THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S BRIBES SUCKING KLEPTOCRACY
TWO LYING LAWYERS - BRIBES SUCKERS HILLARY & BILLARY, RAKING IT IN OFF THE BACKS OF THE POOR.
Clinton Foundation Exposed | Over 14 Billion Confiscated!
Watters' World' investigates Nancy Pelosi's financial dealings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M4QZJxb9D\
Nancy Pelosi, a horrid woman equally as without heart and soul, on Tuesday refused to have the names of the thirteen soldiers killed in Kabul read out on the floor of the House. That should permanently indict her for being the wicked witch she is. She is more devious, more calculating than the irresponsible Biden but every bit as beyond redemption as he is. She will do anything to try to convince the American people, for whom she has only contempt, that whatever she and her party do is righteous no matter how loathsome and totalitarian. PATRICIA McCARTHY
Stench of corruption: Nancy Pelosi buys Big Tech call options
Nancy Pelosi has grown very rich while in public office. She's amassed a reported $120 million fortune on a $223,500 annual congressional salary.
And like Hillary Clinton, she's an expert stock picker. In her case, she trades a lot on stocks of companies she writes the laws for, and somehow, it always seems to go her way.
Last year, her pick was Tesla. This year? All about Big Tech.
She's laying the money down. According to Mediaite:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) placed up to $3 million in bets this month on a handful of companies to succeed in 2022 — including Google, SalesForce, and Disney.
Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, put the money on call options in the four-day period from Dec. 17-21, according to disclosures made public on Thursday by the House Clerk. Their largest investment was for call options for SalesForce, valued at $500,000 to $1.250 million. The options came with a strike price of $210 on Jan. 20, 2023, compared to $65 as of Dec. 29. Google ranked as their second-highest investment, with $500,000-$1 million for calls at a strike price of $2,000 on Sept. 16, 2022, compared to $109 on Thursday.
Other investments included $250,000-$500,000 on call options for Micron Technology, at a strike price of $50 on Sept. 16, 2022; the same amount for calls on Roblox, at a price of $100 on Jan. 20, 2023; and $100,000-$250,000 for calls on Disney at $130 on Sept. 16, 2022.
The disclosures, which members of Congress are required to file, reveal monetary ranges for their investments, but not exact figures.
The Pelosis, both 81, have developed a reputation for prophetic ability when it comes to picking stocks. Their trades last made headlines in January, when they purchased between $500,000 and $1 million in call options in Tesla at a strike price of $500. That stock hit a new historical high last month in excess of $1,200.
To explain those options -- what she's betting is that a company like Google's stock price is going to rise and be at a certain level. When she buys an option, she's buying a derivative that gives her the right, but not obligation, to purchase that stock at a certain "strike price," meaning, she thinks everyone else is going to have to buy it at a higher price. That's where the money is to be made. In the case of Google, she's betting the price of a share of that company will be well above what it is now (currently at around $2,900 today) by the strike price date of Sept. 16, 2022. But she will have the right to buy it cheaper, which should be very profitable should she decide to sell it afterwards. For instance, and to take a hypothetical example, if the share price of Google goes up to $3,000, and she exercises her call option to buy her share at $2,000, well, she can then sell the share at a $1,000 profit, which is a nice piece of cake. The price of the call option is not the same as the price of the stock since it's a derivative of the stock. According to Investopedia:
The price difference between the underlying stock price and the strike price determines an option's value. For buyers of a call option, if the strike price is above the underlying stock price, the option is out of the money (OTM). In this case, the option doesn't have intrinsic value, but it may still have value based on volatility and time until expiration as either of these two factors could put the option in the money in the future. Conversely, If the underlying stock price is above the strike price, the option will have intrinsic value and be in the money.
And according to Mediaite:
Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, put the money on call options in the four-day period from Dec. 17-21, according to disclosures made public on Thursday by the House Clerk. Their largest investment was for call options for SalesForce, valued at $500,000 to $1.250 million. The options came with a strike price of $210 on Jan. 20, 2023, compared to $65 as of Dec. 29. Google ranked as their second-highest investment, with $500,000-$1 million for calls at a strike price of $2,000 on Sept. 16, 2022, compared to $109 on Thursday.
A $2,000 call, versus a previous $109 call price? She obviously thinks Google is in for some good times.
According to Mediaite, she's really good at this:
By some estimate, Pelosi and her husband made a 45.59 percent return on stocks last year, along with a 66.7 percent return on options trading.
Most fund managers would kill to make those kinds of returns. These are comparable the kinds of profits only art geniuses such as Hunter Biden can make on their 'output,' while real artists make quite a bit less.
See the problem?
And sure enough, the New York Post has reported that Pelosi herself is blocking legislation that would force Google and some of the other tech baronies to level their playing fields on commercial search results. The Post ran this on Nov. 4:
As a bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers mounts a battle to rein in Big Tech, some insiders say it faces a formidable and possibly surprising obstacle: Nancy Pelosi.
The 81-year-old Democratic House majority leader has made symbolic gestures to defy Silicon Valley such as refusing to take calls from Mark Zuckerberg and declaring 2019 that “the era of self-regulation is over.”
Nevertheless, insiders say she’s slow-walking legislation, including a so-called “non-discrimination bill” that would put a major dent in tech firms including Google and Amazon. The proposal would prohibit the practice of the companies giving their own products favorable treatment in search results.
The bill — sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) — was one of six that passed the House Judiciary Committee in June. A nearly-identical companion bill sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was introduced last month in the Senate and is gaining steam.
Which sounds a little funny, now that Pelosi is laying money down on where she thinks the price of Google's stock is going to be.
Pelosi herself has defended these smelly moves, the idea of congress members trading on stocks in industries they make laws for as the work of "free-market economy" (free for whom?) while the tech barons at Twitter have banned a popular Twitter page called Nancy Pelosi Portfolio Tracker, or @NancyTracker which must have bothered Pelosi mightily.
Now we see one last galloping call in favor of Big Tech, which she is all to willing to go to bat for in Congress, and given Big Tech's heavy-handed censorship and other manipulations of the 2020 U.S. election, she obviously owes political favors to.
See how this works? She ought to be forced by a bipartisan group of Squadsters and Republicans to hold a vote on the measure she's blocking this year. And come November, Republicans at the helm should put a stop to this kind of activity, and send in the special counsels to investigate these curious investing activities of Pelosi's. It ought to be Item A on the agenda.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S BRIBES SUCKING KLEPTOCRACY
Watters' World' investigates Nancy Pelosi's financial dealings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M4QZJxb9Dw
As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care.
THE BARONESS OF LA RAZA NANCY PELOSI AND HER TESLA STOCK CON
The president shared a clip Monday highlighting a CBS 60 Minutes report featuring author and Breitbart senior contributor Peter Schweizer’s investigation into Pelosi and her husband participating in at least eight different stock IPOs while in Congress.
Scarborough: Zuckerberg, Musk ‘Robber Barons’; Tax Cuts ‘Grotesque’
0 seconds of 1 minute, 59 secondsVolume 90%
16 Dec 20210
MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough blasted Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Tesla founder and space entrepreneur Elon Musk on Thursday.
Scarborough described the two tech giants as “robber barons.” He also lamented the tax cuts from the 1980s and 1990s, which he supported, as well as the GOP’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, arguing they “created the greatest income redistribution in the history of the planet.”
“I don’t know that anybody since John Rockefeller has had as unfeathered power as Mark Zuckerberg has right now where no one stands up to him inside his company, no one stands up to him on the board, no one stands up to him in Congress, no one stands up to him at the White House, no one really stands up to him in the media. He is a robber baron. Elon Musk is a robber baron. These people are robber barons,” Scarborough proclaimed.
“And we have seen the greatest transfer of wealth, which Republicans love to say, ‘Oh, we don’t like to redistribute income.’ Oh, really? Well, the tax policies that I have supported through the ’80s and ’90s and continued to be supported by Republicans in the 21s century have created the greatest income redistribution in the history of this planet from middle-class Americans to the Elon Musks of the world,” he added. “It’s grotesque.”
Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent
‘We’re a Free Market’: Nancy Pelosi Rejects Ban on Lawmakers, Spouses Trading Individual Stocks
16 Dec 20210
2:39
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said members of Congress and
their spouses should not be barred from trading individual
stocks as part of the STOCK Act, citing a “free market
economy.”
During a press briefing on Wednesday, in response to a report from Insider showing that 49 members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) have failed to disclose their transactions in accordance with Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012, Pelosi was asked if members of Congress and their spouses should be banned from trading individual stocks, thereby preventing insider trading,
“We’re a free-market economy,” Pelosi explained. “They should be able to participate in that.”
