Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘2020 Election’

Fact Check: No, Gordon Sondland Did Not Prove Ukraine ‘Quid pro Quo’


Reported by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/fact-check-no-gordon-sondland-did-not-prove-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/

Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, adresses the media during a press conference at the US Embassy to Romania in Bucharest September 5, 2019. (Photo by Daniel MIHAILESCU / AFP) (Photo credit should read DANIEL MIHAILESCU/AFP/Getty Images)

CLAIM: Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland confirmed, contrary to earlier testimony, that there had been a “quid pro quo” between President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian government: military aid for “dirt.”

VERDICT: FALSE. Sondland said that he “presumed” there was a “quid pro quo.” But he did not have any first-hand knowledge of one, and other witnesses have testified that there was no such “quid pro quo” at all.

The House Intelligence Committee began releasing transcripts this week of its behind-closed-doors interviews with witnesses in the “impeachment inquiry.” On Tuesday, it released the transcripts of the appearances of Sondland and former Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker.

Volker testified that there had never been a “quid pro quo” — that he had never heard one discussed, and that Ukrainian officials seemed unaware of any such arrangement at all.

But Sondland, who had also testified earlier that there was no “quid pro quo,” had to amend that testimony after he was apparently contradicted by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who testified last month that he believed there was a “quid pro quo,” under which the Trump administration was withholding key military aid to Ukraine unless it investigated alleged corruption related to former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In a supplemental declaration filed with the committee, Sondland said that “by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid,” he “presumed that the [Ukraine] aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement” and the investigation of the Bidens. That led him to tell the Ukrainian government that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur” until it complied.

But there are two big logical leaps in Sondland’s statement.

The first is that he only “presumed” there was a “quid pro quo” — that is, he did not have direct knowledge of one.

The second is that he told the Ukrainians that a “quid pro quo” was “likely” — that is, he did not know with certainty.

In their rush to accuse the Trump administration of wrongdoing, Democrats and the media have overlooked one other key fact: the crucial August 2019 Politico article.

The article, “Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia,” dated August 28, was the first that the Ukrainians ever knew about any withholding of aid — five weeks after the phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky which supposedly prompted the so-called “whistleblower” to approach Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. Sondland refers specifically to September.

Therefore what changed his — and others’ — impression was not anything the administration (or its representatives) did or said. Rather, it was the media.

Since Sondland consumes the same media that everyone else does — indeed, it is part of a diplomat’s job to know what is being said — he drew his own conclusions. But when he asked President Trump directly, Trump told him there was no “quid pro quo”: he just wanted Zelensky to do “the right thing.”

All of this presumes there is something wrong with a “quid pro quo.” But even that seems untrue. In fact, “quid pro quo” arrangements are normal in diplomacy. A House bill passed recently by Democrats would establish a “quid pro quo” that bars Russia from access even to private U.S. funds until it can be shown not to have interfered in U.S. elections. Trump, Democrats say, sought his personal or political interest; it also happened to be a national interest.

For years, Democrats defended the investigations of President Barack Obama’s administration into then-candidate Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by arguing that the country had to know if a major candidate was corrupt or compromised by a foreign power.

That investigation may have been conducted in an unlawful manner — and a grand jury is now on the case — but the logic they used then is even more appropriate to Ukraine and the Bidens.

Hunter Biden’s role as a go-between for Burisma — a Ukrainian gas company suspected of corruption — and his father’s administration has never been fully investigated. The so-called “whistleblower” worked for Biden at the time; that conflict of interest, too, has never been explored.

If Trump had demanded a “quid pro quo,” he would have been doing his job. As it is, there is no evidence of a “quid pro quo” — certainly not from Gordon Sondland.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Adam Schiff and the Chamber of Secrets: Inside the Impeachment Dungeon


Authored by Kristina Wong | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/24/adam-schiff-and-the-chamber-of-secrets-inside-the-impeachment-dungeon/

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 15: (L-R) Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence Committee returns to a closed session before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees October 15, 2019 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Kent was …Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Talk of the impeachment inquiry is everywhere in America, but Americans have no idea what it actually looks like.

That’s because House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has so far conducted the entire impeachment inquiry in a secret room in the basement of the Capitol building that is not accessible by the general public.

Just to the south of the Capitol Visitor Center underneath the dome and down one spiral staircase is a room hidden behind two heavy wooden doors. On the doors are red signs with white letters that say: “Restricted Area. No public or media access. Cameras and recording devices prohibited without proper authorization.” Behind those doors is a hallway, which leads to the secret room where Schiff is conducting the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

The House Intelligence Committee has a huge hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building where they can hold hearings that do not concern classified material, which members of the public and journalists can attend. But the impeachment inquiry is taking place in the committee’s Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) — a room for members to use when discussing and viewing classified material.

Republicans say the impeachment inquiry is not an intelligence matter that needs to be in the SCIF, but its location gives Schiff the ability to tightly control everything — and everyone — going in and out.

Security guards stand in front of the two wooden doors to make sure reporters and other unauthorized members of the public stay out. But inside the hallway, there are security officers who make sure unauthorized members of Congress and staffers stay out of the SCIF. Schiff and the Democrats control who is allowed in.

“You can’t go in unless you’re on the list,” a congressional source with knowledge of the impeachment inquiry told Breitbart News. “[They] have like a list, so you can’t sneak into the SCIF or try to get an extra staffer in there or something like that.”

Under Schiff’s rules for the impeachment inquiry, only members of the three committees involved in the inquiry — House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Government Reform Committees — are allowed in. The House Intelligence Committee can have as many staffers as they want in the SCIF, but the other two committees can only have two staffers each.

The SCIF is a small windowless room that has a long rectangular table in the middle, sources said. Democrats sit on one side, Republicans sit on the other, and the witness sits at the head of the table.

Although the room is intended to seat 30 to 40 people, during the recent deposition of Amb. Gordon Sondland there were as many as 70 to 80 people crammed inside, forcing lawmakers to stand and sit on the floor, according to a Republican source on a committee involved in impeachment. With so many bodies packed in there, it quickly got too hot, requiring the blasting of air conditioning, which then made it too cold, the source said.

Having so many people inside the room and dozens of reporters loitering outside is a security hazard and potentially a fire hazard, the Republican source said.

“The SCIF is supposed to be a secure location for safe-holding of classified information, but there are real concerns about having so many people wandering around,” said the source.

The depositions typically start with opening statements, then Democrats have about an hour to ask the witness questions, and then Republicans have about an hour. There is usually a break before Democrats begin another round of questioning, and then Republicans, and so on, until there are no more questions left. The recent depositions have lasted as many as ten hours.

Inside that secret room, Schiff has lorded his power over the process, Republicans say.

“He will remind you early and often that he is in charge,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), who has attended every deposition and transcribed interview.

“Schiff likes to interject himself during the Republican questioning and we always have to point out to him we obviously don’t do the same thing during their questioning, but he just can’t help himself,” he said.

Since the House has not formally voted on beginning an impeachment inquiry — which would give Republicans certain rights and the Trump administration due process, Republicans are not able to subpoena witnesses and the White House is not able to have a counsel present. Zeldin said Schiff is taking full advantage of that and forcing witnesses to answer questions they are not sure they can answer.

“He’ll tell the witness to speak even if the witness isn’t sure and there may be an outstanding question about executive privilege or something else,” he said.

“So inside the super secret bunker of the Capitol, the basement where the impeachment inquiry charade depositions are taking place, he is the grand jury, the judge, and the prosecutor,” he said.

Zeldin said Democrats have been petty about sharing materials as well.

“If a person asks for an additional copy of the exhibit, the sick smile that will be on some people’s faces as if somehow being in the majority means that we should make a petty moment of what might be a genuine ask,” he said.

