News

‘Absolutely not, she will undermine President Trump from minute one,’ warns General Flynn.

During an epic Sunday night X Spaces conversation, Infowars founder Alex Jones, former Trump National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, longtime political insider Roger Stone and Human Events Senior Editor Jack Posobiec completely rejected the thought of Donald Trump selecting globalist minion Nikki Haley as his vice president.

General Flynn spoke about the prospect first, emphatically saying, “Absolutely not, she will undermine President Trump from minute one.”

Posobiec said she’d destroy Trump’s grassroots momentum and harm his poll numbers.

Alex Jones quoted Roger Stone, who had joked that Trump would “need a food tester if he hired her [Haley].”

Jones also noted Stone communicates with Trump and said the longtime friend of the president has insinuated Haley would be the VP pick when Hell freezes over.

Stone spoke next, telling listeners the Trump-Haley chatter is disinformation being floated around by the DeSantis camp in order to make Trump’s base angry at him.

Stone floated the idea of Trump selecting former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard instead of Haley.

Posobiec commented on the idea of Gabbard being selected and said he’d love to see her in Trump’s Cabinet but hadn’t thought of her as a VP pick.

At one point, Jones told the other speakers he’s happy the anti-globalist revolutionaries are just as smart and potentially more intelligent than the maniacal globalists behind the NWO.

Jones later detailed how people across the world are all fighting the same battle for liberty against the technocrats trying to enslave the world.

With the tide clearly turning against the global elite, Jones warned they’re more dangerous than ever and that Donald Trump is in direct danger for standing in the way of the psychos running the planet into the ground.

In what may turn out to be another one of Jones’ famous predictions, the Infowars founder explained the establishment is now admitting Trump’s probably going to win the election.

“They say, ‘Looks like Trump’s gonna win. When Black Lives Matter burns down the country and he declares the Insurrection Act’ – which George H.W. Bush did in 1992 for the LA Riots, which is something he should have done, I don’t agree with much of what he said – ‘We’re basically going to remove him from office.’ And they’re drafting a law with Senator Blumenthal and other Democrats they’re gonna announce next week to try to preemptively remove the power of the president,” Jones said.

As Infowars reported over the weekend, Democrat lawmakers, advocacy groups, and former government officials are “quietly devising plans” to stop former President Donald Trump from asserting control of the military if elected president again in November, according to a report.

See more highlights from the discussion below:

Listen to the full discussion below:

---

Top globalist advisor admits elite worried about Trump’s return to office

Alex Jones presents video footage of Yuval Noah Harari warning Donald Trump will deliver a death blow to the World Economic Forum’s global order if he’s elected president again.

Harari also explains how artificial intelligence could be used by a terrorist group or nation to create a virus that could kill billions of people.

---

Pregnant rats vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine gave birth to rats with autism (marked reduction of social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior), structural brain changes such as decreased neuronal counts, impaired motor performance and […]

The post New Study: mRNA Causes Autism, Reduced Neural Counts, Impaired Motor Performance in Rats appeared first on The People’s Voice.

The late pathologist Prof. Dr Arne Burkhard has claimed that cells in males who have received a Covid-19 injection are being replaced by spike proteins. Burkhardt passed away unexpectedly last year aged 79. He was […]

The post German Pathologist Claimed Spike Protein Replaces Sperm in Vaxxed Men appeared first on The People’s Voice.

The average household owed a staggering, unsustainable $103,358 last year, with Q2 consumer debt totaling $16.84 trillion nationally.

In a disturbing (but unsurprising) trend, more than 1 out of 4 US consumers are throwing in the towel with defeatist “Doom Spending” sprees — despite already being saddled with crippling levels of debt.

This behavior is akin to someone who, feeling overwhelmed, indulges excessively in a habit they know isn’t beneficial. In a similar vein, these Americans, perhaps feeling a sense of despair, are accumulating unprecedented levels of new debt through spending sprees that are beyond their financial means.

In fact, the average household owed a staggering, unsustainable $103,358 last year, with Q2 consumer debt totaling $16.84 trillion nationally according to Experian.

The result is a deeper and more terminal state of consumer financial decline than ever, but don’t tell that to National Retail Federation CEO Matthew Shay. He was unsurprisingly delighted to find a record number of shoppers turned out for Black Friday deals in 2023 despite ballooning consumer debt and broader economic and political uncertainty.

“Shoppers exceeded our expectations with a robust turnout. Retailers large and small were prepared to deliver safe, convenient, and affordable shopping experiences with the products and services consumers needed, and at great prices.”

• Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine!

Never mind that many of these shoppers took out loans to pay for it all. With last year’s reports of a return to pre-pandemic holiday spending, an optimistic outlook appeared superficially tempting. However, inflation isn’t likely to be calmed in 2024. That means that the usual New Year’s resolutions to spend less and save more aren’t going to be enough to stop the credit-fueled doom spending trend. 

One major reason is that so-called “resilient” consumers still haven’t paid off their debt from last year’s holidays, have blown through their savings, and are now going deeper in debt than ever. With little hope left, doom spending has become a self-contradictory psychological palliative and, in some cases, a way for despondent consumers to trick themselves into presenting a veneer of normalcy.

While politicians love calling high spending a sign of economic strength, they tend to neglect to mention important facts, such as that consumers are maxing out their credit cards in the process. Ironically, a large subset of consumers respond to financial stress by digging an even deeper hole for themselves, but perhaps they’re just following the example set by the US government and central bank. 

Ignoring the specter of trillions in post-Covid money still swirling around in the economy, the Fed claims that it has sufficiently reduced inflationary pressures and can start to lower rates again next year. After declaring inflation “transitory” in 2023, Jerome Powell blamed everything but Federal Reserve monetary policy for rising prices:

“It was a combination of very strong demand, without question, and unusual supply-side restrictions, both on the goods side but also on the labor side, because we had a [labor force] participation shock.” 

Now we’re led to believe that rate cuts are on the horizon. And while cheaper borrowing in 2024 may be a good sign for the price of gold, it’s a terrible choice for a central bank claiming to have won its war against inflation after such an unprecedented historic frenzy of Covidian money printing. As Peter Schiff remarked about 2023’s final FOMC meeting,

“The Fed surrendered. Inflation won the fight…it is a pivot in defeat. The Fed stopped hiking rates because it can’t hike them anymore…now that the Fed has said, “Mission Accomplished, the dollar is going to tank.”

Unable to stuff the inflation genie back in the bottle, consumers aren’t likely to get the relief they need to start actually saving again this year. And while a tanking dollar may be good for gold, for doom spenders, diminishing purchasing power coupled with the availability of cheaper debt will only reinforce their habit. The psychology of doom spending indicates that a lower cost of borrowing will only tempt them to feed their addiction with more borrowed money. Meanwhile, the last of their savings are being wiped out, they’re hitting their current cards’ credit limits, and previous debts are increasingly being left unpaid.

---

Deep State To Remove Joe Biden At DNC In July

---

By definition, taxes are noncontractual debts in which the state is the creditor, and the payment of these debts is demanded through coercion and violence.

Taxes are not a contractual obligation between the state and the individuals it governs.

By definition, taxes are noncontractual debts in which the state is the creditor, and the payment of these debts is demanded through coercion and violence. While there may be taxes linked to the performance of certain economic activities (e.g., the sale of products), all forms of this economic policy share the characteristic of being indifferent to the consent of those individuals being governed. This implies that, akin to expropriations, the ownership of private assets is transferred to the state, regardless of whether their former owners have expressed consent or not.

In this brief text, some characteristics of taxes as an economic policy will be explained through analytical statements and valid inferences. All of this is done with the aim of clarifying certain concepts in political philosophy, macroeconomics, and financial accounting.

Tax Payments as a Form of Robbery

Every legal obligation to pay taxes is, in itself, an attempt to commit robbery; however, it can only be considered robbery if executed effectively, meaning if taxes are paid. In such a case, the use of this resource by the state will not determine whether the transfer of property was, or was not, an act of robbery (e.g., unlawful spending). Conversely, even if no law were to classify tax payments as robbery—given the definition used here—this would not imply that these payments are not a form of robbery.

While taxes—as an economic policy—are incompatible with libertarianism, they are not incompatible with capitalism. This is because capitalism solely refers to a form of social organization in which there is wage labor and at least some means of production are privately owned. Therefore, as long as both conditions are met, capitalism is compatible with tax payments.

Furthermore, in a free market, the absence of legal restrictions on the exchange of the property rights of assets, or on other types of economic agreements, means that tax payments are semantically compatible with certain types of taxes—for example, taxes not conditioned on the execution of any economic activity, such as wealth taxes.

Higher Taxes Do Not Mean More Revenue

Let’s consider a population with the following characteristics:

• Five thousand taxpayers
• A single tax requiring 10 percent of each taxpayer’s monthly gross income
• All taxpayers have a monthly income of $2,000 dollars
• Everyone pays their taxes as mandated by law

Assuming these premises hold, we can infer that the tax revenue in this population would be $1 million dollars monthly. What happens if one of the quantitative variables increases while the rest of the variables remain constant? If so, the only semantically possible result is that the tax revenue would also increase. This shows us that tax revenue is not only determined by the rates of certain taxes but also by other variables such as the quantity of taxes, the number of taxpayers and the value of each individual tax base, the frequency of tax collection, and the effectiveness in law enforcement (rule of law).

Regarding the value of each tax base, this variable can increase due to various factors: a decrease in the quantity or value of exempt incomes, an increase in the quantity or value of tax-deductible expenses, or an increase in the value of the economic variable on which the tax is applied (e.g., income, profit, wealth).

Furthermore, if we not only analyze the behavior of tax revenue as a variable but also its ratio to the gross domestic product (GDP) of that population, we find that this ratio would be affected not only by the aforementioned variables, but also by the rates of economic growth or economic decline. Therefore, if tax revenue decreases in a country but the GDP value decreases at an even-greater rate, the value of the tax-to-GDP ratio will be higher.

Understanding Net Profits

Within an income statement, net profits do not reflect the free cash flow or net cash flow of a business. This is the case because, for the calculation of gross profit, credit sales are included within the category of net sales (net revenue). Furthermore, the cost of sales does not refer to the total amount paid to suppliers during a specific period but rather to the cost of the products sold.

There are further conceptual differences between these variables, such as the exclusion of fixed asset depreciation in the calculation of free cash flow and the omission of debt repayment in the determination of net profits. All of these show that the financial reality of a business can be very different from what its taxable income indicates.

While the maximum marginal tax rate to which a taxable income is subject may differ from its effective rate, in the case of businesses, tax rates can exceed 100 percent of net profits if—due to a tax regulation—certain expenses and costs within the income statement cannot be considered deductible. In this scenario, two businesses may be subject to the same effective tax rate on their taxable income but with different effective rates on their total income.

Higher Taxes Do Not Mean Lower Fiscal Deficits nor Less Poverty

The fiscal balance is the difference between a state’s revenues and expenditures. Meanwhile, the primary balance refers to the difference between a state’s revenues and expenditures, excluding interest payments on debt. While a state can have both a fiscal deficit and a primary deficit, it is also possible for it to have a fiscal deficit and a primary surplus.

However, both variables are subject not only to the value of the income variable but also to the expenditure variable. Therefore, an increase in tax revenue alone cannot mean a decrease in the primary deficit or the fiscal deficit. In both cases, it is necessary to know the value of the expenditure variable to determine whether such an increase in tax revenue leads to a reduction in a certain deficit.

Similarly, if by poverty we are referring, in part, to a group of individuals with a certain range of consumption, wealth, or income that starts at zero, it is fallacious to infer that a tax increase means a decrease in poverty. As explained earlier—because both surpluses and deficits can exist—state spending and tax revenues, as variables, are semantically independent.

Additionally, an increase in state spending may result solely in either increased military expenditures or higher salaries for top officials. Lastly, if social spending leads to cash transfers to individuals at poverty level, this alone may meet the condition of a minimum income. However, it does not necessarily mean it also fulfills the condition of a minimum consumption—for example, the minimum consumption of essential nutrients.

---

BREAKING: UN Planning New Pandemic To Establish Planetary Dictatorship

---