Rasmussen Poll: Voters See Freedom of Speech Being Lost

The American people are not asleep regarding the newly discovered “sensitivity” in the nation regarding subjects that may be influenced by politically correct ideology as defined by the liberal media.

Nearly two-thirds of likely voters believe they need to be careful when speaking about “controversial” issues.

Just 28% Think Americans Have True Freedom of Speech Today, Rasmussen Reports, August 22, 2017

Few Americans think they have true freedom of speech today and think the country is too politically correct.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 28% of American Adults think Americans have true freedom of speech today. Most (66%) think, rather, they have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .

The national survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on August 17 & 20, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

In addition, a Rasmussen survey from last spring shows the erosion of freedom on campus, where debating challenging ideas was once an accepted part of the educational process. But as I wrote two years ago, Universities Enforce Liberal Censorship in Classrooms, the culture war for America’s founding principles is being lost on campus.

Americans See Free Speech on Campuses as a Thing of the Past, Rasmussen Reports, May 3, 2017

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter recently cancelled a planned speech at University of California, Berkeley, following protests and threats of violence by the students. Americans are now left wondering whether free speech on college campuses is simply a relic of a bygone era.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 44% of American Adults think there is less freedom of speech on U.S. college campuses today than there has been in the past. Twenty-three percent (23%) think there’s more freedom than in the past, while 27% think the level of freedom of speech is about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .

The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on April 27 & 30, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Robert Spencer: PayPal Has Removed Ban against JihadWatch.org

Robert Spencer, head of JihadWatch.org, appeared with Tucker Carlson on Tuesday to discuss the scary uptick in censorship in the world of the internet and online commerce. (See also Tech Companies Are Making Us Less Free, Warns Tucker Carlson.)

Robert Spencer has been a long-time critic of hostile Islam who has written many fine books, several of which I have read and found very informative. The JihadWatch Youtube channel has hours and hours of great stuff — hopefully that won’t disappear under the current PC hysteria.

Spencer doesn’t just observe aggressive behavior by Muslims against us infidels: he shows that such bellicosity is a requirement commanded by the Koran, a point he underlined when appearing on Fox, “. . .the jihadis can and do point to the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence.”

Spencer has warned against the open-borders immigration to Europe offered to Muslims by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Unsurprisingly, the Southern Poverty Law Center — an evil propaganda arm of leftist lies if ever one existed — played a big part in besmirching Robert Spencer’s excellent body of work informing the West of jihad dangers. Left-leaning writer Ken Silverstein famously blew the whistle on the SPLC in a 2000 Harper’s magazine piece that emphasized the fraud and money-grubbing. That important article, The Church of Morris Dees, may be read here. Later, Silverstein remarked, “. . .the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”

In addition, the Center for Immigration Studies published a report on the sketchy organization in 2010: Immigration and the SPLC.

Yet the disreputable SPLC continues to make millions of dollars by spreading lies: in 2017 it reported its endowment fund to be $319.3 million. Its 2016 financial report shows piles of money and also notes its activity in “protecting immigrants’ rights” — meaning illegal aliens. The SPLC received $2.5 million in donations following the Charlottesville violence — small spuds in the organization’s big financials, which show revenue of $54 million in 2015.

Robert Spencer appeared on Fox News to discuss the current censorship mania from Silicon Valley, and he appeared happy to have won a round against the anti-freedom left.

The ProPublica article that bashed JihadWatch.org (and VDARE.com!) emphasized the business aspect: Despite Disavowals, Leading Tech Companies Help Extremist Sites Monetize Hate. The article cited the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source in its first paragraph.

TUCKER CARLSON: Just a couple of weeks for the left’s newfound distaste for free speech to start spreading into new areas, not just hate groups, but people they just disagree with. After Charlottesville, online payment platform PayPal announced it would deny service to so-called hate groups, so this would cut off service to Jihad Watch, which is not a hate group, not even close. They’re a site that’s worried about radical Islam. Service was eventually restored after there was an outcry online, but it’s not a reassuring sign. Robert Spencer is the man that’s happened to. He founded Jihad Watch and he joins us now. So Robert you were denounced as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which is a completely ersatz phony left-wing lobby group posing as a human rights organization — totally dishonest — and then what happened next?

ROBERT SPENCER: Well a reporter from ProPublica which is a Soros-funded publication, contacted me, pointed out that Jihad Watch has a donation link via PayPal as well as my books for sale at Amazon.com and Newsmax news links and said what would you do if all this was cut off because you’re a hate group, as according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I tried to actually reason with this reporter Lauren Kirchner and tell her the implications of what she was suggesting and saying that if you are allowing that people with unpopular political opinions be cut off from these platforms, you better hope that doesn’t turn on you, and your positions don’t become unpopular sometime in the future. But she published her article. It led off with me, denounced me, noted the Southern Poverty Law Center’s absolutely spurious claim that I’m some sort of hate group leader, and within hours I was notified by PayPal that I can no longer use their platform. Continue reading this article

Rasmussen Poll: Voters Don’t Want Statues of Founders Removed

The weenie politicians who hide under their desks whenever antifa thugs and other lefties start tearing down pieces of American history need to look at this recent survey. You almost never see an 88 percent favorability on an issue, even mom and apple pie, but that’s the number favoring continued respect for founders Washington and Jefferson, despite their slave-owning behavior.

Some on the left would like to blow up Mount Rushmore because two presidents shown there owned slaves.

As it happens, slavery was not invented by America but instead was a practice that existed in ancient times. It was discussed in the Code of Hammurabi (1850 BC) as an existing institution. Spartacus led a slave revolt against Rome starting in 73 BC. Barbary pirates in the Ottoman empire grabbed an estimated one million Europeans as slaves between the 16th and middle of the 18th century.

The lefty busybodies might better spend their time working against the slavery that continues today in places like Sudan and Asia. But they would rather tear down America.

Voters Strongly Defend Washington, Jefferson, Lessons of the Past, Rasmussen Reports, August 21, 2017

Despite calls by some politicians and the media for erasing those connected to slavery from U.S. history, it looks like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are going to be with us awhile longer. Voters strongly believe it’s better to learn from the past than erase it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 88% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose removing the names of Washington and Jefferson from public places and taking down statues in their honor. Just seven percent (7%) favor the removal of their names from the public square because Washington and Jefferson like several of the other early presidents were slave owners. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Ninety percent (90%) oppose the closing or changing of Mount Rushmore because two of the four presidents it honors were slave owners. Only six percent (6%) believe the national historic monument in South Dakota should be changed or closed because it honors Washington and Jefferson.

Ninety-four percent (94%) of voters agree that it is better to try to learn from the wrongs of the past than to erase them. Just four percent (4%) think it is better to erase the wrongs of the past instead.

Voters tend to agree with President Trump’s defense of historical statues, and few think getting rid of Confederate monuments will lessen racial tensions in America. . . .

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 17 and 20, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

In May, just 19% of voters felt that the United States should erase symbols of its past history that are out of line with current sentiments.

Ninety percent (90%) or more of voters in nearly every demographic category agree that it is better to try to learn from the wrongs of the past than to erase them.

(Continued)

 

Mark Steyn: the Left Is Attempting to Equate Republicans with Nazis

A segment of Fox’s morning show on Sunday began with a picture of the recent Boston demonstrations. On the left side were a handful of people standing in favor of free speech; on the right in the photo was a mob of thousands of antifa thugs, probably rentals as was likely the case in Charlottesville.

Below, the photo being discussed:

Nobody at Fox mentioned that there was probably a dearth of free speechers because people were afraid of being beaten up by the thugs allowed to run rampant by police, as has been reported in Charlottesville. That danger tends to cut down on attendance. And there was violence in Boston, like the woman who was assaulted as she held an American flag.

Antifa thugs rarely get busted but one example happened in Berkeley: masked professor Eric Clanton was charged a couple months ago with four felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon after he used a U lock bike lock to slug at least seven people in a protest.

But back to the actual TV discussion, Mark Steyn made an important point that the left is trying to equate Trump voters as being nazis, which does seem to be the goal, albeit insane. Do the lefties actually think that there are 62 million nazis in this country (the number of Trump voters)? If so, the commie antifa probably should move to France where everyone loves diversity.

Or can lefties manage to think at all in their current state of anti-Trump hysteria which does not seem to be abating? The mainstream left media certainly encourages the mass mental illness by creating a total fiction about Trump, Republicans and racism.

