Sydney Sweeney Under Fire After Controversial American Eagle Ad Campaign
Noble Gold
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com
Share this site:
Copyright 1987-2024
| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
7/30/25
How Trump Fixed a Decades-Old Trade Imbalance Rooted in Post-WWII Economics
How Trump Fixed a Decades-Old Trade Imbalance Rooted in Post-WWII Economics
"In regards to Tariffs Trump fixed a decades old issue. After WWII the US was the only western country that was still financially solvent. European countries charged high Tariffs on our products and we charged low Tariffs on their products and helped Western Europe rebuild along with the Marshall Plan. Trump knew this and saw it for decades. BTW, Eastern Europe fell to the Soviet Union...Communism."
In the meantime, a correction is being made.
Introduction
For decades, the United States operated under a trade policy framework that was designed in the aftermath of World War II—a time when America was the only financially solvent Western power. The U.S. opened its markets to war-torn European nations, imposing low tariffs on their goods while accepting high tariffs on American exports in return. This arrangement was part of a broader strategy to help rebuild Western Europe through initiatives like the Marshall Plan and to contain the spread of Soviet communism.
However, what began as a temporary measure to stabilize the global economy became a permanent imbalance, putting American industries at a disadvantage for generations. President Donald Trump recognized this historical inequity and took bold steps to correct it through a series of strategic tariffs and trade policy reforms.
The Post-WWII Economic Order and America’s Sacrifice
After World War II, the United States emerged as the world’s dominant economic power. Europe lay in ruins, and the Soviet Union was expanding its influence over Eastern Europe. To prevent the further spread of communism and to rebuild Western Europe, the U.S. implemented two key strategies:
1. The Marshall Plan (1948-1952) – The U.S. provided over $12 billion (equivalent to about $150 billion today) in economic aid to Western Europe to help rebuild infrastructure, stabilize currencies, and revive industrial production.
2. Asymmetric Tariff Policies – The U.S. allowed European nations to impose high tariffs on American goods while keeping its own tariffs low on European imports. This was meant to give European economies a competitive edge so they could recover faster.
At the time, this arrangement made sense. A strong Western Europe was seen as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. However, as Europe recovered and eventually became an economic powerhouse (culminating in the formation of the European Union), the U.S. never adjusted its trade policies accordingly.
The Lingering Problem: Unfair Trade Practices
By the late 20th century, Europe had fully recovered, yet the U.S. continued to operate under the same lopsided trade framework. Key issues included:
- High European Tariffs on U.S. Goods – While the U.S. maintained low tariffs, Europe (and later China) continued to impose steep tariffs on American products, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing.
- Non-Tariff Barriers – European nations used regulatory hurdles, subsidies for domestic industries, and other protectionist measures to disadvantage American companies.
- Exploitation of U.S. Market Openness – Foreign industries thrived in the U.S. market while American businesses faced restrictions abroad.
This imbalance led to a steady decline in U.S. manufacturing, lost jobs, and a growing trade deficit. Successive administrations—both Republican and Democrat—failed to address the problem adequately.
Trump’s Realization and Policy Shift
Donald Trump, long before his presidency, was vocal about America’s unfair trade deals. As a businessman, he saw firsthand how foreign tariffs and trade barriers hurt U.S. competitiveness. Upon taking office, he made trade policy reform a cornerstone of his economic agenda.
Key Actions Taken by the Trump Administration:
1. Imposing Tariffs on China – Recognizing China’s exploitative trade practices (including intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers), Trump levied tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, forcing Beijing to the negotiating table.
2. Revisiting Trade Deals – Trump renegotiated NAFTA, replacing it with the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), which included stronger protections for American workers and industries.
3. Challenging Europe’s Unfair Trade Policies – The Trump administration imposed tariffs on European steel and aluminum, citing national security concerns under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. He also targeted EU agricultural subsidies and digital taxes that unfairly targeted U.S. tech companies.
4. Withdrawing from the TPP – The Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiated under Obama, would have further exposed U.S. industries to unfair competition. Trump’s withdrawal protected American jobs.
The Results: A Long-Overdue Correction
Trump’s policies were controversial, but they achieved several critical outcomes:
- Reduction in Trade Deficits – The U.S. trade deficit with China decreased significantly during Trump’s tenure.
- Renegotiated Trade Terms – For the first time in decades, the U.S. demanded reciprocity in trade, forcing other nations to lower barriers.
- Revitalized Domestic Manufacturing – Tariffs on steel and aluminum helped revive struggling U.S. industries.
- Global Recognition of U.S. Resolve – Foreign nations realized that America would no longer tolerate one-sided trade deals.
Conclusion: A Necessary Rebalancing
The post-WWII trade framework was never meant to be permanent. What began as a strategy to rebuild Europe and contain communism became an entrenched system that disadvantaged American workers and industries. Donald Trump was the first president in decades to acknowledge this imbalance and take decisive action to correct it.
While critics argued that tariffs would spark trade wars, the reality is that they forced a renegotiation of terms that had been unfairly stacked against the U.S. for too long. The long-term benefits—stronger domestic industries, fairer trade terms, and reduced dependency on adversarial nations—demonstrate that Trump’s policies were not just politically bold but economically necessary.
The lesson is clear: Trade policies must evolve with global economic realities. What worked in 1945 does not work in the 21st century. Trump’s tariffs were a crucial step in resetting the balance and ensuring that American workers and businesses are no longer held back by outdated and unfair trade practices.
#Tariffs #Tariff #Trade #FreeTrade
OPEN THE ROAD, Oprah Winfrey!
Roads on Maui are GRIDLOCKED as people try to escape the incoming Tsunami.
Oprah Winfrey responds to backlash over alleged claims of private Maui road closure
#Oprah #OprahWinfrey #Hawaii #Sunami #Earthquake
7/29/25
The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Critics on Epstein and Border Crisis
"The same people accusing Trump of hiding the Epstein files and supporting pedophiles are the same people who didn't have a problem with Biden losing track of 300,000 unaccompanied minors crossing the border...ILLEGALLY...also are the same people who didn't ask about Epstein when they had the Whitehouse, House, and Senate.
Those people are a JOKE!!!"
The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Critics on Epstein and Border Crisis
The same people who loudly accuse Donald Trump of hiding Jeffrey Epstein’s files and supporting pedophiles are the very same individuals who had no problem with Joe Biden losing track of 300,000 unaccompanied minors who crossed the border illegally. These critics also didn’t seem to care about Epstein when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. The hypocrisy is staggering—and these people are a complete joke.
Selective Outrage Over Epstein
For years, the left and the mainstream media have pushed the narrative that Trump was somehow complicit in Epstein’s crimes, despite the fact that:
- Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after he allegedly harassed a young girl.
- Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s "Lolita Express" 26 times—far more than Trump ever did.
- Epstein had deep ties to Democratic elites, including former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and other high-profile liberals.
Yet, when Democrats held full control of the government (Obama-Biden administration, 2009-2011), they did nothing to investigate Epstein. In fact, it was Trump’s DOJ that arrested Epstein in 2019—long after his sweetheart plea deal under the Bush administration.
Where was the left’s outrage then? Nowhere. Because their interest in Epstein was never about justice—it was always about smearing Trump.
Biden’s Border Disaster: 300,000 Missing Children
While the left hyperventilates over Epstein (only when it’s politically convenient), they have zero concern for the 300,000 unaccompanied minors who have disappeared under Biden’s open-border policies.
- HHS admits it lost contact with 85,000 migrant children in just one year.
- Many end up in forced labor, sex trafficking, or worse—yet Democrats don’t care.
- Biden dismantled Trump’s border policies, leading to the worst child migrant crisis in history.
Where are the protests? Where are the CNN headlines? Silence. Because the left only cares about children when they can use them as political weapons against Republicans.
Conclusion: The Left Doesn’t Care About Kids—They Care About Power
The same people screaming about Epstein today ignored him when their own leaders partied with him. The same people who clutch their pearls over Trump’s past associations have no problem with Biden’s border catastrophe, which has put hundreds of thousands of children at risk.
This isn’t about morality—it’s about political manipulation. And anyone who falls for it is either naïve or complicit.
These people are a joke. And America is waking up to their lies.
#Epstein #Trump #MissingKids #SexTrafficking
Hunger in Gaza: Examining Claims About Malnutrition, Hamas, and Civilian Suffering
Hunger in Gaza: Examining Claims About Malnutrition, Hamas, and Civilian Suffering
The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has drawn global attention, with reports of starvation, malnutrition, and severe food shortages affecting civilians—particularly children. However, some critics, as seen in social media posts, argue that Hamas members appear "well-fed" while civilians suffer. This raises questions about:
1. The reality of food distribution in Gaza
2. Hamas’s role in resource allocation
3. The broader humanitarian and political dynamics at play
This article examines these claims, analyzes available evidence, and explores the complexities of Gaza’s crisis.
1. The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: Facts and Figures
1.1 Malnutrition and Starvation
International organizations (UN, WHO, WFP) report severe food insecurity in Gaza due to:
- Blockades and restrictions on food, water, and medical supplies.
- Destruction of infrastructure, including bakeries, farms, and aid distribution centers.
- Over 500,000+ people (nearly a quarter of Gaza’s population) facing "catastrophic" hunger (IPC Phase 5).
1.2 Impact on Children
- UNICEF reports 1 in 3 children under 2 in northern Gaza suffer from acute malnutrition.
- Hospitals record cases of starvation-related deaths among infants.
1.3 Is the Crisis Exaggerated?
Some argue that aid diversion or Hamas’s control skews distribution. However:
- Independent agencies (Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders) confirm extreme shortages.
- Satellite imagery shows widespread destruction of food sources.
2. Hamas and Resource Control: Are Its Members "Well-Fed"?
2.1 Claims About Hamas’s Food Supply
The post suggests Hamas fighters are prioritized for food. While Hamas does control some resources:
- No verified evidence shows systematic overfeeding of fighters while civilians starve.
- Smuggling tunnels and underground networks may supply Hamas, but these do not sustain the entire population.
2.2 Hamas’s Role in Aid Distribution
- UNRWA and other agencies handle most aid, but Hamas has been accused of:
- Taxing or diverting some supplies.
- Prioritizing supporters in certain cases (per some reports).
- However, Israel’s blockade and military operations remain the primary cause of shortages.
2.3 Comparing Civilian and Combatant Conditions
- Hamas fighters may have stockpiles, but Gaza’s general population lacks access to basic nutrition.
- Urban warfare makes food distribution nearly impossible in conflict zones.
3. Geopolitical Context: Who Bears Responsibility?
3.1 Israel’s Restrictions on Aid
- Delays at checkpoints and bombing of aid convoys worsen shortages.
- Israel argues Hamas could misuse aid, but critics say collective punishment is unjust.
3.2 Hamas’s Governance Failures
- Hamas invests in military infrastructure (tunnels, rockets) rather than food security.
- Its refusal to surrender or release hostages prolongs the war.
3.3 International Aid and Its Challenges
- Airdrops and sea routes are insufficient for 2.3 million people.
- Ceasefire negotiations often stall over Hamas’s demands vs. Israel’s security concerns.
4. Ethical and Moral Considerations
4.1 Should Hunger Be Weaponized?
- International law prohibits starvation as a war tactic (Geneva Conventions).
- Even if Hamas hoards food, civilians (especially children) should not suffer collectively.
4.2 Media Narratives and Bias
- Pro-Israel voices argue Hamas exploits suffering for propaganda.
- Pro-Palestinian groups blame Israel for siege tactics.
4.3 What Would "Hamas Men Going Hungry" Achieve?
- Hamas leaders (in tunnels or abroad) may not feel shortages like civilians.
- Punishing all Gazans for Hamas’s actions is ethically questionable.
5. Conclusion: A Call for Nuanced Understanding
The post’s framing oversimplifies Gaza’s crisis. Key takeaways:
1. Children and civilians are starving—this is well-documented.
2. Hamas may control some resources, but the primary cause of hunger is war and blockade.
3. Solutions require:
- Increased humanitarian access.
- Political resolutions, not just blame-shifting.
Dismissing Gaza’s suffering based on Hamas’s actions ignores the human cost. Accountability should not come at the expense of innocent lives.
#Gaza #FoodCrisis #Israel #MiddleEast
True Story of Carol Burnett
True Story of Carol Burnett:
From 'TRUE STORIES'
Carol Burnett grew up sneaking into movie theaters to escape the sound of her mother drinking.
She didn’t come from Hollywood — she came from a one-room apartment near a boarding house, raised by her grandmother while her parents disappeared into addiction.
But even when her stomach growled and the rent was unpaid, Carol found a way to laugh.
At UCLA, she couldn’t afford the tuition for drama school — until a stranger handed her a $50 bill and told her to “pay it forward.” She did. By becoming one of the most important comedic voices in television history.
When The Carol Burnett Show debuted in 1967, networks told her variety shows were for men. That no one wanted to watch a woman in slapstick. That physical comedy wasn’t “ladylike.” Carol laughed — and then created a series that ran for 11 years, won 25 Emmys, and shattered every rule about what women could do on TV.
She didn’t play sexy or cute. She played ugly, absurd, vulgar, ridiculous — and brilliant. Eunice. Mrs. Wiggins. Nora Desmond. Her face could fold into 10 expressions in a single second. Her laugh breaks were legendary — not mistakes, but moments of pure joy caught on camera.
Off-stage, though, the grief lingered. She lost a daughter to cancer. She stayed quiet during public heartbreaks. But onstage, she showed up for millions of Americans like a friend who never flinched when things got dark.
What made Carol Burnett extraordinary wasn’t just her talent — it was her generosity. She gave other performers space to shine. She ended every show by tugging her ear — a secret “I love you” to her grandmother.
Carol didn’t just make people laugh.
She made it okay to be a mess, to be loud, to be too much — and to survive it with grace.
And for every little girl growing up with pain in the next room, she offered proof:
You could turn it into art. And joy. And something that lasts.
#CarolBurnett #Comedy #Hollywood
7/28/25
Obama's Mama, A Women The Left Won't Celebrate
.jpeg)
Obama's Mama: A Women The Left Won't Celebrate
"In reality, we should show Obama's Mama some respect. She was a 17 year old SNOW WHITE Girl who got pregnant by a 36 Year Old MARRIED Black Man from Kenya. She would be the typical Abortion client. She could have had an abortion. Instead, she went on with the pregnancy and gave birth to a little boy who became the 44th President of the United States of America. Those on the LEFT should be celebrating her as if she was Harriet Tubman or a Lady who didn't give up her seat on a bus. Instead, they don't mention her. It would be too much of a PRO LIFE STORY."
.jpeg)
Stanley Ann Dunham: A Story the Left Should Celebrate—But Won’t
Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency was historic, groundbreaking, and a testament to the American dream. Yet, the story of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, is one that the modern Left rarely celebrates—and for reasons that expose their ideological contradictions.
Dunham’s life defies the narratives that progressives often push. At 17, she became pregnant by a 36-year-old married Kenyan man, Barack Obama Sr., while attending high school in Hawaii. By today’s standards, she would have been a prime candidate for abortion—young, unmarried, and facing an uncertain future. Yet she chose life, and that decision brought forth America’s first Black president.
The Left’s Conundrum: Why They Can’t Celebrate Her
The Left champions abortion rights as a fundamental freedom, often framing it as essential for women’s empowerment. Yet Dunham’s story undermines their rhetoric in several ways:
1. She Rejected Abortion Despite the Circumstances
- A pregnant teenager in the early 1960s, with no financial stability and a father who abandoned her, could have easily been persuaded to terminate the pregnancy.
- Instead, she embraced motherhood, raising a child who would change history.
2. Her Story Undermines the Victim Narrative
- Progressives often portray single mothers—especially those impregnated by older men—as victims of exploitation. Yet Dunham was independent, intellectually curious, and resilient.
- She later earned a PhD, worked in international development, and raised a future president.
3. She Was White—And That Doesn’t Fit the Left’s Racial Politics
- The Left prefers narratives where Black success stems solely from Black struggle, not from interracial relationships or white parents.
- Dunham’s whiteness complicates their racial storytelling. Obama’s success is often attributed to his Black identity, while his mother’s influence is downplayed.
4. The Left’s Hypocrisy on Power Dynamics
- If a 36-year-old conservative man impregnated a 17-year-old girl today, the Left would call it "grooming" or "abuse."
- Yet because Obama Sr. was a Black African immigrant, progressives ignore the power imbalance—revealing their double standards.
The Democrats’ Selective “Carve-Outs”
The Democratic Party excels at making exceptions to fit their agenda. They claim to support women’s autonomy, yet they dismiss Dunham’s choice as insignificant. They preach racial justice, yet they erase the white woman who raised a groundbreaking Black leader.
- If Dunham Had Aborted Obama: The Left would mourn the loss of a potential leader but defend her "right to choose."
- Because She Didn’t: They ignore her, because her story proves that unplanned pregnancies can lead to extraordinary outcomes.
Why the Right Should Claim Her Story
Conservatives and pro-life advocates should celebrate Stanley Ann Dunham as a testament to the power of life and resilience. She:
- Chose life despite societal pressures.
- Raised a child who shattered racial barriers.
- Proved that single mothers can defy expectations.
Her story is an antidote to the Left’s abortion absolutism. It shows that even in difficult circumstances, giving life can lead to greatness.
Conclusion: The Left’s Uncomfortable Silence
The Left can’t celebrate Stanley Ann Dunham because her existence undermines their political narratives. She was a white woman whose unplanned pregnancy produced a historic Black president—something that doesn’t fit neatly into their boxes of victimhood and identity politics.
Her life is a rebuke to abortion advocates, a challenge to racial essentialists, and a reminder that greatness often comes from unexpected places. The fact that Democrats ignore her speaks volumes about their selective outrage and ideological rigidity.
Stanley Ann Dunham should be a feminist icon—a woman who defied expectations and changed history. Instead, she remains in the shadows, because her truth is too inconvenient for the Left to acknowledge.
#Obama #StanleyAnnDunham #Abortion #Kenya
Lower The Interest Rates
Lower The Interest Rates
That Fed Chair is a Jerk. If he would lower the rates more people would and could senter the housing market. It would also help on the housing shortage. No wants wants to sell their house with a 3% rate and go buy at 7%. It doesn't take a Fed Chair to figure that out. A Caveman can get it.
The Fed Chair’s Stubborn Rates Are Crushing the Housing Market
The Federal Reserve’s stubborn refusal to lower interest rates is strangling the housing market, worsening the housing shortage, and locking millions of Americans out of homeownership. Current Fed Chair Jerome Powell seems oblivious to the pain his policies are causing—or worse, he simply doesn’t care. While economists and policymakers debate complex inflation metrics, the reality is simple: high mortgage rates are freezing the market, and only a caveman wouldn’t see it.
The Housing Market is Paralyzed
Right now, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate is hovering around 7%, more than double what it was just a few years ago. This has created a bizarre standoff in the housing market:
- Homeowners won’t sell because they’re locked into ultra-low 3% mortgages from the pandemic era. Why would anyone trade a 3% rate for a 7% one?
- Buyers can’t afford to buy because high rates have made monthly payments unmanageable, even if home prices stabilize.
- Builders aren’t building fast enough because high financing costs slow construction, worsening the supply crisis.
This gridlock means fewer homes are changing hands, inventory remains near historic lows, and prices stay high. The Fed’s insistence on keeping rates elevated isn’t just hurting buyers—it’s making the housing shortage worse.
Lower Rates Would Unlock the Market
If the Fed cut rates even modestly, three key things would happen:
1. More Sellers Would List Their Homes – Even a small drop in mortgage rates would encourage some homeowners to finally sell, increasing supply.
2. Buyers Could Actually Afford Homes – Lower rates mean lower monthly payments, bringing more first-time buyers into the market.
3. Construction Would Pick Up – Developers rely on financing, and cheaper borrowing costs mean more new homes get built, easing the long-term shortage.
Instead, the Fed keeps preaching patience, acting like the economy is still overheating when the real pain is being felt by ordinary people who just want a place to live.
The Fed’s Inflation Obsession is Misguided
The Fed’s primary argument for keeping rates high is inflation. But here’s the problem: housing costs are a major driver of inflation. By keeping mortgage rates high, the Fed is directly contributing to the very problem it claims to be fighting.
- High rates discourage new construction → less supply → higher rents and home prices → higher inflation.
- Homeowners staying put → fewer existing homes for sale → higher prices due to scarcity → higher inflation.
It’s a self-defeating cycle. The Fed is so focused on "cooling demand" that it’s ignoring the supply crisis making housing unaffordable.
A Caveman Could Figure This Out
You don’t need a PhD in economics to see the problem. The logic is simple:
- Low rates = more buying and selling.
- High rates = frozen market, higher prices long-term.
Yet the Fed keeps rates high, pretending this is the only way to fight inflation while ignoring the collateral damage. Meanwhile, corporations and wealthy investors keep buying up homes in cash, pricing out regular families.
What Should Happen Next?
The Fed needs to cut rates now before the housing crisis gets worse. Every month they delay:
- More young families are priced out forever.
- More homeowners stay trapped in homes they’d otherwise sell.
- The shortage grows, making affordability even worse in the long run.
Powell’s stubbornness isn’t just bad policy—it’s economic malpractice. If he doesn’t act soon, the housing market will remain broken, and an entire generation will be locked out of homeownership.
Bottom Line: The Fed Chair is a jerk for not seeing what’s obvious to everyone else. Lower the rates. Fix the housing market. It’s not that complicated.
#Powell #Trump #FederalReserve #FedChair #InterestRates
Russia Has Interfered In US Elections Since The Beginning Of The Cold War
RUSSIA WILL BE RUSSIA
Russia Has Interfered In US Elections Since The Beginning Of The Cold War - This Was/Is Nothing New
ALERT: Russia has tried to manipulate our elections since the beginning of the COLD WAR. That is 'WHAT THEY DO'. Also, they funded the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam Conflict [BTW, I said Conflict because War was never declared. We lost 58K for NOTHING]. However, Russia spent more on propaganda here in the US at the time than they spent on arming the North Vietnamese. Basically protesters were paid to spit on the returning Troops from Vietnam.
The only reason the Democrats were using Russia is because their candidate didn't win. That is no reason to play around with a nuclear power.
#Russia #Putin #ColdWar #Elections #Election
Obama Had A Shady Time In Office
Obama Had A Shady Time In Office
"-He entered office and set on an 'Apology' World Tour
-He used the IRS to quash the TEA Party movement and had all of Romney's donors audited.
-He used US Tax Dollars to influence Israeli elections
-He lied about the Affordable Care Act
-When he entered office we were fighting in 2 Countries - Iraq/Afghanistan. When he left office we had been fighting in 7 Countries - Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/Pakistan/Yemen/Somolia/Libya. 80% of the kills were innocent civilians...mainly Sunni Muslims. He was kind to the Shiite in Iran. He gave them a Pallet of cash in the middle of the night.
-He left office 30x's richer than he was when he entered office. Was he side hustling? That attitude changed when Trump entered office. Was Obama selling books and Netflix memberships in the Oval Office? Maybe the Military Industrial Complex bought bulk books and memberships.
-He demanded and concocted a fake Intel report to sabotage Trump 1.0.
The Stuff Is About To Hit The Fan..."
The Controversial Legacy of Barack Obama: A Critical Examination
Barack Obama’s presidency (2009-2017) was marked by soaring rhetoric, historic firsts, and progressive policy ambitions. However, beneath the polished veneer of "hope and change," his administration was riddled with controversies, scandals, and questionable decisions that have left a lasting impact on America and the world. From political targeting to foreign policy failures, Obama’s legacy is far more contentious than his admirers acknowledge.
The "Apology Tour" and Weakness on the World Stage
One of Obama’s first acts as president was embarking on what critics dubbed the "Apology Tour," where he seemed to distance America from its historical leadership role. In speeches across Europe and the Middle East, Obama suggested that the U.S. had been arrogant, dismissive, and even oppressive in its foreign policy. This approach projected weakness at a time when strength was needed, emboldening adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran.
Rather than asserting American exceptionalism, Obama’s rhetoric often framed the U.S. as a nation in need of atonement. This set a dangerous precedent, undermining global confidence in American resolve and creating power vacuums that hostile regimes were eager to fill.
Weaponizing the IRS Against Political Opponents
One of the most egregious abuses of power during the Obama administration was the IRS targeting conservative groups, particularly the Tea Party movement. Documents later revealed that the IRS deliberately delayed or denied tax-exempt status to organizations with "Tea Party," "Patriot," or "Conservative" in their names, effectively silencing political opposition ahead of the 2012 election.
Even more disturbingly, Mitt Romney’s major donors were systematically audited—an unmistakable act of political intimidation. While the Obama administration feigned ignorance, the timing and specificity of these audits suggest a coordinated effort to suppress dissent. If such tactics had occurred under a Republican president, the media outcry would have been deafening.
Meddling in Foreign Elections (While Accusing Others of It)
Obama frequently accused Russia of interfering in U.S. elections, yet his administration engaged in its own form of election meddling—using taxpayer dollars to influence Israel’s 2015 elections. Reports confirmed that the State Department funneled money through the group *OneVoice* to campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a staunch critic of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.
This hypocrisy was staggering: while Democrats later spent years hyperventilating over alleged Russian interference, Obama’s team actively worked to sway a foreign ally’s democratic process.
The Lies of Obamacare
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was sold to the American people on a foundation of deception. Obama famously promised, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," and "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Both claims were blatantly false. Millions of Americans lost their preferred coverage, premiums skyrocketed, and choices dwindled as insurers fled the collapsing marketplace.
The law was also passed through legislative trickery, with Democrats exploiting budget reconciliation rules to avoid bipartisan support. The disastrous rollout of Healthcare.gov—a $2 billion website that barely functioned—was emblematic of the administration’s incompetence.
Expanding War While Pretending to End It
Obama campaigned on ending wars, yet by the time he left office, the U.S. was engaged in seven conflicts—up from two when he took office. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama escalated drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya while intervening in Syria’s civil war.
Worst of all, an estimated 80% of drone strike casualties were innocent civilians, predominantly Sunni Muslims. Meanwhile, Obama showed shocking leniency toward Iran’s Shiite regime, sending them a literal pallet of cash ($1.7 billion in unmarked bills) in a secret midnight flight. This ransom payment—disguised as a "settlement" for a decades-old arms deal—funded Iran’s terrorist proxies across the Middle East.
Suspicious Personal Enrichment
When Obama entered office, his net worth was roughly $1.3 million. By the time he left, estimates placed his wealth at $40 million or more—a 30-fold increase. While some of this came from book deals and speaking fees, the timing raises questions.
Did the military-industrial complex suddenly develop a passion for Obama’s memoirs? Did Netflix pay him $50 million for a production deal because of his filmmaking genius—or as a favor for policies that benefited Big Tech? Compare this to Donald Trump, who *lost* wealth as president, and the contrast is striking.
The Fake Dossier and Sabotaging Trump
Before leaving office, Obama’s intelligence officials greenlit the infamous Steele Dossier—a fabricated opposition research document funded by the Clinton campaign and used to justify spying on Trump’s team. This politically motivated abuse of surveillance powers ignited the Russia collusion hoax, which consumed Washington for years before being exposed as a sham.
Obama’s role in this scheme cannot be overlooked. His administration weaponized intelligence agencies to undermine his successor—an unprecedented assault on democratic norms.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Double Standards
Barack Obama’s presidency was defined by broken promises, political targeting, foreign policy failures, and personal enrichment. While the media painted him as a transcendent figure, his administration operated with a ruthless, Chicago-style political machine that punished enemies and rewarded allies.
As new revelations continue to emerge, history may judge Obama not as a unifying visionary, but as a divisive leader who expanded executive overreach, destabilized the Middle East, and set dangerous precedents for weaponizing government against opponents. The stuff, indeed, is about to hit the fan.
#Obama #FBI #CIA #Brennan #Clapper #Clinton #SusanRice
7/27/25
A Post From Dan Bonjino, Deputy Director of The FBI, and Former Secret Service Agent
A Post From Dan Bonjino, Deputy Director of The FBI, and Former Secret Service Agent
Via X/Twitter:
"During my tenure here as the Deputy Director of the FBI, I have repeatedly relayed to you that things are happening that might not be immediately visible, but they are happening.
The Director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations. It is a priority for us. But what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters, has shocked me down to my core. We cannot run a Republic like this. I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned.
We are going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law. We are going to get the answers WE ALL DESERVE. As with any investigation, I cannot predict where it will land, but I can promise you an honest and dignified effort at truth. Not “my truth,” or “your truth,” but THE TRUTH.
God bless America, and all those who defend Her.
Respectfully,
Dan"
Who Is Dan Bonjino?
Dan Bongino: From NYPD Beat to the Secret Service, then a show on FOX News, and now FBI Deputy Director
Dan Bongino’s journey embodies a uniquely American arc—a fusion of law enforcement grit, media stardom, and political ambition that culminated in his controversial appointment as Deputy Director of the FBI in 2025. His career reflects the volatile intersection of conservative media and government service in modern U.S. politics.
Early Career and Law Enforcement Foundations
Born in Queens, New York, in 1974, Bongino’s path began with academic pursuits in psychology. He earned both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the field from Queens College before adding an MBA from Pennsylvania State University. His law enforcement career launched in 1995 as an NYPD officer, where he served four years before joining the U.S. Secret Service in 1999.
As a Secret Service agent, Bongino received a Department of Justice award for financial fraud investigations and rose to the elite Presidential Protective Division in 2006. He protected both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, coordinating high-stakes visits to war zones and global summits. His resignation in 2011—to pursue politics—drew criticism from colleagues who accused him of leveraging his service for publicity.
Media Ascendancy and Political Campaigns
After leaving government service, Bongino pivoted to media and politics with equal fervor. He launched The Dan Bongino Show, a podcast that grew into a conservative media powerhouse with 8.5 million radio listeners at its peak. Simultaneously, he mounted three unsuccessful Republican campaigns:
- 2012 U.S. Senate race in Maryland (lost to Democrat Ben Cardin)
- 2014 Congressional bid (narrowly defeated by 1.5%)
- 2016 Florida House race (third in primary)
His media presence amplified during the Trump era. He became a Fox News host and founded the Bongino Report as a conservative alternative to the Drudge Report. His provocative style sparked controversies, including:
- A permanent YouTube ban in 2022 for COVID-19 misinformation
- A public clash with Cumulus Media over vaccine mandates
- Temporary Twitter suspensions for disputing election integrity claims
Table: Key Career Milestones
| Year | Event |
|----------|-----------|
| 1995–1999 | Served as NYPD officer |
| 2006–2011 | Protected Presidents Bush/Obama (Secret Service) |
| 2012–2016 | Ran for Senate (MD) and Congress (MD/FL) |
| 2019 | Launched Bongino Report |
| 2021 | Hosted Unfiltered on Fox News |
| 2025 | Appointed FBI Deputy Director |
FBI Leadership and Epstein Controversy
In February 2025, President Trump appointed Bongino as Deputy FBI Director under Director Kash Patel—a role not requiring Senate confirmation. His transition from media firebrand to law enforcement leader was rocky. Colleagues expressed concern about his history of inflammatory commentary, particularly regarding conspiracy theories about the "Deep State" and the Robert Mueller investigation.
By July 2025, Bongino faced a career-defining crisis during the Justice Department’s review of Jeffrey Epstein’s death. He clashed fiercely with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the handling of Epstein files, arguing for greater transparency while Bondi’s DOJ concluded Epstein died by suicide with no "client list". Key flashpoints included:
- Bongino’s discovery of a surveillance video from Epstein’s jail (later criticized for a 60-second gap)
- Accusations he leaked claims that the FBI wanted more disclosures
- Threats to resign after Bondi briefed Trump that his name appeared in Epstein documents
The feud exposed Bongino’s struggle to adapt to institutional norms. As one FBI lawyer warned, his media instincts conflicted with the bureau’s discretion. Though he returned to work after a brief absence, his relationship with the White House remained strained.
Political Identity and Legacy
Throughout his career, Bongino embraced combative partisanship, declaring in 2018: "My entire life right now is about owning the libs". A member of the conservative "Groundswell" network, he amplified theories like "Spygate" and dismissed the Trump-Russia investigation as a "scam". His appointment to the FBI symbolized Trump’s effort to reshape the bureau in his ideological image.
Health struggles also marked his journey. In 2020, he was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma after a neck tumor discovery but announced he had "beaten" cancer in 2021.
Conclusion: The Unconventional Enforcer
Dan Bongino represents a new model of government servant: a media-savvy operator whose ascent reflects the blurring lines between commentary and governance. His FBI tenure—defined by the Epstein turmoil—highlights tensions between populist expectations and institutional realities. Whether navigating jailhouse surveillance tapes or White House feuds, Bongino remains a polarizing figure whose career embodies America’s era of political disruption. As the Epstein saga unfolds, his capacity to balance his partisan past with his law enforcement present will determine his legacy at the FBI.
#FBI #Bonjino #DanBonjino
Trump announces EU trade deal with 15% tariffs
Trump announces EU trade deal with 15% tariffs
- President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the U.S. has reached a trade deal with the European Union.
- "It's a very powerful deal, it's a very big deal, it's the biggest of all the deals," Trump said.
- The U.S. president had previously threatened 30% tariffs on goods from the European Union.
- Ahead of his meeting with von der Leyen, Trump said that it was a 50-50 chance they'd make a deal.
- #Trade #Tariffs #Tariff #FreeTrade
The Invisible Tax: How Tariffs Work and Who Really Pays
The Invisible Tax: How Tariffs Work and Who Really Pays
Tariffs—often described as trade taxes or import duties—are among the oldest and most contentious tools of economic policy. At their core, tariffs are taxes imposed by governments on imported goods, calculated either as a fixed fee per unit (specific tariff) or a percentage of the item's value (ad valorem tariff) . While politically framed as tools to protect domestic industries or punish "unfair" trade practices, their economic impact is far more complex. As global trade tensions escalate in 2025, with U.S. average effective tariff rates reaching 22.5%—the highest since 1909—understanding their mechanics and true costs becomes critical .
How Tariffs Operate: Economic Mechanics
Tariffs function by inserting a price wedge between the global market and domestic consumers. For example:
- A 10% tariff on a $100 imported product raises its domestic price to $110.
- The $10 difference is collected as government revenue, but crucially, this "tax" can depress global demand, potentially lowering the world price (e.g., to $95). If the domestic price then becomes $104.50, foreign producers effectively absorb part of the cost.
This dynamic triggers four ripple effects:
1. Consumer Substitution: Higher import prices push consumers toward domestic alternatives, benefiting local industries.
2. Supply Chain Disruptions: Domestic manufacturers relying on imported inputs face inflated production costs.
3. Currency Adjustments: Reduced import demand weakens demand for foreign currency, appreciating the domestic exchange rate. This makes exports costlier abroad, hurting competitiveness .
4. Inflationary Pressure: Tariffs act as supply shocks, eroding wage purchasing power and raising production costs. Empirical data shows each 10% tariff hike raises producer prices by ~1% .
Table: U.S. 2025 Tariff Impact on Consumer Prices
| Category | Short-Run Price Increase | Long-Run Price Increase |
|--------------|------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Apparel | 36% | 17% |
| Footwear | 40% | 19% |
| Motor Vehicles | 13.1% | 10.0% |
| Fresh Produce | 6.5% | 3.7% |
| Overall CPI | 2.0–2.3% | 1.7% |
Source: Yale Budget Lab and J.P. Morgan Research
Who Pays? The Burden Distribution
Contrary to political rhetoric, tariffs are primarily paid by domestic stakeholders, not foreign exporters:
1. Consumers Bear the Brunt:
- Full Pass-Through: Studies of recent U.S.-China tariffs show 90–100% of costs passed to consumers .
- Regressive Impact: Lower-income households spend disproportionately more on tariff-affected goods (e.g., apparel, food). In 2025, U.S. tariffs cost the bottom 10% of households 3.8% of income versus 1.1% for the top 10%—a burden 3.5× heavier .
- Annual Costs: $1,400 per household for the poorest decile vs. $5,600 for the richest .
2. Domestic Industries Face Squeeze:
- Input-Dependent Sectors: Manufacturers using imported materials (e.g., steel) see costs surge. The 2025 aluminum tariffs raised input expenses so sharply that the Midwest premium market faced "paralysis" .
- Exporters Lose Edge: Currency appreciation from tariffs makes U.S. exports pricier. Long-run U.S. exports could fall 17–18% under current policies .
3. Government Gains—With Caveats:
- Tariffs generated $2.9 trillion for the U.S. treasury from 2026–2035 in static scoring.
- However, dynamic losses (reduced growth, employment) slash $467 billion from this revenue .
4. Foreign Producers Adjust Marginally:
- Large economies like the U.S. can force partial absorption of tariffs by foreign firms (e.g., Chinese exporters lowering prices). Yet this effect is often offset by currency shifts .
Broader Economic Consequences
Tariffs function as efficiency taxes, distorting resource allocation:
- GDP Contraction: U.S. GDP is projected to be 0.4–0.6% smaller long-term under 2025 tariffs—equivalent to $135–$180 billion annually. Unemployment may rise by 594,000 jobs .
- Sectoral Imbalances: While U.S. manufacturing output could grow 2.5%, construction and agriculture shrink by 4.0% and 0.8% respectively due to resource reallocation and higher input costs .
- Trade Wars Amplify Losses: Retaliatory tariffs deepen recessions. EU retaliation alone could double U.S. GDP losses, while Canada’s economy may contract 2.0%.
Table: Global GDP Impact of U.S. 2025 Tariffs
| Economy | Long-Run GDP Change | Key Drivers |
|-------------|-------------------------|----------------|
| United States | -0.4% to -0.6% | Higher input costs, reduced exports |
| Canada | -2.0% | USMCA non-compliant tariffs, retaliation |
| China | -0.2% | Lower export demand |
| EU | -0.1% to -0.3% | Weaker exports, real income loss |
| Mexico | +0.1% | Production shifts from Asia |
Source: EU Commission and Yale Budget Lab
Historical Context and Modern Relevance
Tariffs have evolved through three distinct U.S. eras:
1. Revenue Dominance (1790–1860): Tariffs funded ~90% of federal income.
2. Protectionism (1861–1933): Industrial shielding peaked with Smoot-Hawley’s 20% average tariffs.
3. Reciprocity (1934–2016): Trade agreements prioritized barrier reduction .
The 2025 measures mark a protectionist resurgence, justified as correcting trade imbalances. Yet economists widely agree tariffs are ineffective for deficit reduction:
- Trade gaps reflect saving-investment imbalances, not tariff levels. The U.S. deficit persists because domestic spending exceeds income—a dynamic unchanged by tariffs .
- Manufacturing employment gains are marginal: Even eliminating the goods trade deficit would lift factory jobs from 8% to 10% of the workforce—too small to offset broader economic losses .
The Case For and Against in 2025
Arguments For Tariffs:
- Infant Industry Protection: Shielding emerging sectors (e.g., clean tech) during development.
- National Security: Reducing reliance on geopolitical rivals for critical goods (e.g., semiconductors) .
- Bargaining Leverage: Used to pressure Mexico on immigration or China on intellectual property .
Arguments Against Tariffs:
- Net Economic Loss: The 2018–19 China tariffs caused $51 billion in consumer/firm losses—only partially offset by protected-sector jobs .
- Supply Chain Chaos: Companies shift sourcing to third countries (e.g., Vietnam) rather than reshoring, creating inefficiencies .
- Inflation-Output Tradeoff: The Fed faces a dilemma: counter tariff-driven inflation with rate hikes (crushing growth) or tolerate erosion of real incomes .
Conclusion: The Self-Defeating Tax
Tariffs epitomize economic circularity: a tax sold as protection for domestic interests, yet paid overwhelmingly by a country’s own consumers and exporters. As Milton Friedman observed, they "protect the consumer against low prices" while eroding purchasing power and global competitiveness . The 2025 wave—with its regressive burdens, efficiency losses, and retaliation risks—reinforces a century of economic consensus: tariffs act as self-inflicted wounds, enriching narrow sectors at the expense of broader prosperity. In trade, as in medicine, the Hippocratic oath applies—first, do no harm.
For further reading, see the Yale Budget Lab’s real-time tariff tracker or the WTO’s analyses of trade policy mechanisms .
#Tariffs #Tariff #Trade #TradeDeals
5 things to know about tariffs and how they work
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)