Fla. Gov. DeSantis blames Biden for ‘disastrous’ border crisis: ‘This is intentional,’ ‘ideological’

Indeed. The crime, the chaos, and the costs of the Biden Administration’s border policy is of no concern to them. What is important to the Biden Administration is expanding their voting base. Rational American’s must come out in big numbers for the 2022 mid-term elections, so that the Democrat Party can be voted out of power. Support pro-Trump candidates.

Fla. Gov. DeSantis blames Biden for ‘disastrous’ border crisis: ‘This is intentional,’ ‘ideological’

By Washington Times, March 15, 2021

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Sunday that the massive influx of migrant children at the U.S. border is a crisis of President Biden‘s own making.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Justice,” Mr. DeSantis told host Jeanine Pirro that Mr. Biden had adopted “disastrous” immigration policies that signaled to migrants the U.S. had opened its doors.

“It obviously is a disastrous change in policy, Judge,” the Republican governor said. “If you look, Donald Trump had, obviously, the wall, which we all supported, but also safe third-party agreements, as well as ‘Remain in Mexico.’ And guess what happened? The border was under control. So they’ve gone back on those policies, and they’ve created this crisis.

“But I think that this is intentional,” Mr. DeSantis continued. “I think this is ideological. I think that they’re getting bit by this politically now. But I think that this was something that they absolutely anticipated. It’s a disastrous way to start an administration. I think most of the American people are going to be strongly opposed to this, and hopefully, they’ll reverse course.”

Biden is going in the absolute wrong direction,” he added. “Trump had it right at the border. Biden‘s got it wrong.”

The number of unaccompanied minors in federal custody on the southern U.S. border has reached record numbers under the Biden administration, increasing 25% from last week and forcing children to stay longer in overcrowded, jail-like facilities despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, ABC News reported Monday.

The Biden administration has repeatedly refused to characterize the border situation as a “crisis,” instead calling it a “challenge” as it reopens multiple facilities across the country to accommodate the influx of migrants.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. John Katko: People on the Terror Watch List Caught Coming Across the Border in Last Few Days

Biden Nominee Who Called For Decriminalizing All Drugs Owns Millions In Company Accused Of ‘Fueling Mexican Cartels’ Heroin Production’

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE: Media misquoted Trump in notorious phone call with Georgia investigator

Black Lives Matter Admin Used $450,000 In Donations For Personal Use, FBI Says

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.

‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Nonsense

American oil, coal and natural gas are abundant, affordable and efficient, so naturally the anti-energy Left hates them.

Fossil fuels keep the lights on, transportation moving, and our houses warm, all at less cost and a tiny fraction of the land required for inefficient wind and solar.  The math is not on the side of wind and solar.

That’s why the Obama Administration went all-in on a construct called the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).  Joe Biden brought it back “on day one.”  Think of it as politically correct math.

David Wojick lays out a devastating case at CFACT.org:

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) has been around for some time. Obama introduced it as a policy measure, which Trump then canceled. Now Biden has brought it back and made it worse.

In a way SCC personifies the craziness of the climate scare. The whole scare is based on outlandish doomsday computer models and SCC is arguably the most absurd of all.

CFACT senior policy analyst Paul Driessen posted a rundown on the arbitrariness of “social cost” math to CFACT.org:

The price tag was set at $22/ton in 2010, raised to $36/ton in 2013, and just as arbitrarily increased to $40, before finishing the Obama era at $51/ton. President Trump disbanded the Interagency Working Group on carbon costs and had the SCC slashed to less than $10/ton. Within hours of taking office, President Biden resurrected the working group, reinstituted $51/ton as a starting point, and directed federal agencies to devise a definitive SCC by 2022…

The SCC enables agencies and their allies to attach any price they wish to every conceivable cost of using fossil fuels: hotter and colder, wetter and drier climate and weather; more frequent and intense hurricanes; reduced agricultural output; forest health and wildfires; floods, droughts and water resources; “forced migration” of people and wildlife;  worsening health and disease; flooded coastal cities; even “reduced student learning and worker productivity,” due to warmer planetary temperatures.

The SCC also lets practitioners completely ignore the obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels, and emitting carbon dioxide – such as enhanced productivity via affordable air conditioning in summer and heating in winter; improved forest, grassland and crop growth (and greening deserts) due to more CO2 in the air; greater home and human survival rates amid extreme weather events; and having the jobs, mobility, living standards, healthcare and longevity of modern industrialized life.

In fact, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh costs by 50:1, 400:1 or even 500:1!

That’s right, the benefits of oil, gas and coal to society outweigh the costs!

How’s that for an inconvenient truth?

P.S.  Don’t forget that CO2 and carbon are not the same.  Carbon is the incredibly versatile element, that as Carl Sagan pointed out years ago, “likes to combine.”  You’re made of it.  Carbon dioxide is what you get when a carbon molecule combines with two molecules of oxygen.  CO2 is the odorless, invisible gas you just exhaled.

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

Here’s the List of the Top 20 States Getting ‘COVID’ Bailout Money [And Why It Raises a Giant Red Flag]

It’s simply naïve and ignorant of human nature to expect people—especially the kind of people who become politicians—to dole out trillions of dollars without any hint of favoritism or impropriety.


President Biden is taking a victory lap after signing his $1.9 trillion ‘COVID’ spending bill. “Help is here,” he wrote in a tweet promoting his plan.

