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.

$3 Trillion Infrastructure Grab Bag Would Strangle Economy With Taxes, Debt

BY DAVID DITCH

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/25/3t-infrastructure-grab-bag-would-strangle-economy-americans-with-debt-taxes

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

The media were flooded Monday with news that the Biden administration is working on a colossal new $3 trillion to $4 trillion spending plan.

While full details are not available yet, the plan appears to be another left-wing grab bag of big-government proposals. Rather than stimulating the economy, it would stimulate bigger government while funneling unprecedented amounts of power and money through the hands of politicians in Washington.

All this comes on the heels of President Joe Biden signing into law on March 11 a badly flawed $1.9 trillion legislative package that was originally marketed as a COVID-19 response, but which was more focused on left-wing pet causes, such as bailouts for union pension plans and unnecessary handouts for state governments.

Just a day later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., released a statement calling for bipartisan work on legislation that would focus on infrastructure. While there were good reasons to question how beneficial or “bipartisan” such legislation would be, there was at least a chance of finding some across-the-aisle support.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

But the potential for bipartisanship was quickly scuttled by news of the latest multitrillion-dollar plan.

It would be bad enough if the latest plan was just a big-spending infrastructure package. However, it appears that only a fraction of the new spending would go toward an already too-expansive definition of infrastructure.

Instead, most of the new spending and tax subsidies would go toward expanding the welfare state, including “free” tuition for community colleges, “free” child care, and other handouts that lack right-of-center support.

This would likely be the largest expansion of the federal government since the “Great Society” of the 1960s, even eclipsing Obamacare in scope.

Reports indicate that Democrats might attempt to split the plan into two bills—one focused on social spending that passes narrowly along party lines, the other focused on actual infrastructure aimed at winning bipartisan support.

However, it’s clear that the $3 trillion-plus total price tag is already souring prospects for bipartisan infrastructure legislation.

House Republicans boycotted the annual Ways and Means Committee “Member’s Day” hearing on Tuesday in the wake of news reports on the plan, since they indicated that Democrats have already made up their minds to pursue as much spending as possible through the legislative procedure known as reconciliation.

Coincidentally, two respected nonpartisan groups released reports this week that show why Biden and Pelosi should pause their aggressive agenda.

First, the Congressional Budget Office published a paper demonstrating what would happen if a sustained increase in federal spending were coupled with big tax increases to pay for the spending.

While the analysis points to different long-term effects from different types of taxes, any tax-and-spend approach would lead to reductions in economic growth and personal income that are larger than the size of the tax hikes.

For example, the analysis found that having 10% more federal government would mean a 12% to 19% reduction in personal consumption.

And that’s a conservative estimate. Most estimates show tax hikes shrink the economy by two to three times more than the revenues they raise.  

That doesn’t mean Congress could escape the consequences of a continued spending spree by simply adding to the national debt. The CBO paper cautions that that would not only impose significant costs and divert resources away from the private sector, but it also would be unsustainable and increase the risk of a devastating financial crisis.

Along the same lines, the Government Accountability Office released a sobering report on the nation’s poor financial health.

Now that Congress has passed a combined total of $6 trillion in legislation in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic (more than $48,000 per household), it must quickly address the unsustainable growth of major benefit programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Even before the pandemic struck, these programs were on a path to bankruptcy. Addressing these shortfalls in a way that is fair to both current retirees and future generations who will have to foot the bill is one of the greatest policy challenges facing the nation.

Unfortunately, Washington is exacerbating the problem by adding excessively to the national debt and potentially stunting economic growth with higher taxes.

While the Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that it will only seek to raise taxes on the wealthy, a government of the size that it’s seeking would require amounts of money that can only be generated through steep across-the-board tax increases on middle-class Americans.

Regardless of whether those taxes are levied tomorrow or in a few years, they would be an inevitable part of expanding the size and scope of the federal government.

Rather than continuing down the path of centralized power and socialism, lawmakers should recognize the costs associated with endless federal spending and chart a course toward financial responsibility and prosperity.

