Saturday, April 5, 2025

Why We Should Be Very Angry About the Tariffs — and Why Trump Is Right Again

Why We Should Be Very Angry About the Tariffs — and Why Trump Is Right Again

AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

On April 2nd, President Donald J. Trump did something no other modern president has had the spine to do. He declared “Liberation Day” and slapped sweeping tariffs on the very nations that have been gutting the American economy for decades. A 10 percent universal tariff across all imports. Targeted, punitive tariffs up to 34 percent on bad actors like China. And guess what? We should be furious—not at Trump—but at the spineless presidents before him who let things get this bad in the first place.

Let’s be clear: these tariffs didn’t start a trade war. They responded to one.

For decades, our so-called allies and trading partners have been gleefully waging economic warfare on the United States, with the full permission — no, the encouragement — of prior administrations. China flooded our markets with cheap steel, violating trade norms and collapsing American mills. The European Union protected its own industries while slapping barriers on ours. Japan, Taiwan, and others enjoyed one-sided access to our consumers while shielding their own markets with layers of red tape and tariffs.

And what did our leaders do in response? They looked the other way. Smiled. Shook hands. Signed one-sided trade deals. Sold us out. They told us it was for the “global good,” for “peace,” for “prosperity.” But the only people prospering were in Beijing, Brussels, and Tokyo. In small-town Ohio, Detroit, and western Pennsylvania, all we got were pink slips and boarded-up factories.

Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are long overdue justice. They’re a correction to a rigged game that’s been hurting American businesses, workers, and families for far too long.

Let’s talk steel and aluminum. In 2018, President Trump placed a 25 percent tariff on foreign steel and 10 percent on aluminum to push back against dumping and reclaim our national security edge. That wasn’t a rash decision — it was backed by years of data showing our dependence on foreign metals made us vulnerable. Yet in that time, D.C. elites told us to let it happen. That “free trade” meant letting foreign nations cheat while we played by the rules.

Even our farmers haven’t been spared. Take California’s almond growers — part of a $23.6 billion ag export economy. Under previous administrations, they were hung out to dry as countries like China and India retaliated against our lack of backbone by imposing their own crushing tariffs. Instead of defending our farmers, those in power shrugged and said it was the cost of doing business in a “global economy.”

It’s nonsense. And it’s unforgivable.

Now, the hand-wringers in the media — and predictably, the Biden administration holdovers — are moaning that these tariffs could raise consumer prices. That they could cause friction. That they might prompt retaliation.

Good.

Let them squirm.

Because the goal here isn’t to make life easy for globalist bureaucrats. It’s to bring fairness back to American trade. To restore dignity to American work. And to put America first — unapologetically.

Treasury Secretary Bessent was right to warn other nations not to retaliate. The message is simple: this isn’t about starting fights, it’s about ending decades of economic surrender. For too long, the U.S. has subsidized the success of other nations while they’ve exploited our openness. That ends now.

And let’s talk about the bigger picture. These tariffs aren’t just about economics — they’re about sovereignty and national security. COVID-19 exposed what happens when America offshores everything from microchips to medicine. We were left scrambling. Now, with these tariffs, we have a shot at rebuilding critical industries here at home.

We’ve heard for years that American manufacturing is a relic of the past. That we should get used to “service sector” jobs. That we can just code apps and order stuff from China. But what happens when China turns off the tap? What happens when global supply chains buckle?

We need American factories. We need American steel. We need Americans building things again.

Tariffs may cause short-term adjustments, but they pave the way for long-term independence. And that’s worth every penny.

The truth is, these tariffs are a moral issue. When we allow foreign governments to manipulate currency, exploit labor, and dump products in our markets, we’re enabling injustice. And when our own leaders look the other way, they’re complicit.

President Trump isn’t just fixing trade — he’s exposing the rot. He’s showing us how many American politicians were more loyal to global think tanks than to the people who elected them.

And that’s what really stings the establishment.

Because Trump — like Reagan before him — puts the American people first. Not in rhetoric. Not in focus-grouped slogans. But in action. Bold, unapologetic, unmistakable action.

Where Reagan challenged the Soviets, Trump is challenging a corrupt globalist system. And just like Reagan was right then, Trump is right now.

If you’re not angry about these tariffs, you’re not paying attention. We should be furious — that it took this long to get here. Furious at presidents who smiled while our industries died. Furious at politicians who used middle America as a bargaining chip for Davos clout.

But thanks to Trump, the tide is turning.

He may be the only president since Reagan who’s had the courage to stare down the world and say, “You will not take advantage of America anymore.”

And for that, every American — every farmer, every factory worker, every small business owner — should be standing and cheering.

Because it’s about time someone stood up for us. Shame on the ones who didn’t. And thank God for the one who finally did.


MAHA: Top FDA Vax-Monger’s Firing Sends Pharma Stocks Plummeting

MAHA: Top FDA Vax-Monger’s Firing Sends Pharma Stocks Plummeting

AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis

Let’s assume that the FDA regulators practiced real science without fear or favor in the public interest.

Why would the pharmaceutical industry stocks tank when one of them is forced to exit?  

They would presumably be replaced with an equally honest broker who would continue the longstanding practice of honest science in the public interest.

Related: In 2025, WebMD Claims COVID Vax ‘Still Crucial for Children’

Furthermore, why would industry actors describe that fired bureaucrat — who, again, ostensibly regulates their behavior, whose interests are totally unaligned with theirs — as an “ally”?

Via Children's Health Defense (emphasis added):

Pharma stocks tumbled today after Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the agency within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responsible for authorizing vaccinesresigned under pressure from his new boss, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“If Peter Marks does not want to get behind restoring science to its golden standard and promoting radical transparency, then he has no place at FDA under the strong leadership of Secretary Kennedy,” an HHS official said in a statement.

Shares of Moderna, BioNTech, Novavax and Pfizer declined 11%, 7%, 6% and 2%, respectively, on the news, Fast Company reported. STAT News reported that Marks’ departure “is a worst-case scenario realized” for investors and “a biopharma industry that saw him as an ally.”

It’s all well and good that RFK Jr. is purging these people from the ranks of the FDA, CDC, et al.

But what we really need is very rigorous criminal investigations and prosecutions for the perpetrators of the greatest medical hoax, and arguably the greatest criminal conspiracy, in world history.

If no consequences are meted out, there is no real disincentive for them to merely regroup once a Democrat takes back White House power (which is inevitable in our current duopoly).

We need deterrence delivered by the long arm of the law.  

These people need to be made to tremble in fear at the mere thought of using their positions of power, undergirded by the state, for the benefit of themselves personally and the industries they ostensibly regulate.

Barring any of that, this is just theatrical rearranging of Titanic deck chairs, as Trump can’t remain in power forever.

We have perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to totally remake the federal bureaucracy and set the precedent that malfeasance on the part of bureaucrats will no longer be tolerated. The time may never come again.

Marks, for his part, claims to have “resigned” rather than being fired. If true, sometimes the trash has a way of taking itself out.

In the end, making the workplace conditions so hostile to these people — “these people” being vaccine totalitarians in this case — might be even more effective at weeding out the bad apples than mass firings.

Related: Trump to Halt Gain-of-Function Viral Research Via Executive Order, Per Report

Via CNBC (emphasis added):

The Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine regulator Peter Marks has resigned, citing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “misinformation and lies” around immunization, according to a resignation letter obtained by CNBC.

For nearly 10 years, Marks led the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, a post that included evaluating Covid-19 vaccines and establishing guidelines for emerging treatments like cell and gene therapies. A key figure at the FDA, biopharma industry insiders were closely watching Marks amid the transition.

Let’s not tear up too much for Marks.

He doubtless has a very lucrative pharmaceutical industry position awaiting him as his due reward for years of “public service,” which I’ll report on when he does.

Marks was the single guy, more than any other individual save for perhaps Albert Bourla or Anthony Fauci, as the FDA’s top vax regulator, responsible for pushing the COVID-19 shots through the regulatory process (based on provable fraud on Pfizer’s part) at record speed (“Warp Speed”).

As always, the hubris of these people to crawl out of their rat hole bunkers to gripe to their media partners about “misinformation” is unreal. He ought to be under the jail, groveling for mercy, not walking around freely collecting his government pension. Yet, he feels comfortable and entitled enough to loudly complain publicly about his alleged mistreatment — which, in my view, tells us we still have a long way to go to rein these people and institutions back in.

https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2025/04/02/maha-top-fda-vax-mongers-firing-sends-pharma-stocks-plummeting-n4938511?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Absolutely Wild Details About How Democrats Covered Up Biden's Decline Reveal a Historic Scandal

Absolutely Wild Details About How Democrats Covered Up Biden's Decline Reveal a Historic Scandal

Mandel Ngan/Pool via AP

Just when you think you've heard everything there is to hear about how Democrats covered up Joe Biden's dramatic physical and cognitive decline as president, there's more.

As RedState recently reported, there was a point late in his ill-fated re-election campaign when Biden's handlers had to use fluorescent tape on the floor to keep him from wandering off during a speaking engagement. That was revealed in a new book entitled "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House," and more excerpts have been released. 

