Protests regarding law that protects Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu from prosecution for corruption

By Penny Hoffmann

Outside a Tel Aviv museum, a pro-democracy protest was held by Israeli opposition leaders.

This protest opposed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent re-election for his fifth term and reportedly accused him of desiring to implement legislation that protects him from prosecution for corruption.

Opposition parties stated that Netanyahu can not continue to be Israel’s prime minister if he is charged for fraud and bribery after he received allegations of corruption.

According to NBC News, on the 28th of February 2019, Netanyahu rejected allegations of corruption:

“The left applied bullish pressure, relentless, i would even say inhuman, on the attorney general in order to make him say that he is considering indicting me pending a hearing even though it’s clear there is nothing, in order to influence the elections, even though he knows this house of cards will collapse after the elections.

“Since the attorney general is just a human, the pressure of the left worked.

“I tell you the citizens of Israel, this house of cards will collapse.

“I am absolutely certain. I am certain of it 4,000 percent.

“I plan on serving you and the state as prime minister for many years.”

According to RT, “He stands accused of possible crimes against humanity because a UN independent commission has ruled that his UK armed soldiers used live ammunition to fire on 6,000 unarmed protesters without justification”.

In the UN commission of inquiry into 2018 protests, Chair Santiago Canton stated that “the commission has found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Security Forces committed serious violations of human rights of international humanitarian law.”

Netanyahu’s corruption allegations include:

Case 1000 Indictment

Netanyahu was accused of receiving nearly $200,000 worth of gifts, reportedly mainly boxes of cigars for “his personal use”, from wealthy businessmen in exchange for favors.

He also reportedly received bottles of champagne for his wife.

Two of these businessmen include owner of Consolidated Press Holdings Limited Australian James Packer and Israeli film producer Arnon Milchan.

Case 2000 Indictment

Netanyahu was accused of conspiring to get more news coverage in his favor by collaborating with Arnon “Noni” Mozes, the publisher of the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, in exchange for weaker legislation for the newspaper to beat a competing newspaper.

Attorney general Avichai Mandelblit stated the following, according to i24NEWS English:

“Even though you did not request and did not accept the proposal, you did not reject Moses’ proposal, but you continued to lead the matter, promoting the legislation, including ideas you raised during the election period, even though you did not intend to advance the legislation.”

Case 4000 Indictment

Case 4000 is another indictment that regards Netanyahu desiring more media coverage that is in his favor.

It is alleged that Netanyahu reportedly conspired to get “regulatory benefits for Shaul Elovich, owner of Bezeq Telecommunications Company, in exchange for favourable news coverage on his website”, according to i24NEWS English.

According to attorney general Avichai Mandelblit, “in essence, a “give and take” relationship was established between Elovich and Netanyahu:

“On the one hand, Elovich slanted the coverage in Walla to Netanyahu, in an irregular manner, so it will benefit him and companies under his control, including Bezeq, and on the other hand, Netanyahu, using his governmental and executive power in the regulatory field, to benefit Bezeq.”



Let the Freedom of Speech Reign

By: Gabriel E. Miller

During the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) President Donald Trump said, “Today I am proud to announce that I will be personally signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech…”

President Trump continued to say, “If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak.”

President Trump referred to the recent attack on a young conservative activist, Hayden Williams, at the highly regarded University of California, Berkeley.

The video showed two men come into close contact with Williams, one of them smacked his phone away when Williams started to record them because he felt endangered by them. After the other assailant, Zachary Greenburg began pushing Williams and threatened to “shoot his ass”, a different phone recorded another angle of the event and it caught him punch Williams in the face.

In response to the violence, UC Berkeley released an official statement.

“UC Berkely strongly condemns violence and harassment of any sort, for any reason. That sort of behavior is reprehensible and intolerable and has no place here. Our commitment to freedom of Expression and belief is unwavering. A message was sent by our police force to the campus community with a picture of the suspect, and a request that anyone with information about the incident come forward and report what they know in support of our investigation. We intent to identify anf bring the perpretrators to justice.”

Dan Mogulf, Assistant Vice Chancellor Office of Communications and Public Affairs UC Berkeley

The president also joked about the incident by saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, he took a hard punch in the face for all of us.”

When Williams was invited to the stage, President Trump urged him to sue the university due to the altercation. Williams was very thankful for the recognition and appreciated the president for his support in him as well as other young conservatives.

This isn’t the first time that UC Berkeley opposed opposing viewpoints.

In 2017 former Breitbart editor, Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak at a conservative event at the university where, according to NPR, 1,500 liberal protestors turned violent. They threw barricades, smashed windows, and shot fireworks at police to name a few incidents.

Greenburg is now in police custody with a $30,000 bail. He has an appearance in court this upcoming Monday.

‘MAGA’ & The Intolerant Left

As American citizens, we are all granted basic human rights and are all protected by The United States Bill of Rights. Inside that glorious document we have something so precious called the First Amendment; The first Amendment protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. Tolerance and Free speech only applies to those who publicly hate the current administration and The main stream media only reports whats within their agenda. Unfortunately democratic politicians and The Left wing media, decide to forget the First Amendment as soon as they find out a person supports our President, Donald J Trump.

Woman Assaults Man For Wearing MAGA Hat: 23 year old Bryton Turner was assaulted by a woman at a Mexican restaurant in Cape Cod, Massachusetts for wearing his “Make America Great Again” hat. Rosiane Santos, 41, of Falmouth an immigrant from Brazil was charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and battery after the disruptive confrontation at Casa Vallerta Mexican restaurant. The woman was upset that Turner had the audacity to wear the controversial red hat at a Mexican eatery. He told the police officer that he was minding his own business, when Santos began yelling at him because of his ‘MAGA’ hat. Annoyed about the woman’s outrageous behavior he pulled out his phone and recorded the altercation.

“That’s the problem -the problem with Americans, people are just ignorant, they want to lash out on people who are educated”, Turner stated during the incident.

Geo Macarao, a bartender at the restaurant told Boston25 News that Turner just walked in and ordered his food when suddenly Santos began her attack. “I couldn’t imagine somebody just coming up and hitting them when there’s cops everywhere”, Macarao said. “She just tried to grab my hat in front of four officers, not smart,” Turner then responded.

Rosiane Santos later told police that Turner should not be allowed to eat at a Mexican restaurant because of his support for Donald Trump.

High School Student Banned From Wearing MAGA Hat: Maddie Mueller, a senior at Clovis North High School was banned from wearing her “Make America Great Again” hat because it violated school dress code. “How does being a Patriot in trying to show pride in your country, how is that inappropriate?” Mueller stated. Mueller is a member of the conservative activist group at her school, Valley Patriots. The Valley Patriots decided to participate together in wearing their ‘MAGA’ hats on Campus but school officials denied to give them permission.

The District’s dress code spokesperson Kelly Avants stated, “our dress code is really about allowing our kids to come to school, to feel safe at school, to feel supported at school and to be free of distractions so they can focus on learning”. Former federal district Judge, Oliver Wager states that the student’s first Amendment right is being stripped from her but, the district may have the right to do so.

Mueller stated that she has been dress coded before for wearing T-shirt’s that say “build the wall”. Mueller has also said she has received multiple social media threats but it will not stop her from fulfilling her dream of becoming a congresswoman. “I don’t care if I offend anybody I’m showing support for the president and what I believe” stated Maddie.

Vans Employee Curses Out Teen For Wearing MAGA Hat: A Vans employee recently cursed out a 14 year old customer while shopping with his family in Overland Park, KS. The Employee went up to the kid and said, F*** Y** for wearing a ‘MAGA” hat. The young boys mother then confronted the employee saying “He did nothing to you- what did you say to my son? To my 14 year old son?”.

The worker didn’t deny the vulgar comment and said, “I’m sure he’s heard it before”. The Daily Caller first reported that the employee was fired, sharing the video that was posted to Twitter by Ryan Fournier, chairman of the Students For Trump coalition. “My son walked into this store. That gentleman (points at the employee) cursed and told him, ‘Take off your hat,'” the mother told another Vans employee. Vans confirmed to Fox News that the employee involved in the interaction “is no longer with the company”. They also added that the company’s “primary focus is to provide the best customer service.”

Many Americans believe that the ‘MAGA’ slogan represents racism, segregation and violence but in reality it represents Unity, Patriotism, The American People and peace. President Donald Trump as our President shows time and time again, that he will go above and beyond to make this amazing nation great for all Americans! He wants to reassure the American people that he is putting our country first and The American people First once again, that includes everyone. No matter the skin color, religion, race, age, or sex if you are American you are included in the slogan ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN’. Donald J Trump has his focus set on our well being socially, economically and politically ; you can see this is true by looking over his policies and what his administration has accomplished not only for ‘White America’ but African Americans, Latinos, and Americans in general.

The mainstream media has done its best to hide Trumps Administrations achievements and accomplishments, while at the same time promoting violence and intolerance. Ironically this hypocrisy comes from the same group that incites these injustices against those that support trump. A great example is Maxine Waters and what she tells her base to go out and do to those who support Donald Trump. Once again I’ll mention how ironic, if we recall the very suspicious packages that were sent to High level -Democratic figures late 2018 which included Maxine Waters. Donald Trump was one of the very First, if not First to condemn the attack and stand on the side of those like Maxine Waters, who tells her fan base to create crowds and tell Trump supporters they’re not welcomed wherever you see one. The Recent Jussie Smollet story should show you how bias and how quickly the media will jump to push out any story that can demonize Donald Trump or those who support him. Unlike the Fake Jussie Smollet story, there’s dozens of real attacks against Trump supporters but you’ll never see it get as big as a Jussie Smollet ‘This is Maga Country’ story.

  Written by Jazmin Minier

PROOF: Democrats are working with social media companies to try and harm the 2020 Trump re-election and the Conservative and Alt-Right movement

By Penny Hoffmann

In a paper classed as private and confidential, titled “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan For Action”, Media Matters, American Bridge, CREW, and Shareblue are all actively fighting against right-wing misinformation, and social media platforms such as Facebook and Google have agreed to be their allies.

In the document, the current hurdles for the goal are highlighted. An analysis of their opposition, what Shareblue and their associates have already accomplished to get to this goal, and what is promised for the future are detailed. Their mission began in 2017 and will last for four years, up until Trump runs for presidency again in 2020.

The document even highlighted how they got Facebook to support their plans:

“During the 2016 election, Facebook refused to do anything about the dangerous rise of fake news or even acknowledge their role in promoting disinformation: Mark Zuckerberg called the notion that fake news is a problem “crazy”. In November, we launched a campaign pressuring Facebook to: 1) acknowledge the problem of the proliferation of fake news on Facebook and its consequences for our democracy and 2) commit to taking action to fix the problem. As a result of our push for accountability, Zuckerberg did both. Our campaign was covered by prominent national political, business, and tech media outlets, and we’ve been engaging with Facebook leadership behind the scenes to share our expertise and offer input on developing meaningful solutions.”

This is what Media Matters and their associates have already accomplished:

“Media Matters has already secured access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. We have also put in place the technology neccessary to automatically mine white nationalist message boards and alt-right communities for our archive. We will now develop technologies and processes to systematically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”

“Our digital efforts were largely focused on changing the narrative with the traditional media versus voters. This worked to a point but wasn’t enough in the face of a news media incentivised by profit and access and fearful of intimidation and bullying by the Trump forces.”

“In 2016, a full two-thirds of Facebook users used the platform to get news. Facebook’s algorithm fuels confirmation bias by feeding content from outlets that tell the users what they want to hear. Fake news purveyors exploited this vulnerability. Fake news purveyors exploited this vulnerability for profit and political influence.”

The paper also provided a “competitive analysis” whereby their rivals and the threats they pose were highlighted. Their competition is right-wing media, but more specifically: the Conservative Media Research Center, Breitbart, Steve Bannon, and Donald Trump (obviously) and his Trump TV.

Here is what the paper said about Breitbart, for example:

“Breitbart, which has received millions in funding from extremest billionaires close to the Trump administration, provides a nexus point in the so-called alt-right (the newest branding for American white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny) to exploit vulnerabilities throughout the media landscape. With a powerful ally in the White House (former chief executive Steve Bannon will be Trump’s chief strategist), Breitbart plans to export its brand of anti-establishment racism on a global scale.”

Media Matters lists what their top outcomes are and what they will “focus on achieving” in the next four years, which began in 2017:

“In the next four years, Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing misinformation, while leading the fight against the next generation of conservative disinformation: The proliferation of fake news and propaganda now threatening the country’s information ecosystem.”

“- Serial misinformers and right-wing propagandists inhabiting everything from social media to the highest levels of government will be exposed, discredited. Journalists, activists, allies, politicians, and the general public will routinely utilize and weaponize our research products to understand and take action against the changing media ecosystem and the extremists seeking to manipulate it. We will continue to break engagement records and dramatically expand and diversify our reach by presenting our research in multiple formats on a variety of platforms. Key right-wing targets will see their influence diminish as a result of our work.

– Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists. Social media companies will engage with us over their promotion of the fake news industry. Facebook will adjust its model to stem the flow of damaging fake news on its platform’s pages. Google will cut off these pages’ accompanying sites’ access to revenue by pulling their access to Google’s ad platform.

– Toxic alt-right social media-fueled harassment campaigns that silence dissent and poison our national discourse will be punished and halted. Hundreds and thousands of activists will join our campaigns to push back on alt-right harassment. Key alt-right figures will lose credibility and influence in response to our research and pressure.”

American Bridge, a participant for this plan, is given orders that aim to make it “the epicenter of Democrats’ work to regain power”. It has three goals that will be in favor of the Democrats:

“American Bridge will cement itself as the standard-bearer of opposition research, build on its role as a progressive clearinghouse for information that drives the narrative on Republican officeholders and candidates, and be at the epicenter of Democrats’ work to regain power – starting in 2017 and building to 2020. Here’s what success will look like:

– Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020.

– The balance of power will shift back to democrats. We will measurably impact US Senate, gubernatorial, and state legislative races.

– We will free ourselves from solely relying on the press. Our robust digital program will reach voters directly online.”

CREW is another participant in the plan to get Trump out of office. Crew has four goals that will aid in doing so:

“CREW will be the leading nonpartisan ethics watchdog group in a period of crisis with a president and administration that present possible conflicts of interest and ethical problems on an unprecedented scale. CREW will demand ethical conduct from the administration and all parts of government, expose improper influence from powerful interests, and ensure accountability when the administration and others shirk ethical standards, rules, and laws.
Here’s what success will look like:

– Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.

– The Trump administration will be forced to defend illegal conduct in court.

– Powerful industries and interest groups will see their influence wane.

– Dark money will be a political liability in key states.”

Shareblue, another participant, is planning to replace Conservative influence on social media with influence from Democrats instead. They plan to harm Trump’s presidency by “emboldening the opposition and empowering the majority of Americans who oppose him”. Shareblue has five goals in order to aid Media Matters’ plan:

“- Shareblue will become the de facto news outlet for opposition leaders and the grassroots.

– Trump allies will be forced to step down or change course due to news published by Shareblue.

– Under pressure from Shareblue, Democrats will take more aggressive positions against Trump.

– Shareblue will achieve financial stability while diversifying content offerings and platforms.

– Top editorial and writing talent will leave competitors to join Shareblue.”

Media Matters is against “even the slightest bit of normalization of Trump”. Funnily enough, Media Matters plans to resist Trump’s authoritarianism by utilizing authoritarianism themselves by means of, for example, collaborating with social platforms in order to remove what they deem as “fake news”. Thus, authoritarianism, in their eyes, is fine if they themselves do it:

“We are going to fight for the things in which we believe, and we are going to fight against any attempt to erode the cornerstone work and values of the progressive movement and this pluralistic nation… Media Matters will be vigilant in holding news media accountable for even the slightest bit of normalization of Trump. We will encourage journalists to defend standard practices, like the protective press pool and media credentialing, and strive for higher standards against this threat… we are going to resist the normalization of Donald Trump. His every conflict of interest, his every bit of cronyism, his every move towards authoritarianism, his every subversion of our democratic systems and principles, his every radical departure from foreign and domestic policy norms… we are going to contest every effort, at every level of government, to limit rights, rescind protections, entrench inequality, redistribute wealth upwards, or in any other way fundamentally undermine the tenets of egalitarianism that must serve as the bedrock of our democracy.”

Predictive technology, collaborating with social media platforms, omnichannel communications, and a massive grassroots truth squad are all methods Media Matters will use to monitor fake news. Predictive technology will allow individuals and outlets who participate in fake news, misinformation, and harassment, to be identified by Media Matters.

Here is what content Media Matters also corrects:

“Media Matters’ issue teams are focused on correcting misinformation on: gun violence and public safety, LGBT equality, reproductive health and gender equality, climate and energy, and economic policy.”

“Dirty-ass crackers”: What does the term “cracker” mean and where does it originate?

By Penny Hoffmann

Recently we have seen the term “cracker” used again by a black Hebrew Israelite during the recent scandal where Catholic MAGA hat pro-life teenagers were confronted by African Americans who are members of the Black Hebrew Israelites, a hate group that is becoming “more militant” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC).

The SPLC states that “around the country, thousands of men and women have joined black supremacist groups on the extremist fringe of the Hebrew Israelite movement, a black nationalist theology that dates to the 19th century.”

The exact quote that was directed towards the mostly white pro-life protesters by one of the black Hebrew Israelites was “you got all these dirty-ass crackers behind you with a red Make America Great Again hat on.”

This occurred when when a pro-life protest which that featured Kentucky high school students who were waiting to catch a bus and collided with the Indigenous Peoples March outside the Lincoln Memorial.

So, what does the term “cracker” mean?

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary states that “cracker” can have an offensive meaning.  It can be “used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a poor, white, usually Southern person”. It can be used to describe “a native or resident of Florida or Georgia”. Thus, by this definition it is a racial term as it is specificially about whites, but by extension it is a classist term due to it regarding poor whites.

Dana Ste. Claire, a Floridian historian and anthropologist, wrote a book about this term. According to her, “cracker” first appeared in a play from around the 1590’s called “King John” that referred to Scots-Irish people who were deemed self-important and unpleasant:

“What craker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?”

The term then followed Scots-Irish people when they immigrated to America.

In the late 1800’s, it was used to describe poor white American southerners. It is said that the term refers to these white people during the slave trade when they cracked whips to discipline slaves. Dana explains further that it is important to note that few poor white southerners owned slaves, but many condoned the slave trade in other ways, and that these poor white southerners would most-likely crack the whip over livestock in general.

In the 1940’s, “cracker” was used as a racial slur mainly by inner city black people who fled from north American racism to describe bigoted white people.

In more recent times, the term has expanded in it’s meaning by some people derogatorily to include any white person who, just by being white, threaten people of colour.

Democrats reject Trumps DACA extension

On Saturday, President Trump offered a fair deal to Democrats, suggesting an extension on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Act, while also offering help to temporary protected status holders in return for the $5.7 billion in funding for the border wall.

Trump said:

“Our plan includes the following: $800 million in urgent humanitarian assistance, $805 million for drug detection technology to help secure our ports of entry, an additional 2,750 border agents and law enforcement professionals, 75 new immigration judge teams…a new system to allow Central American minors to apply for asylum in their home countries and reform to promote family reunification for unaccompanied children, thousands of whom wind up on our border doorstep. To physically secure our border, the plan includes $5.7 billion for a strategic deployment of physical barriers, or a wall. This is not a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea to sea. These are steel barriers in high priority locations.”

Adding that the plan includes “3 years of legislative relief” for all DACA recipients it will “give them access to work,permits, Social Security numbers, and protection from deportation,” plus 3 years of TPS extension.

The democrats continue to rally on with their stubbornness despite President Trump trying his best to settle on a compromise in order to reopen government.

“The Government remains shutdown for one reason and one reason only, Democrats refuse to fund border security.” – President Trump

Democrats were offered more than a fair deal yet they refuse to settle on a compromise because their hate for Trump is stronger than their will to protect and serve the American people.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Pelosi signaled that they would not accept trumps DACA deal through twitter:

Speaker Pelosi responding to trumps proposal said, “Unfortunately, initial reports make clear that his proposal is a compilation of several previously rejected initiatives, each of which is unacceptable and in total, do not represent a good faith effort to restore certainty to people’s lives. It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter. For one thing, this proposal does not include the permanent solution for the Dreamers and TPS recipients that our country needs and supports.”

Speaker Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer need to drop their hate for Trump and work with Republicans in order to re-open the government. We have yet received any effort on the Democrats side.

Trump sweetened the deal on Sunday, announcing on Twitter that we won’t quit his stance on immigration even after a deal was reached to re-open the federal government.

President Trumps presidency was rooted on a promise to the American people that border security will be a top priority and that a border wall will be the solution. Democrats don’t want the president to succeed on his promise. They will do anything to keep Trump from fulfilling his promise.

As long as the vast majority of Americans support President Trump there is no doubt that Trump will secure our borders. The American people back our president and there is nothing democrats can do to change that.

Dana Homsi


Today’s feminism is an embarrassment to all women, as for the case of sexism I don’t believe it is a problem anymore. Today women have the same equal rights as men, therefore feminism is pointless in the 21st century. Women and Men are inherently and biologically different and it will forever be that way. To make a case that both Women and Men are equals is to degrade the abilities both genders have. Both genders were gifted different abilities in order to balance each other out.

Women should be treated with respect but not equals. Feminism is needed in third world countries, they have it a lot harder than here. We live like kings and queens in the west. We are without a doubt entitled to freedoms people in other countries can only dream about.

On July 2nd, 1964, the 88th Congress of the United States enacted a civil rights legislation to end discrimination within the United States. Discrimination against religion, gender, and race. This was a huge step in sustaining the free country that the U.S is. In ensuring all citizens the God given rights we have, protected by our constitution we created a safe haven for every citizen to live as comfortably as they can.

When all the real issues such as female voting, employment, freedom of sexuality are solved feminists continuously make problems complaining about issues that are not existent.

Today’s feminists have an apartment, they can vote, they can work and do anything a man can do. Yet they complain about being oppressed by a “patriarchy.” Feminists have no idea what real oppression looks like. Perhaps they should make a trip to Iran or Saudi Arabia where womens freedoms are highly restricted by a barbaric government. We should take note from Middle Eastern countries where women cover themselves head to toe and play submissive roles because God said we should be subservient to our husbands.

I am not a feminist because I am not manhating, I am thankful for the opportunities I have as a woman living in the west. Feminists constantly nag about how our society is infested with a non-existent “rape culture”. In fact, what feminists don’t realize is that they are encouraging rape! If you don’t want to be raped perhaps don’t be loose and sleep with every guy you meet. You wouldn’t taunt a lion with a slab of meat. Don’t taunt men with risqué clothing and sexually deviant behavior then play the blame game. Rape is not okay but there are certain actions a woman can take to prevent it. Perhaps be more feminine and put the “feminine” right back in your feminism.

Another point that is constantly brought up by feminists is the claim of a “pay gap”. There’s no such thing as the pay gap. The pay gap is a propaganda perpetuated by liberals. Women get paid less because of occupations and the hours they put in at work. Not to mention taking paid leave in order to raise a family by bringing in a baby to the world therefore, adding greater responsibility to a woman’s life.

As PragerU stated:

“The “wage gap” is almost entirely due to the different choices men and women make. Men are more likely to choose higher-paying occupations, including ones that are more stressful, dangerous, undesirable and require long work hours. After controlling for a wide range of factors, like differences in occupation, hours worked per week, and education level, the gap shrinks to a range of 4.8 to 7 cents. In fact, data from the census bureau finds childless women between the ages of 22 and 30 earn more than childless men of the same age, and women between the ages of 25 and 34 also have higher rates of educational attainment than their male peers.”

Modern day feminists brew hate. Feminist and hipsters make it seem “cool” to hate Donald Trump and men alike. There is nothing cool about being so hateful and brainwashing women into believing they are oppressed.

The world that liberalism and feminism reside in is a den of hatred. Real women stand up for their selves and don’t need third-wave feminism to empower their lives. The women who don’t submit to the hatred and see the bigger picture tend to be more content leading happier lives in happier families.

Dana Homsi

Pelosi Shows Fear of Transparency, During Meeting in Oval Office


President Trump met with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, of the Democratic party, on December 11, in front of the press. The meeting was to be on border security, but like always, the Dems descended into subtle mudslinging and victimization, when they didn’t get what they wanted. Here are some important characteristic takeaways from that meeting:


One of the first statements Nancy makes is, “We’re here to have a conversation in a prayerful way, so I don’t think we should have the debate in front of the press.”


She seemed noticeably uncomfortable to speak in front of the press. Nancy said again, soon after that statement, in a response to Trump explaining that the government shutdown would not pass in the senate, “Again, let us have our conversation, then meet with the press again.”


Later in the meeting she suggested that her loss for reason and logic were due to “this kind of discussion in the public view.”


“It’s called transparency.” Trump was fed up with her excuses and avoidance to talk about the issues at hand.


Nancy again redirected, “It’s not transparency when we’re not stipulating to a set of facts, and when we wanted to have a debate with you about confronting these facts.”


No Nancy, that’s still transparency. Americans LOVE Trump because he is so transparent. Transparency breeds trust, so it’s no wonder the majority of Americans do not trust politicians or the government. The only people who fear transparency, have something to hide.


Moving on, I do not want to quote the entire video, so here it is below:


Pelosi virtue signals early on, multiple times, that they are there because the dems care for the American people. If they really did care, they wouldn’t mind transparency.


Nancy plays the victim when Trump calls her out for having a hard time to speak in front of the press. She tells Trump to not characterize the strength that she brings to this meeting; or in other words, Trump offended her and she took the opportunity to let Americans know.


She also tries to shift the attention multiple times by putting the blame on Trump for the conversation which has “spiraled downward.” Nancy states that the economy is in a mood and people are losing their jobs, while Trump corrects her immediately by saying, “Well we have the lowest unemployment in 50 years so….”


Iran Supreme Leader: “Obvious mistake to negotiate with the U.S.” after Trump opted out of JCPOA

By Stefan M. Kløvning

International Relations, Washington-Tehran

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the foreign ministry on Saturday that it would be an “obvious mistake” to negotiate with the U.S. due to their unreliability. “The word and even the signature of the Americans cannot be relied upon, so negotiations with America are of no avail,” his website quotes him as saying, alluding to Trump opting out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May and reinstating sanctions against Iran.

Also known as the Iran nuclear agreement, JCPOA was signed by the U.S., China, EU, Russia, France, Britain, Germany, and Iran in 2015, in order to curb Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. Trump determined the deal to be ultimately ineffective as he perceived it was time-limited and would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons within 5 years and went too far in easing sanctions on Iran without demanding them put a permanent stop to their nuclear development.

As Goldfire Media predicted in its analysis of the deal in October, however, Iran could get an advantage from Trump’s decision:

Iran is following the requirements of the agreement. If decertified, it would therefore allow Iran to claim moral high ground over the US by portraying themselves as a reasonable player in the world compared to them.

This is what the Supreme Leader is now trying to emphasize, and has been doing since he opted out of the agreement since May. There isn’t any point in negotiating a deal and follow it, only to have the adversary come and change the rules informally and punish you for deviating from the non-official new ones.

As Rex Tillerson, then-State Secretary, tried to renegotiate the deal on behalf of the President in November last year, he was turned a blind eye by most of the constituents. The New York Times reported,

Mr. Tillerson acknowledged that international inspectors have found that Iran “is in technical compliance with the agreement, and no one around the table took exception to that.” But he argued that Iran was violating the larger aspirations of the deal by engaging in destabilizing activities not directly covered by it, like supporting terrorist groups.

The lack of success in renegotiating the agreement was what took Trump to move out from the agreement, without having Iran directly break any of its instructions. Iranians may have pondered upon Tillerson’s argument: If one can violate the “larger aspirations” of a deal without violating any of its instructions, isn’t it the instructions that have been poorly formulated with respect to the purpose of the deal? That was what Trump and Tillerson thought too, but they couldn’t do anything to change it, alas opting out of the poorly-formulated deal (though most of the rest of JCPOA’s constituents perceived it to still be a working/better than nothing-deal).

Iranian politicians alongside Khamenei has thus been debating the past week whether they still ought to honour the obligations of the deal after the United States was no longer a constituent. RFERL reported that Iran recently announced that they would be “continuing to acquire uranium and is close to finishing a plant where it can build more centrifuges to enrich uranium.” The Vice President and Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akhbar Salehi, however, insisted that Iran’s increase in nuclear activities would remain within the boundaries of the nuclear deal. While Washington accuses Iran of using the uranium to develop nuclear weapons, Iran claims it’s strictly used for civilian purposes.

Furthermore, Iran filed a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice against the United States on Wednesday, firing even more tension between them.

At the NATO summit, earlier in July, Trump said that he expected Iran at some point to call him to make a deal after pressure from increasing sanctions abounds upon them. The spokesman of Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Bahram Ghasemi, however, says that Trump would have to initiate the call himself if he wants to negotiate anew after leaving the JCPOA, as the top leadership in Iran now rejects talks with the United States on principle.

Polls Reveal Majority of Americans oppose the Democrats’ calls for abolishing ICE


By Stefan M. Kløvning

Washington, D.C., National Security – Succeeding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ primary election victory on Tuesday as the Democratic candidate for New York Representative, the Democrats have increasingly echoed her call for abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), calling into question the original purpose of the law enforcement agency. The 28-year-old candidate would be the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives if she wins over Anthony Pappas in the general election on November 6.

Ocasio-Cortez calls herself a ‘Democratic Socialist’, a term she intends to represent the idea that ‘In a modern, moral and wealthy America, where we have the capacity to ensure that every American can have healthcare, education, and access to dignified housing, we should be able to try to do that as a society by whichever means we can.’ Not surprisingly, she worked as an organizer for Bernie Sanders during his campaign for Presidential Election in 2016, and was congratulated by him after her victory:

Bernie Sanders, however, refused to participate in her and the other Democrats’ campaign to abolish ICE. When asked in an interview on CNN about whether or not he also wants to abolish it, instead of giving a yes-or-no answer, he told Jake Tapper that ‘we need policies that deal with immigration in a rational way,’ which excluded ‘locking up children in detention camps or separating them from their mothers.’ He also called for Trump to sit down with Congress to talk seriously about how to develop these rational policies. Many Democrats have since turned on Sanders for taking this unclear position on ICE, saying he’s on the ‘wrong side of history,’ ‘now a pragmatic centrist Democrat’ and a ‘neoliberal shill.’

High-ranking Democratic officials who have echoed Ocasio-Cortez in this matter include New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Democratic Representative of Wisconsin Mark Pocan. As the first sitting senator to take this position, Gillibrand said that ICE had become a deportation force, and needed to be ‘reimagined’, as the agency today isn’t working as intended. De Blasio continued the call, asserting ‘You need some kind of agency to deal with immigration, but ICE is not that. ICE has proven it can’t be that. ICE’s time has come and gone. It is broken, it has been sent on a very negative, divisive mission, and it cannot function the way it is.’ Pocan is already working on drafting a bill that would suggest getting rid of the agency.

So, how did the agency originate? According to an account by Time, it was created as one of nearly two dozen agencies created following the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush in 2003, as a counter-measure to the horrors of the 9/11 attacks in 2011. Cornell University history professor María Cristina García explains that the change from the issue of immigration going through the Department of Commerce and then the Department of Labor, to the new Department of Homeland Security, ‘reveals a great shift in how a society views immigration.’ Olivia B. Waxman of Time elaborates on the idea, saying that ‘If immigration is an economic or work-force issue, it would make sense to place it under the oversight of departments that deal with those issues. Placing immigration in the national security sector, however, reveals a changed focus on the idea of potential safety threats represented by immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.’ García says, however, though the link between immigration and national security grew exponentially after 9/11, that’s not where the link originated. It really started after the first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993, and that Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) under Clinton in 1996, reducing immigration from Latin-American countries. García thinks the calls for the abolition of ICE is linked to many of the new agencies under the DHS having conflicting responsibilities. She elaborates, saying ‘You have, on the one hand, an agency entrusted with preventing another terrorist attack, then you have agencies that deal with refugees and that requires a humanitarian [approach]. Refugee advocates, in particular, doubt that the U.S. can honor its humanitarian obligations if the inclination is to automatically assume that refugees and asylum seekers are potential terrorists.’

The calls for the abolition of ICE, has, however, received plenty of criticism from Republicans, most notably by Trump himself, tweeting on Saturday:

As to what the American people generally think, the latest Harvard/Harry poll (n:1448) sought to find out on June 24-25. They discovered that 69% of the American people opposed disbanding the agency, which included 59% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans. However, there’s actually a significant difference between the statistics of the Democratic base of the political party than the Liberal base of the political ideology, it turns out. Only 47% of liberals questioned in the poll opposed abolishing the agency. Though there were over 150 more Democrats questioned than Liberals, this indicates that moderates both Democrats and Republicans mostly (71%) reject the proposition of abolishing the agency. Another poller, Mark Penn, who served as chief strategist for Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign, reported on Thursday that 84% of Americans questioned responded that they thought to notify ICE and overturning illegal immigrants to federal authorities would decrease crime rather than increase crime.

Pocan will likely not get very far with his bill, no matter how well he manages to write it, as he will meet strong opposition by both Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress when it’s ready to be presented. Additionally, the majority of Americans, as shown above, also reject the idea of disbanding the 15-year-old agency, and consider its responsibilities and work for national security to be important and valuable for the American people. These polls may indicate that this is just another issue that a minority attempts to be the loudest about, and through that affect real change in American politics. They’ve gotten some strong proponents on their side in Congress, but they’ve still got a long way to go if they’ll ultimately manage to disband the agency.


Maryland Shooting: Liberals waste no time to blame it on Trump

By Nikos Tsinakis

The media continues to step over the bodies of the shooting victims to attack their political enemies in a rush to judgment, placing false accusations, completely validating once again, that Trump was right. They are the lying press.

The news of Thursday’’s shooting attack in Maryland, resulting in five deaths, was quickly repurposed into a political tool against President Trump by the media before any reliable details were released. A repeat of the despicable tactics from the mainstream media to tie-in all shooting attacks, most of the time from disgruntled individuals, leading the public to believe, immediately after it happened, that it somehow has to do with Trump.

Police said a man with a grudge against the local paper had opened fire using a shotgun in a “targeted attack” which killed four journalists and a sales assistant.

Jarrod Ramos, 38, lost a defamation lawsuit against the paper (Capital Gazette newspaper) in 2012 after it reported his campaign of harassment against a woman he went to school with.

The statement Trump made, which has since come under heavy fire by the globalist funded mass media, came from a tweet he made dating back to February 2017 (The tweet is still up as of this post)

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!”

From the Independent

The lying press continues to lie

The bodies of the victims are not even cold and they’re trying to score political points by attacking Trump. Clearly, the journalists questioning him already have the answers that not even the police have, to even assemble the audacity to manipulate this event into a personalized attack on the President who just offered his thoughts and prayers to the victims’ family.

What is there to talk about? It is now proven that this act was committed by a crazy lunatic non-white (hispanic) with a history of long dispute with the local newspaper. That’s all, literally nothing to do with Trump and his “white supremacist supporters”

Doesn’t look like the average “white” Trump supporter to me

This is an endless grasping of straws

Yes, the President doesn’t do himself any favors by always addressing his point in a straightforward way that opens himself up to being attacked, but it’s this very attitude of his that got him into the office in the first place. The American people need a Trump to voice their opinions for them in order to protest the tyranny of mainstream corporate media. Trump did nothing wrong in exposing the media as the enemy of the American people, and the very fact that they’re taking massive action to place the blame on him. The media owes the President an apology.

Melania Trump doesn’t care. And why you shouldn’t as well:

By Nikos Tsinakis

A photo of First Lady Melania Trump’s jacket went viral last week and became a topic of heated discussion.  The $40 jacket from the fast fashion retailer Zara somehow became the empirical evidence of Melania Trump being a “racist fascist Nazi” according to the leftwing media and anyone suggesting otherwise is also a Nazi.


The first lady flew out to McAllen, Texas, last Thursday morning to visit a shelter for illegal migrant children and had been separated from their detained parents. The jacket worn by her was adorned on the back with these texts: “I don’t really care, do u?”  The Trump administration came under widespread criticism over the separations, which President Trump himself addressed as pre-existing laws already in place since the Obama era.


The subject matter quickly amounted to the mainstream media shutting down any and all alternative opinion besides their narrative of pinpointing everything on Melania to convince us she is a racist. The intentions behind such a censorship on people’s opinions goes beyond just an attempt to smear the First Lady but also to divert the actual message behind this jacket- She doesn’t care about the mainstream media. In doing so, the likes of CNN, CBS, BBC only exposed themselves, in their effort to fabricate and spread fake evidence to support this baseless claim in the first place.

Void of any moral code, the leftist media, namely Snopes ; a “fact-checking” website with a history of liberal bias, helped to spread an inflammatory theory that linked Melania’s birthplace, a Slovenian city occupied by fascist Italy, a regime that dissolved decades before her birth as “evidence” of her being a full-blown racist/fascist/nazi. Conveniently, to avoid any legal backlash at such a serious accusation, the website labeled this theory as “unproven” declaring it as neither true or false

“It’s a jacket. There was no hidden message,” Melania’s spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement to the press. “After today’s important visit to Texas, I hope the media isn’t going to choose to focus on her wardrobe. (Much like her high heels last year).”  


Eugene Gu – a doctor who recently sued trump over blocking him on twitter, posted a tweet likening Melania to Marie Antoinette, the tweet has since garnered more than 5000 likes:

Thought this was photoshopped but no, this is real. While visiting children thrown into internment camps, Melania Trump actually wore a jacket saying, “I don’t really care, do U?” That’s like Marie Antoinette ripping a piece of bread from a starving baby and spitting on it.”


The establishment media complex has never stopped character attacks on Trump’s family ever since he announced his election run, anyone with an ounce of intelligence ought to be extremely skeptical of such weaponized gossip material being marketed as “news”.

Manafort jailed until trial: His crimes and relation to the Trump campaign

Washington D.C., Justice System – After over a year, Special Council Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump administration influencing Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. election still persists, as former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was jailed on Friday for witness tampering.

Manafort had earlier pleaded not guilty to a plethora of charges against him, and after 12 counts of indictment since October 2017, he had been forced to wear an electronic monitoring device in home confinement in Virginia. He also pleaded not guilty to witness tampering, but the judge, Amy Berman Jackson, didn’t buy it and revoked his bail, which thereafter sent him to jail. ‘You’ve abused the trust placed in you,’ she told Manafort. He will likely stay in jail until a trial in Washington in September, but he also has another trial for similar charges in Virginia in July. None of the charges, however, involves the two months he was campaign manager for Trump.

The charges include mostly his relationship with former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and his pro-Russian political party Party of Regions, Kremlin-tied oligarchs, and money laundering. They were highly emphasized in the lawsuit (p. 14) by DNC against the Trump administration, Russia, and Wikileaks. Manafort worked for Yanukovich, Party of Regions and its successors between 2004-2015, and denied ever having worked for them when he testified in June 2017, but admitted eventually to having received $17.1 million by Yanukovich’s party between 2012-2014 and registered as a foreign agent. He’s also reported to have been up to $17 million in debt to Putin-tied oligarch Oleg Deripaska before joining the Trump campaign. A smoking gun for the DNC in Manafort, however, was his connection to Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Russian soldier believed to be a part of GRU, the Russian military intelligence, which is believed by the FBI to have had contact with Russian intelligence at the time of the 2016 election. The narrative here essentially is that Manafort received some information from Kilimnik, who received information from the Russian government and that the content of this information somehow adds up to a conspiracy. What could such information be? An alternative would be Manafort dealing some kind of quid pro quo with Kilimnik, receiving favors by the Russian government to increase the probability of Trump’s election victory. And how would they do that? Russian internet bots?

The theoretical relationship thus becomes something like this (based on the belief of Kilimnik being a part of the GRU, and the GRU having connections to the Kremlin, both of which must be true for there to be any potential collusion here):


Therefore, using Manafort’s case provides a potential link between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, but without knowing what this information or favors were, it isn’t a strong enough case to prove collusion by itself. The lawsuit includes many other allegations, some of which provide better evidence than the Manafort case, but details about the nature of the relationship between Manafort and Kilimnik could both strengthen and weaken the case by the DNC, depending on what they find. Recall that he also only worked for the campaign in two months, resigning on August 2016, two months before the election, following a report of him possibly having received illegal payments by Yanukovych’s party, so that he managed to play a big part in the hypothetical conspiracy is dubious at best.

Even long after the election, Trump has now signified that he still cares about Manafort, as he never fails to tweet about whom he likes and dislikes.

Very unfair, he calls it, but Manafort hasn’t even been sentenced yet.

Manafort’s legal defense fund has argued that the Mueller investigation is partisan, and his lawyers claim that the evidence for witness tampering is minimal. Mueller’s team will keep trying to get Manafort to plead guilty and file a plea deal, but Manafort hasn’t been proven easy to budge. Former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin told Reuters that ‘Either he can double down in his resolve to fight it or it’s the last straw and it breaks his will and he decides to work out a plea bargain.’

Is there anything other than finance fraud and money laundering Manafort is guilty of? In the words of his daughter, ‘The money we have is blood money.’ If this is true, it could open a pandora’s box of theories of how he has attained all of it.



‘Sleazy’ NY Attorney General Sues Trump Foundation – Everything You Need To Know

by Nathan Walker @nwalker85

US President Donald Trump took to twitter today, slamming the “sleazy New York Democrats” move to sue the Trump Foundation.

The New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation and its directors, accusing the charity of unlawfully coordinating with Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The lawsuit, which charges the president by name as well as his children Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, alleges “improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law.”

The suit by Underwood is seeking to dissolve the Trump Foundation as well as fine them, and bar any of its board members from serving on any New York nonprofit.

The suit has roots in a Forbes report from June 29, 2017 accused the Trump Foundation and other Trump family entities of defying federal tax rules and state laws that ban self-dealing and misleading donors. This prompted former New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to “look into allegations of self-dealing”

“I can confirm that our office is looking into issues at the Eric Trump Foundation raised by the Forbes report,” said Eric Soufer, the attorney general’s director of communications.

But Schneiderman resigned in May of this year amid sexual assault claims. According to the New York Times, two of the women who spoke to the magazine, Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, said they had been choked and hit repeatedly by Mr. Schneiderman. All the women in the article, who had been romantically involved with Mr. Schneiderman, said the violence was not consensual.

Following Schneiderman’s resignation, Underwood became Acting Attorney General, and then the State Legislature picked Underwood as the replacement to fill the remainder of Schneiderman’s term on May 22, 2018. Underwood was appointed to her original position in the DOJ by Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Renu. Drain the swamp, indeed.

Trump slammed Schneiderman on twitter today as well, claiming he “never had the guts to bring this ridiculous case, which lingered in their office for almost 2 years”.

The ironic thing about the Democrats accusing the Trump Foundation of any kind of wrongdoing is the fact that they had actively colluded with the Clinton Foundation, in direct violation of FEC campaign finance laws.

In 2016, Clinton’s campaign created a Hillary Victory Fund — a joint fundraising committee — that allowed the candidate to raise money for both her campaign and 32 state parties at the same time. The DNC then contributed significant sums to this fund, whose money had been “earmarked” to elect Clinton. In McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1455 (2014), the Supreme Court itself recognized this precise arrangement would flatly violate federal earmarking restrictions.

It appears to this writer that the Democrats are attempting to discredit US President Trump of the very thing that they are accused of. It’s been said that the cleverest trick used in propaganda is to accuse you of what your enemies themselves are doing.

Trump Exacerbates Controversy Among World Leaders Following Free-Trade Demands

Written by: Stefan M. Kløvning

International Relations – Most of us has by now seen the widely circulating picture of world leaders confronting Trump on the second day of the G7 summit in Quebec, Canada, but exactly what it signals has become rather controversial. Those on the left side of politics, and in opposition to Trump think of it as a united front confronting a bully, whereas his proponents perceive it as an illustration of him standing up for American interests, and that America is the one in power. The summit itself, however, was far beyond mere signaling. He suddenly flipped completely on trade, advocated fully tariff-free trade between the countries attending, and threatened to cut off all trade with countries with ‘robbing’ the ‘piggy bank’ of the United States by means of tariffs. He also abruptly rejected the consensus statement, making a communique highly unlikely, and accused the host (Trudeau) of lying in a press conference after the summit. Though he still perceives everything to be going bliss between the countries, many of them have taken a different view.

Trump claims that the current tariffs initiated against other countries are merely in response to the tariffs put on the United States, like with India, whom he claims has a 100% tariff on some products and Canada 270% on dairy. What this means is simply that he will reduce tariffs only when everyone else does it, rather than lead by example, and what’s more, threaten to end trade with those who don’t. Trump has for long been complaining about the trade deficit the United States has with China, but responding to Macron’s suggestion of ‘Let’s work together, we both have a China problem,’ he exclaimed that the European Union is even worse, according to a source in the room. He also went on ranting about EU’s car tariffs. According to a factsheet by the EU, they charge 10% on U.S. cars, whereas the U.S. only charge 2.5% on car imports from the EU. The short 2015 report also told that it was a goal for EU to reduce tariffs. Trump’s urgency and demands in the reduction of individual tariffs, however, is feared to be damaging to international relations. Some commentators have even opined that in taking this aggressive approach, he’s undermining Western cooperation and ‘tries to destroy the West.’

Several world leaders have spoken out about their thoughts on Trump’s demands in the aftermath of the summit. French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron, for instance, wrote that ‘In the , President Trump saw that he had a united front in front of him. To find themselves isolated in a concert of Nations is contrary to American history.’ Angela Merkel spoke of Trump’s behavior as ‘sobering and depressing,’ but Theresa May took a lighter approach. Though having been excluded from Trump’s name check of his allies, she said Britain has a good relationship with him and defended his decision to leave early to reach the summit with North Korea in Singapore.

Despite the controversy, Trump still rates his relationships to the other countries as ‘a 10,’ responding to a CNN journalist in a press conference after the summit. Trudeau primarily, but also other countries, have a rather different perspective in the aftermath of the summit.

Trump Calls For Free Trade at G7

By Nathan Walker

During the 44th G7 summit, President Donald Trump called for an elimination of tariffs between the member countries, a move that would promote true free trade between the US and its closest allies.

“Ultimately that’s what you want,” Trump said during a new conference. “You want a tariff free. You want no barriers. And you want no subsidies. Because you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries and that’s not fair.”

It’s a big change from the tough talk that has come from the White House since Trump’s election.

The statements come amid tensions over the Trump administration’s move to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, designed to protect the US industries from foreign producers that undercut domestic prices. The Trump administration has maintained that protecting these industries is a matter of national security. The tariffs were met tit-for-tat by the EU, Canada, and Mexico on US goods, hitting farmers and manufacturing the hardest.

President Trump has repeatedly called for an end to trade deficits, pointing to situations like the trade imbalance with China, which Washington says stood at a record $375.2 billion last year. Trump’s stance is that these countries are taking unfair advantage of the US, a result of

“It’s going to change. Tariffs will come way down. We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing and that ends.”

The trade practices have led to an exodus of American companies and jobs to other countries. Car manufacturing, for example, has primarily moved to Mexico. According to Bloomberg, the average saving a US company could make by moving to Mexico is $20,000 per worker. It’s an extremely powerful economic incentive. This has led “at least 12 companies” to start the process of setting up in Reynosa, a city located further towards the eastern end of US-Mexico border.

Trump has also pointed to things like the Canadian tariff on US dairy goods, which was at 270% before Trump was even elected.

According to the World Trade Organization, America’s average tariff for imported goods is 2.4%. Canada’s average tariff for imported goods is 3.1%, and the EU’s average tariff for imported goods is 3%

Tariffs in general are a protectionist by nature, but ultimately do more harm than good. They are a means of benefiting the producer at the expense of the consumer. Those who favor them only think of the interest of the producers immediately benefited by the particular duties involved. They forget the interest of the consumers who are immediately injured by being forced to pay these duties. They also forget, or chose to ignore, the effects on other industries.

When Americans are forced to pay more for a certain product, they have that much less money to pay for other products, and may be forced to forgo their purchases entirely. It’s true, that a tariff does indeed benefit special interests in the short term, but only at the cost of everyone else involved.