If they don’t, it will be the public’s duty to hold them accountable.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

Boulder jihad mass murderer had planned to hit Trump rally, also checked churches as potential targets~FACEBOOK PAGE SCRUBBED~FAMILY MEMBERS DETAINED~FAKE NEWS CALLS HIM WHITE~LIBERALS CALL FOR GUN CONTROL

Ahmad Al-Issa:

NOT A RIGHT-WING MAGA TRUMP SUPPORTING WHITE MALE!

10 KILLED BY ISLAMIC JIHADIST AHMAD AL-ISSA:

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/boulder-jihad-mass-murderer-had-planned-to-hit-trump-rally-also-checked-churches-as-potential-targets;

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

 

Welcome to Joe Biden’s America.

________________________________________________________

Boulder Shooter is ISIS Sympathizer, Leftists Hardest Hit

Another opportunity to shore up their sagging “white terror threat” narrative is lost.

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/boulder-shooter-isis-sympathizer-leftists-hardest-robert-spencer/;

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

A man murdered ten people in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket Monday. No details were immediately released about the shooter, but Leftist “journalists,” working from a photo of the shooter, seized upon the shooting to shore up their sagging narrative of “white supremacist terrorism.” There was just one problem: the massacre was actually, after a four-year hiatus, a new incidence of Islamic jihad on American soil.

Even after the shooter’s name was revealed as Ahmad Al Issa (which is how he himself wrote it on his Facebook and Twitter accounts), establishment media reports continued to give his name as  “Alissa,” which of course is a common first name for women in the U.S., and thus gives the impression that he is an American non-Muslim. Were “journalists” trying to obscure the fact that he is a Muslim migrant ISIS sympathizer? Of course, they were.

And that was after they had already decided that he was one of those “right-wing extremists” who are, according to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the “most lethal and persistent” threat the U.S. faces today. Julie DiCaro, a senior writer and editor at Deadspin, tweeted: “Extremely tired of people’s lives depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a good day or not.” As of this writing on Tuesday afternoon, DiCaro has not taken down the tweet, as some media hacks are still, like a captain going down with his sinking ship, insisting that Al Issa is white. Prominent race-baiter Tariq Nasheed tweeted: “White supremacists are trying their hardest to deflect from the fact the Boulder suspect is WHITE. Syrians in America are legally, politically & socially WHITE. Their white status is well documented in court cases Terms like ‘Muslim, ‘Arab’, ‘Islamic doesn’t change whiteness.”

Of course, Al Issa really is white, as he is an Arab Muslim migrant from Syria, and Arabs have been considered “white” ever since they began arriving in this country. Nasheed’s tweet, however, still pointed up the Left’s inconsistency and hypocrisy: up until this shooting, Leftists considered Arab Muslims to be “brown,” after the fashion of Linda Sarsour, who memorably identified as white until she put on a hijab and miraculously became a “person of color.” If the Boulder shooter had been a white non-Muslim American and his victims had been white Arab Muslims, Tariq Nasheed would be railing against the persecution of “brown” people in the United States.

But as it is, Nasheed is trying desperately to shore up a failing narrative. The reality is that Ahmad Al Issa is a deeply religious Muslim with pro-ISIS sympathies. He complained bitterly about “Islamophobia,” hated Donald Trump with passionate intensity, and had scouted out churches and Trump rallies as possible targets for his jihad massacre.

All this makes it abundantly clear that not only is Ahmad Al Issa not a “white supremacist,” but he is a living manifestation of the effects of Leftism in America today. After migrating from Syria as a child during the Obama administration, he, and many others like him, has been inundated with relentless propaganda about how he is a victim of a racist and “Islamophobic” society that will never give him a fair shake, and is institutionally determined to make sure he will never succeed. He has been told that Trump hated Muslims and that his followers were precisely the people who were keeping him down and denying him access to the privilege that they themselves enjoyed at the expense of the “brown” people they despised.

The Democratic Party has been stoking this kind of resentment and feeding it to young people in schools, colleges and universities for years. Ahmad Al Issa is a product of their indoctrination. That in itself may be one reason why Leftist “journalists” and professional agitators such as Tariq Nasheed are so intent on driving home the point that this was a “white” shooter acting out of the hatred that is intrinsic to American culture: to deflect attention away from the fact that he is not a product of American culture at all, but of the Left’s subculture of hatred and resentment. If we had a sane political environment in the country today, that is the hateful subculture the Justice Department would be concerned about. Instead, even as Antifa continues to make the Great Northwest into a radioactive wasteland, this hateful subculture isn’t even on the radar screen. And Ahmad Al Issa isn’t going to put it there.