Pelosi did note that members of Congress should be revealing their stock transactions, which would show possible insider trading:
As noted by Insider, the STOCK Act of 2012, legislation Andrew Breitbart heavily backed, was designed to combat possible insider trading and conflicts of interests among members of Congress, forcing “lawmakers to be more transparent about their personal financial dealings”:
A key provision of the law mandates that lawmakers publicly — and quickly — disclose any stock trade made by themselves, a spouse, or a dependent child.
But many members of Congress have not fully complied with the law. They offer excuses including ignorance of the law, clerical errors, and mistakes by an accountant. Insider has chronicled this widespread nature of this phenomenon in a new project, “Conflicted Congress.”
Lawmakers who violate the STOCK Act could be fined up to $200, a small penalty that has led several ethics watchdog groups to call for harsher penalties or an all-out ban on lawmakers from trading stocks – a practice by which Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul, have become considerably wealthy. This year, for instance, weeks prior to the House Judiciary Committee’s vote on the antitrust legislation aimed at some major Big Tech companies, Paul Pelosi began “exercising call options to acquire 4,000 shares of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, at a strike price of $1,200,” according to Bloomberg. The trade netted Pelosi a $4.8 million gain.
Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer has been a heavy proponent of the STOCK Act since its inception with his 2011 book Throw Them All Out, which formed the basis for a 60 Minutes report about unethical stock trades in Congress.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OF INFLUENCE PEDDLERS, BRIBES SUCKERS AND CORPORATE RENT BOYS FOR HIRE
THE CASE AGAINST NANCY PELOSI, SILENT PARTNER AND ABETTER TO SOME OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN U.S. HISTORY, INCLUDING HER COLLEAGE DIANNE FEINSTEIN, KAMALA HARRIS, JOE BIDEN AND THE BIDEN CRIME FAMILY, HILLARY AND BILLARY AND THE OBOMBS WITH THEIR $500K BANKSTER SPEECH FEE BRIBES AND FRAUDULENT $62 MILLION BOOK DEAL THE TAX PAYERS ACTUALLY PAID FOR.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S BRIBES SUCKING KLEPTOCRACY
Watters' World' investigates Nancy Pelosi's financial dealings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M4QZJxb9Dw
Nancy Pelosi, a horrid woman equally as without heart and soul, on Tuesday refused to have the names of the thirteen soldiers killed in Kabul read out on the floor of the House. That should permanently indict her for being the wicked witch she is. She is more devious, more calculating than the irresponsible Biden but every bit as beyond redemption as he is. She will do anything to try to convince the American people, for whom she has only contempt, that whatever she and her party do is righteous no matter how loathsome and totalitarian. PATRICIA McCARTHY
Pelosi Pushes Electric Vehicle Subsidies As Husband’s Tesla Stock Soars
Paul Pelosi owns up to $1 million of Tesla call options
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D., Calif.) husband hit pay dirt on Monday as Tesla's valuation rose to $1 trillion.
The news comes as Pelosi spearheads legislation that doles out tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to the electric vehicle industry, including Tesla, with provisions to build charging stations for cars and incentivize electric car purchases through tax credits.
The financial dealings of Pelosi's husband, Paul, came under scrutiny earlier this year when he purchased as much as $1 million of Tesla call options, one of the largest transactions of Tesla shares disclosed by a member of Congress. At the time, Republicans charged that the House speaker was cashing in on her power.
Members of Congress and their spouses are legally allowed to buy and sell stock, as long as it is not based on insider information. Members are required to disclose their transactions to the House Committee on Ethics, as Pelosi did with the Tesla transaction on Jan. 21.
Pelosi is spearheading negotiations with the White House as Democrats look to pass Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan and a reconciliation bill that includes the electric car incentives. Tesla, a pioneer in the electric car industry, is poised to see a significant boost from the legislation, according to industry watchers.
Democrats are proposing nearly $120 billion to fund various clean energy projects, and another $34.5 billion dedicated to zero-emission vehicles. The reconciliation bill also proposes $42 billion in tax credits for purchases of electric vehicles, which Democrats hope will incentivize new car buyers to purchase electric vehicles instead of gas-powered cars. The bill offers up to $12,500 in credits for each car. It also calls for tens of billions of dollars in spending to build charging stations for electric cars across the country.
Tesla's dramatic rise is likely attributable to several factors beyond the Democrats' spending proposals. Tesla founder Elon Musk recently announced he is moving the company's headquarters from California to Texas, which has no state income tax. Tesla's cars have also gained in popularity without federal incentives.
And while Tesla and other clean energy companies stand to gain with environmentally friendly Democrats in power, the company opposes some aspects of the reconciliation proposal, such as an additional credit for the purchase of electric cars made in unionized factories. Musk has publicly opposed unionization efforts.
Pelosi's office did not respond to requests for comment.
RIDING THE DRAGON: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets (Full Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmlcEBAiIs
CHINA’S OLD WHORE SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, AMERICA’S BIGGEST WAR PROFITEER, WAS FIRST TO ENDORSE BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT. WONDER WHY???
As Glenn Bunting of the Los Angeles Times reported in 1997, Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum “has expanded his private business interests in China – to the point that his firm is now a prominent investor inside the communist nation.” In 1995, Dianne Feinstein became a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “giving her a prominent platform for her efforts to support China’s trade privileges.”
As Ben Weingarten noted in the Federalist in 2018, Feinstein’s husband has “profited handsomely from the greatly expanded China trade she supported.” The senator also “served as a key intermediary between China and the U.S. government, while serving on committees whose work would be of keen interest to the PRC.”
For 20 years, through three election cycles, Feinstein maintained on her staff a Chinese spy who would even attend consular functions for the California Democrat. One wonders what the FBI knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it, if anything.
Other politicians with China business connections include Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi, whose husband has conducted a series of deals in the Communist nation. Recall that Speaker Pelosi kept Eric Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee even after his “PoonFang” liaisons with a Chinese spy (FEINSTEIN LONG EMPLOYED A CHINESE SPY).
Donald Trump Questions Nancy Pelosi’s Corruption
President Donald Trump questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dubious participation in stock market initial public offering shares, enriching her family.
The president shared a clip Monday highlighting a CBS 60 Minutes report featuring author and Breitbart senior contributor Peter Schweizer’s investigation into Pelosi and her husband participating in at least eight different stock IPOs while in Congress.
"The House gone rogue! I want to remind you a little bit about the ring leader in this whole rogue operation against the President of the United States..." @MarkLevinShow
60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft confronted Pelosi on the topic in 2011, but she denied any impropriety.
The report noted that Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, while credit card regulation was underway in the House of Representatives. The Pelosis bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44 and shares were trading at $64 just two days later, according to the report.
“Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi,” Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill, said in a statement, according to CNN after the 60 Minutes report aired.
The clip was featured on Mark Levin’s Fox News show Life, Liberty and Levin on Sunday.
Turns out Biden's family not the only one to benefit from Ukrainian fossil fuels
By Howard J. Warner
On Sept. 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the official impeachment inquiry that would be led by the Intelligence Committee and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). At first, this was a curious decision to objective persons, since the Judiciary Committee has the authority over this type of procedure. At the time, Pelosi indicated a threat by President Donald Trump to our national security during the July 25 conversation between him and President Zelensky of Ukraine. She did this without the benefit of the transcript, but she doubtless already knew much of the CIA "whistleblower's" complaint. Further, the Ukrainian president disputes her version.
But this is not the rationale for her haste to convene the investigation. It appears that the D.C. swamp benefits another powerful family. The Biden family has gotten special treatment from Ukrainian oil interests, and the Pelosi family has a similar advantage. Paul Pelosi, Jr. was a board member of Viscoil and an executive at its related company NRGLab, which was involved in energy business in Ukraine. Perhaps the use of the Intelligence Committee has given the Democrats the opportunity to limit Republican questioning and maintain secrecy over the responses from subpoenaed witnesses. This would prevent any official record implicating Pelosi's son. This also explains her reluctance to take a vote authorizing the investigation, since the minority party would gain some rights.
This is interesting also since much of the Democratic Party rejects carbon-based energy sources. Biden has made this a part of his campaign. The Green New Deal proposals will eventually end dependency on oil and gas as an energy source. But this does not stop these politicos from benefiting financially from this sector of the economy. This reminds one of the financial benefits that Al Gore's father had from Occidental Petroleum, which was one of the great polluters (remember Love Canal?). He chose to make money selling carbon offsets to atone and make his own name.
