Warning: Constant WPCF7_VALIDATE_CONFIGURATION already defined in /home2/ltg37jq5/public_html/wp-config.php on line 92 Search Results “Big Tech” « Limits to Growth
Stephen Miller is a top immigration authority who got Washington experience working for Senator Jeff Sessions and later for President Trump in the White House. Lately he has been appearing on TV discussing the threat posed by the new administration’s border policy.
President Biden’s proposed immigration legislation is beyond extreme in its intent — Miller reports that if passed, it would crush America’s fundamental powers as a nation, namely to control who enters the country. Biden’s borders will melt into nothing as idealized by globalists, transforming citizens into powerless serfs.
Most of the foreigners hope to steal American jobs by working extra cheap and avail themselves of generous social services, but there’s nothing to stop enemies from entering among the hordes. Head-choppy jihadists can easily dress like hispanic foreigners to enter for their goal of murdering the hated infidels of the USA.
MARIA BARTIROMO: A new border crisis is afoot with congressional Democrats unveiling an ambitious immigration reform bill on Friday that would extend amnesty and citizenship to nearly 20 million illegal immigrants, a population five times the size of Los Angeles. This legislation comes hot on the heels of president Biden’s sweeping executive orders to erase president Trump’s border legacy. Stephen Miller was a senior adviser to President Trump and the architect of the administration’s immigration plan; he joins us this morning.
Stephen it’s great to have you. Let me just point out that you have studied immigration issues for more than a decade. I remember years ago you were a congressional staffer in the House, then you moved over to the Senate. You were studying and working on immigration issues in the Senate before joining President Donald Trump. so give us your expert opinion and assessment of President Biden’s new immigration bill.
STEPHEN MILLER: Thank you, and the reason why I’ve studied immigration so closely is because it’s so fundamental to what it is to be a nation, the right of the people living in a country to decide who enters that country, on what conditions, for how long and how to establish national boundaries and borders. That’s fundamental to what it means to be a country.
The legislation put forward by President Biden and congressional Democrats would fundamentally erase the very essence of America’s nationhood. For the first time I believe in human history, this legislation proposes sending applications to previously deported illegal immigrants and giving them the chance to re-enter the country on a rapid path to citizenship — this is unheard of.
These would be people that ICE officers, at great time and expense, found large numbers of them with criminal records returned to their home countries at taxpayer expense. And now we’re going to have the Secretary of State and Homeland Security mailing applications for readmission and amnesty to previously deported illegal immigrants?
This is madness. Now this is on top of the fact that the current administration has already dismantled border security, canceling President Trump’s historic agreements with Mexico and with the northern triangle countries, restoring catch and release and additionally gutting interior enforcement issuing a memo preventing ICE from removing the vast majority of criminal illegal immigrants that it encounters.
And the last thing I’ll say about that memo is that they have engaged in a fraudulent representation to the court in the Texas litigation because they are claiming this is a resources issue. I know for a fact that ICE has the resources to remove these public safety threats. This is a policy choice disguised falsely to the court and to the country as a resource issue. That is a lie, and it’s a lie that threatens public safety.
BARTIROMO: Wow, and I know that the ICE, Border Patrol men and women are now being told that they have to get authority to make any moves. They need authority from above before detaining anyone. Continue reading this article
It’s nice to see Tucker Carlson talking about immigration again, something that has fallen off his list of subjects recently. Perhaps he thought President Trump had it covered, even though excessive immigration threatens the historic nature of America.
At any rate, on Friday Tucker interviewed Andrew Arthur, a former judge who is currently affiliated with the Center for Immigration Studies. His CIS bio notes employment with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and eight years working as an immigration judge in Pennsylvania. So Arthur knows the topic from inside the system.
One aspect of this discussion lurking in the background is the preference of Democrats for foreigners over Americans. As it happens, hispanics prefer the Democrat philosophy of Big Government, as shown in a 2012 Pew Research survey. So that correlation of viewpoints works out well for Democrats, but not so much for Americans as a whole.
