The Globalist Migration Plan That Justin Trudeau Supports

Once there are no borders there will be no countries, and once there are no countries there will be no nations — No England for the English, no France for the French, no Germany for the Germans, no Canada for the Canadians. At that point, the UN and other global agencies will take control and you will have to say good-bye to democratic, local self-government.

You want a border to keep out hoards of people of an alien race, religion and culture? Forget it. Everyone, however poor, however ignorant, however prejudiced, however diseased, however anti-Christian, however anti-white, however anti-democratic they may be will be entitled to squat in your public space and demand welfare at your expense.

Jordan Peterson and the Cider of Doom

LOL

First Flight of a Plane with Electroaerodynamic Propulsion (no moving parts)

Source: MIT News

Jordan Peterson versus the BBC

Faith Goldy: How the Western Nations are Committing Suicide

Thereason May's Plan for U.K. Military Dictatorship

Zero Hedge, November 20, 2018: The first time we heard about the British government's "Operation Temperer" was shortly after the dreadful terrorist explosion in Manchester in June 2017, when  Prime Minister Theresa May declared “enough is enough”, and demanded a review of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy.

....

David Cameron had opposed [the] controversial power because he didn't want the UK to appear like it had lost control and was imposing martial law.

Essentially, it is a martial law program that acts incrementally, rather than overtly. Once implemented, Temperer would be difficult to reverse. ...

...

Chief of Defense Staff General Sir Nick Carter said the army would "stand ready to help" in the event of a 'No Deal', adding that the army has around 1,200 troops on 24-hour standby which can deal with a range of operations and contingencies. And a further 10,000 military personnel are available to assist with an emergency at short notice.

"We make sensible contingency plans for all sort of eventualities whether it’s a terrorist attack, a tanker driver dispute or industrial action. "

"At this stage I think people are confident there will be a deal, If there’s not one, we stand ready to help in any way we can."

When asked about the stockpiling of medicines, Sir Nick Carter said:

"We’re involved in thinking hard about what it might involve. We’ve not been asked to do anything specifically at this stage."

As Brandon Smith so ominously concluded: I believe the UK will be under martial law in a year's time. Unless the people of the UK do something NOW to assert their right to determine their own security, they will fall to a complete totalitarian framework. And, in the long run, they will only be helping the very globalists the Brexit movement in particular sought to fight against. They will do this by trampling the image of nationalism and sovereignty with the jackbooted philosophy of externalized security and government dependency, making globalism, the offered antithesis, look pleasant and tolerable in retrospect.

Read full article

And in related news:

Britain's Enemy Is Not Russia But It's Own Ruling Class, UN Report Confirms

...

Overall, 14 million people in the UK are now living in poverty, a figure which translates into an entire fifth of the population. Four million of them are children, while, according to Professor Alston, 1.5 million people are destitute – that is, unable to afford the basic necessities of life.

And this is what the ruling class of the fifth largest economy in the world, a country that parades itself on the world stage as a pillar of democracy and human rights, considers progress.

The values responsible for creating such a grim social landscape are compatible with the 18th not 21st century. They are proof positive that the network of elite private schools – Eton, Harrow, Fettes College et al. – where those responsible for this human carnage are inculcated with the sense of entitlement and born to rule ethos that defines them, are Britain's hotbeds of extremism.

Professor Alston:

"British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach apparently designed to instill discipline where it is least useful, to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping with today's world, and elevating the goal of enforcing blind compliance over a genuine concern to improve the well-being of those at the lowest levels of British society."

Quote of the Day, No. 496:

"Many will have seen the Spectator piece about the ‘forty hidden horrors’ of Brexit à la Theresa, and been genuinely shocked by the degree to which her “deal” makes the 1940 French surrender to Hitler seem an act of defiance by comparison."

John Ward (November 19, 2018) 

Kevin MacDonald on the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre, Trump, and Nationalism

In the wake of the Pittsburgh Synagogue shootings, the long-running hysteria about Donald Trump promoting anti-Semitism, racism, and “White supremacy” has been intensified. It’s at the point now that it is morphing into an obvious attempt to shut down or at least pathologize public discussion of critical issues.

Particularly important are globalism and nationalism, and the role of the establishment—particularly the media—in shaping attitudes on these issues. The election of Donald Trump and the clear rise of nationalist politics and anti-immigration sentiment in Europe are causing extreme anxiety in establishment circles. And yet, these issues are central to the interests of all the citizens of Western countries.

An honest discussion is therefore imperative, but all too often, as in much of the EU, honest discussion is vilified and even threatened with legal sanctions (e.g., here, here, and here). What we have is a corrupt establishment desperately fighting to remain in power—an establishment that is out of touch with the interests and concerns of its native populations. We in the United States are threatened with a similar situation if present trends continue.

Read more

Robert Mueller: Lying the US to War in Iraq

Famed Canadian Feminist: Twitter Is Fucking Bullshit

A Canadian feminist, Meghan Murphy, who founded the feminist blog and podcast Feminist Current in 2012, had tweeted in October:

“Men aren’t women tho,” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?”

On Thursday, Murphy said on Twitter that she had been informed by Twitter that:

“the language she had used violated their rules against hateful conduct.”

 To  which Murphy responded:

This is fucking bullshit @twitter.

A conclusion with which no reasonable person could possibly disagree. More specifically, Murphy stated, it is “fucking bullshit” that:

I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE.”

It is hard not to agree that the geniuses who run one of America's most important tech companies are either insane or intent on making America insane by destroying the possibility of rational discourse by outlawing basic facts and the rules of logic. 

But bring it on, we say. The sooner America goes totally stark raving bonkers and disappears down the plug-hole of history, the better.

Unfortunately, of course, the US will most likely take the rest of the West with it. As the America Sage, Rush Limbaugh, recently observed: The entire West is coasting on accumulated capital of previous generations, burning its inheritance in a bonfire.

More specifically, the Western nations are happily trashing Western civilization, you know, the rule of law, Christian ethics, and rationality. When those uncivilized opportunist nerds, the Zuck's, the Pichai's, the Musk's aided by the full force of the media and political class have entirely addled the brains of Americans and convinced everyone that lies trump truth and bullshit baffles brains, we will rediscover the wisdom of Samuel Johnson:

Even the devils in Hell speak truth, else Hell could not stand.

Related:

Strategic Culture Foundation: European Leaders Have Lost the Will to Defend Western Civilization

What is Going On With Canadian Oil

Zero Hedge, November 14, 2018: Yesterday we remarked that while the pain for US energy traders has been palpable, it is nothing compared to the mass hysteria taking place in Canada, where the price of Western Canada Select oil has collapsed just above $15 as far too much local production remains landlocked, and in desperate search of any buyer.

Today, none other than "world renowned commodity guru" Dennis Gartman - who correctly picked the exact moment to advise his clients to "short this rally" and is still short even as Marko Kolanovic has been repeatedly urging JPM clients to triple down on the S&P where he saw nothing but smooth sailing - picks up on this theme, and in his latest letter to clients expresses his shock at the collapse observed in local prices.

We excerpt from his latest letter below.

IF YOU THINK THAT WTI AND/OR BRENT CRUDES ARE CHEAP... then consider for a moment what is happening in Canada these days where Western Canada Select crude (WSC as it is always referred to) trades below $16/barrel or a stunning $43/barrel “discount” to WTI! WCS is a “heavy” crude type with an API of about 20 while WTI is a “light” crude with an API “gravity” rating near 40 and so by definition given the greater difficulty in refining WCS compared to WTI it has always sold at a discount to WTI. It had to; there had been little choice.

Read More

Benghazi: The Aftermath of Hillary's War to Murder Muammar Gaddafi

America's method of imperial control. Source: South Front: Why the US Military is Woefully Unprepared for a Major Conventional Conflict. 

America`s Middle Class Families Failing to Reproduce Themselves: Being Replaced by Immigrants: Tucker Carlson

How Americans are replacing themselves with people from elsewhere — and the Democrats love it.

Spot an American Liberal

Poisoning Canadians for Profit

It has taken approximately fifty years to wean the majority of Canadians off the addictive, health damaging, life-shortening habit of cigarette smoking.

So how does the government of Canada deal with the producers of that addictive, health damaging, life shortening drug, marijuana?   It legalizes them. At least a favored few of them.

why?

Look no further than the $35 billion in market cap accumulated by Canada's ten largest licensed pot growers. These are basically greenhouse operations, smaller in scale by far than, say, the Canadian greenhouse tomato, or cucumber industry, yet by virtue of a government license, worth almost infinitely more.