One incident involved Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), with Biden seemingly not knowing who the Congressman was. He then had to coach the former president into remembering him. 

Swalwell had not been invited to the White House often, like most members of Congress, but when Biden and Swalwell came face to face, Biden didn’t immediately recognize the congressman, according to the book. 

Swalwell needed to note personal details to remind Biden of who he is. 

Swalwell may not be the most well-known politician out there, but he had been a fairly visible part of the Democratic Party for over a decade, including meeting Biden face-to-face several times. The former president not knowing who the congressman was should have been a major red flag, but the cover-up took precedence over everything, and everyone involved stayed quiet on the matter. 

In another part of the book, one of Biden's former aides shared how they would use a make-up artist to cover up how deteriorated his physical appearance had become. 

I'll note that the G7 Summit mentioned there was the same one where Biden wandered off during a photo-op, leading Redstate and other conservative outlets to report on the incident. The White House and the mainstream press then spent weeks accusing us of spreading "cheap fakes." Meanwhile, the former president was so far gone at the time that they had to use an on-demand make-up artist to make him appear somewhat alive for Zoom calls. I'm feeling just a bit vindicated as I write this.

Still, there was one person who remained "a thousand percent" behind Biden's re-election bid: Jill Biden. 

First lady Jill Biden was “a thousand percent” behind it. 

“At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone in that inner circle was presenting the president any contrary advice that this thing is not going to be easy or maybe this is not the best thing for the Democratic Party,” they said. 

That won't surprise anyone who followed her tenure as First Lady. To say she was ambitious and seemed to revel in living the high life on the taxpayer's dime would be an understatement. She wasn't the only one, though. Several of Biden's top advisors were also doing everything they could to hold onto power. It's a cliche, but this was "Weekend at Bernie's" going on in the White House, with the former president's entire inner circle lying to the American people for personal gain. It wasn't until Biden's historically bad debate performance that the dam finally broke. 

Of course, even with so much out in the open now, the press are still gaslighting about what transpired. 

Party and administration officials repeatedly downplayed these worries, insisting Biden was fully capable of winning and serving another four-year term in office. Despite Biden’s occasional public stumbles, they sought to assure the public that behind closed doors, Biden remained sharp and fully in command. 

Ocassional public stumbles? Are they kidding? I wrote a story almost every day during the last few years of Biden's presidency on his senility, not because I loved covering the topic (it got rather boring after a while) but because he had that many public stumbles to cover. It was a continual onslaught of material, and by 2024, I was dumbfounded they were still letting him do events at all. 

So, while these tell-all books are nice to finally see, I can't quite shake the frustration that no one will ultimately be held accountable for any of this. Is Swalwell going to be pressed on why he didn't blow the whistle? Of course not. Will Biden's staffers be cast into the wilderness? On the contrary, most have already landed new positions. The biggest presidential scandal in modern history occurred, and it's being treated like a normal news story. It makes you wonder what they'll try to get away with next.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/03/31/more-wild-details-about-how-democrats-covered-up-bidens-decline-point-to-a-historic-scandal-n2187357?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Your Friendly Reminder That There Are No Grassroots Efforts on the Left

The Morning Briefing: Your Friendly Reminder That There Are No Grassroots Efforts on the Left

Image Generated by the Author Using Grok

Top O' the Briefing

Happy Tuesday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Ulenbecua felt that she didn't get enough respect for her ability to free-mime any scene from the first season of "Saved by the Bell."

Leftists sure do love their protests, don't they? It often seems as if every radical from the '60s hooked up and brought forth little baby commie malcontents, who then had kids of their own. 

Things aren't really that natural with the angry, protesting mobs on the Left, though. Oh, those Vietnam-era angry hippies were more authentic and self-motivated. They were real outsiders then, but would go on to become entrenched members of the Democratic Establishment. I explained that whole journey in my classic book, "Don't Let the Hippies Shower." 

That 1960s hippies-infused Democratic hierarchy grew up to become professional agitators. They were management, though, long past the point when they wanted to get dirty in the streets. Or arrested. They established a tradition of top-down civil unrest, astroturfing long before it was called that. 

My good friend and partner in thought crime Stephen Green wrote about the latest organized uprisings from the lefties:

You too can be reimbursed for up to $200, and all you have to do is protest Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk from the comfort of a Tesla dealership. It isn't clear whether the offer from the left-wing Indivisible Project covers the cost of spray paint, keys, or bail, but money is fungible — so wink-wink, nudge-nudge, comrade. 

