Why College Degrees Are Losing Their Value thumbnail

Why College Degrees Are Losing Their Value

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The signaling function of college degrees may have been distorted by the phenomenon known as credential inflation.

The concept of inflation (the depreciation of purchasing power of a specific currency) applies to other goods besides money. Inflation is related to the Law of Supply and Demand. As the supply of a commodity increases, the value decreases. Conversely, as the good becomes more scarce, the value of the commodity increases. This same concept is also applicable to tangible items such as vintage baseball cards and rare art. These are rare commodities that cannot be authentically replicated and therefore command a high value on the market. On the other hand, mass-produced rookie cards and replications of Monet’s work are plentiful. As a result, they yield little value on the market.

Inflation and the opposite principle of deflation can also apply to intangible goods. When looking at the job market, this becomes quite evident. Jobs that require skills that are rare or exceptional tend to pay higher wages. However, there are also compensating differentials that arise because of the risky or unattractive nature of undesirable jobs. The higher wages are due to a lack of workers willing to accept the position rather than the possession of skills that are in demand.

Over the past couple of decades, credentialing of intangible employment value has become more prevalent. Credentials can range from college degrees to professional certifications. One of the most common forms of credentialing has become a 4-year college degree. This category of human capital documentation has evolved to take on an alternate function.

Outside of a few notable exceptions, a bachelor’s degree serves a signaling function. As George Mason economics professor Bryan Caplan argues, the function of a college degree is primarily to signal to potential employers that a job applicant has desirable characteristics. Earning a college degree is more of a validation process than a skill-building process. Employers desire workers that are not only intelligent but also compliant and punctual. The premise of the signaling model seems to be validated by the fact that many graduates are not using their degrees. In fact, in 2013; only 27 percent of graduates had a job related to their major.

Since bachelor’s degrees carry a significant signaling function, there have been substantial increases in the number of job seekers possessing a 4-year degree. Retention rates for 4-year institutions reached an all-time high of 81 percent in 2017. In 1900 only 27,410 students earned a bachelor’s degree. This number ballooned to 4.2 million by 1940, and has now increased to 99.5 million. These numbers demonstrate the sharp increase in the number of Americans earning college degrees.

Today, nearly 40 percent of all Americans hold a 4-year degree. Considering the vast increase in college attendance and completion, it’s fair to question if a college degree has retained its “purchasing power” on the job market. Much of the evidence seems to suggest that it has not.

The signaling function of college degrees may have been distorted by the phenomenon known as credential inflation. Credential inflation is nothing more than “… an increase in the education credentials required for a job.”

Many jobs that previously required no more than a high school diploma are now only accepting applicants with bachelor’s degrees. This shift in credential preferences among employers has now made the 4-year degree the unofficial minimum standard for educational requirements. This fact is embodied in the high rates of underemployment among college graduates. Approximately 41 percent of all recent graduates are working jobs that do not require a college degree. It is shocking when you consider that 17 percent of hotel clerks and 23.5 percent of amusement park attendants hold 4-year degrees. None of these jobs have traditionally required a college degree. But due to a competitive job market where most applicants have degrees, many recent graduates have no means of distinguishing themselves from other potential employees. Thus, many recent graduates have no other option but to accept low-paying jobs.

The value of a college degree has gone down due to the vast increase in the number of workers who possess degrees. This form of debasement mimics the effect of printing more money. Following the Law of Supply and Demand, the greater the quantity of a commodity, the lower the value. The hordes of guidance counselors and parents urging kids to attend college have certainly contributed to the problem. However, public policy has served to amplify this issue.

Various kinds of loan programsgovernment scholarships, and other programs have incentivized more students to pursue college degrees. Policies that make college more accessible—proposals for “free college,” for example—also devalue degrees. More people attending college makes degrees even more common and further depreciated.

Of course, this not to say brilliant students with aspirations of a career in STEM fields should avoid college. But for the average student, a college degree may very well be a malinvestment and hinder their future.

Incurring large amounts of debt to work for minimum wage is not a wise decision. When faced with policies and social pressure that have made college the norm, students should recognize that a college degree isn’t everything. If students focused more on obtaining marketable skills than on credentials, they might find a way to stand out in a job market flooded with degrees.


Peter Clark

Peter Clark is a blogger and enthusiastic advocate of free-market economics. Find his work on Medium.

For more education related columns please click here.

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

CULTURAL WAR: The ‘New Slavery’ That No-one Wants To Talk About thumbnail

CULTURAL WAR: The ‘New Slavery’ That No-one Wants To Talk About

By Dr. Rich Swier

“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.” ― Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works – Volume XII

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” ― Henry David Thoreau

“Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.” ― Frederick Douglass

There’s been a lot of rhetoric and political discourse about racism. However, no one is talking about the real issue: The “new slavery” that has taken over America!

Today, the word “racist” has become the weapon of choice to silence those who do not want to become slaves. If you want to end a discussion call the other person a racist. Want to take away freedom of speech just label your opponent as a racist.

Many believe that this has to do with past injustices that have yet to be properly addressed in America. You see, the colonies did import slaves, both black and white. Whites came here as indentured servants. Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an “indenture”, may be entered into voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.

On the other hand slavery, i.e. enslavement, is the state and the condition of being a slave, who is someone forbidden to quit their service for an enslaver, and who is treated by the enslaver as their property.

Slavery is not solely race based, rather it is a most egregious crime against humanity.

Today there are still slaves and indentured servants in various Middle Eastern countries and even in the United States of America. The most common form of slavery today is sex slavery. We are witnessing how human trafficking has now become the new form of indentured service and a new form of slavery.

From those who illegally cross the border into America, aided by drug cartels, and sold into prostitution; to those like Jeffery Epstein who “groomed” underaged girls to pleasure his clients, which included the rich and powerful. These are all slaves. But who is talking about this new slavery? No one.

We are also witnesses to cases of individuals enslaved by both government and corporate mandates.

Covid has now become the reason to enslave those who want to make their own healthcare decisions. Get jabbed or lose your job. Rather than calling this slavery, the media and politicians are saying government has the sole right to decide what we do with our bodies. My body, my choice does not apply when it comes to treating this virus. This is historic and has never been done before in America.

It’s not the governments job to protect my health. It’s the governments job to protect my rights.

The more powerful the government the more we the people loose our freedoms and become indentured servants and/or slaves to the bureaucrats at every level, from school board to Washington, D.C.

The Tale of the Slave

In his book “Anarchy, State, and UtopiaRobert Nozick wrote:

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He is often cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.

4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.

5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.

6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

[ … ]

The 10,000-headed master can do this also.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.

8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)

9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome. [Emphasis added]

Which category of slave are you? Are you today at the mercy of a brutal master and his whims (e.g. pimp, lawyer, politician or a combination of all three)? Are you violating your masters rules (a.k.a. mandates)? Are you the slave of a small group like a political party or movement? Are you given a vote but then your vote is diluted by others voting fraudulently (e.g. non-citizens voting) or stolen by not being counted?

Without election integrity we are just slaves of a corrupted election system. Without one man one vote we’re no longer a Constitutional republic.

What Has Made Indenture and Slavery Obsolete?

Answer: Liberty, Freedom and Capitalism!

Professor of political science at Rose State College James Davenport in an article titled “4 Common Capitalism Myths Debunked” wrote:

One of the most disappointing things I face as a college professor is the lack of understanding most students have regarding capitalism. The simple fact is, despite its importance to our daily lives, relatively few people have a strong grasp of what causes economic growth and why markets are so central to continuously rising standards of living.

In my teaching, I have encountered several myths or misperceptions about capitalism from students as well as individuals outside the classroom. Dispelling these myths has become a focus of much of my teaching. [Emphasis added]

President John F. Kennedy said,

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Here are the 4 common myths about Capitalism that Davenport wrote about:

  1. Capitalism Was “Created”: Friedrich Hayek explained, the market system is not really “created” as much as it is a system that evolves out of human interaction and discovery.
  2. Capitalism Creates Poverty: This may be the most pernicious of all the misunderstandings I encounter regarding markets. The idea that absent market capitalism would create greater shared wealth within society continues to permeate the thinking of a great deal of people. This is despite mounting evidence that, as markets are used by more and more countries, global poverty is steadily decreasing.
  3. Capitalism Is about Capital: The underlying foundation of capitalism is human freedom. As Adam Smith recognized, when individuals are permitted to pursue their self-interest through markets, they are amazingly good at finding ways of bettering not only themselves but society as well.
  4. Capitalism Creates “Winners” and “Losers”: While it is true that some individuals and firms succeed while others do not in capitalism, this also is hardly an exclusive feature of markets…capitalism is different in this regard in two important ways. First, capitalism increases the number of “winners.” Unlike other systems, capitalism reduces the barriers to entry into market activity for larger numbers of individuals. The resulting competition provides greater opportunities for success (both great and small) than in any other system.

Bottom Line

The polar opposites of slavery are freedom, liberty, emancipation and manumission (enfranchisement).

If you want to stop being a slave then embrace freedom.

The Continental Congress voted for independence on July 2, 1776. Two days later on July 4, a declaration explaining the reasons for independence, largely written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted. Washington received an official notification via a letter dated July 6 from John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, along with a copy of the declaration.

The Declaration of Independence made history with these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It’s as simple as that. The less freedom the more you are a slave. When your inalienable rights are taken from you then by definition you are a slave.

Get it? Got it? Good!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

A Constitutional Cure for Covid-19 thumbnail

A Constitutional Cure for Covid-19

By Marilyn M. Singleton

Covid, Covid, Covid. Variant, variant, variant. Trust me, I’m the government’s highest paid employee, and “I represent science.” Show your papers, wear a mask, take a shot or lose your job. And the beat goes on for an infection where 99.95 percent of infected persons under age 70 years recover. It’s becoming clear that Covid-19 is not merely a disease but an excuse to concentrate power in the government.

It’s time for the political histrionics to stop. Multiple studies have shown that the consequences far outweigh any potential (and illusory) benefits of masks, lockdowns, and school closures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director admitted that the current Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, while helpful in reducing deaths and hospitalizations, do not stop transmission of the virus. “Breakthrough” cases in vaccinated persons are on the rise. Moreover, the current vaccines likely are not effective for the new, likely less lethal Omicron variant. Public health experts opine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes Covid-19) and its multiple variants are becoming endemic. That means SARS-CoV-2 and its infinite number of variants will not be eliminated, but become a manageable part of the human-viral ecosystem.

Sadly, our government is not responding in accordance with the scientific facts. Instead, federal and some local governments are mandating more vaccines, culminating in proof of vaccination to engage in society and continue living as a normal human being. This is not science. This is nascent totalitarianism.

Two lines from the 1990 Cold War era spy film, The Hunt for Red October foreshadowed our government’s warp speed trajectory to authoritarianism. “Privacy is not of major concern in the Soviet Union, comrade. It’s often contrary to the collective good.” And a White House official casually boasted, “I’m a politician that means I’m a cheat and a liar.”

It didn’t take long for President Biden to tell the big lie. As president-elect, Mr. Biden said there would be no vaccine mandates. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (the third in line for the presidency) brilliantly illustrated the intersection of lying and privacy. As late as August 2021, Speaker Pelosi said, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t.”

Without skipping a beat, the executive branch issued three separate vaccine mandates: all federal contractors (including remote workers), an Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees, and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirement for employees, volunteers and third-party contractors of health care providers certified by CMS.

The judicial branch is fighting back against the President’s attempt to jettison the Constitution’s separation of powers clauses, a large chunk of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court precedents on bodily autonomy with these mandates. On November 9th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the OSHA mandate on hold. The Court reasoned that the mandate “threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” And “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Citing the lack of congressional authorization and harm to access to medical care, on November 29th a Missouri federal district court placed a temporary halt on the CMS health care workers “boundary-pushing” mandate. The government planned to enforce the mandate by imposing monetary penalties, denial of payment and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program. The ruling covers providers in Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

On November 30th, a Louisiana federal district court blocked the CMS mandate issuing a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by 14 states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia). “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. … [C]ivil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

That same day, a Kentucky federal district court issued a hold on the federal government contractors mandate, citing lack of authority of the executive branch—“even for a good cause”. The court reasoned that if a procurement statute could be used to mandate vaccination, it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.” The ruling covers Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The mainstream media finally reported on the toxicity and poor results of Dr. Fauci’s “standard of care” treatment, remdesivir. This prompted families to use the courts rather than watch their relatives needlessly die. Victories for patients are growing. A Chicago area judge recently ordered a hospital to “step aside” and allow a physician to administer ivermectin in an effort to save a dying patient. It worked.

People are tired of lies. When Google employees are signing a “manifesto” to fight the mandates, you know the seeds of revolt have sprouted.


Marilyn Singleton graduated from Stanford and went on to UCSF Medical School. Then she attended UC Berkely Law School. See her at marilynsingletonmdjd.com.

This article was written on December 7, 2021, and is reproduced by permission from AAPS, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

75% Don’t Trust Social Media to Make Fair Content Moderation Decisions thumbnail

75% Don’t Trust Social Media to Make Fair Content Moderation Decisions

By David Kemp and Emily Ekins

81% of Republicans think Facebook and Twitter’s Trump ban violated the First Amendment, strong liberals are three times more likely than conservatives to report users on social media, 58% of Americans support a First Amendment content moderation standard.

A new Cato Institute/​YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that three-fourths of Americans don’t trust social media companies to make fair content moderation decisions. The survey, conducted in collaboration with YouGov, finds that nearly two-thirds (60%) would prefer social media companies provide users with greater choice and control over the content they see in their newsfeeds rather than do more to reduce all users’ exposure to offensive content or misinformation (40%). It also finds that a majority (63%) believe social media companies have too much influence over the outcome of national elections.

81% of Republicans Think Facebook and Twitter’s Trump Ban Violated the First Amendment

Republicans (81%) believe that Facebook and Twitter violated the First Amendment when they elected to ban Trump, while Democrats (89%) say that the First Amendment was not violated. While Facebook and Twitter are private platforms and their decision to ban Trump did not violate the First Amendment, Republicans’ perception that they did highlights their strong emotional response to the banning.

Part of this emotional response may be explained by Republicans’ concerns that if Trump can be banned, then they themselves are also more likely to have their account suspended by these companies. Republicans (38%) are nearly four times more likely than Democrats (10%) to say that Trump’s suspension makes them feel like their social media accounts are more likely to be suspended. A quarter (25%) of independents agree.