The Ukrainian oil company Burisma used many well connected members of the D.C. establishment connected to the Obama administration. This interlocking swamp is a threat to the USA. But the media have managed to convince a vast number of Americans that Trump is the threat. When Trump railed against Pelosi in Louisiana on Friday, he was accusing her of not just splitting the nation politically, but also ignoring the financial benefits to powerful families at the detriment of our national security. This also helps explain the constant discussion in public about Biden's son Hunter, in addition to the political advantage he might gain.
No wonder the establishment (including many Republicans) wants to impeach Trump. Family security always "trumps" national security in the D.C. swamp.
SURELY YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PELOSI PAYS A LIVING WAGES TO HER ILLEGALS WORKING AT HER ST. HELENA, NAPA COUNTY, MEXIFORNIA WINERY, DO YOU?
NANCY PELOSI GOT RICH OFF ELECTED OFFICE AND SERVICING THE “CHEAP”
LABOR LOBBIES - Jim Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
CALL NANCY PELOSI Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco , CA - (415) 556-4862
EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration
________________________________________
The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:
"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."
Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:
“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.
Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out?
It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.
Pelosi - Illegals - Sunkist - Her investments!
Pelosi's corrupt insider passing of bills that make her rich.
Check for yourself
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_get_wage_breaks_and.html
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home House District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.
In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa".
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "corrupt".
Check some more for yourself
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/americansamoa.asp
Conservative Activist Jumps Pelosi's Fence With Illegal Aliens to Prove a Vital Point
Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who is known for going undercover with James O'Keefe, took alleged illegal aliens from Mexico and Guatemala to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home in California. There, the group jumped the fence and Loomer demanded the group be let into the home. The group set up a pop up tent with the word "morality" on it and hung the pictures of those who were killed by illegal aliens, The Daily Caller reported.
Donald Trump Questions Nancy Pelosi’s Corruption
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
President Donald Trump questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dubious participation in stock market initial public offering shares, enriching her family.
The president shared a clip Monday highlighting a CBS 60 Minutes report featuring author and Breitbart senior contributor Peter Schweizer’s investigation into Pelosi and her husband participating in at least eight different stock IPOs while in Congress.
"The House gone rogue! I want to remind you a little bit about the ring leader in this whole rogue operation against the President of the United States..." @MarkLevinShow
35.1K people are talking about this
60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft confronted Pelosi on the topic in 2011, but she denied any impropriety.
The report noted that Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, while credit card regulation was underway in the House of Representatives. The Pelosis bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44 and shares were trading at $64 just two days later, according to the report.
“Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi,” Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill, said in a statement, according to CNN after the 60 Minutes report aired.
The clip was featured on Mark Levin’s Fox News show Life, Liberty and Levin on Sunday.
Turns out Biden's family not the only one to benefit from Ukrainian fossil fuels
On Sept. 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the official impeachment inquiry that would be led by the Intelligence Committee and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). At first, this was a curious decision to objective persons, since the Judiciary Committee has the authority over this type of procedure. At the time, Pelosi indicated a threat by President Donald Trump to our national security during the July 25 conversation between him and President Zelensky of Ukraine. She did this without the benefit of the transcript, but she doubtless already knew much of the CIA "whistleblower's" complaint. Further, the Ukrainian president disputes her version.
But this is not the rationale for her haste to convene the investigation. It appears that the D.C. swamp benefits another powerful family. The Biden family has gotten special treatment from Ukrainian oil interests, and the Pelosi family has a similar advantage. Paul Pelosi, Jr. was a board member of Viscoil and an executive at its related company NRGLab, which was involved in energy business in Ukraine. Perhaps the use of the Intelligence Committee has given the Democrats the opportunity to limit Republican questioning and maintain secrecy over the responses from subpoenaed witnesses. This would prevent any official record implicating Pelosi's son. This also explains her reluctance to take a vote authorizing the investigation, since the minority party would gain some rights.
This is interesting also since much of the Democratic Party rejects carbon-based energy sources. Biden has made this a part of his campaign. The Green New Deal proposals will eventually end dependency on oil and gas as an energy source. But this does not stop these politicos from benefiting financially from this sector of the economy. This reminds one of the financial benefits that Al Gore's father had from Occidental Petroleum, which was one of the great polluters (remember Love Canal?). He chose to make money selling carbon offsets to atone and make his own name.
The Ukrainian oil company Burisma used many well connected members of the D.C. establishment connected to the Obama administration. This interlocking swamp is a threat to the USA. But the media have managed to convince a vast number of Americans that Trump is the threat. When Trump railed against Pelosi in Louisiana on Friday, he was accusing her of not just splitting the nation politically, but also ignoring the financial benefits to powerful families at the detriment of our national security. This also helps explain the constant discussion in public about Biden's son Hunter, in addition to the political advantage he might gain.
No wonder the establishment (including many Republicans) wants to impeach Trump. Family security always "trumps" national security in the D.C. swamp.
NANCY PELOSI GOT RICH OFF ELECTED OFFICE AND SERVICING THE “CHEAP” LABOR LOBBIES - Jim Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER NAPA WINERY
CALL LA RAZA NANCY TODAY! PUT THE HEAT ON HER!
EMAIL: NANCY PELOSI
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
CALL NANCY PELOSI Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco , CA - (415) 556-4862
EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration
________________________________________
The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:
"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."
Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:
“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.
Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out?
It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.
Pelosi - Illegals - Sunkist - Her investments!
Pelosi's corrupt insider passing of bills that make her rich.
Check for yourself
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_get_wage_breaks_and.html
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home House District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.
In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa".
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration "corrupt".
Check some more for yourself
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/americansamoa.asp
Conservative Activist Jumps Pelosi's Fence With Illegal Aliens to Prove a Vital Point
Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who is known for going undercover with James O'Keefe, took alleged illegal aliens from Mexico and Guatemala to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home in California. There, the group jumped the fence and Loomer demanded the group be let into the home. The group set up a pop up tent with the word "morality" on it and hung the pictures of those who were killed by illegal aliens, The Daily Caller reported.
Pelosi Pushes Electric Vehicle Subsidies As Husband’s Tesla Stock Soars
Pelosi Pushes Electric Vehicle Subsidies As Husband’s Tesla Stock Soars
Paul Pelosi owns up to $1 million of Tesla call options
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) gives a speech as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) looks on / Getty ImagesChuck Ross • October 28, 2021 5:00 am
SHARE
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D., Calif.) husband hit pay dirt on Monday as Tesla's valuation rose to $1 trillion.
The news comes as Pelosi spearheads legislation that doles out tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to the electric vehicle industry, including Tesla, with provisions to build charging stations for cars and incentivize electric car purchases through tax credits.
The financial dealings of Pelosi's husband, Paul, came under scrutiny earlier this year when he purchased as much as $1 million of Tesla call options, one of the largest transactions of Tesla shares disclosed by a member of Congress. At the time, Republicans charged that the House speaker was cashing in on her power.
Members of Congress and their spouses are legally allowed to buy and sell stock, as long as it is not based on insider information. Members are required to disclose their transactions to the House Committee on Ethics, as Pelosi did with the Tesla transaction on Jan. 21.
Pelosi is spearheading negotiations with the White House as Democrats look to pass Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan and a reconciliation bill that includes the electric car incentives. Tesla, a pioneer in the electric car industry, is poised to see a significant boost from the legislation, according to industry watchers.
Democrats are proposing nearly $120 billion to fund various clean energy projects, and another $34.5 billion dedicated to zero-emission vehicles. The reconciliation bill also proposes $42 billion in tax credits for purchases of electric vehicles, which Democrats hope will incentivize new car buyers to purchase electric vehicles instead of gas-powered cars. The bill offers up to $12,500 in credits for each car. It also calls for tens of billions of dollars in spending to build charging stations for electric cars across the country.
Tesla's dramatic rise is likely attributable to several factors beyond the Democrats' spending proposals. Tesla founder Elon Musk recently announced he is moving the company's headquarters from California to Texas, which has no state income tax. Tesla's cars have also gained in popularity without federal incentives.
And while Tesla and other clean energy companies stand to gain with environmentally friendly Democrats in power, the company opposes some aspects of the reconciliation proposal, such as an additional credit for the purchase of electric cars made in unionized factories. Musk has publicly opposed unionization efforts.
Pelosi's office did not respond to requests for comment.
This is because despite all its declarations, the Democratic Party is not a party of workers. It, as Biden’s transition team attests, is a party of Wall Street, big banks, Amazon, and the military-industrial complex.
SOCIALISM FOR WALL STREET CRONIES. ASK PELOSI HOW MUCH TESLA STOCK SHE HAS!
That, however, did not satisfy the Wall Street and corporate interests that dictate government policy and control both major parties. Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi incorporated into the bill a measure demanded by wealthy donors in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California.
