Six Ways Dems Reward Special Interests in Socialist Spending Bill

The Democrats’ $1.75 trillion tax and spending bill is filled with special interest giveaways to trial lawyers, union bosses, wealthy blue-state taxpayers and even reporters.
Aside from being a blatant giveaway to favored political interests, this is an effort for the Left to utilize the tax code for social engineering and to push woke policies. Here are six ways Democrats are using the tax code to reward special interests:
1. Giveaways to the News Media 
The bill provides a $1.6 billion tax giveaway to media companies of all sizes.

Read original

COP OUT 26

Emma CookEmma Cook is an editorial cartoonist for The Dominion Post in Aotearoa New Zealand. Her work is published widely throughout Aotearoa for Stuff Ltd. (https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/109548012/emma-cook-cartoons) and their subsidiary newspapers.”
Rob RogersRob Rogers is an award-winning, nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist, lately of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, where he was fired for mocking Donald Trump.
Matt WuerkerMatt Wuerker is the staff cartoonist for Politico.

Read original

“Activism” Isn’t a Coherent Ideology

When CBS announced The Activist, many lambasted the depraved concept: a game show where contestants compete in “media stunts, digital campaigns and community events aimed at garnering the attention of the world’s most powerful decision-makers,” such as celebrity judge Usher. Stung by backlash, CBS reformatted to minimize the competitive element. What remains, though, is its vision of “activism” as a career path and personal brand, whose purpose is to become famous enough to convince powerful people to agree with you.
We can’t blame CBS too much.

Read original

How the media covers up for the Pentagon’s highway robbery

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III briefs the press from the Pentagon Briefing Room in Washington, D.C. on February 19, 2021, Wikimedia Commons

Intense debate over the Build Back Better (BBB) legislation has triggered stern lectures by fiscal conservatives about government spending. The legislation, which hangs in the political balance between progressive lawmakers and conservative Democrats like Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, costs $1.75 trillion over 10 years in its present form, which is equivalent to $175 billion per year.

Read original

When Denver Lost Its Mind Over Youth Crime

Sharletta Evans lost her three-year-old son in a hail of bullets one torturous December evening in 1995. The Colorado mother had pulled her car up in front of a northeast Denver house, intending to dash inside to pick up her niece’s baby girl, to bring her out of harm’s way. Gunfire on the street the night before had frightened everyone in the house.
On this night, a small, white car carrying three teenagers cruised to a stop in front of the house in Park Hill, on a block scarred by violence since the mid-1980s.

Read original

Harvey Milk destroyed PFC Oliver ‘Billy’ Sipple, the hero who saved a president

OPINION:
The U.S. Navy recently named USNS Harvey Milk after the ‘70s gay rights activist. Amid the current fetish of erasing heroes for blotches on their records, it begs the question: If we judge Washingtons and Jeffersons by their worst moments, why don’t we judge Mr. Milk by his?
He destroyed the hero who saved a U.S. president.
You may not know the name of left-wing radical Sara Jane Moore, but it would live in infamy alongside Booth, Guiteau, Czolgosz and Oswald if not for the quick reflexes of PFC Oliver “Billy” Sipple.

Read original

Is It Defamatory to Falsely Call Someone a Racist, White Supremacist, Socialist, or Communist?

A lot of derogatory, even unfairly derogatory, criticism is treated as pure opinion, and thus not legally actionable. For instance, claiming that someone’s appearance in some video (especially one that you link to) reflects a “smirk” (rather than a pained smile) and stems from racism, is likely to be seen as an opinion: A reasonable reader would understand it as the poster’s subjective judgment about the video subject’s motivations, and thus as speculation rather than an assertion about provable fact.

Read original

Is It Defamatory to Falsely Call Someone a Racist, White Supremacist, Socialist, or Communist?

A lot of derogatory, even unfairly derogatory, criticism is treated as pure opinion, and thus not legally actionable. For instance, claiming that someone’s appearance in some video (especially one that you link to) reflects a “smirk” (rather than a pained smile) and stems from racism, is likely to be seen as an opinion: A reasonable reader would understand it as the poster’s subjective judgment about the video subject’s motivations, and thus as speculation rather than an assertion about provable fact.

Read original