Poll after Poll Shows Biden Losing to Trump thumbnail

Poll after Poll Shows Biden Losing to Trump

By Family Research Council

As November draws steadily closer, yet another poll is showing support for former president Donald Trump surging ahead of support for incumbent Joe Biden. According to a HarrisX poll conducted in the days following Biden’s State of the Union address, Trump is leading Biden by five percentage points (46% to 41%), with 13% of voters undecided.

When undecided voters were asked which way they lean, Trump leads Biden 52% to 48%. When Independent and third-party candidates are added to the mix, Trump still maintains his lead (41%), while Biden trails behind at 35%, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at 12%, and other candidates at 1% each, with 10% of voters undecided. When undecided voters were asked which way they lean in an expanded field, Trump still takes first place with 44%. Significantly, Trump leads among Independent voters in every scenario.

The HarrisX survey also revealed that nearly 60% of voters polled disapprove of Biden’s job performance as president, including nearly a quarter (22%) of Democrats. Nearly 60% of voters (including over a quarter of Democrats) said that Biden’s State of the Union speech served to “divide” the country and more than half (57%) of voters said the speech “raised questions or concerns” about the president’s age, including almost 40% of Democrats. A marginally smaller percentage said the speech raised questions or concerns about Biden’s fitness for office. A strong majority (61%) of voters polled also said that Biden did an “inadequate job addressing immigration during the State of the Union address…”

This follows a Rasmussen Reports survey finding that 61% of voters (79% of Republicans, 45% of Democrats, and 61% of Independent voters) believe immigration will be “very important” in November’s election. Despite all of the attention Democrats are dedicating to it, only 42% of voters (28% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats, and 32% of Independents) said that abortion will be a “very important” issue in November.

A Yahoo News/YouGov poll also found that voters weren’t impressed with Biden’s State of the Union address. According to that survey, Biden’s job approval was at 40% before his speech last week but dropped to 39% after the speech.

A slew of other polls have shown Trump leading Biden in the wake of the incumbent Democrat’s State of the Union address. A recent USA Today/Suffolk University survey found that 49% of voters approve of the job Trump did as president, while only 41% approve of Biden’s job performance. Another Rasmussen Reports survey also showed Trump is not only leading Biden (49% to 41%) but other Democrats teased as potential Biden replacements: Trump leads former First Lady Michelle Obama 50% to 43% and current California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) by a whopping 51% to 34%. Once again, Trump leads among Independent voters in a matchup against all three Democrats, leading Biden by 12 points (45% to 33%) in that demographic.

Pointing to polling data, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said that Biden has “a devastating mountain” to climb in facing off against Trump in November. Gingrich explained that the president “has a problem with everybody because they go to the grocery store, they go to the gas station. Biden-ism isn’t working.” He continued, “Biden has got a huge problem when speeches don’t change and advertising doesn’t change, because people go to the store, and they say, ‘In my own life, I know what he’s doing to me, right?’” The former speaker added, “And if you’ll notice, people consistently now say that they were better off personally, better off under Trump than they are under Biden.”

For months, Biden has been floundering in nearly every major poll. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released last month reported Biden’s approval rating at 45%, with nearly half (48%) of voters saying he’s become worse as a leader. Like many current surveys, that one found that over half of voters approved of Trump’s presidential job performance and showed the former president leading the current president ahead of the November election.

Voters have been particularly disappointed with Biden’s management of illegal immigration, inflation, the economy, rising crime rates, and other issues. A Monmouth University poll (also released last month) found that 84% of voters consider illegal immigration a serious issue, including 61% who consider it “very serious.” Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, identified illegal immigration as “Biden’s weakest policy area, including among his fellow Democrats.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kamala Harris Calls Pro-Life Laws ‘Immoral’ on 1st VP Visit to Abortion Facility

More than 420 Chemical Abortions Carried Out on 3 California College Campuses in 6 Months

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden Admin Hands Out $500 Million For Oil Drilling In Middle East thumbnail

Biden Admin Hands Out $500 Million For Oil Drilling In Middle East

By Dr. Rich Swier

The Biden administration is providing financing for oil development in the Middle East after taking numerous steps to restrict domestic production, according to Bloomberg News.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank — a nominally independent government entity that aims to boost the American economy “by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services” —  approved a $500 million loan guarantee for oil and gas development in Bahrain on Thursday, according to Bloomberg News. The funding follows the Biden administration’s decisions to release the most restrictive offshore oil and gas leasing schedule in American history and cancel seven previously-issued oil and gas leases in Alaska, among other actions intended to rein in domestic oil production.

The Export-Import Bank’s loan guarantee will “increase the production of oil and the availability of gas to meet the future energy demands” of Bahrain, the institution told Bloomberg News. The $500 million of financing was about five times larger than what some lawmakers were anticipating.

$5 gas could be on the way back after the Biden admin drained the strategic oil reserves https://t.co/5T97SImRFg

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 26, 2023

Six Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, wrote a Tuesday letter to the Export-Import Bank in which they implored the agency to not move forward with $100 million of financing because of potential negative ramifications for the climate. After the $500 million loan guarantee was announced, Merkley proceeded to describe the Export-Import Bank as a “rogue agency,” according to Bloomberg News.

While the Export-Import Bank is a nominally independent part of the executive branch, President Joe Biden appointed or successfully nominated Chair Reta Jo Lewis, Vice Chair Judith Pryor and board members Owen Herrnstadt and Spencer Bacchus.

In addition to the restrictive offshore leasing schedule and lease cancellations in Alaska, the Biden administration has moved to take millions of acres of federal lands off the table for oil and gas activity after unsuccessfully attempting to halt drilling on all federal lands in 2021. While U.S. oil production did reach record levels at the end of 2023, energy sector experts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that those production levels have been reached in spite of the Biden administration’s approach, rather than because of it.

The experts who spoke to the DCNF said this is because most of the growth in production has occurred on state and private lands, where Biden does not have the ability to directly shut down drilling. They added that the oil wells of today are the result of planning and financing decisions made several years in the past.

Neither the White House nor the Export-Import Bank responded immediately to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Biden Admin Talks Tough On Big Oil, But Gave Them Regular Access To Discuss Key Regulatory Change

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Killing A Mosquito With A Bazooka [Corporate Transparency Act] thumbnail

Killing A Mosquito With A Bazooka [Corporate Transparency Act]

By Bruce Bialosky

You have probably seen a cop show where there is a company owned by an entity that is owned by another entity to hide the real owners. A perfect example of someone using what can be referred to as “shell companies” is Hunter Biden having more than 20 of them. Congress wants to stop these activities which are believed to be sheltering illegal activities. Their solution? A proposal with such overkill it is akin to killing a mosquito with a bazooka.

The Corporate Transparency Act was passed in 2021 with bipartisan support. It put enforcement of this in the hands of a U.S. Treasury bureau named the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to Director Andrea Gacki, their website states “This final rule is a significant step forward in our efforts to protect our financial system and curb illicit activities.” “BOI (Beneficial Ownership Information) can provide essential information to law enforcement, intelligence, and national security professionals as they work to protect the United States from bad actors who exploit anonymous shell companies to engage in money laundering, corruption, sanctions and tax evasion, drug trafficking, fraud, and a host of other criminal offenses with impunity, while legitimate businesses suffer from their misdeeds.”

That all sounds wonderful until you find out that an estimated 32.6 million companies will have to file reports on their website by the end of 2024. That includes all corporations, LLCs, partnerships, S corporations, and some trusts. This is not aimed at big businesses; it is aimed at small businesses. Your company is exempt from reporting if you have more than 20 full-time employees or you run a tax-exempt entity. One financial professional suggested a lot of shenanigans are done through non-profit entities wondering why they are exempt.

In addition, if you have more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts you do not have to file. There are 23 other categories of businesses that may be exempt. These businesses are licensed businesses like banks, insurance companies, investment brokerage companies, etc.

Once you determine you must file this report, what do you have to report? You must tell them every person who has 25% or more ownership. In simple terms, if you are the boss or one of the bosses you must be included in the report. When the company files they must report your full legal name, home address, and social security number. Most importantly, you have to provide a PDF of each person’s driver’s license or passport.

If anything changes after filing, you must also report the change within 30 days. That is an ill-defined requirement. For example, if you renew your driver’s license and the issue date and expiration date change, do you have to file a change?

As with any government mandate today there are penalties – lots of penalties – for non-compliance. You are subject to civil penalties of $500 per day if you don’t comply. Or you could be subject to criminal penalties of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to two years.

You can try to file this yourself, but most likely you need a professional. The American Bar Association has said it is questionable that attorneys should do it. The insurance companies for CPAs say they are not insuring for this act because they believe it to be legal work, not CPA work. A high-powered attorney who has been giving seminars on compliance with this new law stated he believes attorneys will include this in their process while creating a new entity for someone. He also stated that he believes CPAs are best suited to file for existing companies because they have the current information on the owners of companies, including who is in charge. Then some utilized a website to form their own company and don’t have an attorney or a CPA. Remember these are small businesses.

I spoke to attorneys who are going to charge at least $500 to comply with this law for new entities. That fee might increase for existing companies because of the law’s complexity. Remember, these are small companies by the law’s own definition. It is another barrier to people trying to start a business and free themselves from working for the gigantic corporations about which many of the elected officials who voted for this complain.

FINCEN has promised the protection of everyone’s personal information. Yeah, right. First, their own website lists a multitude of agencies that will gain access to this information. Second, this comes on the heels of IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn stealing up to 7,500 individuals’ tax information and distributing it to the New York Times and ProPublica. He was charged with just one felony and received only five years in prison. Not much of a deterrent for the disclosure of 7,500 tax returns. How trusting should we be?

A federal judge has in just the last couple of days put a hold on the program saying it is duplicative overkill as the states register all these businesses. It is yet unclear whether the Biden Administration will appeal.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to delay implementation of this law for existing businesses until 2025. The Senate has not yet addressed it. What they both should do is put a spike in the core of this overly invasive and costly mandate. It is just like the government to kill a mosquito with a bazooka.

*****

This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

House Passes Bill That Forces Chinese Parent Company To Sell TikTok thumbnail

House Passes Bill That Forces Chinese Parent Company To Sell TikTok

By The Daily Caller

The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday that would force Chinese company ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the social media app to be allowed to operate in the U.S.

The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act advanced from the House Energy and Commerce Committee by a unanimous vote on March 7. The legislation, which would allow the Beijing-based company roughly five months to sell TikTok, passed with a bipartisan 352 to 65 floor vote, sending the bill to the Senate.

President Joe Biden has signaled he would sign the legislation if it clears the upper chamber.