But Americans who are initially glad to hear that more ‘COVID’ relief is supposedly on its way may be surprised when they learn that the latest legislation funnels $350 billion in unneeded taxpayer money to flush the coffers of state and local governments.

In the president’s telling, this is much-needed aid that will allow municipal governments facing massive COVID-related revenue pitfalls to pay their front-line emergency responders and essential personnel. But the facts reveal a different story.

While it’s plausible on its face to think that COVID would have led to a revenue drop for state and local governments, this never materialized in most places. According to JP Morgan, state revenue was “virtually flat” in 2020 nationwide while 21 states actually saw slight revenue upticks.

Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards noted that while there was a significant downturn in state revenue in the second quarter of 2020, overall it was balanced out by an uptick in the third quarter. “There is no need for more federal aid to the states,” he concluded.

So, the $350 billion in state “aid”—which cost roughly $2,442 per federal taxpayer—Congress  just passed wasn’t actually necessary. What’s the driving motivation behind it, then? This becomes clearer when we consider which states are getting the most taxpayer cash.

Here are the 20 states receiving the most money from the latest spending legislation.

  1. California: $42.3 billion
  2. Texas: $27.3 billion
  3. New York: $23.5 billion
  4. Tribal Governments: $20 billion
  5. Florida: $17.3 billion
  6. Illinois: $13.5 billion
  7. Pennsylvania: $13.5 billion
  8. Ohio: $11 billion
  9. Michigan: $10.1 billion
  10. New Jersey: $10 billion
  11. North Carolina: $8.7 billion
  12. Georgia: $8.17 billion
  13. Massachusetts: $7.96 billion
  14. Arizona: $7.48 billion
  15. Washington: $6.94 billion
  16. Virginia: $6.68 billion
  17. Maryland: $6.21 billion
  18. Tennessee: $6.12 billion
  19. Colorado: $5.9 billion
  20. Indiana: $5.7 billion

At first glance, it’s hard to decipher a clear pattern on this list. It’s not ordered by population, otherwise Florida would be above New York and Georgia would be above New Jersey. So, how did they divvy up the money?

Curiously, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress factored in not just population but also the number of unemployed citizens. This had the direct effect of skewing the bailout benefits toward states that enacted harsher lockdowns and punishing states who prioritized preserving economic activity.

It must be noted that the list is skewed to include more “blue” states that voted for Biden, 13, than “red” states that voted for Trump, 6. It was, in many cases, Republican governors who opted for lighter restrictions and abandoned harsh lockdowns. In states like Florida, this has averted the unemployment and social destruction other states experienced—without producing noticeably worse COVID deaths.

One could argue that perhaps focusing on the unemployment rate is meant to ensure the aid goes to the states shortest on revenue. But why not use actual revenue shortfalls, then? Indeed, California tops the list for bailout money, yet the Golden State is actually running a budget surplus!

The only conclusion left to draw, however disappointing, is that Democrats crafted this bailout’s structure to favor states who pursued the COVID-19 policies they agree with—aka, states run by Democrats. Suffice it to say that political favoritism should never determine how limited taxpayer money is spent.

But, unfortunately, cronyism and favoritism are features, not a bug, of big government spending programs. As economist Ludwig von Mises once explained, big government programs concentrate enormous spending power in the hands of a few political officials; all but ensuring that favoritism follows.

“There is no such thing as a just and fair method of exercising the tremendous power that interventionism puts into the hands of the legislature and the executive,” Mises wrote.

It’s simply naïve and ignorant of human nature to expect people—especially the kind of people who become politicians—to dole out trillions of dollars without any hint of favoritism or impropriety. So, while Americans will understandably be angered by the way Congress has carved out hundreds of billions for state governments that don’t need it, they’d be wrong to think this is a one-time mistake.

Corruption and dysfunction are baked into the cake when we entrust the government with vast economic powers.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

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

VIDEO: Friends, let’s fix ‘cancel culture’ — Some ideas on how you can fight back

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll be familiar with the new craze sweeping the West as the 2020s unfold, known as “cancel culture”.

The more this phenomenon grows, the more the label risks being misapplied. Cancel culture isn’t just anything, however: it follows a very recognisable pattern.

First, someone with public profile transgresses a woke orthodoxy of the present age. Second, a small but influential group names and shames them. Third, a mob forms to sully that person’s reputation and effectively drive them from public life.

The list of casualties grows longer with each passing month.

Arguably the incident that defined the cancel culture genre was the 2017 protest against Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College. More recently we’ve seen Disney fire actress Gina Carano, and the lead guitarist of Mumford and Sons shamed into taking time away from the band.

This week I argued that the Dr Seuss affair was likewise a manifestation of cancel culture, albeit a slightly milder one—and against someone long departed.

(It’s worth pointing out another common feature of cancel culture: how shockingly mild any of the alleged “crimes” actually are. In all seriousness, take some time to look into each incident listed above).

With such incidents in mind, British author and commentator Douglas Murray recently penned a brilliant piece for the The Spectator entitled How to fight back against ‘cancel culture’.

In it, he suggests that there’s a final step to the cancel culture routine—and that is the large number of “otherwise decent people” who fail to defend the victim.