_______________________________________________________

A Muslim Terrorist From the Capital of ISIS Shot Up a Supermarket. Biden Blames Guns

Biden ended Trump’s Muslim ban claiming it “undermined our national security.”

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/muslim-terrorist-capital-isis-shot-supermarket-daniel-greenfield/

_______________________________________________________

The Boulder Jihad and Jihad Denial

Why U.S. authorities and the establishment media are trying to obscure who Ahmad Al Issa is and what he believes.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/03/jihad-denial-jamie-glazov/

_______________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

UPDATE-https://thenewamerican.com/colorado-grocery-shooter-was-an-angry-muslim-immigrant-known-to-fbi

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/brother-of-boulder-jihad-mass-murderer-detained-along-with-other-family-members

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/boulder-jihadis-now-scrubbed-facebook-page-contained-quotations-from-muhammad

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/03/boulder-murders-bring-demands-for-gun-control-before-facts-are-known

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/leftist-journalists-rushed-to-claim-boulder-shooter-was-white-man-silent-when-it-turned-out-he-was-a-jihadi

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/03/biden-capitol-hill-gun-banners-exploit-boulder-bloodshed

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/03/23/black-lives-matter-traps-shoppers-in-rochester-grocery-store-n1434455

 

 

Biden to ‘reset’ US-Palestinian ties, including hundreds of millions in ‘economic and humanitarian assistance’

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/03/biden-to-reset-us-palestinian-ties-including-hundreds-of-millions-in-economic-and-humanitarian-assistance;

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

It is no secret that the Palestinian Authority earmarks funds for jihad terror against Israel, not the least of which in its abhorrent “pay for slay” program. This is why in 2018, the Trump administration cut over $200 million in U.S. aid to Palestinians until they ended “stipends to terrorists and the families of slain attackers.” Biden has made no such demand. Israel also faces tough challenges under the Biden administration, which is also emboldening Iran in pursuit of a nuclear deal — a deal that Iran openly admitted it violated, and intends to continue to do so.

“Biden administration crafting plan to reset US-Palestinian ties,” Al Jazeera, March 18, 2021:

The Biden administration is crafting a plan aimed at resetting US ties with the Palestinians, which all but collapsed under former President Donald Trump, according to an internal draft memo seen by Reuters.

Two people familiar with the State Department document, which was first reported by the United Arab Emirates-based newspaper The National, said it was still in an early “working stage” but could eventually form the basis for rolling back parts of Trump’s approach that Palestinians denounced as heavily biased in favour of Israel.

Since President Joe Biden took office on January 20, his aides have said they intend to repair relations with the Palestinians. His administration has pledged to resume hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and humanitarian assistance and work towards reopening the Palestinians’ diplomatic mission in Washington, DC.

Biden’s aides have also made clear they want to re-establish the goal of a negotiated two-state solution as a priority in US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they have moved cautiously with Israel’s March 23 elections looming, followed by Palestinian elections scheduled in coming months.

A portion of the draft memo quoted by The National said the US vision is “to advance freedom, security, and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians in the immediate term.”

The document was cited as saying $15m in COVID-19 pandemic aid to the Palestinians could be announced by the end of March. It is also reported to take a tougher stance on Israeli settlement activities and mentions efforts “to obtain a Palestinian commitment to end payments to individuals imprisoned (by Israel) for acts of terrorism”.

One source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the document was a preliminary draft subject to revision and any final version would require inter-agency review.

“We don’t have any comments on that specific memo,” US State Department spokeswoman Jalina Porter told reporters at a daily briefing….

