- President Donald Trump has an opportunity to make his environmental regulation rollbacks permanent if he places another conservative on the Supreme Court before Inauguration Day, legal experts argue.
- Adding another conservative justice will also greatly diminish Justice John Robert’s role as a swing member in which he occasionally sides with liberal justices, one legal expert at the University of Maryland suggested.
- The president can pave the road for future deregulations with one more justice, Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
By Clarice Feldman – Re-Blogged From WUWT
In his 20007 book, An Army of Davids, Glenn Reynolds, the founder of Instapundit, wrote optimistically that an army of ordinary people (“Davids”) could use technology and the market to beat the Goliaths of “Big Media, Big Government and other Goliaths.” Thirteen years later, big media is on the ropes but the Silicon Valley Goliaths, using the technology and market forces at their disposal, have shut out of the marketplace Davids opposed to their preferred opinions. Not the least of their favored views has been the notion that we are in an existential crisis of climate change for which the only remedy is killing reliance on traditional energy sources.
By Bradley Cortright – Re-Blogged From IJR
Residents in Oregon who are fed up with liberal policies in their state have introduced a petition to become part of neighboring, more conservative Idaho.
The group called Greater Idaho that started the petition is trying to secure enough signatures to get the petition on the ballot in November. The petition would also extend Idaho’s border into parts of northern California — swallowing several counties of those two states.
A review of the proposal found that if adopted, only 14 of Oregon’s 36 counties would be considered Oregon. The petition’s proposed map for Idaho’s new borders shows the state’s new boundary expanding to the coast.
By David L. Debertin, – Re-Blogged From WUWT
California again easily could become one of the top three fossil fuel producing states in the nation, but the largely liberal state has made drilling for fossil fuels within the state very difficult if not impossible. So the drillers have wisely looked elsewhere for locations that pose less of a political burden. North Dakota and its leaders welcomed the drillers. The result is tax dollars flowing into the state treasury from a variety of oil-related taxes levied not only on the drillers, but on individuals receiving mineral royalty income. In the past dozen years or so this has meant that taxpayers outside the oil producing counties have seen state-level taxes drop and the state can pursue projects that benefit the residents in a host of different ways simply by using funds that would not have been available had the drilling not occurred.
We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America
By David Wojick – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing outfit, which views things like skepticism of climate alarmism, and conservative views generally, as “disinformation.” The white paper explains how Google’s search and news algorithms operate, to suppress what Google considers disinformation and wants to keep out of educational and public discussions.
The algorithms clearly favor liberal content when displaying search results. Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.” The problem is, these sources are mostly “mainstream” media, which are almost entirely liberal.
In the mainstream media, women on the left are almost always portrayed as paragons of compassion and virtue. But when it comes to conservative women, it’s a different story. Why is this? Heather Higgins, chairman of Independent Women’s Forum and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice, explains the reasons behind the double standard.
Re-Blogged From Mommy Underground
It’s a sad, but true, fact that liberal Hollywood likes to spread the propaganda of its progressive allies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the censorship of conservative speech and films that promote traditional values.
But one current movie has defied the odds and is showing Hollywood that we won’t be silenced.
The movie, Unplanned, is based on the true story of pro-life warrior Abby Johnson.
Re-Blogged From Total Conservative
You don’t really expect to see a college professor calling out college administrators for their liberal bias, and you really don’t expect to see them do it in the pages of The New York Times, but hey, the Gray Lady throws us a bone every now and then. On Tuesday, Professor Samuel J. Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College argued that while there was no question that professors and academics tended to be on the more liberal side of the spectrum, the imbalance was nothing compared to school administrators, who are practically walking in lockstep towards a more “progressive” future.
By Julio Rosas – Re-Blogged From IJR
With congressional candidate and self-proclaimed democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making big promises to voters, Campus Reform visited the district she’s running in to ask how taxpayers will pay for them.
According to her campaign website, Ocasio-Cortez wants a medicare for all plan, a federal jobs guarantee with a $15 minimum wage and tuition-free public colleges.
By Thomas Sowell
By Heather Mac Donald – Re-Blogged From Imprimis
Our nation is about to be transformed, thanks to the #MeToo movement. I am not speaking about a cessation of sexual predation in the workplace. If that were the only consequence of #MeToo, the movement would clearly be a force for good. Unfortunately, its effects are going to be more sweeping and destructive. #MeToo is going to unleash a new torrent of gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that all disparities in employment and institutional representation are due to harassment and bias. The resulting distortions of decision-making will be largely invisible; we will usually not know of the superior candidates for a job who were passed over in the drive for gender parity. But the net consequence will be a loss of American competitiveness and scientific achievement.
In case you missed it, our friends at americanthinker.com had a fantastic column (which won’t load now due to internal server error, but is cached by Google, so I repeat it here) by Dr. Danusha V. Goska in 2014. She was a life-long leftist and wrote that she has abandoned that philosophy. Here, she gives her top ten reasons. It parallels many if the trials and tribulations climate skeptics suffer at the hands of [climate activists]. I highly recommend it, and I recommend sending it to every activist who calls you a “climate denier”. There may be hope yet for those who value spewing hate over rational debate. – Anthony Watts
By Onan Coca – Re-Blogged From http://constitution.com
For years members of the left and the right have been arguing about the conflict between voter suppression and voter fraud. The left argues that any attempt to make voters prove who they are, when voting, is voter suppression. The right argues the converse — that not forcing voters to prove who they are, is a blatant attempt to make voter fraud easier.
Further, the left routinely uses the African-American community as a bludgeon against the right’s attempt to end voter fraud. Liberals argue that asking voters to present an ID when they vote is racist, because black voters either have a difficult time getting an ID or because black voters don’t know how to get an ID.
Think about that argument for a second. Doesn’t it become blatantly obvious that liberals believe the black community is stupid? The liberal argument against voter IDs is in and of itself… racist. If you need more evidence, then watch this great video from Fox News’ Ami Horowitz and see how black voters in Harlem react to liberal arguments against voter IDs.