Tag: taxes

Trump Promises $5,000 Dividend To Every American Adult If Republicans Hold Congress

In Dallas last night, President Trump promised the American people that if the GOP keeps the House and the Senate, every adult citizen will receive $5,000 in a direct dividend from his tariffs.

Speaking at the American Airlines Center in Dallas on Wednesday evening, Trump explained that the $5,000 payment would be issued by the President if Republicans maintain control of the House of Representatives and Senate, thanks to their America First economic strategy that globalists predicted would never work. “Very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders,” he said of the payment.

The reason the profits of tariffs are to be distributed to the adult citizens of the country in the form of dividends is because for decades the politicians in Washington have been running the country into the ground, waging foreign wars, spending trillions of dollars of NATO revenues and other foreign pay to conduct bureaucratic busy work and fail to enhance the prosperity of American working citizens and businesses.

“Very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders,” Trump said.

It has to be spent in the United States, he explained. So, no money can be spent in Canada, or China, or Germany for example. It is a closed economic system that rewards American businesses and American workers for their country’s success.

Keep reading

St. Louis Sheriff’s Office reaches settlement over firing of white, older employees

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Tuesday that it had entered an agreement with the St. Louis Sheriff’s Office to resolve 13 charges of race- and age-related discrimination.

EEOC investigated the Sheriff’s Office and found that former Sheriff Alfred Montgomery used his position to terminate nearly a dozen white employees and two black employees for reasons other than their job performance. Before he was sworn in, Montgomery publicly announced that he “could not wait to get rid of these white officers” and “top-heavy” employees, a reference to older workers, the EEOC found.

Montgomery also allegedly referred to the white employees he terminated as a “racist gang.” After firing the white officers, Montgomery allegedly told his former deputy that “he needed to fire a black guy” to buck a lawsuit for discrimination against white employees.

“The EEOC is firmly committed to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws evenhandedly, without favor or prejudice, to ensure all workers are protected,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a press release. “Race discrimination is unlawful no matter who the target is, and employers must ensure their decisions are not based on bias or stereotype.”

The sheriff’s office denied the allegations but agreed to enter the pre-litigation conciliation process, resulting in a settlement that requires the sheriff’s office to “electronically post and distribute all newly created and/or revised employment policies in compliance with Title VII and the ADEA; provide training to its employees about their rights under Title VII and the ADEA; train human resources personnel and management who exercise decision-making authority; post a notice to employees about the resolution of the case and their rights under the laws enforced by EEOC; and report to the EEOC about its compliance with the terms of the 13 conciliation agreements” for the next five years.

The agreement is part of a Trump administration crackdown on racism against white people. In July, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a white male employee at the New York Times who was allegedly targeted because of his race and sex. The media outlet has publicly stated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and in 2021, the outlet stated that it had enacted goals to increase non-white and female representation in leadership positions. 

As Just the News reported at the time, a white senior staff editor who had been working at the Times for more than a decade applied for a position as deputy real estate editor. The white employee had extensive experience in real estate journalism, but was left out of its final panel interviews for the position in early 2025. All candidates who were interviewed as part of the final process were non-white. Ultimately, the Times hired a non-white woman with little to no experience in real estate journalism even though the experience was a requirement for the position. The woman didn’t go through the standard interview process for the position and was rated less favorably for the position than the other two final candidates by the final interview panel.

“No one is above the law — including ‘elite’ institutions. There is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful, according to long-established civil rights principles. The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head. No matter the size or power of the employer, the EEOC under my leadership will not pull punches in ensuring evenhanded, colorblind enforcement of Title VII to protect America’s workers, including white males,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement. “Federal law is clear: making hiring or promotion decisions motivated in whole or in part by race or sex violates federal law. There is no diversity exception to this rule.”

A spokesperson for the Times told Politico in July that “the EEOC deviated from standard practices in highly unusual ways. The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.”

Keep reading

Canada hits the U.S. with tariffs on $20 billion worth of U.S. exports as trade war escalates

Canada retaliated against the tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed on imports from Canada with tariffs on approximately $20 billion worth of U.S. goods. 

The tariffs impact hundreds of American products, including steel, aluminum, cheese, appliances, clothing, cosmetics and farm equipment, the Associated Press reported. 

The tariff rates run from 15% to 50% and match Washington’s tariffs dollar for dollar. They took effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said U.S. tariffs could severely impact key Canadian industries and limit the country’s sovereignty. 

Trump, meanwhile, has warned that Canada’s economy could collapse if Carney continued to treat him as an enemy, and the president threatened consequences “worse than anything that has ever happened to a Canadian Politician.”

Keep reading

Founder of British Flag Flying ‘Raise the Colours’ Campaign Charged with 14 Offences

The creator of the campaign to raise British and English flags across the country to protest against illegal migrants being housed in hotels at taxpayer expense has been charged with 14 criminal offences, including using “threatening, abusive or insulting words”.

Thames Valley Police said on Sunday evening that Ryan Bridge, 45, of Blackwell has been charged with 14 offences relating to alleged incidents between January 31 and March 31 of this year in Oxfordshire.

According to GB News, Bridge was the founder of the Operation Raise the Colours campaign, which began last year in opposition to the government policy of taking alleged asylum seekers and placing them in hotels across the country at taxpayer expense.

The police force said that Bridge was charged with seven counts of using threatening words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress and three counts of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of, or provoke, unlawful violence.

He was also charged with two counts of racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, one count of racially aggravated fear of violence, and one count of common assault.

Thames Valley Police said that they had decided to submit the case to the Crown Prosecution Service following a review of the evidence, witness statements, and video footage.

It comes as the left-wing-run Birmingham city council that they plan on spending around £2.6 million to remove British and English flags from the streets of the UK’s second city.

According to the Daily Telegraph, around 20,000 flags were raised by members of the public on street infrastructure as a part of the Raise the Colours campaign.

The decision to spend millions removing the national flags comes despite the Birmingham currently being in around £3.5 billion in debt, the most of any local government in Britain.

Meanwhile, in Oxfordshire — where the campaign begun — secured an injunction in July to bar anyone from attaching flags to lampposts or to pain the flag on the road.

Those who breach the injunction against raising the flag face potential prison sentences, fines, or even having assets seized, the BBC reported.

The Liberal Democrat leader of the Oxfordshire City Council, Tim Bearder, said at the time: “This is a welcome judgement. We’re very pleased with the result… This sets a legal precedent and will hopefully deter people in not just Oxfordshire but around the country from partaking in this criminal activity.”

Keep reading

County in Virginia Votes to Give $2,000 in Taxpayer Dollars to Illegal Immigrants Detained by ICE

Members of the county board in Arlington, Virginia have voted to give $2,000 in taxpayer dollars to illegals who have been detained by ICE.

Is this even legal? And why would taxpayers put up with it? Can anyone imagine another country in the world where this would even happen?

People who were arrested for being in the country illegally are being rewarded with cash that has been taken from citizens as taxes. Does anyone believe this is what the founders had in mind?

Breitbart News reports:

Virginia County Board Votes to Pay $2,000 to Families of Illegal Migrants Arrested by ICE

The Arlington County Board has voted to pay $2,000 in tax money to the families of illegal migrants who are arrested by immigration enforcement officers.

The leaders of the Virginia county created a $50,000 fund of tax dollars to dole out to family members for “basic needs” such as housing, food, and utilities.

“We stand with our immigrant families, and we will not stop doing so,” Board Chair Matt de Ferranti said after the unanimous vote, according to ARLNow. “We are valuing the families of those that have been displaced and removed.”

“This investment in our families is about the urgency we have seen in our community in the last month,” de Ferranti added. “And we are going to respond with care. and we are going to respond proudly. That’s what this $50,000 is toward with Thrive.”

The board also voted not to require family members to prove that their detained wage earner was legally allowed to work in the U.S.

The government funds will be distributed by left-wing organization Arlington Thrive, an NGO funded by the likes of Washington Forest Foundation, the Kaiser Foundation, and the United Way, among others.

Keep reading

25 State AGs Urge Defunding Of National Academies Of Sciences, Allege Bias On Climate Lawsuits

A coalition of 25 state attorneys general called on federal agencies and Congress to defund the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), charging that the organization had used taxpayer dollars to produce reports that supported plaintiffs in climate lawsuits against energy companies.

In an Aug. 27 letter, the state attorneys general urged the federal government to “end grants to an organization [NASEM] that uses taxpayer money to prop up litigation theories that have been rejected by courts from Maryland to Mississippi to California.”

Much of the conflict stems from a chapter on climate science in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence for federal judges that was written by NASEM, together with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC).

This manual provides essential background and technical information for judges who are presiding over thousands of lawsuits in which states and cities across the United States are seeking billions of dollars in damages from energy companies as compensation for alleged harm from global warming.

Allegations of Bias

Critics allege that information NASEM produced for the manual supports the plaintiffs’ claims while ignoring contrary views that favor the defense.

President Donald Trump stated in a July 19 Truth Social post that NASEM had “published fraudulent, biased, and misleading Manuals on Climate Change” and that “taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it.”

In January, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, told the FJC in a letter that the manual appeared to include “biased programming” with the “underlying goal of predisposing federal judges in favor of plaintiffs who allege injuries from the manufacturing, marketing, use, or sale of fossil-fuel products.”

In response, the FJC removed the chapter from its manual. Initially, NASEM kept the chapter on its website but removed it on Aug. 7, pending an internal review.

“That chapter has received considerable scrutiny,” NASEM stated. “[NASEM] has determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review, and the chapter will not appear on our website while that review is underway.”

However, attorneys general from the group of 25 states, led by Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, say they have concerns regarding that review process.

“Now, over five months later, after presidential criticism and increasing public scrutiny, NASEM has temporarily removed the chapter from its website for an ‘independent review’ of the ‘processes used to develop the chapter,'” the attorneys general wrote in their letter. “This review appears to be a sham, as demonstrated by NASEM’s secrecy around all aspects of the review process.”

The attorneys general charged that the chapter in the reference manual that NASEM helped write “materially misquotes the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], directly contradicts the manual’s statistics chapter, was apparently substantially ghost-written by climate plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Burger, and had funders, authors, and reviewers that included climate funders, activists, and litigation participants.”

One of the co-authors of the Reference Manual’s climate chapter, Columbia Law School professor Jessica Wentz, defended the work in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, stating that it had undergone a rigorous review process, that Michael Burger had not contributed to it, and that it was “objective and rooted in settled science.”

In addition to the chapter in the reference manual for judges, NASEM produced a report in July titled “Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts 2026,” which critics say bolstered plaintiffs’ arguments that harm from extreme weather events could be attributed to energy companies’ production of fossil fuels.

That NASEM report supported “extreme event attribution” (EEA), the legal theory underpinning climate lawsuits, which claims that damage from extreme weather can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions, as plaintiffs assert. NASEM stated in a summary of the report that “the scientific tools, observational datasets, and methods developed and used for EEA have advanced considerably over the past decade and increased the confidence in EEA results for some types of weather events.”

“[NASEM says] that these attribution studies have more prominence in the press and in legal proceeding and they say attribution methodology is getting better, but saying something is getting better is nowhere near the same as saying it’s any good,” Steven Koonin, physicist at Stanford University and former undersecretary for science under President Barack Obama, told The Epoch Times. “You would expect to see graphs throughout the report comparing the results of attribution with what the actual data is, and there is virtually none of that in the report.”

The NASEM report also provides a methodology and causal link between greenhouse gas emissions, changes in climate, extreme weather, physical impacts on communities, and societal and economic harm.

Among the climate lawsuit cases currently moving through the courts is a pending Supreme Court case, Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which could set a precedent for many other similar cases.

Keep reading

Canada’s Tariff Strategy Designed To Interfere With U.S. Midterm Elections

Late last month, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney walked away from a trade deal with the United States. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Canada was “offered the best trade deal of any country on the globe,” but Carney abandoned the deal “at the last minute.”

According to the White House, “the U.S. offered Canada the most preferential market access of any country on Earth, with deep cuts on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and more. Instead of partnership, Canada chose unreasonable demands, walk-backs, and flat-out rejection.” Canada responded with retaliation rather than negotiation, becoming the only other country besides China to do so.

And the reason is that Canada is trying to influence the 2026 midterm elections in the United States.

After the trade negotiations failed, Canadian officials announced that tariffs of up to 50% will hit roughly 700 American products starting September 8, covering close to $20 billion in goods, about 7% of everything Canada imports from the United States. The rates range from 15% to 50%, and tariffs on American steel and aluminum will double from 25% to 50%. This was a targeted economic strike meant to hit key states before the midterm elections.

Ottawa has barely bothered to deny it. Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said the tariffs were built to apply political pressure on specific states, telling reporters: “We are also targeting products that can target specific states in the United States. We are being smart and strategic in order to apply political pressure, and I think it’s the right thing to do right now.”

Asked directly about the political intent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Joly did not walk it back: “We are putting pressure clearly on different states and different people. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want this trade war. We didn’t start it.”

The target list reads like a midterm map. Cheese products from Wisconsin. Washers and dryers from Kentucky, where GE Appliances is a major employer. Steel, aluminum and auto parts from Michigan. The Wall Street Journal reported that Canadian officials designed the package to protect domestic industry and to “sting President Trump and his Republican Party” heading into November.

“The states that are most reliant on Canada as an export market are often the northern-tier states – Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire,” Ed Gresser told the Wall Street Journal. He argued that Canada is “trying to show the Republican party that there’s a systemic cost to doing this sort of thing.”

Trade consultant Eric Miller, who heads the Washington-based Rideau Potomac Strategy Group, said Canada picked targets with available substitutes, either domestic production or imports from Mexico and China, items like air conditioners and appliances, while simultaneously hitting producers in swing states and reliably Republican territory.

Nowhere was the targeting clearer than Maine, and nowhere did it collapse faster. Ottawa’s original list carried a 25% tariff on American lobster, set to bite during the fall season when roughly half of Maine’s catch goes to Canadian processors. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), facing re-election in November, had already warned that the trade war would hurt her state. The Maine Lobstermen’s Association warned on Aug. 26 that the duty would land at the worst possible moment for an industry running on thin margins.

Keep reading

Trump Floats Support for Renaming New Mexico ‘New America’

President Donald Trump said in a social media post on Sept. 7 that he loved the idea of renaming New Mexico “New America.”

“Many people suggested changing the name of New Mexico, one of the great vote-cheating states of all time, to NEW AMERICA. So much more prestigious and beautiful for the people of that potentially incredible State. Wow, I Love It!!!” Trump wrote.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham rejected the idea in a post on X.

“New Mexico’s name isn’t up for debate—it’s been ours since before the United States existed,” Grisham, a Democrat, wrote.

Trump cannot rename New Mexico through an executive order; it would require action likely to involve both Congress and the state itself.

Changing the state constitution would involve New Mexico’s own amendment process. Under Article XIX, proposed constitutional amendments generally must be approved by the Legislature and then submitted to the state’s voters for ratification.

Keep reading

Mapped: Lifetime Taxes in Every U.S. State

How much money do you have to pay in taxes over a lifetime?

This visualization maps the estimated lifetime tax bill for a single filer in every U.S. state, including federal and state income taxes, as well as sales, property, and vehicle taxes.

The data for this visualization comes from Self Financial, with estimates as of June 2026.

The analysis assumes a 45-year working life with constant earnings and tax rates, a life expectancy of 79.6 years, homeownership beginning at age 40, and ownership of five vehicles over a lifetime.

New Jersey Tops the Ranking

New Jersey has the highest estimated lifetime tax bill in the country at $1.36 million.

Massachusetts follows at nearly $1.30 million, while Connecticut ranks third at $1.25 million. New Hampshire and New York round out the top five, highlighting the Northeast’s strong presence near the top of the ranking.

Florida Has the Lowest Lifetime Tax Bill

At the other end of the ranking, Florida has the lowest estimated lifetime tax bill at $508,980.

Florida’s lower total is helped by the absence of a state individual income tax, reducing the tax burden that residents pay on their earnings over time.

South Dakota is next at $515,732, followed by Arkansas at $517,942 and Oklahoma at $526,333. Together, the four lowest-ranked states have estimated lifetime tax bills ranging from about $509,000 to $526,000.

States in the Middle of the Pack

Several large states fall closer to the middle of the ranking. Texas has an estimated lifetime tax bill of $615,932, while Georgia comes in at $655,532 and Arizona at $698,824. Pennsylvania ranks higher at $835,067, putting it well above these states but still below the million-dollar mark.

Having no state individual income tax does not necessarily translate into a low overall lifetime tax bill. Washington, for example, ranks 16th at $816,217, above many states that levy an individual income tax. The estimates also account for federal income, property, sales, and vehicle taxes.

Keep reading