Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The Phony War
By David Thalheimer
The New York Times Is The Democrat Party’s Mouthpiece and Guardian
By Allan J. Feifer
The Flag Debate Is Not Just About the Supreme Court
By James Erwin
One of the silliest controversies of late has been the recent hyperventilation at the New York Times over the flags Justice Samuel Alito has flown over his properties. Many conservatives have rightly argued that this is the latest attempt by the left to delegitimize the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, but it is also about far more -- it’s an attempt to delegitimize the entire American founding.
For the uninitiated, the New York Times has run a series of reports about which flags the good Justice and his wife have flown over their properties. Mrs. Alito raised an upside-down American flag over their suburban Maryland residence amid a dispute with a neighbor. The Times linked the Alitos’ flag to the fact that a few January 6 rioters also flew our national emblem upside-down, signaling distress.
A reporter was then dispatched to the couple’s vacation home on the Jersey Shore to confirm that they had flown the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War naval ensign. Long accepted as a symbol of the American Founding and particularly popular in my native New England, the flag has been transformed into a culture war issue almost overnight. The Times has convinced its progressive readership that the ensign is a “provocative flag” and a symbol of the far right because some of the J6ers carried it as well.
If this seems like a spurious attempt to link Justice Alito to the Capitol riot, that’s because it is. But it’s not the full story. The Left is also trying to alienate a good number of Americans from the iconography of their country’s founding.
Writing in Newsweek, Peter Roff asks “...There were people on Capitol Hill on January 6 carrying the American flag properly. Does that mean, according to the logic behind the Alito story, that Old Glory itself now represents ‘Stop the Steal’ as well?”
Well, yes, yes it does. Dobbs aside, the radical left would like us to associate Old Glory with the Right. The Stars and Stripes is itself a symbol of the American founding, and therefore must be replaced with the flag of the Viet Cong or Palestine or whatever revolutionaries the scions of the upper middle class are fetishizing these days. Associating our flag with the extreme of one political faction diminishes the esteem in which it is held by others.
This explains why the Left tripped over themselves to conform to the Times narrative. CNN proclaimed the “Appeal to Heaven” flag “controversial.” San Francisco City Hall has already dutifully removed the historic emblem from its plaza. In my beloved home state of Maine, where voters will decide this fall whether to revert to our old state flag that also has a pine tree on it, the largest paper frets that the Pine Tree State’s flag will get lumped in with the Revolutionary-era symbol.
In a matter of days, the historic flag has become toxic to many Americans who would not otherwise associate with far-left politics. The radicals will not stop until they have done this to all the symbols of America’s civic religion.
And symbols matter. If celebrating the imagery of the Founding Fathers, or indeed of the country as a whole, is coded as far-right, it is no great leap to code any celebration of America as far-right. Patriotism itself can be made anathema to mainstream Americans who don’t wish to associate with that label, which in turn undermines support for liberty, democracy, and individual rights.
How should conservatives respond? At first, the Left ceding basic patriotism to the Right may seem a historic victory in the culture war, but it is a pyrrhic one. Conservatives may profit in the near run as some of the patriotic center will find themselves leaning Right in reaction to the Left’s assault on our cherished symbols. But just as many -- and perhaps more -- will follow the tastemakers to the anti-American far Left.
Rather than assert ownership over these symbols in a way that alienates the center-left -- looking at you, Michael Knowles -- conservatives are better served fighting for their universality. Outside of San Francisco, the Right should make the case that other city halls ought to keep the “Appeal to Heaven” flag flying where it already is as a symbol of the freedoms for which our forebears fought, not an avatar of a contemporary political issue.
Some conservatives in Maine also oppose the effort to change back to the old state flag because it is somehow “woke.” They should instead rally behind it and make common cause with those center-left voters who don’t want a treasured symbol of our state lumped in with a flag the newspapers are telling them to avoid.
Wherever the right can resist the temptation to politically code our national symbols and respectfully reinforce the notion that these flags -- and the country they represent -- belong to all of us, they should. The future of American patriotism may depend on it.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/the_flag_debate_is_not_just_about_the_supreme_court.html
Reagan Institute Survey Reveals US Still on the Wrong Track
Latest analysis says Americans want more leadership in the world.
by Dave Patterson | Jun 19, 2024
The just-published 2024 Reagan Institute Summer Survey, a significant barometer of American perspectives on US national security and foreign policy, has unveiled some unexpected findings. This research, widely respected for its insights, provides a snapshot of American opinions on US leadership, foreign policy, Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, China, and the value of alliances.
Previous surveys, released in June and November 2023, indicated participants believed the United States would benefit from less involvement in international affairs. This year the views have done a turnabout, and more Americans believe the United States should demonstrate increased worldwide leadership. The survey authors explained, “Six months out from another consequential presidential election, today’s global chaos has gripped the attention of the American people — defying the conventional wisdom that voters give little thought to foreign policy issues.” Conducted May 20-27, 2024, the new poll involved 1,257 adults.
Reagan Institute Survey Results Come With Caveat
When asked if the country was on the wrong track, 66% of respondents agreed, down slightly from November, where it stood at 70%. However, at 66%, the number of people dissatisfied remains up from 51%, when President Joe Biden took office. Those who believe the country is moving in the right direction have ticked up by four percentage points since November to 29% but remain down from a high of 42%, when former President Donald Trump left office. The survey managers explained that the slight improvement in overall outlook was driven entirely by Democrats (54%), who believe the country is on the right track. However, even the Democrats’ right-track opinion has fallen from a high of 69% in February 2021.
The survey conclusion points to a notable increase in the percentage of people who believe it is beneficial for the United States to boost its leadership position in “international events.” The new figure stands at 54%, up from its nadir of 40% in November 2022. How this question was posed in the survey may provide insight into the results. The survey asked, “When it comes to international events, do you think it is better for the United States to be more engaged and take the lead or to be less engaged and react to events?”
It is difficult to answer this question without considering the threats facing the United States and the capability of the current leadership to handle international crises effectively. In November 2022, the memory of the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle led by the Biden team was still fresh in the minds of Americans. That would account for the steep decline in the number of respondents who believe global engagement was good for the US – from 51% in February 2021 to 40% in November 2022. Republicans were less enthusiastic regarding international engagement. Nonetheless, “six-in-ten [of those surveyed] think US involvement in world affairs is beneficial for the country and the world,” the survey results showed
Illegal Immigration Is Biggest Issue
When it comes to domestic security and prosperity, 80% believed that illegal immigration across the southern border somewhat matters or matters a great deal, with nearly 60% choosing the latter option. These results are consistent with most opinion polls of likely voters across America. On other international issues — the war between Israel and Hamas, the potential war with China over Taiwan, and the conflict in Ukraine — showed respondents were less concerned – 43%, 43%, and 40%, respectively, believing these issues matter a great deal.
