After the Washington Post called her out for bad info and dismantled her false claims via five fact checks, rising socialist Democrat superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is blaming sexism for being held accountable for her deceptive misinformation.
“As if it couldn’t get much worse for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Washington Post hit the rising progressive star with a massive fact check on Friday, finding that many of her recent claims are downright false,” TheBlaze reported. “She attributed coverage of her dubious claims to sexism, of course.”
Five strikes, yer out!
Even one of the most left-leaning major newspapers in the nation’s capital, the Washington Post, could not look past Ocasio-Cortez’s long list of misleading information that she has been attempting to sell the media since her upset victory over a top Democratic incumbent in the primary for New York’s 14th Congressional District – she is expected to easily beat her weak competition in November’s midterms.
“The self-described ‘democratic socialist’ keeps making statements that are false, misleading or incorrect,” the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler wrote in his fact check report of the popular Latino candidate. “With celebrity comes scrutiny.”
Strike one …
Ocasio-Cortez’s first misleading “fact” under scrutiny came from as assertion she made last month while trying to discredit the burgeoning economy under President Donald Trump – with its unprecedently low unemployment rate.
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs,” she argued in a July 13 interview with PBS’s Firing Line. “Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.”
The socialist was quick to be called out on this gross “sweeping generalization.”
“[T]he data is pretty clear that this statement is poppycock,” Kessler asserted. “First of all, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data shows that the percentage of people working two jobs has actually declined since the Great Recession – and been relatively steady at around 5 percent since 2010. The percentage bounced around a bit, but it was as low as 4.7 percent in October 2017 and was 5.2 percent in the July jobs report – the most recent available. That hardly adds up to ‘everyone.’”
A government report that has been accessible to Ocasio-Cortez has made this information blatantly clear.
“After reaching a peak of 6.2 percent during 1995–96, the multiple job-holding rate began to recede,” a 2018 BLS report states. “By the mid-2000s, the rate had declined to 5.2 percent and remained close to that level from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, the multiple job-holding rate decreased to 4.9 percent and has remained at 4.9 percent or 5.0 percent from 2010 to 2017.”
But the facts do not appear to deter Ocasio-Cortex from manipulating the information to push her anti-capitalist, anti-conservative agenda forward before midterms.
“The July data shows most of these people juggling two jobs (58 percent) have a primary job and a part-time job,” Kessler noted. “Only 6 percent have two full-time jobs, which calls into question her claim that people are working ‘60, 70, 80 hours a week.’ Indeed, the average hours worked per week for private employees has remained steady at just under 35 hours for years.”
Strike two …
Ocasio-Cortez has not been bashful in her dislike for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while calling for its all-out removal, but the claims she has made against it to try and discredit the federal agency – that has arrested, detained and deported hundreds criminal aliens via raids in recent months – have turned out to be baseless and false.
“ICE is the only criminal investigative agency – the only enforcement agency in the United States – that has a bed quota,” Ocasio-Cortez contended in a May 30 interview with theIntercept.com. “So ICE is required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night – and that number has only been increasing since 2009.”
This contention was quickly dismantled, as well, as another political fact checker made the clear distinction that “beds [are] not people.”
“Ocasio-Cortez’s claim had us wondering: Is ICE required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every night?” Politifact.com posed. “Although the experts we spoke to told us ICE faces pressure from a variety of places to detain a large number of people, we found the legislation Ocasio-Cortez was referring to doesn’t require ICE to detain 34,000 people a day. Rather, it requires ICE to maintain 34,000 available beds a day.”
She apparently twisted to facts to meet up with her open borders agenda, as it was found that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Appropriations Act of 2010 made the mandate for accessibility, with Congress requiring ICE to have 34,000 beds made available – not filled – on a daily basis … a major difference.
“Ocasio-Cortez was referring to a clause in the DHS Appropriations Act of 2016, which states that with the funds it receives from Congress through the act, ICE ‘shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through September 30, 2016,’" Politifact.com’s Lucia Geng reported. “According to Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the mandate exists because Congress wants to ‘make sure that ICE does not use the detention bed money for something less effective.’"
This issue that Ocasio-Cortez dug up was settled four years ago to eliminate any confusion.
“In 2014, in an exchange with Republican lawmakers, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that he did not view it as a mandate to fill the beds [saying], ‘That’s beds, not people,’” Kessler explained. “In any case, the language was eliminated in the 2017 and 2018 appropriations bills – so it’s not even an issue anymore.”
But the young socialist has not toned down her language in attempts to ultimately dismantle ICE.
“[We must] abolish ICE,” Ocasio-Cortez asserted, according to the Post. "The fact that they operate without the accountability of the Department of Justice is extremely concerning to us all."
Strike three, but not out [yet] …
Another false claim made by the New York politician was that the middle class in the United States is diminishing.
“They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an August 7 Pod Save America interview. “This upper-middle class is probably more moderate but that upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America.”
It is argued that this is more than just sweeping rhetoric used to bury political rivals, but outright false.
“In knocking the current leaders of the Democrats, stuck in ’90s politics,’ Ocasio-Cortez said the ‘upper-middle class does not exist anymore,’ [b]ut the data show that while the middle class overall may have shrunk a bit, the upper-middle class has actually grown,” Kessler noted.
It was pointed out in a report by Urban Institute’s Stephen J. Rose that the upper-middle class has more than doubled from 12.9 percent of the U.S. population to 29.4 percent, indicating a gigantic shift in the center of gravity of the American economy, as the upper-middle class and rich are enjoying an increasing share.
“In 1979, the middle class controlled a bit more than 46 percent of all incomes, and the upper-middle class and rich controlled 30 percent,” Rose explained in his analysis. “In contrast, in 2014, the rich and upper-middle class controlled 63 percent of all incomes (52 percent for the upper-middle class and 11 percent for the rich); the middle class share had shrunk to 26 percent; and the shares of the lower-middle class, poor, and near-poor had declined by half.”
Strike four …
Ocasio-Cortez also made false assertions about socialized medicine.
“Medicare for all is actually much more … cheaper than the current system that we pay right now,” she told CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time in an interview on August 8.
She cited a Koch brothers-funded study in her assertion, but the Post categorized her claim as being worthy of its “Three Pinocchios” award, noting that the research is not anchored in reality.
“Some Democrats have seized on a reference in a study released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University – which receives some funding from the Koch Foundation – that a Medicare-for-all plan advanced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would reduce the country’s overall level of health expenditures by $2 trillion from 2022 to 2031,” Kessler noted. “That’s because the Sanders plan would slash payments to providers by 40 percent, [b]ut the study makes clear that this is an unrealistic assumption, and in fact, the plan would raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Without the provider cuts, the additional federal budget cost would be nearly $40 trillion, so no matter how you slice it, the study does not say it would be ‘much cheaper’ than the current system.”
Strike five, she’s out …
Ocasio-Cortez’s untrue statements about Obamacare were also scrutinized in the fact checks.
“The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax,” Ocasio-Cortez insisted in an August 8 interview on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time. “And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month, or we do pay at tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.”
Her misinterpretation was credited to her lack of understanding or outright ignorance of policy nuances, as the true nature of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision was clarified for the socialist to better comprehend.
“In the 5–4 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Affordable Care Act was deemed to be an appropriate exercise of the government’s taxing power,” Kessler explained. “But Roberts was not referring to the monthly premium payments, as Ocasio-Cortez claims. Instead, Roberts was referring to the individual mandate to buy insurance – and the requirement to pay an annual penalty when filing a tax return if one did not buy health insurance.”
The SCOTUS justice made a clear distinction on the issue at the beginning of the decade.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote, according to the Post. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
In fact, the exact opposite – of Ocasio-Cortez’s claim – about Obamacare payments was made years ago by former President Barack Obama’s White House staff during the first term of his presidency
“Ironically, the Obama administration had passed the law insisting the mandate was not a tax,” Kessler impressed.
Sexism … really?
Ocasio-Cortez’s litany of bad information was also called out by Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, who challenged her to a one-on-one debate on many of the issues she has brought up in recent interviews – even offering to donate $10,000 to her political campaign or a charity of her choice if she accepted.
“Hey, @Ocasio2018, what do you say?” Shapiro tweeted her on Thursday.
After two days, Ocasio-Cortez responded, saying she would not debate someone she considers to be sexist.
“Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted back to Shapiro on Friday. “And also like catcalling, for some reason, they feel entitled to one.”
The same day, Shapiro set the record straight on Twitter and cleared things up for Ocasio-Cortez, who apparently did not get her facts straight, once again.
“Discussion and debate are not ‘bad intentions,’” Shapiro tweeted the socialist politician Friday. “Slandering someone as a sexist catcaller without reason or evidence does demonstrate cowardice and bad intent, however.”