Blog

Senate passes resolution to oppose Trump’s tariffs on Canada—4 GOP vote with Dems

The Senate on Wednesday held a vote to overturn President Donald Trump’s plan to impose harsh tariffs on Canada. The resolution, which doesn’t hold the force of law, passed the Senate with a 51 to 48 vote. Four Republicans joined their Democrat colleagues in voting against the tariffs. 

Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell opposed the tariffs. The vote came after Trump made his “Liberation Day” announcements from the White House’s Rose Garden, during which he announced reciprocal tariffs on nations around the globe.

Trump had levied tariffs against Canada in a move that created rancor between the United States and her northern neighbor. Canada is in the midst of a snap election where Prime Minister Mark Carney, who recently replaced Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party and as prime minister, will face off against Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre. The trade war with the United States is a key part of the conversation in that election.

In imposing those tariffs, Trump cited border security both for human and drug smuggling. Senate Majority Leader John Thune opposed those Republicans who opposed the tariffs, telling them that their vote would be nothing more than an embarrassment to Trump. The resolution was sponsored by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. 

“I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and ensure that President Trump has the tools that he needs to combat the flow of fentanyl from all directions,” Thune told them.

Canada is one of America’s largest trading partners. Carney has said that Canada will impose counter measure on the US in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs. “We’re in a situation where there’s going ot be an impact on the US economy, which will build with time,” Carney said.

“In our judgement it will be a negative on the US economy. That will have an impact on us, but the series of measures will directly affect millions of Canadians.” He went on to say that they would “fight these tariffs with countermeasures. We are going to protect our workers and we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. In a crisis, it’s important to come together and it’s essential to act with purpose and with force.”

“Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, will hopefully get on the Republican bandwagon, for a change, and fight the Democrats wild and flagrant push to not penalize Canada for the sale, into our Country, of large amounts of Fentanyl, by Tariffing the value of this horrible and deadly drug in order to make it more costly to distribute and buy,” Trump said ahead of the vote.

Keep reading

Big Balls To The Rescue: DOGE Saves A Terabyte Of Data Destroyed By Exiting USIP Employees

I’ve never heard anything good about the United States Institute for Peace.

It’s been in bed with neocons, coupmeisters, and the Soros color revolution crowd for years. The quasi-government agency that runs like a private NGO is always sneaky and non-transparent.

So it didn’t surprise me a bit to learn that USIP showed unusual resistance to anyone poking into their spending from DOGE.

They even called the cops on DOGE, only to get arrested and hauled off themselves…

Keep reading

Judge Rejects Anti-Defamation League’s Third Attempt to Halt $25M Defamation Suit

The Gateway Pundit reported on disabled Navy veteran John Sabal’s defamation suit against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Sabal, who organizes patriotic festivals and has never been arrested, alleges that the ADL defamed him when it published his name in the ADL Center on Extremism’s “Glossary of Extremism and Hate.”

The Glossary ONLY names 295 people, many of them notorious terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Dylann Roof, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, ‘an al Qaeda member and the mastermind of the 9/11 terror attack,’ the Glossary reminds us.”

On March 31, 2025, The Honorable Reed O’Connor, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, rejected the ADL’s latest efforts to stop Sabal’s suit.

Judge O’Connor quoted well-known case law in his ruling, stating that the mere fact that a disgruntled litigant intends to inevitably appeal does not create an exceptional case warranting a mid-suit appeal, and the law depended on by the ADL in its motion is “not a vehicle to question the correctness of a district court’s ruling or to obtain a second, more favorable opinion.”

“The ADL’s latest effort to delay John Sabal’s defamation suit has failed, as the court denied the ADL’s attempt for a mid-suit appeal and stay of proceedings based on a claim that Sabal is a public figure.  In keeping with fine federal court tradition, this case will still be heard as scheduled in July,” said Warren V. Norred, of NORRED LAW.

The ruling marks the third strike for the ADL’s defense team, which has now attempted and failed to stop the suit on three occasions.

In his four-page ruling, Judge O’Connor wrote, “For the foregoing reasons,  the court denies Defendant’s Motion to Certify an Immediate Appeal (ECF No. 66).  Because the Court does not certify an immediate appeal, the Court also denies Defendant’s Motion to Stay depending an appeal.”

This case has been ongoing for over a year, and discovery has concluded.  NORRED LAW was asked to step in after the ADL sought summary judgment and was unsuccessful.

