Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

'We explode the code' - Rick Santorum's tax plan eliminates the IRS as we know it

October 13, 2015
Staff

WRITER

A good friend to the program and 2016 presidential hopeful Senator Rick Santorum joined Glenn on the radio Tuesday to talk about his revolutionary tax plan he announced Monday.

Santorum said his tax plan will feature a flat tax on all income, without a value added tax, which is something he said differentiates his plan from Rand Paul's.

"It's a 20 percent income tax on all income. It's on individual income. 20 percent on corporate income. 20 percent, capital gains, dividends and interest. Everything is taxed at the same level," Santorum said.

He went on to describe how his plan would eliminate the IRS as we know it.

We explode the code. It's gone. There's no IRS as we know it. It's simple. I mean, there's -- there's the tax credit that I talked to you about. There's the deduction for home mortgages and for charitable donations.

The difference is, everybody can take that deduction, not just those who are high income. So everybody has this available to them. So it's really helpful for everybody to have this deduction. And that's it. No other exemptions. No other exclusions. Same thing with the corporate side. Nothing. No special energy provisions or any kind of things. All that -- all that stuff goes away. It's a very simple code. And it gets the IRS out of everybody's hair.

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: A good friend of the program. A good friend and a very good man. 2016 presidential hopeful. The thing that made Pat fall in love with Rand Paul, I think, the love story may begin here with Rick Santorum. Because yesterday, he announced his tax plan, and it sounds similar.

PAT: Oh, nice.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Rick Santorum.

RICK: Just a little better, I might add.

GLENN: A little better. I don't know. That's hard to beat.

RICK: Well, here's why I say it's better than his. Because -- well, his rate is 14.5 percent. It includes the value-added tax. Mine is at 20 percent, flat tax with no value-added tax. It has a tax on corporate --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

PAT: Wait. I didn't know it included a value-added tax.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. He put a value-added tax on that?

RICK: Yeah.

PAT: I didn't know that.

GLENN: I had no idea.

RICK: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Can you look that up, Stu? That's really bad.

PAT: At what percent? What percentage?

GLENN: Doesn't matter.

RICK: Fourteen and a half. That's how he's able to accomplish fourteen and a half because he does a value-added tax.

GLENN: He was doing 14 and a half and a 14 and a half VAT tax?

RICK: Yeah. Fourteen and a half income and fourteen and a half VAT.

PAT: That's like 29 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That is really bad -- that's dishonest. That's dishonest. The way he presented that, I think that's dishonest.

RICK: Well, I think -- if you look it up, that's exactly what his, quote, business tax is, is value-added tax.

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. That's business or that's income?

RICK: He has an income tax. He has what he calls a business-something tax. But it's a value-added tax. That's what it is.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we'll look that up. We'll look that up.

PAT: Okay.

RICK: That's why mine is better. It's a 20 percent income tax on all income. It's on individual income. 20 percent on corporate income. 20 percent, capital gains, dividends, and interest. Everything is taxed at the same level. There's no playing around from one to the other. It is a powerful, you know, corporate tax reduction from 35 percent now down to 20 percent, with full expensing, which is really important, if you're going to encourage manufacturing in this country. Which, as you know, Glenn, I mean, that's been my passion for a long time, is to make sure that America can be number one in manufacturing again. And we'll have a tax code that's going to be as strong on manufacturing -- has a repatriotism provision to get that $2 trillion sitting overseas to come back to America. Invest it in plant and equipment here. You know, there is a guy in this race who is famous for saying you're fired. I want to be famous for saying you're hired. And that's -- this thing will -- this tax plan will explode the code. It's a single rate plan. There's no deductions. No special tax provisions. The -- we eliminate everything on the individual side, except every person gets a 2,750-dollar tax credit. So depending on how large your family is, multiple that by $2,750 for every person in your house. Get a credit off your taxes for every person in your house. It's pro-family. It's pro-growth. And it keeps the rates low, and that means growth high.

PAT: So you're talking -- Rick, you're talking run rate for everybody, including --

RICK: One rate for everybody.

PAT: Wow.

RICK: All income. All income is set to 20 percent. So there's no gaming. Oh, I can move this money here. Move this money there. It's all passed at the same right. Provides generous -- for the corporate side, this being able to write off capital, equipment, and buildings. You can expense the year -- so it's a very powerful incentive.

GLENN: Tell me about capital gains. Is that income?

RICK: Just a flat -- everybody pays a 20 percent capital gains tax.

PAT: Okay. So the capital gains would be 20 percent as well?

RICK: And we get rid of the marriage -- we get rid of the death tax. So there's no estate tax.

PAT: That's good.

RICK: Get rid of all the Obamacare taxes. And under our plan, obviously you want to get rid of Obamacare. If you look at how it's scored by the tax foundation, if you get rid of all the Obamacare taxes, as well as the Obamacare subsidies, it comes out over a ten-year period of time at actually increasing revenues over ten years by $600 billion. It does that, and it's while still increasing growth by 1 percent a year for ten years. So it will go from 2.3 to 3.3. We add another 3.2 million new jobs, above what's projected. And wages go up almost 1 percent a year.

GLENN: What happens to the IRS?

RICK: We explode the code. It's gone. There's no IRS as we know it. It's simple. I mean, there's -- there's the tax credit that I talked to you about. There's the deduction for home mortgages and for charitable donations.

PAT: Oh.

RICK: The difference is, everybody can take that deduction, not just those who are high income. So everybody has this available to them. So it's really helpful for everybody to have this deduction. And that's it. No other exemptions. No other exclusions. Same thing with the corporate side. Nothing. No special energy provisions or any kind of things. All that -- all that stuff goes away. It's a very simple code. And it gets the IRS out of everybody's hair.

GLENN: Okay. So I love this. From what I know -- then, again, I loved Rand Paul's until you just told me some things.

RICK: Sorry to burst your bubble there, Glenn.

GLENN: So I loved this. With one thing you said. And it's a red flag to me. And if we can get really geeky to me. Most people won't even think this way. But I believe, Rick, you and I believe that what the fed has done is just absolutely disastrous. You said you wanted to repatriot $2 trillion into the United States. That money comes flooding back into this system, and we could have hyperinflation. Are you concerned about that at all?

RICK: Well, I mean, there will be a tax on it. It's a 10 percent tax when you bring it back. Am I concerned that it will have economic growth that will cause inflation? Yes. Any time you have -- you know, we look at going from around 2 percent growth, to under our plan, about 4 percent growth, that's a concern. In there, we talk about sound money policy and obviously auditing the fed and putting the fed back on the course of being a -- a sound money fed, not a, you know, growing the economy fed, not a lowering unemployment fed.

GLENN: And how do you do that?

RICK: Well, I think part of it is who you appoint to the fed and the messages you send out. You know, that's -- that's the -- that's the leverage you have. Look, there's no question this president hasn't had a huge impact over the fed and its policies. By his policies and what -- and the governors he's put on the fed. And that's what you have to do. You have to put sound money governors on the fed and as chairman of the fed.

GLENN: Yeah, but you don't as president get to pick that person. They give you a list to pick from.

RICK: Well, that's true. And as you all know, you have some influence on that process. The president is not -- if you look at the people that they put on the fed, they've been put on the fed who are very much in line with where the president wants to take the fed. And I think that's been the case really since the fed has been around. There's an accommodation made to where the president wants to take the fed.

GLENN: Okay. So, Rick, let's get down to brass tacks on you and your campaign. I was with a candidate on Friday, and I heard him -- actually it wasn't him. It was somebody in his campaign. Talking to a group of people. And they were saying, you know, they were just going through all the people. And they said, and Rick Santorum is going to be in this thing even if he has no money, he will go and he will go door to door on foot if he has to, he is never leaving this campaign because there's a chance of a lightning strike and he will take advantage of that. Is that -- is that where you're at -- that you're just -- I mean, because we're looking at a new debate two weeks away on CNBC. I don't know if you'll make it. I don't know if Rand will make it. I don't know who will make it to the big table. They're playing all these games. How long do you survive? And do you believe that it's the right thing to do, if you continue to poll the way you are?

RICK: Well, all I can tell you, Glenn, four years ago I was in the same situation. In fact, in national polls, I was at 2 percent the week before the Iowa caucuses and won the Iowa caucuses. And, you know, I don't know if you saw, Gallup is no longer polling national elections. Pew is saying that they may not do it because the polls are simply wrong.

I can tell you. I mean, I was talking to one of our folks. And she works with five people. And they're all for a particular candidate. I won't say who. And she asked the question, have any of you ever been to an Iowa caucus? And they all said no. And she said, well, do you know what a caucus is? And they all said no. And she said told them. And all of them said, oh, we're not going to do that. We're not going to show up at 7 o'clock at night and spend two hours at some place to vote.

There's a lot of polling that goes on that simply doesn't reflect who will actually vote. I saw it. I witnessed it in reality. And what I have to do is I have to trust what I see on the ground. I did that four years ago. I trusted what I saw on the ground. I trusted that, even though in the state of Iowa, four weeks out, I was at 3 percent in the polls. I knew what I was seeing from caucus goers in Iowa who actually make these decisions. And so had I gotten a good break, which is to win on caucus night, instead of getting an errant count that didn't declare me the winner, I think it would have been a very different situation.

But here's what I do know. The media focuses in on polls and how much money you've raised, both of which feed into each other. They don't focus on what's going on on the ground, which counts, which is, who will vote? And that's what I focus on, and that's what I'm going to trust.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, you have the -- the image of the hardest working guy in politics. You have the image of a good who is just not going to let a single door go unknocked.

RICK: Well, here's the thing, Glenn. I mean, you can spend all your time raising money. A lot of guys do it. And you look at their campaign schedule. They don't have a lot of town hall meetings. They don't get out and talk to voters. And they're relying on people presenting their image to the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I do the opposite. I don't spend a lot of time raising money. I spend a lot of time out there, and I try to present that image directly and try to obviously build a very loyal cadre of folks who in a caucus state will make a difference.

GLENN: So tonight is the Democratic debate. If you had one question to ask all of the candidates, what would the question be?

RICK: You know, as you know,, I mean, my focus is on right now, the biggest problem -- this president is going to deal with, is a potential nuclear Iran. So my focus is, you know, will you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Because there's no question in my mind that under this deal, Iran is on a pathway to getting a nuclear weapon. And it's necessary to make sure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. And I suspect that the policy of containment, which is what the Obama administration has now put us toward, is the policy that every one of those candidates will follow along.

STU: Rick, I was wondering, maybe this will be a good question to answer, maybe you'll have a good answer to it. Can you identify anything that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, would identify as an actual violation to this agreement? It seems like they could do literally anything, and it still would fall within their framework.

RICK: Yeah, this is -- if you look at what's going on in Syria right now, in Syria, we have an agreement with Syria that supposedly is the model for verification and making sure that they're following along with it. And, of course, Syria has been using chemical weapons since this treaty was put in place. There's no question that chemical weapons have been used and that the Assad regime is the one that's been targeted. Yet, there's been no claim of violation of this treaty, even though they're using chemical weapons. And the reason is, they structure the treaty to where if they don't have weapons at this site and at this location or at that location, they're not in violation. So they can go ahead and use chemical weapons. Develop them somewhere else. Use them on their people. And still be in full compliance of a chemicals weapon treaty. This is the problem, is that we have a president who doesn't want to act. And he's trying to create a facade that he's actually doing something, when he's actually enabling people to move forward with their weapons of mass destruction.

GLENN: All right. Rick, just last night on TV and the rest of it is happening tonight. Last Friday, we spent an hour on radio with Bobby Jindal. And I'd like to offer this to you. I'm not offering this to everybody. I'm just offering this to about six of the people that I think America needs to see and meet. Would you come in and spend a couple of hours with us here in the next couple of weeks.

RICK: I'll spend a whole day with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

RICK: I'll take you out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

GLENN: No, and you're not going to knock on my door and ask me for my vote either. I mean, no.

STU: Also, Rick, you don't know how much he eats. I don't think you have those kind of campaign funds.

GLENN: Yeah, you haven't seen me for a while, Rick. It's gone down quickly.

RICK: I know the rest of the family doesn't eat much. They're in great shape.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: Rick, God bless you. If you want more information, go to RickSantorum.com. It's RickSantorum.com. Rick, thanks a lot. We'll talk to you soon.

Let's get him scheduled to come in.

STU: Yeah, that would be great.

GLENN: Do the same thing we just did with Bobby Jindal. By the way, the rest of the Bobby Jindal interview is tonight at 5 o'clock on the Blaze TV. You don't want to miss it. Really, really a good candidate.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?