Here, with astonishing mildness, the Canadian Medical Association takes the government to task.

Diane Kelsall Canadian Medical Association Journal: October 15, 2018: On Oct. 17, 2018, the government of Canada will launch a national, uncontrolled experiment in which the profits of cannabis producers and tax revenues are squarely pitched against the health of Canadians. When Bill C-45 comes into force in mid-October, access to recreational marijuana will be legal,1 making Canada one of a handful of countries to legalize recreational use of the drug. Given the known and unknown health hazards of cannabis,2,3 any increase in use of recreational cannabis after legalization, whether by adults or youth, should be viewed as a failure of this legislation. The government of Canada should commit to amending the act if cannabis use rises. Predictably, given the federal government’s stated commitment to pushing this legislation through, investment in cannabis firms has risen substantially over the past year in anticipation, and new producers, large and small, have been popping up across the country. Their goal is profit, and profit comes from sales — sales of a drug that, according to Health Canada, will cause a problem in nearly 1 in 3 adult users and an addiction in close to 1 in 10, with higher risks in youth.2 We cannot expect cannabis firms to restrict their growth ambitions or to have use reduction as a goal. Cannabis companies may initially focus on attracting current consumers from black-market sources, but eventually, to maintain or increase profits, new markets will be developed as is consistent with the usual behaviour of a for-profit company.4 Marketing efforts may include encouraging current users to increase their use or enticing a younger demographic. The track record for tobacco producers has not been encouraging in this regard, and it is unlikely that cannabis producers will behave differently. The provisions regarding promotion of cannabis were the subject of much debate as the bill wended its way through the legislative process. Although the act prohibits promotion to young people and marketing may not evoke a way of life that includes “glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk or daring,” among other restrictions,1 there is plenty of leeway for cannabis companies to attract users. Promoting brand preference and providing “informational” materials are allowed in places where young people are not permitted by law, for example. And the decision by the federal government to legalize cannabis sends a clear message to Canadians that its use is acceptable. We are already seeing the rise of cannabis brands and can expect cannabis firms to promote their products to the full extent allowed under law — and possibly beyond. This past summer, cannabis companies were promoting their wares at music festivals and similar venues to ensure brand-awareness ahead of the legislation.5 Even the food and beverage industry is joining in with plans to augment their products with cannabis. Bill C-45 explicitly states that its purpose is to protect public health and safety, by keeping cannabis out of the hands of youth and enhancing public awareness of health risks associated with cannabis use.1 To achieve this will require a concerted effort by government at all levels. Analyzing the experiences of other jurisdictions that have legalized recreational cannabis should prove helpful,4 as will thoughtful reflection on Canada’s successes — or lack thereof — in tobacco and alcohol control. Many local and provincial governments have put regulations in place to restrict the use and distribution of cannabis, beyond the broad provisions in the federal legislation. And health authorities are working on campaigns to raise awareness of health and other risks, such as impaired driving, associated with cannabis use. But fundamentally, the federal government needs to take responsibility for the consequences of this controversial legislation. To that end, it must provide adequate funding for robust monitoring of cannabis use among all segments of society, especially among youth and other populations at particular risk. The anticipated windfall of tax revenue should fund research on harms related to use, as there are many unanswered questions about the short- and long-term implications of cannabis use.3 And finally, if use of cannabis increases, the federal government should have the courage to admit the legislation is flawed and amend the act. Canadians — and the world — will be watching.

Related:

CanSpeccy.Wordpress.com: Poisoning Canadians for Profit — Part 2

Tucker Carlson: Interviewed About His Book, Ship of Fools: How A Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America To The Brink Of Revolution!

Canadian Conservatism: Scheer Ineptitude, Max's Madness, Harper's Return and How to End the Income Tax

Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, is an amiable dude with little charisma and, seemingly, even less political sense.

Having won the leadership of the party by the narrowest margin over rival Maxime, Bernier, Scheer demonstrated the sheerest ineptitude by appointing Bernier, to the shadow cabinet not as the representative of one of the great offices of state: Finance, or External Affairs but, drum roll, the Innovation non-portfolio.

