How Google bought off Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah)


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Link here. The facts are very damning, and illustrate once again that no matter how much these politicians claim they are there to clean up Washington, you cannot trust them. They can be bought, as Lee has been.

In 2011 and 2012 he was very opposed to the consolidation of the internet industry into the hands of a few companies like Google. Now, after receiving a lot of campaign support from Google, he is their biggest defender.

But today, as he presides as chairman of the Senate antitrust panel, Lee’s stance couldn’t be more different. With critics on both sides of the political aisle assailing big tech, Lee has questioned the need for congressional antitrust investigations, complained about big fines imposed on Google, and defended the tech industry against Republican charges of liberal bias.

From “strong concerns about Google’s…predominant position” to “Antitrust is not the answer”

Most recently, when the DOJ announced its own broad antitrust review of the leading online platforms in July 2019, Lee seemed to shrug, focusing not on the behavior of the tech companies, but on what he called the “institutional tug-of-war” between the Justice Department and the FTC.

Time to primary this former Tea Party conservative, now a Google shill bought and paid for.

Share

13 comments

  • Cotour

    Are there no angels at Google either? (Lee S and Andrew W, the answer to the question is NO, there are not)

    I remember Alan Greespan and how he commented on the banks during the 2008 crash. “I thought they would control themselves and self regulate” I think is how it went. No Alan, that is not how it went.

    These companies are no longer American companies with American economy concerns. They and their ever growning more and more powerful technology and the level of cash they have are becoming a threat to our country. Is this the natural evolution of how things should be? I think not.

    These actions by corporate players threaten us all and seem more than willing to serve America up to the Globalist agenda. Someone in the Congress must take action here.

    The only one who appears beyond all of this? Trump.

    Too bad about Mike Lee, he was a favorite of mine. When a multi billion dollar company comes at you and steals your best people and does things specifically in your district to get your attention, then you tend to pay attention. The pressure must become immense.

    At some point the mere mortals blink. The mere mortals blink, were still looking for those damn angels.

  • wayne

    Q:
    Is not the giant NSA data-center located in Utah?

  • Gary

    Term limits.

    Elect them, swear them in, then drag them out and jail them.

  • Steve H.

    Would strict term limits: (Senate, 2 terms and the House, 6 terms) help? Also, never service in the Federal government after your terms. No lobbying either. This would end the profit motive after sevice and deter the scum from entering service in the first place.

  • wayne: Read the article. You will find the pork deal making quite eye-opening.

  • Rules rules rules. That’s all Americans can think of nowadays to solve their problems. It disgusts me.

    The solution, which I admit is not likely, is for the voters to stop trying to palm off their responsibilities and vote. You don’t like a politician? You fire him.

    Term limits only takes power from the voters. I fully expect some similar action, and the result will take us farther from democracy and self-rule. In the end, our unwillingness to act like responsible citizens will rob us of that honor, most deservedly so.

  • commodude

    Robert,

    The problem is the pork is too easily spread, and it’s difficult to vote against Sen Smith, who brought NorGrumLockMartBoing into the state, who then hired cousin Jim.

    If I vote against Sen Smith, the company might not have a friend in the Senate anymore, and Jim might lose his job.

    Corporation shave thoroughly greased the palms of most of the swamp critters, and largely pay for their election campaigns.

    Agreed on the habit of asking for more rules, personally, the people who say “there otta be a law against……(fill in the blank here) at the Federal level should be slapped.

    The Federal Government was never intended to have any part in our day to day lives, and allowing it to do so in the manner we have only grows Federal power at the expense of the citizens.

  • wayne

    Mr. Z.,
    Only had a few minutes last night, I’ll follow up on the sausage-making.

    Ref: Term Limits– I used to believe they were counter-productive and the electorate would always self-correct (eventually), but I’m all in on the proposed limits discussed by the Article 5 folks. (tentative proposals = 12 year limit for (fed) House, Senate, and Supreme Court. (any combination= 12 years total)

    We’ve had graft & corruption since the founding of the Republic, but they couldn’t steal a whole lot for the reason the Feds weren’t involved in every little Local & State thing. Now, our Fed government spends most of it’s time redistributing wealth and micromanaging everyone from DC.

    Commodude–
    Good stuff.
    I would just throw in— if the (fed) senators were appointed by their respective State Legislatures, as was specified in the original specs of our Constitution, there would be less opportunity to steal and infinitely more accountability.
    Why do we need a Senate if they don’t represent the States which created the federal government in the first place? (that’s rhetorical, they haven’t served their purpose since 1913.)

  • Col Beausabre

    “We have the best politicians money can buy” – Mark Twain

  • F16 Guy

    The ill’s of politics will never be resolved by those within, as it would destroy their power and money. Such changes must come from outside government control.

    Mark Levin’s LIBERTY AMENDMENTS are a good start:
    https://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/

    An Article 5 Convention of States might work. Regardless, rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic will not stop the ship from sinking. We as a government are sinking.
    To save the Republic will take solutions many of us may not be ready to enact.

  • Cotour

    At what point MUST the tree of Liberty be watered?

  • wayne

    Col Beausabre-
    Great stuff.
    We do have a long tradition of mistrusting our Leaders. Preachin’ to the choir here, but that’s why our founders wanted power to originate from the bottom up. These klowns in DC think they Rule us.

    F16 Guy-
    Again, great stuff.
    I’m willing to follow the Article 5 route and have spent a bit of time helping them. As you astutely note however–solutions many of us may not be ready to enact–I would opine, are more likely than not in our immediate future.

    pivoting to
    Cotour–
    I would put forth the proposition the radical Statist’s are clinically paranoid *enough,* to be existentially dangerous to the rest of us.
    Probably sooner rather than never. (I’m not hopeful this ends well.)

    related:
    American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology
    –Dr. Robert Epstein’s website.
    He’s the guy who testified before the senate committee on Search Engine manipulation.
    (Glenn Beck has him on the radio show right now.)
    I have not had a chance to actually read his studies, but if what he says is true, it’s more dangerous than I ever wanted to imagine.

  • wayne

    sorry–
    website for Epstein
    https://aibrt.org/index.php

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *