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.
Biden Begins Speech By Thanking Iran President Ebrahim Raisi For Coming
DETROIT — While delivering a speech at a local campaign event, President Joseph R. Biden thanked Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi for coming despite the fact he is now dead.
"Ebrahim, are you here? Where you at, Ebrahim? Stand up, man," a confused Biden said, pausing his speech midway through a point about the climate so he could address the dead Iranian president. "We go way back, me and ole Ebby."
President Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash Sunday, was not present because he was dead.
"Don't leave me hangin', man!" Biden persisted. "Classic, Raisi!"
As onlookers snickered, Biden seemingly believed he had latched on to a great joke and decided to milk it for all it was worth. "No, I'm serious!" he said. "I love ole Ebby. He's a great butcher. Not a joke!"
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre fielded press questions about the incident. "The president had the former president of Iran on his mind because of the recent news. It's totally normal and not at all suspicious that he would suddenly think he was in the room with him," Jean-Pierre said. "Everything is fine."
Reporters asked her to clarify the matter. "Isn't there a difference between accidentally saying someone's name and actively thinking they're in the room with you?"
"This is outrageous and uncalled for," Jean-Pierre argued. "This President is working hard every day for the American people and I'm a black lesbian. Does that mean nothing to you ingrates?"
At publishing time, White House aides had clarified that Biden was talking about a different Ebrahim Raisi, an old friend of Biden's who lives in Dearborn, Michigan, whom the president definitely has met many times and Biden is fine and perfectly healthy and nothing is wrong with him at all whatsoever.
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-begins-speech-by-thanking-iran-president-raisi-for-coming
Jews Announce They Have Developed Terraforming Machine That Can, Say, Quickly Build A Mountain In Front Of A Flying Helicopter
ISRAEL — In a statement completely unrelated to anything currently in the news, the Jews announced that they have developed a terraforming machine that can, say, quickly build a mountain in front of a flying helicopter.
According to the Jews, the device will be useful for a wide range of applications, including but not limited to building up a huge mountain right in front of helicopters while they're in the air, for a completely random example.
"This is only something I'm thinking of off the top of my head," said Benjamin Netanyahu, who is in charge of the Jews. "We have made this technological breakthrough on behalf of mankind and are already coming up with so many things it can be used for. I'm not sure why anyone would want to raise up an enormous mountain directly in the path of a helicopter in mid-flight, but if anyone ever wished to do something like that, this machine is capable of doing it. Hypothetically speaking."
A spokesman for the Jews said they were already planning to use the terraforming device for different functions, including building up artificial beaches, modifying the landscape of previously unused regions of the country, and, potentially, maybe using it to create a mountain to wreck a helicopter, maybe, if necessary.
At publishing time, the Jews were rumored to be preparing to issue a statement about how their new space laser would be useful for many things, such as incinerating potential threats instantly in a lightning-fast flash of light.
https://babylonbee.com/news/jews-announce-they-have-developed-terraforming-machine-that-can-say-quickly-build-a-mountain-in-front-of-a-flying-helicopter
Feminists Warn Young Girls Against Marrying Rich, Muscular Football Stars Who Love Them And Take Care Of All Their Needs And Praise Them In Speeches
KANSAS CITY, KS — In the wake of Harrison Butker's recent commencement speech encouraging college graduates to get married and start a family, feminists around the nation are cautioning young girls not to marry wealthy, successful Super Bowl champions like Butker.
"Can you imagine how terrible it would be to marry a ripped, non-feminist football star who loves you so much he gets choked up every time he honors you in a speech?" activist Margery Strecker exclaimed in a Tik-Tok short aimed at 13-year-old girls. "Imagine if you married a guy like that and he started sacrificially loving you and honoring you while taking care of your every need forever! It would be like The Handmaid's Tale all over again!"
"Harrison Butker is disgusting!" Jane Davis (@38yroldsngle) commented on X (formerly Twitter). "Young girls should avoid men like that at all costs and instead pursue corporate careers in the big city while going to clubs and sleeping with losers they meet on dating apps every weekend until they turn 38! Think of your careers, ladies!"
