A pro-teacher, pro-union lawmaker wants to raise the state’s 6% corporate income tax to 10% to spend billions more on public schools while slashing corporate subsidies. The proposal, which would raise the tax by 66%, aims to use the additional corporate income tax revenue to make “historic investments” in public schools. According to the bill’s author, Democrat Rep. Dylan Wegela, the extra money could give teachers an estimated $20,000-a-year raise.
Wegela’s plan would raise the corporate income tax to 10% while also doing away with “corporate handouts through the Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve Fund (SOAR) fund.” The legislation earmarks the first $1.2 billion of corporate tax revenue to the General Fund. The next $50 million would still go to the Housing Fund. Everything else would go to the School Aid Fund. Wegela wants to eliminate $500 million for SOAR and direct more than $2.4 billion to the School Aid Fund.
The proposal amounts to a 67% increase in the CIT, according to Michigan Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Sara Wurfel as reported by MIRS. Meanwhile, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a $23 billion budget bill into law this summer.
President-elect Donald Trump has filed a groundbreaking $10 billion lawsuit against several prominent media organizations, including The New York Times and CBS, alleging defamation and intentional dissemination of false information during the 2024 presidential election.
The lawsuit, revealed late Friday, has sparked intense debate across political and media circles.
According to a statement from Trump’s legal team, the lawsuit accuses the media outlets of publishing and broadcasting “knowingly false and defamatory statements” designed to harm Trump’s re-election campaign and tarnish his reputation.
The complaint further claims that these actions represented a coordinated effort to mislead voters and influence the election outcome.
The lawsuit seeks $10 billion in damages, a figure that, if awarded, would represent one of the largest defamation claims in U.S. legal history.
Trump’s legal team asserts that the media’s alleged misconduct caused irreparable harm to the President-elect’s standing and undermined the integrity of the electoral process.
The lawsuit explicitly names The New York Times and CBS as defendants, with Trump’s legal team indicating that additional media organizations could be added as the case progresses.
Sources close to Trump’s legal team suggest that internal communications, whistleblower testimonies, and other evidence have been gathered to substantiate the claims.
Legal and media experts are closely watching the case, which is expected to test the boundaries of First Amendment protections and defamation law.
Throughout his political career, Trump has maintained a contentious relationship with the press, frequently labeling critical coverage as “fake news.”
However, this lawsuit marks a significant escalation, transforming his long-standing grievances into a high-stakes legal confrontation.
Legal analysts note that defamation cases involving public figures are particularly challenging due to the high standard of proof required.
Trump’s legal team will need to demonstrate that the media outlets acted with “actual malice” by knowingly publishing false information or showing reckless disregard for the truth.
CBS just released a statement on this but they won’t release the full transcript.
I just went back and looked at the segment they previewed on October 6th. Check out the word salad about ballistic missiles they cut out of the answer before the one that they replaced… pic.twitter.com/1pKllTyP75
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is scrambling to mitigate his plummeting approval in the polls by acknowledging that he made “mistakes” regarding his country’s wake mass immigration policy.
Trudeau claimed that large corporations and colleges exploited Canada’s temporary foreign worker (TFW) program to avoid hiring Canadian workers and charged students outrageous sums of money for degrees.
“Far too many colleges and universities used international students to raise their bottom line — because they could charge these students tens of thousands of dollars more for the same degree,” Trudeau explained. “And, then there are really bad actors who outright exploit people, who target vulnerable immigrants with promises of jobs, diplomas, and easy pathways to citizenship. Promises that would never come true.”
Trudeau added that “when the post-pandemic boom cooled and businesses no longer needed the additional labor help” the Canadian government could have “turned off the taps faster.”
As a result of Trudeau’s failure, Canadians have faced a decrease in their wages and wealth.
“Based on the average of these forecasts, while Canadians are expected to increase the value of their economy by around $2,000 per person from 2023 to 2029, Americans are expected to increase the value of theirs by nearly $7,000.
Canadians now struggle with increased housing prices, productivity, and birth rates.
An Ipsos poll found that 33 percent of Canadians approved Trudeau’s job performance, while 67 percent disapproved.
Trudeau now says he plans to cut Canada’s legal immigration by 20 percent. “Canada’s new immigration plan is straightforward,” Trudeau continued.
“Lower the number of new immigrants coming into Canada — both temporary and permanent. We’re prioritizing permanent residents with the skills we need, like healthcare workers for our hospitals and construction workers who will build more homes.”
Trudeau’s apparent 180 on pro-immigration policies came after Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre vowed to cut the flood of migrants into Canada.
Poilievre said that immigration levels in Canada should be based on employers’ needs and the number of homes being built.
Meanwhile, the leader of the People’s Party in Canada, Maxime Bernier, argued that “mass immigration” has brought “more poverty” into the country.
This clown finally recognizes he f*cked up by allowing millions of foreigners to invade our country.
He smeared those of us who raised the alarm as racists until just a few months ago.
And now we should believe him when he says he can fix what he broke?? What a joke. https://t.co/uPqkIS888I
Bernier criticized Trudeau for smearing people who had “raised the alarm” on millions of foreigners coming into Canada as being racist.
“This clown finally recognized he f***ed up by allowing millions of foreigners to invade our country,” Bernier wrote on X.
“He smeared those of us who raised the alarm as racists until just a few months ago. And now we should believe him when he says he can fix what he broke?? What a joke.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York deleted her preferred pronouns from her profile following President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory, and now she’s denying the decision was motivated by politics.
The popular Libs of TikTok account was the first to point out the change, posting a screenshot of her account of AOC’s account with the “she/her” designation and a later screenshot without them.
Some interpreted Ocasio-Cortez’s removal of her pronouns to be pulling back from supporting the extremist LGBTQ+ agenda.
Riley Gaines wrote on X: “They’ll pretend they never embraced (or even celebrated) the insanity. Don’t forget who the compliant, virtue-signaling sheep were.”
They’ll pretend they never embraced (or even celebrated) the insanity.
Days later, she denied the allegations in a post on social media and offered a bizarre explanation.
“The whole ‘story’ of removing pronouns after the election is fake,” AOC wrote.
“It happened a long time ago after the SCOTUS Twitter ruling meant I had to add the ‘personal acct’ disclosure. There weren’t enough chars so I had to swap the end. You can run the timeline to see for yourself,” she added.
The whole “story” of removing pronouns after the election is fake.
It happened a long time ago after the SCOTUS Twitter ruling meant I had to add the “personal acct” disclosure.
There weren’t enough chars so I had to swap the end. You can run the timeline to see for yourself.
What she means is that she had to disclose that her X account with the handle “AOC” is different from her Representative account, which has the handle @RepAOC.
But this makes no sense, as the RepAOC account also doesn’t have pronouns listed, and her bio reads “This account is maintained by federal staff to share services and legislation relevant to constituents of NY-14.” This is far fewer words than the maximum allowed for a bio on X, meaning she could fit pronouns on that account.
Similarly, she could’ve continued keeping the pronouns on her personal account simply by shortening her bio. She only needs to remove seven letters from her bio to fit pronouns – and it’s not a tough bio to shorten.
Many on the left accused Ocasio-Cortez of slowly moving away from wokeism and trying to join the party’s centrist establishment to retain her influence.
We really couldn’t blame her. In a few years, her entire X profile could be used as an historic artefact to show how deeply embedded those on the left where to an absurd ideology.
AOC likely knows this, and she’s quietly getting ahead before her political career ends up in ruins.
Proposed legislation sponsored by Democratic House legislators seeks to remove the competence examination requirement to become a licensed social worker. If passed, Michigan House Bills 5184 and 5185 would amend the Public Health Code to eliminate the exam requirement for social workers at all license levels. Both bills were passed Thursday by the House Subcommittee on Behavioral Health.
Opponents say such a drastic change would place Michigan outside the standards observed by nearly every other state in the nation. Michigan officially passed the social work licensing law in 2004, becoming the 50th, and final, state to create a path to licensure. “Sacrificing standards and quality to increase quantity is not what vulnerable individuals in Michigan need or deserve,” according to the authors of Protect Public Health and Safety in Michigan: Reject The Social Work Licensure Modernization Act. “These ‘problematic barriers’ are safeguards and controls to decrease the likelihood of doing harm or re-traumatizing individuals, and to promote public health and safety.”
In order to become fully licensed, individuals with a degree in social work from an accredited university must take and pass a social work licensure exam. In Michigan, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs oversees the licensure and regulation of social workers. A critical part of the licensure process is the requirement to pass an objective, standardized exam. “Like other licensed professionals — doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers or barbers — social workers must demonstrate knowledge and skills to ensure they can deliver quality services. Anything less puts the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities at risk.”
Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign spending was much more extravagant than initially reported. New details emerged that Oprah Winfrey was paid more than double the amount for her single town hall event.
Last week it was reported that Oprah’s production company, Harpo Productions, denied being paid a $1 million fee despite records from Federal Election Commission filings.
FEC records—which we cited—show Oprah's production company Harpo was paid the money pic.twitter.com/1j49nNDRgh
According to the New York Times, Winfrey’s company was paid approximately $2.5 million for a single town hall event, far exceeding the $1 million figure.
Oprah defended the payment, arguing that the funds covered production costs, including “set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers and every other item necessary.”
However, his high-profile endorsements made little difference as Donald Trump took victory in a historic defeat against Harris.
As The Daily Mail reported, the campaign even allocated $900,000 for advertising space on Las Vegas’ Sphere in the final week of the election alone.
In October, the campaign also spent $2.6 million on private jet travel while touring battleground states.
The Harris campaign also spent $15,000 in food delivery services and $9,000 at premium ice cream establishments
The spending rates eventually left the Harris campaign in a $20 million debt despite having access to a $1.6 billion campaign budget.
In contrast to Harris’s costly approach, the Trump campaign used more cost-effective methods, gaining significant exposure through free podcast appearances.
Russian collusion hoaxer and serial liar Adam Schiff is worried that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to use the military against him after he is inaugurated in January next year.
Schiff was recently interviewed on CNN with Jake Tapper about Trump’s comments concerning the radical left.
“I think the bigger problem are the people from within,” Trump said recently. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and I think they’re the and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary, by the military because they can’t let that happen.”
Tapper asked Schiff of the comments; “Do you think that he was talking about using the military against you, and how concerned are you about retribution?”
Schiff replied: “Clearly, that’s what he was talking about. Would he go to that link with the military and essentially fulfill some kind of an unconstitutional order? I would hope the military would have more independence than that.”
“Historically, the military has stood up to civilian authority where civilian authority has suggested, as in his first administration, unconstitutional acts. Um, look, I’m not going to be intimidated by anything he says by anything he does. If I was, I wouldn’t be on your show,” he added.
“I’m going to do my responsibility in the Senate. Californians are expecting me, first and foremost, to try to work and get things done, work across the aisle where the president wants to fight prices,” Schiff continued.
“I will work with him. Where the president wants to engage in unconstitutional abuses of power, just as he did in the first administration, I will defend our state. I will defend the rights and freedom of the American people.”
“So, yeah, that’s what he said. That’s what he may try to do. But I’m not going to be intimidated.
Remember the dock workers’ strike from earlier this year? The International Longshoreman’s Association (the union of dock workers) demanded a huge increase in wages along with other benefits, and they got most of what they wanted pretty quickly. In the end, the union ended up with a 62 percent pay raise over the next several years.
Why did it work? Because the east coast and gulf ports involved in the strike handled about half the goods imported into the U.S. The strike threatened to slow down business to a crawl and to put prices through the roof in the middle of some of the worst inflation in U.S. history.
It worked because the dock workers provided something Americans valued: abundant goods at affordable prices. No person in the United States would have been unaffected by a long-term strike.
In plain terms, strikes work when they withhold something that other people want.
Given that, one wonders what comedian and co-host of ABC’s The View, Whoopi Goldberg, may be thinking. See, she’s going on a sex strike. Why? On account of a vulgar comment by Jew-hating weirdo Nick Fuentes.
Fuentes stirred up female anger during his election-night livestream by mocking the feminist pro-abortion slogan, “My body, my choice.” Fuentes turned it around, stating, “Your body, my choice.” It’s understandable that women would find this objectionable, but feminists have a difficult time keeping things in perspective. Fuentes cannot, of course, control anyone’s body but his own, and the comment was clearly trolling to get a rise out of them.
But whenever there’s an opportunity for hysterical shrieking, feminists take it and run for the end zone. It wasn’t just online screeching; one pissed-off woman insanely showed up at Fuentes’ door and rang the bell only to be pepper-sprayed.
Nick Fuentes Allegedly Pepper Sprays Woman During Confrontation
Chicago feminist Marla Rose claims the pundit assaulted her after she approached his home on Sunday following his online doxxing. Police retrieved her phone, reportedly damaged, and now she’s weighing charges. pic.twitter.com/YvzB0pMHXH
Who is she talking to? Who, specifically, will now be prevented from “getting” “any?” So far as is ascertainable, Goldberg does not normally provide marital relations to the general public. It is unclear why she believes she is withholding something that no one has been asking for.
Making matters even more bizarre is the fact that Goldberg is not capable of getting pregnant.
Do admit:
Wokespy did not find any evidence online of dispirited men who might be moved by Goldberg’s strike, but we did find these reactions:
Consider the alias. Writers throughout history have used aliases that we call “pen names.” Stephen King wrote books under the name “Richard Bachman.” Joanne Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, has launched a successful string of novels for adults under the name Robert Galbraith.
On the everyday level, normal people frequently use pseudonyms to post their thoughts online. Some just want privacy, some want to avoid being publicly chastised for thinking politically incorrect things.
But what of the other reasons to use an assumed name? What other category of people do we think of when we imagine someone going through life under a series of different names? Criminals, naturally. If you want to avoid detection for your crimes, changing your name is one way to throw a roadblock between you and the cops pursuing you. In the modern digital age, it’s harder to change your identity and stay hidden, of course. But a disguise does not have to be perfect. Like a lock on a door, it only needs to slow down your pursuers enough to give you time to escape.
In all these cases the motivation to use a pseudonym is the need or desire to hide something. And few classes of people want to hide something more than the so-called “transgendered.” Oh, sure, they claim that it’s “harmful” to their mental health to be called by their “dead name” (the name they were given at birth that corresponds to their actual sex), but this is a feint. If it does indeed “hurt” to hear your real name, that’s a personal problem, not a responsibility of others in society.
The Canadian province of British Columbia has enacted a law to prevent dangerous criminals, including child sex offenders, from changing their legal names.
Trans activists are demanding the law be repealed, claiming it harms transgender people.https://t.co/YOR2NaCpUM
Why, then, are transgender activists in Canada demanding that the province of British Columbia reverse a law that bans dangerous criminals from changing their name? Independent outlet Reduxx:
Social justice legal group West Coast LEAF issued a press release, signed by numerous trans activist groups and organizations, demanding the change on November 7. In their letter, the groups claim that the province’s legislation ‘harms those most in need of legal name changes, including transgender people, Indigenous people, and survivors of gender-based violence.’
The activists claim, contrary to reality, that “transgender” people are at constant risk of being murdered for “being trans.” But in all of 2023, only 35 “trans” people were murdered in the U.S. by the official count, and mostly because they were working as prostitutes and/or associating with a criminal element. Thirty-five homicides annually is so small as to be a lower rate of homicide than the general population – but don’t expect to hear that from a trans activist anytime soon.
Here are the other possible motivations the activists don’t want you to contemplate:
Escaping the criminal record earned under the correctly sexed birth name
Using a different name so that a potential employer who screens candidates against the sex offender registry cannot detect a sex offender
It should be very easy to see why a person with nefarious motivations, say, a pedophile who wants a job as a preschool teacher, would want to claim it’s a human rights violation to be prevented from changing his name.
The Reduxx article above cites the horrific case of Alan Schoenborn in BC that led to the law banning violent criminals from changing their names. Schoenborn killed his three young children in 2008, and then campaigned to be allowed to keep his new legal pseudonym secret from the public.
#BREAKING BC Vital Statistics have shared the new name certificate for 3x child killer Allan Schoenborn. His new name – approved in May 2021 – is Ken John Johnson. pic.twitter.com/5pvqECOl4U
Will British Columbia cave to these demands and put the public in danger once again by scuttling the law? It’s impossible to say, but the public is getting fed up to the back teeth with these demands from mentally unstable perverts, and the social media response shows it. Here’s a sampling.
Why is it that laws against child predators are always labeled transphobic? 🤔
Too bad for the tiny, tiny trans community. They are not the most important issue in the country. Protecting society at large and children from criminals and pedophiles is more important than accommodating the wishes and desires of a few mentally disturbed individuals.
So trans activists are openly admitting that a lot of them are pedophiles finally.
— Michelle I Love Alberta Oil and Farmers (@Michell09971295) November 10, 2024
They're protesting a law aimed at convicted criminals, especially those who have committed offenses against children. They're claiming the law "disproportionally affects transgenders".
Are they admitting that convicted criminals are disproportionally transgender? Sure seems so.
This is hardly the first story of this genre. As we reported earlier this year at Wokespy, a Tennessee bill to allow for the death penalty for child rapists was also excoriated by the LGBTQ+ “community.”
This kind of depraved thinking isn’t just relegated to the left’s alphabet faction either. Just last September, most Democrats in the House voted against a bill to deport illegal aliens who rape women, and to refuse any convicted sex offenders into the country.
It should serve as just the latest reminder to never give the left the benefit of the doubt.
MSNBC host Joy Reid announced her departure from X, formerly known as Twitter, by posting a video on social media in which she detailed her decision to delete her account.
Reid, who had 1.9 million followers on the platform, cited her lack of recent activity and ownership concerns as reasons for leaving the platform, which is now under Elon Musk’s control.
“Today, I finally did something I’ve been meaning to do for a while,” Reid stated, showing screenshots of the account deletion process. “The reason for doing it and kissing goodbye my 1.9 million followers over there is because I haven’t been posting for a long time. I just didn’t want to contribute content once it was purchased by its present owner.”
Reid went on to say that she had initially kept the account to prevent someone else from taking her username and “using it for nefarious purposes.”
Her exit from X sparked questions about potential future issues, given that she had previously faced controversy over past blog posts on her personal blog, which contained allegedly antisemitic and homophobic content.
At the time, Reid claimed her blog was hacked, an investigation that reportedly did not yield a definitive culprit.
The move to delete her account comes just days after former Fox News host Megyn Kelly speculated that MSNBC might consider letting Reid go.
In her podcast, Kelly stated that “MSNBC is allowing her [Reid] to spew this racist hate on their channel,” adding, “It’s a tick-tock situation until her a– is fired.”
Kelly’s remarks follow Reid’s recent controversial commentary, where she suggested that Black and Hispanic Trump voters were “identifying with whiteness” by supporting the former president.
Ratings for MSNBC have shown a notable decline since Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.
Since Election Day, the network has experienced a 53% drop in prime-time viewership, while Fox News has reported a 21% increase in prime-time viewership.
Don Lemon leaves X Joy Reid leaves X CCDH leaves X The Guardian leaves X
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
