The U.S. economy grew less than previously thought in the first quarter of 2024 amid a slowdown in consumer spending, the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced Thursday. Gross domestic product was revised down in the first quarter from 1.6% to 1.3% year-over-year in a sign that the economy is not as strong as initial estimates indicated, according to a release from the BEA. Economists originally expected growth in the first quarter to be around 2.2%, more in line with the above trend growth seen in the third and fourth quarters of 2023, which were 4.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The revision was due to new information that shows that consumer spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending were lower than initial estimates, while state and local government spending, nonresidential and residential fixed investment, and exports were slightly greater than original tallies, according to the BEA. Current-dollar GDP was also revised down to 4.3% from 4.8%, and real gross domestic income totaled just 1.5% in an initial estimate from the BEA. Disappointing GDP reports have spurred fears that the economy is entering a period of stagflation marked by slow economic growth and high inflation. Inflation measured at 3.4% year-over-year in April, staying stubbornly above 3% since it peaked under President Joe Biden at 9% in June 2022. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pushed back against speculation that the economy is undergoing stagflation following the Fed’s May meeting, pointing to low unemployment and decelerating inflation. Biden has also tried to downplay the state of the economy, particularly inflation, blaming corporate greed on rising prices, prompting the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to disprove that claim by comparing historical trends. Gross domestic income continues to lag far behind gross domestic product, and the latter is below its pre-pandemic trend despite being fueled by a debt binge for the last several years; seems less likely that GDI catches up and more likely that GDP catches down… pic.twitter.com/mzyx2a76CC— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) May 30, 2024 In an attempt to bring inflation back down to around 2%, the Fed has placed its federal funds rate in a range of 5.25% and 5.50%, a 23-year high, which has put pressure on consumers and businesses to slow spending. The hike in the federal funds rate has increased the cost of credit across the board, making it more expensive to take out debt, such as through credit cards. The cumulative amount of debt held by Americans totaled $17.69 trillion in the first quarter, with $1.12 trillion of that being on credit cards. The share of people who were behind 90 days or more on their credit card payments in the quarter jumped to 10.7%, outdoing the pandemic high of 10% in the first quarter of 2021. Job growth has also slowed as of late, with the U.S. adding just 175,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in April, far lower than the 242,000 that were expected, while the unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.9%. In April, there were fewer gains in government jobs than in previous months, contributing largely to the slowdown, with March adding 303,000 new jobs. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post US Economic Growth in First Quarter Was Even Worse Than Previously Thought appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Supreme Court has paved the way for the National Rifle Association (NRA) to pursue a lawsuit against a former New York state official, asserting that their free-speech rights were infringed upon. The NRA’s lawsuit claims that following the tragic Parkland, Florida school shooting in 2018, which resulted in 17 deaths, Vullo coerced banks and insurance companies into severing ties with the NRA, raising First Amendment concerns. We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the NRA contends that Vullo’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional suppression of their free speech. The NCLA also filed an amicus curiae brief in this case. The court ruled 9-0. On May 30, the Court’s unanimous ruling overturned a previous lower court’s dismissal of the NRA’s lawsuit against Maria Vullo, the former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. The ruling underscores that while advocacy groups are not exempt from regulation, governmental actions to suppress speech must adhere to First Amendment protections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized, “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.” Maria Vullo defended her actions by stating that her investigation into NRA-endorsed insurance policies, often criticized as “murder insurance,” was justified. She acknowledged expressing concerns about the risks of doing business with gun groups but denied exerting undue pressure, alleging that many companies were independently distancing themselves from the NRA. The NRA argued that Vullo misused a state investigation into the legality of its insurance products as leverage, allegedly offering leniency to companies that withdrew support from the organization. These insurance policies, which provided coverage for losses related to firearms, including intentional harm, were deemed illegal under state law. This investigation, which began prior to the Parkland shooting, culminated in substantial fines for the insurance providers involved. Additionally, Vullo issued guidance letters to financial institutions, highlighting the “reputational risks” of associating with the NRA. The NRA maintains that these letters, given Vullo’s authoritative position, significantly influenced several companies’ decisions to cut ties, leading to substantial financial losses for the organization. “The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today was a crucial reaffirmation of fundamental First Amendment principles: that the government cannot coerce private parties to suppress disfavored viewpoints,” said NCLA counsel Jenin Younes in a statement to Reclaim The Net. “We hope that the Court also remembers that the First Amendment prohibits government from abridging freedom of speech— through coercion, collusion, or any other means— when it issues its decision in Murthy v. Missouri in upcoming weeks.” The Supreme Court’s decision thus reaffirms the principle that government officials must not misuse their regulatory power to selectively silence speech, reinforcing the robust protections afforded by the First Amendment. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NRA Triumphs in Free Speech Battle with Former NY Regulator appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The EU’s European Commission (EC) appears to be preparing to include “hate speech” among the list of most serious criminal offenses and regulate its investigation and prosecution across the bloc. Whether this type of proposal is cropping up now because of the upcoming EU elections or if the initiative has legs will become obvious in time, but for now, the plans are supported by several EC commissioners. The idea stems from the European Citizens’ Panel on Tackling Hatred in Society, one of several panels (ECPs) established to help EC President Ursula von der Leyen with her (campaign?) promise of ushering in a democracy in the EU that is “fit for the future.” That could mean anything, and the vagueness by no means stops there: the very “hate speech,” despite the gravity of the proposals to classify it as a serious crime, is not even well defined, observers are warning. Despite that, the recommendations contained in a report produced by the panel have been backed by EC’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova as well as Vice President for Democracy and Demography Dubravka Suica. According to Jourova, the panel’s recommendations on how to deal with “hate speech” are “clear and ambitious” – although, as noted, a clear definition of that type of speech is still be lacking. This is the wording the report went for: any speech that is “incompatible with the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect of human rights” should be considered as “hate speech.” Critics of this take issue with going for, in essence, subjective, not to mention vague expressions like “values of human dignity” considering that even in Europe, speech can still be lawful even if individuals or groups perceive it as offensive or upsetting. Since there is also hate speech that is already illegal in the EU, the panel wants it to receive a new definition, and the goal, the report reads, is to “ensure that all forms of hate speech are uniformly recognized and penalized, reinforcing our commitment to a more inclusive and respectful society.” If the EU decides to add hate speech to its list of crimes, the panel’s report added, this will allow for the protection of marginalized communities, and “uphold human dignity.” Noteworthy is that the effort seems coordinated, even as far as the wording goes, as media reports note that the recommendation “adopts exactly the same terminology as an EC proposal that was recently endorsed by the European Parliament to extend the list of EU-wide crimes to include ‘hate speech’.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The EU is on the Brink off Making “Hate Speech” a Serious Crime appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Student Protesters Should Expect to Pay a Price for Disrupting the System

EXCLUSIVE OFFER: 60% Off VIP Membership. Today Only!

A bipartisan Texas Senate committee just unanimously voted to subpoena Big Tech companies and force them to answer for their election-interfering censorship efforts. After a hearing that MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider testified at on Wednesday, May 29, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs voted unanimously to authorize subpoenas to Big Tech companies. “There is strong evidence that big tech imposes their own biases to manipulate and stifle dissenting voices, undermining election integrity. Texas will not stand for that,” Committee Chair Sen. Bryan Hughes (R) wrote in an X post. The authorization document that Hughes posted calls upon Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, TikTok and X.  Today the Senate Committee on State Affairs voted unanimously to authorize subpoenas to big tech firms like Facebook and Google. There is strong evidence that big tech imposes their own biases to manipulate and stifle dissenting voices, undermining election integrity. Texas… pic.twitter.com/osOfyBbTzr — Senator Bryan Hughes (@SenBryanHughes) May 29, 2024 Committee Vice Chair Sen. Angela Paxton (R) celebrated the move in an X post. “Senate State Affairs just unanimously voted to issue subpoenas to Alphabet, Meta, TikTok & others in regards to ways to identify & neutralize threats to Texas’s security,” she said. “We are standing up to big tech to ensure the safety & privacy of our children & all Texans!” UPDATE: Senate State Affairs just unanimously voted to issue subpoenas to Alphabet, Meta, TikTok & others in regards to ways to identify & neutralize threats to Texas’s security. We are standing up to big tech to ensure the safety & privacy of our children & all Texans! #txlege pic.twitter.com/e6SMAyRP8H — Senator Angela Paxton (@AngelaPaxtonTX) May 29, 2024 Democrats and Republicans of this committee united on the issue of free speech after holding a hearing on Big Tech censorship. The hearing featured testimony from MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider, Google whistleblower Zac Vorhies, Facebook whistleblower Ryan Hartwig and research psychologist Robert Epstein who has conducted