While Butker was unavailable for comment, sources close to the 3-time Super Bowl Champion claim that he was busy getting ready to surprise his wife with a romantic dinner after an afternoon spent throwing around a football with his son.
At publishing time, all of the nation's girls were busy ignoring the feminists while replacing their Tim Tebow posters with framed Harrison Butker jerseys.
https://babylonbee.com/news/feminists-warn-young-girls-against-marrying-a-rich-muscular-football-star-who-loves-them-and-takes-care-of-all-their-needs-and-praises-them-in-speeches
Anatomy of a Hit Piece
You see the headline and probably think one of two things: 1) Alito used insider knowledge to make stock trades, and/or 2) Alito is too biased against gay people to decide related cases. Then, you read the article to see the amount traded was “between $1000 and $15000.” Just consider how small this amount is to a person worth $10 million and who makes $274k on his judge salary. If you count his salary plus interest & dividends on his investments, the amount traded was equal to about a day’s pay. WHY IS THIS A F-CKING STORY?!!!!! Of course, everyone knows the answer — Alito leans conservative, so anything that can be used to destroy him is fair game to a pathelogically corrupt media. You never hear a peep of the fact that Nancy Pelosi uses her Congressional insider knowlege to outperform stock returns of Warren Buffett and virtually every other top investor in the world.
This is a perfect example why you should NEVER trust headlines, and it shows that even when they print something true, they distort reality so much they create “newsworthy” items that really are meaningless. However much you hate the mainstream media, it’s not nearly enough!
Justice Merchan's gagged witness goes public with what he would have told the jury and it's a doozy
By Monica Showalter
After Michael Cohen's disastrous testimony, it would seem that the case against President Trump over the bookkeeping entry in a hush-money payment case would be in tatters as it goes to the jury. Many legal eagles have said as much.
But the politically partisan New York justice in this case, Juan Merchan, doesn't give up that fast and clearly wants to salvage the case. He's instructing the jury to ignore the detail about the 'underlying crime' and treat the case the same way a burglary case is treated.
According to Newsweek:
A hush-money payment is not illegal, and under New York law, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanor unless it is done to conceal another crime, in which case it can be a felony.
Merchan said the prosecution did not need to prove that Trump committed additional crimes, like campaign finance or tax violations. Instead, it must show that Trump intended to commit or conceal these crimes.
"You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase," Merchan said, per Vance's blog. Merchan made the comment while discussing whether the defense could call an expert in campaign finance law.
We'll get to the burglary analogy in a minute from the character named Vance, but the bottom line is, Merchan is trying to slant the jury the prosecutor's way, telling them not to bother about the little detail about what the underlying crime was that makes the hush money payment a jailtime felony. They can make it up, if they like.
That's what he's getting away with now -- he actually broke the law when he made campaign donations to Joe Biden, which is explicitly and clearly prohibited by New York law, but not a problem for him -- he knows that anything illegal he does gets a slap on the wrist, a 'caution' as the New York Times put it.
Except that the voice of the critical suppressed witness for President Trump's side has come out with the real law to make mincemeat of the judge's flawed instructions:
Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. /1
— Brad Smith (@CommishSmith) May 20, 2024
The tweets are a doozy, he points out that his testimony would have clearly pointed out that there was no 'underlying crime' and the agency he once headed to regulate elections, the Federal Election Commission, never prosecuted such issues, because they simply weren't crimes.
This one stands out:
Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of “negligence.” They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms. /3
...and this...
/4 Someone has to bring that knowledge to the jury. That—not the law—was my intended testimony. For example, part of the state’s case is that they wrongly reported what they knew to be a campaign expenditure in order to hide the payment until after the election.
He was the guy to bring that kind of knowledge, as he stated here, but here's the guy who got that job instead:
/7 but While judge wouldn’t let me testify on meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!
