Tag: joe biden

Hunter Biden Had Access to Joe Biden’s Top Secret/SCIF-Designated Materials Including National Defense Info Related to US Troop Deployment

Hunter Biden had access to then-VP Joe Biden’s Top Secret/SCIF-designated materials including national defense information related to US troop deployment while he was on vacation in Nantucket.

Via Paul Sperry: China influence-peddling Hunter Biden had access to TOP SECRET/SCI materials including “nat’l defense information” –e.g. US troop deployment/movement– while on vacation in NANTUCKET with his then-VP father where he kept docs out in the open and received daily intel briefings

Last year TGP reported that Hunter Biden likely received classified information from Joe Biden on Ukraine and then emailed the information to his business partner Devon Archer.

According to emails uncovered from the “Laptop from Hell,” Hunter Biden sent his business partner Devon Archer a very detailed email on Ukraine on April 13, 2014 – just one week before Joe Biden visited Ukraine to meet with then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

It appears Hunter Biden was emailing Devon Archer information he received from a briefing from his father Joe Biden or directly from top-secret documents.

“A curiously well-informed email about Ukraine, Russia and the UK on Hunter Biden’s laptop is a thread that links the President’s classified documents scandal to the Delaware federal investigation into his son’s foreign business dealings.” – the New York Post’s Miranda Devine wrote.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading

Biden’s State of the Union Address Exposed by US Intelligence Threat Assessment

President Biden used the bully pulpit of the annual State of the Union Address to describe a world that significantly differed from the picture presented just a month earlier in the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community.

Information fed to the general public is deliberately spun to sell the imperial project. In contrast, intelligence assessments for elite policy makers are designed to sustain the endeavor. That the president’s pronouncements diverge from the conclusions reached by his own intelligence community highlights the chasm between what is foisted on the public compared to what is understood within the bowels of the state.

Unlike Biden’s bullish and bellicose pronouncements about “our leadership in the world,” the Assessment’s view was less triumphal. It states: “The United States faces an increasingly fragile global order.”

The fraying US-imposed “rules based order” and its discredited neoliberal economic system are more and more being challenged by “states engaging in competitive behavior,” according to the Assessment. The report adds, fallout from the Gaza crisis, in particular, serves to “undermine” the US.

Both pronouncements, however, have similar biases. Biden’s address to the nation was overtly political, accusing Trump of “bowing down” to Putin. But the supposedly neutral and objective “collective insights of the Intelligence Community” were likewise predisposed in favor of Democratic Party memes. Both blame Russian electoral interference for Trump’s ascension to the Oval Office in 2016. As proof, the so-called intelligence community again offered nothing more than its own assessment, lacking better evidence.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading

President Joe Biden’s Magical Thinking On Taxes

I am often asked whether President Joe Biden is intentionally trying to dismantle the American economy with his imbecile energy, climate change, crime, border, inflation and debt policies. But I’ve always believed that these policies are driven by a badly mistaken ideology — not malice.

Then I watched Biden’s State of the Union speech when Biden thundered that “I’m going to make corporations pay their fair share,” The democrats in Congress leapt to their feet in applause.

When I read through the details of Biden’s new multi-trillion tax plan, it’s hard to come up with any plausible explanation other than that he’s trying to make American industry less competitive. Biden’s tax scheme would hobble U.S. businesses with nearly the highest corporate tax rate in the world — and higher than our primary competitors.

They’re the big winner here if God forbid these policies were adopted? Even China and Russia — one communist and one autocratic nation — would have LOWER tax rates on their businesses than we would on ours.

This will lead to an outmigration of capital from the U.S. to our rivals as sure as river water flows downstream.

One of my first meetings with Donald Trump was in early 2020 when I showed him a chart that indicated the U.S. had the highest tax rate of all our competitors. When Trump saw the chart, he instantly remarked: “This is like a head start program for all the countries we compete with.”

His goal was to empower American businesses with the lowest rate in the world. We didn’t get the rate down to 15%, but we did lower it to 21%.

This helped attract more than $1 trillion back into the United States from all corners of the globe — from Switzerland to Bermuda, to Euroland. It helped raise incomes for working class Americans despite being disparaged as a “tax cut for the rich.” As Trump once put it, because of the lower tax rates and other pro-growth reforms, for the first time in decades factories moved from Mexico to Maryland rather than the other way around.

Keep reading

Biden Admin Preparing “Toughest Ever” Auto Emission Standards

Despite pretty much the entire country making it clear that EV mandates are hurting the industry (with major automakers like Ford and GM slashing investment), President Biden is forging forward with his “green agenda” even further.

This go-round, Biden is “preparing to roll out the toughest-ever” emissions restrictions, according to Bloomberg. 

The report says that the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to implement emissions limits that (Biden thinks) could significantly boost electric vehicle sales, requiring EVs to constitute about two-thirds of new car and light truck sales by 2032, a sharp increase from less than 10% last year. 

Unless, of course, people stop buying new cars. 

Regardless, this regulation supposedly aims to cut down on pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, and marks a major action under President Joe Biden’s administration and a step toward meeting the US’s Paris Agreement goal of slashing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The transportation sector is currently the largest contributor to the US’s climate pollution, Bloomberg writes. 

Keep reading

Joe Biden’s Deputies Quietly Block Haitian Exodus

President Joe Biden’s U.S. Coast Guard has intercepted a boatful of Haitian migrants and returned them to their society without triggering an avalanche of asylum claims, NBC News reported on March 15.

“The U.S. Coast Guard stopped 65 Haitians who were trying to flee Haiti by boat and sent them back to Haiti,” said NBC, citing an agency statement.

This policy suggests that Biden’s pro-migration deputies want to quietly avoid triggering a massive exodus of asylum-seeking migrants when many polls show escalating public opposition to his policy of importing poor workers and renters.

The sea interception prevents the migrants from reaching U.S. soil where they can apply for asylum. If they were allowed to reach U.S. soil to apply for asylum, their success would guarantee many more migrants — forcing Biden’s campaign deputies to either detain a large population of black Haitians or release them into U.S. communities during an election year.

Keep reading

As White House Hosts Marijuana Pardon Recipients, It’s Time For Bolder Action From Biden

As President Biden listed off his first-term accomplishments during his State of the Union address, Richeda Ashmeade sat studying for midterms in her last year of law school. Listening to the president tout his executive actions on cannabis, she was acutely aware of those whom his reforms have left behind. Despite all the rhetoric and applause breaks, her father, Ricardo Ashmeade, is still serving a 22-year sentence and is one of the thousands of people still in federal prison for cannabis.

The specific actions Biden highlighted during his address were related to his October 2022 proclamation, in which he pardoned all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession, a move that was expanded on late last year to bring relief to an estimated 13,000 Americans. His executive action also initiated a review process that could result in cannabis being reclassified under the Controlled Substances Act at the federal level and moved out of Schedule I, the most dangerous drug classification. Yet neither of these actions would affect those who have suffered the most devastating consequences of prohibition, families like the Ashmeades.

Biden’s actions are being hailed as historic, but in reality, they represent peripheral changes that signal the reevaluation of cannabis but not the release of cannabis prisoners or relief for those who continue to be burdened by the lasting consequences of the carceral system. In short, these announcements represent progress but not justice. But that hasn’t stopped the administration from leveraging these actions with voters.

On Friday, Vice President Harris gathered several of the cannabis pardon recipients, along with rapper Fat Joe, for a public discussion about criminal justice reform at the White House. Clearly, the administration sees the political power of undoing the harms caused by the criminalization of cannabis—a sentiment that is backed up by polling data that shows the vast majority of Americans feel cannabis should no longer be criminalized.

Of course, the timing and context here matter, with these moves coming as the highly contentious presidential race ramps up. When he made his remarks, Biden became the first president in over 35 years to mention marijuana during a State of the Union address. The last president to mention cannabis during the address was Reagan, who listed marijuana among the prime enemies of the people and as a reason for the necessity of the war on drugs.

Keep reading

The White House Claims Borrowing $16 Trillion Over the Next Decade Is Fiscally Responsible

The budget plan President Joe Biden unveiled on Monday would hike taxes, increase federal spending to unprecedented levels, and lock in budget deficits that average nearly $2 trillion annually for the next decade.

But possibly the craziest detail is the fact that the White House is trying to frame all of that as being an exercise in fiscal restraint.

No, really. In a “fact sheet” released alongside the budget, the White House touted how the proposal would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years. “Strong and shared growth that benefits all Americans isn’t just good for working families and the economy; it will also lead to better fiscal outcomes,” the administration claims, adding that Biden believes “long-term investments in our nation and its people should be paid for.”

Someone in the White House might want to Google what the phrase “paid for” actually means, because Biden’s budget assumes the federal government will keep borrowing at near-record levels for the next decade.

For fiscal year 2025, which begins on October 1 of this year, Biden is asking Congress to spend $7.3 trillion while the federal government will collect just $5.5 trillion in taxes. That will necessitate borrowing $1.8 trillion to make ends meet. Over the 10-year window covered by the president’s budget plan, federal revenues would exceed $70 trillion, but Biden is proposing to spend $86.6 trillion.

This is what “paid for” looks like, apparently.

Keep reading

Pres. Biden’s budget proposal seeks to spend $3 billion for teacher DEI training programs

President Joe Biden’s budget proposal seeks to set aside billions of dollars to push progressive gender, sexuality and race ideology at home and around the globe.

Released this week, the $7.3 trillion budget also proposes spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to train school teachers in diversity, equity, and inclusion dogma.

The White House touted the spending in its announcement of Biden’s budget, which includes $3 billion to “advance gender equity and equality worldwide.”

That $3 billion figure is several hundred million dollars higher than the 2023 budget request.

Funding for domestic projects of the same kind are robust as well though, including for public education to “improve the diversity of the teacher pipeline.”

In fact, Biden’s budget prioritizes training a new generation of teachers who embrace progressive ideology on race, gender, and sexuality.

For example, the budget includes $30 million to increase the number of teachers who go through the Hawkins Centers of Excellence, a federal effort that sets up programs to trains teachers in inclusivity on race, gender and sexuality.

Those training programs must be set up at minority-focused colleges such as historically black colleges and universities or colleges focused on serving Native Americans or Hispanics.

Once established, the taxpayer-funded program must “examine the sources of inequity and inadequacy in resources and opportunity and implement pedagogical practices in teacher preparation programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status and that prepare teachers to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.”

In another similar funding item, the budget sets aside $95 million for the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, another federal effort that administers grants for training teachers.

Keep reading