many studies on how Google Search impacts how people vote. Bombshell testimony in the Senate State Affairs Committee from @Schneider_DC , whistleblower Zach Vorhies of @Google and Ryan Hartwig of @facebook regarding big tech interference in our elections. #txlege @Project_Veritas pic.twitter.com/TmAVdfaHqY — Senator Bryan Hughes (@SenBryanHughes) May 29, 2024 During the hearing, Schneider spoke to the urgency of defending free speech. “[W]e are at risk of losing the First Amendment entirely,” he said. “The Google/Facebook attorney has argued that our individual rights to free speech are nothing compared to the government’s right to free speech to coordinate with Big Tech to silence individuals, which of course turns the First Amendment upside down.” He also stressed that social media companies are not merely infringing upon users' rights to free speech but other First Amendment rights as well. “It’s important for you all to know that Google and Facebook, and these other Big Tech firms, they’ve resurrected the Plessy v. Ferguson standard,” Schneider said. “They believe that not only can they discriminate against people based on political viewpoint, they can, and in fact do, discriminate against people based on race and religion,” he added referring to a case in which Facebook argued that it could discriminate against a Sikh religious group. The infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision – sometimes referred to as the "separate but equal" case – empowered racial discrimination by common carriers. Discredited by history, Plessy was rightfully overturned by the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision. MRC Business and Free Speech America Staff Writer Tom Olohan contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, congressional correspondent Annie Karni sympathized with recent criticism of Pennsylvania’s freshman Democratic senior, John Fetterman - once mocked in Republican circles for his Senate floor fashion sense but now reviled by the left for his support of Israel and other iconoclastic positions - in “Fetterman, Flashing a Sharper Edge, Keeps Picking Fights With the Left.” Karni led off with an anecdote to make the left’s case of Fetterman, a Democratic mental health hero turned cranky troglodyte: Senator John Fetterman was hard to miss, lumbering down an empty hallway in a Senate office building dressed in his signature baggy gym shorts and a black hoodie. So when Stevie O’Hanlon, an environmentalist and organizer from Chester County, Pa., spotted him recently, she took the opportunity to question her home-state senator about a pipeline in her community. Mr. Fetterman’s reaction was surprisingly hostile. Raising his phone to capture the confrontation on video, the senator began ridiculing her. “I didn’t expect this!” Mr. Fetterman said, feigning excitement. “Oh my gosh!” As Ms. O’Hanlon politely pressed him on what she called his “change of heart” on the issue of the local pipeline, which he had previously opposed, Mr. Fetterman pulled faces of faux concern until he stepped onto an elevator and let the closing door end the interaction. Ms. O’Hanlon, a co-founder of the progressive Sunrise Movement, was stunned. “I’ve talked to Republicans who are much friendlier than that,” she said in an interview, after a clip of the interaction circulated widely on social media. “The person that we voted for is not the person who mocks constituents when they bring up concerns.” What kind of monster is this? Ms. O’Hanlon is not the only one wondering who Mr. Fetterman has become. Since last fall, the first-term Democratic senator from Pennsylvania has undergone a significant change in political persona. He routinely takes aim at the left wing of his party that he once courted -- and appears to enjoy the spasms of anger he produces because of it, as well as the strange new respect he commands from right-wing media outlets that once dismissed him as a vegetable and lobbed sexist attacks at his wife. Mr. Fetterman’s sharpest break with the left has been on the Israel-Hamas War. A firm backer of Israel before the war, he decided early in the conflict that he would offer unconditional support for Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He has relentlessly hewed to that stance, at times provocatively. Fetterman was fine until he started leaning rightward, apparently. The hostile characterizations continued: But those who have observed his recent transformation also describe a shift in demeanor by Mr. Fetterman, who has begun to express himself in more caustic, sometimes hostile ways. She blamed Fox News and the New York Post for creating this Frankenstein Fetterman: Former staff members and supporters suggest there is more at play, both personally and politically. Mr. Fetterman, who swore off social media, and news in general, after his hospitalization for depression, for a time relied on staff to curate a package of clips that kept him up to speed on what he needed to know. But his return to work and sharp break with the left has coincided with a distinct shift to the right in his media diet; he sometimes appears sucked into a vortex dominated by social media, The New York Post and Fox News, where for the first time in his political career, he is receiving approving coverage. Karni admitted Fetterman's "repudiation of the left" has helped him in Pennsylvania polling. But now that he supports Benjamin Netanyahu’s “far right government” in Israel, it’s suddenly important that Times readers know “he lacks a deep familiarity with the region.” (This after the Times fiercely defended Fetterman from Republican attacks on his mental capability after his hospitalization for depression.) Karni was far more supportive of Fetterman in 2023, when “hard-right” Republicans targeted him for his slobby attire on the Senate floor in defiance of Senate rules.

President Joe Biden makes no speech without mentioning the importance of democracy in our nation. We would like to believe this comes from deep ideals about human liberty lodged within our president. But more accurate is that Biden, a politician all his adult life, is defined by just that — politics. No word, no act emanates from our president that does not emerge from some political calculation. In the case of the ongoing reminders about the importance of democracy, the subliminal message Biden wishes to convey is to always remind of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and to brand Donald Trump as an anti-democratic autocrat. But let’s go beyond this and examine Biden’s premise about democracy itself. In Biden’s latest speech on Memorial Day, he said, “Our democracy is more than just a system of government. It is the very soul of America.” Hanging on a wall in my offices in Washington, D.C., is a picture of Booker T. Washington, with his quote saying, “A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good just because it is accepted by the majority.” An important reminder from Booker T. Washington, founder of Tuskegee University, is that there is good and evil in this world, and they are transmitted to us through the Bible and our faith. Democracy can only be the means through which a nation accepts or does not accept these eternal truths. But Democracy does not invent them. We should recall, again, the words of President George Washington in his farewell speech in 1796. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. ... Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In the 1850s, Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois proposed to use democracy to solve the problem of whether slavery would be permitted in new states entering the union. The Kansas-Nebraska Act provided that new states would determine by the vote whether it would be a slave state. Abraham Lincoln rejected this proposition. Per Lincoln, “Judge Douglas interrupted me to say that the principle of the Nebraska bill was very old, that it originated when God made man and placed good and evil before him, allowing him to choose for himself, being responsible for the choice he should make.” “The facts of this proposition are not true as stated,” said Lincoln. “God did not place good and evil before man, telling him to make his choice. On the contrary, he did tell him that there was one tree, of the fruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death.” What really interests Biden is growing government to advance his left-wing agenda, thereby diminishing individual freedom. In 1950, shortly after World War II, federal government spending accounted for 14.1% of GDP. Per the Congressional Budget Office, in 2024 federal government spending will consume 23.1% of GDP; in 2034, 24.1%; in 2044, 25.7%; and in 2054, 27.3%. Social Security trustees now project bankruptcy of the system by 2033. Revenues will fall short by 21%. Why doesn’t Biden support letting every American choose to opt out and instead invest in their own private retirement account? Why doesn’t Biden support the right of parents to send their child to whatever K-12 school they choose? The only place where Biden wants more choice is to hide behind his religion and give women the right to destroy their unborn child until the final moments of her pregnancy. The founders of our country conceived of a nation rooted in core truths, which, by limiting government, would enable individual liberty. They would not recognize our politicized nation today under Joe Biden. Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show “Cure America with Star Parker.” Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

There was a concerted public-private campaign during the pandemic to downplay the strong likelihood that COVID-19 — a virus that would go on to kill millions worldwide — did not originate in the controversial Chinese communist lab that long engaged in dangerous experiments on coronaviruses with the help of U.S. taxpayer dollars. While the Chinese communist regime did its part to bury evidence of a potential lab leak as the virus was first spreading, then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci ultimately did the heavy lifting in terms of narrative curation. Anthony Fauci and the virologists in his orbit worked feverishly to suggest that the virus had a zoonotic origin, concealing their own doubts about that possibility while denigrating those who would suggest otherwise. There was cause, after all, for them to engage in revisionism and propaganda. Elements of the Western medical establishment admittedly didn't want to alienate China by assigning it any blame over the deaths of multitudes of Americans, and Fauci had his fingerprints on the American grant money poured into dangerous work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology via disgraced zoologist Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance — whose gain-of-function subcontractor was ostensibly among the patients zero who took ill in late 2019. The lab-leak theory was censored on social media, especially on Facebook, which directly coordinated with Fauci. Talk show hosts, talking heads, and once respected newspapers dutifully parroted the approved talking points. Yet, not all were convinced in Washington, D.C., the media, and the medical establishment — certainly not Stanford University's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, epidemiologist and co-author of the "Great Barrington Declaration," and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Both Bhattacharya and Paul are among those featured in "The Coverup," a new documentary series presented by Blaze Media and Free the People, which debuts today on BlazeTV. "The Coverup" explores the evolution of the Fauci-anointed COVID-19 origins narrative, the corresponding censorship campaign, various underlying motives and vested interests, and the ultimate breakdown of truth, breaking new ground and making Fauci's job of spinning yarns before Congress next week all the more difficult. 'You would go down in history as one of the world's greatest monsters.' In BlazeTV host Matthew B. Kibbe's deep-dive in the first episode of the series, entitled "Dissident," he speaks to Bhattacharya about the research agenda that set the stage for the deadly outbreak and assesses what was at stake for the powers that be — and for Fauci in particular — where narrative control was concerned. "He's in a tough position," said Bhattacharya. "If people understand that what has happened the last three-and-a-half years in the COVID pandemic is potentially, maybe even actually, a result of this kind of research agenda and Fauci was one of its champions, he is in a very tough spot." "Millions and millions of people have died. Economies have been devastated," continued Bhattacharya. "The poor of the world, children, vulnerable people have been hurt by this mad science experiment. ... You would go down in history as one of the world's greatest monsters." Later in the episode, Bhattacharya discusses the nature of the infrastructure shoring up the deadly research agenda as well as the possible link between officials' cognizance of a possible lab leak and the draconian COVID protocols they ultimately promoted. — (@) Extra to speaking to Dr. Bhattacharya and Sen. Paul in the series, in subsequent episodes, Kibbe gleans troubling insights from White House Coronavirus Task Force insiders about the early commitment to the zoonotics origin narrative, from journalists censored for asking questions, and from those working to hold the apparent architects of the pandemic responsible in its aftermath. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

RFK Jr. shocked America when he chose Silicon Valley lawyer Nicole Shanahan as his 2024 running mate, mostly because no one knew who she was. While Shanahan agrees with RFK Jr. on vaccines — which is what’s most attractive about both of them to those who would otherwise vote for Trump — her past is a little more than concerning. In an article from the New York Times, it’s reported that Shanahan has a fortune of over $1 billion that stems largely from a divorce settlement last year from Sergey Brin, a founder of Google. Shanahan and Brin reportedly met at a yoga festival in Lake Tahoe, while she was supposed to be marrying someone else. “So, she’s dating this one guy, they’re about to get married, she finds the Google guy, has a big affair with him that goes on for a while. Right after, days after they get married, this guy discovers the affair by looking through the phone records,” Stu Burguiere explains. According to several sources, when her husband threatened to get the marriage annulled, Shanahan threatened to commit suicide. Instead, she ended up filing for divorce before marrying Sergey Brin and having a child with him. The child was diagnosed with autism after receiving vaccines, which is where her anti-vaccine activism began. However, Shanahan apparently wasn’t afraid of other drugs — as she is reported to have taken ketamine with Elon Musk before they disappeared together. Sources have claimed this is what led to her divorce from Brin. “Who knows what the truth is there, but the divorce definitely did occur,” Stu explains. Despite the character flaws that come along with engaging in affairs, Shanahan’s dating history is hardly the biggest reason for concern. “For years Ms. Shanahan donated to Democrats. According to donor filings in 2020 she gave $25,000 to a political action committee backing President Biden,” Stu says, adding, “So, this is someone who comes from the left.” According to the New York Times, Ms. Shanahan has recently been scrubbing her social media feeds — updating them with photos of her without makeup at farmers markets or wearing western gear and posing with rifles. In the past, her feeds had shown her dressed up for high-end events and posing for selfies. “So, look. This was a tech elitist,” Stu says. “Now, she’s trying to pose as something a little bit different.” “I like the fact that she’s changed some of her views, but it makes me nervous that someone could hold views like that that recently, and we put them in charge of the country,” Stu adds, noting that she was a “far leftist.” Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.