ATF Agents Showing Up At Homes of Unfinished 80% Gun Frame Dealers

ATF Agents Showing Up At Homes of Unfinished 80% Gun Frame Dealers, Don’t Let Them In

ATF Agent NRA-ILA

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/03/atf-agents-show-up-homes-unfinished-80-gun-frame-dealers/#axzz6pedOvjMq;

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

ATF Agents Showing Up At Homes of Unfinished 80% Gun Frame Dealers

BALTIMORE, MD –-(Ammoland.com)-The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Agents from the Baltimore Field Office have been visiting the homes of buyers of large quantities of Polymer80 frames and kits.

Five special agents and Detective EE Schwartz of the Anne Arundel County Police Department showed up at the door of one of the co-owners of 2A Builds. 2A Builds is a company that sells unfinished 80% kits at gun shows in the mid-Atlantic region of the country. They recently purchased 65 frames from U.S. Patriot Armory.

The agents wanted to search the owner’s house, and the owner agreed because he had nothing illegal. The agents didn’t find anything against the law in the home but did want to take the owner’s legally owned firearms. The owner refused then the agents said they were just going to take a finished P80, a single kit, and two MCK stabilizers. The company’s owner once again refused the request and asked the law enforcement officials to leave his home.

The ATF agents said they would wait there until they could secure a search warrant if the owner refused to turn over the items. The owner started to call an attorney, at which point the officials said they decided not to seek a warrant that day but would in the future and then left. The only contact they left him was Detective EE Schwartz’s business card (badge: 1665) of the Anne Arundel County Police Department. Before they left, the agents took pictures of all the firearms and serial numbers to run checks.

AmmoLand News has learned of two other visits by ATF agents to dealers’ homes that sell unfinished frames. Although in their case, they told the ATF agents to leave if they did not have a search warrant. The agents threatened to wait there until a judge issued a search warrant but once again left without executing a search of the properties. Both dealers purchased items from U.S. Patriot Armory.

AmmoLand discovered that U.S. Patriot Armory did not turn over any customer information to the ATF or other law enforcement agencies through our sources. It isn’t clear how the ATF received information about the customers, although everyone visited paid for the unfinished frames via credit card, and U.S. Patriot Armory uses Authorize.net.

Authorize.net is one of the only payment processing companies that will process firearm sales. Almost every other payment processor blocks the sale of firearms and unfinished frames. Although we have no evidence that says Authorize.net turned over customer information in this case, the company did turn over data of customers that purchased kits from other companies in the past.

AmmoLand News reached out to the ATF for comment on the ongoing visit. Public Information Officer Amanda Hill said the ATF cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation and will not be providing any further comment.

Anti-gun politicians have made a significant push to ban unfinished frames and receivers at the behest of anti-gun groups such Giffords, Everytown, and Brady. The groups call these items the fake and misleading “Ghost Guns.” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has made it his crusade for these non-guns to be banned. New Jersey has been suing sellers of unfinished frames, and California has sued the ATF for not considering these frames to be firearms.

Detective EE Schwartz did not return AmmoLand News’s call for comment.

 


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Montana, Texas, 19 Other States Sue Biden for Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline

Montana attorney general on Keystone pipeline lawsuit

Rumble — 21 state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over Joe Biden’s executive order to revoke the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. On Wall to Wall, Greta spoke with Montana’s Attorney General Austin Knudsen to hear more about that suit.

BY BRYAN PRESTON

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/03/18/montana-texas-19-other-states-sue-biden-for-canceling-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-n1433461;

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

Legal Insurrection reports that 21 states are suing to block Joe Biden’s executive order that halted the Keystone XL pipeline.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 19 other state attorneys general filed suit today in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to block President Joe Biden’s unconstitutional and illegitimate attempt to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXLP).

Despite several exhaustive studies undertaken by the Obama State Department that concluded the Keystone XL pipeline would boost the U.S economy, create American jobs, and safely transport oil throughout the country without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, Biden revoked the permit via executive order mere hours after reciting his oath of office. However, he did not have the power to do so.

The substance of the lawsuit is straightforward. Congress, not the president, regulates interstate commerce. Biden violated that when he unilaterally blocked the construction of the pipeline. As has been Biden’s MO since the inauguration, he failed to even consult Congress or any of the states affected by the decision. He has done the same with regard to the border, and is now facing a massive crisis of his own making there.

The science does not back Biden on this decision. Pipelines have proven to be the safest and cleanest means of moving oil and natural gas from where they’re produced to where they’re refined and used. The United States has about 3 million miles of pipelines under our feet. Those pipelines deliver energy every day without incident the vast majority of the time. They also keep trucks and trains off the roads and rails that would be delivering the oil and gas, keeping some emissions from ever getting into the air.

Canceling the pipeline isn’t about the project’s safety or the science of energy delivery. It’s about attacking the U.S. energy industry.

The states launching the lawsuit say Biden’s unilateral cancelation of the Keystone has killed 42,000 jobs. Unions opposed the decision, but Biden did not consult them either.

In the LI post, William Jacobson makes a very good point.

If the roles were reversed, Democrat activist groups would have been in court the next day all across the country hoping some judge somewhere would agree with them and issue an injunction. That’s what happened in the travel cases, so many cases were filed in so many different district courts that opponents only needed to win once. It didn’t matter if Trump won most of them, even a single nationwide injunction stalled things for weeks or months until it got to the Supreme Court, where eventually Trump won.

He’s urging Republicans to be quicker about filing suit to block Biden’s unilateral executive orders. He’s right. In the Keystone case, Biden issued the executive order on his first day. It’s taken nearly three months to get the lawsuit going. Since that time, construction has shut down and John Kerry arrogantly told displaced pipeline workers to go get jobs building solar panels.

They would have to move to China to obtain such jobs, as the vast majority of the world’s solar panels are built there, not the United States.

Congressional Republicans are limited in what they can do to block Biden’s executive orders. That’s one of the reasons he issues them instead of consulting with Congress as the Constitution intends. The states will have to do the heavy lifting, and they will have to be quicker about doing so than they have been thus far.

Ryan Anderson Refutes Reason Amazon Banned Transgender Book

BY STEVEN HALL

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/12/ryan-anderson-refutes-amazon-book-on-transgenderism-doesnt-call-lgbt-identity-mental-illness;

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

Amazon defended its decision to remove a book about transgender issues from its platform, claiming it frames “LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” an assertion sharply disputed by the author. 

Amazon sent a letter Thursday to Senate Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, Mike Braun of Indiana, and Josh Hawley of Missouri. The lawmakers had written last month to Amazon asking why “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” by Ryan T. Anderson was no longer available for purchase on the platform.

“As to your specific question about ‘When Harry Became Sally,’ we have chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” Amazon Vice President for Public Policy Brian Huseman wrote of the book, which borrows its title from that of the 1989 romantic comedy film “When Harry Met Sally.”

“The only problem here is that my book does no such thing. Nowhere have I ever said or framed LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” said Anderson in a written statement to The Daily Signal.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

The book also discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of gender dysphoria in the most recent edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Amazon, curiously, still sells that.

Amazon said that it provides “access to a variety of viewpoints, including books that some customers may find objectionable.” The letter goes on to say, “That said, we reserve the right not to sell certain content. All retailers make decisions about what selection they choose to offer, as do we.”

Amazon sold 53% of all books in the U.S. and 80% of all ebooks, according to The Wall Street Journal. As such, removing a book from Amazon’s platform would have a significant impact on sales and profits for the author.

This isn’t the first time a Big Tech company has removed content from its platform. YouTube removed a Daily Signal video from Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, “for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech.”

Cretella made a point in the video that there’s no push to allow patients suffering from body integrity identity disorder to amputate limbs, yet there’s an influential movement for people to transition out of their biological gender.

“See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm, you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender,” Cretella noted in the removed video.

YouTube also removed last year a Heritage Foundation video of a panel discussion that featured Walt Heyer, an author who transitioned and lived for eight years as a transgender woman before transitioning back.

“This is a childhood development disorder,” he said in reference to gender dysphoria in children.

The following is Anderson’s full statement on Amazon’s censoring of his book:

Amazon justified its decision to delist my book, claiming it has decided “not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness.” The only problem here is that my book does no such thing. Nowhere have I ever said or framed LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. 

The phrase “mental illness” does occur in the book twice—but not in my own voice: once quoting a “transwoman” writing in The New York Times, and once quoting the current University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.

