Connect with us


Trump Admin Just Uncovered Massive Fraud Obama Left Behind You’ll Be Furious You Paid For – We Want It Back!

No wonder he racked up so much debt



Senator Rand Paul (KY-R) is once again highlighting the significant waste taking place with government ranks as he advocates for his balanced budget plan as the Senate voted 76-21 to reject Paul’s plan, refusing to even attempt to curtail their wasteful spending.

So Senator Paul took to social media to highlight the various taxpayer-funded projects that government has a part in that many Americans, Paul included that do not believe the American taxpayers should be funding. He highlighted various taxpayer-funded projects including an unfinished Afghanistan hotel that wasted some $90 million American taxpayer dollars, a study on supernatural events in Alaska and Pakistani student trips to Space Camp and Dollywood.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

One of the many wasteful, superfluous, and unnecessary projects Paul highlighted was from the National Science Foundation, which is a federal agency supporting research and education in science and engineering. Paul highlighted a study from the National Science Foundation about cocaine and risky sex habits of the Japanese quail.  This ridiculous and unnecessary study is currently costing American taxpayers more than $356,000.00 and the Senate is refusing to curtail this level of waste of American resources.

Paul joked about his targeting of the National Science Foundation stating he was expecting hate mail from supporters of the federal agency. The junior Senator from Kentucky made his speech in support of his self-proclaimed “Penny Plan” balanced budget proposal, stating his plan is looking to cut wasteful government spending by a mere 1%. Yet he believes the proposal will not see enough Republican support because “they’re only for spending restraint in theory.”

Senator Paul states

“Last year, Congress passed a budget that didn’t balance. Then they followed that up by passing a spending bill that blew past even the modest spending restraints they had put in place before.

I voted no and strongly and publicly opposed their spending. Now it appears they won’t even OFFER a budget for 2019, but we don’t have to sit back and watch that happen.

The Senate rules say that if the leadership and the Budget Committee don’t report out a budget by April 1, any senator can do it — so that’s exactly what I’m going to do this week.

I will introduce a FULLY BALANCED budget that includes spending cuts, entitlement reform, and a plan to bring our fiscal house in order. No more trillion-dollar deficits.  No more adding to the $21 trillion debt with reckless abandon.

Instead, here are some of the highlights from my balanced budget plan.

My budget will balance in FIVE years, without touching Social Security.  It repeals the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and its trillion-dollar deficits and instead uses the Penny Plan to balance.

What does that mean? It means that next year we will spend 1 percent less than we spend this year, and for the next five years until balance is reached between revenues and spending.  After that, the budget will begin to grow again at one percent per year instead of cutting.

Sounds simple, right? Would you be able to do with 99 percent of what you had previously spent if you needed to? Washington will scream and holler, but these are the facts. We are $21 trillion in debt. The deficit is growing again. And it takes only a 1 percent cut per year for a few years to reverse this and to balance.

The plan also makes no specific policy assumptions.  If, for example, Congress didn’t want to cut the military, they could simply cut elsewhere in larger amounts, as long as the cut came out to 1 percent of the total budget.

Does anyone not think we WASTE more than 1 percent of the budget?

Last but not least, this budget will include reconciliation instructions to provide for expanded Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to help lower the cost of health care for everyone.

Patients would be able to use their HSAs to pay for premiums, saving them thousands per year. They would also be able to use them for over-the-counter medicine and activities that promote wellness and lower the overall cost of healthcare.

I take spending and balanced budgets seriously. I’ve never voted for a budget that didn’t balance. Since it appears one is not being offered this year, and since our deficits and debt are spiraling out of control, I decided to offer my own. Adding to massive debt isn’t what I signed up for — and it isn’t what people voted for.

I think the people expected the GOP to keep its word and work to rein in spending, shrink government, and cut the deficit. They expected us to put forward a plan to BALANCE THE BUDGET like we said we would.

Well, for me, it wasn’t just campaign talk.  I’m going to do it.  And then I’m going to force a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and we will see who will join me.”

Paul’s Balanced Budget plans to –

  • Senator Paul’s budget simply states that for every on-budget dollar the federal government spent in FY18, excluding the BBA, it spends one penny less for the next five years (at which point balance is reached), with spending then growing at one percent thereafter.
  • Reduces spending by $404.8B in FY19 and by $13.35T over 10 years relative to baseline.
  • In total, spending still increases by 14.6 percent over the 10-year window. Only in Washington could a 14.6 percent increase be characterized as a “cut.”
  • This budget balances without making any changes to Social Security.
  • This budget makes no specific policy assumptions. All the savings are reflected in a new budget function – 930: New Efficiencies, Consolidations, and Other Savings. This budget sets a goal of balance and then calls on Congress to use the tools provided to make the changes in law needed to achieve that objective.

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Right Wing News!

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’



Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading


Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!



President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook



No trending posts found at this time.