House Proposal Will Hike Taxes

Former President Ronald Reagan used to have two descriptions (among many) of the Democrat Party:

They never met a tax they didn't like, or hike.

Republicans see every day as July 4th, the Democrats see every day as April 15. 

Proving once again that Reagan was right about them, the Democrats are planning to raise taxes. This time, it is during a period of high inflation and the possibility of a recession. Impeccable timing, eh?

The Epoch Times reported:

Taxes will go up for millions of lower- and middle-income taxpayers under the House Democrats’ version of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, according to two new analyses by the non-partisan professional staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

“While Republican tax reform in 2017 cut taxes for all Americans, and increased the progressivity of the tax code, the Democrats’ approach to tax reform does not cut taxes for anyone, but it would raise taxes on millions of lower- and middle-income Americans at a time when they can least afford it,” U.S. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said in a statement issued late Monday.

“The economy is already reeling from Democrats’ bad policies and people are struggling to make ends meet. The last thing they need are higher taxes, especially in light of rising odds of a recession and stagflation,” the Idaho Republican continued.

Crapo was referring to the June 23 (pdf) and June 27 (pdf) analyses by the 10-member panel, which made the studies available to Members of Congress and their staff, but did not publicly issue news releases describing the results. Both analyses focused on H.R. 5376, as amended.

To read more, go here. 

NRA and Gun Owners of America Respond To Gun Bill

Gun rights groups responded to the bipartisan gun control bill yesterday after it was announced that 10 RINO Republican senators crossed over to support it.

From The Epoch Times:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) both issued statements Sunday after a bipartisan group of senators announced they’d reached an agreement on a gun control and safety package.

“Here we go again, Republican legislators compromising your rights and getting nothing in return,” GOA wrote in a Twitter post, referring to proposals in the framework deal. “Federal dollars to bribe your state legislators into enacting unconstitutional ‘red flag’ laws, which could allow a court to seize your weapons, without any due process, simply based on anonymous tips.”

It added that the bill would entail “wait periods and extensive review for those under 21 seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights … we will not allow the government to make those who can vote and fight our wars second class citizens.”

The proposal, which has the backing of 10 Republicans in the Senate, includes initiatives to support state crisis intervention orders, an enhanced review process for gun buyers under the age of 21, expansions on various mental health programs, a ban on straw purchases, and other measures.

After having experienced the California "red flag" confiscation law several years ago from a vindictive ex, I also have to oppose any measure that promotes them. Fortunately for me, there was enough evidence to refute the claims made and I got my guns back. Red flag laws have been abused by vindictive ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends out for revenge. You can expect more of this if more red flag laws are enacted.

To read the full article, go here. 

High Fuel Prices Are A "Transition", Biden Says

Anyone with at least half a brain and who have been paying attention are perfectly aware of His Fraudulency's administration's scheme to get the country off fossil fuels. High fuel prices are intentional.

Finally, a top U.S. senator is coming out and saying so.

From The Epoch Times:

 A top Republican said on Friday that President Joe Biden is raising gas prices on purpose.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made the remarks when he was asked on Fox Business’s “Wall Street with Maria Bartiromo” to respond to Biden’s recent comments where he said raising gas prices is part of “an incredible transition.”

“I think that’s the main takeaway from his statement, that he is telling the American people they’re doing this to you on purpose, that the transition period is being imposed by policies coming from the Biden administration,” he said.

“This is a conscious effort by the Biden administration to destroy fossil fuel production in the United States, to get away from fossil fuels, and you’re living this experience. This is an irresponsible shutting down of oil and gas production in America, making us more dependent on oil and gas from bad actors, and it’s destroying the American economy,” he continued.

Biden characterized the soaring cost of gasoline in the United States as an “incredible transition” on Monday while taking questions from reporters during his trip to Japan.

“When it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” he said alongside Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

Yes, Biden actually said this! What more proof do you need?

Hopefully, after this year's midterm election, there will be enough votes in congress to impeach and remove Biden from the White House.

To read more, go here.

