13 examples of the left telling the same lie

The lie:  Mitt Romney pays a far lower income tax rate than the average person.

 

Why it’s a lie:  Where do I begin?  Depending on which data you look at:

---the IRS shows that about 97% of Americans pay less than Romney’s rate.

--even when you include payroll taxes, the CBO estimates the rate to be under 15%.

--households making over $1 million will pay an average of 29.1%. That is higher than 15%.

 

Examples of the lie:  This list is far from exhaustive, if you see any others, feel free to leave them in the comments and maybe I’ll update.

Jon Stewart, Comedy Central   

"How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American  family makes in a year -- while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?"

 

This is a pretty good question.  How in the world would he justify something he is not doing?  I don’t know how that works.  What I do know, is that he is most certainly not paying the same tax rate as someone scanning shoes, leaving this question pretty much unanswerable.  Between 87-97% of Americans pay below 15% (depending on which income measure you use).   You could say this is another blatant lie from Jon Stewart, but don’t worry!  He’s just doing comedy and therefore should be universally praised because he is so incredibly adorable.

 

Al Sharpton, MSNBC  

"The average middle class American — Warren Buffett’s secretary pays 30 percent about. Is that fair?”

 

The average middle class American pays nothing close to 30%.  Neither does Warren Buffett’s secretary, if she earns $60,000 as he claims.  In fact, half of the country pays no income tax at all, which would make it hard for the “average middle class American” to pay 30%.  That would mean the top half would have to pay an average of 60%, which isn’t happening…yet.

 

Terri Sewell, D-AL 

“I think that something is fundamentally wrong if a person of his great wealth is only paying 13.9 percent effective tax rate and most of Americans are paying 28- 30 percent and they make far less.”

 

No, “most of Americans” are not paying 28-30 percent in taxes.  Even if you use income numbers to get the most beneficial results possible, only about one half of one percent pay those rates.

 

Soledad O'Brien, CNN  

“What do you think they're going to say when they say, God, I pay 28 percent effective tax rate and here's a guy who is worth $250 million and he's paying significantly less percentage-wise.”

 

Well, considering “they” don’t pay a 28 percent effective tax rate, it’s hard to know what “they” would say.

 

Joe Trippi, Democratic Strategist

“Romney makes more than 99.9% of us and pays less tax than 99% of us.”

 

This might be the worst of the entire bunch.  Does Romney make more than 99.9% of us?  Approximately, yes.  Does he pay less tax than 99% of us?  Sorry, you’re only off by 96%.

 

Robert Reich, Economist, Sec of Labor, Clinton Admin   

“Romney says he pays a tax rate of “about 15 percent.” That’s lower than the tax rate most of America’s middle class face and far lower than the 35 percent top rate after the Bush tax cut.”

 

Nope.  Most of America’s middle class pays less than that.  Aren’t you an economist?

 

Chris Matthews, MSNBC    

Romney pays “14 to 15 percent in taxes compared to what most people who work hard, do well in this country pay about 35, and above if you count state and local almost 50.”

 

Chris is a little careful and includes “do well” in his statement.  Nice slight of hand, Tingles.  What is “do well” mean in this sentence?  Certainly well into the seven figures.  Strange that MSNBC is finally starting to believe that millionaires work hard.  When did that start?

 

WTSP, Tampa 

“Romney told reporters in South Carolina he pays tax at a rate of around 15 percent. Compared to the 2012 IRS Tax Brackets, that's 20 percentage points lower than what most wealthy Americans pay. In fact, an individual making as little as $8,700 per year could pay the same tax rate as Romney.”

 

Eeesh.  This is a little sad.  Whoever wrote this just doesn’t understand how to read tax tables.  No, you can’t pay 15% on $8700.  It’s impossible.  Even without deductions.  That’s just where the 15% BRACKET starts.  You pay 10% on the first $8700.  You’d have to earn around $40,000 to get to a 15% effective rate without any deductions, a position that literally no one is in.

 

Huma Khan, ABC News

“The tax rate that Romney paid both in 2010 and 2011 is less than what most middle-income Americans were required to pay, mainly because a majority of Romney's earnings were derived from investments rather than wages.”

 

No, Huma.  No. Most middle-income Americans pay less than that.  Why didn’t you fact check this stat like I spell checked your name?

 

Adam Serwer, Mother Jones 

“That means Romney—estimated to be worth between 190 million to 250 million dollars according to the New York Times—pays a lower effective tax rate than millions of Americans who aren't close to being millionaires.”

 

Unlike a lot of these people who just don’t know the facts, Mother Jones does a solid job with good old- fashioned spin.  Look at the wording: “millions of Americans who aren’t close to being millionaires.”  That’s true if you don’t think people who make between $200k and $500k aren’t close to being millionaires.  Since that’s subjective, I guess he’s safe.

 

Cenk Uygur, Current TV

"He (Romney) doesn't go and put on a hard hat and go to work anywhere, presses a couple buttons I'll invest in this, I'll invest in that and for that he pays less taxes than the average guy does."

 

You’re probably going to be stunned by this, but some guy on Current TV isn’t telling you the truth about the rate that the “average guy” pays.  Shocker.

 

Diane Sawyer, ABC News  

"The multi-millionaire Romney confirmed today that a lot of middle class Americans have to pay a lot more of their income in taxes than he pays of his."

 

I actually like Diane Sawyer.  COME ON Diane.  Unless you are using bizarre definitions of both “middle class” AND “a lot” –this just isn’t true.

 

Jessica Phelan, AM 950 The Progressive Voice of Minnesota 

“They reveal he (Romney) paid about 15 percent of his multimillion-dollar fortune in federal income tax, well below the national average.”

 

Nope.  The average tax rate is about 11%.  15% is not “well below” 11%.

 

Lewis Diuguid, Editor, The Kansas City Star 

“His (Romney's) tax rate is close to 15 percent. That compares well to most Americans paying up to 35 percent on income from wages and salaries.”

 

This is a great one.  Look at the wording: most Americans pay “up to 35%.”  They don’t pay 35%.  But they do pay “up to 35%.”  He manages to attack Romney by just pointing out that most Americans could, in theory, pay as high as 35%.  They don’t…but they COULD.

 

Daily Kos  

“It's not fair that Mitt Romney pays less taxes than actual humans.”

 

That’s true.  We should totally jack up the cyborg tax rates.

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Trump’s Liberation day unveiled: 3 shocking takeaways you need to know

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.