Which he noted, shows just how rigged Justice Merchan's courtroom really is:
/9 So you’ve got a judge who contributed to Trump’s opponent presiding over a trial by a prosecutor who was elected on a vow to get Trump, for something DOJ and FEC chose not to prosecute, on a far-fetched legal theory I which the prosecution has been allowed …
/10… To repeatedly misstate the law or elicit incorrect statements of law from witnesses (and unlike Cohen’s, my testimony would not have gone to the ultimate legal issue). The judge’s bias is very evident.
As for the faulty instructions, the burglary analogy comes from this legal commentator cited by Newsweek:
On May 21, Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, wrote in her Civil Discourse blog about a comment Judge Juan Merchan made while discussing jury instructions. A judge gives such instructions to explain the laws a jury must use to decide a case.
...and...
"If I enter your home without permission, that's trespass, a misdemeanor. But, if I do it with the intent to commit another crime while I'm there, it's burglary, a felony. The false records violation works the same way," she wrote.
The underlying "crime" of course is trying to influence an election. Apparently no one is allowed to influence an election, and especially not a candidate.
The prosecutorial and judicial argument goes that since Trump did this payment and got elected, it was entirely because this hush money was paid and the election would have gone the other way if he had ignored then-lawyer Michael Cohen's bad advice to make it and instead didn't make it.
The laws against election influence by foreign actors are suddenly being called into service in this case because hiding one's dirty personal laundry while trying to get elected is unthinkable, a felony, as the prosecution argues, as if no pol had ever done such a thing in the past. Right, John Edwards? Right, Bill Clinton? Grover Cleveland was unavailable for comment.
What Smith demonstrates is just how valuable his testimony would have been to that jury about what the law is and how regulators enforce it, which instead has to take Michael Cohen's word for it that Trump, who didn't even know about the hush money paid according to another witness, somehow broke the law.
Sound like a fair trial we have here? Only in a banana republic.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/justice_merchan_s_gagged_witness_goes_public_to_school_him_and_it_s_a_doozy.html
Judge Merchan’s tell-tale heart seems to be coming for him
By Andrea Widburg
If the Dems ditch Biden, what then?
By Mark C. Ross
Unshackling America: Trump's triumph of deregulation
By Joseph Ford Cotto
In the realm of American politics and economics, few figures have stirred as much debate and contention as Donald Trump.
Considering all the rhetoric, which quite often gets divorced from reality, it is imperative to delve into the intricacies of Trump's tenure, dissecting his policies to discern their impact on the everyday lives of Americans. In this exploration, we find a triumph of deregulation — something of profound significance, laden with implications for both the working class and the business community.
Central to Trump's economic agenda was the crusade against regulatory excesses that had long burdened American businesses and workers. The statistics paint a compelling picture: under his administration, the regulatory assault was quelled, with a remarkable ratio of deregulation to new regulations. See this link under 'massive deregulation' here.
The two-for-one policy was not merely adhered to; it was exceeded, with eight antiquated regulations eliminated for every new one introduced. The repercussions of this concerted effort were felt directly in American households, where the alleviation of regulatory burdens translated into tangible gains—an additional $3,100 per year per household, a testament to the efficacy of deregulatory measures.
Beyond the realm of finances, the ethos of deregulation permeated various sectors of governance.
The Federal Register, once bloated with bureaucratic dictates, witnessed a substantial pruning, shedding nearly 25,000 pages — a feat unparalleled in presidential history. Trump's imprint extended beyond federal boundaries, with initiatives like the Governors' Initiative on Regulatory Innovation, aimed at catalyzing similar reforms at state and local levels.
Moreover, executive orders were wielded deftly to foster transparency, protect small businesses, and expedite infrastructure projects, exemplifying a commitment to streamlining governmental processes.
In the crucible of economic policy, Trump's deregulatory agenda found expression in targeted interventions. The shackles of Dodd-Frank were loosened to provide breathing room for community banks, while the White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing endeavored to tackle the housing crisis head-on.
The digital domain, too, experienced liberation, as regulations inhibiting internet development were dismantled, fostering an environment conducive to innovation and growth.
The scope of deregulation transcended terrestrial confines, extending its reach to the final frontier. By simplifying restrictions on rocket launches and championing automated vehicle technology, Trump laid the groundwork for pioneering advancements in space exploration and transportation.
