LISTEN: Howard Stern Asks Harvey Weinstein Why He Hasn’t Abused His Power to Sexually Assault Women
In audio that resurfaced on Twitter last week, radio shock-jock Howard Stern asks Harvey Weinstein whether he had ever used his power to act like a “mogul” and procure sexual favours from actresses in exchange for movie roles.
“I’ve got to figure at every starlet in Hollywood wanted to blow you,” Stern says to disgraced movieman Weinstein.
“Did you ever get to experience the, I’m going to say, mogul aspect? I mean, do a little coke—you know, hang out with, I don’t know, Julia Roberts, give you a hand job, something? You never got any of that?”
“Howard,” Weinstein responds, laughing. “As you know only too well, it doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t… I’ll tell you who it works that way for. It works that way for the actors.”
But Stern is having none of it.
“C’mon, every girls knows that if she’s a competent actress, she could get on your good side. You could make her a star over-f***ing-night. Don’t tell me it doesn’t work.”
“Howard, I wish… The movies are too expensive, the risks are too great. It doesn’t happen that way.”
“You can’t walk into the room, pull your pants off and say, ‘Okay, honey, let’s talk business?’”
Flashback to Howard Stern asking Harvey Weinstein why he hasn’t used his power to sexually assault more women. pic.twitter.com/TLovVe0CJ1
— MAZE (@mazemoore) April 26, 2024
In an appearance on Stern’s show last week, President Biden agreed to debate Trump.
“I am somewhere,” Biden responded when Stern asked if he will debate Trump. “I don’t know when. I’m happy to debate him.”
“Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on Friday.
Trump then quipped that Biden should debate him at his rally in Michigan next week or even in New York City, where they both are Friday.
Stern has previously said, on his show, that he doesn’t hate Donald Trump, but he “hates you for voting for him.”
“I don’t want you here. I want to build a wall and throw you the f**k out.”
He went on to suggest holding a large rally for Trump supporters so they can all get COVID-19 and “drop dead.”
EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War
FCC Restores Net Neutrality Despite Concerns Over Government Intrusion
Presented as a way to secure the rights and welfare of internet consumers over the interests of broadband companies, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has taken a decisive step. Once more, the reins of the broadband industry’s activities are in the hands of the FCC, a power takeover sanctioned by a recent 3-2 voting decision in favor of restoring net neutrality rules.
This safeguard, which had been shelved during the Trump administration’s deregulatory romp, is back to ensure “fast, open, and fair” broadband access for all, according to FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel.
This reinstatement does not merely resurrect old rules; it changes the broadband services landscape. Broadband is now being recategorized as “common carriers” as per Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Sharing the same scrutiny level as telephone networks and cable TV, broadband service providers are now prevented from arbitrarily blocking legal content or promoting their chosen online services through fast delivery speeds.
However, the struggle for net neutrality, Lauren Rosenworcel suggests, is not purely about thwarting predatory practices from infamous broadband providers. Rather, it gives FCC investigators the power to peel back the industry’s façade and examine how companies react, or don’t, to widespread network ailments such as outages.
Interestingly, the notion of “net neutrality” was originally conceived not as a set of stringent rules, but as a foundational principle used by regulators to strike a balance between internet service providers’ monetary goals and consumer rights and welfare. It primarily highlights the importance that all internet content, regardless of origin, must receive equal treatment.
The fluctuating battle between net neutrality and deregulatory actions has seen periods of rapid switches in power. It was under the Obama administration, following an influential lawsuit from Verizon in 2011, that the broadband industry was reclassified as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This set the stage for the 2015 Open Internet Order, a comprehensive set of new rules shaped by the net neutrality principle.
“Title I” and” Title II” refer to classifications within the United States Communications Act that affect how the FCC regulates telecommunications and information services.
Title I: This classification is for “information services,” which are subject to relatively light regulation. The FCC has limited authority over these services, focusing primarily on promoting competition and innovation. Under Title I, companies have greater flexibility to develop and provide new services without extensive government oversight.
Title II: This classification is for “telecommunications services,” subject to stricter regulations akin to those for public utilities. Title II allows the FCC to impose more comprehensive rules regarding rates, practices, and service terms to ensure fair treatment and access. The aim is to maintain a level playing field and protect consumer interests, but it can also mean more government control and oversight.
The win of the Obama administration, however, was short-lived. The then FCC chair and former Verizon lawyer, Ajit Pai, under the backing of the Trump administration, deemed them unnecessary. Pai made no bones about his views on the renewed efforts from the FCC, calling them a “complete waste of time.”
But it’s not just the accusation of being a waste of time that is a criticism against the legislation.
Criticisms of Net Neutrality:
Political Pressure: The decision to classify broadband internet as a Title II service in 2015 came under significant political pressure, especially from the White House during the Obama administration. This move was seen as an unprecedented power grab that ignored the longstanding bipartisan consensus against heavy regulation of the internet. Net neutrality rules often involve regulatory frameworks that give government agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to oversee and enforce compliance. Critics claim this level of control represents a government intrusion into private business operations, potentially leading to over-regulation.
Potential for Future Regulations: Once government agencies gain regulatory control over a sector, there’s a concern that it might lead to additional, more intrusive regulations. This could eventually extend into areas such as content management, pricing, and business models, which could stifle industry innovation and competition.
Centralized Decision-Making: The power to define and enforce net neutrality is concentrated in regulatory bodies, leading some to view it as centralizing control over the internet in the hands of a few regulators. This centralization is perceived as contrary to the decentralized nature of the internet.
Lack of Congressional Authority: The argument is that Congress never explicitly granted the FCC authority to classify broadband as a Title II service. The shift from a Title I information service to a Title II telecommunications service was influenced by external pressure rather than legislative approval.
Chevron Doctrine and Administrative Overreach: The Chevron doctrine, which allows administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes, has been cited as a reason for the FCC’s overreach. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is highlighted as a significant check on this overreach, requiring agencies to have explicit congressional authorization for significant regulatory changes.
Economic and Investment Impact: The classification of broadband as a Title II service could have a chilling effect on investment and innovation in broadband infrastructure. The uncertainty surrounding new regulations, potential taxes, and other regulatory aspects could deter investment in broadband networks.
Impact on Market Competition: The statement suggests that the reclassification could ultimately strengthen the market power of big tech companies at the expense of smaller ISPs. This could reduce competition and innovation in the market.
BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech
Former Democrat State Senator Given One Year in Prison For Molesting Teen Boy
Former Arizona State Senator Otoniel Navarette received a sentence of one year in prison for molesting a teen boy in his care. The sentence was passed on Friday in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Judge Kristin Culbertson was originally prepared to issue a sentence of just 60 days in prison with ten years’ probation if Navarette participated in counselling, but the offer was refused because it would require Navarette to admit his guilt. As a result, he was given a year in prison instead.
Sentencing guidelines prevented him from being given a stiffer sentence. He is likely to be out of prison within seven months.
The victim was abused between the ages of 13 and 15 while living with the former state senator. He testified that he remained with Navarette and endured the abuse because he was from a “dysfunctional home.”
The trial was Navarette’s second on sexual-abuse charges. The first trial, which involved two victims and six felony counts, had to be abandoned after the jury couldn’t agree on a verdict.
Navarette has maintained his innocence throughout both trials. Before his arrest in August 2021, he was identified as a rising talent within the Democrat Party.
EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War
Illegal Immigration is Costing American Hospitals Billions of Dollars in Unpaid Medical Bills
One of the most overlooked financial burdens on the American medical system is the unpaid medical bills coming directly from illegal immigrants. Illegal border crossings surpassed 3.2 million in 2023 — a record high.
According to Customs and Border Protection data, apprehensions of illegal aliens have nearly tripled since 2019. These illegal aliens are people who oftentimes have serious medical needs, but have little to no financial resources. Illegal immigration burdens state Medicaid programs and uses up charities at an unsustainable pace.
Illegal immigration adds billions of dollars in unpaid medical bills to a medical system that’s already falling apart
Every year, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flood U.S. hospitals, looking for treatment for infectious diseases, chronic diseases and disabilities. In fact, American hospitals as a whole are losing multiple billions of dollars annually because of unpaid medical bills coming directly from illegal immigrants. These unpaid medical bills drive up the overall cost of healthcare – a cost that ultimately gets passed on to Americans, who can barely afford healthcare as it is.
According to a new report from the House Committee on Homeland Security, the United States spends $451 billion annually due to the invasion at the U.S. border. The report finds that a significant portion of these annual costs are due to unpaid healthcare for illegal immigrants.
Most illegal immigrants lack medical insurance and depend on hospital discounts, private charities and government welfare programs. State Medicaid programs are absorbing unanticipated costs that only drive up the cost of health insurance premiums and deductibles for Americans. For example, Denver Health served approximately 8,000 illegal immigrants in 2023. These illegals made roughly 20,000 visits to the city’s health system that year. If the illegals qualify for Medicaid, they are more prone to use the system more often for minor issues. This makes it harder for Americans to get appointments and contributes to longer wait times at hospitals. The American medical system and the welfare programs that accompany it were not designed to absorb the influx of people and the medical problems that they bring.
Sanctuary cities absorb tens of thousands of medical visits from illegals, leading to longer wait times and higher costs for Americans
The Congressional report found that total Medicaid costs for “emergency services for undocumented aliens” in fiscal year 2021 exceeded $7 billion.
Denver Health public information officer Dane Roper said the total bill for uncompensated healthcare costs in 2023 was $140 million. Uncompensated healthcare costs have rapidly increased in recent years across Denver’s healthcare system. In 2020, uncompensated costs totaled $60 million. Two years later, the figure doubled, rising to $120 million.
“The perspective we’ve been trying to emphasize all along is that providing healthcare services for an influx of new immigrants who are unable to pay for their care is adding additional strain to an already significant uncompensated care burden,” Mr. Roper said. It’s an issue that needs to be urgently addressed. He advocates for local, state and federal governments to get involved and address the needs of new illegal immigrant populations, before it is financially untenable to respond to anyone’s medical needs, whether they are legal citizens or not.
In California, lawmakers recently worsened the problem by approving free healthcare for all illegal immigrants within the state. The new law is projected to cost taxpayers up to $6 billion per year. Many illegal immigrants have several untreated health issues.
According to Dr. Robert Trenschel, CEO of the Yuma Regional Medical Center, which is situated on the Arizona-Mexico border, illegal immigrants often cost up to three times more than the average American to treat. “Some [illegal] migrants come with minor ailments, but many of them come in with significant disease,” Dr. Trenschel said during a congressional hearing last year.
“We’ve had migrant patients on dialysis, cardiac catheterization, and in need of heart surgery. Many are very sick,” he said. Some illegals spend up to 60 days or more in the ICU before they can be safely discharged. If the issue of illegal immigration is not solved at the source, then its humanitarian impacts will continue to inhibit access to healthcare and drive up the cost of medical care for Americans.
BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech
Biden’s Approval Rating Lowest in History at This Point in Presidency
According to a new Gallup poll, President Biden’s approval rating is the lowest ever for a president at this stage of his four-year term.
Biden averaged 38.7% approval during his 13th quarter in office, which began on 20 January and ended on 19 April. Not one of the other nine residents elected to their first term since Dwight Eisenhower had a lower 13th quarter approval rating.
Donald Trump and Barack Obama, Biden’s two predecessors in office, averaged 46.8% and 45.9% approval during the same period in their presidencies. The previous lowest rating belonged to George H.W. Bush in 1992, who still managed more than 40% (41.8%).
Presidents with less than 50% approval at this stage in their presidency tend not to get re-elected. Barack Obama is the sole exception.
Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush all managed to achieve over 50% approval during their 13th quarter. Eisenhower still has the record for highest average 13th quarter rating, with a whopping 73.2%.
Biden’s approval rating; Image: Gallup
Biden’s approval rating has hovered around 40% since his fourth quarter as president, falling from a high of around 56% in his first quarter.
As Gallup notes, Biden’s electoral prospects look worse with each passing day.
“With about six months remaining before Election Day, Biden stands in a weaker position than any prior incumbent, and thus faces a taller task than they did in getting reelected.”
EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War
Trump and DeSantis Meet Privately in Miami, Agree to Fundraising Deal
Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis met privately in Miami on Sunday, Republican sources told Fox News. If true, this is the first time Trump and DeSantis have met since the Florida Governor brought to an end his unsuccessful bid to be the Republic presidential candidate.
During the meeting, which is said to have lasted several hours, DeSantis agreed to help Trump in his fundraising efforts for his presidential campaign.
The Washington Post reported that the meeting was orchestrated by Steve Witkoff, a Florida real-estate broker who is a mutual friend of Trump and DeSantis, after DeSantis approached him ten days ago.
The meeting and agreement marks a significant rapprochement between the two men.
Although DeSantis endorsed Trump after bowing out of the presidential race in January and Trump “officially retired” his “Ron DeSanctimonious” nickname, both men have continued to take aim at each other.
In February, DeSantis suggested that Trump’s inner circle was filled with people “who were part of our orbit years ago that we fired” and “just have an ax to grind.”
A Trump official responded by calling DeSantis a “sad little man.”
EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War