How Companies Prevent Unionization – Diversifying the Workforce


Posted originally on Aug 15, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

LGBTQ

Divide and conquer is a common technique used by businesses to prevent unionization. Numerous studies throughout the years have discovered that highly diverse workforces have a far lower risk of forming a union. The same phenomenon is found through divisive politics, which aims to weaken the strength of the people by dividing us from our identities as citizens and instigating an emotional response that causes us to align more so with our race, gender, religion, social class, and voting patterns rather than citizens of a nation. In the workforce, DEI initiatives are only intended to weaken the power of the collective.

Racial Diversity and Union Organizing in the United States, 1999–2008, published in 2015, analyzed 7,000 organizations between 1999 and 2008 to see which ones were more likely to unionize. Researchers compared the National Labor Relations Board’s information on union activity with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s surveys of large establishments to identify racial diversity among employees. “The study finds that more diverse establishments are less likely to see successful organizing attempts. Little evidence is found, however, that this is because workers are less interested in voting for unions. Instead, the organizers of more diverse units are more likely to give up before such elections are held,” the study found. Why? The employees were more likely to blame racial injustice for unfair work practices rather than realizing that the entire workforce as a whole was facing injustice.

DEI Text

Whole Foods created a heat map to track the risk of unionization and compiled data from the National Labor Relations Board. The company looked at “external risks,” “store risks,” and “team member sentiment.” Stores in closer proximity to other unions had a higher rate of external risks, as did stores with a higher percentage of families living under the poverty line in the store’s respective zip code.

Union Strike r

Store risks showed a direct correlation between diversity and unionization:

“Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a “diversity index” that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every storeStores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers’ compensation claims, according to the documents.”

Team member sentiment was also adversely affected by diversity. Once again, employees were more likely to feel that management was singling out people based on race than believe that management had implemented unfair practices against the collective workforce.

Amazon, the parent company of Whole Foods, has been combating unionization efforts for years. Both companies promote DEI initiatives and tout high scores on the Human Rights Campaign’s CEI scoring. In truth, they spent money to learn how to weaken the power of their workforce.

At a higher level, we see these same divisive practices from world leaders who hone in on our differences to diminish the power of united citizens. This is why we see woke policies, DEI hiring, and an increased insistence that we defend our individual identities that we were never at risk of abandoning. It is why they want us to feel confused in our own skin, the reason they ask children in elementary school to choose their pronouns and sexuality. This is why the slavery reparations argument resurfaces every few months and why they want to impose late-term abortion in the Bible Belt rather than allowing individual states to decide. Everyone is focused on defending their identity based on race, religion, etc., rather than realizing that those at the top effectively turned neighbor against neighbor.

Marriott Sues Franchisee for Profiting on Migrant Crisis


Posted originally on Aug 14, 2024 By Martin Armstrong |  

Migrants.ObamavAdams

Some were led to believe that the hotels offering shelter to migrants were on some philanthropic mission. Quite the contrary as these hotels were paid by their respective Sanctuary Cities with taxpayer funds. Marriott International is now suing one of its franchisees for breaching their contract by collaborating with New York City to turn the hotel into a migrant shelter.

The Aloft and Element hotel in the Jamaica neighborhood of Queens managed to fill every room in its establishment after partnering with New York City. The franchisee, Pride Hotel LLC, failed to notify Marriott that it was converting its establishment. The average room was prices at $156 per night but some reports state the city paid up to $300 per night. Marriott claims that the “lucrative contract” resulted in “significant harm” to the establishment and is seeking $2.6 million in damages.

2024_02_04_19_57_40_Illegal_Immigrants_in_New_York_to_Get_Pre_Paid_Debit_Cards_in_53_Million_Progra

American taxpayers funded the migrant shelters. The media misled the public into believing that big businesses simply made room out of the goodness of their hearts to house these illegal persons. Yet, New York City spent an estimated $4.88 billion in taxpayer funds throughout the past few years on illegals, with up to $2 billion being spent on migrant shelters. About 80% of the shelters, 153 of the 193 in the Big Apple, were hosted by hotels.

We leave our veterans and homeless on the streets to rot. These Sanctuary Cities have spent untold amounts on promoting open border policies and question why their city budgets are imploding. Absolutely nothing has been done to curb the migrant crisis in New York City and we should only expect the situation to worsen if the open border candidate remains in power.

UK Govt Arresting Citizens over Mean Tweets


Posted originally on Aug 12, 2024 By Martin Armstrong |  

The UK government is in a state of panic as its citizens continue to protest for immigration reforms. When governments are in a panic, and threats cease to hold weight, they look to silence dissent. UK authorities have resorted to jailing hundreds of citizens for speaking against the government’s agenda on social media.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer claims that this witch hunt is intended to sniff out anyone who could potentially incite hate speech. You do not need to commit a crime to be arrested. The director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, said that authorities are “scouring” social media to hunt down citizens. “We do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for this material and then follow up with identification, arrests, and so forth, “ he proclaimed. Retweeting or liking a post can be deemed an imprisonable offense.

Police officers are raiding homes and forcibly removing citizens based on their social media usage. As a reminder, the final straw was the murders of three innocent little girls who were stabbed to death during a dance class. There has been a massive rise in crime, especially against women and girls, but the authorities have done NOTHING to protect their own citizens from the unvetted migrants living a taxpayer-subsidized life.

Britain has done this discreetly over the years. Over 5,000 people were arrested for speaking their mind online between 2008 and 2017. The Communications Act of 2003 permits the authorities to arrest someone over offensive or menacing messages via electronic communications. Section 127 defines how electronic communications could be used illegally in an extremely broad way. Anything deemed “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing” is grounds for an arrest. This also gives the government the ability to search citizen’s private text messages for anything that could offend the status quo.

The messaging does not need to be threatening. There are reports of people being imprisoned for simply sharing the wrong identity of the child murderer or questioning UK immigration policies.

The World Economic Forum has successfully penetrated the highest offices in your government and your elected officials are no longer there to serve you or their nation. Your government hates you and has deliberately imported millions of undocumented migrants to destroy your culture.

Did the WEF force Harley Davidson to go Woke?


Posted originally on Aug 12, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Harley Davidson_sign_in_Wootton_ _geograph.org_.uk_ _1372894

It seemed like a blatantly poor business decision for American motorcycle manufacturer Harley Davidson to go woke. After all, the company is associated with conservative values and masculinity. The company installed CEO Jochen Zeitz who represents everything the brand’s core base is against – climate change, trans care for kids, DEI efforts, and other woke policies.

Now I should mention that Blackrock owned an 8% share in Harley Davidson, the fund that has forced businesses to comply with “woke social scores” to secure funding. After installing Zeitz, the company suddenly partnered with United Way and the Human Rights Campaign. The CEI (Corporate Equality Index) was created by the HRC (Human Rights Campaign), a massive international political lobbying group that pushes the woke agenda aggressively and is funded by Soros. The CEI judges a company’s woke rating, while the ESG encompasses everything.

CEI.WokeRating

These companies are not trying to appease the LGBTQ+ community; they’re trying to appease BlackRock so that they can maintain high social credit scores and maintain funding. And who is Blackrock trying to appease? The World Economic Forum, where current CEO Jochen Zeitz was once employed. He took it upon himself to fund “The B Team” which aims to force businesses to adopt social policies.

“Plan A—where business has been motivated primarily by profit—is no longer an option. We knew this when we came together in 2013. United in the belief that the private sector can, and must, redefine both its responsibilities and its own terms of success, we imagined a ‘Plan B’ – for concerted, positive action to ensure business becomes a driving force for social, environmental, and economic benefit. We are focused on driving action to achieve this vision by starting ‘at home’ in our own companies, taking collective action to scale systemic solutions and using our voice where we can make a difference.”

Shareholders certainly do not care about business being motivated by anything other than profit. Blackrock and others have tried to move away from the disastrous CEI score but something behind the curtain is forcing these companies to comply. The B Team is working toward Agenda 2030, which seems foolish to align a fossil-fuel driven company with climate initiatives.

There is an ulterior motive that is forcing these companies to go woke, but what is the alternative? We see what has happened with Budweiser, Target, Starbucks, John Deere, the list goes on. Now, Harley owners are selling their bikes and vowing never to buy from the company again. Employees at the company are being forced to undergo DEI training and take classes to become an LGBTQ ally. But the company is now appeasing the WEF and Blackrock with its Human Rights Campaign social CEI score of 90.

The 17th Amendment


Posted originally on the CTH on August 9, 2024 | Sundance

Machiavelli said“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”  A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.

When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states.  Over time those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power.  One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th amendment.

Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  In this original system the senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states.  Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.

The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate.   The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.

The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government.  However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials.  We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem.  At least we admit the Senate exists.

All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate.  If we correct the problems with the Senate and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change.  However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.

When the 17th amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed.  The senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.

Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government.  The senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.

In essence, the 17th amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.

Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th amendment.

Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber.  Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us.   When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.

It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen.  Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature.  [Common Explainer Here]

Seventeenth Amendment- “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” (link)

Prior to the 17th amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests and senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position.  Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.

The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate.   Get the right people in the State legislature and you can get the Senator appointed.

Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC.   [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.]  Additionally, prior to the 17th amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.

The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state.  Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.

A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years.  The 17th amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the congress as it was written by the founders.

Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch.  The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?”  The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them.  Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch.   The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.

If we can repeal the 17th amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance.   [NOTE: Within the repeal effort we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]

◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th amendment “.  This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.

This approach gives presidential candidate Donald Trump the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election.  We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude. We need Donald Trump.

◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the 2024 election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.

Obviously, this would be an ugly battle.   The second path is a convention of states in the first year of President Trump’s second term in office.

The ‘convention of states‘ would be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the 2024 GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins).   That way, if congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th amendment “.  That’s it. Full Stop.  Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.

There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this.  However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government.   The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.

The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative.  In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest.  This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.

The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.”  However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making.  The 17th amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.

Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.

Repeal the 17th amendment and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.

Why Republics Will Fall


Posted originally on Aug 9, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

  

Republics are the worst form of government, for every representative can be bribed. Those who are honest get very frustrated, for they will pass rules to prevent anyone from actually even making a motion on the floor. Motions will have to come from Committees. If you do not play nicely, the speaker decides who gets on what Committees. Look at the smirks of the woman behind him, knowing nothing will change.

Here, Mike Bost is frustrated at the corruption in the Illinois House of Representatives. We do not live in a Democracy. The “establishment” is dictated by the Deep State, and far too often, the actual direction of the country is determined by people who are behind the shadows and never stand for election. The head of the European Parliament never stands for election. The head of the EU appoints them. The people have no say in anything meaningful.

Walz Passed Destructive Policies That Allowed People To Kidnap Children For Trans Surgeries


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Aug 07, 2024 at 07:70 pm EST

Posobiec: Ellen Greenberg A Skeleton In The Closet Of Harris Favorite VP Pick Josh Shapiro


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Aug 02, 2024 at 07:00 pm EST

Disney – OMG – Go WOKE Go BROKE


Posted originally on Jul 31, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Disney Y 7 27 24

Bob Chapek, who replaced Iger as CEO in 2020, pretty much destroyed the company with his WOKE agenda. You really had to wonder if he understood Disney was a family brand. He stepped down immediately in November 2022, which confirmed his terrible leadership. Bob Iger, one of the most successful CEOs in the history of The Walt Disney Company, returned to run the media empire once again. Now, the 2023 low MUST hold of this stock is going to crash. A yearly closing below 82.25 points to this stock collapsing to the $20-$21 area, perhaps into 2028. Last week, this stock fell to 89.21. The company reported a net loss for the second quarter. The damage to Disney’s reputation with WOKE has been truly profound. This stock needs a weekly closing back about the $102 level to suggest it will consolidate, but even a year-end closing below 105.85 will indicate that Disney remains vulnerable for 2025. With a recession on the horizon, the high price of theme park fees will undoubtedly reduce sales as we move toward 2028.

Yellen Eyes $3 TRILLION ANNUALLY for Climate Change Initiatives


Posted originally on Jul 30, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

InflationReductionAct.meme_

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen once admitted that the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest spending package in American history, was deliberately designed to combat climate change.  “The Inflation Reduction Act is, at its core, about turning the climate crisis into an economic opportunity,” Yellen candidly said this April. The act was never intended to curb inflation as it did the exact opposite. Yellen is now seeking TRILLIONS in additional funding for the largest hoax of the century.

Climate change has become the untouchable charitable cause that no one can question. COVID-19 was merely a stepping stone for the lucrative tax opportunity that is climate change and the green agenda. As it is a global issue, it gives rise to the need for globalized institutions and coalitions. The G20 meeting stressed the importance of developed nations collaborating to prevent climate change by taking the people. Brazil wants to impose a 2% global wealth tax on the richest individuals and redirect that money toward changing the climate. They have no plan in place for using those funds, but everyone cheers when politicians want to tax the hated rich as if those funds will benefit the population at large. Still, the US is seeking a steeper contribution to this imaginary widely celebrated problem.

Yellen tax on Unrealized Gains

Janet Yellen declared that it will take $3 TRILLION ANNUALLY into 2050 for nations to meet their climate objectives. They deem climate change “the single-greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” but logical minds will see it as the biggest economic obligation. “Neglecting to address climate change and the loss of nature and biodiversity is not just bad environmental policy. It is bad economic policy,” Yellen told the G20. Not one member objected or questioned her proposal.

There is no plan in place to collect $3 trillion, but those like Yellen have already made proposals to tax people on absolutely everything. She would even like to tax people on what they do not have, like unrealized gains. Yellen plays the fool but she has the credentials to know better. Janet Yellen knows that these measures will contribute to inflationary conditions and contribute nothing to economic growth. Yet, governments are utterly broke and at a point where they cannot continue borrowing perpetually with no plan to pay off their debts. A new scheme to extort the people is necessary.

Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are funding a large portion of green initiatives. These banks are operated by numerous nations or large financial institutions, such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund, and have special financing opportunities. The idea of using a centralized bank that does not belong to one nation is a major hurdle toward economic globalization.

They are creating an issue (climate change) that the world’s population must collectively defeat through taxation. It would be easier for them to spend and collect trillions from the population at large under a centrally backed currency, digital for good measure. They are testing the waters now to see how and who can hold the power to become the world tax authority.