“Why is it that in so many areas of public life, from the lecture hall to the comedy club, when the mini-mob comes, the adults just vacate the room?” he asks. Murray explains the dilemma:

“In case after case it has been the same. The problem is not that the sacrificial victim is selected. The problem is that the people who destroy his reputation are permitted to do so by the complicity, silence and slinking away of everybody else.”

What he surmises is that this—the silent cowardice of bystanders—is the only part of the cancel culture sequence that’s actually fixable.

We must “encourage people to stand up in defence of people who are being defamed,” Murray proposes. He goes on:

“Simply stand up for your friends, colleagues or allies when you know that they are being lied about. It seems so simple and so obvious a thing to do, and yet it is a habit in exceptionally short supply today.”

His article ends with a profound, almost proverbial truth: “Fighting for something you love will always give you an advantage over someone fighting because of hate.”

Hear, hear.

That’s something we can do on an individual level. But it’s encouraging to see associations forming around the same concern of late, in an effort to collectively push back against cancel culture.

One of these is the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA). The idea for this was sparked by Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, who draws an analogy between cancel culture and the contrasting ways in which zebras and elephants defend themselves against a lion’s attack.

Zebras scatter, leaving any potential victim to fend for itself, he explains. Elephants, on the other hand, circle around their vulnerable associate. “Academics behave like zebras,” George says. “And so people get isolated, they get targeted, they get destroyed, they get forgotten.”

Like Murray’s his solution is simple: “Why don’t we act like elephants? Why don’t we circle around the victim?” Inspired by the idea, 20 other professors from Princeton (and millions of dollars of donor money) have formed the AFA, whose catchy slogan is that “an attack on academic freedom anywhere is an attack on academic freedom everywhere”.

The group’s 200 members now provide aid and support to defend the “freedom of thought and expression in their work as researchers and writers or in their lives as citizens”. Here’s conservative academic Carol M. Swain explaining the work of the AFA:

Two other organisations advancing a similar cause are the AHA Foundation and Heterodox Academy—both worthy of the reader’s curiosity.

In fact, if you’re looking for a small but immediate way you can help address cancel culture, head on over to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism and sign their FAIR pledge.

Seriously, do it.

And next time you see a pile-on, stand up for your friends. They need you. Let’s fix cancel culture.

COLUMN BY

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg.

RELATED VIDEO: Defending Against Cancel Culture.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Woke educators: Math is a form of ‘white supremacy’

6pm curfews for males and other bright ideas from #EnoughIsEnough

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

Biden’s Intel Chief Releases 2020 Election Report Confirming Russian and Iranian Interference

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released an unclassified report Tuesday detailing attempts by Russia and Iran to interfere in the 2020 general election and sow general distrust in the United States electoral process.

The report additionally states with “high confidence” that China didn’t deploy any attempts to influence the election for either President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump, putting it in stark contrast with a previous ODNI report on the subject authored by the Trump administration in August 2020.

“We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as unpredictable – does not win reelection,” the Trump administration’s assessment claimed. “China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China.

“China sought stability in its relationship with the United States, did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling, and assessed its traditional influence tools primarily targeted economic measures and lobbying-would be sufficient to meet its goal of shaping US China policy regardless of the winner,” the report stated before adding that the National Intelligence Officer for Cyber does believe “that China did take some steps to try to undermine former President Trump’s reelection.”

The new Russia and Iran findings do line up with previous reports filed by the Trump administration, however.

“Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US. Unlike in 2016, we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure,” Tuesday’s report continues. “Iran carried out a multi-pronged covert influence campaign intended to undercut former President Trump’s reelection prospects-though without directly promoting his rivals-undermine public confidence in the electoral process and US institutions, and sow division and exacerbate societal tensions in the US.”

Despite the interference campaigns, the assessment states that no country took measures to alter “any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results,” and that several additional foreign actors attempted to

The White House and ODNI did not return by press time Daily Caller’s inquiries on perceived discrepancies between Tuesday’s report and previous statements made by Trump administration intelligence officials prior to the election in November.

John Ratcliffe, Trump’s DNI, told Fox News in August that “China is using a massive and sophisticated influence campaign that dwarfs anything that any other country is doing.”

COLUMMN BY

CHRISTIAN DATOC

Senior White House correspondent.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: China Wants Trump To Lose 2020 Election, Russia Wants Him To Win, Trump’s Intel Chief Says

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

It’s Time For Red States to Begin Nullifying Federal Law

“We are a divided nation.  Accept the division and act accordingly…. because we either ACT or we will be ACTED upon.”

If freedom-loving Americans do nothing then defeated we are.

Is It Time for Red States To Start Using Their Power to Nullify Federal Law?

My personal opinion is yes, it is far beyond time.  Factually, I have supported a total 50 state nullification process since 2005 when I realized Wall Street was in full operational control over Washington DC.  Once you accept that Globalists are writing U.S. legislation and laws; and once you accept they are paying DC politicians for the passage of those laws; then they are supporting politicians who will advance those laws by changing the judicial branch; then you begin to follow events to their logical conclusion, and the necessary cleaving of a freedom loving electorate becomes clear.When you consider that Blue States and regions have been nullifying federal laws for decades (marijuana legalization, sanctuary cities, immigration policies, etc), the question arises about whether it is indeed time to complete the cleaving and for Red States to begin the same nullification process.

Ultimately and thankfully due to the wisdom of our founding fathers, this fail-safe approach is outlined within the constitution and applied through the tenth amendment.

Today, Steve Baldwin at American Thinker makes the argument the time is now for Red States to begin nullifying federal law by simply refusing to abide by the unconstitutional dictates of the federal government. [READ HERE]  From my own perspective, in the final analysis, the constitutional nullification process has always been a source of hope and optimism.

We are a divided nation.  Accept the division and act accordingly…. because we either ACT or we will be ACTED upon.

AMERICAN THINKER – […] states will be reluctant to invoke nullification but the alternative would be to watch our constitutional rights be trashed by leftists.  The MAGA movement in the Red States needs to became active in urging legislators and governors to start reclaiming their constitutional powers and begin nullifying illegal Federal law.  

Once states are engaged in nullifying federal laws, I believe we will witness what I call the “great migration” in which conservatives will leave blue states to live in red states and vice-versa.  And yes, this could lead to a peaceful balkanization of America in which the Red states become redder and the Blue states become bluer, but this is not our fault. (CONTINUE READING)

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.

DEMOCRAT☭ Biden admin planning BIGGEST TAX HIKE in almost 30 years

Crushing the American people. Lockdowns, job loss, isolation, suicide, metal illness, destruction of millions of small business — now this.

Biden is not legitimate.

Biden reportedly planning largest tax hike in almost 30 years

By: Phil Shiver, The Blaze, March 15, 2021

President Joe Biden is reportedly planning the largest hike in federal taxes in almost three decades to fund a long-term economic recovery program to follow in the footsteps of the recently passed $1.9 trillion stimulus package.

Unnamed sources confirmed the plans to Bloomberg News over the weekend, reportedly indicating that the major tax hike — the first since 1993 — is expected to pay for key Biden administration initiatives such as “infrastructure, climate, and expanded help for poorer Americans.”

But the sources said the planned changes are not designed to fund only the key priorities of the administration. With the tax hike, Biden’s team hopes to address what Democrats argue are “inequities in the tax system itself.” According to the Bloomberg report, the changes include:

  • Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%
  • Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited liability companies or partnerships
  • Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000
  • Expanding the estate tax’s reach
  • A higher capital gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually
“His whole outlook has always been that Americans believe tax policy needs to be fair, and he has viewed all of his policy options through that lens,” Sarah Bianchi, a former Biden economic aide, told Bloomberg. “That is why the focus is on addressing the unequal treatment between work and wealth.”

Bloomberg cited an independent analysis of the plan conducted by the Tax Policy Center, which assessed it would raise taxes on American citizens by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. The group originally projected the plan would raise taxes by $4 trillion over a decade, but revised its forecast last November.

The plans are unsurprising coming from the Biden administration and progressive Democratic lawmakers, who have already shown a willingness to raise taxes to accomplish their policy goals. Democrats snuck $60 billion in tax hikes into the coronavirus relief bill even as the country faces continued economic difficulty as a result of the pandemic.

However, despite falling in line with Biden’s campaign promises and demands from progressive lawmakers, any major tax hikes may face an uphill battle in Congress. Tax hikes, especially if they result in a repeal of former President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, are a non-starter for Republicans. Likewise, moderate Democrats have shown some reluctance to the idea.

Moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) previously told The Hill repealing Trump’s tax cuts would be a “ridiculous” idea, though he later added, “Everything’s open for discussion.”

Then last month, an anonymous Democratic House member told The Hill the government should not be raising taxes.

“People would accept the corporate tax raised a few points, but beyond that you’re going to have problems, especially in the middle of an economic crisis,” the lawmaker reportedly said.

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

VIDEO: Maher’s ‘Cancel Culture’ Tweet Proves Companies Need to Go Back to Basics

It seems even those who lean left are getting tired of Cancel Culture’s charades. Last Friday, Bill Maher stood up against Cancel Culture in his typical foul-mouthed, no-holds-barred manner, tweeting, “Memo to social Justice warriors: when what you’re doing sounds like an Onion headline, stop. #CancelCultureIsOverParty.” Underneath he added a clip from his show, “Real Time With Bill Maher” detailing his issues with the Cancel Culture narrative, including the cancellation of Gina Carano, Justin Timberlake, and perhaps most absurdly, a Latino man who the wokeist crowd condemned as a white supremacist.

Maher’s condemnation of Cancel Culture came at the right time. “Mr. Potato Head” and “Mrs. Potato Head” are now genderless, to fit in with the new “acceptable” – if biologically incorrect – norms. Dr. Seuss was canceled because a handful of people believe he was racist. And Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Met Sally, a thoughtfully conservative book on the gender identity debate, was canceled by Amazon despite its popularity.

Maher’s opinion set off an angry torrent of comments under his tweet, with some people defending their “right” to cancel others, and others stating ad hominems to justify their actions. We here at 2ndVote do not endorse Maher, particularly because of his anti-religion stance, support for Medicare-for-All, and similar concerns.  But we can definitely acknowledge he hit a nerve among the leftist crowd. It’s refreshing to see a prominent liberal call out Cancel Culture — it’s a sign that they’re not popular among anyone but their far-left cronies.

Corporate America needs to take a note from Maher. No matter what a business does to appease the Cancel Culture crowd, it doesn’t reduce their chances of getting canceled — it just puts them under a microscope for critical leftists. As we’ve discussed here on 2ndVote in the past, even big companies like Google (1.00) are struggling to stay on the good side of the woke Cancel Culture crowd, despite their support for popular leftist causes such as Black Lives Matter (2.14).

It’s time to let go of woke guideposts and ignore the leftist ideals of what a good company looks like. If Corporate America is to survive the Cancel Culture world, companies need to go back to basics and focus on customers first and always.

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

Federal ‘COVID’ Spending Just Hit $41,870 Per Taxpayer. Did You See That Much in Benefit?

For the same $6 trillion in expenditure, the government could have given every federal taxpayer a $41,870 check.


President Biden just signed his sweeping $1.9 trillion spending package into law. Once this bill hits the books, total taxpayer expenditure on (ostensibly) COVID relief will hit $6 trillion—which, roughly estimated, comes out to $41,870 in spending per federal taxpayer.

Did you see anywhere near that much in benefit?

The sheer immensity of this spending is hard to grasp. For context, $6 trillion is more than one-fourth of what the US economy produces in an entire year, according to Fox Business. The COVID spending blowout is at least eight times bigger than the (inflation-adjusted) price tag of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”

Moreover, the COVID spending bills have all lost huge sums of money to unrelated carve-outs, politician pet projects, corporate bailouts, fraud, waste, and worse.

In the latest $1.9 trillion package, more than 90 percent of the spending is not directly related to containing COVID-19. Only 1 percent of the money, about $15 to $20 billion, is spent on vaccines. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions go to bailing out poorly managed state governments’ budget holes that predate the pandemic and $86 billion rescues failing pension plans. Meanwhile, billions more go to Obamacare expansion and subsidizing public schools long after the pandemic.

And that’s just scratching the surface.

The numbers here really are quite damning.

For the same $6 trillion in expenditure, the government could have given every federal taxpayer a $41,870 check. Or, to think about it a bit differently, it could have written every American roughly an $18,181 check.

Let’s compare this to what most Americans actually received.

Only someone who fully collected expanded unemployment benefits throughout the pandemic and received all $3,200 in total of the stimulus payments likely received more than $18,181 in direct benefit from this spending package. And that’s a relatively small fraction of the public.

Because of the way the government used outdated (and arbitrary) income data to determine eligibility, many more taxpayers saw nothing or little in exchange for their $41,870 share of the cost, perhaps just the initial $1,200 stimulus or none at all. (Meanwhile, billions in checks went to dead people).

So, for almost all Americans, the actual benefits of the multiple pieces of lengthy stimulus legislation come in far, far below the figure that they would have received if the entire pile of money was just even split up and sent out.

How can that possibly be considered a success? In fact, it’s actually a net negative.

Too often, the stimulus conversation is simply framed around whether we should give money to a certain group of people or program—rather than also including the trade-offs and costs.

The question isn’t just: Should we send people $1,400 “stimulus” checks? It is, instead: Should we send people $1,400 stimulus checks at the cost of taking the equivalent amount (or more if you factor in waste) from other people? It’s not just whether we should send $350 billion to state and local governments—but should we do so at the cost of taking an average of $2,442 per federal taxpayer?

Money doesn’t grow on trees. Or, as the great economist Ludwig von Mises put it, the government “does not have the powers of the mythical Santa Claus.”

“The truth is the government cannot give if it does not take from somebody,” Mises wrote in Bureaucracy. “They cannot spend except by taking out of the pockets of some people for the benefit of others.”

The government cannot create wealth out of thin air. It can only give anyone anything via three ways:

  • Directly increasing taxes, which discourages economic growth and directly takes money away from people
  • Running up debt, which means much higher taxes in the future plus interest, creating a drag on economic growth
  • Printing money, which “stealth taxes” the public via inflation

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and, much to the chagrin of spend-happy politicians’, Santa Claus is not real. Government spending doesn’t create wealth; it only transfers wealth, generally destroying a lot of it in the process.

So, unless Americans are actually seeing equal or greater benefit from spending compared to its cost, it’s a raw deal for taxpayers. And for the federal government’s “COVID” spending binge, it’s not even close.

Don’t believe me? Well, did you see $41,870 in benefit from these programs? Or even $18,181?

For almost everyone, the honest answer is no.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

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

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. David Martin explains that this is not a COVID vaccine, and calling it such is a con to get people to accept it as one.

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

CALIFORNIA: Recall Of Embattled Democrat District Attorney Chesa Boudin Begins

SAN FRANCISCO, CA /PRNewswire/ — Voters of San Francisco can begin downloading and signing the official petition to recall the city’s controversial district attorney Chesa Boudin starting at noon today.

San Francisco is united in moving forward with this important statement, that dereliction of duties to law-abiding citizens will no longer be tolerated,” says committee spokesman Richie Greenberg. “Mr. Boudin’s failure to prosecute crimes and protect our city has made every resident, every business owner and every visitor to our town a target.”

Eroded public safety has become a major problem in San Francisco. According to a February, 2021 study from the risk assessment app Augurisk Now, San Francisco has three of the top ten most dangerous neighborhoods in the United States.

In addition to inviting residents to join the recall effort, the committee is calling on San Francisco’s leaders, including Mayor London Breed and each of the eleven members of the Board of Supervisors, as well as former city officials, to participate in the movement with a statement of support.

