Connect with us


As 50 Attorneys General look into slapping Google, does it pass Reagan’s ‘consumer welfare’ rule?



As 50 Attorneys General look into slapping Google does it pass Reagans consumer welfare rule

Is Google too big? Yes. The company controls 9 out of 10 searches. It receives over a third of every digital advertising dollar spent in the world. It’s on the verge of being worth a trillion dollars. And it does all of this with a progressive mindset that harms conservatives and Christians.

Based on this information, one might assume I’m all in favor of breaking them up, as 50 Attorneys General from 48 states plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico are now investigating this possibility.

But before we jump in with our pitchforks, conservatives need to remember what President Reagan used as his guideline for determining whether or not a company should be broken up. His and Robert Bork’s “consumer welfare” rule basically forced regulators to stop asking if a company was too big and start asking if breaking up that company would be beneficial to the consumers. It’s a very different way of looking at things; if we were to look at antitrust laws the old way, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and many of their subsidiaries like Instagram and YouTube would almost certainly qualify as too big.

The question must always be focused on the results of a breakup, not the size of the companies being considered for antitrust actions. Google is clearly dominant. Beyond search and digital advertising, they operate the lion’s share of smartphones around the globe. They own the video market with Facebook at a distant second and no standalone video sites even coming close to either. They’re sticking their fingers into everything from artificial intelligence to internet service providers, from healthcare to automotive.

Will breaking them up help consumers? That’s a tough question to answer, but it’s the question these Attorneys General need to address much more than whether or not Google is too big. They’re definitely too big. They stifle competition without trying simply because people are so accustomed to using them for so many day-to-day activities that we aren’t interested in looking for alternatives. I love DuckDuckGo as a search engine, but I’m often forced to use Google to find more in-depth sources to my queries. That’s he nature of the beast. Google gets search much better than any of the competitors. They always have.

What about advertising? If Google’s stranglehold on digital advertising was relieved, would consumers pay less? This argument is easier to make if it can be determined Google’s dominance drives market prices higher for advertisers and/or keeps profits lower for sites dependent on advertising. If that’s the case, an argument can be made that consumer welfare would be advanced by breaking them up.

But I doubt they’ll find this. In fact, I’ve done some experiments myself by using many alternative advertising platforms to generate revenue on the site. As much as I detest Google’s Adsense and the minimal controls they allow me to determine what gets advertised on this site, I have been forced to come back to them twice now after all alternatives failed miserably in comparison. As for advertisers themselves, my history in Google’s Adwords shows it is one of the most cost-effective ways for businesses to reach consumers.

In other words, even on the advertising front it seems anecdotally that Google is superior in the way it delivers advertisers to consumers. This is one area the Attorney’s General need to explore closely. I hope I’m wrong but what I’ve seen tells me I’m probably correct that breaking up Google will not benefit consumers or businesses.

So what can be done? Is there a way these Attorneys General or someone else in government can hit Google in a way that makes things better for consumers in general? Yes. The real problem with Google isn’t their tremendous reach. It’s in their bias. Whether it’s YouTube hiding videos for spreading a conservative message or search results favoring left-leaning sources over conservative ones, the bias inherent in algorithms created and maintained by opinionated men and women must be monitored to make sure Google falls in line with Section 230. This will go a long way to solving the problems Google creates. Will it make them smaller or break them up? No. But if they can be compelled to use an even hand when dealing with opinions, which most of their products do, then there would be less of a need to try to take down their company from DC.

It wouldn’t appease the left who is adamant about breaking them up for reasons that are not driven by consumer welfare or freedom of thought. They want to break up big tech so they can exert more control over them. Patriots should not want DC to have more control over anything, even big tech.

Especially big tech.

It’s up to consumers to send the real message to Google by using alternatives. We must support alternative search engines by using them instead of Google. This more than anything else will drive them to lower advertising costs to the benefit of businesses and consumers alike. We’ve given them the power they now wield. It’s time to show them we can take that power away.

Big tech breakups are very popular among the people right now. But it’s up to the people, not the government, to spend our dollars in ways that match us ideologically. We can hit big tech in ways that are not detrimental to our freedoms. DC cannot.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement



Conspiracy Theory

The clock is ticking on climate change… alarmists



The clock is ticking on climate change alarmists

The world is going to end in ten years. The world has been ten years away from ending for the last four decades. And yet, here we are.

I’m not one of those who denies we need to be better stewards of this world. We are trashing the planet that God gave us, oftentimes in ways that no longer make sense. Whether or not these actions are actively changing the climate is for smarter people than me to debate, but I’ve suffered through too many doomsday predictions to give any credence to hypothetical timetables. Invariably, these doomsdayers have been proven wrong as their predictions fail miserably.

Those who say we need to take radical action to preserve the environment are making empty, political threats whether they realize it or not. Most are indoctrinated. Some are fully aware they’re using the politics of climate change to advance their economic and power-grabbing agenda.

Those who say we need to find solutions to improve conditions in the world for humans, animals, and plants are correct. There are old practices that need to change, new practices that need to be adopted, and problems that need to be solved. We need to address these issues in a systematic way. But not because of climate change. Not because of the doomsdayers.

Advancing human society, protecting vulnerable aspects of the environment, and making the world a cleaner place for all to live are righteous goals that are being subverted by climate change alarmists. Instead of a systematic, pragmatic approach to improving conditions, they want to force-feed sweeping authoritarian changes into the world. The indoctrinated masses are behind the climate change puppetmasters like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Before I get into the real agenda of the climate change puppetmasters, let’s look at actual solutions for protecting the environment that should be implemented through the proper course of an advancing society.

Clean energy that makes sense

I am very much in favor of expanding research into renewable energy sources that will EVENTUALLY replace fossil fuels when it makes fiscal sense. Today, that’s not the case. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric energy collection are all still terribly inefficient. Moreover, they require resources such as large swaths of land for wind, expensive projects for geothermal and hydroelectric, and rare components for solar that could be used better.

We know we can collect and store energy. We just haven’t figured out how to do it efficiently yet. Trying to force the issue before it’s time is silly. The problems of finite fossil fuels have been identified and we must move towards solutions that will ween us off their use. But we must do so in a way that makes sense. We must be practical. Setting arbitrary time limits based on false doomsday predictions is idiotic.

Instead of expensive projects to prematurely collect renewable energy inefficiently, we should be focusing on improving the collection process. Why are we building massive wind farms and solar arrays using stage-one technology? We know we can do it better if we have the patience to let the technology blossom. But the technology isn’t ready. It’s too expensive. It’s inefficient at best, ineffective at worst. Much of the renewable energy infrastructure will have to be replaced once better technology is discovered and developed.

Pushing for mass clean energy initiatives now is like picking fruit before it’s ripe. We need to let the technology guide the politics, not the other way around.

Potable water is shockingly ignored

The biggest environmental problem we face is the one few climate activists ever address. Clean drinking water is genuinely difficult to find in many populated areas of the world. If there’s a reason to sound an environmental alarm, this is the one. Unfortunately, the alarm bells over fossil fuels, cows, and carbon emissions drown out the real challenges people are facing today with potable water.

Eliminating plastic straws will not give water to those who need it in Africa. Replacing ten million SUVs with Priuses will not end the drought in southeast Asia. It’s the ultimate con-job that climate alarmists point to people needing water as a reason for their alarms while they do absolutely nothing to help these people get the water they need. Keep in mind, the problem with potable water existed long before climate change became an issue, which is why the alarmists do nothing to address the issue.

More people will die today from lack of potable water than any of the alleged climate change catastrophes that happen this year. Yet the problem is ignored. It’s just not politically expedient for the doomsdayers to address an issue that preexisted their doomsday claims.

Again, we must turn to technology. But this time it’s not a matter of technology needing to be created through research. The technology exists. Instead, we need to apply funding to make the technology readily available to those who need it. The money spent promoting climate change propaganda would go a long way towards a desalination and filtration infrastructure that would bring clean drinking water to the billions who need it. The solutions are staring us in the face, but we’re too busy trying to cut carbon emissions.

Cleaner world through federalism

I’ve long called for the Environmental Protection Agency to be abolished. It’s a regulatory nightmare that stands in the way of progress so virtue-signalling bureaucrats can say they’re doing something. Instead of an EPA, we need to turn to local communities. States, counties, cities, and communities can go a long way towards cleaning up the mess we humans are making of this world if the challenge is presented at those levels rather than at a national level.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on an environmental nanny, we should empower and encourage communities to go to work for themselves. Imagine if the money spent on studies about the delta smelt’s habitat was instead spent on building local efforts to promote recycling. We could kill two birds with one stone by helping homeless people. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the city is paying homeless people to pick up trash.

Let’s eliminate the federal virtue-signaling agency and replace it with localized efforts. Empower the lower governments to experiment with ways to make our nation cleaner. This would yield real results instead of obtuse and unnecessary regulations.

The truth about climate change alarmists

Climate change actions such as the Green New Deal are all about transforming the economic and governmental systems of this nation and the world. Climate change itself is simply the engine these Marxists are using to get the masses riled up.

It’s a powerful vehicle for them because we have years of indoctrination in schools, propaganda in the media, and an array of false (political) science studies that have been tilted for nefarious reasons. They use fear to promote their agenda, and frankly I’m extremely concerned we may be beyond the point of no return. Too many Americans have fallen for the ruse. But the clock is ticking. As long as we continue fighting their agenda, the false claims will be proven to be nothing more than doomsday political machinations of forces bent on our nation’s destruction.

There are two types of climate change alarmists: The indoctrinated Americans, such as those in the #ClimateStrike, and the authoritarian puppetmasters using climate change as a pedestal to push their political agenda. They must be exposed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Leon Cooperman on stock market’s reaction to an Elizabeth Warren presidency



Leon Cooperman on stock market's reaction to an Elizabeth Warren presidency

Leon Cooperman knows a thing or two about the stock market. The billionaire hedge fund manager has worked the market for decades. As founder of Omega Advisors, he doesn’t just move his own money around the stock market. He invests for others as well. When it comes to the market, people listen to Leon Cooperman.

They should be listening when he discusses the prospects of a Democrat in the White House and the implications of their policies, which he noted are heading further to the left.

“The Democratic Party seems to be leaning towards the left on policies, which is very harmful for the economy. I don’t like the shift to the left,” he explained to CNBC, adding that the market, of course, will open, but it won’t be pretty.

He also said something else profound…

“It would be a bear market and they go on for a year and go down 25%,” he said. “You don’t make the poor people rich by making rich people poor.”

But the best quote pertained to one of the frontrunners directly, Elizabeth Warren.

“They won’t open the stock market if Elizabeth Warren is the next president,” he quipped.

It may not be THAT bad, but it might as well be. With the radical progressives’ push for Modern Monetary Theory, the economy as we know it would evaporate like a puddle in the desert.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


The CFPB must protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices



The CFPB must protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices

Washington, D.C. – Dennis M. Kelleher, President and CEO of Better Markets, issued the following statement with the filing of a comment letter on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB’s”) proposed rules implementing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

“Almost all Americans pay their debts and most of those who don’t are facing circumstances beyond their control like unemployment, a medical calamity, and other usually tragic occurrences. Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) to protect those vulnerable Americans from shocking, egregious, and abusive practices by the debt collection industry: calling homes repeatedly day and night; calling employers to get people fired; calling friends, neighbors, and relatives to embarrass people; and generally harassing people nonstop to boost their profits. The list of horror stories is long and revolting.

“The CFPB is now charged with implementing and enforcing the FDCPA and it must be guided by Congress’s clear and unequivocal objective to protect consumers not the debt collection industry. It must strongly and clearly regulate a business model that is embedded with incentives to pursue debtors ruthlessly using abusive tactics.

“The CFPB has proposed a rule to implement the provisions of the FDCPA. While it has a few modest consumer protections in it, the proposal also opens too many loopholes and ambiguities that will enable debt collectors to once again engage in too many near-abusive or outright abusive practices. For example, as we detailed in our comment letter, the proposal allows too many communications with debtors, essentially amounting to legalized harassment, and it would create an escape hatch from liability when debt collectors file lawsuits to collect on debts that are actually time-barred under the law.

“The CFPB must finalize a rule consistent with the letter and spirit of the FDCPA, which means it must put consumer interests over debt collectors and meaningfully constrain their impulse to engage in abusive but highly profitable practices.”


Better Markets is a non-profit, non-partisan, and independent organization founded in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to promote the public interest in the financial markets, support the financial reform of Wall Street and make our financial system work for all Americans again. Better Markets works with allies – including many in finance – to promote pro-market, pro-business and pro-growth policies that help build a stronger, safer financial system that protects and promotes Americans’ jobs, savings, retirements and more. To learn more, visit

Continue Reading