Mad Max, as Bernier has long been known, a man crazy enough to run a double marathon to catch the public eye, responded with "piss on that," or words to that effect, and launched his own People's Party of Canada (PPC). Meantime Stephen Harper is, to judge by his latest book, preparing for his own second coming.

For Scheer, the prospect of success appears now to be zilch. With the right of center vote split with the  PPC, Scheer will surely lose the 2019 Federal election to Trudeau's flaky feminists front for global governance, whereupon Sheer will be pushed aside and Stephen Harper will be called upon, once again, to unite the right.

To succeed, Harper will need to bring Bernier back within the Conservative Party fold, which means offering him the portfolio of his choice. The Department of External Affairs has profile, but no real power because Canada is a negligible power on the world stage. Bernier, therefore, will chose Finance.

 Bernier at the Department of Finance might be a fine thing. But only if Bernier has a clue what to do with the department that largely dictates the vitality of the Canadian economy and hence the fortune of every Canadian.

But Bernier, if anything like almost every politician, is bound to be too focused on either getting or enjoying power, to have energy to worry much about the public good. Indeed, of all Canadian politicians it is hard to think of more than a couple with much idea about where they were going. One was John A. Macdonald, whose idea was to unite the British North American colonies into one country that was not America. The other was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, whose idea was to unite all the countries of the world into one political system under a sexy dictator like Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, or someone named Trudeau.

Here, then, as a service to the nation, we offer a policy for our future Finance Minister, Mad Max Bernier.

First, the income tax. Don't mess about, Max, with a piddling increase in the basic personal exemption. Just abolish it. Yes, just abolish the income tax. Period.

But wait, you say, the income tax provides half of all Federal Government revenue? Yes, exactly. That's the reason to abolish it.

You think government doesn't waste half it's revenue? Listen, before I wised up, I worked for three governments. In every government office where I worked the goal was the same: maximize the budget and hire more people. The result? Managers and more managers, directors, and directors general, coordinators, program managers, middle managers, matrix managers, micro-managers, every one of them a more or less complete waste of time. in fact a dead weight soaking up resources destroying wealth and sucking the creative intelligence out of all who work for them.

But bureaucrats aren't stupid. Deny them the security of a government office and most will soon be on their feet again, even perhaps contributing to the sum total of human happiness.

But if you fear that Ottawa cannot manage with less than 300 billion a year, here's how to replace the income tax: with a beefed up GST. The European equivalent of the GST, the Value Added Tax, runs as high as 27% in Hungary, 25% in Norway and Sweden, 20% in Britain and 19% in Germany. So, why is Canada's equivalent only 5%?

The GST is a consumption tax that is rebated to those of low income, so there's no social argument against raising it from the current 5% to, say, 20%, a mid to low rate by European standards and only slightly higher than China's 17% and Russia's 18%. Raising the GST to 20% would generate an extra hundred billion, or two thirds the current income tax revenue. The shortfall could be covered by some useful down-sizing of government: for a start, most of the auditors at Revenue Canada.

As for the advantage of the GST over the income tax, just think of those young people saving to buy a home, or so many older folks rather desperately trying to save for their retirement. No income tax means a much greater opportunity to save, with the income from savings, whether in the credit union or invested in the stock market, all adding up tax free. Yay!

But what about rich people, some may ask? Why should they not pay a healthy chunk of income in tax? Yeah, well remember, the really rich pay essentially not tax anyhow. They're mostly invested for capital growth, which means no tax payable until the capital gains are realized, which may not be for years, and even then, in Canada, the rate of tax on capital gains is only half the rate on earned income.

Makes sense, eh! Income earned by the sweat of your brow taxed at the full rate, capital gains accumulated while you loll in a leather arm chair, or sunbathe on a Caribbean beach, taxed at only half the full rate, and even then only after accumulating untaxed for possibly decades, or generations.

But even with the GST set at a sensible rate, the Federal money gusher will be a bit below full flood, so how to fully satiate Ottawa's addiction. Easy really, a capital tax such as they have in that most democratic of all democratic countries, Switzerland. A one point five percent annual levy on all household wealth over $1.5 million would be about right. That would touch only the top ten percent, and would generate something like $60 billion a year. Ouch!

