President Trump Signs Coronavirus Relief Bill Invoking 1974 Impoundment Control Act to Demand “Rescissions”

The President on Sunday invoked the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to demand “rescissions” be made to the spending measures.

Trump: I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.

Trump negotiated:

  • $2,000 per person
  • Section 230 eliminated or substantially revised
  • A line by line removal of the pork from the bill

Trump signs coronavirus relief bill after days of tension

By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times – Sunday, December 27, 2020

President Trump signed the massive coronavirus relief and government spending bill Sunday, ending nearly a week of suspense that flustered governors and lawmakers of both parties.

Mr. Trump put pen to paper after a Christmas period marked by anger and confusion over his demands for bigger payments than what his Treasury secretary and GOP leaders agreed to in intense talks earlier this month.

“As president, I have told Congress that I want far less wasteful spending and more money going to the American people in the form of $2,000 checks per adult and $600 per child,” Mr. Trump said.

He also said he will send Congress a list of “rescissions,” or wasteful budget items that he wants removed, and that Senate Republicans will “start the process” that provides for $2,000 stimulus checks — a provision the House Democratic majority already agreed to.

He said his Senate allies will go a step further and consider repealing the liability protections that shield social media from lawsuits over their content and the voter fraud allegations that he’s pointed to as the reason for his election loss.

John Soloman’s take:

Trump averts shutdown, signs $2.3 trillion spending and COVID relief bill

Trump had refused to sign a Covid relief bill until Congress raised the amount of money paid to everyday Americans.

Updated: December 28, 2020:

President Trump on Sunday night signed a $2.3 trillion federal spending and COVID relief bill, averting a government shutdown and ensuring millions of Americans continue to get unemployment benefits.

Despite his misgivings about wasteful spending and low stimulus payments in the bill, Trump said he signed the legislation because “I have an obligation to protect the people of our country“ from further economic devastation. He said, however, “more money is coming” as Congress votes this week on larger checks.

The president on Sunday also invoked the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to demand “rescissions” be made to the spending measures. Under the Act, a president can seek congressional approval to rescind funds by sending a special message to Congress identifying the amount he proposes to cut, the reasons for it, and the economic impact.

“I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” Trump said.

The signing came after Trump tweeted, “Good news on Covid Relief Bill. Information to follow!”

The signing brought hope to millions of Americans who lost jobless benefits over the weekend as a federal shutdown loomed.

The standoff occurred after Trump refused before Christmas to sign the $2.3 trillion spending and COVID relief bill, demanding more money for everyday Americans.

Congress failed to address the president’s demands to increase the $600 stimulus checks to $2,000 per person.


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

What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters.

In 2020, many of us have become accustomed to terms and concepts we never thought we’d be discussing: “social distancing,” mask requirements, and Zoom parties all come to mind.

We can add Section 230 to that list, an obscure provision of the Communications and Decency Act (1996) that was previously unknown to most.

Section 230 is a frequent target of President Trump’s ire, and as such it can now frequently be found trending on Twitter, being debated in Congress, and featured in primetime media coverage. All in all, dozens of bills to repeal or modify Section 230 have been introduced in 2020.

TechDirt journalist Mike Masnick writes, “If you were in a coma for the past 12 months, just came out of it, and had to figure out what had happened in the last year or so solely based on new bills introduced in Congress, you would likely come to the conclusion that Section 230 was the world’s greatest priority and the biggest, most pressing issue in the entire freaking universe.”

But while it is a recurring topic of discussion, it seems the incessant chatter has only left Americans more confused. This explainer is here to break down the code and the debate swirling around it.

So what’s the truth about Section 230? What does it actually say and what are its implications? Fortunately, the original author of the bill, Senator Ron Wyden, is still around and on record when it comes to the current dispute.

“Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online. Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That’s what I call the shield.”

“But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump’s recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down. Section 230 gives the executive branch no leeway to do either.”

It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward. Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.

It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward.

Section 230 was written early on in the internet age, long before social media companies even existed (although much of this debate has focused on those platforms). Within the bill, the authors explicitly say the law is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services.”

And it has been successful. The government got out of the way and the internet expanded rapidly. Private companies invested millions to build their online enterprises, encouraged by provisions like Section 230 that secured their rights against unjust legal charges that would have otherwise put those investments in severe jeopardy.

Online companies want and need internet users to interact with their content and share feedback on their platforms. That goes for publishers (like and us here at, platforms (like Twitter and YouTube), and everything in between. But they shouldn’t be held liable because someone writes something untrue on their pages, nor should they have to host content that they find offensive.

Ronald Reagan once said,“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Individuals should be held accountable when they break the law or violate the rights of others. But it would be morally wrong to hold society at large, or even parts of society like private businesses, responsible for the action of an autonomous individual. In fact, this course of action would let the party actually responsible for harm off the hook while punishing a third party who did nothing wrong.

Shoshana Weissmann, the head of Digital Media and Fellow at the R Street Institute, recently wrote a punchy (and hilarious) article illustrating this concept—tying Section 230’s protections to Jeffrey Toobin’s Zoom “reveal” earlier this year. For those who’ve forgotten, Toobin accidentally exposed himself on a work Zoom call. As Weissmann points out, without Section 230, Zoom itself would have been liable for his lewd content rather than Toobin being held responsible.

Thankfully, we have Section 230 which creates a just and sensible legal apparatus for the internet and conduct on it. Without this protection, it is highly unlikely that the internet would have taken off and grown to its current state, much less produced the social media websites, online news outlets, and other user-reviewed services (like Yelp) we all now enjoy.

Section 230 became a hot topic in the fall of 2019 when President Donald Trump drafted an executive order requiring the Federal Communications Commission to develop rules that would limit its protections. Ultimately, that order never went through, as even the mention of it was met with confusion and alarm by regulators, legal experts, and First Amendment advocates.

The storm died down until May of this year when Twitter found itself in Trump’s crosshairs after slapping one of his tweets with a violence warning. This feud reignited Trump’s fury and determination to do away with Section 230.

Since then, Trump and his allies have regularly called for the repeal of Section 230. Trump believes that social media companies are unfair to him and his agenda, and his response to that is to use the government to force the private companies to act in a way he deems appropriate. He also believes that doing away with Section 230 would block social media companies from “censoring” information on their websites.

There has, of course, been pushback against all this. Many conservatives and libertarians have pointed out that Trump and his supporters fundamentally misunderstand the legal code and its implications. Supporters of Section 230 say it upholds the right to free speech in the age of the internet, and that it protects the free market as well.

Meanwhile, others like Republican Senator Roger Wicker have called for modifications to the law that would leave the liability shield in place, but that would force companies to host content that may violate their values.

Social media companies, who have incurred the bulk of the derision in this debate, are left between a rock and a hard place. Democratic leaders want them to censor more and guard against “fake news,” while some Republicans want to take away their rights for any content moderation.

True defenders of free speech, limited government, and the free market are largely being drowned out by the tidal wave of politicians and their supporters pushing for big government responses to a societal issue they dislike.

While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “censor” information the company does not like, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties, they would instead have to censor vigorously.

