web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Welfare"

Matthew Lesh: The radical neoliberal programme which can revitalise the Conservatives

Matthew Lesh is the Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute.

As the flus from last week’s Conservative Party Conference slowly fade, it is worth turning our minds back to a conference that we must never forget.

It was the autumn of 1980. The country was facing economic turmoil. Decades of Keynesianism was taking its toll with high inflation and low growth.  But there was a leader, a radical neoliberal, who refused to accept the status quo or allow the doomsters to take her off course.  “You turn if you want to, the lady’s not for turning,” Margaret Thatcher told Conservative Party Conference.

Thatcher unashamedly spoke not just of policy change but creating “a new independence of spirit and zest for achievement”. She called her administration “one of the truly radical ministries of post-war Britain”.

Boris Johnson’s party conference speech last week has been lauded for its political nous: get Brexit done, and fund the NHS and other public services.

This makes a lot of political sense, particularly for the party’s ‘Go Midlands, Go North’ strategy: the plan to win northern Leave working class areas who traditionally voted Labour Party.

But Johnson’s spending is frustrating to many free marketeers, who have traditionally found their home in the Conservative Party. Boris speaks of a “dynamic enterprise culture” and the Conservative Party’s history in pioneering “free markets and privatisation”. But so far there has been little meat on the bone, while the party is giving up its reputation for fiscal conservatism by committing to big-spending plans.

Politically, this approach undermines support from economic liberals in London and the Southeast. This danger is heightened by the likes of Sam Gyimah’s defection, signalling the acceptability of the Liberal Democrats to Tory economic liberals. With the Lib Dems also winning over the likes of Chuka Umunna there’s a danger the two main parties are seen by voters to leave the centre stage to the Liberal Democrats — and leave governing alone to the scrap heap of history.

To get a strong majority, Boris needs to win both Chelsea and Fulham as well as Stoke-on-Trent. He needs to be able to hold up his economic credentials to win back Remain-voting Conservatives voters – not just give them another reason to abandon the party.

But this balancing act is nothing new. Thatcher, despite some reforms to childcare and housing subsidies, oversaw a huge increase in social spending. She declared that the NHS is “safe with us” and bragged about “enormous increases in the amount spent on social welfare to help the less fortunate”. David Cameron similarly declared that the NHS is “safe in my hands,” while cutting taxes, introducing free schools and reforming welfare.

Thatcher and Cameron balanced public spending with undertaking fundamental free market economic reform to boost the economy. To ensure the Conservative Party remains a broad coalition, it is important that Boris’ free market rhetoric is given meaning. There needs to be some meat on the bone. The Conservative Party will be much weaker if it does not have a serious economic policy offering that creates a clear distinction with Labour.

On the political left, while many may disagree with their approach and ideas, there is undeniably a radical reimagining of policy and a clear agenda: a four day work week, shutting down private schools and nationalising industry.

Some on the Right have chosen to respond to the emboldened Left by adopting parts of their agenda in the hope of placating and preventing the worst. But, as Theresa May’s premiership displays being Labour-lite and adopting policies like the energy price gap, or nanny state policies like the sugar tax, simply does not work.

The Neoliberal Manifesto, a joint project between the Adam Smith Institute and 1828 released last week at the Conservative Party Conference, presents a positive vision for Britain’s future. In the past, the word “neoliberalism” has been twisted by those seeking to manufacture a strawman on which to blame every societal ill.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Neoliberals are champions of freedom. We want government to protect and facilitate your ability to flourish; we believe in the power and ability of each individual; we believe in doing what is most effective; we are optimistic about the future; we support market intervention to address specific issues but reject paternalism; we are cosmopolitan and outward-looking to the world.

The manifesto calls for a liberal, free market approach to trade that encompasses cutting tariffs and pursuing deals based on the principle of mutual recognition. It declares that need to reform Britain’s outdated planning laws to allow for the building of more houses to fix Britain’s housing crisis. The manifesto also calls for a simpler, fairer tax system by getting rid of stamp duty and allowing capital expenditures to be expensed in full immediately.

On migration, it calls for a liberal system that brings the most talented people to our nation. On education, it explains the need for more choice. On innovation and technology, it calls for an optimistic approach defined by permissionless innovation.  It also calls for a liberal approach to drugs and personal choices, a compassionate but cost-effective approach to welfare, and addressing climate change without sinking our economy.

Many of these ideas are radical, and today can be expected to receive a mixed reception. But we think that our politicians should lead from the front, not the back. These policies are not designed with the idea of what may or may not be popular today, but rather setting the agenda for the future.

While not every action she took was immediately popular, Thatcher’s agenda transformed the country for the better and proved a politically successful formula across three general election victories. Cameron similarly won a majority after undertaking difficult decisions.

If the Government does not have an offering for people who want lower taxes and the state to live within its means, they risk unexpected losses.  Johnson can follow in the footsteps of successful leaders with his own liberal, free market agenda.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare

Westlake Legal Group border-patrol-detaining-illegals-620x464 Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare Welfare SNAP Politics npr Necessary media bias immigration Gavin Newsom Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story enforcement donald trump democrats Bill Clinton Bankruptcy 1996

Public domain image via CBP Flickr photostream

Over the past few days we’ve seen a collective freakout among the media over Trump supposedly being so cold and heartless that he’s going to make it tougher to legally immigrate if you are on welfare. That means

Multiple outlets, including NPR and The Washington Post, ran articles proclaiming insinuating how unprecedented and cruel this is.

Then you had people like California Gov. Gavin Newsom spouting this kind of nonsense. Brad Slager covered that here, along with the responses from several 2020 candidates.

I’ll recap the details of why this is happening legally, but past that, let’s just talk common sense.

A country with a vast welfare system, which we have, simply can not sustain itself by allowing the world’s poor to immigrate and collect benefits. If money weren’t finite and bankruptcy weren’t a real thing, I’d have no problem with it. My emotional response to want to help everyone we can.

But that can’t happen if you don’t screen immigrants for their propensity to take more than they give. Without that dynamic, you simply put the country on a quicker path to disaster. Handing out green cards to people who immediately go on SNAP and public housing is a recipe for creating a situation where the United States can no longer help anyone. The best intentions often lead to the worst consequences.

What Trump is doing is not a rash decision he made on a whim because he hates immigrants. He’s actually enforcing a law that goes all the way back to 1996, a law that was signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

This is the stupidity of our immigration debate. The other side not only relies on specious emotional arguments, they also rely on the idea that it’s immoral or wrong to enforce the law. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s required under the oath the President took. Every Democrat member of Congress that’s running in 2020 made the same pledge and now wants to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Don’t like the current immigration enforcement? Don’t like that the law requires immigrants to be self-sufficient? Go change the law. Making emotional pleas on Twitter and yelling Orange Man Bad is not a policy. That’s a weak minded person’s tactic.

