Tag: joe biden

Biden Education Secretary Miguel Cardona Refuses to Say Whether Men and Women ‘Are Physically Different’

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona refused to answer whether or not men and women have physical differences during a House Appropriations Committee budget hearing on Wednesday.

The question asked to Cardona during the budget hearing was in reference to the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) announcing on Monday that they are blocking males who identify as females from playing in women’s sports.

During the hearing, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) questioned Cardona about the importance of Title IX before questioning him on the physical differences between men and women, according to the Daily Caller.

Title IX is the federal civil rights law that protects individuals from sexual discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government, according to Thomson Reuters.

“Would you agree that Title IX was necessary to help establish women’s sports because women can’t fairly be expected to compete on biological male teams?” Harris asked Cardona.

While Cardona initially attempted to skirt the question, after being asked by Harris not to filibuster, he agreed that Title IX is important.

Harris then asked Cardona if he would “agree that women are physically different from men.”

Keep reading

Biden administration put PRESSURE on fact-checkers to change the rating on claims it was going to ban gas stoves, damning internal emails reveal

Biden administration officials put pressure on the fact-checking website Snopes to change claims that the government was going to ban gas stoves over climate change concerns.

Fox News Channel reported Thursday on internal emails unearthed in a Freedom of Information Act request by the GOP-leaning watchdog group Functional Government Initiative.

In January 2023, Snopes initially rated claims that the Biden administration was going to ban gas stoves over climate change concerns as a ‘mixture’ of fact and fiction. 

Richard Trumka Jr., a Biden-appointed member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, had told Bloomberg News in an interview on January 9, 2023, that a gas stove ban was ‘on the table’ – setting off a firestorm of criticism. 

Behind-the-scenes, CPSC communications director Pamela Rucker Springs told White House assistant press secretary Michael Kikukawa that she had approached Snopes and asked that their fact-checking assessment be changed. 

Keep reading

Biden announces largest expansion of gun background checks in decades

The Biden administration has finalized the largest expansion of gun-sales background checks since the advent of the federal check system in the 1990s, moving to close the “gun show loophole” and online sales that have avoided checks in the past.

The new rule being announced Thursday expands the definition of who is considered a firearms dealer and says every dealer must conduct a background check regardless of the sale venue. That means sales at gun shows or conducted over the internet must now be included.

It is not a universal background check, meaning some transactions such as gifts or occasional sales are still exempt. But administration officials said they expect the rule will cover tens of thousands of sales each year that currently escape background checks.

Keep reading

How Taxpayers Will Heavily Subsidize Democrat Boots on the Ground This Election

Progressives are using legal loopholes and the power of the federal government to maximize Democrat votes in the 2024 election at taxpayers’ expense, RealClearInvestigations has found.

The methods include voter registration and mobilization campaigns by ostensibly nonpartisan charities that target Democrats using demographic data as proxies, and the Biden administration’s unprecedented demand that every federal agency “consider ways to expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process.”

A dizzying array of overwhelmingly “democracy-focused” entities with ties to the Democratic Party operating as charities and funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from major liberal “dark money” vehicles are engaged in a sprawling campaign to register the voters, deliver them the ballots, and figuratively and sometimes literally harvest the votes necessary to defeat Donald Trump.

Keep reading

Scandal Rocks Biden’s Labor Dept For Lying About Sharing Non-Public Inflation Data With Secret Group Of Wall Street “Super Users”

A little over a month ago, a scandal erupted among the (relatively small( group of economists who keep a close eye on the monthly inflation data reported by the Biden Department of Labor, when they learned that there is an even smaller, and much more exclusive group of economists called “super users” who get preferential treatment from the BLS, including wink-wink-nudge-nudge explanations of where the data may diverge from expectations. That was the case for the January CPI when as Bloomberg first reported, the BLS sent an email to a group of data “super users”, which “explained suggested a surge in a measure of rental inflation — which left analysts puzzled — was caused by an adjustment to how subcomponents of the index are weighted”:

Once it became public knowledge that there was a super secret group of preferential “accounts” receiving economic data, immediately following the Bloomberg report, a recipient of the email said that BLS Statistics “tried to retract it and that they were told to disregard its contents.” Almost as if they were trying to hide it after the fact.

In retrospect, it appears the BLS really did have something to hide, because in a follow up from both the NYT and Bloomberg, we now learn that an economist from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was corresponding on data related the monthly CPI print with major firms like JPMorgan and BlackRock, in what Bloomberg said “raised questions about equitable access to economic information.”

Keep reading

The dirty little secret of Biden’s economic resurgence

In the midst of what has been touted as an economic resurgence under President Biden’s administration, a discerning examination from a conservative standpoint reveals a nuanced and, at times, troubling picture of whom this resurgence actually benefits.  While headlines may herald job creation and economic growth, a deeper analysis suggests that these gains are not uniformly felt across the American populace.

Instead, there is growing concern that policies purported to stimulate the economy are disproportionately advantageous to foreign-born illegal aliens over American citizens.

At the heart of this issue is the contention that the influx of illegal labor undermines the job market for American workers.  This is not just a matter of numbers, but a matter of the quality and stability of employment opportunities available to citizens.

The displacement effect, where Americans are edged out of opportunities or find their wages suppressed, is a real and palpable concern.  Such displacement is often justified under the guise of filling labor shortages or performing jobs Americans are unwilling to do, yet this overlooks the broader economic ramifications and the principle of fair and lawful entry into the job market.

Moreover, this scenario feeds into a larger cycle of economic distortion.  An increase in the labor supply, particularly through illegal immigration, can exert downward pressure on wages, especially in lower-skilled occupations.

While lower wages may benefit certain sectors by reducing labor costs, they also contribute to a stagnation or even a decrease in living standards for working-class Americans.  This situation is further exacerbated by inflation, which erodes purchasing power, making everyday Americans feel as if they are running harder to stay in place.

Critics argue that the administration’s economic policies, rather than addressing these fundamental disparities, seem to exacerbate them.  The provision of social services and benefits to illegal aliens, funded by taxpayers, is particularly contentious.

The argument here is not about the lack of compassion or support for those seeking a better life, but about the sustainability of policies that encourage illegal entry and residency, creating long-term economic and social challenges.

Keep reading

DOJ Refuses to Provide House GOP Audio of Biden’s Interview With Special Counsel Hur

The Department of Justice (DOJ) says it will not provide audio tapes of President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, which was subpoenaed by the House GOP.

In a letter to the House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee on April 8, Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte lamented that despite the department cooperating with the committees’ Feb. 27 subpoenas, “the committees have responded with escalation and threats of criminal contempt.”

“We urge the committees to avoid conflict rather than seek it,” he added. “It is not too late for the committees to choose a different path, to take an offramp towards the ’spirit of dynamic compromise’ that the Constitution requires of us both.”

The “spirit of dynamic compromise” quote comes from a federal court case.

The Feb. 27 subpoena was for notes, audio files, video, and transcripts of Mr. Hur’s probe. The committees set a deadline of March 7, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by The Epoch Times.

“Americans expect equal justice under the law and DOJ is allowing the Bidens to operate above it,” said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in a statement. “Special Counsel Hur’s report outlined that classified documents Joe Biden stashed for years relate to countries where his family cashed in on the Biden brand.”

Keep reading

Censorship on Trial at the Supreme Court

Billed as one of the most consequential lawsuits of the last century, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) is a legal battle that stands at the intersection of free speech protections and social media companies. 

The plaintiffs, which include psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, and epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, cosignatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, allege the US government coerced social media companies to censor disfavoured viewpoints that were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.

The US government denies coercing social media companies, arguing it was “friendly encouragement” in an effort to protect Americans from “misinformation” in a public health emergency.

The Constitution is clear – it forbids the US government from abridging free speech. But a private company such as a social media platform bears no such burden and is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment.

This case asks whether certain government officials impermissibly coerced social media companies to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. The case now sits before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The Case So Far

The case has seen several twists and turns since it was originally filed in 2022.

Discovery allowed plaintiffs to document nearly 20,000 pages showing platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, YouTube, and Google stifled free speech by removing or downgrading stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the 2020 presidential election, and various Covid-19 policies.

The plaintiffs described it as an “unprecedented, sprawling federal censorship enterprise.”

On July 4, 2023, US District Court Terry Doughty granted a motion to restrict federal government officials from communicating with social media companies over content it believed to be misinformation.

Specifically, they were prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, or text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Doughty indicated there was “substantial evidence” that the US government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a widespread censorship campaign and that “if the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The Biden Administration appealed the decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the officials exercised a form of permissible government speech because they only pointed out content that violated the platforms’ policies to reduce the harms of online misinformation.

On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed Judge Doughty’s order stating that US government officials were engaging “in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.”

It was determined that the harms of such censorship radiated far beyond the plaintiffs in the case, essentially impacting every social-media user.

Keep reading

Net Neutrality Could Expand Biden’s Social Media Censorship To The Whole Internet

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in one of the most important cases this term, one with critical implications for First Amendment free speech rights as society proceeds further into a world reliant upon internet service.

The controversy at the heart of Murthy v. Missouri is the Biden administration’s effort to pressure or “jawbone” social media to censor various opinions and public policy advocacy about the Covid pandemic that it found objectionable. 

The Biden administration naturally claims it was simply engaging in discourse with social media leaders to “inform and persuade,” but discovered correspondence included direct threats against the companies while White House officials openly and publicly threatened new “legal and regulatory measures” if the targeted groups failed to submit to its desires. 

Those revelations only confirm widespread suspicion that the left-leaning administrative state, favored and further empowered by the Biden administration, seeks to exploit its vast authority to suppress the speech of Americans who don’t share its preferred narratives or big-government goals.

The Supreme Court must now determine whether that White House pressure campaign crossed the line into unconstitutional intimidation and censorship, even without formal government prosecution or enforcement. Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Biden administration’s form of “informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief,” even where the targeted groups are “free” to ignore its threats, because “people do not lightly disregard officers’ thinly veiled threats.” 

Keep reading

OUCH: White House Cancels Annual Ramadan Dinner After Muslims Refuse to Attend

The White House was forced to cancel its annual Ramadan celebration after Muslims refused to attend an event with Joe Biden.

CBS News reports that while the White House held a successful Iftar dinner last year with hundreds of Muslims, this year’s celebrations involved just a handful administration officials:

Last year, President Biden hadn’t even spoken a word at the White House celebration of Ramadan before someone shouted out “we love you.” Hundreds of Muslims were there to mark the end of the holy month that requires fasting from sunrise to sunset.

There are no such joyous scenes during this Ramadan. With many Muslim Americans outraged over Mr. Biden’s support for Israel’s siege of Gaza, the White House chose to hold a smaller iftar dinner on Tuesday evening. The only dinner attendees were people who work for his administration.

…

Alzayat attended last year’s event, but he declined an invitation to break his fast with Mr. Biden this year, saying, “It’s inappropriate to do such a celebration while there’s a famine going on in Gaza.”

After rejections from Alzayat and others, he said the White House adjusted its plans Monday, telling community leaders it wanted to host a meeting focused on administration policy. Alzayat still said no, believing that one day wasn’t enough time to prepare for an opportunity to sway Mr. Biden’s mind on the conflict.

The boycott reflects the growing anger among America’s Muslims communities about Biden’s lukewarm for Israel’s war against Hamas.

Keep reading