The book also discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of gender dysphoria in the most recent edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Amazon, curiously, still sells that. Gender dysphoria is listed in the most widely respected and consulted book on psychiatric disorders because it is a serious condition that causes great suffering.

There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down, about how best to help patients who experience gender dysphoria. “When Harry Became Sally” is an important contribution, praised by medical experts, to that conversation. Amazon’s delisting of it cuts off vital political and cultural discussion about important matters when we need it most.

The timing of Amazon’s move is highly suspicious, coming the weekend before Congress voted on a radical transgender bill—the so-called “Equality Act”—of which I am one of the most outspoken critics. It seems that Amazon is using its massive power to distort the marketplace of ideas and is deceiving its own customers.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

Senator Cotton: Amazon Ban of anti-Transgender Book Enforces Cancel Culture

BY SENATOR TOM COTTON

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/12/sen-tom-cotton-amazons-ban-of-transgender-book-enforces-political-correctness;

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

On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., delivered an impassioned speech Tuesday that was critical of Amazon’s censorship of a book that expresses a widely held, commonsense view of gender. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Most Americans know that there are two sexes, male and female, and that sex is rooted in science.

Most Americans also know that we ought to treat all people, including those who feel conflicted about their gender, with respect and dignity, without sacrificing the truth in the process.

These beliefs, though, are now under attack from some of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Just a few weeks ago, while House Democrats were passing their far-left Equality Act and the left-wing media [were] busy canceling Dr. Seuss, Amazon quietly erased a book from its online store.

Without notice, without warning, without explanation, that book is “When Harry Became Sally: Responding To the Transgendered Moment” by Ryan Anderson.

Now, Amazon claims it banned this book for violating its brand new policy on hate speech. Of course, that excuse is arbitrary and patently false. Right now, you can go to Amazon on your phone or on your computer and buy copies of actually hateful books.

You can get [Adolf] Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” shipped to your door with free Amazon Prime delivery. You can get the Unabomber manifesto written by a serial killer who murdered three people and maimed 23 others. You can even get “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.” I assume the title speaks for itself.

All those books are available for purchase on Amazon right now, one click away, but Amazon wants you to believe that a conservative book is somehow beyond the pale, unacceptably hateful, literally worse than Hitler, as they like to say.

My office asked Amazon to send us the exact passages from “When Harry Became Sally” that it deemed so hateful that it couldn’t even sell the book on [its] website. Shocking surprise, I know, they never got back to us. That’s because the book doesn’t say anything hateful.

To the contrary, the book makes very clear that we should treat people who feel conflicted about their gender with the same respect and compassion that are due to all people. To quote the author, “We should have abundant compassion and charity and patience with people who feel this form of alienation. But we also need to insist on telling the truth.”

That’s not hate. It’s far from it.

The author’s real offense—his only offense—was telling the truth. He said calmly and compassionately that boys are boys and girls are girls. And the richest man in the world banned his book from his company’s platform.

But, of course, you don’t have to agree with the commonsense, historic understanding of gender in order to acknowledge how dangerous it is for one of the biggest corporations in the history of the world to start banning books.

Because while Amazon’s censorship may start with conservative views, it could easily mutate to censor other views that offend [owner] Jeff Bezos and his bottom line.

Perhaps, Amazon will come after union organizers next, since they’re trying to bust up a union election in Alabama. Or maybe environmental activists, or maybe trust-busters, since so many people are talking about potential antitrust violations in the world of big tech.

And even if … Amazon goes only this far and no farther, the damage to free speech has already been done.

Books like “When Harry Became Sally” won’t get published anymore. Writers who hold unfashionable opinions that just a few days ago were considered basic mainstream views of a large majority of Americans may decide to self-censor and stay silent.

The virtual book-burning may spread to other companies. Maybe Amazon will put a book-burning app on its Kindle, so readers can drag books from its catalog into the virtual bonfire.

Political correctness will only grow more oppressive if its enforcers like Amazon don’t face some consequences for their actions. Amazon, for instance, makes billions of dollars a year, each year, hosting websites and storing data for their government.

Almost all of Amazon’s profit is made in these enterprise services, not in its consumer-facing retail business. And those are our tax dollars flowing to a company that uses its power to censor the beliefs of a large majority of Americans. Perhaps it’s time for lawmakers to reconsider whether these contracts are in the best interests of our country.

