Friday, November 2, 2018

Conservatives Don’t Get to Mourn

Conservatives Don’t Get to Mourn


Mourners hold a vigil for the victims of the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa., October 27, 2018. (John Altdorfer/Reuters)
In the aftermath of terrible events, there are calls for unity. For Republicans, it’s always except you.
After every horrible mass shooting, when we should be mourning together, looking for solutions to stop future attacks, consoling the families of the victims, there’s an immediate rush to make sure conservatives know they do not belong to that wider American community feeling the pain. Worse, there’s a constant allusion to the fact that those on the right are responsible for the slaughter. Republicans spend the time following these attacks not in mourning like they should be but beating back the sickening idea that they inspired the shooter.
With the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the message from the Left is that it’s President Trump’s rhetoric that is to blame. While Trump indeed uses irresponsible language and inflames the country’s division with his words, blaming him for a crazed shooter is one step too far.
As James Robbins pointed out in his column in USA Today, the shooter actually believed Trump was part of the Jewish conspiracy he imagines controls America. “Bowers was explicit in his dislike of the president, saying he did not vote for him and had never ‘owned, worn or even touched‘ a (Make America Great Again) hat.” Challenging the media narrative that President Trump praised Nazi demonstrators in Charlottesville in 2017, Bowers agreed with another extremist that the president had “betrayed” right-wing radical protesters by “comparing them with a violent mob.”
That he hated Trump is irrelevant to the accusers harping about Trump’s rhetoric. Trump is still to blame.
This insta-blame has roots in the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011. The blame happened so swiftly that it took conservatives by surprise. Before any information whatsoever was known about the shooter, the mainstream media pushed the story, created on the left-wing site Daily Kos, that Sarah Palin was to blame. A map her political action committee had produced had Giffords’s district in crosshairs. That kind of imagery had long been used to denote what electoral districts the other party should target. But now it meant that Palin had wanted Giffords dead. The idea that the shooter saw the map and decided to kill Giffords was taken as gospel. It was disgusting. And it was just the beginning.
When it became known that the shooter had not actually seen the Palin map and had been obsessed with Giffords for years, no one took back the sickening accusation. In fact, six years later, the New York Times was forced to apologize for an editorial that still linked what happened to Giffords to Palin. Facts just didn’t matter when the target was so juicy.
It doesn’t end with just Trump or Palin or whichever Republican official. It inevitably trickles down to blaming their supporters and then just anyone who doesn’t align with one particular political side.
After the shooting in Las Vegas last year, Jimmy Kimmel first blamed Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and House speaker Paul Ryan for the shooting and said “they should be praying for God to forgive them for letting the gun lobby run this country.”
But he didn’t stop at just blaming politicians. The very next night on his show he said that Republicans know “in their hearts” that they bear some responsibility for the massacre because of their Second Amendment support. Just a late-night talk-show host ever so casually blaming half the country for the murder of 58 people.
The message is always: You’re not part of this. We’re upset and we’re angry. You don’t have a right to be.
Salena Zito, a reporter known for her sympathetic profiles of Trump voters, found this out when she was in Pittsburgh last weekend covering the aftermath of the shooting. She tweeted: “In middle of a somber moment at staging area while I was talking to a member of the Jewish community this @guardian reporter started screaming at me that I was an anti-Semite/that I caused shooting because I reports on Trump & to leave and kept screaming in my face to get out.”
That Guardian reporter was Mike Elk. He tweeted back “My apologies if you were offended by what I said. I grew up in this neighborhood and as a Jew, have long dealt w/ anti-antisemitism [sic] in Western PA. It was an emotional time to see Jews from my neighborhood murdered for merely being Jews. My apologies again if you were offended.”
If you were offended that I said you hated Jews and were responsible for mass murder, I apologize. That foul accusation is made against someone who is a reporter, not a political operative or a politician herself. But Zito is the wrong kind of reporter, the kind that doesn’t seethe with hatred for Trump, so this is all her fault.
GQ writer Julia Ioffe also found a target for her blame: Jews who approved of Donald Trump’s moving of the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. She tweeted: “And a word to my fellow American Jews: This president makes this possible. Here. Where you live. I hope the embassy move over there, where you don’t live was worth it.”
For this she got space in the Washington Post to promote her “the president did this” line and an invitation to CNN to discuss how terrible online discourse had gotten. Her own discourse was not mentioned.
In the aftermath of terrible events, there are calls for unity, calls for Americans to come together. For Republicans, it’s always except you. Those on the left purposely pushing their political agenda in moments of national grief should be held accountable. Their divisiveness stops us from healing after tragedies. Political shots shouldn’t be worth it.

Thursday, November 1, 2018

EXCLUSIVE: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES DEBATED BURYING CONSERVATIVE MEDIA IN SEARCH RESULTS

EXCLUSIVE: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES DEBATED BURYING CONSERVATIVE MEDIA IN SEARCH RESULTS

Peter Hasson | Reporter
  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in search results as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban
Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in search results as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.
The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury in search results, the communications reveal.
Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.
Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.
“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.
Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.
“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.
“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued. (RELATED: Google Search Labels Republican Women ‘Enablers’)
“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”
Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures.
(Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times)
Sundar Pichai, C.E.O., Google Inc. speaks onstage during the 2018 New York Times Dealbook on November 1, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times)
One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.
“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.
“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.
“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.
“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.
“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.
“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.
“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.
“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.
Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.
Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.
Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.
A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.
“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.
“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”
The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.
After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.
A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”
WATCH:
Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.
“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.
“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.
“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.
Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”
Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.
Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.
Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

After the 2nd they come for the 1st

After the 2nd they come for the 1st

This was an angle I was not readily expecting following the Tree of Life Shooting.
I was bracing for the usual anti-gun and anti-NRA wave that always follows a mass shooting.
What I didn’t expect is this:
Here is the article:
After a “lone wolf” Islamist militant attack, the media invariably ask: What inspired him to kill? Usually the answer is found in Islamist militant propaganda. We need to ask the same question about right-wing terrorism. What inspired Cesar Sayoc to allegedly send mail bombs to prominent liberals? What inspired Robert Bowers to allegedly gun down 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue? What inspired Gregory Bush to allegedly kill two African Americans in Jeffersontown, Ky., after failing to enter a predominantly black church?
To ask these questions in no way obviates the perpetrators’ ultimate responsibility for the evil that they do. But terrorists do not operate in a vacuum. So who created the environment in which right-wing terrorism has become far more commonplace — and, since 9/11, far more deadly — than Islamist terrorism in America?
President Trump — by championing “nationalism,” denouncing “globalists” such as Jewish financier George Soros, vilifying immigrants as “snakes” and “animals,” fearmongering about a refugee caravan and defending white supremacists as “fine people” — bears a substantial share of the blame.
Where do these politicians get these noxious ideas? From a right-wing media industrial machine that includes Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit and many other outlets. It was Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business Network who asked Grassley if Soros was behind the Kavanaugh protests — and after Grassley endorsed the charge, Trump gave it his imprimatur. The Wall Street Journal, in turn, ran an op-ed endorsing this calumny. Last week, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs interviewed Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, who claimed that the Central American caravan was directed by the “Soros-occupied State Department,” echoing neo-Nazi propaganda about a “Zionist-occupied government.” (Fox Business has since apologized.)
There is partisanship on both sides of the political spectrum, but no left-wing outlets propagate extremism as successfully or widely as conservative media do. A new study of “Network Propaganda” by three Harvard researchers notes that liberals, by and large, get their news from sources such as The Post, the Times, NPR and CNN that, regardless of any political bias, also engage in rigorous fact-checking. Conservatives, by contrast, are being brainwashed by right-wing media that are an “echo chamber” for “rumor and conspiracy theory.”
The frightening thing is that the right-wing media will be here long after Trump and the current crop of Republican politicians are gone. These outlets have a First Amendment right to say what they want, but investors and advertisers also have a right to take their dollars elsewhere. If Rupert Murdoch and his sons won’t rein in its extremist propaganda, advertisers should flee Fox, and investors should flee its parent company, News Corp. Its stock should become as toxic as shares of mining companies that produce “blood diamonds.” The propagandists and politicians who are radicalizing the American right must not be allowed to escape responsibility for the dangerous consequences of their actions.
So according to Max Boot, and endorsed by Jenifer Rubin, the problem isn’t just Trump, it’s the “Right Wing Media.”
The blood of 11 Jews from Pittsburgh is squarely on Tucker Carlson’s hands.
If Boot’s proposed boycott doesn’t work, obviously the goverment should do something.  The Right Wing Media must be reigned in from spreading this kind of hate.
Then there was one time Presidential candidate and governor Howard Dean.
Gab.com is apparently a platform like Twitter but without Twitter’s desire to control the speech of its users.  It is a platform of unapologetic free speech.
Bowers, just like Dylann Roof used Gab to post hateful and bigoted messages that would have gotten him banned on Twitter and Facebook.
Howard Dean believes that makes Gab an accessory to murder.
I guess if some neo-Nazis publish a news letter or flyer for a hate rally, Hammermill Paper is an accessory to murder too.
Three high profile people are now using the Tree of Life Shooting as an excuse to gut the First Amendment.  No more free press and no more free speech.  If you espouse an idea, or host that idea unchecked on your platform, that could be blamed for inciting violence, you deserve to be shut down and treated as an accomplice.
This is a level of extremism that is beyond anything we’ve seen before.
“We want to fight neo-Nazis by taking away your guns and only allowing the press and speech we agree with to be published” is not a good look.
I will not allow any of my rights to be taken because people, even my people, were murdered.

Trump, the 14th Amendment, the Caravan, and the Constitution

(Getty Images)
In today's installment of exploding heads, President Trump has proposed to overturn, via executive order, the constitutionally dubious "birthright citizenship" interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There's no question he has the authority to issue such an order in his capacity as president and commander-in-chief -- each of the three branches is equally responsible for fidelity to the Constitution, and each is free to interpret it as it sees fit.
That the 14th amendment -- the centerpiece of the Reconstruction Amendmentspassed and ratified under the Johnson and Grant administrations, but proposed and voted in by the Radical Republicans in Congress -- applies specifically and only to the newly freed slaves is clear not only from its historical context, but to its very language:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The Court later ruled, in the Wong Kim Ark decision (1898), that children born to foreign diplomats, or born to enemy soldiers occupying U.S. territory, were not protected under the 14th, as they were clearly not under American jurisdiction. (Neither were American Indians, until 1924.) But then, neither are illegal alien invaders, who openly proclaim their contempt for American immigration law even as they march toward our southern border.
Further, our immigration laws were designed for lawful immigration, with some carve-outs for genuine refugees and asylum-seekers. What they were not designed to do is absorb a calculated onslaught of lawbreakers with no beneficent intent; instead, these people are very clear about their purpose: to manipulate the loopholes of the laws, force entry, earn money, and send it back home to their "countries" of origin -- three of which (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) are among the most savage and violent places on earth. America has no domestic need for these people, and no moral obligation to admit them, especially under these circumstances. There is no war ongoing in their homelands (the violence is entirely of their own making, and cultural history) and economic "refugees" can apply through proper channels like everybody else.
(I disagree with my good friend John Yoo on this one. You can read his learned defense of birthright citizenship here.)
And yet red-diaper baby organizations such as the ACLU continue to insist that "birthright citizenship" is constitutional, using the fig leaf of the Ark decision (but Ark himself, although excluded from American citizenship at the time by the anti-Chinese laws in effect, was a legal immigrant, born of legally admitted parents and hence subject to American jurisdiction). Worse, they couch their deliberate misreading of the 14th amendment in "moral" terms:
Why should the children of non-citizens become citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States?
Because this has been the story of our country, and it’s what makes our country great. We are a nation founded and created based on principles of equality, fairness and opportunity. In the U.S., every child – regardless of her background – is born with the same rights as every other U.S. citizen.
The alternative is fundamentally unjust and un-American: to create apermanent racial sub-caste and undermine the promise engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court Building – “equal justice under law.” From the time of our nation’s founding, citizenship has been conferred on all those born on U.S. soil, without regard to characteristics such as bloodline or lineage, with the tragic exceptions of the  Dred Scott decision – denying citizenship to those of African descent – and the historical denial of citizenship to certain Native Americans.
This is pure moonshine. Birthright citizenship did not make our country great, nor is the alternative a "permanent racial sub-caste." Only a Marxist could possibly think that. But through a combination of willfully misleading the American public as to the real meaning of the 14th amendment and an appeal to America's sense of fair play and "compassion," the Left has managed to steer the debate their way for decades.
What Trump has done, in his belligerent way, is to suddenly refocus the debate, just as the caravan approaches and the midterms loom. No doubt, his executive order, should it be forthcoming, will be quickly found unconstitutional by a federal judge, who will promptly issue a nationwide injunction against its enforcement. Such an order will be appealed to the Supreme Court for expedited argument and decision, and very likely (as with the "Muslim ban") will be upheld.
Why? Because, contrary to the popular understanding of  Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is not the  sole arbiter of what is constitutional. Each member of the three branches swears an oath to uphold the constitution, and none of the three is superior to the others in its understanding of what is or is not constitutional. The president has a strong argument to make that, with an invading army of cultural hostiles heading our way, his responsibility for American national security trumps whatever claim foreign nationals have on our good will, hospitality -- or citizenship.
Given the burgeoning ranks of the illegals, their citizen anchor babies, their family chain-reunifications, all of which are visibly changing the character of the American nation without anyone having voted to do so, this is an argument that's long overdue. Let's have it, and let's have it now.

DNC Chairman to Latinos: Trump 'Wants Every Voter to Be Afraid'

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally
President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally at Bojangles' Coliseum on Oct. 26, 2018, in Charlotte, N.C. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The DNC chairman told Latino voters that Trump "wants every voter to be afraid" while President Trump's 2020 campaign manager predicted that the midterms on Nov. 6 will not be about the president himself.
Brad Parscale made the comments to CBS this morning before a new Gallup poll showed Trump at 40 percent approval, a four percent drop from last week. His disapproval rating is up to 54 percent, a 4 percent hike from last week.
"The president's not on the ballot," Parscale said. "This is about his agenda."
The Trump campaign launched a $6 million ad buy today, eight days before midterms, on broadcast and digital platforms. The minute-long ad warns viewers that gains under Trump "could all go away if we don't remember where we came from and choose the right future."
Parscale said the ad is about "what he's accomplished in two years" and argued that "the things that have changed in the last two years, they could go away and we need to vote Republican."
"It's about everything," he said. "Things are getting better and there are still things we have to get done. If we don't hold the House, we don't increase our lead in the Senate, those changes can't keep coming and dealing with immigration laws and the things and problems we still have. And to make this country even safer and better, we have to have the Republicans empowered."
Parscale said that "the army of Trump," or the president base, is targeted as "he's going to fight for them to show up" on Nov. 6. But "there's also a huge batch of independent voters, suburban mothers, there's people out there that might not be watching the news every day" who are targets of the ad buy, he added.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez visited the L.A. studio of the nationally syndicated "El Show De Piolin" to stress to Latino voters that "the only way we can pass immigration reform -- we need more Democrats."
"Donald Trump said he does not want to support the 'DREAMers', does not want to support other people who are immigrants. The most important thing is that we have to have more Democrats in Washington, D.C.," Perez said.
Perez also told the audience that Trump "wants every voter to be afraid, and I want our community to vote."
"Trump wants to cut off access to health coverage, he wants to ensure that immigrants do not have funds for public education - these are Trump's values," he said, before appealing to Latinos, "I really need your help. I need the help of each person. When we vote, we win! But there are so many people who are afraid to vote."