'He wants to cut your taxes'

'Unprecedented decision'

'Our thoughts and prayers are with this family as they deal with this tragedy'

'Did Chief Cody Commit Any Crime'

'Conducting a post-attack damage assessment'

Our “10 Most Underrated Journey Songs” article presents a group of tracks that we feel may not have gotten the love they deserve over time. When putting together an underrated songs list, we have to balance the selection of songs between those that are not well-known among casual fans and those appreciated by hardcore fans. There’s usually a big difference; hardcore fans know everything. So, it’s a fine line when picking these songs. We have done our best to make this a very entertaining and informative article that all music fans will enjoy. In the end, what we try to The post 10 Most Underrated Journey Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Google took a massive hit Monday after a federal judge ruled the company violated U.S. antitrust law through its search business, according to a court filing. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta submitted the ruling, rebuking one of Google’s oldest businesses that the company has spent billions on through exclusive contracts in order to obtain a dominant position within the tech industry, according to CNN. Mehta stated Google not only acted as a “monopolist,” but abused a “monopoly” through its search business to be the automatic search engine for browsers such as Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox. “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Last January, the Department of Justice, along with a handful of other state attorneys general, sued the tech company for “monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products” which they claimed violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, according to a press release. “Today’s complaint alleges that Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time. Over the years, Google has reportedly spent billions to keep its automatic search engine on specific browsers, paying Apple roughly $18 billion in 2021 to be the default search engine, The New York Times reported. During the trial, Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, claimed that the company created a better service for consumers, according to The New York Times. Microsoft’s chief executive, Satya Nadella, called out the company for creating an “oligopolistic” relationship with Apple. In addition to its search business, the DOJ claimed Google had a protected monopoly of its ads that were run within the search engine, The New York Times reported. Lawyers for the DOJ called out the tech company for raising ad prices beyond a reasonable rate within the free market, thus allegedly providing evidence of Google’s power as billions were consumed from ads. While the case is the first in over 20 years for an antitrust trial between the DOJ and a tech company, the ruling has the ability to affect other similar lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, according to The New York Times. Although Mehta did not give a solution to Google’s behavior, the judge is expected to decide the ramifications for the company soon. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Google Takes Massive Hit as Federal Judge Rules It Violated US Antitrust Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Since President Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to succeed him, Republican lawmakers have focused more on Harris’ record on the southern border.  “The fact is she has a long track record of opposing border security and immigration enforcement, whether as a senator, a presidential candidate, or as Joe Biden’s ‘border czar,’” Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, recently said on the House floor.  Although Biden didn’t give Harris the formal title of “border czar,” he tasked Harris in the third month of his presidency with “leading the administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,” according to a White House fact sheet.  Since March 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the Border Patrol has encountered over 1.9 million illegal aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras along the southern border, the same number of total illegal aliens the agency said it encountered during all four years of the Trump administration.  Between the start of fiscal year 2017 on Oct. 1, 2016, and the end of fiscal year 2020 on Sept. 30, 2020, which represents most of the time Trump was president, the Border Patrol encountered a total of 1,952,654 illegal aliens from nations around the world at the southern border, according to CBP data.  Since Biden tasked Harris with addressing “the root causes of migration” from the three nations, CBP has encountered over 282,000 El Salvadorian nationals, 853,000 illegal aliens from Guatemala, and over 808,000 from Honduras.  In June 2022, a little over a year after Harris was put in charge of addressing the central causes of illegal immigration out of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the vice president “announced more than $1.9 billion in new private sector commitments to create economic opportunity in northern Central America.” The pledge followed an initial $1.2 billion in private sector commitments in December 2021. In April 2022, the White House released a long fact sheet detailing Harris’ actions to address mass migration out of northern Central America. The long list included small business financing, millions of dollars to fight COVID-19, actions to create more than 70,000 jobs, funding for school feeding programs, creation of a Justice Department Anti-Corruption Task Force, and the training of over 5,000 civilian police across the region, to name a few examples. Because so many U.S. resources were used to address migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, The Daily Signal spoke with Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, to understand why Harris’ efforts didn’t appear to result in a decrease in the number of citizens fleeing that region.  The issues driving immigration out of Central American countries, whether it be “corruption, or poverty, or crime, violence, … lack of economic opportunities, those are endemic problems,” Arthur said.  “Early on, the Biden administration made clear that it was going to reject deterrence as a border strategy,” Arthur said. “In lieu of this, [the administration was] putting all of the eggs in the [one] basket, putting its total focus on root causes.” Focusing on the root causes of illegal immigration while not also focusing on deterrence means that “in the short term, there’s really nothing that you can do to address those problems,” he said. “And honestly, even in the long term, you know, until the point at which those countries have American-level living standards and American governance standards, those problems will always exist.”  Instead of placing a focus on border security, Arthur said, the way the Biden-Harris administration “has approached immigration is to say, ‘The world is a bad place, these countries are bad places, and until we can make those countries better, we should allow nationals of those countries to come to this country, be released, and to make asylum claims.” The Biden-Harris administration has sought to address root causes of illegal immigration in Central America through the use of “diplomacy and money to make those root causes better,” Arthur said. But, he said, “because the administration has had this categorical policy of releasing people who enter the United States illegally, they keep showing up in increasing numbers.” Just over 31% of illegal aliens encountered at the nation’s borders were removed during the Trump-Pence administration, according to the National Immigration Center for Enforcement. During the Biden-Harris administration, by contrast, 4.4% of illegal aliens encountered at the borders have been removed.  ? Don't let President Biden & border czar Kamala Harris fool you—they have gutted interior enforcement and tied ICE agents' hands.As a result, removals have plummeted under the Biden-Harris administration. The numbers don't lie. Via @NICEnforcement pic.twitter.com/I3hhSOPgn2— House Homeland GOP (@HomelandGOP) July 29, 2024 Harris previously advocated “progressive” immigration policies. Most notably, during her brief run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, she expressed support for providing government health care to illegal aliens and decriminalizing border crossings by foreign nationals.  The post If Not ‘Border Czar,’ Then What? Kamala Harris’ Record on Illegal Immigration appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. On Monday, a pivotal ruling from a federal judge declared that Google had breached antitrust regulations in its quest to dominate the online search and advertising sectors. Judge Amit Mehta’s decision noted that Google had perpetuated its monopoly through specific strategies that violated section 2 of the Sherman Act. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. The lawsuit, which commenced in 2020, later expanded to include multiple states and territories, encapsulating the gravity and scale of the legal scrutiny Google faces. Early in the trial, government attorney Kenneth Dintzer articulated that the proceedings would significantly influence the future of internet governance. The trial’s largely private proceedings sparked criticism from transparency advocates, who accused Google of trying to minimize public oversight and media exposure. Google had successfully argued that opening up the trial fully would risk exposing sensitive trade secrets. In his detailed ruling, Judge Mehta highlighted that the evidence and testimonies reviewed throughout the trial led to the unequivocal conclusion that Google was engaging in monopolistic practices. “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” he stated. The case, marking one of the most significant antitrust judgments in recent decades, was the result of a major legal challenge initiated by the Justice Department. It reflects a broader governmental and international effort to regulate the expansive power of major tech entities. The proceedings began in September of the previous year and featured a notable break, allowing Judge Mehta time to deliberate before concluding in early May. Throughout the trial, federal prosecutors presented their case that Google maintained its search engine supremacy unlawfully, leveraging hefty financial agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung. This enabled Google to set itself as the default search engine across numerous devices, an advantage that Judge Mehta found to be unfairly limiting competition. The financial scope of these agreements was substantial, with Google disbursing over $26 billion in 2021 to secure default status on various devices, a practice that the court criticized for lacking legitimate justification. While the ruling stops short of detailing the potential penalties Google may face, it raises significant questions about the future operational landscape for Google’s search engine business. An appeal from Google is anticipated. Defending its practices, Google asserted that its search services were superior to competitors like Microsoft’s Bing, arguing that its default engine agreements did not infringe antitrust laws. Furthermore, Google’s legal team urged for a broader interpretation of the search market, suggesting that Google is one among many platforms that facilitate online searches, including tech giants like TikTok and Amazon. Another significant aspect of the trial was the scrutiny of Google’s internal communication practices. The tech giant was criticized for not preserving chat records, which the government claimed could contain evidence detrimental to Google’s defense. Although Judge Mehta expressed disappointment over Google’s document retention practices, he opted not to sanction the company for these actions. Looking ahead, Google is set to contend with another Justice Department lawsuit focused on its advertising techniques and alleged monopolistic behaviors in ad technology later this year. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Federal Judge Declares Google a Monopolist, Setting the Stage for Major Industry Shakeup appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Massive Migrant Fraud Problem