Pfizer Puts Customers Before Divisive Messaging

2ndVote recently praised Pfizer (1.67) for putting customers first – and not engaging in divisive messaging – by choosing not to attack Georgia’s election integrity legislation. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, who initially opposed the new law, walked back his stance following criticism of Pfizer and other companies which were found to be in error about election integrity laws in several states.

2ndVote will be issuing more statements like this one on positive behavior by businesses. After all, we often bring attention to corporations that wade into controversial issues and push divisive messages. It’s only right that we also give credit to companies that don’t cave to woke pressure and focus on the wellbeing of their employees and customers. And when we see that a company has made a commitment to doing better, we’ll support them and encourage them to keep doing the right thing.

Some companies, like Delta Airlines (2.00) have seen what can happen when they try to appease radical activists. Delta was criticized first for appearing to support, then directly opposing, the Georgia law, but the company received severe blowback from both customers and legislators. Since then, Delta has taken a step back from the issue. 2ndVote encourages Americans to choose alternatives like Frontier Airlines (3.00) that focus on customer safety and service and avoid getting involved in divisive debates. Consumers and businesses alike should follow the example of companies like PureTalk USA (4.00) and Cabela’s (3.33), which deliver quality customer services while being a champion for American values.

This new program needs you to succeed. Without grassroots supporters to sign our statements, we’re just another non-profit trying to protect American values. Your signature will tell companies that their customer base is paying attention and that they can count on the business of values-driven consumers if they strive to be neutral, and send positive pro-America messages.

Pfizer did the right thing by not commenting on the Georgia law. Be sure to let them know you support their decision to not get involved in divisive matters. You can call them at their corporate office at (212) 733-2323 or write to them at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017.  Moving forward, we encourage Pfizer and other companies to stick to providing customer value, instead of trying to cater to constantly changing societal values. We’ll be watching, and they’ll see rewards for doing right.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

April Job Growth Tanks: Unemployment Rises to 6.1% as Democrats Destroy the Economy

Nothing unexpected here — this is the Democrat economy: a march to destruction and communism.

Imagine if the election wasn’t stolen — we’d be flying …..

Unemployment rises in April jobs report; 266,00 jobs added

By Christopher Rugaber, FOX Austin, May 2021:

WASHINGTON (AP) – America’s employers added just 266,000 jobs last month, sharply lower than in March and a sign that some businesses are struggling to find enough workers as the economic recovery strengthens.

With viral cases declining and states and localities easing restrictions, businesses have added jobs for four straight months, the Labor Department said Friday. Still, the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.1% from 6% in March.

At the same time, optimism about the economic recovery is growing. Many Americans are flush with cash after having received $1,400 federal relief checks, along with savings they have built up after cutting back on travel, entertainment and dining out over the past year. Millions of consumers have begun spending their extra cash on restaurant meals, airline tickets, road trips and new cars and homes.

RELATED: In new pandemic low, unemployment numbers fall to 498,000

Most economists expect job growth to strengthen as more vaccinations are administered and trillions in government aid spreads through the economy. Even if another uptick in COVID-19 cases were to occur, analysts don’t expect most states and cities to reimpose tough business restrictions. Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, predicts that a total of 8 million jobs will be added this year, reducing the unemployment rate to a low 4.3% by year’s end.
President Biden discusses American Jobs Plan

President Biden spoke about how he will bring jobs back in his address to Congress.

Still, the economic rebound has been so fast that many businesses, particularly in the hard-hit hospitality sector — which includes restaurants, bars and hotels — have been caught flat-footed and unable to fill all their job openings. Some unemployed people have also been reluctant to look for work because they fear catching the virus.

Others have entered new occupations rather than return to their old jobs. And many women, especially working mothers, have had to leave the workforce to care for children.

Most of the hiring so far represents a bounce-back after tens of millions of positions were lost when the pandemic flattened the economy 14 months ago. The economy remains more than 8 million jobs short of its pre-pandemic level.

The Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion rescue package, approved in early March, has helped maintain Americans’ incomes and purchasing power, much more so than in previous recessions. The economy expanded at a vigorous 6.4% annual rate in the first three months of the year. That pace could accelerate to as high as 13% in the April-June quarter, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

One government report last week showed that wages and benefits rose at a solid pace in the first quarter, suggesting that some companies are having to pay more to attract and keep employees. In fact, the number of open jobs is now significantly above pre-pandemic levels, though the size of the labor force — the number of Americans either working or looking for work — is still smaller by about 4 million people.

In addition, the recovery remains sharply uneven: Most college-educated and white collar employees have been able to work from home over the past year. Many have not only built up savings but have also expanded their wealth as a result of rising home values and a record-setting stock market.

RELATED: Hiring ramps up as US adds 916K jobs in March

By contrast, job cuts have fallen heavily on low-wage workers, racial minorities and people without college educations. In addition, many women, especially working mothers, have had to leave the workforce to care for children.

Biden’s relief package also added $300 to weekly unemployment benefits. Meyer calculated that for people who earned under $32,000 a year at their previous job, current unemployment aid pays more than their former job did — a reality that could keep up to 1 million people out of the workforce. In addition, higher stock prices and home values might have led up to 1.2 million older Americans to retire earlier than they otherwise would have.

Still, some economists say employers will have to offer higher pay to draw more people back into the job market.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats Are ‘Looking For Dirt’ on 20 ‘Potential’ Republican Candidates

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report Column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

America’s Most Libertarian State Is…?

A new report reveals the best and worst states for economic and personal freedom.


I wrote a couple of days ago about America’s best and worst cities for pro-market policy, and I noted that there are several rankings of economic liberty for states and nations.

But what if you want to know the place with the most overall freedom? In other words, what is the most libertarian place to live based on both economic liberty and personal liberty?

If you don’t mind a bit of travel, the answer is New Zealand.

For those who prefer to stay in the United States, Will Ruger and Jason Sorens periodically crunch numbers to calculate Freedom in the 50 States.

Their previous edition had New Hampshire in first place, so let’s take a look at the newest version:

This 2018 edition of Freedom in the 50 States presents a completely revised and updated ranking of the American states on the basis of how their policies promote freedom in the fiscal, regulatory, and personal realms. …More than 230 policy variables and their sources are now available to the public on a new website for the study. …the 2018 edition provides annual data on economic and personal freedom and their components back to 2000. …Freedom in the 50 States is an essential desk reference for anyone interested in state policy and in advancing a better understanding of a free society.

The publication is loaded with data, as you’ll see from the following charts.

To put all this data in context, the report separately calculates fiscal freedom, regulatory freedom, and personal freedom.

We’ll start with the fiscal section, which includes variables about taxes and spending, as well as other measures such as debt and government employment.

For those interested, the report has plenty of analysis and explanation about the variables that are used and the weights that are assigned.

Most of us, though, simply want to see which states get good scores and which ones get bad scores.

I’m not surprised to see that zero-income-tax states—led by Florida—are at the top. And I’m also not surprised that flat tax states—led by Pennsylvania—also are well-represented.

I assume nobody is surprised to see New York in last place.

Now let’s shift to regulatory policy and see where the burden of red is most onerous.

This part of the ranking covers a range of issues, most notably controls on land use and restrictions on the use of markets in health care.

But there are other important variables, including the extent and burden of occupational licensing.

Indeed, before getting to the overall rankings for regulation, I want to share those scores because it is so galling and upsetting that politicians impose barriers that limit the freedom of people to earn income.

Colorado deserves hearty applause for being at the top, edging out Idaho by a narrow margin. And even though Vermont was near the bottom of the fiscal rankings, it merits a mention for being good on the issue of occupational licensing.

