STUNNING: Tucker Carlson Reveals Explosive Email from Google Exec on How Company Actively Assisted Hillary in 2016 (VIDEO)

FOX News host Tucker Carlson revealed evidence on Monday on Google was actively working to get Hillary Clinton elected and now there is evidence.

Tucker Carlson has an email from Google executive who admitted in her correspondence to top Google officials on how disappointed she was that Hillary Clinton lost after all of the work the company did for Hillary as a silent donation.

The email came from Senior employee Eliana Murillo, the former head of Google’s multicultural marketing department. Eliana deployed the company’s resources to increase voter turnout in ways she believed would help the Clinton campaign win in the last election.

Eliana’s tweets were recently set to private.

Eliana sent the email on November 9, 2016, that was one day after the presidential election. The email was forwarded by two Google vice presidents to more staff members throughout the company. Eliana touted Google’s multifaceted efforts to boost Hispanic turnout. She knows Latinos voted in record numbers especially in states like Georgia, Nevada and Arizona – “a key state for us.” Eliana admitted Google used its power to ensure millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions. The goal was to influence behavior during the election.

Google also supported partners like Voto Latino to offer rides to polling stations.

Google described this as a “silent donation” to the far left group.

So here is the proof that Google is using its power to shape American elections, speech and culture.

Isn’t it about time Republicans and the US government act on Google?

Via Tucker Carlson Tonight:

The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis

Source: The Social Media Purge and How It Affects Everyone

In Defense of Andrew Jackson

The vast majority of Americans think of Andrew Jackson as a despicable man: a scoundrel, an uncouth violent redneck, hell-bent on the imperial expansion of the United States with the American Indians his burnt offerings to whatever god he worshipped. But my research has revealed Jackson as a true American republican, a virtuous man of the West, and a righteous ancestor…

From the moment the title was announced—In Defense of Andrew Jackson—I’ve had folks on social media react with ingrained distrust, dislike, and outright hatred. It is as if the title just as easily could’ve read In Defense of Judas, In Defense of Count Dracula, or In Defense of Adolf Hitler. Admittedly, Jackson has always been an acquired taste, and his popularity or lack thereof has experienced drastic mood swings since he came on the public scene in the late 1700s. In 2018, a lot of Trump supports want to like Jackson, but the vast majority of Americans—if they know anything at all about him—think of him as an embarrassment or an evil. An entire two generations of young Americans have been brought up being taught that Andrew Jackson was nothing but the author of the heinous Trail of Tears. The actual “Trail of Tears” didn’t happen until 1838, a full year after Andrew Jackson had left the White House. Martin Van Buren was president. Don’t let a fact get in the way of a myth, though. Jackson, to be sure, had gotten the “Indian Removal Act” through Congress in 1830, and he immediately began to remove the Choctaws from their traditional lands. So, yes, Jackson was guilty of removal, but not of the “Trail of Tears.”

But, I’m sidetracking myself! I’ve been teaching the period survey, The United States Between 1807 and 1848, every other year at Hillsdale College since 1999. I’m not blameless when it comes to the reputation of Andrew Jackson. For years, I taught him as a despicable man, an uncouth violent redneck, hell-bent on the imperial expansion of the United States with the American Indians his burnt offerings to whatever tenebrous god he worshipped. My man was, absolutely, John Quincy Adams. Obviously, if you love John Quincy Adams, you have to hate Andrew Jackson. Well, maybe not quite. The more I studied the period, the more I came to wonder just how much I really understood Jackson. After all, when reading his statements on the economy and the corruption of the Second Bank of the United States, I liked the guy. When he stopped South Carolina from nullifying a federal law, I admired his chutzpah, even if I didn’t necessarily agree with his politics. And, when his 2,000-plus rag-tag motley crew of a militia prevented the world’s greatest and strongest empire from invading New Orleans in 1815… well, I cheered, and loudly. That was a victory.

Just a little over a year and a half ago, Regnery’s fearless mastermind contacted Hillsdale’s intrepid John J. Miller, asking him who might be able to write a book on the virtues of Andrew Jackson? John, bless his heart, immediately contacted me, and, within days, I’d signed a contract to write a book entitled, In Defense of Andrew Jackson. I told Harry my reservations about Jackson, and he encouraged me to write what I needed to write. Within a few days, I had the complete published papers of Jackson on my desk as well as a ton of primary sources of varied sorts, but none as vast as the local newspaper clippings from the time, from the U.S. and from England. Thank you, newspaperarchive.com!

The more I read and wrote about Jackson, the more impressed I was. Three months after signing the contract, I had become convinced of several things. First, Andrew Jackson was about the bloodiest man I had ever met. At least, at a personal level. The guy seemed to shoot everything, and he seemed to enjoy it. Second, and perhaps most important, Jackson was as honest as the day is long. He never lied, he never conned, and he always kept his word. Indeed, to deceive would have been anathema to the man. Ok, bloody, but definitely honest. Really, really, really honest. Third, I discovered that while Jackson was born in the South, he was true-life frontiersman and Leatherstocking. His morality was Southern, but his ethics were purely Western. Fourth, I discovered that the quiet but firm alliance John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson enjoyed between 1815 and 1822 was world-changing. With John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State and Andrew Jackson as the preeminent military leader of the young republic, we were as strong and as righteous a republic as ever existed. When the two men had a falling out in 1824, they each lost something precious, but the republic lost something absolutely vital.

There is way too much to discuss regarding this fourth point, and I will leave that discussion for another time.

If, however, one takes together the first three points about Jackson—his brutality, his honesty, and his frontier ethics—a lot becomes clear not only about the man, but about the entire era. Yes, Jackson was very bloody. He dueled quite a few men, and he was often at war. Yet, true to his frontier ethics and his rigorous honesty, his bloodiness had definite limits. Truly, his ethics gave shape and borders to his violence. As Jackson saw it, men could fight other men when necessary. Men could never, under any circumstances, use violence against civilians, women, and children—whether white, black, or Indian. When men behaved violently in a proper fashion, they were in control of their actions and they would only fight those equally in control of their actions. That is, it was fine for two men to duel, or a thousand men to go to war—but, only against equals, those equally armed and choosing to be on the battlefield. When men attacked civilians of any kind, they behaved as the worst sort of barbarian. The records of Andrew Jackson’s life reveal these distinctions, time after time.

Further, they reveal that Jackson acted, time and again, as a protector of civilians, women, and children, attacking the instigator and perpetrator of such violence, whoever that person might be. He held American whites, blacks, Indians, and Spaniards to the same standards. As an avenging angel, he punished severely those who would carry their violence to the innocent. Far from being the racist of legend, Jackson included blacks as well as Indians in his militia, and he even adopted an Indian boy after an American victory against the boy’s tribe. In fact, he and his wife Rachel adopted many children and became wards of many more. De facto, the Jacksons were the patriarchs of Nashville and surrounding environs.

This is a long way of saying that I’m very glad of several things. I’m very glad I had the chance to study a great man. I’m very glad I had the chance to correct my own errors of judgment. And, I’m very glad to see Jackson not as a scoundrel but as a true American republican, a virtuous man of the West, and a righteous ancestor.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

“Indifferent hacks and mediocrities tower, by pushing their forces to a lucrative point, or by working power, over multitudes of superior men.” —Emerson It is a common error of intellectuals, and pundits in particular, to assume that the nature of…

Source: Ben Shapiro’s Morality Play – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

The Grim Cost of the “Oslo War”

September 13, 1993: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shakes hands with PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, while President Bill Clinton looks on, at the signing of the Oslo Accord. (Image source: Vince Musi / The White House)

September 13, 1993. Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands on the lawn of the White House. They have just officially signed the document that was supposed to start Peace: the Oslo Accord. The cogs of this machine began their work.

Overnight, Yasser Arafat was no longer the leader of a defeated terrorist organization. He had suddenly become the President of a quasi-state; his Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had been transformed into the “Palestinian Authority”.

Terror attacks against Israelis attacks during this “peace” grew even more bloody and more profuse, and soon were being perpetrated at a frantic pace. Some deliberately targeted children and youths, such as the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre and the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing. Arafat condemned none of them.

In September 2000, the Palestinian Authority launched a full scale guerrilla war that lasted four years and killed more than 1,000 Israelis.

It soon became clear that Arafat was not going to give up being a mass murderer. His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, was no better. Murders of Jews did not stop. Israel finally decided to build a security barrier. Palestinian leaders continued untiringly to make demands that no country could satisfy without committing suicide. These included retreating to indefensible 1949 armistice lines and allowing into Israel millions of people sworn to the Jews’ destruction:

While it is true that Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made it very plain, in word and deed, that it would rather kill Jews. The following blood-freezing statement is from the group’s charter: “The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say ‘O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

This is a frank and open call for genocide, embedded in one of the most thoroughly anti-Semitic documents you’ll read this side of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not many people seem to know that Hamas’s founding document is genocidal.

Israel, meanwhile, was constantly summoned to negotiate and make ever more concessions.

And make concessions it did. In 2005, Israel forcibly and unconditionally evacuatedevery last Jew from the entire Gaza Strip — a move that resulted in Hamas swiftly seizing power there. Israel also offered, in a plan proposed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, to abandon the eastern half of Jerusalem, and almost totally to withdraw from the West Bank and the Jordan Valley — a move that led to the breakdown of negotiations by the Palestinian side. Even so, Israel continued to be defined internationally as the guilty party.

Although the Palestinian Authority never hid that it was still the same old genocidalPLO, it steadily gained widespread recognition: many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and even the Holy See, recognize a “Palestinian state” that simply does not exist. “Palestine” obtained a seat at the UNESCO, was granted a Permanent Observer status at the United Nations.

Despite the fact that a large part of the foreign subsidies given to the Palestinian Authority were being used to reward terrorism and finance incitement to anti-Jewish hatred, foreign subsidies increased.

Palestinian propaganda gained ground internationally, and even in Israel. A growing number of Israeli Arabs became radicalized; some committed attacks.

Extremist organizations that had been established in Israel, but financed from abroad in the name of “peace,” showed their true colors as openly hostile to the existence of Israel. The recent passing of a law that defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and stipulates what has been in evidence since the founding of Israel in 1948 (the Declaration of Independence does not exclude anyone and speaks of the “development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants”; it also explicitly speaks of the “natural right of the Jewish people to be, like all other nations, master of their destiny on the soil of their own sovereign state”) led some of these organizations to try to provoke anti-Israel anger among the Druze minority and to organize protests in Tel Aviv.

Twenty-five years after Oslo, the balance sheet is more like what, in 2003, the historian Efraim Karsh, commenting on the Rabin-Arafat handshake, called the start the “Oslo war“. In this war, he wrote, Israel had conceded from the beginning a major victory to its worst enemies by giving them a respectability they did not deserve, and thus placed itself in a losing position from which it never fully recovered. In a comprehensive study published in 2016, he reasserted his analysis and said that the 1993 handshake and the document signed then had been the “starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history”.

In January 2017, the historian Daniel Pipes, founder and president of the Middle East Forum, explained in detail the urgent need of a deep change in Israel’s behavior before it would be too late. The Palestinian population, he stressed, is imbued with a “genocidal obsession towards Israel.” He emphasized that:

“Contrary to Rabin’s slogan, one does not ‘make [peace] with very unsavory enemies’ but rather with former very unsavory enemies. That is, enemies that have been defeated…

“…Wars end, the historical record shows, not through goodwill but through defeat. He who does not win loses. Wars usually end when failure causes one side to despair, when that side has abandoned its war aims and accepted defeat, and when that defeat has exhausted its will to fight. Conversely, so long as both combatants still hope to achieve their war objectives, fighting either goes on or it potentially will resume.”

In 2003, Joel Fishman, a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, wrotethat, before any further action concerning the Palestinian issue, the Israeli government would have to stop treating the Palestinian Authority (PA) as what it is not and start treating it as what it is and has never ceased to be: a terrorist organization – and one that should be treated as such. The U.S. and Israeli governments are now going in that direction. On March 6, 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Abbas must “stop paying terrorists to murder Jews”. The statement not only amounted to designating Abbas as a terrorist leader; it also reminded the public that money incentivizes murder. A few weeks ago, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman noted that Abbas “pays NIS 100 million ($27 million) in salaries to terrorists and murderers” and added “a clear message: No more”.

Those who support the Palestinian Authority are supporting terrorism. One can only conclude that in doing so, they have shown themselves as enemies of Israel. Saying that to some governments might be unpopular, but less so non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NGO Monitor was founded in 2002 to counter organizations that use the appearance of “defending human rights” to support often harmful goals. In July 2016, the Knesset passed a law demanding that NGOs receiving more than half of their funding from abroad indicate it in their financial reports and disclose the fact in advertising and publicity, and while lobbying officials. How would you like it if more than half of the funding to shape the policies of your country were coming, undisclosed, from openly hostile nations?

Another task that needs urgent attention is exposing, refuting and rejecting the falsifications of history that the PA and its supporters proliferate. The Israeli government’s decision to withdraw from the UNESCO after a vote that falsely denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and Western Wall was essential and overdue. When Prime Minister Netanyahu refers to the West Bank, he speaks only of Judea and Samaria, states that Judea is named precisely for the Jews‘ presence there thousands of years ago, and explains that expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria should be called by its name: ethnic cleansing.

In a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen stated:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”

The same fact was reconfirmed in a video posted by the invaluable resource MEMRI: a Hamas minister of the interior in 2012 states that Palestinians are “just Saudis and Egyptians.”

For eight years, the Obama administration took positions to undermine Israel. Those policies culminated with the December 23, 2016 decision not to veto a UN resolution that demanded the return of Israel to “1967 borders”, in reality not borders at all but just an armistice line. The policies also defined “East Jerusalem” and the Old City as “occupied Palestinian territory”. President Trump on the other hand recognizedJerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on May 14 and by those moves took Jerusalem off the negotiating table. Guatemalahelpfully followed by moving its embassy to Jerusalem, too. When President Trump asked Palestinian leaders to stop paying stipends to terrorists imprisoned in Israel, and to the families of dead terrorists, and the Palestinians refused, he cut more than $200 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority.

President Trump’s administration also regarded extending “refugee” status to millions of descendants of the approximately 500,000 original Arab refugees as unjustifiable. According to a classified State Department document, only 30,000 of the original refugees remain today. So the president cut all outstanding funding, roughly $300 million, to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). He added that UNRWA had been “vulnerable to misappropriation and corruption” and that it aggravated the problem instead of contributing to solving it. On September 9, he also decided to freeze $25 million in funding to Palestinian hospitals in Jerusalem for refusing to participate in peace efforts, and on September 10, he decided to close the Palestinian delegation’s office in Washington D.C.

The Sunni Arab regimes know that Israel could be their greatest ally against the Iranian threat in the region. Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, said in New York in April that Palestinians will have to “accept the proposals made by the Trump administration or keep quiet”. On August 12, Walid Sadi, a former Jordanian diplomat, wrote in the Jordan Times (a newspaper that depends directly on the kingdom’s government) that the Palestinian Authority must “resign itself to an imperfect solution”. The statement should lead one to reflect on what, in the Palestinian Authority’s view, the perfect solution would be.

Israel has always been facing the unrelenting hostility of the European Union, France and Germany, which today are among the most ardent supporters of the corrupted “Palestinian cause”. The Israeli government knows it has nothing to expect from them, except being undermined. In July 2016, Mahmoud Abbas, after making openly anti-Semitic remarks in the European Parliament, received a standing ovation. In July 2017, Emmanuel Macron kissed Abbas and with a straight face thanked him for his “tireless work in favor of non-violence”. In April 2018, Hams leader Ismail Haniyeh was on the cover of one of the main French news magazines,Paris Match, and that several pages of the magazine were dedicated to a hagiography of a man who can only be described as an anti-Semitic murderer. In April 2017, while on a diplomatic trip to Israel, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel met with groups that slander Israeli soldiers as “war criminals”. The European Union, France and Germany will apparently not stop funding the Palestinian Authority and dozens of radical anti-Israel organizations, and are doing everything they can to savethe “Iranian nuclear deal” and the mullahs’ regime.

The number of Israelis who think that a peace agreement is possible is dwindling. The number of Israelis who think that no additional concessions should be made is growing. The number of Palestinian Arabs supporting terrorist attacks is also growing.

In a recent survey ranking countries on the basis of their alliances, influence and leadership, Israel, despite its small size, was ranked the eighth most powerful country in the world.

Hamas, a crumbling terrorist entity, has been trying to make the brutally governedpopulation of the Gaza strip into a horde of bloodthirsty fanatics. The Palestinian Authority is a corruption-ridden autocracy that survives only thanks to massive aid, mostly from the gullible West – a bribe that not only has failed to work, but, as in most extortion, has only led to further demands for more money with no noticeable change in behavior.

It is has been truly tragic that the people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have been held hostage for so long by Palestinians leaders who feed them on a dream, impede their progress and lead them to incite against Israel to seek its destruction.

In February 2017, US Ambassador John Bolton, now President Trump’s National Security Advisor, said he did not see any viable institutions on the “Palestinian” side and added that he thought the best option could be a “three-state solution”, whereby Gaza would join Egypt, and a part of the West Bank would join Jordan. The Israeli government did not disagree.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Good read

Aristotle’s answer to identity politics

Failure to engage with others as equals breeds revolution – a healthy society must seek common ground

Though Aristotle wrote about politics over 2,300 years ago, he nonetheless remains required reading for anyone who wants to understand our populist moment.

He taught that politics is not ultimately about safety or comfort, although he accepted that both are important. Instead, the true aim of politics is to increase happiness and to promote friendship. A government, in his view, did that well if it used laws to inculcate good habits in its citizens, so that they lived good lives in the company of people to whom they were tied by more than simple blood-kinship.

Unlike his teacher, Plato, Aristotle believed this good life could only be lived in what we would nowadays call a republican form of government. While Plato argued, in The Republic, for the rule of an enlightened philosopher-king, Aristotle contended that people should be both ruler and ruled in turn. Finding the right ruler means engaging in debate, which in turn requires treating each other as being equal in the most decisive respect. There are many differences between our liberal democracies and Aristotle’s ideal regime, but one can easily see the common threads that link the two across the millennia.

Failure to engage with others as equals breeds revolution. Aristotle discusses this at length in Book Five of his Politics, and we would recognise many of the causes of revolution that he describes. Insolence, contempt, and the rapid introduction of strangers who “do not acquire at once a common spirit” all are things he cites as causing states to convulse and collapse. All those factors are present and visible in the populist movements of today.

Practitioners of identity politics on the Left and of doctrinaire libertarianism on the Right engage in insolent behaviour and display contempt for many of their fellow citizens, needlessly creating discord, strife, and conflict. Their inflexible and intolerant demands have created today’s populist backlash, which is nothing more than a cry that average, native-born citizens are people too.

Proponents of identity politics implicitly deny the possibility of reasonable discussion that can be conducted in a friendly, or at least civil, manner by all in society. They replace that with the idea that one’s lived experience is irretrievably shaped by race, gender, or innate orientation. If that is true, then political discussion is meaningless, because no group can truly understand an other – they are isolated from one another by the islands of their unique experiences. That is why we hear the epithets of racist, bigot, and sexist thrown about so wantonly – even to question the political demands of a group that feels powerless is illegitimate.