Republicans say Democrats are keeping transcripts from members of Congress who will ultimately vote on any articles of impeachment, and even from Republican members involved in the inquiry.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes said Republican members involved in the inquiry cannot even view transcripts without having “minders” looking over their shoulder. “That is unprecedented,” Nunes told Fox News on Wednesday. Staffers of the committees say the environment inside and outside the SCIF is tense.

“It is so, so tense. I mean, it is like what you see in movies tense. It’s weird,” said the congressional source.

“It is just crazy. No one talking to anybody. Everyone being real quiet, because you just don’t know who’s standing around you,” the source said. “You’re dealing with three committees and you don’t know who everyone is.”

Republicans say the depositions and interviews are unclassified and there is no need for them to take place behind closed doors.

Schiff has defended the secrecy of the hearings by comparing it to a “grand jury,” claiming he does not want potential witnesses to be able to compare stories. But Republicans argue that his claim is undercut by the numerous leaks from Democrats to reporters about what is being said during the closed-door interviews, despite House ethics rules gagging both sides.

“Unfortunately, this process of cherry-picking leaks withholding key facts and outright lying is a formula of Adam Schiff that many in the media are playing along with, and many people who were part of the enraged liberal activist base eat up,” Zeldin said.
“This whole project, is Schiff’s desire to write the world’s worst parody to take down a sitting president,” he said, referring to Schiff reading a fake conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a hearing and later justifying it as a “parody.”

Republicans suspect that Democrats instructed the “whistleblower” to file his complaint with the intelligence community inspector general instead of the State or Justice Department inspector general so that the matter could be handled by Schiff behind closed doors.

“It’s all about shaping the narrative,” the Republican source said. “There’s a whole leaking apparatus in place.”

The source characterized that apparatus as the same as during the FBI’s collusion investigation — selective leaks to reporters that are then blown out of context with no countervailing narrative. 

More than two dozen House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) stormed the SCIF on Wednesday morning, demanding access to an impeachment inquiry that could reverse the 2016 election.

“So far, Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry has been marked by secret interviews, selective leaks, weird theatrical performances of transcripts that never happened, and lies about contacts with the whistleblower,” Gaetz said at a press conference before the storming.
“We’re going to try to go in there and we’re going to try to figure out what’s going on, on behalf of the millions of Americans that we represent that want to see this Congress working for them, and not obsessed with attacking a president who we believe has not done anything wrong,” he said.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) added, “Adam Schiff is trying to impeach a president of the United States behind closed doors, literally trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election a year before Americans get to go to the polls and decide who’s going to be the president.”
“The American people deserve better, we will demand better,” Scalise said.
“This is being held behind closed doors for a reason — because they don’t want you to see what the witnesses are like,” said House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-AZ), citing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s faltering testimony.
“This is a Soviet-style impeachment process, this is closed doors, it is unfair in every way,” Biggs added. “We’re going to go in there and demand we get our rights as members of Congress.”

House Democrats have suggested that they would open the hearings up to the public, but have not stated exactly when.

“That’s obviously a step after this. But right now we’re concentrating on getting as many people as we can,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) said, according to the Hill.

The pace is already beginning to take a toll on staffers and even reporters, sources said.

“This is a marathon. And we’re on mile nine and we’re severely out of shape. Even the reporters who are there, they’re tired, everyone’s kind of gassed,”the congressional source said.

“This is the long slog with not a lot of certainty on when it’s going to end. We’ve been flying through people. They supposedly want to get it done between Christmas and Thanksgiving. There are staffers who have worked for 20 days. They have not taken a single day off and work from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.,” the source said.

Nolte: ABC Fails to Fact-Check Hunter Biden’s Claim of ‘Not One Cent’ from Chinese Govt. Deal


Written by John Nolte | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/15/nolte-abc-fails-to-fact-check-hunter-bidens-claim-of-not-one-cent-from-chinese-govt-deal/

Hunter-Biden-interview-5577c-abc-ps-191014_hpMain | ABC News

ABC News allowed Hunter Biden to get away with the claim he did not make “one cent” from his company’s mega-deal with a Chinese bank that is a subsidiary of the Chinese government — when its own past reporting has said just the opposite.

During the sit-down interview, ABC’s Amy Robach set up the segment about Hunter’s China deal with the background on President Trump’s desire to look into Hunter’s shady $1.5 billion — with a “B” — deal with the Chinese bank (starts at around 5:03)::

ROBACH: Also on Trump’s list of accusations against Hunter Biden: that Hunter flew on Air Force Two with his father during an official government trip to China in 2013, leveraging that connection for financial gain in an investment deal with Chinese businessman Jonathan Li.

What Robach’s question omitted is that the deal was not just with an individual businessman but with the Bank of China — a subsidiary of the Chinese government itself.

She then asks Hunter directly:

ROBACH: The president has repeatedly said you have received $1.5 billion, despite no experience and for no apparent reason. Obviously fact checkers have said that that is not true.

HUNTER: This literally has no basis in fact in any way.

ROBACH: Have you received any money from that business dealing?

HUNTER: No.

ROBACH: At all?

HUNTER: Not one cent.

ROBACH: Definitely not 1.5 billion.

HUNTER: It’s crazy. They feel as though they have the license to go out and say whatever they want.

Hunter is then allowed to trash Trump and his family as liars while Robach, who has just lauded fact checkers and their fact checking,  says nothing about the fact that — and this is important — according to her own network’s reporting,  and Hunter’s own attorney, Hunter has a ten percent stake in BHR, the company that made that mammoth $1.5 billion China deal.

Just a few months ago, ABC aired an in-depth report on Hunter’s shady business dealings that included this nugget (starts at about the 2:00 minute mark):

This video shows Chinese diplomats greeting Vice President Biden as he arrives in Beijing in December of 2013. Right by his side? His son Hunter. Less than two weeks later, Hunter’s firm had new business, creating an investment fund in China, involving the government controlled Bank of China, with reports they hopes to raise $1.5 billion. Hunter still plays a role in the fund. His lawyer says his stake is worth about half a million dollars.

Where was Robach’s followup question? Where was her oh-so-vital fact checking? Why did she let him get away with saying “not one cent” when her own network reported just a few months ago that he had equity in the firm that made a massive $1.5 billion deal?

Obviously, Hunter is playing a semantic game with that “not one cent” comment. Hunter’s attorney appears to do the same in a statement he released just two days ago, on October 13, 2019:

Hunter neither played a role in the formation or licensure of the company, nor owned any equity in it while his father was Vice President. He served only as a member of its board of directors, which he joined based on his interest in seeking ways to bring Chinese capital to international markets. It was an unpaid position.

To date, Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR’s board of directors. He has not received any return on his investment; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest.

So Hunter hasn’t “received” “one cent” because there has been no payout to investors. There was no direct commission for that deal, which dum-dums would obviously suspect like he’s a bottom-run sales rep. But here’s the rub, according to no less than FactCheck.org: Hunter might not have been paid “one cent” yet, but he is still could be looking at an eventual payoff that hits the $20 million mark:

[Hunter’s lawyer George] Mesires told the New York Times that while Hunter Biden now has a 10% stake in BHR, which he acquired through a company he created named Skaneateles LLC, “there have been no distributions to the shareholders since Hunter has been an equity owner.”

But that doesn’t mean Biden won’t eventually make millions from the deal. Steven Kaplan, who conducts research on issues in private equity, venture capital, entrepreneurial finance, corporate governance and corporate finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, told us that a private equity fund with $2 billion under management will typically generate fees over its life of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“It is difficult to imagine, if not incomprehensible, that a 10% stake in those economics is worth only $420K,” Kaplan told us via email. “The distinction they appear to be making is they capitalized the management company with $4.2 M even if the fund manages $2 B.  The value of that management company is likely far in excess of $4.2 M if they are managing $2 B.”

Kaplan pointed to two large publicly traded private equity firms for reference, both of which have a market value of about 10% of the assets under their management. Using that as a rough guide, that would put the value of Hunter Biden’s share closer to $20 million, he said.

