PLEASE REMEMBER TO SUBSCRIBE FOR DAILY NEWSLETTERS SENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR EMAIL!

WE FILTER NEWS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO BECAUSE FACTS AND TRUTH MATTER!

Kamala Harris's tax plan, as outlined through various sources and her campaign statements, aims to restructure tax policies with detrimental implications for different income groups, including the middle class.

Summary of the Plan:

• Tax Increases: Harris's plan includes increasing the top marginal income tax rate, raising the corporate tax rate to 35%, implementing a 4% income-based premium for Medicare for All on higher earners, and potentially hiking capital gains taxes to ordinary income tax rates for high earners. These measures are targeted at the wealthy and corporations but could have indirect effects on the middle class through economic repercussions like reduced job growth or higher prices.

• Direct Impact: The Tax Foundation's analysis of similar policies suggested a potential reduction in economic output and job numbers, which would indirectly burden the middle class through decreased employment opportunities or wage growth.

• Economic Theory and Practice: Economic theories suggest that high corporate taxes might lead to price increases or reduced investment, potentially hitting middle-class consumers and workers.

• Political Narrative and Public Perception: Harris's campaign frames these policies as "investing in working Americans" and contrasts them against what's described as less equitable tax plans from opponents. The truth is, that such plans might not deliver promised on benefits efficiently due to bureaucratic inefficiencies or might not address underlying economic issues like inflation or housing costs directly affecting the middle class.

Conclusion: Kamala Harris's tax plan will not benefit anyone in America for multiple reasons. Her plan fits the narrative of the government saying “your money is better off in our hands”.

We ask the question often, is it bad enough yet? Polls like this certainly confirm that train of thought. When looking at polls, it’s important to remember that it’s all a facade. This November our job is to show up and bring 10 people with us.

Judge Aileen Cannon, known for her decisions favoring Trump in past legal battles, will now preside over the case against Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump.

• Previous Favoritism: Cannon's past rulings, especially concerning Trump's classified documents case, have shown a tendency to favor Trump's legal arguments, which might influence her handling of Routh's case. Her dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump, this suggests a judicial approach that might be sympathetic to Trump's or his security's perspective in this context.

• Public Perception: Cannon's involvement might push for more severe charges or a deeper investigation into the motives behind the assassination attempt, given her history of scrutinizing cases against Trump's interests.

Analysis:

• Judicial Consistency or Bias: This is a chance for judicial consistency. If Cannon consistently interprets legal standards in favor of Trump or against what's perceived as government overreach, her oversight could lead to a legal victory against Routh that reflects the gravity of his alleged actions.

• Political Implications: This case could be seen as an opportunity for Trump to demonstrate the threats he faces. The democrat party is clearly the party of violence.

• Outcome Speculation: If Cannon follows her pattern, she might allow for a broader interpretation of laws concerning security threats against former presidents, potentially expanding the charges or focusing on the political motive behind the assassination attempt. This could serve as a precedent for how such cases are handled, particularly if they involve high-profile political figures.

Conclusion:

The involvement of Judge Cannon in the Routh case is a positive turn, expecting a judicial approach that might not only address the legal aspects but also the political and security dimensions of targeting a former president. While critics might argue this introduces bias (they can go pound sand), those in Trump's camp view it as a chance for justice that aligns with their narrative of Trump being unfairly targeted, potentially leading to a more comprehensive legal outcome that reflects the severity of an assassination attempt.

The House Rules Committee decided not to vote on a short-term spending bill that was intended to prevent a government shutdown. This bill, proposed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, would have extended government funding through December 20. However, due to opposition from within the Republican Party, the committee chose not to advance the bill for a full House vote in the usual manner. It’s important to remember the Republicans were trying to pass the SAVE act which would have prevented illegals from voting in the election, Johnson turned his back on that plan.

Analysis:

• Political Strategy: Speaker Johnson's decision to potentially bypass the traditional voting process in the House Rules Committee by using suspension of the rules underscores the internal divisions within the GOP. This move suggests that Johnson believes he cannot secure enough votes from his own party and must rely on bipartisan support to avoid a government shutdown.

• Impact of Opposition: The opposition from some Republicans illustrates the importance of certain issues like illegal immigration and the integrity of our electoral process.

• Government Shutdown Risk: The failure to move forward with this bill increases the risk of a government shutdown, which quite honestly might be what our government needs. If we can’t agree on something as simple as illegals voting in our elections then we have a SERIOUS issue within our congress.

The FCC's recent decision to approve a deal that effectively hands control of major broadcast outlets to George Soros, described as anti-conservative with foreign financing, has sparked significant controversy. The vote, aligning with the Democratic majority on the FCC board (3-2), has been criticized for potentially violating FCC rules regarding foreign ownership limits of U.S. broadcasting, which cap foreign ownership at 25%. Soros, through his investments, has maneuvered around these rules by requesting a waiver, which critics argue is an illegal shortcut to bypass standard FCC oversight.

Analysis:

• Legal and Regulatory Concerns: The approval raises serious questions about the integrity of FCC processes. Critics argue that this move undermines the FCC's own regulations designed to protect American media from foreign control, potentially setting a precedent for more foreign acquisitions in U.S. media under the guise of similar waivers. The concern here isn't just procedural but touches on national security and media independence, as media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion.

• Political and Ideological Implications: George Soros's history of funding initiatives and organizations with a liberal bias raises flags for conservatives about potential editorial shifts in these media outlets. The fear is not unfounded given past instances where media ownership changes have influenced content. This decision could be perceived as an attempt to sway public discourse, especially with the timing being close to significant elections, suggesting a strategic move to control narrative.

• Public Interest and Free Speech: From a public interest perspective, this transfer could be seen as detrimental to the diversity of viewpoints. The FCC, historically, has balanced content through doctrines like the Fairness Doctrine (though repealed, its spirit still lingers in FCC considerations). The Soros acquisition might lead to a homogenization of media content, where conservative voices could be marginalized, thus affecting the marketplace of ideas.

• FCC's Role and Bias: The vote along party lines underscores a deeper issue of potential bias within the FCC. While regulatory bodies should operate independently, this decision might reflect more on the political leanings of its members rather than a commitment to equitable media governance. This could erode public trust in the FCC's ability to act in the national interest rather than party lines.

• Economic and Corporate Influence: Beyond ideology, there's an economic angle where Soros's investment could be seen as a smart business move, potentially revitalizing struggling media outlets like Audacy. However, this raises questions about the concentration of media power in few hands, especially those with foreign ties, potentially leading to conflicts of interest in national policy reporting.

The displeasure with this FCC decision stems from concerns over legal overreach, ideological control over media narratives, and the erosion of American media's independence from foreign influence. For critics, this isn't just about one billionaire's control but symbolizes a broader shift where regulatory bodies might prioritize political or corporate interests over national media sovereignty and diversity of thought. This scenario invites scrutiny on how media ownership laws are enforced and whether they serve the public or political interests.