While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “censor” information the company does not like, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties, they would instead have to censor vigorously.

We’ve already seen a preview of what this would look like with the passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTRA). Signed into law in April of 2018, FOSTRA carved out an exception to Section 230 that essentially said websites would be held responsible for content promoting or facilitating sex trafficking or prostitution.

Internet companies reacted quickly, even those whose primary purpose had nothing to do with sex work. Craigslist removed its personals section altogether. Reddit and Google also took down parts of their websites. Notably, these actions were not taken because these sections of their websites promoted prostitution, but rather because policing them against the possibility that someone else might advertise illegal services was an impossible task.

It is almost inevitable that further eroding Section 230 would have similar impacts throughout the internet. Consider, for example, a company like Twitter. If it could potentially be sued for the millions of user posts on its platform, it would have to start censoring many more of them, or even running them through a pre-approval process. This would likely slow down the flow of information on these channels as the companies would be forced to sort through and approve content. Ultimately, these actions would result in all of us having less of a public square, fewer information streams, and a less rich internet experience.

Especially concerning is the impact these actions would have on smaller companies and start-ups, many of whom cannot afford losing liability protections. Ironically, those who seek to harm Facebook or Twitter by repealing this law would actually end up entrenching their power even more by putting their competitors out of business.

Take Parler for example. It is a growing, popular competitor of Twitter’s that many conservatives are flocking to. Should Section 230 be repealed, this new company would almost certainly be put out of business tomorrow as it does not yet have the revenue to withstand litigation. Twitter, on the other hand, would have the resources to survive and adapt.

“If Section 230 were to be repealed, or even watered down, this next generation of platform will likely be thwarted by liability threats. “Big tech” firms have the resources to comply with new mandates and regulations, so erecting this barrier to entry to nascent firms will artificially lock currently dominant firms in their lead positions.”

-An open letter to Congress from a coalition of conservative and libertarian think orgs, including Americans for Prosperity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedomworks, and more

Some bills seek to modify Section 230 instead of repealing it. There are too many to name in one article, so we’ll focus on the worst and the most prominent: Senator Josh Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.”

This legislation would remove liability protections for companies with more than 30 million US users, 300 million global users, or $500 million in annual revenue. The bill also says that these large companies can apply for immunity from the bill if they go through a process that allows the FTC to screen their protocols and attest that their algorithms and content removal policies do not discriminate on the basis of political views.

So Hawley wants to fight “censorship” with – wait for it – actual government censorship of private companies.

Real censorship almost always involves the government, because without this tool of force, it is unlikely information could be totally suppressed. While people like to call social media content moderation “censorship” it really isn’t, not in the true sense of the word. Those who have their posts removed from one platform can easily go post them elsewhere. But what Hawley wants to do, which is use the government to censor the protocols of private companies, actually does constitute censorship as it would force them to allow the government to dictate what speech they would (or would not) host on their websites.

The notion that it would ever be wise to give the government this kind of power is quite jarring to encounter in America. It’s easy to see how this system would quickly eviscerate our fundamental rights to free speech by allowing the government to determine what belongs in the public square of discourse.

And, it’s important to remember that Biden appointees will soon be running these departments. This is an important reminder that the government bureaucrats who decide what counts as “neutral” will not be picked by your team forever. It would be prudent to stop giving the government more power that will only one day be used against you when your “team” is no longer in charge.

What’s next? Will they call to nationalize these platforms? This approach is antithetical to the ideals of limited government, free markets, and free speech.

“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association. “That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”

While many seem to think that Section 230 makes a distinction between ideological publishers and neutral platforms, and that companies who act as publishers do not enjoy its protections, this isn’t true. Section 230 applies to all internet companies and makes no such distinction between publishers and platforms.

Section (c.) of Section 230 specifically addresses this point and speaks to the protection of companies who block and screen offensive material. It immediately states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It goes on to say that when it comes to matters of civil liability, “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lews, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Publishers can be sued for defamatory language online, just as they can be sued for it in print. So can Twitter or Facebook, if they issue a statement or a post. But that isn’t a relevant scenario to Section 230, which again, merely maintains websites are not liable for content you may choose to write on their pages.

Removing content they find offensive is well within their First Amendment rights, and within their Section 230 rights. It doesn’t change their status as a company or their protections under the law.

Many advocates for repealing Section 230 have hung their cases on the “publisher vs. platform” argument in an attempt to mislead their followers. But the good news is, Section 230 is relatively short. You can literally read it in less than five minutes for yourself and see that the publisher vs. platform discussion is a non-issue.

There are also those who claim that Section 230 is a special protection or an exemption for social media companies. This argument also fails to hold water.

One of the few, legitimate functions of government is to uphold the rights of individuals; when that is done businesses have a secure and just climate to operate within. That is exactly what Section 230 did. When the internet came about, it opened up an entirely new marketplace and one that needed such rights affirmed in order for people to invest in it.

Section 230 merely applied the same types of laws we see in the tangible world to the online marketplace. Would Burger King be liable if you came in and shouted obscenities at their customers? Should they be forced to host you on their premises and allow your attack on their clients to continue? Of course not. The same rules should apply to an internet company, and thanks to Section 230 they do.

Furthermore, without this provision to protect an online free market, the courts would likely be bogged down with frivolous lawsuits, which would cost taxpayers dearly. Even sorting through and throwing out such suits is an expensive and time-consuming process.

On this issue, those who believe in limited government and free markets need to put their principles over short-term political expediency. Individuals, whether acting alone or jointly through a business, have the right to free speech, meaning the government has no right to tell them what they can or cannot say. While we may disagree with their choices to remove some users or throttle access to certain content (and I do), it would be a violation of their fundamental rights to force them to host speech they disagree with.

This argument is akin to one that caught the attention of many conservatives years ago: The Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who famously refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding citing his free speech rights. Just as the baker had a First Amendment right to not endorse a message that violated his beliefs, so too do the owners of social media companies. If we dislike the ways in which they run their platforms, the proper solution is for us to create or fund their competitors—not use big government as a weapon to tread on them.

This is the beauty of the free market. We don’t need the federal government to get involved in this picture outside of creating a fair legal apparatus in which companies can flourish. With Section 230 they got this right, and consumers now enjoy a wide range of options online thanks to its provisions.

If users are unhappy with Twitter or Facebook, they can take their business elsewhere and vote with their feet. If enough users do that, Twitter and Facebook will willingly change their policies to attract users back, or they will cease to exist.

Some have noted that the network effect makes it difficult for social media competitors to attract new customers, referring to the fact that for some products users find more enjoyment in them when a large number of their peers partake in the experience. But MySpace used to have the network effect advantage, and it still lost out to upstart competitors. And the recent (and impressive) success of Parler shows that there is still room for competition in this picture.

As always, free people are far better equipped to solve this problem than the government.


Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer, commentator, and activist. She’s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner.

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

Miami mayor urges Wall Street firms to leave NYC for friendlier city

Excellent idea, Mayor Suarez. America is going to see some significant population shifts in the years to come, since more American corporations will flee Democrat States plagued by high taxes.

Miami mayor urges Wall Street firms to leave NYC for friendlier city

City taxes, business environment key draws for big banks, mayor says.

By Fox News, December 26, 2020

Miami’s Republican mayor said Thursday he hopes to draw some of the big financial firms from Wall Street down to Biscayne Boulevard, as a relief from the high tax burdens and other restrictions of New York.

Mayor Francis X. Suarez told “Your World” he is already having success in talks with firms like Blackstone, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

New York State continues to be near or at the top of the list when it comes to taxation and other categories that businesses take heed of, while Florida does not impose a state income tax among other benefits.

Suarez said that one of the more recent developments that have made northeastern firms question their tenure in New York and the surrounding region is that of the change in federal SALT deduction.

The Trump tax bill capped the amount of local tax that residents of high-tax states can deduct from their federal return. While SALT used to have no limit, the plan maxed out the deduction at $10,000.

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, previously accused Trump of “trying to kill New York City” with policies such as the SALT cap, further claiming it to be “retribution politics” against Democratic-run states, which tend to have a higher tax burden.

Suarez told “Your World” host Charles Payne he has already seen “an avalanche of people” moving into South Florida from Cuomo’s state, as well as California.

He also touted Miami’s standing as one of the safest large cities in America, remarking that its homicide rate is the lowest since 1954. For its part, New York had for some time been considered in similar straits, but the Big Apple had a spike in violence in recent months.


You Can Kill Covid With a Flick of a Light Switch, Study Shows

COVERUP OF THE CENTURY: Leaked Documents Expose Extent Of Communist China’s Coronavirus Lies/Disinfo/ Censorship

US to Label Products From Parts of Judea and Samaria as ‘Made in Israel’

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

‘Smart Toilets,’ Afghan Book Clubs, and Lizard Treadmills: Rand Paul’s Report Exposes $55 Billion in Government Waste

Everybody celebrates the holiday season in their own way. Each year, Senator Rand Paul invokes the spirit of the fictional grievance-airing holiday “Festivus” from Seinfeld to release an annual taxpayer waste report—and boy, is this one a doozy.

The libertarian-leaning Kentucky lawmaker’s report for 2020 finds an astounding $54.7 billion wasted by the federal government this year. (That’s not even an exhaustive figure for the federal government, nor does it account for the vast levels of waste by state and local governments.)

To put the nearly $55 billion wasted in context, Paul’s office explains that this is equivalent to wasting the taxes of more than 5.4 million Americans. It’s enough money to build a two-lane road that wraps around the entire Earth—18 times over. It’s enough money to buy every American a 40-inch flat-screen TV.

Yes, seriously.

Paul’s report cites far too many examples to list in one article, but even a cursory glance at some of its most prominent revelations will leave any honest taxpayer infuriated.

According to the senator’s report, the National Institutes of Health spent millions studying if people will eat bugs and millions more trying to invent a “smart toilet.” The federal agency also spent millions trying to reduce hookah smoking rates among Eastern Mediterranean youth and $31.5 million to fund an allegedly faked study linking e-cigarettes to heart attacks.

Yet perhaps the most bizarre examples of how politicians spend our taxpayer money come from how the government uses it overseas.

We spent $8.6 billion on anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, the report finds. Hundreds of thousands went to art classes for Kenyans, Afghan and Pakistani book clubs, and funding for Sri Lankan think tanks. In a truly baffling example, tens of millions were spent to combat truancy… in the Philippines.

Oh, and of course, we spent taxpayer money to put lizards on treadmills and study the results.

The military wasted lots of taxpayer money too, Paul’s report reveals.

It allegedly lost $715 million worth of equipment that was intended for Syrians to use to fight ISIS. Meanwhile, $174 million went to lost drones in Afghanistan, and we spent $3.1 million on a police complex that now sits unused.

So what can be done to stop all this waste? It would simply require voters to hold Congress’s feet to the fire and force them to actually hold agencies accountable for how taxpayer money is spent.

“Congress has every tool it needs to fight and end government waste,” Paul said. “It’s just a matter of finding the willpower to use them.”

Unfortunately, fiscally responsible politicians like Paul are the exception, not the rule. As Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously explained, government spending is inherently prone to waste. Why?

You can spend your money on yourself, in which case you’ll be quite judicious with it. You can also spend your money on someone else, or someone else’s money on yourself. In either case you’ll still have a strong incentive to spend the money responsibly.

Yet Friedman identified a fourth scenario.

“If I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get,” the economist wrote. “And that’s government.”

So, there’s only one way to truly limit government waste of taxpayer dollars. We have to limit the scope of government itself.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Many Glaring Problems with the New COVID Stimulus Package

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

VIDEO: FL State Senator Joe Gruters’ bill would prohibit businesses from discriminating against a customers’ COVID vaccination status

Florida’s State Senator Joe Gruters (R-District 23) has introduced legislation that would prohibit businesses from requiring customers to show proof of having been vaccinated against covid and/or from discriminating against would be customers who cannot and/or will not show such proof.

Watch the Cape Coral TV news blurb:

What you say? I do not support government intrusion into how a private business is operated.

  1. This bill would stop, in its tracks, attempts by Government to require the general citizenry to show proof of being vaccinated during the course of their normal day-to-day activities.
  2. This bill would stop, in its tracks, attempts by Government to, “under the color of law”, force businesses to become the “vaccination police”

That said, I would rather see legislation that prevents the State of Florida from imposing ANY sort of “must show proof” requirements and let businesses make their own decisions on the matter.

Then, again, when I walk into a bank lobby and some minion tells me I must wear a mask and then, using their bare hands (God only knows where their hands have been), from an open box (God only knows where it has been), hands me an unsealed mask (God only knows who has handled them) and demands that I put it on my face?

Let’s just say that we need something along the lines of Gruters’ bill and we need it damn soon.

Read the Bill here:

©Tad MacKie. All rights reserved.

GOP Blocks $2,000 Stimulus Payments, House To Hold Roll Call Vote On Proposal Monday

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault.”  – President Donald J. Trump

House Republicans blocked legislation Thursday that would have sent $2,000 in direct payments to Americans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

House Democratic and Republican leaders met early Thursday morning in a pro forma session and held a unanimous consent vote on the direct payments proposal, according to CNBC. Republican leadership voted the measure down, which required all lawmakers present to unanimously vote in favor for it to pass.

“Today, on Christmas Eve morning, House Republicans cruelly deprived the American people of the $2,000 that the President agreed to support,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “If the President is serious about the $2,000 direct payments, he must call on House Republicans to end their obstruction.”

Pelosi said during a press conference that the House would hold a recorded roll call vote on the measure Monday, Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram reported. If succesful, the measure would alter the the omnibus bill Congress passed Monday night by changing stimulus checks sent to Americans from $600 to $2,000.

Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman attempted to get the House to vote on reconsidering the much-criticized foreign aid included in the omnibus bill, according to CNBC. Democrats blocked that proposal.

“Speaker Pelosi tried to use the American people as leverage to make coronavirus relief contingent on government funding – which includes billions of foreign aid at a time when there are urgent needs at home,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement Wednesday night.