Basically, it looks as though Hunter claiming not have made one cent off the China deal is like a CEO claiming he was not paid one cent to run a company because his compensation came from stocks or bars of gold or pearls or the gift of a home. But the fact is this: any deal that increases the value of the company that Hunter Biden has a stake in — and a $1.5 billion deal with a bank owned by one of the world’s biggest economies does just that — is a deal where Hunter Biden has a financial interest.

Maybe ABC will reveal Hunter’s semantic dishonesty when the rest of the interview airs later tonight. Maybe Robach will ask him what he has “earned” or “gained” as a result of the deal, rather than “received.” If not, it is a gross dereliction of duty on the network’s part. And all of this comes just one day after ABC was caught presenting 2014 video from a Kentucky gun range as video of  Turkish military operation against the Kurds.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Amazon Moves into the Business of Elections


Written by Lucas Nolan | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/10/15/amazon-moves-into-the-business-of-elections/

Jeff Bezos arrive at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party on Sunday, March 4, 2018, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

Amazon is reportedly making an aggressive push into the business side of state and local elections. Since the 2016 election, more than 40 states are using one or more of Amazon’s services for elections.

Reuters reports that tech giant Amazon has begun aggressively expanding its Web Services division into the world of election technology and has been quietly doing so since the 2016 U.S. presidential election. More than 40 states are now using one or more of Amazon’s election offerings according to a recent presentation given by an Amazon executive this year which was seen by Reuters.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and the U.S. federal body that administers and enforces campaign finance laws also reportedly use Amazon’s election products. While Amazon does not handle voting on election days, Amazon Web Services (AWS) is running state and county election websites, storing voter registration rolls and ballot data, and helping overseas servicemembers to participate in voting.

Amazon describes its services to prospective clients telling them that they are a low-cost provider of secure election technology, a key selling point as many officials aim to avoid a repeat of the 2016 elections when allegations of poor cybersecurity were made against multiple government bodies.

Michael Jackson, leader of Public Health & U.S. Elections at AWS, told prospective government clients during a webinar presentation in February: “The fact that we have invested heavily in this area, it helps to attest to the fact that in over 40 states, the Amazon cloud is being trusted to power in some way, some aspect of elections.”

Many welcome Amazon’s push into the election market, David O’Berry, co-founder of Precog Security, said that moving to AWS is “a good option for campaigns, who do not have the resources to protect themselves.” But others have warned that Amazon could become a bigger target for hackers.

Chris Vickery, director of cyber risk research at cybersecurity startup Upguard, stated: “It makes Amazon a bigger target” for hackers, “and also increases the challenge of dealing with an insider attack.”

Amazon believes that its systems are reliable with a spokesperson telling Reuters: “Over time, states, counties, cities, and countries will leverage AWS services to ensure modernization of their elections for increased security, reliability, and analytics for an efficient and more effective use of taxpayer dollars.”

Ron Morgan, the chief deputy county clerk of Travis County in Texas which uses Amazon’s servers to run its election website stated: “We think (AWS) provides us with the best available level of security.” Morgan added: “Is it bullet proof? I don’t know. But is it a very, very hard target? Absolutely.”

Read more at Reuters here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com

Rasmussen Poll: Donald Trump Approval Rating Jumps to 53 Percent; Highest in Five Months


Reported by Charlie Spiering | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/24/rasmussen-poll-donald-trump-approval-rating-jumps-to-53-percent-highest-in-five-months/

P

resident Donald Trump smiles during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Tuesday, July 16, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Donald Trump received an approval rating of 53 percent from likely voters, according to a Rasmussen poll released Tuesday.

The latest poll reflects the highest approval rating for the president in five months, as the last time Trump got a 53 percent approval rating was in April 2019. 

Forty-five percent of likely voters disapproved of his performance as president.

The president’s approval rating dipped as low as 44 percent in late August but has steadily risen in September — a nine-point jump in 35 days.

Trump received a string of 53 percent approval ratings in February 2017 after he was inaugurated.

Rasmussen tracks daily results via 500 likely voters per night from telephone surveys as well as an online survey tool. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 likely voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Safe Bet

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, the other Democrat presidential candidates are trying to out “free stuff” each other and taxpayer’s expense.
Democrats Gambling with Our MoneyPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
Pete Buttigieg flies around in his private jet while telling you to stop driving your SUVs. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Flag And Cross.com here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left. ORDER >  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Bokhari: If Democrats Cared About the Environment, They’d Talk About China


Reported by Allum Bokhari | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/06/bokhari-if-democrats-cared-about-the-environment-theyd-address-china/

Pedestrians wearing face masks walk on a footbridge in heavy smog in Handan city, north China’s Hebei province, 2 January 2017. Heavy smog in northern China caused hundreds of flights to be canceled and highways to shut on Sunday (1 January 2017), disrupting the first day of the New Year … Imaginechina via AP Images

Am I just seeing things? Or are all the “climate crisis solutions” proposed by the Democrats designed to cause maximum pain to ordinary people, and almost none to wealthy elites? Progressives almost seem to take joy in inconveniencing the masses for no reason. Take the plastic straw ban, for example. Even National Geographic — hardly an anti-environmentalist publication  admits that plastic straws comprise just 0.025 percent of the plastic in the oceans.

Contrast the minimal impact of plastic straws with the extraordinary impact of China, and, by extension, global free trade. China, alone, produces around a third of the ocean’s plastic waste. China’s CO2 emissions are greater than the U.S. and Europe combined, and keep going up.

If Democrats really believe that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, why are they proposing draconian and pointless curbs on the behavior of ordinary Americans? Why aren’t they going after multinationals that continue to do business with the world’s biggest polluter, without demanding any environmental commitments from them (and hey, maybe some human rights commitments too?).

You’d think Bernie, at least, would get this. But his big idea is to make everyone have fewer babies. Instead of tackling China, he’s proposing a distinctly Chinese policy. Just because he didn’t say “one-child policy” doesn’t mean the similarity isn’t there.

The real reason Democrats won’t go after China is that they are now the party of global elites, and global elites are constantly salivating about the profits that can be made from China’s market of 1.4 billion people. They look to Europe and America and see a dwindling middle class with a declining population. There’s no money in that, not long-term anyway. Maybe the problem could be fixed with pro-natal policies like Hungary’s, but why bother? It’s far easier to simply go overseas, to a country that does have a booming population and rising middle class.

That’s the same reason, by the way, that global elites are so vociferously opposed to President Donald Trump and his agenda. Trade restrictions on China, to protect American jobs? An outrage! The elites can’t make money off American jobs, you see. They’re just so much more expensive than Chinese jobs!

Ask yourself, why is big tech so determined to work with China, despite the political pitfalls? Did Google, which once boasted the hipster motto “don’t be evil,” really think they’d suffer no blowback for developing a censored search engine designed to appease Chinese state censors? Or that working with the Chinese military but not the American one would somehow escape notice? Of course not — but for all its professed “values,” there’s no way a profit-seeking multinational like Google can resist the temptation of a 1.4 billion-person market.

As for the impact on the environment, the elites don’t really care, no matter how many times they jet to various climate change summits around the globe. It’s not that they don’t believe in a looming environmental catastrophe, they just believe they can escape it. “Doomsday capitalism” is how the left-wing magazine CounterPunch describes the trend of billionaires investing in post-apocalypse getaways.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there about how conservatives see the climate. While they’re skeptical of man-made climate change, natural climate change is a different matter. And even if they don’t think climate change is a problem, that doesn’t mean that the massive amounts of pollution generated by the likes of China is Okay. Preserving the natural environment means preserving our heritage — a conservative goal.

But plastic straw bans, meat bans, and one-child policies won’t solve the problem. They simply cause unnecessary pain to ordinary people. Meanwhile, the Chinese dirty coal furnaces keep on burning.

Are you a corporate or Big Tech insider who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: