This is the last BorderLine column before the election. I am often asked what would change on border and immigration policy under a Kamala Harris or a Donald Trump administration. To give you an idea, I looked at what the candidates and parties actually said. The Republican Party platform of 2024, written after Trump was the party’s nominee and with his obvious input, stresses “the interests of American workers … over the claims of foreign nationals seeking the same jobs.” In its one-page Chapter 2 (of 10), the platform says the priority should be to “secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws.” For those who break those laws, it continues, “we oppose any form of amnesty.” Republicans believe the U.S. has been and remains “a haven of refuge” but want to limit asylum to “cases of political, ethnic, or religious persecution.” The platform warns that “refugees who cannot be carefully vetted cannot be admitted to the country.” In a second term, Trump likely would pursue the same strategy as in his first term, albeit with improved tactics, given some hard lessons learned in the first term. He speaks often at rallies and interviews of the consequences to American families and communities of mass illegal migration, including higher crime and overwhelmed public services. Regaining control of our border—of who comes in and how—and resuming law enforcement and deportations are his stated priorities. Trump is often criticized by Harris for opposing a supposedly bipartisan Senate border bill earlier this year. Most Republicans rejected the bill because it would have locked into law controversial Biden administration mass parole programs then  allow up to 1.8 million inadmissible aliens to be released into the country each year while they await their immigration hearings, which could be years down the road. (A tougher Secure the Border Act of 2023 passed the House in May 2023 but was not taken up by the Senate.) Here is Trump’s probable agenda for border action, in three key points: Reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols (also known as “Remain in Mexico”) and Safe Third Country agreements. These protocols require emmigrants who are seeking asylum to apply in the first safe country they reach after leaving their home country—not continue on to their preferred country, the U.S. He would also stop mass-releasing aliens caught entering the U.S. illegally at the border. Resume and ramp up enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the country. Trump has spoken of the “largest deportation program in American history.” Indeed, given the scale of illegal entry over the past four years, a return to prioritizing using agents for law enforcement over paroling and processing aliens into the country would require significant effort. Prioritize “merit-based immigration,” meaning that the U.S. should select legal immigrants based on factors like youth, job skills, and education and what they can contribute to the United States rather than merely family relationships. The Democratic Party platform states, “We must secure our border and fix a broken immigration system,” but credits President Joe Biden’s executive actions that “created innovative legal pathways that … have decreased illegal border crossings.” This is a reference, among other things, to Biden’s parole programs that allow specific countries and classes of aliens to arrive illegally at U.S. borders and airports, where they are then paroled in by Customs and Border Protection. The party platform states Democrats want to “reform the asylum system” by making the process quicker, adding a “strengthened initial screening” and supplying lawyers (presumably at taxpayer expense) to illegal aliens fighting removal. It also proposes to “expand legal immigration” and supports a “pathway [to legalization] for long-term undocumented individuals.” As for Harris, she has slowly clarified her stance on the border during her campaign. It is difficult to distinguish her positions materially from the Biden administration policies of the past four years. Harris touches briefly on borders and immigration on her website. She proposes reforming the “broken immigration system.” To do this, Harris has said she’d pass the Senate “border security bill Donald Trump killed” if she were president (see above). That bill is highly unlikely to be revived in future absent a Democratic majority in the Senate. The Harris website advocates “an earned pathway to citizenship.” On Oct. 29, speaking at a Washington, D.C., campaign rally, Harris confirmed that “comprehensive immigration reform” includes a “path for people to gain citizenship because they have earned it.” This means she supports legalizing some, or all, of the aliens here illegally—in other words, an amnesty for those who enter the United States illegally and continue to stay here unlawfully. In the Washington speech, Harris said, “When I am president, we will … give Border Patrol the support that they so desperately need.” She wants “more resources at the border,” by which, she was referring to “detection