Tag Archives: The Washington Examiner

It Pays To Be The Son Of “The Big Guy”

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, Breitbart reported that a fourth IRS whistleblower has come forward claiming that prosecutors in Washington, DC, and California previously blocked now-special counsel David Weiss from charging Hunter Biden in those jurisdictions.

The article reports:

“Mr. Weiss went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office — I can’t recall the dates — and they did not agree to prosecute the case in D.C.,” Waldon (IRS agent Darrell Waldon) told the House Ways and Means Committee during a transcribed interview in September, the Washington Examiner reported.

“I’m aware that it was presented to the District of Columbia and, at some point, the Central District of California, I believe,” he added.

…As the investigation progressed, Weiss never charged Hunter Biden in the jurisdictions of Washington, DC, or California. Instead, he formed a sweetheart plea agreement with Hunter Biden that collapsed in July under judicial scrutiny. Shapley’s testimony in April reportedly triggered the plea deal, filed in Delaware. Weiss later brought three gun-related charges in Delaware against Hunter Biden.

This testimony is interesting because of the way it relates to the testimony of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The article reports:

The recent testimony by Waldon, who was Shapley’s boss, is notable because Attorney General Merrick Garland testified Wednesday that nobody had the authority to block Weiss from charging Hunter Biden, though “they could refuse to partner with him.”

“You said [Weiss] had complete authority, but he’d already been turned down. He wanted to bring an action in D.C. and the US Attorney there said, ‘No, you can’t’ — and then you go tell the U.S. Senate, under oath, that he has complete authority?” House Oversight Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked.

“No one had the authority to turn him down; they could refuse to partner with him.” Garland replied.

“You can use whatever language — ‘refuse to partner’ is turning down,” Jordan replied.

“It is not the same under a well-known Justice Department practice,” Garland claimed.

Waldon previously confirmed Shapley’s notes presented to Congress regarding an October 7, 2022, meeting between Waldon, Shapley, and Weiss, among others. “Darrell asked me to shoot an update from today’s meeting. Darrell — feel free to comment if I miss anything,” the top line of the email read.
The level of corruption in our current Justice Department is breathtaking.

Do We Have Any Idea Who The Federal Government Is Working For?

Posted on by

In the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln stated, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (source here). Currently it seems as if government of the people, by the people, for the people has been replaced by government of the ruling class, for the interests of the ruling class, and only for the ruling class. There is a lot of money floating around Washington, D.C., and I am sure there are a lot of skeletons in the closet in Washington, D.C., that many politicians don’t ever want to see the light of day. So when someone is actually held accountable or not held accountable, there are probably more reasons behind it than we will ever know. However, recently it seems as if a lot of chickens are coming home to roost.

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

A third IRS official confirmed that Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss faced roadblocks when attempting to bring charges against Hunter Biden, contradicting denials issued Wednesday by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

IRS Director of Field Operations Michael Batdorf told the House Ways and Means Committee in a closed-door interview on Sept. 12 that he felt “frustrated” by the refusal of the Justice Department to approve tax charges that IRS agents viewed as well-supported by evidence, according to a transcript of the interview obtained by the Washington Examiner.

He also said the IRS removed agent Gary Shapley, a whistleblower, from the Hunter Biden case at the direction of Weiss despite having done nothing wrong.

Batdorf’s testimony was the latest piece of evidence to suggest Weiss did not enjoy the unfettered authority to pursue Hunter Biden that Garland and others claimed he had.

In July, The Federalist reported:

Shapley said U.S. Delaware Attorney David Weiss waited out the statute of limitations related to 2014-2015 financial crimes allowing the president’s son to evade additional charges. In June, news broke of a plea deal struck between Weiss and Hunter Biden limited to two misdemeanor tax crimes and a single felony charge over illegal firearm possession. The latter is forgiven after 24 months of sobriety, an agreement placed in jeopardy if the mysterious White House cocaine was linked to the first family’s son, who wrote a book on his struggle with drug addiction.

“In November of 2022, the statute of limitations was set to expire for the 2014 and 2015 charges in D.C., which included the 2014 felonies for the attempt to evade or defeat tax and fraud or false statement regarding Burisma income earned by Hunter Biden,” Shapley said.

Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukrainian energy company raking in excess compensation despite having no prior experience in the industry.

“The statute of limitations had been extended through a tolling agreement with Hunter Biden’s defense counsel, and they were willing to extend it past 2022. Weiss allowed those to expire,” said Shapley.

It would be nice if Hunter Biden and those who let the statute of limitations run out on Hunter Biden’s crimes were held accountable for their actions.

The Real Data vs. What We Have Been Told

Posted on by

On Monday, The Washington Examiner posted the following headline:

If economic growth seems too good to be true, that’s because it is

I would revise that headline slightly to “If economic growth is so good, why do people seem to be struggling financially?”

The article reports:

Perhaps the most notorious example this year has been the jobs numbers published by the Biden administration. Consider the newly released August jobs report. While the economy added 187,000 jobs last month, previous months were revised down by 110,000 jobs. That means 59% of the employment growth last month was jobs we thought we already had.

In fact, every monthly employment report this year has been revised down, meaning the economy has been adding fewer jobs than initially believed. Worse, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published its semiannual benchmark revisions showing jobs were overestimated by more than 300,000.

Between the downward adjustments for the monthly data and the semiannual benchmark, the number of jobs has been revised down by almost 700,000. That’s 30% of the jobs initially estimated to have been added this year. Adding insult to injury, government jobs were revised upward with the semiannual benchmark.

To be clear, jobs data are normally revised, and occasionally, several months in a row will be revised in the same direction, sometimes heavily. But this year stands out because so many of the statistics have consistently turned out to be worse than initially estimated.

Other labor market indicators have followed this pattern. The number of job openings, a proxy for labor demand, has not only fallen over the last several months but previous levels were also revised down. The latest estimate shows job openings are now 2 million below the initial figure for the start of the year.

And the problem goes beyond the labor sector to the general economy. The revised estimate for gross domestic product in the second quarter of the year removed an eighth of the previously estimated growth, falling from 2.4% to 2.1%. Investment and business income, in particular, are in bad shape.