In the agricultural sphere, modernization efforts sought to bolster America's biotechnological prowess, while in health care, the reduction of red tape promised more accessible and affordable services — a boon particularly salient in the throes of a global pandemic.
Crucially, the impact of deregulation reverberated most profoundly among marginalized communities. Low-income Americans, burdened disproportionately by regulatory encumbrances, found reprieve as barriers to affordable health care and housing were dismantled. The nexus between deregulation and personal freedom was palpable, as individuals were empowered to make choices aligned with their needs and preferences — a fundamental tenet of economic agency.
The fiscal dividends of deregulation were manifold, with estimates projecting savings in the billions for consumers and businesses alike.
The rescindment of onerous regulations, from the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule to the Waters of the United States Rule, engendered a climate of certainty and relief for farmers, property owners, and consumers. Likewise, the repeal of fuel economy regulations heralded a new era of affordability in the automotive sector — an exemplar of Trump's commitment to bolstering real incomes and economic mobility.
As the specter of November looms large, casting its shadow over the political landscape, the choice before the American electorate is stark. In juxtaposing the records of Trump and his counterpart, Joe Biden, one discerns a clear dichotomy: between a champion of deregulation, who steadfastly defends the interests of both white and blue-collar Americans, and a harbinger of bureaucratic inertia, whose policies threaten to stifle economic progress and individual liberty.
It is incumbent upon the electorate to weigh these competing visions, recognizing that the path to prosperity lies not in overregulation, but in the empowerment of individuals and enterprises to unleash their full potential.
In the crucible of governance, Trump's legacy is writ large — a legacy defined by a steadfast commitment to deregulation as a catalyst for economic renewal and social mobility. As the nation stands at the precipice of a new era, the choice before us is not merely a political one; it is a referendum on the principles that underpin our economic prosperity and collective aspirations.
In casting our ballots this November, let us heed the clarion call of deregulation, affirming our belief in the boundless potential of the American spirit to surmount any challenge and chart a course toward a brighter tomorrow.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/unshackling_america_trump_s_triumph_of_deregulation.html
Biden’s Abuse of the Judiciary Has Extended to Israel’s Prime Minister
By Lauri B. Regan
War In Ukraine And The Resurgence Of Russia
By Alexander G. Markovsky
At the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Union was at the peak of its global influence. It was imbued with the conviction that the future belonged to communism and its dominance was destined and unending.
In 1991, the Soviet Union unexpectedly collapsed. The Warsaw Pact dissolved, and the newly formed nation, the Russian Federation, denounced communism and extended the olive branch to the West. In contrast, the United States and its NATO partners chose to capitalize on the desperate period of Russian history—specifically, the weakened economy and fragmented military—by making a provocative and threatening move to expand NATO closer to Russia’s doorstep.
Commenting on this decision, George Kennan, a renowned expert on Russia analysis and a highly influential American diplomat in the 20th century, as well as the author of the Containment Policy that eventually led to the fall of communism, stated in his 1998 interview with Tom Friedman of the New York Times,
I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
Western leaders disregarded George Kennan’s prophetic warning, ignoring any potential backlash from what Senator John McCain referred to as a “gas station masquerading as a country.” They ignorantly believed that, in case of a hostile response, economic sanctions would be sufficient to quash any resistance and turn Russia into submission.
On the other side of the globe was Andrey Belousov, Russia’s current minister of defense and, at that time, Putin’s trusted economic adviser. As a prominent economist, Belousov convinced Putin that, contrary to the widespread expectations, the Russian economy would not only overcome Western sanctions and maintain its export potential, but the sanctions would hurt and weaken the West more than they would do to Russia. Additionally, sanctions would compel Russian enterprises to manufacture goods and provide services previously sourced from the West, thus diversifying the industrial base and reducing reliance on imports.