What Trump is doing is simply following the law that preceded his administration. The fact that other administrations chose to flaunt the law is not grounds to now demand Trump do so now. The dishonesty on this topic from our media is mind-numbing.

Past that, it’s simply necessary that there be rules and stipulations placed on legal immigration into this country. To not have that will lead to the destruction of the system all together.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPphoto-300x153 Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare Welfare SNAP Politics npr Necessary media bias immigration Gavin Newsom Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story enforcement donald trump democrats Bill Clinton Bankruptcy 1996   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Administration Issues New Rules To Restrict Entry Or Naturalization Of Aliens Needing Public Assistance

This is one of those parts of the immigration system that should have been rigorously enforced for decades but the need for cheap, disposable labor by the Chamber of Commerce crowd pushed American interests into the background.

Legal immigrants who use public benefits — such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance — could have a tougher time obtaining a green card or U.S. citizenship under a policy change announced Monday that is at the center of the Trump administration’s effort to reduce immigration.

The new policy for “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” which appeared Monday on the Federal Register’s website and will take effect in two months, sets new standards for obtaining permanent residency and U.S. citizenship. The Trump administration has been seeking to limit those immigrants who might draw on taxpayer-funded benefits, such as many of those who have been fleeing Central America, while allowing more highly skilled and wealthy immigrants into the United States.

Wealth, education, age and English-language skills will take on greater importance in the process for obtaining a green card, as the change seeks to redefine what it means to be a “public charge,” as well as who is likely to be one under U.S. immigration law.

It is difficult for me to understand why we’d want to allow people into the country who are going to need long term public assistance. I’ve also never understood why a key part of our immigration policy has not been “If you have an advanced degree an speak conversant English, pack your bags and get on the plane.” But the massive change to current regulations seems like a wonderful start on making our immigration policy based on national need an not on creating a new dependent underclass of people who can’t fully participate in the nation’s civic and economic life while fully participating in access to free stuff.

The people who are truly unhappy about this make me convinced that it is a brilliant move. ThinkProgress, for instance, (our motto: learn to code, baby):

This means any immigrant with a medical condition and no subsidized form of health insurance would fail the test. The rule also asks prospective immigrants to make at least 125%-250% above the federal poverty line. A report released last year from the Center for American Progress found that 100 million Americans — almost a third of the population — would not meet these criteria. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent newsroom housed within the Center for American Progress.)

One can’t help but note that there is a radical and visible difference between a nation providing for its own citizens and a nation actively recruiting an cultural and linguistic dependency class from around the world.

This is David French’s go-to guy for self-affirmation on Twitter, so keep an eye on how National Review hits the subject:

Serwer’s ad hominem aside, Cuccinelli’s ancestors actually did have to convince a federal immigration officer that they had a means of supporting themselves before they were allowed off Ellis Island.

This rule will undoubtedly be challenged by someone in the federal court in San Francisco where a #Resistance judge will block it, but eventually this rule is going to be in effect and you can bet the next administration, whether Trump or some socialist, will not want to repeal it because they won’t want to deal with the fallout of having to explain why.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Trump Administration Issues New Rules To Restrict Entry Or Naturalization Of Aliens Needing Public Assistance appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP16281001221084-300x196 Trump Administration Issues New Rules To Restrict Entry Or Naturalization Of Aliens Needing Public Assistance Welfare republicans public charge Politics Ken Cuccinelli immigration green card Front Page Stories donald trump Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Damian Green: Greater funding for social care requires a frank discussion with voters about priorities

Damian Green is MP for Ashford, and is a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Whoever the new Prime Minister is (full disclosure: I’m a Boris Johnson supporter), they will need a lively domestic agenda to complement the final throes of this stage of Brexit. Which will mean tackling some of the burning injustices which were identified but not addressed by the outgoing administration. The grasping of social care must be an urgent priority.

For many years social care and its funding has been one of the most difficult subjects in British politics. In 2010, the Labour proposals were condemned by Conservatives as a Death Tax, and Labour were out. What goes around comes around, and in 2017 our own ideas, more generous than the existing system, were badged the Dementia Tax, and dreams of a large majority disappeared overnight.

It is one of the most personal issues possible, as many individuals suddenly find themselves having to provide a decent quality of life to a loved one with no proper guidance about how to do it, and what their entitlements are.

At the same time it is financially demanding. Essentially, the vast majority of people agree that we need to spend more on social care. Simultaneously, they are insistent that they should not themselves pay any extra tax. We need a serious national conversation about this (not staring in mid-campaign) and must face up to some unpalatable truths.

The current social care system is unsustainable not just financially but politically. It is too often opaque to those trying to understand it, with no apparent logic to the conditions which receive free NHS treatment, and those which do not. It is also apparently unfair in not rewarding a lifetime of prudence. Those who have saved feel that their savings will simply disappear, while those who have not saved receive the same level of care.

Less well-known is the fact that funding social care out of council tax means that local authorities are reluctant to allow too many care homes to be built. An ageing population means that already more than two fifths of council spending goes on social care. This figure will only increase over the years, so councils are fearful that all their other services will be swamped by the rising demands of the social care system.

The failures in social care put unnecessary extra pressure on the NHS. Indeed, the new, generous funding plan for the NHS depends on the assumption that we develop a social care system which keeps people out of hospital longer and discharges them in a smooth and timely fashion.

I recently published a paper for the Centre for Policy Studies “Fixing the Care Crisis” which dealt specifically with the problem of care for older people. There is at least as big a problem for working age people who need care, but let’s deal with one problem at a time.

A new system will need to meet four objectives. It will need to provide enough money to cope with an ageing population. It will need to be fair across generations and between individuals, ensuring that no one has to sell their own home, and ending the “dementia lottery”. It must lead to an increase in the supply of care beds and retirement housing. And ideally it should secure cross-party consensus.

We should look as a model to the pension system, where the basic State Pension has been increased significantly, while at the same time most people save additionally through their working years to provide comfort and security in old age. Auto-enrolment has been a great cross-party success story, encouraging millions more to save towards extra security in old age. The benefits will not come for decades, but they will be huge when they arrive.

Similarly, just as the basic State Pension has been improved in recent years I believe we should offer a Universal Care Entitlement, offering a better level of care both for homecare and residential care. For those who need residential care this would cover the core residential costs. Needs would be assessed locally but the money would come from central Government. This would take away the pressures on local councils.

Will this involve extra money? Of course it will. My estimate in the CPS paper is that providing decent care in this way would involve an extra £2.5 billion extra a year immediately, with increasing amounts as the demographics change over the years. Others put the figure higher. This is serious money, but not a big problem for the Treasury to find to improve a vital service. Any suggestions for an increase in tax or National Insurance will be controversial, as I have found, but politicians need to be honest about this. If the public want extra spending, the Government will have to raise more money to pay for it.

In addition, we need to find an acceptable way to allow those with the capacity to improve their own provision to do so. This would come through a Care Supplement, a new form of insurance designed specifically to fund more extensive care costs in old age.

This is analogous to the private pension system, which sits alongside the state system. It would allow people to buy insurance at the level they can afford to provide peace of mind. It would not be compulsory, (as pension auto-enrolment is not compulsory) so could not be stigmatised as a Death Tax or Dementia Tax. People could save for it over many years or make a one-off payment (possibly using equity release) at a suitable time in their lives.

These ideas would take the burden of social care funding away from local authorities, and even more importantly offer certainty and security to the increasing numbers who will need social care in old age. No one would have to sell their house and see their inheritance disappear. Everyone would have the chance of receiving better care. Fewer people would be left unnecessarily in hospital beds as they wait for social care to be available.

None of this is easy and it will take political courage. But it absolutely necessary if we are to provide peace of mind and security to frail elderly people who richly deserve it.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Damian Flanagan: What drives the Conservatives’ underlying problems? For answers, ponder our exile from the cities of the north.

So why am I even writing about this secretive group of no-hopers? Because they happen to be called “The Conservative Party” – and it currently runs the country. Also, I happen to be one of them, having recently taken over the running of the newly reformed Manchester, Withington Constituency Conservative Association.

The position of the Conservative Party not just in Manchester, but in cities across the North of England is so dire that it is probably beyond the imaginings of people in the rest of the country and certainly seems to be a blind spot for Conservative Campaign Headquarters. There hasn’t been a single Conservative councillor elected in Manchester for over 25 years, and until two years ago, the council was a hundred per cent Labour, with no opposition whatsoever – leading to zero scrutiny of any Council policies.

In the recent local elections,t he Conservatives sunk to a new low in Manchester, attracting just 6.5 per cent of the vote, half that achieved by both the Greens and Liberal Democrats, and barely 1/9th of the 58.8 per cent achieved by Labour.

The opposition to Labour in Manchester now consists of three Liberal Democrat councillors (who recently complained that the council was too “right wing”). There is also not a single Conservative councillor on the councils in Liverpool, Sheffield, Leicester, South Tyneside, Gateshead, Newcastle…

So why should people elsewhere care about this? If Northerners like Labour so much, shouldn’t they just be allowed to get on with it?

You could argue that the local elections were an aberration and that people were venting their frustration with the Brexit stalemate in Westminster, that two unrelated issues – local government and national government – were being conflated.

Yet the crisis over Brexit and the full-scale retreat of the Conservative Party from many cities in the north of England are profoundly connected.

Think back to the last time that the Conservative Party enjoyed thumping majorities of over 100 in the House of Commons and was able to act decisively. You have to go back to Margaret Thatcher and the 1980s, a time when the Conservatives still had MPs in urban constituencies in places like Manchester, had a considerable group of representatives on the council there and could appeal to voters in northern cities.

Since being rooted out of those northern cities in the 1990s, the best the Conservatives have been able to hope for are slim majorities in general elections, leaving them highly vulnerable to party divisions over Europe.

Having the vision and doggedness to produce policies that re-engage with the inhabitants of places like Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leicester, Tyneside and Newcastle has seemingly not been in the mindset of anyone in the Conservative Party. That needs to change urgently.

The fact is that the Conservatives have for over 22 years been incapable of ruling without the support first of the Liberal Democrats and now of the Democratic Unionists. Parliament has been paralysed, Brexit frustrated and finally the Conservatives went begging to Labour for agreement with their policies. All these things are intimately connected to the fact that there has not been a Conservative councillor elected in Manchester for 25 years.

Imagine, though, that the Conservatives were to declare their determination to win back these “lost” Northern cities, starting by setting up a permament office in Manchester and sending some of their best people to find out what exactly is going on and to find a solution to the ingrained antipathy to Conservatives. Supposing we were to make it a marquee policy that we will not, as Conservatives, accept the age-old, north-south wealth divide – why should we? There is no reason whatsover why the north should be poor.

Let’s commit ourselves as Conservatives to those neglected northern cities by taking radical measures: offering tax incentives for companies to set up there and moving government departments north – the relocation of sections of the BBC to Salford and the creation of Media City there has been transformational in the economy of that area.

Let’s commit ourselves to the end of failing, inner city northern state schools which trap many children in a cycle of ignorance and poverty for life, and demand that minimal standards are met instead, and that we will closely monitor and put in targetted resources to these areas until that happens.

Imagine if people in the North began to think of the Conservatives not as the “Nasty Party” only concerned with their own interests and support base in the south, but rather as the visionaries who lifted them, once and for all, out of relative poverty and offered unprecedented opportunities, rediscovering the entrepeneurial drive and world-beating heritage of these post-industrial cities.

In Manchester, the populace are constantly told, over and over, that the source of all problems are “Tory cuts”. It is a matter of almost existential, religious belief.

The local governments of such cities as Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle – cities which once led the world as centres of invention and industry – tend to focus on a culture of welfare. There is little sense that a spirit of enterprise, self-reliance and sense of public good is required to guarantee a prosperous future: it’s this compassionate and engaged Conservative vision that the North needs to rediscover.

As Conservatives, we need to support and nurture such a vision. But we are not going to manage it as a London-centric organisation that just views the cities of the north as largely unwinnable provincial backwaters.

The Conservative revolution that needs to begin in cities across the North should also transform the Conservatives nationally. The Conservatives cannot be merely a party of the South and the countryside: it must strongly engage with the interests and concerns of England’s northern cities.

Many people think the great irresolvable fault line in British politics lies between Britain and the EU or else on the border of the Irish Republic. But delve further into what exactly is causing the underlying weakness and reliance on coalitions in Conservative governments, and you will see that it is the long Conservative exile from the cities of the North which is a chief cause of what is stopping the UK advancing forward with decisiveness and unity as a nation.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship

Westlake Legal Group in-bad-faith-big-techs-growing-conservative-censorship ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”

The latest Big Tech censorship news broke last week:

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

Let us for the moment leave aside this massive media inanity:

“Farrakhan also among those removed from social-media sites.”

If Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is “far-right” – I’m all the way back around to Karl Marx.

That being said, the latest move by Big Tech to de-platform people they don’t like – cleaved the center-right in two…Donald Trump-style.

