US job growth exploding, Stubborn Nancy Pelosi says it doesn’t matter

Written by: Jack Bibiano  –  Follow me on Twitter: @LibertyDragon1  –  Add me on Facebook: Juan Bibiano

          Sore loser Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, continue to destroy their party’s image and chance of winning the majority in the midterms by attacking successful policies implemented by President Trump. The newly-released job numbers were so good, as a matter of fact, that even NYTimes released an article named: “We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are”

          It should come as no surprise that spiteful democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would do everything in their power to try and downplay the accomplishments made by our president. Pelosi wants her dwindling base to continue believing all the propaganda she spews out on a daily basis. MS-13 gang members are our friends, and low unemployment doesn’t matter, right Pelosi? This economic boom adds to the embarrassment the Democratic party is feeling over trashing policies touted by Trump. Election year is going to be hard for them this year, with the midterm average distance getting closer than ever before, and some polls even having Republicans in the lead.

          The unemployment rate zoomed on down to an astounding  3.8% in May, another indication of the strong economy and tight labor market. This unemployment figure ties the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. Since that time, the only other time unemployment was this low was in April 2000. The unemployment numbers fell for all the right reasons. We’ve had a surge of people coming into the labor market, and we saw employers digging deeper into the pool of unemployed. The latest jobs report paints a very different picture from what Pelosi claims. Trump’s ‘Picasso” of an economy has opportunities for almost everyone. Black unemployment has fallen to an even lower record low, and the gap between black and white unemployment has never been as close as it is right now.

          Job openings are at a record high, and businesses are hungry for workers. The polices that Trump has implemented are helping the “forgotten ones of America” find jobs. The unemployment rate among African-Americans and Asian-Americans has been steadily declining. So has unemployment among low-education workers and even teenagers. Over the past year, the unemployment rate among 16- to 19-year-olds has fallen from 14.1% to 12.8%. Economists also believe that the unemployment rate can dip even further because there’s still slack in the job market. The employed percentage of America’s population stands at 60.4%, still significantly below pre-recession levels. Despite many in the media having questions about employers’ ability to find qualified workers, the economy added 223,000 jobs in May, which is better than any economists predicted.

The only real factor that needs more work is the modest rate in which wage has grown. Although wage growth has picked up in recent months, economists have been puzzled for a long time about why pay isn’t climbing faster. In a job market this tight, employers are typically forced to pay much more to attract workers. In 2000, the last time unemployment was this low, wages grew at a pace of about 4%. Inflation is a lot lower than in previous periods of growth, which some economists has linked to the modest growth in wages. The erosion of workers’ bargaining power has also played a role.Another proposed explanation may be that employers are turning to new workers, such as younger people and those just re-entering the job market, to fill up positions that were previously occupied by better-paid veteran workers who are either retiring or taking new positions elsewhere.However, economists are very confident that wages will keep climbing as competition for workers grows.

Dozens of companies have already announced pay hikes and more attractive benefits to lure workers. On Thursday, Costco said it would raise starting wages for US employees by $1, to a minimum of $14 an hour.

Costco said it would raise starting wages for US employees by $1, to a minimum of $14 an hour.

Regardless of what the lying, manipulative Democrats say, our economy is full speed ahead!

How the “Fight for 15” could lead to economic disaster

Written by: Jack Bibiano  –  Follow me on Twitter: @LibertyDragon1  –  Add me on Facebook: Juan Bibiano

          “When will these socialists learn about economics?” Many are assuredly asking this very moment, as another “Fight for 15” protest emerges. There is once again another push for $15 minimum wage in several different locations. The protest was organized by the “Fight for $15,” a campaign funded by the Service Employees International Union that has been pushing to lift wages, and has been pressuring McDonald’s since 2012. The real problems come with the fact that the Union wants government to raise minimum wages instead of allow the free market to determine what wages should be.

          There are many different reasons why increasing the minimum wage to $15 is a bad idea, but inflation is probably the most cited culprit. It only makes sense that when you make the cost of labor go up, that the price of products will also go up in order to cover costs. Increases in the cost of labor ultimately leaves the employer with two options for making up the difference: either an increase in the prices of the goods and services, or by firing employees who would otherwise earn less than the minimum wage due to inexperience.  The costs of living, especially housing, vary greatly in America from state to state and city to city. As many proponents of the movement claim the reason for raising the minimum wage is to provide a “living wage,” why would they want the minimum wage in low-cost areas to be the same as in high-cost areas? Raising the minimum wage may put money in the pockets of working poor people, but does so at the expense of business owners, coworkers, working hours and of consumers who would pay in the form of higher prices.

          California has passed a law to increase minimum wages and yet their economy is heavily lagging. Defenders of the minimum wage hike will point to the fact that California is the 5th largest economy in the world, but being the largest doesn’t necessarily mean you are performing the best. A recent study proves once just how harmful a $15 minimum wage can be. The study, conducted by the economic consulting group PFM, found that raising the minimum wage to $15/hour in Montgomery County, Maryland, would cost the county 47,000 jobs over a period of five years. That job loss is equivalent to $396.5 million in income. According to a 2017 University of Washington study, Seattle’s $13 minimum wage caused employee hours to drop by nine percent and lowered the average monthly income for low wage workers by $125.

          Although there seems to be many different studies that seem to contradict each other, the basic laws of economics dictate that when the cost of labor goes up, the cost of living will increase as well. A better way of increasing pay rates would be to slash taxes/regulations and give businesses more incentives to do so naturally. As we see in so many aspects of our society, from education to healthcare, things always get worse whenever government gets involved. It ends up costing more while at the same time becoming less robust.

Trump Reached Consensus With China to ‘Substantially Reduce’ Trade Deficit

By Stefan M. Kløvning

After a fierce critique by President Trump about being ‘ripped off’ by China for the massive trade deficit between the U.S. and China, a consensus was reached between the countries in negotiations on 17-18 May to ‘substantially reduce’ it. This has been a goal for Trump since his campaign, saying on the campaign trail, ‘China is responsible for nearly half of our entire trade deficit. They break the rules in every way imaginable.’ Reducing the deficit has therefore been called a ‘core campaign promise’ which he has now made a big step towards achieving.

According to, the United States had a $375,000 million trade deficit with China in goods in 2017, an increase from the average $350,000 million annually between 2013-2016. From the available data provided by the governmental website, there has never been such a large trade deficit between the countries before. In 1985, the first year provided data from, there was a trade deficit of $6 million dollars, and it has mostly only increased therefrom. The year later, for instance, it had increased by a factor of 277 to $1,664 million. This massive deficit, in the eyes of Trump, is undermining America as a global power and must be changed, which he has made efforts to do in these negotiations.

Many are critical to his focus on China, however. Joseph E. Stiglitz is one of them, an economist who received a Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and over 40 other honorary degrees for his work on economics. In 6. April he wrote a piece for Market Watch exclaiming,

Even if Trump had no economists advising him, he would have to realize that what matters is the multilateral trade deficit, not bilateral trade deficits with any one country. Reducing imports from China will not create jobs in the U.S.

Rather, it will increase prices for ordinary Americans and create jobs in Bangladesh, Vietnam, or any other country that steps in to replace the imports that previously came from China. In the few instances where manufacturing does return to the U.S., it will probably not create jobs in the old Rust Belt. Instead, the goods are likely to be produced by robots, which are as likely to be located in high-tech centers as elsewhere.

Trump wants China to reduce its bilateral trade surplus with the U.S. by $100 billion, which it could do by buying $100 billion worth of U.S. oil or gas. But whether China were to reduce its purchases from elsewhere or simply sell the U.S. oil or gas on to other places, there would be little if any effect on the U.S. or global economy.

Trump’s focus on the bilateral trade deficit is, frankly, silly.

This goes directly counter to the claim made in the press release of the negotiations the month after that ‘To meet the growing consumption needs of the Chinese people and the need for high-quality economic development, China will significantly increase purchases of United States goods and services. This will help support growth and employment in the United States.’

Moreover, the trade figures have also been accused of being misleading and based on outdated methods of data collection and calculation. Dominic Ng, the CEO of East West Bank in California, elaborates in a piece for China Business Review that

Statistics traditionally used to measure trade flows do not fully reflect the globalization of production chains. Currently, statistical agencies pin the entire trade value of a product to the last place it was exported from, even though the parts in the product come from many other countries. This method of data collection is based on the International Monetary Fund’s Balance of Payments Manual, which was first released in 1948, and never appropriately overhauled to reflect the new complexities of global value chains.

He mentions the classic example of the iPhone, where Apple takes care of the design, marketing and software creation in the United States; displays are manufactured in South Korea, Japan and elsewhere; processors come from the United States; touch ID sensors are made in Taiwan, and barometric pressure points come from Germany. Whereas the final assembly point is in China.

Because of this, even though the assembly and parts cost of the iPhone in China is only a tiny fraction of the total manufacturing cost, the entire import cost of the iPhone is attributed to China in U.S. trade statistics. These distortions add up—assuming 35 percent of the 215 million iPhones sold globally in 2016 were imported for sale in the United States at a cost of $230 each, the iPhone alone added $17 billion to the 2016 trade deficit with China, even though the vast majority of its inputs came from elsewhere.

He also highlighted the fact that in trade of services with China, the United States has a massive surplus, and that too much focus has been placed on the trade of goods. According to statistics by the United States International Trade Commission, U.S. exports of services to China had a total value of $47.9 billion in 2015 and only $15 billion in imports.

The comments made by Professor Stiglitz came two days after Trump wrote on Twitter

Economists don’t agree with Trump’s proposition that you cannot lose in such circumstances. This seems to have been Trump’s justification for instating tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, insisting that ‘a tariff on a small fraction of imported steel — the price of which is set globally — will suffice to address a genuine strategic threat.’ according to Stiglitz. French Economist Claude Fréderic Bastiat joked in 1848 about the absurdity of calling the balance of trade a representative of the country’s capital. ‘According to the theory of the balance of trade, France has a very simple means of doubling her capital at any moment. It is enough to pass [trade ships] through the Customhouse, and then pitch them into the sea. In this case, the exports will represent the amount of her (France’s) capital, the imports will be nil, and impossible as well, and we shall gain all that the sea swallows up.’ Afterward he exclaims in response to potential claims by the Protectionists of it only being a joke, ‘You do give utterance to them, however, and, what is more, you act upon them and impose them on your fellow-citizens to the utmost of your power (Bastiat 2011: 224-5).’ 170 years later, we see the same thing still being done and the same theory being espoused by the President of the United States – one of the most powerful men in the world.

What’s worse is that if the New York Times is correct in reporting that ‘Economists said the growing trade deficit stemmed largely from the strength of the United States economy, which helped American consumers afford more imported electronics, clothes, and appliances,’ also raises the question of whether an attempt to lower the deficit will have the opposite effect, i.e. weaken the U.S. economy.

The argument against protectionism – i.e. Trump’s tariffs, which was Trump’s primary means of lowering the deficit before these negotiations – is essentially that it puts the producer before the consumer. Companies in the untampered market have to deal with offering cheaper and higher quality goods and services than their competition according to the laws of supply and demand. If we use France and the United States as an example, say France had companies producing a good cheaper, of higher quantity and quality, and with a technological advantage over their competition in the United States. The protectionist position is that that good should be tariffed in the United States to the advantage of the American companies. The American consumer is the loser here, not the French producer. The consumers unnecessarily have to pay more for the French good of a higher quality than the American one, and the producers disregard the law of supply and demand through the aid of the government, getting the ability to avoid change and rather sticking with what they have produced hitherto. If the time and resources the American company put into this was rather used according to the laws of supply and demand, and tariffs where avoided, the American consumer would both have better access to the superior French good, and of whatever other the American producer decides to use the time, labour and resources on. Trade lifts the burden for the production of what is better and more efficiently produced in another country, and gives the other country an advantage in the possibility of using their time, resources and labour on something more urgent if they take the opportunity rather than picking up a fight about it. With respect to capital, tariffs also hurt the American industries dependent on foreign imports. This is highlighted by a report by Vox claiming that ‘Trump’s steel tariffs are hated by almost every US industry. Except steel,’ listing construction and architecture firms, U.S. car dealers, auto manufacturers, boat manufacturers, the beer industry, retailers, machinery manufacturers and U.S. business groups as examples. The steel and aluminium industries are, of course, satisfied, because they don’t need to bother following the laws of supply and demand, even though that’s their duty as producers.

Presidential Election To Take Place In Venezuela, But Opposition Has No Chance

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Venezuela, Politics – After five years of Nicolás Maduro of the United Socialist Party (PSUV) ruling Venezuela by decree, the Venezuelans will vote again on Sunday for a new presidential election. Maduro is running for reelection, however, and currently has about 20% of the country’s support, according to polls by Datanalisis. His main contestants in the race are Henri Falcón and Javier Bertucci. Henri Falcón, leader of anti-Chavista party Progressive Advance, is currently in the lead with about 33%, whereas Bertucci is running as an independent with only 18%.

Maduro has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t care about for the democratic process. Last year he disqualified his opposition from running, infuriating the main parties Justice First, Popular Will, and Democratic Action. According to Reuters, his administration ironically later accused the opposition of not running solely because ‘it knows it will lose,’ and claimed the elections to be completely transparent. Furthermore, in an election last year determining who would ‘rewrite the nation’s Constitution and rule Venezuela with virtually unlimited authority until they finish their work’ – of a list of government allies, including Maduro’s wife – the vote was altered by at least a million votes according to Smartmatic, the software company responsible for setting up voting systems for the country. There are countless instances of such corruption occurring in the country, for instance with anti-Maduro neighborhoods getting a shortage of polling stations in a gubernatorial election in October, and thus being ‘robbed of votes’ according to opposition activists.

This has made many Venezuelans lose trust in the political system in the country, causing much of the opposition to plan to boycott the vote. According to Gallup, 75% of Venezuelans believe that corruption is widespread in the Venezuelan government. Venezuela is also rated 18/100 on corruption by Transparency International (where 0 is most corrupt). The Venezuelans are in a difficult situation, especially those suffering from the failure of the Socialist policies implemented there, but they seem to have preferred Chavéz over Maduro, with 58% approving of Chavéz, whereas Maduro only got 34%. This is a rather strange statistic as Maduro inherited a country on top of the world misery index from Chavéz in 2013. He somehow managed to literally make the country seven times worse, moving it from 79.4 to 573.4 on the misery index and becoming the 57th country to hyperinflate at the end of 2016. That statistic seems also to have doubled for the measurement of 2017. According to the opposition-controlled National Assembly, they’ve now reached nearly 14,000% in annual inflation. Maduro tries to solve the problem by printing more money, taking his country down the same road as Zimbabwe (which reached an incredible 79.8 billion percent month-over-month inflation rate in mid-November 2008 and as a result stopped printing money in 2009). How does he still manage to get support? He puts the blame on American sanctions.

To which degree, then, has American sanctions influenced the Venezuelan economy? There are four main pieces of American legislation that has instated sanctions on Venezuela under the rule of Maduro, two of which came after Trump entered the White House. The Venezuelan Human Rights and Democracy Protection Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May 28, 2014, which directed sanctions against officials involved in the mistreatment of protesters in Venezuela. Former President Obama also declared Venezuela a threat to its national security in 2015, and issued an executive order ‘aimed at persons involved in or responsible for the erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to anti-government protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of anti-government protestors, as well as the significant public corruption by senior government officials in Venezuela.’ The executive order states that the property and interest in property of the people described are blocked from the United States, and prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging in transactions with such individuals or entities. describes the executive order as not targetting the people or economy of the country, but only those matching the criteria mentioned above. It might be said that the government and economy is so packed with corruption and authoritarianism that the sanctions had such an effect, but it would still take much to argue that these sanctions alone are the reasons for Venezuela’s score on the world misery index has increased by a factor of seven within three years. After Trump took over as President, he has gotten quite a bad name among the Maduro administration after saying that he’s ‘not going to rule out a military option’ in confronting them for their human rights violations and deepening crisis. He has also passed two executive orders instating additional sanctions against the country, which further restricted Venezuela’s ability to make transactions with the U.S. and its citizens. That’s what they get back after giving him half a million dollars for his inauguration!

An exclusive report by Reuters released on Friday also revealed that more Venezuelan soldiers have rebelled and deserted in the run-up to the vote. ‘Some soldiers are planning how to flee the country or fretting about how to feed their families on a minimum salary of just $2 a day,’ they conclude from interviews with serving and former soldiers. They also found that hundreds had left the Venezuelan army last year and that the number of soldiers detained for treason, rebellion, and desertion has risen three-and-a-half times from the four first months in 2017 to the same period this year.

Does Maduro’s opposition stand any chance? Henri Falcón may be in the lead in the polls, but as explained above, the election results in Venezuela often become – to a big degree – more what the administration wants them to be rather than what the voters demand. As a former soldier in the army, Falcón stands as the main opposition against Maduro, observing that ‘The same thing is happening in the barracks as is happening in the slums: people are going hungry; they are suffering an overwhelming crisis.’ Falcón was once a Chavista and a member of the PSUV but has later turned critical to both Chavéz and the party, causing him to resign in 2010. TeleSUR claimed indirectly, however, that his resignation might also be linked to his being investigated on corruption charges the year before. They don’t mention any specifics about the investigation, but it might be linked to the Maduro administration using similar tactics as Frederic 3. applied in Denmark-Norway in 1660, ousting the disloyal on corruption charges (as everyone in the administration is more or less corrupt), and placing in more loyal members. Falcón created Progressive Advanced in 2012, which has gotten allies both from the leftist Movement Towards Socialism, right-wing Venezuelan Ecological Movement and the Christian Democrats (COPEI). A lot of support from COPEI has, however, moved over to the evangelical candidate Bertucci for this election. There doesn’t seem to be much hope for Bertucci in the election according to the polls. Falcón fares far better there, but it would be rather naïve to think that the Maduro administration will be shy on their tactics in gaining victory in this key election.

4 Reasons Why Trump Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize


 By Asish Samson


Ever since Donald Trump got elected as the President of the United States, there have been a myriad of reactions from around the globe. While the people who voted for Trump hoped that Trump would be a change-maker, someone who would better their lives, many others feared the opposite. Democrats screamed that Trump would destroy America, start a nuclear war, collude with Russia and bring on the end of the world itself. Less than 2 years into his Presidency Trump, A celebrity billionaire with no previous experience has actually achieved a lot more than the usual career politician with decades of experience. Now, there are increasing calls to nominate him to the Nobel Peace Prize. While many oppose this, here are 4 reasons alone that prove Trump truly deserves it.


ISIS Decimated : During the Obama Administration ISIS grew from a relatively small terrorist organisation to a global menace. It occupied whole countries, imposed its own governments, attacked Europe, South Asia and was rapidly radicalising people through the internet. Thousands fled to join them and their strength increased day by day. Enter Trump. One of Trump’s key election promises was to get rid of ISIS including the famous phrase that he would “bomb the s***t out of them”. And that’s exactly what he did. Trump’s excellent choice for Secretary of Defense James “ Mad dog” Mattis and his administration pounced on ISIS and served them blow after blow. Eventually ISIS were driven out of their strongest holds in Syria, many insurgents fled, surrendered or were killed. Their hostages were released. Just a few days ago the Trump Administration captured 5 key remaining ISIS leaders. In just a year and a half ISIS changed from a strong terror unit with significant territory to a fringe element mostly in hiding. Even Trump’s harshest critics had to agree that Trump’s election was a deathblow to ISIS


Iran Nuclear Deal : The Obama Administrations Iran Nuclear deal was a controversial step. It lifted nuclear sanctions on the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. By allowing Iran to run nuclear facilities it increased the risk of a nuclear war while doing nothing to further American interests. Again, this too was one of Trump’s promises. He promised to rollback the infamous deal and he followed through on this promise. Even as Obama and John Kerry worked behind the scenes to undermine Trump against American interests Trump stubbornly pulled out.


Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula:   This is one of the biggest reasons for his nomination. While most world leaders ignored or avoided Kim Jong Un, Trump took him head on. He was committed to the denuclearization and worked towards it by first taking a hard stance against Kim and thereby forcing him to look for peace with South Korea. It is no coincidence that as soon as the peace talks between North and South Korean concluded, a South Korean delegation immediately briefed Trump about it. And the historic Trump-Kim Jong Un meet, the first of its kind is now slated to take place in Singapore in June. Kim Jong Un has already promised to give up nuclear tests and as cherry on top released American detainees held in North Korea before the talks.


Israel- Jerusalem Capital: Again, while most leaders avoided this conflict Trump took a definite stance on the issue. With the neutral and Two State solution not working because of the Palestinians, Trump declared that the USA recognised Jerusalem as its capital and announced that he would move the embassy there. The embassy move is slated to occur sometime this week. While many argue this is a controversial move, Trump set a precedent and some other countries followed him by declaring the same. By doing this Trump reinforced Israel’s sovereignty as a nation.



While these are just a few of Trump’s international achievements Trump achieved a lot more domestically. From taking unemployment to a 40 year low and the ever increasing economy and record breaking stock market along with tax cuts and the decrease of the number of people on food stamps, Trump is doing what no politician has done for his country and he is not yet halfway there.

Finland Universal Income is Stupid: Here’s Why!

After it widely circulated online that Finland had scrapped its plans for a basic universal income of £475 a month for 25-58 year olds, the Finnish government have doubled down and stated that they will be performing the 2 year trial. Initially the scheme will be tested on 2000 unemployed, with a view to extending the scheme to everyone in Finland regardless of if they are unemployed or working. As a safety net system for 2000 unemployed the trial may be viable at least in the short term, however to believe that a universal basic income can possibly work betrays a huge ignorance of economics, or even what money fundamentally is.

To see money correctly, one must think of it as a representation of a unit of value, or to put it more simply, an ‘I owe you” for the value of work that has been done. To make my example I will use a shop assistant who is paid a wage of £300 a week called Sarah. Sarah gets paid £300 a week because the market views her contribution to the value of £300 a week, however we must separate the actual idea of the money from the value. Sarah’s value will always remain the same in the marketplace regardless of how much money she is paid, unless she becomes significantly better at her job or there is a dire shortage of shop assistants, therefore her labours are viewed by the market to be of higher value.

minimum wage

To gain perspective, we now need to view the money that Sarah receives as tokens, the totality of which represents her weekly contributed value. If legislation is passed that gives Sarah an extra £100 a  week, then the amount of tokens she receives is completely out of sync with the value that she provides, therefore the market will adjust, giving each token (or £1) less value in terms of buying power  until her new amount of tokens represents the total value of her work.  Of course isolated cases of this can be overlooked by the market as a minor blip, as we all know someone who is overpaid or simply doesn’t deserve what they charge, however when this is scaled up then the market its self HAS to react.

The reaction of the market to this kind of phenomena is always the same and takes the form of hyper inflation, in which the value representation of each token in reduced. The consequences of this are incredibly dire because not only does it lower the value of all the new tokens that are dished out, but also lowers the value of the old ones, which act as a buffer against the new currency dropping as severely as it should do. To summarise my point, welfare systems such as universal basic income and minimum wage not only do not make a difference in buying power per week, but actually rob people of the work that they have already done by devaluing savings.

The Globalist gift that keeps giving

Welfare programmes and minimum wage are the gift that keeps giving for the globalist elite because they are largely immune to it, thus cementing their power. Big corporations are hardly effected by inflation because they have the means to move value out of the fiat system and place large value reserves into precious metals and indices that are not effected by hyper inflation at all. To make things simple, if I was to buy gold for £1000 and a day later Sterling was worth half in terms of value, then my gold would still have the value that I bought it for yesterday, therefore would be worth £2000. This in conjunction with over regulation of the private sector and large socialist governments give corporations the ability to garner huge amounts of power and influence while destroying all competition.

In summary, now you know all of this you can see these welfare projects for the scams and stealth taxes that they really are and be miserable like me! On the bright side, crypto currencies such as bitcoin cash may yet garner enough power to reverse this trend and stop governments from messing up the market… one can only hope


By Christian Finch:   Gab Facebook Minds

Nationalism a side effect of a neglected majority

By Borislav Ignatov

Philosophy → Ideology based on philosophy → Policies  based on ideology→ Political party leading by example → Way of life → Consequences that come with that way of life.

Politics should be handled with reason and evidence. However, timing is everything with political events can have a massive impact on the political views of the people, here are some examples: New Year 2015 Cologne or this case, Sweden cases ( 1, 2, 3), Italy cases ( 1, 2, 3) UK cases ( 1, 2, 3), Self defense cases ( 1, 2, 3), France cases (1, 2 → multiple examples), even Canada is beginning to feel the consequences of mass immigration due to their kind-hearted nature and progressive nature (1 & 2).

There are only a few of many cases around Europe, and still there is cases that remain unreported, as the mainstream media sees this as an attack on the narrative which they are trying to push. This has led to increasing opposition for the EU, through the rise of nationalist parties such as: National Front (France), Five star movement (Italy), AfD (Germany), National Democrats (Sweden).

Such cases can easily infuriate people and make them harbour extremist views, on the other hand of the spectrum people can also be too accepting, allowing their kindness to bring about their own demise through the disguise of ethical decisions. Helping people is the right thing to do, but at mass immigration is unsustainable if there is no future plan to move back these displaced individuals and even then what happens if they do not want to leave?

In mainstream media nationalistic views are often said to be alt-right, or they are racist, xenophobic, fascists, bigots and the list goes on. However, it is important to understand why people are called those names and why they hold the believes they do. First of all it is important to establish the fact that mass immigration is not good for the asylum seekers or the people/country responsible for harbouring these individuals.

Through mass immigration there is a larger amount of competition when it comes to finding jobs (more competition lowers wages), and people need to eat. Therefore, immigrants whom have not been fully or if at all integrated into these foreign countries that they seek asylum,  may result to a life of crime due to a lack of education, language barrier or even personal choice.

It is difficult to integrate massive amount of people without creating areas that mostly populated by migrants, as a consequence there is no incentive to learn the language, no incentive to accept cultural differences and no incentive for a better life style. Education is a crucial part of any society, and integrating people requires re-education as the only law some of these refugees know, is the law taught in the Quran which in itself goes against the laws of most developed countries.

In addition, can western countries truly afford to house and support all the refugees they are taking, it is simply a ticking time bomb as some countries such as England, the government struggles to look after its own people. By putting the needs of those abroad before the tax contributing citizens, the UK government has shown how their priorities are clearly not in order.

People are tired of being neglected because they represent the majority of the population. People are tired of the religious persecution that comes with harbouring muslim refugees. People are tired of being treated like second class citizens in their own country.

abu hamza29433222_1663847930347138_2499346571687100416_n

One massive problem the EU refuses to acknowledge is refugees and asylum seekers lying about their age and other details in order to be granted asylum. We cannot allow for the people we attempt to help, to allow to divide us and ruin our way of life. When someone goes to the UAE they are expected to abide by their strict if questionable rules, but yet in the western world its different.

Sharia courts and councils have found their way into the UK , and they are a way of avoiding the British justice system, and by law they should be illegal according to the Bill of Rights Act 1689.


Not all muslims are bad of course, but the silent muslim community that disagrees with what is going needs to stand up.

America and Qatar Shake on It






by: William Prophett

April, 18 2018


In a digital Special Report by the U.S. Department of Defense this morning, Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana W. White provided a readout of the meeting between Mattis and Al-Attiyah.

Khalid is the Minister of State for Defense Affairs of Qatar, a key character in the war on ideological violence, and has held the position since 2016.  From June 2013 to January 2016, he was Minister of Foreign Affairs.Khalid_bin_Mohammad_Al_Attiyah_2017

Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana W. White ‘has a Bachelor of Arts in East Asian Languages and Civilization from the University of Chicago. She studied at Capital University of Economics and Business in Beijing and Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. She speaks Mandarin Chinese and French. She is the recipient of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service and an MIT Seminar XXI National Security Fellow.’  White has been an irreplaceable partner in the war on biological warfare. – PGP, DoD

General Mattis is self-explanatory, and the readout of his meeting with Al-Attiyah is as follows;

April 18, 2018

Readout of Meeting between Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis and Doctor Khalid Bin Mohammed Al-Attiyah, Minister of State for Defense Affairs, Qatar

Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana W. White provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis welcomed Qatar Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Dr. Khalid Al Attiyah to the Pentagon to reaffirm the strategic security partnership between the U.S. and Qatar.

Secretary Mattis and Dr. Khalid Al Attiyah discussed mutual security interests, including the campaign to defeat ISIS, support for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and improvements to Al Udeid Air Force Base.

The two leaders affirmed their shared commitment to continued security cooperation. –USFG

As usual, the report is brief and to the point.  Mattis expressed good faith and welcome the Deputy Prime Minister of Defense Affairs for Qatar.  Al Attiyah and he agreed on Pentagon policy in regards to their security agreement with the US, the two had a brief conversation and the two were on their way.  There is nothing unusual about this meeting, with the exception of its brevity.  .Kim_Yo-jong_at_Blue_House

Here’s to hoping the liberals see this as well, and maybe North Korea.  Kim Jong Un probably just hasn’t heard the song ‘No Flex Zone,’ by Rae Sremmurd,’ yet.  Maybe Kim Yo Jong or Dennis Rodman can point him in the right direction.


By the way, if anyone is interested in the training photos etc you can see them all at;


Daily Domestic – Feds Rally, Renew Quintero Cartel Indictment

By: William Prophett

April 17, 2018

Today, the FBI delivered an extremely hopeful group of statements. The agency will now be taking an internal look on some of its largest issues, and publishing them! Some of the included categories are focused on protection of data for patients, consumers and enterprise. Fairness in Law Enforcement, and Use of Force Investigations are also topics that the FBI brought up in terms of some of the blind problems that naturally come with this sort of work. Spiritual Wellness is another topic that is being looked at closely and fairly. Agents are even posting Storytelling Blogs describing some of the most emotional situations and circumstances you can probably imagine.

Many Americans will view this as a cop-out, but along with probably more people I tend to believe what they publish. Do you personally know of many organizations that are actually concerned for the spiritual welfare of their employees, clients and customers? How about fairness in how the organization decides to exercise its rights? As a matter of fact, I can’t name one. Not even a hospital, and that is terrifying to me.

Today on the foreign front, the US and UN recognized government of Yemen are operating as a coalition to counter terrorism in the region. This is phenomenal news, and indicates that the President’s plans to further peace in the world are continuing to expand to the far reaches of the globe. This means hope, food, water, and protection for millions of people who are the proverbial sitting ducks. However, this comes in response to Iran using Yemen as a ‘laboratory’ of criminal and terrorist activities and refusing to talk peace. You may find it interesting that one Robert S. Karem, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs still believes that a political option is the only one. I come from the thought-pattern that nothing can stop the United States Military.

In Mr. Karem’s defense, he did say, ‘”We need a stable, inclusive government in Yemen to provide security to the Yemeni people and to reduce and ultimately eliminate terrorist safe havens that are being used by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — AQAP — and ISIS in Yemen.’ This is probably a well established opinion, but don’t think putting the cart before the horse every really works. We should be sweeping through these issues with great efficiency in 2018, and the fact that we are not is why the American public is demanding reform.

Also among new information, a Las Vegas man was sentenced to over 24 years in prison for receipt, possession, and the advertisement of child pornography. The FBI discovered Scott James Alva, 45, during an investigation of online peer-to-peer networks that are connected with federal child exploitation cases. In addition to 30,000 commercial files of exploited children, he had a personal laptop with thousands of files including very young children and infants. I consider these types of crimes to be somewhat connected to this war on ideological violence, and as we receive more updates you’ll get them as well.

The largest known story of the day is one of the FBI vs the Cartel, once again in this seemingly endless war on the minds and lives of American and Mexican populations. An unsealed indictment today, exposed one Rafael Caro Quintero as a member of Caro Quintero drug trafficking organization leadership, a faction of the Mexican organized crime syndicate known as the Sinaloa Cartel. Mr. Quintero is on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List as of Today. This is a DEA/ FBI Joint Investigation, and was charged out of the Great State of New Yoyk by Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and James J. Hunt, Special Agent-in-Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), New York Division. I for one am very proud of this tag team. Great job people.

Politics, a modern ethical nightmare

By Borislav Ignatov

With the recent bombings in Syria, an ideological divide has become even more apparent, between logical and impulsive thinking. Quick, decisive action is required in a time of great distress, which hopefully we can all agree on, nonetheless reason should still be provided for why the actions occurred in the first place, along with solid evidence. Legal or not, such actions indicate a clear abuse of power.Whatever way one looks at the middle East, it can clearly be seen as a humanitarian disaster which has led to the deaths of many individuals most of whom are innocent civilians, estimated death toll is over 500,000.

It is already public knowledge how various groups of people have been supplied with resources and weapons in Syria and the surrounding area, some of which have gone to the terrorists. So why does the UK intervene when they clearly do not know who to support, or why does the UK not stop with its funding to Syria considering the UK is facing disasters of its own, and the solutions are hindered by a lack of funding (same can also be said for the USA and France).

Therefore, politicians should be answerable to the general public and the intelligence of the people should not be undermined. After an alleged chemical attack, Theresa May had decided that she is above the UN council and international law, after all it is not as if Syria has been chemically attacked before by insurgents.

At this point the culprit is not the biggest issue, but the solution to the issue, as such a response would only destabilizes the country more and considering the size of Syria (71,500 sq miles, smaller than the UK) it seems outrageous to have multiple countries bomb such a small place because of a chemical attack. Surely it seems more reasonable for the rebels to attack using chemical weapons, as the US was retreating as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Nevertheless, this could be a false flag to increase the duration of US military presence and in order to impose further sanctions on to Russia, by giving people more reasons to hate Russia. The social consequence of such events lead to a divide in the people, as some believe what they are told by the MSM while others make an attempt to piece together the whole situation.

Disasters such as this lead to refugee scenarios, which are economically and socially damaging for Europe, but beneficial for the globalist agenda as then Europe becomes a war front. Not to mention such an event also distracts people from problems much closer to home.

Russia has evidence to disprove the British narrative which could be one of the reasons for the west to bomb Syria, in an attempt to remove any evidence. Of course whatever the motive was, it surely was not productive as only after the bombing run, has the  OPCW been granted access to Douma.

Russia and America clearly do not get along very well in Syria but Syria should be used as a battleground to wage personal wars. Both countries appear to have the same goal in mind, but clearly there is interest beyond our knowledge. Russia has previously helped Syria regain some of their main infrastructure, and has economically benefitted. Therefore it is clear to see that Russia may interested in gaining natural resources, but in supporting the Assad regime and they gain a portion of the natural resources anyway . Whilst America has been known to go against the regime and has established multiple military bases around the country, thus they are in a very good strategic position as they have plenty of access to natural resources and very little opposition that can match their power.

The Syrian regime does not pose any national security concerns and the threat of ISIS is decreasing. National security concerns should be surrounded by ideological warfare, that has spread across the world, peace can be achieved in different ways but if a war starts in the name of peace, then the opposite result is achieved.

It would be of great help if governments were more transparent, as they work for the people and not against them. Information is kept classified in the name of national security, not because it would be a threaten the nation, but because it exposes the hypocritical sides of the government and the extents they are willing to go to achieve their goals.

Actions should be based on morales, and not the other way round, the reason I think that is because we have seen the extents ISIS are willing to go to,  and they do not answer to no one but God. In a war the means justify the end, at least to some people.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton Appointed National Security Advisor

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Washington, Politics – Former UN Ambassador John Bolton was appointed as the new national security advisor by President Donald Trump on Thursday, replacing H.R. McMaster, who has served Trump in the position since February 2017.

Mr. Bolton is also said to have been considered for Secretary of State in the end of 2016, but was eliminated from the running because Trump didn’t like his mustache. ‘Donald was not going to like that mustache. I can’t think of anyone that’s really close to Donald that has a beard that he likes,’ a Trump associate told the Washington Post.

That objection seems now to have been resolved, perhaps due to John Bolton having a similar nationalist attitude to Trump, having a strong focus on putting America first both economically and politically, for instance regarding the threat of trade war and shutting off the nuclear deal with Iran. In 2000, he published an essay called ‘Should We Take Global Governance Seriously,’ where he categorized the American people into two groups: Americanists and Globalists. He claims that the latter is getting increasing control in American politics, and goes on to criticize nearly every single multinational convention.

The decision to appoint him has turned out to be quite controversial. According to Politico, Bolton is a ‘unilateralist ideologue who has spent his career spitting in the face of global cooperation.’ He has also been called ‘one of the most radically hawkish voices in American foreign policy,’ having proposed a first-strike military procedure on both North-Korea and Iran, and has also been accused of manipulating U.S. intelligence to favor his own ideological policies. One of the accussations come from congressional sources claiming that Bolton had ‘sought to punish two State Department officials for disagreeing with him on nonproliferation issues.’ Even during his time as an ambassador for the UN, he publically despised international law, telling the World Federalist Organization that ‘There’s no such thing as the UN. If the U.N. Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit difference,’ and later declared that

It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States.

He has been severely criticized for what he has done in the past, and many are concerned he will continue this behavior as a National Security Advisor. One notable critique is by Senator Bernie Sanders, who spoke strongly against his interventionist ideology:

Another critic is Professor Richard Gowan of Columbia University, who has studies Bolton’s career. He claims that Bolton ‘hates the State Department,’ ‘portrays US diplomats as closet Democrat appeasers,’ and ‘raised hell at the UN.’

Vox has called Bolton ‘the Fox News-ification of foreign policy,’ as he became an influential figure and writer on the newssite following his resignation as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in December 2016. He became so popular there, they exclaim, that he considered running for president in 2012 and 2016.

How will John Bolton do as a national security advisor forward? His history provides some clues, and suggests that the war-mongering, interventionist and protectionistic ideology of Bolton will be anything but a positive influence on U.S. foreign policy and the president. Both libertarians and left-wingers seem to think so. Christopher Preble, the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute said that ‘I operate on the assumption that John Bolton should be kept as far away from the levers of foreign policy as possible. I think I would rest easy if he was dog catcher in Stone Mountain, Georgia. But maybe not.’ Mieke Eoyong, the vice president for foreign policy at the center-left think tank Third Way, agrees, exclaiming that ‘Bolton is so much of an ideologue, that I don’t think he would accurately portray consequences [of policy options] to the president.’ She added that ‘The United States has not hit rock bottom in our international relations,’ but with Bolton as National Security Advisor, ‘we could go lower.’


What do we know about the Omnibus spending bill?


By Stefan M. Kløvning

Washington, Politics – The Omnibus spending bill is a 2,232 pages long bill concerning the spending of about $1.3 trillion signed by President Donald J. Trump on Friday afternoon after being first released on Wednesday. Trump complained to reporters about the lack of time to go through the document, saying ‘you tell me, who can read that quickly.’ He even suggested vetoing the bill the same day he signed the bill, but later asserted that he signed it as a matter of national security, and that he would ‘never sign another bill like this again.’ The Hill reported that this was likely because ‘the vote on these bills is often rushed, passing only 24 or 36 hours after the text is released, and inevitably, Members are faced with a government shutdown if the omnibus doesn’t pass.’ The document can be read in its entirety here.

What the bill included was the result of a quarrel between the Democrats and the Republicans. The bill takes up issues such as federal spending on defense and domestic programs over the next year, promising a $500 billion budget on the issue, but exactly what the money should go to is quite varied throughout the bill. The Republicans wanted mainly to increase funding to the millitary, while the Democrats sought for support to social programs, such as Planned Parenthood, opioid addiction and election security. The GOP leaders have spoken little about what’s in the bill, and rather talked about their political priorities. This is because they want the bill to ‘pass in the dark.’ With little time to analyze the bill, the more likely it is to be passed. Why would they want to do this? Because they want to lose votes from the allegedly ‘far-right’ Freedom Caucus to avoid association, according to Washington Post Journalist Sarah Binder. They wanted to rush the bill through so that their partisan base wouldn’t notice the win for the Democrats and the prevention of several parts of the Trump administration’s agenda.

They have definitely succeeded in losing voters on that side, but it seems to have gone further then they might have expected. President Trump has for instance lost a long-time supporter in the best selling political author Ann Coulter – one of whose books is called ‘In Trump We Trust’ – who is now opining that Trump should be impeached:

She seems to hold this opinion due to the bill restricting funding to Trump’s promised border wall, and also hinders progress on the other promises from his 70-point-list on pro-American immigration reforms.

Another critic is President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Dan Stein, who exclaimed that ‘there are no immigration-related provisions in the omnibus that are consistent with what President Trump and congressional Republicans told the American people they would do when they were sent to Washington.’

Senator Rand Paul made a sarcastic remark about the bill on Twitter:

The chairman of the Freedom Caucus Mark Meadows said he had been staying up late at night to try to complete reading the bill, but despite skimming and speed-reading, he didn’t make it past 800 pages. He informs that, ‘I don’t know that anybody could have read more than I read. So to ask for us to vote on a $1.3 trillion bill, having only read one-third of it, is not the process that most of us would support.’

Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker spoke of the bill as the most ‘grotesque’ piece of legislation he can remember to have seen in his two terms in the Senate, asserting that it will add $2 trillion in deficits over the next ten years. He slammed both the 25 Republicans and the 39 Democrats supporting the bill, saying that ‘not only do I question the soul of my own party. I question the soul of the other party.’ He warned that for now, ‘the American people do not care about this issue because we’re living fat and happy today and because the crisis has not yet occurred,’ but as time goes on, ‘the American people are going to be very unhappy with our lack of responsibility.’

The Kansas City Star specifically attacked the Congress on the issue, saying that ‘there are 12 appropriations measures introduced each year. This Congress didn’t pass a single one. Instead, a half-year’s worth of spending is crammed into a secretly-negotiated, 2,200-page monstrosity offered as a take-it-or-leave it deal.’ The newspaper also added some more specific critique by watchdog group Common Cause, which asserted that ‘the combination of tax cuts and spending increases will likely lead to the return of trillion-dollar deficits in the next fiscal year and beyond.’

How will this play out for President Trump and the Republicans in Congress? It seems potent to cause significant damage on their credibility – for reasons argued above – for instance with Trump losing long-time supporters such as Ann Coulter for going against his promises by signing the bill. Some of his supporters may forgive him due to the hurry of the bill, and that it was a difficult situation for the entire Congress, but we shouldn’t be too optimistic about it. The more missteps done, the less support Trump – and the Republicans in general – should expect to get in the mid-term election and when running for President again in 2020.


Trump’s Threat to EU for Trade War is a Betrayal to his Campaign and Voters

By Stefan M. Kløvning

International Economics Heated words has recently been exchanged between President Donald Trump and EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, where a trade war between the European Union and the United States has seemingly been proposed.  

The conflict is essentially this: (1) Trump announces plans for applying tariffs on European steel and aluminium to support American businesses; (2) Juncker says EU will respond by putting tariffs on American industries; (3) Trump exclaims that if they respond in that manner, a tax will also be put on imports of cars from Europe.  

Trump has taken note of the US’ massive trade deficit of $800 billions and asserted in a tweet on Saturday that he seeks to renegotiate current trade deals and policies, which are “very stupid,” according to him.  

Republicans in Congress have been split on the issue, and as free trade is a crucial principle for many of them, they have attempted to convince him to go back on his decision, as it would damage the economy and nullify the recent growth which has been made there. It also splits his voter base, with free market and free trade advocates on the one hand, and business leaders on the other. “Made in America,” was his slogan during a week in July last year where he visited and celebrated American industries, but in his tax plan he strongly supported a reduction in taxes. These two standpoints appears to clash in Trump’s recent decision. 

The real problem with Trump’s Protectionist decision here is that it serves against its cause. It damages the American economy and industry. This is illustrated clearly in the drop in Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) following his statement, showing what damage an introduction to tariffs on foreign steel and aluminium will have on the economy. The Dow is measured from how well 30 large state-controlled businesses do during a regular trading session in the stock market. Screen_Shot_2018_03_02_at_10.43.59_AM.png[Image 1]

Trade groups and businesses have strongly opposed Trump’s decision as many American businesses are dependent on foreign steel and aluminium for their products. Beer Brewing company Miller Coors are one of these companies, and has explained their opposition on Twitter.

We are disappointed with President Trump’s announcement of a 10% tariff on aluminum. While we won’t know the details for a week, the Department of Defense recently reported that aluminum does not cause any national security issues. Like most brewers, we are selling an increasing amount of our beers in aluminum cans, and this action will cause aluminum prices to rise. It is likely to lead to job losses across the beer industry. We buy as much domestic can sheet aluminum as is available, however, there simply isn’t enough supply to satisfy the demands of American beverage makers like us. American workers and American consumers will suffer as a result of this misguided tariff.

Trump, however, has treated the backlash with indifference, opining “We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!” In another tweet he said that the decision will actually help America, and that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” As an example he proposed that “when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”

This ought to make any Libertarian outraged to hear from a president. With all his previous apparent advocacy for Libertarian principles, it now appears he has zero knowledge of political economy, despite having owned several companies himself. We see the fallacy in clear light by reading the outcomes already mentioned of the stock market and businesses. Exchange is of equal benefit to the two parties if both have negotiated and agreed with a price, it is so also internationally.

Claude Frédéric Bastiat wrote strongly against Protectionism back in the middle of the 19th century, where he exposed where this attitude arises, and disputed it thusly. Though about 170 years has passed since his writings, this seems to be the time to take a break for a moment and look back to wisdom from the past.

Support for Protectionism is deduced from the idea that economic value arises from labour. Bastiat denounces this fallacy by pointing to the fact that the conditions of labour is differently in different places, most notably in respect to climate with some fruits being easier to cultivate some places than others, but also with the quality of the soil. This also applies equally to metals like steel and aluminium being dug out from the ground. Some places they are more accessible and abundant than other places, and thus with some countries thereby gaining a larger supply, they can sell them for cheaper, following the laws of supply and demand. Protectionism, in its essence, protects the producer at the expense of the consumer. What is seen is the American steel- and aluminium providers who sell the metals for equally or less than the foreign ones. What is not seen, or seen less clearly, is the amount the consumer could save by the tariff abstaining, and the taxpayer’s money serving a cause which is doomed to rupture.

How this works in practice, we may let Americans companies describe for themselves. Vox made a list of statements different American industries had of Trump’s decision, which is too long to copy word-for-word, but it essentially saw US car dealers, auto manufacturers, boat manufacturers, the beer industry, retailers, machinery manufacturers and US business groups all oppose the decision, saying it will damage their companies and industries. The steel- and aluminium producers, however, are – as we would expect – in favor.

Remember what Bastiat said of that which is seen and that which is not seen in the political economy? Should we ignore all the other ones for the sake of the steel- and aluminium producers getting advantage over the ones doing a more efficient and better job, and the American manufacturers and businesses dependent on import of these materials? Bastiat makes clear that it isn’t the labour which produces value, but the exchange, and thus the result matters. We can’t keep throwing obstacles in the way of other businesses for the sake of “our’s” to be saved. It is not sustainable for the consumer and it is not sustainable for the economy, but only for the few producers which happen to gain advantage. Trade wars are good and easy to win, according to Trump, but, as with any war, while they may be easy to win and of advantage to a few people, it doesn’t mean that everyone else won’t end up in misery as a result.


Justin Trudeau Cries New Tariffs are ‘Unacceptable’

Steven E. White

On Thursday, the 1st of March, Trump passed a tariff that will take effect on Monday, the 5th of March. He placed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum, desiring to boost American manufacturers rather than continue to trade ‘unfairly.’ The European Union and Canada have expressed sharp opposition to the tariffs, as they are the largest suppliers of steel and aluminum to the U.S; even though it is not completely clear that the tariffs will affect them, as of yet. Still, many assume so.


Jean-Claude Juncker spoke in a statement on the tariffs, “We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk.” The problem here, though, is that Trump was forced to take action on some front, regarding trade with Europe; as the overall trade deficit with them was around 173 billion at the end of 2017. Since 2014, the deficit hasn’t dropped below 160 billion. Clearly, trade with Europe has been unfair and one-sided. Like I’ve stated, action needed to be taken on some front, and steel and aluminum were good choices, as they are huge industries coming out of Europe. Though it is unclear and not for sure who exactly the laws will affect, there is large speculation that these two countries will, at the least, be affected by the tariffs.


Justin Trudeau, the current, and 23rd, Prime Minister of Canada, stated in a news conference, “Any disruption to this integrated market would be significant and serious. But that is why we were impressing upon the American administration the unacceptable nature of these proposals that are going to hurt them every bit as much as they are going to hurt us, and we are confident we’re going to continue to be able to defend Canadian industry.” Justin plans to engage with U.S. officials on the issue, though there is much doubt that Trump will give any leeway in the matter. The United States had a trade deficit of 17 billion at the end of 2017, with Canada. Much like Europe, though not as extreme, trade with Canada has been unfair and one-sided.


World leaders cry ‘unfair!’ when Trump places tariffs on their goods, while they hypocritically taunt the U.S. with similar tariffs that they, themselves, would cry about, should the positions switch. Trump has stated, time and again, that he merely wants ‘reciprocal’ trade; meaning fair, and equal trade. The Australian Trade Minister, Steven Ciobo, stated on Friday, in an interview, “This announcement is disappointing. An imposition of a tariff like this will do nothing other than distort trade, and ultimately…. will lead to a loss of jobs.”


From the looks of it, the only jobs that may be lost, are those in other nations. Jobs in the U.S. should be created, now that the steel and aluminum industries have been given an edge. Should Trump worry about jobs in other countries…. Or should he worry about America, only; its jobs and the horrendous trade deficit it has at the end of each year? He’s always stated that he would put “America first,” and he’s doing just that. Of course, the job creation and loss is largely speculation, for now. We will see what happens after the tariffs take effect for a little while.

Trump Promises ‘Reciprocal’ Trade With an Ensuing Trade War

Steven E. White

Trump continues to balance out the United States trade deficit, calling for an aggressive trade war that he hopes will make trading fair and ‘reciprocal’. Many speculate what this war could mean for them, and the U.S. but Trump claims the war will help American workers and industries to prosper. Though it’s being called a ‘war’, it is more of a strategic business deal to save the United States’ resources.


Trump took to Twitter on Saturday, March 3, “The United States has an $800 Billion Dollar Yearly Trade Deficit because of our “very stupid” trade deals and policies. Our jobs and wealth are being given to other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. They laugh at what fools our leaders have been. No more!” The exact numeral trade deficit is 796.149 billion dollars. Trump has brought one of his main focuses on aluminum and steel, stating on Twitter, “We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!”


Of that 800 billion, the single trade deficit with China is 375 billion. We are currently losing billions of dollars, because of unfair trade with China, each month. Even though Trump is imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum; metals only made about 5% of the imports from China, according to the world bank data. If Trump wanted to really go after China, he’d go place tariffs on incoming electronics, which made up 48% of our imports from them. Who knows what Trump will do. He has yet to show his hand in the ensuing trade war.


As far as trading with the E.U; a major imbalance is the trade in cars. European made cars have little problem pouring into the states, whereas massive tariffs have been placed on U.S. cars, making it nearly impossible to sell American-made cars there. Trump, again, took to Twitter, “If the E.U. wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on U.S. companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S. They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!”


He continues, “When a country Taxes our products coming in at, say, 50%, and we Tax the same product coming into our country at ZERO, not fair or smart. We will soon be starting RECIPROCAL TAXES so that we will charge the same thing as they charge us. $800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!” There’s that word again, ‘Reciprocal’ that he says we’re going to hear “over and over again” in the coming future. It seems he simply wants fair trade with the nations of the world, but to what extent is Trump willing to go in this ‘war’ of goods? Will he cut ties with countries who won’t trade fairly, as he states on twitter, “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”

Environment Secretary threatens Water Companies with renationalisation unless they clean up their act

[Image: Matt Cardy/Getty Images]

By Stefan M. Kløvning

UK Economics – Feeling injustice to reign over the monopoly plaguing the water industry in the British Isles these days, Environment Secretary Michael Gove now warns water companies that calls for renationalisation will increase unless they clean up their act. “They have,” says Mr. Gove, “shielded themselves from scrutiny, hidden behind complex financial structures, avoided paying taxes, have rewarded the already well-off, kept charges higher than they needed to be and allowed leaks, pollution and other failures to persist for far too long.” 


Secretary Gove asserted in a talk for Water UK City Conference on Thursday that he opposes bringing the industry back under state ownership, having been privatized since 1989 – as one of Thatcher’s many privatization achievements – but that public opinion would likely turn increasingly in favour of doing so unless the companies change their behaviour. He thinks the continuity of the procrastination of the water industries is of disadvantage to the British consumer, but would be to the advantage of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party’s support of renationalising parts of the private sector.  


The secretary spoke particularly against the chief executives of United Utilities, Severn Trent and Anglian Water, who all received seven-digit salaries and earned a total of £18.1 billion between 2007 and 2016 but had paid no corporate tax during this decade. He also brought attention to the environmental damages caused by the “prevarication and procrastination, ducking and diving and dragging of feet” of the water companies, exclaiming that it is unacceptable that three billion litres of water is leaked every day. He proposed a greater percentage of their profits to be invested into building the required infrastructure for preventing this from occurring. The leaks have reduced about a third from the ’90s but have not changed much the last 15 years.  


Severn Trent’s chief executive Liv Gardfield argues against nationalisation, pointing to the industry’s investment of £150 billion and its customer service since privatization 25 years ago. She thinks this investment would not have been possible under State control of the industry.  


There are luckily still companies willing to act on the issue, however. Ofwat, the economic regulator of the water sector in England and Wales, has set its target to reduce leaks by at least 15%, but Yorkshire Water hopes to reduce as much as 40% by 2025. Yorkshire Water experiences around 5,500 leaks a year, and it costs an average of £19,000 for them per day to investigate and repair the damages.


The chief executive of Water UK, Michael Roberts, said the industry had a “legitimate challenge” and had to act in the best interest of the public. He added that it is no longer a viable option to abstain from acting on the issue.  


The regulation boss at Yorkshire Waters, Liz Barber, explains that

What this has done is really bring back into focus the competitive regulation that has been missing in recent years. Customers will be able to compare their bill and their water company performance in a much clearer, more comparable way. I think that’s a good thing for customer service, and it will push us to be more ambitious and more innovative. We’ll be incentivised to do very well. This is a great opportunity for us, as a sector, to wake up.