Critics of the social media app warn of the potential national security threats of its association with the Chinese Communist Party and what they view to be harmful effects on American youth. Others argue that banning the social media app is a violation of First Amendment rights and free enterprise.

TikTok has been critical of the legislation, which it called “an outright ban” in an X statement on March 5. The social media app encouraged its children and teenaged users to call congressional offices and complain about the bill.

“This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs,” TikTok wrote.

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, appeared to voice opposition to the legislation despite previously attempting to ban the app. Trump’s 2020 ban faced legal challenges, and was eventually repealed by the Biden administration in 2021.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”

Wealthy businessman Kevin O’Leary has expressed interest in purchasing the app if the legislation goes into effect.“It’s not going to get banned because I’m going to buy it,” the Shark Tank co-star told Fox News on Friday. “Somebody’s going to buy it. It won’t be Meta and it won’t be Google because a regulator will stop that. A syndicate will be formed. I would like to be involved, obviously.”

AUTHOR

MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: TikTok Bill Clears Committee Hurdle With Unanimous Vote As China Faces App Sale Ultimatum

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Great Ponzi Scheme thumbnail

The Great Ponzi Scheme

By Daniel J. Mitchell and Leslie Rubin

The fiscal burden of the United States is getting seriously out of hand.

The United States is in fiscal trouble. The burden of government spending has increased by nearly $3 trillion over the past 10 years—nearly doubling in just one decade! And that means more resources are diverted from the economy’s productive sector, which is bad news whether the spending is financed by taxes, borrowing, or money printing.

To make matters worse, the burden of spending will get even heavier in the coming decades, mostly because politicians have saddled the nation with poorly designed entitlement programs that make no sense given our aging population. What’s more, Washington has dozens of ill-conceived programs ostensibly to help the needy, but they are riddled with perverse incentives that promote the opposite of what was intended.

If politicians continue to bury their heads in the sand, bad things will happen:

  • Radical, economy-sapping tax increases, including perhaps a value-added tax, which is a hidden form of national sales tax that has given European politicians an excuse to create enormous welfare states—leading to economic stagnation.
  • Reckless monetary policy as short-sighted politicians adopt the Venezuelan tactic of financing the government with the printing press—thereby compounding the damage of bad fiscal policy with bad monetary policy.
  • Massive increases in red ink. Our own Treasury Department says in its annual report that “the current fiscal path is unsustainable” because of numbers such as:
    • $34 trillion in interest-bearing debt as of December 2023 and rising rapidly.
    • $128 trillion in total obligations, including unfunded obligations to Social Security and Medicare as of September 2023 (the latest data available).
    • $18.2 trillion in additional interest-bearing debt is projected by the CBO over the next 10 years if we do not add any new programs.
    • $150+ trillion in interest-bearing debt in 30 years if we do not change our programs.

Our federal government continues to spend endlessly and has no way of making the numbers work. For all intents and purposes, Uncle Sam is running a Ponzi scheme as he has no way to pay back the debt other than borrow more money. Our Congressional leaders are paying no heed; they just keep on “spending like a drunken sailor,” referring to an old Navy cliché. Well, as President Reagan often quipped, that’s an insult to our sailors, because “at least a drunken sailor spends his own money.” Additionally, Modern Monetary Theory enthusiasts say that the country can borrow endlessly with no harmful effects. How? By printing money! Only an idiot would believe that—it is the furthest thing from true reality.

All this sounds horrible because it is horrible. To raise the alarm, we’ve written a book, The Greatest Ponzi Scheme on Earth, that explains America’s fiscal mess. It explains how we got in trouble and how we will suffer an economic crisis if we leave policy on autopilot.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that our book shows that there are reasonable solutions. All that is needed is for government spending to grow slower than the economy. In other words, put the government on a diet. Politicians could still increase spending, but only by modest amounts. Maybe 2 percent annual spending increases rather than the 7+ percent spending increases that we’ve seen over the past 10 years.

In our book, we show examples of countries that have long-run spending restraints (super-successful economies such as Switzerland and Singapore). But we also show examples of nations that dug themselves out of fiscal trouble merely by having multi-year periods of spending restraint. And if countries such as New Zealand, Canada, and Sweden can address their fiscal problems, surely we should demand the same from the crowd in Washington.

The Debt Bomb

The late Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote a book in 2010 called The Debt Bomb. He was not a professional politician; he was a physician who was interested in the welfare of this country—a true statesman. He was totally frustrated by his inability to get fiscal sanity in DC, and wrote about what he saw coming. He predicted big problems if we did not move back to fiscal sanity. We strongly encourage you to read it to get an insider’s view of what Coburn tried to do.

His worst fears are coming true right before our eyes, today.

The “debt bomb” is ticking, and if left unchecked it will explode one day when we can no longer support our spending habit by borrowing more money from investors. When that day comes, we will be faced with several choices, all of them quite bad. The government could print more money, which would result in disastrous hyperinflation—think Venezuela. The United States could default on the debt, resulting in national and worldwide economic chaos. Lastly, Congress could try to balance the budget while maintaining the debt, an impossibility as the government would not even have enough income to meet its debt obligations, much less its operating expenses. That really results in default.

Kicking the can down the road solves nothing and makes the situation worse. It is a recipe for disaster.

There is a fire raging, and no one is paying attention. Does anyone care? Do you care?

Only an educated public will recognize the problem and demand that it be fixed. As Americans, it’s time for us to “get it.” Quit being the silent majority, and take an active role in fixing the problem. The citizens of this great country must make our voices heard. Do something. Speak up. Speak out.

The solution requires that Congress makes some politically difficult choices, and that will not happen without mass public support. Only with informed public support will our Congressional leaders take notice and fix the problem.

Abraham Lincoln said it best, “with public support anything is possible.”

To learn more, check out The Greatest Ponzi Scheme on Earth and visit mainstreeteconomics.org.

*****

This article was published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

DEI is Dying. And It’s About Time! thumbnail

DEI is Dying. And It’s About Time!

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Wall Streets DEI Retreat Has Officially Begun. As DEI gets more divisive, companies are ditching their teams.


These are not headlines I thought I’d be reading in 2024, but it’s a happy day when legacy news sites as hegemonic as Bloomberg and The Washington Post are using such clear language to flag the retreat of DEI from corporate America.

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) bills itself as a framework for promoting fair treatment and full participation for all people in the workforce, with a special focus on groups historically hurt by discrimination, like women, racial minorities and LGBT individuals.

What DEI has generally looked like in practice, however, is a new brand of bigotry to replace the old, where a person’s outward identity trumps their merit or performance. Meanwhile, those possessing genuine talent but the wrong attributes (think male, white or straight) have found themselves punished for factors out of their control.

American philosopher Dr Peter Boghossian was part of the infamous Grievance Studies Affair project, and later made headlines for resigning from his prestigious post at Portland State University after the school became overrun with DEI ideology. He has offered more honest definitions for this contentious three-letter acronym.

Diversity, according to Boghossian, means people who look different but think alike. Equity, he says, means making up for past discrimination with current discrimination. And Inclusion, he argues, means restricting speech.

Nowhere have Boghossian’s DEI definitions proven more prescient than at Harvard University, which became embroiled in a months-long scandal late last year as the woke worldview of then-President Claudine Gay unravelled in real time before a watching world.

Ms Gay’s failures were at least threefold.

First, she carved a path of effectively destroying the careers of dissident Harvard scholars, even if they were from racial minorities: economist Roland Fryer and law professor Ronald Sullivan being two prominent examples.

Second, following unconscionable pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus, she was asked during a Capitol Hill deposition whether calling for genocide against Jews ran counter to Harvard’s harassment policy, and she equivocated, bigly.

Third and perhaps most unforgivably for an Ivy League president, some 50 instances of plagiarism were latterly uncovered in her rather threadbare canon of scholarship.

There is no doubt that the fall of Claudine Gay was a turning point for wokery in America’s institutions. If reporting from Bloomberg and WaPo is anything to go on, it also marked the beginning of the end for DEI.

Writes Bloomberg:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has made a surprising change to its Possibilities Summit” for Black college students: Its opened the program to White students.

At Bank of America Corp., certain internal programs that used to focus on women and minorities have been broadened to include everyone.

And at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., executives are being urged to reconsider hard metrics for workforce diversity. Lose them, lawyers have advised.

This is what diversity, equity and inclusion looks like on Wall Street today: anxious, fraught — and changing fast.

From C-suites down, American finance is quietly reassessing its promises to level the playing field. The growing conservative assault on DEI, coupled with pockets of resentment among White employees, have executives moving to head off accusations of reverse discrimination. Its not just Wall Street. In recent weeks, Zoom Video Communications Inc. cut its internal DEI team amid broader layoffs and Tesla Inc. removed language about minority workers from a regulatory filing.

The seemingly small changes — lawyerly tweaks, executives call them — are starting to add up to something big: the end of a watershed era for diversity in the US workplace, and the start of a new, uncertain one.

The news from WaPo is just as bright:

DEI jobs peaked in early 2023 before falling 5 percent that year and shrinking by 8 percent so far in 2024, according to Revelio Labs data shared with The Washington Post. The attrition rate for DEI roles has been about double that of non-DEI jobs, says Revelio, which tracks workforce dynamics.

In recent weeks, Zoom axed its internal DEI team amid broader layoffs, and Snap cut workers who worked on retention and engagement efforts for employees from underrepresented groups. Meta, Tesla, DoorDash, Lyft, Home Depot, Wayfair and X were among major corporations making steep cuts in 2023, slashing the size of their DEI teams by 50 percent or more, Revelios data shows.

Conservative journalist Christopher Rufo, who has been at the forefront of the counter-DEI revolution, has hailed these results as a historic turning point.

“DEI is not an inevitability,” he wrote in City Journal last week. “It is a choice that can be undone.”

Rufo reports having recently spoken with several Fortune 500 executives who had felt immense pressure to enact DEI initiatives following the summer of George Floyd. “But four years later, they have realized that DEI programs undermine productivity, destroy merit-based systems, and poison corporate culture.”

In the wake of events like the Harvard scandal, Rufo explains, these executives “now have the political space — in essence, the social permission — to wind down these programs.”

No small part of turning tide comes thanks to the introduction of 76 anti-DEI bills in U.S. state legislatures, with 17 states either passing or considering them, according to data compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

“We should celebrate the moment,” Rufo declares — “But we need to do much more.”

Let’s hope it’s only up from here.


Kurt presents a pretty negative view of DEI. Is he on the money? What do you think? Tell us in the comments box below.