Participants were more nuanced in answering questions concerning NATO. More than 60% had a favorable view of the organization. Seventy-seven percent thought having allies supporting the United States if attacked was a primary benefit. “Nearly three-quarters [of those polled] support a US military response if a NATO ally is attacked,” the survey concluded. However, when the respondents were asked if the US should support NATO countries that are not spending 2% of their GDP on defense, “Support … drops 20 points [72% to 52%] if allies are not spending 2% on defense,” the survey authors explained, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election, makes this very point.
There was one area of greater concensus: 86% want a strong military and believe it is crucial to peace and prosperity. “Officials from the Reagan Institute said they see the findings as evidence of ‘a growing desire for American leadership in the world’ and that US citizens for the most part ‘believe a strong US role in international affairs benefits both our country and the world,'” Military Times observed. The polling suggests a significant majority believe the current administration has put the United States on the wrong track.
https://www.libertynation.com/reagan-institute-survey-reveals-us-still-on-the-wrong-track/
2024 Election Factors – Here’s What You Might Be Missing
The numbers are plain, but the devil is in the details.
by Mark Angelides | Jun 19, 2024
One swallow does not a summer make, and the same is true for polls and elections. They can, however, be indicative. More importantly, they can offer warning signs to candidates looking to avoid an ignoble fate. While the Fourth Estate and respective campaigns tout each survey result they see as favorable, significant mitigating factors are often ignored. Without taking these additional dynamics into account, the public is not getting the full picture of Election 2024.
Third-Party Candidates Can’t Be Ignored
By this point in the season, the country is well aware that Donald Trump is leading nationally at roughly 0.8% — and equally aware that national polling is largely irrelevant. What counts are the swing states – and it is in these battlegrounds that one should examine the third-party threat.
This cycle, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the big-name independent. He claims his nascent campaign has – or soon will have – ballot access in all 50 states; although, for now, he can boast at least seven – no small feat. One of these is Michigan, where Biden won in 2020 and Trump won in 2016.
FiveThirtyEight has Kennedy averaging 7.5% based on a number of polls. A recent Mitchell Research & Communications survey hands him just 3.3%, Cornel West 1.1%, and the Green Party’s Jill Stein 0.5%. Digging into other polls suggests these three candidates could easily pull at least five points from the two main party players. The question then becomes: From whom do they pull?
It seems highly unlikely that West and Stein voters are being peeled off the Republican flank; RFK Jr.’s support appears to come from both sides of the aisle (although some surveys indicate they are more left-leaning than right). But in the battlegrounds like Michigan and Wisconsin — where Trump has only a small lead — those few points could make all the difference.
Iowa Has a 2024 Warning for Joe Biden
The Hawkeye State has been good to Trump, handing him election wins of 10% and 8% in 2016 and 2020, respectively. But the latest poll, courtesy of the Des Moines Register, suggests something of serious note is happening. The survey handed Trump 50% of the vote, not too surprising considering his previous captures. However, Biden was awarded just 32% in this tally — a massive drop that matches his plummeting approval rating among Iowans.
That 45 can win in Iowa is no surprise, but an 18-point drop in support (a full one-third plummet) for 46 since 2020 suggests something is rotten in the Biden campaign. In fact, with Iowa voters under the age of 35, the sitting president’s approval rating is a mere 15%. Geographically – and in many ways politically – Iowa bears some relation to its neighbor Wisconsin and the not-too-far-away Michigan.
If such negative sentiment is even only partially replicated in these crucial states, Biden is looking at an electoral disaster.
VP Picks Matter
For better or worse, Biden’s partner on the ballot is fixed. For Trump, however, his choice for vice president is still a card to play. Amid wild speculation about the eventual choice, 45 is keeping it close to his vest and running the process in a manner one might recall from his Apprentice days. Yes, this builds excitement and intrigue. Yes, it allows him to see who is willing to go all in on his behalf. But, most importantly, not announcing allows him to pivot on a dime to strengthen areas and shore up troubles – and do so closer to the election when the big upsets often appear.
Among the top-tier contenders are South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Naturally, there are a few wild card hints in the mix, too – such as a fresh name recently floated, one that could be an electoral game-changer: Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
Old Dominion had been trending blue for more than a decade before Youngkin threw his hat in the ring for the 2021 gubernatorial. By beating out former Gov. Terry McAuliffe – who was hoping for an easy-ride return – Youngkin demonstrated that he had appeal across the aisle. He is not considered a MAGA candidate and is palatable to voters who prefer a more middle-of-the-road steadiness over rhetoric, fire, and fury.
With Youngkin as his Election 2024 co-pilot, Trump could bring along a fair chunk of independent voters and – not unthinkably – maybe even Virginia’s 13 Electoral College votes.
Trump Out of Play?
The preceding three factors all seem to benefit former Trump. But the last one is very much one of former Bush (George W.) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns.”
If one were to assign superpowers to presidential candidates, Trump’s would be his campaign energy – something that gains strength when seen in comparison to Biden and his quasi-Rose Garden strategy. From huge rallies in the deep blue South Bronx and New Jersey to record fundraising events in California, The Donald appears to be trying to park his campaign tank on Biden’s electoral lawn. But what if his superpower were taken away?
Trump is awaiting sentencing for 34 felony counts in New York City, his fate to be determined on July 11, just a few days shy of the Republican nominating convention. Judge Juan Merchan has shown no favoritism toward Trump, repeatedly denying motions, sustaining questionable objections during the trial, and even allowing the jury to hear from the prosecution that Trump was guilty of election crimes without District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team even once specifying what those crimes were – let alone proving such accusations. So, predicting what the sentence could be remains a fool’s errand.
Yet there is a possibility that the former president could be incarcerated for some or all of the time remaining in the 2024 election – or even confined to house arrest. If Trump were politically hobbled in his ability to generate crowds and enthusiasm, that could prove a fatal blow to his hopes for re-election.
https://www.libertynation.com/2024-election-factors-heres-what-you-might-be-missing/
GM Bob-
Ammonium nitrate is nothing to mess with. It is a volatile low explosive. It was used in the Oklahoma IRS bombing.
................al
Hey bbotcs-
It was politically convenient at the time. That matters more than what else there may be. Politicians have no spines.
................al
If Joe Biden is so concerned about massive storms caused by climate change, then why is he diverting funds from FEMA for open border policies?
By Jack Hellner
Obama leads doddering Joe off stage, and out pop Democrat social media 'influencers' saying it never happened
By Monica Showalter
Biden's Gaza pier is bringing in chicken aid at $20,730 a pound
By Monica Showalter
You've heard of $2,000 toilet seats? The Pentagon is famous for its cost overruns, and that was during the Reagan era.
But now we present the $20,730 per pound chicken:
Would you pay $20,730 for a pound of chicken? That's the cost of food sent to Gaza under Biden's pier pet project.
Our amendment for the FY25 #NDAA passed, and stops our tax dollars from bankrolling this disaster, prioritizing Americans. pic.twitter.com/9qzbsOjeFC
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) June 14, 2024
With all of the U.S. aid from that pier reportedly falling into the hands of HAMAS terrorists, who take the aid and either eat it themselves or sell it at inflated prices to the displaced, that's some mighty fine chicken, maybe the most gourmet chicken out there, except that it probably isn't.
It's just monstrous cost overruns, inflated prices tied to the swamp and its greedy military contractors whose interest in perpetuating wars is a matter of company profits. And we shouldn't leave the potential for corruption going on, too.
And that's just the chicken.
Legal Insurrection has a stellar report on the string of errors that have defined this Gaza pier project, which has endangered and injured U.S. troops, put military incompetence on display with the pier failures, and served only Hamas and its terrible aims. Hamas, too, has an interest in perpetuating the wars, same as the contractors.
No wonder there was a confluence of interests in this. The only people who lose here are the Israelis and the Americans paying for this fiasco. Mercifully, there are those in Congress, such as Mace, who are trying to put a stop to this.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/biden_s_gaza_pier_is_bringing_in_chicken_aid_at_20_730_a_pound.html
25-year-old Muslim man with 10-year-old fiancée talks benefits of marrying a child
By Olivia Murray
Three signs that Biden’s campaign is broken at its core, incoherent, and fraudulent
By Wolf Howling
Trump does Milwaukee and talks election interference and integrity—media cries foul and says it’s all a big nothingburger
By Jack Hellner
Kathy Hochul is considering a new mask mandate…but this time she’s looking to ban their use
By Olivia Murray
Hilarious: Keffiyeh-clad coffee shop workers vote to unionize, find themselves out of a job by week’s end
By Olivia Murray
As if we could have any less confidence in the intellectual capacities of the modern keffiyeh-clad leftists, they go and do something like this, then declare their “shock” at the outcome:
Employees at the OCF Coffee House in Philadelphia voted to unionize.
1 week later, all 3 stores closed down.
Now they're protesting the closure: pic.twitter.com/CpLF4nPKEV
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 16, 2024
On a side note: A human blimp who no doubt supports illegal and unwarranted land seizures (evidenced by the shemagh draped around her shoulders) chanting about a “greedy side” is peak irony.
Sure no one in their right mind would have ever accused a group of people like this of being even remotely aware or educated, so it’s not like one would think that they really have any idea as to how a market works and what a small business might do if they get a “whiff” of unionization, but I was under the impression that episodes of The Office, and the jokes contained therein, were like a second language to the Millennial and Gen Z generations—being saturated in the bread and circuses of Netflix and all—and relatively known by large swathes of Americans. And Jan, the hyper-intelligent but self-destructive corporate “Godzillary” (a mix of Godzilla and Hillary Clinton) shuts down union talk with a very memorable monologue from the warehouse steps:
Excuse me. I’ve been told there’s been some interest in forming a union and that Michael supported it. Obviously he’s not a friend of yours because he didn’t tell you the facts. So let me. If there is even a whiff of unionizing in this branch, I can guarantee you the branch will be shut down like that [snaps her fingers]. They unionized in Pittsfield and we all know what happened in Pittsfield. It will cost each of you a fortune in legal fees and union dues and that will be nothing compared to the cost of losing your jobs. So I would think long and hard before sacrificing your savings and your futures just to send a message. If you have any further questions you can direct them to... to Michael.
The hefty gal with the three face piercings at the beginning of the video laments how employees had received “really bad wages” which in Pennsylvania, must be at least $7.25—but this is a minimum wage job we’re talking about, they’re baristas! I mean, it’s not like they’re splitting the atom, or performing a task that a trained monkey couldn’t do—I was a barista once, when I was 18 years old and home from college for the summer. It’s not supposed to be a career but a temporary job, because it’s not a livable wage.
Another keffiyeh-clad gal feels shocked and “crushed” at the closure, because it comes just one week after the workers had announced their plans to unionize. In other words, just days after these expendable employees engaged the services of an organizer and voted to hold their employer hostage until certain—and with just one look at them, you know unreasonable too—demands are met with the possibility for future recurrences, the employer canned them all and closed the business. Here’s what someone in the comments astutely noted:
“Unionizing a job you can train high school students to do in a week is always a bad idea.”
I’m confused as to how they expected anything else—but the schadenfreude is delightful.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/hilarious_keffiyeh_clad_coffee_shop_workers_vote_to_unionize_find_themselves_out_of_a_job_by_week_s_end.html
Dumb and dumber
By Silvio Canto, Jr.
Leftist-driven chaos
By Alison Tempestilli
Juneteenth is yet another Biden payoff
By Victoria White Berger
Ukraine’s Suicidal Nationalism
By Alexander G. Markovsky
In a speech delivered on August 1, 1991, in Kiev, President George H.W. Bush urged Ukraine to consider risks associated with independence. He delivered a clear warning to Ukraine, stating that “…. freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”
The President’s warnings fell on deaf ears. Ukrainian leaders were not pursuing national interests. Instead, they were motivated by unfounded hostility toward Russia. The outcome proved catastrophic.
On August 24, 1991, Ukraine, driven by “suicidal nationalism,” seized the opportunity presented by the impending collapse of the Soviet Union to proclaim its independence. Once the excitement and promises of democracy and prosperity faded, the Ukrainian people, who had never experienced self-governance, were confronted with the harsh realities of governing a nation. Subsequently, despite impressive resources, Ukraine failed economically and politically.
Ukraine inherited one of the world’s largest agricultural and industrial bases from the Soviet Union. It used to be called a breadbasket of Europe. Its economy produced airplanes, ships, locomotives, turbines for hydropower plants, electrical motors and transformers, and a vast assortment of consumer goods. Donbas coal mines were a major supplier of the Soviet Union’s steel mills and power plants. Additionally, Ukraine manufactured various military hardware, such as tanks, missiles, and jet fighters. With a well-educated population, Ukraine could have become one of Europe’s economic powerhouses.
Unfortunately, Ukrainian leaders either failed to grasp or intentionally ignored that the Ukrainian economy was closely intertwined with the Soviet Union’s economy. Therefore, Russia was a natural, or rather the only, market for Ukrainian goods and services. Despite this, Ukraine abandoned Russian markets and aligned with the European Union. It was an absurd idea, as it would necessitate a significant overhaul of the Ukrainian economy to comply with European regulations and standards. Such a massive endeavor would require both time and substantial financial resources.
In the end, the EU displayed no interest in Ukrainian products. Consequently, Ukraine lost the Russian market, and the economy crumbled. Ukraine was no longer able to sustain itself, and its entire existence relied on foreign aid, ultimately resulting in Ukraine losing sovereignty and becoming a pawn of foreign interests.
In no other area did “suicidal nationalism” manifest itself as severely as in the realm of domestic policy, which eventually contributed to the ongoing conflict.
After the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, where most residents were Russians, fell under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The sentiments towards Russia in these regions, varying from acknowledging Russian as an official language to seeking complete autonomy from Ukraine, have been ingrained in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. These emotions were further solidified by the removal of Ukraine's pro-Moscow, democratically elected president Yanukovych in a coup d'état that the United States sponsored in 2014.
Kiev could accept a limited autonomy for the belligerent East, similar to the American states, which it demanded from the outset, and avoid a bloody conflict altogether. But newly elected president Petro Poroshenko ignored President Bush’s warning not to “… seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” Instead, it elected to use military force to subdue the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. It has been shelling Donbas, including the use of artillery supplied by America, destroying the cities, and killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately for years (something the Western media ignores entirely). This “suicidal nationalism” was one of the reasons behind Russia’s eventual annexation of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
In foreign affairs, “suicidal nationalism” also overrode national interests. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, ostensibly for security reasons, disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings over the past three decades about the existential threat of NATO’s eastward expansion. The push for Ukraine to become a member of NATO would not and could not ensure Ukraine’s security. Instead, the effort has put Ukraine in mortal danger for breaching the terms of the 1997 Treaty on Friendship between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, which explicitly stipulated Ukrainian neutrality (section 6, page 148).
Ukraine’s unwavering pursuit of NATO membership, fueled by political inexperience, recklessness, and a heavy reliance on foreign aid, was an illusory goal that served no national purpose and tragically led to a preventable war. By now, it is self-evident that the pursuit of NATO membership resembles chasing a mechanical rabbit (video here). Yet Zelensky and Co. still do not realize that their tireless endeavors and sacrifices have been in vain, as NATO membership has never been an attainable reality. For obvious reasons, NATO members, unlike Ukraine, want to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, even Ukraine’s strongest supporters cannot escape the fact that during the thirty years after declaring independence, it has failed to produce any notable accomplishments. On the contrary, inept Ukrainian leaders have plundered most of the resources they inherited from the Soviet Union, exacerbated internal incompatibilities, and incited an unnecessary war with Russia, the ravages of which continue to erode the remaining fragments of its once-thriving heritage.
In the annals of history, it would be difficult to name another instance where a nation consistently made decisions detrimental to its own national interest, ultimately leading to self-destructive outcomes. As this dysfunctional and corrupt failed state crumbles, there is a haunting fear that Ukraine will be left a wasteland for future generations. Konrad Adenauer’s words, “History is the sum of things that could have been avoided,” ring so especially true for Ukraine.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/ukraine_s_suicidal_nationalism.html
The Psychopathy of the Left: Know thy Enemy
By Frederick Hink
What do Young Thug and Donald Trump Have in Common?
By John Leonard
The Risks and Rewards of the Presidential Debate
One way to win, a million ways to lose.
by Mark Angelides | Jun 18, 2024
On June 27, two presidents, one former, one current, will be stage-managed by CNN producers to create what the ailing news network hopes will be a spectacle to revive its flagging ratings. Donald Trump and Joe Biden will take part in a debate that involves no studio audience. Candidates’ microphones will be muted when it isn’t their “turn” to speak and the entire event will be completely controlled by a network that has been avowedly anti-Trump since November 2016. What could possibly go wrong?
The Debate Scorecard
For the president, all the planets have aligned. The network, the moderators – Jake Tapper and Dana Bash – and the format are all pro-Biden. Indeed, just last month, Bash described Trump’s campaign rhetoric as “antisemitic and incredibly dangerous” and claimed that it “was used in Nazi Germany.” Noting that moderators “will use all tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion,” CNN will, at its discretion, turn off candidates’ microphones – thereby protecting Biden from Trump’s barbs. In fact, all the incumbent needs to do is spout well-rehearsed talking points to claim a victory.
Reuters reported that each campaign has specified the topics it favors. For Team Biden, those will be “abortion rights, the state of democracy and the economy.” For Trump, his outreach team apparently opted for “immigration, public safety and inflation as key issues ahead of the debate.” Abortion has proven to be a winning topic for Democrats, and despite Trump’s insistence that it should be up to the individual states to determine, it is likely that this round will go to Biden. But how effectively will Biden communicate his stance on the other issues?
After dismantling many of Trump’s immigration initiatives within his first week in office, Biden’s attempt to stem the flow of humanity right before the election is a weak spot for him. The record numbers speak for themselves. Likewise, inflation. Although the monthly figure is dropping, the cost of living crisis has seen wealth for middle- and low-income families crater. The chances of Biden winning the economy round are slim.
When it comes to issues of “democracy,” this will be a battle of rhetoric. Biden will try to paint Trump as the greatest threat the nation has known, no doubt referencing Jan. 6 and Trump’s comedic aside about being a “dictator” for “one day.”
Yet the debate may not be measured in balls and strikes but rather in tone and temperament.
A Knockout Blow?
Trump is well-known for his flippant mockery and on-the-spot quips. If he can strategically push his opponent — whether by referencing Biden’s false statements about Hunter Biden’s laptop when they debated in 2020, or, well, any number of questionable comments – the famously thin-skinned Biden may take the bait.
With the odds stacked against Trump in the Fourth Estate in general – and a decidedly anti-Trump bent, specifically in the stables of CNN – the 45th president has to tip the scales in his direction. But he really needs only one sharp attack to penetrate the Biden defense. If he can deliver that, Trump might walk away victorious.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/secure/post_new.aspx?board_id=1948
Swing State Black Voters May Be Swinging Away From Biden
More troubling signs for the incumbent’s attempt to shore up a key voting bloc.
by Graham J Noble | Jun 18, 2024
For most of the last 60 years in the United States, the Democratic Party has relied on black voters to pull its candidates for office over the finish lines of many a close election at the state, local, and federal levels. Research shows that this group represents a steadily increasing percentage of Democrat voters. Outside of the Democratic Party and its supporters, though, many have argued that Democrats have taken the black vote for granted. More and more, it does seem as though an increasing number of blacks are coming to the same conclusion. It’s a safe bet that Joe Biden will win the lion’s share of the black vote in the November presidential election. Still, two recent polls of black voters conducted in two crucial swing states indicate that the incumbent could be on track to notch up a historic achievement for a Democratic presidential candidate – but not in the way that Biden or his party would like.
USA TODAY/Suffolk University surveyed 500 black voters in Michigan and the same number in Pennsylvania on June 9-13. In a hypothetical general election matchup between Biden and Donald Trump, 56.2% of black voters in Pennsylvania said they would go for Biden, and 10.8% said they would vote for Trump. In Michigan, 54.4% favored Biden, while 15.2% would pull the lever for Trump.
According to a report in The Hill, these percentages in favor of Biden are down 20 points from the percentage of blacks who voted for him in 2020 in Pennsylvania and down 22 percentage points in Michigan.
Where Are Black Voters Turning?
It is hard to discern from just these two polls how much of an inroad Trump is making with black voters in these two states. A significant number of those surveyed – who said they voted for Biden in 2020 but would not vote for him in 2024 – claimed to be either undecided or expressed a preference for one of the third-party candidates. In both states, 13.8% of the voters polled said they were undecided.
In Pennsylvania, independent Cornel West came out on top in the third-party candidate field, beating out Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 7.6% to 7.4%. In Michigan, 8% of the black voters surveyed said they would pick Kennedy, while 6.2% supported West.
It is worth noting that USA TODAY does not say whether the 1,000 total polled are registered voters or likely voters. In the world of political polling, that is very much a distinction with a difference.
Looking back over the last six presidential elections, black voters have held fairly steady for the Democratic candidate. Understandably, Barack Obama claimed a notably larger share of that demographic. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore claimed 90% of the black vote. Obama took 95% in 2008 and 93% when he ran for re-election in 2012. In 2016, 89% of black voters went for Hillary Clinton, and 87% of them supported Biden in 2020. These numbers are from Cornell University’s Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
Reading the Tea Leaves
Polling numbers can be interpreted in all kinds of ways, of course, and the 2024 election is still more than four months away. The results of these Pennsylvania and Michigan polls may well concern the Biden campaign, but at the same time they certainly do not indicate that black voters are flocking to Trump.
Team Biden might take heart from the fact that a lot of the black voters polled, who said they were undecided or favored a third-party candidate, will, at crunch time, go ahead and pull the lever for the incumbent. Whether that will be because they decide he is deserving of another four years or because they dislike Trump enough to hold their nose and vote for Biden would hardly matter to the cynical politico. A vote is a vote, after all.
The Trump camp could also discern a silver lining here. How many of those undecideds will break for Trump when it comes time to cast ballots? Considering that the black community has been bombarded for seven and a half years by an unrelenting campaign to paint Trump as a racist, how many black voters are simply unwilling to admit to pollsters that they intend to vote for the man?
Using numbers from the Roper Center again, Trump claimed 8% of the black vote in 2016. In 2020, he increased his share of black voters to 12%. What if, hypothetically, the former president and would-be next president expanded his slice of the black vote by that same amount once again? Could Trump really win the backing of 16% of black voters? Most political observers and probably most pollsters would judge that extremely unlikely. If he did, it would almost certainly prove fatal to Biden’s chances of re-election.
The bottom line for the two main 2024 contenders is that Biden has perhaps the more difficult task. Trump winning more black support is less significant than Biden losing it – especially in certain key states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. To a large extent, one could view black voters as kingmakers in this upcoming election. They do not have to suddenly fall in love with Trump, but if enough of them decide that Biden has not delivered for them, they may conclude that another four years of Trump is at least not going to be any worse.
As much as the White House loves to paint a picture of today’s America being all unicorns and rainbows, most voters, both white and black, realize that this is an illusion. Public polling consistently shows this. Thus, with a debatable record of positive achievements to run on, the Biden campaign is betting – and hoping – that fear of Trump will secure a second term for the incumbent. Black voters in particular have been targeted with that fearmongering – and one could argue it is a campaign strategy that demeans them.
https://www.libertynation.com/swing-state-black-voters-may-be-swinging-away-from-biden/
Calif. Exodus Continues, Migrant Influx in San Diego Surges
By Nick Koutsobinas | Monday, 17 June 2024 08:00 PM EDT
Democrat policies are regressive, not progressive
By Eric Utter
Progressive Democrats, and there virtually no other kind anymore, are people who think they know better than you do how to run your own life.
Or, possibly worse yet, that other people know better than you do how to run your life.
This is the worst kind of slavery, mental and spiritual, though it could even be physical, as well. (Think pandemic lockdowns where many people weren’t allowed to keep working or leave their houses. Or even attend a loved one’s wedding or funeral.)
Democrats laughably claim that they want to protect “our democracy” from the evil MAGA Republicans, but nothing could be further from the truth. The United States isn’t a democracy, because the Founders knew that pure democracies always devolve into mobocracies.
In truth, Democrats only wish to protect their bureaucracy. Their own fiefdoms. And the Deep State. The Swamp. The unelected ideologues who are actually responsible for much of the legislation the rest of us have to live with — and under -- and who should be held accountable for the nonsensical, tyrannical effluvium they trowel out. But, good luck with that. (See also “unelected.”)
Many of today’s Democrats are evil. Or, at minimum, foster and promote evil, so explain to me the difference. For their part, the vast majority of establishment Republicans are spineless…or worse. If someone aids and abets, or at least continually and proactively compromises with evil … can they truthfully be called anything but…evil?
But, Eric, you’re taking this too far! This is nuts! Good versus evil, come on! Really?
The majority of Democrats purport to believe in abortion up until the moment of birth … or maybe a little while after. (“After birth abortion” isn’t the same as murder! Really, it isn’t! Swear!) They do not want to protect our borders, and they treat illegal aliens far better than American citizens. (Forget the 100,000 or so fentanyl deaths a year and the sex trafficking, etc., etc.) They sanction violent riots that result in burned out businesses, injuries, and death, and dub them “mostly peaceful,” while calling a bunch of unarmed citizens who paraded around and through “the People’s House” (because they truly believed their votes had been stolen from them and rendered moot) an “insurrection.” They withhold aid to the only actual democracy in the Middle East, a tiny nation of people who have been far more than “marginalized” for nearly their entire existence, and provide aid to the bloodthirsty terrorists who raped, murdered, beheaded, and otherwise tortured thousands of them this past Oct. 7. They tell Black African nations that they will withhold aid from them, unless they gleefully sign on to the radical LGBTQ agenda. They promote radical hormone treatments and genital mutilation for young boys and girls, even without parental notification. They disdain Genesis, creation, life—and laugh in the face of God, that “sky daddy” that so many ignorant straight white Christian troglodytes in flyover country worship. And they deliberately and sneeringly accuse their political opponents of being and doing what they are and do.
That is currently their primary political strategy, in fact. And it is repulsive.
Add all that up. Does it qualify as “evil?”
Progressive? No. Regressive. The United States was progressive in its belief in natural rights and limited government of, by, and for the people … under the rule of law, applied equally. This fundamentally transformed the nature of government. To fundamentally transform the nation now would be to revert to back to some form of authoritarianism.
That is the Democrats’ desire. And they are almost to their goal.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/democrat_policies_are_regressive_not_progressive.html
Did Joe Biden’s ghostwriter commit the crime that’s been wrongfully used against J6ers?
By Andrea Widburg
Proud of yourself, Gavin? California takes the crown for the nation's filthiest beaches
By Monica Showalter
While Biden courts the rich, white Hollywood elites, Trump campaigns hard for Detroit's black voters
By Monica Showalter
Biden healthcare — more navigators, less care
By Deane Waldman, M.D.
“U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden recently announced a [new] $500 million investment” to add more navigators to the Affordable Care Act program. They say the additional expense will help people navigate their way through the ever-changing, Byzantine regulatory labyrinth to the promised land of health coverage; not to receive timely medical care though, but just to have insurance.
Let’s be clear. Healthcare is so confusing, complex, and costly that they will solve the problem by... adding more rules, regulations, bureaucrats, and spending. Five hundred million for BARRCOME — bureaucracy, administration, rules, regulations, compliance, oversight, mandates, and enforcement — but not a penny for those who provide care. In fact, the money for the bureaucrats will be taken away from patient care. Witness former President Obama’s taking $716 billion from the Medicare Trust to pay (only partly) for his BARRCOME in his ACA.
The Biden administration acted like an arsonist who sets several fires and then cries, “We must hire more firemen!”
In his 1981 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is [italics added to mimic the tone of his voice] the problem.” The problem to which he referred was an economic crisis. His statement could just as easily apply to today’s healthcare crisis.
The crisis is not a lack of insurance — the uninsured rate is now down to eight percent. Even illegal residents are being given no-charge (free to them, costly to taxpayers) Medicaid coverage. This laser focus on insurance intentionally ignores the seesaw effect. As the number of government-insured individuals goes UP, access to medical care goes DOWN. Expanding Medicaid or ACA subsidies produces the exact affect Americans don’t want: a closed door to the doctor’s office or worse, a retired physician.
Washington’s approach to all healthcare problems is reminiscent of the 1966 Golden Hammer adage of psychologist Abraham Maslow (famed author of the Pyramid of Needs): “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” Since government’s only tool is regulation, they try to solve everything, including healthcare complexity, by more regulation, which of course creates more complexity and more spending. Systems thinkers call this a “fix that backfires.”
Consider a 1970–2009 study of the growth in numbers of physicians, healthcare bureaucrats, and national healthcare spending. Over those 40 years, the supply of physicians increased 100%. The number of healthcare administrators (bureaucrats) increased more than 3,200%. Healthcare spending increased 2,300%, and the number of healthcare regulations grew by too many to count.
The ACA made things worse giving us the crisis we now face: no care and “unsustainable” (per Obama) spending. As the doctor shortage worsens, Medicaid enrollees grow, per ACA expansion of the program. Then Biden expanded the rolls further during CoViD. In 2022, Washington gave no-charge Medicaid coverage to 95 million Americans (28% of the nation.) Add too-few-doctors-for-too-many-patients new spending on BARRCOME.
The ACA created 68 grant programs, 47 new bureaucratic entities, 29 demonstration or pilot programs, six additional regulatory systems, six strict, new compliance standards, and two new entitlements. The number of new bureaucrats and thus additional non-clinical spending is not known but certainly in the tens of thousands. At the same time, more physicians are taking early retirement.
The Texas Health and Human Services Department employs more than 62,000 bureaucrats. They are paid to oversee approximately 50,000 state-licensed physicians. The ACA law just by itself cost American taxpayers $1.76 trillion, an amount similar to the GDP of Canada. Most of this spending went to BARRCOME. (I should know; this author was a Board Director on one of the 50 new state Health Insurance Exchanges established by the ACA.)
It was obvious from the first reading of the Affordable Care Act it was an undigestible regulatory pretzel. The fact that Nick Tate’s 2012 Obamacare Survival Guide was and remains a best-seller is testament to the impossible complexity of the ACA. Add the more than 100 major changes to the Act in fourteen years and you have a truly unnavigable, Byzantine in every sense of the word, set of ever-changing, ofttimes contradictory, always confusing, impossible-to-follow-precisely healthcare regulations.
Biden’s solution is (drumroll)... more navigators, requiring more rules and regulations to govern their behavior and ours, more compliance oversight, more enforcement, and of course, more spending; another half a billion of non-clinical “healthcare” spending.
Ask an experienced manager, any systems thinker, even (especially) a game show fifth-grader. Each would say the same thing: to solve a problem in complexity, simplify. Do not make the problem worse by adding more complexity. Don’t add more cost. And in healthcare, whatever you do, do not throw more dollars generating additional complexity while taking money away from what matters to patients: medical care.
Reprising the 40th U.S. president, the problem with government-run healthcare is that it is government-run. What we need is someone else in control of health care: patients.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/biden_healthcare_more_navigators_less_care.html
The media’s ‘very fine people’ hoax still controls how people see Trump
By Andrea Widburg
Do the Plotters of the ‘51 Intel Experts’ Coup Deserve Prison?
By Jack Cashill
Biden’s Continued Presidential Campaign is Inhumane
By William Sullivan
The Censorship-Industrial Complex and How It has the Internet in its Grip
By Janet Levy
Since the 1960s, the military-industrial complex has influenced and driven American policy to profit cynically from conflict and war. But in this decade, a new complex has arrived, one that is far more dangerous to American values. It is the censorship-industrial complex (CIC), which has gained tremendous control over the internet.
When the internet-backed World Wide Web was created in 1989, it democratized information and connectedness. Through rapid commercialization, it unleashed unlimited possibilities and economic growth. Equally, it became a haven of free expression, debate, and creativity. These ideals crystallized into the five principles of the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom: non-censorship; universal access; freedom to connect and create; the right to privacy and control of personal information; and protection for technology and innovation.
But governments and the elites that control them were quick to move in, sensing the threat to their authoritarian instinct. At work since 2016, the pernicious CIC gained strength during the Covid-19 pandemic, amplifying government-approved narratives that favored the agenda of the elites. Furthering the advance to the Great Reset, it now works to color content and discourse in the leftist hues that disguise the intent and operations of the global elites.
Mike Benz, a former State Department official who now heads the Foundation for Freedom Online and is a staunch campaigner against the CIC, reveals that the complex is controlled by the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, MI6, and Brussels. The turning points, according to him, were the Brexit referendum, the election of Donald Trump, and elections in the Philippines, in all of which the internet played an important role. Therefore, it was decided to end free speech on the internet and control the flow of information. Since the American government was hamstrung by the First Amendment, NGOs and fronts were enlisted for “doing the dirty work.”
The Biden administration continues on that path. In 2022, days after Elon Musk committed to a pro-free speech vision on acquiring Twitter, the White House issued the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, in direct contradiction with the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom. The language, of course, answers to all the shibboleths of freedom. But while criticizing the policies of “authoritarian” governments, the declaration calls for curbing “disinformation” and “harassment” in the pursuit of “reclaiming the promise of the internet.” It expresses concern about online platforms that spread “illegal or harmful content,” threaten safety and foment violence, and undermine “respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions.”
The question, obviously, is who decides what amounts to disinformation, harassment, and illegal or harmful content.
On May 1 this year, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, brought out a report that describes the CIC as an entity that assesses and removes unacceptable content, filters and manipulates search engine results, flags disfavored material, and deplatforms and silences offenders. It treats speech as a permitted activity rather than a fundamental right.
The policies of the CIC, the report says, are essentially designed to quash the hallmark feature of the internet as a forum for open discourse befitting a free society, a space where the truth is discovered through dialogue and debate, empowering people to hold governments accountable and hence significantly reducing the risk of tyranny.
Examination of tens of thousands of emails and documents exposed the extent of a White House campaign of censorship and pressure. The material revealed how Meta (the Facebook parent company), Alphabet (the YouTube parent company), and Amazon were coerced to censor videos, books, posts, and other online content and to change their content moderation policies.
Certain ideas and politics were proscribed from public conversation, undermining foundational democratic principles of valid discussion on important issues. Testimony even revealed that the U.S. government funded organizations to pressure advertisers to boycott platforms that refuse to censor certain kinds of information or opinion or curb them in the name of “fact-checking” or “countering extremism.”
As the Twitter Files were released from December 2022 to March 2023, suppression and cover-ups came to light. Among the revelations were the concealment of the Hunter Biden laptop story, President Trump’s suspension, the sidelining of tweets favorable to the events of January 6, the FBI’s influence in acting against accounts that questioned the results of the 2020 election, and Twitter’s participation in online influence campaigns in other countries.
The report also tells how Andy Slavitt, a temporary senior advisor to the Biden administration, raised a ruckus over something as innocuous as a Leonardo DiCaprio meme about the Covid-19 vaccine that appeared on Facebook. The meme (appearing on page 29 of the report) echoed the words of the many mesothelioma commercials from law firms offering to help get compensation for asbestos poisoning. It humorously suggested that ten years from now, like the victims of asbestos poisoning, that those who took the vaccine might become entitled to reparations.
When Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) subpoenaed the Amazon Files this February, as part of a House Judiciary Committee investigation, pressure from the White House to suppress content was exposed. One email from a senior executive official read: “Who can we talk to about the high levels of propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation at Amazon?” Books critical of the Covid-19 vaccine program, or deemed “disinformation,” were either removed or buried in the search results.
One global nonprofit headquartered in D.C., part of the massive web of entities constituting the CIC, stands out in Benz’s exposé – the Aspen Institute. Benz calls it a “taxpayer-funded CIA policy incubator and revolving door with the CIA, NSA, and the military” that plays a pivotal role in information suppression. It is also funded by the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.
In 2020, the institute established the Commission on Information Disorder to, among other things – believe it or not – determine acceptable levels of diversity in viewpoint and opinion! Once members decided something was “disinformation” or “misinformation,” it was looked on as a societal problem with “life or death consequences.” Blaming such material for decreasing levels of public trust in government institutions, members worked to block access to information that was politically inconvenient. Opposing viewpoints were deplatformed or banned, false narratives were presented, and propaganda was put out as press releases and news stories.
A 2021 report of the commission included short-term actions and long-term goals to mitigate what they described as “the current crisis of faith in key institutions.” Members have discussed the restraints they face from the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Act. Some presented ideas for punishing misinformation, including posts that were correct but considered “mal-information.” They have proposed banning “savvy spreaders” rather than specific posts.
One commission member, former Soviet chess champion Garry Kasparov, no Trump-lover but all for preventing foreign disinformation, resigned from the commission, citing objections to “remaking media” and “promoting acceptable levels of workplace diversity.” He said, “…this type of approach was common practice in the U.S.S.R.” He was surprised that the group did not consider promoting viewpoint diversity. The resignation letter, addressed to Aspen Digital’s executive director Vivian Schiller, was not made public, but a FOIA request filed by journalist Matt Taibbi produced it.
As the machinations of the CIC come to light and people become aware of how the information they access is increasingly manipulated, it may be possible to return to a free internet. Now, the public knows how government mandates forced tech companies to toe the line on so-called misinformation. In 2023, 138 scholars, public intellectuals, and journalists from across the political spectrum framed the Westminster Declaration, warning of the CIC’s machinations and urging its dismantling. The pushback has begun, and must continue with full force.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/the_censorship_industrial_complex_and_how_it_has_the_internet_in_its_grip.html
Pushing Back Against Lefty Pejoratives and Race Cards
By Christopher Chantrill
Corporate America Debates Bidenomics and Trumponomics
Reactions to the candidates’ economic policies are mixed but have one thing in common: uncertainty.
by Andrew Moran | Jun 17, 2024
President Joe Biden has been reaching out to corporate America for advice on bolstering the economy, the same group he has accused of price gouging consumers and ripping off the country. Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, thinks the business community is on his side heading into the November election. What do businesses – small and large – have to say about the two men vying for another term in the White House?
Corporate America Stroking Its Chin
Will Wall Street pick a candidate in the 2024 election? Like any good market watcher, businesses are conducting a cost-benefit analysis to determine which man they should support later this year.
The incumbent, he showered domestic and foreign corporations with generous taxpayer-funded subsidies while demanding they pay their fair share and hurling accusations of “shrinkflation” and “greedflation.” As for the real estate billionaire mogul, Trump signed the landmark Tax Cut and Jobs Act and cut red tape, but he also stimulated the heartburn remedy industry through his on-again, off-again trade wars with America’s neighbors, Europe, and China.
Looking ahead to what the next four years could bring, the private sector will have to swallow either the red or blue pill.
The Biden 2025 budget has endorsed taxing unrealized gains and raising the capital gains tax that could confiscate roughly $2 trillion from corporations and high-net-worth individuals over 11 years. Stephen Moore, the co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity Now, recently called these endeavors an “economic cyanide pill to the US economy.” Indeed, according to topline preliminary estimates from the Tax Foundation, these levies would reduce the long-run GDP by 2.2%, cut long-run wages by 1.6%, and cost approximately 788,000 full-time jobs. Meanwhile, Biden’s landmark legislative pursuits, from the Inflation Reduction Act to the US Chips and Science Act, will continue to dole out hefty welfare payments to companies engaged in renewables and anything green-oriented.
Trump wants to extend tax cuts, lower the corporate tax rate, expand America’s energy sector, dismantle his opponent’s green agenda, and curb illegal immigration. Despite including trade policies that might appeal to businesses, Trump’s blueprint might be one of his biggest drawbacks for corporate America.
Earlier this year, Trump proposed an across-the-board 10% tariff on all imports to the United States and suggested slapping Chinese imports with levies surpassing 60%. Estimates show this initiative could make a $1,700 dent in US household finances every year. Supporters argue that Trump’s first round of tariffs, which they saw utilized more as a weapon than economic policy, did not have as much inflationary impact as initially thought. Plus, as Liberty Nation News reported in May, the administration recently revealed a plethora of new and higher tariffs on China and its green economic initiatives.
In the meantime, in the run-up to the election, American business leaders continue to submit various grievances to the administration: a lack of skilled workers to fill employment vacancies, a better government permitting process, and tax breaks for research and development expenses. Although the White House is listening, that does not mean it will “agree” on everything, says Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo.
“One of the things we don’t do is pretend we’re going to agree with the business community on everything,” Adeyemo told the Associated Press. “We want feedback and we’re going to continue to talk to you.”
What About Small Businesses?
President Biden and his team have championed the growth of entrepreneurship since arriving in 2021. However, US officials have ignored the financial pain small businesses have been feeling. The data show small business bankruptcies have rocketed over the past year. But how do smaller outfits feel about the current economic and political landscape? The views are mixed.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) released the results of its May 2024 Business Optimism Index, reaching the highest level of the year. However, it was stuck below the historical average for the 29th consecutive month as owners listed inflation and interest rates as their top business problems.
“The small business sector is responsible for the production of over 40% of GDP and employment, a crucial portion of the economy,” said Bill Dunkelberg, the NFIB chief economist, in a statement. “But for 29 consecutive months, small business owners have expressed historically low optimism and their views about future business conditions are at the worst levels seen in 50 years. Small business owners need relief as inflation has not eased much on Main Street.”
The May Freedom Economy Index survey of 80,000 small businesses, courtesy of RedBalloon and PublicSquare, revealed that 49% think they “definitely” or “probably” will not survive another four-year term of Bidenomics. In addition, 90% of small business owners say controlling the border should be a top priority for a potential Trump administration. As for the broader economy, 64% predict the country is headed toward stagflation – a mix of high inflation and stagnating growth – and 37% believe the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
“It’s been a difficult three years for America’s small businesses,” said PublicSquare CEO Michael Seifert. While many inside the Beltway may feel like things are good, that isn’t translating to Main Street America — the frontlines of our small business economy.”
Anatomy of Bidenomics, Trumponomics
Large corporations and small firms will have to engage in a balancing act. Under the current president, companies can continue receiving lavish taxpayer-funded benefits but also have to endure higher tax bills and a bombardment of unfounded criticisms. Should Trump return to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in January 2025, businesses can possibly enjoy lower tax rates but will also contend with the uncertainty regarding America’s trade relations in the global economy, whether in China or Europe. Ultimately, business leaders will need to study the Bidenomics and Trumponomics textbooks closely to make a final decision.
https://www.libertynation.com/corporate-america-debates-bidenomics-and-trumponomics/
Biden’s Voter Access Order: Civil Rights Boon or Partisan Ploy?
Ending non-existent voter suppression, one federal agency at a time.
by James Fite | Jun 17, 2024 |
Was Joe Biden’s 2021 executive order promoting “access to voting” a boon for civil rights, or a partisan play to whip up Democrat voters? That’s the question Representative Bryan Steil (R-WI), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, hopes to answer with the subpoenas he sent Thursday, June 13, to 15 members of the president’s Cabinet.
Political Power Plays
President Biden signed Executive Order 14019 on “promoting access to voting” in March of 2021, ordering every federal agency to draft a strategic plan detailing how they can promote voter registration and participation. Biden and the Democrats tout this as a way to overcome voter suppression in minority communities and guarantee that more Americans cast their votes.
Republicans, however, have two concerns. First, the plans made public so far seem to only target demographics that tend to vote Democrat, which strikes some as a case of federal agencies campaigning for the re-election of their boss. As Liberty Nation News’ Leesa K. Donner reported, “Many conservatives believe this executive order’s foundation originated in a memo from the left-leaning think tank Demos. Their plan – which is strikingly similar to the actual EO – estimates that utilizing federal agency resources could yield as many as 3.5 million voters added to the rolls.” Second, it requires tax-funded agencies to spend congressionally appropriated funding for purposes other than what Congress designated for them.
One of the problems, of course, is that no one seems to know what many of these various strategic plans will entail. Hence the subpoenas. So is this executive order, as many conservatives suggest, just a scheme to mobilize Democrat voters? Or does the president’s plan open voting access to all? To answer the question, let’s look at the order itself and what has been done already.
Pulling the Race Card
“Free and fair elections that reflect the will of the American people must be protected and defended,” the order reads. “But many Americans, especially people of color, confront significant obstacles to exercising that fundamental right.” The president went on to describe how the obstacles include difficulty with voter registration, lack of election information, and barriers to access at polling places. Black voters face long lines and are “disproportionally burdened by voter identification laws,” the order explains. Are these really issues faced exclusively by black people, or are they issues faced by everyone in the area?
Consider the long lines. If white and black people were forced to vote in separate polling places, or if black people were sent to the back of the line to let white people ahead of them, that would be a valid case of discriminatory policies aimed at black voters. Barring that, however, the long lines in densely populated urban areas affect black and non-black residents the same. Conversely, black people in rural areas don’t have to stand in line any longer than their white neighbors.
The same is true for ID requirements. Most adults have a driver’s license – or, at the very least, a photo ID. Without one, they can’t legally drive, buy age-restricted stuff, get a job, open a bank account, or rent or buy a house. Is there a big ID shortage amongst unemployed homeless people? Maybe – but even then, it isn’t dependent upon race. “Difficulties with voter registration” and “lack of election information” apply across the board as well. How do white people go about registering and finding out who’s running for what, what issues are on the ballot, and where and when to vote? From the big city to the small town, from the suburb to the wilds, white people find these answers the same way black people do: They make a phone call, go online, or walk into an office.
Promoting Access – But Not for Every Voter
As for what the Biden administration has already done to further this lofty goal of expanding voting rights, a clear trend has emerged. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was directed to have more than 3,000 public housing authorities hold registration drives, and the Department of Agriculture was ordered to issue letters to state agencies that administer SNAP and WIC programs with instructions to carry out voter-registration programs.
In short, the Biden administration is focusing on recipients of various welfare benefits – a demographic well known to back Democrats more so than Republicans. “Democrats see a massive advantage among voters enrolled in welfare programs like food stamps and Medicaid,” a report from the Opportunity Solutions Project explained. “In fact, Democrats see their margins increase by more than 30 points among voters enrolled in welfare compared to low-income voters who have never been on welfare.”
Might the strategy of some other federal agency target voters more likely to be conservatives? Will other departments take a less partisan approach than USDA and HUD? Perhaps – but what has been made public so far looks a lot like the Democrat voter mobilization scheme Republicans say it is.
https://www.libertynation.com/bidens-voter-access-order-civil-rights-boon-or-partisan-ploy/