these midterms. That huge pile of cash also amounted to sixty percent of their haul. The majority of Dem Senate cash came from donors who weren’t living in the states they were running in, but who were trying to buy elections for them.
That’s the Washington Post brand of democracy.
It’s not just Senate races being bought up by out-of-state donors. 45% of House Dem money came from out-of-state donors. And when they didn’t succeed in buying a local election the first time, they just kept on pouring in more money into a district until they got their way.
Last year, Democrats poured in $22.5 million into a special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district. 95% of the donations came from out-of-state donors. Democrat Jon Ossoff received more donations from California than Georgia. Ossoff still lost to Rep. Karen Handel, even though her donations amounted to only a fraction of his ActBlue bucks.
But the same donors just waited a year and bought the seat for Lucy McBath in the midterms.
In October, Lucy McBath was appearing at the Writers Guild Theater in Los Angeles hosted by Hollywood royalty like Katzenberg, Tony Goldwyn and Cameron Crowe for a $500 a head fundraiser.
A large chunk of outside money behind McBath came from Michael Bloomberg. McBath touted his gun control positions and the New York billionaire’s front groups put $4.5 million behind his lackey.
That $4.5 million was a fraction of the $100 million that Bloomberg vowed to plow into the Dems.
There’s nothing democratic about Bloomberg buying the 6th the way he once bought Gracie Mansion.
In Illinois' 13th Congressional District, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan pulled in $1.7 million to Rep. Rodney Davis' $700K in a three month period. And then outside groups poured in nearly as much again in support of Londrigan. $300K of that money came from California.
In Nevada, out-of-state donors bought Jacky Rosen a senate seat. 85% of the radical lefty candidate’s donations came from outside the state. Of her 5 top donor zip codes, two were in New York, two in California, including Palo Alto, and the odd zip code out was in Chevy Chase, Maryland. 
The media frequently airs complaints about how little political power New York and California have per capita compared to a handful of small states. These complaints are not only cynically specious, they ignore the fact that between the media’s messaging force multipliers and the bicoastal wealth being used to buy elections, political power has become as concentrated as economic and cultural power.
And that’s the opposite of democracy.
The midterms weren’t a populist wave. They were an angry tantrum by wealthy blue state donors who used their money to buy local elections as payback for having their views ignored in 2016. Instead of listening to the rest of the country, they set out to buy it, lock, stock and barrel. They found experts, consultants, strategists, programmers and organizers who would buy them other people’s elections.
Much of their money was wasted. Just ask Beto O’Rourke and his $70 million war chest. But their hysterical frenzy of spending made an undeniable impact. If you throw enough mud or money at an election, eventually it sticks. The Democrat raised nearly $1 billion to take the House.
And they took it.
$166.8 million was pumped into 30 House Democrat candidates. That’s compared to $90.7 million for the Republican candidates in those races.
The most expensive midterm elections in history paid off for Democrats. And there’s nothing democratic about that.
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It dies in the glare of lefty media, lefty money and lefty power which strip away local issues and local agency in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida. Big blue state donors bought the midterm elections to send a message to President Trump. Many had been convinced by frenzied media hit pieces in papers like the Washington Post that action was desperately urgent.
When the Washington Post, the rest of the media and their long tail of ActBlue donors intervene in local elections, it doesn’t uphold democracy. It drowns it in the bright actinic glare of flashes and floodlights.
The media postures as a defender of democracy, but corporate media is more naturally a defender of establishments, of the nostrums and platitudes of the elites whom it serves and coddles. When it interferes in elections, it doesn’t do so for the sake of the people, but for the sake of its people.
Political elites mistrust the people and use the media to manipulate popular elections into endorsing their unpopular agendas. The mainstream media is an inherently undemocratic institution that amplifies elite voices at the expense of local communities. It claims to be democratic only because it reinterprets democracy to mean the political agendas of the Democrats rather than those of the people.
Lefties often misuse democracy to mean a set of values while actual democracy, the vox populi, is tarred as populism. But democracy isn’t a set of social issues. It’s the power shift between the voters and elected officials. Big media and blue state billionaires have shifted that balance away from local voters by buying local elections and seeking new voters when the old won’t vote their way.
If a few million in attack ads won’t influence local voters, you register new ones. If that doesn’t work, then you legalize felons. And if that won’t do it, there are the illegal aliens, and voter and ballot fraud. Buy a few secretary of state races. Set up housing for out-of-state college students. Sign up aliens to vote. And then even if the local voters don’t vote your way, it won’t matter. They’ll have been outvoted.
This isn’t democracy. But it is how Democrats have won some local races.
The shift away from local voters to a national political infrastructure is undemocratic. But it neatly fits into the larger leftist cause of centralizing all of politics (and all other areas of life) in elitist strongholds. The partnerships between elitist leaders and their local crony stakeholders act as a fig leaf for the dismantling of local autonomy with performative diversity replacing representational democracy.
The Democrats have waged an undemocratic war on democracy in the name of democracy. The midterms were the latest leftist coup against democracy. And democracy lost to the Left.


"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." 

MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR


AS WALL STREET PLUNDERS: A Nation of One Million Homeless and Overrun By Mexico’s Export of “cheap labor”!

“But a series of reports on CEO pay, bank profits and corporate cash released over the past week reveal that corporate America and the financial oligarchy are wallowing in record levels of wealth.


“But a series of reports on CEO pay, bank profits and corporate cash released over the past week reveal that corporate America and the financial oligarchy are wallowing in record levels of wealth.


"America’s elites, now overwhelmingly represented by the Democratic Party, have a single overriding interest: their self-indulgent lifestyle."

Class Conflict within the Democratic Party

Over many decades, the American Left, the Democratic Party and their mutual propaganda arm, the self-styled “mainstream media,” have successfully portrayed conservatives and the Republican Party as a coalition of the wealthy and intolerant.  Further, the Democrats and the left have claimed that they are the true champions of the working or middle class as they unceasingly fight to defeat and marginalize this evil menace. 
The reality, however, is that this cabal has virtually no interest in defending or aiding the working class as they are, in fact, the party of a bifurcated constituency: the wealthy and those dependent on the largess of the government.
Of the fifty wealthiest congressional districts throughout the country, the Democrats now represent forty-one.  Of the remaining nine represented by Republicans, three are in Texas, the only red state on the list of fifty districts. Not coincidentally the residents of these same fifty districts are supposedly among the most well-educated and sophisticated.  This transformative process is not a recent phenomenon as the trend began in the 1980’s and accelerated rapidly in the early 2000’s.
America’s elites, now overwhelmingly represented by the Democratic Party, have a single overriding interest: their self-indulgent lifestyle.  This is manifested in their mistaken belief that conservatives (i.e. the “right”) are hell bent on enforcing their version of morality on the nation, thus potentially calling into question the lifestyles of the rich and solipsistic. 
The veracity of this claim is immaterial as it would require an element of deliberation not emotion --  a trait in extremely short supply among the nation’s privileged class, nearly all of whom have difficulty in generating an original thought due to the ill-education rampant in America’s universities.  Thus, the mindless accusations of racism, misogyny and Fascism directed at the conservative rubes in middle America are acceptable, and in far too many instances believed, particularly as many had the temerity to vote for Donald Trump – who, although wealthy and Ivy League educated, is considered the ultimate unsophisticated rube.
As conservatives are the dominant force in the Republican Party and this nation cannot function politically with more than two major political parties, the alternative is the Democratic Party.  An entity dominated by the American Left, an assemblage whose core philosophy is antithetical to the interests of the wealthy and privileged.  Yet, determined to protect their lifestyles and vilify conservatives, they willingly ally with the left and overwhelmingly support virtually any Democratic candidate.  In the recent 2018 mid-terms, Democratic House candidates outspent their Republican opponents by a two to one margin thanks primarily to this wealthy but myopic assemblage. 
Their colleagues in the Democratic Party, and the preponderance of the membership, are those dependent on the largess of the federal and state governments.  On the other hand, the growing segment of the citizenry who are working and self-sufficient are increasingly joining those who believe in limited government in migrating to the Republican Party-- a process that is accelerating with the policies and tactics of Donald Trump in combating the entrenched left and their determination to culturally and economically transform the nation.  The Republican Party will inevitably become the party of the working or middle class.  As such, they could potentially dominate the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
The left and the Democratic Party, in order to offset this possibility, must aggressively seek to increase the number of dependents by promoting the legalization and ultimate citizenship for untold millions of illegal immigrants and promising all Americans cradle to grave economic security.  In order to enact this strategy to defeat the Republicans, the left must have the active participation and financial support of the nation’s wealthy-- which they have. 
The Democratic Party has evolved into essentially an incompatible two-tier class-driven entity encompassing the nation’s wealthiest and the nation’s poorest.  Nonetheless, it is at present a convenient home for the elites to hold off the imaginary horde of conservatives outside their gilded doors. 
However, the voting numbers within the party are overwhelmingly with those who generally support the leftist philosophies of redistribution (e.g. socialized medicine and guaranteed incomes) and curtailing of freedom (e.g. speech, assembly and religion).  While it may not manifest itself to the affluent who have cast their lot with the Democrats, the redistribution of wealth must, by necessity, come from the wealthy, as that is where the bulk of the nation’s wealth resides.   It is also this same small-in-numbers group that benefits the most from freedom of speech and assembly. 
Once fully embroiled in this marriage of convenience, a divorce will be impossible as the co-inhabitant of the Democratic Party, the dependent class, must continue grow in order to electorally defeat the Republicans and protect the left’s agenda.  Further, the oversold expectations promulgated by the left will never be satisfied regardless of how many promises are made or token redistributive programs are enacted by the current ruling class.  Only a complete transformation of this nation into a failed socialist state will satiate the left, their acolytes and their attendant army of dependency.  A goal more in reach than ever thanks to the inability of the nation’s elites to give a damn about the future of the country.
There is not a more short-sighted and self-absorbed group of citizens in this nation than the white, wealthy well-educated urban and suburban voters.  They are willing to rend the fabric of this nation in order to protect their privilege and lifestyle.  While the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay the price, the current ruling class and their progeny will have far more to lose. 

