I have to hand it to the White House. When they dig in on a lie, they REALLY dig in on a lie. At today's press briefing, Peter Doocy brought up how even the Washington Post claims President Biden is making less than truthful claims about Georgia's voting bill. The question is simple. Will the White House admit Biden made a mistake and said something untrue — over and over again — or will they dig in their heels?
Jen Psaki chose heels.
BOOM: Peter Doocy points out the fact that even The Washington Post found President Biden's claims about the Georgia voting law to be factually inaccurate and asked if he'll change how he talks about it.
REPORTER: Even the Washington Post says that Joe Biden is lying about the Georgia bill. Face it. You're caught. Will the president keep lying about the Georgia bill?
PSAKI: Abso-f*ckin-lutely!
Okay, that's not quite how it went. Psaki didn't answer the question. Only that the "fact-checkers" agree that it makes voting harder and that's what Biden is speaking out about. But that itself is a lie. Joe Biden SPECIFICALLY said that the bill reduced when people can vote, and that's the specific point Washington Post says is bullcookies. Biden also said that the bill bans people from handing out water. That also fudges facts. Biden also keeps comparing it to Jim Crow without ever being challenged on it.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence today that calls into question how powerful Big Tech companies have become. This company has lately had issues (some legal) with Facebook, Twitter, AND YouTube. So you won't find any arguments here.
For chuckleheads like me who get confused by big words, a "concurrence" is when a judge agrees on a ruling but does so for different reasons. At issue was Twitter users suing former President Donald Trump over Trump blocking them from his Twitter account. The claim was that it violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court rendered the case moot since Twitter has since banned everyone from viewing Trump's Twitter account by banning Trump from having a Twitter account. Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment? Excellent question, and one that appears to be at the crux of Thomas' concurrence.
Respondents have a point, for example, that some aspects of Mr. Trump's account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum. But it seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it. The disparity between Twitter's control and Mr. Trump's control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages.
Today's digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.
Because unbridled control of the account resided in the hands of a private party, First Amendment doctrine may not have applied to respondents' complaint of stifled speech. Where, as here, private parties control the avenues for speech, our law has typically addressed concerns about stifled speech through other legal doctrines, which may have a secondary effect on the application of the First Amendment.
What does it all mean? Well, a liberal legal blog referred to it as Thomas endorsing "a radical new view of social media companies." One "mainstream" media outlet ran with the headline that Thomas "grumbles over Trump's social media ban," completely ignoring the point he made ABOUT the ban. The fact that he's being smeared over a well-thought-out legal concurrence leads me to believe he might be on to something. At the end of the day, one of the greatest legal minds of the past few generations has came to the conclusion that Big Tech has gotten too powerful and has too much control over the public.
We've heard similar arguments made by Republican senators. We're also tired of hearing Republican senators making the same arguments while not doing a g*ddamn thing about it. This is a Supreme Court justice issuing a legal opinion into the public record. This matters.
Last week, Biden administration official Pete Buttigieg "floated" the idea of a mileage tax. We'll call it a trial balloon. Buttigieg floated the idea of taxing Americans by the mile. The trial balloon was quickly popped as a horrible idea. Let's hope this is another soon-to-be failed trial balloon. Biden's treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, is expected to call for a minimum GLOBAL corporate tax rate. Meaning, every country would agree to keep taxes at a certain rate and NOT cut them lower.
"It is about making sure that governments have stable tax systems that raise sufficient revenue to invest in essential public goods and respond to crises, and that all citizens fairly share the burden of financing government."
"We are working with G20 nations to agree to a global minimum corporate tax rate that can stop the race to the bottom."
What the minimum will be isn't clear. Right now, it's just a horrible idea with few details. I'm not sure if I can tack an -ism after the word "global" and still have this viewed on Facebook. Though, there HAVE been concerns about the pandemic and a "reset." That's not me saying so. That's G20 member and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying so. This idea reeks of it as well.
Biden wants to hike America's corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, so one can assume 28% would be the barest minimum. Compare that to Donald Trump lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, helping create the "greatest jobs numbers of our lives." If the Biden admin's global plans come to fruition, that means taxes can never be lowered again? What if Europe wants to increase it to 35%? Is America expected to follow, while China and India ignore it like they do with the Paris accord? Details matter. This is still a horrible idea. But with details, it's at least a horrible idea where we can point to the details as to why.
Biden campaigned on a number of issues, like illegal immigration and killing the Keystone pipeline, that his supporters should have paid more attention to. But he never campaigned on a batsh!t crazy idea like this, where other countries are going to dictate American fiscal policy.
John Oliver thinks he can get away with lying about Donald Trump and the national debt. We won't let him! Also, Charles Barkley made a common sense statement on race that pissed off liberal Twitter. Joe Biden was busted cheating during his press conference. And the truth about Pete Buttigieg and his bike.
'We are currently BANNED from YouTube. To watch today's episode, watch for free on our LIVE SHOW LINK! Use promo code FIGHTLIKEHELL for $20 off Mug Club!
DEBUNKING JOHN OLIVER'S NATIONAL DEBT SEGMENT
John Oliver released a video on the national debt. SOURCE: YouTube
CLAIM: The economy got worse under Trump's tax cuts.
TRUTH: Tax revenues consistently rose under Trump's tax plan. SOURCES: CBO, CBO
$3.3T in 2017
$3.5T in 2019
INCOME: Average household incomes increased by $5K, compared to $1K under Obama. SOURCE: Heritage
BUSINESS: Corporations came back from overseas and brought $1T in profits. SOURCE: Bloomberg
CLAIM: Spending on social programs is better than tax cuts for the rich because of the benefits they provide.
TRUTH: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid composed 46% of the 2019 federal budget. SOURCE: Manhattan Institute
⅓ of doctors don't accept new Medicaid patients. SOURCE: CDC
SOCIAL SECURITY: Social security payments are set to run out in 2034. SOURCE: SSA
There is not enough revenue to sustain the program.
And any tax cuts are marketed as "for the rich" because the rich are the only ones who pay net taxes. SOURCE: Learn Liberty
The bottom 20% pay a net negative of 56%.
In comparison, the top 1% pay 34%.
The rich will leave if taxed too much, and the bottom income earners will bear the brunt of the tax hike.
CLAIM: "So long as the economy grows at a rate greater than the interest we pay on our debt, we come out ahead."
TRUTH: Trump's economy grew by 3.5%. SOURCES: CNN, Politifact
Obama's economy maxed out at 2.6% and ended at only 1.9% growth.
CLAIM: Oliver and Dems claim the problem isn't excessive spending but lack of tax revenue.
TRUTH: Despite top marginal income tax rates ranging from 90% under the New Deal to as low as 30%, tax revenue has consistently remained 17% as a percent of GDP with a deviation of only 1.2%! SOURCE: Political Calculations
If you taxed all revenue over $1 million at 100%, you would only pay off about ⅓ of the deficit. SOURCE: Forbes
Joe Biden has made it clear that gun control is next on the agenda. He still has some more taxes to hike. But AFTER that, he is allegedly coming after our guns. I say "allegedly" because I'm sure he'll claim otherwise or have some market-tested catchphrase to avoid saying so. But I know that you know that I know that you know. This is why it's important to celebrate pro-gun legislation when we can.
Today I signed legislation that protects the 2nd Amendment rights of Iowa's law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals.
We will never be able to outlaw or prevent every single bad actor from getting a gun, but what we can do is ensure law-abiding citizens have full access to their constitutional rights while keeping Iowans safe.
Here's where things are going to get interesting. That national gun control push is coming. You knew it as soon as the 50th Democrat senator was sworn in. Iowa just signed a STATES' RIGHTS bill making it easier to purchase a firearm. Ten bucks says other states start to follow suit. What happens when more and more states start flexing their federalism at a Biden administration that wants its own agenda on all the things, at all the times, and on all the Americans? We're about to find out.
We also need more reliable red states to have Iowa's back by pushing and signing their own gun-rights laws. Maybe it will start to influence the more purple ones.
Tapper mentioned how Stacey Abrams said she DIDN'T want MLB to take away the All-Star Game, leaving out that it was Abrams' misinformation that caused it. Also, BlueAnon conspiracy theorists who still think Stacey Abrams won the 2018 Georgia governor's election. Omar sound supportive of the boycotts, comparing them to ... apartheid?
Why The Left Doesn't Get NUANCE And Blames Objects! | Louder With Crowder youtu.be
Liberal reporters being glorified activists is nothing new. Neither is them selectively editing footage. But to do it so brazenly assuming there won't be any consequences, you almost have to admire the moxie. Then it just makes you stabby.
"60 Minutes" did a piece on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and a "certain shot" everyone wants us to get. Starts with the letter "V." If I say it too much, Facebook may throttle us. The media has already lashed out at Gov. DeSantis for being too good at getting needles in arms, implying that there's politics involved. At issue is the grocery chain Publix. DeSantis struck a deal for Publix to distribute these certain shots. Publix, unrelatedly, donated $100K to DeSantis' PAC. Publix is also, as anyone who has spent any time in Florida will tell you, is INSANELY popular with Floridians. They won't stop talking about it. If the end goal is getting as many needles in arms as possible, working with a store everyone in Florida loves makes sense.
But DeSantis is popular among Republicans, so the media needs to circle the wagons. "Reporter" Sharyn Alfonsi confronted DeSantis at a press conference. Here's what aired on "60 Minutes."
DeSantis battles with 60 Minutes reporter over Publix vaccine deal youtu.be
So, first of all, when we did, the first pharmacies that had it were CVS and Walgreens. And they had a long-term care mission. So they were going to the long-term care facilities. They got vaccine in the middle of December, they started going to the long-term care facilities the third week of December to do LTCs. So that was their mission. That was very important. And we trusted them to do that. As we got into January, we wanted to expand the distribution points. So yes, you had the counties, you had some drive-through sites, you had hospitals that were doing a lot, but we wanted to get it into communities more. So we reached out to other retail pharmacies — Publix, Walmart — obviously CVS and Walgreens had to finish that mission.
And we said, we're going to use you as soon as you're done with that. For the Publix, they were the first one to raise their hand, say they were ready to go. And you know what, we did it on a trial basis. I had three counties. I actually showed up that weekend and talked to seniors across four different Publix. How was the experience? Is this good? Should you think this is a way to go? And it was 100% positive. So we expanded it, and then folks liked it. And I can tell you, if you look at a place like Palm Beach County, they were kind of struggling at first in terms of the senior numbers. ...
Palm Beach is one of the biggest counties, one of the most elderly counties. We've done almost 75% of the seniors in Palm Beach, and the reason is because you have the strong retail footprint. So our way has been multifaceted. It has worked. And we're also now very much expanding CVS and Walgreens, now that they've completed the long term care mission.
There's also this:
@60Minutes I said this before and I'll say it again. @Publix was recommended by @FLSERT and @HealthyFla as the other pharmacies were not ready to start. Period! Full Stop! No one from the Governors office suggested Publix. It's just absolute malarkey. https://t.co/obkqYcbrzt
— Jared MASKowitz 😷 (@JaredEMoskowitz) April 4, 2021
Sharyn Alfonsi had to know that there were other cameras at a PRESS CONFERENCE. That makes me think two things. One is that she's a blithering moron who didn't think there would be any other cameras at a PRESS CONFERENCE besides hers. The other option is that she knew this and didn't care, because she's a liberal in the media and knows there are rarely any consequences for lying. What happens next is for other reporters to claim she's being bullied for "doing her job." "Bullying" in this instance is what we call fair criticism over you sucking at your job. At life too.
At least we can look forward to a Ron DeSantis response today. I doubt he's going to keep quiet.
