As most people know, the polls are skewed to favor Kamala Harris. The DNC also staged their production and headliners to make it seem like they have the momentum. THE FAKE POLLS For example, in a recent Economist/YouGov poll, Harris beat Trump nationally 46 to 43%. That is somewhat meaningless since the Electoral College has […] The post Corrupt, Manipulated, Fake Polls & Staging to Swing the Election appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

NASA officials announced on Saturday that the troubled Boeing Starliner spacecraft that shuttled two astronauts to space in June will return to Earth without them. It’s too dangerous for people. No one can dock with the ISS until the Boeing Starliner lemon leaves. Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are stuck in space until February. They’ve been […] The post Stuck in Space: The Starliner’s Returning Without the Astronauts appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Check out this real life ‘Flintstones’ home, a property built around a giant 200 million-year-old red rock. The two bedroom house in Larkspur, Colorado, has a unique style, with the boulder incorporated into the interior of the home—perfect for a geology (or Flintstones) fan. The home, which is on the market for $989,900, is integrated […] The post Flintstones-like Home is Built Around 200 Million-Year-old Red Rock in Colorado–And is Now For Sale appeared first on Good News Network.

With both party conventions now in the books, so too are PolitiFact’s nightly recaps. After four days of the RNC and the DNC, PBS’s new fact-checking partner, gave Republicans three times as many false ratings while giving Democrats three times as many true ratings. Throughout the RNC, PolitiFact awarded two true ratings, one mostly true, eight half trues, eight mostly falses, 16 falses, and one pants on fire. That is eight percent on the right side of the truth-o-meter, 70 percent on the wrong side, and 22 in the middle. During the DNC, PolitiFact handed out seven true ratings, four mostly trues, ten half trues, six falses, two falses, and zero pants on fires. That is 38 percent on the green side, 28 on the red side, and 34 in the yellow. The difference was even starker when it came to Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. PolitiFact slapped Trump with one pants on fire, 16 falses, eight mostly falses, eight half trues, and only one mostly true. Harris, by contrast, got one true, one half true, and one mostly false. That is 89 percent false for Trump and 33 percent for Harris. It is a common retort to say Trump or Republicans are labeled false more often because they deserve it. However, when Harris falsely claimed, “The United States Supreme Court just ruled he would be immune from criminal prosecution," PolitiFact did not give her a false or even mostly false rating despite quoting the Court ruling that, “There is no immunity for unofficial acts." Also on Thursday, PolitiFact gave JD Vance a false rating for claiming “Kamala Harris wants to give $25,000 to illegal aliens to buy American homes” because “At PolitiFact, the burden of proof is on the speaker. Having seen no specific details from Vance’s team that demonstrate Harris’ proposal would benefit immigrants in the country illegally, we rate his claim False.” However, when Harris claimed Trump “and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress,” PolitiFact again declined to hand out a false rating despite writing several words that suggested Harris was spinning and fearmongering about birth control and Trump’s federalist abortion stance. If those two examples were given the false labels they deserved, Harris’s percentage of false claims would have nearly doubled to 60 percent, which is quite a different headline than 33.

Last week in this space the focus was on Time magazine’s glorification of now Democrat presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. The point was that the then-current cover of Time - an illustration of Harris that, as noted, presented her as “a cross somewhere between Miss America and a religious icon” - was in reality an illustration of just how the “mainstream media” was thoroughly in the tank for Democrats and the Left in general, and, this election year, Harris in particular. A week later, the New York Post is headlining another story about Time - a story that might be seen as reporting on the consequences for Time for tilting so visibly for Democrats. The Post headline: Time cuts 22 staffers at magazine, cites ‘significant challenges’ across media industry The Post story reports:   Time is slashing 22 jobs as the volatile media environment continues to squeeze the iconic magazine. Time chief executive officer Jessica Sibley said Tuesday that the company is slashing roles across several departments including editorial, technology, sales & marketing and Time Studios. In a memo obtained by The Post, Sibley told staffers: “It is incredibly hard to say goodbye to our talented colleagues; we are deeply grateful for their contributions to Time’s culture, mission and legacy, and we will closely support them through this period of transition.” The CEO said the decision was made so that the company can build a “sustainable” future due to headwinds facing the industry and economic uncertainty. …A rep for Time declined to comment on the company’s headcount. Time magazine was under fire earlier this month for its fawning cover story featuring Vice President Kamala Harris, despite her refusing an interview with the publication. Conservatives ripped the piece over the absence of Harris’ voice and the vice president’s opaque policy agenda.” Got that? After a serious record of tilting coverage of a supposed mainstream news magazine to the Left, following that “fawning cover story” on Harris, Time is forced to announce that, as the Post reports, it is  ….“slashing roles across several departments including editorial, technology, sales & marketing and Time Studios” - specifically cutting the jobs of 22 staffers. And right there is exactly what the inevitable Leftist tilt of a so-called mainstream, “just the facts” produces when readers/consumers begin to realize what they are reading is not as what was advertised.  This isn’t rocket science.  The problem is that the “journalists” involved, whether at Time or other so-called “mainstream” publications are in fact seriously Left minded Leftist activists pretending -to themselves and readers - to be something they are not. Which is politically neutral, “just the facts” journalists. And, without question, their audience is not stupid. They know left-wing bias when they see it. They know, as pointed out in this space last week, that when Time glorifies Harris but back there in the ancient age of 2012 went about dissing Senator John McCain’s running mate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, that happens because of left-wing bias. They want a woman on the ticket - but it has to be a leftist woman. Or they will target her. The same, by the way, goes for African-Americans. When Justice Thurgood Marshall, America’s first black Supreme Court Justice, retired -- the call went up that this was a “black seat” and the nominee to replace Marshall had to be black. Then-President George H.W. Bush complied -- and nominated the black Judge Clarence Thomas. The Left went ballistic, because Thomas was conservative. The fact is that this kind of bias has been going on for so long that the American people -- aka the reading and viewing audience -- gets the game. And so, in the current instance, many have stopped reading Time magazine.  Which in turn translates into a loss of revenue and staff cuts. Imagine that.

The Democrats claim there’s a “bold vision” for America behind Kamala Harris’ run for the presidency, but Glenn Beck and vice presidential candidate JD Vance don’t think it’s a new, noteworthy, or good one. “You have the entire Democratic campaign running on a kind of collective amnesia where they say that Kamala Harris will do this thing on day one, or Kamala Harris has a vision to accomplish that thing, and then you realize Kamala Harris has been the vice president for three and a half years,” Vance tells Glenn, adding, “she has affirmatively made all of these problems worse.” Kamala has overseen the open border, though Democrats claim she’ll secure it. Kamala has overseen the explosive inflation that’s destroying the middle class, yet she claims she’s here to help the middle class. “This is just not something that the American people buy,” Vance says. “If you’re an American citizen, you’ve paid attention to this election, you’d be forgiven for having a headache from the ricocheting message of the Democratic Party. A month ago, it was, ‘The Biden economy was great, don’t believe your lying eyes, just vote for Joe Biden,’” he continues. “Now it’s, ‘Yes the economy is terrible, but Kamala Harris, who’s been vice president for three and a half years, is going to come in and fix the whole thing.’” Meanwhile, her opponent, former president Donald Trump, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, and the administration that she is very much a big part of has not done a thorough investigation — as there are still so many questions not answered. “It’s been a month,” Glenn says to Vance. “Are you and president Trump satisfied with the investigation and the way it’s going and the information that we have and haven’t gotten?” “No, certainly not,” Vance responds. “This is frankly on Congress, it’s on Chuck Schumer’s United States Senate, and it’s on the Biden administration to get to the bottom of what mistakes were made.” “If I’m looking at this from the perspective of America’s citizens, I’d be demanding that Kamala Harris, who’s the vice president of the United States, actually gets to the bottom of this and empowers her government to do a real investigation,” Vance continues, adding, “That has just not happened yet.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

When you read the Constitution, three dominant ideas stand out starting with the first line of our governing document: Article I, Section 1, which states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”The rest of the document deliberately outlines the separation of powers among three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. It details the office of the presidency and the judicial power of the Supreme Court in addition to Congress. The purpose of this separation was to heed Montesquieu’s warning in “The Spirit of the Laws”: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty ... lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.”FDR appointed Frankfurter to the high court in 1939. He ensured that everyone who clerked for the court shared the same philosophy of an activist judiciary.To establish a separation of powers in our Constitution properly, James Madison noted in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.”A further guarantee of the separation of powers was written into the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The other idea which dominates the work is the definition of defenses each citizen has from the arbitrary will of the government, it goes back to the Magna Carta, that there must be a trial before one’s peers.These ideas held in our country for 150 years, owing to the bulwark of constitutional defenses afforded by our Supreme Court.Yet, there came a time in our history when constitutional definitions became undefined. About 90 years ago, two remarkable men led our country who were of one mind: Franklin D. Roosevelt and his close adviser Felix Frankfurter wanted to concentrate government power in Washington, D.C., in one institution — the unenumerated administrative state.Roosevelt sent legislation to a Democratic-dominated Congress aiming to take control of the American economy. However, the Supreme Court blocked his efforts, prompting Roosevelt to launch a relentless attack on the court. He threatened to expand the number of justices to 15, referring to the court as the “nine old men” in the “mausoleum of injustice.” Under this pressure, the court shifted its stance, moving away from its original role as the defender of the Constitution. Instead, it became an active branch of the left, focused on changing how America is governed.The first pivotal case in this change was NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel in 1937, which became known as “the switch in time that saved nine.” The decision opened the floodgates to the expansion of administrative agency power.FDR appointed Frankfurter to the high court in 1939. Frankfurter ensured that everyone who clerked for the court, in preparation for high judicial office, came from the same schools and shared the same philosophy of an activist judiciary dedicated to administrative governance under the executive branch. From that point in time, the court decided in favor of the unenumerated power of the administrative state for decades.The problem with agency authority is that they have the power to legislate, execute the laws they create, and judge those who violate their rules, combining the three powers our Constitution explicitly designed to keep separate.One might argue that the administrative state has little power compared to Congress, but consider this: In 2023, Congress passed 27 laws based on the Constitution. Meanwhile, the federal registry ended the year with 90,402 pages of rules that have the force of law. These rules were written by unelected bureaucrats who not only establish the rules but also enforce them and determine the penalties for violations.Consider the case of Andy Johnson, a rancher in Wyoming who dug a pond on his property to provide water for his chickens. The EPA determined that he had violated one of its rules, stemming from its expansion of the Clean Water Act. The agency decided to fine Johnson $37,500 per day that his pond remained in existence and an additional $37,500 per day for defying its orders. This is textbook tyranny.The good news is that the Supreme Court has begun to defend the Constitution again with two recent rulings. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the justices struck down its 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, opening agency rules to judicial review. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the court determined that hedge fund founder and investment adviser George Jarkesy had the right to a civil trial by jury rather than a hearing before an SEC tribunal dedicated to finding him guilty. These rulings signify a return to the idea of separation of powers and a limit to the unenumerated power of the administrative state.Further, in Trump v. the United States, the court ruled that a president has immunity from prosecution in the course of his official duties. Which means that if a second Trump administration takes office and acts to renew the principles of our original Constitution and its design of enumerated and separated powers that prevent leftist agency tyranny, these same agencies will not be able to attack him as they did during every single day of his first administration while he fought for America.Little by little, we’re getting our Constitution back.

Even CNN's Erin Burnett Admits How 'Huge' an RFK Bump May Be for Trump

A Colorado state representative is pushing back at her 15-year-old son's high school history teacher for suggesting that the artist Leonardo da Vinci was "gender fluid" and that his painting of the Mona Lisa was a self-portrait.