AUTHOR

KURT MAHLBURG

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate architect, a primary school teacher, a missionary, and a young adult pastor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Doctor: ‘DEI Is Dangerous Everywhere, but It’s Most Dangerous in Medical School’

Disney’s DEI Policies Land Them in Court: ‘The Hit Factory Is Now the Flop Factory’

DEI/DIE the Virgin Skies: ‘Um… Why Is Our Plane’s Wing Missing All Those Screws?

RELATED VIDEO: ‘Why DEI Must End for Good’—Bari Weiss Gets a Lot Right Here

POST ON X:

🚨WATCH: Chris Cuomo predicts Donald Trump will win the 2024 presidential election https://t.co/TMEuORIXMz

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 12, 2024

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

Biden Admin Sent ‘Hate Group’ List of Conservative Orgs to Banks after J6 thumbnail

Biden Admin Sent ‘Hate Group’ List of Conservative Orgs to Banks after J6

By Family Research Council

Last week, it came to light that the Biden administration provided a listing of “hate groups,” which lumped together mainstream conservative organizations alongside avowed neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, to major U.S. banks for the purpose of monitoring financial transactions in the wake of the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Experts say the pattern could lead to an increase in banks cancelling the accounts of politically disfavored organizations.

The listing was taken from a report compiled by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), two U.K.-based left-wing activist groups. The report includes a listing of “American Hate Groups,” which is itself based on the classifications of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The listing classifies conservative organizations such as Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, and others alongside avowed Neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups such as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

According to an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) sent the report to “some of the largest financial institutions in the world, including the very financial institutions that are likely responsible for providing financial services to many of the listed ‘hate groups.’”

In January, reports surfaced that FinCEN had urged banks to “comb through the private transactions of their customers” to look for “suspicious charges” of legal activities involving political and religious expression without warrants, including the purchase of religious texts and legal firearms. Experts warn that these actions are part of a pattern of increasing collusion between the federal government and corporate America to commit warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

But experts also fear that the Biden administration’s actions could lead to an increase in outright cancellations of the bank accounts of conservative organizations by major financial institutions, which has already occurred on numerous occasions. As Jeremy Tedesco, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, testified before the Weaponization subcommittee last week, “viewpoint-based de-banking is on the rise.”

As reported by National Review, some banks are citing “reputation risk” in order to justify discrimination “against gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellersfossil-fuel producerscontractors for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; and private prisons and related services.”

In recent years, two Christian nonprofit organizations were targeted by Bank of America (BoA). Indigenous Advance Ministries, which helps impoverished widows and orphans in Uganda, had its long-standing account closed in 2023, with BoA claiming that they no longer serve Indigenous Advance’s “business type” and that the ministry exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.” Three years prior, Timothy Two Project International, a ministry that trains indigenous pastors across the globe, received “a nearly identical letter” from BoA and “was repeatedly stonewalled in attempts to gain clarity about the cancellation and how to resolve it.”

Similarly, in 2022 JPMorgan Chase, without explanation, cancelled the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom in the U.S. which is headed by former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback. In order for their account to be reinstated, JPMorgan demanded that NCRF turn over a list of high-level donors, “a list of candidates it intended to support, and its criteria for political support.”

Experts say that the Biden Treasury Department’s actions could lead to more conservative organizations being de-banked.

“That’s what they want,” Chris Gacek, senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “It’s really troubling. The Republican attorneys general need to come together on this. They need to really start digging into this de-banking pattern and getting subpoenas out. One of the industries where there’s a lot of state regulation is banking. State AGs would have the ability to get subpoenas and start looking at the records and start seeing what the Feds were forcing them to do. It’s very, very serious.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: J6 Committee Reportedly Covered Up Key Testimony, Resulted in Trump Being Struck from Ballot

POST ON X:

Former Trump official Kash Patel confirms The Federalist’s report that the J6 Committee HID evidence of Trump’s push for 10k National Guard: “I was in the Oval Office…This is the exculpatory evidence that Liz Cheney & Co. have BURIED for 2 years to achieve a political game.” pic.twitter.com/buoRxY5vHv

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 11, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

A Lesson for America: Green Policies Crush German Economy thumbnail

A Lesson for America: Green Policies Crush German Economy

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Alexander Frei

Germany’s gross domestic product has been falling since the third quarter of 2022, causing fears of the first 2-yearlong recession since the early 2000s. German farmers are openly protesting new climate regulations that would raise the price of diesel fuel, vital for tractors and farm machinery. This discontent is mirrored by the general public, which is opposed to higher energy costs that drag down the economy. Recent polls show a significant shift in public opinion that’s increasingly opposed to the coalition government.

Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate, where invariably one party secures a ruling majority, multiple German parties must form a coalition to reach the required 50%+1 majority threshold.

Currently, the Green Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Free Democratic Party comprise this coalition. The latest polls show all these parties polling far below their 2021 election results while the more right-leaning parties, such as the Christian Democratic Union and the Alternative for Germany, are surging in popularity.

The recent economic slowdown has resulted in widespread political discontent, and the core of the slowdown has been disastrous energy policy.

Instead of the government focusing on making energy affordable, it has continued its commitment to the “Energiewende”—the “Energy Transition”—a government project aimed at radically shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. One of the project’s stated goals is to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.

Germany’s closure of its nuclear plants in April 2023 has made achieving net-zero targets significantly more challenging, given that nuclear power is capable of generating substantial amounts of carbon emissions-free electricity. The economic effect of these decisions is palpable for ordinary people, who feel it each month when paying their energy bills.

According to the most recent data published by the German Federal Statistical Office, consumers have been paying an average of 46 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity. For comparison, the average price of electricity in the United States during December was just under 13 cents per kWh.

Cost disparities can also be seen in the price of gasoline. At the fuel pump, German consumers pay an average price of $7.23 per gallon, compared to $3.33 in America.

These high energy costs are slowing other aspects of the economy, leading to dramatic losses in purchasing power for consumers and threatening to make production unprofitable for many companies. In addition, small businesses and farmers, which rely on electricity and fertilizers to operate, respectively, have been hit extremely hard by these recent price increases.

In addition, the slowdown in global trade is profoundly affecting Germany’s export-centric economy, exacerbating the overall economic decline. Unfortunately for Germans, recent economic forecasts do not offer much hope either. Economists predict the economy to grow only by around 0.2% in 2024.

Large German companies have already taken notice and acted accordingly. Around 67% of German companies have moved at least some operations abroad, citing high energy prices and inflation as their main reasons for leaving. This wide-scale deindustrialization is especially prevalent for the mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors—the backbone of the German economy.

The tipping point came in February when the famous family-owned dishwasher manufacturer Miele announced that it would cut thousands of jobs and move production to Poland. Luxury car manufacturer Porsche initially planned on building a new car battery manufacturing plant domestically and then switched gears by announcing plans to open the proposed plant in America. Both the lack of future investment and deindustrialization create a snowball effect, worsening the situation.

Widespread dissatisfaction with Germany’s green policies should be a lesson for America. At the heart of the problem is Germany’s failure to allow for the energy industry to create affordable energy for its citizens. For years, the anti-business green energy agenda has decreased carbon emissions but increased the economic crisis. Germany’s experience shows that America needs a sound energy policy, not the arbitrary climate goals the current administration is pursuing.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

What If A Market Roared And Nobody Heard It? thumbnail

What If A Market Roared And Nobody Heard It?

By Neland Nobel

We all know about new highs in the Dow Jones Industrials, the NASDAQ, and the S&P 500. The market has been driven higher by a mere handful of very large tech companies. Some of the indices are already up 8% or so, just in the first two months of the year.  The equally weighted S&P is up slightly more than half that amount.

At least for ourselves, we continue to stay with the trend with reduced allocation to stocks because, while the market is expensive and distorted,  it has not violated any meaningful linear or moving average trend.  Although the market action has been distorted, it is still undeniably positive. 

Yes, we remain concerned about extreme levels of sentiment and valuation, and that is why we reduced risk. 

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell again reassured the market that interest rate cuts are forthcoming, as soon as inflation cools a bit more. However, services inflation is not cooperating and now fuel prices are rising as well.  The FED remains in a tough spot to deliver all the markets expect.

As Martin Zweig advised,  don’t fight the trend, and don’t fight the FED.

The reasons for the advance in equities now seem pretty obvious. The FED stated earlier that it would be cutting interest rates. Markets began the year wildly optimistic, projecting up to seven rate cuts. Those expectations have been scaled back but rate cuts are expected by summer as the FED normally will not cut within about 6 months of a Presidential election. And, the economy has made a rebound after the disastrous lockdown policies and continues to outshine Europe, Canada, and China. It has defied expectations of recession.

In addition, the hype about Artificial Intelligence keeps driving the tech companies upward. Even though Google had some extreme embarrassment with Gemini, investors rightly or wrongly, are putting great faith in the earnings potential of AI.

We are skeptical. Let’s hope the nexus between artificial intelligence and natural stupidity will eventually produce a better product than Gemini. It appears to have been programmed by the Communist Party, which would appeal to a rather small market.

Markets have also been supported by enormous fiscal stimulus. Fully one-third of GDP “growth” is the growth of government.

This fiscal stimulus rivals or exceeds previous periods. The website Game of Trades put together this interesting inflation-adjusted chart. 

The current budget deficit, in inflation-adjusted dollars, exceeds all the deficits needed to finance WWI, WWII, and 30 years of deficit spending, COMBINED. 

 

The size of this deficit spending may explain why one other market has gone to new highs, yet has gotten very little attention.

We are talking about the gold market.  Gold gets little attention compared to the soaring market and all the hype about AI.

But we know it is of interest to Conservatives if for no other reason, it seems most of the Conservative talk radio shows and podcasts have a gold advertiser. The Prickly Pear is no exception with our loyal advertiser, American Precious Metals. We hope you will call them at 602-840-5500 or 1-800-522-GOLD when you desire to buy or sell physical metals.  If you want to help independent citizen journalism, please support our sponsors.

Further, most Conservatives look with great anxiety at the wild government spending and soaring debt at all levels of society.  Gold is portfolio insurance even if presently it is not a hot investment.

Federal debt is now rising at a breath-taking clip of about a Trillion dollars every four months. One wonders how long this can continue before something breaks.  Between the rollover of existing debt and the funding of new debt, the bond market must swallow over $10 trillion in issuance in 2024.  With most of the traditional foreign buyers reducing US Treasury holdings, financing this debt with falling rates appears contradictory.  Interest costs on the debt now exceed $1 Trillion and likely will move even higher as low-interest rate bonds mature and must be refinanced.

If you look at the weekly chart for gold, you can see that from the fall of 2018 to the summer of 2020, it rose about 70%.  Since then, we have been a broad congestion, for almost four years, but recently gold broke a triple top, a bullish thing to happen from such a large consolidation.  That certainly is a positive development.

Some of the traditional stimulants for gold appear missing.  The dollar has not been particularly feeble, and usually, they move opposite each other.  The same can be said for equities.  Gold usually moves opposite the direction of stocks and that is why it has historically been a good portfolio diversifier.

Gold usually does well when “systemic risk” to financial stability is high.  While the potential of excessive debt certainly remains present, neither stock nor bond markets are acting concerned. Bank troubles are to be “believed” contained although Powell suggested in his recent speech before Congress to expect more bank failures.

Maybe equity markets should be more concerned,  but stocks as noted before, are pushing higher along a broad front.

Despite the wild spending and record debt build-up, public enthusiasm for gold remains subdued, if not negative. Western investors continue to liquidate ounces from the gold bullion ETFs and physical dealers we know say demand is weak with about as many liquidations as purchases. The chart below from the World Gold Council shows the oddity of the public leaving gold ETFs while bullion is firming.  Only in Asia is the flow positive into their respective ETFs and that has been the case for 12 months.

We do know that central bank demand continues to be robust, but that still can’t quite explain gold’s strength with such flaccid demand from investors.

One explanation is that the center of the gold market, which used to be London and New York, which is mostly a commodity futures market, has moved Eastward to China and there it is mostly a physical market. Prices for both gold and silver are at a premium in Shanghai right now, indicating strong demand. But why don’t investors buy in the cheaper Western markets and close the gap in prices through arbitrage? Likely because buyers don’t want futures (paper gold) but want the real stuff in hand.

Why do Asians want the real stuff and Americans don’t?  Perhaps because they have seen the collapse of huge real estate developments like Evergrande where a whopping 70% of Chinese household wealth is now stuck in these failing real estate institutions. They want to hold something that won’t go broke.

In addition, a growing number of countries (36) seem to be joining BRICS, which is an attempt to get away from US dollar hegemony. 

BRICS now represents about 50% of the global population and more than a third of global oil production.

The largest Arab state, Egypt just devalued its currency by 30%, hurt badly by a collapse in revenue from Suez Canal traffic, largely caused by Iran’s proxy the Houthis.

War in the Ukraine and Gaza continues.

Interestingly, gold has been below $2,000 per ounce for only two days this year, both days the Chinese markets were closed for their New Year.

Speaking of going broke, the reason central banks have been buying at the fastest pace in 50 years is outside of the US, investors are more worried about the rapid explosion of US debt, and prospects for more to come. We agree and think the US public should be a lot more concerned than it currently is.

The Kobeissi Letter recently summarized current contradictions in the markets rather succinctly:

“1. The S&P 500 is trading like we are in a new bull market.

2. Regional bank stocks are crashing like the crisis never ended.

3. Bonds are rising like the Fed is cutting interest rates.

4. Inflation data is rising like rate cuts are canceled.

5. Bitcoin is rising like there’s no recession coming.

6. Gold is rising like a recession is on the way.

Nothing adds up here.”

We agree it is confusing but we think new highs in gold are telling us something.  If we had to guess it is a combination of strong Chinese demand and central bank demand.  That central bank demand stems from the recognition that the US has entered a “doom loop”, that is, we are now borrowing money to pay interest on the debt.

What is the potential for gold?  Given that few investors are in, it would appear substantial.  Imagine if Western investors quit selling and joined the East and Central Banks in buying.

The same can be said for gold mining equities, which have been shunned for about a decade.  Only one other time in 2015 were gold mining shares this cheap relative to bullion.

At any rate, gold is at new highs and it seems few care.  Since gold tends to do best when there is systemic financial risk, its rise should not be ignored.

*****

Charts courtesy of Stockcharts.com and The World Gold Council, Game of Trades, and Holger Zschaepitz

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Americans Chip Away at Corporate Wokeness with Doritos Win [Video] thumbnail

Americans Chip Away at Corporate Wokeness with Doritos Win [Video]

By Family Research Council

It took Frito-Lay 63 years to build a $13 billion dollar empire. This week, 50 seconds almost destroyed it. That’s how close the brand came to corporate annihilation after its Doritos team posted a short video with a trans influencer that makes Dylan Mulvaney look like a youth pastor. Turns out, 24-year-old Samantha Hudson isn’t just a man pretending to be a woman, he’s a sick pervert with dreams of sexually abusing children. Congratulations, Bud Light. You’re officially out of the brand basement.

To everyone’s shock, Hudson, who appeared on “Crunch Talk” on behalf of Doritos Spain, has a disgusting history of social media tweets that fantasize about everything from nymphomania to child sexual abuse. “I want to do thuggish things to get into a 12-year-old girl’s [expletive],” he wrote. In another post, he talks about being in the middle of a street in his underwear “in front of a super beautiful 8-year-old girl.” With surprising cruelty, he vilifies victims of abuse, writing, “I hate women who are victims of sexual assault and go to self help centers to overcome their trauma. Annoying sl—s.”

As if that weren’t enough, Hudson describes himself as a Marxist “anti-capitalist,” who fights for “the abolition of … the traditional monogamous nuclear family” — which apparently makes him perfect spokesperson material.

Of course, once people started digging up his vile statements, Hudson apologized, claiming they were “pure provocation and in very bad taste.” “… [H]onestly I don’t know what to say,” he said. “I don’t remember having written such barbarities. … I thought that ‘dark humor’ was funny.” But it was too late. Americans across every platform were horrified, outraged, and to Frito-Lay’s terror, motivated. From journalists to former Trump officials, people called for “the Bud Light treatment.” Who hires an admitted pedophile to be the face of their product, everyone wondered? And what lazy marketing team doesn’t do a background check?

“This person is a million times worse than Dylan Mulvaney,” Ian Miles Cheong argued. The country seemed to agree — making #BoycottDoritos trend on X within hours of the story breaking.

Then something incredible happened. Before the wave of consumer anger hit land, Frito-Lay didn’t just take the video down — they fired Hudson. “We have ended the relationship,” a spokesperson told Rolling Stone. “We strongly condemn words or actions that promote violence or sexism of any kind.”

It was an astonishing turn for the company, even more astonishing given the timetable. Less than 48 hours after the video went viral, Frito-Lay — whose parent company PepsiCo has a perfect 100% score from the Human Rights Campaign on trans advocacy — dropped Hudson like a hot potato. Even Rip Curl, who faced the world’s wrath last month for featuring a trans “hero” in its surfer series, took five days to apologize — a record for regret.

That’s how dangerous it’s become for brands to cross consumers with a woke agenda. In the 11 months since Mulvaney-gate at Bud Light — a gamble that’s now cost them an eye-popping $1.4 billion in revenue — the entire landscape of corporate activism has changed. CEOs who were tripping over themselves to embrace the LGBT fringe are desperate to avoid the pushback that broke Anheuser-BuschTargetDisney, and others.

As Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm pointed out to The Washington Stand, this situation is different than other endorsement deals “involving so-called trans influencers,” since Hudson has quite a different, depraved past. “But it’s good to see that gender identity is no longer providing immunity to do and say terrible things,” he observed. “Wokeness has long insisted those labeled ‘oppressed’ can get away with doing things other people should not do. We need a world where people are judged consistently by their choices more than the group they identify with. Yes, Frito-Lay is probably doing a financial calculation here as well, but this is still a refreshing act of moral sanity.”

For corporate America, it’s quite a sea change. After years of punching above their weight class, Big Business faces a terrifying reality: consumers are punching back. And victories like this one will only inspire them to flex those muscles more.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Student Files Lawsuit against Fairfax County’s ‘Dystopian’ Trans Bathroom, Pronoun Policies

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

PERKINS: State of Faith, Family, and Freedom Address thumbnail

PERKINS: State of Faith, Family, and Freedom Address

By Family Research Council

TRANSCRIPT

I am Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., with this year’s State of Faith, Family, and Freedom in America.

The apostle Peter wrote to believers who had been scattered because of the persecution of the early church, instructing them to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” [1 Peter 3:15 ESV].

Notice where that hope was to reside. Not in the halls of power, the media headlines of the day, and certainly not on the stages of entertainment. Rather, that hope is to be found within us.

As followers of Christ, we have the very presence of God within us, which is our hope and confidence. And in a moment, I want to share with you the tangible results that have come from that hope, results which the godless Left and their lemmings in the legacy media work day and night to keep from you.

So, from that foundation, we look at the state of faith, family, and freedom in America.

The assault on biblical faith continues to accelerate under the Biden administration’s policies, both at home and abroad.

Religious freedom, the top foreign policy objective of the former Trump administration, has been replaced with prioritizing attacks on the unborn, promoting LGBTQ ideology, and the climate, the unholy trinity of the Left.

The Biden administration has found the ideal partner to advance this unholy trinity with the World Health Organization (WHO), which is working feverishly to advance an unprecedented global power grab through a pandemic treaty — or pandemic accord as it is deceptively called to avoid the need for ratification by the U.S. Senate.

This accord grants the compromised WHO the ability to regulate nearly every aspect of life for citizens of every nation when the WHO believes there is a health emergency. The treaty calls for censoring information that would challenge their declaration, which would include silencing dissenting voices. We saw this type of totalitarianism play out here in the United States during COVID-19; we don’t want to see a global sequel.

The consequences of the Biden administration’s misplaced priorities have rapidly manifested in global chaos and instability, along with historic levels of persecution of Christians and other religious minorities.

A case in point is the country of Nigeria, the most populous African nation. As chairman of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom during the Trump administration, I led the commission in recommending that Nigeria be designated as a country of particular concern. This designation, which the Trump administration adopted for the government of Nigeria, allowed for economic sanctions upon the country and its leaders for allowing the egregious, ongoing, and systematic persecution of people of faith.

But, without adequate explanation, that designation was immediately removed by the Biden administration when they came into office. The result has been a dramatic rise in the death toll. According to the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law, more than 8,000 Christians were killed in Nigeria last year alone.

This indifference to religious freedom abroad is rivaled only by the hostility toward religious freedom here at home, as a congressional investigation revealed the FBI tracked and worked to infiltrate churches in part because of leftist propaganda from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The role of faith, the Christian faith, has been routinely undermined by President Biden’s policies. Faith-based entities focused on proclaiming truth through charitable service have been assaulted.

At the end of last year, the Biden Department of Health and Human Services put forth a new rule that would shut down Christian foster care services and exclude Christian foster families unless they surrender biblical teaching on human sexuality and gender identity. And this comes at a time when more, not fewer, stable families are needed for children in need of a family.

These policies, which are hostile to biblical truth, have fomented and tacitly approved outright acts of hostility toward churches in America.

Over the last year, there have been 436 identified acts of hostility on churches in the United States, ranging from vandalism to firebombing to shootings. Family Research Council’s recently released Hostility Against Churches Report shows an astounding 800% increase in acts of vandalism and violence towards churches since 2018.