Judge O’Connor’s order on that motion carefully evaluated Mr. Sabal’s complaint, dismissed his claims regarding injurious falsehood, upheld his claim that the ADL defamed him by including him in its “Glossary of Extremism and Hate,” and suggested that he is a “dangerous, extremist threat, and even a criminal.”

Judge O’Connor also preserved Sabal’s claim regarding the ADL’s report, “Hate in the Lone Star State.”

A trial date has been set for July 16, 2025.

Keep reading

The Swirling Vortex Of Weaponized Lawfare

Like a bad ‘When a chicken walked into a pub’ type of joke, when activist litigants walk into a courtroom and meet injunction-happy judges, the result is a swirling vortex of weaponised lawfare. In discussing the current jurisdictional kerfuffle between the US federal executive and judiciary, I find it impossible to overlook the total failure of the courts to protect people’s rights, dignity, and liberty under comprehensive assault from the administrative state during the Covid years. I accept the possibility that this may colour my judgment on the controversy.

It has become sadly obvious in recent years that the gravest threat to the theory and practice of democracy is not the rise of populism with wannabe fascists and neo-Nazis as their seductive tribunes, but technocratic elites with barely concealed disdain for the political beliefs and voting behaviour of the ‘deplorables.’ Moreover, as the firewalls of resistance to populist advance crumble one by one under assault from enraged voters, the final frontier of elite resistance is the courts. The legal clerisy—lawyers, law professors, and judges—is part of the ruling elite and the last line of defence for safeguarding victories already won by social justice warriors in their long march through the institutions.

Judicial Fallibility

Unlike every other profession, is the judiciary infallible? Clearly not, else they would not have been complicit in the biggest violation ever of people’s liberties and freedoms during the Covid years. Every country with a credible rule of law every so often overturns wrongful convictions from the past. Among the best-known Australian examples are those of Lindy Chamberlain and Cardinal George Pell.

As a corollary, are judges individually infallible and free of any influence of personal prejudices, beliefs, and life experiences? Again, clearly not. If they were, then in every single verdict heard by a bench of judges, verdicts would be unanimous and we could save considerable time and expense by dispensing with layers of appeal. From Australia consider the case of Cardinal Pell once again. He was convicted by jury verdict, the conviction was upheld 2-1 by the state appeals court, but overturned unanimously by the High Court of Australia (our apex court). Same laws, same evidence, different judgments.

Is every judge a paragon of judicial integrity and competence? Not so. A few are corrupt or guilty of other acts of malfeasance. Many more, I suspect, are incompetent rather than dishonest or corrupt. Mechanisms for acknowledging incompetence are fewer and less frequently invoked than for detecting and punishing corruption and malfeasance. Yet, even the latter cannot always be relied upon.

There is an interesting scandal playing out in India even now. On the night of 14 March, the official residence of a judge of the Delhi High Court,  Justice Yashwant Varma, went up in flames. Firefighters and police officers who rushed to deal with the conflagration discovered jute sacks of burnt-out cash. The Police Commissioner got in touch with the chief justice of Delhi High Court on the 15th to apprise him of developments, who in turn communicated the information to the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Justice of India established a three-judge panel to probe the matter and its report, which has been uploaded online (with redactions) in the interests of transparency given the intense public interest, substantiates that there are grounds for a full and proper inquiry. Justice Varma meanwhile has been transferred to another high court (against the protest of that court’s bar association) pending further investigations and action.

The hint of corruption would very likely have gone entirely undiscovered but for the fortuitous fire in the judge’s house. This in itself is an indictment of the inadequacy of oversight mechanisms for judges.

A final preliminary question: Unlike all other branches of government, is the judiciary collectively and are judges individually magically incapable of judicial overreach and in need of being put back in their lane? I suppose that such a perfect distribution of relative self-discipline among the branches of government is possible but, being an old cynic, forgive my scepticism. Not all judges have the necessary self-awareness and strength of character to avoid the temptation to abuse their powers and authority. On the contrary, the legal profession has a collective self-interest to expand the reach of its authority over all other sectors and, conversely, to protect itself from pushback by others.

A follow-up question is: How can the slow and deliberative process of judicial decision-making be reconciled with the need for sometimes urgent action by the executive? The judiciary is habituated into its own sequence and pace of actions. Thus for judges, the ultimate acquittal of Cardinal Pell by the High Court of Australia was a triumph of judicial institutions and process. To ordinary mortals, the process itself was a harsh punishment, and the 405 days that the aging cardinal spent behind bars was a damning miscarriage of justice.

In other words, from the date of his indictment in June 2017 through two jury trials, a first failed appeal, the final successful appeal, release from prison in April 2020, and death in January 2023 still unable to fully cleanse the taint of paedophilia, more than half of Cardinal Pell’s remaining time on earth was under malicious trial and punishment by a cadre of anti-Catholic Church activists out for blood. The nation demanded a scapegoat for the Catholic clergy’s historical sexual abuse of children. I write this not just as a non-Christian but as an atheist.

Keep reading

Trump Unleashes 10% Baseline Tariff on All U.S. Trading Partners Starting April 5 — Hits ‘Worst Offenders’ with Even Tougher Measures April 9 — Here is the List of Countries and Their Corresponding Tariffs

President Donald Trump announced today the implementation of a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, effective April 5, 2025. This decisive action aims to correct decades of unfair trade practices that have disadvantaged American workers and industries.

Speaking from the White House Rose Garden, President Trump proclaimed April 2 as “Liberation Day,” marking a new era of economic independence. He emphasized that this measure is essential to protect American jobs and revitalize domestic manufacturing.

“For too long, other nations have taken advantage of our open markets while imposing barriers to our products. Those days are over,” the President asserted.

Trump added via Fox News:

“American steel workers, auto workers, farmers and skilled craftsmen,” Trump said from the White House Rose Garden Wednesday afternoon. “We have a lot of them here with us today. They really suffered, gravely. They watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream. We had an American dream that you don’t hear so much about. You did four years ago, and you are now. But you don’t too often.”

“Now it’s our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt,” he said. “And it will all happen very quickly. With today’s action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again, greater than ever before or. Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country and you see it happening already. We will supercharge our domestic industrial base.”

“For nations that treat us badly, we will calculate the combined rate of all their tariffs, nonmonetary barriers and other forms of cheating. And because we are being very kind, we will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us. So the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal. I could have done that. Yes. But it would have been tough for a lot of countries,” he said.

“For decades, the United States slashed trade barriers on other countries, while those nations placed massive tariffs on our products and created outrageous non-monetary barriers to decimate our industries,” Trump said. “And in many cases, the non-monetary barriers were worse than the monetary ones. They manipulated their currencies, subsidized their exports, stole our intellectual property, imposed exorbitant taxes to disadvantage our products, adopted unfair rules and technical standards, and created filthy pollution havens.”

“From 1789 to 1913, we were a tariff-backed nation. And the United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been,” he said. “So wealthy, in fact, that in the 1880s they established a commission to decide what they were going to do with the vast sums of money they were collecting. We were collecting so much money so fast, we didn’t know what to do with it. Isn’t that a nice problem to have?”

“And my answer is very simple. If they complain, if you want your tariff rate to be zero, then you build your product right here in America. Because there is no tariff. If you build your plant, your product in America. And we’ve seen companies coming in like we’ve never seen before,” he said.

The White House released a detailed chart showing how badly many countries have been ripping off American workers, charging high tariffs on U.S. goods while benefiting from America’s generosity in return.

The White House fact sheet released today clarified that Canada is exempt from the reciprocal tariff announcement.

Keep reading

Seattle Economic Crisis: Proof That Democrat Wealth Taxes Lead To Disaster

To look at the Pacific Northwest today one would never know that 25 years ago the region was an economic powerhouse at the forefront of technology and business innovation.  At the time Portland and Seattle were known for constant rain as well as raining cash, and the “millionaire density” of the Seattle area was at historic highs.  The tech boom and international trade with Asia had created a Silicon Valley of the northern coast.  

Companies like Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft and Amazon established corporate offices and generated tens of thousands of jobs, and many of those jobs were considered high income.  People can debate the overall effects of the population surge to the region; there are many who would argue that Washington and Oregon were better off when they were considered backwoods fishing and lumber states.  That said, it’s undeniable that for a time the Northwest was one of the most desirable and lucrative places to live in the US.  

That’s all gone now.  The wealthy are leaving Seattle like it’s a leper colony and all that’s left are millions of broke activists, poverty stricken residents and illegal immigrants.  Some blame the constant riots or the steady stream of welfare recipients. Others say that the draconian covid mandates caused people to jump ship.  However, a primary factor in businesses (and money) leaving the city was the institution of a progressive “Payroll Expense Tax”.  

