Saturday, April 12, 2025

China Finally Gets Its Due


In his latest iteration of “The Art of the Deal,” President Donald Trump is finally giving China its due after more than two decades of lying, stealing, and wildly nefarious trade practices. 

"I served in the Clinton White House. The Clinton administration made a grave strategic error by letting China into the WTO without sufficient conditionality," former Clinton official Jamie Metzel admitted this week. 

After the United States admitted China into the World Trade Organization in 2001 the communist state, with ambitions of global domination, has been given special rules, treatment, and a tolerance for scamming. Chinese companies are allowed to operate inside the United States and all over the world with little scrutiny — even buying up American farmland next to sensitive military sites — while reciprocity for U.S. companies isn’t an option in China. 

Making matters worse, once China lets U.S. companies into the country with a laundry list of conditions, the government steals intellectual property, replicates it, and then uses it to put the U.S. out of business.

“Chinese policy is to extract technologies from Western companies, use subsidies and nontariff barriers to competition to build national champions, and then create a protected domestic market for these champions to give them an advantage as they compete globally,” Tech Diplomacy reports. “After acquiring intellectual property, Chinese government subsidies and regulations help Chinese companies secure market shares in the global markets at the expense of the US. A congressional estimate in the US placed the cost of Chinese intellectual property theft at 225–600 billion dollars yearly. According to a CNBC survey, 1 in 5 corporations say China has stolen intellectual property within the previous year, while 1 in 3 said it had happened some times during the previous century.”

With the latest tariff war, reputations and track records are going to matter. A lot. 

One swing through Africa and you’ll find the so-called “goodwill” of China and its Belt-and-Road initiative, in addition to infrastructure projects, have been a total disaster. 

“Dipak Patel can still recall the dizzying grandeur of his 2003 visit to Beijing’s cavernous Great Hall of the People: the rows of stern guards all the same height, the state dinner that included stewed shark fin and bird’s nest soup, and the People’s Liberation Army band playing songs from Patel’s native Zambia—even singing in one of the African country’s scores of dialects,” Bloomberg reported in 2020. “While most delegates were eager to accept anything they could get for projects such as a hydropower dam and a 50,000-seat soccer stadium, Patel urged caution.”

“His warning went unheeded, and Zambia started to take out loans from Chinese banks for airports, hospitals, housing projects, and the roads connecting them. Chinese credit has grown to about a third of Zambia’s external debt, which has surged sevenfold over the past decade, forcing the government this year to ask creditors to reschedule loans,” the report continues. “Nigerian lawmakers are reviewing Chinese loans they say were unfavorable. Activists in Kenya are demanding the government disclose the terms of Chinese credit used to build a 470-kilometer (292-mile) railway. And Tanzanian President John Magufuli calls an agreement his predecessor made with Chinese investors, to build a $10 billion port and economic zone, a deal ‘only a madman would sign.’” 

Not only were the so-called loans an unforgivable trap, the infrastructure was built with Chinese labor, not locals, and it’s falling apart -- just like the cheap Chinese goods sold at Walmart. 

Now that his second term is underway, Trump is saying: enough. He’s slapping reciprocal tariffs on China. As he negotiates with 75 countries on new trade policies, China’s lack of credibility will push those countries towards to U.S. — further isolating the CCP. 

“Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable,” Trump announced this week. “Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately.” 

The choice is clear and everyone knows it. The jig is up for China. The products they're selling are a scam.



X22, Red Pill News, and more- April 12

 



A Third Possible Trump Term?


If Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell can stay in Congress until they wheel them out on a gurney, like they did Joe Biden, then why can’t Trump stay in office?

Over 77 million Americans voted to put President Donald Trump and his policies into office in the 2024 election, giving Trump a mandate to fulfill.   Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, there has been an amazing amount of action and razzle-dazzle with the flurry of executive orders in everything from defining the common sense understanding of who is a boy and who is a girl, to removing illegal immigrants who broke U.S. law, to dismantling illegal alien criminal gangs, to exposing all the government waste fraud and abuse of tax payer’s money, to slashing spending and charging tariffs due to humongous trade imbalances with foreign countries abusing America, all with the goal of reducing the dangerously high $37 trillion dollar U.S. deficit.

Even with all the good common sense policies — to try to help our nation’s survival — unelected judicial minions of the Democrat party tried to usurp the power of the president of the United States, which is very serious for it is impeding the will of the majority of Americans who gave President Trump the mandate by electing him and his policies into office.

With this judicial lawfare attack on the Trump policies, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has intervened, overruling an improper federal district court ruling, with the SCOTUS allowing Trump to deport illegal immigrant criminal terrorist groups from the United States. Strike one for the Democrat party.  Again, the SCOTUS had to intervene concerning tens of thousands of fired probationary federal workers, also overruling an improper ruling, with the SCOTUS stating that Trump had the right to remove these employees.  Strike two for the Democrat party.  Then the SCOTUS had again to intervene concerning the firing of two federal board members, because another federal judge made an improper ruling, and the SCOTUS sided with Trump that the firings were under the power of the executive branch of the government.  Strike three, out one for the Democrat party.  

Then of course the Democrats came back with a new batter, and this time the SCOTUS did side with the Associated Press, allowing them access to the White House after Trump kicked them out for refusing to acknowledge the change in the name of the Gulf of Mexico, which is now the Gulf of America.  So, ball one for the Democrat party.

Then even with the SCOTUS ruling, two other federal judges have reared their ugly heads to again block Trump’s deportations.  Maybe these judges haven’t heard of the SCOTUS?

At least the GOP Congress is trying to move to help push forward the mandate given to the president by the will of the people, by passing the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” which limits the ability of federal judge rulings to affect executive branch policies on a national scale.  I say the GOP Congress helped, all except Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, who decided to be a RINO and side with the Democrat party and vote against the bill.  Voters in Ohio, please take note to vote in the primary and remove this man from the ballot in 2026.  Why would a Republican vote against the will of the people siding with rogue DNC-controlled activist judges?  Should D.O.G.E. investigate if he is getting money from a taxpayer funded NGO that is purchasing influence?  Elon Musk has even questioned if Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. has his hand in the government fraud honey pot, which wouldn’t be surprising for Democrat politicians, who retire from office as multi-millionaires.

So why in the world would there be so much pushback against Trump’s common-sense policies through which he is trying to preserve the country?  It is because leftists view Trump as a lame-duck president in his second term, and all they have to do is use lawfare to tie up his policies in court until the 2026 or the 2028 election.  So that’s their plan.

Instead of being a lame-duck, CNN’s chief data analyst, Harry Enten, compared Trump to a “soaring eagle,” stating that Trump had signed the most executive orders at this point in his presidency (April 8, 2025) than any other president in 100 years.  It’s great!  In fact, Trump is “Making America Great Again.”  Now where have I heard that?  It is amazing when even CNN is calling Trump a “soaring eagle.”  Enten stated,

The bottom line is, whether you like Trump or you don’t like him, you can’t say that he’s come in and not try to deliver on what he at least believes were his promises on the campaign trail.  And he’s doing so in historic fashion.

From their statistics, Enten stated that,

53% …[of people] do not say that Trump has too much power. …the majority of folks …believe Trump is doing something completely differently [from former presidents] and they don’t believe he has too much power.

What’s fun is watching all the leftist rantings on NBCCNNNewsweek, the New York TimesUSA TodayNPRAP, the BBC, and The Guardian, and others, who are all worried about Trump’s statements concerning a “third term.” The Guardian even mentions “Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea has been in power for 46 years, Biya of Cameroon has been serving for 43 years, Museveni has ruled Uganda for close to four decades, …[and] Nguesso has served as leader of Republic of the Congo for 39 years.”  Just imagine what fun!

Greg Gutfeld says, “forget about the third term, it’s Trump.  Now you gotta think about the fourth term.”  Tyrus says that he is going to run for president with Trump as vice president and “after signing the executive order that he is tax free for the rest of his life,” Tyrus is going to step down and allow Trump to become president.  Then after four years he is going to run for president again with Trump as vice president and after signing an executive order that says, “Tyrus can do whatever he wants,” he is going to step down and Trump is president again for the fourth term.

It’s fun to give leftists and the Democrat party… nightmares.



Ten Tariff Questions Never Asked ~ VDH


1. President Donald Trump's so-called "trade war."

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a "trade war." But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?

Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don't America's trading partners prefer deficits like ours -- given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America's supposed benefits of a $1-trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then "suffer" like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks -- and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street's panic based on what might happen -- Or what is happening?

Is Wall Street's meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March's latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street's worry that Trump's impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, and instead spent only 1.37%, would Canada become concerned?

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

8. Is the Trump agenda bad economic news?

Is the current panic over tariffs amplified by Trump's other policies?

Is the sudden end of 10,000 illegal entries a day bothering Wall Street?

Are the media furious that the Red Sea is suddenly navigable again, the Houthis in Yemen curtailing their attacks?

Is the outrage due to the targeting of approximately $200 billion in budget cuts or plans to shave off $500 billion from the annual budget? Does the conundrum arise because Trump is sanctioning Iran, unapologetically supporting Israel, and seeking an end to the Ukraine War?

9. Was the Biden record preferable?

Should Trump try to match former President Joe Biden's $7 trillion addition to the national debt? Should he return to allowing 12 million illegal aliens into the country? Was the 2021 Afghanistan pullout a good model? Is Wall Street worried that Trump may copy the Biden New Green Deal, his electric vehicle mandates, and more green regulations?

10. Why the negotiations and why now?

Why are 70 countries now wishing to negotiate tariffs with America either down to zero or reciprocally to the same rate as ours?

Is that a good thing? If so, why did our trade partners not wish to lower their trade barriers far earlier?

Did they suddenly and spontaneously decide they were acting unfairly and, on their own prompt, now want to make amends?

What's next?

If there soon is a rush of nations to cut a deal with the U.S. and not to be left out of the American market, will there follow another hysterical Wall Street spasm -- but not to sell, but instead to buy stocks at bargain prices?



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


The Climate Crisis Con Game

 The climate crisis isn't just a narrative—it's the Left’s longest-running confidence game, leveraging fear for our children to loot wallets, liberties, and the public trust.


The technical term is “confidence game.” A crook gains the confidence of a victim (the “mark”) and preys upon their naivety, greed, and/or fear. Ultimately, the duped mark gives their money and/or property to the crook willingly.

Consider this real-world example provided in Connie Fletcher’s 1991 book, What Cops Know: Today’s Police Tell the Inside Story of Their Work on America’s Streets, wherein an anonymous Chicago Police Department (CPD) detective reminisces about a con game he redressed:

“One of the superintendents of the Chicago Police Department—his aunt was taken for $15,000… She was a recent widow, Italian. And during this con, they sent her back to Italy to dig up her husband’s body and take a button off his vest. International phone calls were made between Chicago and Palermo, Italy, continuing the con on this woman, warning her that she must do these things in order to keep her three grandchildren safe. It was five thousand dollars for each grandchild.”

“When I went to the [lead con artist, Louis]… I said, ‘Louis, you cost these people [fifteen thousand] dollars.’ He said, ‘I was taking a curse off their children.’ ‘Louis, come on.’ ‘Listen, are those children safe today?’ ‘Yeah, they’re safe.’ ‘Then it’s off. The curse has been taken off them.’ I said, ‘Why did you charge them [fifteen thousand] dollars?’ He said, ‘It was to take the curse off.’”

While this seems a rather involved scam, boiled down to its essence, it aligns with the experience of another CPD detective: “The best con is the simplest con.” At its stony heart, the con preys upon a grandmother’s love and fears for her grandchildren to extort money from her.

Viewed in its proper light, then, what to make of the Left’s “climate crisis?”

Despite the lack of any remote consensus regarding the alarmists’ proclamations of an impending climate apocalypse, what to make of the leftist “experts” and politicians who implore a concerned public to trust the science—i.e., the selectively chosen science that purports to support their alarmist position and deepens the “mark’s” fears for their offspring and/or planet?

What to make of the left’s incessant warnings of impending environmental doom despite the failure of past dire prognostications to materialize?

What to make of the crisis actor activists who ape these apocalyptic prophecies and engage in acts of vandalism and other pressure tactics to create chaos and further fuel the public’s anxieties about the “climate crisis?”

What to make of the left’s preying upon and exacerbating people’s virtuous concerns for their children, future generations, and the environment to frighten them into willingly parting with not only their money but their liberty, too?

Yes, these are rhetorical questions. The left’s climate crisis is a political con game—and a tragically effective one.

Per American Greatness, ponder the recent scandalous vignette: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin’s discovery of some of the gold bars tossed off the Titanic as the dwining Biden administration sank into the depths of historical ignominy.

[The EPA] has uncovered roughly $20 billion that was stashed at “an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA” by the Climate United Fund (CUF)…

The CUF was advertising to hire for a position to help spend the $6.97 billion “climate change” grant which it had received as part of the $20 billion which was dispersed during the final days of the departing Biden administration.

A political appointee to the EPA under the outgoing administration was caught on video bragging about “tossing gold bars off the Titanic” in an effort to push as much money as possible out the door before the Trump administration was inaugurated.

Rightfully, on behalf of the mark—namely, the taxpaying public—Mr. Zeldin assailed the deceit of this specific Biden administration climate crisis con: “This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight.”

The un-dearly departed Biden administration’s cynically devised shell game to make and mask federal appropriations that a Democrat administration rammed through to fund the left for generations is a sign of its success in executing its climate crisis political con. But it also reveals that they sense the mark is onto their con.

Even before President Trump’s victory, the left sensed its marks were getting wise to their con. Indeed, the late Democrat congressional majority falsely labeled the “Inflation Reduction Act.” It was, in fact, a trillion-dollar bill to “address” the climate crisis (for it can never be allowed to end, lest the gravy train derail). So, while the climate crisis political con was enough to get elected to a majority, the Democrats sensed openly announcing a trillion-dollar “Green New Deal” to radically alter the American economy and, in consequence, imperil Americans’ prosperity, was not a winning issue, despite all the tendentious effort put into promoting the scam among the public. Ironically, for once, one of their dire predictions proved correct: the Democrat majority was swept out, as was eventually Mr. Biden.

But for the left, the con must go on, and $20 billion is $20 billion, however nabbed. Who would know better than the pardon-happy Biden administration that, in the swamp, there is no honor among thieves?

Which, from Ms. Fletcher’s book, brings to mind another CPD officer’s reminiscence:

“So one night, a guy appears on one of the roofs, almost two o’clock in the morning, a cold and windy night—carrying a bike. We later found he came up through the high-rise stairwells. Takes the bike, puts it on the roof. Then he…rappels down three floors off the top and drops onto the balcony. And he goes in through the sliding doors… Who’s gonna think somebody’s gonna come in from outside on the fiftieth floor?

“He came back out with some camping stuff, climbed back on the roof. That’s when we caught him. He’s going to the bike he rides to and from the burglaries. [I ask] ‘What’d you bring the bike up [to the roof] for?’

“‘I don’t want nobody to steal it.’”

One cannot help but presume the thief had stolen the bike, too.

Oh, by the by, Mr. Zeldin has referred the matter of the “parked” $20 billion in EPA funding to the Inspector General and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

After all, where else would you report the existence of a con game?

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/12/the-climate-crisis-con-game/

Democrats Are Anxious And Uncomfortable. Now They Know How It Feels



A couple of news articles this week intended to instill the usual fear and panic that the dying media love to spread, but for anyone who isn’t a wild and vicious Democrat, they should have made for thoroughly enjoyable reads.

The New York Times on Thursday ran the headline “Trump Escalates Use of Official Power to Intimidate and Punish His Perceived Foes.” The article details individuals and law firms the administration has singled out for either legal probing or exclusion from conducting private business with federal agencies. “President Trump’s first-term efforts to spur law enforcement officials to pursue his political enemies were haphazard, informal and often hashed out in private,” it said. “Now, his demands for investigations are starting to become more formalized through written presidential decrees as he seeks to use the power of public office to punish people and companies he has cast as enemies and silence potential critics.”

In short, Trump recently directed his Homeland Security department to review the professional conduct of an official from his first term (the official had publicly declared he was opposing the administration from within) and ordered the Justice Department to investigate a member of the government’s technical support to determine whether he had illegally shared classified information with unauthorized individuals. Trump also signed an order barring the law firm Susman Godfrey from doing business with his administration, determining the firm to be at odds with his political priorities.

The second article came Monday in The Guardian. “US student journalists go dark fearing Trump crusade against pro-Palestinian speech,” read the headline on top of a story about the “legal repercussions, online harassment and professional consequences” some college-level students are “fearing” because of their public protests and arguments related to the war in Israel. “[S]tudent journalists are retracting their names from published articles amid intensifying repression by the Trump administration targeting students perceived to be associated with the pro-Palestinian movement,” it read.

It’s funny. I don’t recall articles in either publication about the intimidation and fear experienced by anyone who found himself on the receiving end of the Biden administration’s Justice Department. Merrick Garland, President Biden’s pick to lead the agency, went on a four-year manic rampage harassing concerned parents at local school board meetings, protesters praying in front of abortion clinics and anyone who so much as thought about attending the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington (including a former president).

And that’s to say nothing of the dread and anxiety felt by unassuming, relatively apolitical conservative or Republican-voting students on university campuses for decades. They’ve long had to self-censor and avoid political controversy out of legitimate fear that expressing themselves would affect their grades and future employment prospects and lead to social ostracism.

If the tables have turned even a single degree so that belligerent Democrats feel a fraction of the discomfort felt by everyone else until now, it’s a glorious day in America.



Democrats Worried Trump May Not Have China's Best Interests At Heart

Democrats Worried Trump May Not Have China's Best Interests At Heart

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As public debate intensified over the growing global trade uncertainty, prominent Democrats expressed concern that President Trump may not have China's best interests at heart.

After the president increased tariffs on China yet again on Wednesday, Democrats took to the media to warn the American people that they were getting worried that Trump may be failing to make choices that are best for China.

"I'm not sure he's taking China's future security and stability into consideration," said Senator Adam Schiff. "These decisions he's making show a troubling disregard for what's best for China, and that's not something we're used to here in Washington. Having a U.S. president who seems to be so preoccupied with doing what's best for the U.S. is a dangerous precedent to set. We probably got too comfortable the last four years having the best American president China has ever had."

"ζ„ΏθΎ‰η…Œηš„δΈ­εŽεΈε›½ζ°ΈδΈθ½εΉ•," he concluded. 

Other Democrat leaders warned that, if unchecked, Trump could continue making moves that do not strengthen China. "What exactly is he trying to accomplish?" asked Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. "If President Trump is not here to advance the cause of the Chinese government, then what is he here for? It's important for the American people to be aware that they have a leader who doesn't seem to prioritize ensuring a strong and prosperous China."

At publishing time, Democrats in Congress were reportedly engaging in emergency talks to file articles of impeachment against President Trump for failing to upholdand defend the Chinese Constitution.





After 4 Years Of Claiming US Elections Are ‘Most Secure Ever,’ Leftists Again Accuse Trump Of Stealing Them

 In just their latest bizarre twist of logic, leftists are again accusing President Donald Trump of planning to steal an election — even though for the last four years, they insisted this was impossible.


On Friday, Paul Rosenzweig asserted in an article for The Atlantic that “Trump Is Already Undermining The Next Election.” He claimed Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote was “nothing less than an attempt to disenfranchise his opponents and forestall electoral defeat.” In reality, the measure would simply prevent noncitizens from voting and reinforce other vulnerable areas of elections, for example, by requiring paper ballots. Still, he apparently thinks Trump will rig the next election.

Rosenzweig is not alone. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told The New Yorker last month that he thinks Trump is turning America “from a democracy to an autocracy,” and that “the chances are growing that we will not have a free and fair election in 2026.” These concerns come as Democrats’ favorability is plummeting.

Even before Trump’s landslide victory in November, legacy media were planting seeds that he might “steal” the race. MSNBC said in October that then-Vice President Kamala Harris was “prepared if Trump tries to steal the election,” while NBC said Trump could “declare a premature election win.” Vox even speculated that Trump would use the Supreme Court to “steal the election.” And just days before the election, The Rolling Stone published an article on “How Republicans Could Help Steal The Election From Harris.” 

After Trump won, many Democrats began wondering how their immensely popular candidate could have lost. After all, she spent millions on celebrity endorsements, and rapper Lizzo promised that if Harris won, the “whole country will be like Detroit.” What could have gone wrong? 

Leftist writer Greg Palast claimed Trump used “Jim Crow tricks” to cheat Harris out of more than 3.5 million votes. Various other Democrats online began crafting stories about how Trump might have cheated Harris out of the election. It spiraled so far out of control that even NBC published a story stating, “Election denialism emerges on the left after Trump’s win.” 

This was a remarkable turn from the last four years, when leftist outlets constantly claimed rigging the election was impossible. When conservatives expressed concerns about things like noncitizen voting, or government censorship, or Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg giving millions to election administrators through leftist nonprofits to boost Democrat turnout, leftists smeared them as “election deniers.” 

To rewind the clock even further, Democrats were the real “election deniers” when Trump first won office in 2016. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign hatched a plot to paint Trump as a “Russian asset,” hiring the firm Fusion GPS to fabricate a dossier peddled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It turned out that Steele’s sources lied extensively. Meanwhile, Clinton called Trump an “illegitimate president,” and Harris — then a senator — claimed that “Russia interfere[d] in the election of the president of the United States.” 

The amount of back-and-forth from Democrats on elections is enough to cause whiplash. When they lost in 2016, they denied the results. When then-candidate Joe Biden won in 2020, they claimed American elections were bulletproof, and anyone claiming otherwise must be an evil “election denier.” But after November’s election, which Trump won with both the Electoral College and popular vote, they again claimed he stole the election. Now, leftists are already planting seeds that Trump is planning to steal another.

This all goes to show that Democrats are not really concerned about election integrity — they are only concerned when they lose. 

https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/11/after-4-years-of-claiming-us-elections-are-most-secure-ever-leftists-again-accuse-trump-of-stealing-them/

Who Really Started a So-Called ‘Trade War,’ and Other Tariff Questions Never Asked in the Press

 Victor Davis Hanson -

Why, say, do most nations — other than America — prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?


1. President Trump’s so-called “trade war.”

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a “trade war.” But then what do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China, and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?

Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China, and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits? Do Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours — given we supposedly believe they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1-trillion trade deficit? Would the United States then “suffer” like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade wages had increased at the rate of stocks — and the stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen — Or what is happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted? Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices? Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6 percent per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Mr. Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts, and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the U.S. was running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, and instead spent only 1.37 percent, would Canada become concerned?

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the U.S., and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

8. Is the Trump agenda bad economic news?

Is the current panic over tariffs amplified by Mr. Trump’s other policies?

Is the sudden end of 10,000 illegal entries a day bothering Wall Street?

Are the media furious that the Red Sea is suddenly navigable again, the Houthis in Yemen curtailing their attacks?

Is the outrage due to the targeting of approximately $200 billion in budget cuts or plans to shave off $500 billion from the annual budget? Does the conundrum arise because Mr. Trump is sanctioning Iran, unapologetically supporting Israel, and seeking an end to the Ukraine War?

9. Was the Biden record preferable?

Should Mr. Trump try to match President Biden’s $7 trillion addition to the national debt? Should he return to allowing 12 million illegal aliens into the country? Was the 2021 Afghanistan pullout a good model? Is Wall Street worried that Mr. Trump may copy the Biden New Green Deal, his electric vehicle mandates, and more green regulations?

10. Why the negotiations and why now?

Why are 70 countries now wishing to negotiate tariffs with America either down to zero or reciprocally to the same rate as ours?

Is that a good thing? If so, why did our trade partners not wish to lower their trade barriers far earlier?

Did they suddenly and spontaneously decide they were acting unfairly and, on their own prompt, now want to make amends?

What’s next?

If there soon is a rush of nations to cut a deal with the U.S. and not to be left out of the American market, will there follow another hysterical Wall Street spasm — but not to sell, but instead to buy stocks at bargain prices?

https://www.nysun.com/article/who-really-started-a-so-called-trade-war-and-other-tariff-questions-never-asked-in-the-press