Saturday, 22 October 2016

Why isn’t everyone on “the right” desperate to see Hillary lose?

This is from Mark Steyn: Laws are for the Little People.
Like everything else the Clintons touch, Comey’s FBI is hopelessly corrupted – and certainly more corrupt than J Edgar Hoover’s FBI, at least in the sense that Hoover was independent enough not to get rolled. The revelations of what happened reveal Comey to be a hack and a squish: he offered immunity to Hillary’s aides not to facilitate his investigation but to obstruct any further investigation; he allowed witnesses to Hillary’s crimes to serve as her “lawyers”; and he physically destroyed the evidence – that is, the laptops. A 6′ 8″ gummi worm would be more of a straight arrow.
Now come the latest revelations. Powerline’s John Hinderaker writes:
In the first page, an unidentified FBI employee says he was “pressured” to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified. This pressure came from someone within the FBI, who said he had been contacted by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who “had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.'” The quid pro quo was that, if the FBI would say the email was unclassified, the State Department would allow the FBI to “place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”
So, to add to the corrupt revenue agency and the corrupt justice department, we now have a corrupt national law enforcement agency and a corrupt foreign ministry – willing, indeed, to subordinate national security and its own diplomatic policy to the personal needs of Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc, etc, you will be entirely unaware of all this. Which is the way they plan on operating for the next eight years."

Friday, 14 October 2016

The life, and death, of a party.

A shining example of the declining influence of the legacy media is the storm this week over a decade old recording of Donald Trump making some lewd remarks. None of us have ever done anything like that, have we? After a firestorm of criticism by every organ of the media and being roundly condemned by all the old Republican dinosaurs who failed to stop him in the primaries, he comes out of Trump Towers the next day to be greeted by a large impromptu crowd of people cheering him on.
The beautiful people may have been thoroughly offended and scandalised by him, but the ordinary people couldn’t give a damn about the issue; they were just worried he’d cave under the pressure and withdraw from the race. He came out fighting rather than cowed, so the whole campaign of faux outrage by assorted media turnips, GOP dinosaurs and assorted SJWs essentially backfired on them all.
It is yet again a vivid illustration of how totally out of touch the GOP establishment are with popular sentiment. The last thing they should ever have done was to rush to condemnation and demand he withdraw, because it’s obvious he’ll never withdraw under any circumstances and his defiance of all the pressure he was put under gave him yet another chance to reprise his role as the plucky David up against the Republican/Media Goliath."

Google's "Fact Check" is a pathetic effort to distort the news

Luboš Motl's Reference Frame
At the end, the "Fact Check" label is a recipe or preparation for the censorship done by someone else. Some users of the Google News service are encouraged to only pick the officially "Fact-Checked" news. So from the viewpoint of those parties' readers, the non-Fact-Checked or negatively Fact-Checked articles are being censored. Is that really a good idea? Are you really sure that they can't convey an important idea or information that the people should be exposed to? Can't you see that due to the systematic collective bias of the self-appointed fact checkers, news being filtered in this way are becoming distorted as well?

It often looks to me that the left-wing media and their ideological soulmates are trying to restore the regime of the "only allowed opinion" that we have known in the totalitarian countries. But what these leftards are missing is that people in totalitarian societies were forced to behave as if they believed all the cr*p by aggressive sanctions, firing from jobs, and even prisons (and uranium mines).

Hillary's aßlickers, Google, and others: You just haven't conquered the full control over the citizens to the same extent to which the totalitarian machineries have done it. So you simply shouldn't expect that the result will be the same "unity of opinions" that was present in the totalitarian societies. Instead, Google may at most downgrade itself from a company that invented a great impartial algorithm to rate and order pages in the search pages to another company composed of activist leftards.

And that would be a truly sad case of degeneration because Google has done some great things.

Please, don't try to harm a particular candidate in the elections by these tricks and stop collaborating with all those whose self-evident goal is to do so. They're not honest, they're not impartial, they're not really more careful than others, they're not nice, and they are crippling your business. Thanks for your understanding, Google."

Can the EU survive Brexit?

Yet many of those who campaigned for a Leave vote from the Tory side are even less optimistic about what comes next for Brussels. “It’s doomed,” says Sir Bill Cash MP, chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and chief Maastricht rebel under John Major. “The monetary union system is full of internal contradictions and it can’t work. There’s no such thing as a one size fits all policy.” .....In other words, he reckons Britain has got out just in time. Collapse, he says, “is nearer than people think. The Greeks are a basket case, the Italians are in dire straits, the French economy is also in tatters, and Germany faces massive internal pressure from the AfD.”

EU Trades Trillions Outside Single Market

Guido Fawkes
People who really should know better are fetishising the EU ‘single market’. The single market is essentially a common regulatory regime. It is not necessary to be in the single market to trade across borders with EU member states. In fact the USA manages to do nearly two trillion dollars of trade with the EU annually without paying a penny for access to the ‘single market’, without having to accept uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe or being subject to any loss of sovereignty. Bear this in mind when you read hysterical articles in the newspapers… "