U.S. to Israeli Delegation: Come If You Must, But Our Minds Are Made Up

BY HUGH FITZGERALD

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/05/u-s-to-israeli-delegation-come-if-you-must-but-our-minds-are-made-up;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

While Robert Malley sends, via intermediaries, his billets-doux to Iran’s negotiator Mohammed Javad Zarif in Vienna, Israel is sending a high-level delegation of security personnel, headed by Yossi Cohen, the director of Mossad, to Washington, hoping to make the case for American caution, rather than insensate haste, in returning to the JCPOA and lifting sanctions on Iran. A report on this difficult mission is here: “Israeli Security Officials Head to Washington to Share Iran Threat Intel as White House Says It Can’t Be Swayed on Nuclear Deal,” by Sharon Wrobel, Algemeiner, April 26, 2021:

A high-profile Israeli security delegation, headed by Mossad Director Yossi Cohen, is arriving in Washington this week to discuss the dangers of restoring the original 2015 Iranian nuclear accord just days after the White House signaled that the Biden administration will not be swayed to change its policy on the deal.

Ahead of the arrival of the delegation of Israeli senior security officials, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Friday answered “no” when asked at a press briefing whether the visit was likely to change the US administration’s stance on reviving the nuclear deal, to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is strongly opposed.

How indecent of the Bidenites to proclaim to the Israelis, even before they arrive, in front of the whole world, that there is nothing they can say to the Americans that will change their minds. Their minds are made up. The Americans don’t want to be reminded that just a few months ago they were themselves talking about the need “to lengthen and strengthen” the agreement with Iran. They are in no mood to listen to their closest ally in the Middle East. They don’t want to listen to the Israelis, who know better than anyone what Iran is up to with its nuclear program, understand how it plans to comply, or to pretend to, with the JCPOA, and what it will do in 2030 when it is allowed its “break out” and can manufacture, completely legally, nuclear weapons. They don’t want to listen to the Israelis, even though Israel, not America, is the main target of Iran’s nuclear program. How many times has Iran threatened to destroy the Jewish state? The Bidenites don’t want to hear about it. They don’t want to listen to the Israelis, whose tiny country’s very survival may depend on what agreement is concluded with Iran in Vienna and who, therefore, have beyond all others earned the right to be heard. The indifference of the Biden people to Israel’s attempt to present its arguments against a return to the Iran deal is unspeakable.

Despite Psaki’s statement, Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, argued that that “it is important that Israel shares all the relevant intelligence on Iran and articulates what the problem is with negotiating with Iran.”

The most persuasive arguments are made face-to-face,” Gold, who served as Director-General of the Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2015, told The Algemeiner. “In the past Israel and the US had different assumptions on Iranian behavior, which have now become even more pronounced. Iran’s record of compliance with signed agreements is very weak.”

Gold is too optimistic – or perhaps he simply won’t allow himself to believe that the Americans can be so idiotically close-minded.  He’s still talking about the value of making “arguments…face-to-face” but the Americans have already said that nothing that is presented to them, no information the Israelis bring with them about just-uncovered examples of Iranian deception, no news about Iran’s ballistic missile program, or the nuclear facilities just completed deep inside the mountain at Fordow, will change their minds. “Don’t confuse us with facts. Our minds are made up.”

…Michael Oren, Israel’s former Ambassador to the US, told The Algemeiner that he is concerned about the symbolic significance of the Israeli delegation traveling to Washington after the White House comments on Friday.

“This is kind of humiliating after Israel’s important ally in the Middle East said it will not listen. I would be very hesitant in sending this delegation,” Oren commented. “If we are going back to the JCPOA, which is flawed, there could be a very dangerous outcome.”

“There is a lot of visual appearance in this in that it shows that there was consultation with Israelis. We should be very careful [not] to legitimize the agreement,” Oren warned.

Oren is right: the Israelis are being humiliated by Jen Psaki’s unembarrassed acknowledgement that there is nothing the visitors can say, no new information that they may bring, that will change Administration minds. And by agreeing to meet with members of the delegation in Washington, the Biden people – Oren fears – can make it appear to Israel’s American supporters that they did, after all, consult with the Israelis.

…There are ongoing discussions — or negotiations, I should say, that are happening now — they’re indirect, of course — on the potential for a diplomatic path forward on the new — on a nuclear deal,” White House’s Psaki said on Friday. “As it relates to Israel, we have kept them abreast as a key partner of these discussions — or of our intentions, and we will continue to do that on any future visits.”

It is not true that the Bidenites have “kept them [the Israelis] abreast” of what’s been going on in Vienna. A great deal has not been shared, which is one source of Israeli anxiety. Nor has the Biden administration asked for Israel’s opinion on those negotiations, much less allowed any Israeli objections to be taken into account. The Biden administration wants this deal to go through. It will jump through whatever hoops the Iranians hold out. In February, it was still insisting that Iran had to go first, and fully return to the deal, before American sanctions would be lifted. Iran wouldn’t have it, and we no longer hear that condition precedent being mentioned.

Commenting on the ongoing talks in Vienna, Gold noted that “there is a real dilemma, because if you remove sanctions there is a huge windfall of funds that becomes available for terrorist activities in the Middle East and around the world. At least the Biden administration is talking about a longer and stronger deal but I don’t think that the Iranians will agree.”

Gold apparently hasn’t noticed that while the Biden administration did, very early on, talk about the need for a “longer and stronger deal,” it has ceased to mention that requirement altogether. Now it refers vaguely to another deal that might be reached after the return to the JCPOA by both sides is accomplished, but why would Iran at that point, having obtained the lifting of all the American sanctions, feel any pressure to agree to a second deal about ballistic missiles and regional aggression through proxies?

Gold suggested that before sanctions are lifted Iran needs to demonstrate that it has changed direction, that it will not help the Hezbollah in missile inventory, and that it is prepared to confine itself to the terms of a deal.

Dore Gold’s suggestions make sense, but there is not the slightest chance that Iran would agree to any of it, nor that the Biden administration would put the slightest pressure on Iran to accept it. The sanctions will be lifted without any further Iranian concessions on missiles to Hezbollah or anything else; sanctions-lifting will provide Iran with a bonanza calculated to be at least 100 billion dollars, money to spend on weapons for itself and for its proxies in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. Once it has the money, Iran will do what it likes, which means it will violate many of the terms of the JCPOA, just as it did between 2015 and 2018, when Donald Trump put an end to the farce, withdrew from the deal, and clamped crippling sanctions on Iran, that were just starting to have a devastating effect on Iran’s economy when the Biden cavalry came riding to Tehran’s rescue. And Israel will have to recognize that when it comes to foiling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Jewish state is now very much on its own.

 

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ties lifting COVID-19 restrictions to vaccination rate

Gov. Whitmer declares the entire state of Michigan to be a vaccine prison camp

In a move that smacks the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Michigan Gov. Whitmer, a malicious criminal and anti-American traitor, has just turned the entire state of Michigan into a vaccine prison camp. She has declared that gunpoint-enforced lockdowns will not end until up to 70 percent of the state's adults surrender to being injected with a deadly depopulation bioweapon called a "covid vaccine."

Under this tyrannical, illegal rule, the only way the people of Michigan can see their freedoms restored is to agree to be injected with a dangerous, experimental, gene-altering medical intervention that's already killing people by the thousands, all across the world.

Listen to the full, shocking details here.

