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.

How Political Correctness Captured Big Business

Rather than staying neutral in the culture wars, major companies have hitched their brands to one side of a contentious political divide.


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.

Rather than staying neutral in the culture wars, major companies have hitched their brands to one side of a contentious political divide.

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.

Attempting to turn every corporation in the world into a political combatant will not make the world a better place.

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.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

COLUMN BY

Richard Morrison

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

RELATED TWEET:

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

PODCAST: Maybe Workers Just Aren’t That Into You, Unions!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

SEAN HIGGINS

Sean Higgins is a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute specializing in labor and employment issues. As journalist, he covered the intersection of politics and economics for two decades, having been senior writer for the Washington, Washington correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily and a contributor to publications like Reason and National Review Online.​”

TOPIC: Maybe Workers Just Aren’t That Into You, Unions!

VICTOR AVILA

Victor Avila is a Retired Supervisory Special Agent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety. Victor is Recognized by ICE and HSI for his exemplary service and professional accomplishments while serving as Special Agent at the El Paso Field Office and as an Assistant Attaché assigned to the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez and U.S. Embassies located in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico City.

TOPIC: Agent Under Fire: A Murder and a Manifesto

©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

BUSINESS FAILURE BACK TO PANDEMIC HIGHS: Small & Medium Businesses CLOSED in February Despite Failed Democrat COVID ‘Relief’

Democrats respond with crippling taxes and multiple trillion-dollar crippling debt packages. They’re destroying us.

U.S. small business closures are ticking back toward Covid pandemic highs

By: Anjali Sundaram, CNBC, Apr 9 2021:

  • According to a new report from Facebook and the Small Business Roundtable, 22% of U.S. small and medium businesses were closed in February.
  • At the peak in May, the pandemic saw 23% of small and medium businesses closed.
  • “It continues to be a very painful time for small businesses,” said John Stanford, co-executive director of the Small Business Roundtable.

Small business closures are close to the highs of the pandemic

Closures across the U.S. and the world are creeping back toward their pandemic peaks, according to a report from Facebook and the Small Business Roundtable.

“It continues to be a very painful time for small businesses,” John Stanford, co-executive director of the Small Business Roundtable, told CNBC’s “Worldwide Exchange” on Thursday.

The report, which surveyed over 35,000 small and medium-size businesses across the world, found that 22% of U.S. small businesses were closed in February. Those figures were up from October’s 14%. At the peak in May, the pandemic saw 23% of small and medium-size businesses closed — only 1 percentage point higher than the current closure rate.

While the overall closures are nearing Covid highs, the report found that different areas of the country were experiencing varying degrees of difficulty. Some states, like Maine, Idaho and Colorado, were seeing 9%-10% closures, while others like New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts were seeing at least 30% closed.

Within states, the report also found that certain demographics were getting hit harder than others: 27% of minority-led small and medium-size businesses reported closures, compared with 18% of others. Female-led businesses saw 25% closure rates, while 20% of male-led businesses closed.

Small and medium-size businesses are continuing to see the impact of the pandemic despite a relative bounce back for larger corporations. “Small businesses are really our front-line defense for the business community,” Stanford said. “They feel impacts first, and those impacts stay the longest.”

“So while larger companies with larger capital reserve may be doing OK, small businesses can’t just take the risk to stay open, and I think we’re seeing that play out with these high numbers,” he added.

During a year of Covid closures, Congress rolled out programs like the Payroll Protection Program, designed to help small businesses keep their employees on payroll. Stanford said while the data shows that the PPP was “instrumental” to small businesses, these types of programs weren’t designed to be sustainable a year out.

“We have to remember, PPP was a bridge program,” Stanford said. “It was meant to keep people on the payroll, it wasn’t meant necessarily to keep businesses open.”

According to the report, 27% of small and medium businesses said they had to reduce their workforce — and 48% of those companies said they had to lay off at least half of their workforce. When it comes to getting those employees back, 51% of the businesses surveyed said they were not planning to rehire former employees within the next six months.

“PPP and others really helped get us through a shutdown of a year’s economy, but I think we’ve got a tough road ahead,” Stanford said.

