It’s time to break up Google

James Damore’s firing this week has uncovered a truth we need to face:  the internet giants have become monopoly utilities.  And it’s time we started treating them as such.  Their bias has had too much of an effect on our political process to ignore.

For those who are still catching up: Google employee James Damore issued a ten page memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”.  In it he contested Google orthodoxy that the proportional lack of women in the tech industry was a problem rooted in sexism and “toxic masculinity”.  More so, their commitment to this orthodoxy has created a terrifying culture where nobody’s allowed to dissent or argue.

For this, he was immediately fired.  This was a direct violation of California labor laws, which “prohibit employers from retaliating in any way (including through wrongful termination) against an employee for his/her political beliefs or activities.”

The ensuing internet firestorm was quick and devastating.  This wasn’t just about Damore being fired immediately after his memo.  Now other Google employees are coming out with how Google suppresses search results it doesn’t find politically correct.

For those who are obsessing about the Russia collusion story, if they were anything other than partisan hacks, this should be terrifying.  If Russia collusion had a distant star’s effect upon our election, Google’s effect is like the Sun itself.

Keep in mind Google doesn’t just decide what you see when you search.  They also own YouTube, which is already purging and demonetizing conservative voices from its platform.  To the point where even innocent apolitical Youtubers like Pewdiepie have been getting redpilled by the smears and repression they’ve encountered.

So what’s the solution to all this?  The pure laissez-faire solution is to just leave the platform.  People are already switching search providers to Bing.  But really, given Google’s reach, there’s only so much we can do privately.  They are a major provider of cloud services, identity management, search services, you name it.  Really, they’ve become a utility.  Leaving them is about as easy as leaving your cable provider or electricity provider – yes it’s technically possible but going off the grid isn’t very efficient economically.

I’ve talked before about what we can do with internet giants that have become politically damaging.  In light of recent events it’s worth expanding on it:

  1. Sites like Facebook and Google/Youtube have worked for years to become established online public spheres.  As such, they are liable to the same 1st amendment laws that malls are.  We need to extend current laws to the online sphere.
  2. We need an investigation into how these internet giants are swaying elections in their favor. If the alleged Russia collusion had a distant star’s effect on our 2016 election, Google’s effect is like the Sun itself.
  3. Loathe as we Republicans are to institute new regulations, we have to consider treating internet giants like a utility, and regulating them as such. If they monopolize the public sphere, they can’t be allowed to manipulate it in their favor.  This kind of manipulation makes 19th century political machines seem like child’s play.

I think these principles are a good start to bringing internet giants to heel and making them a contribution to our democracy and not a brake on it.  And may I add – it’s quite the irony that the Democrats and the left, the champions of government intervention, all of a sudden turn laissez-faire whenever a company does something they support – no matter how illegal or immoral.





Black Lives Matter

Blacks aren’t going to make your revolution for you.

That should be the beginning and the end of my stance on Black Lives Matter, but I suppose I should elaborate.

I decided to run as a Republican because I held certain things to be bipartisan, which are apparently no longer so – respect for our laws, respect for the people who uphold them, and that American values of freedom and justice are worth standing up for.  The blacks I’ve known are all firm believers in these things.  They work hard, are law abiding, have all the same habits and follow the same trends as everyone else.

These are the people I wish to represent, these are the people I wish to work with.  I believe that our liberal institutions are more than fitting to deal with any grievances different people have with our institutions.

And yet, ever since I’ve been in college and before, the left has had this unhealthy obsession with them as their revolutionary agents.  There’s no denying Black Lives Matter grows out of this obsession.

I’ve seen different criticisms of Black Lives Matter, none of which satisfied me.  What gets me is, every single one of these issues that the left likes to bring up as a case of police brutality, begins with someone provoking a cop.  I’m not going to bother with links because if I slogged through it all I’d never get this done.  And it doesn’t seem to faze them either – they can show someone arguing with a cop, running away from a cop, failing to obey orders with a cop, and if the cop does anything harmful to the person it becomes a national event.