In May, Musk tweeted a call for a Carbon Tax and spoke with the Biden administration about implementing it. Musk demanding the government to take money from taxpayers should come as no surprise because Musk's companies received at least $4.9 billion in government subsidies – as of 2015! Therein lies perhaps Musk's most incredible skill: enriching himself with the government's help.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is another “pandemic profiteer.” He saw his wealth skyrocket this past year, in part by violating a state-ordered shutdown and illegally restarting production at the Fremont, California, Tesla factory, leading to hundreds of coronavirus infections. Between 2014 and 2018 his wealth grew by $13.9 billion, while he paid $455 million in taxes, resulting in a true tax rate of 3.27 percent.
At the same time, Biden’s Build Back Better Act would provide a $625 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans living in blue states — paid for by working and middle class Americans — as a result of an increase in the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap.
The proposal will lead to an additional 1.2 million IRS audits each year, nearly half of which will hit middle class families making less than $75,000. All this so Democrats can wring an extra $200 billion out of the American people, particularly from middle class families and small businesses.
[Emphasis added]
Do Democrats Want to Build Back Better, or Do They Want a Coup?
In a recent article, the brilliant commentator Victor David Hanson asks, "What is behind recent pessimistic appraisals of democracy's future from Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Brian Williams, and other elite intellectuals and media personalities?" His answer to this question is "that the left expects to lose power over the next two years[.]"
Perhaps — but on the other hand, maybe the leftists' "pessimistic appraisals" are more of a verbal ploy to suggest they are concerned about democracy when in actuality they are participating in an attempt to enact a coup against democracy, against our beloved republic. Declining poll numbers will affect only those old-fashioned Democrats who still believe in the relevance of the vote.
Today, sadly and horrendously, we seem to be on a different trajectory. Through a number of pressure points, the left is trying to overwhelm and subvert constitutional checks and balances, basic ideas of fairness, historical understandings of things like voter rights and equality of opportunity (which is not and should never be equality of outcomes), law and order, the public weal in protecting against theft and bodily harm, and responsible conduct as the sign of a good citizen. Now massive mail-in schemes, elimination of voter ID, federal control of even local elections, extended periods of time for voting, and ballot-harvesting are high on the list of Democommie priorities. Their priorities are clearly not about fairness, but about corrupt manipulation of our nation's voting priorities as a free society.
For the first time in my lifetime, the military leadership has publicly shown partisanship toward the Democrats. General Milly, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), apologized after walking with President Trump following rioting in Washington, D.C. and later said he wants to look at his own "white rage." Is it appropriate for the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make comments like these? Those comments themselves are suggestive of a coup.
In the so-called Build Back Better (BBB) legislation, the leftist cult now in power (albeit marginally) wants to double the size of the IRS by adding 86,000 agents. The net result of this incredible increase is not to increase oversight, but to weaponize the IRS as an instrument of public intimidation. Just as conservative political organizations were targeted by the IRS during the Obama administration, the present desired expansion will allow for more harassment and fines of individuals in our new surveillance society. Does anyone really think surveillance of individuals in our society and world is just paranoia? Haven't we seen, if we message a friend on Facebook or in an email about looking for insurance, that, suddenly, ads for insurance start appearing on our Facebook accounts? The surveillance society is already here. It's just a question of the extent to which that expertise will be applied to monitoring our daily lives. The doubling of the IRS, I propose, is a giant step toward extending the surveillance state.
Even certain conservative voices that oppose this expansion of the IRS fail to perceive the coup implications of this legislation. Instead, they project a cost-benefit analysis of the increased size. In doing so, they (rightly) conclude that the increase in size is unwise because of the excessive costs to taxpayers in terms of dollars spent on tax professionals and time spent filling out taxes and the burdensome additional layers of tax complexity that will be established. However, the cost-benefit objectors do not understand the more extreme implications of such an expansion.
About two months ago, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) went farther in his critique of this provision of BBB and pointed out that more stringent oversight by IRS would overwhelmingly impact those who earn $100,000 a year or less. He called this oppression a "shakedown." But worse, this provision is an important instrument of a coup, as it would extend the police power of the federal government exponentially. The trajectory and momentum of this administration are to take over our lives with unprecedented loss of freedom.
A cautious reader of this analysis might think, "Why would expansion of the federal government by the Democrats necessarily be a coup? There are regular shifts in power between the two parties in the three branches of government, so expanding or over-reaching with federal authority and power should not be discerned as a Democrat coup." In one sense, this is accurate, and it would explain why there is not more vigorous resistance to and denunciation of the Democrats by the Republicans. As Democrats push hard for moving to ever more tyrannical extensions of federal power, the Republicans in political office will also enjoy some of that excess power over the citizens. However, since the vast expansion of federal authority began with Pres. Woodrow Wilson and Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the federal agencies and bureaucracies attract generations of people who see their jobs as more beholden to Democrats than to Republicans. Thus, being the basis of their livelihoods, our administrative state — the federal bureaucracy — remains an entrenched bastion of Democratic support despite changes in legislative or executive authority. Whether we call it the bureaucratic state or the Deep State, common sense would dictate that its inherent allegiance is to the Democrat party, which spawned this ever growing, ever more entrenched apparatus that has become a "branch" of our government.
The Dept. of Justice now alerts us to the threat of domestic terrorism that may be operating or at least burgeoning in the expression of parents at school board meetings protesting Critical Race Theory and anti-family sexual agendas across the land. This attempt to, at the very least, stigmatize those parents who speak out is more than a nuisance and unwanted presentation. It is belligerent and harassing of parents and a denigration of the First Amendment. New laws to extend free pre-K and pre-pre-K (three- and four-year-olds) are on the table, financed by and thereby controlled by the federal government. The opportunity to advance secular humanism and cultural Marxism even more (we are already in a radical moral decline) will clearly be advanced if these "helpful" pieces of legislation are passed.
The intrusions of federal power and authority in our lives are being pushed forward to a degree that can only be characterized as a coup. The Dems are no longer willing to live with a tension between big government and the rights of states and individuals; rather, they want to enforce federal power as decisive in that tension and thereby sabotage the idea of individual responsibility as an end in itself, which understanding is the basis of a free society based on natural rights.
Biden’s Build Back Better: IRS Audits for Working Class, Tax Cuts for the Rich
President Joe Biden and Democrats are hoping to squeeze an extra $200 billion in tax revenue out of American taxpayers by mostly targeting working and middle class households with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits.
As part of Biden’s “Build Back Better Act,” which was already passed by House Democrats, nearly 600,000 more working and middle class Americans earning $75,000 or less a year would be audited by the IRS, an analysis by Republican lawmakers reveals.
“Democrats’ tax and spending spree will more than double Americans’ chances of being audited as it targets lower and middle-income earners,” the analysis states:
The proposal will lead to an additional 1.2 million IRS audits each year, nearly half of which will hit middle class families making less than $75,000. All this so Democrats can wring an extra $200 billion out of the American people, particularly from middle class families and small businesses.
[Emphasis added]
Biden’s plan to supercharge the IRS with $80 billion in mandatory funding and 87,000 new IRS agents will lead to drastically higher audit rates for all Americans at every income level according to the Congressional Budget Office. [Emphasis added]
Specifically, more than 583,000 of the new IRS audits will target working and middle class Americans earning $75,000 or less. Of those 583,000 new IRS audits, more than 313,000 would target the poorest of Americans who earn $25,000 or less a year.
In addition, Biden’s Build Back Better Act will “mean more than 800,000 more federal tax liens on taxpayer property such as homes and vehicles,” the analysis states.
Also, because the majority of underreported income to the IRS is from those earning $0 to $200,000 a year, the plan will mean more targeting of not only working and middle class Americans but also small businesses.
“The Biden plan will mean more audits of the middle class and lower-income Americans, 800,000 more federal tax liens per year, and more IRS shakedowns of American families and small businesses,” the analysis states.
At the same time, Biden’s Build Back Better Act would provide a $625 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans living in blue states — paid for by working and middle class Americans — as a result of an increase in the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap.
The plan gives a tax cut to 66 percent of Americans earning more than $1 million annually while 78 percent of Americans earning $500,000 to $1 million will get a tax cut. Meanwhile, just 27 percent of Americans earning $75,000 to $100,000 would see a tax increase along with 19 percent of Americans earning $50,000 to $75,000.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
This is because despite all its declarations, the Democratic Party is not a party of workers. It, as Biden’s transition team attests, is a party of Wall Street, big banks, Amazon, and the military-industrial complex.
Inside Jeff Bezos Mansions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVURsBK1-zY
Jeff Bezos' $400 Million Flying Fox Yacht
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRYEcushHjc
Inside Jeff Bezos' $21,000,000 Car Collection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu-Vy9Q6U4A
Chuck Schumer Pushes Tax Cut for Richest 1% in Coronavirus Relief Bill
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is pushing for a repeal of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap in the next round of coronavirus relief — giving a tax cut to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers, especially in “blue” states.
In his landmark tax reform law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, President Donald Trump and the Republicans offset some of the revenue losses from low tax rates by restricting deductions. The law capped the SALT deduction at $10,000.
Previously, those taxpayers wealthy enough to file a list of itemized deductions could count all of the taxes they paid to state and local governments toward a deduction in their federal tax liability. That meant wealthy taxpayers in the most heavily taxed states — primarily run by Democrats — benefited most. The SALT deduction also gave Democrats political room to raise taxes higher, because it made rich taxpayers less likely to resist: they could claim some of the money back.
Trump ended the deduction — at some political cost to himself. Republicans went on to lose congressional seats in wealthy suburbs in high-tax Democrat-run states. Orange County, California, for example, flipped entirely to Democrats.
But Democrats still want to repeal the SALT cap, regardless, because they want their state and local governments to avoid tax cut — and because their wealthy campaign contributors want to be subsidized, once again, by the rest of the country.
Even Seth Hanlon, a former Obama administration official who is now a senior fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress, has protested against Schumer’s idea, noting that repealing the SALT cap would help “the top 1%.”
Come on, not this again.
Repealing the SALT cap for 2020-21 would be a $137 billion tax cut, with about 63% going to the top 1%.
It does nothing for states and localities except potentially crowd out the actual fiscal relief they urgently need. https://t.co/jlSjIhnzpq
— Seth Hanlon (@SethHanlon) July 15, 2020
Here is the national distribution of the tax cut from repealing the SALT cap, via @iteptweets.
A tiny percentage of middle-income people get any benefit.
The top 1% gets 63%: an avg. $35k tax cut for them.
The top 5% gets 87%.
The bottom 80% get literally 1% of the benefit. pic.twitter.com/8EIav7wgcJ
— Seth Hanlon (@SethHanlon) July 15, 2020
Here is the distribution just for New York. Largely the same story. A few more middle-income people benefit a little compared to nationwide, but still, the tax cut goes overwhelmingly to top one-percenters. Not the people most affected by COVID!!! pic.twitter.com/Dp0evxq3P7
— Seth Hanlon (@SethHanlon) July 15, 2020
The basic story is the same in every state. State by state estimates are here. https://t.co/1KREhnb6et
— Seth Hanlon (@SethHanlon) July 15, 2020
The Democrat-run House of Representatives has already passed a repeal on the SALT cap that would be effective for two years.
According to The Hill, “Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) [on Tuesday] to ‘join the House, and join the Democrats in the Senate, and get rid of that cap.'”
Schumer also vowed to make the SALT deduction — the effective tax cut for the 1% — permanent: “If I become majority leader, one of the first things I will do is we will eliminate it forever,” he added, according to The Hill. “It will be dead, gone and buried.”
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
House Democrats pass stripped-down
social welfare bill with massive tax cut
for the rich
On Friday morning, the House of Representatives passed its version of President Joe Biden’s $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” social welfare and climate bill. As expected, the measure was approved on a party-line vote, with 220 Democrats voting “Yes” and all 212 Republicans voting “No.” One Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, a conservative former Marine who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, broke ranks and voted in opposition to the bill.
Golden had announced that he would oppose the bill because it included a massive tax break for the wealthy. The outcome of months of internal Democratic Party wrangling was the decision of the Biden White House and the party leadership to strip the bill of all major tax increases opposed by big business and slash the top line figure for social programs and climate protection in half, from $3.25 trillion to $1.75 trillion over 10 years.
That, however, did not satisfy the Wall Street and corporate interests that dictate government policy and control both major parties. Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi incorporated into the bill a measure demanded by wealthy donors in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California. It was the lifting of a $10,000 cap on deductions on federal income taxes to compensate for state and local taxes. The cap was imposed as part of the Trump tax bill passed in December of 2017, which slashed taxes for corporations and the wealthy.
Until then, there was no limit on the amount of federal tax deductions for state and local taxes that wealthy people in generally pro-Democratic high-tax states could claim by itemizing their federal tax returns. In imposing the limit, Trump and the Republicans were targeting states that historically vote “blue” in federal elections.
This infuriated the Democrats’ wealthy backers, who demanded that the Biden budget bill raise the limit on so-called SALT (state and local tax) deductions. The Democrats acceded by adding to the bill a provision raising the limit to $80,000 for each of the next nine years.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this tax windfall for the wealthy will cost the federal government $285 billion over the 10-year span covered by the bill, making it the second most costly item in the legislation. It is topped only by a combined $390 billion for universal pre-school for three- and four-year-old children and limited subsidies for child care.
It is considerably higher than the allocation for clean energy and climate resilience ($220 billion), four weeks of paid family and medical leave ($195 billion), clean energy and electricity tax credits ($190 billion), affordable housing ($170 billion), Medicaid home- and community-based services ($150 billion), a one-year extension of the expanded child tax credit ($130 billion), and tax credits for health insurance premiums under Obamacare ($125 billion).
It would help pay for programs that were severely cut or dropped outright from the bill under pressure from big business and its most open mouthpieces in the Democratic Party, such as senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. These include free community college (eliminated); the ability of Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, thereby lowering their costs (reduced to a shell program affecting only a handful of drugs and not even starting until 2024); and Medicare coverage for dental, hearing and vision (reduced to limited subsidies for hearing aids).
According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, the SALT tax provision will overwhelmingly benefit the top 10 percent of income earners, with virtually nothing going to the remaining 90 percent, i.e., the working class and lower-middle class. The measure will particularly benefit the top one percent, those who make over $867,000 a year. They will see a tax cut in the tens of thousands of dollars.
“Anything you do to eliminate the SALT cap is going to be regressive, because that tax is overwhelmingly paid by very high-income people,” said Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center. “Anything you do to lower that tax doesn’t matter for most people.”
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) reported that a family of four in Washington D.C. making $1 million per year would receive 10 times as much tax relief next year from expanding the state and local tax deductions as a middle-class family would receive from an expansion of the child tax credit. The CRFB said that two-thirds of households making more than $1 million a year would get a tax cut under the legislation because of the increase in the state and local property tax deduction.
Pointing to the brazen hypocrisy of Biden and the Democratic Party, Marx Goldwein, senior policy director at the CRFB, said, “We’re debating about whether to give lower- and middle-class families a thousand dollars more a year through the child tax credit, while giving upper-class families $10,000 or more through SALT. That’s counter to everything the Democrats have been saying Build Back Better is about and everything they said about the Trump tax cuts.”
According to a report from the Tax Foundation, raising the SALT cap would more than offset other tax increases for the wealthy in 2022 included in the House bill. These include a 15 percent minimum corporate tax, a 1 percent tax on stock buybacks, increased taxes on US companies’ foreign profits, and a surtax of 5 percent on those with adjusted gross income over $10 million and 8 percent on those making more than $25 million.
In a column in the Financial Times on Thursday, Edward Luce alluded to the Democrats’ obsession with identity politics and linked it to the Build Back Better bill:
The result is a bill that caters best to the most powerful slice of Americans—the very wealthy. They can sleep easy now that the carried interest loophole, which allows private equity partners to be taxed at lower than ordinary income rates—as Warren Buffett pointed out, they pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries—is probably safe. As it stands, the bill will also give wealthy Americans a bigger tax cut than they got from Trump’s big 2017 tax bill.
Even this miserable travesty of social reform will be further gutted if not blocked outright in the Senate, where passage will require the support of all 50 Democrats. Neither Manchin nor Sinema has signed on to the bill, the former having declared his opposition to even a completely inadequate a four-week paid leave provision, while calling for means testing and work requirements for other social benefits.
The so-called “progressives”—Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, the more than 100-strong House Progressive Caucus—capitulated to the demand of Biden and the most right-wing factions in the Democratic caucuses to pass the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. This bill was backed by virtually every corporate lobby group, without having secured the agreement of Manchin and Sinema to support Senate passage of the broader “Build Back Better” social spending bill, against which the corporations have waged a massive lobbying campaign.
Sanders, for his part, has denounced the inclusion of the SALT provision in the House bill but is supporting a modified version in the Senate bill, according to which eligibility for expanded tax deductions would be limited to people making less than $400,000 a year. On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, widely known as the “senator from Wall Street,” is supporting an even bigger deduction than that provided by the House.
He has announced that he will bring up the National Defense Authorization Act, which allocates $778 billion for the military in a single year (nearly half the 10-year Build Back Better budget) and the anti-China United States Innovation and Competition Act before taking up the social/climate measure passed by the House. This could delay consideration of Build Back Better until next year, something Manchin has hinted at, likely killing the legislation.
All of the so-called “progressives” promoted by the pseudo-left, including Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman, Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush, voted for the House bill on Friday, demonstrating the DSA’s role as an arm of one of the two main parties of US imperialism.
During the 2020 Democratic primaries, every candidate pledged to repeal the Trump tax cut for the rich. Biden has repeatedly called his domestic agenda a “blue collar” program. While declaring ad nauseam that “I am a capitalist,” who has nothing against people becoming billionaires, he has called on Wall Street to “pay their fair share.”
Now it is perfectly clear what this actually means. Under conditions where the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, they have dropped any attempt to raise corporate or personal income tax rates for the wealthy The only significant change Biden and the Democrats are seeking to make to Trump’s multitrillion-dollar tax giveaway to the oligarchy is to increase its scale.
This is a devastating exposure of the fraudulent claims of the DSA and similar organizations of the upper-middle class that progressive change is possible within the framework of the capitalist two-party system and that the Democratic Party can serve as an instrument of social change.
Wolff Responds: Capitalism's False Defenses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjHch15JHVg
Ten Years Ago: Corporate & Household Debt [10th Anniversary of Economic Update with Richard
Wolff]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xf0J7X2gI
CEO RESIGNATIONS INCREASE, ECONOMIC COLLAPSE GAINS SPEED, YOU CAN'T PRINT\
PROSPERITY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w3uCSeZEGk
Insiders Just Exposed That A Terrifying Stock Market Crash Forecast Is About To Co
After considerable toing and froing within the administration, US President Joe Biden has decided to renominate Jerome Powell for another four-year term as chairman of the US Federal Reserve.
But when Wall Street cracked the whip, Powell rapidly reversed course.
Having boosted the stock market to record highs by pouring trillions of dollars into the financial system over his term, including $4.5 trillion in response to the March 2020 financial crisis, Powell had strong support on Wall Street with gushing praise for his management of the pandemic crisis.
He also received bipartisan support for his role, including from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen who made clear her support for Powell’s reappointment some months ago.
But there was opposition to Powell, a Republican initially appointed by Trump, from the so-called “left” of the Democratic party on the grounds he had eased bank regulations imposed in response to the 2008 crisis and was not sufficiently attuned to the issue of climate change.
Last month Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren labelled Powell a “dangerous man” to lead the Fed.
Powell was also under something of a cloud because of a scandal which emerged in September involving members of the Fed’s governing body who were found to be active investors last year as the Fed was propping up the market.
Their preferred candidate was Lael Brainard, who was regarded as stronger on regulation. On the issue of monetary policy, however, Brainard has supported all the actions taken by the Fed chair and is regarded, in words of the Financial Times (FT), as “mildly more dovish than Powell.”
In the event, Biden sought to have a bet each away, appointing Powell to the top post while elevating Brainard to the post of vice-chair, creating the “impression of continuity in monetary policy with a more robust approach to regulation” as the FT put it.
In his remarks on the decision to reappoint Powell, Biden gave a nod to the Democratic “left,” saying Powell had told him he would make accelerating the Fed’s efforts to address the risks posed to the financial system by climate change a priority.
Biden said Powell had also underscored the importance of making sure that “our financial regulations are staying ahead of emerging risks be they from innovations and cryptocurrency or the practices of less regulated nonbank financial institutions.”
Warren repeated her opposition to Powell’s renomination as did two other Democrat senators. But the appointment is expected to pass the Senate easily with broad support from both parties.
This is because of the massive expansion of the Fed’s intervention into the financial system to prop it up after the Treasury market froze in March 2020, threatening a full-scale collapse on an even greater scale than 2008.
The Fed conducted this intervention on the grounds that it was necessary to defend jobs and help prop up the labour market. But Powell’s record shows his policies are directed to sustaining the stock market where speculation, funded by cheap money provided by the Fed, has driven it to record heights.
In 2018, the Fed had started to lift interest rates in order to try to restore more “normal” monetary policy. But when Wall Street cracked the whip, Powell rapidly reversed course. After a significant market downturn in December 2018, he promised to end interest rate rises in January 2019 and then cut interest rates in the middle of the year, well before the pandemic struck.
In August last year, amid the signs of rising inflation, Powell initiated a major shift in Fed policy. It would no longer seek to keep inflation to 2 percent but allow it to rise above that level in order to maintain an average 2 percent rate over time.
According to Powell, it would not move to lift rates when the unemployment had reached low levels—the procedure adopted in the past—and this decision reflected “appreciation for the benefits of a strong labour market, particularly for many in low- and moderate-income communities.”
As the founding American Trotskyist James P. Cannon once remarked, there is always a “good reason” and then there is the real one. In this case the real reason for the policy shift was to assure Wall Street the Fed would not cut off the supply of money that has enabled the multi-billionaire Wall Street oligarchs to rake in money hand over fist during the pandemic.
As inflation started to rise, Powell, maintained it was “transitory”—another assurance to Wall Street that interest rates would not be lifted immediately.
But with inflation going above 5 percent for the past several months, reaching an annual rate of more than 6 percent in October, this claim has become impossible to maintain.
The Fed responded at its last meeting by deciding to taper its monthly purchases of $120 billion of financial assets—US Treasury bonds and mortgaged-backed securities—by $15 billion, ending them completely by next June.
In announcing the decision, Powell assured the markets this did not mean interest rates would soon be lifted.
But this course is now under fire and there is a growing chorus of criticism that the Fed is moving far too slowly in the face of rising prices.
Former US treasury secretary Lawrence Summers started the campaign warning several months ago of the danger of an inflationary spiral like that of the 1970s and has since been joined by others.
Last week the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, Jason Furman, said the stance of monetary policy should move “in a less expansionary direction.”
“While the Fed has raised rates too much too soon in the past, this alternative timing may result in the opposite error,” he wrote.
The Fed is caught on the horns of a significant dilemma. On the one hand, it fears that moves to lift interest rates will set off a major crisis in financial markets which have become totally dependent on the supply of ultra-cheap money used to finance increasingly risky bets and the orgy of speculation in so-called “assets” such as cryptocurrencies.
On the other, it fears the rising tide of class struggle as workers strive, in what is taking the form of a rebellion against the suppression of the trade union bureaucracies, to win back the wages they have lost during the pandemic and in the decades that preceded it.
In a tweet on the news earlier this month that John Deere had been forced to restore cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) stolen from workers in 2015, Summers pointed to the wages as the key issue.
“Those serene about inflation should ponder the fact that the new John Deere contract has reinstated previously dropped cost-of-living allowances,” he wrote.
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal raised the same issue, saying the restoration of COLA should be “an alarm bell for the Fed” and the longer inflation remained higher the more workers would demand the same.
Speaking on his announcement that he would reappoint Powell, Biden said there was “enormous uncertainty for our economy.”
Powell responded by declaring that the Fed would “use our tools both to support the economy and a strong labour market, and to prevent higher inflation from becoming entrenched” while “vigilantly guarding the resilience and stability of the financial system.”
The problem for Powell in his second term is that these goals are inherently contradictory. The Fed is being driven to tighten monetary policy to contain the growing wages movement sparked by inflation, but at the same time, such is the extent of indebtedness in the financial system, that moves in that direction could see a collapse in asset valuations, both on the stock market and more broadly.
Inside Jeff Bezos Mansions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVURsBK1-zY
Jeff Bezos' $400 Million Flying Fox Yacht
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRYEcushHjc
Inside Jeff Bezos' $21,000,000 Car Collection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu-Vy9Q6U4A
IRS data shows: US billionaires’ true tax
rate far lower than that of workers
On June 8, ProPublica published the first in a projected series of articles documenting the massive scale of legally sanctioned tax evasion carried out by America’s ever-expanding class of billionaires. The article, based on an exhaustive study of leaked Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents, focuses on the period from 2014 through 2018. It demonstrates that in the course of those five years, the 25 richest Americans paid federal taxes on their increased wealth at a far lower rate than the typical US household.
The report also cites tax data on billionaire oligarchs such as Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Michael Bloomberg going back to the first decade of the current century, showing that they paid little or no taxes regardless of which big business party—Democrats or Republicans—occupied the White House. It explains as well that even were the Biden administration to carry out its promised increases in income tax rates for the rich, the impact on the vast fortunes of today’s robber barons would be minimal.