“We especially want supervisors to stand with San Franciscans who deserve a safer, more just city. All elected officials, present and past, should stand in solidarity with the community to demand that Mr. Boudin resign immediately. For the good of our city, he must go.”


The Committee Supporting the Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin leads the recall effort, with website at https://RecallChesaBoudin.org.


©All rights reserved.

KENTUCKY: Berea College Hosting Event Describing ‘White Citizenship’ and ‘Trumpism’ as Terrorism

Meanwhile, it is a 100% certainty, not 99%, but 100%, that Berea College administrators and professors would recoil in horror at the prospect of hosting an event focusing on the threat of jihad violence and Sharia oppression. In the extraordinarily unlikely off-chance that such an event were scheduled, it would be inundated with charges of “Islamophobia” and “racism” to the extent that most students would not attend, for fear of the social stigma attached to going. But this? Demonizing and smearing half the American electorate? That’s just fine. And of course it plays right into the agenda of the political and media elites, who have embarked upon a clear initiative to defame all supporters of the former president as “extremists,” as they did previously with foes of jihad terror and Sharia injustice, and destroy them accordingly. The U.S. is entering an extremely dark period, but it has been a long time in the offing.

“Kentucky college hosting event describing ‘white citizenship’ and ‘Trumpism’ as terrorism,”

by Sam Dorman, Fox News, March 12, 2021:

A Kentucky college is scheduled to host an event critical of Donald Trump and associating the former president and “white citizenship” with terrorism.

A flyer obtained by Young America’s Foundation (YAF) describes the event as a way to “resituate Trumpism and white citizenship as forms of white terrorism enacted against the majority of people living within the borders of the U.S. and beyond.”

Titled “White citizenship as terrorism: Make America Great Again, Again,” the event is set to take place on March 17 via Zoom, according to a page on Berea College’s website. The Women’s and Non-Gender Non-Conforming Center is sponsoring the session with the Law, Ethics, and Society at the college.

YAF said it obtained the flyer through its Campus Bias Tip Line. It features images of protesters carrying tiki torches at the racially charged Charlottesville, Virginia, protests at the beginning of Trump’s presidency.

The flyer also takes a critical approach to the “Make America Great Again” slogan. “Despite calls for multiculturalism and color-blindness, segments of white America mourn their so-called loss of privilege, consistently begging to return to the nostalgic past in which their esteemed value as white citizens went unquestioned,” it reads.

“Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ appears to follow suit by offering a seemingly benign promise to return America to a previously ‘great’ past. But the offer to ‘Make America Great Again, Again,’ requires we refocus on how the last four years of daily tweets and administrative actions redefine whiteness. If terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to create a state of fear towards particular communities and identities, then this is what ‘Trumpism’ is at its core.”

Berea defended the event in a statement to Fox News Thursday.

“To some, the provocative title of the event implies that Berea is not a welcoming place for individuals with differing political views,” a statement from the college read….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on Pope Francis’ visit to Iraq

Michigan: Muslim Instagrammer Harasses Jews in Kosher Shop

UK: Muslim who helped Paris jihadis murder 130 people was recruited for jihad at mosque renowned for jihad activity

YouTube fascists terminate Truth In Politics account hours before scheduled Robert Spencer interview

Sweden: Crime Prevention Council blames Swedish women for the fact that Muslim migrants commit the most rapes

New United Nations report claims ‘Islamophobia’ is on the rise

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

A Crisis of Jewish Leadership — Politics Trumps Jewish Issues

Biden is never challenged by the media and a progressive Jewish establishment to whom liberal politics means more than Judaism.


There is a crisis of leadership in the American Jewish establishment, and it was highlighted during the 2020 presidential election by communal leaders who trumpeted Joe Biden’s supposed affinity for Jews and Israel despite his record of ambivalence and hostility.
Since the election, his cheering section has continued its delusional support despite his overt snub of Israel’s prime minister, his stated intentions to appease Iran and reengage the Muslim Brotherhood, his failure to condemn antisemitism among Democrats, and his appointment of individuals with antisemitic or anti-Israel baggage to administration posts.

In a larger sense, the whitewashing of Biden’s record on Israel and hiring of hostile officials tracks the refusal to acknowledge antisemitism amongst progressives and Democrats. It also reflects the false conflation of liberal politics with Jewish values.

Many Jewish leaders actively campaigned for Biden, and they certainly had the right to do so. What they did not have the right to do, however, was ignore the risk that an empowered left-wing creates for Israel and pronounce Biden “good for the Jews” without critically analyzing his background.

It should surprise nobody that the non-Orthodox movements lined up behind Biden given their hatred for Donald Trump and elevation of secular political priorities over Torah values. Still, it was the height of cognitive dissonance to assert Biden’s philosemitic and pro-Israel credentials in view of his record.

Biden’s history is marked by insensitivity and insult, starting in 1982 when he used his Senate seat to threaten (unsuccessfully) Menachem Begin over “settlements”. He thereafter attempted to interfere in Israeli politics, often refused to condemn Islamist extremism, and displayed an inexcusable ignorance of history when criticizing Israeli communities established on ancient Jewish land.

He also served as vice president in the unfriendly Obama administration, which gave the Palestinian Authority millions in funding that was partly used to pay stipends to families of terrorists; negotiated a deal that would have facilitated Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; and legitimized the antisemitic BDS movement. In addition, he participated in Obama’s orchestration of UN Resolution 2334, which sought to erase Jewish history from Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount) by denying their ancient Jewish pedigree and characterizing them as “occupied Palestinian territory” as though a state of Palestine ever existed.

Biden’s apologists argue that his harsh tone with Israel is merely politics and does not reflect his regard for the Jews. They would do well to recognize, however, that the BDS movement, UN Resolution 2334, and the false characterization of ancestral Jewish lands as “occupied” are predicated on a rejection of Jewish history, which is indeed a form antisemitism.

To deny Jewish history is to reject Jewish legitimacy, and Biden has been doing it for years.

Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can Biden hide his ambivalence regarding the Jewish state, particularly as reflected through some of his administration appointments. These include a press secretary who defended John Kerry’s infamous Israel-apartheid comparison in 2014; a deputy press secretary who has disparaged AIPAC and falsely accused Israel of war crimes; a Justice Department Civil Rights Division head who vouched for the credibility of a noted antisemite and Holocaust denier; and a proposed senior intelligence director with a history of BDS activism. He has also nominated anti-Israel officials for positions in the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and National Intelligence without criticism from the liberal elite.

There is often a disconnect between Biden’s words and deeds regarding Jewish issues. On Holocaust Remembrance Day, for example, he issued a White House press release stating:

“We must pass the history of the Holocaust on to our grandchildren and their grandchildren in order to keep real the promise of ‘never again’. . . ‘That is how we prevent future genocides. Remembering the victims, heroes and lessons of the Holocaust is particularly important today as Holocaust deniers and minimizers are growing louder in our public discourse.”

Though nobody could argue with these sentiments, they seem disingenuous in view of Biden’s dubious appointments, relationships with BDS advocates, complicity in the UN campaign to erase Jewish history, and failure to condemn inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Congressional Democrats like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

A real friend would not commit US foreign policy to resuscitating an ill-conceived deal that would enable Iran’s development of nuclear weapons or seek rapprochement with the radical Muslim Brotherhood – which even some Sunni states regard as a terror organization. Nor would a friend reinforce institutionalized bigotry by rejoining the antisemitic UN Human Rights Council. Or undercut the historic Abraham Accords involving Israel, Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan, and Morocco by reengaging a corrupt Palestinian Authority that supports terrorism, promotes antisemitism, and denies Israel’s legitimacy.

And if Biden were genuinely concerned about the threat of antisemitism, he would not tolerate it within his own party or appoint people to his administration with anti-Israel or anti-Jewish skeletons in the closet.

Unfortunately, Biden is never challenged for hypocrisy because he is protected by a sympathetic press and a progressive Jewish establishment for whom liberal politics means more than Jewish tradition and continuity. They may delude themselves by falsely equating Jewish tradition with progressive values, but their alarming intermarriage and assimilation rates evidence the hollowness of their priorities and lack of commitment to cultural self-preservation.

The Jewish left runs interference for Biden (and bigots within the Democratic Party) by blaming antisemitism solely on the political right; for example, by focusing on antisemitic comments and conspiracy theories attributed to Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Such rhetoric should not be tolerated by anyone in Congress; and Greene’s House Committee assignments were revoked accordingly.

But if liberal establishment leaders were so incensed over Greene’s past comments – as well they should have been – why have they not expressed similar outrage at hateful rhetoric from Democrats like Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez? Why did they not demand censure when Rep. Ted Liu invoked the ancient slander of Jewish national disloyalty in a reprehensible tweet questioning the patriotism of David Friedman, then Ambassador to Israel?

Why do they ignore the antisemitism that seems to pervade today’s Democratic Party and the progressive movements they support?

Progressives spent the last four years accusing Trump of Jew-hatred despite his longstanding support for Israel and Jewish organizations and his warm relationships with Jewish business associates and family members. During his presidency, he was dedicated to repairing a US-Israel relationship torn asunder by the Obama administration. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, reimposed sanctions against an Iranian regime that repeatedly threatens to exterminate Israel, made fighting antisemitism a State Department priority, and fostered peace accords between Israel and four Arab-Muslim nations. Liberals nonetheless accused Trump of sounding antisemitic “dog whistles,” which is a conveniently vague term used by critics who cannot connect him to any specific acts of antisemitism.

If they are truly alarmed by anti-Jewish bigotry, moreover, one must wonder why they were largely silent when progressive and minority antisemitism escalated during the Obama years. Or why they now refuse to condemn it in the protest movement spearheaded by Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and like organizations.

The reality is that Jewish communal leaders support Biden not because of his supposed affinity for Israel or traditional Jewish values, but simply because he is a liberal Democrat. If they were truly concerned for Israel, they should have questioned his record instead of basking in willful ignorance.

It is incumbent on those who claim the mantle of Jewish leadership to speak with knowledge and historical perspective. However, those leaders who ignored Biden’s documented hostility for Israel and his tolerance of progressive antisemites abdicated their community responsibility for the sake of politics.

And that should call into question their wisdom and authority to lead.

©Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

House Passes Democrat Bill Criminalizing Private Gun Sales

Like the Nazis, the Democrats wish to disarm the citizenry. Gun control has never been about guns. It’s about control.

“Every episode of genocide in the past century has been preceded by assiduous efforts to disarm the victims first. Turkish Armenia, The Holocaust, The USSR, Soviet Occupied Poland…”

“….totalitarian governments are the most likely to perpetrate mass murder. Part IV argues against the complacent belief that any nation, including the United States, is immune from the dangers of being taken over by a murderous government. The historical record shows that risks are very broad.

THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENTS INTENT ON MASS MURDER PRIORITIZE VICTIM DISARMAMENT. SUCH GOVERNMENTS CONSIDER VICTIM ARMAMENT TO BE A SERIOUS IMPEDIMENT TO MASS MURDER AND TO THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, AS DESCRIBED IN PARTS V AND VI.

Finally, Part VII consider the efficacy of citizen arms against mass murdering governments. Citizen arms are most effective as deterrents. If a regime does initiate mass murder, rebellions seeking regime change usually fail. However, even without changing the regime, the historical record shows that armed resistance can accomplish a great deal, including the saving of many lives.” David B. Kopel, “Fewer Guns, More Genocide: Europe In The Twentieth Century”

House Passes Democrat Bill Criminalizing Private Gun Sales

The U.S. House of Representatives passed universal background check gun control Thursday, criminalizing private gun sales conducted apart from an FBI background check.

By: AWR Hawkins. Breitbart News, 11 Mar 2021:

The legislation, H.R. 8, sponsored by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), passed by a vote of 227 to 203.

H.R. 8 would expand retail point-of-sale background checks so as to cover private points-of-sale. This will criminalize an individual who sells a 5-shot revolver to a lifelong neighbor, unless that neighbor first undergoes a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, conducted by the FBI.

On Wednesday, bill sponsor Thompson claimed, without evidence, his bill is supported by “90 percent of the American [people].”

H.R. 8 was passed by the House in early 2019 as well, but never taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. Democrat gains in the current Senate suggest the legislation will be discussed this time around.

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.

“In God We Trust?”

Is recognition of God in the public arena today just a meaningless construct? It reminds me of politicians swearing in on a Holy Bible, but having not the slightest clue what the Good Book actually says.

If you asked the average American today, “What is the national motto of America?” I doubt that many of them would answer correctly.

Of course, the answer is, “In God We Trust.” And it has been as such since the 1950s. This harkens back to America’s founding. Americans have been “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” says the Declaration of Independence, our national birth certificate. Remove the Creator and those rights are in jeopardy.

The Constitution was signed in the year of our Lord 1787 and in the 12th year of Independence. The Constitution is predicated upon the Declaration. The Declaration explains the why of our government (God-given rights). The Constitution explains the nuts and bolts of how it works.

Virtually all the early charters of the colonies and all the early constitutions of the original 13 states mention God in one way or another. As President Eisenhower once put it, “Recognition of the Supreme Being is the most basic expression of Americanism.”

“In God We Trust”? It sure doesn’t seem to be the case right now.

We see examples of this all over the place:

  • An honored veteran has been removed from his post in an athletic league. Why? He defended the National Anthem. Horrors.
  • Congressman Jerome Nadler representing New York said recently: “What any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress.”
  • Various pastors are battling over the notion that America is—or ever was—a Christian nation.

The fight over the National Anthem is an interesting conflict, because a little-sung verse at the end of “Oh Say, Can You See” is the source of our national motto, “In God We Trust.”

The verse says, “Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land / Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. / Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’”

The Lincoln administration was the first to add the words “In God We Trust” onto our coins—during the Civil War.

But today the National Anthem is under siege. It is more popular for the woke crowd to disrespect the National Anthem to celebrate it. It is being treated as if has something to do with racism in America’s past.

The National Anthem was born during the War of 1812, a conflict between the United States, a relatively new nation, and Great Britain. Black slavery had nothing to do with the conflict per se.

Human Events notes (3/4/21) that Seth Jahn, a Native-American who has served in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been removed from the U.S. Soccer Federation’s Athlete Council because he defends the National Anthem. Despite his 11 years’ service in the military, he has become persona non grata for wanting to honor America and its traditions.

He told the committee, “…in all of history, only one country has fought to abolish slavery, the United States of America, where nearly 400,000 men died to fight for the abolishment of slavery underneath the same stars and bars that our athletes take a knee for. Their sacrifice is tainted with every knee that touches the ground.” (Some estimate that number to be closer to 700,000.)

The founders of America spoke on numerous occasions about the importance of recognizing God’s help—even in our becoming a nation in the first place.

The very first inaugural address (April 30, 1789) delivered by the first president, George Washington, stressed the importance of our national obligation to thank God for His help that we even exist as a nation.

Said Washington, “No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

Our second president, John Adams, noted in a letter to our third president, Thomas Jefferson:

“The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite…And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity.”

But today a new crop of American leaders is trying to exclude God and Christian influence from having anything to do with the public arena. But since God is the source of our rights, that’s like the proverbial man sitting on a branch while he is busily trying to saw that limb off the tree.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Sidney Powell Explosive Defend Florida Interview & Important Call to Action

Sidney Powell gives us an update on the court cases related to the 2020 election. She maps a way for Americans to take back our country and institutions through civic involvement and support of candidates who will work for We the People and not corporate or foreign interests! Don’t miss her upcoming appearance at the National Unity Summit on March 21, 2021.

WATCH: Sidney Powell EXPLOSIVE Interview – Retaking American Freedom

©Defend Florida. All rights reserved.