The PET is a quarterly tax approved by the Seattle City Council in 2020 in the middle of the Covid hysteria.  It increases taxes on businesses depending on how many employees they hire and how much their employees get paid.  In other words, it punishes companies that hire more people and pay them a good salary.  The conditions of the PET are very similar to what Democrats say they want for their “Wealth Tax” – An extra tax on top earners and large companies beyond the income tax.  

Democrats were high on their own supply in the early 2020s and in their fervor to destroy conservatives they instituted every suicidal policy imaginable, from defunding police to near-zero prosecution for property theft under $1000.  It’s not surprising that wealth taxes were established at the same time to “stick it to the capitalists”.  What they seem to have forgotten, though, is that communist tactics don’t work if people and businesses are able to walk away, and that’s exactly what has happened in Seattle.

Larger businesses are packing up and leaving the Northwest as quickly as they arrived.  Amazon, Meta, Google and Expedia are the most prominent examples of companies exiting the Seattle labor market and hiring elsewhere to avoid the Payroll Tax, but there are numerous others. 

Keep reading

WINNING: Trump’s “Reciprocal Tariffs” Trigger Global Response — Multiple Nations Slash Import Duties on U.S. Goods

​Several countries have announced plans to reduce or eliminate tariffs on U.S. imports in response to President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” policy, set to take effect on April 2, 2025.

This policy aims to match the tariffs that other nations impose on U.S. products.

The White House released a detailed chart showing how badly many countries have been ripping off American workers, charging high tariffs on U.S. goods while benefiting from America’s generosity in return.

The White House fact sheet released today clarified that Canada is exempt from the reciprocal tariff announcement.

This exemption comes after a series of trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada. In February 2025, the U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports and a 25% tariff on other Canadian goods, prompting Canada to respond with its own tariffs on American imports. Subsequent negotiations led to temporary suspensions and adjustments of these tariffs.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford proposed that Canada eliminate tariffs on U.S. imports if President Trump reciprocates. Ford emphasized that mutual tariff removal would benefit both economies and urged cooperation for greater prosperity and safety.

However, according to the New York Post, Ford lacks the federal authority to enact such policy changes.

Keep reading

California’s Regulations, Not Price Gouging, Cause High Gas Prices, USC Study Finds

Gov. Gavin Newsom stands behind his claim that “Big Oil” is responsible for California’s higher gas prices and vowed on April 1 to continue his fight against the industry. The pledge comes after new research put the blame on state regulations and policies for the high prices at the pump.

California’s Democratic leaders have come out strongly against the oil industry in recent years, saying the companies’ gouging was causing record-high gas prices.

“Gov. Newsom has done more than any other governor in recent history to tackle the challenge of rising gas prices—despite what the oil industry and its allies say,” a spokesman for Newsom told The Epoch Times in an email Tuesday.

A new study published March 16 by Michael Mische from the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California says the evidence contradicts Newsom. Mische’s research indicated California’s high gas prices were caused by the state’s regulations and policies.

“There is no economic data to support the allegation of price gouging,” Mische told The Epoch Times. “It just doesn’t exist.”

The professor also pushed back against Newsom’s claim that he was an industry ally.

“The data is the data,” Mische said.

Mische has been on the USC faculty since 1997, where he coordinates the business school’s management consulting undergraduate and graduate programs.

In March 2023, the governor signed a “windfall-profits penalty law” to target oil companies. The new law created a slew of regulations and extensive oversight for oil companies.

Newsom’s office said the governor saved Californians billions of dollars at the pump by signing the law.

The measure allows the governor’s appointed Energy Commission to fine and penalize oil companies if they earned profits beyond state-imposed limits.

Keep reading

Jenny McCarthy Reveals Chilling Encounter After Challenging Vaccine Narrative

Jenny McCarthy is once again speaking out about the emotional and professional toll she endured after her son was diagnosed with autism—and why sharing her story, she says, came with serious consequences.

This time, she pulled back the curtain on a private conversation so disturbing, it changed the way she saw everything.

Appearing on Maria Menounos’s podcast, McCarthy revisited the painful journey that changed her life forever—a horrifying health crisis involving her 2½-year-old son.

Before Evan, her son, was diagnosed with autism, McCarthy said the signs started with something far more terrifying—seizures that came out of nowhere and escalated fast.

“He started having seizures,” she said, “and they were life-threatening seizures. Like cardiac arrest.” They weren’t the kind of thing you expect in a toddler, and the severity made it clear something was deeply wrong.

She recalled one of the worst days of her life, when Evan went into cardiac arrest and turned blue. “At one point, my heart sank into my toes,” she said, describing the panic as she waited for paramedics to arrive. “There’s nothing worse,” she added. “He’s two and a half years old, he’s turning blue.”

Calling 911, she screamed for help, but time felt like it stood still. She compared herself to a mother in Terms of Endearment, pleading and shouting with everything she had.

Evan was revived not once but twice—first in the house, then again in the ambulance. During that chaos, McCarthy said she was bargaining with God. “Bring back my boy first… or I’ll kill myself,” she admitted. “He had to survive.”

He did. But what followed shortly after, she said, was an autism diagnosis. The emotional toll was crushing. “I hit such a low,” she said, remembering how she broke down in the shower, crying uncontrollably and feeling completely helpless.

What shook her most was the suddenness of it all. Evan had been a typical child—smiling, talking, hitting all his milestones. “How did my son get diagnosed,” she asked, “when he was a normal, typical child?” Though he had a few minor signs like eczema, she believed the real change came after his MMR shot.

McCarthy is convinced the vaccine triggered encephalitis, a type of brain inflammation, which she notes has been “clinically in published science” linked to autism. “And my son was one of them,” she said. “Because it was after his MMR, when his encephalitis… leads to autism.”

She first shared her story publicly on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2007 during the release of her book, Louder Than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism.

“That’s when I really outed myself,” she said. Oprah had long been pressed by parents to cover the link between vaccines and autism. “So, so many… were pounding Oprah to do a story on the association.”

Though the network initially resisted, Oprah eventually gave Jenny a live platform, insisting that recording it in advance would risk censorship. “She told me I had to go on live… so we had to go live.” Even then, Oprah had to read what Jenny called a “giant long page disclaimer.”

But despite the warning label, McCarthy said her message got through. “People heard me… parents heard me.”

Keep reading

Revealed: Pro-Kamala Social-Media Millions That Couldn’t Sync ‘Brat’ With ‘Democrat’

The abrupt withdrawal last year of President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, followed rapidly by his replacement with Vice President Kamala Harris, irked many voters left out by the process. Yet social media seemed to ooze with enthusiasm and Gen Z-friendly hipster appeal.

Influencers flooded the web with neon-matcha green pro-Harris videos synced to beats from singer Charli XCX’s album “Brat” released last year. The poppy rave videos, gushed journalists, showed that Harris embodied the confidently independent “brat” vibe conveyed by the music. Social media pages bubbled with memes celebrating Harris as the voice of queer and black youth, in contrast with the Republican agenda of white supremacy. Digital creator Amelia Montooth, in one viral TikTok video, kissed a woman and tried searching for pornography, actions her sketch suggested would be banned if Harris lost the election.

Harris, a career politician favored by the Democratic Party’s establishment, never quite fit the bill as an icon of activist movements. But the sudden influencer buzz seemed to transform the stodgy former prosecutor into an icon of the cultural zeitgeist. 

As it turns out, the tidal wave of enthusiasm was not entirely genuine. Much of the content, including Montooth’s videos, was quietly funded by an elusive group of Democratic billionaires and major donors in an arrangement designed to conceal the payments from voters. 

RealClearInvestigations obtained internal documents and WhatsApp messages from Democratic strategists behind the influencer campaign. Way to Win, one of the major donor groups behind the effort, spent more than $9.1 million on social media influencers during the 2024 presidential election – payments revealed here for the first time. The amount was touted in a document circulated after the election detailing the organization’s accomplishments. 

The effort supported over 550 content creators who published 6,644 posts across platforms, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, and X. Way to Win coached creators on phrases, issue areas, and key themes to “disseminate pro-Kamala content throughout the cycle,” a post-election memo from the group noted.

The look behind the curtain reveals that at least some of the image-making around the Harris candidacy was carefully orchestrated by the same types of covert social media marketing often used by corporate brands and special interest groups. Such campaigns provide the illusion of organic support through the authentic appeal of trusted social media voices.

Keep reading