Dem billionaires Steyer and Bloomberg already have spent a combined $200 million in quest for presidency

Remember when the Democrats thought “money politics” was a bad thing? That moral certainty started to crumble when Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by a factor of at least 2, and still went down to defeat. And while vilifying Wall Street makes for good progressive virtue-signaling, the Dems are now the party of plutocrats, buying with welfare and money transfers the support of an underclass kept angry and dependent by progressive policies that hamper job-creation and reward idleness and dependency.
President Trump’s tax and regulations cuts have boosted job growth and income at the lower end of the market, imperiling this strategy, but that hasn’t stopped the billionaires lusting for power and still welcome in the party. Maya King of Politico writes:
Together, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg have poured nearly $200 million into television and digital advertising alone, with the former New York mayor spending an unprecedented $120 million in the roughly three weeks since he joined the presidential race. That’s more than double the combined ad spending of every single non-billionaire candidate in the Democratic field this entire year.
“We’ve never seen spending like this in a presidential race,” said Jim McLaughlin, a Republican political strategist who worked as a consultant for Bloomberg’s mayoral bids in New York. “He has a limitless budget.” (snip)
 Steyer isn’t spending at the same stratospheric levels as Bloomberg, yet with $83 million in ad buys so far, he’s still far outpacing everyone other than his fellow billionaire. The next highest spender on ads is Pete Buttigieg at $19 million.
Many readers know that political consultants love campaign advertising because they get a percentage of the spend in compensation, often 15%, which really adds up when a budget of $120 million is up for grab. And that’s just for 3 weeks.
 Bloomberg is stiff-arming the early primary states, but Steyer,who has been in the race much longer, is spending gigantic sums in small and inexpensive media markets in the first 4 states:
Steyer is largely focused on the four early voting states. He has spent nearly $37 million in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire — much of it on digital ads. Since joining the race in July, he’s more than doubled the combined ad spending of Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the early states.
Joel Pollak of Breitbart points out that so far, the money hasn’t bought much:
…according to the RealClearPolitics national poll average, Bloomberg is languishing in fifth place, with 5%. Steyer is doing even worse, in tenth place, with 1.5%.
Steyer improves to seventh in Iowa (2.5%) and New Hampshire (2.7%), sixth in Nevada (3.5%), and fifth in South Carolina (4.0%). Bloomberg’s best result in an early primary state appears to be in California, where he is sixth (3.3%).
I don’t think either man has a chance of capturing the Dems’ nod, but they do have the potential to create mischief.  Steyer already bankrolled a push toward impeachment that succeeded in forcing the House to vote out the lamest articles of impeachment in history. And Bloomberg is planning to sink huge resources into not only his own campaign, but into Democrat congressional races, where advertising can be far more effective, since most voters have much less knowledge of their own congressional candidates than they do of presidential races.
Scrooge McDuck's Money Bin has nothing on the resources of Steyer or Bloomberg.