CDC Extends Federal Mask Mandate

Above, yours truly at the Albuquerque Sunport. Photo by Mitch Geriminsky.

Here we go again!

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (or is it the Centers for People Control and Tyranny?) has extended the transportation mask mandate for two more weeks. Apparently, they think masks are effective. They are as effective as keeping mosquitoes out of your yard with a chain-link fence.

The Epoch Times reported:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has extended the federal mask mandate for transportation for two more weeks, citing the small recent increase in COVID-19 cases.

The order will remain in place another 15 days, until May 3, to let officials at the agency assess whether the BA.2 virus subvariant drives a fresh wave of cases.

“In order to assess the potential impact the rise of cases has on severe disease, including hospitalizations and deaths, and health care system capacity, the CDC order will remain in place at this time,” the CDC said in a statement.

The order was first imposed in January 2021 and applies to trains, airplanes, and other modes of transportation under purview of federal officials, as well as transportation hubs like airports.

To read more, go here. 

Disney "Stepped In Quicksand" In Florida Feud

The feud between the state of Florida and the Walt Disney Company is escalating.

According to one Florida state representative, the company has stepped into quicksand by getting itself involved in opposing the "Parental Rights in Education" law that was recently enacted.

The Epoch Times reported:

As the battle between Florida and Disney escalates following Gov. Ron DeSantis signing the “Parental Rights in Education” bill into law, one Sunshine State lawmaker says Disney “stepped in quicksand and made a drastic unforced error.”

As The Epoch Times reported April 1, DeSantis floated the possibility at a March 31 press conference in Ponte Vedra Beach that lawmakers in the Sunshine State might repeal the 1967 Reedy Creek Improvement Act in response to Disney’s ongoing opposition to the recently signed “Parental Rights in Education” law, dubbed by liberal opponents as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. State Rep. Spencer Roach, a Republican, revealed through social media that lawmakers had already met twice to discuss the idea, saying “if Disney wants to embrace woke ideology, it seems fitting that they should be regulated by Orange County.”

The announcement came as part of the ongoing feud between Disney and the state of Florida since the governor signed the bill into law. Previously silent about the bill until he faced backlash from a minority of Disney’s LGBT employees, Disney CEO Bob Chapek issued a statement on March 11, apologizing to them for not being a “stronger ally.” In a show of action, Chapek also announced Disney would put an immediate stop to all political donations in Florida. In a subsequent demonstration of solidarity, Disney Corporation issued a statement vowing that its new goal was to have “this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts” and to support organizations working to make that happen. DeSantis quickly reminded Disney that Florida “is governed by the interests of the people of the state of Florida—it is not based on the demands of California corporate executives.”

There are rumblings of Disney shareholder discontent over the company's woke actions. One shareholder publicly suggested:

It’s a sentiment shared by DisneyBizJournal.com editor and Disney shareholder Ray Keating.

“Here’s a suggestion for Disney CEO Bob Chapek: Get back to business, that is, excellence in storytelling, and stop wasting shareholders’ money on political crusades that have nothing to do with Disney’s business,” Keating told Fox News Digital. “We all have the right to have our voices heard on issues, but not on the shareholders’ dime.”

To read the full article, go here. 

Airline Pilots File Lawsuit Over Mask Mandate

Above, a jet being readied at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Photo by Armand Vaquer. 

During the past two years, I have flown several times and had to wear a mask during the duration of the those flights, no matter how many hours the flight durations were, and they were miserable experiences. The only times one can remove the mask is while eating or drinking.

Well, commercial airline pilots are getting fed up with the federal mask mandate and have filed suit to end it.

The Epoch Times reported (some snippets):

Hours after the U.S. Senate voted to repeal the federal transportation mask mandate—which the White House quickly threatened to veto—a group of commercial pilots filed the first legal challenge by airline workers to overturn the requirement to wear masks on all public transport.

On March 15, 10 commercial airline pilots from six states filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), asking the court to strike down the federal transportation mask mandate, arguing that it endangers aviation safety.

The complaint was filed the same day the U.S. Senate voted 57–40 to repeal the mask mandate, a move the White House quickly threatened to veto. This is the first legal challenge to the mandate filed by airline workers.

On Feb. 25, the CDC eased indoor masking guidance for the general public. However, the CDC’s update did not change the federal mask mandate on public transportation, which had already been extended multiple times by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The latest extension, announced March 10, orders travelers to keep wearing masks until April 18.

The pilots’ 61-page complaint (pdf) contends “the defendants have acted without statutory authorization or following the rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act” and that the “mandate also raises serious constitutional concerns” because “Congress never intended for the Executive Branch to have the authority to promulgate this policy–and even if it did, it’s unconstitutional.”

In 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration reported there were 5,981 unruly passenger incidents. Of those, 4,290 involved masks. Of the 961 reports of unruly passengers already reported for the first three months of 2022, the FAA said, 635 were related to face masks.

To read the full article, go here.

Appeals Court Puts Big Tech's Section 230 Immunity In Its Crosshairs

Big Tech and the tyrants of social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc.) may be in big doo-doo if the U.S. Appeals Court of the Second Circuit in New York rules against them concerning their Section 230 immunity. 

The Epoch Times reported:

A little-watched civil rights case that threatens Silicon Valley’s Section 230 immunity took a huge step forward on July 16, as an appeals court that rarely does so agreed to review a lower court’s decision.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Second Circuit in New York agreed to review a lower court’s ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects Big Tech companies such as Vimeo from civil rights liability in censorship cases.

Big Tech censorship became a hot button issue during the 2020 presidential campaign when then-President Donald Trump was selectively censored by Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

The controversy became especially heated late in the campaign when a New York Post series of news articles regarding the allegedly corrupt business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was banned by the Big Tech giants.

Trump has filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the firms that censored him. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has also been the most vocal of multiple congressional conservative Republican critics of Section 230 immunity.

The case of Domen v. Vimeo came about after Vimeo, an Internet video-hosting company, terminated Church United’s video streaming activities after it featured videos of five men and women who left the gay lifestyle to pursue their Christian faith. Vimeo claimed that its terms of service bar streaming videos that promote sexual orientation change therapy. Church United is led by Pastor Jim Domen.

A federal district court had previously held that Section 230 exempted firms such as Vimeo from civil liability and a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling.

However, as a result of the July 16 decision, the panel’s ruling will be reheard before the entire Second Circuit. The Second Circuit covers six federal district courts in three states, including New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

To read more, go here. 

Restaurants Hurting Due To Lack of Staff

Above, the Jamestown, New Mexico Flying J Travel Center. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

One of my Jamestown, New Mexico friends went down to the Flying J Travel Center to get his mail from the post office there yesterday.

While at the Flying J, he found that the Denny's restaurant at the travel center is only offering take-out service due to a lack of staff.

This is a problem that is happening throughout the U.S. Restaurants are having trouble hiring workers as they'd rather stay at home while collecting a government check.

The Epoch Times posted an article on this problem and they wrote:

As more and more states start easing pandemic restrictions, restaurants large and small are grappling with a widespread problem: hiring employees.

Owners and managers from New York, California, Washington, and Chicago told The Epoch Times hiring woes have become a nightmare amid a litany of other challenges like indoor occupancy rules. They say the federal unemployment bonuses handed out during the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic incentivized people to stay home instead of working.

Hopefully, Denny's here can hire enough staff to reopen for dining so we can resume our morning breakfast/coffee gatherings.

To read more, go here. 

US Appeals Court Rules States May Restrict Open Carry

When I saw the headline, I had a strong feeling that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was the court who made this decision.

Naturally, I was right. It was the "Ninth Circus". This will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From The Epoch Times:

An appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict people from openly carrying firearms in public—upholding a Hawaii gun regulation that bans residents from openly carrying guns without a license.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that restrictions on carrying guns in public except for hunting do not violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

“The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places—including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets—the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote in his opinion (pdf) for the court’s majority.

To read more, go here.