Revealed: Biden's Unsupported Claim of 20% Federal Union Growth
'I suspect the White House knows their figures are wrong but doesn’t want to admit it'
Biden White House Uses Fuzzy Math to Tout 'Nearly 20%' Federal Union Growth
At RealClearInvestigations, I report on the Biden White House’s touted nearly 20% increase in federal union growth — growth that appears to be unsupported by any publicly available data.
Among my findings:
In legally mandated union membership disclosures, the two largest federal unions — which account for more than three-quarters of unionized federal workers — reported barely any increase in the period in question.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows just a 2% increase in the number of unionized federal workers over the last year.
RCI asked the Office of Personnel Management to provide a breakdown of membership gains by union to help reconcile the seeming discrepancy. It didn't.
Nor could Vice President Kamala Harris’ office provide detail substantiating the claimed growth — Harris having led the task force whose efforts supposedly helped drive federal unionization to new heights.
Check out the full investigation at RCI.
5 Critical Points About America’s Speech Police
Separately, at the Epoch Times I wrote up some of my high-level observations about the insanity and insidiousness of CISA-led federal efforts to police our speech, about which I recently testified before Congress.
Here are a couple of those points:
Point 1: We never voted to have agencies such as CISA relay requests to censor Americans on social media to relevant platforms or for agencies such as CISA to work with third-party actors to effectuate the same. Instead, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to serve as arbiters of truth, telling us that unauthorized opinions are dangerous to the homeland and that we must be censored accordingly. Yet what’s more dangerous: What Americans say or a government that determines what can and can’t be said without our consent?
Point 2: It’s manifestly the job of the national security and law enforcement apparatus to protect us from threats. But authorities are supposed to deal in actions—attacks or plots to attack—not words. Only the federal government could take a mandate such as protecting critical infrastructure to mean that it’s acceptable to censor domestic skepticism about mail-in ballots, as if critical speech is tantamount to attacks on ballot boxes. Now, the right to speak isn’t absolute. Certainly, authorities ought to pursue cases of clear incitement to violence. But views on elections once held by Jimmy Carter and presented as legitimate by The New York Times or criticism of draconian and often anti-science Chinese COVID-19 policies aren’t that. Speech policing doesn’t keep us safe. Its aim is to keep those who do the policing safe from criticism.
Read the whole thing at the Epoch Times.