Time after time I was presented with an anecdote of how cops brutalized some poor kid.  Time after time I trolled through the evidence I found, and saw either nothing wrong, or someone who got what was coming to them because they challenged an officer.

Now, let’s get a basic fact straight.  If you challenge or attack a police officer, you lose your rights.  Everything the cop does is now justified to protect his life.  This is standard protocol, everyone understands it.

I remember the Rodney King riots.  More so, I remember the Rodney King video.  THAT was a case of police brutality.  At least, compared with everything I’ve seen in the past couple years.

Again, that doesn’t faze the left.  Each anecdote that came out was another chance to demonstrate, to riot, to “burn the bitch down.”  And I say the left, and not blacks, because I don’t think Black Lives Matter is a black movement.  It’s a movement of establishment leftists, looking to bait blacks into being shock troops for their fantasy politics.

They utter all the “gangsterisms” and catchphrases that make them think they have “street cred”.  “What do we want? Dead cops!” “Pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon!”  They took their childhood rap video fantasies into the grownup world of politics.

And Black Lives Matter’s proposed solutions are actually aimed at inflaming the problem.  They treat cops not as a necessary institution that we need to maintain properly or reform.  They see cops as an imperialist occupying force, the jackboot of white privilege.  Their mission is to get them out of the community or render them totally unable to do their job, totally unable to use violence on people who are out of control.  And they’re getting major foundation money to do this.

Meanwhile, every kid with a camera is out recording every lunatic that starts trouble in every public place, hoping to get their 15 mintues of fame by catching a cop in a compromising situation and uploading it to YouTube.  I’ve seen instances with my own two eyes.

I’m not going to ask them how they think this affects our police force, because they’ll never change.  I’m asking this of you, the people who actually have to live with crime, who depend on the cops to keep the streets safe.  How do you think this environment affects them?

But wait, you already know.  This gives us Christopher Dorner, who went on a cop-murdering rampage before he was finally killed in a hideout at Big Bear Lake.  Ironically, the one thing the left took out of that entire episode was the brutality on the poor Latina newspaper delivery woman who happened to drive the exact same type of truck Dorner was driving.

Yup, if you attack cops, this is the kind of chaos that ensues.

Crime is a thing.  Violent people exist and need to be handled violently sometimes.  That is where we differ from the left, and insist we need cops who can do their job.  We need cops who feel at home patrolling their communities.  We need a citizenry that knows their rights and their duties around law enforcement.  If there is a real grievance with cops, our institutions are capable of handling it.  I would like to be involved in that conversation.

But this kind of race baiting?  Leave it to the Democrats.

Tech Platform

I’ve been involved in the internet boom ever since my 14k baud modem days back in college in the 90s.  Back in the 20th century I saw the internet’s promise to centralize information and present it easily to anyone authorized to view it.

But as someone who’s been involved in the private sector I’ve seen how lacking in competence and wisdom the public sector is.  I would like to usher in some refreshing changes on several fronts:

  1. Maintain business friendly practices to allow Silicon Beach to fully develop
  2. Push for new global opportunities in tech
  3. Hold the public sector to the same accountability that the private sector has
  4. No company is too big to fail or too small to matter
  5. Use the internet to increase public participation

A further explanation of each issue:

  1. Silicon Beach – it seemed like the benefits of the internet economy would stay limited to Silicon Valley, but in retrospect it had its limits. A combination of rent control and strict development limits have set housing costs so high in the Bay Area, tech could only realistically grow by moving south.  Here in Los Angeles, we have a liberal growth environment and market based housing.  If we maintain an approach of enlightened growth in our district, Los Angeles will continue to be a hub of new business and opportunity in tech.
  2. Seeking new global opportunities for tech – Trump’s presidency brought a lot of worry that he’d close off the US economy with protectionism. This doesn’t need to be the case.  The 37th district benefits immensely from global trade, not just from our port but from the influence of the internet economy.  People worry about jobs, businesses worry about opportunities for growth.  I will make sure world trade continues to expand and give us ever newer opportunities for fresh business and growth.
  3. An accountable public sector. Los Angeles quoted citywide free wifi at $5 billion.  There’s no way it should be that high, by orders of magnitude.  My experience is the public sector just hands out tech contracts to their friends with no oversight, or clue.  This is also how someone like Hillary could get away with a private email server for years, or Obama thought a bomb hoax was an actual science project.  As congressman I will make sure A) that the public sector has compliance standards similar to the private sector B) that the public sector adopts internet tech at some level comparable to the private sector
  4. No company is too big to fail, too small to matter. Google/YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook all have a strong presence in Silicon Beach.  They also have been in the news lately for their alleged censorship of conservative voices.  This is a dilemma.  The internet is now undeniably a part of the public sphere, and as such, is no different from a mall in first amendment protections.  Be it Google’s maldirection of searches, or Twitter’s endorsing or banning anyone who follows or contradicts their politics, this is bad for Democracy.  And these companies should be held to account.  We need to see this accountability as good for their long term health.  Companies that succeed or fail based on their political affiliations undermine both our democracy and their long term business plan.  Because when it comes down to it, politicians and social movements come and go.  We don’t want our economy to fluctuate with them.
    Meanwhile, the internet has also drastically reduced the barriers to entry.  This means that more and more independent voices are getting their say, more and more business are getting more easily heard by their customers.  As custodians of capitalism we should be nurturing this very environment.  Not regarding it with suspicion.  This leads to:
  5. Increasing public participation through the internet. Ultimately a neutral internet environment will be a place where all people have a platform and the marketplace of ideas can truly flourish.  This also means more people can have a voice in government.  I created myself in a few hours.  There’s no reason all politicians shouldn’t have some kind of online interaction with their constituents.  And yet few do.  As Obama said, the Internet is a disruptive technology.  But in its disruption it yearns to create a new order, one where people will again truly have a say in their government and no ideas, people, or institutions will be above question.

All about deportations

Millions of people will be deported overnight!  Cities will become ghost towns!  Jackbooted thugs will be marching a Trail of Tears right down to the border and shooting stragglers!   You get a deportation!  You get a deportation!  Everyone gets a deportation!

Again, this is what the media would have us believe.  And it’s yet another lie about the intentions of the Trump administration.

The LA Times, in their article LA, OC home to over one million immigrants,  discusses the immigrant community’s worst fears that downtown LA could become a ghost town if everyone were deported.  Ironic considering the criticism that a wall wouldn’t work, and yet we would or could deport a million people overnight, but I digress.  Our own city leaders are certainly adding to the fire.  Police chief Charlie Beck said will not deport immigrants under Trump.  Garcetti echoes this sentiment.

This is misleading people about the point – nobody ever talked about forcing local cops to find and deport criminals.  First off, Beck is saying this right after the election.  Beyond just the overall anti-Trump posturing I imagine he has to do, he has to make assurances to a population that has been fearmongered into hysteria.

But Trump has always talked about the crime spawned by illegal immigration.  When he speaks of deportations, he speaks of deporting the criminals.  In this contentious age there’s plenty of articles pushing for any viewpoint in the spectrum.  But one University of California paper lays it all out pretty plainly, and criminal illegals is at the top.  Those without criminal records who are working are “unlikely to be a named priority for deportation.”

I’d like to find some footnotes, but Ben Shapiro claims his friends in the LAPD say large part of the gang problem is control from beneath the border.  Curbing the illegal immigration problem would help,  especially if they could work with federal agents to stop this.

Again, there is a huge difference between police working with immigration officials to stop crime, and working for immigration officials to deport people.  The Trump administration has always talked about the former.  His detractors always claimed he’s up to the latter.

Hopefully, in this post, I’ve given you enough information to understand the issue for yourself.  This is a real issue, and as a candidate I’d like to present such real issues to you as I see them.






Immigration – fact and fiction

The immigration issue is, worldwide, setting up to be the moral crux of our time.  And since it’s the most politically charged, it’s the most fraught with lies and agendas.  One thing I’d like to do is clear up the air on various aspects of the issue.  There’s endless details, endless lies circulating, so this will be the first on many articles.  I’ll try to touch on some basic issues.

The major lie out there is that Republicans are against immigration.  I hear Democrats, pundits, Super Bowl advertisers constantly repeat “immigrants made this country great!”  No shit, sherlock.  This isn’t stupidity on the part of Democrats, it’s an absolute lie.  It’s a way to frame the debate to make anyone who actually wants to return to an orderly immigration system as some sort of xenophobic bigot.

It’s a lie and a scare tactic, and so far it’s working quite well.  Beware anyone who says this line.  They have an agenda to push, and that agenda is eliminating borders and immigration law.

A subsequent issue that really made me lose my faith in the Democrats is the leftist charge against Obama having a record number of deportations.  This is a flat out lie.  It came about when Obama redefined the act of deportation to mean anyone turned away at the border.  As the article points out:

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

Okay, so first off, this makes an absolute lie of deportations. Technically, the practice started under George W Bush to give a formal record to those caught crossing illegally.  But immigration activists have twisted it into a total lie of what’s really happening.  Deportations have actually gone down significantly under Obama.  And more so, the Democrats are increasingly backing down on immigration law.


We’re also constantly sold that immigration is good for our economies, that immigrants put in more than they take out, revitalise bad neighborhoods, etc.  This is true, to a point.  And I think we’re well past that point.  More people means a bigger economy provided they do find jobs and contribute.  In earlier days immigrants got very little aid, and most of it was through private and community charities.  These days the state hands off most of the aid.  We are being pushed to give driver’s licenses, benefits, we grant them virtual immunity from deportation.

It’s gotten to the point where it’s not enough to be okay with all this.  Trump just saying we want to deport the criminals is raising mountains of wild protests calling for his impeachment and his head.  And the lies and fear mongering … just endless.  There is no Muslim ban, hordes of jackbooted thugs are not amassing to run through the barrios and pull out anyone who can’t identify their papers.  Trump’s main plan is to seal the borders, properly vet those coming in, and boot out the criminal illegals.

But we can understand why this rancor over such simple things.  Because they signify an about-face from our current trajectory.  If we were to continue on this dissolution of immigration law for just a few more short years, a citizen will be indistinguishable from anyone hopping the fence.

And that’s the point.  Across the Atlantic, the refugee crisis is the biggest specific lie of our time.  The photo op of the mother and daughter fleeing persecution is absolute lie.  By the UN’s own statistics, in 2015 75% of “refugees” were adult men, 12% were women, and 13% were children.  If you figure kids had the same gender split, you’re looking at close to 90% men.  Probably even more than that if you assume the UN at least partially skews statistics to suit agendas.  The pictures of migrants streaming into Europe looks more like an invading army than a huddled surrendered mass.

I say “refugees” because they’re really not refugees.  Europe has found a lovely loophole to bring in mass of third world labor to refresh their economies.  It involves a combination of three things: 1) use the refugee status to allow anyone to come over the border from a war-torn country into a neighboring stable country 2) have zero monitoring to distinguish refugees from migrants 3) use the EU’s open border policy so that once a migrant is in any EU country, they can freely move into any other EU country.  This is how people from North Africa and the Middle East can so easily wind up all the way in Sweden.

I mention this because our immigration issue is related to Europe’s.  The people pushing for open borders for Europe are pushing for them here.  Make no mistake.  It is the most important issue of our time.  It will determine whether you have any rights and privileges as a citizen in 20 years or not.

Right now, it seems the Republicans are our only fighting chance.