The coronavirus stimulus relief bill hangs in the balance after President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he wouldn’t sign the bill Congress passed. Trump criticized both the $600 direct payment, saying they were too small, and the foreign aid, saying it was wasteful.

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault,” Trump said.


Trump Didn’t Make The Pardon A Political Tool, It Always Has Been

Trump Says He Won’t Sign Coronavirus Stimulus Into Law Without Major Changes On Direct Payments And ‘Wasteful Items’

Feds Say Latest US Government Hack ‘Poses A Grave Risk’ To National Security. How Might They Respond?

Trump Already Has A Successful Model For ‘MAGA TV’ — And It Might Give Him A Run For His Money

‘The High Priest Of The COVID Cult’: Tucker Carlson Pans DC Mayor’s ‘Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day’ Declaration

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Payment Processers Escalate War on Digital Army

RedPill78, a “citizen journalist” operating in Washington DC, was banned from YouTube back in October. That was part of the coordinated assault by big tech on the so-called QAnon journalists. But QAnon is an inexact term, used by the establishment to push dissident journalists into a box: “Conspiracy theorists (as if conspiracies don’t exist) who think the Democratic party has been taken over by satanic, baby-eating pedophiles.”

This is a gross mischaracterization, designed to discourage anyone from paying attention to the work of the Q collective.

What RedPill78, and tens of thousands of citizen journalists like him are part of is better described as a digital army. They are a threat to the establishment because they are doing investigative work that controlled mainstream journalists in America have neither the time nor the permission to conduct.

For now, RedPill78 has not been silenced, because he has migrated to RumbleDLivePilledOdysee, and others. Alternative, constantly proliferating video platforms working on distributed servers, theoretically, can continue to broadcast online unless the whole internet is shut down. To take them down, that is, you might have to take down everything.

There are many ways the empire can strike back, however, and kicking dissidents off of the major video platforms is only one of them.

On December 17, in the middle of a live show, RedPill78 learned that PayPal had terminated his account. Without providing examples of how his content had transgressed, and providing only innocuous, vague explanation, PayPal took away RedPill78’s ability to accept donations or subscription payments.

This represents a major escalation in the ongoing assault on free speech, and like video deplatforming, it is being rolled out slowly but systematically. What RedPill78 has experienced is just the beginning. Laura Loomer has been banned from riding Uber, solely because of her political opinions. Lana Lokteff has been banned from having any bank accounts, again solely because of her political opinions.

None of these victims of financial deplatforming have violated First Amendment principles. “Hate speech” and “misinformation,” besides being highly subjective concepts, are protected forms of speech. If you listen to RedPill78’s body of work, there is nothing to justify censorship, much less financial aggression.

RedPill78 is a threat because he is investigating fraud and corruption, and connecting the dots. Listen to his findings. See for yourself how close he and others are getting to truths, which if spread far and wide, could be very inconvenient for America’s ruling class.

The Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency is considering a new rule that would bar banks from denying service for non-financial reasons, such as a customer’s political views. This could be implemented without approval of the U.S. Congress, but could be rescinded if Biden takes over the executive branch.

The Leftist dominated establishment should be careful what it wishes for. The instruments of repression they are perfecting with their big tech allies could be used against them, if enough Americans take the Red Pill.

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

How $10 Million for Gender Programs in Pakistan Got Tied to a COVID Relief Bill

Hours before lawmakers voted on a multi-trillion dollar government funding package that included a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill, congressional aides were spotted wheeling in the legislation.

It ran 5,593 pages.

“You’d have to read 560 pages an hour to finish it before midnight,” observed NBC News correspondent Garrett Haake.

Lawmakers did not wait until midnight to pass the legislation, however.

“The Senate passed the massive year-end legislation combining $900 billion in pandemic relief with $1.4 trillion to fund federal agencies through fiscal 2021,” Bloomberg reported. “The House passed the legislation earlier Monday night. The total bill is worth more than $2.3 trillion, including support for small businesses impacted by the pandemic, $600 payments for most individuals, supplemental unemployment insurance, regular funding for federal agencies and a bevy of tax breaks for companies.”

So how did lawmakers read 560 pages an hour before voting on the bill? The answer is simple: they didn’t. In fact, there was a great deal of confusion—in both media and Congress—on what precisely lawmakers were voting on. (More on that later.)

Naturally, perhaps, there was some bipartisan anger over the process.

“Congress is expected to vote on the second largest bill in US history today,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), “as of about 1pm, members don’t even have the legislative text of it yet.”

Despite her reservations, Ocasio-Cortez voted in favor of the bill. Others held out, however.

“No member can honestly say they know exactly what they voted for this evening,” said Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who voted against the legislation. “That is reason alone to vote no.”

Gosar was right. FEE’s covered at length on Monday many of the provisions contained in the COVID-19 relief bill, highlighting its many glaring problems. But because of its massive length, we still don’t know everything in the package—which is several bills tied into one.

As Yahoo Finance reports, some of the lesser-known provisions “have raised some eyebrows.”

“Among them are a pair of assistance programs in Pakistan, whereby $15 million will be put toward “democracy programs” and $10 million will be distributed to ‘gender programs,’” reports Fox News correspondent Brittany De Lea.

You read that correctly. But technically this provision—and other defense measures such as $73 million in spending for Israel’s Iron Dome 9 defense system —is not part of the COVID relief package. It’s part of the defense bill contained in the $1.4 trillion omnibus that was bound up with the COVID relief bill.

So while the Pakistani gender programs were not technically included in the COVID relief bill, the end result is much the same. US senators could not vote for COVID relief without voting for gender programs in Pakistan, $35 million for abstinence programs, and tax changes for owners of race horses. (The process in the House was a bit more complicated.)

This is a slap in the face to Americans. During a year in which tens of millions of Americans were forced out of work and hundreds of thousands of businesses were destroyed, lawmakers could not even offer a clean relief bill.

At the risk of stating the obvious, many believe a relief bill passed during a deadly pandemic should focus on relief for individuals and businesses adversely impacted by the pandemic.

So naturally, many on Twitter did not react positively to the revelation that the COVID relief bill and the omnibus were, in a sense, mixed together.

People are right to see that tying COVID relief to defense provisions is, well, stupid. But there’s a phenomenon that helps explain why this happens. It’s called logrolling.

Logrolling is essentially the trading of favors among legislators for mutual benefit. Bills often get passed by winning the support of lawmakers by including provisions that benefit their special interests, but which may not align with any public good. As a result, successful legislation tends to be chock full of special-interest spending.

This trap is highlighted by “public choice” economics, which assumes that politicians vote to forward their own interests just like everyone else. In this case, however, they impose costs on the country in exchange for a big benefit to a special interest group who supports them.

If you’re wondering how a vote for COVID relief for Americans becomes tied to $10 million for gender programs in Pakistan and hundreds of millions of dollars in defense for another country, look to the incentives lurking within government institutions.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.


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

Trump Calls Massive Spending Bill a ‘Disgrace,’ Says He Won’t Sign It

For those of you who were shocked, dismayed, stunned, depressed yesterday when you began hearing about what was in a bill passed by both Houses of Congress that was supposedly a COVID relief package, you got some solace later in the evening when President Trump went before the American people to say he would not sign the bill in its present form.

He stopped short of using the word “veto,” but said he won’t sign this monstrosity.

By the way, only six brave Republican Senators voted against the 5,000 plus page bill that NO one has read:

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rick Scott, R-Fla., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.***

In the House it was 359 for and 53 against, see here.

Watch our President’s four minute display of leadership above (I see much of the media is calling it a rant).   He asks why we are sending billions abroad when Americans are hurting through no fault of their own.

Here is just one of dozens of news stories on the President’s big surprise to our disgusting House and Senate.

From the BBC:

Trump urges Congress to amend ‘wasteful’ coronavirus aid bill

In a video message posted on Twitter, he said the package “really is a disgrace”, full of “wasteful” items.

“It’s called the Covid relief bill, but it has almost nothing to do with Covid,” he said.

See Rush Limbaugh’s extensive commentary on the bill from yesterday afternoon. He laments that the rats are back at work as they assume the Trump era is over.

The $900bn bill includes one-off $600 payments to most Americans, but Mr Trump said the figure should be $2,000.

His statement stunned Capitol Hill.

Republicans and Democrats have been negotiating a coronavirus stimulus rescue package since July and Mr Trump – who has largely stayed out of the talks – had been expected to sign the legislation into law following its passage through Congress on Monday night.


However, Mr Trump has not specifically said he would veto the bill. Even if he does, US media say there could be enough votes from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to override his veto.


In Tuesday night’s message from the White House, Mr Trump baulked at spending in the bill on other countries, arguing that this money should go to struggling Americans.

He said: “This bill contains $85.5m for assistance to Cambodia, $134m to Burma, $1.3bn for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment, $25m for democracy and gender programmes in Pakistan, $505m to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.”

The president questioned why the Kennedy Center, a performing arts complex in Washington DC, was set to receive $40m when it is not open, and more than $1bn has been allocated to museums and galleries in the capital. [Which are also  mostly not open!—ed]

The President has nothing to lose now if he vetoes the monster that will put the US in even greater debt (to China?) for generations to come.  It will reaffirm his strong leadership that will be needed for the years ahead.

Yeah, they can override his veto, but then we will all know who puts Americans First and who puts us last. After all, the midterm elections are not far off.

*** These six should join Senator-elect Tuberville (and many Members of the House) in opposing a Biden/Harris presidency on January 6th.  What have they got to lose?


EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Many Glaring Problems with the New COVID Stimulus Package

After months of backroom negotiations and lobbying, leaders in Congress have finally reached an agreement on a second COVID-19 relief bill. The $900 billion package will likely pass this week.

Here’s a brief overview of what’s in the behemoth package—and a breakdown of the many glaring problems with it.

  • $600 “stimulus” checks for American adults who earned less than $75,000 in 2019 with additional $600 per household for each child
  • A federal $300/week add-on to existing state-level unemployment benefits and a renewal of provisions that expanded unemployment to new groups such as gig economy workers
  • $325 billion in grants and loans for businesses, largely funneled through the Paycheck Protection Program established in the first stimulus effort

The package notably does not include a large, general bailout for state and local governments, a Democratic priority, or a COVID-19 liability shield for businesses, a GOP priority.

The below graphic by the Wall Street Journal neatly visualizes where most of this nearly $1 trillion in additional taxpayer money is (ostensibly) going to go.

What I’ve outlined above gives you a good idea of what’s in the package. But to be clear, this is nowhere near an exhaustive list of what’s in the bill. The final legislation is likely to be hundreds if not thousands of pages long.

This brings us to the first glaring problem with this new relief effort. As Rep. Justin Amash has publicly lamented, it wasn’t properly debated or amended by Congress—it was negotiated in backroom meetings by the leadership from both party establishments. Why does this matter? Remember that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried to slip $350 million for the 50 richest ZIP codes in America into an earlier version of a second stimulus bill, mostly for rich liberal cities. We cannot trust politicians to dole out nearly $1 trillion in the dark.

Unfortunately, many members of Congress will vote on the package without having actually read it in its entirety.

Suffice it to say this is not a responsible or transparent way to spend nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars. Of course, that’s nothing new.

The first COVID-19 stimulus bill, the $2 trillion+ CARES Act, was corrupted by waste, fraud, and abuse. The federal government sent more than a million stimulus checks to dead people and many more to random European citizens. The expanded unemployment system it created lost more to fraud alone than the entire system paid out in 2019. And the Paycheck Protection Program was “swamped with potential fraud” as tens of thousands of ineligible companies received money and thousands more were overpaid.

None of these problems have been meaningfully addressed by Congress. So this latest stimulus effort just pours hundreds of billions of taxpayer money into fraud-rife programs without addressing the problem.

The third but hardly final glaring problem with this additional “stimulus” effort is the highly dubious effectiveness of its key initiatives.

The way the key relief efforts are structured makes it highly unlikely they will be very effective.

Consider the “stimulus” checks, for example. Congress plans to send $600 to each American adult who earns less than $75,000. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, legislators are using 2019 data to determine income eligibility. That means they’re using pre-pandemic income measures to determine who is eligible and who is not.

So, millions of people who lost their jobs or livelihood due to COVID-19 lockdowns will not receive checks because they did well back in 2019. Meanwhile, many millions of people who haven’t had their incomes disrupted and can comfortably work from home will receive taxpayer-funded “relief” checks.

That’s right: The aid is not targeted at all to actually go to those who need it. But the checks will still stimulate the economy by boosting spending, right?

Well… not really.

The Keynesian notion that consumer spending drives the economy is false.

To use a famous example, this thinking suggests that if a child breaks a store window, this “stimulates” the economy because money must be spent to hire a repairman, who then in turn will go spend that money elsewhere. This is a fallacy, because the money to pay the repairman would instead have been used to purchase something else that actually added value for the shop owner.

In reality, it is investment, not spending, that plays the most central role in economic growth. And investment comes out of savings, because banks loan out deposited money to investors. By definition, arbitrarily increasing spending reduces savings and reduces the pool of money available for investment.

Regardless, it is COVID-19, government lockdowns, and other restrictions that have put a stranglehold on the economy. Putting another $600 in some peoples’ pockets doesn’t change this underlying reality.

“Government checks are only valuable to the extent that there is enough actual ‘stuff’ (goods and services) available for those dollars to buy,” FEE’s Dan Sanchez and Jon Miltimore previously explained. “The more you lock down production, the more our stock of ‘stuff’ will shrink, and the more our living standards will worsen. No amount of zeros added to those government checks can change that.”

So it’s really unclear what good the checks will accomplish, either as a matter of “stimulus” or relief. Other than spending billions of taxpayer dollars and worsening the skyrocketing national debt, that is.

Now onto the federally augmented unemployment benefits. This does actually target money to those in need, at least in large part. However, it does so by explicitly tying that money to unemployment, disincentivizing employment. The original $600 federal supplement meant that 70% of the unemployed could earn more by staying on welfare than by returning to work.

The reduction of the federal benefit to a $300 additional supplement (on top of existing state-level payouts) mitigates, but does not eliminate, this harm. A sizable, if yet undetermined, number of people will still be able to receive benefits that fully or almost fully equal their previous earnings. (Federal minimum wage earners, for example).

Even many Republicans and conservatives have at least touted the bill’s replenishment of the Paycheck Protection Program with several hundred billion more dollars (ostensibly) in relief earmarked for small businesses. However, beyond PPP’s serious fraud problems, its efficacy is seriously in doubt.

The top 1 percent of benefiting businesses received nearly one quarter of the program’s total money, according to the New York Times. The program’s payouts included many suspicious allocations of funds to giant corporations and even politicians’ own business interests. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s business received a PPP grant 7 times greater than the grant received by other similar-sized companies.

The end result was a dysfunction program.

MIT economist David Autor studied the Paycheck Protection Program and concluded that “a lot of [the] cash went to businesses that would have otherwise maintained relatively similar employment levels.” He found that it cost $224,000 in taxpayer expenditure per job preserved, only preserving roughly 2.3 million jobs.

The supposed saving grace of this new stimulus bill is refreshing the PPP initiative with hundreds of billions of dollars in new funding. But the evidence suggests that doing so is more of a political win for politicians than a meaningful victory for taxpayers and struggling small businesses.

The government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

“The truth is that the government cannot give if it does not take from somebody,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once explained. “It is not in the power of the government to make everybody more prosperous.”

So we must keep in mind that whatever benefits do come from this stimulus effort will mean either higher taxes or skyrocketing debt that future generations will have to pay off.

Many voters might understandably be glad that a gridlocked Congress finally “got something done.” Yet the countless glaring problems plaguing this massively expensive effort should temper that optimism. It all offers yet another reminder that when we rely on Big Government solutions, incompetence, inefficiency, and waste are all baked into the cake.


Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.


$900 Billion Stimulus Bill Packed Full of Pork

Giant New Spending and COVID-19 Relief Bill Also Creates 2 New Museums and a Library, References Dalai Lama Controversy

Echoes of the Great Recession in Commercial Real Estate

Part I: Poverty Is a Problem, not Inequality

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

VIDEO: Let us join together in the song ‘Hotel California’

Released in 1976 by The Eagles, “Hotel California” sold 42 million copies worldwide. Downtown Los Angeles typifies what cities in California look like today. After decades of Democrat rule, a third of the state’s residents live in poverty.

When I was a student at Georgia Tech in the mid-1960s, Atlanta was a safe and vibrant city.

Now, after six decades of welfare programs that kill the human spirit and a half-century of the anything-goes ‘sex, drugs and rock & roll’ progressive culture that took America by storm in 1968, Atlanta has changed in dramatically troubling ways.

Like California’s cities, Atlanta has homeless people defecating on public streets and is marked by large pockets of urban decay, where our society’s most vulnerable people endure squalid living conditions in neighborhoods overrun with drugs, crime, poverty and despair. Like other big cities in America, Atlanta has been run exclusively by Democrats since the 1960s.

Finally, in wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, let us join together in song once more, this time a rendition about what the party of government dependency has done to one of the most beautiful states in America.

Please join me now in singing California Here I Come.

3 Reasons Millennials Should Ditch Karl Marx for Ayn Rand

Dear avocado-toast-eating brethren,

We need to drop Karl Marx like we dropped cable TV.

We’re a generation that’s sick of wars (and threats of wars), mass shootings, and media sensationalism. As the ambassadors of the sharing economy and investors in cryptocurrency, we hold innovation and entrepreneurship in high esteem.

Karl Marx is not who we think he is. His philosophy doesn’t align with our values at all. We need to look to somebody more in touch with what’s important to us — someone like Ayn Rand.

Here are 3 reasons we should kick ol’ Karl to the curb and pick up Ayn Rand instead.

We hate the constant stream of wars the US gets involved in. Whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan, or the threat of the Islamic State or North Korea, we’re just tired of it all. Why can’t everyone get along? Why do we have to topple regime after regime and flex our muscles on Twitter? Don’t even get us started on the mass shootings. It’s 2017, for crying out loud! This violence needs to stop.

If only Karl Marx felt the same way. But unfortunately, he says that the only way to bring about the ideal political state is through violent revolution:

“In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

Oh, brother… Please: No. More. Wars.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is not a proponent of violence. She says violence should only be a means of self-defense. If someone invades your country, you can retaliate. If someone punches you in the face, you can retaliate. If someone tries to steal your stuff, you can retaliate. But there’s no reason you should employ violence other than if you or your stuff are attacked.

“A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

Karl Marx appeals to your emotional indignation.

I groan every time a Boomer rants about “entitled Millennials these days.” We are not entitled. We are not lazy. And when they try to guilt us into going to church more or playing video games less or buying a house or getting married “while we’re still young?” Puh-lease. Emotional appeals are the worst.

And don’t even get us started on media sensationalism. We’ve had enough of the red, shouting faces, the blatant lying and fear-mongering, the “Wars on Christmas.” The media is constantly trying to pit us against each other.

It turns out that Karl Marx uses the same “Us vs. Them” hysteria as CNN and Fox News. He appeals to pathos and emotional outrage to – like we discussed above – try to get us to start a war.

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

We’re not having any of that though, are we? We’re done being manipulated by outrage and hysteria. It’s time to change the channel to something a little calmer, more grounded, and personally empowering.

Ayn Rand, fortunately, has the peaceful empowerment we’re so desperately missing. While Karl Marx wants you to blame others (the bourgeoisie) for your plights, Ayn Rand wants you to introspect and perhaps reassess your values. Rather than encouraging you to camouflage yourself into a “union of workers,” she wants to empower you as an individual to create a meaningful life for yourself. Mass hysteria, be gone!

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Karl Marx wants mankind to rest on its laurels.

Welp, we’ve got pretty good iPhones, Space X can salvage and relaunch rockets, and thanks to services like HelloFresh and Blue Apron, we no longer have to go to the grocery store. Time to pack up! Call it a day! Everyone, go home! There’s no more need for innovation.

At least, according to Karl Marx.

If Marx had his way, all incentives to improve and create cooler things would be stripped out of our lives along with our private property. Following the logical progression of his communal philosophy, when we’re all slaving away for “the greater good,” and the highest achieving members of society are having the fruits of their labors redistributed to the lowest achievers (insert flashback to the freeloaders of group projects at school), that’s what will happen. Innovation would cease to occur under Marxism.

“The claim that men should be retained in jobs that have become unnecessary, doing work that is wasteful or superfluous, to spare them the difficulties of retraining for new jobs—thus contributing, as in the case of railroads, to the virtual destruction of an entire industry—this is the doctrine of the divine right of stagnation.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

But with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, our stuff will always remain ours. We don’t have to share our Nintendo Switch with our little sister (who drops her phone 10 times a day) unless we want to. We can rest easy knowing that if we take a big risk (and invest in cryptocurrencies while our parents mutter “Ponzi scheme” under their breath), we have the opportunity for a big reward. And best of all, with Ayn Rand’s philosophy reaffirming our desire to be great and create great things, maybe someday we will have JARVIS, jetpacks, and flying hammocks.

The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx doesn’t align with what’s important to us Millennials. If it were up to him, we’d be starting more violent wars, we’d be widening the gap of distrust between one another, and we’d strip ourselves of all incentives to make the world cooler than it already is. So it’s time we adopt a new philosopher. Let’s look up to people like Ayn Rand.


Leisa Miller

Leisa Miller was a marketing coordinator at FEE. Driven by a desire for adventure, she moved to Warsaw, Poland in 2015 to work for a serial entrepreneur she met on the internet. 15 months and several hundred pierogi later, she came back to the States to hone her marketing skills at a tech startup in Charleston, South Carolina, before eventually making her way to Atlanta and joining the FEE team. In her free time, Leisa enjoys listening to 20th century classical music, learning languages, preparing Gongfu style tea, and swing dancing. You can follow her writing and personal projects on her website.



Markets Aren’t about “Using” People. Markets Help People Attain Their Goals

The Pro-Growth Impact of Deregulation

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

The Dark Winter of the Great Reset

As we enter the last month of the year, the geopolitical tectonic plates continue to shift and roll, transforming the world as we once know it. The struggle for freedom to express its voice amid the din of propaganda or share its ideas under blanket censorship becomes increasingly difficult. Now, with the U.S. Presidential Election corrupted and thrown into doubt, who can the people trust? What institutions can they believe in?

In 2020, the Architects of the Plandemic plunged societies from one crisis to another, with the COVID-19 outbreak enabling them to launch Phase One of their plan: The demolition of global economies—the gateway to one world governance. The lockdowns wiped out the middle class with razor efficiency, shuttering businesses, and, more strategically, eliminating competitors on behalf of the big corporate gatekeepers.

The campaign carried out under the cover of “saving lives,” the temporary shelter-in-place orders, at first, launched the global coup on freedom followed by the rollout of the Great Reset agenda from its conspiracy shadow.

If the globalists’ plan for the 9/11 attacks were to unite people, then they created COVID-19 as a wedge to divide the masses.

Watch Special Report: The Dark Winter of the Great Reset

The World Economic Forum’s founder Klaus Schwab, co-creator of the Great Reset plan—renamed the United Nations’ stigmatized Agenda 21/2030 programs—has taken the lead of the alliance of the UN, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other key partners. They include nations in Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, among others.

In 2015, the alliance countries pledged their support of and sovereignty to the UN’s one world governance, behind the mask of the climate change agenda. By doing so, they discarded the safeguards of their citizens and oaths to their charters and constitutions.

Last May, 191 member nations pledged billions of dollars to support the global fight against COVID-19. While diverting billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money to the new order, they imposed curfews and lockdowns, while financing surveillance of people’s behavior, state of mind, and online anti-vaccine rhetoric. All of the national leaders pledged on camera reading from the same script.

All except the United States, which under President Trump promised the sovereignty of the United States, with firm borders, clear paths to citizenship, and no room for socialism. His tact to launch Operation Warp Speed, in order to procure COVID vaccines in record time for a coronavirus vaccine that had failed four times in the past, never reaching human trials, confounded many of his supporters.

The counterintuitive strategy, however, put vaccine safety and development on center stage. The clarion call aroused scores of scientists and medical doctors to question the data and validity of the vaccine trials, and whether immunizations are needed today amid a crumbling COVID second wave narrative. Under close scrutiny, “cases” from the misleading PCR tests and less “excess” deaths compared to 2019 are puncturing all pretenses of a raging pandemic.

As a result of Operation Warp Speed, public sentiment in obediently taking vaccines has cratered. In the 60 Minutes episode on the vaccine ‘Manhattan Project,’ in which registered nurse, Judith Persichilli, the Commissioner of New Jersey Department of Health, admitted a statewide survey that produced 40 percent of the doctors and 60 percent of the nurses and medical staff won’t take the COVID-19 vaccine when made available. The damage of vaccines as a cure-all has been done.

WATCH: At the 10-minute mark.

The coup to remove President Trump from office began on January 15, 2020. That fateful Wednesday, three events emerged to deprive the president of victory and saddle him in a legal battle, diverting his administration’s focus on the impending pandemic coming to America.

On the 15th, President Trump signed Phase One of the China trade deal. In no coincidence, the first case of COVID in the United States flew from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak, and landed in Seattle. That same day, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, along with other Democrats, walked the Impeachment papers over to the White House to serve President Trump and gum up his time and energy defending himself and not the country from the novel virus. That cruel act neutered the opportunity to celebrate the economic victory of the China trade deal with the American people.

In the military, they call such a three-prong attack a SIOP: Single Integrated Operational Plan. This type of foreign and domestic coordinated attack would be relaunched with the color revolution riots over the summer, and again in October leading up to the U.S. Presidential Election.

With the full onslaught of mainstream media pushing a Biden victory and Big Tech “fact checkers” labeling any claims to the contrary as “false,” the SIOP planners came to believe that U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden won the election, by any means necessary. In doing so, they emboldened the World Economic Forum and its allies to promote the Great Reset as a forgone conclusion that will transform societies and lead to transhumanism via the DNA-altering vaccines and synthetic foods to come in 2021.

Confident of the SIOP victory, the World Health Organization has begun to speak more openly and authoritatively, unconcerned by any backlash about its global plans.

Dr. Michael Ryan, Director of Global Alert and Response at the WHO, urged all nations to probe and surveil “all forms of gatherings that lead to people congregating are moving en masse and how they are going to de-risk those processes.”

In other words, the WHO has signaled to its member nations and blue cities and states in America to crack down hard in December through the start of a dark winter, the Christmas holiday, and deep into the New Year. The second round of lockdowns in Europe, however, have started to backfire. Recently, Protesters in Paris set fire to the central bank of France. In London, mass crowds clashed with police leading to 150 arrests while dividing political parties in Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s post-lockdown tier system of government. In Germany, the protests have grown more vocal and radicalized as more restrictions were placed on people and businesses.

The second hard lockdown in Canada have produced two trends that will likely spread to other Western nations. The first, a depressed 90-year-old woman, trapped in her apartment alone, asked to be euthanized and Canadian authorities obliged by doing the deed. Even more insidious, knowing the lockdowns will ruin businesses, the Canadian government ruled that for “bridge” loans to keep companies afloat, they demand equity stakes in the entities. Not a loan and investment. And not an investment a theft knowing that future waves of lockdowns would kill those businesses. The transfer of asset would go to the IMF, in a new dark model of financial engineering.

In Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and United Kingdom the Great Reset plan all along was to strip people and businesses of their assets, relieve them of their debt, and empower the IMF to reclaim the homes and properties. The final phase of the plan would be to move the downtrodden people into empty office and apartment buildings in cities across the country, with many of those gleaming structures being built in the last decade.

Beyond launching the Great Reset, the unleashing of COVID-19 Plandemic in 2020 served another purpose: To cover up the financial crimes of the IMF, World Bank, and central bank systems, while insulating the criminals of the parasitic, global, fiat banking system that have burden people, businesses, and nations with unsurmountable debt.

Exceptional at detonating markets every five to ten years, the global banking system has stolen trillions of dollars from people through inflation, decades-old short-selling scheme, and other mass wealth transfers offshore, with intellectual property theft given rise to Communist China.

Today, the one world alliance is on the cusp of a global coup. A coup that will come down the outcome of the United States Election.

Seeing through the COVID lies and masking of the financial crimes, bankrupting heavily in debt nations, more scientists, doctors, and professionals have had enough and began to risk their livelihoods and reputations by speaking out against the false narratives. In the year-long awakening of the general public, they understood COVID cases are a sham. The misused PCR tests are neither clinical nor diagnostic. In a Portuguese court, a judge ruled the PCR tests are “unreliable” and “unlawful.”

Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon took it a step further, stating, “The pandemic ended back in April. There’s no need for a vaccine.”

Today, the world is suffering from is a “testing epidemic.” Other long-planned cons by the Architects included the people’s submission to masks, mandatory social distancing, while using the COVID “umbrella” term to inflate the number of infections and spread of the virus, as well as deploy the press and social media platforms to pump fear daily.

You see, the sleight of hand testing is an illusion. The PCR tests don’t identify the specific virus: SARS-CoV-2. No, the tests cloud the results of all nanoscopic RNA fragments that come from seasonal flu, SARS-CoV-2, if present, other coronaviruses, 5G/EMF cell breakage, cancer and chemo therapy cell excretion, and more. They don’t tell viral loads or whether anyone is sick from the virus. By increasing the amplification cycles of the PCR tests, they can guarantee 100 percent false positives, allowing them to toggle the “case” numbers up or down against public sentiment

The outbreak has been a con—a charade to usher in the Great Reset, with all its population reductionist goals, while cover up their century-old financial crimes and ignition of wars and regime change.

Like the COVID-19 narrative that is collapsing, the “no fraud” U.S. Election narrative is imploding as well. It is being exposed everyday under the avalanche of evidence spilling forth, from foreign servers flipping votes and the “dead” voting, to truckloads of Biden ballots being shipped across state lines after the election ended and the Dominion Voting Systems company being sold to China one month before the election.

With the COVID and election narratives collapsing, the false ideals and dark models of the Great Reset will collapse next.


James Grundvig

©American Media Periscope. All rights reserved.



Operation Warp Speed preps for COVID-19 vaccine delivery upon FDA approval

Trump signs ‘phase one’ trade deal with China in push to stop economic conflict

First Travel-related Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detected in United States

Rudy Giuliani’s associate says Trump “knew exactly what was going on” with Ukraine pressure campaign

Paris protesters torch cars, set BANK on fire amid clashes over bill slammed as ‘ban on filming police brutality’ (VIDEOS)

Over 150 arrested in anti-lockdown protests in London

Germany’s protests against coronavirus restrictions are becoming increasingly radical

Covid PCR test reliability doubtful – Portugal judges

California Projected to Lose House Seat and Electoral College Vote

But do not bring your primitive, poisonous politics. Don’t befoul red states and destroy them as well.

Californians flee state in numbers so great it is projected to lose House seat and electoral vote for first time

By Andrew Mark Miller, Washington Examiner, December 18, 2020:

An exodus sparked by high taxes, coronavirus lockdowns, and regulations has driven California’s population growth rate to a record low, which is projected to cost the state a seat in Congress and an electoral vote.

“This is a real sea change in California, which used to be this state of pretty robust population growth,” said Hans Johnson, a demographer at the Public Policy Institute of California, regarding the net migration loss, which has now occurred three years in a row. “It hasn’t been for some time now. But it’s now gotten to the point where the state is essentially not growing population-wise at all.”

According to a population estimate this week, 135,600 more people fled the Golden State than moved there, which marks only the 12th time since 1900 that the state saw a net migration loss. It is the third-largest drop recorded.

Johnson added that the population decrease could cause the state to lose a seat in Congress as well as an Electoral College vote for the first time. The state did not gain any seats following the 2010 census, which was also a first.

Residents have cited high taxes as a main driver of the decision to leave.]

“I never wanted to leave California,” San Francisco real estate broker Scott Fuller said about his departure from the state after living there since 1983. “It’s the most beautiful state with the best climate. I think the tipping point was continued tax increases and even more proposed tax increases. … I have absolutely no regrets.”

Businesses have been fleeing California as well, and just recently, it was learned that tech giants Elon Musk and Larry Ellison were moving their companies, Tesla and Oracle, to more business-friendly states and taking tens of thousands of jobs with them.

Californians have also expressed increased frustration with state and local governments over strict coronavirus lockdowns, evidenced by large protests across the state and a recall effort aimed at removing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom from office that has gained enough steam to cause his team concern.

The coronavirus pandemic has also forced many in California to work from home, which makes living close to work less important and a potential move easier to commit to, especially when the same salary can be earned in a less expensive state.

“It’s really sped up the out-migration quite a bit,” Fuller said about the shift to remote employment. “People have options now, and you pair that with people’s frustration on several different levels — I don’t see it changing.

RELATED ARTICLE: Some Insurers Now Refusing To Cover Downtown Portland Businesses

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

VIDEO: DeSantis Defends Restaurants, Bars — ‘Some May Want To Shut You Down. We Want To Pull You Up’

More outstanding work from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. What a difference from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who’s shutdowns are destroying New York State’s restaurant industry.

WATCH: DeSantis Defends Restaurants, Bars: ‘Some May Want To Shut You Down. We Want To Pull You Up’

By Daily Wire, December 17, 2020

On Tuesday, speaking at Okeechobee Steakhouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who has withstood barrages of criticism from the political Left for his refusal to implement harsh lockdowns, like many Democratic governors across the nation, asserted that restaurants will stay open in Florida. “We just want to send a message: Some may want to shut you down; we want to pull you up,” he said. “We’ve got your back.”

DeSantis began, “We’re happy to be here at Okeechobee Steakhouse to really send a message that at a time when folks in our service industries, particularly restaurants, lodging, and hospitality, have kind of taken it on the chin, particularly in other states, where they’ve been completely shut down. We just want to send a message: Some may want to shut you down; we want to pull you up. We’ve got your back.”

“If you’re somebody who’s a waitress or a cook or you’re a family-owned business, you’re an important part of our state,” he continued. “You’re working folks, who are working hard to make a living; you have every right to do that. You can take it to the bank in the state of Florida; you’re going to have that right defended by the governor.”

DeSantis turned to some data: “You know, there’s a lot of talk when it comes to COVID about the kind of infections, and tracing and everything, and at the beginning of this, restaurants in particular were singled out as kind of like, this is a place that’s really problematic. Most of the contact tracing that’s been done has restaurants as very low in terms of where these infections can be traced to. New York just did their big one and put it out I think yesterday or the day before, and they had 1.4% of infections traced to restaurants and bars.”

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