California deserves hearty condemnation for being in last place. And I’m not surprised to see states like Illinois and New Jersey near the bottom.

I’m very disappointed, however, that Texas and Florida have such a dismal record.

But let’s not fixate on just one of the variables. If we look at the rankings for all regulatory issues, Kansas is in first place, followed by Nebraska and Idaho.

The worst states (hardly a surprise) are New York, New Jersey, and California.

Now let’s combine fiscal policy and regulatory policy and see the report’s ranking for overall economic freedom.

Florida is in first place by a comfortable margin, followed by three other zero-income tax states (though the absence of a state income tax does not guarantee a good score, as you can see from the poor performance of Alaska, Wyoming, and Washington).

New York wins the Booby Prize by a large margin.

Hawaii and California also stand out in a bad way.

The above table tells us which state enjoys the most economic liberty, but that doesn’t tell us where to live if you want the maximum amount of overall freedom.

To identify the nation’s most libertarian state, we also need to look at rankings for personal liberty.

This means, in part, whether people are harassed and persecuted for victimless crimes, but it also includes measures of educational freedom and gun rights.

Speaking of which, I can’t resist sharing the data on which states most respect the 2nd Amendment.

Kansas gets the best score, followed by Vermont(!), Arizona, Idaho, and Mississippi.

Hawaii is the worst state by a significant margin and we (again) find California near the bottom.

Another issue that is near and dear to my heart is asset forfeiture.

I am nauseated and disgusted that governments are allowed to steal property from people who have not been convicted of any wrongdoing.

So let’s applaud New Mexico, Nebraska, and New Hampshire for putting limits on this awful practice.

And let’s heap unending scorn on Rhode Island for having the nation’s worst track record on this issue.

But what happens when we combine all issues relating to personal freedom?

Well, that’s exactly what the authors did, which means we get a comprehensive ranking for personal freedom. I’m not surprised that Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire are in the top 5, but I’m surprised to see that Maine leads the pack.

Likewise, I guess I’m not too surprised that Texas and other Bible Belt states are socially conservative.

But Hawaii next to last?!?

In any event, the report combines economic freedom and personal freedom and tells us which state could be considered the most libertarian.

And the winner is the Sunshine State of Florida, followed by New Hampshire, Indiana, Colorado, and Nevada. I’m surprised that Florida does so well, though some of the other high-scoring states make sense (especially when I look at data on who reads these columns).

By contrast, the most dirigiste state is New York. That doesn’t surprise me, and I’m also not shocked by some of the other bottom dwellers.

I’m tempted to end here since we’ve already surveyed so much information.

But there’s one final chart that hopefully should be very fascinating.

We just looked at the data on how states currently rank for overall liberty.

This final selection tells us which ones have been moving in the right direction and wrong direction since the turn of the century.

Kudos to Oklahoma for adopting a lot of good reform. Same for New Mexico. And it’s also interesting to see that several states from the Great Lakes region boosted their scores (with Illinois being a laggard, of course).

Vermont has the dismal distinction of having moved the fastest in the wrong direction (no wonder it’s the Moocher State).

Hawaii also deserves an unfavorable mention, while the deterioration of New Jersey and New York is hardly a surprise.

This article was reprinted with permission from International Liberty.

COLUMN BY

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: For The Love Of White Castle

Interestingly, the big news in Florida is not about the state’s new “anti-riot” law or rejection of the “vaccine passports,” but rather something bigger, namely White Castle has finally opened a restaurant in Florida, in Orlando specifically. It is said to be the world’s largest White Castle restaurant strategically placed near the theme parks and opened just yesterday (Mon, 5/3/2021).

News of the first Florida “Aluminum Room,” as aficionados call it, has set the state abuzz, particularly by northerners who now live in the Sunshine State, including yours truly. We have had access to frozen White Castles for several years, which is nice, but it doesn’t quite match those hot off the grill.

Of course, White Castle was the very first hamburger chain, founded in 1921, but it is family run and not franchised as others have done. They are small, square shaped burgers, steamed on a bed of onions, and possess a unique taste which northerners love. Originally, the small burger sold for just five cents, but I remember them at ten cents back in the 1960’s. Today, they are still a bargain which is why people “buy them by the sack.”

Hamburger connoisseurs have poo-poohed White Castle for years, but they do not appreciate its unique taste and loyal following. Frankly, they just don’t get it. These same people probably do not understand Cincinnati chili which is also unique and migrated to Florida some time ago.

True southerners seem to prefer Crystal Burgers which also features a small patty, but the taste is significantly different and the bun is larger, thereby you get the feeling you are buying more bread and less meat. I am confident the Orlando White Castles will convert a lot of southern skeptics.

White Castle has taken so much abuse about its size over the years, northerners affectionately refer to them as “sliders,” the first to do so. Nonetheless, northerners are devoted to them, which is why the opening of the first Florida “W.C. Steak House,” is greeted with considerable enthusiasm. Inevitably, this will cause both Floridians and visitors to make pilgrimages to Orlando just to satisfy their cravings. Hopefully the demand will flourish and we’ll see new restaurants open in other parts of the state, e.g., Tampa Bay (hint, hint).

One nuance worth mentioning is how the burgers are used in their famous turkey stuffing. I have friends in the north who swear by it, claiming it is simply delicious. You can find the recipe on their WEBSITE. There is also a new “Brunch Craver’s Benedict” which I want to try for breakfast.

As for me, I didn’t attend the grand opening as I loathe crowds, but I will be making the pilgrimage shortly to satisfy my “craving.” I plan on ordering a couple of sacks of cheeseburgers with jalapenos (one to eat there, one to bring home to Tampa Bay), or maybe it will be a “crave clutch” of 20, some onion chips, their legendary fries, and a Red Pop. And if you haven’t guessed by now, nobody orders just one burger; you order by the “sack” instead.

Yes, to the millions of misplaced Yankees living in Florida, this is very big news!

By the way, the new Florida White Castle restaurant is located in southwest Orlando at the new The Village of O-Town West development, 11595 Daryl Carter Pkwy, Orlando, FL 32836; Tel: 407/813-2516. Click for MAP.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

The US Government’s Debt-to-GDP Ratio Is Worse Than Greece’s Before the 2008 Crash [And It’s About to Get Worse]

The US is in uncharted debt territory. That should worry us.


President Biden on Wednesday pitched a new plan to Americans before a joint session of Congress: more spending.

The just-released $1.8 trillion plan, presented just weeks after Biden signed a $1.9 trillion in COVID relief spending into law, includes “free” community college as well as universal preschool for all three and four-year-olds.

“Mr. Biden could usher in a new era that fundamentally expands the size and role of the federal government,” The New York Times reported.

The announcement comes months after the Congressional Budget Office released a report projecting a $2.3 trillion deficit in 2021.

Biden’s plan will almost certainly make the deficit worse. Though the plan contains various tax increases to fund its programs, the taxes are likely to fall well short of government outlays, economists say.

“The laws of economics are more rigid than the laws of the federal government, and these tax hikes are unlikely to yield the windfall Biden expects,” Joshua Jahani, the managing director of Jahani and Associates, noted in a recent NBC News article.

As a result, the $28.2 trillion national debt will swell even faster. Worse, when unfunded liabilities are included in the balance sheet, as private companies are legally required to do, the debt exceeds $120 trillion.

How much risk these obligations present is unclear.

There is a school of thought that suggests these debts pose no serious risk. After all, in theory, a government can roll over its debt indefinitely. However, in a recent article for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, economist David Andolfatto noted that ultimately the government doesn’t decide how much debt is bearable. The market does.