The media in America has brought us to the point where we have a choice either to believe what we see or what we are being told. We are told that Bidenomics is working and that we are all better off under President Biden. What we see tells a different story. It is our choice as to whether or not we believe our eyes or what we are being told.

Bidennomics At Work

Posted on by

On September 12, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

Median household incomes peaked at $78,250 in 2019, the year before the pandemic. They declined in 2022 to $74,580, a year that saw inflation soar, undercutting household purchasing power.

“Despite nominal gains, historically high inflation resulted in a decline in real median household income,” said Liana Fox, assistant division chief for economic characteristics in the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division.

That’s about a $300 a month decrease.

The article continues:

The figures released on Tuesday showed that poverty was flat, with about 11.5% of the population, or 38 million people, below the poverty line, which was $29,678 for a family of four.

The bureau also reported a jump in child poverty by one metric, the supplemental poverty measure, or SPM, from 5.2% to 12.4%. The increase was attributable in large part to the expiration of the temporary expanded child tax credit implemented by Democrats and President Joe Biden as a form of pandemic relief. The SPM, unlike the official poverty measure, includes tax credits in calculating household resources.

The question that needs to be asked in next year’s election is, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

Who Wins Under Bidenomics?

Posted on by

On Saturday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about Bidenomics, the name given to the Biden administration’s economic programs.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden announced $12 billion in corporate welfare to U.S. automakers and their suppliers this week to subsidize a transition from gasoline-powered cars to electric cars.

This should be understood as part of the long-term effort to ban gasoline-powered cars while insisting that they are not banning gasoline-powered cars.

Check out this paragraph in this CNN article on the subsidies: “The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported last year that aggressive, pollution-slashing changes in the global transportation sector — including the transition to EVs — could reduce the sector’s emissions by more than 80%.” The New York Times likewise writes in its article on this $12 billion in handouts: “Transportation is responsible for about one-third of the greenhouse gases generated by the United States, pollution that is dangerously heating the planet.”

But more interesting than the climate angle here is the redistribution angle. Biden administration officials present this corporate welfare as a way to help auto workers.

The article notes:

“Under Bidenomics, building a clean energy economy can and should provide a win‑win opportunity for auto companies and unionized workers who have anchored the American economy for decades.”

This is literally trickle-down economics. Biden gives billions to big business in the hope that big business will pass the money on to workers. The irony is that Biden always pretends to hate “trickle-down economics” and claims that Bidenomics is the alternative.

“Here’s the simple truth about trickle-down economics,” Biden said this summer: “It didn’t represent the best of American capitalism, let alone America.”

This is totally empty rhetoric, as Biden’s $12 billion corporate welfare to automakers shows.

Actually, Bidenomics is simply a plan to raid the American treasury, bankrupt the country and force everyone into a government-controlled crypto-currency. The only way to recover the American economy is to lower taxes on people and corporations, reduce regulation, and decrease government. The chances of that happening under a Democrat administration are non-existent.

The War On Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Posted on by

On Friday, The Washington Examiner reported that Judge Iain Johnston issued a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of Illinois‘s new law targeting crisis pregnancy centers.

The article reports:

Judge Iain Johnston issued the preliminary injunction without comment after the group filed suit against the legislation, arguing that enforcing the “vague and overbroad speech regulations undermines [NIFLA] ability to advocate their faith-based position” and freedom of association.

Glessner said that the injunction is “also a big win for pro-life pregnancy centers whose First Amendment rights have been blatantly attacked by the state of Illinois who want to force them to go against their deeply held beliefs that women deserve better than abortion.”

The article concludes:

Planned Parenthood Illinois Action praised the passage of the law last week, calling the bill “a crucial step towards safeguarding bodily autonomy and reproductive health care.”

Repro Transparency Now, a nonprofit group with the mission of eliminating crisis pregnancy centers, was involved advocated for the legislation along with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and said upon its passage that “Illinois will play a historic role in the fight for bodily autonomy and holding anti-abortion [crisis pregnancy centers] accountable for their deception.”

Neither Planned Parenthood nor Repro Transparency Now has issued a comment on the preliminary injunction.

“Across the nation, pregnancy help ministries are being discriminated against by laws that target their life-
affirming work,” said Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, which is representing the National Institute of Family Life Advocates. “The injunction granted today sends a strong, clear message to the country that the First Amendment protects pro-life speech.”

There are a few problems with the statements made by the people supporting the elimination of crisis pregnancy centers. It’s not bodily autonomy when someone else’s body is involved. A baby has totally different DNA than its mother, and thus is a separate being. Killing your child is not reproductive health care–it is murder. Crisis pregnancy centers provide help and support for pregnant women in need. They provide diapers, baby clothes, formula, furniture, and other items to help with the financial challenges that having a child can create. The also provide encouragement and helpful information to help the pregnant woman move forward. Fighting to shut down crisis pregnancy centers shows a total disregard for the well being of women who choose to have their babies.

One Vote Makes A Difference

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the importance of one vote.

The article reports:

A new database created by the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows that one single vote has altered the outcome of hundreds of elections.

First, the fraud.

The Heritage Foundation has a unique Election  Fraud Database that provides a sampling of proven election crimes from across the country. So far, the Heritage database has found over 1,400 cases of proven election fraud , and new cases are constantly being added. You can search by state or type of election crime.

The documented cases include people voting for a deceased relative, voting in multiple states in the same election, casting fraudulent absentee ballots, and even foreign nationals casting ballots. There are many ways a person can engage in wrongdoing in connection with an election, hoping to affect its outcome. If you spend time perusing the data, it’s hard to argue credibly that fraud hasn’t had a role in American political history.

Remember, the Heritage database only includes cases that went to completed adjudication, such as a criminal conviction or finding of civil liability. It doesn’t document instances of fraud that were never reported by election officials to law enforcement or that were never pursued by prosecutors.

Part of the problem is that too many prosecutors don’t want to prosecute election fraud . There are numerous reasons why.