technology to intercept” the flow of fentanyl and “1,500 border security agents,” both of which were proposed in the Senate bill. The wording on her website does not specify that the 1,500 new hires would be Border Patrol agents. Based on what we’ve seen in the past four years, any additional staff authorized for the border would chiefly be used to process aliens into the United States quicker. The next day, at an informal press gaggle before boarding her plane, Harris was asked about her commitment in the Washington speech to “quickly remove those who arrive here unlawfully.” She avoided a direct answer, instead pivoting back to sending more agents to the border and signing the defunct Senate bill. Notably, when a senator, Harris generally opposed border and interior enforcement and advocated that we “critically reexamine” Immigration and Customs Enforcement and “think about starting from scratch.” When running for president in 2019, she proposed “a moratorium on the construction and expansion of immigration detention centers” and “a top-to-bottom review of ICE and implement[ing] structural reforms of the agency.” Unless her views have changed radically since, Harris is unlikely to increase the agency’s mandate or resources for interior enforcement of immigration laws. Here is Harris’ probable agenda for border action, in three key points: At the border—Current “lawful pathways,” including mass parole and mass release into the country would remain the policy at and between ports of entry, presenting marginal impediments to illegal entry. Alternate methods like the Welcome Corps of bringing in additional migrants—whether they qualify as refugees or not—would likely be ramped up. Limited interior enforcement—Once aliens enter and claim asylum, Harris (and current administration talking points) both say that “those who are determined not to have a legal basis to remain should be quickly removed.” But evidence from the past four years suggests that few aliens, once allowed to enter, would be deported. Amnesty—Passing a law to legalize some or all illegal aliens is her clear policy goal. If that is not possible, a Harris administration would fall back on deferred or non-prosecution. Either way, most foreign nationals living here illegally would be permitted to remain. An amnesty bill could contain some procedural requirements, such as proving payment of taxes or proving no criminal record, but a lack of these would not mean automatic deportation. These are my educated guesses as to what border and immigration policy would look like under either a Trump or Harris administration, but nothing is certain. Whatever happens  on Election Day, the BorderLine will continue to advocate for an immigration policy that serves U.S. national interests while respecting both our national sovereignty and rule of law. 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: My Job Was Getting Countries to Take Back Their Criminal Illegal Aliens. Under Biden-Harris, I’d Be Unemployed 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 post What Would Harris and Trump Do Differently on Immigration?—The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Is Earth more peaceful now than it was four years ago? No. President Donald J. Trump left the world relatively tranquil. Nearly four years of Kamala Harris’s and Joe Biden’s strategic ham-handedness have made war the new normal. Consider this metric: The Jewish Virtual Library chronicles rocket and mortar attacks against Israel. During the first 45 months of Trump’s tenure—from Jan. 20, 2017 through Oct. 25, 2020—Israel’s enemies fired 1,171 rockets and mortars at America’s closest Middle Eastern ally. Across Kamala-Biden’s equivalent timespan, Israel’s foes shot 24,560 rockets and mortars at the Jewish state—up 1,997%.  Between Jan. 1 and Oct. 25, 2020—during Trump’s fourth year in office—such onslaughts totaled 128. Under Kamala-Biden: 11,441—up 8,883%. Scholars, statesmen, and soldiers are appalled. “The rise in rocket attacks on Israel in recent years, especially over the past 12-plus months, shows how Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas become more emboldened as they see more strategic daylight between the United States and Israel,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. ”Confronting Tehran’s axis with the combined might and will of America and Israel is the best guarantor for Middle East stability.” “From their first days in office, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden did everything they could to throw Iran’s terrorist leaders a lifeline after President Trump had them in a box, broke, and begging for mercy,” John Ullyot, Trump’s National Security Council spokesman, told me.  The author of “The Biden-Harris Betrayal: Weak and Woke on the World Stage” added: “They Venmo’d Iran’s leaders tens of billions of dollars by breaking Trump’s vise-grip of sanctions, and the Mullahs wasted not a second in passing this windfall on to their puppets—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Make no mistake: The shocking, nearly 2,000% increase in rocket and missile attacks on Israel by Iran’s proxies over the last four years is a direct and predictable result of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden pulling a 180 on Trump’s tough policies on Tehran. Nov. 5 cannot come soon enough.” Trump signs the first two of four Abraham Accords peace agreement with the leaders of Bahrain, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates at the White House, Sept. 15, 2020. (Official photo by Tia Dufour) “With President Trump, we had maximum pressure and the Abraham Accords. And now, with Harris and Biden, we have maximum chaos,” Brigadier General Anthony Tata, U.S. Army (Retired) told “Fox & Friends” on Oct. 26. Indeed, Trump brokered four peace agreements between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, and Morocco. Tata added: “The whole region is on fire right now, because of the Harris-Biden incompetence.” Thursday’s truly chilling bad news confirmed that the world was safer four years ago. Trump nicknamed North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un as Little Rocket Man, amusing millions and annoying hundreds within America’s stone-faced foreign-policy establishment.  Trump and Kim shared a June 2018 summit in Singapore and, eight months later, a second huddle—in Hanoi. In June 2019, Trump journeyed to the Demilitarized Zone. Walking mere feet into the Hermit Kingdom, Trump ventured historical miles when he shook Kim’s hand on his own soil. Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea. Trump meets chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea Kim Jong Un at the Korean Demilitarized Zone, June 30, 2019. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead) While Trump did not denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, he kept Kim calm. The underground atomic-bomb tests that Kim repeatedly triggered during Obama-Biden stopped after he met Trump. So did Kim’s long-range test missiles, which had boosted their potential reach, ever-closer to America’s shores. While Trump was in command, Little Rocket Man kept his cool. Similarly, Obama-Biden watched Russian thug Vladimir Putin invade and then annex Ukraine’s Crimea region. But Putin controlled himself during Trump’s tenure. Though still an outlaw, Putin kept his tanks to himself. In frightful contrast, Kamala and Joe’s lassitude proved provocative. After witnessing America’s shambolic August 2021 abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban, Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Two years and eight months later, the carnage grinds on. Despite $106 billion in U.S. military assistance to Kiev, this conflict seems light years from conclusion. Even worse, some 8,000 North Korean troops are in Russia’s Kursk region and could start fighting Ukrainian forces “in the coming days,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned on Halloween. With an Asian nuclear power about to embroil itself in this European conflict, it’s beginning to look a lot like World War III. Also worrisome: Little Rocket Man on Thursday conducted his most ominous missile trial yet. This ICBM flew for 86 minutes and climbed 4,350 miles—new milestones for Pyongyang. By comparison, the International Space Station orbits at 250 miles. The Washington Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Michelle Yee Hee Lee called these twin North Korean developments “a double display of bellicosity.” From Israel to Ukraine to North Korea, the rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting in air give proof that Earth was safer four years ago. Through Tuesday, voters have a clear choice: four more years of Kamala’s chaos or four more years of Donald J. Trump’s Peace through Strength, no new wars, and treaties piling up like autumn leaves.  The post The World Was Safer Under Donald J. Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge. Recently, Elon Musk gave a talk detailing the government attacks on his companies since he came out as pro-free speech and, especially, since he came out as pro-Donald Trump. These include endless made-up environmental rules—including a study to see if falling rockets hit sharks. It includes curbs on SpaceX launches specifically because Elon tweets pro-Trump things. And it includes a $600,000 fine for spilling … drinking water in a desert. Not a joke. Attacking dissident companies, of course, is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. As Mussolini put it, “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” For a true authoritarian no citizen is allowed to dissent—and certainly no companies, which are sitting ducks. Of course, in theory, this sort of thing doesn’t happen in America. In theory, we jail bureaucrats who conduct Mussolini-style lawfare. Alas, it has been going on ever since the progressives imposed the administrative state about a hundred years ago. Saddling now every industry in America with a regime Big Brother, a library worth of regulations, mandates, licensing boards—a bureaucratic army that, like everything government does, is thoroughly corrupt. Still, before Donald Trump there was some independence. CEOs could still criticize regime shibboleths like mandatory racism—er, affirmative action—or transvestites in girls’ locker rooms if anybody had been dumb enough to propose that in 2015. Sadly, that all changed as authoritarian Borg went to war with Trump, culminating in the reign of terror during COVID-19 that snuffed out the slightest hint of disloyalty with an enthusiasm that would make North Korea blush. We saw it in living color during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots. Historically, about 70% of Fortune 500 CEOs vote Republican. Meaning that, statistically, at least 70% of them were probably horrified by BLM’s orgy of city-burning and murder. And yet not one Fortune 500 CEO spoke up. Now, you might say that’s because most are spineless cowards, and that’s true. But look at it from their perspective: You’re entrusted with tens of thousands of employees, and if you speak up, rioters will come beat them, burn their workplaces, and put them out of a job and your shareholders out of a retirement account. You could, like Elon, be targeted by hundreds of regulators—even prosecutors in blue cities—hunting with a fine-tooth comb for some way, any excuse, to destroy the entire company. For a CEO with a legal duty to protect the company—and a moral duty to protect employees—it’s simply too risky. So, they shut up. To be sure, many indulged, enthusiastically jumping on the institutionalized racism of DEI or cutting checks to the very rioters burning cities—in fact, BLM cashed more than $50 billion in corporate donations. Not since Genghis Khan has burning a city been quite so profitable. But others never drank the Kool-Aid. They may have opposed the Left with every fiber of their being. But they were held hostage by rioters, prosecutors, regulators, even financiers like BlackRock. So, what’s next? The solution is very easy: Get rid of the administrative state. Lay off the hundreds or thousands of little Mussolinis populating every regulatory agency from the EPA to the CDC. The Supreme Court laid the groundwork earlier this year with its Loper Bright decision clipping bureaucrats’ wings. And Musk himself has been floated by Trump for a blue-ribbon panel slashing government waste and corruption. The final step is Congress sitting down and actually defunding these agencies. Zero them out. Return the money to the people. Return the bureaucrats to jobs that don’t involve extortion. And let Americans get back to exercising our rights without being destroyed. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Regime Goes After Elon Musk appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the last two weeks, Vice President Kamala Harris has been trying to revive her stagnant campaign by smearing former President Donald Trump as being Hitlerian and a fascist. She claims Trump is planning to put his enemies in encampments. Yet in the modern era, it was not Trump who put large numbers of U.S. residents and citizens into “relocation camps,” but liberal Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt who sent Japanese-American citizens and residents into them. If Harris refers to Trump’s supposed fascist policies during his prior four-year tenure, there is no such evidence. Nonetheless, the once “joyful” Harris is ending her campaign by trafficking in lies and smears reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy era. Recall that fascists hijack law enforcement and the military to suspend constitutional rights and punish enemies. But Trump did neither. Instead, in 2016, a corrupt FBI went after Trump himself during the Obama administration with the bogus Steele dossier. The FBI, which in 2016 had hired the faker Steele, in 2020, fused with social media to suppress accurate news reporting of the embarrassing Hunter Biden laptop scandal. A number of FBI directors and intelligence officials—John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe—who openly sought to destroy Trump had a long history of either lying or feigning amnesia under oath. Fascists try to warp the legal system. But Trump’s own Justice Department selected an independent special counsel to investigate the invented Russian collusion accusations against him. In vast contrast, the Biden Justice Department coordinated with Georgia prosecutors Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James to prosecute Trump, bankrupt him, and keep off the campaign trail. Fascists use their governments to destroy their enemies. During Trump’s term, for the first time in history, the House of Representatives impeached a first-term president twice. And in another first, the Senate tried Trump as a private citizen. A self-styled “anonymous” federal official bragged openly of deliberately, and likely unlawfully, leading a bureaucratic cabal to sabotage Trump’s lawful executive orders. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, in collusion with other bureaucrats, deliberately leaked a classified presidential phone call in an effort to ensure that Trump was impeached. Fascists seek to change existing laws to destroy opponents and illegally consolidate power. Currently, it is only the Democrats who seek to pack the court, destroy the Electoral College, end the Senate filibuster, and create two new states and thus gain four left-wing senators. In key states, they radically changed voting laws. As a result, roughly 70% of voters in 2020 did not cast their ballots in person on Election Day—even as the traditional rejection rates for fraudulent ballots mysteriously dived amid the influx. Fascists arbitrarily nullify any laws they feel do not aid their agendas. Biden-Harris destroyed immigration law in order to bring in more than 12 million illegal aliens and gain new constituencies. They also protected sanctuary cities, as some 600 such jurisdictions illegally and with impunity nullified federal immigration laws in neo-Confederate fashion. Fascists seek to politicize the military. But in Trump’s case, his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, brazenly violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by libeling Trump as a fascist. Worse still, Milley sabotaged the chain of command by ordering theater commanders to report directly to him in times of serious crises. And in near-treasonous fashion, Milley contacted his Chinese communist counterpart in the People’s Liberation Army to assure him that he would warn the Chinese military before carrying out any Trump order he felt existentially dangerous. Some of the most prominent retired four-star military officers—again in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—publicly smeared Trump as a coward, liar, fascist, Hitler-like, a Mussolini, a creator of Auschwitz-like death camps, and worthy of being removed “the sooner the better.” Fascists seek to control and weaponize the media. So, Facebook and Twitter both conspired with the FBI to censure news accounts favorable to Trump. The major newspapers, social media corporations, television networks, and public broadcasting systematically and continually attacked Trump, censured his supporters, and fused with his opponents. Why then the charges of Trump the fascist and Hitler reincarnation? Simple. Harris’ personal negatives are rising, her polls inert. She has abandoned her prior run-out-the-clock avoidance of the media, her smiley “joy” campaign, and instead now embraces the big lie, while President Joe Biden writes off Trump supporters as “garbage.” Harris is now confirming to voters that she really can neither think nor speak well and has no consistent agenda that appeals to the middle class. So, in final desperation, Harris is smearing Trump as a fascist, even though, ironically, he has been the target of fascist machinations from her own party and supporters for nearly a decade. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Once Joyful Harris Now Goes the Full McCarthyite appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What to Make of the October Jobs Data

The Democratic Party's liberal media allies seem intent on shielding Vice President Kamala Harris from criticism regarding the administration's latest disastrous jobs report.On Friday, the October report revealed that the Biden-Harris administration added only 12,000 more jobs to the economy — the lowest increase since December 2020. According to Fox Business, LSEG economists previously predicted a 113,000 job gain.Trump 'acts like the economy is in the toilet, but that's just not true.'While the private sector lost 28,000 jobs, the government "continued its upward trend in October," adding another 40,000 jobs, the report stated.The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the "unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent in October."These alarmingly low job-growth numbers come after the Department of Labor's preliminary annual benchmark report in August, which revealed job gains were overstated by more than 800,000 from April 2023 to March 2024, Blaze News previously reported.The administration has repeatedly overestimated its projected job growth. The DOL's numbers were revised downward by 81,000 in August and by 31,000 in September.The corporate media machine quickly came up with excuses for the Biden-Harris administration's weak job gains, blaming them on Hurricanes Helene and Milton, as well as the Boeing labor strike. Those news outlets did not previously extend the same understanding to former President Donald Trump, who faced unprecedented economic challenges as a result of COVID-19. An NBC News article from 2020 torched then-President Trump for gaining "just 661,000 jobs for September."On Friday, former New York state Sen. David Carlucci (D) told Fox News' Harris Faulkner that the economy is "a winning issue" for Harris.Carlucci stated that Trump "acts like the economy is in the toilet, but that's just not true.""Yes, people are struggling, and Kamala Harris knows that and says that, but you've got to take it in its entirety," he continued. "If we look at where we were four years ago, economists were saying we were headed towards a recession, possibly a depression."Faulkner responded, "So exactly four years ago, around the time of the election, what was being handed was 1.4% [inflation rate]. So I'm confused. I don't think you want to go back four years because that's an easy conversation to have," she added.Carlucci remarked, "He [Trump] was the second president after Herbert Hoover to leave with less jobs when he left office than when started office."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mail-in voting is banned in many Western countries and even in war-torn countries like Ukraine.Mail-in voting was a strong point of contention in 2020 and continues to be hot-button issue during the 2024 presidential campaign, as Democrats have embraced the voting method and conducted legal campaigns to defend it.In March, a meme circulated online purporting to list at least eight notable countries that have banned mail-in voting.A page from Snopes, a left-leaning "fact-check" website, quickly popped up and labeled the claim a "mixture" of truth and falsities.However, a review of voting laws around the world reveals that many countries do, in fact, allow absentee voting for citizens who are out of the country but disallow mail-in voting for citizens who do not have a valid absentee excuse.The alleged fact-checkers mainly leaned on absentee voting as a reason why they couldn't fully claim that mail-in voting is banned in many Western countries. As Pew Research has noted, at least 88 countries allow voting from abroad in presidential-level elections, which means that absentee voting is not a controversial topic. In fact, virtually no one in the United States challenges the right of people with a valid absentee excuse (such as overseas military service) to vote. What many have argued, however, is that those who live in the United States and are thus without an excuse for not participating in in-person voting should not be permitted to mail in their votes. And an examination of the laws in the countries in question reveals that many of them have taken exactly this position. — (@) For example, France banned mail-in voting for in-country residents due to fraud.Snopes claimed that the practice was ended in France due to a "few instances" of fraud, particularly on the island of Corsica. However, Snopes' source states that fraud and malfunctions in voting systems were not confined to Corsica and listed other instances. Additionally, the list of those who could vote by mail-in ballot in France before 1975 was needlessly excessive. It included journalists who were "on the move," travelers and representatives, commercial agents, fairground traders, seasonal agricultural workers, construction workers working on sites far from their homes, people seeking medical assistance at a "spa" or "resort," and even "young people" who were at school far from their homes.France, however, allows online voting, so long as the voter is French, resides abroad, and is properly registered.According to Newsweek, Mexico banned absentee ballots in 1991 and mandated photo ID to vote. This came after the governing Revolutionary Party was accused of fraud and intimidation in order to garner mail-in ballots. Absentee ballots were reintroduced in 2006 only for those living abroad and only for specific elections, including the presidency.This policy is mirrored in Belgium, where mail-in ballots are not allowed for residents in the country. However, those abroad can vote both by mail and by proxy. At the same time, some regions, including the Flemish region, are not yet allowed to vote by mail or online. Belgium also instituted compulsory voting, which, for better or for worse, has resulted in a near-90% turnout rate. Consistent fines without justification could lead to a 10-year removal from voting registration.Sweden has a similar system. Mail-in voting is only allowed for those abroad through mail, by courier, or through an embassy. Multiple sources make it clear that resident Swedish citizens must vote in person, with early voting up to 18 days before the election."Voters vote for a political party and may, at the same time, mark the candidate that they would prefer to be elected on their ballot paper with a cross," the European Union writes about Sweden.Italy too only allows mail-in voting for those residing abroad. Japan explains its voting process through adorable cartoons, also noting that Japanese citizens should vote in person. Certain disabilities, along with living abroad, allow for voting by mail in Japan.Snopes points out that while Ukraine and Russia do not have mail-in voting, Ukraine hasn't had an election for several years due to the implementation of martial law.While Ukraine does not allow mail-in votes, it does allow certain questionable practices, such as impermanent address changes."Citizens are able to permanently change their preferred address (which does not have to be their residence) to be assigned a more convenient polling station for both local and national elections," Snopes wrote. "For national elections, they can also ask for a temporary change of address up to five days before the vote."While paper ballots and in-person voting are continuously decried as forms of voter suppression in the United States, it does indeed seem that by international standards, the U.S. is extremely lax in allowing mail-in voting for people who are residing in the United States.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah announced Friday that he will host a members-only forum for GOP senators vying for the leadership position on Nov. 12, less than a day before votes will be cast. Republican Sens. Rick Scott of Florida, John Thune of South Dakota, and John Cornyn of Texas have all agreed to the forum, according to a letter from Lee. The senators will be given the opportunity to make their pitch and present any proposals before the Republican conference.'I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to what I am sure will be a fruitful discussion.' . "With the upcoming election for Republican leader, I, as well as many other members of this body, hope to have the opportunity to hear from the candidates, pose questions to them, and have a 'family discussion' on their vision for the future of our Conference," Lee said in the letter. "Each of the current candidates has agreed to participate, and should another candidate emerge, they will be given the same opportunity," Lee continued. Scott, Thune, and Cornyn emerged as the three front-runners to replace current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has led the GOP in the Senate since 2007, making him the longest-serving Senate party leader in American history. McConnell announced his retirement in February this year, saying he would step down from his role following the election. "In addition to inviting every Republican senator, I will also extend an invitation to all of our new Republican senators-elect and candidates in elections that remain contested at the time of our meeting," Lee said. "I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to what I am sure will be a fruitful discussion," Lee continued. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vice President Kamala Harris and businessman Mark Cuban sat down for an interview, in which they had a lot to say about former president Donald Trump. The pair took issue with Trump’s tariff plan, with Cuban telling Kamala that Trump “doesn’t realize the impact” and that “he is going to put who knows how many small businesses out of business.” “He is applying a machete, when a scalpel is what’s necessary,” Kamala replied. Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” and her father, Ron Simmons, believe that Cuban and Harris are wrong and that Harris’ “economic plan,” if put into action, will have much more devastating consequences. “Her plan, by this bipartisan group, is going to cost 786,000 jobs,” Simmons explains to Stuckey, using information from the Tax Foundation. “Trump’s plan would increase it by 600,000 jobs.” “Mark Cuban in this scenario is just a sycophant; he just is trying to say whatever agrees with her,” Simmons says. “Believe me, Mark is more concerned, which he talks about Trump being more concerned about, his own fortune and fame than he is about anything else.” “He also called Trump a fascist, right, and you know what a fascist is?” he asks. ‘Someone that wants state control of everything. That’s what they want, and not the individual. And actually Trump is just the opposite.” Stuckey notes that most Americans are most concerned about how Trump’s economic policy will affect their groceries, not whether or not the left is calling him a “fascist.” “He’s going to increase the child tax care credit, which I think is a good thing to do. And a credit is different than a deduction. A credit means that if you have a $1,000 credit, and your taxes were $2,000 before the credit, they’re only $1,000 after. It’s a direct write-off,” Simmons explains. “He’s also proposing that we allow a deduction for interest paid on auto loans. For a lot of people, especially renters, their biggest debt is their car. And you know how much cars cost these days,” he continues. “Under Donald Trump, I think what you see, you see a return to what happened between 2017 and 2021 from an economic standpoint, which was some of the best economic times in history,” he adds. Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

I’ve always been one of those people drawn to trains, and that’s something that’s followed me through gaming. From classics like Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon and Transport Tycoon all the way up to modern versions like Railroad Corporation or Sweet Transit, there’s just something compelling about plopping down tracks and managing the lumbering beasts that ride them. One of the best is Railway Empire, which is just as well as you can save a colossal 80% on it right now on Steam. Continue reading Grab Railway Empire with 80% off and live your steam train dreams for less MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best train games, Best management games, Best strategy games