The Trump-Never Trump Venn Diagram – is a nigh perfect overlay with the division over Big Tech censorship.

The Never Trump (NT) contingent mostly refused to defend the de-platformed – mostly on three fronts.

One: The de-platformed aren’t themselves defensible.  Because by their NT definition – they aren’t actually conservatives.  And/or they simply do not like them.

Which is willful blindness to the inexorable next waves of Big Tech purges – which will undoubtedly swallow very many who meet their definitions.

Next the NTers – start REALLY sounding Leftist.

Two: The de-platformed’s speech – may actually incite violence.  That crazy people will read what they say – and commit violence as a result.

This is at once incredibly anti-First Amendment, Leftist and intellectually diminutive (please pardon the redundancy).

Crazy people – are crazy.  They can be driven to mad acts – by their refrigerator manual.  Or by a Rogaine commercial.  Or by a flower opening in their yard.  Serial killer David Berkowitz said he took his murderous orders – from a dog named Harvey owned by his neighbor Sam.

Westlake Legal Group censored-620x331 ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”

You simply can not sanitize the planet for crazy people.

And there is simply no way the threshold for violence-inciting speech – is this ridiculously low:

Conservative actor James Woods has been locked out of his Twitter account for now more than a week.  For curse-word-free quoting the TV show “The Wire.”

If it was on pay TV fifteen years ago – and available via streaming services ever since – there is no way Woods Tweeting it is even remotely problematic.

We’ll get into more, even more ridiculous examples in just a bit.

Three: The NTers say “These Big Tech monsters are private companies – and they can have or not have whomever they wish on their platforms.”

Under normal circumstances, this is exactly the First Amendment “freedom to assemble” argument I have made my entire life.

In our private and business lives, we are free to assemble – or not assemble – any way we wish.  Completely free from government interference or imposition.

I made this exact argument when the Colorado baker wouldn’t bake a homosexual wedding cake.  His lawyers made the “freedom of religion” argument – which worked, he won – but that was to me the weaker tack to take.

“It’s my private business…and I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” – seems undeniably strong to me.

But when faced by monstrous Big Tech’s de-platforming – this argument simply does not apply.  For several reasons.

For starters – Big Tech isn’t making this argument:

“Facebook Inc. said it’s banning a number of controversial far-right figures…for violating the social-media company’s policies on hate speech and promoting violence.”

This is omni-directional absurd.

“Promoting violence” – ???

Gay gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos was among the recently Facebook banned.  He was also banned by Twitter in 2016.

Milo has to my knowledge – and I LOOKED prior to writing this – never said a single thing that could be even remotely construed to incite violence.

But what about Leftist radical group Antifa?

Antifa got a Milo appearance at Berkley University cancelled – by violently tearing up the campus the month prior to Milo’s arrival.

Here’s a bunch of videos of Antifa’s violent Berkley destruction.  Here’s more videos of Antifa violence – in Portland, Oregon, Huntington Beach, California, Laguna Beach, California, at Kent State University and elsewhere.  Here are two compilations of Antifa attacking people all over the place.

But Facebook – hasn’t banned Antifa.

So Milo tries to peacefully engage in free speech at Berkley.  Antifa responds with violence.

And Berkley, Twitter and Facebook – ban Milo, and keep Antifa.

That’s…a little backwards.

And “hate speech” – is speech.  You can’t ban the adjective – without banning the underlying noun.

And “hate” – is in the eye of the beholder.  And the beholder – has biases.  Because the beholder – is human(s).

Let’s do some basic math, shall we?

There are about seven-and-a-half billion people on Planet Earth.  Let’s conservatively say three billion of them have access to the Internet – which means access to Big Tech’s platforms.

There is literally no way a website with as many posting members as a Facebook or YouTube – can possibly read each and every post for possible deleting purposes.  There are simply WAY too many.

So the platforms will have to come up with some sort of criteria to preemptively prevent the kinds of posts they wish to prevent.

Well, Big Tech – is exceedingly hard Left.  So their criteria – will be exceedingly hard Left.

Google, Facebook, Reddit Are Run by a Bunch of ‘Left-Wing Guys’

Facebook, Google, YouTube All Discriminate Against Conservatives

Silicon Valley’s Anti-Conservatism Is Getting Really Ridiculous

The Tech World Is Still Screwing Conservatives

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Google is Rigging Searches for Hillary Clinton

Google is STILL Rigging Searches for Hillary Clinton

Google Execs’ Trump Meltdown Reminds: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Unbiased’

96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

The Purge: YouTube Mass-Censors Conservatives, New Right, Classical Liberals

Undercover Video: Twitter Engineers To ‘Ban a Way of Talking’ Through ‘Shadow Banning,’ Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions

Liberal Journos Prove Twitter is Censoring Conservatives

Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Political Bias

Twitter CEO Dorsey: Comment Backing ‘Free Speech’ Was ‘a Joke’

We could list examples…until the crack of Doom.

All of which brings us to: The 1996 Communications Decency Act – and its Section 230.

Which gives Big Tech companies running allegedly open platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – immunity from the lawsuit likes of slander, libel and Intellectual Property (IP) infringement.

Because it is users – not the companies – posting on their platforms.

So if a user slanders someone on Facebook – Facebook must remove the post when made aware, but can not be sued for it.

If a user uploads an entire movie to YouTube – Google must remove it when made aware, but can not be sued for it.

Makes perfect sense.

Except: The Big Tech companies were given this massive immunity – in exchange for each being an open platform.

Where everyone can post – and the companies do not edit.

If the companies start editing content and users, they cease to be immunized “platforms” – and start to be sue-able “publishers.”

To wit: The New York Times is a publisher.  With First Amendment rights – including the freedom to assemble any way they wish.  But they can be sued for slander, libel and IP infringement.

Big Tech – can’t have it both ways.  Availing themselves of “platform” immunities – while editing conservatives out of existence like “publishers.”

Big Tech’s Lying Legal Two-Step – To Defend Their Censorship Of Conservatives

Here’s the portion of Section 230 – on which Big Tech seems to be hanging its anti-conservative hats:

“Civil liability:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

“(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

“(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.”

(Emphasis ours.)

If Big Tech’s censorship is done “in good faith” – they do not lose their lawsuit immunity.

No one with an IQ above nine on a warm day – can possibly think Big Tech is censoring “in good faith.”

I’m no lawyer (thank God) – but there are several ways to address the monster, censoring monoliths these Big Tech companies have become.

Certainly antitrust is one.  (We have, in fact, made this argument also – for several years.)

Ok – Milo is kicked off of Twitter and Facebook.  What competitors to these two behemoths can he join instead?  You can’t think of a single reasonable one for either – and neither can I.