On the other hand, most Americans (55%) agree with the decisions made by Facebook and Twitter to ban former President Donald Trump from their platforms following the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. But there is a large partisan split: 93% of Democrats and 54% of independents agree with the decision, whereas 85% of Republicans disagree.

Liberals Are Much More Likely than Conservatives to Report Users on Social Media

Strong liberals are nearly three times more likely than strong conservatives to say that they have reported another user to a social media company for sharing offensive content or false information. This behavior is highly tied to political ideology. Among social media users, 65% of strong liberals, 44% of moderate liberals, 32% of moderates, 21% of moderate conservatives, and 24% of strong conservatives have done this.

This strong ideological trend continues even if the results are constrained among those who use social media several times a day. Among very frequent social media users: strong liberals (72%) are about 2.5 times more likely than strong conservatives (30%) to have reported another person because of what they posted. Similarly, when it comes to blocking people, strong liberals (83%) are 30 points more likely than strong conservatives (53%) to have done this.

58% of Americans Support a First Amendment Content Moderation Standard

A majority of Americans (58%) say that social media sites should use the First Amendment as the standard for their content moderation decisions. Partisans disagree, with 82% of Republicans and 60% of independents supporting the use of the First Amendment and 64% of Democrats saying companies should set their own rules.


Continue reading this article at CATO INSTITUTE.

One Feminist’s Perspective On How The Transgender Agenda Harms Women & Girls thumbnail

One Feminist’s Perspective On How The Transgender Agenda Harms Women & Girls

By Beverly Hallberg & Kara Dansky

The following is the transcript for the She Thinks podcast:

And welcome to She Thinks, a podcast where you’re allowed to think for yourself. I’m your host, Beverly Hallberg. And I’m so excited about today’s guest. Kara Dansky joins us to share why she is furious with her party, the Democrat party, for pushing gender identity or what she refers to as gender insanity. Her premise is that the redefining of the meaning of the word sex and gender victimizes women and children. In our conversation, we’ll discuss things that often aren’t allowed to be said in mainstream media. We’ll get into how gender identity has seeped into our laws and the resulting implications, how parental rights are being ignored, and what it has meant for her to speak out on such a controversial issue.

Now to Kara Dansky. Kara Dansky is a feminist, attorney, Democrat, and public speaker. She serves as the chair of the committee on law and legislation for the global human rights campaign, the WHRC, and is president of the WHRC’s U.S. chapter. She has a 21-year background in criminal law and criminal justice policy. Having worked at the mayor’s office of criminal justice in New York, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Stanford Criminal Justice Center at Stanford Law School and the Society of Council Representing Accused Persons in Seattle. She’s also the author of the new book, “The Abolition of Sex: How the Transgender Agenda Harms Women and Girls.” Kara, thank you so much for joining us on She Thinks.

Kara Dansky:

Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it.

Beverly Hallberg:

There’s so much I want to get into on this topic, but I’d first like to start with why you decided to spend your days fighting for women in an area that is so controversial? Many people don’t dare to touch it. What made you brave enough to not just deal with this issue but put yourself out there in the spotlight?

Kara Dansky:

Thanks for the question. It doesn’t really feel like bravery to me to just stand up and say that women are female and men are male. But the answer to the question is that in 2014, I was talking with a friend and I’ll say, I’ve always considered myself to be a feminist. And as you mentioned in my bio, my career trajectory took a little bit of a different turn. I went into criminal justice, but I still considered myself a feminist. And in 2014, a very good friend of mine brought my attention to the danger of the so-called transgender agenda or gender identity, as we like to say, and I started paying attention and I looked into it and in 2015, I joined the organization Women’s Liberation Front. And in 2016, I joined the board of that organization. That year, Women’s Liberation Front or WLF sued the Obama Administration over a policy memo that the administration had put out. And I’ve been doing the work ever since.

Beverly Hallberg:

Now you talk a lot about how the redefining of the words sex and gender makes victims of women and girls. First of all, explain to us why the words matter so much and what the implications have been?

Kara Dansky:

So the words are absolutely critical. And so I will never use the word transgender without putting it in quotes. And I make the case in my book or at least I try to make the case. I don’t know how well I do it but I make the case that the word transgender was simply invented. And the reason it was invented is that it comes from so-called queer theory, which is an academic theory that essentially obscures the meanings of words that point to material reality. But if the queer theorists had tried to sell Americans on the idea that sex isn’t real, it wouldn’t have worked. Americans know how babies are made. We all know the basic facts of biology. And so they had to make up a word. And the word that they made up is transgender.

Feminist Janice Raymond wrote a book in 1979 called “The Transsexual Empire,” which predicted all of this. And she re-produced it in 1994 with an introduction that talks about the invention of the word transgender and how it’s going to harm women and girls in particular, though we need to be clear, it harms everybody. The abolition of sex harms everybody. We can talk a little bit about that. But I just refuse to use the language of the opposition. And I think it’s really important that feminists and conservatives who are in this battle for material reality and of the right to privacy and safety of women and girls to not use the language of the opposition ever, I think that’s absolutely critical.

Beverly Hallberg:

And so let’s talk about what these words, where they have seeped into. So we may say, it’s fine if people want to use these words on their own, but we are talking about word choice. You were mentioning the Obama administration that has seeped into executive orders, how government agencies work, government departments, that is in pieces of legislation, especially under the Biden administration. Is there a concerted effort to try to change the meaning of words within legislation and bills that come to Capitol Hill?

Kara Dansky:

Literally yes. So, a little bit of history on this, in 2004, the United Kingdom enacted a new law called the Gender Recognition Act. And what that did was provide a legal mechanism for people who underwent a certain amount of hormone change and surgical change to get what in the UK is called a gender recognition certificate. Fast forward to today and we have the United States Congress inserting new language to literally redefine the word sex. So for example, in the Violence Against Women Act, I think it was 2013, Congress redefined the word sex to include the words “gender identity,” which are essentially just made-up words that have no coherent definition. They did it again this year in the Infrastructure Bill and they are seeking to do it in the so-called Equality Act, which would literally redefine the word sex in civil rights law to include things like gender identity, even though the definition of gender identity in the Equality Act is completely vague and incomprehensible.

So that’s what’s happening in Congress. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration for the first six months or so of this year, literally ordered federal agencies to redefine sex to include gender identity throughout federal administrative law. Those orders are the subject of a lawsuit that was filed by 20 states and in which my organization, the Women’s Human Rights Campaign’s U.S. chapter, has filed a brief arguing that in fact, the complete redefinition of the word sex to include gender identity violates numerous provisions of the U.S. Constitution, federal law and several provisions of state law.

Beverly Hallberg:

And what has really surprised me when I think about the women’s movement, feminism, often people think about the decades-long work to try to get women thought of as equal in the workplace. There are a lot of things that we could think of. I even know today, myself as a small business owner, I’m thankful for the strides that women made before me, so that I could be where I am today. And then when we see where it’s gone, it’s now to the point where people are saying somebody who is a biological man, that if he identifies as a woman, then he can break the glass ceiling for women. It’s really just shocking whether it’s in sports or in careers, how they lift up biological men as women and say that this is shattering the glass ceiling. I find that offensive, do most women find that offensive?

Kara Dansky:

I think so, certainly, feminists do. Literally, yesterday was the anniversary of a massacre of 14 women at a school in Montreal and a Canadian news program decided to acknowledge the anniversary of that massacre. And we need to be clear a man murdered 15 young women because they were women, several decades ago. And yesterday was the anniversary and a Canadian broadcasting corporation decided to acknowledge that anniversary by having a man who identifies as a woman speak on their behalf. And it’s just grotesque.

Beverly Hallberg:

Well, you talk about the abolition of sex, it’s the name of your book. When we hear people want to use the terminology “gender identity,” it’s usually under the auspices that they’re trying to prevent discrimination, that we don’t want to discriminate, we want everybody to feel welcome and we want to be inclusive. Tell us how dangerous it is to abolish sex.

Kara Dansky:

Well, part of the problem here is that really across the political aisle, it seems to have been generally accepted that the phrase “transgender people” or “transgender athletes” or “transgender students,” that all of these words describe a coherent category of people for whom sex is irrelevant. That’s not true. And if we’re going to win the battle to fight for the right to privacy and safety of women and girls, we have to be very clear about that. So one implication that I think is not well understood is the phenomenon that we are literally seeing playing out today in prisons in the United States is that convicted rapists and murderers who are men are being housed in women’s prisons. A lot of people know that this is happening in California thanks to the Women’s Liberation Front for filing a lawsuit, challenging the law that allows that, mandates that. It’s also happening in Washington State but it’s also happening across the country.

And most Americans are kept in the dark about this because the media will not talk about it. So again, thank you for allowing me to talk about it here. Something else that I think most Americans just don’t understand because they don’t have a way to know this, is that the FBI tracks crime statistics by sex. And to the best of my knowledge the latest data available is from 2020, and it tracks crime according to male and female. And of course, as we all know, the overwhelming majority of violent and sex crime is committed by men against women. If we’re not allowed to acknowledge the reality of biological sex, we can’t talk honestly about the phenomenon of male violence against women. And that’s really, really dangerous.

Beverly Hallberg:

What do you say then — let’s take a specific example or a hypothetical example about a young biological boy, let’s say 13, 14 years old, feels that he is a woman, is bullied in the men’s locker room and wants to be able to use the females’ locker room because that is how he identifies. What do you do with these individual cases where somebody does feel bullied? Because these are the stories we often hear as the reason we need to change. Even the way locker rooms and schools deal with their policies.

Kara Dansky:

This is not a girls’ problem. If boys are bullying stereotypically effeminate men, young men, if boys are bullying gay boys, if boys are bullying other boys who like to wear stereotypically feminine clothing, then that’s a problem for the boys to solve. They need to stop doing that. They need to stop bullying young homosexual boys. They need to stop bullying boys who adopt stereotypically feminine characteristics and just accept these boys for who they are. But the solution is not to subject girls to having boys in intimate spaces. We know, for example, in Loudoun County, Virginia, the school district adopted a policy of allowing young boys into girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms.

And a young girl was sexually assaulted in a bathroom in a high school in Loudoun County, Virginia. And there seems to have been a concerted effort on the part of the school district to cover that up in order to justify its policy of allowing boys, in this particular instance, the boy wore a skirt, and he was allowed access to the girls’ bathroom on that basis. And he has been convicted of sexually assaulting a girl. The answer is not to allow these young men into girls’ spaces. The answer is to persuade boys to stop bullying them.

Beverly Hallberg:

And when it comes to young people and we think about education, it’s also what they’re being taught, the curriculum, trying to encourage teachers. There have been reports of teachers or counselors at schools trying to encourage young people to embrace a gender identity that is different from their biological sex. And also leaving parents out. The parental rights are not part of even having this discussion with their children. There’s also the cult, as we have seen. Abigail Shrier has written about this, about young girls wanting to or identifying as the opposite sex. So there seems to be almost a way for young girls to become popular if they talk about themselves as being a boy versus their biological sex. So do you see that there is an agenda at schools within the schooling system, education system, to try to encourage young people to identify as something else?

Kara Dansky:

Absolutely. And it’s deliberate. And we know this because there’s documentation of the deliberate nature of this industry, as I describe in the book, to indoctrinate children, to confuse them into thinking that there’s some kind of identity that is unrelated to their actual sex. We need to understand that there is a tremendous amount of money behind this movement to persuade young people to disassociate from their bodies. This is all documented for example, in Jennifer Bilek’s blog, the 11th Hour Blog, she tracks the industry. She has done an incredible job of investigative journalism in understanding the power and the money behind this movement.

I want to get to your question about Abigail Shrier’s book but first I just want to make very clear, as you alluded to earlier, there seems to be an assumption that the movement to abolish sex is a bottom-up, grassroots movement to secure civil rights for a defined category of people. That is not what’s going on here. This is a very top down, top heavy, heavily funded industry that is pushing this into our schools, into our boardrooms, into our living rooms. It is capturing almost all aspects of American society. It’s extreme-

Beverly Hallberg:

Yeah, it’s damaging young people in the process. I just wanted to ask you this question about the fallout of this, there is a woman, 23 years old, who’s been very brave in talking about her story of taking hormone treatments, testosterone in her teens. It was encouraged by people in her school. And she’s now talking about the harms of that. Are we hearing more stories from young women talking about what the harms have been, whether it has been through different pills, medicines they took, or even those who did go as far as to have surgery?

Kara Dansky:

Just curious, are we talking about Keira Bell?

Beverly Hallberg:

We are not. It’s someone else, I’m trying to remember her name offhand, but she started to become outspoken on this.

Kara Dansky:

Yeah, we are definitely hearing more and more. To its credit, I want to give 60 Minutes credit for having a segment that did cover some stories of young people who did go through hormonal and surgical procedures and came to regret it. We’re hearing more and more stories about this. I have personally spoken with a young woman who contacted me for help because she was having trouble at her place of employment. And she had thought she was a boy. She had a double mastectomy and she regretted it. And we need to talk about how heartbreaking this is, especially for girls, and all credit to Abigail Shrier for writing about the phenomenon. It’s very difficult in many ways to be a teenage girl, to start developing, to feel the physical discomfort that comes with that, to feel the discomfort of all of a sudden men starting to pay more attention to our bodies.

It can be a very difficult adjustment and it’s especially hard now because it was hard when I was growing up but today with the total onslaught of pornography, we’re seeing boys watching pornography at younger and younger ages. Of course, it’s hard to be a girl. Of course it’s easier in many ways to be a boy. And it’s understandable why some young women would want to find their way out of being hypersexualized in a society that hypersexualizes young women. But we have to also understand that all of these children, girls and boys both, are receiving hormones that are highly likely to result in permanent sterilization and potential lethality. These are very dangerous drugs that children are being permitted to take and young people, there’s a reason that we don’t allow young people to buy cigarettes or alcohol or vote or drive.

And even though in our society, reasonable people can disagree about what age it’s appropriate to allow children to buy cigarettes or drive, we can have those policy conversations, but if we’re going to limit the choices that young people can make, why on earth would we allow children to make the decision to permanently sterilize themselves? It’s horrible. And yes, the answer to your question is more and more young people are coming to regret their decision. They are also coming to understand, the vast majority of them understand, that what they were dealing with was sexuality and that they were same-sex attracted. And they were struggling with realizing that they were same-sex attracted. And so they made decisions to identify out of their actual sex.

Beverly Hallberg:

I think so much as we start to uncover more and more, as you were saying, the money, the power behind this, the agenda behind this, we find that so much about this is to cover up what they’re really trying to do. So the less that people know, the better it is for them to be able to move forward with their agenda. One area where I think it’s been hard for the transgender movement to gain traction, or at least there has been pushback, has been in the area of women’s sports. For example, there is a recent story that was widely circulated this past week, where a biological boy who identifies as female, name is Lia Thomas, 22-year-old transgender swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, has been shattering women’s records, no surprise, because Lia is a biological man. Do you find in the area of women’s sports that this is where people can really look at what the agenda is and say, “Hey, this isn’t fair. This is absolutely not fair.” Do you find traction in this area for those who view this as we do?

Kara Dansky:

Yes, and shoutout to my friend Beth Stelzer at an organization that she founded called Save Women’s Sports. She’s done a tremendous amount of work in helping lawmakers, especially at the state level, but also at the federal level, succeed in getting legislation passed to protect women’s sports for women. I just want to pause for a second and ask what you mean in your question, you used the phrase, “transgender swimmer,” that’s the kind of language I’m trying to get away from.

Beverly Hallberg:

No, teach me, teach all of us. That’s helpful.

Kara Dansky:

Yeah, I really… So, as you said in the introduction, I’m a feminist, I’m a lifelong Democrat. And I have been spending a lot of time, or the past couple years, working across the political aisle because I think this is very important. I think that this should not be a partisan issue and the media has done a tremendous job of framing it as a partisan issue. And I’m very frustrated with most media outlets for doing that. But one of my frustrations is that the Republicans, that I am very happy to work with, often use phrases like transgender athletes or transgender swimmer or transgender students. That’s hurting us. It’s hurting the movement to push back against gender identity, using their language makes it much more difficult for us to gain ground in the movement to push back against the enshrinement of gender identity in the law. So I appreciate you letting me say that.

Beverly Hallberg:

Yeah. So out of curiosity then, is the correct thing that you would always encourage people to say in that specific example would be biological boy, just say a boy?

Kara Dansky:

Boy. Yeah.

Beverly Hallberg:

That makes sense. That makes sense. And so I’m glad you brought up the media. I wanted to ask you just a little bit about what it has been like for you as a Democrat, talking about these issues. I read your piece that you had published in the Federalist, it was entitled “Democrats Like Me are Furious with Our Party for Pushing Gender Insanity.” So first of all, can I ask you why as a Democrat, you chose to submit your piece to a conservative outlet, would more left-leaning outlets not publish your opinion?

Kara Dansky:

Absolutely not. So I mentioned the 2016 lawsuit that WLF filed against the Obama Administration, Tucker Carlson invited WLF to appear on his show. And I was happy to do it. That happened in early 2017. I’ve been on the show several times since. I was very grateful to the Federalist for publishing that piece. I was very grateful to the New York Post recently for publishing another piece. Feminists like me, who publish in conservative media, get a lot of pushback for it. We get in trouble with a lot of radical feminists who don’t think we ought to be doing that, but we have a story to tell.

And we’re grateful to the outlets such as yourself, who are willing to give us a platform to tell our story. What a lot of Republicans, I think, do not know because there’s no way for you to know this, is there are countless Democrats, rank and file Democrats all over the country who are furious at our party leadership for what they’re doing. You have a lot of allies in a lot of rank-and-file Democratic communities, but the reason you don’t know that is because the media won’t say it.

Beverly Hallberg:

Final question I have for you before, well, actually our final, final question will be about your book but the final question I have for you before we get to that, is something that we often hear. And this goes back to the language and the words that we use, we often hear people using different pronouns than the biological sex of a person. So if you, let’s take that athlete, the male athlete competing against women, do you ever use the pronoun “she” for a biological boy or even if one, let’s say, you could take Caitlyn Jenner, do you refer to Caitlyn Jenner as a he or a she?

Kara Dansky:

“He,” of course, because he is. But we should say there are efforts around the world to actually criminalize the use of accurate sex pronouns. And it’ll be very interesting to see whether our first amendment protects us in a way, for example, that Canadian law does not protect Canadians. There’s an effort right now to make the use of accurate sex pronouns a hate crime. And it’s also happening in the UK. It’s happening in Scotland. It’s happening in a lot of places. It may not happen here. Our first amendment may protect us from that but we’ll see. The district attorney of San Francisco has recently issued an order, all of the staff in his office are now required to use so-called preferred pronouns in court, which could potentially mean that a rape victim might be required to refer to a male alleged rapist as “she” on the witness stand, which I would argue would constitute perjury.

But we haven’t seen any of this play out quite yet in the legal system, but it’ll be very interesting to watch. There is one case in the Sixth Circuit coming out of Ohio, where a professor refused to use so-called preferred pronouns. He was disciplined by the public university, his employer, but he was vindicated in court at the appellate level. So that’s a good sign that our first amendment might protect us in a way that, for example, Canadians aren’t protected.

Beverly Hallberg:

Final question for you. You tell us about your book. I know we’ve talked about it here but who is the book for? What can people expect if they read it?

Kara Dansky:

So the book is called “The Abolition of Sex: How the Transgender Agenda Harms Women and Girls.” And I wrote it really for average rank and file, across-the-political-aisle Americans who either might be very confused about what is going on here. And it’s completely legitimate to be confused about what is going on, on topics of sex and gender because there’s a deliberate effort to confuse us or Americans who see what’s going on and want to speak out about it but may not quite feel comfortable doing so for the reasons you laid out in your introduction. These topics can be hard to talk about but it’s not impossible. And I really want Americans to have the tools to talk with one another. If you’re a Republican talk with other Republicans, embolden other Republicans to speak out about this using accurate language. If you’re a Democrat and you agree with me but you’re scared to speak out, I understand that, that’s very understandable but we’ve got to do it if we’re going to make headway here.

Beverly Hallberg:

Well, we thank you for your bravery. Kara Dansky, author of “The Abolition of Sex: How the Transgender Agenda Harms Women and Girls.” We so appreciate you joining us on She Thinks today.

Kara Dansky:

Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it.


This interview was conducted on December 10, 2021, and the transcript was reproduced with permission from  The Independent Women’s Forum.

ELECTION INGETRITY MAP: Understanding the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Your State! thumbnail

ELECTION INGETRITY MAP: Understanding the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in Your State!

By Royal A. Brown III

The Heritage Foundation for America (HFFA) has put out some is some excellent information on Election Integrity. As we are entering 2022, and the mid-term elections, every American voter needs to understand where their state stands on election integrity.

As you already know, to their SHAME the 14 RINOs listed below led by Mitch McConnell joined all Senate Democrats to increase the Debt Ceiling thereby helping Democrats fully fund all of their previously approved social welfare programs disguised as infrastructure.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Joni Ernst of Iowa;  Mitch McConnell of Kentucky;  Susan Collins of Maine; Roger Wicker of Mississippi; Roy Blunt of Missouri; Thom Tillis of North Carolina;  Richard Burr of North Carolina;  Rob Portman of Ohio;  John Thune of South Dakota;  John Cornyn of Texas;  Mitt Romney of Utah; Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and John Barrasso of Wyoming.

– Heritage Action For America Update –

The House and Senate were in session this week, marking the last time either chamber will meet until 2022.

We’ve got some important legislative updates for you… but first we wanted to introduce you to The Heritage Foundation’s newest tool for election integrity!

Election Integrity Scorecard

On Tuesday, The Heritage Foundation released the Election Integrity Scorecard that ranks states based upon their election laws.

This awesome new tool will allow you to dive deep into your state’s election integrity measures so you can see how good your state’s laws are and where there is room for improvement. Check it out here!

Georgia is the state with the highest score––which is no surprise given the tireless efforts of Heritage Action Sentinels to pass election integrity reforms in the Peach State.

Florida and Texas aren’t too far behind––two states that our Sentinels have also worked tirelessly to pass election integrity laws.

While this scorecard shows us the great work you have all accomplished this year, it also shows us where we need to improve to ensure it’s easy to vote, but hard to cheat across the country.

That’s what Executive Director Jessica Anderson talked about when she stopped by our podcast studio Thursday for the latest episode of On Air with Heritage Action.

On Air with Heritage Action is the perfect podcast for conservative activists––it will help you stay in the loop with what’s going on in Washington and give you very useful ways to actually take action. The best part is you get all of this in 5 minutes or less!

Check out Jessica on the latest episode and be sure to subscribe (wherever you get your podcasts!).

  1. LISTEN to the latest episode
  2. WATCH the latest episode
  3. SUBSCRIBE here

TEXT “PODCAST” to 51776 to receive updates on the podcast

The Good and the Bad: NDAA and Debt Limit

As we broke down for you in last week’s Saturday Summary, Congress agreed to terms late last week on both the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and a debt limit increase.

This week, Congress officially passed both bills, one of which is GOOD for the country and one of which is BAD for the country.

The Good––NDAA:

  • Increased military funding by $30 billion compared to the previous year. This ensures our military is fully funded and ensures our service members are paid well.
  • Thanks to your efforts, the “Draft our Daughters” provision was removed
  • And a problematic “red flag” provision related to gun rights was also removed!

The Bad––Debt Limit:

  • In a near party-line vote, Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 TRILLION, pushing it to $31.4 TRILLION. Make no mistake––this $2.5 trillion debt ceiling increase is to pay for Congressional Democrats’ past, present, and future spending addiction. This much debt without reforms to address the issue is very, very bad for the country.
  • Filibuster carveout––Democrats bypassed the filibuster to raise the debt ceiling with the help of Senate Republican leadership. It sets a bad precedent for filibuster exceptions in the future.

The Left’s disastrous “Build Back Better” bill––more accurately described as the “Build Back Broke” bill––looks to be in major jeopardy in the Senate as Democrats delayed voting on the bill until next year.

Adding to Democrats’ woes is the recent ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian that Democrats can’t include mass amnesty as part of the reconciliation process.

These developments are a win!

The Democrats’ “Build Back Broke” bill would be the greatest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ, and without the Left’s budget gimmicks, would cost $5 TRILLION dollars, adding $3 TRILLION to the national debt according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.

Soaring inflation is another major concern with this bill. Inflation is at a 40-year high and prices are up nearly 7% from last year.

How will the Biden administration fix it? They want to spend trillions more and add trillions to the debt… sure, because pouring trillions more into the system will have no impact on prices…

That’s why it’s a win that Democrats will push BBB to next year.

They’ve been trying for months to pass this disaster of a bill, but thanks to your efforts they won’t succeed.

Please keep contacting your Senator so that they vote NO on Build Back Broke!

Call your Senator and tell them to REJECT BBB!

On Tuesday, Jessica Anderson joined John Soloman on Just the News for a special report on “Washington’s Whiffs” in 2021––a recap of the disastrous policies the Left have implemented this year and what’s coming next year.

In addition to Jessica, the program includes some great guests like Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), and Heritage Foundation President Dr. Kevin Roberts.

Watch the full episode:

Thank you for your support, time, and effort in advocating for conservative policies in government. We couldn’t do what we do without you, so thank you!

Jessica and the Heritage Action team

Join the fight to advance the conservative agenda.



©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

‘Freeloading’ Elon Musk to Pay Largest Federal Tax Bill in History, an Estimated $8.3 Billion thumbnail

‘Freeloading’ Elon Musk to Pay Largest Federal Tax Bill in History, an Estimated $8.3 Billion

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The Tesla founder is expected to pay the largest federal tax bill in history—but his critics say that’s not enough.

Elon Musk made a bold claim on Twitter on Tuesday. The Tesla founder said he would “pay more taxes than any American in history this year.”

Is the claim true? Only the IRS knows for certain who the largest taxpayer in US history is, but Forbes says Musk appears to be right.

“The eccentric billionaire (and the world’s richest person) likely owes the federal government at least $8.3 billion for 2021,” Forbes reports.

Business Insider projects Musk’s tax bill is even higher when state taxes are included.

“Taxes on his stock, nearly a billion in Net Investment Income Tax, and the billions he likely owes California could add up to about $12 billion in total,” report Jason Lalljee and Andy Kiersz.

CNBC, meanwhile, figured Musk’s total tax bill was even higher—$15 billion.

The bulk of Musk’s tax bill stems from the nearly $13 billion in Tesla stock sold as of December 13, which is even larger than the record $10.2 billion worth of Amazon stock Jeff Bezos sold last year.

Elon Musk will pay over $15,000,000,000 in taxes this year, the most in American history.

— Jeff 💙✌️ (@JeffTutorials) December 15, 2021

Whatever Musk’s tax bill ends up being, it’s worth examining the context of his claim. Musk was not bragging that he had the largest tax bill in history; on the contrary, he was responding to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who—somewhat unfathomably—lashed out at Musk for not paying his fair share of taxes.

“Let’s change the rigged tax code so The Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else,” Warren tweeted.

Let’s change the rigged tax code so The Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else. https://t.co/jqQxL9Run6

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) December 13, 2021

You read that correctly. Warren, the progressive lawmaker from Massachusetts, called Musk a freeloader. It’s possible that Warren didn’t know that Musk is set to pay more in taxes than any American—perhaps human being—in history, but it’s more likely she simply does not care and is comfortable peddling the fiction that Musk isn’t paying taxes. Warren made this clear in subsequent remarks after Musk had responded to the Senator.

“He’s the richest guy in the world, and he just doesn’t want to pay taxes,” Warren said. “That’s what it’s all about for me.”

She continued:

“I gotta say, on behalf of every school teacher who pays taxes, on behalf of every waitress who pays taxes, on behalf of every American citizen who goes out and works for a living and pays taxes …that’s just fundamentally wrong. We have a broken tax system that lets Elon Musk freeload off everyone else, and it needs to stop.”

Warren’s claim that Musk is a “freeloader” is preposterous, of course. Taking the lowest estimate on what Musk is expected to pay, he’ll cough up more in taxes than the entire state of Massachusetts collected in sales and use taxes through the first half of 2021—from its 7 million residents.

Moreover, unlike Warren, who collects a salary from the government, Musk earned much of his wealth by creating value. Tesla employs nearly 80,000 people who’ve built no fewer than 623,000 energy-efficient cars in 2021 alone. Its market cap is nearly $1 trillion, which has made untold numbers of Tesla employees and shareholders wealthy. Warren, on the other hand, creates nothing. Every dollar of her $174,000 salary—and the money she pays her staff with—comes from funds confiscated from taxpayers. Every dollar she authorizes to be spent was taken from someone else who earned it.

Musk’s success should be applauded, but instead Warren—the true freeloader—accuses him of “freeloading” and believes he should be paying more.

What really appears to bother Warren is that Musk has so much. In other words, it’s a politics rooted in envy.

