President Trump said this morning in a Fox Business interview with Maria Bartiromo that he is “looking at” the question of Chinese companies listed on American exchanges. His comment came a day after National Legal and Policy Centerasked the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, to divest its customers’ holdings in 137 Chinese companies listed on American stock exchanges.
Earlier this week, agencies of the United States government took a similar step. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which manages retirement savings for government employees and military, announced that it would freeze its plan to invest in Chinese stocks this year. The decision came at the urging of officials in the Trump administration and from members of Congress, who do not want to see the communist nation rewarded with American investments following its mishandling and cover-up of the release … Read More ➡
With the first implementation of a new policy that purports to promote transparency in labeling videos that have been edited in ways that could be deceptive or misleading, Twitter couldn’t have succeeded better in making transparent its own liberal bias.
Last weekend the social media platform marked a video posted by White House social media director Dan Scavino, and retweeted by President Trump, as “manipulated media.” The label had never before been used, although Twitter warned that it was coming.
The video showed a clip of a speech by Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden in his own stumbling words, which were cropped to make it appear he was endorsing Trump. The Democratic National Committee called attention to Twitter that the video was “manipulated,” according to The Daily Beast, and Twitter immediately slapped the label on it.
“This is an example of our ongoing disinformation work, … Read More ➡
Fred Lucas of the Daily Signalhas a piece titled, “‘Here We Go Again’: 4 Things to Know About New Russia-Trump Election Meddling Narrative.” The New York Timesreported that U.S. intelligence officials recently briefed the House Intelligence Committee and asserted that Russia is meddling in the 2020 election to the benefit of President Trump. According to the Times, no specifics were offered to back the assertion. From the Daily Signal:
“This shows that the president is still faced with people in the bureaucracy that want to impede and destroy his presidency. It also shows how intelligence is being politicized,” Flaherty said. “Intelligence should bear some resemblance to reality. It would seem the Kremlin would want Democrats to win.”
If there was any doubt about why the political Left has suddenly turned against Facebook, it has become clear: It is because they think the social media behemoth is helping President Donald Trump.
Revelations last week by top executive Andrew Bosworth, a vice president who was in charge of advertising during the 2016 election season, won’t disabuse liberals of that. Bosworth, however, did not give Facebook credit for the Trump campaign’s success in 2016 – rather, he attributed it to where it belonged.
“He ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period,” Bosworth wrote in a private Facebook post that he later made public after the New York Times published a story about it.
“[Digital Director Brad] Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work,” added Bosworth, a self-proclaimed liberal who is reportedly close to CEO … Read More ➡
Lost amid the uproar over President Trump’s rebuke of four radical “women of color” in the House of Representatives is the possibility that he was entirely justified. For months, these freshmen lawmakers, hyped by the media, have used their office to undermine enforcement of our nation’s laws, especially those related to immigration, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist.” One of these pugilists, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., stands out as an especially nasty piece of work.
A lawyer by training, Tlaib, born in 1976, occupies the Detroit-area congressional seat held for decades by John Conyers. Like the other three members of her vapid, publicity-hungry “squad” – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) – she makes no secret of her loathing for America’s identity and laws. Indeed, as a Muslim born to Palestinian parents, Tlaib proudly identifies with their foreign identity. “I’m more Palestinian … Read More ➡
Donald Trump’s enemies have gotten creative lately in examining his past for evidence of lawbreaking. But their creativity has its limits. In Richmond, Va. this morning, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit unanimously dismissed a lawsuit filed two years ago by the attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia accusing Trump of illegally profiting from his continuing financial interest in the Trump International Hotel, located blocks from the White House. The suit alleged that he violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause barring presidents and other federal officials from accepting gifts or money from foreign and domestic government officials without congressional approval. The claims, wrote Judge Paul Niemeyer, were too “attenuated” and “abstract” to merit legal standing.
It takes no great insight to recognize there is a rapidly worsening security crisis along our southern border. Remarkably, a union representing the federal employees who handle this crisis is enabling it. Last Wednesday, American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924 filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in support of a lawsuit to block enforcement of the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Since its launch in January, the program by the end of June had temporarily returned to Mexico more than 15,000 asylum seekers who had been detained at U.S. ports of entry. MPP, reads the complaint, is “fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our Nation.” Such high-minded rhetoric ignores the fact that these migrants attempted to enter the U.S. illegally.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the many photos of “caravans” of thousands … Read More ➡
On the heels of an annual meeting in which it was called to account by two investor organizations – including National Legal and Policy Center – for its antagonism against conservatives and libertarians, Google has been further exposed, for efforts to prevent President Donald Trump’s reelection and to maintain all the power it wields in order to accomplish it.
Project Veritas, the undercover investigative nonprofit led by James O’Keefe, learned of the effort from an unidentified Google insider who divulged the leftist company’s intentions for the 2020 campaign. In addition to an extensive interview with the whistleblower, Veritas obtained lengthy and detailed footage of top executive Jen Gennai, the tech giant’s Head of Responsible Innovation, who unknowingly explained Google’s strategy for the next election cycle.
As Veritas reported, Gennai said Google’s aim is to avoid a repeat of the election results of 2 ½ years ago.
The Obama-era National Labor Relations Board, with its built-in pro-union majority, gave organized labor plenty of organizing and bargaining advantages, but none perhaps as far-reaching as the “quickie” or “ambush” election rule. Now an appeals court has upheld it. On April 19, a three-judge panel for the District of Columbia federal circuit court, in UPS Ground Freight Inc. v. NLRB, rejected an employer challenge to the rule, which, when put in place in April 2015, dramatically shortened the time available for employers to convey to employees their objections to potential union representation. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the board’s directive to UPS to bargain with a Teamsters local lay outside the scope of its authority and that the rule “values speed at all costs.” And they were right.
Unions, like all organizations, seek to maximize membership. And that requires on some level persuading workers at nonunion sites to see the … Read More ➡
The legacy media (of course) has focused on all the evidence Robert Mueller considered in his report about whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice during the Russian (non)collusion investigation, questioning whether the special counsel made the right decision not to prosecute the Commander-in-Chief.
There are disputes in the testimony between witnesses, which is why Mueller didn’t move forward with a “prosecutorial decision” on that point (or on any other). But setting aside the analysis about what happened, and interpreting it under the law, there is one question that is not being addressed: