Justice for Jane

A pregnant illegal immigrant in Texas successfully obtained an abortion at U.S. taxpayer expense yesterday. According to Vogue, she released a “powerful statement” (that someone else obviously wrote) which said:

My name is not Jane Doe, but I am a Jane Doe. I’m a 17 year old girl that came to this country to make a better life for myself. My journey wasn’t easy, but I came here with hope in my heart to build a life I can be proud of. I dream about studying, becoming a nurse, and one day working with the elderly.

“Jane” was sixteen weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion. The carefully crafted statement was clearly worded to earn her public sympathy. Publications such as The Daily Beast, that support very liberal political policies in regard to abortion rights, obscenely accused “pro-life zealots” of prolonging the pregnant girl’s suffering.

That was an extraordinarily poor choice of words, at least from my perspective. And extremely offensive. She hasn’t suffered pain, or more than minor discomfort that is normal with pregnancies. She might have been mildly inconvenienced, at best. Her unborn child likely experienced brutal, agonizing pain before dying, on the other hand.

Jane Doe’s pregnancy had advanced far enough that the callous, brutal abortion method known as dilation and extraction might have become the fate of Jane Doe’s unborn child. It’s tough to watch, but everyone who believes a woman should have the right to choose to abort a child for the sake of convenience needs to watch, and learn.

Gianna was very lucky because the abortion doctor wasn’t there when she was born. One ugly but little-known truth about abortions are the many documented cases of babies accidentally born alive during botched abortions but immediately murdered by the incompetent attending doctor.

And if that isn’t appalling enough to know, Planned Parenthood has advocated for that doctor to be exempt from prosecution for the crime of infanticide, and failing to honor his or her Hippocratic oath to first, do no harm.

When Salon recently claimed writer Patrick Tomlinson had allegedly “shut down” the anti-abortion argument with a thought experiment, I encouraged him to consider an alternate perspective (mine) on the argument with an appropriate consideration for human life, but was told that my opinions were not welcome in the conversation. Fine.

The argument will continue, with or without Mr. Tomlinson. Besides, he didn’t seem to have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, other than hot air.

“Remember, we are talking about a child here,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote as part of her opinion that paved the way for Jane Doe’s abortion. With all due respect, Judge Millett, I’m pretty sure we’re actually talking about killing an unborn baby merely for the sake of convenience for Jane Doe.

The girl was old enough to get pregnant by consensual sex, but decided she didn’t want to be burdened with a child of her own after the fact. With the help of five other liberal colleagues on the court appointed by Democrat politicians, Judge Millett allowed her terminate her pregnancy, and forced taxpayers like me to pay for it. Supporters of abortion rights  can pretend the debate is over by trying to ignore what their intellectual opposition has to say, but as long as there is breath in my body, I will not be quiet.

I’ll always listen to the other side of the conversation, but not to a lecture from some mental midget who doesn’t even know that science has clearly defined conception as the beginning of human life. Reasonable people ought to be able to reach some sort of fair compromise in regard to the most popularly cited examples of why abortions are believed to be necessary: rape and incest, the primary reasons given for having an abortion in only one percent of all cases.

Conversely, the inconvenience of having a child (expense, responsibility, lack of maturity) is the reason most frequently provided. “Reasonable” people must be willing to listen to reason.

Many abortion procedures that are currently legal are barbaric, and even medieval. They kill the child, but also may endanger the life of the mother. Perhaps compromise might include very early term medical procedures, or the “morning after” pill. There have to be some options that are negotiable, or the only alternative will be to oppose every abortion under any circumstance, even if the life of the mother is at risk. Even though a fallopian tube pregnancy will be fatal for both the mother and child, if only given the two extreme choices of every abortion being legal  (including partial-birth and post-birth) or none, in order to sleep at night I must vote that none would be legal.

There are other options besides infanticide that are available. Adoption is one of several other options that don’t involve dismemberment inside the womb — if the same thing had been done to a puppy, public outrage would likely be demanding the death penalty for the people responsible. Oddly enough, people seem to care a great deal more when the pregnant bitch is canine.

Abortion should not be treated just another form of birth control, no different than a condom or a pill. When the “fetus” has grown to the point of having arms, legs, and a head, it’s no longer debatable whether or not the fetus is a child. And it shouldn’t be debatable at that point as to whether or not it should be legal to kill it.

When “pro-choice” advocates say that a pro-life people aren’t part of the conversation about abortion, that doesn’t count as victory in the debate. It simply demonstrates how some people aren’t willing to listen. Perhaps the pro-abortion advocates understand that at the core their argument is indefensible — that an unborn child in the womb doesn’t remotely resemble a tumor or a lump of fat. By the time a child has developed for 16 weeks in the womb physically looks virtually indistinguishable from what like it will 20 weeks later, when the baby is finally ready to be born. It may not be ready for birth at 16 weeks, but it has a body, two arms, two legs, a head…and most significantly, a heartbeat.

It really doesn’t matter if some like Mr. Tomlinson refuses to speak with me. The conversation will continue with or without him.

Some feminists like to make bold and aggressive claims that are intended to bully and intimidate weak-minded men into submission. Men are often told they have no right to have an opinion about what a woman may or may not do with her own body.

However, regardless of what that feminist might think, it doesn’t matter when my money is being used to torture and kill the unborn child inside her body. I do have every right to express my opinion on this subject, whether liberals and feminists like it or not.

These critics will also complain that “…you don’t know what it’s like” or might exclaim something like “you don’t have a uterus, so you don’t have a say,” or some such nonsense, yet often those people apparently know even less about abortion than I do.  A claim does not become true simply because someone wants it to be. As long my heart continues to beat, I’ll have a say: it’s called a vote. Everyone has one, but many are too lazy or unmotivated to use it. I vote virtually every time an election is held.

Jane Doe got her abortion. She only needs to be given one last gift from the American taxpayer — a plane ticket home. It’s time to permanently deport her.

 

Happy Birthday Hillary! A Wish For You

Lots of tweets don’t age well. Lord knows many of mine from the 2016 election are laughable now. However, I am not sure any of mine can compare to this:

As we all know, that’s not exactly how it worked out. But it is Hillary’s birthday and I do have some sincere wishes and a few suggestions about how she can make this year better than last one.

So Hillary, now that you are back from your chardonnay riddled walk in the woods the quickest way to make this year better than last is stop telling us What Happened. The complete list of those blamed is longer than my kids Christmas list when they believed in Santa. And it is pointless. You lost fair and square and there is no trophy for winning the popular vote no matter what Rosie O’Donnell thinks.

Okay. That’s settled. Now that you have hit the big 7-0, I want to share with you things other women I truly admire and love have chosen to do with their time at a similar milestone. Maybe it will help you stay out of the limelight (thank God)  and more importantly, relax and enjoy yourself.

Travel

Without the demands of career and family, many women I know choose to travel and see the world. Now I know you were First Lady and Secretary of State, but now you can travel to destinations that won’t put you at risk for weathering sniper fire (snickers). Many of my loved ones have found an Alaskan cruise to be quite amazing. Also, I hear Branson, MO is quite fun and you would finally be able to connect with all of those folks in flyover country that screwed up your turn.

Charitable Work

In looking for ways to stay active many I know have worked tirelessly to give their time to a favorite organization that needs a hand. Or with connections such as yours, I am sure you would be excellent at fundraising. Or perhaps you could even start your own foundation……(okay I had to).

Be a Grandma

Charlotte and Aidan are growing up so fast. I know as a young mother (without a lot of money and a gaggle on nannies) I appreciated the time my parents spent with my children immensely. I also know as a child, time spent with my grandmothers is full of memories I cherish. One of them actually made most of my clothes as a young girl. Do you sew? It’s not too late to learn. And paper dolls are also a big hit. I know the little ones today have smartphones and tablets, but there are plenty of other engaging activities you can try since you aren’t so technically savvy. This way you won’t have to wipe anything with a cloth. Except for maybe the end of the little cherubs noses when they have a cold.

See Hillary? There are so many things to do other than travel the media circuit coming up with excuses and making suggestions, like emulating Kenya’s election laws. We honestly stopped listening when you blamed the DNC. That was comedy gold.

So have a piece of cake, a glass or six of chardonnay and resolve to make year 71 completely different than year 70. We’re behind you 100%

 

Socialism by the Slice

A Boston pizza shop that strove to “solve the root problem of widening economic disparities through innovative alternatives” (whatever that means) is closing its doors after just two years of serving up economic justice and failure.  In so doing, Dudley Dough is providing us free of charge with a delicious example of how socialism can’t work, no matter how you try to spin it.  I’m not an economist, or a business expert, but after a brief analysis even I can tell why this business failed.  Here are my tasty takeaways:

1. Profit is essential to business

For a business to survive, it must make money.  Customers are the source of a business’ money, therefore the customer must be the business’s top priority.  Otherwise the business has no reason to exist.  Let’s see if Dudley Dough put their customers first.  Here is their self-described mission:

Dudley Dough seeks to challenge this status quo by pioneering a new model of worker empowerment in the restaurant industry, offering living wages and profit-sharing opportunities to help our workers overcome the economic disadvantages that are an unfortunate part of the current reality.

Nowhere in this statement is the customer even mentioned.  In fact, a text search of Dudley Dough’s website returns zero results for “customer” or “consumer.”  This is clearly not a customer-focused business.  The above statement is focused entirely on the employees.

Employees are certainly important, and a business cannot survive without them, but where does the employees’ money originate?  That’s right, the customer.  The company cannot provide an employee with “living wages” if it first doesn’t receive money from the customer, which brings me to my next point:

2. A business must produce something the customer wants

This seems simple enough.  If a customer doesn’t want a business’ product, they will not purchase it.  As far as I can tell, very few people wanted what Dudley Dough had to offer.  Check out the reviews on Yelp.  After two years in business, Dudley Dough only garnered 26 reviews and not all of them were positive.  Now take a look at the customer images.  In my humble opinion, those pizzas look like warmed over barf on a plate.

Next, let’s take a look at the menu.  Scroll past the social justice jargon down to where the pizza is actually listed.  Shrimp and corn with puttanesca?  Yum.  Mashed potato, meatloaf with corn, capers, and béchamel?  Oh boy!  Curried vegetable with lentils?  These are pizzas?  I don’t know many pizza consumers who are clamoring for a jerk chicken, sweet potato, and jack cheese pizza.  Especially at $12.50/pizza.

As a side note, I like how the menu has to point out that ½ + ½ = 1.  Thanks.  Math is hard I guess.  Maybe that’s why Dudley Dough struggled with my next point:

3. Math is Hard

The starting hourly wage at Dudley Dough is $12.50.  I’m not a rocket surgeon, but I do believe that $12.50 is also what the menu listed as the cost of a full-size 14” pizza.  That means that in order to break even, Dudley Dough would have to sell at least one pizza per hour for the total number of employees working there at any given time.  And that doesn’t include any other costs besides labor.

Dudley Dough reportedly started with nine employees, including the manager.  Their operating hours are listed as 7:00 am – 9:00 pm Monday-Friday and 11:00am – 9:00 pm Saturday.  So they’re open 80 hours per week and they pay their employees $12.50/hour.  Assuming a minimum of one employee on-shift at a time, how many 14” pizzas does Dudley Dough need to sell each week in order to break even on labor costs?  Show your work.

(80 hours) X ($12.50/hour) = 1,000 / ($12.50/pizza) = 80

80 warmed over barf pizzas per week.  I’m guessing they didn’t meet that quota.  Which brings me to my next point:

4. Socialist programs depend upon other peoples’ money to survive

Dudley Dough is no exception.  They were supported all along by the Haley House, a Boston area nonprofit organization.  The Boston Globe, in its account, even used the word “subsidize.”

But after an analysis of the business’s operations and trends, the board determined that Haley House could not continue to subsidize the pizza shop without putting in peril its own efforts.

Subsidize.  That’s a key word.  Merriam-Webster defines subsidize as “to aid or promote with public money.”  I don’t know if Dudley Dough was the recipient of public money, but it’s clear that they were not able to operate as a business without outside help.  They even received a $100,000 donation from Robert Kraft and still couldn’t make it work!

If a business cannot provide customers with a product they want to purchase, turn a profit, and stand without outside help, then it has—quite simply—failed.

And this brings me to my final point:

5. Socialists are delusional

Dudley Dough has failed as a business.

‘I don’t think anyone is looking at it as a failure,’ said Luther Pinckney, a team leader at Dudley Dough, which is in the Bruce C. Bolling Municipal Building. ‘It’s an experiment, and some very good things came out of that, such as skill-building for staff and being in this building at this time of gentrification and change in this community.’

All of the skill-building and gentrification in the world isn’t going to revive a flawed business.  Other pizza places are operating in Dudley Dough’s neighborhood and they haven’t failed.  Dudley Dough is clearly a failure.

It’s done.  It’s over.  It has ceased to be.  It is an ex-business.  It is a failure.  Dudley Dough is a Dudley dud.

But socialists never look at their efforts as failures.  They simply refuse to learn from mistakes and failure.  If they can promote their cause in any way, they will view it as a success.

By their own words, Dudley Dough was an “experiment” in economic justice.  If socialists were capable of learning from past such experiments, they wouldn’t need to waste time and effort re-experimenting with failed ideas over and over again.  Socialism just doesn’t work, it never has, and it never will.  Socialists simply aren’t willing to learn that truth.

I will leave you today with this juicy bit of dessert from one of Dudley Dough’s employees:

‘I like coming to work. It was kind of a shock,” said Royce Terrell, 55, a Dorchester resident who has worked at the restaurant for nearly a year. “I didn’t see it coming. I have to keep working. I’ve got my youngest son in private school.’

Private school.

We the customers have to eat barf pizzas and go to public school, but Dudley Dough’s employees need a living wage so that they can send their kids to private schools.  That’s economic justice for you.

ESPN’s gender identity crisis meets Barstool, and it’s sad

I know this news is a few days old, but I think it’s worth talking about how feminized our sports coverage has become, and how while political talk (and late night talk shows) has become more coarse, that same tolerance is out the window for men in the sports arena. Hence, ESPN’s sad tale.

ESPN is so conflicted, and so stupid about it. They’re facing an existential crisis where men, who want to watch and talk about sports, are saying “to hell with this” and tuning out, while women, who make up just under half of their viewers, don’t watch a lot of the prime sporting events (where advertisers pay big bucks).

So the network decided to add some late-night testosterone with “Barstool Van Talk,” featuring Barstool Sports podcasters Dan Katz and “PFT Commenter.” Now if you haven’t experienced a Barstool Sports podcast, it’s not what you’d call politically correct, or suitable for children, or something your wife would listen to. But it’s funny, like having your best friend over to talk smack over beers (with no wives or kids).

The problem is, ESPN has been overrun by the types of prudes who listen as if they’re the wives, and don’t like guy-talk (“locker room talk”), especially when it’s about them.

One episode is all it took for ESPN president John Skipper to yank the series.

“Effective immediately, I am canceling Barstool Van Talk,” John Skipper, the ESPN president, wrote in a statement. “While we had approval on the content of the show, I erred in assuming we could distance our efforts from the Barstool site and its content.”

Sam Ponder, who hosts “NFL Countdown,” was very upset from the beginning that Barstool Sports got the greenlight. All the females were highlighting sexual harassment and Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly claims.

Yes, Barstool is juvenile, high-school locker room humor. It’s also serious sports talk with a lot of pepper thrown in. What did ESPN expect when they added that to their female-friendly mix? Did they think these two worlds could coexist? They threw it on ESPN2 with a 1 a.m. air time. But even that wasn’t enough distance.

They should have put it on espnW, and let women respond in real time on the air. That would have been brilliant. But instead they simply backed out, proving they have long ago shed any originality or courage to see things through.

This highlights the network’s existential problem and gender identity crisis. If you’re going to have a network aimed at men watching men’s sports, then women are not going to be viewed as “one of the boys.” It’s a fact of life. But ESPN wants to be all things to all people.

That means they’re quickly becoming nothing to nobody.

BREAKING: Trump Finally Replaces Lois Lerner’s Boss, John Koskinen

After nearly five years, the man who oversaw Lois Lerner’s inquisition against conservatives, and who presided over Barack Obama’s IRS, is about to leave, and not a day too soon (or a thousand days too late).

Treasury Assistant Secretary David Kautter will take on the role as acting IRS Commissioner (without giving up his current, confirmed position). The Washington Examiner reported Thursday:

“I look forward to having David Kautter as acting commissioner of the IRS. David will provide important leadership while we wait to confirm a permanent commissioner,” [Treasury Secretary Steve] Mnuchin said. “Assistant Secretary Kautter has had an illustrious 40-year career in tax policy, and I am confident that the IRS and the American people will benefit from his experience and insight.”

Trump let Koskinen serve out his term, instead of firing him, which is overly generous in my opinion. Jason Pye, one of my favorite old Peach Pundit foils back in the day, who is now vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, was quoted, “We’re glad to see him go. He did not earn his salary or his big pension.”

No kidding. Koskinen should have been gone in 2013. But Congress punted on impeaching him. But better late than never.

 

OPINION: Gillespie: Challenging Virginia’s Kids to Greatness

I had the opportunity this morning to attend the Superintendent’s Business Breakfast, sponsored by SPARK – “Supporting Partnerships and Resources for Kids” – which is the Prince William County School’s Education Foundation. As a member of the business community here in Prince William, as well as a mom of three girls, two of whom are currently attending Prince William County Public Schools (Kindergarten and First Grade), I am honored to serve on both the SPARK Board and to serve as Treasurer of the Smart Beginnings Greater Prince William Coalition. Smart Beginnings works to provide resources for kindergarten readiness and preschool education for children 0-5 years of age in Prince William, Virginia. The SPARK Board provides, among many things, innovative grants to PWCS schools for excellent programs like robotics and STEM/STEAM initiatives, using dollars received from partnerships with the business community, through advertising and other support.

As a mom, as a part of the business community in Virginia, and a member of these two education-focused boards, I appreciate Gillespie’s education plans for Virginia. His detail-specific proposals to improve the education system for all Virginians stand in stark contrast with Lt. Governor Ralph Northam’s assertion that children from different backgrounds should be held to different standards. I was appalled when I read that in The Washington Post. To limit a child’s potential because of their zip code or home life is unacceptable, and it does a disservice to the incredible children and educators in our community, including Hamish Brewer, an award-winning principal who is bringing national attention and recognition to our County for the way he has worked to transform both Occoquan Elementary and now Fred Lynn Middle School. Mr. Brewer tells his middle schoolers in a video featured on FreeThink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKt9CslbVsg) that “we are not here to be average, we are here to be amazing.”
“Poverty is not a learning disability,” Brewer told the Washington Post in an article from July 2017. He believes (and so do I) that we have to move away from archaic notions in education and “show that any student can learn, regardless of circumstances.”

After four years in a leadership position in our Commonwealth, Mr. Northam still has no plan. He had no answers when asked about the broken Standards of Learning (SOL) system. It is, indeed, as the Post stated, the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” When we expect more of our kids, when we challenge them to excel above their circumstances and achieve their potential, they see themselves in a different way, and they grow. We see that change reflected in the work that Hamish Brewer has done in Prince William, and in the way he expects the best from “his kids.” We, in turn, should expect more from our elected leaders.

Ed Gillespie’s plans to cut the achievement gap in half in ten years and advance school readiness for at-risk children will ensure that all Virginian children will be held to the same standard, because he knows they must be prepared for the same standard. Every child, including my three young daughters, will be better prepared for the demands of the 21st century under an Ed Gillespie governorship.

I Agree With Jonah Goldberg About Roy Moore and I Want Roy Moore to Win




“If Donald Trump is a symptom of a disease, Mitch McConnell is what the virus looks like under the microscope.”

I really do not have a lot to add to what Jonah Goldberg has written about Roy Moore. Well, I should add that I endorsed Moore in the runoff and want him to win. Other than that…

Roy Moore, who has won statewide election in Alabama in the past, seems intent on just making crap up and pissing people off to win. He is embarrassing himself and does not know it and embarrassing people who work for him and does not care. He will, as Jonah rightly notes, be an embarrassment for the GOP and used by the left to caricature conservatives. He also, for a former Chief Justice, doesn’t seem to know jack about the constitution.

Of course, I suspect Moore does know. He just does not care. Trumpism is a disease that corrupts all who acquire it and Moore seems willing to be corrupted.

So why do I want him elected?

Mo Brooks.

Republicans in Washington always have a way of rewriting history to help Mitch McConnell. McConnell, you see, grants grand access to various reporters who serve as his stenographers. They always tell his story, even if it is not the truth. I have seen this first hand having once had a TV appearance cancelled for the express reason of having written something critical of McConnell. He plays hardball, but it is a self interested hardball.

In Alabama, McConnell decided he needed to prop up Luther Strange. Strange is a corrupt former Alabama Attorney General whose appointment to the Senate came shortly after convincing the Alabama legislature to hold off impeaching the state’s corrupt governor. But Strange, despite a late in campaign life conversion to an anti-McConnell position, was a reliable McConnell vote and everyone knew it.

Mo Brooks was the most reasonable alternative to Strange and far less embarrassing than Moore. McConnell knew it and gambled that if his allies destroyed Brooks in the primary, they could finish off Moore in the runoff. So Strange, McConnell’s leadership PAC, and all the outside forces who back McConnell poured resources into Alabama to savage Mo Brooks. And once they were successful they declared that they would go so far as to find a challenger to Mo Brooks in the House.

The result?

Roy Moore curb stomped Luther Strange and is now the Republican nominee. This is typical of McConnell. Remember, the GOP came within two points of winning Colorado’s Senate senate in 2010, but the GOP nominee, Ken Buck, was backed by the Senate Conservatives Fund. So McConnell redirected money to California to help Carly Fiorina who lost by even more than Buck.

If Donald Trump is a symptom of a disease, Mitch McConnell is what the virus looks like under the microscope. Much of what ails the GOP right now is because of the repeated betrayals by McConnell and his apologists in conservative media blaming everyone else but him.

So now they get what they deserve — Roy Moore. They could have learned their lesson with Trump. But many of the very same people now horrified by the advance of Roy Moore were in bed with Trump to stop Ted Cruz.

If they won’t learn, they can and should have Moore. He is, if you will, the parental equivalent of catching your kid smoking then making your kid smoke a pack of cigarettes in one sitting to ensure they never do it again. If Senate Republicans will not finally do something about McConnell and if the conservative press in DC keeps rewriting history to protect him, I want even more Roy Moores.

PragerU Demonstrates The Proper Way To Take On The Left

For more than a year, a strange thing has been happening to Prager University’s YouTube videos. These popular videos convey a conservative message on topics from Israel to health care to gender issues.

Dozens of its videos have been flagged as “restricted” on YouTube.

Now some conservatives (and liberals alike) have been calling for companies like Google, Facebook, and YouTube to be regulated as utilities, or public media. That means applying all kinds of fairness and equal access tests to ensure they aren’t biased against particular groups. That’s exactly the wrong approach.

On YouTube, PragerU has over a million subscribers, and hundreds of videos. “Restricted” mode is used by public libraries, educations institutions and many parents to filter videos that are inappropriate for younger people. But that’s exactly for whom the videos are made.

Now PragerU has filed suit, alleging discrimination, against YouTube and its parent, Google (part of the Alphabet Inc. family). They are seeking to force YouTube to unrestrict 37 videos. That’s the right way to handle this.

From The College Fix:

“It’s David versus Goliath,” PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said in an interview Tuesday with The College Fix.

“This was a very difficult decision for us. We are not as wealthy and big and powerful as Google,” Streit said. “We are not only doing this for PragerU, we are really doing this for America, and even the world.”

PragerU is accusing YouTube of illegal discrimination against them for their conservative perspective. They cite examples of videos from left-leaning producers that are also targeted at young people, which do not bear any restrictions. YouTube, under pressure from liberals, even reversed restrictions on controversial LGBT videos.

“The lawsuit is about discrimination,” Streit said. “We just want to be treated the way other channels and other producers are treated.”

The restrictions do not appear to be against the videos themselves–if other users repost a PragerU video it remains unrestricted–but against PragerU’s account.

Though Google is certainly a Goliath, PragerU has a pretty talented legal team behind its suit.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson’s law firm is representing PragerU, with Alan Dershowitz advising.

“We have a strong case and we have an amazing counsel,” Streit told The College Fix.

If PragerU wins, it could free up hundreds of videos that have similarly been marked with the “restricted” flag. Christian academic and author Dr. Michael Brown has battled Google over content restrictions.

Google also “demonetized” hundreds of thousands of videos by conservatives dealing with certain topics, especially God. Brown had “the vast majority of our 900+ videos” demonetized. That’s not part of the lawsuit, but it does demonstrate Google’s sensitivity to left-wing advertisers who don’t want their names associated with conservative content.

We don’t need more regulation. We don’t need to allow the government to write rules for markets that in ten years will have evolved to new companies and new challenges. This is not the phone system from 100 years ago. Twenty years ago, Google was a raw startup, while Twitter and Facebook didn’t even exist. AOL was king then, and now AOL is no more.

In twenty years, we don’t know what companies and technologies we’ll be dealing with. But what we do know is that government cannot adapt as fast as business.

Finally, we also know that any regulations the federal government writes end up getting challenged in federal court. And federal court challenges typically–eventually–end up at the Supreme Court. The massive growth of federal regulations and control has already given nine black-robed justices almost dictatorial power (Erick said Justice Kennedy has crowned himself king–I’m paraphrasing).

Do we really want to give them more power over us?

At the same time, we really need Google to stop its blatant discrimination. The proper place for that argument is in civil court. That’s where PragerU has chosen to take its fight. Kudos to them and let’s hope they win.