In the United States today, there are over 660,000 illegal aliens with pending criminal charges for crimes other than just crossing the border illegally. By all law and logic, they should be behind bars. Instead, they are allowed to roam free throughout the country, putting all the risk of their future misbehavior on American communities and not their own countries. Of those 660,000, about two-thirds—435,000—are already convicted criminals, including 13,000 convicted murderers. Most of these aliens are among the roughly 1.3 million who have been ordered deported by an immigration court. They already had their criminal due process, and after a separate immigration process to determine whether they would be allowed to stay in the United States, they got a so-called “final order of removal” from an immigration judge. Legally we can, and morally we should, send them home forthwith. Why are these people—many of whom will surely reoffend—still here? One reason is that the Biden-Harris administration has been purposefully lax at  enforcing our immigration laws in the nation’s interior. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said early in President Joe Biden’s term that an alien just being here illegally wasn’t reason enough for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to try and deport them (although it absolutely is). Mayorkas sent a notorious memo to ICE in 2021 ordering this approach and saddling officers with onerous paperwork and limits on where and how they could take action. That’s much of the reason all the criminal aliens are still here, but that’s not all. Another reason is that some countries refuse to take back their people. The United States and other responsible countries take back their citizens from anywhere in the world, no matter how serious their crimes. But countries like China, India, and Venezuela say, “No, we won’t take our people back. They’re your problem now.” These countries play various tricks to pass on their problems to us. Let’s say a Chinese illegal immigrant is caught committing armed robbery, is convicted, and serves a 10-year sentence. At the end of it, the prison informs ICE, which picks the convict up and puts him in immigration detention. If the alien has a final order for removal, ICE still has to get him home. If he doesn’t have a passport or confirmation of nationality, ICE needs a consular officer from the alien’s home country to come and verify the ex-con’s citizenship. Countries can flatly refuse to help or deny that an alien is one of its own. Or they claim they don’t have staff to handle the processing and then delay so long that ICE has to let the alien free in the United States. According to some court decisions over the years, ICE can only detain an alien when they have a reasonable chance of deporting them, and even then, only for a limited period. ICE labels countries that refuse or delay taking back their people “recalcitrant.” Back in 2016, there was a list of about a dozen such countries, and a longer list of those “at risk of noncompliance.” ICE would work with the State Department through diplomatic means to try and get recalcitrant countries to take their people back. From 2016-2017, I was the State Department’s coordinator on this. One tool we had was visa sanctions. When a country “denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen,” U.S. law says the State Department can stop issuing visas for its citizens to enter the U.S. This can start with not letting their leaders’ families go to Disney World and can ratchet all the way up to banning visas to that country altogether. It’s amazingly effective. Using visa sanctions, the U.S. made significant progress on getting recalcitrant countries to change their minds. The first country we acted on was the tiny African state of The Gambia. It wasn’t chosen because of its size or location, but because it had only 11 convicted criminal aliens it wouldn’t take back. First, the U.S. informed The Gambia that due to its refusal to cooperate, our embassy would stop issuing visas to Gambian officials and their families. The message was clear: If that didn’t work, we’d move on to larger and larger groups of Gambians. A few weeks later, the Gambian government authorized and accepted the repatriation of the 11 Gambian nationals who were subject to final orders of removal from the United States—and it requested that we remove the visa sanctions. From The Gambia, the U.S. moved up the recalcitrant list, taking on Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, and then much harder nuts like Cambodia. By the end of the Trump administration, the U.S. was going after even the really big offenders—China, India, and Russia—to take back their criminals. China and India each had about 20,000 convicted criminal citizens living illegally in the United States at the time. For a while, there was a will, and a way, and it worked. So, what happened? From the start, the Biden administration immediately made it easier to enter the U.S. illegally and stay by reversing all the policies that previous presidents used to control illegal entry at the border. The corollary to the administration’s open-borders approach was to severely curtail interior enforcement—and to stop pressuring foreign countries to take back their people. The last list of recalcitrant countries published by ICE was in 2020. The agency’s visa sanctions webpage hasn’t really changed in four years. Because of that lack of updated information, members of Congress wrote to Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken in July asking what countries the Department of Homeland Security considered recalcitrant. As of now, Mayorkas has not replied. But sources tell me that China, Cuba, India, and Pakistan are still on the list. India is so desperate for U.S. visas that suspending the issuance of H1B work visas alone would bring them around—but has the Biden team threatened them with sanctions? Fat chance. If any diplomatic pressure is being applied by the Biden-Harris administration on recalcitrant countries, it’s been well hidden. More likely, the administration abandoned the effort, judging by the low number of deportations each year and by DHS letting in millions of unscreened aliens from all over the world, including from many recalcitrant countries. The Biden-Harris administration wants us to believe that there is nothing it can do to prevent any illegal aliens, even including violent members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, from entering the U.S. Then, when those thugs murder, rape, and rob Americans, they want us to believe there is nothing they can do to send them back home. Don’t believe it. Visa sanctions are one tool, but there are plenty of others, and we should be using them. America should use all possible diplomatic, economic, and legal pressure to induce countries like Venezuela, China, and others to do their duty and take back their criminals. Removing dangerous felons who are illegally present in our country is the government’s basic duty to its citizens. Violent crime rates have already risen across America during the past few years, as newly corrected FBI data shows. The White House should stop making excuses and immediately re-implement visa sanctions as a simple and effective solution to reduce the population of alien convicts and restore some sense of law and order in this nation. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: Biden Administration Gives Panama ‘Jack’ to Help Control Border What I Saw on My Visit to Springfield, Ohio ‘The BorderLine’ Anniversary Column: Revisiting Biden’s Border by the Numbers One Year Later That Bipartisan Border Bill Harris Blames Trump for Killing Would Codify Illegal Immigration Crisis Into Law The Stunning Costs of Biden-Harris’ ‘America-Last’ Border Policies—Part 2 The post Deportation: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way—The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Biden-Harris administration has proposed a rule implementing Obamacare’s controversial contraception mandate—again. Under the proposal announced Monday, certain health insurance plans would be required to cover over-the counter birth control. The text of the law creating Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, doesn’t explicitly require that plans cover contraceptives, so how did we get here? What’s the Contraception Mandate? Obamacare, passed by Congress and signed into law in 2010 by President Barack Obama, requires health insurance companies to cover certain kinds of preventive services with no enrollee cost-sharing. It instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to specify the types of preventive services for women that insurance plans must cover. In 2011, HHS issued guidelines that insurance plans must include coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Plans that already covered millions of women were “grandfathered” and exempted from the requirement to provide preventive services with no cost-sharing. Many of these plans are still in effect today. The contraception mandate sparked more than a decade of litigation, including famous victories for religious liberty at the Supreme Court for companies such as Hobby Lobby and groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns. Regulations for religious and moral exemptions to HHS’ contraception mandate were strengthened under Obama’s successor, President Donald Trump. Last year, the administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a rule to weaken those exemptions again. That rule has not been finalized yet. Like the original contraception mandate, this week’s proposal to cover over-the-counter contraception is possible because Congress didn’t actually lay out the nitty-gritty, specific requirements in the text of Obamacare. Policy details were left to the discretion of the executive branch. Proposed Biden-Harris Change A press release from the Department of Health and Human Services lays out the gist of the changes. “[M]ost group health plans and health insurance issuers” must cover over-the-counter methods of birth control such as emergency contraception, condoms, and pills “without cost sharing or requiring a prescription.” The proposal also requires insurance plans to cover “a broader array” of pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs, the press release says. Right now, plans must cover only one drug in different categories of contraception methods. Exactly how this change would be implemented remains to be seen. The Biden-Harris administration is seeking public comment during a 60-day countdown as soon as the proposed rule formally hits the Federal Register. If finalized, the rule would mark another major change for contraception coverage under Obamacare. Birth Control The new rule is significant for several reasons. The Food and Drug Administration only recently approved an over-the-counter birth control pill. It’s called OPill and is sold at retailers such as Walgreens, Costco, and Amazon for about $20 per month. Additional brands will follow suit and seek FDA approval to be sold over the counter. Another brand already has started the process for its drug, Zena. Not everyone is cheering over-the-counter pills, though. Beyond altering a woman’s menstrual cycle, birth control pills significantly affect a woman’s hormones. They can have mild to severe side effects—both mentally and psychologically—that vary widely from person to person. Some experts are understandably concerned that medication that could have such drastic effects on the body would be available without consultation with a doctor. It even would be available to minors without their parent’s knowledge or consent. Emergency Contraception The HHS mandate also includes coverage for emergency contraception such as Plan B (levonorgestrel) and Ella (ulipristal acetate). Until 2022, the label on both medications warned that the drug could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. For those who believe human life begins at fertilization, this means that these drugs could induce an abortion. In 2022, the FDA modified the Plan B label to remove this warning, but it remains the case for Ella. Plan B is available over the counter, but Ella requires a prescription. Under current rules, both Plan B and Ella are covered under Obamacare only if the woman has a prescription. Under the Biden-Harris proposal, Plan B would be covered if a person purchases it over the counter. Don’t Fall for Dishonest Framing Mainstream media coverage notes “widespread bipartisan support for access to contraception” and refers to congressional Republicans’ votes against a Democrat-led bill that would enshrine a right to contraception in federal law. But general support for the availability of contraception doesn’t mean that Americans automatically support taxpayer funding, insurance coverage for contraception, or violating religious liberty and conscience rights in the name of access. It’s a mistake to conflate general support for access with specific policy proposals. Along those same lines, declining to support a bill enshrining a federal right to obtain contraceptives doesn’t mean that that someone opposes access to contraception. Rather, such opposition acknowledges that it would be a mistake to enact a wide-reaching bill that, for example, would gut religious freedom and protections for conscience rights, could hamper the FDA’s ability to regulate contraceptive drugs and devices, and could make it more difficult to enforce federal safety regulations. In other words, it’s legitimate to be concerned that enshrining a legal right to contraception creates more problems than it solves. Don’t fall for demagoguery. Contraception already is widely available, affordable, and easy to access. The New York Times’ coverage may insinuate otherwise, but voting against poorly crafted bills doesn’t mean that Republicans in Congress are “against” contraception access generally. What’s Next? Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, Americans will have 60 days to provide feedback through public comment. Whether the Biden-Harris administration will take such concerns into account if and when it publishes a final rule remains to be seen. The results of the Nov. 5 election could be a factor in what happens. We don’t yet know who will take office as president on Jan. 20, 2025. If Harris wins and the rule hasn’t yet been finalized, she presumably would take it up and get it across the finish line. If Trump wins and the rule hasn’t been finalized, his second administration could stop the rule from being issued. If the rule has been finalized, the new administration still could amend or revoke it. Alternatively, depending on the makeup of Congress, lawmakers could use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the rule (and other recent rules from the Biden-Harris administration, for that matter). Time will tell what’s next for the text of the final rule and its ultimate fate as part of Obamacare. In the meantime, Americans have an opportunity to weigh in on a proposal that would expand coverage for controversial over-the-counter drugs that have serious side effects for women. The post Will Obamacare Cover Over-the-Counter Birth Control? Yes, If Biden-Harris Proposal Goes Through appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Stephen K. Bannon is set to be released from federal prison on Tuesday, ending his 120-day sentence for contempt of Congress. That same day, a new book chronicling Bannon’s hit show, “WarRoom,” makes its debut. The timing is purely coincidental, but there’s perhaps no better way to celebrate Bannon’s release than purchasing a copy of “Rebels, Rogues, and Outlaws: A Pictorial History of WarRoom.” Dan Fleuette is the mastermind behind the project, serving as both the author and photographer who spent years compiling the 464-page tome. Fleuette’s creation—done in partnership with Skyhorse Publishing—tells the stories of courageous leaders who’ve waged fights against the powerful Washington establishment and cultural elites in America. “They’ve lost their jobs; sometimes, their marriages. They’ve been debanked, they’ve been canceled, the whole gamut of things,” Fleuette told me. “And they’ve willingly stood up against that, and said, ‘I’m not doing this. This is not right. I need to take a stand. And if it’s not me, who’s it going to be? How am I going to face my kids when they ask me questions when they get older?'” There’s perhaps no better example of that than Bannon himself. President Joe Biden‘s weaponized Justice Department politically persecuted Bannon, taking him off the air in the critical months before the 2024 presidential election. In addition to Bannon, Fleuette’s book features other big-name rebels, such as Tucker Carlson, British Member of Parliament Nigel Farage, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and also the “posse” backstage who make the show run. A book review from Kari Donovan sums it up well: This book bridges the gap between aesthetic appeal and intellectual challenge, capturing a moment in America that will be remembered long after the headlines fade. It’s a coffee table book that not only starts conversations, but also engages in ongoing political and cultural dialogue—a piece of history wrapped in provocative visuals and a rebellious spirit. Watch our full interview on YouTube or listen on Friday’s episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” (click here to subscribe). The post Inside Bannon’s ‘WarRoom’: The ‘Rebels, Rogues, and Outlaws’ Behind the Show’s Success appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Companion planting is a technique that has been used for centuries by gardeners and farmers worldwide. Companion plants are basically different plants planted together – plants that are beneficial to each other. Here’s a great example! The Native Americans used a technique called The Three Sisters in which they would plant corn, beans, and squash together. The corn provided a structure for the beans to climb, the beans provided nitrogen for the soil that the other plants would utilize, and the squash would spread along the ground to prevent weeds. Other great benefits of companion planting include: Deterrence of various pests Attraction of beneficial insects Great for overall plant growth and flavor In this article, I’ll cover the best companion plants for your survival garden so you and your family can have the healthiest garden yet! Let’s get started! Companion Plants For Your Survival Garden There are many combinations of companion plants for your survival garden. Let’s go over the most common combinations used by gardeners and farmers worldwide. 1. Tomatoes Companion plants: Thyme and peppermint Benefit: Deters whiteflies.   Companion plant: Marigolds Benefit: Improves overall growth for the tomato plant.   Companion plant: Basil Benefit: Encourages better flavor.   2. Carrots Companion plant: Dill Benefit: A chemical produced by the dill plant improves the overall health of carrots.   3. Lettuce Companion plant: Chervil Benefit: Deters aphids and snails. Also, provides protection against mildew.   4. Broccoli Companion plants: Mint and Dill Benefit: Improves overall growth for the broccoli plant.   5. Cabbage Companion plants: Sage and Rosemary Benefit: Deters cabbage butterflies.   Companion plant: Celery Benefit: Deters grubs.   6. Radishes Companion plant: Beans Benefit: Both of these plants improve the overall health of each other.   7. Celery Companion plant: Bush beans Benefit: Both of these plants improve the overall growth of each other.   8. Potatoes Companion plant: Beans Benefit: Helps deter beetles which can cause a fair amount of damage to potatoes.   9. Eggplant Companion plant: Nasturtium Benefit: Deters insects such as various types of beetles and spider mites.   10. Sweetcorn Companion plant: Sunflower Benefit: Provides additional nitrogen to the soil which improves the overall health of sweetcorn.   11. Beans Companion plants: Marigolds and Petunias Benefit: Deters beetles.   12. Grapes Companion plants: Clovers and Lupins Benefit: Improves the overall fertility of the soil.   Now, you may be wondering if there are bad companion plants for some of your vegetables. The answer is yes! Here is a list of plants that are not recommended to be garden buddies aka companion plants! Tomatoes should not be planted with apricots, red cabbage, dill, brussels sprouts, beetroot, or sweetcorn. Beans should not be planted with chives, beetroot, fennel, or onions. Rue should not be planted with sage, basil, or cabbage. Cabbage should not be planted with tomatoes, grapes, rue, or onions. Potatoes should not be planted with onions or apricots. Carrots should not be planted with wormwood nor anise. Fennel should not be planted with peppers, coriander, or beans. Have you had success with companion gardening? Tell us in the comment section below! Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook! Check out these other great articles for more information on how you can achieve the perfect survival garden this season! Composting For Beginners | The Building Blocks To A Better Harvest Beginner’s Guide To Having an Outdoor Herb Garden | Survival Gardening 8 Baking Soda Uses For Your Survival Garden To Try  

Momentum? Two New PA Polls Show Voters Firming Up

Common sense would tell most people that it shouldn’t take two months and a committee of global progressives to figure out that Meta should allow political satire and harmless memes on its platforms. But it’s quite clear that the folks at Meta are not most people. On Wednesday, the Meta Oversight Board overturned Facebook’s decision to censor a Dumb and Dumber meme that made fun of Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz. The board rebuked Facebook’s censorship as an “overenforcement” of Meta’s community standards. In its summary report, the Oversight Board even called out the company, saying that its “failure to recognize the nature of this post and treat it accordingly raises serious concerns about the systems and resources Meta has in place to effectively make content determinations in such electoral contexts.”   Users created a parody of the 1994 movie poster for Dumb and Dumber that superimposed the faces of Harris and Walz over the faces of actors Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels. For context, the board noted, “As in the original poster, the two figures are grabbing each other’s nipples through their clothing.”  The Oversight Board explained that Facebook had initially removed the post claiming that it violated its Bullying and Harassment policy, “which prohibits ‘derogatory sexualized photoshop or drawings.’” Facebook later restored the post after the board brought it to the platform’s attention, claiming that the censorship was “incorrect” because the meme indeed did not depict “sexual activity.” No kidding, Facebook. The Oversight Board appeared stunned that this was even a case to discuss at all as it chastised Meta for its blatant incompetence in determining what violates its own rules. “This post is nothing more than a commonplace satirical image of prominent politicians and is instantly recognizable as such,” the board wrote. [Emphasis added.] To its credit, Meta’s Oversight Board pointed out that this kind of censorship is potentially harmful. This case “points to the dangers that overenforcing the Bullying and Harassment policy can have, especially in the context of an election,” the board wrote. The summary added that Meta’s eagerness to censor “may lead to the excessive removal of political speech and undermine the ability to criticize government officials and political candidates, including in a sarcastic manner.”  Citing multiple previous cases, the board’s report went on to scold Meta for not following the Oversight Board’s past recommendations to clarify its written policies and to improve its execution of content moderation efforts related to elections.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representative and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

On CNN's Wednesday night town hall, Kamala Harris enthusiastically defined Trump as a "fascist."  And The Atlantic conveniently happened to publish an article in the closing days of the campaign with former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, also using that f-word on Trump, and associating Trump with Hitler. In the mind of CNN host Kasie Hunt, that doesn't mean that Kamala's closing message is "hate Trump!" Definitely not! No way! That was Hunt's comically absurd assertion in response to this take of former Trump aide Marc Lotter on today's CNN This Morning: "We've got 12 days to go. Trump's closing message is going to be, Kamala broke it. I will fix it. Again. And Kamala's closing message is: Trump. Hate Trump. Hate Trump. Hate Trump." That's when Kasie pushed back: "She's not, she's not saying hate Trump." Hunt was trying to support Kamala by noting she was citing John Kelly, because when you really turn on Trump, you've really pleased CNN. "I think it's worth noting that John Kelly, who has devoted his life to service to the country, he lost, lost a child in service of the country, and he was in the room for a considerable amount of time in the Trump administration." So, if Kamala's message isn't "hate Trump," just what is Kasie claiming? That Kamala is calling Trump a fascist because she thinks it will make people like him? Spill, Kasie: America wants to know! Note: Although the show couldn't avoid coverage of Kamala's CNN town hall last night, it suppressed a very negative take from fellow CNNer Dana Bash, a Kamala fan and Trump despiser, who famously attacked JD Vance in her interview of him. But even Bash had to admit: "Well, I’ll just tell you what I‘m hearing from people who I have been talking to, and that is that if her goal was to close the deal, they‘re not sure she did that." Translation: Another Kamala fail.  And with just 12 days to go, could that fail be the final nail? Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning  10/24/24 6:01 am EDT KASIE HUNT: Last night, during her town hall with Pennsylvania voters and our Anderson Cooper, she was much quicker than she has been in the past in saying this about her opponent. ANDERSON COOPER: Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist? KASIE HUNT: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. . . .  MARC LOTTER: I think it's clear where this [inaudible.] We've got 12 days to go.  Trump's closing message is going to be, Kamala broke it. I will fix it. Again. And Kamala's closing message is: Trump. Hate Trump. Hate Trump. Hate Trump. KASIE HUNT: She's not, she's not saying hate Trump. She is pointing to a report -- LOTTER: She's calling Trump a fascist. She's, you know, they're obviously comparing him to Hitler. KAREN FINNEY: She's in good, company. She's in pretty good company. He's the one who brought up Hitler. LOTTER: He didn't bring up Hitler! You got one person out there and I got hundreds that are going to say that it didn't happen. I was in the White House. I never heard hims ay anything along those lines. FINNEY: Okay. LOTTER: Neither did Mark Esper, who's no Trump fan. So I get it. This is, this is their closing message. FINNEY: Okay: you take that up with General Kelly, you vote -- LOTTER: I'll take the 200 military retired generals and admirals who do support us, as opposed to the word of one. FINNEY: Okay, well, I think it's more than one. HUNT: I think it's worth noting that John Kelly, who has devoted his life to service to the country, he lost, lost a child in service of the country, and he was in the room for a considerable amount of time in the Trump administration. 

An Iowa man used an American flag to strangle his own mother, then beat up her boyfriend, fled the scene, and led police on a car chase, according to a criminal complaint. According to Johnson County Jail records, Adam Sotzen of Cedar Rapids was booked at 3:35 a.m. Monday and charged with assault with intent to cause pain or injury, first-degree harassment, operating while intoxicated, and eluding while exceeding the speed limit by 25 mph or more. Sotzen is being held on a $30,000 bond.'You need to die.'According to the criminal complaint, Sotzen went to his victim’s home in North Liberty early Monday morning upset over a prior dispute. The 39-year-old allegedly got into a verbal altercation and then began destroying property.The Daily Iowan reported that Sotzen shoved his mother to the ground. He allegedly stole an American flag from a nearby home, twisted it into a rope, and then strangled her.According to KCRG-TV, Sotzen told her multiple times, “You need to die.” The criminal complaint said his mother fell from her chair, but Sotzen continued to choke her as she lay face down. His mother allegedly told police she feared for her life because she believed Sotzen was capable of killing her.The mother’s boyfriend reportedly intervened and pulled Sotzen off the woman. Sotzen then allegedly attacked his mother's boyfriend, punching him in the face and the ribcage. Following the reported strangulation and assault, Sotzen fled the scene in his vehicle before police could respond. A police officer identified Sotzen's vehicle by the license plate after reports of the assault circulated. The officer turned on the cruiser's emergency lights and attempted to pull over the suspect, but Sotzen allegedly ignored the cop and led police on a drunken police car chase.Cops said Sotzen sped 55 mph in a 30 mph zone during the chase. Sotzen finally pulled over, exited his vehicle, and dropped to his knees in the middle of the road, according to the complaint. Police described Sotzen as being uncooperative and combative with law enforcement. Authorities also noted that Sotzen appeared unbalanced and smelled strongly of alcohol. The complaint said Sotzen continued to be physically aggressive while being transported to jail and reportedly struck the partition inside the police cruiser.According to state prison records, Sotzen was incarcerated in 2013 for committing a “serious misdemeanor.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As Election Day approaches, former President Donald Trump told voters that he believes he could pave the way for the elimination of federal income taxes.On Monday, Trump participated in a town hall segment with Fox News at a barbershop in the Bronx, where he answered questions from the business' owner, employees, and patrons. 'There is a way if what I'm planning comes out.'One individual told Trump that his biggest concern is that his two children and future generations will not be able to obtain the American dream because of oppressive over-taxation."When it comes to federal taxes, I'm sure you're going to start back up the pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, which is going to generate an abundance of revenue. Also, with the tariffs that you've spoken of," he told Trump.He asked, "With all this extra revenue that we're going to be bringing into the country, do you believe that at some point in time, we could find a way — once the country's back on its feet and getting enough revenue and pays off our debt — do you think it's possible to find a way to eliminate federal taxes?"Trump replied emphatically, "There is a way."He stated that in the 1890s, the United States relied on tariffs and did not have a federal income tax."Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying, they're paying tax, and they don't have the money to pay the tax," Trump continued. "In the old days, 1890, 1880, we had so much money they had to set up committees, blue-ribbon committees, how to spend our wealth. We had no idea how to spend it; it was so much money. Then we went to the income tax system, and the rest is sort of history.""No, there is a way if what I'm planning comes out," Trump added.The former president has already stated that he supports abolishing the federal income tax on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security.The United States, for the first time, briefly imposed a 3%-5 income tax from 1862 to 1872 to cover the cost of the Civil War.W. Elliot Brownlee, a historian of tax policy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the New York Times that the U.S. adopted "a mass-based income tax for the first time during World War II."From 1868 to 1913, approximately 90% of all revenue was generated from liquor, beer, wine, and tobacco taxes. Currently, income taxes generate 94% of the federal government's revenue, while tariffs make up just 2%.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Draining the swamp requires hard work. You can’t do it casually or haphazardly. The bureaucracy has spent more than 125 years building the administrative state, and it won’t go quietly.During President Trump’s first term, we learned that bureaucrats holding power have largely insulated themselves from the electorate and elected officials. Long-term structural change will need legislative reform, starting with the Administrative Procedure Act, the key law governing the relationship between Congress, agencies, and the courts.A regulation can only change the rational thinking of those who know and understand it. Yet we are all subject to countless regulations we neither know nor understand.Executive action will only have a lasting impact if it’s taken consistently and coherently. Railing for a return to the pre-progressive era of William McKinley serves no purpose. Modern life is complex and interconnected. The trust and sense of community that once stabilized interactions between neighbors are inadequate in today’s world of global supply chains, faceless corporations, and weakened communities. While the administrative state can be reduced, it can’t be eliminated.Reform must start with a simple, clear, and explainable theory of regulation, then adjust the massive regulatory code accordingly. Fortunately, such a theory exists, and leading bureaucrats have already adopted it. Recent high-profile actions by bureaucrats also provide clues for reform. The key is to use these insights strategically.Barack Obama’s regulatory czar, University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, popularized the essential theory: Regulations “nudge” people toward making socially desirable decisions. Merrick Garland’s Justice Department and several big-city district attorneys have shown the key reform tool: enforcement discretion. When used effectively, this combination can achieve more swamp draining in one presidential term than has occurred since the New Deal.Start with the theory of regulation — or, more broadly, of law. The basic premise, drawn from economics, is that people generally make rational decisions. In other words, when facing multiple options, I will choose the one I believe provides the greatest benefit to me. But if society decides that my self-serving choice imposes unacceptable costs on others, a regulation can change my decision-making by making that option more expensive, perhaps through criminal penalties or civil fines. Regulatory subsidies favoring “more socially desirable” options can have the same effect.Take, for example, a manufacturing company choosing between two industrial processes: Process A costs $80 per unit but adds $40 in pollution costs. Process B costs $100 per unit with no pollution. Without regulation, a rational company would choose process A and leave taxpayers to pay for cleanup. A regulation that forces the company to clean up its own pollution changes this calculation. The company would likely spend the extra $20 for process B, save taxpayers from footing the bill, and generate an overall societal saving of $20. This is an example of an environmental regulation worth preserving.Essential executive actionDuring the Obama years, Sunstein and his fellow progressives used this theory to encourage progressive behavior. We can improve on this approach by reversing the script. Instead of starting with the behavior we want to promote, real reform must begin from the decision-maker’s perspective.A regulation can only change the rational thinking of those who know and understand it. Yet we are all subject to countless regulations we neither know nor understand.One of the great tragedies of modern life is that we face so many rules, on so many topics, that we have no idea what’s expected of us. Who among us could withstand the scrutiny of a special prosecutor? If the government randomly subjected Americans to such investigations, nearly anyone could be incarcerated or ruined. Besides the obvious violation of civil liberties, this situation points to a larger regulatory failure. If a successful regulation redirects behavior toward socially beneficial actions, then any unknown or poorly understood regulation fails by default.Enforcement discretion can have a similar effect. When a district attorney announces that she won’t prosecute shoplifting, for example, it effectively nullifies theft laws. Those of us with a basic moral code may still pay for the items we take because it’s the right thing to do. However, those with a weaker moral compass may revise their thinking and conclude that simply taking what they want best serves their (at least short-term) interests.Draining the swamp requires aligning enforcement discretion with the theory of regulation: Only enforce regulations that people know and understand. How can an agency determine which of its regulations are known and understood? That’s where executive action comes in. An executive order can direct agencies to explain their regulations before enforcing them.Consider an announcement and order along the following lines:The purpose of regulation is to encourage behavior that benefits local communities and the nation. But many Americans, both individuals and corporations, don’t know which laws apply to them or how the law expects them to behave. These laws can’t promote the behavior they claim to encourage; instead, they act as “gotchas” that allow enforcement agencies to punish innocent Americans who didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.We are giving every agency 90 days to review everything within its enforcement jurisdiction. For each regulation, the agency must publish a simple statement explaining whom the regulation affects and the behavior it aims to deter or promote.These new explanations are not legal statements. They describe enforcement discretion. Moving forward, agencies will only enforce regulations against those they have informed, in line with the behaviors they have identified. No agency will bring a new enforcement action under any regulation unless it has been publicly explained and available for at least 30 days.That’s it. Officially, this approach doesn’t eliminate any regulations or change the scope of agency power. Practically, it disciplines all agency actions. It requires our government to tell people how we expect them to behave, promoting both government transparency and socially beneficial behavior.This approach also reduces the need for expensive compliance professionals and replaces technical, legalistic disclosure with real disclosure — placing necessary information front and center, rather than hiding it in a footnote that only a legal team would notice.Redirect the flowsEntire swaths of the federal government and the compliance and lobbying industries would suddenly lose power. Opposition would be fierce, but difficult to justify. Opponents would be left arguing against fair notice and warning before enforcement. Even better, this approach would shift the balance of power in the swamp. Bureaucrats have grown so powerful because the regulatory code is both sprawling and opaque. Enforced clarity would strip them of one of the biggest weapons in their arsenal.Long-term benefits are also likely. By forcing agencies to choose between clarifying their authority or ceasing to use it, such an order would force them to prioritize. Presumably, each agency would clarify the regulations it most wants to enforce first. Low-priority regulations left unenforced for extended periods would become increasingly hard to defend. A collection of these long-unenforced regulations would make an excellent case for an omnibus deregulation bill. A significant reduction in the regulatory code, in turn, would justify a corresponding reduction in the federal workforce.Restructuring the federal government is tough work. Progressives aimed to do it in the 1890s under William Jennings Bryan and in the 1910s under Woodrow Wilson. However, they saw only marginal success until the 1930s. Faced with a true crisis and a theory of the administrative state, FDR fundamentally changed the American system of governance.We’ve reached another crisis point. Regulatory sprawl and vast enforcement discretion have undermined every remaining republican virtue. No living American can possibly understand the entire regulatory code, which means everyone is arguably in violation of something. This vast enforcement discretion allows the government to target and harass anyone deemed objectionable for any reason. Constitutional norms that haven’t yet been discarded are under constant threat.The only way to rein in the bureaucracy and restore republicanism is with a coherent theory of regulation and a realignment of enforcement discretion. I’ve presented a plan that’s simple to explain and easy to sell. Maybe there are other options.Ultimately, the only way to drain a swamp is to redirect the flows that feed it. Opaqueness and discretion are two of the main feeders. Redirect them, and we can reclaim the American constitutional order.