We saw this when we both worked in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice . With few exceptions, the attorneys we worked with were openly hostile toward prosecuting election fraud. Even raising the issue of election crimes was considered controversial and evidence of “discriminatory” conduct, because they falsely claimed any such prosecution is “voter suppression.” After all, The New York Times tells its loyal readers in the civil service that election fraud is a myth. Biased advocacy organizations that our colleagues admired, such as the Brennan Center, also told them that voter fraud  is a myth .

The article concludes:

The Public Interest Legal Foundation ’s Tied Election Database catalogs 589 elections that have ended in ties in the U.S. The vast majority of these elections were within the last 20 years, although this is by no means a complete or comprehensive list. This database just scratches the surface.

These tied elections illustrate that one vote, legal or illegal, can determine the winner of a race.

No one wants an illegal vote to stop the true will of the people from being heard on Election Day. We should all care whenever an election crime happens. It dilutes every single legal vote. And sometimes it can determine the winner of an election.

One illegal vote cast is too many. States must get serious about prosecuting election crimes. Otherwise, there is no deterrence to stop people from committing them.

This is a solvable problem. All we need is elected officials with the will to solve it.

More Fact Checkers

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about President Biden’s recent speech on Bidenomics.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden promised a “fundamental break” with “trickle-down economics” in a speech on Wednesday in which he relied on a number of misleading claims to make his point.

Touting “Bidenomics,” the White House’s name for its economic agenda heading into the 2024 race, Biden floated a plan that would involve spending more taxpayer money and boosting union labor.

Here is the fact check on that speech:

“My predecessor enacted the latest iteration of the failed theory. Tax cuts for the wealthy. It wasn’t paid for, and the estimated cost of his tax cut was $2 trillion.”

Former President Donald Trump‘s tax cuts did not benefit only the wealthy, and they didn’t cost the government nearly as much as critics claimed.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office actually said the government is expected to collect more revenue over the next decade than it had projected before the tax cuts were signed into law.

In fiscal 2018, the first year after Trump signed the tax cuts into law, the federal government actually collected slightly more revenue overall than it had the previous year.

We learned this during the Reagan administration–when you cut taxes, revenue goes up.

The article continues:

“Wind and solar are already significantly cheaper than coal and oil. You’re not going to see anybody building a new coal-fired plant in America — not just because I’d like to pass a law to say that; it’s too expensive.”

One key reason that renewable energy is now cheaper than traditional energy production is because the Biden administration has offered sweeping tax breaks and subsidies to green energy companies.

…“Today, inflation is less than half of what it was a year ago. And that inflation [was] caused by Russia and by the war in Ukraine and by what was going on.”

Inflation still remains significantly higher than before Biden took office, even if it has fallen from the heights of last year.

Before Biden took office, the consumer price index, a measure of inflation, rose 1.4% for 2020.

The CPI climbed 4.9% from April 2022 to April 2023, meaning prices this year are still rising far faster than before Biden’s inauguration.

While inflation was indeed worse last year, with prices jumping by 8.6% between May 2021 and May 2022, it remains a significant problem for many at nearly four times the level it was before Biden’s presidency.

…“When I took office, unemployment was over 6%. With the American Rescue Plan, we provided relief and support directly to working-class families. Our economy came roaring back. Unemployment dipped below 4% by the end of my first year in office.”

Like Biden’s claim about the number of jobs created, this statement is misleading because the unemployment rate was artificially high when he took office.

The unemployment rate had already begun to come down from its high of 14.8% in April 2020 by the time Biden took office.

Ending lockdowns and easing pandemic restrictions were the primary drivers of the unemployment rate’s fall, but Biden opposed both as a presidential candidate.

…“Just in my first two years in office, my team and I reduced the deficit by $1.7 trillion.” 

Biden has previously touted the deficit reduction that occurred on his watch, and it’s been misleading every time.

The national debt grew by $7.8 trillion during Trump’s four years in office.

But much of that occurred in 2020 as a result of emergency pandemic spending.

The deficit at the end of fiscal 2020 was more than triple what it was at the end of fiscal 2019, a result of the massive rescue packages Congress passed to blunt the effects of lockdowns.

…In fact, Biden has pushed for record levels of spending, and he asked Congress for relief funds in 2021 well in excess of what was needed at the time.

Please follow the link to the article for further details.

Are There Benefits To Being An American Citizen?

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the challenges facing Chicago as a sanctuary city.

The article reports:

Since last year, upwards of 10,000 immigrants have arrived in Chicago, most of them bused there by Texas officials through no choice of their own. This has presented a challenge for Chicago, which has made itself a “sanctuary city.”

Wednesday night, in order to deal with the influx, the Chicago City Council voted 34-13 to approve $51 million for immigrant housing. But this was no long-term fix; rather, that funding is only expected to last the city through the end of June. Since January, the city has spent over $100 million on the immigrant crisis.

And not everybody in the city was happy about the decision. At the meeting, longtime Chicago residents voiced their opposition to the funding. Fox Chicago reported, “Several groups in Chicago are asking how the city can suddenly come up with millions of dollars for new visitors, while local communities remain neglected.” Multiple people had to be escorted out of the meeting for their vocal opposition, and Mayor Brandon Johnson had to restore order after it became too raucous.

The sentiment behind the opposition makes sense. Chicago is a city that already has a million different problems. In 2022, crime spiked by 41%, and although shootings have actually slightly dropped in recent years, Chicago is still one of the top 10 cities when it comes to murders per capita. Just last weekend, 60 people were shot, and 12 were killed in holiday violence. There is also a significant homelessness problem, and dozens of schools in Chicago report zero students proficient in math or reading. Businesses are leaving the city at an alarming rate, all while it looks like taxes are about to become even more burdensome in order to raise additional revenue. In other words, Chicago is a complete mess right now.

The money is going to be spent on people who are here illegally. Why are we not shipping them back to their home countries or demanding that their home countries pay part of the bill? How much foreign aid are we giving their home countries as we pay to take care of their citizens? I don’t mind helping people, but why are we putting the welfare of people who are here illegally above the welfare of people who are legitimate citizens?

What An Incredible Coincidence

Posted on by

On Thursday, Breitbart posted the following headline:

Report: Signatories of Spy Letter Have Scored ‘Numerous’ Biden White House Visits

The article reports:

At least 11 of the signatories on the spy letter discrediting the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation have scored “numerous visits” to the Biden White House, according to a report.

The Washington Examiner reported Wednesday that between October 2021 and January 2023, at least 11 of the letter signers visited the White House a total of 24 times, according to visitor logs.

It’s good to have access to the President!

The article continues:

“Everyone who signed that letter had something to gain,” a former top White House official under both Joe Biden and Trump told the outlet. “They’ve washed themselves with the ability to say they were nonpartisan.”

The signatories who visited the White House since Biden took over include James Clapper, John Brennan, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, Marc Polymeropoulos, Nick Shapiro, Paul Kolbe, Russ Travers, David Buckley, Nick Rasmussen, and Glenn Gerstell.

The Functional Government Initiative, a “right-leaning watchdog,” told the Washington Examiner it was fair for the public to scrutinize any “continued contact” between the Biden administration and laptop letter signers, particularly because of the political nature of their actions and the baselessness of the letter, which suggested the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation.

The article concludes:

The former White House official said the visitor’s logs may only show a snippet of how visitors actually spent their time inside the White House. “These people are seasoned D.C. intelligence players,” the former official said. “They know how to navigate the White House quite well.”

After a while you begin to wonder why so many of the Washington insiders are working so hard to keep President Trump from returning to office.

 

Protecting America’s Farmland

Posted on by

On April 25th, The Washington Examiner posted an article about China’s continuing purchase of American farmland–particularly near American military bases. Even on the surface that sounds questionable.

The article reports:

A spy balloon floated over most of the continental United States. A Chinese government-linked corporation purchased a plot of land near a sensitive military base.

The recent brushes with China have crystallized a challenge for lawmakers and defense experts that has long sat in the shadows — Beijing’s steadily increasing share of U.S. land poses a serious “national security threat.”

On April 25th, Houston Public Media reported:

Senate Bill 147 was approved by Texas lawmakers Tuesday afternoon. The legislation is a watered-down version of the original proposal, which would have banned citizens of China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from buying land and homes in Texas.

…The new version would ban governmental entities, along with companies headquartered in one of the countries listed on the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community put out by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, from buying “real property” in Texas.

That list only names China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Were the bill to become law, citizens of the four countries who are not lawful residents, dual citizens or people seeking asylum would be able to buy homes in Texas. However, they would only be able to buy up to 20 acres of land.

The bill clarifies that “real property” means “agricultural land, an improvement located on agricultural land, a mine or quarry, a mineral in place, or a standing timber.”

The article at Houston Public Media also notes:

The measure needs to clear one more procedural vote before it’s sent to the Texas House for consideration.

According to the Associated Press, the legislation comes two years after the Texas Legislature passed a bill banning deals on infrastructure with countries like China.

It also comes after news reports of a Chinese real estate billionaire purchasing land for a wind farm in Val Verde County, the home of Laughlin Air Force Base.

The billionaire is a veteran of the People’s Liberation Army, and has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Forbes reported in 2021.

Please follow the link above to The Washington Examiner article. It further explains the reason more states need to follow the example of Texas.

Whose Children Are They?

Posted on by

My heart goes out to parents trying to raise children in today’s culture. Back in the age of dinosaurs when I was a teenager, it was much simpler. There were gay children then, but transgender was not yet on the radar. I will also admit that there was bullying although not to the degree that it seems to happen now. Also, we are more aware of it now because of the media, so there may or may not be an increase. At any rate, when you walked through your front door, the bullying ended–there were no cell phones, chat rooms, etc. Basically for many of us in the 60’s, it was a live and let-live culture. Our parents were in charge and guided us according to their beliefs, and generally speaking, we accepted their guidance. The government was not involved unless there was actual child abuse going on. My, how things have changed.

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

Legislators in California are considering a bill that would allow state officials to separate children from their families without letting the parents know until after the fact.

Government authorities could do this for children who struggle with gender identity problems but whose parents are not being “ affirming ” of their new identification as the opposite sex, or as nonbinary, gender fluid, pansexual, or one of the other made-up genders or sexual orientations.

Not allowing your child to permanently mutilate his or her body is not abuse and should not be subject to government oversight. Parents have the right to discourage their children from taking drastic chemical and surgical measures to change their biological sex. Parents have the right and responsibility to seek psychiatric help for children suffering from gender dysphoria. The state should have no role to play in these situations.

The article concludes:

So then the fair question is, why does he want parents cut out of the picture? Children who are the victims of abuse can already access regular anxiety or depression counseling.

This is clearly about making sure children confused about their gender can be transitioned and affirmed in their delusions without their parents’ knowledge. In fact, it sounds similar to the plans by a Virginia LGBT group called the Pride Liberation Project to help gay youth get a new home with gay couples if their parents are not on board with their same-sex attraction and choices.

Children who are legitimate victims of abuse already have avenues to report their parents and seek real counseling and assistance. This bill severs the important ties between parents and children and aims to impose Wiener’s value system onto all families instead of letting the actual parents make the best moral and legal decisions to help their children.

Keep you hands off of our children!

First Our Gas Stoves, Now Our Light Bulbs

Posted on by

Somehow I don’t believe that our Founding Fathers even intended to have the government tell us what kind of stoves we could cook on or what kind of light bulbs we could use. They never dreamed that Americans would tolerate the amount of government overreach we currently tolerate.

On Tuesday, The Washington Examiner reported:

Is there any better way of showing how out of touch you’ve become with your own country than turning the screw on average citizens who are already struggling to afford to feed their families by forcing them to buy … expensive lightbulbs?

This is the Biden administration’s latest act of environmentalist genius: ban incandescent lightbulbs and force people to use only LED bulbs.

The Department of Energy finalized these plans back in April 2022, and full enforcement will begin on Aug. 1, 2023. From that date onward, you’ll be using LED lightbulbs whether you want to or not and whether you can afford them or not; LED bulbs are up to three times more expensive than other soon-to-be-illegal options.

Last year, the Department of Energy, headed by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, celebrated this legislative agenda with every green buzzword imaginable.

The article notes the savings claimed by the Biden administration:

“Once these light bulb rules are in place, DOE expects consumers to save nearly $3 billion per year on their utility bills,” the Department of Energy said . “In addition to delivering significant cost savings for households, schools, and businesses, these energy efficiency actions also advance President Biden’s climate goals. Over the next 30 years, the rules are projected to cut carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons — an amount equivalent to the emissions generated by 28 million homes in one year.”

But the article fails to mention:

With more than 140 million customers in the electric utility industry, the collective $3 billion of so-called savings amounts to … $21.43 per customer, per year.

…Banning bulbs is just one part of 100 other acts of government overreach that will (supposedly) save families $100 every year. Excuse me if I don’t shriek with gratitude as President Joe Biden “saves” us a few dollars every year while he continues to fuel inflation, which has caused energy prices alone to skyrocket by almost 40% since his first day in office.

This talk of “savings” comes straight from the same deceitful logic used by Biden when he claimed to have lowered inflation. Instead, inflation was going up, but not as quickly. That’s like declaring yourself a firefighting hero after setting your neighbor’s house on fire because the flames aren’t spreading as fast as before.

But the cherry on this particular cake? Those who will suffer most are those who always suffer most: poorer people already brought to their knees by Biden’s economic agenda.

Hold on to your wallets, I suspect that this is only the beginning.

Controlling The Evidence In A Trial

Posted on by

On March 4th, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

A federal judge denied a request from a Jan. 6 defendant to access additional Capitol surveillance tapes recently made available by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in an effort to delay her trial and gather more evidence.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg denied the request from Jan. 6 defendant Sara Carpenter on Friday, ruling her legal team failed to explain how the supplemental footage of her actions inside the Capitol building would be necessary in her case. Carpenter faces a number of charges for her participation in the Capitol riot, including disorderly conduct and obstruction of an official proceeding.

…Boasberg’s decision is the latest in the saga surrounding the Capitol riot tapes, particularly after McCarthy granted a trove of surveillance footage to Fox News host Tucker Carlson last month. News of the decision prompted an outcry among congressional Democrats, with several calling the move dangerous to national security.

McCarthy has repeatedly defended his decision to release footage to Carlson, noting the exchange fulfills a pledge he made during his bid for House speaker. He also argued the release was important to ensure a transparent investigation into the Capitol riot.

McCarthy also indicated he’d make the tapes more widely available once Carlson’s crew is done sifting through them, and several Jan. 6 defendants said they plan to access the materials.

The article concludes:

Prosecutors are required to provide defendants with any exculpatory evidence they may use in their trials, posing a significant challenge for cases related to the Jan. 6 riot that includes thousands of hours of footage obtained by surveillance cameras, police bodycams, journalists, and the rioters themselves.

Carpenter’s attorneys argued the new tapes made available by McCarthy would help provide additional context in their case, but Boasberg ultimately ruled any missing footage would be “minimal.”

I hope the attorneys for Sara Carpenter demand a mistrial. It seems to me that all possible evidence needs to be seen. If the evidence was on the side of the prosecution, would the judge admit it?

Will There Ever Be An Apology?

Posted on by

I really like Rand Paul. He is not afraid to say what he believes is truth regardless of the pushback. He was one of the more rational voices during the Covid pandemic and was ridiculed for the things he said (things that later turned out to be true). Will the Democrats and tech companies who maligned him ever apologize? Probably not.

The Washington Examiner posted an article on March 1st about Rand Paul and the information he provided on Covid during the pandemic.

The article reports:

The U.S. Energy Department and the FBI now agree that a lab leak is probably to blame for the spread of the COVID-19 virus, according to reports. The disclosure was made in “low confidence” earlier this week after the department received new intelligence on the matter, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The Energy Department oversees 17 national labs and research centers and was investigating the pandemic’s origins. Meanwhile, the Energy Department’s admission was just the latest in a recent string of evidence vindicating Paul. A new study released this month revealed that immunity from a natural COVID infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than receiving the vaccine. Paul said this last year but was dismissed by many on the Left as spreading misinformation.

The article concludes:

Paul was heavily criticized by those on the Left for saying the same thing the Energy Department just now concluded. He was censored by Big Tech and vilified by Democratic politicians who claimed Paul’s now-vindicated assertions were detrimental to the country. But it was Big Tech and the Democrats who were harming the country, not the Kentucky Republican.

“Trust the science” evolved into “trust the tyrants,” and the Left sought total compliance to its authoritarianism during the pandemic. Anyone objecting, such as Paul, was vilified as an ignorant conspiracy theorist and, in some cases, accomplice to murder. What happened to Paul should serve as a warning of left-wing, Democratic totalitarianism and why they can never be trusted to regulate speech or information. Liberals, Democrats, the Left, and Big Tech all owe Rand Paul an apology. Will they ever do so?

Will the political left ever be held accountable for their lies?

 

Can The Economy Prosper When Taxes Are High?

Posted on by

On Monday, The Washington Examiner posted an article with the following headline:

Debunking the myth that the US once prospered despite extremely high taxes

The article explains how the tax system in the 1960’s was very different from the tax system today:

Left-wing politicians who demand higher taxes on the rich argue that the U.S. had previously prospered when tax rates were very high, proving that high taxes do not harm the economy. And it is true: In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top federal personal income tax rate in the U.S. was a horrendous 91%, after which it was lowered to 70%. Under former President Ronald Reagan, it was then successively reduced to 28% by 1988 (before being raised several times and then lowered again under former President Donald Trump).

However, as Phil Gramm, Robert Ekelund, and John Early show in their book The Myth of American Inequality, “The top income tax in 1962 was 91 percent. After deductions and credits, only 447 tax filers out of 71 million paid any taxes at the top rate. The top 1 percent of income earners on average paid 16.1 percent of their income in federal and payroll taxes while the top 10 percent paid 14.4 percent and the bottom 50 percent paid 7.0 percent.”

Even when the top tax rate was lowered to 70%, not much changed. Only 3,626 out of 75 million taxpayers actually paid taxes up to 70%. Interestingly, the actual percentage paid by the top 1% of earners in the U.S. was only 16.1% in 1962, when the top marginal rate was 91%. However, in 1988, when the top rate was only 28%, the percentage paid by the top 1% of earners had risen to 21.5%! As the top tax rate fell by two-thirds, the percentage of their income that the top 1% of tax filers paid in federal income and payroll taxes rose by a third.

The article concludes:

This growth was a direct consequence of Reagan’s deregulation and tax reform policies in conjunction with falling oil prices. The growth rate in the 1980s was higher than in the 1950s and 1970s, though substantially below the growth rate of 5% following John F. Kennedy’s 1964 tax rate cuts of 30%.

This growth, along with the elimination of numerous deductions and exemptions, led to a sharp increase in tax revenues. Exactly what Reagan had predicted now came to pass: At a press conference in October 1981, Regan quoted the 14th-century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldūn’s foreshadowing of the Laffer Curve theory, as this effect is called in economic jargon: “In the beginning of the dynasty, great tax revenues were gained from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, small tax revenues were gained from large assessments.” Reagan added: “And we’re trying to get down to the small assessments and the great revenues.”

So the myth that the U.S. experienced strong economic growth when the top marginal tax rate was high is false. In fact, the top marginal tax rate was only nominally high because there were so many exemptions, loopholes, and deductions.

Higher taxes slow economic growth. The Laffer Curve is real.

Misplaced Blame From The Mainstream Media

Posted on by

The Democrats have reached the point where if President Biden trips going up the stairs on Air Force One, it’s President Trump’s fault. He obviously made the steps too high. We are seeing this dynamic at work in the aftermath of the train disaster in Ohio. Not only has the Biden administration been slow to respond, some Democrats and media are blaming President Trump for the crash. The fact that up until January, the Democrats for two years controlled Congress and the Presidency does not seem to play into their thought process. Anyway, The Washington Examiner posted an article on Saturday that provides clarification on what is being said.

The article reports:

Facts are stubborn things. So, the best way for Democrats to push a good partisan narrative is to ignore them entirely.

That’s what many on the Left are doing right now in the aftermath of a disastrous train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. They’re attempting to pin the blame for the ensuing chemical disaster on former President Donald Trump and “deregulation” more broadly, arguing that the Trump administration repealed an Obama-era safety rule that could’ve prevented this tragic accident.

…Progressive voices ranging from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and the White House to the popular “Pod Save America” hosts and huge liberal social media pages such as Occupy Democrats have made this accusation or insinuation.

…There’s just one problem: It’s complete nonsense. We can debate the pros and cons of that regulation, but it has nothing to do with the current controversy. As a simple matter of fact, it would not have applied to the train that derailed in East Palestine.

You don’t have to take my word for it; take it from the New York Times, hardly a pro-Trump or anti-regulation source.

This is the major quote from the article:

“Since the Feb. 3 derailment in Ohio, some lawmakers and activists have pointed to a 2015 safety regulation adopted by the Obama administration as an example of the changes that they say are needed to make railroads safer. … But after lobbying by the railroad industry, the Trump administration repealed the rule in 2018,” the New York Times reports . Yet it goes on to admit that: “Had the rule remained in effect, it would not have applied to the Norfolk Southern train that derailed in East Palestine.”

The New York Times’s source for this is Jennifer Homendy, a Democrat and head of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Please follow the link above to read the rest of the article. It is quite possible that some regulations need to be looked at in an effort to prevent another ecological disaster like the one that occurred in Ohio, but no regulations impacting the train involved have been changed.

Is Anyone Surprised?

Posted on by

Stacey Abrams has turned losing an election into a profitable venture. When she is not writing steamy romance novels, she is generally creating havoc in the State of Georgia.

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported:

Experts are calling for an investigation into a Stacey Abrams-founded charity over a large financial discrepancy.

The New Georgia Project, a minority-focused democracy advocacy group founded in 2013, was run by Nse Ufot, hand-picked by Abrams, until she was fired in October. The group filed its 2021 Form 990 financial disclosure three months later, when the form was two months overdue, an investigation by the Washington Free Beacon found. The group reported a $533,846 consulting payment and $67,500 grant to an obscure charity called the Black Male Initiative, run by Ufot’s brother. However, the group claims it never received any such payment.

The group provided its Internal Revenue Service filings to the outlet, which show $0 in consulting fees and just $255,000 from all sources.

The article concludes:

“New Georgia Project’s recent tax returns leave so many questions, it’s difficult to know where to even begin trying to understand these important documents,” Caitlin Sutherland, the executive director of the charity watchdog Americans for Public Trust, told the outlet. “Filing a fraudulent return with the IRS carries hefty penalties, and any evidence of financial malfeasance should be taken seriously.”

The New Georgia Project has played a leading role in Abrams’s attempts to turn Georgia blue by mobilizing minority voters.

“New Georgia Project is a nonpartisan effort to register, civically engage, and build power with the New Georgia Majority — the large and growing population of Black, brown, young, and other historically marginalized voters in the Peach State,” its website reads.

The New Georgia Project has a noble cause. Voter registration is important. I might emphasize that working to register all voters is a good idea. I wonder if they are registering voters in both Republican and Democrat areas.

A wise man once said, ” Be careful what charities you give your money to.” I suspect in the case of the New Georgia Project that is good advice.

When The Chickens Come Home To Roost

Posted on by

When the chickens come home to roost, deny, deny, deny. That is how James Clapper is handling the charges that the letter signed by 51 retired intelligence community leaders influenced the election.

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

In case anyone is wondering who was responsible for the idea that the Hunter Biden laptop story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assures us it was not the 51 retired intelligence community leaders who penned the letter which said it was. Instead, it was the media who mischaracterized their words.

Clapper’s signature topped the list of prominent former government officials willing to stake their reputations on the infamous letter that was written to sow doubt about a story that, if it had not been suppressed, could arguably have changed the result of the 2020 presidential election.

One of the major problems with that statement is that in August on 2017, James Clapper was hired by CNN as a national security analyst. He was the media he is accusing of mischaracterizing his words.

The article notes:

Specifically, Clapper, who is best known for lying to Congress in 2013 about the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ telephone records and for his role in perpetuating the Russian collusion hoax, blamed Politico for “deliberately distorting” their letter in an October 2020 piece titled , “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

“There was message distortion. All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation,” Clapper told Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler. “Politico deliberately distorted what we said. It was clear in paragraph five.”

Paragraph five is indeed a disclaimer. It states : “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

But if Clapper felt the letter had been deliberately distorted, he certainly had ample opportunity to clear things up. After leaving office at the end of the Obama administration, Clapper became a political analyst for CNN, giving him a major media platform from which to do so. Yet he remained silent — even as leftist pundits and congressional Democrats spread the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story had been planted by Russia.

It’s amazing how many things go on in Washington that no one is responsible for. It’s like there are invisible people in that city that are there simply to create havoc!

Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant

Posted on by

On Monday, Hot Air reported that at least temporarily Microsoft has ‘suspended’ the use of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) as a result of The Washington Examiner’s exposing their blacklists.

The article reports:

It’s a win. It might only prove temporary, but it’s still a win for now.

Last week, the Washington Examiner’s Gabe Kaminsky exposed secret blacklists of conservative sites created by the “Global Disinformation Index.” Those blacklists included Hot Air, Townhall, RedState, and Twitchy, and lots of other conservative sites under the ambiguous guise of “disinformation.” No one from GDI or its sponsors ever bothered to contact us to discuss their “assessment,” nor did their reports ever cite any specific data for any of the sites blacklisted, despite a lengthy yet completely data-free discussion of their “methodology.”

…Several House Republicans demanded hearings on GDI in the immediate future. It will fit nicely into the GOP’s efforts to expose the political weaponization of government. It also comes at the same time that the Twitter Files and a lawsuit against Facebook have exposed government efforts to quash and silence dissent and debate on social media platforms. This takes that effort several steps further — attempting to strangle conservative voices even outside of the Big Tech platforms.

The article notes:

Once again, this is why we fight. We knew that we could not rely on Big Tech to provide us easy access to advertisers, but we didn’t know they’d adopt blacklists to cut us off entirely. Our members are what keep us going, and we appreciate them for standing up to the GDIs and the other McCarthyists.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. The only way to change things is to speak out.

Who Is Behind The Cancellation Of Conservative Thought

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the censorship of conservative ideas.

The article reports:

Well-funded “disinformation” tracking groups are part of a stealth operation blacklisting and trying to defund conservative media, likely costing the news companies large sums in advertising dollars, a Washington Examiner investigation found.

Major ad companies are increasingly seeking guidance from purportedly “nonpartisan” groups claiming to be detecting and fighting online “disinformation.” These same “disinformation” monitors are compiling secret website blacklists and feeding them to ad companies, with the aim of defunding and shutting down disfavored speech, according to sources familiar with the situation, public memos, and emails obtained by the Washington Examiner.

…The Global Disinformation Index, a British group with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups sharing similar board members, is one entity shaping the ad world behind the scenes. GDI’s CEO is Clare Melford, former senior vice president for MTV Networks, and its executive director is Daniel Rogers, a tech advisory board member for Human Rights First, a left-leaning nonprofit group that says disinformation fuels “violent extremism and public health crises.”

The article explains the financial aspect of this censorship:

“It’s devastating,” Mike Benz, the State Department’s ex-deputy assistant for internal communications and information policy, told the Washington Examiner. “The implementation of ad revenue crushing sentinels like Newsguard, Global Disinformation Index, and the like has completely crippled the potential of alternative news sources to compete on an even economic playing field with approved media outlets like CNN and the New York Times.”

GDI’s mission is to “remove the financial incentive” to create “disinformation,” and its “core output” is a secretive “dynamic exclusion list” that rates news outlets based on their alleged disinformation “risk” factor, according to its website. There are at least 2,000 websites on this exclusion list, which has “had a significant impact on the advertising revenue that has gone to those sites,” Melford said on a March 2022 podcast episode hosted by the Safety Tech Innovation Network, a British government-backed group.

Along with similar organizations, GDI has been raking in cash as funding pours into disinformation tracking. Its charity in San Antonio, Texas, posted $345,000 in revenue in 2020, while its affiliated private foundation saw its roughly $19,600 revenue jump in 2019 to over $569,000 in 2020, according to tax records.

This article at The Washington Examiner is the first in a series of article to be posted about the censorship of conservative views. Please follow the link above to read the entire article and look for more to come.

Common Sense Requests

Posted on by

Technically America won’t run out of money until June. That leaves a little bit of time to negotiate the debt ceiling. The Republican Study Committee has a few suggestions as to what is needed in order for Republicans to agree to raise the debt ceiling. As much as I hate to see the debt ceiling raised again, I like their suggestions.

The Washington Examiner posted an article listing their demands:

Here is the list:

The seven demands are quoted below:

    1. Reverse recent increases in overall discretionary spending and institute statutory limitations on annual discretionary spending levels.
    2. Enact a package of inflation-busting reforms to increase domestic energy capacity and reduce associated regulatory and permitting barriers.
    3. Fight inflation and the onset of a Democrat-induced recession by ending the national COVID-19 emergency, increasing workforce participation, advancing targeted, paid-for, pro-growth tax policies, and countering overregulation with common-sense guardrails like the REINS Act.
    4. Ensure an increase in the debt ceiling is accompanied by commensurate spending reductions, including through recissions of the Democrats’ recent excessive spending.
    5. Eliminate wasteful spending on duplicative programs, examine ways to fight waste, fraud and abuse, and transition non-entitlement mandatory programs to the discretionary side of the budget.
    6. Establish a long-term fiscal control focused on reducing spending to restrain the growth of our federal debt as a percentage of the nation’s economy.
    7. Codify procedures to ensure the federal government honors certain critical obligations, such as federal debt payments, national security and veterans, Social Security, and Medicare.

We need to get back to fiscal sanity. This would be one way to do it.

How Obamacare Works

Posted on by

Today, The Washington Examiner posted an article about Obamacare. Yes, it is still with us thanks to the duplicity of the Republican Congress.

This is the current status of Obamacare:

Americans have until Jan. 15 to secure healthcare coverage through the Obamacare exchanges. This year’s open enrollment period has resulted in more people signing up than ever before.

More than 11.5 million people have enrolled in the exchanges as of Dec. 15, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That’s an 18% increase from the same time last year. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra boasted that the “unprecedented results” were the result of “unprecedented investments” in the program. Those “investments” include billions of dollars worth of new subsidies that have lowered what people have to pay out of pocket for coverage. But those subsidies simply mask the underlying cost of coverage, which has been rising for years. Ultimately, future taxpayers will foot the bill.

As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, which was signed into law in March 2021, Democrats made Obamacare subsidies more generous and extended them to enrollees making more than 400% of the federal poverty level — about $111,000 for a family of four — for the first time. Those expanded subsidies were scheduled to sunset at the end of 2022, but the Inflation Reduction Act extended them until Dec. 31, 2025. Last year alone, these more generous subsidies cost taxpayers $30 billion — about 50% more than the Congressional Budget Office originally estimated.

The article concludes:

In other words, the “unprecedented” number of signups during this open enrollment period isn’t a function of the affordability or quality of Obamacare plans. It’s a function of Democrats paying just about anyone to sign up.

Obamacare was the Democrats’ step toward socialized medicine. Socialized medicine results in poor care and long waits. Many Americans understand that and would not support a transition to socialized medicine, thus, Obamacare. We need enough people in Congress who care about the American people and their medical care to get rid of this abomination. That will probably take at least one more election.

The Wrong Incentives

Posted on by

On December 22, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the impact America’s current welfare policies are having on unemployment and on our economy.

The article reports:

A massive labor shortage continues to hamstring the economy, with millions more empty jobs than unemployed job-seekers. All the while, millions of people remain on the sidelines, with the labor force participation rate significantly below the pre-pandemic norm. Why are so many potential workers sitting idle while jobs need to be filled?

Well, the astoundingly bloated nature of America’s welfare state offers one explanation, according to a new study . Conservative economists Stephen Moore, E.J. Antoni, and Casey Mulligan of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity analyzed what a typical four-person family, with two nonworking adults, could receive in welfare benefits, including both unemployment and healthcare subsidies, across the 50 states.

They found that in three states, Washington, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, this typical family can earn the equivalent of more than $100,000 annually without working, thanks to various government programs.

Meanwhile, in 14 states the benefits are equivalent to an $80,000 annual salary or more. In these states, welfare pays better than the typical job of a secondary school teacher or electrician, according to the study. In 24 states, languishing on welfare pays better than the typical salary earned by a firefighter, truck driver, or machinist.

Why would you bother to go to work when you could actually make more money staying home and doing nothing?

The article reaches the only logical conclusion:

“A key policy question these days that has befuddled federal lawmakers is why so many millions of Americans have not returned to the workplace in the post-Covid era,” the study’s authors conclude. “The U.S. is ‘missing’ more than three million workers of working age that could be working and were working prior to Covid but are not today. This study shows that one factor contributing to the dearth of workers is the generous benefits paid to families without workers.”

The takeaway here is clear. If we want our economy to recover fully from the COVID-19 pandemic and get roaring again, we have to reform our social spending programs so that we once again incentivize work, not welfare.

Refusing To Let The Newly-Elected Congress Do Their Job

Posted on by

According to the U.S. Constitution, spending bills initiate in the U.S. House of Representatives. There is a specific budget process (that has been ignored since 2007) that is supposed to be followed. There is also a new Republican majority  in the House of Representatives that will be seated in January. Theoretically, they would be the ones to set the budget for the coming fiscal year. They were elected in the hope that they would put the brakes on the runaway spending of the Biden administration. That’s one of many reasons Republicans won the House. Republicans did not take the Senate. One of the reasons for that may be found in the actions of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Aside from directing funding away from candidates who might not have supported him, his voting record is questionable at best. Right now he is part of a group of Senators working to pass a spending bill that will usurp the power of the incoming House of Representatives.

On Tuesday morning, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is threatening to tank the legislation of Senate Republicans who back the omnibus spending bill being considered this week, setting up a showdown with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Bills from Republican senators, including McConnell himself, will be “dead on arrival” in the House under his speakership, McCarthy warned, throwing his weight behind a letter signed by 13 Republicans in the House vowing to whip against legislation from lawmakers who cast a “yes” vote later this week on the spending bill.

I totally support Representative McCarthy on this move.

The article continues:

McCarthy has publicly pressed McConnell to change course on the omnibus, but a conservative flank in the House wants McCarthy to go further and “declare war” on McConnell-backed bills if he votes for the $1.7 trillion spending bill. McCarthy is currently seeking to court a handful of defections within his conference that threaten to derail his speakership bid, given the narrow 222-seat majority House Republicans will have in January.

The group of 13 congressmen is demanding the Senate “refrain from entertaining any spending bill that extends beyond the first few months” of the new year so that the GOP can negotiate a budget when it has control of the lower chamber.

“We are obliged to inform you that if any omnibus passes in the remaining days of this Congress, we will oppose and whip opposition to any legislative priority of those senators who vote for this bill — including the Republican leader,” the Monday letter sent to GOP senators said.

“Senate Republicans have the 41 votes necessary to stop this and should do so now and show the Americans who elected you that they weren’t wrong in doing so,” the letter continued. “This slated omnibus spending bill is an indefensible assault on the American people. It is an assault on the separation of powers. It is an assault on fiscal responsibility. It is an assault on basic civic decency.”

If this bill is not stopped, then there is no reason to vote for a Republican. They are as tone-deaf to the wishes of the American people as the Democrats.