However, 18% of small and medium-size businesses said they had already hired back some of their employees within the last three months. The report noted that those businesses account for 60%-70% of workforces across the world, so the prospect of rehiring would be critical to the rebound of many economies.

Stanford said that overall, he’s optimistic about small businesses’s ability to bounce back.

“Entrepreneurs are survivors. … We reopen the economy, we reopen states, when things get back to normal, we are going to come back in a fast way,” he said. “When life picks back up in just a few months here, you’re going to see small business numbers turning around.”

RELATED ARTICLE: VIDEO: New Movement #ForgetYourMask Launched

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.

Biden Infrastructure Plan Would Hurt Economy in 3 Ways over Long Run, Ivy League Analysis Finds

The president’s rhetoric is optimistic—but these new long-term projections aren’t. 


President Biden is pitching his $2.7 trillion+ “infrastructure” plan, chock full of items unrelated to traditional transportation infrastructure, as key to restoring the economy and putting Americans back to work. It’s right in the name: the “American Jobs Plan.”

“This is the moment to reimagine and rebuild a new economy,” Biden said in introducing his plan. “The American Jobs Plan is an investment in America that will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our country’s infrastructure, and position the United States to out-compete China.”

The president’s rhetoric is quite optimistic—but his plan’s long-term prospects are not. A new Ivy League analysis concludes that Biden’s plan would actually shrink the economy in the long run.

Analysts at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania weighed the potential benefits the proposed spending would have against the costs incurred by higher government debt and higher business tax rates. They find that while sending piles of cash flying out the door might seem stimulative at first, the long-term effects would all be net negative.

By 2031, Wharton projects that the size of the economy’s total output will have shrunk by 0.9 percent as a result of the “jobs plan.” The analysts also predict a 3 percent decrease in the “capital stock,” a measure of the nation’s productive resources such as machinery, buildings, etc.

Why will the massive government spending reduce the capital stock? Because the proposal is financed by raising corporate taxes, which directly reduces private sector investment, and because it involves incurring massive amounts of government debt, which “crowds out” private sector investment.

Here’s where things get ugly for workers under this “jobs plan.”

Reduced capital, aka productive tools, means lower worker productivity. Investments in improved machinery, for example, allow assembly-line workers to produce more in output per hour worked. And productivity is inextricably linked to worker wages.

“More investment of capital means: to give to the laborer more effi­cient tools,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises lucidly explained. “With the aid of better tools and machines, the quantity of the products increases and their quality improves. As the employer consequently will be in a position to obtain from the consumers more for what the em­ployee has produced in one hour of work, he is able—and, by the competition of other employers, forced—to pay a higher price for the man’s work.”

Of course, if capital—and hence productivity—is decreased, the opposite effect occurs and workers earn less over time. So, it’s not surprising that Wharton concluded the massive multi-trillion “jobs plan” will, by 2031, actually lead to a 0.7 percent decrease in average hourly wages. The analysts also note that there will be almost no increase in employment, as measured by total hours worked.

Similar negative effects play out over an even longer time frame, Wharton projects, with net negative results from the “jobs plan” in 2040 and 2050.

Image Credit: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 

President Biden’s sweeping “infrastructure” proposal is just the latest example in a long history of ambitious political rhetoric masking mediocre results. Politicians often point to the proposed benefits of their policies, often tangible and easy to see, and make their case for big government spending based on the benefits alone.

But while rhetoric can be rosy, real-life involves trade-offs; the weighing of benefits and costs. And when we do this honestly for Biden’s infrastructure proposal, the results are grim indeed.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Is Loaded With Corporate Welfare

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

America’s Vaccine Passports and China’s Social Credit System

“No one should suffer from the great delusion that any form of communism or socialism which promotes the dictatorship of the few instead of the initiative of the millions can produce a happier or more prosperous society.” – Charles E. Wilson, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense

“God is on your side? Is he a conservative? The Devil is on my side, he’s a good communist.” – Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader, to Winston Churchill at Tehran, November 1943

“If you don’t like us then don’t accept our invitations and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.” – Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader, November 1956


Do you love freedom?  Do you love liberty?  Do you love owning property?  Do you love your privacy?  Do you love being able to speak freely?  Do you love going to synagogue or church?  Do you love medical freedom?  And do you love being able to associate with whomever you choose?  Do you love our Constitution and our God-Given freedoms explicitly spelled out in the first ten unalienable amendments in our Bill of Rights?