Envy is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and for good reason. It’s a corrosive disposition that harms both individuals and societies. The celebrated philosopher Immanuel Kant described envy as,

“…a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [It] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune.”

The pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus (c. 460 BC – c. 370 BC)—in a wonderfully libertarian quote—once warned of the danger of envy and purpose of the law.

“[Just] laws would not prevent each man from living according to his inclination, unless individuals harmed each other; for envy creates the beginning of strife,” he wrote.

Strife is precisely what Warren and those who share her philosophy are sowing, and it’s clear she and others view Musk’s good fortune with distress. If that’s not envy, I don’t know what is.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.


4 Common Capitalism Myths Debunked

The Tale of the Slave

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

‘Woke’ retailers who asked Congress for help amid smash-and-grabs supported left-wing police reforms thumbnail

‘Woke’ retailers who asked Congress for help amid smash-and-grabs supported left-wing police reforms

By The Geller Report

They supported defund the police, gave millions to BLM terrorists, and now they want us to bail them out?

Nearly two dozen CEOs signed the letter asking Congress for support, including the chiefs of Target, Nordstrom and Levi Strauss

By Emma Colton, FOX Business, December 15, 2021;

Organized retail theft spikes over Thanksgiving weekend

Former DC police detective Ted Williams provides insight on preventing smash-and-grab crimes from becoming the ‘new normal’ across the country.

Retail CEOs are calling on Congress for help amid the smash-and-grab lootings that are leaving them grappling with hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost or stolen merchandise. Some of those same companies, however, supported organizations last year that have called to defund or overhaul policing in the United States.


“Many corporate leaders jumped on the woke bandwagon and wrote big checks to organizations that still continue to advocate to defund the police. They did not think of anything beyond not being labeled a racist,” Sean Pritchard, president of the San Jose Police Officers Association, told Fox News Digital Tuesday.

Nearly two dozen CEOs signed the letter to Congress asking for support as theft crimes rage, including the chiefs of Target, Nordstrom, Levi Strauss, Ulta Beauty and Home Depot.

“Leading retailers are concerned about the growing impact organized retail crime is having on the communities we proudly serve,” the letter, which was sent by the Retail Industry Leaders Association to Congress last week reads, highlighting support for the INFORM Consumers Act. “This important legislation will modernize our consumer protection laws to safeguard families and communities from the sale of illicit products and we urge its quick passage.”

Fox News examined public support pledged by the companies last year during nationwide protests and riots following the death of George Floyd, and found many of the companies supported left-wing groups such as Black Lives Matter, the Equal Justice Initiative and the ACLU, which advocate to defund or reform policing in the U.S.

Nordstrom stores, for example, have repeatedly grabbed the nation’s attention in recent weeks due to mobs of looters storming multiple locations in California, leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and stolen merchandise. CEO Erik B. Nordstrom signed his name to the letter asking for Congressional support, but earlier this year, the company doubled down on its support for Black Lives Matter.

FILE – A security guard stands outside the Nordstrom store at The Grove retail and entertainment complex in Los Angeles, on Nov. 23, 2021. Prosecutors and retailers are pushing back on assertions by California’s governor and attorney general that they have enough tools to combat shoplifting. California Retailers Association president Rachel Michelin says shoplifting has been a growing problem. (AP Photo/Eugene Garcia, File)

FILE – A security guard stands outside the Nordstrom store at The Grove retail and entertainment complex in Los Angeles, on Nov. 23, 2021. Prosecutors and retailers are pushing back on assertions by California’s governor and attorney general that the

In a press release from January, the company announced different ways it will reaffirm “commitment to advance diversity, inclusion, belonging” during Black History Month, among them was “supporting the important work of nonprofit organizations including” the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.



Black Lives Matter led the charge last year in rallying Americans to support defunding the police. Co-founder Patrisse Cullors, a self-described “trained Marxist,” said that the way “we actually get real accountability and justice” is through the “demand of defunding law enforcement.”

The calls set off a cascade effect of liberal cities moving millions in funds from police departments and an increase in anti-police sentiments followed by corresponding increases in police resignations and early retirements. Departments across the country are still struggling to recruit new officers.

This year, as some cities reversed course and called for more police officers amid crime spikes, police leaders are taking issue with reform advocates who are now softening their position on defunding the police and spreading “amnesia” on the anti-police sentiment of last year.

“We urge President Biden to move at warp speed to create a vaccine to address our emerging Amnesia virus that has infected politicians, organizations and individuals who are now claiming they never advocated to defund the police, they just wanted to re-imagine policing,” Craig Lally, President of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“That is a lie, Black Lives Matter Los Angeles literally advocated to cut the LAPD budget by over 90%, reducing the number of police officers to under 1,000 from a force of 9,700. That means 90% of the rapes, homicides, assaults, follow home and smash and grab robberies would simply not be investigated. We wonder if BLMs Melina Abdullah was going to tell these victims they simply don’t matter. We don’t have amnesia and neither will voters when it’s election time, we will make sure of it,” Lally said.

Lally was referring to Los Angeles BLM leader Melina Abdullah’s recent comments saying that “When we say, ‘Defund the police,’ it doesn’t mean we don’t want public safety. It means we want resources for communities.”

But Black Lives Matter wasn’t alone in its calls to overhaul and change policing. Other organizations such as the Equal Justice Initiative, the National Urban League and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law advocate for reforms such as how reimagining “public safety and community health,” changing “divisive policing policies” and pushing for bail reform.

These organizations also received donations and support from retail stores calling for action in combating smash-and-grab crimes.

In 2020, Target announced a $10 million commitment to “advancing social justice,” including donations to the National Urban League. The organization outlines on its website that it has “21 Pillars” on “comprehensive and realistic reform and accountability,” including to “collaborate with communities to re-envision public safety” and “change divisive policing policies.”

Burbank CA USA: November 27 2017: Target Store Exterior view of a Target retail store. Target Corporation is an American retailing company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is the second-largest discount retailer in the United States. The store is shown during the holiday season.

Burbank CA USA: November 27 2017: Target Store Exterior view of a Target retail store. Target Corporation is an American retailing company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is the second-largest discount retailer in the United States. The s (iStock / iStock)

While famed denim brand Levi Strauss & Co. announced last year it would donate $100,000 to its “longstanding partner, American Civil Liberties Union,” following Floyd’s death.

The ACLU describes itself as “our nation’s guardian of liberty.” But to police leaders on the West Coast coping with the spike in retail crimes, it is the organization to blame for the rampant smash-and-grabs.


“All one has to do is log onto www.ACLU-watch.com and click a category such as ‘Sexual Offenders’, ‘Weakening Public Safety’ or ‘Dangerous Bail Reform’ to see exactly how this organization has contributed to the crime wave enveloping our nation,” Mike Solan, President of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“Many in corporate America have blindly supported the ACLU, maybe not realizing the devastating impact their policies are having on our safety. I would be interested to hear why some corporations are supporting the weakening of rights of rape victims or releasing repeat offenders out on bail to harm again because that is what the ACLU has been fighting for.”

California’s Proposition 47, passed in 2014, has also come under severe scrutiny amid the spike in crimes because it reduced shoplifting charges regarding the theft of $950 or less from felonies to misdemeanors. Among its supporters were the ACLU and then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.


Home Depot also pledged $1 million to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which has taken issue with bail laws in the U.S., while Ulta Beauty announced it would donate to the Equal Justice Initiative.

The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was established in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy, and outlines under its criminal justice web page that it works “to challenge racial disparities within the criminal justice system that result from the criminalization of poverty and contribute to mass incarceration.” The nonpartisan group adds that “pretrial practices that rely on ‘money bail’ and formulaic rather than individualized bail determinations” disproportionately incarcerates people of color.

The Equal Justice Initiative lays out on its website that “tough on crime” policies have led to mass incarceration “rooted in the belief that Black and brown people are inherently guilty and dangerous.” The group also advocates for the reallocations of “funds from traditional policing to services that promote public safety.”

EJI founder Bryan Stevenson told the New Yorker last year that historically, “police have been the face of oppression in many ways” and said – just as protests and riots began forming in late May of 2020 – “we have created a culture that allows our police departments to see themselves as agents of control, and that culture has to shift.”

An Ulta spokesperson told Fox News Wednesday that the company is proud of its work with EJI and its commitment to end mass incarceration and excessive punishment, among other issues.

“As a values-based company, we believe in doing what’s right. As such, we support both the INFORM Act and EJI as they stand for safety and equality, two longstanding priorities at Ulta Beauty,” the statement added.

Portland, Oregon, USA – Sep 21, 2019: A shopping entering the Ulta Beauty Store in Portland’s Cascade Station Shopping Center at dusk. Ulta Beauty, Inc., is an America chain of beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, IL.

Portland, Oregon, USA – Sep 21, 2019: A shopping entering the Ulta Beauty Store in Portland’s Cascade Station Shopping Center at dusk. Ulta Beauty, Inc., is an America chain of beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, IL. (iStock)

Now, as the CEOs ask for help in combating widespread crime in their stores, some in Congress are hitting back.

“Help them directly? Hell No. They should be ashamed of themselves,” Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy told Fox Digital on Tuesday when asked about the companies pleading with Congress for assistance.

“The days of crony capitalism are about to come to an end. But unlike the unprincipled woke corporations bowing down to the altar of so-called ‘environmental, social, and governance’ (ESG) investment to enrich themselves, I will always fight for the rule of law, which will help everyone — including them,” Roy added.

Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar also said he will not support congressional efforts to assist retailers that “backed BLM during their ‘summer of love protests’ and efforts to defund the police.”

“These woke companies made their bed, now they can sleep in it,” he told Fox News on Wednesday.

“This is what happens to the woke, they reap what they sow. What did they expect would happen?”

Police leaders have voiced similar sentiments, saying corporate leaders rushed to make donations in 2020 out of fear of being labeled racist and are now coping will the fallout of fewer officers and more crime.

“Unfortunately, the result of these defund efforts has these CEOs waking up to a retail theft smash and grab nightmare, rampant violence on our streets and a fear of disassociating themselves and their companies from the very individuals and organizations intent on destroying the safety of our communities,” Pritchard added in his comments to Fox News.

Nordstrom and Levi Strauss did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the donations and support to the various groups in light of the letter last week. Target referred Fox News to the Retail Industry Leaders Association, adding that its CEO did sign onto the letter to Congress last week, but “we don’t have anything to share beyond what’s contained in the letter.”

The Equal Justice Initiative, the National Urban League, Black Lives Matter and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law also did not respond to requests for comment on the letter.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

TRUMP WAS RIGHT: Fentanyl overdoses become No. 1 cause of death among US adults, ages 18-45 thumbnail

TRUMP WAS RIGHT: Fentanyl overdoses become No. 1 cause of death among US adults, ages 18-45

By The Geller Report

Covid schmovid. This is the leading cause of death of our young people and its the Biden adminsitration who is bringing in theis death drug via his migration invasion.

More adults between 18 and 45 died of fentanyl overdoses in 2020 than COVID-19, motor vehicle accidents, cancer and suicide

By Audrey Conklin Fox News December 17, 2021:

Former DEA special agent in charge Derek Maltz says ‘we have a chemical weapon attack that nobody’s paying attention to.’

Fentanyl overdoses have surged to the leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 18 and 45, according to an analysis of U.S. government data.

Between 2020 and 2021, nearly 79,000 people between 18 and 45 years old — 37,208 in 2020 and 41,587 in 2021 — died of fentanyl overdoses, the data analysis from opioid awareness organization Families Against Fentanyl shows.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that can be deadly even in very small amounts, and other drugs, including heroin, meth and marijuana, can be laced with the dangerous drug. Mexico and China are the primary sources for the flow of fentanyl into the United States, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Comparatively, between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 15, 2021, there were more than 53,000 COVID-19 deaths among those between the ages of 18 and 49, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Buried in the CDC data:

🚨Fentanyl poisoning is now the #1 Cause of Death Among Americans 18-45🚨

Surpassing Suicide, Covid-19 and Car accidentshttps://t.co/oCOlNgWN8W

— Families Against Fentanyl (@FafFentanyl) December 16, 2021

“This is a national emergency. America’s young adults — thousands of unsuspecting Americans — are being poisoned,” James Rauh, founder of Families Against Fentanyl, said in a statement. “It is widely known that illicit fentanyl is driving the massive spike in drug-related deaths. A new approach to this catastrophe is needed.”


Rauh, who lost his son to an overdose, added that “declaring illicit fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction would activate additional and necessary federal resources to root out the international manufacturers and traffickers of illicit fentanyl and save American lives.”

The DEA on Thursday announced a surge in the sale of fake prescription pills containing deadly opioids on social media platforms like Snapchat.

A man living on the streets displays what he says is the synthetic drug fentanyl. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Experts believe there is a correlation between the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the recent increase in fentanyl overdoses.

WHAT IS NARCAN? THE LIFESAVING TREATMENT THAT CAN REVERSE OPIOID More adults between 18 and 45 died of fentanyl overdoses in 2020 than any other leading cause of death, including COVID-19, motor vehicle accidents, cancer and suicide. Fentanyl also killed more Americans in general in 2020 than car accidents, gun violence, breast cancer and suicide, according to the analysis of CDC data from Families Against Fentanyl.

Fentanyl deaths doubled from 32,754 fatalities to 64,178 fatalities in two years between April 2019 and April 2021.

The number of fentanyl deaths in the U.S. doubled in just TWO years to over 64,000 deaths. pic.twitter.com/ZeBheLc0Pn

— Families Against Fentanyl (@FafFentanyl) December 16, 2021

In the first five months of 2021 alone, more than 42,600 fentanyl overdose deaths were reported, which represents an increase of more than 1,000 fentanyl deaths per month compared to the same time period in 2020.

“Fentanyl has been found in all the drug supply. That’s why anyone using drugs, not just opioids, should carry naloxone,” Dr. Roneet Lev, emergency physician and former chief medical officer of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), said in a statement. “The only safe place to obtain drugs is the pharmacy.”

Overall drug overdose deaths are expected to surpass 100,000 in 2021, according to preliminary CDC data, representing a 28% increase between April 2020 and April 2021.

President Biden on Wednesday issued an executive order authorizing sanctions against any foreigner engaged in illicit drug trafficking or production.

“I find that international drug trafficking — including the illicit production, global sale and widespread distribution of illegal drugs, the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, as well as the growing role of internet-based drug sales — constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,” Biden’s order states.

Fentanyl drug seizures at the border have reached record highs in 2021, according to data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as the Biden administration faces a continuing crisis at the southern border.

Border authorities have seized more than 11,000 pounds of fentanyl so far in fiscal year 2021, with less than one month to go, dwarfing the 4,776 pounds seized in fiscal 2020. CBP seizures of other drugs, including marijuana, cocaine and heroin have generally decreased since 2018.

Experts recommend people who use any kind of drug carry Narcan, a lifesaving medicine also known as naloxone, which has the ability to reverse symptoms of an overdose and potentially save lives, according to Family First Intervention.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Are You Ready for Nuclear War Over Ukraine? thumbnail

Are You Ready for Nuclear War Over Ukraine?

By Selwyn Duke

“Do you know we don’t rule out first-use nuclear action?” So said Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) while outlining what measures the U.S. could take against Russia over Ukraine, at whose border Moscow has been massing troops. The senator’s office later clarified that this comment related to American policy in general and not specifically to Russia. While this is actually believable (Wicker made a loose comment), what’s unbelievable is that we’re even considering a military confrontation with Moscow over something that does not at all involve a U.S. national interest.

Moreover, what else Wicker said, during a recent interview with Fox News host Neil Cavuto, is not reassuring. To wit: “Well, military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction … on Russia military capability,” the Independent related him as stating. “It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground.”

Making it worse is that the Biden Administration and the Establishment in general are all-in on this Dr. Strangelove foreign policy. As Secretary of State Tony Blinken’s spokesman, Ned Price, has put it, “If Russia chooses to fail to deescalate…we and our allies would be prepared to act. We would be prepared to act resolutely.”

Equally troubling is that geniuses in both parties are pushing to have Ukraine become part of NATO, with its “an attack on one is an attack on all” policy. This means that if Russia then invaded Ukraine, the U.S. and Western Europe would be obligated to intervene militarily. WWIII, anyone?

For his part, Russian president Vladimir Putin has said that NATO troop and weapons deployment to Ukraine is a “red line” for him. Of course it is. Just as we couldn’t back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Russia wouldn’t back down on Ukraine. The same is true of China vis-à-vis Taiwan.

Like it or not, you must tread softly in another great power’s backyard. Enter it and refuse to back down, and war will almost assuredly result because that power can’t realistically back down. Doing so would mean losing face and sending the ultimate message of weakness. For if you can be pushed around at your own doorstep, in what way can’t you be dominated?

Despite this, our chicken hawks insist on playing chicken with a nuclear power over…what? Few ask what the national interest is, and no one explains. We do hear bloviating about Ukraine’s “sovereignty” and border integrity from the same people who’ve made our border a sieve-like conduit for a southern invasion, as Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson pointed out last night. These people also talk about defending “democracy” while having stolen an election here and undermining our republic with unconstitutional policy and two-tiered justice.

Then, last year, sociopathic congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) actually said that we aid “Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Perhaps Schiffty has been watching the flick Red Dawn too much. (He should note that in the film’s remake, in 2012, the Chinese troops invading American soil were digitally altered post-production to appear North Korean in deference to Beijing, our main geopolitical rival.)

In other words, if you thought there couldn’t be anything as irrational as our coronavirus policy — where authorities insist on reordering civilization over a pathogen that more than 99.9 percent of the infected will survive — welcome to our Russia policy. We’re acting as if a nation with an economy one-eighth the size of China’s is today’s Roman Empire and we’re Gaul; our “cure” of military intervention in its backyard would definitely be worse than the disease, too. Russia is now the COVID-19 of geopolitics.

To be clear, none of this concerns whether you love, hate or are indifferent about Putin. It’s not about whether Russia is right or wrong on Ukraine. It’s about applying Just War Doctrine and, again, recognizing that you can only do so much at a great power’s doorstep.

An aside: Note that both our world wars, along with the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, began under Democrat administrations. And having in power detached-from-reality leftists who can’t judge human nature, as we do today, is always dangerous.

In fact, if they stay at the helm long enough, their folly may provide for their voters a harsh object lesson in how there really are things worse than white privilege, microaggressions and sexual constraints.

Below is an excellent Tuesday Tucker Carlson Tonight segment on the Russia-Ukraine folly.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Why in the World Are Democrats Preferred on the Issue of Education? thumbnail

Why in the World Are Democrats Preferred on the Issue of Education?

By Bruce Bialosky

While watching the election returns in Virginia, the analysts — you know those people with those slick boards which move pictures with the flick of a finger — were talking about what a shock it was that a Republican was favored on the issue of education. At this time in America, why would anyone favor the Democrats on this issue?

Did anyone happen to notice that once public employee unions were legalized back in the 1960’s, the cost of public education soared in this country while the quality of said education plummeted? A scientific theory, of which subject teachers are completely inept, would tell you that the two are not necessarily cause and effect. An honest person would state there are other factors involved. Is it a coincidence that these things happened simultaneously? I think not.

The country’s largest city which operates the country’s most populated school system has an (outgoing) mayor who has been an ardent enemy of charter schools. These are the same charter schools that have thousands vying for limited spots via lottery to get their children into schools not controlled by the mayor and his teacher union supporters. The same charter schools that enable minority students to perform at levels that far exceed the performance of their public schools’ counterparts. Yet for some reason, the perception is that Democrats are better on the issue of education. What is wrong with this picture?

In California, the teachers’ unions make a tremendous effort to get the legislature to crush charter schools. They lie about the performance of the charter schools to enhance the performance of the public schools to no avail. While the leaders wail about white supremacy, the performance of the black and brown students under their guidance is atrocious.

The Democrats like to say you should never let a crisis go to waste. In Virginia’s case, it backfired on them. I and many other critics of teachers’ unions and the current public-school systems seemed to get nowhere with middle-class and upper-middle class parents. Parents were too busy working and just getting through their days trying to provide a safe and healthy home for their children. We could write and speak and scream at the top of our lungs about the gross injustices being done to minority children. But if their school district was hiding the damage and their kids were getting a “good” education, they ignored the plight of others or were just too overwhelmed with their lives to take on the task of fighting the system.

Then we came upon a pandemic. Their kids were stuck at home and their teachers refused to show up to teach even after being vaccinated. Parents began to see not only the poor education being foisted upon their children but the poor education foisted upon all children –particularly in urban districts. They saw advanced education programs being canceled as racist because too many white or Asian kids were in the programs and not enough black or brown kids. They did not see the sense of that. They came to realize if the black or brown kid received a vapid education it was harmful to all of us down the line. They saw the schools were focused on issues other than math and English and science and history. If history was being taught, the values with which they were raised that made this country great were being trashed. Immigrant parents saw their kids being told that those things they cherished about America and caused them to fight so hard to become an American were bad or dangerous. The parents saw that their world was not being turned upside down. It already was.

Democrat elected officials who were funded by public employee unions that owned the politicians were the catalyst. The parents realized the people they trusted were cheating on them behind their backs. The funds from bond issues they were told to vote for and did so religiously were being wasted. Bright new schools were not the cure. The sickness was inside the schools. That means the curriculum, the school boards, the administration and, yes, the teachers who went along with all of it.

The other political party had been telling them that they cared. They argued for charter schools and parental choice and vouchers so parents could make the choice of a better way. The other party stood up and waved their hand and said we are still here. We still want to help. We still believe a public education monopoly has failed us. They reminded parents there is a reason the public-school establishment argues against the competition. When competition happens, the establishment loses, and the kids win. They reminded parents that they not only have a say in their child’s education, but they should also actively participate in the process.

Many black and brown parents have already realized the establishment and their political allies have left them in the dust. Now white parents have woken up to that reality. They have realized the Democrats are owned by the teachers’ unions serving them instead of their kids.

We have a breakthrough. Republicans should grasp that opportunity and press it to the wall. Not because it is a political opportunity. It is the right thing to do. It is not throwing money at a dysfunctional system. It is improving the outcomes for all our children. Republicans are the party of education. It just took a pandemic for many parents to wake up on the issue.


This article was published on December 6, 2021, in FlashReport and reproduced with the permission of the author.

Real Policy or Political Theatre? thumbnail

Real Policy or Political Theatre?

By Neland Nobel

Many people on the political Left don’t seem to understand the deep skepticism with which many Conservatives view government health policy. They believe Conservatives are anti-science.

In the last few days, we have been provided a very good example of what is wrong with government policy and it is worthwhile reviewing while many of these details are fresh in our minds.

You might recall just a little more than a week ago, a new Covid variant was identified in South Africa. People on the ground suggested while infectious, it was relatively mild.

Just the news of the new discovery caused markets around the world to gyrate? Why? Was it fear of the new variant or fear of another governmental panic that would damage commerce?

Evidence suggests the latter and rather quickly the Biden Administration stoked those fears by banning travel from a half dozen countries in Southern Africa, including some countries that have not identified any cases within their borders.

Previously the Biden Administration had accused similar bans by President Trump as racist, but apparently, Democrats cannot be held to the same standard.

Moreover, if it is true that travelers can spread the new variant, what about the uncontrolled flow of “migrants” that pour into the U.S. daily, and then are transported all over the country by our own government? Can we take seriously at all their policy on banning travel when our own government actually imports and then distributes, unvetted and unexamined people from Afghanistan and all over the world that come through our Southern border?

This is the kind of contradiction that leaves the head spinning. And one need not be a doctor to see it. It just makes no logical sense.

The World Health Organization has now identified that the Omicron variant has been found in 38 countries and so far, not one death has been reported from those infected.

The CDC has identified the variant now in 15 states.

If the virus is already so widespread, what use is the ban on just six countries, some of which are very lightly populated like Namibia and Botswana?

Why such a severe reaction when no deaths have been reported?

Again, the reaction of the Biden Administration just makes no logical sense.

Adding further insult to logic, on December 3, 2021, Mexican officials announced Omicron was found in Mexico.

Where do you think more “travelers” will likely come from, our long open border with a highly populated contiguous neighbor, Mexico, or the massive influx of Namibians?

There appears no justification for travel bans on these six countries in Africa, given the evidence. But like so many instances, the policy is not grounded in logic or facts but is made for reasons of political theatre. And as in the past, once the government makes a bad decision, they are reticent to reverse course even when the evidence shows they are clearly wrong. To admit error is to admit confusion and political expediency. The show must go on.

The Biden Administration is sagging in the polls on almost all fronts but has maintained some popularity because of the perception they were taking on Covid in a more effective way than did Mr. Trump. Therefore, Biden tends to act first and think later, a sure-fire way to destroy credibility.

There are countless examples of stupid policies. One of my other favorites was the one where you had to wear a mask when entering a restaurant. For the 20 seconds necessary to get to your table, the mask provided “protection.” You then removed your mask and talk loudly to several people close by for about an hour. Then after this hour of viral transmission, you put the mask back on to “protect” the public for the 20 seconds you need to get out the door.

That masking policy made no sense and neither does the travel ban against Africans.

Every time the government behaves this way, its credibility with the public sinks. No, it is not because Conservatives don’t believe in science. Rather it is that government policy often makes no sense, is stupid and contradictory, and we have all figured out it is political theatre.

These repeated ventures into nonsense are not without a cost. When the time comes, that we might need to believe the government, it may be impossible to mobilize the American people because of deep and deserved cynicism.

After all, men can get pregnant, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Trump was a tool of the Russians, Jeffrey Epstein hung himself, and banning travel from six African countries can stop the spread of Omicron.

If you believe any of that, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. Interested?

Dangerous Dope AOC: Smash and Grab Robberies Not Really Happening thumbnail

Dangerous Dope AOC: Smash and Grab Robberies Not Really Happening

By Pamela Geller

From the story: New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was slammed by Republicans and business leaders following an interview where she cast doubt on whether rampant smash-and-grabs are actually occurring. “A lot of these allegations of organized retail theft are not actually panning out,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview with The Washington Times last week. “I believe it’s a Walgreens in California cited it, but the data didn’t back it up,” she added (Yahoo).  Her comments were not appreciated by those suffering from the crimes (Washington Times).

This is the reality of AOC’s New York. https://t.co/SJte0eXLEI

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 3, 2021

AOC slammed for comments on smash-and-grab thefts

The congresswoman is being slammed after she said allegations of theft “are not actually panning out.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is being slammed by Republican colleagues and business owners over comments she made last week seemingly dismissing “smash-and-grab” theft claims during an interview with The Washington Times.

“A lot of these allegations of organized retail theft are not actually panning out,” the Democratic Socialists of America member said. “I believe it’s a Walgreens in California cited it, but the data didn’t back it up.”

A viral video from June shows a man loading a garbage bag with loot from a Walgreens in San Francisco.

Five Walgreens in San Francisco were closed last month due to “ongoing organized retail theft,” Walgreens told ABC 7.

“Organized retail theft continues to be a challenge facing retailers across San Francisco, and we are not immune to that. Retail theft across our San Francisco stores has continued to increase in the past few months to five times our chain average,” Walgreens stated.

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) told the Washington Times, “I don’t know what data she is talking about.”

“You don’t really need much data from someplace in San Francisco or California. All you need to do is walk down the street to the CVS in Eastern Market,” he said. Eastern Market is about one mile from the U.S. Capitol.

“I’ve seen on multiple occasions when I’ve been in there buying things, someone will come in and raid a shelf and walk out,” the Illinois Republican said.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) said Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks were “tone-deaf and offensive” to the family of the TV news security guard who was shot and killed in San Francisco last week while protecting a news crew covering a smash-and-grab theft.

Retail Industry Leaders Association official Jason Brewer told the Times, “Respectfully, the congresswoman has no idea what she is talking about. Both the data and stack of video evidence makes fairly clear that this is a growing problem in need of solutions.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s office did not respond to the Washington Times’ request for further comment.

A crime wave of smash-and-grab theft is sweeping across the nation. Just on Black Friday, Chicago, Minnesota and Los Angeles were hit by mobs of thieves.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Tyranny with a Needle thumbnail

Tyranny with a Needle

By Kelleigh Nelson

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation…To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J.B. Colvin, September 20, 1780

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” – Patrick Henry

“Tyranny is tyranny, no matter what its form; the free man will resist it if his courage serves.” Judge Learned Hand

Our only weapon is the truth and, in the end, the truth must always defeat the lie. Ten years ago, we would have been shocked and outraged by the very idea of censorship, but I’m afraid we’ve all become acclimated to cruelty and injustice by being exposed to it in steadily increasing doses throughout the years.

Intolerable wrongs we accept now as a matter of course, would have provoked marches in the streets and calls for new elections only a few years ago.  I cannot accept injustice any more now than I did as a teenager with my mother constantly educating me on the evils that could befall America. Fear laden propaganda has become steadily more oppressive where citizens are tempted to believe whatever our Pravda media and medical hierarchy tell them.