But how bad is that, really? Consider if you were comfortable with a household wealth of, say, ten million, then you'd pay $150,000 a year in capital tax. Is that a punitive rate? Well assuming the $10 million were invested, the income from those investments together with your director's or professional consulting fees might add up to, say, three-quarters of a million a year. In that case, the income tax you'd pay, under current law, would be around $300,000 a year. So switching from income tax to a capital tax, would cut your tax liability approximately in half.

Wow, this is like magic. We're slashing everyone's tax, rich or poor, yet government gets the same revenue.

But wait a minute, there's that hefty new rate of GST. Who will be paying that? Well not the poor, since they get the GST rebate. And it's not those trying to save for a home, for school, or for retirement. Then it must be the rich. Unless they live modestly and invest their wealth in farms and factories and rental housing, etc.. In that case they won't be greatly touched by the GST. Instead, their surplus income will be added to the invested capital of the country thereby enhancing the productivity of labor and thus raising wages, lowering housing costs and generally benefiting other people.

But if the rich spend for consumption, them we got 'em. A new mansion for ten million, that'll be $2 million five in GST, thank you very much. A world cruise for two, a coupla hundred thou for the bridge-deck state room, beer, light wines and general entertainment, and it'll be fifty G's in GST.

Ain't that beautiful. Rich people incentivized to invest for the public good, unlike that London banker's wife who, over several years, spent twenty million on wines and spirits, plus a coupla hundred million more on a private jet, jewelry, etc., etc.

Obviously there's much more we might propose. A sweatshop import tax, for instance, or what we might more tactfully call the Federal Wage Arbitrage Tax, to give our poor Montreal garment-industry workers some slack in the competition with those even poorer Bangladeshis working for pennies an hour in collapsible factories for Canada's billionaire Weston family to make fashionable garments modeled by Justin Trudeau for sale in Canada.

But we can't solve all the problems of the day in just one blog post.

American Abortion Law: Roe Lied, Millions of the Unborn Died

John Ward Bids Farewell to the Twattering Class

John Ward writes: ... this morning, I redesigned my Twitter profile masthead as follows:

This, Ward adds,

was clearly too much for the pinched goblins, and so I have been locked out and will not be reinstated until I’ve sent a State ID, my inside leg measurement, and clearly stated the political affiliation of the two squirrels who share Sloggers’ Roost with me. Obviously, I won’t be doing any of that.

Yes, the billionaire tech crowd have achieved in a decade or so the arrogance of the French aristocracy in the immediate run-up to their tumbrell-ride to le guillotine.

I wonder how the lives of the Lords of Silicon Valley will end. Some, apparently, hope to stuff their brains into a computer and thus live for ever. Can't happen too soon, in my opinion. Good-bye Zucks, Bezos, Brin, Page and Musk and good luck.

Haaretz: Most Israelis Oppose Accepting Refugees

Haaretz: September 20, 2018: WASHINGTON – A clear majority of Israelis oppose accepting refugees from war-torn countries into Israel, according to a new poll released on Wednesday by the Pew Research Institute. The poll included respondents from 18 different countries, and among the Israelis surveyed by it, 57 percent were against accepting refugees – more than in any other country included in the survey.

Nothing unreasonable about Israelis opposing an influx of refugees. Man is a territorial animal. Each nation has a territorial base. If Israelis, Brits, French or Germans move over to make way for people of other nationalities, their own nation is diminished.

When one is talking of a few thousand fleeing for their lives, few are opposed to their own country taking in refugees. But when nations that have a below replacement fertility rate, as is true of all the European nations, are expected (i.e., compelled by their own leadership) to take in "refugees" by the million, people naturally become resistant.

Moreover, when the "refugees" aggressively assert the supremacy of their own culture over that of the natives of the land where they have sought haven, it becomes obvious that the natives have been betrayed by a treasonous, globalist and anti-democratic leadership, and are set for destruction as a racial and cultural entity.

So Israelis are perfectly rational and morally justified in resisting the influx of "refugees" most of whom are likely, in any case, to be economic migrants not victims of war. To do otherwise would be to place their own national survival in jeopardy.

One just wishes that Jews would remember that the same right of refusal applies to other countries. They would then, perhaps, not be so loud in their seemingly endless criticism of the countries such as Canada, the US, Britain that failed to offer safe haven to six million European Jews prior to, and during, WW2.

Howard Kunstler: Christine Blasey Ford Is a Big Fat Liar

“I believe her!”

Really? Why should anyone believe her?

Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine Blasey Ford was lying, through and through ...

Read More

Google: Time to End Free Speech

Breitbart News October 9. 2018: An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

Despite leaked video footage showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history, Google has repeatedly denied that the political bias of its employees filter into its products.

But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Read more

New York Post: Break up Amazon before it does any more damage to America

By Maureen Callahan:

New York Post October 9, 2018: When Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon would be raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour last week, the reception was rapturous. The Seattle Times called it “the just thing.” “Good for them,” said President Trump’s chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow. “I’m in favor of higher wages.” Bloomberg called it proof that “an even higher minimum wage is probably safe for big, productive cities.” Senator Bernie Sanders, a chief Bezos antagonist, called it “enormously important.” “Unequivocally good news,” said The Washington Post.

The latter is owned by Jeff Bezos, an all-too-easily forgotten point these days. Because for all the questions to follow this announcement — Why now? What is Amazon eliminating to pay for this? How much praise does Bezos, recently crowned the World’s Richest Man, deserve while paying, as of 2017, a median Amazon income of $28,446? — we are not asking the real one.

When did we become The United States of Amazon?

Author, entrepreneur and NYU business professor Scott Galloway has emerged as one of Amazon’s fiercest critics. At last month’s Recode Code Commerce, Galloway gave a 45-minute talkon the future of retail that savaged Amazon and warned of the threats the company poses not just economically but philosophically and morally.

“I believe our society is effectively going through this very uncomfortable transition that is bad for our youth, bad for America and bad for the planet where we no longer worship at the altar of character and kindness,” he said. “We worship at the altar of innovators and billionaires.”

Galloway calls this “a perversion” that has occurred without our true realization. And Amazon, he says, is more responsible than any other tech giant.

In his best-selling book “The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google,” Galloway cites some arresting statistics: Far fewer U.S. households have a gun than Amazon Prime, by 30 to 64 percent. More Americans have Prime than voted in 2016 (55 percent), or earn $50,000 or more a year (55 percent), or go to church (51 percent). He calls Amazon’s ability to woo Prime subscribers at a $119 yearly cost the equivalent of “entering into a monogamous relationship” with its consumers, who as of 2016 spent, on average, $193 per month. (Non-Prime members average $138 per month.)

From 2006 to 2016 Amazon’s stock price growth surged by 1,910 percent, destroying Sears, J.C. Penney, Kmart, Best Buy, Macy’s, Nordstrom, Target and Walmart.

Perhaps most importantly: Since the Great Recession, Amazon has paid just $1.4 billion in corporate taxes compared to Walmart’s $64 billion.

Read More

Wall St. Journal to Conservatives: We Are All Deplorables Now

Judge Kavanaugh would have been on any Republican’s short list for the Supreme Court. ...

Mr. Trump’s nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh is a credit to the process he established to win the election and govern with conservative support. He sought the help of legal elites on the right, led by the Federalist Society, who compiled an impressive list of potential nominees. This isn’t a rogue judicial operation to choose presidential cronies. It is the gold standard for legal talent that believes in the original meaning of the Constitution. It’s hard to see how any GOP President would have done better, and others have done much worse.

Yet this is precisely why Democrats and the left have set out to destroy Judge Kavanaugh—not in legal philosophy or competence, which they knew was a political loser, but as a human being, a spouse and father. They need to destroy him personally with accusations but no corroboration, as they tried with Clarence Thomas, so they can deny the open Supreme Court seat to a judicial conservative. ...

Republicans are well aware of Mr. Trump’s excesses and falsehoods. But they have also come to understand that the resistance to him isn’t rooted in principle or some august call to superior character. They know Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her history of deceit. Voters know this is about the left’s will to power by any means necessary.

Republicans across America can see, and certainly their Senators voting on Judge Kavanaugh should realize, that the left hates them as much or more than they loathe Mr. Trump. Conservatives understand that, for the American left, they are all deplorables now.

Bezos' Decision To Raise Wages Is Largely A Machiavellian Distraction

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

For the many low wage Amazon workers - both full time and temporary - set to receive a raise thanks to the just announced boost in minimum pay to $15/hour, the news is certainly a big plus. It should also be noted that had Amazon not been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism from the likes of Bernie Sanders and others, Jeff Bezos never would have responded with such an aggressive move. That said, if you think a little beyond the surface level about why he’s doing this now and what his real motives are, it becomes clear nobody should take this move at face value.

Stacy Mitchell, co-director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, is someone whose work on Amazon I’ve cited on various occasions. She tweeted out an important thread this morning that helps you take a step back and not miss the forest for the trees.

1. It’s nice to see Amazon workers get a raise today, and not just the regular hires, but the temps too.  What led to this?  Five things...

• 2. First, it’s a very tight labor market and Amazon needs a bunch of people in its warehouses right now for the 4th quarter.
• 3. Second, advocacy by @SenSanders & @RoKhanna, & groups like @jwjnational & @ilsr, compelled Amazon to act. Amazon almost never responds to critics. But Sanders and Khanna unnerved Amazon deeply, as I pointed out in an earlier thread:
• 4. Third, Amazon is run by the world’s richest man  (net worth = $160 billion) and his recent attempt to make this unconscionable disparity seem okay with a $2B charity pledge just didn’t cut it. Bezos is the face of inequality. That’s still true after today.
• 5. Fourth, Amazon has another way to cut labor costs: automation. It needs fewer workers today to sell & ship $100M worth of stuff than it did just a few years ago. That trend is only accelerating. Some e-commerce warehouses in China have a staff of 4 people. They fix the robots.
• 6. Finally, and this is the big reason: Amazon fears an antitrust case to break it up. They’re right to be nervous. In the last week: @SenWarren called for it. The EU's @vestager opened an antitrust probe. A former Amazon exec said competition depended on splitting Amazon in two.

7. To keep its grip, Amazon is going to try to buy off constituencies, one by one.

8. Workers getting a raise is a good thing. But what we need is so much bigger. No company should have this much power. Inevitably, it means that Amazon gets to set the rules, economically & politically. And those rules will always privilege Amazon's interest over the public’s.

Bezos is naturally attempting to portray this as a come to Jesus moment, but you shouldn’t buy his spin for a second. Based on what we know of his business practices, the guy’s built the behemoth that is Amazon by operating in a Machiavellian fashion (see my recent post: Amazon is Far More Dangerous and Powerful Than You Want to Admit).

Read more

Related:

Washington Examiner: Amazon's corrupt minimum wage ploy

Daily Caller: AMAZON RAISES WAGES BUT CUTS OTHER MAJOR PERKS FOR MANY HOURLY EMPLOYEES

Brett Kavanagh and the Death of Vincent Foster

My Sinister Battle with Brett Kavanaugh 

by Ambrose Evans-Prichard

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is International Business Editor of The Daily Telegraph. He has covered world politics and economics for 30 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels.

3 OCTOBER 2018 • 11:15 AM BST

Illustration by Kerry Squires

Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.

What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.

He was not a teenager. It related to his duties in the mid-1990s as Assistant Independent Council for the Starr investigation, then probing Bill and Hillary Clinton in the most sensitive case in the country.

Brett Kavanaugh sits behind Kenneth Starr during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the possible impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 Credit: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

To my surprise, the incident has suddenly become a second front in his nomination saga on Capitol Hill. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has accused him of violating secrecy laws by revealing the details of a federal grand jury.

“Disclosing grand jury information is against the law,” she told Politico. She said it also showed he had misled the Senate by assuring categorically that he had never leaked grand jury material to journalists.

Sen Feinstein released a ‘smoking gun’ document from the archive files of the Starr investigation. It shows Mr Kavanaugh’s efforts to suppress a news storyabout his wild cross-examination of a witness, including a wayward discussion of “genitalia” that particularly worried him.

This piqued my interest since I am named in the document and the witness – Patrick Knowlton – was in a sense ‘my witness’.

Read more

Bill Still: Christine Blasey Ford, a CIA Asset?

Doctor (of educational psychology), Christine Ford apparently heads up the CIA Undergraduate Internship program at Stanford University. Her father is said to have been a CIA banker.

John Nolte: Fox Fake News: Christine Blasey Ford Is ‘Credible’

GP: Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations”

Martin Armstrong: Kavanaugh is the Tipping Point for Decline & Fall of the United States

Information Liberation: Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell Highlights Massive Inconsistencies In Christine Ford's Testimony

No More Mr. White Guy: Ann Coulter

Reflections on the Senate Judicial Committee hearing on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court