A Democrat-run government with a President Biden would definitely put immigration on the front burner again — and not in a good way.
TUCKER CARLSON: Welcome back to a special edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight. Republicans were not able to pass any kind of immigration bill restricting immigration, protecting our borders over the past several years, but if Democrats take control of the Senate on January 5th, they won’t be quite as passive. The first thing they will do is to fundamentally change our immigration system — open the borders to the rest of the world. They’re not hiding this; they’ve been open about it for months.
JOE BIDEN (TV clip): Some of it’s going to depend on the kind of cooperation I can or cannot get from the United States Congress, but I am going to make a commitment: in the first hundred days I will send a immigration bill to the United States Senate with a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people in America.
CARLSON: First of all it’s not 11 million — you’d have to be 119 years old to think that — it’s over 20 million. But the macro point is this: millions of Americans have been looking for work for so long that they’ve given up looking; they’re not even listed on the unemployment stats. Now Democrats plan to give them more competition in the labor market. So who’s benefiting from this exactly? Not Americans. Andrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center of Immigration Studies, and we’re happy to have him on tonight. Andrew, thanks for coming on.
ANDREW ARTHUR: Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: Who does benefit from this exactly?
ARTHUR: Well. the people who benefit from this are big business. Wealthy people benefit from open borders, essentially limitless immigration because for them everything comes cheaper. Food is cheaper; you go to the grocery store, rather than paying you know 39 cents for a head of lettuce, you pay 35 cents for a head of lettuce. You can get your lawn cut cheaper, you can get your house painted cheaper, but the people who suffer the most, Tucker, are the people who are at the margins of society, the people that we you know usually hear that these folks care about — disadvantaged Americans, inner city youth, members of minority groups and immigrants who haven’t adjusted to life in the United States yet. Those are the people who are in direct competition because most of the people who enter the United States illegally are people who don’t have high levels of education, don’t have a lot of work skills. Now there’s nothing you know wrong with that — my father never went to college, worked in a steel mill. But when you bring in a huge mass of uneducated unskilled individuals to directly compete against Americans, those Americans suffer.
CARLSON: And it’s also true at the higher end. I mean our schools were bad before covid; now the schools are just shut down and kids are learning nothing. Nobody seems to care and instead of fixing that, they’ve decided, well we’re just going to bring in more educated people from India and China to do jobs that Americans aren’t qualified to do. I mean it kind of removes any incentive to fix American schools, doesn’t it?
ARTHUR: It really does, and you know there’s this canard that you know we need more STEM graduates. A few years ago the the Census Bureau did a survey in which they found that about 25 percent of people who had STEM degrees were working in a STEM job, and we’ve seen this over and over again. Computer programmers are brought in; IT people are brought in from abroad on temporary visa programs, and even right now the United States Congress is considering a bill that would make it so much easier for Big Tech to bring in those tech workers to replace our students that we encourage to go get tech jobs for the 21st century. Well, those jobs aren’t going to be available to them if this happens. So you know these are things that Americans really need to think about if they have kids, and yes we’ve seen the quality of our own schools go down. We need to be putting more money into educational opportunities, but we also need to have jobs for those students to take. I’ve seen it you know again and again in cities across America.
CARLSON: Only 25 percent of STEM graduates held jobs in STEM in science and technology — that’s an amazing statistic, Andrew Arthur. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you.
It would be nice if the coronavirus debacle might wake Washington up to the danger that Red China represents.
The whole globalist economy idea was pitched to Americans as being good for creating more and less expensive consumer goods, a system with no downside.
The scheme was advantageous for nations with lots of cheap labor like China. And that country has grown from a poor backwater to a global powerhouse based on outsourced manufacturing from America.
Lately Red China feels strong enough to be the home of a new contagion (perhaps even creating it in a bioresearch lab) without warning the world about it.
Senator Josh Hawley appeared with Tucker Carlson recently to suggest that China be “held to account” for the evil it has exported.