Paradoxically, when the sanctions were imposed, he was not only vindicated, but they led to a more favorable outcome than Belousov initially anticipated. The sanctions have violated the core tenets of capitalism, such as the sanctity of contracts, protection of private property, and confidence in the banking system. As a result, there was no longer a need to acquire licenses for proprietary technologies and products, as Russian businesses could easily replicate them. It was a major windfall for the Russian economy.
Belousov’s appointment as the Minister of Defense recognizes that, after two years of war, his assessment that the Russian economy was significantly stronger than expected, while the combined economies of the West, which exceeded Russian GDP by twenty times, were much weaker than expected, proved correct.
Russia has managed to out-produce the West in terms of materiel and military equipment, showcasing rapid adaptation of its industry and army to any sophisticated weapons deployed by NATO while also making advances in modern warfare.
Moscow’s recent increase in military spending from 4.1 percent to 7.8 percent of GDP suggests that Belousov has also prevailed in his emphasis on state spending to boost arms production and consequently stimulate the economy.
Russia is not only looking to rebuild and expand its military-industrial complex but also intends to use it as a source of revenue. The Moscow exhibition of Western armor destroyed in Ukraine serves not only to boost patriotism among the Russian population but also to showcase to potential foreign buyers the shortcomings of Western equipment, particularly American weaponry. The key message is that Russian weapons are not only on par with Western ones; in certain aspects, they even outperform them and come at a much lower cost.
Military resurgence led to a geopolitical resurgence.
Friends and foes around the globe have acknowledged Russia’s capacity to endure the sanctions and resist the US and a united Europe economically and militarily. As the tides of war slowly favored Russia, Putin’s goals became geopolitical rather than military. During his recent visit to China, he presented himself as an emissary of destiny whose mission is to restore Russia’s national grandeur and assume a major role in East-West relations.
Although there were no discussions about establishing an alliance, numerous national interests support economic, military, and diplomatic collaboration. These interests are motivated primarily by Western trade practices inconsistent with the philosophy of free market capitalism and the proliferation of moral values, for which the people of Russia and China share a mutual disdain.
Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher, wrote about 2000 years ago, “We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how to respond to them.” The Western leaders, whose most distinct feature is negative IQ, instigated an unnecessary war by NATO’s eastward expansion. As George Kennan pointed out, “No one was threatening anybody else.”
The war was supposed to weaken Russia, yet it brought about the reverse of what Washington and its NATO allies set out to accomplish. Russia’s response to adversities will likely result in Russia emerging from this conflict even stronger economically and politically than before.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/05/war_in_ukraine_and_the_resurgence_of_russia.html
Defense Rests in Trump Trial – But Media Works Overtime
The arguments are over, all that’s left is the spin.
by Mark Angelides | May 22, 2024
McLaughlin Poll: Majority Want Prosecutions to Stop as Trump Lead Solidifies
John McLaughlin By John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin Monday, 20 May 2024 02:54 PM EDT
Over the past month the most covered political story in America has been what we call the "Biden-Bragg-Colangelo" prosecution of President Trump.
This government-inspired circus has had a political impact: Donald Trump has strengthened politically, as Joe Biden has weakened.
Thus, after a year of indictments and legal targeting of Donald Trump and his allies, Trump still leads Biden in our latest poll Trump 47%, Biden 43%. [This national poll of 1,000 likely voters, +/-3.1% at the 95% confidence interval, was completed between May 9 and 15, 2024].
The polling data shows a majority of voters want the political prosecutions of Trump to stop. At the same time voters have factored Joe Biden’s legal persecution of Trump into their voting calculus.
Here are some takeaways:
66% of all voters say that politics has played a role in the indictments of President Trump.
59% of all voters say that Joe Biden has played a role in the indictments of President Trump.
53% of all voters think Joe Biden really wants to stop Donald Trump from winning by putting him in jail [only 33% say Biden doesn’t want to put Trump in jail].
After four years of Joe Biden, Americans know that they're not better off.
Most voters are angry and the rest are worried.
So Donald Trump leads on the ballot and the remaining undecided vote have largely decided they are not voting for the incumbent.
That’s good news for Trump.
Some more takeaways:
68% of all voters say the country is on the wrong track.
80% of undecided voters say we’re on the wrong track.
