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.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.