TUCKER CARLSON: Senator Josh Hawley represents the State of Missouri. We’re always happy to have him on tonight. Great to see you, Senator.
SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: You’ve been one of the relatively few people in the Congress who has been sounding the alarm on China for a long time. The coronavirus, I think, has highlighted the reasons why that’s an important story. Where should we go next?
HAWLEY: Well, I think one of the things the coronavirus has done, Tucker, is just bare the fact that our globalized economy is an economy that really works for China first and foremost, and not for the United States. Certainly not for American workers.
Our supply chains — where are they now? In China. Our medical devices, where are they made? China. Our pharmaceuticals, where are they made? China. Our Big Tech companies, who do they want to do business with? China.
I think it’s time that we asked ourselves what kind of an economy we have we allowed to be created, and what is it doing for American workers? We need some structural reform.
CARLSON: I think that’s exactly right. In the short term, though, the country is paralyzed by coronavirus, which came from eastern China, of course. What do we know about the Chinese government’s coverup of this virus in its early days?
HAWLEY: Well, we know that they suppressed the actual news, and we know that they ordered the whistleblower doctors to keep silent. Of course, one of those doctors, at least, lost his life because of that.
We know that they delayed global response to this virus by weeks, weeks that represent thousands of lost lives, Tucker.
There are studies out there that show that if we had had more time to deal with this, lives — many, many lives could have been saved.
So listen, the Chinese Communist Party has systematically lied to its own people who paid the price. They lied to the world. Now, we’re all paying the price. And that’s why I think we ought to have an international investigation about where this originated.
We know where it was; it was China. China ought to be held to account and they ought to be made to foot the bill for what the world — including the United States — is now suffering. Continue reading this article
There has been a growing clamor against the heavy hand of Big Tech meddling in political and cultural affairs in the United States. Concerned citizens complain, but Washington has done nothing to diminish the extreme power of Google in particular.
On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Floyd Brown, co-author of the new book Big Tech Tyrants.
Brown says he is “terrified” at the unbridled power of Big Tech — as well he should be.
TUCKER CARLSON: So you’d think that we’d have a free press in this country — we’re guaranteed it in the Bill of Rights, but it’s not exactly free anymore. Big tech controls it and the tech companies are doing everything they can to shape the narrative, the storyline around impeachment.
For example, Facebook and YouTube, which control a much larger percentage of digital media than anyone realizes are now censoring, flat out censoring any material that mentions the name of the man believed to be the whistleblower. They’re not letting you know who this guy is.
Floyd Brown is co-author of “Big Tech Tyrants.” And he joins us tonight. So Floyd, it seems to me that we’ve moved to a stage a year out from a Presidential election, where the tech monopolies, which really control all of digital journalism in this country, are deciding what facts we’re allowed to know. Why should we not be terrified?
AUTHOR FLOYD BROWN: We should be terrified, and I am terrified. The truth is, is that over half of all news consumed by Americans is consumed on these social media platforms.
And when they can censor the way they’re censoring right now –both Facebook and Google around the name of this whistleblower — it’s chilling. It’s absolutely chilling.
They have such dominant power. In fact, you know, I know that Fox News isn’t saying the name of the whistleblower, but the name of the whistleblower was accidentally said by somebody on your network, and then that was posted on YouTube, which was immediately censored by Google.
So what you have — I’m the publisher of the Western Journal — we have decided to publish the name of the whistleblower, and we’ve done four stories on the whistleblower, and we have 43 million followers on Facebook. I don’t think ten of them have seen those particular stories.
CARLSON: So I mean, look, there’s a legitimate debate here. Let me just say that no one in Fox has told me what to do or not on that issue despite a lot of reporting to the contrary, I haven’t named the guy because I haven’t confirmed it. I can’t find anybody who will confirm it. But as soon as we do, we will I mean, that’s, you know — that’s journalism, and you may disagree.
But the point is this guy, whether he is the whistleblower or not, is at the center of a really important news story, and the average person ought to be able to make up his or her mind on that, but we’re not allowed to, because the tech monopolists won’t allow us. So why is Congress standing back and not saving us from this? Seriously. Continue reading this article
Is it reasonable to think that the principles of engineering and global economics alone are an adequate basis for running a complex modern nation, particularly this one? Apparently the Koch Brothers have such a philosophy and their millions of dollars in political donations to Republican candidates have shaped the party’s behavior for years.
Unfortunately, the Kochs are no friends of borders or national sovereignty, and Republicans’ failure to enact any restrictionist measures when they owned both the House and Senate in 2016-18 is due in part to the power of Koch money.
Tucker Carlson discussed the influential Koch brothers earlier this summer, noting that “the border is more porous than ever. . . you can thank the Kochs for that.”
TUCKER CARLSON: For years, brothers, Charles and David Koch have been the two single most important donors on the American right. They’ve reshaped the Republican Party, according to their personal ideology. They made the party far more libertarian, much more pro-immigration, and more pro-Big Tech.
Even if the Republican Party has evolved and elected Donald Trump, the Koch brothers remain tremendously influential, more than you may understand. And if you’re frustrated, watching the party ignore what its own voters want, it is part of the reason.
Well, there is a new book out that takes a very close look at the Koch business and political empire. Chris Leonard is the author of it. It’s called “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America.” We just spoke with him. Here’s what he said.
CARLSON: So for my perspective — my interest is the political activities of the Kochs who by the way, I can say, since I know them, are very nice people, personally.
CHRISTOPHER LEONARD: Absolutely. Absolutely.
CARLSON: But there’s a misconception in Washington that they’re conservative. Tell me what you discovered about their ideology after writing this book. Are they conservatives?
LEONARD: Well, you know, I think you’ve gotten it exactly right, in the sense that they’re not traditional conservatives, as you might think of that today.
Charles Koch is an engineer and you’re right, he is a really nice guy, I interviewed him for this book, I’ve been around the people who have worked for him for decades. Charles Koch believes he’s found the blueprint for how to organize society.
He is very libertarian. In his view, the best way to structure a society is just a free market exchange system. That’s it. And I call it a blueprint, intentionally. You can’t argue with a blueprint. If you mess up something in a blueprint, the building will collapse. You can’t argue with physics.
And I think Charles Koch sees his political ideology in that way. He believes that the only way you can structure society is as a market. And when the government intervenes, it ultimately does more harm than good in his view. It causes more problems than it solves. Continue reading this article
While some Democrats still chatter on about the crazy Russia threat to America’s democracy, concerned citizens should look more carefully at the exalted tech elites in Silicon Valley for a real danger to free and fair elections.
Later we heard more about how Google manipulates search results to favor left-wing results. In fact, Dr. Robert Epstein (a Democrat voter himself) warned that Big Tech can move millions of voters to the left in 2020. During a June discussion with Tucker Carlson, Dr. Epstein remarked, “. . . they can shift upwards of 15 million votes with no one knowing that they’ve been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.”
So the leftward opinions of Big Tech can have real world effects.
Tucker Carlson continued his investigation of Big Tech in a Friday discussion with a former employee of Google, probably as a result of a recent Wall Street Journal article, reprinted on MSN.com here: Republican Engineer Fired by Google Claims ‘Bullying’.
TUCKER CARLSON: It’s pretty clear that Google isn’t simply just a business enterprise, though it is the most powerful business in the history of the world. It’s also an ideological organization to its core, who cares what you’re able to see and what you’re able to think and they exercise the same kind of control over their own employees.
Kevin Cernekee would know that firsthand. He spent three years at Google working as an engineer. He says he faced relentless bullying and intimidation from Google for his political views which are not liberal; one manager added him to an internal blacklist until finally, Google fired him last year. Kevin Cernekee joins us tonight.
Kevin, thanks very much for coming on. So, you believe that Google knew what your politics were, that you’re a conservative, harassed you for those views, and then ultimately dismissed you on the basis of them?
KEVIN CERNEKEE: Yes, that’s true. So basically, what happened is, when I joined Google, I saw a lot of employees being mistreated and abused and harassed for sharing conservative views or just for questioning company policies.
And I raised these issues through all the appropriate channels, I raised it through HR, I went to VPs, eventually wound up filing a charge with the Labor Board. And Google knew about this. This opened a Federal investigation from the Labor Board. I was working very closely with an investigator over there.
What happened was Google decided they did not like this investigator, and they made a lot of false accusations against me and they fired me. They said in writing that the reason they fired me was for participating in this labor investigation, and they’re basically daring the government to do anything about it.
CARLSON: I don’t think it’s legal, is it? I mean, you can’t fire someone for initiating a labor action, can you?
CERNEKEE: I wouldn’t think so. I have appealed the decision, and the Labor Board came back and basically said, “Denied.” They did not cite any case law. They didn’t really have a reason for it. It’s basically their will against anybody else’s.
CARLSON: Right. The most powerful country — company . . . country, yes, Freudian slip — in the world. How ideological is the management at Google?
CERNEKEE: It’s highly ideological. You can see bias at every level of the organization. One thing that I’ve noticed is that just handling of routine issues is plagued with bias, like they will get a report, an e-mail from a liberal reporter complaining about something and they will jump on it and they will fix the issue very, very quickly.
And contrast, one thing that I saw when I worked there was, if you do a Google search for “Crippled America,” which is Donald Trump’s book, you would get results that showed Mein Kampf instead of “Crippled America,” and I reported that. I filed a bug against it. I escalated it. I tried to run it up the chain. They took nine months to fix that bug.
They just stalled at every opportunity. They assigned it to people who no longer worked there. They made every excuse in the book to avoid taking down something that made Donald Trump look bad. And I saw a number of other incidents just like that.
CARLSON: Do you believe that Google will attempt to influence the election outcome or will attempt to try to prevent Trump from being reelected?
CERNEKEE: I do believe so. I think that’s a major threat. They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake. They thought Trump should have lost in 2016. They really want Trump to lose in 2020. That’s their agenda.
They have very biased people running every level of company. And they have quite a bit of control over the political process. So, that’s something we should really worry about.
CARLSON: And yet, Congress, including Republicans, are just sitting back and acting like it’s not happening. It’s disgusting. Kevin, thank you for sounding that alarm. I appreciate it. Good to see you.
It’s encouraging to see a member of Congress take on Big Tech for its growing control over Americans’ freedom of speech and thought.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google because the unaccountable search giant blocked her ads account following the first Democrat debate of presidential candidates.
TULSI2020: In the hours following the 1st debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to our democracy that big tech companies can’t affect the outcome of elections https://t.co/n7Y7y2dQZ9
Usually, Silicon Valley aims its animus at conservatives, but perhaps Big Tech sees Gabbard as too free-thinking for a Democrat.
TUCKER CARLSON: We’ve done a lot of work on this program to expose the bias and corruption at Google which is the world’s most powerful company by far, but Google and its employees don’t just have it out for conservatives — we want to make that clear. Google is hostile to anyone who challenges the status quo since Google is the chief beneficiary of the status quo.
Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard learned that the hard way just after the first presidential debate where Gabbard was the single most searched Democratic candidate, Google blocked her from being able to buy new ads.
Now she’s become the first presidential candidate to sue Google: she’s accused them of censoring her message. We are happy to have Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard join us tonight.
Congresswoman, thanks very much for coming on. Tell us the point of this suit.
REP. TULSI GABBARD: Here’s the bottom line: this is really about the unchecked power that these big tech monopolies have over our public discourse, and how this is a real threat to our freedom of speech and to our fair elections.
So this really isn’t about me; it’s about taking action on behalf of the American people because we’ve got to understand here that if Google can do this to me as a sitting member of Congress running for the highest office in the land, that means they can do this to any candidate running for any office anywhere in this country and frankly to any person in this country.
And that’s why it’s so important that whether you’re a progressive or conservative, whether you consider yourself on the left or the right, we all have to stand united to protect our freedom of speech. Because look, today it’s me, tomorrow it could be you or someone else. Continue reading this article
Peter Thiel is a rare conservative in Silicon Valley, so his viewpoint about Big Tech issues is unique. He recently voiced alarm that the leftists who run the Google company are co-operating with Red China rather than the United States
“Number one, how many foreign intelligence agencies have infiltrated your Manhattan Project for AI?
“Number two, does Google’s senior management consider itself to have been thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese intelligence?
“Number three, is it because they consider themselves to be so thoroughly infiltrated that they have engaged in the seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not with the US military… because they are making the sort of bad, short-term rationalistic [decision] that if the technology doesn’t go out the front door, it gets stolen out the backdoor anyway?”
Tucker Carlson was the keynote speaker at the conference, so it worked out that Thiel appeared on his Monday show to discuss Google’s relationship with China.
Peter Thiel made serious charges against Google during his interview with Tucker Carlson.
Thiel’s charges have gotten the attention of President Trump who said on Tuesday the administration will investigate whether Google operated improperly with Red China.
Here are the video and transcript from Tucker’s discussion with Peter Thiel:
TUCKER CARLSON: Peter Thiel cofounded Paypal. he was one of the very first investors in Facebook. If anyone knows about the power of big tech and its potential dangers, it’s Peter. So it means something when he warns that Google, the world’s most powerful company, has become a threat to American national security. They may even have even committed treason, he says.
While speaking at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington yesterday, he warned that Google may have been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence and ought to be subject to immediate investigation by the FBI and the CIA. We are happy to have Peter Thiel join us here tonight, Thanks a lot for coming on. Continue reading this article
Dr. Epstein now believes that left-wing Big Tech can nudge 15 million to the Democrats in 2020 by slanting search results, with nobody aware that it is happening. Yet Republicans are asleep at the switch while Silicon Valley enemies plot GOP doom and the destruction of representative government.
Big Tech’s secret propaganda is a serious threat to our freedoms continuing, but there is little attention from concerned parties. That needs to change.
Spare audio:
TUCKER CARLSON: Back in America, a tech story that might seem insignificant, but is not. In fact, it may determine what happens in the next presidential election; it very well may. A Google whistleblower has come forward to describe his company’s plans to remake the American political landscape. Google, of course, is the most powerful company in the world.
So when an anonymous whistleblower comes forward, in this case, telling Project Veritas that Google is using internal algorithms to shape what Americans see online, and by extension, what they think, you better take it seriously:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fairness is a dog whistle, it does not mean what you think that it means and you have to apply doublethink in order to understand what they’re really saying.
What they’re really saying about fairness is that they have to manipulate their search results, so it gives them the political agenda that they want, and so they have to re-bias their algorithms so that they can get their agenda across.
CARLSON: That’s the definition of propaganda, again, being perpetuated by the single most powerful company in the history of the world.
This is not surprising to viewers of this show, James Damore was fired for Google for his political views, his totally conventional, moderate political views and then came on this show to describe the culture at Google. Watch this:
JAMES DAMORE: There are definitely some political biases within Google that I was trying to shed light on in the document, and that they affect many parts of the business and for example, who they do business with, and what type of content they create, and I really think that those political biases need to be addressed.
CARLSON: It’s not just whistleblowers — excuse me, hidden camera footage obtained by Project Veritas shows a conversation with a woman called Jen Gennai. Her Google title is Head of Responsible Innovations in the Global Affairs Department.
In that video, Gennai says that Google is working specifically on products to make certain that Donald Trump does not win another election. Quote, “We’re also training our algorithms like if 2016 happened again … would the outcome be different? People were not putting that line in the sand … that they were not saying that what’s fair and what’s equitable, so we’re like, well, we’re a big company, we’re going to say it.”
In other words, we’re going to try and affect the outcome of the 2020 presidential campaign. Gennai goes on to blast Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to break Google up into two companies. Why? Check out this reasoning, quote, “All these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.”
So using a company’s dominance on the internet to sway the outcome of an election. That’s their plan. There should be a term for what Gennai is describing. It turns out there is a term, it’s a term you’ve heard constantly from talking heads on television for more than two years. It’s called hacking an election. Google wants to hack our election. They’re saying that out loud. Continue reading this article
It’s been known for quite some time that the Koch brothers are unfriendly toward border enforcement, but according to a recent report from Tucker Carlson, the harm they promote goes far beyond just that issue. They have pushed their own values on the Republican Party with their giant campaign donation machine which has rewarded globalist values. It partially explains why GOP legislators have been so useless.
So the Kochs are far from being Republican or conservative stalwarts. On several important issues, such as immigration, drugs, tax cuts, free speech and crime, the Kochs lean left. They certainly should not be considered friends of law and borders.
The Kochs run on a rather different track, as Tucker Carlson explained.
TUCKER CARLSON: Charles and David Koch are two of the richest men in the world. Each one of them is worth tens of billions of dollars. Some of their money is inherited; much of it they made themselves.
But to their credit, the Koch’s who have never been content merely to get richer, they are engaged intellectuals. They have a sincere desire to change the world.
So for years, the brothers had been the single most important funders of Republican politics in Washington, in the country.
Koch network of donors spends hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle. Virtually every major conservative nonprofit in Washington takes Koch money, often a lot of it.
Koch organizations train political organizers and candidates; many Republican lawmakers owe their careers to the Koch’s and are happy to say so.
For people whose main business is making fertilizer and paper towels, the Kochs have been remarkably effective in American politics. And not surprisingly, the left hates them for it.
Both the Koch brothers and their families, who by the way, are very nice people, have been grotesquely and repeatedly maligned by the media. This, in turn has convinced many conservatives that the Kochs must be on their side.
Anyone who has been slandered by the New York Times has got to be doing something right. That’s the idea. It’s not a bad standard. But in this case, in the case of the Kochs, conservatives might want to pause and rethink the relationship.
As it turns out, the Kochs don’t have much in common with conservatives. They are in fact totally opposed to most conservative policy goals. The Kochs are libertarian ideologues. They’re passionate and inflexible about what they believe.
America First — the Kochs finds the very notion of that absurd, if not fascist.
And economic policy that seeks to strengthen families — the Kochs denounce that as quote, “crony capitalism” or picking winners and losers. They think it’s immoral, and they’ll tell you so.
Controlling our borders — the Kochs consider that racist. A few years ago, in fact, Bernie Sanders noted that the Koch brothers are far to the left of him on immigration, open borders quote, “That’s a Koch brothers’ proposal,” Bernie Sanders said, and he was right.
But in fact, it’s more than a proposal. It’s in effect what we have now in this country — open borders, and that’s thanks in part to the Kochs. The overwhelming majority of Republicans want to secure border and less immigration. That’s why they voted for Donald Trump.
Two and a half years later, though the border is more porous than ever. A tide of humanity is flooding in illegally. Republicans in Congress have done almost nothing to help with the situation. Why? Well, you can thank the Kochs for that. Continue reading this article
Andrew Yang is a technology expert who is running for president in 2020 on what might be called a Tech-Caution platform. Unlike the clueless characters currently running our national government, Yang understands the danger of automation and artificial intelligence — that when smart machines take over major employment categories in America, the economy will fail from massive, permanent job loss. Curiously, the brilliant captains of industry are big on developing the cheapest possible manufacturing, but have forgotten that shoppers with healthy incomes are a big part of the economy equation.
For more details on the issues, see the candidate’s website Yang2020.
Why isn’t Washington paying attention to tech experts’ warnings? There’s not a whole lot to be done in the face of such fundamental social change, but certainly America won’t need more immigrant workers, as President Trump has recently suggested in a major reversal of a top campaign promise. That flip-flop is doubly bad because:
Automation Makes Immigration Obsolete
Audio version:
TUCKER CARLSON: Big tech knows a lot about you, in some cases more than you know about yourself. They certainly know where you go and what you eat. May even know what you think. The only thing it can’t control is what your thoughts are, but they are working on that, too.
In a 2018 phone recording obtained exclusively by this show, Adam Kovacevich — he is Google’s head of U.S. Public Policy — explains to Google employees why the company was a sponsor for CPAC that year. Google sponsored CPAC, he says, because it wouldn’t let them push the party toward a more open borders agenda. Listen:
GOOGLE EXECUTIVE ADAM KOVACEVICH: The Republican Party and the conservatives in general, is also going through a lot of internal debates about what should be the sort of position of the Party and I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, want probably, the majority of Googlers wants to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more sort of nationalistic incendiary nativist comments and things like that.
CARLSON: Now, as noted, Google has more power than any company has ever had. It has the power of its massive data reserves technology, of course, it has financial power. It has one highest market capped companies in history. It also increasingly has political power though they don’t typically admit it in public.
Kovacevich did admit it. He said that companies like Google are playing quote, “a leadership role” in American politics. He bragged that the company got a support of mass immigration on to a CPAC panel and that person argued in support of Google’s agenda. It shows a lot about big tech’s attitude toward the country. They are in control — elections, parties, democracy, just a hindrance to their control.
So we told you a lot on this show about the potential dangers of big tech. Some of those dangers are imminent, and they are technological, and the main one is robotics and artificial intelligence.
Remarkably, the person, the political figure who is making the most sense on this subject, who has thought about it most deeply is a Democrat who is running for President. He is Andrew Yang. He is an entrepreneur and as we said, he is a Democratic presidential candidate. He says that artificial intelligence and expanded automation could potentially cause violence in this country and that we need to do something about it right now. Andrew Yang joins us tonight.
Andrew, thanks very much for coming on, and I meant that with sincerity. I haven’t heard anybody in our political conversation describe the threat as clearly and compellingly as you have. Why should would he be worried about automation?
CANDIDATE ANDREW YANG: Well, if you look at the backdrop, we automated away four million manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, and those communities have never recovered. Where if you look at the numbers, half of the workers left the workforce and never worked again, and then half of that group filed for disability.
Now what happened to the manufacturing workers is now going to happen to the truck drivers, retail workers, call centers and fast-food workers and on and on through the economy as we evolve and technology marginalizes the labor of more and more Americans.
CARLSON: What will be the effects of that? That’s a massive displacement of people. What will happen once that happens?
YANG: Well, as you said, I think it’s going to be disastrous, where if you look at truck drivers alone, being a trucker is the most common job in 29 states. There are 3.5 million truck drivers in this country, and my friends in Silicon Valley are working on trucks that can drive themselves because that’s where the money is, where we can save tens, even hundreds of billions of dollars by trying to automate that job.
But I was just with truck drivers in Iowa last week and imagining that community recovering from their income going from let’s call it $50,000 a year to much, much less than that catastrophically, it’s going to be a disaster for many, many American communities. Continue reading this article
It was good to see tech investigator Dr. Robert Epstein appear with Tucker Carlson on Friday to do an update on Big Tech. Interestingly, Dr. Epstein had some good news to share along with noting the continued efforts of the ultra-liberal tech industry to silence conservative opinion.
As Dr. Epstein noted about the search engine Google from his research, “It’s frightening to me that this company with very strong political leanings has the power to shift millions of votes and shift opinions on a massive scale without people knowing that they are doing it and without being accountable to the public.”
But while the search shenanigans continue, as Epstein reports, “Google has been extremely good at keeping its secrets for almost 20 years, but in the last few months that has changed, and there have been quite a number of leaks, and we have seen a number of internal discussions there.”
So the Google company’s Stalinesque group-think may be breaking down somewhat under criticism from the public.
In addition, there may be some hope for action against Big Tech’s extreme influence on opinion from abroad. Epstein noted: “The Europeans see these companies as American, and they have been much tougher on them. I think we are going to see some pretty drastic actions taken against these companies by the E.U. in the next few years, and that could change their ability to operate worldwide.”
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
