Tag: politics

Centrist Democrats Are Trying Hard to Lose the Midterms

Making political predictions is always a fool’s errand—particularly these days, when polls are becoming increasingly unreliable and sometimes even fraudulent. But there are still plenty of signs pointing to a strong Democratic Party victory in Tuesday’s midterms. Democrats appear to be in pole position to recapture the House of Representatives, and have a real chance to gain control of the Senate—something that seemed all but impossible until relatively recently.

We can tell which way the wind is blowing by the fact that Republican super PACs are bailing out of states like North Carolina—which was expected to be a marquee battleground this year but now seems all but lost to the GOP—and moving funds to bolster candidates in even redder states such as Texas and Iowa.

The Trump administration has also noticed how bad things are going, and is flailing accordingly. On Thursday, the White House announced that President Trump was canceling planned rallies in Kansas and Iowa, replacing them with tele-rallies. This news was telling on a number of levels. The very fact that Trump was headed to deep-red states like Kansas and Iowa was a sign of trouble. In more successful years such as 2016 and 2024, he ended his campaigns by going to genuine swing states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, even making daring jaunts into New York.

Then, on Friday morning, the White House suddenly reversed course and said Trump would be holding the rallies after all. Perhaps Trump was stung by the implication of his previous decision to cancel—it sent the message that Republicans didn’t want to be seen with an unpopular president, and that Trump himself wanted to avoid the stink of being part of a losing campaign—or perhaps this was simply yet another sign of the chaotic, strategy-free nature of Trump’s approach. Not surprisingly, pundits such as Nate Silver and David Wallace-Wells are predicting that we may be watching the beginning of the end of the Trump era.

Keep reading

Brazil’s Lula Regime Orders Sweeping Social Media Crackdown Against ‘Electoral Harassment’ After His Disputed Election Victory

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s socialist regime has launched a fresh crackdown on social media and freedom of speech.

On Thursday, his government announced new measures to force social media companies to remove content deemed to constitute “electoral harassment.”

The crackdown comes just days after Lula narrowly defeated conservative challenger Flávio Bolsonaro in a disputed presidential runoff.

Bolsonaro has since been forced to seek refuge in the U.S. to avoid being imprisoned by the socialist authorities.

The government claims to have complaints from workers who were threatened with dismissal or pressured over their political preferences.

“These measures aim to protect workers’ freedom of political choice and hold employers accountable for discriminatory practices,” the government declared.

Keep reading

Ethics commissioner grilled over failure to sanction Liberal MP

A Liberal MP bought gifts from her own business with her constituency budget, was found to have broken the conflict of interest code, and faced no sanctions. Conservative MP Aaron Gunn wanted to know why.

On Thursday’s Rebel Roundup, Sheila Gunn Reid and Tamara Ugolini played a clip from a committee hearing where Gunn questioned Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein about Lori Idlout. Idlout was elected as an NDP MP for Nunavut and later crossed the floor to the Liberals. Sheila directed viewers to FireIdlout.com, which has a petition on the issue.

Gunn said the commissioner found Idlout violated section 8 of the code on five separate occasions, using her taxpayer-funded constituency budget to buy more than $2,000 in artwork and trinkets from her own business. He read a note from her compliance advisor from 2022, which said, “I also advised her she could not purchase gifts from the Indigenous art gallery she owns with her members office budget.”

“So why were there no sanctions and no consequences with this abuse of taxpayer money?” Gunn asked.

Von Finckenstein said the amount was minimal and that the profit to Idlout “would be minimal,” and said he cannot impose sanctions. “This would be the Speaker who would impose sanctions,” he said, adding that under the act he has discretion over whether to recommend any.

Gunn asked whether he would apply the same standard to the prime minister. “Can you guarantee that you would recommend sanctions in that case, or might he just get off with a stern warning?”

“How many times does someone have to violate it for there to be a sanction?” Gunn asked. Von Finckenstein replied that if Gunn kept posing new questions before he could finish answering, “we’re not having a discussion here.”

Tamara said it is hard for Canadians to watch MPs “flout the rules” over what she called a small sum, given “$2,000 is a whole heck ton of money to a lot of Canadians struggling under this Liberal government.” Sheila said she believes a food-bank user would not call $2,000 pocket change.

The hosts compared the case to former Conservative minister Bev Oda, whose $16 glass of orange juice cost her her political career.

“There seems to be no rhyme or reason in terms of who is sanctioned,” Tamara said. Conservatives, Sheila said, hold their own to a higher standard. “They will turn on their own if what they do becomes too unpalatable.”