How quickly medical staff bowed to the “protocols for Covid patients,” when so many of the tests were false positives, many died unnecessarily and early treatment was ignored. That didn’t stop hospitals, corporations and schools from genuflecting to the Covid jab mandates.  It was never about life saving treatment, it was about the jab.

America’s Health Care Decline

If you haven’t purchased a copy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, you are missing a great and informative read on a vile and odious man who has done nothing to improve America’s health care and is an unelected autocratic leader.  Fauci is a combination of Hitler, Mengele and Goebbels, the evil leader, doctor and propagandist.

Robert Kennedy states, “When Dr. Fauci took office, America was still ranked among the world’s healthiest populations. An August 2021 study by the Commonwealth Fund ranked America’s health care system dead last among industrialized nations, with the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy.  ‘If health care were an Olympic sport, the US might not qualify in a competition with other high-income nations,’ laments the study’s lead author, Eric Schneider, who serves as Senior Vice President for Policy and Research at the Commonwealth Fund.”

“Following WWII, life expectancy in the US climbed for five decades, making Americans among the longest-lived people in the developed world.  IQ also grew steadily by three points each decade since 1900.  But as Tony Fauci spent the 1990s expanding the pharmaceutical and chemical paradigm, instead of public health, the pace of both longevity and intelligence slowed.  The life expectancy decrease widened the gap between the US and its peers to nearly five years, and American children have lost seven IQ points since 2000.”

Congress had specifically charged Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to investigate and prevent certain illnesses within the American public.  Instead, allergies, autoimmune and chronic illnesses have mushroomed to afflict 54 percent of children, up from 12.8 percent when Fauci took over NIAID in 1984.

People from every nation would journey to America to receive the finest in health care worldwide.  That is no longer true.

Drs. Fauci, Birx and Redfield were chosen by VP Michael Pence, the Trojan Horse within the Trump administration. Trump chose Pence to head the Covid Task Force, so the buck stops with our 45th President.  It took Pence’s January 6th failure to save the Trump presidency and the Republic before our favorite 21st century president realized the deep state neo-con he had chosen stabbed him in the back, and the Republic in the heart.

Coverup to Catastrophe

People are being damaged every day via Covid inoculations and Covid doesn’t even exist anymore.  Many of the vaxxed who carry 251 to 1000 of the viral loads in their nasal and oral pathways are spreading the enhanced variants.

The lie is that the uninoculated are spreading the virus!  No, it’s the twice or thrice jabbed who are spreading illness and death. Look at the highly inoculated states compared to the lower jabbed states…it’s obvious.  There are more people sick and dying who have been vaxxed than those who have abstained.  (Michael Yon calls us “pure bloods.”)  According to the New York Times, the least vaccinated states of West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi and Alabama are seeing a fall in case numbers.

Attorney Aaron Siri has published an initial report addressing information he demanded and received via civil lawsuit from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Those subpoenaed FDA files prove they knew the Pfizer vax has dangerous side effects.

That hasn’t stopped our Pravda media from making demands of their illegitimate leader.  CNBC host Jim Cramer called on President Joe Biden to not only require forced vaccination of all Americans, but he also wants the military to enforce it!  Cramer adds that in order to put an end to this “pandemic,” the federal government needs to require vaccines, including booster shots, for everyone in America by, say, January 1st.”

On Steve Bannon’s November 26th show, Peter Navarro said, “There has to be an end immediately to the universal vax policy.  It’s very clear and Dr. Malone can talk about the science of this, and that we are running the risk of creating vaccine resistant mutations. They are proliferating. That could wind up doing great harm to people around the world who, ironically, are vaccinated.  That policy is not working.  The Malone/Navarro doctrine is to vaccinate only the most vulnerable targets. Always remember that we are not really vaccinating people, that is not a vaccination.”

Peter Navarro and Dr. Robert Malone are still pushing this vax for the “most vulnerable.”  Who are they?  The elderly, often referred to as “useless eaters” by the proponents of depopulation and genocide, are most likely to have deleterious side effects from the jab.

Bill Gates believes we must reduce the population of the world by at least a billion people and this will be done by abortion and vaccine euthanasia, whereas United Nations Agenda 21/30 believes the world population must be reduced by 85 percent.  Most of their vaccination program had disastrous results, causing the very illness, polio for example in India, and sterilizing young women in Kenya with modified tetanus vaccines. Many of the children died. Many of the programs were carried out with the backing of the World Health Organization (WHO) and, yes, the UN Agency responsible for the Protection of Children, UNICEF.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is calling for “Investigations into the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ for Medical Malpractice and Crimes Against Humanity.” Also see, Coronavirus – No Vaccine Is Needed to Cure It.

All Roads Lead to the Vaccine

There are places in Southeast Asia and Europe where the groundwork is being laid for compulsory vaccination, where you’ll be forcibly jabbed.  That is how bad the stakeholders want vaccination.  The stakeholders are Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, the CDC, NIH, FDA, AMA, the White House, Gates Foundation and WHO.  We’ve never had this before, this massive propaganda program.

It’s a “needle in every arm,” as Dr. Peter McCullough has explained in many interviews.  As for Covid recovered patients, why would these stakeholders want a needle in every arm when recovered have God’s natural immunity?

Only two months of investigations were done for these jabs that could give you everything from a sore arm to death.  They take your information, get you to sign a release and you are now in a database.

Recent visits to two new hand surgeons, since my previous surgeon retired early, have let me know that they are all about the protocols to save their sorry backsides, and they refuse to believe in God’s natural immunity. They tell me I should get the vax despite recovery from C-19 and verified antibodies.  I have been in the home of a friend who is 48 and has Delta and was very sick.  I am not worried that I will catch anything.

North Carolina just passed a law that 12-year-old youngsters can make their own decisions on the vax, and it could be their fatal decision. In America and in Europe, thousands die on days one, two, and three after the vaccine.  This is despotic tyranny.

Why are we pushing this in a way where people’s jobs, education and livelihood decide on a position that is potentially fatal?  So many parents want their children to go to college this year, but they don’t want them forced into taking an experimental jab that could kill or cripple them.  The internet is full of these cases; blood clots, strokes, immediate death, pericarditis and myocarditis to name just a few.  Dr. Peter McCullough says that he cannot recommend this injection because it has passed all thresholds to being a safe product.  It’s not just Johnson and Johnson, in fact, more of the safety events have occurred with Pfizer and Moderna.

There are now papers by prominent worldwide scientists calling for a halt in the program. There are prominent virologists, including Nobel Prize winners who have said, “If we vax to the long-gone Wuhan Covid spike protein, it’s going to grow super bugs that will really wipe out populations.” Dr. Michael Yeadon, former top scientist and VP at Pfizer has said, “You are 50 times more likely to die of the vax than of Covid.”

I believe this is what is wanted by the stakeholders…depopulation via genocide and vaccine euthanasia.

Dr. Peter McCullough believes indiscriminate vaccination is a horrendous bioweapon that has been thrust onto the public and will cause great personal harm which it already has accomplished.


Only one percent of the vaccine death and adverse events are reported on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in America.  Why?  It takes a half hour to fill out the report and at the end of every page it says, “Warning, federal offense and severe fines and penalties if falsified reports.”

People are talking to each other; they know the vaccines are not safe and now they want children without parental oversight to have these jabs! And get this…now they want to be in the church!  If your church promotes this, run to the nearest exit!

Whitney Webb, a professional writer, researcher and journalist said that this is what globalists have been waiting for.  Whitney believes they’re waiting for a way of marking people.  When you get a vaccine, you’re marked in the database and this can be used for trade, commerce, behavior modification. Dr. McCullough says you can see it in Dallas where they’ve announced that you can’t go to a Dallas Mavericks game unless you’re vaccinated.

Colleges today are announcing they’re not giving any credits even to natural God given immunity.  And it goes against all previous science.  Have you had chicken pox, measles, mumps, whooping cough?  You’re immune for life!  Every scientist in the world knows that natural immunity is way better than the vax immunity.  Why is faulty vax immunity the priority and natural immunity doesn’t count?

Dr. McCullough agrees with Whitney Webb and believes the vax is a way of marking people, similar to communist China’s social credit system.  The vax is just the starter, they’re already prepping people for numerous boosters.  McCullough asks, “What product is there that is indemnified, where if something goes wrong, you have no recourse?”  When a pregnant woman gets vaccinated, she has no maternal fetal rights.   Something happens to her baby and she’s out of luck?  This is extraordinary what Americans are doing and accepting.

As of December 4th, 2021, 2,809 dead babies were reported in VAERS following Covid shots.  New documents prove Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC knew the shots were not safe for pregnant women.

The Nuremberg Code was enacted to stop sadistic human medical experimentation from ever happening again, but individual European states and now the entire E.U. are ready to scrap the code.

A Nuremberg 2.0 trial against world leaders for crimes against humanity has kicked off in Poland.  Attorneys, doctors and researchers are joining together and are willing to go into an international court and testify about the genocidal efforts of those who launched the viral bioweapon and the death shots.  Let us hope and pray that this proves successful for the survival of humanity.

Vaccine Safety Data

Not just our older vaccines, but newer vaccines like shingles, Hepatitis B, Meningococcal vaccines demand a minimum of two years of safety data codified into regulatory rules for the manufacturers.  That was all thrown out for the Covid vax and it was two-month “warp speed.”  The idea that we could vaccinate people who were not even tested in the trials has never been done before.  The very first pregnant woman vaxxed in the US was done without any knowledge of safety or efficacy.

The argument was that Covid was a very bad illness and 600K people died so everyone needs the jab and they need it now.  But as Dr. McCullough and other outspoken and honest physicians and scientists have stated, 85% of those people could have been saved with early home treatments which were actively suppressed and quashed by the stakeholders and Pravda media.  Let’s see the “safety” of these vaccines, because there is none being shown!  Americans never received weekly updates on vaccine safety from federal officials.  The lack of these two things are the largest examples of medical malfeasance, wrongdoing by those in authority, in all medical regulatory history.

There were no updates on treatment, no promotion of early treatment to reduce hospitalization and death, and now when we release the vaccine, why are there no safety updates, why are there no attempts for risk mitigation in terms of making the vaccine program safer?

Dr. McCullough stated, “Never, out of the box, is a brand-new technology tried on a pregnant woman.  We know this vax technology produces the dangerous spike protein. The Wuhan spike protein, the spicule on the ball of the virus itself which damages blood vessels and causes blood clotting, and all of them do, we would never unleash that into a pregnant woman’s body.  Something is very wrong with what’s going on.  What’s going on now in the world, these are examples, clear cut examples, of wrong doing, that is at such a high level.  The group think is in the wrong direction in such a consistent and overwhelming way that people are being harmed in an extraordinary fashion.”


The stakeholders have continually promoted Sars-coV-2 as something far worse than it is to push everyone into accepting the Covid inoculations. Loneliness and lockdowns actually did more damage, but was the impetus to “a needle in every arm.”  Early treatment was the key, but an early treatment meant there was no need for a “vaccine.” Treatment was quashed while thousands needlessly died, and Americans were told normalcy would only return with the “warp speed” vax. The fear propaganda worked and Pravda media promoted mass “vaccination.”

Vaxxing the elderly and infirm came first, then pregnant women, and the unborn died in record numbers.  Next were injections for the Covid recovered.  Now they’re on to our children and soon to our babies.  How many have to die before this evil is stopped?  The limit to shut down a vax program is 25 to 50 deaths as we saw with the swine flu in 1976.  We have lost thousands in America alone.  Scroll through the VAERS summary for Covid jabs, remembering this is only one percent of reported deaths or adverse effects.

In America, with about 100 million receiving the Covid jab, this is far and away the most lethal, toxic, biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history and it’s going strong.  There is no mention of safety by our officials, with wild enthusiasm by our hospitals and hospital administrators, with doctors supporting it, many of whom are saying they won’t see patients in offices if they’re not jabbed.

It has never been about the virus; it has always been about the vaccine.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.


Mandating Covid Vaccines for Children is Insane.https://t.co/HgvDeiexyn

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) December 7, 2021

The Covid, Climate Alliance thumbnail

The Covid, Climate Alliance

By Joe Bastardi

Maybe it is all just a big Coincidence — Covid and Climate.

I have 2 chapters in my book on this matter. The book was written in March and April of 2020 so it predates the evolution of what you see

(btw it is available here and it is stocking stuffer size, sort of).  Keep hawking it, as unlike some things one writes where they are current, then in the past, this book is just as current now as when it was written)

In any case, I have to question whether this is all a  coincidence.

Think about it. What does Marxism seek to do? It is a top-down authoritarian form of governance where control of the free will and freedom of the individual is a must. This force’s dependence on the state, and in the spiritual aspect, forces a person to choose between that dependence and one’s religious belief.

So what are you seeing here? Covid policy is a tactic to control. The Virus is GOING TO NATURALLY MUTATE TO GET AROUND ANY TYPE OF ARTIFICIAL RESISTANCE. Nature does that all the time. But think what the reaction, no matter what the intention, has done. It forced a sense of fear and almost blind reliance, and outsourcing of one’s freedom, to someone who will take care of you. The age-old question of is it better to be safe or strong enough to resist a threat comes to mind. Those seeking safety first will trust someone else rather than themselves. How else can you explain an almost blind allegiance to someone who has not actively treated a patient in a practice for over 30 years, over doctors on the front lines offering suggestings on how to stop this? Dr Fauci, who is now floating the trial balloon of renewed lockdowns. Right in time for the holidays.

They want to talk math and science right? Okay. Tested positives are near 50 million. It is hugely telling that the people pushing a vaccine have not set up antibody testing stations around the country with the availability of testing or vaccination sites, You can get the shot anywhere, but you can’t tell if you have Covid antibodies in the same ratio, It is common knowledge now that natural immunity ( and for goodness sakes.  This should be intuitive)Why isn’t the French vaccine available here? It uses the tried and true method of prevention, stimulating your body to create its own antibodies and then becoming more mutation resistant.

Nature is a stronger and longer defense against COVID. So why would you not want to get an actual count of people with antibodies?, rather than a tested count? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. And it is baffling how people don’t see that.  Or don’t ask why vaccines like the one above are not available.  Dr  Fauci says it spread 5x faster than flu. By HIS IDEA the whole country should have had it by now. But no matter let’s take how many people have been vaccinated. It is over 230,000,000 million, You have 50 million immune and if the vax is so powerful that it is our patriotic duty to get it, even though there is a risk.

Now given the recent surge, if all this vax talk was true, then how is it we are seeing such a surge with so many fewer people that are supposedly the ones that are responsible. There are only 50 million “unprotected”. Something is wrong here with what we are being told. My suspicion is what many of us know, the man-made vax simply fades. And a lot of vaxed people are walking around not understanding that they are likely no better off than an unvaxed person and certainly not better off than someone that had covid ( of which I believe there are many more). They are actually at risk from a false sense of security.

Covid is dangerous. It is a blight. But either the people that are pushing all this are  incompetent, or they are purposely hiding the examples above I gave

Why shut down frontline doctors aggressively treating this with therapeutics?   Why isn’t the more classic French Version available here? There are countless questions, and they get blocked with an aggressive campaign to isolate, demonize and destroy, the classic Marxist tactic.

Now to climate. FORCED ADHERENCE IS HERE. You are seeing it in the form of price rise. Biden has created the mess and now has decided we need to look at those evil energy companies for raising prices. There is a calculated step up. Arrogant elitists tell us we can afford an extra dollar a pound for turkeys. Meat prices rise, so more people have to figure out what else to eat. An energy secretary laughs at the problem on the video, saying she wished she had a magic wand to force the now all-powerful again OPEC to lower their prices. And so people, the poorest especially must react. Just like Covid, a form of class warfare and chaos develops.  Quite frankly I can not believe this is an accident. Nor do I believe Joe Biden hatched this. His history proves he is incapable of such things, but more than willing to adapt such things ( please just look at his record). However, those that wish to take down the freedoms of this country or who have written books supporting the redistribution of American wealth as the penalty for what we have done ( gee I wonder who THAT is) are smart enough and also are ENOUGH OF A LEADER, WHERE THEY WILL KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT FOR THE BIGGER CAUSE, can do it. They use setbacks such as Trump’s rise to power to regroup and come on stronger. So for whatever reason, they have a Covid and Climate alliance, along with the other chaos they crave to gain control, that is the wave we are facing.

Can you see the link? ITS DECEPTION ( or put it this way, a designed plan to hide all pieces of the puzzle). We are told it is getting worse all the time, yet there is no time better for living on the planet than now. That is why life expectancy has surged. Because of that, Covid can claim more lives.  The argument that more people are dying is absurd. 1) of course more people are dying there are more living. 2) There should be more people dying from natural disasters ( which of course are now blamed on man) because more people are living in harm’s way. Yet this graphic blows all that out of the water without having to argue over the polar bears or whatever or listen to Bill Nye and Greta drop F-bombs.

So if it’s worse than ever how were there 28x more deaths with 1/4 the population of today in 1930? It’s flat out false to assert man’s influence is ruining life. The earth is greener than ever in the satellite era, more people are living longer, more people are living in disaster-prone areas, YET THE ATTRIBUTED AMOUNTS OF DEATH ARE DROPPING.

We are in big trouble as far as what this nation was founded on. That the population as a whole is so uncurious about things like this, and not only accept what they are told but become agents for the deception by trying to force what they are told on others who actually look at these things, is the biggest problem. The devil’s biggest tool is to drive wedges into what we love the best. Our families, our friends, our way of life. To destroy what God has given every person and is so wonderfully spoken in the words of the founders. Whether you think the whole thing is a fairy tale or not is your business, but the old adage the road to hell is paved with good intentions is backed up by Mencken’s ”the urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” rings loud and true today. Whoever or whatever is behind all this, and perhaps it is just plain dumb luck, is capitalizing on it. Be it Covid, Climate, or whatever, there are just too many common links to ignore what is an almost otherworldly design to destroy the American experiment.  And no matter what the actual cause, the erosion of our foundations is evident. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. If the nation falls, it’s because we became comfortable and complacent rather than virtuous and vigilant.

I think Paul Harvey nailed it back in 1964.


This article was published on November 29, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Head of Wisconsin Election Probe Accuses Two Big-City Mayors of Cover-up, Stonewalling

By Benjamin Yount

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who is leading one of the investigations into the state’s 2020 elections says it’s clear to him there is a cover-up going on.

Former Justice Mike Gableman told the Assembly’s Committee on Elections on Wednesday that the state’s Elections Commission, its administrator, and the mayors of Madison and Green Bay have refused to answer any of his questions about the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, and continue to refuse to cooperate with the subpoenas issued in the case.

“[Green Bay Mayor] Eric Genrich and [Madison Mayor] Satya Rhodes-Conway have chosen to ignore the subpoenas issued by the Wisconsin Assembly because they have no intention of answering uncomfortable questions about what they did with the millions of dollars in Zuckerberg money that they took.”

The mayors have said in the past the Gableman’s subpoenas ask for too much information, or that it would take too long to comply with his requests.

Green Bay and Madison, along with Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha accepted nearly $9 million from the CTCL in 2020, ostensibly for coronavirus safety operations.

Gableman on Wednesday said the money, instead, went to a massive get out the vote operation in the state’s five largest, and most Democratic cities.

“Reasonable minds might wonder whether the millions of dollars each of these mayors received from the Zuckerbergs may have induced them to do something other than treat all candidates fairly and impartially. And whether those mayors used the Zuckerberg money to get out the vote for Joe Biden,” Gableman said.

Gableman said a lawsuit from the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the move by Green Bay’s mayor to “lawyer-up” tells him that the people involved with the CTCL money in Wisconsin, and involved in last year’s elections, don’t want those questions answered.

“They are trying to run and hide from accountability to the citizens they are supposed to serve,” Gableman told lawmakers. “Why go through all of this legal evasion, maneuvering, and expense unless they do not want the public to know what they have done?”

Gableman is facing a lawsuit from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul that seeks to stop his investigation. Specifically, it seeks to stop him from asking questions of Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe. That case is due before a judge on December 23rd.

Gableman on Wednesday unveiled for the first time on Wednesday that he filed writs of attachment in Waukesha County Court against Genrich and Rhodes-Conway. A writ of attachment would allow the court to seize the documents and other pieces of evidence that Gableman is asking for in his investigation.

Gableman’s update came on the same day, and at the same time as the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s monthly meeting. Commissioners used that hours-long meeting to push back, point-by-point, on the recent audit that found dozens of deficiencies and times when the commission didn’t follow state law.

The United States Needs to Adopt Poland’s Immigration Policy [Watch] thumbnail

The United States Needs to Adopt Poland’s Immigration Policy [Watch]

By Dr. Rich Swier

My family immigrated from Eastern Europe to America. My grandfather was a doctor and was conscripted by the Czar to be a medial officer in his army. When the Bolshevik Revolution occurred 0n November 6 and 7, 1917 my grandfather escaped Russia with his wife, my father, a horse and a cow.


Answer: Because the Bolsheviks were executing all Czarist officers.

My grandfather went to Canada, then entered the United States. My father served during WWII in the Army Air Corps. I too served my country in the Army.

I am pro-legal immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

Here’s how Poland deals with immigration and protecting their borders.

I think Poland has it right. Protect the Polish citizens from those who would do them harm.

This is true for every sovereign nation, including the United States. It is the solemn duty of the leadership of every nation state to protect its borders and thereby protect its citizens.

Why not one Muslim?

Perhaps my experience will help you to understand why not one Muslim.

While I was stationed in Germany from 1970 to 1974 there were two events that taught me all I needed to know about the Red/Green Alliance. Some may not see the connection between Islamist and Communist  ideologies, a.k.a. Red/Green Alliance. I saw it in practice first hand.

I was stationed in Germany when the The Red Army Faction (RAF), Rote Armee Fraktion, or the Baader–Meinhof Group or Baader–Meinhof Gang, was founded in 1970. The Red Army Faction was a West German far-left militant organization. Though many guerrilla groupings formed in West Germany in the 1970s, the RAF was the most influential and had the most staying-power.

I was also there when Black September, a Palestinian militant organization also founded in 1970, attacked the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany on September 5th, 1972. Black September killed 11 unarmed Israeli athletes and one German police officer in the attack and subsequent failed escape.

What did the militant Communist Red Army Faction and the Palestinian militant organization Black September have in common? Both were trained by members of the Palestine Liberation Organization which was founded in 1964 with the purpose of the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle.

Bottom line

Communists and Islamists continue on marching hand in hand to do evil in the world.

This is why the United States must only allow immigrants and refugees to come here only if they add to our culture and embrace our values and morals.

All legal immigrants when they are sworn in as citizens take the same oath that I did, that is to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Illegal aliens, refugees and those given amnesty take no such oath.

It’s critical that anyone coming to America be thoroughly vetted for reasons of national security and health security. There can be no exceptions.

Our politicians can learn a lot from Poland.

CLICK HERE: For more insightful columns on immigration.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Environmental Impact Study Must Precede ‘Build Back Better’

Holding Politicians Accountable for The Border Crisis

Biden Waives Iran Sanctions as Iran Retracts Nuke Compromises thumbnail

Biden Waives Iran Sanctions as Iran Retracts Nuke Compromises

By Robert Spencer

The more concessions you make to terrorists, the harder they push. That’s been the defining dynamic of the Iran negotiations, the PLO negotiations, and all the negotiations with Islamic terrorists.

The Biden administration is living up to that dynamic.

The Biden administration quietly waived sanctions on Iran to allow the hardline regime to sell electricity to Iraq, according to a non-public notification obtained by the Washington Free Beacon that was provided to Congress just as nuclear talks between the United States and Tehran resumed this week.

The timing of the waiver notification—which was signed Nov. 19 but not transmitted to Congress until Nov. 29, the day nuclear negotiations resumed—has prompted accusations the Biden administration is offering concessions to Tehran to generate goodwill as talks aimed at securing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal restart following a months-long standoff.

Iran is repaying the concessions in exactly the way you would expect a terror regime to do.

A US official said Saturday that Iran had backed away from all its previous compromises on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal and that the US would not allow Iran to “slow walk” the international negotiations while at the same time ramping up its atomic activities.

The warning came a day after Washington hit out at Iran, saying talks with world powers on a return to the 2015 nuclear accord had stalled because Tehran “does not seem to be serious.”

“We can’t accept a situation in which Iran accelerates its nuclear program and slow walks its nuclear diplomacy,” said a senior US administration official — echoing a recent warning by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Speaking to reporters after returning from the Austrian capital, the official said Washington was not yet planning to walk away from the indirect talks that it resumed with Tehran last week in Vienna, but hoped Iran would return “with a serious attitude.”

The Biden administration will not be trifled with. It won’t walk away from the talks or stop offering concessions, but it will warn Iran that it’s time to shape up and get serious about these negotiations… or it’ll offer up some more concessions.




Senators seek sanctions on Iran over alleged plot to kidnap journalist on U.S soil

Biden’s handlers ask Israel not to carry out intelligence operations against Iran

National Endowment for Humanities: ‘To say that Jews were subject to restrictions in the Middle East is nonsense’

Islam’s Crisis and Osama bin Laden

Iraq: Muslims fire-bomb Catholic shopkeeper’s house because he sold liquor

Colorado: Muslim who murdered 10 people at grocery store ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial

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

Dobbs V. Jackson: An Easy Opinion thumbnail

Dobbs V. Jackson: An Easy Opinion

By George Liebmann

The rejection of a “compelling state interest” test will remove abortion from national politics.

A simple Baltimore lawyer here tenders a short opinion to dispose of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the abortion case from Mississippi in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today.

This case presents the question: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” It involves a limitation of abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Similar limitations are found rational in many nations including France and Germany with their 12-week cutoff point. In Roe v. Wade, we said that states could limit second-trimester abortions if there was a rational basis to do so, but in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, we effectively applied a “compelling state interest” test.

We can dispose of this case by overruling Doe v. Bolton and Casey, but the avoidance of further controversy and confusion makes it desirable that we dispose of Roe also, thus withdrawing the Court from an area of public policy that we should not have entered in the first place and allowing further discussion to be divorced from claims of absolute right not inducing tolerance.

Five tests are conventionally used to justify overrulings: quality of reasoning (ever-shifting in this case); workability (belied by the constant flow of litigation over the “undue burden” test); inconsistency with prior law (patent in light of state legislation as of 1973); reliance (scarcely present, despite Casey, in view of Casey’s concession that “reproductive planning could take almost immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions,” a conclusion reinforced by the two-thirds drop in births to teenagers following the withdrawal of 18 years of guaranteed AFDC payments by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996); and finally, and most importantly, as stated in Casey, “whether Roe’s premises of fact have so far changed to render its central holding irrelevant or unjustifiable” and whether an overruling decision would provide “a response to facts that the country would understand but which the court of an earlier day as its own declarations disclosed had not been able to perceive.”

These standards for overruling are now more than fully met. The Roe court did not even consider the potential effect of abortion-on-demand on sexual mores, unwanted pregnancies, and births out of wedlock. It recognized that anti-abortion statute might be the “product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct” but declared “Texas does not advance this justification in the present cases and it appears that no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously. The appellants and amici contend moreover that this is not a proper state purpose at all.” So much for the mostly religious lawgivers memorialized in the frieze at the top of the Supreme Court building and Justice Holmes’ observation that “the law is the external deposit of our moral life.”

It is nonetheless the duty of the Court to consider not only the state’s actual arguments but those it might have made, lest the inadequacies of a single lawyer deform the Constitution. As stated in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S.603 (1960): “we cannot with confidence reject all those alternatives which imaginativeness might bring to mind save that one which might require invalidation of the statute.”

Instead, the Roe court, excluding the possible effect of its decision on promiscuous sexual behavior and increased pregnancies and births out of wedlock, made opposite assumptions. It alluded to “concerns about population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones.” The Second Circuit, invalidating a Connecticut statute, postulated that “population growth must be restricted not enhanced and thus the state interest in a pro-natalist statute such as this is limited,” citing the Rockefeller Commission report on “Population Growth and the American Future” (1971).

Subsequent research by the present secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, and her Nobel-prize-winning economist husband, George Akerlof, which appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Brookings Review in 1996, made clear that Roe had dynamic effects on American society, legitimating free love and the hookup culture by providing what looked like an assured back-up to birth control pills.

Thus the percentage of births to unwed mothers increased from 5.7 percent in 1970, when birth control pills were already in wide use, to 29 percent in 2018. Among black Americans, whose out of wedlock births were of great concern to “birth controllers,” the percentage of births out of wedlock increased from 38 percent in 1970 to 71 percent in 2018. Similarly, the “deal with it” syndrome that abortion-on-demand produced among consorts caused the percentages of marriages to those pregnant out of wedlock (“shotgun weddings”) to fall from 43 percent in 1970 to 9 percent in 2018.

