Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Trump Country? If Democrats lose Starbucks, they’ve just about lost the private economy. James Freeman

First Apple and now Starbucks . Reliably Democratic precincts in corporate America keep reporting good news for both owners and workers as a result of Republican tax reform. Now the biggest political question of 2018 is whether an economic upshift will trigger a shift in U.S. voting patterns this fall.

The Associated Press reports today:

Starbucks is giving its U.S. workers pay raises and stock grants this year, citing recent changes to the tax law.

All employees will soon be able to earn paid sick time off, and the company’s parental leave benefits will include all non-birth parents. Starbucks Corp. said Wednesday that the changes affect about 150,000 full-time, part-time, hourly and salaried employees, most of whom work as baristas or shop managers. The new benefits apply to workers at more than 8,200 company-owned stores but not at the 5,700 licensed shops like those found inside supermarkets.

Starbucks is the latest to say it’s boosting pay or benefits due to the passage of the Republican tax plan, which slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Walmart, for example, raised its starting hourly salary from $9 to $11 earlier this month, and also expanded its parental leave benefits.

In a press release, Starbucks adds, “These new offerings are in addition to the nearly $7 billion of capital that Starbucks will deploy to build and renovate stores, manufacturing plants and technology platforms in the U.S. over the next five years.”

On Thursday after the markets close, Starbucks will report its earnings for the quarter ended in December. “Following several disappointing quarters, there is hope that an improving retail environment may benefit Starbucks,” notes the Journal.

As the Democratic Party has moved sharply leftward in recent years, it has increasingly become the party of government and the non-profit sector. As the Journal’s Daniel Henninger has been chronicling for years, Democrats have systematically been disconnecting themselves from the private economy. Seattle-based Starbucks and the tech giants of Silicon Valley are among the notable exceptions.

Normally a stalwart outpost of cultural liberalism, Starbucks employs people who gave Hillary Clinton about fifty times as much as they gave Donald Trump in the 2016 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. But will rising prosperity from the shop counter to the executive suite change political behavior? Sure it’s only money but of course money allows baristas and everyone else in our economy the freedom to pursue whatever activity or agenda they choose. CONTINUE AT SITE

ISIS Group Puts Crosshairs on Vegas Hotel in Threat to Shed ‘Dirty Blood’ By Bridget Johnson

An ISIS-supporting media group threatened another Vegas-style massacre in a new propaganda image, yet zeroed in on a Strip hotel other than the Mandalay Bay.

“The disbeliever west will see our power through the jihad of sincere people and the sacrifice of monotheists. We will be generous in shedding your dirty blood unless you embrace Islam or give the jizyah,” states the message, referencing a tax paid by non-Muslims. “However, Las Vegas’ massacre is not far from you.”

The poster distributed online includes a shadowy backdrop of masked jihadists carrying an ISIS flag, hovering over a photo from the Vegas strip. The words “Las Vegas,” crosshairs and flames are positioned over the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.

An ISIS-supporting media group threatened another Vegas-style massacre in a new propaganda image, yet zeroed in on a Strip hotel other than the Mandalay Bay.

“The disbeliever west will see our power through the jihad of sincere people and the sacrifice of monotheists. We will be generous in shedding your dirty blood unless you embrace Islam or give the jizyah,” states the message, referencing a tax paid by non-Muslims. “However, Las Vegas’ massacre is not far from you.”

The poster distributed online includes a shadowy backdrop of masked jihadists carrying an ISIS flag, hovering over a photo from the Vegas strip. The words “Las Vegas,” crosshairs and flames are positioned over the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.CONTINUE AT SITE

Feminist Event Encourages Scientists to Only Pursue ‘Socially Just’ Research By Tom Knighton

You would think science — like any field of study based on, you know, the truth — should be immune from the campus takeover by the Social Justice Warriors.

After all, science is simply the observation and discovery of facts. While we may argue about the results of a scientific study being definitive, we can’t just decide that, say, men and women are exactly the same because it makes someone feel better.

Just kidding. Of course science is now under siege by SJWs, because that’s what they do. For example, see the event being held at UC Santa Cruz titled “Research Justice 101: Tools for Feminist Science.”

Yes, “feminist science.” The event description reads:

Participants will be challenged to apply principles and practices of justice to their own work, interrogating questions such as: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Who is most vulnerable? … And ultimately, who do we do science for, and why? The workshop will conclude with practical skills and resources for participants to push their research communities to be more inclusive, equitable and attentive to social justice.

The event is being organized by an Los Angeles-based group titled — sigh — “Free Radicals.”

According to The College Fix:

The mission of the Free Radicals is to enact political and social change by advocating scientists “think through the hidden assumptions in their methodological approaches and challenges researchers to think more deeply about the political implications of their work,” its website states.

Got that? They want scientists to only undertake studies and only publish conclusions that will support a radical feminist worldview.

Testicular cancer is striking down many men in their prime, you say? Well, don’t you dare invest scarce research money into finding a cure — men already have too many advantages.

What Free Radicals and anyone else associated with this nonsense are arguing for is to ignore the pursuit of truth — even, to suppress it — and to only focus on making sure a certain political argument is supported. They don’t want science to find the truth, just to support “their truth.”

That’s in quotes, because modern Leftists like Free Radicals tend to support postmodernist thinking that argues there is no such thing as a universal truth — that everything is a matter of perception and social construction. They’re hoping to harness the field of scientific discovery to support this idea.

New Docs Connect Robert Mueller to FBI Coverup Denying Saudi Family’s Connections to 9/11 By Tyler O’Neil

New FBI documents released in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) investigation suggest then-FBI Director Robert Mueller was involved in a potential coverup denying that the FBI found connections between a Saudi Arabian family living in Sarasota, Fla., and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Mueller’s involvement in this case might cast a pall over his investigation into Donald Trump’s alleged connections with Russia.

The case revolves around Abdulaziz al-Hijji, his wife Anoud, and her father Esam Ghazzawi, an advisor to a Saudi prince. The al-Hijjis abruptly left their home in Sarasota two weeks before the September 11 attacks, leaving behind jewelry, clothing, and cars.

An original FBI investigation reportedly uncovered links between the Hijjis and the 9/11 attacks, but subsequent FBI statements denied the connections. In 2012, the website Broward Bulldog (now Florida Bulldog) filed a FOIA request for FBI files regarding the case.

In 2014, the FBI released 11 pages, including statements reiterating that the al-Hijjis had left the U.S. shortly before the 9/11 attacks and that “further investigation” had revealed “many connections” between the family and 9/11 suspects, the Miami Herald reported.

The FBI later claimed there were no connections between the al-Hijjis and 9/11 — and that’s where Mueller comes into the picture.

One FBI document, dated September 2012, was a copy of an April 16, 2002, report that agents found “many connections” between the family and “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.” The couple’s name was blanked out, but remained discernible. This flatly contradicted FBI statements that agents had found no connections.

FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire wrote in a 2014 memorandum that the 2002 report was “a bad statement. It was overly speculative and there was no basis for the statement.”

The FBI had at least three reports detailing connections between the family and the 9/11 hijackers, however.

In response to Florida Bulldog’s FOIA request, the FBI produced 80,000 classified pages for U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The FBI also gave Zloch the index organization to process the files. Mueller, now special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation, was referenced in a document in this database.

The former FBI director was mentioned in a note about an FBI white paper dating back to September 15, 2010. The paper was written shortly after the Bulldog and the Miami Herald published a story about the departure of the al-Hijjis shortly before 9/11.

“It was created to brief the FBI Director concerning the FBI’s investigation of 4224 Escondito Circle,” the al-Hijjis’ Sarasota address, according to the index. CONTINUE AT SITE

Glenn Simpson, Conspiracy Theorist, Finds a Place for the Jews in his Trump-Russia Fantasia Lee Smith

Glenn Simpson, founder of the D.C.-based news-for-hire firm Fusion GPS, is a conspiracy theorist. He says so himself. On page 126 of a transcript released last week from Simpson’s Nov. 14 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, here’s how the ex-reporter describes his own state of mind: “As sort of cynical and conspiracy-minded as I am,” Simpson told committee members and staff investigating issues related to Russia and the 2016 elections, “I am still shocked by all kinds of things that have happened here.”

For more than a year now, the opposition research that the former Wall Street Journal reporter prepared for his paying customers at the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign has dominated the news cycle. The Steele dossier, produced by Fusion GPS and named after the former British spy Christopher Steele, who allegedly authored it, is the foundation of the grand speculation that Donald Trump won the 2016 election by colluding with Russia.

The collusion narrative has kicked off three congressional inquiries plus Robert Mueller’s special investigation. Far-flung conspiracy theories about Russia, Trump, Putin, Facebook and whoever else are treated as normal “news” every day of the week, with the result that Russiaphobia has swept through Democratic-leaning metropolitan strongholds, which now believe Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are equally responsible for Hillary Clinton’s loss last November.

In some sense, none of this should be surprising. Before he left the practice of journalism in 2009, Glenn Simpson was an investigative reporter. As every journalist knows, the investigative reporter is a special breed, valued because of his or her ability to see connections that are likely lost on others—often because there is no connection. What newspaper editors will never admit when they are scooping up prizes won by their ace investigative reporters, but every professional who has been around the block in the news business knows, is that nine of every 10 stories pitched by an investigative reporter are indelibly riddled with speculative lunacy. The one good lead needs to be carefully managed for months by at least one sub-editor before it ever reaches the desk of the top editor, whose publication, and professional reputation, requires excising every trace of madness before the story sees print. If you doubt this, here’s a sample of what a legendary Pulitzer Prize-winning ace investigative reporter like Seymour Hersh sounds like unplugged, i.e. pretty much like every other investigative reporter I have ever met.

The Stench at Obama’s DOJ and FBI By Charles Lipson

For a brief, shining moment, CNN paused in its nonstop coverage of everything it loathes about President Trump for some actual “breaking news.” One of the network’s reporters had noticed that Congress was looking into malfeasance and political corruption at the Obama-era Department of Justice, FBI, and intelligence agencies. This is still news to most mainstream outlets.

There are now three major congressional investigations, peeling away layers of political bias, unequal application of the law, and, perhaps even felonies by senior officials who may have leaked classified documents, obstructed justice, and violated Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.

These probes center on credible allegations that the FBI and DOJ fixed the investigation of Hillary Clinton to clear her and her top associates, and then launched an investigation of Donald Trump for partisan political reasons. If these allegations are true—and they have not yet been proven—this is the biggest American political scandal since Watergate. It would mean that the executive branch agency tasked with enforcing the law, instead subverted the law to protect its favored presidential candidate and damage the opposition party’s. Then, it tried to cover it all up.

If true, this would be a very deep pool of corruption, but CNN dove head-first into the shallow end. What most concerned the network was that Rep. Devin Nunes would not give the FBI his classified memo detailing the evidence uncovered so far. The CNN on-air panel discussing this topic featured a former Obama-era intelligence official, and he was shocked, shocked at Nunes and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. The FBI should get that memo immediately, he said, because it is the lead law enforcement agency in such matters. The CNN panel could only think of one reason Nunes was being so secretive: He was just trying to distract from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Trump-Russia collusion. For its part, CNN wasn’t distracted at all. It was entirely focused on Trump.

“I Am Sick of Hijab, Sharia Law, Sharia Police” by Majid Rafizadeh

“The regime wants you to think that either there are no protests, or that the protests are solely about the economy. But I am not protesting the economy. Women are protesting the repressive Islamist laws. I am sick of Hijab, Sharia law and Sharia police. Women are sick of the Sharia police monitoring them constantly for what they wear, what they say, what they drink, where they go, and what kind of relationships they have”. – Leila, a young Iranian woman.

What now is the fate of these women? The history of the Islamist Republic of Iran shows us that arrested women are faced with atrocities such as rape, torture or execution. Some die in detention surreptitiously.

Feminists claim to be champions of women rights around the world. They argue that “universality” is a key component of their cause.

Perhaps it is worthwhile, though, to examine their nice slogans against reality.

Women took to the street recently in the front lines of protests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The demands of the women were clear: Remove Sharia law, eliminate the obligatory hijab, improve the rights of women, and not to treat women as slaves and second-class citizens. Simple.

Many women demonstrated their resistance by bravely removing their hijab, thereby violating the Islamist law of the land. One photograph that has become a symbol of the protests on social media, is of an Iranian woman raising her fist in the air while she goes walks through tear gas. A video and pictures that also have become a symbol of the protests, show an unidentified woman removing her hijab, placing it on a stick and waving it. She was reportedly arrested shortly after her act of defiance.

In a video, a woman protesting in the streets is seen saying, “You raised your fists and ruined our lives. Now we raise our fists. Be men, join us. I, as a woman, will stand in front and protect you. Come represent your country.” Another woman, in a crime punishable by death, courageously chanted against the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Her chants encouraged and prompted men behind her to chant also. These women can be labeled true heroes.

How to Manipulate Migration Data? Take Belgium… by Alain Destexhe

Alain Destexhe is a Senator in Belgium, Former Secretary General of Médecins Sans Frontières and Former President of the International Crisis Group.

An honest report for this demographic forecasting should be called, “We shall soon be a million more, most of whom will be Muslims”. But this kind of headline would invariably create a public debate on demography, population density and Muslim integration — and that would be out of the question for European elites: that would make people super-anxious and worried.

Tricky surveys are only used for migration numbers; never for unemployment rates, literacy rates or GDP growth.

Unless there is rapid awareness about the exponential consequences of chain migration and arrivals from across the Mediterranean, mass migration will continue. Concealing this fact is pursued everywhere in Europe.

It should probably not come as a shock that statistics can be, and often are, presented and manipulated by elites. In Belgium — and in all of Western Europe except Austria — they form an informal multiculturalist lobby, which dominates universities, NGOs, public institutions and the media, in order to promote a pro-migration agenda.

In a relatively short time, Belgium has changed dramatically. Without any public debate, it has become a massive migration state. In just 15 years, Belgium has seen an increase of one million in its population — from 10.2 million in 2000 to 11.3 million in 2015. These numbers represent a 10% rise over a very short period.

From 2000 to 2010, net immigration was nine times greater than in the Netherlands; four times greater than in France or Germany and even greater than in the United States, a country historically open to immigration.

Yet, this statistical reality has been hidden from the Belgian population. The elites and the media decide what people can talk about and what should be hidden. To force people to accept immigration as a given, data has to be hidden to avoid worrying the citizenry.

This is no grand conspiracy, no “Big Brother” masterpiece, but — at best — an honest enthusiasm for the multiculturalist ideology, or — at worst — the strong defensive mechanisms of Freudian psychology such as sublimation, denial or repression.
Information on flow but not on stock

Migration statistics are presented as annual flow. If this number goes down compared to the preceding year, it will be greatly emphasized; otherwise, it will be downplayed. A 10- or 20-year statistic would never be used. In looking at the scale of a country, annual flows are rarely subject to concern; but over a 10-year period, they could be alarming. We usually, for instance, talk about 40,000 naturalizations a year but none of these would remind us that there were also 200,000 naturalizations in three years and 608,322 in 12 years.

Those numbers represent 6% of Belgium’s population. Additionally, no one writes that in just a few years, a million migrants arrived in a country of ten million, from 10.2 million in 2000 to 11.3 million in 2015.
Europeans move back to their country of origin, the others stay

In Belgium, a small country, open to its neighbors and host to the “capital of Europe,” always has a procession of lobbyists and bureaucrats who have migrated from within Europe. This number is always larger, in terms of flow, than those arriving from other continents. The French and Dutch have the largest number of yearly migrants to Belgium, but after a few years they move back to their countries of origin. Turks, Moroccans and newcomers from other continents, do not.

Why Do Western Gays Abandon Their Islamic Brothers? by Giulio Meotti

The LGBT establishment has, it seems, been hijacked by a politicized elite that cares little about the rights of their brethren in the Islamic world.
LGBT activists and celebrities have never once promoted a boycott of the Islamic regimes that stone, execute and jail their homosexual citizens. Why do they not orchestrate a campaign to boycott Iranian, Indonesian, Palestinian and Turkish goods?

Whenever Islamic radicalism has been defeated after its reign of horror and fear, what follows among ordinary citizens are scenes of hope and liberation.

Syrian women burned the burqas the Islamic State forced them to wear, after the militants were being driven out from the city of Manbij. “Damn this stupid invention that they made us wear,” one woman said as she set fire to the garment. “We’re humans, we have our freedom”.

When the Taliban tyranny in Afghanistan ended, women’s faces also began to reappear on the streets; and men, forced by the Taliban to grow beards, flocked to buy razors.

Why hasn’t the West raised the question of gay rights under Islam? Go ask the LGBT establishment.

“Fight the nationalism that invokes walls and borders”. This was the platform in 2017 of Rome Pride, the annual event of Italy’s LGBT movement; it called for “resistance” against “populism” and yelled slogans such as “Make Italy Gay Again”. But as the English magazine The Spectator noted, “the battle for gay rights stops at the borders of Islam”. The Islamic State knows this well and, borrowing the slogan used by President Obama after the Supreme Court declared same-gender marriage legal, ISIS took to using the hashtag #LoveWins. Islamic supremacists laugh at our weakness.

During the summer, in cities across the West, the LGBT movement celebrated two weeks of marches and parades for “Rainbow Pride.” At Chicago’s “Dyke March,” the organizers ejected marchers who carried rainbow flags with the Jewish Star of David. They were labelled “offensive” for this “inclusive” event, despite the fact that hundreds of gay Palestinians have found refuge in Israel.

The Final Year Reveals the Obama Administration’s Naïvety and Arrogance It sought to avoid conflict but left a bloody trail. By Kyle Smith —

In a moment of woeful irony in the Obama-administration documentary The Final Year, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power travels to Cameroon to offer photo-op comfort to families terrorized by Boko Haram — only to have her motorcade kill a seven-year-old boy. The boy had run out into the road to gape at a helicopter pulling security for Power’s team of VIPs. Greg Barker, the director of this fan film, does not depict the horrifying accident and does his best to downplay it: It is discussed while we watch a clip of Power’s convoy moving at a crawl when in fact it was reportedly traveling at over 60 miles an hour when it struck the boy. Despite Barker’s intentions, the handiwork of the Road to Hell Paving Company is obvious. Team Obama, with its let’s-hug-it-out attitude to world conflict, left a bloody trail.

The Final Year, which is playing on a few screens ahead of its debut on HBO in May, has drawn some notice for a five-minute scene set in Power’s apartment on Election Night 2016. She invited the camera crew to film her party with the world’s 37 female ambassadors to toast the inevitable Hillary Clinton landslide, which she feared would happen so quickly that she wouldn’t have time “to milk the soft power dividend of this moment,” as she later told Politico. Power’s fist-pumping as she watches the election returns turns to blanching, but it’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes who has the most amusing reaction to Donald Trump’s victory.

Rhodes twice reassures us that Clinton will win. “I’m sure,” he says with a smirk on a trip to Southeast Asia. Asked later whether a Trump administration might endanger his accomplishments, he says, “I’ve never really considered that he has any opportunity to win the election.” So what does the speechwriter and former aspiring novelist have to say when Trump does in fact win? “I mean, uh, I can’t even [long pause] I can’t, I ca— [long pause] I mean I, I can’t, I can’t, I can’t put it into words. I don’t know what the words are.”