FOX GUY: Yesterday was a big day in Boston. I want to pull up a picture first and we’re going to explain this picture, do a little play-by-play. Okay folks, you’re looking at one shot on the left, one shot on the right. This was a protest — a movement, I should say — permitted by the Free Speech group. Which group do you think that is? Well in fact, they’re the ones on the left. Take a look at the mass of humanity on the right 15,000 counter-protesters, and Mark, when you look at this, you think this could be a problem for free speechers, not the KKK, not neo-nazis, but people who believe in free speech rights.

MARK STEYN: Yeah, I would rather we had more speech and fewer protests because I think the less speech you have, the more violence you have, and it would be a lot better if actually we had more people having more vigorous debates rather than toppling statues in the street. And my worry about this is that actually the left is making an organized attempt to say that if you do not vote Democrat that you’re a Nazi.

That’s the point of this. They don’t care about Confederate. . .

INTERRUPTION: That’s dangerous rhetoric, Mark.

STEYN: Well it is dangerous, because as you were talking about earlier, it’s an explicit thing to actually tie policy differences on rather boring things, like taxes and immigration, to the most crude form of demagoguery. That’s what we just seen this last week. They don’t actually care what Trump thinks about some statue, they don’t think about whether there’s any actual real connection between guys calling for Jews to be in ovens and Trump — they want to say, if you vote for Trump, you’re a nazi, so we can’t talk with you, all we can do is smash up your rally.

JON SCOTT: Those statues that so many people want to tear down were erected in the South when Democrats were in charge — does anybody remember that? I’m not saying that the Democratic Party of today is necessarily approving of that but let’s look. . .

STEYN: Yeah I don’t have a dog in this fight. They’re basically today’s Democrats arguing about statues of yesterday’s Democrats. I mean, speaking personally, I think they should all be torn down and you should have some ones of George III put up, because that’s before all the trouble.

I watched you guys where we can’t have Christopher Columbus, we can’t have George Washington, we can’t have a Ben Franklin — like who’s left?

SCOTT: Go to Saudi Arabia where they don’t put up statues to any human being, they put up statues to technology.

TRISH REGAN: But Mark is onto something here; in other words they are in a very organized way trying to label anybody who’s a conservative, who is a Republican a racist and this is dangerous rhetoric.

Are Europe’s Leaders in Denial about Islamic Terror?

Following the jihad attack in Barcelona, Tucker Carlson and Nigel Farage discussed what is going on in Europe with topics like — has anything been learned from the years of jihad terror?

It seems not. Europe’s borders remain open, and hundreds of thousands of potential enemies have flowed in, including many young male muslims. The AP reported Thursday that more than 9,000 illegal aliens have reached Spain by sea this year, more than for all of 2016.

They keep coming because they are allowed to.

Below, African illegal aliens storm a beach in southern Spain as vacationers soak up the sun in early August.

I disagree with Nigel Farage on one point in the discussion below. He says European leaders are frozen into silence and inaction about the illegal immigration crisis because they are embarrassed about having created it. On the contrary, I think the leaders are so wedded to the liberal faith of diversity uber alles that they believe a few jihad terror attacks per week is just the price society must pay for living in a more virtuous multi-culture.

TUCKER CARLSON: There was just one in a long string of deadly attacks in Europe. In the past the weapons of choice were hard to build the bombs now they’re easily obtained cars and trucks. Nigel Faraj is the former head of the UK Independence Party and has long been sounding the alarm on Islamic extremism in Europe: he joins us tonight.

At what point, Nigel, do you think that your leaders, European leaders, start to realize maybe these attacks are connected in some sense?

NIGEL FARAGE: Oh no, there’s no realization at all. In fact, what happens is they all stand up, and they say we stand in solidarity with Barcelona or Brussels or Stockholm or Paris or London or wherever it may be, and this is really truly awful and we have no understanding of why this is going on. And not once, not once do we ever hear a single leader in Europe have any policy solution whatsoever. They are still in denial — I can only guess it’s because they’re so embarrassed by the fact that they have caused this.

CARLSON: Angela Merkel is regarded as a hero by liberals in the United States — still, is there any political price to be paid by any of these European leaders for these policies which are demonstrably failing and making the continent worse? Continue reading this article

America’s AG Jeff Sessions Praises Miami-Dade after It Rejected Criminal-Protecting Sanctuary

It was good to see Attorney General speak against sanctuary policy on Wednesday in Miami, Florida. From a psychological viewpoint, commending good behavior is a good way to encourage its spread. AG Sessions applauded the city for adjusting its police policies to remove sanctuary elements, for which it is being rewarded by having no cut-off to certain federal funds for law enforcement.

By contrast, Chicago and belligerent Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel was compared and contrasted as the negative example of how not to run a city regarding local illegal immigration enforcement. The mayor remains very stubborn about keeping his “sanctuary” policies that protect illegal alien criminals and endanger citizens. Earlier this month, Chicago sued the Department of Justice, referring to the feds’ effort to reinstate the rule of law as “blackmail.” Funny how Democrats always get things upside down.

Tough enforcement against illegal alien criminals is quite popular, as shown by a 2015 Rasmussen poll that found 80 percent of likely voters supported the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11 percent were opposed.

The map below from November 2016 shows how many large cities prefer to protect illegal aliens rather than maintain public safety for citizens.

Jeff Sessions discussed the issue of sanctuary cities on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Wednesday. It lasts a little over 11 minutes and has some informative statistics:

You can watch Sessions’ whole speech in the video below.

Following are the pre-published remarks from the DoJ:

Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies, Miami, FL ~ Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you Tom, for that introduction. I have great respect for the work you are doing. We have many members of your team here and I want to thank each and every one of you. Thank you. And thank you to all the law enforcement personnel I see out here.

Mayor Carlos Giménez, thank you for your tremendous hospitality and thank you for your commitment to the rule of law and tireless work to keep the people of Miami-Dade safe.

I also want to recognize our acting United States Attorney Ben Greenberg. Your team here has done a fabulous job.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Kathy Fernadez Rundle is here. You have been a great partner in combatting violent crime and I am so pleased to see you.

I’m honored to be in Miami-Dade with all of you today. I’m always so impressed when I visit: the city keeps getting bigger, business is booming, and I recently read that Miami-Dade is one of the safest major jurisdictions in the country.

As you know, this was not always the case. In the 1980s, Miami-Dade was plagued by drugs. Violent crime followed. Police regularly recorded upwards of 500 murders a year. The city seemed to be crumbling.

But the people of Miami-Dade refused to tolerate this level of violence. And last year, Miami-Dade’s homicide count was barely a third of what it was in the 1980s.

How many hundreds of lives were saved in this city because of the proactive, community policing from your police force. It wasn’t easy, but this place has truly earned its nickname today “The Magic City”.

Your success is even more remarkable since violent crime is surging in most places across the country – including a historic rise in the nation’s murder rate of nearly 11 percent. Continue reading this article

Tech Companies Are Making Us Less Free, Warns Tucker Carlson

The recent violence of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the overwrought reactions to it in certain quarters were on Tucker Carlson’s mind on Wednesday in his introductory monologue and follow-up discussion with Mark Steyn.

Protesters got in each other’s faces in Charlottesville.

Both agreed that big tech businesses have become very controlling of the behavior of citizens in ways that are quite alarming. Google is hugely powerful because of how much information it controls and the way the corporation chooses to use its influence to restrict freedom. That tendency was recently highlighted when it fired employee James Damore for writing a memo critical of diversity as practiced by the company.

During the discussion, Steyn mentioned that PayPal had cut VDARE.com from using it as another example of how tech companies abuse their power over those of whom they disapprove.

Spare Audio:

TUCKER CARLSON: The shock from what happened in Charlottesville over the weekend is still ringing in the air like a gunshot. People on every side recognize it was awful because it was awful absolutely and completely. The only thing that could make what happened in Charlottesville worse would be if we allowed a small number of people in power to make America less tolerant and less free in its aftermath. Let’s be honest — we’ve seen that before. It happened after 9/11. Almost nobody wanted to say so at the time for fear of seeming sympathetic to terrorists but it did. Secret lists, massive government spying on citizens, the feds rooting around in people’s bank accounts for no good reason. We allowed all of that to happen because we were upset and afraid.

Well this morning there were signs it could be happening again. The Wall Street Journal reported that big tech companies are using their power to silence certain political views. Both Google and web hosting service GoDaddy stopped providing hosting support for Daily Stormer: it’s a white supremacist website. Meanwhile the hotel website Airbnb announced it will permanently ban white supremacists from using its service to book rooms. PayPal says it won’t let white supremacist groups use its payment platform. Now nobody on the show is weeping for the Daily Stormer — even mentioning their name probably will get us written up by the Southern Poverty Law Center as dangerous alt-right subversives or something.

We don’t care; there’s a principle at stake here, and it’s worth defending regardless. We should be very concerned by the prospect of big companies using their power to enforce ideological conformity, even when it seems only to affect people we don’t like, as it does right now. Especially now we should be concerned because support for free expression appears to be fading on the left and especially among young people. A 2015 Pew poll found that 40 percent of Millennials already believe in restricting speech they believe is offensive. Those are the people who’re going to be running this world very soon: you think they’ll think twice before banning websites they don’t like? They won’t.

It’s the Daily Stormer today, fine, but who’s it going to be next week or next year? The National Right to Life, Foxnews.com, Catholic Charities? Why wouldn’t it be? And why wouldn’t Airbnb ban public supporters of Trump from getting rooms — they support terrorism. Why wouldn’t Facebook eliminate all reference — I don’t know — pro-life positions? Today’s political opponents could very easily become tomorrow’s designated Nazis or terrorists. Definitions change. Principles do not change, and that’s why it’s crucial to keep fighting for them. Keep fighting for an open society, even if people call you names when you do it.

Now the First Amendment is America’s most famous freedom, the strongest sign that our country is dedicated to the personal liberty of every person here. The fact that this right applies to the most hated members of society isn’t a weakness, it’s the whole point. It’s proof of how robust that right is. Now tech companies aren’t the government, and they’re not bound by the same rules as a consequence of that, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push back and do it loudly.

The biggest tech firms are more powerful than any monopolies in the Gilded Age and they’re far less restrained and far less trustworthy. In some ways they’re more dangerous even an overreaching government, because they’re less accountable. They could make this country a place you would not want to live and they could probably do it quickly and they probably will do it unless they’re brought to heel.

Mark Steyn is an author, columnist and an all-around defender of freedom and a good guy who’s nice enough to sit in for the show last week. He joins us now. Mark, I am positive that this segment is going to get us both written up by the Southern Poverty Law Center. it’s pointless to say I’m gonna say anyway I’m not defending any of these creepy groups, to white nationalist groups, or anything like that. I’m not a part of them. I don’t like them, but I think that the principle is worth defending. It’s essential.

MARK STEYN: Absolutely. Freedom of speech enables you to argue for other freedoms, and that is the point of it. So if you don’t have freedom of speech, all you can do is, as they do in unfree societies, is blow things up and shoot people. And it is interesting to me that the less freedom of speech we have, the more we have what we saw over the weekend. We have guys rampaging through the street.

It doesn’t really matter what side they’re on, the minute you say that you can’t book a conference room and hold a debate, you can’t have a YouTube channel, you can’t go on Facebook, then the logic of that tends towards smashing stuff in the street, whether it’s toppling statues like the left did, or whether it’s camping about with tiki torches like the right did and rambling on about Jews and all the rest of it. That’s why it took place in conference centers, and the other point you made, Tucker, which absolutely needs underlining is that it always starts off with the Daily Stormer, but it goes further than that.

PayPal, for example, kicked off VDARE.com. VDARE.com has nothing to do with what happened in Charlottesville. It’s a website that is an immigration restriction website. It thinks post-1965 immigration has been largely disastrous for the United States, and you can say that that is a wrong position to hold, but you are doing something very dangerous when you say you cannot hold that position and use the main credit card processing service on the internet.

VDARE.com publishes Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin who are no strangers to this channel, and so there’s something actually very disturbing when PayPal boots them off what is essentially a monopoly provider. Continue reading this article

Oakland Sob Story Spectacle Comes to an End

The San Francisco Bay Area media has been awash for a few days with the story of the illegal alien Sanchez couple and their four kids (three anchors with one DACA) in Oakland. Maria Mendoza-Sanchez was featured on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle last week, and California Senator Dianne Feinstein visited the family with promises of a private bill to stop the deportation order.

Below, one final front-pager (hopefully!) from the Chron about local media’s sniffler saga as the three members of the Sanchez family head for home in colorful Mexico.

Maria and Eusebio Sanchez entered the US illegally in the early 1990s and since then availed themselves of jobs and education to which they had no right. Maria worked as a registered nurse in a major area hospital, so apparently serious  identification is not required to act as an RN in California. The Sanchez duo fought to remain after their illegal entry by claiming asylum as residents of Mexico — not the best strategy it seems.

Finally the end came on Wednesday when the Mexican couple and their youngest son boarded a plane for Mexico. Maria now has Canada in mind as her next country, and she probably knows that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is much less strict about borders than President Trump.

But doesn’t Mexico need nurses? And where’s the love and patriotism for the dear homeland? Apparently Mexico is not good enough for ambitious Maria.

Deported: End of the line for undocumented Oakland couple, San Jose Mercury News, August 16, 2017

SAN FRANCISCO — The much-publicized saga of Highland Hospital nurse Maria Sanchez and her husband Eusebio, who for the last 15 years had sought to obtain green cards and remain in the U.S. legally, was set to end with hugs and tears Wednesday night when the undocumented couple boarded a United Airlines flight bound for their native Mexico.

They booked their flight Tuesday after receiving word that a final attempt to delay their deportation had been denied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The couple is now prohibited from returning to the U.S. for a decade, when they can begin the process all over again, according to federal law.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Bay Area News Group on Tuesday night, Maria Sanchez said she is studying all her alternatives, and immigrating to Canada is one of them.

Not only does Canada “need good nurses,” Maria Sanchez said, but she and her husband, Eusebio, must find jobs that pay enough to help support their three daughters, who will remain in Oakland. The couple has saved some money to help cover those costs for a time, she said, but it will not last forever.

(Continues)

Fast Food Expert Warns That Machines Are Coming for Jobs

Former McDonald’s CEO Ed Rensi appeared Friday on Fox Business and voiced opinions about the automation threat to employment.

Fmr. McDonald’s CEO: Human workers can’t compete with robot replacements, Fox Business, August 11, 2017

Former McDonald’s USA CEO Ed Rensi said regulation will force restaurants to turn to technology to make a profit.

“Not only is the minimum wage an issue but health care, rights to work, overtime hours, government regulation—if you look at the mounds and mounds and mounds of regulation that comes from the local, federal level it’s almost impossible to do business and make a profit,” Rensi told Stuart Varney on Varney & Co. Friday.

Rensi pointed out how Amazon has begun to use robots in its fulfilment centers.

“Look at what’s happening in retail with Amazon. Automation and robotics are going to start replacing people and they’ve got to become more efficient to make a profit,” he said. “There’s too much invested in quick service restaurants around the world across the United States. Too many dollars invested in fixed properties—[they have to] do something and that something they are going to do is automate and try to reduce the amount of labor and labor content.”

(Continues)

Being a former CEO does give Ed Rensi greater freedom to speak about automation-fueled job loss. I reported a year ago about his similar remarks: Former Restaurant Executive Declares a Robot Arm Is Cheaper Than $15/hour Humans.

A one-time CEO of McDonald’s, Ed Rensi, recently appeared on a Fox Business show and explained the financial facts about automation in the fast-food industry: “If the $15 minimum wage goes across the country, you’re going to see job loss like you can’t believe. I was at the National Restaurant Show yesterday and if you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry — it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries . . . it’s going to cause a job loss across this country like you’re not going to believe.”

Amazing robot arm.


Continue reading this article

Senator Feinstein Speeds to the Rescue of Deportees

There’s nothing like a tearful sob story to get attention, even at the highest echelons of power. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) swung into action after recently reading in the press that some Mexicans were being deported from her state:

Feinstein criticizes Trump over deportation that splits Oakland family, San Francisco Chronicle, August 10, 2017

Sen. Dianne Feinstein called Thursday for the federal government to reverse the deportation of an Oakland nurse and her husband, saying their removal after more than two decades in the country revealed the “cruel and arbitrary nature” of President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Responding to a front-page Chronicle story about Maria Mendoza-Sanchez and Eusebio Sanchez — who plan to depart for Mexico on Tuesday with their 12-year-old son to start a new life, while leaving behind three older daughters who have legal status — Feinstein went to the family’s home for an afternoon meeting to discuss their plight. . .

On Friday, I reported on the case and its widespread news coverage in More Deportation Hooey: Trump the Family Splitter! But there’s lots more.

Even Mexico’s Univision network reported on the couple’s free trip home, with an espanol video of Senator Feinstein’s visit to their Oakland home and remarks: La senadora Dianne Feinstein visita a un matrimonio mexicano cuya deportación está programada para el martes.

Senator Feinstein visited the family and discussed the case with the press.

The California senator even had a supportive kiss for Maria Sanchez, the Mexican illegal alien!

Funny, I don’t recall seeing Senator Feinstein reach out to families of crime victims of illegal aliens, like Kate Steinle’s heartbroken parents or the remaining members of the Bologna family after three were murdered by a Mexican gangster. And all four of these victims of illegal aliens were killed in Feinstein’s home city of San Francisco where she was once mayor.

When speaking to the press at the Sanchez house, Feinstein remarked, “This is a mistake, this shouldn’t happen. I mean, go after the gang bangers, go after the criminals: leave the law-abiding good people who are adding to our economy, whose children are productive, they’re all going to school, they’re all going to give back to society.”

Does Feinstein not understand that illegal immigration is against the law and harms citizens whose jobs the aliens steal? She plans to introduce a private bill in the Senate to lift the deportation order.

Here’s a news report from ABC in San Francisco:

Feinstein even issued a press release to illustrate her concern. When was the last time she went to bat to protect an American??

Feinstein Statement on Pending Deportation of Sanchez Family, Aug 10, 2017

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the case of the Sanchez family as detailed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

“The cruel and arbitrary nature of President Trump’s immigration enforcement policies is captured in the heartbreaking story of the Sanchez family.

“Maria and Eusebio Sanchez have lived in this country for more than 20 years. They are hardworking parents raising four children, three citizens and one protected by DACA. They have no criminal records. They pay taxes, own their home and contribute to this country. These are the kind of people we should welcome into the United States with open arms.

“Instead, the family has been notified that they must leave the country by Tuesday.

“Tearing this family apart doesn’t make anyone safer, it only places incredible hardship on their three children who will remain behind, forced to navigate their lives without their parents.

“This case exemplifies that it’s nearly impossible for undocumented immigrants to get right with the law when they want to do so. The Sanchez family has tried for two decades to obtain legal status.

“The deportation of Maria and Eusebio would be a loss for the Oakland community. The equities of their case should be given full consideration so that this family has an opportunity to stay together.”

###

Mexican Family to Be Reunited via Deportation

Have the last few days been Deportation Sob Story Week with 6,820 articles about repatriation appearing? And are four years more of same planned by top media? There has been no shortage of the sad stories of appealing foreigners who just “came for a better life” and stayed for the American jobs, education and an array of free-to-them stuff. (A 30-day search for Trump Deport got 233,000 results as of August 13.)

But now the illegals are being forced to go home, to places like Mexico — hardly a poor backwater with its #15 world GDP rank. As a rule, the mainstream press hatefully regards America as being evil racist capitalist, except where illegal immigrants are concerned, and then the United States becomes the idealized land of dreams.

Today’s tale of trauma appears on the front page of the New York Times showing an illegal mom who will take her son to reunite the family with her deported husband. It’s nice to actually see some of the mythical Mexican family values about which we’ve heard for so long.

It might work out well for Mexico in the long run to have citizens who expect more out of government and society than to be loaded with crime and corruption from top to bottom. Deportee demands for social and economic reform might start something worthwhile — if they decide to bother. We’ll see. The United States cannot be the spare country for billions of dissatisfied people on the planet.

The article is reprinted in the Santa Fe New Mexican where there is no annoying paywall, so click away for additional sappy sentimentality about lawbreaking, job-stealing, resource-looting illegal aliens:

Stay, hide or leave? Hard choices for immigrants in the heartland, By Jack Healy, Santa Fe New Mexican via New York Times, August 12, 2017

HAMPTON, Iowa — It was quitting time. Edith Rivera took one last lunch order, dropped off a basket of tortilla chips and set off from work, heading out to the farm roads where other immigrants feared to drive.

Like them, Rivera, 33, had no legal status in the country where she had lived for 18 years. She had no driver’s license, apart from the long-expired North Carolina identification she held safe, like a talisman, in her wallet.

But as she skimmed past the northern Iowa cornfields on her way to her son Steven’s seventh-grade track meet, she did not share other immigrants’ fears. Not of being pulled over. Not of raids or deportation. Not of the man in the White House. Not of the new Franklin County sheriff’s quest to make sure this rapidly diversifying community of hog barns and egg farms would never again be known as an immigrant sanctuary.

Her American journey was waning, and she had little left to lose.

Her husband, Jesús Canseco-Rodriguez, was already gone — deported to Mexico in 2015. Rivera had jettisoned their apartment and sold off what the family had built in Hampton: their small business power-washing hog barns, Canseco’s work truck, their furniture.

Now, at this tense juncture for immigrants and their adoptive hometowns across the conservative swaths of rural America, Rivera planned to sever one last tie. She was returning to Mexico — and to her husband — with Steven, 13 years old and American-born.

Some politicians call it “self-deportation.” She called it her family’s only hope of being together.

(Continues)

More Deportation Hooey: Trump the Family Splitter!

Deportation sob stories are quite the thing for the mainstream media in the Age of Trump — so easy to write and dripping with liberal virtue. One illegal alien family hit the jackpot on Thursday with a front-pager in the San Francisco Chronicle and a similarly emotive story in the San Jose Mercury-News. Did the deportables hire a publicist or is La Raza helping them out for free?

According to the Chron caption regarding Maria Mendoza-Sanchez, a Trumpian deportation order is “tearing her family apart” — when in fact the couple’s lawbreaking entrance is to blame.

Both papers emphasize how hardworking Maria and husband Eusebio are. The Mercury includes quotes from Maria (Facing deportation, Oakland family pleads for more time):

“I just want to say to people: I’m not here in the country to take anything away from anybody,” said Maria, who arrived in 1994 not speaking a word of English, then enrolled in classes to learn the new language.

“My husband has always worked, he does not get himself in trouble,” Maria said, reciting her family’s values and history. . . .

And, Maria said, “I do the best I can to make a difference in the lives of my patients.”

That last line highlights another point — how does an illegal alien get a job as a nurse (!) at Highland Hospital, a public institution operated by Alameda County? California really has gone far down the drain.

By holding that job, Maria’s declaration that she doesn’t “take anything away from anybody” is shown to be a lie. She stole that job from an American citizen or legal resident who is supposed to have it.

And what is so terrible about living in Mexico, which is one of the world’s richest countries (#11 by GDP in 2017)?

If the Mexicans stayed home and worked for political reforms instead of scampering north, the nation could certainly be improved. Being located next to the US has been a curse for Mexico’s progress because immigration has allowed its ultra-wealthy to live like princes.

So Maria Sanchez can focus her considerable energies into making Mexico better rather than mooching from Americans.

Deportation order splits Oakland family and highlights shift under Trump, San Francisco Chronicle, August 9, 2017

Although President Trump ran on a platform of rounding up and deporting “bad hombres,” Oakland nurse Maria Mendoza-Sanchez knew that she and her husband — who each lack legal status — would not be protected by their clean records.

“I knew that not only our life but the life of many immigrants was going to change completely,” said the mother of four as she recalled the night of the election. “I knew this is going to be a totally different story now.”

Nearly seven months later, her fears have been realized.

On May 23, immigration officials told the couple they had three months to make arrangements to leave for the Mexican homeland in which they last set foot 23 years ago. On Tuesday, they will reluctantly split up their family, flying to Mexico with their 12-year-old son to start a new life, while leaving their three older daughters — who are 16, 21 and 23 — behind in the U.S.

In the past, Mendoza-Sanchez’s background likely would have spared her from deportation. She’s the mother of three native-born U.S. citizens and one recipient of the government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. She owns a home in Oakland, has no criminal record, and works as a nurse in the cardiology and oncology wing of Highland Hospital. . .

(Continues)

Page 1 of 26312345...102030...Last »