The comment occurred during a town hall event in Flint, Michigan, which was held by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The auto industry is an important market for Michigan voters.
Trump vowed to bring manufacturing jobs back to Americans in Michigan, stating that he would make it impossible for China or Mexico to sell cars in the United States because of the tariffs that he would impose on them,
“We’re going to charge them, I’m telling you right now, I’m putting a 200% tariff on them, which means they’re unsellable in the United States,” Trump told the Michigan voters. “Then you wonder why I get shot at, right? You know, only consequential presidents get shot at. When I say something like that, you have countries saying ‘this guy,’ but what can you do? You have to do [what’s right] … We have to be brave, otherwise we’re not gonna have a country left.”
The former president’s response came during his first major campaign event after he survived a second assassination attempt, which was thwarted by Secret Service on Sunday before the would-be assassin fired a shot. The attempted shooting occurred at Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida. […]
— Read More: justthenews.com
]]>This is a terrible idea because it incentivizes financial irresponsibility, distorts the financial picture for lenders, could shift healthcare costs upward, neglects the root causes of medical debt, and may result in tightened lending standards or increased interest rates for all borrowers. At the end of the day, forcing banks to loan to people who cannot afford to repay their loans was the catalyst for the 2008 global financial crisis.
By removing medical debt from credit reports, this policy risks incentivizing financial irresponsibility. Without the pressure of seeing medical debt impact their credit scores, individuals may be less motivated to manage their debt responsibly, resulting in delayed or ignored payments. Over time, this could actually increase the amount of medical debt instead of reducing it, as individuals might feel less urgency to pay off what they owe. This shift in behavior could exacerbate the very problem the policy aims to address.
Moreover, excluding medical debt from credit scores distorts the full financial picture lenders need to make informed decisions. Credit scores are designed to reflect an individual’s ability to manage and repay all debts, giving a complete view of their financial health. Removing medical debt hides a significant portion of a person’s financial obligations, leading lenders to approve loans for individuals whose financial situations may be far less stable than they appear. This could increase the risk of defaults and potentially destabilize lending practices, much like what occurred in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. […]
— Read More: www.thegatewaypundit.com
]]>The US public in particular is now struggling with the slow realization that our financial and monetary structures are not secure. Many of us in the alternative media have been warning about this for decades. I warned about the inevitability of a stagflation crisis for many years and was criticized as a “doom monger,” at least until 2021 when the crisis became undeniable. But that’s what happens when you live in an economy of lies and you start talking about reality – Some people will see you as a threat.
Even today with everything that’s happening there are still blind muppets and disinformation shills out there that assure us “all is well”. And, usually they’ll cite manipulated government stats as evidence to support their faulty position.
The Biden Administration has proven to be one of the worst culprits when it comes to data misrepresentation and manipulation. To be sure, Biden has had plenty of help with his “Bidenomics” agenda and he wouldn’t be able to rig the numbers without aid from the Federal Reserve, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the corporate media, etc. Most presidents get help from these institutions when promoting a sick economy as a healthy economy. Some presidents do not…
With that fact in mind, I’ve been wondering lately what will happen when Biden exits the White House in January 2025? What happens to the numbers after that? Will there be a statistical reset? Will the real data be exposed all at once; an avalanche of reality crashing down on the delusional system?
I’m still not convinced that any outcome is beyond dismissal for elections in November. If someone was to ask me what I predict, I would have to say Trump will be president again. From all the evidence I’ve seen the Harris campaign is an astroturf movement with a limited voter base. She’s obviously not very bright and I don’t think the theatrical “joy” strategy is convincing very many people of her competency. Her economic policies (including price controls) are full bore communist and would be devastating to any form of US recovery. Her fiscal plan will be even worse than Bidenomics has been.
But hey, I was certain Trump was getting a second term in 2020 and I was wrong. Who could have known Biden was going to get that unprecedented mail-in voter boost in the middle of the night after everyone went to bed? Truly, he is the most popular presidential candidate of all time. Why they dropped him for Kamala I’ll never fathom…
But seriously, the point is, we have come to a crossroads in our election process where anything is possible (whether real or engineered). I suspect that if Trump enters office once again there will be a multitude of changes to our economic data and they will happen quickly. Some of the rigging is already being exposed, just not on a level where the majority of the populace is aware of it.
Some examples of this rigging include:
Biden’s steady sale of US strategic oil reserves in order to drive down energy and gas prices, thereby artificially reducing CPI (official monthly inflation numbers). By June of this year Biden had sold off at least 50% of the nation’s emergency oil supply just to keep CPI down a few points. Keep in mind, bringing down the CPI does nothing to cut the real inflation that has already accumulated in necessities (30%-50% higher prices depending on the product or service).
Then there’s the manipulation of BLS unemployment data to show millions of new jobs that don’t actually exist. After it was announced that Biden was no longer the Democratic candidate, suddenly the US Payroll has been revised down by over 818,000, likely with more revisions to come. Meaning, Bidenomics was being fluffed with fake job creation.
An even greater concern is the fact that all new jobs created for the past several years have been going to illegal aliens, not legal citizens. In fact, since October of 2019 native-born US workers have lost over 1.4 million jobs. Over the same period, migrants illegally residing in the US have gained 3 million jobs. The new narrative among leftists is that this is a good thing; they claim that the US needs illegal immigration and open borders in order to support the jobs market and “bring down inflation.”
I’m doubtful that the jobs boost to illegals is real, either. More likely the migrant jobs data is rigged because it’s much harder to track and confirm. But these people don’t seem to understand how inflation works – Greater population means higher resource demand, and that helps drive up prices (as we’ve seen in housing). It doesn’t bring prices down, nor does it reduce the existing money supply.
It should also be noted that full time jobs numbers have plunged while part time low-wage jobs have increased. These are the kinds of issues no one in the Biden Admin is talking about.
Finally, rising GDP is often cited as a key indicator of a vibrant economy, but what the “experts” rarely mention is that GDP is rigged by the inclusion of government spending. The more federal and state governments tax, borrow and spend, the higher GDP goes. Currently, government spending accounts for at least 36% of GDP (officially) in the US.
It makes it look like America is more successful than ever but this is based on the government taking more cash from the public, printing more money and going into greater debt, then throwing that cash away with wild abandon in order to prop up the numbers.
Goldman Sachs recently made a statement that under a Harris regime GDP would go up and under Trump GDP would take a big hit. They are right, in a way, but they don’t explain the real reason why this is the case.
If Trump follows through on his fiscal responsibility policies (Elon Musk has been tapped to head up investigations into government efficiency), then OF COURSE we’ll see a drop in GDP. It would mean government spending will go down and the rigging of GDP will end. With Harris, government spending will skyrocket and so the GDP bubble will continue to grow. In fact, Harris will be incentivized to increase government spending in order to hide greater deflation in GDP.
Trump’s arrival in the Oval Office will result in a hailstorm of bad economic data, and most of this will be due to the sudden end of statistical manipulations that have been in place for the last four years. We are currently in the midst of a tone-shift in which recessionary forces are pressuring markets more than inflation. But don’t be fooled…
As soon as the Federal Reserve cuts rates inflation will spike again, and if Trump is in office a CPI jump will be even more pronounced. Biden’s oil reserve dumps will be over, no longer anchoring CPI. We will continue to see inflation in necessities with deflation in other areas including jobs and GDP. That’s what happens during a stagflation crisis.
With Harris the same problems will occur, they just won’t be reported and the stats will not reflect the truth. With Trump, the stats will be more transparent and the media will howl about how conservatives are destroying the economy. The game plan is obvious.
]]>Harris faces a conundrum: She cannot campaign on policies to fix crime, inflation, and border security without undermining the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, but she must tout the administration’s policies to validate her record and candidacy.
“Is the price of groceries still too high?” Harris rhetorically asked during a gathering at the National Association of Black Journalists.
“Yes,” she replied.
“Do we have more work to do?” she rhetorically asked again. “Yes.”
Prices soared about 20 percent across the board on average since the Biden-Harris administration took power in 2021.
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
[…]
— Read More: www.breitbart.com
]]>In a post on Truth Social, the former president spoke about his upcoming rally in Uniondale, New York, at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum on Wednesday. Trump added that he would “turn” New York “around” and asked voters what they “have to lose.”
“Nassau Coliseum, on Long Island, will be a really big deal tomorrow,” Trump wrote. “It will be PACKED with Patriots! We have a real chance of winning, for the first time in many decades, New York. Hundreds of thousands of Migrants, Crime at record levels, Terrorists pouring in, Inflation eating your hearts out – WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? VOTE FOR TRUMP! I will turn it around, get SALT back, lower your Taxes, and so much more.”
As Breitbart News has previously reported, SALT deductions have existed since the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in February 1913. However, it is described as being “controversial” due to leading to several Democrat-leaning states subsidizing and imposing “higher income and property taxes” […]
— Read More: www.breitbart.com
]]>A sworn statement by an ABC News whistleblower exposing network bias favoring Harris continues to be in focus regarding “assurances” to the Democrat’s campaign days before the event.
Now David Muir, anchor of ABC’s “World News Tonight” and co-moderator of the debate, is defending his performance during the matchup, as ratings for his evening news broadcast have plunged some 12% in the aftermath.
Note the date of the tweet below, almost a week before the debate. ABC gave Kamala Harris assurances that she would be favored in the debate on Sept 10. The ABC whistleblower confirmed this in a sworn affidavit the day before the debate. The ABC presidential debate was rigged in… https://t.co/7v9ffkfPJH
— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) September 17, 2024
“ABC News has offered assurances to the Harris campaign that if there is significant cross talk between Harris and Trump, the network may choose to turn on the mics so that the public can understand what is happening, the moderator would discourage either candidate from interrupting constantly and the moderator would also work to explain to viewers what is being said, according to the source familiar,” CNN reported.
ABC News insists it did not break debate rules, initially stating: “ABC News followed the debate rules that both campaigns agreed on and which clearly state: No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates.”
A network spokesperson later told the Daily Beast: “Absolutely not. Harris was not given any questions before the date.”
The X account that posted the purported affidavit, @DocNetyoutube, reacted to ABC’s denial, stating:
Yesterday, ABC made a statement regarding the whistleblower affidavit. The only thing ABC said was that they did not give the questions or the topics to the Harris campaign. Well, nobody accused ABC of doing that. ABC has been accused of the following:
1.) Giving the Harris campaign sample questions, similar to the actual questions that would be used for the debate.
2.) Agreeing to give Harris a smaller podium and other arrangements to minimize the size differential between Harris and Trump.
3.) Fact Checking would be done for Donald Trump and NOT Kamala Harris
4.) Harris campaign gave questions to ABC that were not to be included in the debate. Including questions regarding her time as DA in SF and her time as California Attorney General.Out of all these accusations, the fact checking of Trump has been admitted to. The podium and split screen appearance to keep the height differential have already been proven, ABC did NOT deny communications with the Harris campaign without the Trump campaign being present and they will never deny that because they cannot. According to the whistleblower, ABC executives made numerous phone calls with the Harris campaign without including the Trump campaign on the call. Everything the whistleblower has submitted has been proven except for sample questions. There will be another tweet later today announcing action to be taken against ABC and the affiliates of ABC.
As WND reported Sunday, Sept. 15, an ABC News whistleblower released an affidavit punishable by perjury specifying allegations that the network made numerous assurances to the Harris campaign to favor the Democratic nominee for president.
ABC whistleblower affidavit has been released by @DocNetyoutube this morning. It alleges as a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that ABC coordinated with the Harris campaign to give her sample questions, assurances that Trump would be fact checked and Kamala would not, and… pic.twitter.com/DNyI2clpvS
— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) September 15, 2024
The sworn statement indicated: “It was agreed that Donald Trump would be subjected to fact-checking during the debate, while Kamala Harris would not comparable scrutiny. This was widely known throughout the company that Donald Trump would be fact-checked. In fact, various people were assigned to fact check observations it was perceived candidate Trump would make during the debate.
“In fact, [the] Harris campaign required assurances that Donald Trump would be fact checked. This was done via multiple communications with the Harris campaign whereas the Trump campaign was not included in the negotiations. To my understanding, any rules negotiations and conversations pertaining to the debate should have had both the Trump and Harris campaign involved, the Harris campaign had numerous more calls regarding the debate rules without the Trump campaign aware or on the call.”
The statement also says: “The Harris campaign was provided with sample questions that, while not the exact questions, covered similar topics that would appear during the debate.”
“Furthermore, the Harris campaign imposed serious restrictions on the scope of questioning, including:
The whistleblower claims to have “observed a pronounced bias against Donald Trump within ABC News. Employees expressing favorable views towards him experience significant concerns about potential retribution.”
On Tuesday, Muir called the controversy over ABC’s performance “just noise.”
“All of the noise that you hear afterward about you know, ‘Which candidate won the debate, did the moderators win or lose?’” Muir told the audience on ABC’s “Live With Kelly and Mark.”
“That’s just noise. You all know that. The most important thing to remember is you all have the power.”
He said it was the “duty” of him and co-moderator Linsey Davis to discuss issues of importance to Americans, mentioning their inquiries about the border crisis, economy, reproductive rights, Afghanistan and the peaceful transfer of power.
“These are all really important issues, the issues of our time, really, and I always say as a moderator, what the candidates decide to do with that time – you can ask the questions, but they’ll answer with whatever they choose to answer with, and you have to be ready for whatever might come your way, even the most unexpected of moments,” Muir said.
ABC's David Muir says that the controversy surrounding his historically awful moderation of the presidential debate is "just noise."
Well his ratings are DOWN 12% following the debate. Less people are listening to his nightly noise now. Good! pic.twitter.com/XBH6KPLxni
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 17, 2024
Muir’s appearance on Tuesday’s talk show was perhaps prompted by a 12% drop in ratings for his nightly news broadcast since the debate.
Fox News reports: “Muir’s ‘World News Tonight’ averaged 6.7 million viewers on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the three episodes following the debate, after averaging 7.6 million in 2024 leading up to the debate.
“The 12% drop in viewers for ‘World News Tonight’ is more significant than slight declines ‘CBS Evening News’ and ‘NBC Nightly News’ saw when comparing the three episodes following ABC’s debate to the year-to-date totals, although Muir’s newscast remained the No. 1 broadcast evening newscast.”
ABC News fact-checked Trump at least five times during the Sept 10 debate, but preferred not a single fact-check for Harris.
Davis told the Los Angeles Times last week that her intense fact-checking of Trump was influenced by the June 27 debate on CNN that prompted President Joe Biden to exit the 2024 race.
“People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,” Davis told the paper.
On Sunday, five days after the debate, Martha Raddatz of ABC News finally admitted Harris was wrong when she said during the debate there is “not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world.”
“Our fact-checkers found that to be false,” Raddatz said.
“There are currently 900 U.S. military personnel in Syria, 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. All have been under regular threat from drones and missiles for months. We also have action in the Red Sea,” Raddatz added. “Also, every single day, the Navy SEALs, Delta Forces special operators can be part of any sort of deadly raid.”
Neither Muir nor Davis alerted their 70 million debate viewers to the egregious falsehood by Harris.
Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
]]>In an interview with Fox Business host Liz Claman, Paulson, founder of Paulson & Co., outlined the stark contrast between the economic visions of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. He pointedly criticized the Biden-Harris administration’s intention to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and the capital gains rate from 20 percent to a staggering 28 percent.
“The difference between the Trump administration and Harris is very, very different,” Paulson stated.
He elaborated on the specifics, noting, “Trump is — wants to extend the current, very successful tax policy, which was implemented in 2017. The Biden-Harris group, on the other hand, wants to change that. They want to change the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, they want to raise the capital gains rate from 20 percent initially to 39 percent now, they flip-flopped back to 28 percent.”
Now, after seemingly rushing to implement their agenda, the Biden-Harris administration is facing pushback not just from the public but from influential figures like Paulson. When asked about the potential for future investments, Paulson made it clear that the upcoming election would weigh heavily on his financial decisions.
“Well, I would say it very much depends on who is in the White House and who controls Congress,” he explained.
This statement raises a critical question: why should the American people trust a leadership that seems intent on flipping the script on successful policies? Paulson expressed deep concern about a Harris presidency, particularly regarding her proposed tax plans.
“I’d be very concerned if Harris is elected and pursues the tax plans and other economic plans that she articulated. You alluded to the tax on unrealized gains — if they do implement a 25 percent tax on unrealized gains that would cause mass selling of almost everything. Stocks, bonds, homes, art. I think it would result in a crash in the markets and a immediate, pretty quick recession,” Paulson asserted.
It’s hard not to see this as a politically charged warning. Could it be that the Biden-Harris administration is so out of touch with economic realities that they would jeopardize the financial security of countless Americans? The implications are staggering.
When Claman pointed out that people pulled their money out of the stock market during the tenures of both Barack Obama and Donald Trump, despite the markets rising under their administrations, Paulson reiterated his stance.
“It depends on the policy,” he said.
The bottom line is crystal clear:
“I think if Harris was elected, I would pull my money from the market. I’d go into cash and I’d go into gold because I think the uncertainty regarding the plans they outlined would create a lot of uncertainty in the markets and likely lower markets,” Paulson concluded.
In a political landscape riddled with uncertainty, Paulson’s warnings should serve as a wake-up call. The stakes are high, and the implications of a Harris presidency could reverberate throughout the economy, affecting not only the wealthy but everyday Americans as well. As we approach the 2024 election, one must ask: is this the direction we want for our country?
]]>The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its aggressive emissions rules for America’s power plants in April, saying at the time that the regulations would “improve public health without disrupting the delivery of reliable electricity.” However, four major regional grid operators argued the exact opposite in an amicus brief filed in support of red states’ legal challenge against the rule, stating explicitly that the rules will jeopardize Americans’ ability to reliably secure sufficient amounts of power if they are enforced as is.
“Their proffered brief outlines in detail that without additional modification, the compliance timelines and related provisions of the Rule are not workable and are destined to trigger an acceleration in the pace of premature retirements of electric generation units that possess critical reliability attributes at the very time when such generation is needed to support ever-increasing electricity demand because of the growth of the digital economy and the need to ensure adequate back-up generation to support an increasing amount of intermittent renewable generation,” the grid operators wrote in their amicus brief. “Such inevitable and foreseeable premature retirement decisions resulting from the Rule’s timelines will substantially strain each of the Joint [independent system operators’] / [regional transmission organizations’] ability to maintain the reliability of the electric power grid to meet the needs of the citizenry and the country’s economy.” […]
— Read More: dailycallernewsfoundation.org
]]>The Disney-owned network’s broadcast news program hosted by Muir that airs at 6:30 p.m. EDT drew an average of 7.6 million viewers before the September 10 debate, but only drew an average of 6.7 million viewers in the three days after the debate, according to Fox News. Muir and Davis, who hosts the program on weekends, were criticized for making so-called “fact checks” on Trump more often than Harris during the event, even though Harris made false statements about Trump’s position on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and other issues.
Davis said their decision to be more proactive in fact-checking Trump stemmed from the June 27 debate hosted by CNN between the former president and President Joe Biden.
ABC's David Muir says that the controversy surrounding his historically awful moderation of the presidential debate is "just noise."
Well his ratings are DOWN 12% following the debate. Less people are listening to his nightly noise now. Good! pic.twitter.com/XBH6KPLxni
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 17, 2024
“People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,” Davis said during a Sept. 11 interview with the Los Angeles Times.
Trump later said he “lost a bit of respect” for Muir after the debate.
“It was so … one-sided,” he told Fox News. “It was one against three.”
Conservatives agreed with the former president, saying the debate was rigged against Trump, with the former president having to not only contend with Harris, but also Muir and Davis. At one point during the debate, Davis asked Harris about changes in positions on policy issues, but did not press the vice president when Harris discussed “values” instead of responding to the question.
ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz noted Sunday that Harris had misstated facts about American troops being in harm’s way during the debate, something Muir and Davis didn’t do during the debate, Fox News reported.
George Orwell famously called this subversive language “Newspeak.” Peter Foster describes Newspeak as “a sort of totalitarian Esperanto that sought gradually to diminish the range of what was thinkable by eliminating, contracting, and manufacturing words.”
Mises explains that dictators express their ideas in Newspeak precisely because, if they did not, nobody would support their schemes:
This reversal of the traditional connotation of all words of the political terminology is not merely a peculiarity of the language of the Russian Communists and their Fascist and Nazi disciples. The social order that in abolishing private property deprives the consumers of their autonomy and independence, and thereby subjects every man to the arbitrary discretion of the central planning board, could not win the support of the masses if they were not to camouflage its main character. The socialists would have never duped the voters if they had openly told them that their ultimate end is to cast them into bondage. (emphasis added)
In the proliferation of Newspeak, the reinterpretation of “human rights” has proved to be one of the most powerful weapons of sabotage and revolution. Activists have seized control of a vast empire of international law, NGOs, and human rights charities with a global network of staff who monitor respect for “human rights.” They wield their significant influence in the human rights industry to undermine human liberty by redefining the meaning of “human rights” to denote the antidiscrimination principle. Under the banner of equality and nondiscrimination, they restrict free speech and other human liberties. In other words, the doctrine of “human rights” now denotes the precise opposite: the destruction of human liberty. […]
— Read More: mises.org
]]>