“Inability to provide for the nurture and care of the infant is a cruelty to the child and an anguish to the parent,” the well-intentioned Justice Harlan stated in concurring in Roe. But after 50 years, there is much more such cruelty and anguish.

This Court, like the president and Congress, is subject to checks and balances. The confirmation process is one of these and can be given effect after 48 years. Several decisions have been overruled after long periods, including Lochner v. New York (work hours) after 50 years; Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (minimum wage) after 14 years; Plessy v. Ferguson (segregation) after 58 years; Bowers v. Hardwick (sodomy) after 18 years; Baker v. Nelson (homosexual marriage) after 43 years; and Korematsu v. United States (racial distinctions) after 74 years.

The public will now understand what the Court did not in Casey when it, echoing Justice Wayne’s concurring opinion in Dred Scott, called “the contending sides to end their division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Dred Scott failed because the fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution and the Compromise of 1850 rendered Northern states complicit in the permissiveness of the South. Casey failed for the same reason, by imposing coastal rules on “flyover” country.

Our decision reversing the Fifth Circuit judgment is of little direct consequence. Some four percent of abortions per year are performed after the 15th week, many in states that will continue to have liberal abortion laws. But our decision will send a powerful message to young women and their consorts that abortion is no longer a sure thing and that they should choose sexual partners more carefully than at present. The rejection of a “compelling state interest” test will remove abortion from national politics as in Western Europe and will restore the American judiciary to what Aristotle and Aquinas regarded as judges’ proper function: “corrective justice” vindicating agreed settlements, not “distributive justice” changing agreed rules, which is the prerogative of the ruler in authoritarian states and the legislatures in democratic ones.

In Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963), Mr. Justice Black stated for a unanimous court: “We emphatically refuse to go back to the time when courts used the Due Process clause ‘to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.’” To “business and industrial” we add “social,” thus definitively repudiating Dred Scott, the first adventure in substantive due process. We justify this overruling decision not merely by the prolix five tests of the legal academy, but in the words of Fiorello La Guardia: “When we make a mistake, it’s a beaut.”

The judgment is reversed.


This article was published on December 1, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

How Governments Seized Control of Money thumbnail

How Governments Seized Control of Money

By Ryan McMaken

In discussions surrounding the world’s monetary systems today, there is usually one thing almost everyone can agree on: that money should be controlled by the organizations we call “states” or “sovereign states.” Nowadays when we say “the US dollar” we mean the currency issued by the US government. When we say “the British pound” we mean the money issued by the regime of the United Kingdom.

This assumed need to have state-issued money has not always been the reality, of course. Indeed, the history of the rise of the state is a history replete with efforts by states to replace private-sector money with state-controlled money. 

The reasons for this are numerous. Control of the money supply—usually complemented by intervention in the financial sector—allows states much more flexibility in expanding state spending and state borrowing. Perhaps most importantly, this allows states to spend prodigiously in times of war and other “emergencies.” 

As we will see, this struggle between state and private finance has been a long one. It took many centuries for regimes to secure the sort of legitimacy and regulatory power necessary to claim a monopoly over money. And even today, states are still somewhat constrained by the realities of international competition between currencies. They are also constrained by the continued existence of quasi monies that function as stores of value—such as gold, silver, and cryptocurrencies. Yet, it is impossible to deny that the state has made enormous gains in recent centuries when it comes to taking control of money. 

The order of these events also reminds us of another important aspect of states and money: the rise of states was not conditional on kings and princes seizing control of the production and regulation of money. Rather, the causation runs in the other direction: as states became more powerful, states used that power to also take control of money. 

Early Efforts to Control the Money Supply

In the ancient world, the despotic empires of old—under which we could include the Roman Empire—were careful to mint their own money and to control whatever primitive “financial systems” existed. The Romans famously devalued their currency for long periods of time—most notably under Diocletian—leading for the ruin of many Roman citizens.

According to David Glasner, the “prerogative of the sovereign over the coinage was preserved after the fall of Rome.”1 But this was only in theory. The civil governments of this period were far too weak to enforce a monopoly on money. Martin van Creveld writes, “Given the decentralized nature of the political system and its instability, European Rulers during the Middle Ages were generally in no position to imitate their oriental counterparts” in the Persian, Mongol, and Chinese empires.2

Moreover, there wasn’t that much money to go around in western Europe. Coins were often in short supply, and the agrarian nature of western Europe meant much trade was done through bartering.

That began to change in the later Middle Ages as Europe urbanized and began to produce an increasing agricultural surplus. Driven largely by Italian bankers who set up “branch offices” in France, Spain, and the Low Countries, a financial system took shape, which included the production of both coins and bank notes.

Yet, the monetary system was dominated by the private sector, and Van Creveld reminds us a sizable amount of money in this period

was produced not by the slowly emerging state but by private institutions. Before 1700, attempts to develop credit systems succeeded only in this places where private banking and commerce were so strong as to virtually exclude royal authority; in other words where merchants were the government. … Common wisdom held that, whereas merchants could be trusted with money, kings could not. Concentrating both economic and coercive power in their own hands, all too often they used it either to debase the coinage or to seize their subjects’ treasure.”3

The kings of Europe sought to control the money nonetheless. One of the earliest meaningful attempts materialized in England where monarchs early-on developed a more centralized and cohesive national regime. Thus, after the early date of 1222 in England, “money-changing and trade in bullion was a strictly enforced royal monopoly exercised by the Royal Exchanger.”4 Enforcement consisted of government officials engaged in acts designed to “suppress private trade in precious metals, to purchase or confiscate foreign coins, and to deliver them to the Tower of London mint for recoinage.”5

It’s unclear how well this was enforced, but such concerted efforts at national regulation were far more haphazard in much of Europe.

For example, the French state—the largest and most centralized state on the continent, sought in earnest to take control of the money supply by the sixteenth century. The results were mixed. Efforts to hammer together a national monetary regime began in the late Middle Ages, yet “France was not unified monetarily. Silver circulated in the west after the middle of the sixteenth century—gold coin before—and copper, infiltrating from Germany, in the east.”6

In practice, national kings needed to buy off uncooperative nobles with monopoly privileges, rights to tax, and the sale of titles. Kings relied on manpower supplied by nobles to carry out royal prerogatives. As late as the sixteenth century,

Although in principle, only kings had the right to coin precious metals, in practice, they farmed out this privilege, as also their right to exploit the royal domains and to collect taxes, because European kings, apart from those in Prussia, had only limited bureaucratic staffs. Achieving a central monopoly of their coinage would take another two centuries. Moreover, national borders were porous, and foreign coins circulated freely. A French edict in 1557 counted 190 coins of different sovereigns in use in France.7

The lack of national monetary monopolies in most cases did not stop nascent European states from engaging in two centuries of state building during this time. By the sixteenth century, France was already building an absolutist state even in the midst of ongoing currency competition. By the mid-seventeenth century, of course, the state had come into its own with absolutism gaining ground in France, Spain, Sweden, and other parts of the continent. In England—although the Stuarts failed to achieve their much-desired absolute monarchy—the state progressed far in the direction of a centralized, consolidated state during this period. Indeed, by the mid seventeenth century, Europe’s Thirty Years’ War—what might be called western Europe’s first era of “total war,” ended with the consolidation of the state system throughout western Europe.

Indeed, war and state-building—two things that were often one and the same—drove efforts to build government revenues through debasements of the coinage.  It was war with Scotland that drove Henry VIII to began a multiyear period of debasing the currency in 1542, which continued into the reign of Edward VI.  War drove other monarchs to similar ends, and on the continent Charles V devalued the gold taler in 1551. In the seventeenth century, European monarchs engaged in “progressive debasement …in anticipation of the Thirty Years’ War.”8 Ultimately, “Many princes in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did a roaring business in currency depreciation.”9

The Effects of Continued Monetary Competition

Spain, France, and other rising states of the period accomplished all this without establishing true monopolies over the money supply. Yet currency competition limited what states could get away with. Even if national states had been able to solidify de jure monopoly control of money within their own borders, the sovereign’s money still faced competition from currencies in neighboring states and principalities. Just as dozens of different types of coins circulated within France, it was always possible for merchants, financiers, and more mobile classes of individuals to move their wealth in such a way as to avoid using the more heavily devalued currencies.

Thus, monarchs were cognizant of the risks that devaluation brought. “Too much” debasement of the currency could cause merchants, and even residents, to flee to competing imported or black-market currencies. Practical limitations controlled how much a regime could debase its currency. Thus, when Henry VIII began his campaign of debasement, he combined it with a broader wartime policy of confiscating goods and church property, and compelling forced loans.10 

In the seventeenth century, the ability to escape debased national currencies was further facilitated by the advent of the Bank of Amsterdam. Established by the city of Amsterdam in 1609, the Bank—technically a “government bank”—to calculate the values of the “no fewer than 341 silver and 505 golden coins” circulating in the Dutch Republic. The bank helped merchants identify which coins were “good” and which were debased.11 The bank then provided credit based on coins’ “real value” regardless of the coins’ claimed nominal values. The bank issued coins known as bank guilders which became “the world’s most used currency at the time,” or perhaps even a “reserve currency” of a similar status to the US dollar today.12  This was not due to any moral righteousness on the part of Dutch politicians.  It is likely that the Dutch regime would have also preferred to manipulate its own currency for gain. But the smallness of the Dutch Republic and its reliance on foreign trade greatly limited the regime in this regard. Thus, the Dutch were essentially forced to become a reliable, competitive financial center in order to compete with larger states.

Asserting Control over the Banks

Control of the coinage was only one aspect of states’ fights to control money. 

After all, much of the money being handled by Europe’s banks during this period was in the form of “bills of exchange” which facilitated the movement of funds across Europe without the need for physically moving metallic money. These bills began to function as money as well, and even as states were asserting greater control over coinage in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, “private institutions were thus beginning to develop paper money.”13 According to Kindleberger,

Begun early in the thirteenth century, the functions of the bill of exchange expanded in the sixteenth century as it became successively assignable, transferable, negotiable, and form the 1540s, discountable, thus bridging time and space and serving as private money (as distinct form specie, which was the money of the prince).14

Banks proved to be essential, providing access to money in many cases since even as late as the eighteenth century in many places, coinage was in short supply. This may have been especially acute where wage work replaced subsistence farming and agricultural barter. The new breed of employers needed money of various types.15 Bank-created paper money thus served an important role in providing a medium of exchange when coins were either unreliable or unavailable.

This diminished the dependence on the use of the sovereign’s coinage, and princes came to view these banks as troublesome competitors. Moreover, banks—unlike ordinary consumers—had the knowledge and the means to more carefully evaluate regime money and to accept devalued coins only at a discount.

Unhappy about the fact banks could often do an end run around the king’s coinage, states then sought to compel payments in metals which the sovereign could more easily control. Glasner writes:

The tension between the state monopoly over coinage and private banking is manifested in legislation that was frequently enacted to restrict the creation of notes and deposits by banks. In the fifteenth century, for example, hostile legislation in the Low Countries … caus[ed] virtually all banking activity to cease.16

The downside of crippling a polity’s banking sector is sizable, so eventually the state abandoned this strategy and learned to love paper money. But getting the public to accept government-issued paper money would be a long uphill battle.

Van Creveld places the first government attempt at paper money in the 1630s when the Spanish duke of Olivares, in need for funds for—yet again—the Thirty Years’ War, confiscated silver and provided “interest-bearing letters of credit” in their stead. Given the reputation of princes for debasing the currency by this time, this paper money swiftly depreciated. Only a few years later, Sweden attempted a similar scheme, but this also quickly failed.

It was not until 1694 with the Bank of England—that is, after more than 300 years of modern state-building—that the foundations were laid for a true note-issuing central bank. And even then, the Bank of England did not begin as an institution that creates money and did not have a monopoly on issuing banknotes until 1844. Rather, the Bank of England initially financed the government deficit by issuing shares. These shares, not surprisingly, were very popular given the fact the bank also enjoyed a monopoly on government deposits.17

A national bank in France, The Banque Royale, followed in 1718. But like the Bank of England, the Banque Royale did not possess a functioning monopoly on issuing bank notes. This did not stop the French bank from printing a great many notes, however, and it did so, sparking a financial crisis in the wake of the Mississippi Bubble.

Central Banks and the Gold Standard

It was not until the nineteenth century that Europe’s states established and wielded the sorts of central banks and money-issuing powers that we now associate with state monopoly powers over monetary systems: “By 1870 or so, not only had [central banks] monopolized the issue of notes in most countries but they were also beginning to regulate other banks.”18

The rise of these central banks throughout much of Europe provided states with unprecedented powers in terms of issuing new debt and financing explosive government spending in times of emergency. The regulatory role of central banks further solidified the regime’s control of their financial systems overall.

Ironically, however, it was also in the nineteenth century that states faced mounting opposition to state monopoly powers in the form of the classical gold standard.

This was a result of the rise of laissez-faire liberalism in the nineteenth century which was especially notable in Britain, France, and the US. Increasingly in western Europe, the liberals and the commercial class insisted on an “obligation to maintain the convertibility of gold or silver at a fixed parity.”19 These formal definitions of a currency’s value in metals were important in that they made it easier to see the extent and effects of government manipulation of the currency. That’s all to the good, but it offered no challenge to the state’s growing monopoly over money. After all, the gold standard could be—and repeatedly was—suspended for reasons of war.

In other words, it would be a mistake to regard the era of the classical gold standard as a period of state weakness in financial and monetary matters. On the contrary, the classical gold standard was built on a firm foundation of state power limited only by legislation. The legitimacy of the state’s prerogative to ultimately oversee the monetary system was not in question. By the end of the nineteenth century in Britain, and in many other key polities, the days of privately-issued bank notes and privately minted coins were over. (The US lagged this trend somewhat but the outcome was eventually the same.) That is, there were no institutions left that could realistically challenge the state in terms of issuing and creating money.

The nineteenth century did present obstacles to the state’s ability to inflate and debase the currency, but states nonetheless remained very much the victors over private money, private banks, and private mints. It should not surprise us that the classical gold standard was soon followed by the gold exchange standard, a system thoroughly dominated by state actors. The total abandonment of precious metals soon followed.  

In many ways, this change to state-dominated monetary systems was a reversion to the “traditional” way of doing things before the collapse of the Roman Empire. The era following the end of Roman despotism lacked states able to establish monopolies on coinage and money production. Yet, as civil governments grew into increasingly powerful states, they also asserted themselves as masters of money and finance. Few now question this state of affairs.


This article was published on December 2, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.