The authors state that in determining the increased wealth of America’s “top 0.001 percent,” they included not simply their salaries, which in many cases comprise only a small share of their actual income, but also “investments, stock trades, gambling winnings and even the results of audits.”
The result, they note, demolishes “the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most.” They continue: “The IRS records show that the wealthiest can—perfectly legally—pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.”
ProPublica’s revelations provide insight into how the capitalist system and its various state institutions and rigged legal system promote a parasitic financial aristocracy that lives in a world apart from the rest of humanity. Unlike workers, who depend on their wages to survive and pay the full income tax rate, the ultra-wealthy avoid taxes by obtaining massive loans from banks, borrowing against the value of their ever growing and artificially inflated assets, such as stocks and real estate, which are not taxable until they are sold.
In order to calculate what ProPublica terms the “true tax rate” of the 25 richest Americans, the report compares how much in taxes these individuals paid over a given period to how much their wealth grew, using wealth estimates published by Forbes magazine.
Between 2014 and 2018, Forbes estimated that these 25 people saw their wealth increase collectively by $401 billion. The documents obtained by ProPublica show that these same individuals collectively paid $13.6 billion in federal income taxes over the same time period, for a true tax rate of only 3.4 percent. By contrast, ProPublica found that between 2014 and 2018, a typical US worker in his or her 40s experienced a net wealth expansion of about $65,000. That same worker’s tax bills “were almost as much, nearly $62,000, over that five-year period.”
Over that same period, according to ProPublica, Warren Buffett’s wealth increased by $24.3 billion, but the Berkshire Hathaway mogul paid only $23.7 million in taxes, resulting in a true tax rate of 0.10 percent.
Amazon boss Jeff Bezos’ wealth soared by a staggering $99 billion, but he paid just $973 million in taxes, yielding a true tax rate of less than 1 percent.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is another “pandemic profiteer.” He saw his wealth skyrocket this past year, in part by violating a state-ordered shutdown and illegally restarting production at the Fremont, California, Tesla factory, leading to hundreds of coronavirus infections. Between 2014 and 2018 his wealth grew by $13.9 billion, while he paid $455 million in taxes, resulting in a true tax rate of 3.27 percent.
The reporting confirms the Marxist analysis of the capitalist state, described in the Communist Manifesto as “… a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” The various loopholes and tax avoidance schemes employed by the ruling class are legal, have been for decades, and will continue to be so under Biden or any other Democratic administration.
As then-candidate Joe Biden assured wealthy donors at a Manhattan campaign fundraising event in January 2019, should he become president, “no one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” Nearly six months into his presidency, Biden has kept his promises to his wealthy benefactors, as evinced by his recent retreat from his proposal to raise corporate taxes by a few percentage points.
Among other facts included in the ProPublica report:
· Bezos, the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes in 2007 and 2011. In 2011, despite his overall wealth holding steady at $18 billion, Bezos filed a tax return in which he claimed to have lost money. The IRS not only approved the billionaire’s tax return, it granted him a $4,000 tax credit for his children!
· Musk, now the second richest person in the world, did not pay any federal income taxes in 2018.
· Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as billionaire investors Carl Icahn and George Soros, have also had years when they paid nothing in federal income taxes. Soros, worth an estimated $8.6 billion as of March 2021, paid no federal income taxes for three years in a row.
According to the ProPublica report, when the super-rich do pay something in income taxes, their true tax rate is far lower than that of the typical working class household, with a median income of $70,000. For instance, between 2006 and 2018, while Bezos’ wealth surged by over $120 billion, he paid, on average, $1.09 in taxes for every $100 in wealth growth. But over the same period, the median American household paid $160 in taxes for every $100 in wealth growth—paying more in taxes than it gained in wealth.
Overall, ProPublica found that the richest 25 Americans pay a far lower income tax rate, an average of 15.8 percent of adjusted gross income, than do many workers, once taxes for Social Security and Medicare are included. To highlight the point, ProPublica found that by the end of 2018, the 25 richest Americans were worth $1.1 trillion and collectively paid a federal tax bill of $1.9 billion.
The $1.1 trillion in collective wealth hoarded by 25 people equals the combined annual wages of roughly 14.3 million American workers, who in 2018 paid $143 billion in federal taxes, or over 75 times more than the billionaires.
On Tuesday, in response to a reporter’s question about the ProPublica report, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki had nothing to say about its damning content. Instead, she threatened criminal prosecution of those who leaked the IRS documents to ProPublica.
“Any unauthorized disclosure of confidential government information by a person of access is illegal and we take this very seriously,” said Psaki. She added that the IRS commissioner has referred the matter to investigators and that the FBI and Justice Department would also be investigating.
Joe Biden, Democrats Seek $625 Billion Tax Cut for Wealthy Coastal Elites
President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better Act,” a filibuster-proof $1.75 trillion budget reconciliation package, gives $625 billion in tax cuts to the nation’s wealthiest blue state residents.
Slipped into the reconciliation package are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the Democrat Party’s wealthiest donors, that would be paid for by America’s working and middle class.
A newly released analysis of Biden’s budget finds that plans to increase the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap from its current $10,000 to $80,000 would effectively amount to a $625 billion tax for the wealthiest of Americans living in blue states.
The analysis reveals that “a household making $1 million per year will receive ten times as much from SALT cap relief as a middle-class family will receive from the child tax credit expansion.”
Democrats Push for Massive Tax Cut for the Richest, Brookings Says
BY EMEL AKAN
WASHINGTON—Democrats are pushing to lift the cap on the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), but a Brookings Institution study says this would be a handout to the rich.
“Lifting the cap on the SALT deduction would massively favor the rich, with most of the benefit going to the top 1 percent,” Richard Reeves and Christopher Pulliam from the Brookings Institution wrote in a recent report.
House Democrats passed the $3 trillion HEROES Act in May. Buried in the 1,815-page relief bill is a provision that would eliminate the limitation on the SALT deduction for 2020 and 2021.
Democrats argue that lifting the cap would provide relief to people hit hardest by the virus, especially in devastated cities such as New York.
Under the old tax code, individuals who itemized their deductions were able to deduct all their SALT against their federal taxable income. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), however, limited individual’s deduction for SALT payments to $10,000 a year ($5,000 for a married person filing a separate return). Any state and local individual income or property tax payments in excess of that amount are no longer deductible by individual taxpayers.
Blue state Democrats believe the SALT cap is unfair to their residents. Blue states, especially those with higher individual income and property tax rates, objected to this cap and even tried to create tax maneuvers to avoid this limitation.
Republicans, on the other hand, argue that the SALT deduction mostly benefits wealthy individuals and is unfair to residents in lower-tax states. They argue that lifting the SALT cap forces people in low-tax states such as Tennessee and Texas to subsidize high-tax states such as California and New York.
“The main argument from some on the political left for the SALT deduction is that it encourages states to spend more by making it easier for them to tax more,” the Brookings report said.
“But if the goal is for the federal government to provide additional support to state and local governments, far better to do so directly, rather than by the roundabout route of offering a tax break to the rich.”
Almost all benefits of repealing the $10,000 SALT cap would go to the top quintile, with the top 1 percent getting an average tax cut of $33,100 and 0.1 percent receiving nearly $145,000, according to Tax Policy Center estimates.
Lifting the SALT cap would give essentially no benefit to the middle class, contrary to what Democrats have argued. Only 4 percent of the benefit would go the middle class, “for an average annual tax cut of a little less than $27,” the report stated.
However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in July that he would make it a priority to permanently remove the SALT deduction cap if Democrats win the Senate majority in 2020.
“I want to tell you this: If I become majority leader, one of the first things I will do is we will eliminate it forever,” he said during a press conference. “It will be dead, gone, and buried.”
Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Joe Biden’s presidential campaign didn’t immediately respond to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.
“At best, the SALT deduction is a warped way to do social policy; at worst, it is a politically-motivated handout to the richest people in the richest places,” the report stated.
“Rather than seeking to remove the cap on the deduction, policymakers would do better to consider steps towards the removal of the deduction itself.”
The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration predicted in 2019 that the SALT cap would prevent nearly 11 million taxpayers from deducting $323 billion in state and local tax payments from their federal tax returns.
“Most of the benefits of the TCJA went to the top fifth, and 20 percent went to the top 1 percent. But lifting the SALT cap would be much more favorable to the rich—with almost three times as much of the benefit going to the top one percent,” the report stated.
Follow Emel on Twitter: @mlakan
Watchdog Accuses Silicon Valley Giants of Dodging $100 Billion in Taxes
Six of the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe have been accused of dodging $100 billion in taxes by a British tax watchdog.
CNBC reports that six major Silicon Valley tech firms have been accused of having a combined “tax gap” of $100 billion over the past ten years according to an analysis by a British tax organization. Fair Tax Mark, a British organization that certifies businesses for proper tax conduct, examined the global tax payments of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, and Microsoft from 2010 to 2019.
The research analyzed the company’s 10-K filings submitted to the U.S. government by the tech giants. Fair Tax Mark looked at tax provisions, which is the amount that companies set aside in their financial reports to pay taxes, and compared these with the amount of money that the companies actually paid to the government, called cash taxes. Researchers found that over the past ten years, the gap between the tax provision set out by the tech firms and the taxes they actually paid was approximately $100.2 billion.
The report also claimed that the profits were “shifted to tax havens, especially Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.” The researchers noted that most of the tax shortfall “almost certainly arose outside the United States,” with tax charges from countries outside the United States coming to 8.4 percent of the companies’ profits overseas.
Paul Monaghan, CEO of Fair Tax Mark, discussed the report with CNBC stating: “The amount of tax being paid by these businesses is $100 billion less than reported in their accounts.” The report noted that Amazon was the worst offender of the six tech firms. The report alleged that Amazon paid $3.4 billion in income taxes since 2010, noting that the cash tax paid by Amazon amounted to 12.7 percent of its profit for the decade despite the corporate tax rate being set at 35 percent for seven of the past ten years. President Donald Trump cut the corporate tax rate to 21 percent in 2017.
The report stated: “The company is growing its market domination across the globe on the back of revenues that are largely untaxed and can unfairly undercut local businesses that take a more responsible approach.” A spokesperson for Amazon told CNBC in a statement:
Amazon represents about 1% of global retail, with larger competitors everywhere we operate, and had a 24% effective tax rate on profits from 2010-2018. Amazon is primarily a retailer where profit margins are low, so comparisons to technology companies with operating profit margins of closer to 50% is not rational. Governments write the tax laws and Amazon is doing the very thing they encourage companies to do — paying all taxes due while also investing many billions in creating jobs and infrastructure. Coupled with low margins, this investment will naturally result in a lower cash tax rate.
Facebook had the second-biggest tax gap with the cash tax it paid representing 10.2 percent of the profit it made over the decade. A spokesperson for Facebook told CNBC:
In 2018 we paid $3.8 billion in corporation tax globally and our effective tax rate over the last five years is more than 20%. Under current rules we pay the vast majority of the tax we owe in the U.S. as that is where the bulk of our functions, assets and risks are located. Ultimately these are decisions for governments and we support the OECD process which is looking at new international tax rules for the digital economy.
Google ranked third with its taxes amounting to 15.8 percent of its profits with its foreign tax charge amounting to 7.1 percent. A Google spokesperson told CNBC that the report form Fair Tax Mark “ignores the reality of today’s complicated international tax system and distorts the facts documented in our regulatory filings.”
The company added: “Like other multinational companies, we pay the vast majority — more than 80% — of our corporate income tax in our home country. As we have said before, we strongly support the OECD’s work to end the current uncertainty and develop new tax principles.”
Netflix ranked fourth in the list handing over 15.8 percent of its profit while Apple ranked fifth with a tax rate of 17.1 percent. Apple told CNBC in a statement:
As the largest taxpayer in the world, we know the important role tax payments play in society. We pay all that we owe according to tax laws and local customs wherever we operate, and since 2008 Apple’s corporate taxes alone have totaled over $100 billion.
Microsoft paid the highest tax rate of 16.8 percent with a spokesperson telling CNBC: “Microsoft is fully compliant with all local laws and regulations in every country in which we operate. We serve customers in countries all over the world and our tax structure reflects that global footprint.”
Read more about the report at CNBC here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com
Dear Conservatives, Elon Musk is Not Your Friend
Conservatives have enjoyed Elon Musk's behavior in recent weeks, blasting Elizabeth Warren, opposing lockdowns, and insulting CNN, but the giddiness spewing from conservatives about Musk is foolish.
To those embracing Elon Musk's political conversion, remember that Musk has been one of the most prominent advocates of the continuous scam known as climate change. Like Bill Gates and Al Gore, Musk is an extremely wealthy man who fattens his own pockets through propagating climate change. And like those other rich guys, Musk doesn't refrain from using private jets to fly around the world to save it.
In 2018, Elon Musk reportedly donated $6 Million to the Sierra Club while writing, "Thank you for fighting climate change. This affects every living creature on earth." Once merely an environmental advocacy group, the Sierra Club has since evolved to promote other left-wing issues from pushing for mass immigration and abortion.
Musk also has no reservations about whispering sweet-nothings to communists by praising China as "more responsible" than the U.S. and said that Chinese government officials could "possibly" be "more responsible" for their citizen's happiness than America is.
Photo credit: JD Lasica CC BY 2.0 license
In May, Musk tweeted a call for a Carbon Tax and spoke with the Biden administration about implementing it. Musk demanding the government to take money from taxpayers should come as no surprise because Musk's companies received at least $4.9 billion in government subsidies – as of 2015! Therein lies perhaps Musk's most incredible skill: enriching himself with the government's help.
While government subsidies are not exclusive to one industry, what sets Elon Musk apart is not only his ability to exploit taxpayers but to use government guns to extort his competitors through "regulatory credits." The state and federal governments give regulatory credits for contributing zero pollution to the environment. In the name of fighting climate change, Musk successfully got the state of California and nine other states to set emission standards that only Tesla could meet. Suppose other automakers cannot produce zero-emissions vehicles. In that case, they will either pay hefty fines, have their business licenses revoked, or buy imaginary credits from automakers who do produce zero emissions, like Tesla.
It's important to understand these credits are not real – they are a made-up tax imposed by the government on automakers to reinforce the leftist religion of environmentalism. These credits are free cash with 100% margin and no overhead. Musk essentially colluded with the government to extort other automakers and pay him off under the guise of fighting climate change. And the returns are enormous.
In 2020, Tesla reported a regulatory credit revenue of $1.58 billion. Tesla's regulatory credits revenue project to be $2.2 billion in 2021, $3.1 billion in 2022, and $4.34 billion in 2023. By 2024, the government will have successfully extorted over $13 billion from automakers like Ford and GMC to fund Tesla. Without the help of this government-sponsored extortion, fiscal 2Q 2021 would have been the first quarter Tesla would have ever turned a profit.
But Tesla isn't the only Musk business that leverages the government to do his bidding. SolarCity received a $750 million investment from New York State for its plans to build a solar panel factory in Buffalo, just a tiny part of the $2.5 billion in government subsidies Uncle Sam has given SolarCity. Despite all the free cash, Tesla purchased SolarCity for $2.6 billion in Tesla stock because SolarCity
"has floundered despite significant taxpayer support through a bevy of state and federal tax credits and subsidies. Nevertheless, the solar energy company's stock has been in long-term decline as the company struggles to develop a profitable market not reliant on generous helpings of taxpayer support."
Another Musk business, SpaceX, has received $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the Air Force. Of course, NASA and the Air Force get their funding from American taxpayers, which flows into Musk's pocket. A California hedge fund manager told the LA Times: "Government support is a theme of all three of these companies, and without it, none of them would be around."
Another Musk business venture, the Boring Company, constructs underground tunnels as a means of public transportation. Yes, we already have Subway systems, but Musk promises these are faster and only cost $10 million per mile to dig – paid for by taxpayers. The good news for Musk is that he hedged his bets through The Boring Company, so if electric cars flop, then he can still own the mass transit market.
The common thread running through Musk's business ventures is that the government is always his biggest client, and he knows how to sell them. Being the cunning salesman that he is, when Musk needs cash, he opens new locations or moves the business – receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds to do so. When his businesses flounder, he shifts the conversation to one of his other ventures. To his credit, Musk might be the greatest salesman of a generation. How else can someone fund an empire through government coercion and taxpayer money while retaining universal respect and adoration?
Elon Musk is a climate change radical who partners with the government at every turn to enrich himself. Conservatives like Texas governor Greg Abbot shouldn't celebrate the arrival of Tesla and Musk to Texas because he will be coming for the pocketbooks of Texans in no time.
My suggestion is to refrain from gushing over Musk's recent political conversion. Musk is opportunist, and opportunism is a hallmark of the left. He seized the opportunity to make a fortune off climate change, and he's successfully done that. When the COVID insanity ends, climate change is on deck as the weapon of choice that the government will leverage to hijack your freedom. When that happens, Elon Musk will not be on your side.
It is more likely that Musk’s political shift stems from his recognition that a red wave is coming, and the devious salesman inside him is searching for more fertile ground to exploit after exhausting the resources of Democrats. Every con artist needs new investors to keep the scheme going.
Conservatives beware.
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment