Graham Allen @GrahamAllen_1
·
This was the greatest interview EVER!

JOE ROGAN: “Did you just float out the idea of getting rid of income taxes and replacing it with tariffs? — Were you serious about that?”

DONALD TRUMP: “Sure, why not?”

8:26 AM · Oct 26, 2024 //

Trump went into American political history to explain why tariffs are a better source of government revenue than a system such as an income tax on citizens. The American Founders agreed.

They debated and soundly rejected a federal income tax system, opting instead in 1789 to institute an ad valorem tariff on “all articles of foreign manufacture” as the sole mechanism for funding the federal government. The Tariff Revenue Act of 1789 was the very first law on the books of the very first Congress. That’s why a constitutional amendment was required in 1913 just to make an income tax system legal in this country. //

The income tax system has fueled a monstrous expansion of federal power and created a military-industrial complex that is insatiable in its quest for control of global resources to keep itself in power. This complex seeks to destroy the last vestiges of our Founding system in favor of a globalist “New World Order” and will destroy or even kill anyone who stands in its way — including Trump.

Tariffs Mind America’s Business
Our founders, by contrast, sought not an empire, but a peaceful commercial republic. Our national purpose was to avoid at all costs foreign entanglements that made us vulnerable to the whims of foreign powers.

The tariff revenue system, they reasoned, achieved that. It also met their two major domestic objectives: 1) it was sufficient to obtain the annual revenue for a very limited but fully functional federal government, and 2) it is by far the least oppressive option for Americans.

Indiana's Constitution includes a list of officials who could temporarily become governor in the event the position is vacant due to death or other inability to serve. This list is called the line of succession.

This fall, voters will see Public Question #1 on the ballot, which asks Hoosiers to update the line of succession.

The Indiana Constitution currently lists seven officials in the line of succession:

1. Lieutenant Governor
2. Speaker of the House
3. Senate President Pro Tempore
4. State Treasurer
5. State Auditor
6. Secretary of State
7. State Superintendent of Public Instruction

The language listing the State Superintendent in the line of succession is left over from the era when Indiana had an elected State Superintendent, but now the governor appoints the head of the Department of Education in the same way other heads of agencies and departments are appointed.

Since Indiana no longer elects a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the position no longer exists, Public Question #1 proposes removing this office from the line of succession for the governor's office. This proposed amendment leaves the other six offices in the line of succession the same as they are today and ensures that every person serving in the emergency line of succession for governor is someone who has been publicly elected by Hoosiers.

As the nation enters the home stretch of this unpredictable campaign season, Christians hoping to steward their vote wisely have much to consider. One way to go beyond the click-bait headlines, short sound bites, and endless advertisements and gain deeper insight into the priorities of each party is by reviewing the party platforms.

A confidential draft memo from Everybody Votes indicates its goal is registering voters of certain demographics to “reshape the electorate” — even bragging that its efforts would be the “single most effective tactic for ensuring Democratic victories.” So much for non-partisan! In 2016 and 2020, this 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization spent $106 million targeting specific voters and reportedly worked with the Hillary Clinton campaign on shaping its strategy.

Nonprofit voter registration groups are required to remain non-partisan under federal law, but Democrats have been exploiting this tax-exempt status for their own benefit for decades. Of course, there has been no prosecution against Everybody Votes because their financial backer is George Soros. The Democrats aren’t going to prosecute their own people. Until the corrupt Democrat machine is removed from power they will continue to illegally influence elections through their illegal, partisan voter registration drives — as evidenced in Pennsylvania.

These schemes to use low-level workers to harvest new voter registrations isn’t new. Remember ACORN — Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now? One of their famous community organizers was Barack Obama. ACORN paid workers to register voters across the nation, but criminal activity plagued the organization. Ultimately, they went out of business and at least 18 employees were convicted on election fraud charges. Those were just the ones who were caught.

Everybody Votes is this generation’s ACORN. They are being accused of massive voter registration fraud and the Harris-Biden administration is doing nothing about it. Instead, they are weaponizing the Justice Department by attacking their political opposition: Elon Musk.

Our corrupt media swear the only personal investment they have in this election is ensuring it will be “fair” and consequently end with a peaceful transfer of power, concepts they have worked all along to erode and undermine with not a sliver of regret.

They care about fairness the same way they care about “democracy,” a once important term they’ve raped and bastardized so as to make it unrecognizable. It’s only democracy if their preferred candidate is elected. Likewise, things are only fair if they get to have the last word on what’s true, what’s false, and what’s open for debate. (Hint: True is whatever Democrats claim it to be, and anything to the contrary is disinformation.)

The media don’t get the excuse of being stupid or insane. They’re malicious and depraved. They knew what they were doing when they feigned ignorance over the dramatic degree to which President Biden had physically and mentally deteriorated. They were lying to the public because the full truth would hurt Democrats. They knew what they were doing when they explained away the devastating harm the Kamala-Biden admin was doing with hyperinflation and unchecked immigration at the border. They were lying to the public because the full truth would hurt Democrats.

They knew what they were doing when they looked the other way as a sitting president was removed as his party’s nominee for reelection in a bloodless coup, only to have an absolute joke of a candidate installed in his place with no transparency or discussion of how it happened. And when Democrats said this was all just fine, the media knew what they were doing when they collectively agreed and put their full weight behind convincing voters Kamala was a capable alternative. They were lying to the public because the full truth would hurt Democrats.

They don’t get to say they care about a “free and fair” election. They relinquished that right a long time ago, pissing away all of their credibility, cheapening the constitutional right to a free press, and abandoning any responsibility they had to truthfully inform the voters on the state of the nation.

Nobody needs to worry about whether this is going to be a “free and fair” election. The media already decided it wouldn’t be. What we should be concerned with once this is over is figuring out how it is possible to ever have one again.

The judge clearly went overboard and illegally focused on Tina Peters’ constitutionally protected viewpoint about election theft.

According to the Media Research Center, after analyzing the corporate news landscape for a time, MRC found that it set a new record in terms of lopsided coverage. Not only did it prop up Kamala Harris with positive news coverage by unforgivable amounts, it focused on painting Trump as the villain with negative news coverage even more:

One week before Election Day, a new analysis from the Media Research Center finds that broadcast evening news coverage of the 2024 presidential race has been the most lopsided in history. Since July, ABC, CBS and NBC have treated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris to 78 percent positive coverage, while these same networks have pummeled former Republican President Donald Trump with 85 percent negative coverage. (See Methodology explanation at the end of this post.)

The difference in coverage between the two candidates is far greater than in 2016, when both Trump and then-challenger Hillary Clinton received mostly negative coverage (91% negative for Trump, vs. 79% negative for Clinton). It’s even greater than in 2020, when Joe Biden was treated to 66 percent positive coverage, vs. 92 percent negative for Trump. //

anon-89ic
8 days ago
You don't need a study. You just need to look at the New York Times and the Babylon Bee and you will see that they are equally satire, but the Bee seems more truthful. When satire becomes life and the press lies about it, then you have arrived in Orwell territory.

In an attempt to claw back some of her lost support, Harris recently appeared with Kareem Rahma, a Muslim influencer. During the interview, which was so bad it went unpublished, the vice president made two major mistakes.

The first was a refusal to discuss the war between Israel and Hamas. Surprising no one, Rahma is extremely anti-Israel and was looking for Harris to throw him a bone on the issue. For her to show up and think she could get away with not talking about it is unfathomable for a presidential campaign. It does show the sense of entitlement Harris continually operates with, though.

That wasn't the worst of it, though. Instead of talking about the conflict in the Middle East, Kamala Harris decided to pivot to trying to convince Rahma that "bacon is a spice," noting that it's "pure flavor" when she received pushback.

Yes, she tried to discuss the finer points of how great bacon is with a Muslim. You can't make this stuff up. //

She's a cyborg. I'm convinced of it at this point. Harris was pieced together by scientists using bolts and duct tape. If she wasn't, she'd have been able to have a normal discussion like a human being about something not deeply offensive to the person interviewing her. Recall that this is the same person whose office had to hold a mock cocktail dinner to prep her on how to drink wine and talk to world leaders.

This is what happens when you have an empty suit running for president. Because Harris has never had an original thought in her life, everything is scripted and force-fed to her. That means when the teleprompter goes out, either literally or figurately, she has nowhere to go. That's how you end up with her riffing on bacon while talking to a Muslim. It's laughable. //

HadEnoughYet? 22 minutes ago
The female version of Ron Burgundy.