Really long second shot: We may even be able to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act:

“(C)ommonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO,…focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.”

But where we should certainly start – is Big Tech’s wanton and blatant violations of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

I’ve been told by a Never Trump attorney that it is impossible to prove “bad faith” in court.

I’d argue I just did here in print.

But if it’s true this part of the law is unenforceable – then the law is an ass.

We should throw it out – and pass something enforceable in its place.

We must do something about what’s happening.

Because what’s happening – ain’t great for the future of our nation.

The post ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group censored-620x331-copy-300x160 ‘In Bad Faith’: Big Tech’s Growing Conservative Censorship World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Manufacturing is Back – Now We Need a Food Manufacturing Restoration

When President Donald Trump was Candidate Donald Trump – he promised a restoration of the US manufacturing sector.

Which his predecessor – thankfully-ex-president Barack Obama – dismissed as impossible:

“When somebody says – like the person you just mentioned, who I’m not going to advertise for – that he’s going to bring all these jobs back.  Well, how exactly are you going to do that?  What are you going to do?  There’s no answer to it.  He just says ‘Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’  Well, how exactly are you going to negotiate that?  What magic wand do you have?  And usually the answer is – he doesn’t have an answer.”

Undaunted by Obama and the Downers, just after winning election – Trump yet again teed up his administration:

“Our goal as a nation must be to rely less on imports – and more on products made here in the USA….This is our mantra: Buy American – and hire American….Our country is all about making dreams come true.  Over the last number of years – that hasn’t been necessarily the case.  But we’re going to make it the case again….My focus has been all about jobs.  And jobs is one of the primary reasons I’m standing here today as your President.”

Two years hence, it would appear Trump is a combination of Merlin and Gandalf – wielding magic wands aplenty.

The Trump Manufacturing Jobs Boom: 10 Times Obama’s Over 21 Months

Things do not appear to be slowing down.

Trump’s Policy ‘Magic Wand’ Boosts Manufacturing Jobs 399% In First 26 Months Over Obama’s Last 26

All of which is, of course, spectacular news.

Westlake Legal Group farm-aid-panorama-620x241 Manufacturing is Back – Now We Need a Food Manufacturing Restoration WTO World Trade Organization Welfare trade wars Trade War trade tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff sugar subsidies sugar policy modernization act sugar republicans Regulation President Barack Obama Politics Policy Obama News merger law Government Google Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat farm policy farm law Farm Bill EPA Environmental Protection Agency elections Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism China Chicago Campaigns Budget Affordable Care Act acquisition “federal spending”

The world has spent the last half century-plus – totally tilting the global market playing field against us.

Titanically stupidly – we have been allowing the world to do it.

Which Citizen Trump spent decades pointing out.  Here he is on The Oprah Winfrey Show – in 1988:

“We let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets.  And it’s not free trade.  If you go to Japan right now and try to sell something – forget about it, Oprah.  Just forget about it.  It’s almost impossible.  They don’t have laws against it – they just make it impossible.  They come over here – they sell their cars, their VCRs.  They knock the hell out of our companies.  And hey – I have tremendous respect for the Japanese people.  You can respect someone who is beating the hell out of you.  But they are beating the hell out of this country.”

Oprah says “This sounds like presidential talk” – and asks if he’ll ever run.  To which Trump responds:

“Probably not.  But I do get tired of seeing the country ripped off….I do get tired of seeing what’s happening to this country.  And if it got so bad – I would never want to rule it out totally.  Because I really am tired of seeing what’s happening to this country.  How we’re really making other people live like kings – and we’re not.”

(Certainly sounds like a guy who would sell out to the Russians to get elected, does it not?  What a bunch of idiots those people are.)

Flash forward three decades – and Citizen Trump…is now President Trump.

Stupid Trade Policy Isn’t the Only Reason We Lose Jobs – But It’s a Big One

Crony Socialism: Governments All Over the World Are Messing Up a Free Trade Market

Trump Rightly Demands End to All Trade Tariffs And Subsidies – of Everyone

President Trump’s chief weapon to better the trade playing field – has been the tariff.  Dishing out an infinitesimal amount – of what we have been taking on the chin by the ton for decades.

The DC People who allowed the global market to become so anti-free trade and anti-American – freaked the heck out.  Bizarrely, in the name of “free trade.”

Is Trump’s Protectionism The Death Knell For Global Free Trade?

There’s a Glaring Problem with Trump’s Trade War that Could Drag out the Fight Indefinitely

As Trump Ponders Auto Tariffs, Free-Trade Republicans Push Back

And the DC People – were dead wrong.  And they STILL don’t get it.  To wit:

Despite Trump’s Tariff and Border Threats, Mexico Is Now the Largest U.S. Trading Partner

Not “DESPITE Trump’s tariffs” – “BECAUSE OF Trump’s tariffs.”  Trump put pressure on Mexico – and Mexico buckled.

It’s happening – all over the world.

Trump Tells EU’s Juncker He Seeks ‘Reciprocal’ Trade

No Deal: EU Resists Trump’s Zero-Tariff Trade Offer, Prepares New List of Sanctions to Add Pressure

Except less than seventy-two hours after that latter headline….

Trump and EU Officials Agree to Work Toward ‘Zero Tariff’ Deal

It’s almost like – no, it’s exactly like – Trump was right all along.

And despite Trump’s tariffs – oh wait…BECAUSE OF Trump’s tariffs – how’s our economy doing?

U.S. Economy Grows 3.2% in the First Quarter, Well Above Estimates

“Well above estimates?”  Oh look – the DC People were wrong AGAIN.  Shocker.

Just as we globally trade just about every other commodity – we globally trade food.

And just as we have with every other commodity and their manufacturers – we have allowed the rest of the planet to screw our farmers…and the rest of us.  To wit:

Tiny Thailand’s 2016 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $407 billion.  Tiny Thailand subsidies sugar – just sugar – at $1.3 billion per year.  Which has ably assisted tiny Thailand – to cheat its way controlling 10% of the global market.

That’s nothing.  Bigger Brazil’s 2016 GDP was $1.8 trillion.  Bigger Brazil subsidizes sugar – just sugar – between $2.5 and $4 billion per annum.  Which has ably assisted bigger Brazil – to cheat its way to controlling almost 50% of the global market.

More than one hundred countries sell sugar on the global market.  Two countries – control 60% of that market.  Because they government-money-cheated their way to the top.

We import sugar.  Which means we are importing the government-money-poison Brazil and Thailand are injecting.

Which is obscenely unfair to our farmers.

Brazil’s subsidies – allow them to charge 20% less for their crop.  Thailand’s subsidies – allow them to charge about 10% less for their crop.

Which is obscenely unfair to our farmers.

Thankfully, Trump is also looking to straighten out the farm market.  To wit:

Trump Looks for End to Japan Farm Tariffs Ahead of Two Visits:

“President Donald Trump urged Japan to end tariffs on U.S. farm products when he met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe….

“‘We’ll be discussing very strongly agriculture because as the prime minister knows Japan puts very massive tariffs on agriculture, our agriculture, for many years, going into Japan, and we want to get rid of those tariffs,’ Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with Abe on Friday.”

Trump REALLY needs to have a sugar talk with Brazil’s new president.  Methinks he might find him receptive.

Conservative Jair Bolsonaro Elected President of Brazil

Jair Bolsonaro: Brazil’s Firebrand Leader Dubbed the Trump of the Tropics

The Great Brazilian Foreign Policy Realignment:

“If Jair Bolsonaro continues to push for privatization in infrastructure and a drastic reduction in red tape, then foreign investment will likely follow.”

And actual free trade will follow as well.

For sugar – and everything else.

Which would be a whole lot fairer for manufacturers – food and all others – everywhere.

Most importantly – here in the US.

Most importantly – because #AmericaFirst.

The post Manufacturing is Back – Now We Need a Food Manufacturing Restoration appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SteveSeagal-300x191 Manufacturing is Back – Now We Need a Food Manufacturing Restoration WTO World Trade Organization Welfare trade wars Trade War trade tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff sugar subsidies sugar policy modernization act sugar republicans Regulation President Barack Obama Politics Policy Obama News merger law Government Google Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat farm policy farm law Farm Bill EPA Environmental Protection Agency elections Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism China Chicago Campaigns Budget Affordable Care Act acquisition “federal spending”   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

James Frayne: What polling does and doesn’t tell us about voters and the environment

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.

Conservative Party politicians are prone to temporary policy cause obsessions. Over the last decade or so, we’ve seen them obsess briefly about, amongst other issues: free schools, the gender pay gap, social media, childcare, foreign aid and housing. (To list them like this is not to dismiss their relevance).

The enthusiasm which they responded to Greta Thunberg’s visit to the UK, their timidity in the face of Extinction Rebellion’s direct action, and their unwillingness, as Natascha Engel described in her resignation as Shale Commissioner, to seriously promote Shale Gas extraction in England, strongly suggests they’re about to become obsessed with policy development on climate change. If so, what does this mean for the Party electorally? What do the polls say about the environment as an issue?

Let’s look at how seriously people take the issue overall.

YouGov’s most recent headline tracker of the public’s top issues puts the environment reasonably low down the list, behind leaving the EU, crime, health, the economy and immigration, but above housing, education, welfare and defence. While it’s still something of a niche issue overall, many will be surprised that it is even this high and, crucially, the issue has risen slowly but consistently over the last couple of years.

A poll for “Stop Climate Chaos” in Scotland also suggested, in a not-perfect exercise, that many people have become more concerned about climate change in recent times. So it’s an issue that’s on the up. (Incidentally, only a tiny number of people had heard, in early March, about “The Green New Deal”, inspired by US environmental activists. Also, incidentally, British adults put “pollution, the environment and climate change” much lower down their list of priorities than adults in other European countries).

But, predictably, the headline numbers mask huge differences of opinion based on politics, class and age. Hanbury Strategy’s recent poll for Onward showed that 18-24 year olds put the environment third in their list of policy priorities, behind Britain leaving the EU and health; on the other hand, over 65s put the environment near the bottom of their list, just above transport and defence. The poll also showed that Conservative voters were much less likely to name the environment as a major issue.

In a separate question in the same report, voters were asked if they would prefer that society or Government focused either on economic growth or prioritising the environment. This question forces too stark a choice in people’s minds, but the gaps between groups’ answers are interesting. Overall, voters narrowly said, by 51 per cent to 49 per cent, economic growth. However, 18-24 year olds chose the environment by 62 per cent to 38 per cent, while over 65s chose the economy by 64 per cent to 36 per cent.

Conservatives chose the economy by a significant margin, while Labour voters chose the environment by a similarly clear margin. (Another incidental finding, which builds this age point out further: a YouGov poll showed that a fifth of the population believe “the threat of climate change is over-exaggerated”. While nine per cent of 18-24 year olds agree with this statement, 32 pe cent of over 55’s agree).

That such differences between ages exist will not come as a surprise to anyone, but we should be wary, on the existing evidence, of either claiming that young people are obsessed about the environment, or that older people are dismissive of it – and careful about recommending very clear actions for campaign strategy.

After all, we haven’t yet seen young people’s commitment to tackling climate change through regulation tested by an economic downturn. After the financial crisis, Ipsos-Mori’s tracker showed that public interest in the environment tailed away significantly (although to be fair, I can’t find a breakdown of younger voters’ attitudes), in much the same way we’re seeing the reputation of “big business” rebound in the aftermath of the EU referendum as voters’ minds are focused on the prospect of large employers leaving Britain. Would things change in the same way if jobs were threatened now? It’s hard to say – but some Conservatives are making a huge leap of faith that young voters have fully embraced green activism.

As for older voters, the evidence suggests that older voters might draw a distinction between different types of environmental issues – taking climate change less seriously than what you might call “the local physical environment”. For example, almost all over 65s say they would support “a law to significantly reduce plastic waste and pollution within 25 years” – a higher figure than 18-24 year olds. And a similarly high number of older people say they view tackling litter as more of a priority than they used to.

My strong impression is also that older voters are also more likely to volunteer that they are concerned about issues surrounding food safety and animal welfare and protecting areas of natural beauty – although this is an impression borne of many years moderating focus groups rather than on any hard data. In a sense, this is the environmentalism that Michael Gove has been pushing from Defra.

What does all this mean? Honestly, I don’t think there’s even nearly enough research data out there to make serious conclusions as to how the electorate will react to the Conservatives embracing the green agenda more seriously. Far more needs to be done. Most will likely support Gove’s Defra reforms. While it is certainly reasonable to suggest that younger voters care more about climate change, there are clearly dangers in jumping into this debate by accepting the terms set out by green activists – who essentially argue that we can only protect the environment by slowing growth and insisting on massive personal austerity. Such a move will irritate the bulk of electorate and likely a massive chunk of younger voters too.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Good News for America and Americans – Is Gaslight-Requiring Bad News for Leftists

Westlake Legal Group good-news-for-america-and-americans-is-gaslight-requiring-bad-news-for-leftists Good News for America and Americans – Is Gaslight-Requiring Bad News for Leftists World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”

This has been an absolute truth for at least the last half century:

If something is good for America and Americans – it is bad for Leftists.

The Left is in the misery business.

In order for the Left to achieve and hold on to power – things must be awful.  Or they must lie – and say things are awful when they are not.

To foster this latter massive falsehood – Leftists concoct many less-massive falsehoods.

We import more than a million foreigners per year – yet the Left screeches we are a racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant nation.

We just finished two terms of a black president – yet the Left screeches we are in times worse than the days of Jim Crow.

We just had a very impressive 3.2% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) first quarter.  A continued, massive economic expansion – in the face of widespread “expert” predictions of a looming recession.

Unemployment is at a near record low.  Speaking of “racism” – Black and Hispanic unemployment is at their lowest respective rates…since we began recording such numbers.

Wages are increasing at rates significantly greater than they have at any point during the preceding half century.

The Donald Trump Economy – is roaring.

Unfortunately for the twenty Democrat presidential candidates (so far) – they have to run against it.  So they have to pretend the very may significant improvements upon the Democrat Barack Obama Economy – aren’t actually happening.

Westlake Legal Group stock-photo-gaslighting-psychology-as-a-social-manipulating-concept-using-psychological-communication-to-1183712524-620x427 Good News for America and Americans – Is Gaslight-Requiring Bad News for Leftists World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”

Should the Trump Economy continue roaring as we head into the 2020 election – we will be subjected to the biggest Media-Left (please pardon the redundancy) gaslighting in the history of gaslighting:

“(A) form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.

“Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s belief.”

If you want a less esoteric explanation – I give you the Marx Brothers:

“Well, who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”

Sometimes things are so antithetical to the Left’s lies – they simply can not continue lying after the fact.

I give you – the Internet.  And the very many lies the Left tells about Network Neutrality.

Disingenuously in its name, the Obama Administration in 2015 unilaterally imposed 1934 landline telephone law upon the Internet.

In 2017, the Trump Administration prepared to undo this titanic stupidity.  And the Media-Left – went completely insane in their attempts to set up the gaslighting.

Donald Trump Plans Total Repeal of Net Neutrality Law that Keeps the Internet Free

The FCC Is Trying To Destroy The Internet

Trump’s FCC Wants to Kill a Free and Open Internet

Under Trump, Dark Days Ahead for Net Neutrality and the Open Internet

FCC Under Trump: Net Neutrality & Internet Freedom Face New Attack

The Grim Future of the Open Internet Under Trump

Will Donald Trump Dismantle the Internet as We Know It?

This Is the Year Donald Trump Kills Net Neutrality

Trump’s FCC Is About to Destroy Net Neutrality

If Portugal is a Net Neutrality Nightmare, We’re Already Living in It

If Trump’s FCC Repeals Net Neutrality, Elites Will Rule the Internet—and the Future

How Trump Plans To Slow Our Internet To A Crawl

Get Set: Your Internet Bill is about to Soar, Thanks to Trump’s FCC

Gutting Net Neutrality Is the Trump Administration’s Most Brutal Blow to Democracy Yet

Under Trump the Future of Net Neutrality and Broadband is Uncertain

Except the Trump Administration undid the Obama power and grab, and….nothing bad happened.  NONE of the very many negatives above – transpired.  The Internet after – was identical to the Internet before.

Oh – except private sector investment in the Internet shot back up to pre-Obama-power-grab levels…and beyond.  And as investment increased – Internet speeds increased.

All very good things for America and Americans.  All very bad things for the Media-Left.

The post-Trump-freedom-restoration Internet has been so outstanding – even the Media-Left’s massive mendacity…was exceeded by reality.

As dishonest as they are – they couldn’t bring themselves to try to lie about what is actually happening.

Except here comes another opportunity for the Media-Left to drum up one of their oldie-but-goodie lies – the “Internet fast lane.”

Cox Cable Testing a Form of ‘Fast Lane’ Internet For Gamers

And just like with everything else – this development is good news for America and Americans.  Which means it’s bad news for Leftists.

That phrase “fast lane” – is itself a misrepresentation of how the Internet actually works.  And the Left makes up the phrase “fast lane” – so as to then lie and say we’ll all be consigned to a made up “slow lane.”

After Net Neutrality, Brace for Internet ‘Fast Lanes’:

“Now that federal telecom regulators have repealed net neutrality, it may be time to brace for the arrival of internet ‘fast lanes’ and ‘slow lanes.’

Net Neutrality’s Repeal Means Fast Lanes Could Be Coming to the Internet. Is That a Good Thing?:

“The concept, known as paid prioritization, involves a telecommunications company charging an additional fee to transport a video stream or other content at a higher speed through its network.”

“Paid prioritization” – exists…everywhere else on Planet Earth:

“(T)he examples of private sector ‘paid prioritization’ ‘fast lanes’ – are nigh endless. Let’s examine just one.

“When you send a letter or package – are you limited to one delivery speed? Of course not.

“To chose but one private sector provider at random:

“UPS offers seven different delivery options: UPS Next Day Air Early, UPS Next Day Air, UPS Next Day Air Saver, UPS 2nd Day Air A.M., UPS 2nd Day Air, UPS 3 Day Select and UPS Ground.

“Heck, the government post office offers five different delivery options – right there on its government website.

“These are all variations of ‘paid prioritization’ ‘fast lanes.’ And no one is demanding the government ban them – because anyone who would do so would look titanically stupid.”

And guess what?  The Left only wants to ban “fast lanes” – for Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

The much-more-massive, massive-bandwidth-hog Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook – who shovel lots and LOTS of money to the Left?  They not only can have “fast lanes” – they already do:

(T)here are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of them – and they have for years and years been an intrinsic part of the World Wide Web.

“Behold the Content Delivery Network (CDN): ‘(A) geographically distributed network of proxy servers and their data centers. The goal is to distribute service spatially relative to end-users to provide high availability and high performance….

“‘CDNs are a layer in the internet ecosystem. Content owners such as media companies and e-commerce vendors pay CDN operators to deliver their content to their end users. In turn, a CDN pays ISPs, carriers, and network operators for hosting its servers in their data centers.’

“Get all the facets of this particular Leftist lie?

“‘Fast lanes’ – aren’t actually fast lanes. And they are nothing new. They have nigh always been intrinsically woven into the Internet fabric.

“And the Left only wants to ban the practice for their political enemies – while allowing their political cronies to continue to build and use them unabated. Enjoy some cronyism with your delusion.”

Per the gamers: They use a LOT of bandwidth when they play other gamers online.  And they are very much concerned with “latency”:

“Latency = delay. It’s the amount of delay (or time) it takes to send information from one point to the next. Latency is usually measured in milliseconds or ms. It’s also referred to (during speed tests) as a ping rate.”

Latency is the amount of time between a gamer hitting a controller button – and the computer recognizing and executing his push of said button.  Longer latency – gets you killed or beaten.  Thus, gamers are incessantly obsessing about latency.

And yet again, the marketplace – is trying to accommodate.

Cox Cable Testing a Form of ‘Fast Lane’ Internet For Gamers

Ok – let’s use the Left’s disingenuous terminology.  To demonstrate how incredibly stupid the Left’s objections are.

Giving gamers their own “lane” – gets them off the “main roads” with all the additional traffic slowing them down.  Less traffic – less latency.  Good for gamers.

And getting gamers off the “main roads” – is better for everyone else.  Because those massive bandwidth hogs – won’t be hogging the “main roads’” bandwidth.  Leaving much more for the rest of us.

Charging bandwidth hog gamers a little more for all the bandwidth they’re hogging – is only fair.  You pay more at the grocery store for fifty steaks – than you do for five.

Which, by the way, ends our subsidizing gamers’ bandwidth hogging.

And a whole lot of that additional money – will be invested in ever-improving the networks we all use.

All of which – is nothing more than the creation of more CDNs.

Which have existed for decades – and already exist in the millions.

All of which is very good for America and Americans.

But very bad for the Net Neutrality-fetishizing, anti-free market, gaslighting Left.

The post Good News for America and Americans – Is Gaslight-Requiring Bad News for Leftists appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group stock-photo-gaslighting-psychology-as-a-social-manipulating-concept-using-psychological-communication-to-1183712524-300x207 Good News for America and Americans – Is Gaslight-Requiring Bad News for Leftists World Wide Web wireless Welfare Veterans Administration twitter trade Title II Reclassification Title II Time Warner tea party Taxes tax reform tax day Tax Tariffs tariff stop online piracy act STELA spectrum incentive auction spectrum auctions Spectrum SOPA social security Social Media slowdown Slow Lanes Shutdown Science Sales tax Russia collusion Robert McChesney Retransmission Consent Retransmission republicans Regulation reed hastings reclassification public broadband protect ip act Privacy PRISM President Barack Obama Portland Politics Policy PIPA patriot Obamacare Obama NSA News network neutrality Netflix Net Neutrality National Security Agency municipal broadband muni broadband merger Medicare Media Marxists MARK LLOYD Local Choice law july 12 day of action John Brennan james comey James Clapper IRS internet sales taxes Internet Sales Tax internet reclassification Internet Internal Revenue Service infrastructure spending Infrastructure Hillary Clinton HHS Health and Human Services government broadband Government Google Fiber Google gamers FTC Front Page Stories Front Page Free trade food stamps fiat Federal Trade Commission Federal Communications Commission FEC FCC Diversity Czar fcc chairman tom wheeler FCC Fast Lanes fast and furious farm policy farm law Farm Bill facebook evan greer EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endorsements elections Edward Snowden Ed Markey Economy Economics EBT donald trump Department of Agriculture democrats default debt ceiling crossfire hurricane Cronyism crony socialism crony capitalism critical infrastructure crime CRA Congressional Review Act comcast Chicago Campaigns Business & Economy Budget broadband April 15 AOC antitrust antifa amazon Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez Affordable Care Act acquisition #OccupyPortland “federal spending”   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ryan Shorthouse: How to add contributions and incentives to benefit payments

Ryan Shorthouse is the founder and Director of Bright Blue

Back in the nineties, Kevin the Teenager was first introduced on TV, screaming “its so unfair”. He’s stayed in popular consciousness ever since, particularly for long-suffering parents. And that adolescence angst about fairness, in truth, never really leaves us.

Throughout our lives, even in infancy, we intensely monitor – are deeply affected by – whether we and others are treated fairly. And this is associated with proportional, rather than equal, outcomes. Most of us think that rewards in life should derive from – and differ according to – efforts. A recent study by Yale University scientists, based on experiments with babies and children, show that fair inequality is favoured over unfair equality.

Attitudes towards the welfare system, which we all pay for as taxpayers, are especially vociferous. The public, sadly, are largely suspicious and condemnatory of the current benefits system.

Perhaps this is partly because benefit entitlement is – even under the new Universal Credit that is gradually being introduced – determined almost entirely on the basis of need. Those who have worked for longer, paid more in tax, will receive the same amount from the state in straitened times as someone who has hardly worked at all.

A strong safety net is not something those on the centre-right should sniff at: it is essential for the popularity and functioning of our market economy and liberal society. This is because people inevitably fall into poverty. Businesses fail. Jobs are lost. Relationships break down. Trouble happens, basically – and it can happen to almost all of us. Indeed, it’s been estimated that a third of us will live in poverty at least once in an eight-year period.

Over the past decade, working-aged benefits have been deeply and disproportionately cut. But if the welfare system is to be suitably resourced in the future, the public need to believe it is fair. Three reforms, which Bright Blue advocated in our report Helping hand?, could help.

First, people who have worked for longer should be entitled to more financial support when they come to rely on the welfare system, through a contribution supplement that is added to their Universal Credit payments.

This supplement should also be added to statutory maternity and paternity pay. The current support new parents receive from the state is a measly £145.18 per week, resulting in low-income women returning to work sooner than they’d like and many men put off from taking time off all together.

Second, claimants should be financially compensated for any late payments of Universal Credit by the Department for Work and Pensions. Most claimants have to meet certain conditions on job preparation and seeking to be entitled to benefits. If they don’t, their benefits are sanctioned. Fair enough. As Bright Blue’s recent research showed, benefit claimants themselves tend to support this.

But this rule ought to be reciprocated. There should be obligation on the Department for Work and Pensions to pay claimants their regular Universal Credit payments on time, especially as claimants now receive their benefit payments monthly, less frequently than before. If government doesn’t do this, as evidence shows is the case with a significant minority of claims, it should face consequences too. Claimants should be granted financial compensation, if an independent investigation finds the Department for Work and Pensions at fault, which to some degree should mirror the amount that claimants lose if they are sanctioned.

Finally, there should be more carrots, not just sticks, for claimants meeting the conditions of receiving benefits. If jobseekers are going that extra mile to get a job, the government should recognise and reward them. For those who put in the hard yards but keep hitting a brick wall, Work Coaches in jobcentres should be able to grant them a little more cash.

Even more radically, those who show extraordinary effort should be entered into a nation-wide lottery, with a handful of claimants having the chance to win a £1,000 prize.

Sometimes, no matter how much they try, some people face bouts of bad luck. They need and deserve extra support through our welfare system.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com