“There is presumably a limit to how much the market is willing or able to absorb in the way of Treasury securities, for a given price level (or inflation rate) and a given structure of interest rates,” Andolfatto wrote. “However, no one really knows how high the debt-to-GDP ratio can get. We can only know once we get there.”

Andolfatto is right that no one really knows the debt tipping point. But it’s worth noting that the US debt-to-GDP ratio—essentially a country’s debt compared to its annual economic output—was 129 percent at the end of 2020. In other words, the official US debt was nearly a third larger than the entire US economy.

That is considerably higher than Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio in 2010, when it received a bailout from the International Monetary Fund to avoid defaulting on its obligations.

The United States is not Greece, of course. Its economic potential is far greater, and it is operating under a currency it controls. But there’s no denying that the US is in uncharted territory. Today, the federal government debt-to-GDP ratio is higher than it was at the conclusion of World War II, when the nation assembled one of the largest armies the world has ever seen. Perhaps even worse, the government is piling on debt faster than ever.

Eventually, as Andolfatto notes, the market may very well decide enough is enough, and the demand for Treasury securities will dry up. Indeed, this is likely one reason cryptocurrencies are suddenly flourishing.

In seemingly the blink of an eye, cryptos have gone from being discussed in the corners of Reddit rooms and university lounges to a market of more than $2 trillion. It’s no exaggeration to say cryptos are now mainstream; they are being gobbled up by hedge funds and star athletes signing 10-figure contracts.

And it’s not hard to see why. The market is hedging. Like rats on a sinking ship, many are eyeing an exit, sensing that the dollar’s day may finally be coming to an end as its value is eroded by mass pumping.

In a popular 2016 article, author Richard Ebeling explored how central planners in ancient Rome destroyed the economy.

A lot of what Ebeling describes—debt, massive spending, inflation, and price controls destroy—sound eerily familiar to modern ears. And Ebeling naturally explores the age-old riddle: why did Rome fail?

For centuries, as any history buff knows, thinkers from Edward Gibbon to Peter Heather and beyond, have asked this question. The answers vary. Some blame barbarians, others immigration. Some claimed Christianity was at fault, while others point to disease or the weakening of Roman legions.

All of these theories are interesting and worthy of examination, but I’ve found no single better explanation than the one offered by economist Ludwig von Mises who concluded Rome’s decay stemmed from its rejection of individualism and free markets.

“The marvelous civilization of antiquity perished because it did not adjust its moral code and its legal system to the requirements of the market economy,” Mises wrote.

He continued:

“A social order is doomed if the actions which its normal functioning requires are rejected by the standards of morality, are declared illegal by the laws of the country, and are prosecuted as criminal by the courts and the police.

The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of [classical] liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.”

The American president and statesman John Adams once reportedly said there are two ways nations are destroyed.

“One is by the sword and the other is by debt,” Adams reputedly said. (Though the quote is widely attributed to Adams, it’s not supported by written documentation.)

There is no question debt is a serious problem. (Just ask the ancient Romans and modern Grecians.) But if Mises is correct, the explosion of debt may merely be a symptom of a much larger problem: a collapse of the spirit of liberty and the growth of a system hostile to free enterprise.

We should learn from one thing we have that the Romans didn’t: their ominous example.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Apple Continues Lobbying Congress On Chinese Slave Labor Bill

WOKE hypocrisy. Vile, vicious and evil. This is slavery.

Apple, Retail Groups Continue Lobbying Congress On Chinese Slave Labor Bill

  • Lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress this week show that Apple and several retail trade groups continue lobbying on a bill that would crack down on forced labor in China.
  • Apple paid two firms to lobby policymakers on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. 
  • The Washington Post has previously reported that one of Apple’s lobbyists sought to soften language on the bill. 

By: Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, April 24, 2021:

Apple and several retail trade groups continued lobbying policymakers in the first quarter of this year on a bill to prohibit American firms from using Chinese forced labor, according to disclosures filed with Congress this week.

Apple paid Fierce Government Relations, a Washington, D.C. firm, $90,000 to lobby the House and Senate on multiple pieces of legislation, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, according to Fierce’s lobbying disclosure filing.

The tech giant also paid $90,000 to Invariant LLC, another Beltway-based firm, to work on several bills and to monitor “legislative action on workforce and supply chains in China.”

The National Retail FederationConsumer Technology AssociationRetail Industry Leaders AssociationAmerican Apparel & Footwear Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce also lobbied on the Uyghur Act, according to disclosures the trade organizations filed this week.

Two other companies, JinkoSolar, a Chinese-owned solar company, and VF Corporation, which owns apparel brands like North Face and Dickies, spent $200,000 each on lobbying, including on the Uyghur bill.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the legislation last year to prevent American companies from funding forced labor in China’s Xinjiang autonomous region, which is home to millions of Muslim Uyghurs.

The House passed the Uyghur Act by a vote of 406-3 vote on Sept. 22, 2020, but it was not ratified by the Senate.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced the bill on Feb. 18. It includes a “rebuttal presumption” that goods from the Xinjiang region are made with forced labor. American firms would be required to produce “clear and convincing” evidence that their products were made under fair labor practices, according to the proposed bill.

Officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations have called the Chinese government’s crackdown on Uyghurs a genocide. American officials, as well as outside watchdog groups, have alleged that Chinese authorities have forced Uyghurs into detention camps where they are forced to work in slave-like conditions, mostly in the apparel and electronics industries.

Apple and other retailers, including VF Corporation and JinkoSolar, have recently faced allegations — which they have denied — that they rely on forced Uyghur labor in their supply chains.

The Washington Post reported on Dec. 29 that one of Apple’s suppliers, Lens Technology, relies on forced labor to make glass screens for its iPhones.

Apple has denied using forced labor in its supply chain, but The Post reported in November that Fierce Government Relations, the firm hired by Apple, met with congressional aides to try to soften language in the Uyghur bill.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: Apple Is Lobbying To Soften Bill That Fights Forced Labor In China

Apple Paid Lobbyist To ‘Educate Policymakers’ Regarding Uyghur Slave Labor Bill

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Twitter sees fewer users than expected and stock sinks

Harder! Faster!

What did those flip-flop, turtle-neck wearing freaks think would happen when they kicked half their customer base in the teeth?

Twitter expects a second-quarter GAAP loss of $170 million to $120 million on revenue of $980 million to $1.08 billion. Analysts had forecast adjusted earnings of 16 cents a share and a GAAP loss of 4 cents a share on revenue of $1.06 billion.

Twitter sees fewer users than expected and stock sinks

Twitter Inc. on Thursday reported increased quarterly revenue on the strength of ad sales, but its user numbers fell short of expectations.

By: Fox Business, April 30, 2021:

The San Francisco-based company said its average monetizable daily active users increased 20% year over year to 199 million, but analysts had expected that number to grow to 200 million.

Twitter shares fell as much as 8.5% after hours, after a 0.9% drop in the regular session to close at $65.09.

Ticker Security Last Change Change %

TWTR TWITTER, INC. 56.60 -8.43 -12.96%

The microblogging company reported first-quarter net income of $68 million, or 8 cents a share, compared with a loss of $8.3 million, or 1 cent a share, in the year-ago period. Adjusted for stock-based compensation and other expenses, earnings were 16 cents a share. Revenue rose to $1.04 billion from $807.6 million in the year-ago quarter.

Analysts surveyed by FactSet had forecast adjusted earnings of 14 cents a share on revenue of $1.03 billion.

Twitter expects a second-quarter GAAP loss of $170 million to $120 million on revenue of $980 million to $1.08 billion. Analysts had forecast adjusted earnings of 16 cents a share and a GAAP loss of 4 cents a share on revenue of $1.06 billion.

Shares of Twitter have risen 20% year to date, and are up nearly 127% in the past 52 weeks. By comparison, the S&P 500 Index has increased about 12% so far this year, and is up nearly 45% in the past year.

RELATED ARTICLE: Documents Reveal CA State Officials Coordinated with Big Tech to Censor Americans’ Election Posts

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Google Search: Driving the Pornography Industry’s Profits

As recently as December 2020, when NCOSE researchers conducted a Google search test for “child pornography,” many top results yielded links to hardcore pornography websites, including Pornhub and XVideos—effectively advertising for the world’s largest sexual exploiters that are currently under increased public scrutiny for the proliferation of child sex abuse material on its site.

Two weeks ago NCOSE researchers tried the term “child pornography” again and were thrilled that instead of links to Pornhub or to any other porn sites, the only results on the first 10 pages that we reviewed included information for child safety organizations, news articles, and legislation. In fact, several other search terms that used to direct people to Pornhub (“rape porn,” “incest porn,” and “drugged porn”) no longer do so—though unfortunately they still result in pages and pages of other hardcore porn sites.

Can we call it a “win” that Google no longer drives people looking up “child pornography” to an exploitative website known to profit from images of children being raped? Can we call it a victory when it took a NYT expose, government intervention, and other corporations to cut ties with Pornhub for Google to change its algorithms? Yes. Absolutely! Because when tech mega-giant Google makes any changes—however seemingly “simple” – it has vast ripple effects with the potential to impact hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. It’s why we celebrate any time Google makes any move toward protecting dignity and actually does “the right thing” as its motto claims.

But it’s too little. And while it’s certainly late, it’s thankfully not too late for Google to stop buttressing an industry that profits from people’s trauma and pain.

While Google has seemingly reduced the number of searches that result in Pornhub showing up on the first page (or even as the first result), several search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” are still directing people to Pornhub, to its main competitor Xvideos, and to countless other hardcore pornography sites.

New York Times two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nick Kristof (whose investigative piece Children of Pornhub published in December 2020 turned the tide against Pornhub and parent company MindGeek) most recently set his scrutinizing sights on XVideos– asking the same question we and other advocates have been demanding for years, “Why Do We Let Corporations Profit from Rape Videos?” Kristof lambasts Google for serving as “a pillar of this sleazy ecosystem, for roughly half the traffic reaching XVideos and XNXX appears to come from Google searches.”

As Google has consistently held the monopoly of search engine market share worldwide – more than 90%, it’s likely Google has assisted countless people in accessing child sex abuse and other violent, illegal material by allowing links to Pornhub, XVideos, and other hardcore pornography sites to show up at the top of the search results page for searches like “child porn.” Studies have shown that the higher the rank on a Search Engine Results Page (SERP), the higher the likelihood users will click on the link, with the first result having the highest clickrate. “Teen porn” and “choking porn” still offer Pornhub as the #1 result. Pornhub and other porn sites rely on the SEO (search engine optimization)—in fact, it’s at the core of their business models to ensure their sites appear on the top page: so much so that even when they are ordered to take down images by lawyers or law enforcement, they leave the titles, tags, and thumbnails up so a Google search can still find them and bring people to Pornhub. Survivors tell us thumbnails showing their abuse are still widely available through a simple Google search of their name – even when the video has been removed from the pornography site.

Why are we letting Big Tech line the pockets of Big Porn, which has monetized the most violent, degrading, racist, and often illegal acts committed against children and vulnerable adults?

NCOSE met with Google executives last February to press on them to change their algorithms in order to stop driving people to hardcore pornography sites and assault users—including young children – with violent, degrading pornographic images. We pressed on them to stop directing people to hardcore pornography for searches like the ones listed above and others, like “slavery porn” or “Asian slave.”  Not only did searches related to pornography and prostitution lead to Pornhub and other sites, but scientific and innocent terms like “happy black teen” would populate the screen with images of torture and abuse in under a second, together with links to hardcore porn sites.

Google claimed they couldn’t do more, hiding behind “free speech” to cleanse their hands and justify inactioneven though child pornography and hardcore pornography is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In fact, it’s illegal. Google claimed Pornhub was a “legitimate” site, despite mounting evidence of criminal activity and survivors speaking out and they couldn’t mess with search term algorithms or result positioning (though even at the time we knew they could and did change search result rankings and have more recently curated search content that was potentially harmful on a wide scale such as COVID-19  health information). We continued to push on Google to proactively ensure their products and tools were not buttressing illegal and unethical industries. Soon after NCOSE met with their executives, they did in fact make changes so that scientific terms no longer produces hardcore pornographic images, and that innocent search terms wouldn’t result in hardcore porn links and images (which in and of themselves could cause harm to the viewer—especially minors)

Determining how people receive information and what information they see first places Google in a great position of power—and therefore significant ethical responsibility. Google can and MUST continue to adjust its algorithms so that other search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” stop leading to Pornhub.com and that other terms like “rape porn” or “family porn” lead to resources, not videos of sexual assault and incest. Google has showed us they’re able to “do the right thing.” We hope they do so again.

Google Search: Driving the Pornography Industry’s Profits

As recently as December 2020, when NCOSE researchers conducted a Google search test for “child pornography,” many top results yielded links to hardcore pornography websites, including Pornhub and XVideos—effectively advertising for the world’s largest sexual exploiters that are currently under increased public scrutiny for the proliferation of child sex abuse material on its site.

Two weeks ago NCOSE researchers tried the term “child pornography” again and were thrilled that instead of links to Pornhub or to any other porn sites, the only results on the first 10 pages that we reviewed included information for child safety organizations, news articles, and legislation. In fact, several other search terms that used to direct people to Pornhub (“rape porn,” “incest porn,” and “drugged porn”) no longer do so—though unfortunately they still result in pages and pages of other hardcore porn sites.

Can we call it a “win” that Google no longer drives people looking up “child pornography” to an exploitative website known to profit from images of children being raped? Can we call it a victory when it took a NYT expose, government intervention, and other corporations to cut ties with Pornhub for Google to change its algorithms? Yes. Absolutely! Because when tech mega-giant Google makes any changes—however seemingly “simple” – it has vast ripple effects with the potential to impact hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. It’s why we celebrate any time Google makes any move toward protecting dignity and actually does “the right thing” as its motto claims.

But it’s too little. And while it’s certainly late, it’s thankfully not too late for Google to stop buttressing an industry that profits from people’s trauma and pain.

While Google has seemingly reduced the number of searches that result in Pornhub showing up on the first page (or even as the first result), several search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” are still directing people to Pornhub, to its main competitor Xvideos, and to countless other hardcore pornography sites.

New York Times two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Nick Kristof (whose investigative piece Children of Pornhub published in December 2020 turned the tide against Pornhub and parent company MindGeek) most recently set his scrutinizing sights on XVideos– asking the same question we and other advocates have been demanding for years, “Why Do We Let Corporations Profit from Rape Videos?” Kristof lambasts Google for serving as “a pillar of this sleazy ecosystem, for roughly half the traffic reaching XVideos and XNXX appears to come from Google searches.”

As Google has consistently held the monopoly of search engine market share worldwide – more than 90%, it’s likely Google has assisted countless people in accessing child sex abuse and other violent, illegal material by allowing links to Pornhub, XVideos, and other hardcore pornography sites to show up at the top of the search results page for searches like “child porn.” Studies have shown that the higher the rank on a Search Engine Results Page (SERP), the higher the likelihood users will click on the link, with the first result having the highest clickrate. “Teen porn” and “choking porn” still offer Pornhub as the #1 result. Pornhub and other porn sites rely on the SEO (search engine optimization)—in fact, it’s at the core of their business models to ensure their sites appear on the top page: so much so that even when they are ordered to take down images by lawyers or law enforcement, they leave the titles, tags, and thumbnails up so a Google search can still find them and bring people to Pornhub. Survivors tell us thumbnails showing their abuse are still widely available through a simple Google search of their name – even when the video has been removed from the pornography site.

Why are we letting Big Tech line the pockets of Big Porn, which has monetized the most violent, degrading, racist, and often illegal acts committed against children and vulnerable adults?

NCOSE met with Google executives last February to press on them to change their algorithms in order to stop driving people to hardcore pornography sites and assault users—including young children – with violent, degrading pornographic images. We pressed on them to stop directing people to hardcore pornography for searches like the ones listed above and others, like “slavery porn” or “Asian slave.”  Not only did searches related to pornography and prostitution lead to Pornhub and other sites, but scientific and innocent terms like “happy black teen” would populate the screen with images of torture and abuse in under a second, together with links to hardcore porn sites.

Google claimed they couldn’t do more, hiding behind “free speech” to cleanse their hands and justify inactioneven though child pornography and hardcore pornography is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In fact, it’s illegal. Google claimed Pornhub was a “legitimate” site, despite mounting evidence of criminal activity and survivors speaking out and they couldn’t mess with search term algorithms or result positioning (though even at the time we knew they could and did change search result rankings and have more recently curated search content that was potentially harmful on a wide scale such as COVID-19  health information). We continued to push on Google to proactively ensure their products and tools were not buttressing illegal and unethical industries. Soon after NCOSE met with their executives, they did in fact make changes so that scientific terms no longer produces hardcore pornographic images, and that innocent search terms wouldn’t result in hardcore porn links and images (which in and of themselves could cause harm to the viewer—especially minors)

Determining how people receive information and what information they see first places Google in a great position of power—and therefore significant ethical responsibility. Google can and MUST continue to adjust its algorithms so that other search terms like “teen porn” and “choking porn” stop leading to Pornhub.com and that other terms like “rape porn” or “family porn” lead to resources, not videos of sexual assault and incest. Google has showed us they’re able to “do the right thing.” We hope they do so again.

COLUMN BY

Lina Nealon

DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

Lina Nealon is committed to promoting the dignity of every human being and creating a society where everyone can reach their full potential.  As the National Center on Sexual Exploitation’s Director of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives, she spearheads NCOSE’s campaigns to hold corporations accountable for profiting from sexual exploitation. As Founding Director of Demand Abolition, Lina designed and led the first national program combatting the demand for paid sex that drives the global sex industry. Under her leadership, Demand Abolition coalesced a vastly diverse network of survivors, movement leaders, and allies across sectors and disciplines to implement tactics to stop sex buyers, disrupt commercial sex markets, and transform cultural norms around buying sex.  Lina was the leading architect of the Cities Empowered Against Sexual Exploitation (CEASE), a collaboration between twelve major US cities measurably decreasing demand in their communities and a founder co-chair of the World Without Exploitation coalition.

Ms. Nealon has advised governors, attorneys general, mayors and other elected officials, police chiefs, leading philanthropists, and business leaders in promising practices to reduce demand and has drafted numerous policies and legislation at the federal, state, and local levels to stop exploitation. She co-chaired the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Anti-Trafficking Taskforce Demand Committee and was a founding member of Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Working Group on Modern Slavery. Ms. Nealon has provided expert commentary and has published articles for top-tier media including MSNBC, PBS, NPR, Boston Globe, Congressional Quarterly Review, Al Jazeera, etc.

A mother of three girls and a sexual assault survivor herself, Ms. Nealon is driven to elevate survivor leadership and promote women’s and girls’ empowerment. As a Policy Specialist and Trainer with the Institute for Inclusive Security, Lina ensured women’s significant representation in peace processes and reconstruction efforts across dozens of post-conflict countries. She served as Executive Director of Girls on the Run (Greater Triangle Area, NC), sat on the Women2Women Advisory Council, and has mentored numerous young women in building their confidence, leadership skills, and resilience. Lina and her husband Brian are raising four young, adventurous, nature-loving, socially-conscious abolitionists in Durham, North Carolina.

EDITORS NOTE: This National Center on Sexual Exploitation column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FASCISM: Democrats Are The Party of the WEALTHY, IRS Data Shows

You would be rich too if you stole from every American who is actually working for a living.
Democrats bankrupted this nation, got wildly rich, all the while calling for taxes on the rich (the working Republicans).

Democrats are the party of the wealthy, IRS data shows

By Emma Colton | Washington Examiner | April 26, 2021:

Democrats are the party of the wealthy, a flip from decades ago when it was the party of the poor and middle class.

Democrats represented 65% of taxpayers with a household income of $500,000 or more in 2020, according to IRS data, while 74% of taxpayers in Republican districts have household incomes of less than $100,000.

In 1993, the dynamic was reversed, with the typical Republican congressional district showing it was 14% wealthier than its Democratic counterpart. In 2020, data shows those Republican districts were now 13% poorer.

The data comes as some Democrats push to end former President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law, which caps the federal deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000. The beneficiaries would predominantly be the 1% of the United States’s wealthiest households, with property owners in high-tax states benefiting from the relief on federal taxes.

Democrats who won previously Republican districts campaigned on restoring the deduction, especially in states such as New York and New Jersey, where a handful of red districts were flipped blue in 2018.

“I’m not voting for any change in the tax code whatsoever unless there’s the restoration of the SALT tax deduction. I’m laying that chit on the table,” Democratic New York Rep. Tom Suozzi said.

Some lawmakers are even threatening to derail President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure package if it does not include reversing Trump’s cap on tax deductions, with a group of lawmakers sending a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on the matter earlier this month.

“We’re going to keep fighting until this is part of the bill. It’s as critical as a road or a bridge or a tunnel, which is why we are going to keep fighting for it until the end,” New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer said.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Stocks Nose Dive After “Biden” Announces Massive Tax Increase as high as 43.4%

The Democrats strike yet another blow against the great American machine achievers, producers……. Americans are to be destroyed in the left’s hate-fueled war.

Stocks Take Nose Dive After Biden Announces Massive Tax Increase as high as 43.4%

By: Admin, April 22, 2021:

On Thursday, President Joe Biden announced that he would be proposing a massive tax increase which immediately caused the stock market to crumble.

Biden revealed that he would be raising capital gains tax on people making over $1 million to as high as 43.4%. The current minimum capital gains tax rate for wealthy individuals is 20%.

Check out what Yahoo Finance reported:

Stocks erased earlier gains to trade sharply lower after Bloomberg reported Thursday afternoon that President Joe Biden would propose increasing the capital gains tax rate on wealthy individuals.

The Dow dropped more than 250 points, or 0.7%, immediately following the report, after trading just slightly lower earlier. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq erased gains to trade at session lows.

Biden’s plan would involve increasing the capital gains tax rate on the wealthy to 39.6%, according to the report from Bloomberg citing people familiar with the matter. This would apply to those earning at least $1 million. The current base capital gains tax rate is 20%.

Earlier, in the session, stocks were little changed and struggled for direction. Stocks have churned in recent sessions as investors digested a bevy of corporate earnings results and awaited additional reports, more economic data and more commentary from Federal Reserve officials in the coming weeks.

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!

The preceding story was brought to you courtesy of Trending Politics Click the link to visit their page and see more stories.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Business Owners Can’t Find Workers Because Of Government Handouts: “They Don’t Have To Work.” – Geller Report News

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Costco Bows to Leftist Mob, Stops Selling Pillows Made by Wrongthinker Mike Lindell

After getting heavy pressure from leftist fascists, Costco has joined the lynch mob and stopped selling right-wing racist hate pillows – that is, it has stopped selling MyPillow products because the company’s CEO Mike Lindell has dared to oppose the far-left agenda. Apparently Costco believes that only leftists want pillows, or deserve to have them.

According to the New York Post, “the wholesale chain is among more than 20 companies that have cut ties with My Pillow.” The Post reported that “the decision will cost MyPillow between $4 million and $10 million in annual sales,” and that won’t hurt Lindell only: “it will also affect some 40 salespeople who would travel to Costco stores to hawk the company’s products, he said. Lindell said he has offered those staffers other jobs at My Pillow, though ‘we did have to lay some off.’”

Costco did not deign to explain to Lindell why it was dropping MyPillow: “Costco did not give a specific reason when it told Lindell that it would discontinue his merchandise after selling through the inventory it had left…The Minnesota-based bedding maker’s products have also disappeared from Costco’s website.” However, other companies cut ties with MyPillow “following his allegations that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from ex-President Donald Trump.”

The idea that there may have been widespread election fraud is the left’s latest excuse to silence its critics; even breathing a hint of the possibility of widespread fraud can get you banned from YouTube, Twitter, and the rest. We must believe that the election of Old Joe Biden’s handlers was completely on the up and up, or else be silenced as a racist, bigoted, white supremacist with a pillow.

Yet as Conrad Black recently noted, “The Trump campaign launched 28 lawsuits against individual incidences of apparent illegalities in the counting of decisive numbers of votes in swing states, including the Texas attorney general’s direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court supported by 18 other states on the issue of the unconstitutional failure of several of those states to comply with the requirement to ensure a fair presidential election result. None of these cases was adjudicated — judges invoked technical reasons to avoid addressing the merits.”

In light of all that, skepticism is reasonable. Of course, it also must be borne in mind that Dominion Voting Systems is suing Lindell, claiming he falsely charged them with tampering with the voting process. That suit will be settled in court, but ultimately, what does it have to do with selling pillows? Costco’s decision to drop MyPillow is based on the assumption that only those whose political views are acceptable should be allowed to operate businesses in the United States. Those who commit wrongthink of whatever kind are apparently to be condemned to poverty and indigence for their sins, at least until they repent, show a suitable change of mind and heart, and are judged to be sufficiently rehabilitated to be allowed gainful employ.

This is how totalitarian regimes work. This is not how the United States has ever operated as a society, at least until today’s ascendancy of the left. But it has actually been a long time coming. Long before anyone had ever heard of MyPillow or Mike Lindell, this tactic was employed in a dry run against “Islamophobes.” For example, a few years ago I was invited to address an education conference in California that had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; the failed “Islamophobia” propagandist-turned-real estate agent Nathan Lean got the weak and ignorant Catholic bishop Jaime Soto, under whose auspices the conference was being held, to cancel my appearance. (I spoke at the conference as scheduled, in a venue outside the bishop’s purview.) And also a few years ago, the Washington Post discovered that Qur’an-burning pastor Terry Jones was driving for Uber; they duly got him fired. I don’t approve of book-burning, but it is not illegal in the United States, and the idea that a man must be hounded forever and prevented from making a living for views that dissent from the left’s reveals what Leftists really are.

So it has been clear for years that if you dissent from leftist orthodoxy, you must be destroyed. If it were up to the left and Islamic supremacists, their critics would all be unemployed and unemployable, starving to death on the streets (at best). Not just “debunked” or “discredited” in your field, but also prevented from doing everything else, so that the only option one has is to die. The fascists who employ this tactic started with the foes of jihad violence and now, with their tactic tested and proven, have moved on to bigger fish, such as Mike Lindell. Nor will it end with Lindell. Much, much more of this is coming.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Catholic bishops urge Biden’s handlers to bring in more ‘refugees’

Iran’s president blames American ‘dishonesty’ in stalling a new nuke deal

Israel and Greece sign record defense deal amid threats from Turkey and Iran

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Report: True National Debt Exceeds $123 Trillion, or Nearly $800,000 per Taxpayer

The Democrat-CCP continues to impose more crushing debt on the American people, kill businesses, lockdown whole cities throw millions of out work.

China is taking over. Note what’s important and prioritized in their strategy for world domination – debt and spending. Balanced against the value of its commercial assets, the federal government had a combined total of $103.7 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded obligations.

COVID was an act of war  by China– launched during a US presidential election exploited and weaponized by the party of treason.

True National Debt Exceeds $123 Trillion, or Nearly $800,000 per Taxpayer, Report

By Mark Tapscott, The Epoch Times, April 19, 2021:

America’s national debt now exceeds $123 trillion, according to a new report, or more than four times the official figure of $28 trillion, as calculated by the U.S. Treasury Department at the end of March.

Federal spending related to the CCP virus pandemic and economic lockdown added nearly $10 trillion to the total in 2020, according to the latest edition of the “Financial State of the Union 2021” report, compiled and published annually by Chicago-based nonprofit Truth in Accounting (TIA).

But spending amid the pandemic represents only a small portion of the total difference between the official government figure and TIA’s calculation.

“Our measure of the government’s financial condition includes reported federal assets and liabilities, as well as promised, but not funded, Social Security and Medicare benefits,” the report stated.

“Elected and non-elected officials have made repeated financial decisions that have left the federal government with a debt burden of $123.11 trillion, including unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises.”

The TIA report includes in its total debt calculation $55.12 trillion in unfunded Medicare benefits and $41.20 trillion in unfunded Social Security benefits.

Treasury officials don’t include unfunded benefits because they claim recipients have no right to future payments, only to those under current entitlement laws.

The total debt, according to the report, “equates to a $796,000 burden for every federal taxpayer. Because the federal government would need such a vast amount of money from taxpayers to cover this debt, it received an ‘F’ grade for its financial condition.”

Unlike many state governments, the federal government doesn’t maintain a cash reserve to deal with spending necessitated by unexpected crises such as a virus pandemic.

“The coronavirus pandemic and related stimulus packages have caused some of the deterioration because the government had to borrow money to weather the pandemic. If the federal government was properly prepared for a crisis with a true rainy-day fund, it would not have had to borrow money,” TIA stated.

Defense and veterans’ benefits accounted for the largest share of federal spending in 2020 at 23 percent, followed by health and human services with 19 percent, Social Security with 16 percent, interest on the debt at 5 percent, and 2 percent on education. Fully a third (35 percent) of the spending went to what TIA described as “Other.”

Responses

Spokesmen for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), respectively the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee, didn’t respond to The Epoch Times request for comment.

Similarly, a spokesman for House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), didn’t respond.

Mondays are typically “travel days” for senators returning from their states and representatives from the districts.

A spokesman for Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the budget panel’s ranking minority member, referred to a March 31 statement in which Smith criticized news spending proposals from President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats.

“Washington Democrats are embracing an historically disturbing appetite for spending. They just passed a nearly $2 Trillion bailout bill. President Biden is now proposing they turn right back around and cut a check for another $2 trillion to spend on a massive grab bag of policies all tied together with talking points,” Smith wrote.

“All the while, the President reportedly has yet another $2 trillion spending proposal in his back pocket awaiting its own news cycle.”

Consultants Agree

Campaign strategists and nonprofit activists interviewed by The Epoch Times about the TIA report expressed agreement that debt requires serious attention to get it under control.

Jim Manley, former communications director to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said “at some point, both parties are going to have to have a serious negotiation regarding the need to get our fiscal house in better order, and that includes both taxes and spending, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon because our politics are just too toxic.”

But, Manley said, “in the meantime interest rates are low and the economy is digging itself out of the hole the pandemic caused, but there is no reason for Democrats to be at all concerned about the Republicans’ new-found focus on cutting spending after everything the last administration did.”

He was referring, he said, to 2017 tax reform legislation enacted by Republican majorities in the House and Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Another Democratic campaign strategist, Kevin B. Chavous, told The Epoch Times: “This has been an issue that both parties have simply failed to address. It will not be fixed, though, by doing the same things.”

Chavous said he expects “the infrastructure bill will create jobs and grow the economy by investing in modern technology and cleaner energy sources. Things like a nationalized electric grid and expanded broadband access will make Americans more productive and more competitive in the years to come. It is an expense we have to make sooner than later.”

Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) President David Williams pointed to the need to cut federal spending. “A debt of $123 trillion should be a wake-up call for the country. The bill is coming due very soon, which could have dire consequences for taxpayers and the country.”

Williams said Biden and congressional leaders “are seemingly oblivious to the stark fiscal crisis happening right under their noses. Worse yet, if they are aware of the deep financial issues, they are clearly not doing anything to fix the problem. Instead of finding ways to spend more money, Congress and the president need to find ways to cut spending.”

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) President Tom Schatz noted that President Thomas Jefferson said the nation’s representatives shouldn’t accumulate debts that can’t be paid in their own time, and while this has been problematic for years, it has never been this significant.

Schatz said he believes “members of Congress have an obligation to attempt to bring spending under control and ensure that present and future taxpayers are not forced to fund any federal program that is duplicative, wasteful, and inefficient.”

When The Epoch Times asked TIA President Sheila Weinberg if it’s reasonable to depend upon future economic growth to solve the debt problem, she said no, and noted that the Treasury Department agrees.

“The authors of the Financial Report of the U.S. Government have deemed that under current law and policy, a massive implied increase in the ratio of reported debt to GDP—e.g. future debt will be growing faster than GDP—is simply unsustainable,” she said.

“In other words, under current law and policy, we can’t grow our way out of this, especially considering Medicare grows faster than inflation.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Schweizer: China’s Influence on U.S. Government a ‘Massive Problem’

Unlike Hobbled U.S., China Stops COVID Stimulus Spending, CUTS It’s Deficit To 3.2%, Economy Recovers Pre-China Virus Momentum

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Crowdfunding Sites Block the Right But Not the Left

There was an in-depth report published in USA Today on 3/28 entitled “Crowdfunding hate: How white supremacists and other extremists raise money from legions of online followers.” Useful as much for what it left out as for what it covered, it is recommended reading.

Two glaring and very common errors informed the report. First, it lumped everyone on the so-called “right” into the same bucket, and second, it made no mention of left-wing groups. There are violent extremists on the right and on the left in America, but the ones on the right are disproportionately targeted.

Most useful was how the article identified four online crowdfunding sites that are attempting to offer services without, as one of their spokespersons said, “discriminating against customers for political reasons.” Those sites are GiveSendGoGoGetFundingAllFundIt and Our Freedom Funding.

The conflict over when to cut a group off rests on competing objectives. On one side is the constitutional right to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. On the other side is the much vaunted need to ensure, as PayPal puts it in their policy, “services are not used to accept payments or donations for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.”

That is a pretty high bar, especially when one steps back and considers the violence perpetrated across America for nearly a year in the name of “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” by groups that raise funds with nearly complete impunity, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter. A recent AP report claims one of the primary BLM organizations, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, took in over $90 million last year.

While Antifa, BLM, and countless other groups have been largely unhindered in their crowdfunding efforts, they hardly need a crowd, thanks to millions pouring in from major corporations, as well as from billionaires including George Soros and Tom Steyer.

There’s plenty of evidence of crowdfunding platforms escalating their war that, from the start, has disproportionately targeted the right. It’s hard to justify why Laura Loomer or Brandon Straka qualify as people so noxious and so dangerous that they have to be banned from raising money online, while hundreds of local Antifa and BLM groups are untouched. But a more egregious example is Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people who were chasing him during the Kenosha riots last summer, killing two of them.

This young man, who claims he acted in self defense, faces a blistering onslaught of civil and criminal actions that will probably cost him millions in legal fees. Despite the fact that there is a solid case to be made for his defense and a reasonable chance he will be acquitted of the most serious charges against him, the accounts set up for people to contribute to him on GoFundMe were taken down. Similar accounts set up on another crowdfunding site, Fundly, were also taken down. Finally, accounts set up on GiveSendGo were able to raise funds for Rittenhouse’s defense.

This isn’t about Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence. It isn’t about his intentions. It’s about his right to legal defense, and the right for people who wish to contribute to his legal defense to be able to do so. How on earth do these crowdfunding sites justify denying people that right?

An even deeper level of financial attack against online fundraising, or any sort of online commerce, comes from the payment processors. These are the intermediaries that crowdfunding sites have to use – along with anyone doing business online – to convert credit card information into actual bank deposits. The only major online payment processors are PayPal and Stripe. And wouldn’t you know it, PayPal and Stripe have cut all ties with GiveSendGo. It is not clear what alternative payment processor GiveSendGo has found, but they remain online and able to accept most – but not all – credit cards.

Perhaps, as Gab is considering, it will become necessary for right-of-center crowdfunding sites, along with all right-of-center websites that engage in internet commerce, to start up their own banks. Maybe they will resort to BitCoin or the totally private Monero. But cybercurrencies come with their own set of challenges, not least of which is the so-called entry and exit points wherein cash turns into cybercurrency, and wherein cybercurrency is turned back into cash.

Better yet, the firms providing financial services in the United States could respect the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, instead of applying one standard to the right wing people they don’t like, and quite another standard to the left wing people they support.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Scientists Predict Death Spike in Vaccinated: Modelers are ‘following the science’ down a rabbit hole

WESTMINSTER, England (ChurchMilitant.com) – The most deaths in a third coronavirus wave will consist of people who have received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, British scientists are warning in a new doomsday report.

“The resurgence in both hospitalizations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively,” the study predicts.

To combat the spike in mortality, the scientists are calling for new vaccines in the medium-term as measures to extend the period of lockdown before new vaccines are deployed.

The pessimistic scenario modeled by scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) foresees deaths and hospital admissions on a scale similar to January 2021 — despite a high uptake of the experimental jab.

The mortality surge is expected to occur in the later stages of the U.K. government’s roadmap out of the lockdown, beginning around mid-May and peaking in late July or early August, according to the study reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last Wednesday.

The predictions studied by the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), warn that the gloom-and-doom scenario is conservative as it does not take into account the “growth of an immune escape variant or a more rapidly spreading variant.”

A large proportion of Britain’s population would be susceptible to B.1.351 — the South African variant of the SARS-CoV-2 — whether they have been vaccinated or not, the modelers warn.

Speaking to Church Militant, academic and mental-health ethicist Niall McCrae noted that “the report’s prediction that 70% of COVID-19 deaths will be of dual-vaccinated people is quite startling.”

“Clearly these pseudo-scientific modelers would like us to be locked down ad infinitum, but do they know something that governments and public-health authorities aren’t telling us?” Dr. McCrae asked.

The academic slammed the study’s “Alice-in-Wonderland logic, ‘following the science’ down a rabbit hole” since “the report states, ‘this is because vaccine uptake has been so high in the oldest age groups,’ and that ‘this is not the result of vaccines being ineffective, merely uptake being so high.'”

McCrae elaborated:

We already know that for two to three weeks after the injection, elderly and vulnerable people are at increased risk of serious respiratory infection, due to lowering of immunity. That’s why there was a surge in deaths after vaccination rollout, with the evidence most stark in countries with the highest vaccination numbers; such as Hungary, Israel, Serbia, Gibraltar and the United Arab Emirates.

The report, however, suggests a longer-term risk to the vaccinated. Will they be more prone to COVID-19 variants or to other viruses? In the old joke when someone asks an Irishman for directions, and he says, “I wouldn’t start from here,” I fear for those who took the jab and thought that the road ahead would be safe and straightforward.

A SAGE source told Britain’s The Telegraph that the vaccines were not efficacious enough to allow a return to normal social mixing “without a big epidemic,” despite the jabs significantly reducing illness and deaths.

Addressing the question of low vaccine uptake among ethnic minorities in Britain, the report notes that “even if vaccination successfully drives down mortality and morbidity overall, it is highly likely that outbreaks will still happen in some communities.”

SAGE also reviewed models from scientists at Imperial College London and Warwick University that assumed lower virus transmission after all restrictions are lifted and used higher vaccine efficacy to make predictions.

Meanwhile, a new Israeli study involving 28 scientists has confirmed that those vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were more likely to become infected with B.1.1.7 (Kent variant) or B.1.351 compared with unvaccinated individuals.

In fact, vaccine recipients infected at least a week after the second dose were disproportionally infected with B.1.351, while those infected between two weeks after the first dose and one week after the second dose were disproportionally infected by B.1.1.7, the study revealed.

Despite the Pfizer vaccine showing high protection levels, apprehension exists that several variants of concern can surmount the immune defenses generated by the vaccines, the Tel Aviv University researchers concluded.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Pause’ on Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Reveals One Systemic Flaw Plaguing the FDA

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Corporate America Got Woke: A Review of ‘The Dictatorship of Woke Capital’

In his new book “The Dictatorship of Woke Capital,” Steve Soukup’s explores the rise of progressivism as a cultural force and explains why corporations increasingly are taking sides in politics.


How did corporate America, long considered one of the most conservative American institutions, become a lead protagonist in a culture war over all manner of progressive activism?

We now have a routine spectacle of corporate social responsibility seminars and environmental, social, and governance—or ESG—conferences, where widget makers of all kinds commit to promoting climate activism, identity politics, union labor, and sundry other causes. Somehow, selling an honest product at a fair price seems like a secondary concern in a corporate America increasingly focused on an array of stakeholders with such diffuse boundaries as “the local community,” “the global environment,” and “society at large.”

How did we get here?

Finance professional and political analyst Steve Soukup gives us a fascinating and in-depth answer in his disquisition on modern politicized investing, The Dictatorship of Woke Capital.

The first half of Soukup’s book is a high-intensity sprint through about a century and a half of intellectual history that name-checks everyone from Adam Smith and Karl Marx to Woodrow Wilson, Theodor Adorno, Saul Alinsky, and Milton Friedman. In Soukup’s telling, the shift began when Johns Hopkins University was founded in the image of Germany’s Heidelberg University in the late 19th century, and progressive political theory began to grow in popularity in the United States. The same trends later accelerated when a new generation of continental Marxism hit the US in the mid-20th century.

These developments brought about a revolution in how left-leaning theorists viewed the functions of government—and other large institutions like corporations.

First, in the progressive view, neither the old aristocracy nor liberal democracy were equipped to achieve the necessary goals of society. Rather, a professionally educated elite of administrators and bureaucrats was needed. This was the progressivism of theorists like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey. They carved out a large realm of governmental authority for administrators, but still considered their role to be outside of politics itself.

Eventually, however, political scientists and management experts, led by academics like Syracuse University’s Dwight Waldo, decided that expertly implementing democratically chosen policies was no longer enough. A subsequent generation of experts would be expected to substitute their own ethical and philosophical standards for those supported by voters.

“Public servants should become active, informed, politically savvy agents of change,” as one of Waldo’s colleagues would later put it.

This is the recipe for what critics of big government have come to call a permanent governing class—civil servants with effective lifetime tenure, collaborating with like-minded activists outside of government, who place their own judgment ahead of that of the voters and their elected representatives.

Yet, the trend of enlightened university graduates turning institutions toward progressive goals wasn’t confined to government agencies. The same logic would eventually apply to the management of corporations as well.

Soukup also recounts how, at the same time that American scholars of public administration and management were expanding their disciplines, self-proclaimed radicals like Antonio Gramsci in Italy, György Lukács in Hungary, and Max Horkheimer in Germany were attempting to revive Marx’s reputation and influence by explaining away many of Marxist theory’s failed predictions. When the German academics of the infamous Frankfurt School went into exile in the United States during Hitler’s rise to power, they began to exert significant influence on academics and writers in the US, culminating with unlikely pop-culture celebrity Herbert Marcuse.

Marcuse was widely associated in the popular imagination with political movements in the 1960s, from student radicalism on college campuses to free love on communes and beach blankets across America. While Soukup argues that he was less of a direct influence on left-wing politics than some have given him credit for, his ideas about the evils of capitalism and bourgeois society were very much part of the liberation politics that swept much of the world in the late 1960s and early 1970s. When soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell lamented the increasing anti-business influence of radical leftists in his 1971 memo to the US Chamber of Commerce, one of the few people he criticized by name, besides Ralph Nader and Eldridge Cleaver, was Marcuse.

This revolution held that not only was a capitalist economy inherently exploitative, as classical Marxism teaches, but the entirety of modern society is repressive and dehumanizing, with everything from the nuclear family, organized religion, and formal schooling conspiring to circumscribe our essential natures and limit our infinite potential.

With so much of “the system” losing credibility, it was not surprising that public attitudes toward business, ambivalent even in the best of times, turned more hostile. Unfortunately for people with anti-establishment attitudes, there are never enough university fellowships and socialist newsletter editorial positions to go around. Well over 70 percent of Americans work in the profit-seeking private sector, once we subtract everyone who works for government agencies and non-profit organizations. This means that anti-capitalist ideas are coming from inside the building.

This conflict, in which many people—at both the entry-level and management-level—work at companies about which they feel morally ambivalent isn’t entirely a product of progressive ideology, but the academic theory behind it certainly didn’t help. My Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague Fred L. Smith, Jr. has written extensively on this problem—business leaders afflicted with an inferiority complex over their chosen profession and feel the need to “buy back” their moral standing in the world with leftist virtue signaling.

The second half of The Dictatorship of Woke Capital catalogs a series of controversial activist campaigns by some of the biggest names of Wall Street: Apple, Disney, and Amazon. The issues are varied, but the overall trend is nevertheless worrying. Rather than concentrating on what they know best and staying neutral in the culture wars, major companies have hitched their brands to one side of a contentious political divide. The verdict on whether this will ultimately be good for business is still very much uncertain.

Specific issues aside, the influence of all of those progressive and Marxist scholars the book documents can be seen in the modern claim that no institution should be outside the political realm. Soukup writes that “this battle is between those who believe that politics is and should be the overriding force in all human interactions and those who believe that politics is just part of the human experience, a part that is best kept as narrow and limited as possible.”

Attempting to turn every corporation in the world into a political combatant will not make the world a better place. One doesn’t have to be a conservative, like Soukup, or a free-market warrior of any description, to appreciate that.

Review of The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business (Encounter Books, 2021), 208 pp.

COLUMN BY

Richard Morrison

Richard Morrison is the Senior Editor at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.