We are about to lose all those freedoms, and far more.  George Orwell wrote 1984 in 1949.  Seventy-two years later we are living his dystopian tale, and patriotic, conservative and knowledgeable Americans are distraught that the majority of American citizens are docile and acquiescent.

That same majority of Americans, and the world, bought the fake fear, went along with the unnecessary lockdowns, stayed in their homes, donned their masks – which they’re still wearing, sometimes even two, and fell for the lies. Now our compliant and submissive citizens are lining up to receive the most evil experimental vaccine for a virus that has never even been isolated and has a 99.75 percent recovery.  I want to scream!

Krispy Crème is offering their sweet fattening donuts, one a day, if you only show your vaccine passport!  What unbelievable chutzpah…promoting sweets for your obedience to the evil of our federal government, the CDC, the NIH, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, WHO, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, ModeRNA, Johnson and Johnson and countless others, sadly including our former president.  I pray that his entire family has not taken this jab!

Naomi Wolf

The following video by Naomi Wolf, a Democrat and feminist, has exposed exactly what will happen if the American public accepts vaccine passports.  We will have locked into China’s communist control via social credits for every American citizen who once believed our country was the land of the free and the home of the brave.  If you haven’t listened to Naomi’s 15 min. presentation about these evil covid passports, please do…what she explains is the total control of every American.  The fact that she is a democrat makes what she is saying even more important.  There is however, a caveat.

Naomi is uninformed regarding Israeli vaccine passports and should have done more research before claiming she knew about what was happening in Israel.  A friend who lives in Israel listened to the video and clarified their situation, which is nothing like what is being reported by so many.  She rightly blasts those who are repeating the false reports. Here’s what she wrote…

We just now went to a Jerusalem Bagel Restaurant, without any passport and no one said or asked for any ID. The only question they asked was “What would you like?” As I’ve said before, Israel follows the Nuremberg Laws which forbid businesses and govts from forcing people to get vaccines. Naomi is just copying what someone else said, and it’s not true reporting. It’s propaganda spreading fear.

The only scenario in Israel which allegedly has been allowed by our Labor Court is for an employer’s right to require employees to get the vaccine. It’s possible that will be appealed to a higher court. But regardless, restaurants so far, and malls and grocery stores etc., have not asked to see any green card.

The rule here for the airlines and some private clubs is you either need a green card or a test result saying you are negative for Corona, taken within the last 72 hours. Naomi just blew any cred she may have had, which she didn’t in my book, since she’s such a lefty.

The journalists claiming the totalitarian actions via vaccine passports in Israel either haven’t done their homework or any actual research. Sadly enough, they are spreading disgusting information that blackens a country that long ago moved away from socialism toward a capitalist society.

That doesn’t mean that what Naomi Wolfe reported about social credits cannot happen in America.  The despotic and totalitarian actions of the democratic socialists, and many of their comrades on the right, were exposed with their open hatred and hostility of President Trump.

Remember Claire Wolf’s statement from 1996… “America is at that awkward stage where it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”  She made this statement a quarter of a century ago…where do you believe we are now?

Social Credit Systems

China’s plan for a social credit system is much like our financial credit system, but this system is about analyzing your character and trustworthiness toward the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  It’s an idea straight out of Orwell’s 1984.  The original Chinese proposal for the system, titled “Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System is ungodly control. Unfortunately, the second half of the paper is in Chinese, but the point is…every Chinese citizen must be a good little communist or else there are consequences.

Here is just one paragraph from this evil and obnoxious system.

Accelerating the construction of a social credit system is an important basis for comprehensively implementing the scientific development view and building a harmonious Socialist society, it is an important method to perfect the Socialist market economy system, accelerating and innovating social governance, and it has an important significance for strengthening the sincerity consciousness of the members of society, forging a desirable credit environment, raising the overall competitiveness of the country and stimulating the development of society and the progress of civilization.

Naomi Wolfe talks about the CCP’s social credit system coming to America via vaccine passports.  She believes social credit systems are part of the passport plans!

All three branches of our government are held today by hardcore Democratic Socialists, who are extremely fond of Marx and Engels.  Their followers immigrated to America in 1848 after the failure of socialism in Europe and have assiduously worked to change America into a communist state, one that too closely resembles the massive citizen control in the CCP.   In America, the parasite elements of the ruling elite want total control of all citizens and the entire plan was fomented and engineered via the “pandemic” of Covid-19.

Mainland China’s “social credit” system is the most extensive program of government surveillance the world has ever seen—one that should caution not only Hong Kong but also America and the West against further intrusions on privacy, but those in charge of our government today are thrilled with the constant surveillance and wish to implement China’s policies as soon as possible.

A Wall Street Journal article estimated that 10% of East Germans were Stasi spies, but that’s nothing compared with China’s oversight on their people.  In 2020, an additional 600 million cameras were installed in China … one for every two citizens.  Through facial recognition software, Beijing will be able to identify everyone within three seconds of anything happening.  Chinese citizens do not own their lives, their government, run by Xi Jinping, knows their every move, and monitors people they believe may go against the ideological beliefs of the CCP.  In Taiwan, the people tear down the hated spy cameras, longing to keep their freedom from the mainland.

Falun Gong members, and dissident Christians are closely watched and tracked and this is where this social credit system steps in.  The Muslim Uyghurs are recognized as native to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in Northwest China and their population has felt the heavy hand of Xi Jinping. In 2017, China began a massive political reeducation program, with more than one million Uyghurs from all walks of life taken into 85 identified detention camps in Xinjiang.

The government nips any democracy movement in the bud and knows your every move via their social credit system.  Chinese citizens are ranked via merits and demerits regarding their behavior towards their masters.  Should they too often criticize their leaders, put their garbage in the wrong bin, or go against the rules of their masters, they will incur sanctions to discourage their improper and bad behavior.  The totalitarian state controls them completely…they’re denied good jobs, internet speed is cut, they’re kept out of prestigious schools and their pets can even be taken from them…thus the citizenry must be submissive to the state or they will pay dearly and that can mean imprisonment.

A recent Western Journal article exposed the cries for help from Chinese prisoners.  Notes from prisoners found hidden in decorations within holiday products made for Americans told of their imprisonment resulting from actions against the state.  Many of the prisoners are Falun Gong members and suffer more punishment than others because of their beliefs.

According to the New York Post, the letters read, “Please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right[s] Organization. Thousands [of] people here who are under the persecution of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever.”

Libertarians

Although I’m not a libertarian, our Tennessee Libertarians, unlike our democrats and republicans, stand firmly against vaccination passports and reject their implementation by the government at every level. They are right in saying passports are antithetical to individual liberty and they will erode our inherent rights.

We have God given sovereignty over our bodies, our property and our privacy. Our founders included those unalienable rights in the first ten amendments of our constitution.  We the people are not the servants of those elected to represent us who have shown their true totalitarian and dictatorial colors.  Their passport proposals are antithetical to individual freedoms and an infringement on liberty in a free society.

Passports will empower the state should we fail to comply.  This includes business licenses, tracking technologies that violate privacy and possibly HIPAA violations. Federal, state and local governments will increase their control and powers, none of which are enumerated under their respective constitutions.  Individual liberty will be lost.

Conclusion

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced a proposal on April 1st that would ban COVID-19 vaccination mandates as well as so-called vaccine passports. I am afraid few will sign onto her “We Will Not Comply Act.”  We must act now…and that means telling your elected officials you want this bill passed.  State legislatures need to be heavily encouraged to write the same kinds of bills, and strongly urge their governors to sign them.

Projects like China’s Social Credit System should worry people for a number of reasons. But just like Orwell’s 1984 dystopian hell it’s being likened to, it scares us because we innately understand that it is a world we’re familiar with — only with the control and surveillance massively cranked up.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

Fight Back! Use Your Buying Power to Flex Your Political Muscles!

As much as we might hate it, they are pushing us to it!

Surely you are following the front page news about how big woke corporations are increasingly backing a Socialist political agenda.

You would have to be living under a rock to not know what Major League Baseball is doing to hurt the economy of Atlanta, Georgia with Coca Cola and Delta and United Airlines in on the bullying.

They are still after Mike Lindell

And, yesterday I saw news that they are continuing to go after Mike Lindell, the My Pillow Guy, calling him an “insurrectionist” because he believes there was massive voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election (and there was!).

(See my previous posts tagged Mike Lindell and efforts by the Democrat Socialists to destroy his business.)

From Business Insider:

More than 100,000 people sign a petition urging Walmart, Amazon, and other retailers to pull MyPillow’s products

They likely found 100,000 fake people like they found hundreds of thousands of fake voters!

A petition urging retailers including Walmart and Amazon to stop selling products from MyPillow, whose CEO, Mike Lindell, keeps pushing voter-fraud conspiracy theories, has hit 100,000 signatures.

Lindell told Insider on Thursday that at least 22 retailers had cut ties with his pillow company since January, including Sam’s Club, Kohl’s, and Bed Bath & Beyond— but MyPillow’s products are still selling on the websites of some retailers, including Walmart and Amazon.

The petition urges retailers to stop selling MyPillow’s products. Its description says: “We will not support funding insurrectionists!”

More here.

If you are a fan of Gateway Pundit as I am, see that you can use a special code to get a great break on your next order at My Pillow.

I can vouch for those great dog beds as our big dog had previously destroyed his beds (plural) until we purchased our MyPillow dog bed!

As hard as it is going to be we are going to have to become politically savvy shoppers.

After all, there are millions of us.  I have already quit Walmart and have cut way back on Amazon.  I will be sad to say goodbye to Sam’s, but that will be next.

I couldn’t find a list of the 22 businesses that are attempting to destroy Christian entrepreneur Mike Lindell, but here are 18 (Sam’s makes 19).

Dollar General
ShopHQ
Mattress Firm
Kohl’s
Kroger
BJ’s
Wayfair
Bed Bath & Beyond
TSC/The Shopping Channel
H-E-B
Affirm
Fingerhut
Kinney Drugs
Colony Brands
Bluestream
Coborn’s
Chewy.com
JCP

Okay, so Walmart (Sam’s soon) out of my life, I figured I would be back full time to a local grocery store, the Giant Foods chain that includes Martin’s where I live, that is,  until reader Cathy sent me this story.

If this appears in Martin’s, I am done there too!

From the Right Scoop last month on shame shopping….

Major grocery store goes WOKE, now labeling products as ‘black-owned’, ‘hispanic-owned’, LGBT-owned, etc…

I wonder what the conservative Trump-supporting Goya Foods CEO thinks about this. Does anyone know?

I know it is going to make our lives a little harder as we give up companies that are working against America First, but head on out and find local stores in which to spend your money.

Over the years I’ve spent more than a few bucks on garden supplies and bird seed, but will never do it again at Walmart.  There are locally owned small garden centers that will be getting my money from now on.

Got tips?

Be sure to tip us off if you know of other major chains which are using their money (our money!) to promote Socialist state/federal government and bully conservatives into submission.

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

DELTA Airlines Gets Involved in Politics, Opposes Election Integrity Laws, Georgia House Makes Them Pay

Corporate fascism, not to mention total hypocrisy. Delta partners with slave-owning China while condemning Georgia based on lies.

Delta‘s CEO opposes Georgia’s voter ID law. And yet he also requires an ID to board Delta jetliners.

#StandWithGeorgia

DELTA gets involved in politics, Georgia House makes them pay

By: Kane, C April 1, 2021:

Georgia Republicans voted to strip Delta Air Lines of a jet fuel tax break worth tens of millions of dollars Wednesday after the company condemned the state’s new law that protects voters from fraud.

Stacey Abrams has urged companies not to boycott her home state, arguing that a slowdown of economic activity could harm the very people the boycott is meant to protect. “Leaving us behind won’t save us,” Abrams wrote. “So I ask you to bring your business to Georgia and, if you’re already here, stay and fight.”

Forbes writer is butthurt…

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.