In his September report, according to coverage by Turtle Island News, von Finckenstein found Idlout acted in good faith and repaid the House of Commons once the errors were raised with her.

He said she “did not realize that making purchases from two businesses would further her or her spouse’s private interests.”

Keep reading

Alaska Senate Decoy Candidate Dan Sullivan DISAPPEARS as US Attorney Announces Surge in FBI Agents to Investigate Peltola Campaign Scandal

US Attorney for Alaska Michael Heyman, held a press conference on Friday afternoon to update the public on his office’s ongoing criminal investigation into Alaska’s Senate ‘spoiler’ candidate Dan J. Sullivan.

The Justice Department has launched an aggressive criminal investigation in Daniel J. Sullivan. Federal prosecutors have issued more than 40 subpoenas.

News of the criminal investigation comes after The New York Times confirmed that Mary Peltola’s campaign recruited the decoy Dan J Sullivan to confuse Alaska voters.

Democrat operatives in Mary Peltola’s campaign worked to register a man named Daniel J. Sullivan as Dan S. Sullivan (the incumbent Senator’s name) as a GOP challenger.

The Times reported that the plan involved traveling to “far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.”

“The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan,” the New York Times reported.

Michael Heyman provided an update on the ongoing investigation into Mary Peltola’s campaign.

“Every Alaskan deserves a fair election and they’re going to get one, Michael Heyman said. “We will not let anyone or any group undermine this election,” Michael Heyman said.

“This new information has resulted in a significant surge of law enforcement assets to Alaska, and I have assigned several attorneys in my office to assist in the matter as well,” he said.

Keep reading

Tax The Rich: The Promise That Leaves The Middle Class Paying The Bill

For more than sixty years, I have listened to politicians repeat the same familiar promise: tax the rich. Every election cycle, the message returns, wrapped in new slogans and delivered with renewed enthusiasm. Millionaires and billionaires, we are told, have more than their fair share. If only government would tax them more aggressively, America could afford an endless assortment of new programs, benefits, and government services. It is a politically attractive argument. After all, who wouldn’t prefer someone else to pay the bill?

But this promise has a fundamental problem, one that rarely gets the attention it deserves. The wealthy represent a relatively small population, while the middle class represents an enormous tax base. And when politicians promise expansive government programs funded exclusively by taxing the rich, basic arithmetic deserves more attention than political rhetoric.

Consider the numbers. America has approximately 1,000 billionaires and more than 23 million millionaires, measured by net worth. Yet millions of these millionaires are not extraordinarily wealthy individuals living extravagant lifestyles. They are homeowners, retirees, and working professionals who have spent decades accumulating savings, retirement accounts, and home equity.

More importantly, wealth and taxable income are very different. A billionaire may own billions in appreciating stock while reporting comparatively little taxable income. A middle-class worker earning $100,000, by contrast, has income reported directly to the IRS, with taxes withheld from every paycheck. And herein lies the distinction politicians conveniently overlook.

The wealthy have options.

They employ accountants, tax attorneys, financial advisers, and estate planners who understand every provision of the tax code. They can defer capital gains, restructure investments, use trusts, relocate businesses, and sometimes move their residences to more favorable tax jurisdictions. These strategies are perfectly legal. The tax code itself provides the opportunities.

The average working American enjoys no comparable flexibility. His employer reports his income, deducts his taxes, and sends the money to Washington before he ever sees it.

When government raises taxes on high-income individuals, some will pay more. Others will adjust their financial affairs to reduce their exposure. Some may relocate, while others will change investment decisions or defer realizing income. The degree varies, but the incentive is undeniable.

Meanwhile, the middle-class taxpayer remains exactly where he has always been: working, earning, and paying.

This brings us to the political appeal of today’s democratic socialist movement, including candidates associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Their proposals frequently emphasize expanded government services, public benefits, and programs presented as rights rather than expenses. The familiar financing explanation is that corporations and the wealthy will pay more.

But how much more? And for how long?

Wealthy Americans certainly have greater financial resources. And progressive taxation already requires high-income earners to contribute a disproportionate share of federal individual income taxes. But that does not mean their resources are unlimited, nor that every proposed government program can be financed simply by raising their tax rates.

Europe also offers a lesson. Countries operating expansive social welfare systems frequently rely on broad-based consumption taxes, payroll contributions, and income taxes that reach well into the middle class. Their programs are not financed exclusively by billionaires. Ordinary citizens contribute substantially because universal government benefits require an enormous and dependable stream of revenue. Why should Americans assume the mathematics would somehow work differently here?

I believe this is the uncomfortable reality behind the decades-old promise to tax the rich. The political message identifies a small, wealthy minority as the source of funding, while the largest and most dependable potential revenue base consists of ordinary working Americans.

I am not suggesting that every politician secretly intends to raise middle-class taxes. But I am suggesting that voters should demand an honest explanation of how permanently expanding government programs will be financed when projected taxes on the wealthy prove insufficient.

Government cannot escape arithmetic. Spending must ultimately be supported through taxation, borrowing, or reductions elsewhere. Borrowing merely postpones the financial obligation while adding interest costs.

Keep reading

PSYOP: Washington Post Claims Trump Voters See Abdul El-Sayed as an ‘America First’ Candidate

Just yesterday, the Gateway Pundit highlighted a clip of writer Walter Kirn saying that everything that happens before the election is a psyop.

And here is a perfect example of what he was talking about.

The Washington Post is claiming that Trump voters see Abdul El-Sayed as an ‘America first’ candidate.

Does anyone believe this? It doesn’t even make sense. All the guy ever talks about is the Middle East.

From the story:

In Dearborn, the first Arab American-majority city, many Trump 2024 voters describe El-Sayed as an “America First” candidate due to his opposition to unconditional military aid to Israel and focus on the domestic economy.

El-Sayed himself recently embraced the America First label in a campaign ad on the conservative Fox News and Newsmax networks.

“Mike Rogers will put Israel first,” said Michigan voter Mustapha El-Jaroudi, 27.

Having voted for Trump twice, El-Jaroudi now calls the president “a con artist” who betrayed his campaign refrain of “no new wars.”

So the Washington Post found this person and built a story around him.

Keep reading

European Leaders Determined to Create WWIII

Europe will NEVER avoid war until it starts impeaching Kaja Kallas who was not directly elected by the public to the EU position she uses to oppose any peace deal. However, this is standard procedure for this role for the EU was established to actually prevent the people from having any say in the future of Europe. She claims only more sanctions will end the war when there is no evidence that sanctions have ever worked on anyone even once. She wants world war for her personal vendetta like Victoria Nuland et el.

Kaja Kallas was nominated by the European Council to become the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This nomination was made in June 2024 by the leaders of the EU member states. Following this nomination, her appointment was formalized through a European Council Decision on July 24, 2024. She was NOT elected to this position yet call Putin a Dictator and not Zelensky or herself!!!!! The High Representative is not a directly elected position; instead, the role is appointed by the European Council (with the agreement of the Commission President), which is the standard constitutional process for this office.

Here we have the PM of Britain putting out absolute lies. These politicians REFUSE to admit that people are rising up because of their policies that let in all the migrants who have been tearing Europe apart. Now this fraud Burnham is ensuring the complete destruction of the the United Kingdom outright lying that BRXIT would not have happened except for Russian interference and now they are claiming AfD in Germany is funded by Russia. These Socialist Marxist lovers REFUSE to admit that they have been wrong and they are spinning this as Russian interference as if the people would agree with their failed policies.

Keep reading

Teachers Unions Spent More Than $930 Million On Political Activism & Lobbying Over Decade, Watchdog Finds

Two of America’s largest teachers unions spent more than $930 million on political activism, lobbying and progressive advocacy over the past decade, raising questions about how union dues are being used beyond traditional education priorities.

According to investigations by the North American Values Institute (NAVI), the National Education Association (NEA) spent at least $547 million on political activities and advocacy between fiscal years 2016 and 2025.

The spending included $458.9 million officially reported as political activity and lobbying, along with another $88.2 million directed toward progressive advocacy organizations.

The NEA, which represents more than 3 million members, also directed $116.9 million to its super PAC, the NEA Advocacy Fund, according to the watchdog.

NAVI identified another $80.2 million distributed among political intermediaries, including the State Engagement Fund, Strategic Victory Fund and State Victory Fund LLC. The organization warned that such arrangements make it difficult for dues-paying teachers to determine where their money ultimately goes.

The report also found that the NEA contributed $30.1 million to Education International, a global teachers federation that includes a Palestinian teachers union NAVI describes as affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Meanwhile, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation’s second-largest teachers union, reported $383.2 million in political activity and lobbying expenditures during the same period.

According to NAVI, the AFT directed $123.35 million to outside political organizations and committees, including $45.7 million to four national partisan political committees.

The union also spent millions supporting ballot initiatives and judicial elections, including campaigns involving redistricting, taxation and Wisconsin Supreme Court races.

NAVI concluded that both unions have expanded their political operations well beyond traditional education issues, financing campaigns involving elections, tax policy and ideological advocacy.

Keep reading

Trump Supporter Stabbed At Rally; Police Release New Details

A chaotic confrontation outside President Donald Trump’s Ohio rally sparked claims that a supporter had been stabbed, but local police are pushing back, revealing that the apparent weapon was actually an officer’s pocketknife caught in the man’s shirt.

The incident unfolded Wednesday evening outside the Shoemaker Center at Ohio University Chillicothe, where Trump was addressing supporters ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

Video circulating across social media appeared to show a knife protruding from a man’s back as frightened onlookers gathered around him and demanded answers.

But the Chillicothe Police Department says the alarming footage does not show a stabbing.

“There was no stabbing,” police Capt. Micheal Short told Newsweek.

According to authorities, an officer was attempting to separate two individuals involved in an altercation when the retention clip on the officer’s pocketknife became tangled in one person’s shirt.

The department confirmed that the knife never opened, contradicting widespread claims that someone had been attacked with a blade.

The explanation came after footage of the confrontation spread online, prompting accusations of political violence against Trump supporters.

Conservative activist Tyler Bowyer was among those who shared the video, initially suggesting that an anti-Trump individual had stabbed a rally attendee.

“Apparently some crazy anti-Trump person stabbed a Trump supporter outside his rally in Ohio,” Bowyer wrote.

“This is more of the insane political violence stoked by the Left. Pray for the person who was stabbed.”

However, police have not substantiated the allegation that an anti-Trump demonstrator stabbed anyone during the confrontation.

The viral recording captured the confusion surrounding the incident as the man questioned officers about what appeared to be lodged in his clothing.

“Is there a knife in my back?” he asked.

“I think I’ve been stabbed.”

An officer subsequently examined the man’s back with a flashlight while nearby spectators reacted to the unusual scene.

One woman exclaimed, “Oh my god” after noticing the knife handle protruding from the man’s black T-shirt.

Another bystander pointed toward someone nearby and demanded, “Arrest that m**********, he stabbed him.”

The confusion quickly escalated into a confrontation between spectators and officers as people demanded that someone be taken into custody.

The man eventually sat along the sidewalk while witnesses continued recording the scene.

Keep reading

Iran, the Midterms, and the Myth of Government by the People

With the Israeli election this week and America’s midterms next Tuesday, President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have reportedly spent weeks debating not whether to restart their war with Iran, but when they should do it.

Netanyahu reportedly wanted to renew the bombing before Israeli or American voters went to the polls. He has officially denied that, but it fits his well-documented strategy of using an ongoing war to shield himself from political and legal accountability.

Trump, meanwhile, has publicly ruled out another US attack until after November 3. But, according to several recent reports, the two governments are genuinely preparing for another major round of strikes once the American election is over.

Already, this episode has made the narrative put forward by both leaders even more ridiculous. After all, if renewed attacks on Iran are as necessary to protect the American people, as both have claimed, why would that necessity depend on whether those people have already voted?

The truth is, as I laid out here earlier this year, that the war on Iran is not a drastic but necessary measure to thwart an imminent threat from a rogue regime. It’s just another military action, on top of all the others our government is carrying out, that is beneficial for a coalition of unique, well-connected interest groups—from the Israeli politicians who want to direct American power towards weakening their main regional rival to the domestic weapons companies getting paid to restock America’s dwindling munitions stockpiles.

The narrative that Iran is months or even weeks away from starting a nuclear war with two far more heavily-armed nuclear powers; that they are not just willing but are actively trying as hard as they can to sacrifice their entire country to take out a few Israeli and American cities; and that this will be carried out with weapons and weapons-delivery technology that they do not possess and are not close to getting is obviously not the truth. But it is the most effective way the pro-war coalition has discovered so far for getting a sufficient portion of the public to at least passively accept a war they all want for reasons they’re not as willing to publicize.

That effectiveness, however, has clearly waned in recent months. Today, around two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s Iran policy, with widespread concerns growing about the impact on energy prices and all the terrible consequences that brings. This is a deeply unpopular war. And yet, it is set not only to continue but to escalate in the coming weeks.

This also highlights another, even more important aspect of this story that is getting far less attention than the war’s unpopularity: the sheer inadequacy of democratic elections as constraints on political power.

According to the standard narrative that most of us are taught growing up, for most of human history people have suffered under kings, oligarchs, and rulers of all kinds who used political power selfishly. Wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of a small sliver of society, while everyone else was forced to live in either literal servitude or material conditions no better than servitude. However, this was supposed to have changed with the invention of democracy.

Keep reading