The family has not evaded the hostility of this administration either, as radical gender policies are pushed from the Department of Education onto local schools, demanding parents be kept in the dark as their children are transitioned. Ask Jennifer and Dan Mead, whose autistic daughter was being secretly transitioned at school without her parents’ knowledge or consent. Behind their backs, teachers agreed to call her by a masculine name and male pronouns. The Meads stumbled on the truth when an education plan that detailed their daughter’s life as a boy at school was accidentally sent home. Furious, they pulled her out of classes, started homeschooling, and sued. Now, her mom says, “She’s safe. She knows her real identity.” But who knows how many other parents are living this same nightmare? Or worse, oblivious to what’s happening right under their noses.

The hostility of the Left begins at the moment of conception.

“Think about [it],” Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are persons. “Individuals, couples, who want to start a family are now being deprived of access to what can help them start a family,” she said, referring to the potential impacts on In Vitro Fertilization. “So, on the one hand, the proponents are saying that an individual doesn’t have a right to end an unwanted pregnancy, and on the other hand, the individual does not have a right to start a family.”

This faux outrage is the height of hypocrisy. The Alabama ruling did nothing to outlaw IVF, but on the contrary, ensured that parents struggling with infertility don’t experience even more heartbreak because of the carelessness of IVF clinics that treat embryos as if they are merely pieces of property. This feign of counterfeit compassion over infertility comes at the same time the Biden administration is working to overturn every state’s pro-life laws by allowing dangerous mail-order abortions without medical oversight — which is a violation of federal law. And once again, they are peddling the lie that protecting unborn children puts women’s lives at risk. Not a single pro-life law prohibits saving a mother’s life. Instead, these laws protect unborn children from being brutally torn apart.

Innocent human life must be protected, as must the mothers, many of whom think they have no alternative. That’s why Republicans are working to stop the Biden administration in its new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program from excluding pregnancy resource centers from receiving federal funding for the myriad of services they provide.

More and more families are looking to religious nonprofits for assistance in many areas as families struggle under the present tight economy, where prices have climbed 18% since President Biden took office.

Prices aren’t the only thing increasing under this administration; so has violent crime.

While the Democratic Party wants you to believe that crime has declined over the past year, the reality is that homicides, theft, carjackings, and property damage are astronomically higher than they were in 2019. Violent crimes against young people have actually doubled in the last year. Motor vehicle thefts are up 105% since the pandemic — as even members of Congress have fallen prey to carjackings. The murder rate is up as much as 30% in places like the nation’s capital and about 18% overall.

A contributing factor to violent crime is the skyrocketing illegal immigration on our southern border, made tragically evident again when 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley was found murdered on the campus of the University of Georgia. The alleged murderer, Jose Ibarra, illegally entered the country in 2022 from Venezuela, was detained, and then let loose or “paroled” into the United States. This is a man who was arrested three times but never detained. And by the way, Athens, Georgia, where the campus is located, is a sanctuary city. A sanctuary for criminals and murderers, not nursing students and law-abiding citizens.

An estimated 10 million illegal immigrants have crossed into the United States since President Biden took office in January of 2021.

Deadly drugs like fentanyl are also streaming across the border, becoming the number one killer of Americans aged 18-45.

It is not just drugs and criminals that are streaming across the border; so are terrorists. At least 342 individuals who are on the terrorist watchlist have been detained at the border; there is no telling how many terrorists have evaded authorities and are now in the United States establishing terrorist cells.

We don’t have to look back far into history to see the savagery of a terrorist border invasion. We simply look at October 7 in Israel when Hamas terrorists invaded peaceful Israeli communities and brutally tortured, maimed, raped, and killed 1,400 innocent people and took 240 hostages. And now, five months later, as Israel seeks to secure its borders and eliminate future threats from Hamas, the Biden administration is breaking with one of America’s most politically reliable and spiritually significant allies. The Biden administration has repeatedly called for pauses or ceasefires, which allows Hamas to regroup and resupply, even as American hostages have not been freed.

Most recently, the Biden administration reversed the policy of the Trump administration that recognized Israel had a right to build in the biblical areas of Samaria and Judea, misleadingly called the West Bank. President Biden has gone so far as to sanction Israelis living in these areas while giving billions of dollars to organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which has been directly linked to Hamas and the October 7 terrorist attack.

Friends, I believe America’s support for and stand with Israel has resulted in God extending grace to America despite our accelerating departure from His truth over the last half-century. America’s future is inextricably intertwined with Israel’s.

When we look at and consider these challenges, we don’t do so as people who have no hope of overcoming — to the contrary. Jesus, in the parable about the unjust judge, which is an appropriate analogy as we consider our relationship to our government, said men should always pray and not lose heart or hope.

Jesus was not laying out a prescription to simply feel good. This call to prayer was a prescription for change.

Let me give you just a few facts about the change God has brought forth in our nation because Christians didn’t give up hope but instead continued to pray, vote, and stand for biblical truth.

On June 24, 2022, after 49 years of prayerful, disciplined, and often ridiculed political engagement, Roe v. Wade was overturned, putting the ability to protect women and children into the hands of their elected representatives rather than unelected judges.

Here is something I am sure you’ve yet to hear from the legacy media. We have more Bible-believing Christians in Congress, in state legislatures, on city councils, and serving on school boards than at any time in modern history. Look at the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a Christian, a conservative, a Republican. I know Speaker Johnson; he and I have been friends for over 25 years.

Look at the transformation of state legislatures across the country. In 1990, there were six GOP-controlled legislatures. Twenty-four years later, there are 28. And one result has been state pro-life laws have doubled since the Republican election wave of 2010.

We know that we will overcome. That is why we must continue to pray for our nation, that we will return to God and His truth. We need to vote. We need to both raise up and vote for leaders who have the qualities that Jethro laid out to Moses in Exodus 18, leaders who: 1) are able, they know what to do; 2) fear God; 3) are men of truth; and 4) are not looking to get rich; rather, they are seeking to serve.

Finally, we need to stand for truth, no matter who else is standing or not standing. And do so filled with the joy of the Lord. In John 15, as Jesus was warning His disciples of the challenges they would face for following Him, He said this: “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full” [John 15:11].

And we do all of this in love. Paul instructs us in 1 Corinthians 16, to “watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with love” [NKJV].

The state of faith, family, and freedom in America is being tested and tried to a degree that is almost unrivaled in our history. But our confidence and hope in the future has never been more solid because we’ve seen the budding fruit of decades of prayer, of biblically guided participation in our republican form of government.

We must let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence by a weaponized government, nor will we allow Marxist tactics that seek to marginalize the Christian faith to cause us to shrink back into the shadows of society. Why? Because of the hope that is within us and the victory that is before us, it leaves us more resolved than ever to pray, vote, and stand for biblical truth.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

U.S. Economy LOST 1.87 Million Full Time Jobs In Past 3 Months thumbnail

U.S. Economy LOST 1.87 Million Full Time Jobs In Past 3 Months

By The Geller Report

Every month, the Biden regime’s job report is revised DOWN by 20-50%. It bears noting that it’s the government sector that continues to dominate the new jobs reports.

Rich Baris posts: “Another MASSIVE downward revision to the prior monthly jobs report. These people are lying to us, and covering their tracks a month later. We’ve now had downward revisions for 10/12 to 11/12 on the 12-month for nearly two years.”

Government statistics, once a tool to measure the health of our economy, are cooked and created – weaponized as a campaign tool.

Over the last 3 months the US economy has shed 1.87million full time jobs. That’s the largest decline since the GFC, outside the covid lockdowns. pic.twitter.com/9h8JfSHtUP

— steph pomboy (@spomboy) March 8, 2024

Holy. Shit.

I thought this was a typo…

In just February, 1.2 million immigrants (legal and illegal) gained a job. Meanwhile, 500k native-born Americans LOST their job.

Since Covid, native-born workers have actually LOST 2 million jobs. All of the net job gains are immigrants. pic.twitter.com/Rkg9viZsv9

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 8, 2024

Payrolls rose 275K… but number of people actually employed dropped by 184K as more Americans are forced to take on multiple jobs.

The number of workers employed (160.968 million) dropped to the lowest level since May 2023 pic.twitter.com/VII0axMUxZ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 8, 2024

When every month’s job report for the last year+ had to be revised DOWN by 20-50%, do we even bother to read it anymore? 100% of jobs “added” were part-time and we’re still missing millions of full-time jobs from pre-COVID era. https://t.co/YvOGlphpb4

— Tennessee Bourbon (@TennesseeBourbn) March 8, 2024

11 out of the last 13 jobs reports have been revised down from the original headline-generating numbers.

The regime is cooking the books. pic.twitter.com/et1hbGRTkT

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 8, 2024

The reality of the jobs report…employed people forced to take multiple part time jobs as inflation rises. Full time jobs fall. Headline number is misleading. https://t.co/J6OxstStGW

— Michael Palmer (@MPalmerwx) March 8, 2024

Ever notice that job reports are typically “beating expectations” and then buried down somewhere in the report you find out they also “sharply revise downward” the previous month’s report?

Almost like it’s an election year or something. pic.twitter.com/XKuVy9sK1k

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 8, 2024

JUST IN: The January jobs report number was just revised LOWER from showing 353,000 jobs added to 229,000.

This means 129,000 LESS jobs were added in January than initially reported.

It also means 10 of the last 12 months have seen downward revisions in their jobs number.

The…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 8, 2024

The unprecedented divergence between establishment and household surveys got even worse w/ Feb’s jobs report, 275k vs. -184k; household survey now shows no net increase in jobs since Apr ’23, almost a year ago: pic.twitter.com/wIwhbmJO2x

— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) March 8, 2024

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POST ON X: 

Illegals beat up American police officers in Times Square, got out of jail for free and, instead of being deported, were given free tickets to California …

Why? pic.twitter.com/EmYURVLXjn

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 9, 2024

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

Congress Overspends, but the Fed Inflates thumbnail

Congress Overspends, but the Fed Inflates

By Alexander William Salter

Writing in The American Conservative, Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) recently blamed inflation on irresponsible fiscal policy. He cites a barrage of statistics on the magnitude of the national debt, the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, and the burdens high prices create for American households. Rep. Brecheen is partly right: perpetual deficits are bad for the economy, as well as for constitutional self-governance. But runaway deficits are not the primary cause of inflation. The Fed, not Congress, and the President is the chief culprit.

The connection between government spending and inflation seems obvious. Fiscal policy affects aggregate demand by changing total dollar-valued spending in the economy. If the government ratchets up spending, financed by borrowing, that should inject a new flow of funds into the national income stream. This is standard income-expenditure Keynesianism — and it’s wrong. We know this from history. Remember, the deficit increased significantly under Presidents Reagan and Obama. Inflation remained relatively static.