Also note that Amazon is the country’s largest bookseller, selling three out of every four e-books in America. Maybe it’s time for lawmakers to evaluate whether Amazon’s practices are consistent with our antitrust laws, or whether antitrust laws need to be updated to address this type of behavior from a monopolistic firm.

We better hurry though, because maybe they will ban all books on antitrust and monopoly behavior before we have a chance to study the question.

I’ll close by quoting from the book that Amazon banned, which predicted the very events we’re witnessing here today:

If trans activists succeed in their political agenda, our nation’s children will be indoctrinated in a harmful ideology and some will live by its own lies about their own bodies at great harm to themselves, physically, psychologically, and socially.

Lives will be ruined, but pointing out the damage will be forbidden. Dissent from the transgender worldview will be punished in schools, workplaces, and medical clinics.

Trying to live in accordance with the truth will be made harder.

This is not a fight over hate or bigotry, respect, or compassion. It’s a battle over truth itself. The truth of who we are as human beings and the fundamental freedom to speak that truth or any other truth, without fear.

Throughout our history, Americans have never surrendered to an oppressive tyranny of opinion, whether a majority or in this case, a small but highly influential minority. And we won’t be cowed into silence today.

We will fight for what’s true. We will fight for the freedom to say it. And no matter what the cultural forces arrayed against us do, we will never back down.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. 

SUPERMARKET CHAIN GIANT FOOD has begun a policy of encouraging its customers to boycott businesses that are owned by white heterosexuals

The grocery store chain, Giant Food, has begun a policy of encouraging its customers to boycott businesses that are owned by white heterosexuals. They are labeling products in their stores by the races of the business owners, with the intentional omission of all white-owned businesses. Expect for this despicable trend to spread as corporate America increasingly embraces anti-white, anti-Christian, and un-American policies. It's more evidence that whenever we find the truest racism nowadays, we find the so-called "progressives" nearby. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

Video: ‘Ethics’ Prof. Says Americans Will Take Vaccine In Exchange For Return Of Freedom

"If you promise people more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that’s a very powerful incentive"

BY STEVE WATSON

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-ethics-prof-says-americans-will-take-vaccine-in-exchange-for-return-of-freedom/;

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

CNN provided a platform for NYU medical ‘ethics’ professor Arthur Caplan Sunday, who argued that Americans skeptical of taking the COVID vaccine will soon come around and accept it if their freedoms otherwise remain restricted.

Caplan argued that allowing people to have their freedoms returned after lockdown is the most “powerful incentive” to push the vaccine.

“If you promise people more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that’s a very powerful incentive to actually achieve fuller vaccination,” Caplan told Fareed Zakaria.

The segment even began with the infamous ‘show me your papers’ scene from the movie Casablanca:

Caplan argued that Americans will “gain freedom” if a COVID certification system is enacted.

Caplan continued “Vaccine passports do require access; it’s hard to impose anything unless you are pretty sure that somebody can get a vaccine. So I think it’ll be a little while before we see this, let’s say within the U.S.”

“But there are going to be communities and areas of the country where it starts to make sense due to high availability of the vaccine to say, ‘you wanna come back to work in person? Gotta show me a vaccine certificate. You wanna go in a bar, a restaurant? Gotta show me a vaccine certificate,’” he added.

When asked about the dangers of a two-tier society, and who can get access to the vaccine, Caplan stated “I think there will be some inequality in the U.S., but hopefully it’ll wash out quickly as the supplies increase very rapidly, I think they’re going to.”

Caplan predicted that “the world won’t wait for vaccine passports” until all countries are ready, and that they will be put into place regardless of whether poorer or less equipped countries can be a part of the system.

As we reported last week, New York City has unveiled a vaccine passport system in conjunction with IBM, trialling it at two sports events so far.

Covid passport systems, which we have been covering for months now, are being rapidly adopted worldwide both domestically and for international travel, despite the fact that the immunity status of vaccinations is not yet extensively known, and despite warnings that such schemes could lead to mass discrimination against those who choose not to take the shot.

1 2 3 4 5 8