Biden Rushes to Short Circuit the Economic Recovery

Biden Rushes to Short-Circuit the Economic Recovery Because He Has No Choice

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/04/23/biden-rushes-to-short-circuit-the-economic-recovery-because-he-has-no-choice-n1442287;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden is not a stupid man. He may believe crazy stuff but he certainly knows that raising taxes on the most productive members of society and their capital will choke off economic growth as the nation emerges from its self-inflicted, pandemic economic wounds.

With less growth and fewer jobs, Biden is fully aware of what his policies will do. But looking at the politics of Biden’s situation, you can see why he doesn’t feel he has a choice.

Unless Republicans shoot themselves in the foot, they are bound to win back at least one house of Congress. That telescopes Biden’s time to make good on the trillions of dollars in promises he made to every racial, ethnic, and gender identity group in America from four years to now less than two.

The more than $4 trillion he’s already sent out is just a downpayment. “Rebalancing the American economy,” as the New York Times likes to refer to Biden’s soak-the-rich plan, will cost at least double that amount in the long term. And the wrenching tax increases he needs to make it happen can only be found among the most successful Americans.

Axios:

The proposal, to be announced ahead of Biden’s address to Congress next Wednesday, is an opening bid for Hill negotiations.

  • “For New Yorkers, the combined state and federal capital gains rate could be as high as 52.22%. For Californians, it could be 56.7%,” Bloomberg News reported.
  • The Dow closed down more than 300 points after the plans leaked.

Practically and politically, the White House needs buy-in from Congress to pay for social spending in the next phase of his plan to reshape the American economy, the American Families Plan.

Add to that personal and state income tax and you can see why the Dow fell so precipitously. Taxing 60 percent of someone’s wealth is not “fair” and it’s not “equitable.” It’s confiscatory and radically discriminatory. But it’s OK because the rich can “afford it.”

It’s not just capital gains that will be targeted.

Biden also is likely to raise more revenue from the wealthy by making changes to estate taxes.

Biden wants to change the so-called “stepped up basis” for accounting purposes, and value assets when they are passed on to an heir, not at their original cost.

The White House thinks that change could lead more individuals to liquidate assets before they die, allowing the IRS to tax them then instead of encouraging families to keep passing on them for more favorable tax treatment.

Those “assets” are usually the life’s work of the taxpayer. They are “passed on” in a family after the death of a small business owner. Taxing a small business out of existence is not fair or compassionate.

Once Biden’s tax plan is in place, he must hope that Kamala Harris can win in 2024 or the whole scheme could unravel. The short-term political popularity of raising taxes on the “rich” will evaporate once taxpayers realize the middle class will be next when the tax plan falls short of revenue expectations.

It’s likely that Biden and the Democrats will find a way to blame Republicans when that happens.

A Terrifying Woke Witch Hunt Against Local Businesses

WITCH HUNT: Mass. Locals Organized to Force Businesses to Embrace BLM

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/22/mass-liberals-launch-woke-witch-hunt-against-local-businesses-n1441840;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Woke capitalism may be the least of your concerns. In the small town of Sturbridge, Mass., a group of 200 left-leaning citizens organized on Facebook to compile a list of businesses to avoid due to insufficient wokeness. The group even planned to present every local business with a pro-Black Lives Matter statement to sign — or face a local boycott. When a conservative blogger called the group out on this witch hunt, the group’s leader claimed she had deleted the list.

“Are we keeping a list somewhere of businesses folks may want to look through and possibly decide to avoid supporting (for reasons directly or indirectly related to this page)? If so, I was made aware of one yesterday on the Sturbridge MA Community page and wouldn’t mind adding it,” a local woman asked in the “Sturbridge against Racism” group, according to the blog Turtleboy Sports.

One of the group’s admins posted a list, explaining that “a local business working group that never took off” had intended to “use this to contact all businesses to ask where they stand” on Black Lives Matter. “Right now only the notes tab has what’s relevant.”

Sturbridge Witch Hunt
Facebook screenshot courtesy of Turtleboy Sports.

Turtleboy Sports published the entire document, which faulted many businesses for being insufficiently left-wing.

The document flagged Carrie and Company for being “pro-gun, homophobic/conservative extremist.” It flagged Hair Gallery Salon and Spa and Petrie Family Farm as “not progressive.” It warned that Jimmy D’s Ice Cream & Sandwich Shoppe “Made Facebook post in support of police,” as if any pro-police statement was inherently racist. It flagged Sturbridge Coffee House for supporting police in “events, march, signs.”

The document warned that Sturbridge Yankee Pedlar is “owned by a Trump supporter.” It flagged The Thrift Gypsy because the business “uses a racial slur in their name!” Perhaps most egregiously, the document flags the Federated Church of Sturbridge and Fiskdale — a church, not a business — for having “complained about a Pride flag at the library.”

The admin at the Sturbridge against Racism group lamented that the list had been leaked without permission. She then went on to claim that the witch hunt against insufficiently woke local businesses “is not a high priority issue” when “Black children are being murdered by police,” a reference to the police shooting of 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant, a black girl who appears to have been attacking people with a knife. While Black Lives Matter activists have seized on the situation as an abuse of force, authorities say the officer opened fire to save the life of Bryan’s intended victim.

Sturbridge Witch Hunt
Facebook screenshot courtesy of Turtleboy Sports.

Turtleboy Sports also shared a poll that dates back to June 2020 in which the Sturbridge against Racism administrator requests feedback on a pro-Black Lives Matter statement in order to lobby businesses and the town to support BLM.

Sturbridge Witch Hunt
Facebook screenshot courtesy of Turtleboy Sports.

The administrator appears to have shut the group down after failing to identify which member leaked the information. Turtleboy Sports released a list of the most noxious members of the group. Some of these people explicitly endorsed boycotting businesses owned by Trump supporters.

Sturbridge Witch Hunt
Facebook screenshot courtesy of Turtleboy Sports.

While this group of about 200 people in a town of 9,640 may not seem significant, this witch hunt is chilling. As large corporations increasingly take partisan stances on hot-button issues — most notably championing President Joe Biden’s absurd rhetoric against the Georgia election integrity law — leftists may also seek to bring grassroots pressure against local businesses that do not toe the far-Left’s line on various issues like Black Lives Matter.

Campaigns like this pit neighbor against neighbor and bring the divisive rancor of partisan politics to the core of everyday life. These witch hunts may drive Americans even further apart from one another and create a climate of fear at the local level.

Sickening E-mails Surface: FDA, NIH Buying Aborted Human Fetal Parts for Experiments

BY ANNALISA PESEK

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/sickening-e-mails-surface-fda-nih-buying-aborted-human-fetal-parts-for-experiments/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It was just a matter of time — though it took nearly 100 years — before Planned Parenthood would cancel its own founder, the suddenly “problematic” Margaret Sanger (1879–1966).

In an April 17 New York Times op-ed, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson admitted that “Up until now, Planned Parenthood has failed to own the impact of our founder’s actions. We have defended Sanger as a protector of bodily autonomy and self-determination while excusing her association with white supremacist groups and eugenics as an unfortunate ‘product of her time.’”

Sanger’s vision for limiting America’s black population through the championing of birth control and “healthcare services” is seamlessly outlined in her 1939 initiative “The Negro Project.” Sanger herself wrote about speaking at a Ku Klux Klan meeting in her autobiography and publicly supported the 1927 Supreme Court ruling Buck v. Bell, permitting the sterilization of “unfit” people without their consent. But Johnson is careful not to rush to judgment: “Whether our founder was a racist is not a simple yes or no question. Our reckoning is understanding her full legacy and its impact. Our reckoning is the work that comes next.”

But while the organization conducts its “woke” investigation, and this trivia makes the national news, the nefarious evils of America’s largest abortion provider remain buried.

Planned Parenthood faces ongoing investigations by U.S. House and Senate committees into their involvement in human fetal tissue trafficking — a federal felony — and illegal profiting from transfers of organs harvested from aborted human fetuses, yet, it’s clear abortion alone does not satisfy the agency. So it’s not surprising they would have come up with other ways to turn a profit.   

A harrowing report from Judicial Watch, published April 1, reveals that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has paid tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to obtain human fetal tissue from the California-based “procurement” firm Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), undoubtedly supplied by abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

According to the report, the fetal tissue was used in a sort of Frankenstein project to create “humanized mice” to test “biologic drug products.” To this day, research continues unimpeded on these lifeless, preborn babies, as no one can provide consent for medical experimentation on an aborted fetus — certainly, the mother would not object, as she is not concerned about what happens to her aborted child.

Now the pro-abortion side would say that fetal experimentation is a complete myth concocted by “anti-choice” activists stirring the pot over a “trivialized harm.” Yet records of tissue purchases between ABR and government agencies prove the reality is far from being all in our minds.

Judicial Watch has acquired communications from January 2011 to April 2018 between ABR procurement manager Perrin Larton and FDA research veterinary medical official Dr. Kristina Howard, confirming the purchase of organs from aborted human fetuses.

In an e-mail dated September 27, 2012, Howard submitted an application to Larton for “tissue purchases” in the amount of $12,000. The contract reportedly requested tissue from an aborted fetus with a gestational age of 16 to 24 weeks and “One set of tissue (thymus/liver) approx. twice monthly.”

Instructions stated that the tissues were to be shipped “fresh; on wet ice.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, whose watchdog group has released two previous sets of records exposing unlawful transactions between ABR and the FDA, had these remarks on the findings:

These fetal organ trafficking documents shock the conscience and show potentially illegal use of tax dollars to purchase organs of the unborn killed through abortion.

According to 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 — prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue, the purchase of human fetal tissue is “unlawful for any person who knowingly acquires, receives, or otherwise transfers any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.”

In March 2019, Judicial Watch moved forward with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against Health and Human Services (HHS), of which the FDA is a part (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services (No. 1:19-cv-00876). Additional records secured by the group demonstrate the National Institutes of Health (NIH) purchased aborted fetal parts for HIV research, paying “at least $18,100 between December 2016 and August 2018 to ABR for livers and thymuses from second-trimester aborted fetuses.”

Judicial Watch reported that “ABR has been the subject of criminal referrals from House and Senate committees investigating whether Planned Parenthood or any other entity was illegally profiting from the handling of fetal tissue from aborted babies.”

However, in March 2018, government agency officials determined that purchasing human fetal tissue for research purposes was not protected by federal regulations.

An “overview” supplied by ABR describes the firm as a “non-profit corporate foundation … devoted to providing services in connection with the procurement of human organs and tissues for medical and scientific research.”

Yet such a statement is deceptive, as ABR is most certainly capitalizing on abortions performed every few seconds in this country. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood rakes in triple the amount of money from one abortion, selling livers, brains, eyes, hearts — really whatever organs they can salvage. And now it’s up to the courts, and so far many judges have been complicit in continuing this evil, though they hold the power to stop it.

These 107 Corporations Signal Opposition to Election Integrity

BY JARRETT STEPMAN

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/15/these-107-corporations-signal-opposition-to-election-integrity;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The top executives of some of the largest corporations on the planet released a statement on Wednesday saying they support “democracy.”

If that sounds bland and terribly nonspecific, you get the gist of the statement, which was the product of a summit of more than 100 CEOs and executives. The summit was convened in response to passage of Georgia’s election-integrity law and similar legislation being considered in other states.

The collective corporate statement was released in the form of an ad, which appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.

Here’s what it said:

A government of the people, by the people. A beautifully American ideal, but a reality denied to many for much of this nation’s history. As Americans, we know that in our democracy we should not expect to agree on everything. However, regardless of our political affiliations, we believe the very foundation of our political process rests upon the ability of each of us to cast our ballots for the candidates of our choice.

For American democracy to work, we must ensure the right to vote for all of us. We should all feel a responsibility to defend the right to vote and to oppose any discriminatory legislation or measures that restrict or prevent any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.

Voting is the lifeblood of democracy, and we call upon all Americans to join us in taking a nonpartisan stand for this most basic and fundamental right of all Americans.

This is so generic it makes one wonder what the point of the ad was. The Georgia election-integrity law isn’t mentioned at all, nor are any other specific laws.

A list of more than 100 corporate signatories that appeared in the ad can be found at the bottom of this article. It includes Apple, the Ford Motor Co., PayPal, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Under Armor, Sweetgreen, and American Express, among many others.

So, unless you don’t use the internet, drive a car, use large banking institutions, wear clothes, eat food you didn’t grow yourself, or pretty much function at all in modern life, you are almost certain to find companies you interact with on the list.

And, of course, The New York Times did its best to shame the companies that didn’t sign the statement.

Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines, two of the companies that were most public and vocal about the Georgia voting law, were not on the list of the statement’s signatories.

What’s to be made of their collective statement?

One wonders if the only truly animating “nonpartisan” issue these corporate titans are standing for is democracy, why do we see no similar collective statements in response to the autocratic and deeply anti-democratic policies of communist China, for instance?

“There is overwhelming support in corporate America for this principle of voting rights,” Kenneth Chenault, the former chief executive of American Express Co., said in the days before the meeting. “The right to vote is fundamental to America. It is not a partisan issue.”

Isn’t the right to vote fundamental in other countries, too?

Again, why was there no dramatic corporate summit to address the end of democracy when China was squeezing the life out of the last vestiges of free government in Hong Kong?

This is corporate posturing, little more than virtue signaling that they are all aboard the cause of the woke, social justice left.

It isn’t about “democracy” at all. It’s a typical corporate-speak way of demonstrating that they are committed to the cultural left and the policy priorities of the Democratic Party.

Though the product of this confab ended up being little more than insipid, nonspecific mush, the implications of this turn in corporate behavior should worry Americans.

Are these companies now going to constantly collaborate to bully and threaten states and elected officials who don’t pursue the policy agenda of the activist left?

Not only that, in spite of this corporate insistence on “democracy,” threatening states that pass laws through their democratically elected officials seems quite anti-democratic.

Such a turn further erodes public trust in private corporate institutions and makes them very much the opposite of “nonpartisan.” That only adds fuel to the fire of our current civic discord.

These trends are disturbing, but at least they are revealing. The rise of woke corporatism can no longer be ignored.

Accenture

AIG

Airbnb

Alphabet

Amazon

American Airlines

American Express 

Apple

Bain & Company

Bank of America

Berkshire Partners

Best Buy

Biogen

BlackRock

BMC Software

Boston Consulting Group

Broadridge Financial Solutions

Cambridge Associates

Cisco

Civic Entertainment Group

Climb Credit

CODAworx

Cowboy Ventures

Creative Artists Agency

Dell Technologies

Deloitte

Discover Financial Services

Dropbox

Eaton

Emerson Collective

Estee Lauder

Eventbrite

EY

Facebook

Ferrara

FirstMark Capital

Ford Motor Co.

General Catalyst

General Motors

Goldman Sachs

Harry’s

Hess

IBM

Insight Partners Leadership

Instacart

Intelligentsia Coffee

Johnson & Johnson

Jazz Lincoln Center

JetBlue

Khosla Ventures

Levi Strauss & Co.

Live Nation Entertainment

Loop Capital Markets

Lyft

M&T Bank

MasterCard

McKinsey & Company

Merck

Microsoft

Mondelez International

Netflix

Newell Brands

Nordstrom

Otherwise Incorporated

Paper Source

PayPal

Peloton

Pinterest

Plaid

Predxion Bio

PwC

Reddit

REI Co-op

Richer Poorer

Salesforce

ServiceNow

Seventh Generation

Slow Ventures

Smith & Company

Sodexo USA

SodexoMAGIC

Sonos

Sound Ventures

Spark Capital 

Square

Starbucks

Steelcase

SurveyMonkey

Sweetgreen

Synchrony

T. Rowe Price

Target

Tory Burch

Tripadvisor

Twilio

Twitter

Under Armour

United Airlines

United Talent Agency

Vanguard

ViacomCBS

VMware

Warburg Pincus

Warby Parker

Wells Fargo

Zendesk

Zola

China sends largest air incursion into Taiwan; Lawmakers worldwide condemn attack on HONG KONG EPOCH TIMES free press; PRINTING MACHINES DESTROYED WITH SLEDGE HAMMERS

American and European politicians condemn attacks against The Epoch Times printing house in Hong Kong. This after masked men smashed computers and printing machinery. Beijing is boosting pressure on Taiwan. It sent a record number of warplanes flying near the island, the largest incursion to date. A bold photo message from the U.S. to communist China, warning the country's Navy not to step out of line. It was taken in the South China sea. Chinese authorities make over $800 in three minutes. And it's all thanks to a traffic camera and the regime's administrative power. And Australia’s new Defense Minister is taking a hard line against Beijing. He’s calling out the regime for cyberattacks against Australia.

STARTS AROUND THE 3:30 MINUTE MARK: 

IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE: ARSON ATTACK IN 2019: 

Biden Courts Big Business as Wall Street Opposes Election Integrity

Biden Courts Big Business as Wall Street Opposes Election Integrity

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/biden-courts-big-business-as-wall-street-opposes-election-integrity/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As the Democrat Party has moved further left, so has Big Business, making for an unholy new alliance that poses a powerful threat to American freedoms.

President Joe Biden is reportedly aware of the falling out between the Republican Party and corporate America and is ready to work together with Wall Street to push socialist policies on the public both through government and the private sector.

“What President Biden realizes is that business is now ready to engage and they are an important voice at the table,” Valerie Jarrett, a former advisor to President Obama, told Politico. “Big business isn’t simply relying on Republicans to look out for their interests. They’re looking out for their own interests and getting more involved.”

Over recent years, the business community has increasingly become more politically active — and the bent of that activity has tended to sway left.

For example, PayPal canceled plans to build an operations center in North Carolina in 2016 owing to a state law prohibiting “transgender” individuals from using public restrooms opposite their biological sex. In 2018, Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods raised the age requirement for gun sales in response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Many Americans are also concerned about left-wing bias at Big Tech corporations, which has led to the censoring, banning, demonetizing, and suppressing of predominantly conservative accounts.

Moreover, major companies have recently condemned efforts by Georgia and other states to make their election processes more secure, suggesting Republican lawmakers are simply reacting poorly to Biden’s defeat of Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

In fact, hundreds of corporations on Wednesday signed a letter denouncing legislation that restricts “any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.”

The signatories of the letter include General Motors, Netflix, Starbucks, Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett.

The statement itself was facilitated by former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, and came after companies such as Delta Air Lines, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Google had already spoken out against Georgia’s election-reform bill.

As Politico notes, the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty is involved in the effort to merge the Democrat Party’s socialism with Big Business’ financial power:

Last weekend, more than 100 business leaders held a rare online meeting to discuss what action they should take in the wake of similar voting bills being considered in states across the country. Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founder of the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism and one of the three people who helped coordinate the meeting, urged Biden to be more vocal about his desire to work with business leaders.

“My inclination is to trust him to not be in the pockets of corporations at the expense of people and planet but he definitely wants to have a vibrant business community that takes care of our society,” she said in an interview.

Joining in the fight against Republican election-integrity bills are Wall Street firms and attorneys at some of the nation’s top law offices.

The New York Times reports that these firms are working with the Brennan Center for Justice, which is heavily funded by billionaire George Soros.

In 2019, the Brennan Center for Justice not only took money from Soros’s Open Society Foundations but from the Ford Foundation; Bank of America; the Tides Foundation; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; PayPal; JPMorgan Chase; Microsoft; PepsiCo; and Comcast NBCUniversal.

The center’s effort involves targeting state legislators in Georgia, Texas, New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona to stop “voter suppressive bills,” which includes legislation mandating ID to vote.

“I do think he has an appreciation of the role that corporate America can play in addressing what we would define as social, political and cultural issues — not the least because he understands consumer-facing businesses have an imperative to understand their market,” a Biden advisor said.

The GOP has traditionally been considered to be the party of Big Business, but this dynamic has changed, as Republican voters feel ever more disenchanted with the companies using their power to assault conservative principles.

Republicans are increasingly open to restrictions on corporations, especially on Silicon Valley firms.

Concerns about the power of such corporations have prompted proposals from some Republicans, such as Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who this week introduced his Trust-Busting for the Twenty-First Century Act to further empower federal regulators to break the monopolistic practices of Big Tech firms.

It appears that the GOP is no longer the party of Big Business. And corporate America is no longer a place for constitutionalists.

100 Woke CEOs Gather to Oppose Election Integrity Laws

Woke Capitalism Revs Into High Gear: 90 CEOs Gather to Fight 'Undemocratic' Voter Integrity Laws

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/11/gird-your-loins-woke-ceos-gather-to-fight-against-election-integrity-laws-n1439118;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Nearly 100 of America’s top corporate leaders and CEOs gathered both in-person and virtually on Saturday to strategize ways to combat new election integrity laws like Georgia’s H.B. 531. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale University management professor who helped organize the meeting, framed it as a response to threats of reprisals after Georgia-based companies like Delta Air Lines, Coca-Cola, and Aflac Insurance condemned the Georgia bill. He called election integrity measures “anti-undemocratic.”

“The gathering was an enthusiastic voluntary statement of defiance against threats of reprisals for exercising their patriotic voices,” Sonnenfeld told CBS News. The corporate leaders “recognize that they need to step up to the plate and are not fearful of these reprisals. They’re showing a disdain for these political attacks. Not only are they fortifying each other, but they see that this spreading disease of voter restrictions from Georgia to up to possibly 46 other states is based on a false premise and its’ anti-democratic.”

Former President Donald Trump called for a boycott of Delta, Coca-Cola, and Major League Baseball (MLB) and other companies after they condemned the Georgia law, repeating Democratic talking points that smeared the legislation. “Boycott all of the woke companies that don’t want Voter I.D. and Free and Fair Elections,” Trump said in a statement last week.

Georgia House Sends Woke Capital a Wake-up Call After False Attacks on Election Integrity Law

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also condemned the companies for spreading misinformation about the bill. He briefly suggested reprisals for companies that smeared the legislation, and then withdrew his threat.

Contrary to Sonnenfeld’s claim, election integrity laws are not “based on a false premise” and they are not “un-democratic.” While some have claimed that Joe Biden won the presidential election due to fraud, the reality is far more complicated. Biden most likely won with the most legal votes, but last-minute election changes and cash infusions from the Center for Tech and Civic Life tilted the playing field in his favor. Voters are rightly concerned about election integrity and the new laws represent a response to these abuses — not an attack on legal voting.

CTCL sent funds to election offices in blue areas, ramping up turnout that benefitted Joe Biden. Georgia’s new law rightly makes this practice illegal. The law also requires voters to present a valid photo ID to register for an absentee ballot. The Washington Post gave President Joe Biden four Pinocchios for repeatedly claiming that the Georgia law “ends voting hours early.” In fact, the bill extended voting hours.

According to a recent poll from the Honest Elections Project, 77 percent of Americans support requiring an ID to vote. This includes majorities of self-identified Biden voters (62 percent to 24 percent opposed), black voters (64 percent to 22 percent opposed), and Latino voters (78 percent to 16 percent opposed). Most voters (64 percent) said they want to strengthen voting safeguards to prevent fraud, rather than eliminate them to make voting “easier.” Even majorities of black voters (51 percent), Hispanic voters (66 percent), urban voters (59 percent), and Independent voters (61 percent) agreed.

Yet the Democratic-legacy media echo chamber has been blasting the false narrative that Georgia’s new law is a racist attempt to prevent black voters from going to the polls. Biden has condemned the law as “Jim Crow on steroids,” even though Georgia’s election laws are far less stringent than those of Biden’s home state of Delaware or MLB’s home state of New York.

The CBS News report on the CEO gathering illustrates this leftist bias. CBS News cited the Brennan Center for Justice, an organization dedicated to the values of left-leaning Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, the “father of modern judicial activism.” While the group purports to be “nonpartisan,” it has received substantial funding from organizations associated with George Soros and other leftist groups.

The Brennan Center frames the 361 bills to further election integrity, proposed in 47 states, as measures “that would restrict voting access.” At least 55 of the bills are moving through legislatures in 24 states. Twenty-nine have passed one chamber, and five bills have been signed into law. Sonnenfeld’s number of states considering these bills — 47 — seems to trace back to the Brennan Center.

To launch the CEO meeting, Sonnenfeld teamed up with Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the founding partner of Inclusive Capital Partners — a left-leaning investment manager — and Leadership Now, a group of Harvard University alumni and corporate leaders that claims to focus on sustaining democracy.

“We invited 120 CEO’s with about 50 hours notice. We were praying for 25 and we got 90 CEO’s and another 30 invited guests including legal experts, technology experts and historians,” Sonnenfeld told CBS News. He said the CEOs united to combat the backlash that Delta and Coca-Cola faced.

“These CEOs said, ‘Enough of that, we’re going to come together and reinforce our fellow CEOs.’ It was a statement of affirmation that the voice of business in the political world is worthwhile,” he said.

Some CEOs joined the Zoom conference from Augusta National Golf Course, the site of the Masters PGA golf tournament, while others joined remotely. Attendees included NFL Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank; James Murdoch, the son of Rupert Murdoch; AMC Theaters CEO Adam Aron; law firm chairman Brad Karp; Ariel Investments co-CEO Mellody Hobson; Walmart CEO Doug McMillon; United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby; American Airlines CEO Doug Parker; Levi Strauss Company Chairman Chip Bergh; LinkedIN CEO Reid Hoffman; and others.

Former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier spoke on the call, among others. Frazier helped organize the 72 current and former black CEOs who blasted the Georgia bill in a joint statement.

“Obviously there’s been a big wake up call over the last few weeks. The business community doesn’t want to be caught on their heels about this. So it’s about protecting leadership and not missing out on an opportunity to do so,” an anonymous source told CBS News.

The meeting reportedly ended without any concrete game plan or timetable but with a general plan to draft responses to election integrity laws on a firm-by-firm basis.

Sources from the meeting told CBS News that the CEOs discussed McConnell’s comments but they generally mocked the senator’s stance.

“There was humor and mockery about that,” one participant told CBS News. This source add that another person on the call “made a reference to ‘just give us your money and stay quiet.’ Another said, ‘isn’t it ironic who’s talking about cancel culture?'”

“It wasn’t a primary area of discussion,” another participant said of McConnell’s comments, “but certainly everyone is cognizant of it and aware of it. In no way was he an impetus for this – talk of doing this meeting started before he spoke out.”

While it has been harrowing to see MLB pull out of Georgia and so many CEOs condemn a state based on utter lies about election integrity laws, it seems the forces of woke capitalism are gathering to launch an all-out assault on measures like voter ID and attempts to address the irregularities in the 2020 election. Conservatives cannot back down. We need to explain why the Left’s narrative about these laws is dead wrong and we need to put pressure on CEOs who mobilize against election integrity.

‘Woke’ corporations attack GEORGIA’s new voter IDENTIFICATION law, while signing deals with Communist China

Rumble — Major 'woke' corporations like Coca Cola and Major League Baseball are attacking Georgia over its new voter ID laws. However, the same corporations are all too happy to do business with communist China. One America's Pearson Sharp explains.

3 Ways Americans are RISING UP and FIGHTING BACK Against Woke Corporate America!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PATH TO FREEDOM! ★★★

Americans are RISING UP and FIGHTING BACK Against Woke Corporate America! In this video, we’re going to look at 3 ways more and more Americans are pushing back against the woke left, how even the truly woke left are actually rejecting the politically correct antics of corporate America, and how one trend in particular promises not only to be the wave of the future, but a future free from the woke left! You are NOT going to want to miss this!

EPOCH TIMES; AMERICAN THOUGHT LEADERS: KT McFarland-How Communist China Is Exploiting Perceived U.S. Weakness and Becoming More Aggressive

In recent weeks, the Chinese Communist Party has skillfully exploited arguments about race to try to discredit the American system, says former Trump deputy national security adviser KT McFarland. Propaganda and disinformation campaigns are a critical part of the Chinese Communist Party’s strategy of unrestricted warfare against the United States. At the same time, the regime has brought its economic power to bear on those that dare cross the regime. After H&M took a stand against forced labor in Xinjiang, it vanished from Chinese e-commerce stores, ratings apps, and even Apple Maps in China. “China plans to remake the world in its own image,” McFarland says. What should the Biden administration do to protect the United States from CCP aggression? #china #antonyblinken #xinjiang

China Is Stepping Up Pressure on Western Brands for Speaking Up Against Forced Uyghur Labor & GENOCIDE

China Is Stepping Up Pressure on Western Brands for Speaking Up Against Forced Uyghur Labor

BY

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/china-is-stepping-up-pressure-on-western-brands-for-speaking-up-against-forced-uyghur-labor/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

For years China has sought to draw moral equivalence with the West over human rights, insisting that other countries have no standing to criticize its policies. Now Beijing is making Western companies pay for raising ethical concerns.

As hard as many multinational businesses strive to avoid getting pulled into whimsical twists of foreign policy, the reports that China runs forced-labor camps out of Xinjiang — an area that produces about 20 percent of the world’s cotton — made it much harder for corporations to avoid political involvement. With increased fervor on social media demanding businesses take stances on hot-button political issues, China’s monstrous abuse of Uyghur people didn’t go unnoticed.

This week, China fought back. It stepped up pressure on foreign shoe and clothing brands to reject or deny reports of abuses and forced Uyghur labor in Xinjang. State media called for a boycott of Swedish brand H&M and America’s Nike and others for saying they would no longer use cotton from Xinjiang. China also criticized other brands (Adidas, New Balance, Burberry, Massimo Dutti, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Uniqlo) for expressing concern about reports of forced labor. Under pressure from Beijing and their threatened bottom lines, some retailers have retracted their condemnations, and either quietly deleted them from their websites or actually bowed to Beijing and apologized for the criticism. Some others took a stand.

H&M was among the latter, so Chinese platforms not only scrubbed H&M’s clothing listings, but also the company’s addresses and geolocations (the ability of tech products to locate a store). On Weibo, a Chinese social media site, more than 32 million people used the hashtag “I support Xinjiang cotton.” Millions of comments read “Die, H&M, die” and “Any b—- who still dares to work at this place should also jump off a building.” In a YouTube video published by the China Global Television Network, a network owned by the Communist Party of China, Chinese bystanders across all demographics condemned H&M for its “nonsense” accusations. Dozens of Chinese celebrities openly cut ties with “blacklisted” brands out of national solidarity.

Even though companies have been speaking out against slave labor in China for a while, it is only now that China has aggressively countered the message. The sudden backlash appears to be in retaliation to a recent statement from high-level government officials from around the world. The United States, Canada, the U.K., and the European Union teamed up to condemn China’s human-rights violations toward Xinjiang’s Uyghur minority. And the countries levied sanctions on top Chinese officials, including Wang Junzheng, the secretary of the Party Committee of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), and Chen Mingguo, director of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (XPSB). According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the XPCC is a paramilitary organization that “enhances internal control over the region by advancing China’s vision of economic development in [Xinjiang] that emphasizes subordination to central planning and resource extraction.” Treasury also notes that “since at least late 2016, repressive tactics have been used by the XPSB against the Uyghurs and members of other ethnic minorities in the region, including mass detentions and surveillance.”

Beijing hit back with a money stick. “When the stick of sanctions is brandished on Xinjiang, it will also hit your own head,” a spokesman for the Xinjiang regional government, Xu Guixiang, said at a news conference in Beijing. According to Bloomberg, shares of H&M, Nike Inc., and others plummeted as Chinese government officials endorsed the boycotts and Chinese celebrities dropped contracts with the brands.

The tensions between the United States and China have increasingly intensified over Beijing’s human-rights record and allegations Xi Jinping’s government is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. The State Department formalized its accusations that China has engaged in “genocide and crimes against humanity” on March 30. The document cites Beijing’s “mass detention” of the Uyghurs, as well as evidence of forced sterilization, rape, torture, and forced labor.

Previously, on January 13, 2021, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced a ban on all imports of tomato and cotton products “made by slave labor” in Xinjiang. At his first solo news conference, even though President Joe Biden vowed to be “unrelenting” in calling attention to China’s human-rights abuses, his statement followed a confused and eyebrow-raising assertion about the “different cultural norms” that shaped Beijing’s policies, indicating he really didn’t mean it: “And so the idea I’m not going to speak out against what he [Xi Jinping] is doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in the western mountains of China and Taiwan, trying to end the One China policy by making it forceful — I said — and by the — he said he — he gets it. Culturally, there are different norms that each country and they — their leaders — are expected to follow,” and reminded that China had been victimized by the West in the past.

Beijing officials vehemently deny accusations of human rights abuses and initiated a campaign spearheaded by state-owned media outlets on Western social media platforms, claiming it has not forced Uyghur Muslims to pick cotton and that it has mechanical harvesters.

Among others claims, the Chinese Foreign Ministry tweeted, “Allegations of ‘genocide’ and ‘forced labor’ in Xinjiang are lies of the century. Xinjiang’s Uyghur population more than doubled in the past 40 years. Have you ever seen this kind of genocide?” and it accused the U.S. government of being responsible for native Indians being “expelled” and “slaughtered” 100 years ago.

According to an independent report released on March 8, compiled by more than 50 global experts specializing in international law, genocide, and the China region, the Chinese government’s actions in Xinjiang have violated every single provision in the UN’s Genocide Convention.

Joe Biden’s ‘Vaccine Passport’ Sounds Like Precursor to China’s Social Credit Score. Here’s How China’s Plan Works

BY VICTORIA TAFT

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/03/31/joe-bidens-vaccine-passport-sounds-like-precursor-to-chinas-social-credit-score-heres-how-chinas-plan-works-n1436322;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Even as the nation begins to round the corner on the coronavirus pandemic, Joe Biden and his Democratic buddies don’t want what’s left of the crisis to go to waste. Enter his “vaccine passports.”

Biden’s White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says any vaccine passports will be outsourced to Big Tech, but Acting Medicare and Medicaid Services chief, Andy Slavitt, says, “This is going to hit all parts of society, and so naturally, the government is involved.”

Outsourcing Vaccine Passport to Big Tech

The passport sounds like the continuation of ObamaCare, but hitting “all parts of society” to achieve compliance. As I reported in PJ Media, the current goal is to have everyone get a COVID shot, but one could imagine the “existential threat” of global warming or any other scheme Democrats come up with to curb your use of energy or affect the kind of car you drive, for example. If you’re lugging around too many pounds, one could imagine giving brownie points for eating well, which conversely means you’d get docked for eating French fries.

New York Magazine reports the passport would be wide in scope.

[P]roof of vaccination “may be a critical driver for restoring baseline population health and promoting safe return to social, commercial, and leisure activities.” There is also some focus-group evidence that vaccine passports could help convince Americans who do not want to get inoculated to sign up for a shot. [emphasis added]

As I wrote at PJ Media, liberal author and feminist Naomi Wolf notes that the government and its buddies in Big Tech could put anything on the existing platform in the future and it would be the “end of human liberty in the West.” Not to mention destroying constitutional protections and breaking several laws.

A government interagency committee has been convened to consider how Big Tech might implement vaccine passports to determine if you may travel or go to large events.

Somewhere left behind is the question of constitutionality or ethics.

How It Works

The worldwide pandemic vaccine passport being proposed appear to be a lighter version (for the moment) of China’s social credit score scheme. This divides people into camps, the trustworthy and the untrustworthy. “Trustworthy” people who hew to government diktat would get more points. This is a scheme we feel sure the Left is going to love. You can guess which group you’d be in.

China’s rulers in the Communist Party began pre-announcing its social credit score in 2014. It was rolled out soon thereafter and was to have been country-wide by 2020.

Vox reports that the government’s goal in setting up the system was to “help ensure a model society in which “sincerity and trustworthiness become conscious norms of action among all the people.”

The Chinese social credit scheme is a series of databases keeping track of each person to “provide a holistic assessment of an individual or a company’s trustworthiness, based on a numerical score.”

Drew Donnelly, Ph.D., writes about the scoring system and finds “the social credit system has some similarities with the credit ratings provided for individuals and corporations in other countries, but captures information on a wider variety of behaviors.” [Emphasis added]

It’s believed that in addition to a database, the Chinese government would likely use, if it isn’t already, facial recognition technology from the ubiquitous surveillance cameras – an estimated 200-million of them.

The Point System

The way it works is that each person in China starts with 1000 points.

Every time someone does something the government doesn’t like they’re docked points. If you don’t visit your aging parents, for example, your score suffers. “Illegally” protesting, writing things the government doesn’t like on social media, “spreading rumors” on social media, being part of a “cult” – a religious system not endorsed by government, such as Falun Gong, will make you a near-outcast. If you offer up “insincere apologies” for all manner of offenses, from drunk driving to jaywalking (including the above offenses), it will cost you points.

Considering that Big Tech is being asked to take point on this vaccine passport and what comes afterward, and its propensity to censor conservatives, you can imagine how this will work out for you. Big Tech is already hoovering up all your personal information and political proclivities right now.

Good behavior includes not doing any of the things just outlined, praising the government on social media, donating blood, doing charity work, having good credit, and performing acts of heroism. The highest social credit score is 1300 points.

If one gets any score below 600, they’re graded “D” and are deemed an untrustworthy person, according to Vox.

Named and Shamed on ‘Blacklists’

Business Insider reports that there are several ways that the man can stick it to the little guy with a low social credit score such as preventing you from being able to buy tickets to travel or stay in hotels; throttling your internet speed; banning you and your kids from good schools; or preventing you from getting good jobs, for openers.

If they don’t like you they can even take your dog.

Untrustworthy people are publicly shamed on several blacklists. Donnelly reports that by 2019 some “23 million people [had] been blacklisted from traveling by plane or train due to low social credit scores as issued by China’s National Public Credit Information Center. It is reasonable to assume that this will continue as part of China’s social credit system.”

Fortune reports that China has turned itself into what sounds like a dystopian Hotel California.

China’s National Public Credit Information Center on Friday released a report that said it stopped 17.5 million people from buying airplane tickets and 5.5 million from hopping on a train in 2018 because they had low “social credit” scores. Another 290,000 people were stopped from getting a high-paying senior management job and 128 people couldn’t leave the country because they hadn’t yet paid taxes, according to the Associated Press, which obtained a copy of the report. [emphasis added]

Joe and His Cadres Would Be Exempted

The president and vice president would not be issued vaccine passports. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says that President Biden wouldn’t be issued a vaccine passport since he flies on private jets.

Well, I would say the president travels, as does the vice president, on a private plane. That is the purview of every president and vice president throughout American history. That is, of course, different than traveling on a commercial flight and going to mass events. As you know, we don’t — the president is not hosting rallies, nor is the vice president. We take the role of sending — being models quite seriously. But I think most Americans would recognize the difference.

As in China, the ruling cadres are not subject to the same rules as the “workers.”

Add to this scenario the changes in the election system Democrats are trying to cram through and the latest iteration of the Green New Deal and we’re afraid there’s not much room for God-given individual rights under the U.S. Constitution.

We have a collective to run, individuals to shame, and conservatives to re-educate, after all.

Goodbye, America.

Victoria Taft is the host of The Adult in the Room Podcast With Victoria Taft” where you can hear her series on “Antifa Versus Mike Strickland.” Find it here. Follow her on FacebookTwitterParlerMeWeMinds @VictoriaTaft 

Liberal Author Naomi Wolf Warns ‘Vaccine Passports’ Are the ‘End of Human Liberty in the West’
Biden’s ‘Screw America’ Terrible Trifecta of Tyranny Begins With ‘Vaccine Passports’ and a Side of Open Borders

_______________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: 

Liberal Author Naomi Wolf Warns 'Vaccine Passports' Are the 'End of Human Liberty in the West'

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/03/30/liberal-author-naomi-wolf-warns-vaccine-passports-are-the-end-of-human-liberty-in-the-west-n1436064

EXCERPTS:

Wolf, who started a tech site that she says is meant to bring the right and left together, says the passport would divide people between haves and have nots: those who have had the COVID shot and those who have not. In her words, it “is literally the end of human liberty in the West if this plan unfolds as planned.”

Here’s what she means, in case you haven’t figure it out yourself.

Vaccine passports sound like a fine thing if you don’t know what those platforms can do. I’m CEO of a tech company, I understand what this platform does. It’s not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about data. And once this rolls out you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all.

Wolf told Fox News host Steve Hilton that Big Tech companies will oversee all of your personal information and intermingle it with information that government will use to determine if you’re eligible to be able to travel and do anything else in polite society. President Biden signed an executive order in January to coordinate with other countries to track people to stop the spread of COVID.

 

China issues new sanctions for U.S. officials and members of Canada’s parliament

To boycott or not to boycott? It’s a dilemma some Chinese sports associations are facing over footwear brand Nike. Hundreds of million-dollar contracts link them to the American brand.

Fashion brand Hugo Boss is dealing with trouble over cotton from Xinjiang. Its back-and-forth attitude has some calling the company “two-faced.”

Will the United States punish communist China over its lack of pandemic transparency? The U.S. Secretary of State appears hesitant to give details.

How do Chinese communist leaders approach the United States, and what are their plans to defeat it? A bombshell speech tells all.

Biden COVID Team Considers Using ChiCom-Based Tracking App That Allows Businesses To Deny Unvaccinated Americans

The proposal would amount to a more extreme version of the 'vaccine passports' being rolled out by airlines and some U.S. cities

Invasive app assigns users a 'health status' - green, yellow, or red - that dictates access to public spaces similar to China's Alipay app

EXCERPTS: 

Joe Biden’s coronavirus task force entertained a contact-tracing app that would allow businesses to deny services to people based on their health data, according to a report.

According to a PowerPoint presentation obtained by The Washington Beacon, the app, developed by the University of Illinois, assigns users a “health status”—green, yellow, or red—that dictates access to public spaces similar to the Alipay Health Code program implemented by Communist China.

“The school’s system uses a mobile app that records test results and Bluetooth data to determine who has been exposed to the virus—and ‘links building access’ on campus to that information. Local businesses have also embraced it, making entry conditional on a ‘safe status’ reading from the app,” The Beacon reported.

 

Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly

March 22, 2021

Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

SEE: https://tinyletter.com/Rachel_Bovard/letters/leaked-docs-show-obama-ftc-gave-google-its-monopoly

Good afternoon,

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission had an opportunity to go after Google on antitrust grounds. In 2013, the agency closed the investigation and dropped the case. A remarkable leak of those investigatory documents -- usually kept confidential -- reveals the extent to which the FTC relied on speculative economic forecasting over actual evidence of market distortions. Moreover, the pressure Google applied to the FTC through its deep ties to the Obama Administration suggest that the lack of enforcement had a political bent.

My take on all of this -- and what it means as Congress grapples with our antitrust laws and the growing power of Big Tech -- in the piece below.

Thanks,
Rachel
 Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly After Google Execs Helped Obama Get Re-Elected

Leaked documents from the FTC's 2012 investigation of

Google show exactly what is wrong with the state of American antitrust enforcement.

Eight years ago, the Federal Trade Commission had the chance to face down Google — the giant of Silicon Valley whose power now alters the free flow of information at a global scale, distorts market access for businesses large and small, and changes the nature of independent thought in ways the world has never experienced.

Instead, the FTC blinked — and blinked hard, choosing to close the investigation in early 2013. A remarkable leak to Politico of agency documents about the 2012 Google investigation reveals that, despite ample evidence of market distortions and threats to competition presented by the agency’s lawyers, the five commissioners of the FTC deferred instead to speculative claims by their economists.

Records and reporting about the 2012 investigation suggest the FTC did so while bending to political pressure from the Obama White House — which was, in turn, bending to political pressure from Google. William Kovacic, a former FTC chair under President George W. Bush, reviewed the more than 3,00 pages of documents leaked to Politico and concluded the agency overlooked “what many experts and regulators would consider clear antitrust violations,” calling the specificity of issues outlined “breathtaking.”

In short, where we find ourselves today — with Google as the primary filter of the world’s information, engaging in a network of exclusionary contracts and anti-competitive conduct, and subject to an antitrust lawsuit led by the Department of Justice and joined by 48 state attorneys general — could have, and should have, been avoided.

That it wasn’t, however, provides key takeaways about where we are now with Big Tech, and, in particular, the method of enforcement of our antitrust laws, whose application has become too tightly wrapped around the axle of price, and captured by the speculative science of economic forecasting. It also reveals just how politicized antitrust enforcement has become — influenced by the siren song of internet exceptionalism and the powerful tug of Google, one of the world’s richest companies.

The Economists Were Wrong

Perhaps the most stunning takeaway in the 2012 documents is the extent to which the recommendations of the FTC’s lawyers sharply differed from those of the agency’s economists, on whose judgment the FTC commissioners ultimately relied in their decision to drop the investigation into Google.

The FTC’s antitrust attorneys concluded that Google was breaking the law by “banishing potential competitors” with a series of exclusionary contracts on mobile phones — much of which forms the basis for the lawsuit brought nearly a decade later by the Trump Department of Justice. The FTC’s economists, however, demurred, insisting that claims of Google’s market dominance were unfounded and would soon give way to competition. This required a markedly un-curious treatment of key facts.

The economists claimed, for example, that Google only represented 10 to 20 percent of the referral traffic to retail sites — disregarding statements from Google itself that those numbers were unreliable, as well as evidence from staff attorneys that Google’s referral traffic to retail provided closer to 70-90 percent. A pair of FTC economists made what Politico deemed “questionable assertions” about Google’s dominance of the advertising markets, citing as their evidence a study by Google and two academic papers funded by grants from Google.

Among other claims, two economists also alleged that Google’s grip on the market for mobile devices would fall in the face of competition from Amazon and Mozilla — and that the mobile distribution channel for search was too small a market to be relevant.

History has borne out how spectacularly wrong the economists were. This brings forward a key element of the over-reliance on an ever-narrowing set of criteria around which our antitrust laws are now enforced. It over-emphasizes speculative economic forecasting over hard market realities.

Coherent economic principles are central to antitrust enforcement for good reason — otherwise, justification for enforcement would swing wildly on ideological ballasts. But, like the consumer welfare standard’s current application, which is narrowly fixated on price (as opposed to a broad application that considers other factors, like consumer choice and innovation), economic forecasting has taken a premier and unquestionable seat among antitrust enforcers.

In particular, an over-reliance on a cost-benefit tool called the error-cost framework has made enforcers gun-shy about acting at all. Enforcers now largely defer to benefit claims made by the merging parties – and the economists these companies can afford to hire, who conveniently produce speculative analysis to buttress their points – while appearing to ignore hard evidence by senior executives clearly stating an anticompetitive intent behind a merger or business strategy.

In the case of Google, for example, one top executive bragged in an email that Google could “own the U.S. market” with its exclusive contracts with major phone makers and carriers. The FTC’s attorneys concluded Google was breaking competition laws. The agency’s economists, however, said there was no issue because they “expected” the mobile search to remain a small market.

In the FTC’s ultimate judgment, speculative analysis and complex econometric modeling reigned supreme over pragmatic facts regarding anti-competitive market behavior. This flips the intended calculus on its head.

Judge Robert Bork, one of the progenitors of the consumer welfare standard, explicitly warned against pushing economics beyond its competence. In his seminal book, “The Antitrust Paradox,” Bork wrote that “antitrust must avoid any standards that require direct measurement and quantification of either restriction of output or efficiency. Such tasks are impossible.”

He goes on, “The real objection to performance tests and efficiency defenses in antitrust law is that they are spurious. They cannot measure the factors relevant to consumer welfare, so that after the economic extravaganza was completed we should know no more than before it began.” Finally, Judge Bork notes that “the judge, the legislator, or lawyer cannot simply take the word of an economist in dealing with antitrust, for the economists will certainly disagree.”

Economic analysis, in other words, is a component, not the whole, of the analysis. Antitrust economics can help assess, but cannot ultimately determine, the scope of antitrust policy in its most rational form: determining who is being harmed, and how.

In 2012, the FTC made the critical error of letting economic speculation subsume the hard market evidence that former FTC chair William Kovacic called “specific, direct, and clear about the path ahead.” In its final judgment, the agency prioritized the “economic extravaganza” that Judge Bork explicitly warned against. They were wrong, and the market consequences have been severe.

Google’s Thumb on the Scale

The FTC was not acting in a vacuum, however. Although an independent agency, four of the FTC’s five commissioners voting on the Google probe were appointed by the Obama administration, which was notably close to Silicon Valley and very much bought into the notion of America’s internet exceptionalism.

According to The New York Times in 2016, President Obama was “America’s first truly digital president,” the leader who “routinely pushed policy that pleases the tech-savvy” and boasted “deep and meaningful connections” with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs.

In 2012, Google employees were the second-largest source of campaign donations by any single U.S. company besides Microsoft. Google employees were senior aides at the White House and Google executives served on White House advisory panels. On Nov. 6, 2012, the day Obama was re-elected to a second term, Eric Schmidt, Google’s then-executive chairman, “personally oversaw a voter-turnout software system for Mr. Obama,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The frequent contact between Google and the White House continued during the FTC’s investigation. A report published in 2015 by the Wall Street Journal detailed the “unusual” depth of Google’s engagement with the Obama administration, finding the company had clocked 230 meetings with senior White House officials, roughly one per week. Their top lobbyist Johanna Shelton darkened White House doors for more than 60 meetings. By April of 2016, according to another report, Shelton had notched 128 White House meetings.

Google has reportedly also attempted to dictate how the FTC discusses both the company and the dropped antitrust case. When the Wall Street Journal published a partial leak of the FTC’s Google investigation documents in 2015 (later fully leaked to Politico) demonstrating the depth of disagreement between the agency’s staff and the final commission vote, Shelton emailed the agency’s chief of staff to state Google was “troubled” and “puzzled” by the FTC’s non-response. She asked the agency to issue a statement that “set the record straight.” A statement was issued two days later.

Congressional Oversight Is Desperately Needed

Thanks in part to the FTC’s whiff on Google in 2012, the power of Big Tech has continued to grow, unchecked and largely unrivaled. Antitrust enforcement is once again emerging as a key remedy to the anti-competitive and market-distorting elements of what is undeniably oligarchic power.

But to avoid the mistakes of 2012, congressional oversight is desperately needed: over how our antitrust laws are being enforced, if that enforcement aligns with the congressional intent of the statutes, if the enforcement agencies are adequately resourced for the task, and whether statutory interpretation needs clarification for the digital economy.

Big Tech is pouring big money into the policy and academic arguments that claim such efforts would “politicize” antitrust enforcement, away from the pristine science of economic analysis. But if FTC’s actions in 2012 are any indication, antitrust enforcement is already well-politicized, and economic analysis, while a useful guidepost, is not a compass. In fact, an over-reliance on the error-cost framework can render our antitrust laws completely moot in the face of real market threats.

In many areas, Congress has largely abandoned its role as the lawmaking body, preferring instead to outsource policy development to bureaucrats and the courts. It is encouraging, therefore, to see both the House and Senate engaging in scrutiny of antitrust enforcement for Big Tech.

The FTC of 2012 has given them a helpful guide by highlighting the areas of weakness in our current enforcement analysis, and the capture by billion-dollar interests that can defer it. In other words, the leaked FTC memos are a flashing red light that all is not well in the world of American antitrust enforcement. The antitrust agencies have effectively privatized antitrust law. Congress must democratize it again.

Rachel Bovard is the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.
1 2 3 5