As Clark Warburton described it 80 years ago, deficit spending can increase dollar-valued national income only if it increases a) the rate of spending (velocity) for a given money supply or b) the money supply itself. Let’s consider each in turn.

Deficits and Velocity

Deficit spending influences the rate of money turnover, which economists call the velocity of money. But its effects are small. Interest rates are the most probable mechanism. All else being equal, if governments are borrowing more to finance deficits, then demand for capital increases. That should push up interest rates. Higher rates, in turn, increase the opportunity cost of holding money. Hence we should see faster spending; velocity goes up.

Empirically, the increase in velocity following an increase in deficit spending appears to be small. It certainly does not explain the high inflation from late 2021 to early 2023. Velocity declined sharply amid the uncertainty of the first two quarters of 2020. Although it picked up in 2022, it remains below its Q4-2019 level.

Deficits and the Money Supply

The extent to which deficits increase the money supply, if at all, depends on how the buyers of government bonds finance their purchases. If it’s spent out of existing cash balances (either by households or businesses), the money supply doesn’t change. But if the banking system expands its liabilities to purchase the bonds, the money supply grows. This effect is noteworthy. As Warburton showed, the government’s overall fiscal stance had little power to explain dollar-valued national income, and hence inflation. But the money supply could. Even traditional fiscal operations have a monetary mechanism.

Much has changed since Warburton’s day, of course. Financial innovation destabilized the velocity of several common measures of the money supply, leading the economics profession to sour on monetarism. (But as economists such as Peter Ireland and Joshua Hendrickson have shown, velocity for the Divisia monetary aggregates, which weight money-supply components based on liquidity, remain quite stable and predictive of aggregate demand.) Monetary economists pay much more attention to interest rates. They shouldn’t; the money supply still matters most, especially when we consider Fed policy.

Everybody knows Washington spent an incredible amount of money during the COVID-19 response years. Everybody also knows the Fed massively increased its holdings of government bonds during the same period. In 2019, the deficit was just under $1 trillion; it ballooned to more than $3 trillion the next year. Over the same period, Fed holdings of Treasury debt rose from just over $2 trillion to nearly $4.75 trillion and peaked at just shy of $5.75 trillion in Summer 2022. As a result, the M2 money supply exploded from $15 trillion to almost $20 trillion at the end of 2020, reaching a maximum of $21.7 trillion in March 2022. As noted above, velocity declined over this interval, but only by about 15 percent. The money supply increase was roughly 40 percent. Consequently, inflation was higher than it had been for a generation.

At most, large deficits impelled the Fed to support the market for government debt by purchasing more debt than it should have. The central bank, not the fiscal authorities, is the residual determiner of aggregate demand. We can quibble with certain details — for example, Warburton’s Fed adhered to a pseudo-gold standard whereas ours is pure fiat — but the basic relationship between money, dollar-valued national spending, and inflation remains the same as in Warburton’s days.

Deficits are bad for the economy because they transfer resources from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector. Deficits are bad for self-governance because they transgress a basic small-r republican commitment: not to saddle future generations with crippling debt before they are even old enough to vote. Rep. Brecheen is absolutely right to rail against fiscal follies. But he has the wrong target in his crosshairs if he’s concerned about inflation. Rather than pile on the feckless Biden administration, whose economic incompetence voters already know, he should raise public awareness about the Fed’s monetary mischief and work hard to bring the rule of law to monetary policy.

*****

This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid — Part 2 thumbnail

More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid — Part 2

By John Droz, Jr.

Please read Part 1 here. As bad as the multiple failings in the Johns Hopkins article I outlined in Part 1 were, there is an even greater abdication of medical responsibility by Johns Hopkins.

Their Mission Statement says: “The mission of Johns Hopkins Medicine is to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research, and clinical care.”

Maybe I don’t understand what “standard of excellence” means. It seems that it says that Johns Hopkins will objectively provide the public with the latest scientific health research as to what is in citizens’ best interest to do (or not do).

In other words, when Johns Hopkins discusses a pharmaceutical option for COVID — e.g., Paxlovid — (or anything else) they would objectively and thoroughly:

  1. honestly describe the possible benefits,
  2. accurately explain all the potential downsides, and
  3. objectively identify reasonable alternatives.

As my original commentary outlined, they did a woeful job of both #1 and #2. Here I’d like to address #3, which was completely missing.

Well over two years ago (January 2022), after doing some research, I published a spreadsheet of the various pharmaceutical options for COVID-19 early treatment — as I was not able to find this posted elsewhere in a layman easy-to-understand format. I compared the official and non-official options on several key criteria. Since then I have updated this spreadsheet every month or so. (This info is one of many things to be found on my COVID website: C19Science.info). Here is the latest data.

Since this article is just about Paxlovid, I put together a very condensed version: Condensed Comparison of Paxlovid to Some Other Options.

To see the links and more explanations refer to the uncondensed version. (Please pay attention to the note there clarifying that I am not a medical professional, etc.)

Note that Paxlovid has two columns in the upper (Effectiveness) part:

  • a) the first column was the evidence used by the FDA (a single study done by Pfizer) to grant Pfizer an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), and
  • b) the second column is the current number of scientific studies of Paxlovid done by numerous independent scientists. Compare the concluded ET effectiveness…

What this data indicates about these COVID early treatment options is:

1 – An alternative to Paxlovid is Vitamin D. Based on 11 scientific studies of 44,000± patients, it has about three times the effectiveness (60% vs 21%). (The results of Peer-reviewed early treatment studies = 57%. The results of early treatment Randomized Control Trials [RCTs], after exclusions = 65%.)* The data.

Safety & Cost — Vitamin D has: no serious medical side effects, no evidence of a rebound effect, and no usage restrictions. Further, it has long-term safety data, it does not require a prescription (OTC), and the cost is minuscule.

2 – Another alternative to Paxlovid is Ivermectin. Based on 38 scientific studies of 59,000± patients, it also has roughly three times the effectiveness (62% vs 21%). (The results of Peer-reviewed early treatment studies = 61%. The results of early treatment Randomized Control Trials [RCTs], after exclusions = 66%.)* The data.

Safety & Cost — Ivermectin has: only minor potential medical side effects, no evidence of a rebound effect, and no usage restrictions. Further, Ivermectin has long-term safety data and the cost is very low.

The question is: why didn’t the Johns Hopkins article say anything about alternatives to Paxlovid — since scientific data indicates that they may be superior options?

To be fair, the same question applies to the FDA, CDC, AMA, WHO, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the Mayo Clinic, the mainstream media, etc., etc. They have all shed their scientific suits, and have proudly dressed themselves in political correctness panoply.

Please watch this talk given by Dr. Scott Atlas, last week. It is chilling to hear what he observed going on at the highest levels of our country, regarding COVID policy.

As always, the most effective defense is Critical Thinking.

PS: Still no response to the polite email I sent to the Johns Hopkins article author.

* This data is not on the above table, but can be found by following the links of the full version.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

At Last! A new bill in Congress to hold Big Pharma companies responsible for Covid vaccine injuries! thumbnail

At Last! A new bill in Congress to hold Big Pharma companies responsible for Covid vaccine injuries!

By Cherie Zaslawsky

Hats off to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, for authoring this bill!

While so many of us have been sounding the alarm over the experimental mRNA Covid “vaccines” and fighting localized battles as we were able, Rep. Chip Roy’s bill may be the colossal breakthrough we’ve all been praying for!

Not only would it be a godsend to the many thousands who’ve been badly injured by these novel injections, but it also loudly proclaims to the entire nation that these vaccines were not, and are not, safe!

Chip Roy is one brave man. His quote below says it all:

“I am introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.” (Emphasis mine)

Gotta now watch his back!

Here’s more from an Epoch Times articleProposed legislation introduced on March 5 would strip COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers of liability protections, enabling U.S. residents injured by the vaccines to sue the companies.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), would retroactively remove protections from the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers. (Emphasis mine)

The bill itself reads as follows: No federal law … may make the manufacturer of a COVID-19 vaccine immune from suit or liability, or limit the liability of such a manufacturer, with respect to claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a COVID-19 vaccine.

And now we need to flood our Representatives with calls, letters, faxes and emails, exhorting them to support this bill!

©2024. Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.

The Myth of National Defense Spending thumbnail

The Myth of National Defense Spending

By David Brady,Jr.

Editors’ Note: Without discussing the wisdom of Ukraine’s military aid, the author is correct in taking on the persistent myth that defense spending is always good for the economy. Instead, it diverts resources that would have been spent by consumers and businesses and directs resources into things that are either blown up or that blow up other things. Blowing things up is never “productive”, even if it is sometimes necessary. However, that spending may be beneficial to particular economic interests, but not the economy as a whole. That’s the difficulty. Fundamentally, it diverts resources from making people’s lives better because these are not freely made choices.  Defense spending may indeed be necessary to defend the country. For that, there is no question, but it is still a distortion that should be recognized as a negative thing and should be restricted.  However, to justify spending that does not defend the country on the basis that it “creates jobs”, is economically ignorant and morally repugnant. The debate really should be about the expenditures truly necessary to defend the interests of the country and recognize that whatever it is, defense spending takes money from other endeavors the public may have chosen.  This is pretty much true for all government spending. It is more a redirection of wealth, than the production of wealth.  That Senator Tuberville resists spending even if benefits are provided for his state, is laudable. The debate should be about the merits of the defense spending in question, not about whether it is great for the economy.  If it were true that war was good for the economy, then we should relish war and be in a state of war constantly.  Come to think of it, that pretty well describes the past 25 years. That makes no sense on either an economic or moral basis. Recent data shows that upwards of one-third of current GDP “growth” is government spending. Really? How productive has it been?

Among the most persistent of myths in the sphere of economics is the supposed benefits of government spending in the economy. Apologists will include government spending in gross domestic product measures, as if government production is truly “productive.” A common argument in favor of government spending is national defense spending.

US Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) declared on Twitter that he would be voting against a defense package that would send further money to Ukraine and Israel. American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Marc Thiessen quote tweeted the senator, saying,

Ukraine aid money is going to Alabama to produce the following systems: High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Javelins, M1A1 Abrams tanks, M2A4 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Hydra-70 rockets, M777 howitzer parts (Paladin M109A7), M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift Evacuation System (HERCULES) vehicles, and Stryker armored personnel carriers.

This is creating jobs for your constituents and hot assembly lines in factories in Alabama that will benefit U.S. national security.

Why are you voting against Alabama defense jobs?

One can argue the ethics of defense spending, but that is a different form of analysis. It is important to unpack whether this statement is accurate. Is more defense spending beneficial for constituents and consumers?

First, let’s accurately portray the argument in favor of more defense spending. The argument is likely as follows: Legislation that sends more money to the Department of Defense will go out in the form of government contracts to private manufacturers. These manufacturers will create more jobs, create more goods for defense, and generally “boost the economy.” These jobs give wages to laborers who demand goods from other industries, and so on.

Thiessen’s argument goes further. When legislation is passed, it might be earmarked for contractors within a certain locality. The legislators bring benefits to their constituents in the form of new jobs. Thus, there is an incentive for legislators to support such legislation as it will bring jobs to their districts.

This is often called pork-barrel legislation. Legislators pack a bill going through Congress with government spending appropriations that go toward their constituents and special interests. This method is used to garner votes for a piece of legislation by making it “beneficial” for all who support it. Amendments are offered to get more votes, and the benefits get further distributed to constituents who will vote in the next election. It is commonly used as a tactic to help special interest legislation that would otherwise be unpopular.

The first proper critique of this method comes, of course, down to the financing of the legislation and contracts. Not an ethical critique but an economic one. Government spending must be financed in some way. The three means are taxation, inflation, and borrowing. Or taxation, hidden taxation, and deferred taxation. It is always a tax on the citizenry.

The easiest to identify is normal taxation and borrowing. Taxation is easy enough to understand. Borrowing involves the issuing of treasury bonds in exchange for private dollars, with the expectation of future repayment of those bonds with interest in the future. It is a promise of future taxation.

Inflation comes through central banks intervening in the latter process. The central bank purchases treasury bonds from what we call in the United States primary dealers and creates new money in the form of either orders of physical currency through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing or adding to their accounts at the Fed. New currency to finance fiscal spending will bid up prices in the private sector, especially through the loan market. All these methods are regressive.

With simple taxation, the effect on markets is clear enough: Taxes are either income or attached to some good or service. When attached to a good or service, say a tax on cigarettes, there is a deadweight loss as less exchange occurs.

Figure 1: Deadweight Loss from a Tax

Source: Wikipedia.

Taxes on income will result in a reduction of income. Income will be diverted only to the most urgent of needs, what we might call the highest-ordered needs. There is less ability to consume and demand goods that might stimulate production. There is less ability to save, which will harm future production possibilities and perhaps the loans markets.

Inflation will similarly affect spending. Inflation raises the price of goods and services. It will push consumers to spend in the moment, out of fear of prices rising further. This reduces demand for goods that satisfy lower-ordered needs. Austrians go further to describe how business cycles come to be through this process. All the methods of financing will distort the actions of consumers and the producers that cater to them.

Continuing from financing, the actions of the contractors themselves will affect the market. Fundamental to this understanding is an understanding of market prices. Market prices result from demonstrated preferences by consumers. Consumers buy or do not buy goods at certain prices, and producers make decisions anticipating a certain price for a good or service. The actions of producers and consumers in accordance with their preferences and demands are crucial to the proper coordination of land, labor, and capital.

Government contractors enter the market with funds that are not given to them by shareholders. They purchase capital, rent or purchase land, and rent labor for wages. A government action is not that of individuals. It is funded through money taken by force. These contractors are not providing goods to individuals with demands but a government agency making broad requests. These contractors are not a natural market phenomenon that produces goods for true consumers.

Resources like land, labor, and capital are not demanded for their own sake. They are valued because they are used to produce lower-ordered goods, the lowest being consumer goods. The burger buns a McDonald’s franchise purchases are not valued because McDonald’s wants to consume them but because they produce a good that they hope to sell. The same is true of the laborers it employs. Their labor is demanded to produce the goods they want to sell to consumers. The same is true of the land rented or bought for the business. These resources are higher-ordered goods.

Entrepreneurs make decisions about which land, labor, capital, and processes to employ based on their anticipations of market prices for the lower-ordered goods they are producing. The government contractor does not operate in this way. The government contractor already has revenue secured from contracts. They are not responsive to a market price, and thus their demand for higher-ordered goods (the resources used to create a lower ordered good) is also not responsive.

Resources that would ordinarily go to produce goods for consumers are instead demanded by the contractors that cater to the government. They compete for capital and affect market prices for higher-ordered goods. Increased demands for these goods will raise their prices and government contractors will divert resources from industries that create consumer goods. Consumers are made worse off, and resources are sent to the contractors.

Thus, we reach the “public goods problem.” The typical public good analysis describes a public good as a good that is “nonexcludable” and “nonrivalrous.” This means a public good is either available to all citizens, does not dwindle in supply with use, or both. The problem arises that many of the so-called goods described might very well not meet these conditions. It might be better to describe a public good as a government monopoly over a good or service.

The problems with public goods are the free rider problem and the lack of proper prices. For this article, we will focus on the latter. The lack of prices on the market implies either a lack of demand or a total monopoly on the goods by the government. The demand for these goods is not the result of individuals demanding fighter jets, new naval ships, and missiles. Perhaps if allowed to, they would be, but for now, they are the result of proclamations by the government.

The demand for these goods from manufacturers is not reflective of real demand by consumers. These are not goods that will be consumed by the average American. These goods are not “productive” (i.e., the result of the natural market). Rather than have goods that help the consumer, we receive the orders of politicians and the Department of Defense that are contingent on some expected conflict in the future.

Contrary to what Mr. Thiessen argues, further government spending will not necessarily help Americans. The methods of financing the spending will distort the market by harming consumers and producers. Whichever method of taxation is used—ordinary, deferred, or hidden—the market will be warped from its natural activities. Resources, including laborers and capital, that would flow to true consumer goods are instead diverted to the demands of the government. Rather than allow the market to provide material goods and services that are demanded by consumers, the government siphons resources from productive America. Government ditch-digging doesn’t help the well-being of its citizens.

*****

This article was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Worst Monthly Spike of “Core Services” PCE Inflation in 22 Years, and Not Just Housing: Powell’s Gonna Have Another Cow thumbnail

Worst Monthly Spike of “Core Services” PCE Inflation in 22 Years, and Not Just Housing: Powell’s Gonna Have Another Cow

By Wolf Richter

Core services inflation dished up bad head fakes last time we had this mess in 1966-1982. Mention of a rate hike crops up in a Fed speech.

Over the past year or so, the Fed has been intensely discussing inflation in “core services,” which is where inflation had shifted to in 2022, from goods inflation which had spiked into mid-2022 but then cooled dramatically. So “core services” is where it’s at. Core services are where consumers spend the majority of their money. Core services are all services except energy services. Core services inflation has been behaving badly for months, and in January, it spiked out the wazoo.

The “core services” PCE price index spiked to 7.15% annualized in January from December, the worst month-to-month jump in 22 years (blue line), according to index data released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Drivers of the spike were non-housing measures as well as housing inflation. More on each category in a moment.

The six-month moving average, which irons out the month-to-month volatility, accelerated to 3.95% annualized, the worst since July, after having gotten stuck at the 3.5% level for three months in a row (red).

The bad behavior of core services inflation that we have been lamenting since June – and which was confirmed earlier this month by the nasty surprise in the CPI – is why Fed governors have said this year in near unison that they’re in no hurry to cut rates, but have taken a wait-and-see approach. And now the concept of rate hikes is cropping up in their speeches again.

For example, Fed governor Michelle Bowman said in the speech yesterday, that she was “willing to raise the federal funds rate at a future meeting should the incoming data indicate that progress on inflation has stalled or reversed.”

Even year-over-year, core services inflation has now reversed and accelerated to 4.1%.

*****

Continue reading this article at Wolf Street.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Historic Business Remington Flees New York For Georgia After 208 Years thumbnail

Historic Business Remington Flees New York For Georgia After 208 Years

By The Geller Report

Remington is leaving Ilion, N.Y., ‘after two centuries, abandoning upstate for a gleaming new factory in Georgia. With it goes the village’s identity.’  so wrote the New York Times.

NY village ‘losing its soul’ as nation’s oldest gun manufacturer flees blue state for Georgia

Remington is the nation’s oldest gun manufacturer

“Two hundred and eight years of history. Gone, gone,” Ilion, New York, Mayor John P. Stephens told The New York Times. “Ilion is Remington. Remington is Ilion.”

“Two hundred and eight years of history. Gone, gone,” Ilion, New York, Mayor John P. Stephens told The New York Times. “Ilion is Remington. Remington is Ilion.”

Remington, the nation’s oldest gun manufacturer, told union officials late last year that company chiefs at RemArms, the current version of Remington Arms, made the decision to end its New York manufacturing come March. The remaining operations located in Ilion will move to Georgia, where company leaders say the firearms industry is supported and welcomed.

Residents of the New York village, which is located roughly 230 miles northwest of New York City, are bracing for the manufacturer to officially move, which some say will take part of the town’s identity with it.

A view of the Remington Arms Co., Inc. compound in the middle of Ilion, New York, on Feb. 1. The nation’s oldest gun-maker is consolidating operations in Georgia and recently announced plans to shutter the Ilion factory in early March. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

“When Remington leaves, it’s not going to be like a facility leaving, it’s going to be like part of your family has moved off,” Jim Conover, a retired Remington employee who began his career there in 1964, told The Associated Press.

A furnace operator and technician at the factory, Frank “Rusty” Brown, told the outlet that he and generations of his family worked at the facility and noted he and his wife will be out of jobs.

“My mom worked there. My dad worked there. My wife works there with me now. My daughter works there with me now. My second daughter works there with me now. And my son-in-law works there,” Brown said. “So it’s a double-hit for me and my wife: two of us out of a job.”

The closure of the New York location will result in about 300 people losing their jobs in a town of roughly 7,600. The mayor of Ilion told the Daily Mail that the village is expected to lose $1 million in revenue due to the move, in addition to other local businesses taking a financial hit.

”It’s like the town is losing its soul. It’s almost like losing a family member. That’s the thing that people are struggling with, the nostalgia, the history. It feels like we are losing the identity of the town,” Stephens told the outlet.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Insane Trump’s Penalty Will NY Businesses To Flee to FLA, as New York State Becomes ‘Legal Banana Republic’: Experts

CEO of Cardone Capital To Team: “Immediately Discontinue All Underwriting on New York City Real Estate” In Wake of Insane Ruling in Trump Case

California, New York Lose Most in Tax Revenue as Residents FLEE for Conservative States

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

More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid, Part 1 thumbnail

More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid, Part 1

By John Droz, Jr.

If we can’t trust Johns Hopkins, what established sources are left?

I was periodically updating my webpage on the effectiveness of all the popular COVID early treatment options, and came across this current article:

Feel free to read it, but be forewarned that it is woefully deceptive. I can understand that when Paxlovid first came out (late 2021), medical professionals would be enthused to endorse it, as the only study done said it was 88% effectiveNice!

But is that our scientific knowledge in 2024? NO! I sent the JH author a polite email:

Aliza:

I’m an independent scientist (physicist) who has done considerable research on COVID.

As such I read with interest your recent article on Paxlovid, stating that it is “a tremendous tool that’s completely underutilized”.

FYI, I also read your CV.

[Note to substack readers: she has no science credentials.]

The key message in your article is premised on your statement:

“Paxlovid is extremely effective when taken within five days of symptom onset. In clinical trials, it reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90% in unvaccinated people.”

I’m writing because that is (regretfully) a major misrepresentation of our current knowledge of Paxlovid.

Please consider the following three facts:

Fact one: In late 2021 the FDA gave Pfizer an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Paxlovid as a COVID-19 early treatment.

Should your readers be alerted to the fact that the FDA has not approved Paxlovid, but rather given it a very different EUA? Then your readers could use their own judgment whether or not we remain in a COVID-19 emergency.

Fact two: when the FDA gave Pfizer an EUA for Paxlovid for COVID-19 early treatment, it was based on just one (1) study (on 2,100± people), done by Pfizer, that showed that Paxlovid supposedly had an 88% effectiveness rate.

Should your readers be alerted to the fact that there was only one initial study prior to the EUA, and that it was done by the drug manufacturer — clearly not an unbiased source?

Fact three: Since the FDA gave Pfizer the EUA for Paxlovid, many independent scientists have conducted studies about the effectiveness of Paxlovid. To date, some 57 studies on Paxlovid have been completed, with 42 being peer-reviewed.

Should your readers be alerted that these independent studies (on 120,000± people) have concluded that the actual COVID-19 early treatment effectiveness of Paxlovid is only 21±% — a far cry from the Pfizer study claiming 88%?

I’m taking the time to write as I’ve always respected Johns Hopkins as an unbiased, accurate source, of current medical information.

Sincerely,

It’s been over a week now, and I’ve received no response of any kind.

Some may think I’m being a bit harsh on Johns Hopkins, but the letter sent was a stripped-down version of what I could have said. (I thought that the chance of a response would be inversely related to the length of my email.)

For example, Fact 4: Harvard published a late 2023 study that concluded that 20±% of those taking Paxlovid, were likely to have a rebound result where they get COVID again. (Compare that percentage to the average chance of 2±%.)

That appears to say that taking Paxlovid results in a net zero result! (It has a 21±% chance of a positive result, but a 20±% chance of a negative one…)

Note: I shouldn’t be surprised, but I was, when the same JH person felt compelled to write a later piece pooh-poohing the COVID rebound matter.

As a proud optimist, I thought that the AMA, well-known medical establishments (like Johns Hopkins), etc., would continuously analyze new scientific COVID studies, and realize that they made some earlier bad calls regarding COVID.

Maybe (for legal reasons) they wouldn’t outright apologize (although they should), but I did NOT expect them to continue with the same politically correct posturing WHEN THEY SHOULD NOW KNOW THAT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS WRONG!

However, this JH article about Paxlovid seems to indicate that now that they find themselves in a hole, their reflex solution is to keep digging.

  • FYI #1, although this commentary is about Johns Hopkins, their politically correct campaign is the norm, as there are dozens of other one-sided Internet articles advocating more use of Paxlovid (e.g., here and here). I chose Johns Hopkins as they should be above political science, and instead be focused on real science.
  • FYI #2, I could write quite a bit more about this matter, but this is not intended to be a scientific paper, but rather an overview for the public. That said, I will do Part 2 in a few days about another very important omission in this JH article…
  1. This late 2023 article reports that Paxlovid usage has precipitously declined. “Sales of Paxlovid are down 97%, year over year… and Pfizer lost $4.7 Billion in write-offs.” Citizens are getting informed and voting with their feet — excellent!
  2. As even more evidence of the weakness of Paxlovid, the FDA has recently officially announced that the EUA for Paxlovid will expire on March 8th, 2024! Note 1: Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but when I searched the Johns Hopkins site, I could find no mention of this important FDA announcement, made back on 1-29-24. Note 2: I could find nothing about this EUA change elsewhere!}

Once again this all reinforces the extraordinary importance for citizens to become Critical Thinkers — and it all MUST start in K-12 Science classes…

PS — I’m legally required to make clear that I am not a medical professional. Always consult with a qualified physician before taking (or stopping to take) any medication.

©2024. John Droz, Jr.. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Javier Milei Delivers Argentina’s First Surplus in Over a Decade—and U.S. Media is Silent thumbnail

Javier Milei Delivers Argentina’s First Surplus in Over a Decade—and U.S. Media is Silent

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Argentines witnessed something amazing last week: the government’s first budget surplus in nearly a dozen years.

The Economy Ministry announced the figures Friday, and the government was $589 million in the black.

Argentina’s surplus comes on the heels of ambitious cuts in federal spending pushed by newly-elected President Javier Milei that included slashing bureaucracy, eliminating government publicity campaigns, reducing transportation subsidies, pausing all monetary transfers to local governments, and devaluing the peso.

Javier Milei’s minister of economy just announced an “emergency package” of measures to completely balance the budget in 2024 equivalent to over 5% of GDP.

This would be equivalent to a $1.4 trillion austerity package in a single year in the U.S. economy.

The measures include:…

— Daniel Di Martino 🇺🇸🇻🇪 (@DanielDiMartino) December 13, 2023

Milei’s policies, which he has himself described as a kind of “shock therapy,” come as Argentina faces a historic economic crisis fueled by decades of government spending, money printing, and Peronism (a blend of national socialism and fascism).

These policies have pushed the inflation rate in Argentina, once one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America, above 200 percent. Today nearly 58 percent of the Argentine population lives in poverty, according to recent study.

And Milei rightfully blames Argentina’s backward economic policies for its plight—policies that, he points out, are spreading across the world.

“The main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism,” Milei said in a recent speech in Davos. “We’re here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world—rather they are the root cause.”

The revelation that Argentina has done something the US government hasn’t done in more than two decades—run a budget surplus—seems like a newsworthy event.

Yet to my surprise, I couldn’t find a word about it in major US media—not in the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, or Reuters. (The New York Sun seems to be the only exception.)

I had to find the story in Australian media! (To be fair, the Agence France Presse also reported the story.)

One could argue that these outlets just aren’t very interested in Argentina’s politics and economics, but that’s not exactly true.

The Associated Press has covered Argentinian politics and Milei extensively, including a recent piece that reported how the new president’s policies were inducing “anxiety and resignation” in the populace. The same goes for Reuters and the other newspapers.

A cynic might suspect these media outlets simply don’t wish to report good news out of Argentina, now that Milei is president.

Indeed, in the wake of the news that Milei’s reforms had already resulted in a budget surplus, both Reuters and the AP ran articles highlighting a new study under the headline “Poverty in Argentina Hits 20-year High.”

Why US media would choose to ignore Milei’s budgetary accomplishments and highlight Argentina’s soaring poverty, which is decades in the making, is a difficult question to answer.

The decision could stem from the fact that these outlets have described Milei as a “far-right libertarian,” and a “Trump-like” figure (even though Trump, unlike Milei, is not a libertarian or classical liberal).

Another possibility is that these media institutions are suffering from something known as “media capture.”

Media capture can come in various forms and has numerous definitions, but the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) defines it as “a form of governance failure that occurs when the news media advance the commercial or political concerns of state and/or non-state special interest groups controlling the media industry instead of holding those groups accountable and reporting in the public interest.”

The most obvious examples of media capture would be outlets refusing to cover stories due to explicit threats of retaliation from powerful actors.

Maybe a sponsor says they’ll pull advertising if you run a story about the side effects of their product, or maybe a powerful Hollywood director threatens reprisals if you report his sexual abuses. Perhaps a certain Royal Family threatens to cut off interview access to your network if you run an interview with a sex trafficking victim who says she was victimized by a member of that Royal Family.

These are all very real scenarios of captured media, and such situations can have a profound impact on independent journalism.

“Captured media can go from vigilant watchdog to toothless public relations machine, ignoring the news of the day,” CIMA notes.

This is why the government takes such an interest in media. The economist Murray Rothbard famously wrote that because “its rule is exploitative and parasitic,” the state has a great incentive to shape opinion and ideology, which are the source of power.

Few tools are more effective at shaping thought than media, which is no doubt why the greatest tyrants of the 20th century went to great lengths to control it.

Constitutional systems of course require more subtlety. Which is why, as Rothbard wrote, the state purchases “the alliance of a group of ‘Court Intellectuals,’ whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State…”

The state has various methods to “purchase” the allegiance of media and others who can shape opinion, and some of these are downright shocking.

Writing for Rolling Stone in 1977, legendary reporter Carl Bernstein exposed records showing that hundreds of US journalists had been paid by the CIA over years to do work on the Agency’s behalf.

“Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation, and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services,” wrote Bernstein, who along with Bob Woodward broke the Watergate scandal.

He continued:

Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting the CIA is paying the above-mentioned media organizations not to write flattering stories about Milei.

Media capture, as mentioned, comes in various forms. And my hunch is that it typically involves applying pressure and offering incentives in more subtle ways than overt quid pro quos.

What I am saying is that no institution is more effective at media capture than the government, which has even more resources and power than Hollywood directors and royal families. And chief among the state’s many agendas is its own self-preservation. This puts the state at odds with free-market libertarians like Javier Milei who wish to create a more prosperous society by reducing (or eliminating) government’s influence over our lives. And this is the reason a resounding free-market success story in Argentina is likely unwelcome news to both the state and the Court Intellectuals who serve it.

The problem is, free-market economics is the only force that can save Argentina from proceeding further into an economic death spiral.

A financial surplus only two months into a libertarian presidency. A miracle.

Argentina previously ran extreme fiscal deficits, passing on the bill to the average Argentine through taxation and extraordinary inflation (over 100% year over year).

Bravo @JMilei 👏 https://t.co/wvZK36MlPt

— Maggie (@LibertyAnders) February 20, 2024

From countries like Hong Kong and Ireland to former Soviet Bloc countries such as Estonia and beyond, free markets have transformed struggling and impoverished economies with what Adam Smith long ago recognized as the surprisingly simple recipe for prosperity: “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.”

It will do the same in Argentina, given the opportunity—whether media choose to cover it or not.

What do you think of Javier Milei? Is he a mad libertarian? Is he the saviour of Argentina? Does he need a better barber? Tell us in the comments below. 

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

AUTHOR

JON MILTIMORE

Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at FEE.

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