57% of the voters disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as president.
81% among undecided voters disapprove the job Biden is doing.
When asked from a lengthy list of top issues 43% said economic ones mattered most.
And 23% says inflation was the number one single issue.
No surprise, these economic issue cluster voters prefer Trump 53% to 36%.
Candidates for president usually win or lose based on job performance related to the economy, so this suggests Biden is in deep trouble.
Security issues — whether border security or other national security issues — account for 21% of voters’ concerns.
Trump leads these security cluster issue voters with an even bigger margin: 73% to 20%.
Biden does lead among social issue cluster voters (including Social Security/Medicare, climate change, healthcare, abortion, race relations, education).
Such voters account for 26% of the vote and prefer Biden 67% to 24%.
Still, it’s the dominant economic issues which are allowing President Trump to beat Biden.
In spite of Biden administration propaganda, 49% of all voters say the economy is in recession.
And voters are not optimistic, with 64% saying the economy is getting worse with just 31% seeing the economy improving.
In total, 85% of all voters say that they have been negatively impacted by inflation.
Almost a majority — 47% — say that they are struggling to keep up and afford basic necessities.
This data may hurt Biden the most since lower-incomed voters are a key part of the Democratic base.
Another 38% say that they are not struggling, but inflation and higher prices have had a significant impact on them.
Only 15% of the voters say that they can afford normal spending without cutting back.
No wonder Joe Biden keeps repeating the lie that inflation was at 9% when he took office. (Trump left Biden with a 1.4% inflation rate.)
Who the voters blame for their economic woes is very clear.
Only 38% say that "Bidenomics" has been good for the economy. The majority, 54%, say Bidenomics has been bad for the economy, inflation and the cost of living.
Among the undecideds 64% say Bidenomics has been bad for the economy.
This data is at the heart of Biden’s woes.
Consider 53% of independents and 23% of Democrats agree that Bidenomics is bad.
Most Hispanics — 47% — and 27% of African Americans say Bidenomics is bad.
And the stunner is that 55% of women are more likely to say Bidenomics is bad – and that’s even more than men at 53%.
When asked what better describes President Biden’s economic policies, only 3 in 10 voters say free market capitalism.
Almost half of all voters, 48%, said Biden’s policies are big government socialism.
With these troubling national issues it’s not a surprise that 54% to 36% the voters say that Biden should stop targeting President Trump with legal persecutions and interfering in the election.
Instead, they want Biden to let the voters decide the next president, as our democracy provides.
May Poll results may be found here: www.mclaughlinonline.com
https://www.newsmax.com/mclaughlin/bidenomics/2024/05/20/id/1165413/?ns_mail_uid=110c4f27-b39e-4490-8c9e-becd156886f8&ns_mail_job=DM625116_05212024&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0101046mbs41
Rep. Cori Bush honors Michael Brown, strong-arm robber and attempted cop killer
By Andrea Widburg
Slimy Gavin Newscum reneges on promise not to raise taxes to cover his state’s multi-billion dollar deficit
By Olivia Murray
The ease and “fortuitousness” by which birth names evolve into perfectly descriptive and denigrative monikers seems like a God-has-a-sense-of-humor moment—a slimy-looking man that screams “greasy salesman” just happens to have a last name that can easily accommodate the word “scum” into it? Providence, no?
And, there are few things slimier and scummier than taking an oath of office to represent the people, making promises to act in their best interest, and then reneging on them—but that’s just who Gavin Newscum is.
From Susannah Luthi report at The Washington Free Beacon:
Earlier this month, the governor repeatedly pledged he would not raise taxes to solve the budget crisis—which comes just two years after he boasted a nearly $100 billion surplus—telling reporters that ‘the answer is no,’ should Democratic lawmakers bring him tax hike proposals, and that ‘there’s only so many times I can say no to the tax question.’
‘I don’t see there’s real evidence and need right now to increase general taxes … in this state and put more burden on working folks and our competitive posture’ he told one reporter who asked him if tax hikes were an ‘absolute nonstarter’ for him.
Yet, as Luthi also reports, “buried” in Newscum’s new budget proposal are $18 billion in “temporary tax hikes” for the California businesses still hanging on—over the past few years, a significant portion of the state’s businesses were forced into insolvency by government “pandemic” mandates, taxes, and crime, while many others fled the state altogether—but by “temporary” we know that actually means... permanent. From Luthi:
Newsom unveiled his budget proposal on May 10, and the tax policy details the following week. The proposal would, for the next three years, bar businesses earning $1 million or more from deducting operating losses from their taxes while also limiting business tax credits. The provisions are projected to cost California businesses about $18 billion through 2027, although they wouldn’t take effect if tax collections beat expectations. Such a scenario appears unlikely, however, given that California’s tax revenues are massively down thanks to a stagnating economy and exodus of both high-earning residents and businesses.
Now, while Newsom was making promises not to increase taxes (California already has the highest state income tax in the nation), he was spending billions—so it should have been known at the outset that his promises were empty, because from where else would the cash to cover the nearly seventy-billion-dollar deficit come? Sure, money doesn’t grow on trees, but it (metaphorically) whizzes out of Federal Reserve printers—yet that requires the federal Congress to pass another spending bill, with a way to get enough of those handouts into California’s coffers.
What else besides a deficit would come from in-the-hole spending? Does a government spending program ever accomplish what it was supposed to and then close up shop? Not remotely. Has the financial security of the nation increased or decreased as the size and scope of the government has grown? Obviously a rhetorical question.
Of course, Newscum’s cronies haven’t conceded that the “suspension of established tax credits and net operating loss deductions” equates to tax hikes; instead, they’re selling the idea that businesses would pay more to the tax man as measures “designed to protect small businesses” in the state—please for the love of all that is good, just don’t.
“Ask not for whom the [tax] bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/slimy_gavin_newscum_reneges_on_promise_not_to_raise_taxes_to_cover_his_state_s_multi_billion_dollar_deficit.html
Why isn't Michael Cohen the one in the dock?
By Monica Showalter
Well, it's toilet-flushing time, with the Trump trial resuming, this time with Michael Cohen on the stand again crossed examined by the defense.
Taken in line with the trial's biased judge, its corrupt district attorney, its beyond-trashy witness Stormy Daniels, Cohen managed to top them all in sheer disgustingness, openly admitting in court that he stole $30,000 from his employer like it was a good thing.
According to the Associated Press:
Cohen was the last witness — at least for now — for prosecutors, who are trying to prove that Trump sought to bury unflattering stories about himself and then falsified internal business records to cover it up as part of a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election.
Over several hours of cross-examination, Trump’s attorneys seized on Cohen’s past lies and criminal history, underscoring the risk of prosecutors’ reliance on the now-disbarred attorney. Cohen testified earlier Monday that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from Trump’s company, an admission defense lawyers hope to use to sow doubt in Cohen’s crucial testimony implicating the former president in the hush money scheme.
The exchange went like this, according to Yahoo! News:
Cohen admits to stealing from the Trump Organization: During the defense’s cross-examination, Trump’s defense attorney walked Cohen through a series of payments the Trump Organization made to him in 2017, totaling $420,000. Cohen testified that RedFinch, a tech company hired to rig online polls in favor of Trump, was owed $50,000 for its services. But Cohen said he only paid it $20,000 and pocketed the remaining $30,000.
“You stole from the Trump Organization, right?” Blanche asked, according to NBC News. “Yes, sir,” Cohen replied.
In what universe would this creature not be arrested on the spot for an admission like that? He stole $30,000 which is way more than the average smash-and-grab thief steals from a Macy's in a day's work. This is mega-theft, and it was done with all the typical excuses employees make who steal from their employers. Once upon a time I worked as a private detective detecting employee theft, at Macy's, no less, and the typical miscreant excuse once caught was always that the employer "owed me." That was the excuse Cohen gave, putting him in the same category as basic criminals. He wasn't even subtle.
The admission was brought out, as the press reported it, to show that Cohen was a dishonest human being, which is obvious enough, and by extension would lie about his payoff payments to the porno "star." But witness testimony contradicting him seemed like a stronger argument. Cohen's theft simply stands by itself as a great example of an unprosecuted crime even as President Trump is being prosecuted with draconian threats of imprisonment on a basic bookkeeping argument whose statute of limitations has long expired.
If that doesn't stand out to the jury on the basic unfairness of this case, nothing will. Cohen is not only a liar, he's a thief and you wouldn't want him near your purse in a public place.
It wasn't all the bad stuff he did in court, he also tried to manipulate the jury into convicting Trump:
Cohen says it’s better for him if Trump doesn’t get convicted: During cross-examination, Blanche asked Cohen, “Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this case?” To which Cohen replied, “Yes, sir,” according to NBC News.
Cohen was also asked if he would financially benefit if Trump is convicted. He testified “it’s better” if Trump is found not guilty because it “gives me more to talk about in the future,” referring to his financial gain from talking about the trial on his podcast and TikTok account.
In other words, he understood how disreputable he was, so in telling the jury to convict Trump, it would be less beneficial to him. Why on Earth was this information allowed to be presented at all, other than to manipulate the verdict into 'guilty' given his general disgustingness? The judge, Juan Merchan, after all, prohibited testimony from an FCC chief who said that Trump's purported crimes were not anything they would prosecute or ever did. Now it's an invented crime and a witness so crummy his general crumminess is used as an argument to convict Trump to ensure that he doesn't profit from it?
What kind of grossness is this? Flush it down, it's all bad and the pot has gotten full.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/why_isn_t_michael_cohen_the_one_in_the_dock.html
Biden goes full racialist
By Silvio Canto, Jr.
A few years ago, President George W. Bush spoke at our son's Southern Methodist University graduation.
He was joined by first lady Laura, who is a graduate.
His speech made us laugh, but it was very inspirational. He spoke to the parents and the young people looking ahead. It was a wonderful moment and something that the graduates can tell their kids about. How many can say that a president spoke at their graduation?
Yesterday, President Biden spoke at Morehouse College and it was pathetic. Let's check out some of his lines:
He acknowledged student protests over the war in Gaza, saying that he heard their pleas — even as he faced silent protests during his speech. Biden also touted his administration’s policies — specifically on race and funding for HBCUs.
“I’ve walked the picket line and defended the rights of workers. I’m relieving the burden of student debt — many of you already had the benefit of it,” Biden said. “And the Supreme Court told me I couldn’t, I found two other ways to do it.”
“And I, in addition to the original $7 billion investment HBCUs, I’m investing 16 billion more dollars for our history because you’re vital to our nation,” he added.
Biden also denounced people who he claims are attacking freedoms, taking aim at voting laws in Georgia.
Today in Georgia, they won’t allow water to be available to you while you wait in line to vote in the election. What the hell’s that all about? I’m serious, think about it,” Biden said. “And then constant attacks on black election workers who count your vote, insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol with Confederate flags are called patriots by some. Not in my house.”
He also took direct aim at former President Donald Trump, denouncing his election opponent’s remarks about illegal immigrants “poisoning” the blood of the country.
Yes, you got it. Trump is bad and getting worse. No water if you are voting in Georgia. And I'm going around the Supreme Court to pander for your vote.
Do you get the feeling that President Biden is concerned about black voters? More than that, does he understand why they are leaving the ranks? Maybe some black blue-collar workers are angry that they are bailing out college students. Or maybe some black fathers don't want their daughters losing the athletic scholarships to men pretending to be women? Or maybe some blacks are tired of being treated like blacks? The president wants us to think that this is Mississippi 1950 or some moment in the past.
So the country needs a uniter and we got a cynical racialist divider. We got a so-called moderate who is telling young black men and women that the country hates them because of their skin color. Hard to believe that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud of this speech!
The moderate fooled us again.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/biden_goes_full_racialist.html
Hang in there, Joe!
By Frank Friday
What if Justice Merchan has been compromised?
By Patricia McCarthy
Plausible Deniability Run Amok
By J.B. Shurk