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.

COVID Vaccine: A Promising Start, But Freedom Must Be Paramount

Yesterday, after nine long months of praying for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sarah Lindsey — a critical-care nurse at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Queens — received the first coronavirus vaccination. While the distribution of this vaccine is a sign of hope for many, the hyper-political climate in which it was created has caused moral, ethical, and medical concerns surrounding the vaccine. Chief among these concerns are: was the vaccine ethically created, or was it derived from an abortion-derived cell line? Is the vaccine effective? And finally, will taking the vaccine be mandatory?

The Pfizer vaccine made its mark as the first vaccine distributed in the United States. In phase three testing, Pfizer reported the vaccine demonstrated 95 percent efficacy against COVID-19. While this is promising, as Dr. Michelle Cretella pointed out in her interview on “Washington Watch,” “we do not have any long-term studies” showing the effectiveness of the vaccine or its potential side-effects. Though abortion-derived cell lines were used during some of the animal phase testing of this vaccine, thankfully, there were no abortion-derived cell lines used in its production, leading the Charlotte Lozier Institute to declare the Pfizer vaccine as ethically uncontroversial.

The Moderna vaccine, currently under review by the FDA, has reported a 94.1 percent efficacy rate and could be available for distribution as early as this weekend. Dr. Cretella explained that — similar to the Pfizer vaccine — this vaccine uses new technology to fight the virus: “These vaccines contain a messenger, a genetic messenger within them that will enter our cells and cause our cells to create a particle that resembles the virus. Protein resembles the COVID virus protein. And that is what is going to trigger our immune system to make antibodies.” While the Moderna vaccine also used abortion-derived cell lines in its animal testing phase, abortion-derived cell lines were not used in the creation of the vaccine itself. As such, this vaccine also made Charlotte Lozier’s ethically uncontroversial list.

A third vaccine from AstraZeneca has been touted as a promising vaccine candidate because it is cheaper and easier to store than both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines; however, this vaccine has had much more moderate success than the other two. More distressingly, this vaccine is derived from aborted baby cell-lines, causing serious ethical concerns for pro-lifers across the country.

Though the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are reasons for optimism, hesitancy caused by conscience concerns and the lack of long-term testing cannot be ignored. Over the last nine months, our health care workers and people on the front lines have certainly proven that America is the home of the brave, but many of our government officials seem to have forgotten that this is also the land of the free. Across the country, governors and local governments — often against the urging of the White House — have restricted worship, shut down schools — even religious ones — and even tried to cancel Christmas. Basic freedoms have been limited, and so, many are wondering whether the U.S. government will make the COVID-19 vaccination mandatory.

While the White House and Dr. Anthony Fauci have assured the public that mandatory vaccination of the general population will not happen, Dr. Fauci did not rule out a mandate for health care workers, and private businesses can legally mandate the vaccine. Given the ethical and medical concerns surrounding the vaccine, let’s hope that both government officials and private employers remember that America was founded so Americans could be free — free to practice their religion (especially at Christmas), free to assemble (especially in their own homes), and free to decide whether or not to get a vaccine.


Mary Szoch

Director of the Center for Human Dignity

Mary Szoch serves as the Director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council. In this position, Mary researches, writes, and coordinates collaborative efforts with other pro-life advocates on policies surrounding life and human dignity.

Prior to joining Family Research Council, Mary was the Director of the D.C. Catholic Conference and the Manager of Catholic Policy and Advocacy for the Archdiocese of Washington. In her role, Mary led the Archdiocese’s public policy work in D.C. including the fight against the legalization of prostitution, the complete deregulation of the abortion industry, and limitations on the freedoms of religious organizations. Mary also directed the Department of Life Issues for the Archdiocese where she collaborated with churches and pro-life organizations to educate and raise awareness on the life issues including abortion, assisted suicide, and discrimination against people with disabilities.

Mary received her master’s in education through the University of Notre Dame’s ACE program where she taught history and English to high school students at an under-resourced school. In 2015, while teaching at St. Peter’s on Capitol Hill, Mary founded a non-profit, Teaching Together, that provides meaningful jobs in schools to adults with special needs.

Mary is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame where she majored in political science and philosophy. While at the University of Notre Dame, Mary played basketball for the Fighting Irish and lettered on the 2010-2011 National Championship Runner-Up team. A native of Altoona, Pennsylvania, Mary currently lives in D.C. with her husband, Ben.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Elon Musk’s Economic Truth Bomb to Joe Rogan

Elon Musk broke it down for Joe Rogan. What his insights mean for the world’s poor… and for us.

Elon Musk dropped an economic truth bomb on Joe Rogan’s podcast a couple of months ago.

“If you don’t make stuff, there’s no stuff.”

Obvious? You’d think so. But, as Musk pointed out, our economic policies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic have ignored that simple truth.

The prevailing assumption is that the government can press “pause” on the economy throughout the pandemic, throwing millions out of work, and then simply tide everyone over with relief checks.

“This notion,” said Musk, “that you can just sort of send checks out to everybody and things will be fine is not true.”

“They’ve become detached from reality,” he added. “You can’t just legislate money and solve these things.”

Musk’s point is indisputable. Government checks are only valuable to the extent that there is enough actual “stuff” (goods and services) available for those dollars to buy. 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.

When “stuff” dwindles, printing government checks cannot magically reverse that impoverishment. It can only do two things:

  1. Shift who gets impoverished by redistributing wealth (that is, access to the remaining “stuff”), and
  2. Delay the drop in living standards by enabling higher consumer spending.

Higher consumer spending means burning through our remaining “stuff” faster instead of investing it in production. This means even less “stuff” down the road.

It’s like if you lost your job and cheer yourself up by splurging on an expensive new TV. Government checks merely make us feel less poor by inducing us to further impoverish ourselves in reality. It postpones the pain today by condemning us to much greater pain tomorrow.

America has a lot of “stuff” to shift around and burn through, so we can delay the pain of impoverishment for quite a while. The same cannot be said for poor countries, however. People there have so little “stuff” that they feel the pain of production lockdowns immediately.

“If you don’t make the food,” Musk warned months ago, “if you don’t process the food, you don’t transport the food… there’s no stuff.”

And now, for hundreds of millions of people around the world, the stark truth of that statement is manifesting as empty stomachs and ruined lives.

According to a new report from World Vision, a global humanitarian organization, as many as 110 million children in Asia alone are facing hunger, and 85 million households across Asia have little or no food stocks as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19 and the lockdowns.

The report also found that as many as eight million children in Asia are being exposed to begging, child labor, and child marriage since parents are unable to buy food in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Our rapid assessments in countries across Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia show that it’s clear we are on the cusp of a catastrophe for children,” said Norbert Hsu, World Vision’s partnership leader for global impact. “Without urgent action we risk an increase in extreme poverty and hunger not seen for decades.”

World Vision’s numbers are no outlier. Similar figures were recently reported by the World Bank.

Hsu doesn’t explain precisely what “urgent action” should be taken. It wouldn’t be surprising if it involved massive amounts of foreign aid, the usual remedy prescribed by such organizations.

But international “relief” is not a real solution for them, any more than domestic “relief” is for us. As Musk said, “You can’t just legislate money and solve these things.”

To meet these massive problems without making them worse, we need to come to grips with economic reality: especially the concept of scarcity, and how it pertains to production and money.

Only then will we fully understand just what we are setting ourselves up for by locking down the economy indefinitely to combat the pandemic. Only then will we be able to make truly informed judgments about the trade-offs involved.

The crisis facing the global poor is a heart-rending tragedy. It is also an ominous warning, the proverbial canary in a coal mine.

If we keep burning through our “stuff” faster than we’re replacing it, we will eventually descend into an economic crisis that dwarfs what we have been through so far, and our fraying social fabric may not be able to handle it.

Like gravity, scarcity can be denied, but it cannot be defied.

“If you don’t make stuff, there’s no stuff.”


#RetailMadeMe Tik Tok Trend Blames Capitalism For Waste. It Should Blame The Government

Companies have all kinds of incentives to be charitable. Unfortunately, retailers often face regulations that force them to destroy their merchandise instead of donating it.

Kids say the darndest things, and these days they say them on TikTok, the popular video social media platform with 850 million active monthly users.

A new trend called #RetailMadeMe took off on the platform this month after one popular account asked users to reply with a time their employer forced them to destroy perfectly usable merchandise.

The trend seems to have struck a nerve as hundreds of videos sharing personal accounts began to pour in. Many of the users expressed anger, guilt, and feelings of frustration as they described their own experiences.

Commenters directed their disdain at corporations for such wasteful, selfish, and environmentally negligent practices. Some told of having to destroy clothing that merely needed a good wash or a button sewn on, and pointed out that these items could have been donated to women’s shelters instead of being cut up and wasted.

Many of the replies focused on retail specifically, but another category quickly took off with other users recounting their experience in the food industry. They discussed policies that forced them to throw good food away, even when they themselves were experiencing food insecurity or knew it could be given to those in need.

Notably, many of the responders included additional hashtags with their videos that expressed their scorn for capitalism, which they clearly seem to blame for these egregious practices.

These stories would be upsetting in the best of times. But as lockdowns continue to ravage our economy, and as millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result, it is unsurprising that these anecdotes have ignited a social media wildfire.

But, while the anger behind these videos is understandable, and while it is right to be critical of careless waste, it seems the majority of the social media users in this case haven’t done their homework.

It has become fashionable to blame capitalism for bad behavior and corruption as of late, at least among some demographics. But dig beneath the surface for even five minutes and you will typically find that the source of the problem is actually some government regulation.

Such is largely the case with companies destroying their products instead of choosing to donate them, especially when it comes to food.

“A mix of federal, state and local laws,” wrote Harvard Law professor Jacob Gersen in a 2016 article for Time, “make it almost impossible to get food that would otherwise be wasted to those who could use it. If you donate food to someone and they get sick or even die, then you could be legally liable for their injury. That risk, however small, means that when choosing between giving away and throwing away food, the least risky choice is to toss it.”

Some lawmakers have recognized this problem and passed provisions that limit the liability companies face, but only if they go through a third party charitable organization first. That makes the donation process costly and time-consuming for busy business owners.

Furthermore, a 2014 report by the National Coalition for the Homeless found that 21 cities implemented additional regulations that block food-sharing with the homeless explicitly. One health department even went so far as to dump bleach on perfectly good barbeque (in 2016) when contestants of The American Royal’s World Series of Barbeque attempted to donate excess food from the event.

On top of all of that are other laws, like occupational licensing, that prohibit everyday Americans from sharing excess food they may prepare or possess. Local health laws ban the direct donation of food items, especially if they are prepared in an unlicensed kitchen.

Regulators and government bureaucrats will attempt to say that all of this is done in the name of public safety. But that argument doesn’t wash. In fact, restaurants—which are stringently regulated—are twice as likely to give someone food poisoning compared to meals cooked at home.

Other retailers face similar government regulations that force them to destroy their merchandise instead of donating it.

CVS, which has garnered the particular attention of the #RetailMadeMe trend, responded to the criticism with a statement that expressed as much:

“We work with numerous nonprofit organizations to arrange for damaged or near-expired goods from our stores to be donated to people in need … Our product disposal guidelines and procedures comply with applicable state and federal regulations, and they are consistent with that of the retail industry.”

To be fair, there are other reasons companies choose to destroy goods, and for some of these they deserve criticism. Sometimes the policies are in place so that employees do not have an incentive to damage products (in order to get a reduced price or obtain them for free). And some companies, especially luxury brands like Burberry, destroy their leftover products so as to not decrease the value of their brand on the gray market.

In this regard, pushback from consumers works marvelously and applies pressure on these companies to adopt more sustainable practices. Such is the case with the latter where in response to condemnation, high-end brands like Gucci and Balenciaga have joined initiatives that convert raw materials into yarn for other fabrics and garments.

But more often than not, it is bad government policy that leads to waste—not the free market.

Companies have all kinds of incentives to be charitable. It buys them good (and often free) publicity, builds their brand, and buys them good will. It increases the morale of their employees, and they can usually write off the donations on their taxes.

So contrary to the assertions on Tik Tok, free market capitalism actually provides ample reasons for companies to be philanthropic. It’s time to stop blaming an economic system you don’t understand when the government is actually at fault.


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.

Oracle moving from California to Texas, joins Tesla, Hewlett Packard

Tech companies are leaving the once Golden State in droves for Texas. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs will likely be bailing on New York for Florida in the coming months as well. Dreadful and radical governance has serious consequences. Like turning once prosperous states into economic wastelands.

Oracle moving from California to Texas, joins Tesla, Hewlett Packard

By Fox News, December 11, 2020

The smart money may be sticking together and sticking it to California.

Oracle is joining Tesla and Hewlett Packard in relocating to Texas, detailing the move in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission late Friday.

“Oracle is implementing a more flexible employee work location policy and has changed its Corporate Headquarters from redwood City, California to Austin, Texas. We believe these moves best position Oracle for growth and provide our personnel with more flexibility about where and how they work. Depending on their role, this means that many of our employees can choose their office location as well as continue to work from home part time or all of the time. In addition, we will continue to support major hubs for Oracle around the world, including those in the United States such as redwood City, Austin, Santa Monica, Seattle, Denver, Orlando and Burlington, among others, and we expect to add other locations over time. By implementing a more modern approach to work, we expect to further improve our employees’ quality of life and quality of output” the SEC filing noted.

While the move signals working remotely is here to stay, it also signals more corporations could be becoming disillusioned with California.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is the second-largest individual shareholder in Tesla behind CEO Elon Musk and sits on the electric-vehicle makers board. Last summer, Tesla chose Austin for its new factory, after considering other cities including Tusla, Oklahoma.

Earlier this week Musk blasted California for driving a corporate exodus, likening the state to a sports team that is used to winning and has grown complacent.

California, like a winning sports team that “has been winning for a long time,” has taken innovators for granted, Musk said, adding, “Yo

u have a forest of redwoods and the little trees can’t grow.”

Musk made the comments in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published on Tuesday. In the interview, Musk revealed that he personally had moved to Texas after growing frustrated with the Golden State.

Earlier this month, Hewlett Packard also announced it was moving its headquarters to Houston.

“HPE has made the decision to relocate its headquarters from San Jose, California, to Houston, Texas. HPE’s largest U.S. employment hub, Houston is an attractive market to recruit and retain future diverse talent, and is where the company is currently constructing a state-of-the-art new campus. The Bay Area will continue to be a strategic hub for HPE innovation, and the company will consolidate a number of sites in the Bay Area to its San Jose campus. No layoffs are associated with this move.”

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