"Indivisible Project can reimburse groups for eligible expenses associated with your Musk or Us actions, up to $200 per group, per congressional recess!" the group's website reads, followed by a link to get the reimbursement form. 

Stephen goes on to explain the Indivisible Project's origins and its, um, interesting funding. 

Things like this are typical over on the "mostly peaceful protests" side of the aisle. I've been a conservative activist for over four decades and I don't know that I've ever seen an organic protest from the left. I won't unequivocally declare that I haven't, but I can't point to any of the ones I remember and say they weren't astroturfed. 

I'll share an anecdote from my Tea Party days. It was at the height of the Occupy Wall Street fever, which the Democrats' flying monkeys in the mainstream media were portraying as a leftist grassroots response to the Tea Party. I was in Madison, WI to give a tax day speech at the state capitol the next day. Another Tea Party stalwart (who shall remain nameless) roped me into taking a little tour of the sizeable Occupy encampment that was about a mile from our hotel. 

We didn't want to roll up in a cab, so we took a bus. We were taken to a woman who was in charge and told her that we were writers and interested in learning about the encampment. She didn't press us for specifics. I had a video camera (remember those?) and they allowed me to take some footage. 

The place was dismal, pungent, and populous. It wasn't a gathering of principled protesters, it was a pop-up homeless encampment that was obviously being funded from the outside. At the end of the grand tour, I asked the woman if she slept there. She laughed and said, "No way." She was at a nearby hotel, but didn't tell us who was paying for it. All Occupy money trails led to George Soros, though. Anyway, she was about to head out for the night and offered to give us a ride. We had her drop us off at a restaurant because we didn't want her to know where we were staying. 

By the way, it was a lot of fun the next day when all of the people from the Occupy campout saw us with our "Speaker" credentials as we walked up to the Capitol steps.

That's just my favorite story. There was always a "one of these things is not like the others" person in charge at every Occupy Wall Street gathering we encountered in each city we went to in 2011. There were also organizers at every small lefty protest we encountered back then, typically from Big Labor, and almost always reps from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They were usually pretty open about it, too. It's the Dem lapdogs in the MSM who create and perpetuate the grassroots fiction. 

It's all garbage.

At the end of February, Stephen wrote a column about a fever dream at The Atlantic which hoped the libs could respond to President Trump with a Tea Party movement of their own. That got us reminiscing about other low-T attempts by the leftists to get a little Tea Party mojo of their own going. Occupy Wall Street was the largest, of course. Stephen reminded me about "The Coffee Party," and "No Labels," both of which were launched with great fanfare and extensive media coverage and fizzled out as soon as the MSM grew bored and moved onto other things. 

A genuine political grassroots movement springs up among people who share common principles in response to a problem. It doesn't require offers of free food, places to sleep, or some generous pocket change. When I co-founded the Los Angeles Tea Party, it was with three guys I only knew from Twitter. We had a common goal, put in a little effort, and got it going. We didn't seek funding or the help of any organization. Heck, the Republican Party wasn't even on our side. 

Trust me, you'll never hear a similar story from the Dems and their agitators. Not one that's true, anyway.

https://pjmedia.com/stephen-kruiser/2025/03/31/the-morning-briefing-your-friendly-reminder-that-there-are-no-grassroots-efforts-on-the-left-n4938453?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Friday, April 4, 2025

Here's Why Trump Will Win the Tariff Standoff

Here's Why Trump Will Win the Tariff Standoff

AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made it clear in an interview with CNN that the era of trade imbalances is over, and under President Trump, the U.S. will no longer tolerate unfair treatment. 

During a discussion with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Bessent confidently explained the administration’s position on tariffs and trade policy, signaling that Trump’s economic strategy is deliberate and well thought out.

When pressed on how the administration’s policies could impact the auto industry, particularly regarding vehicles made with foreign parts, Bessent was blunt. 

“If half the cars coming into the United States are foreign-made, that's hard to turn around overnight, as you know,” Collins said. “So what would you say to people in the auto industry who are worried about that timeline and how quickly that could shift?”

“Buy American,” Bessent said bluntly. He also clarified that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) exempts certain vehicles and parts from the new tariffs.

Collins attempted to raise concerns from U.S. allies, questioning what the administration would say to countries like South Korea and Japan, which are now facing increased tariffs. Bessent’s response was direct: “Well, I would say they’ve been doing it to us for a long time. And, if they don’t like tariffs, then why do they have them?” His answer underscored the administration’s stance that America has been on the losing end of trade deals for too long.

As for whether the tariffs should be considered permanent, Bessent took a wait-and-see approach. “I think we’re gonna wait and see how this plays out,” he explained, suggesting that adjustments could be made based on how the policy unfolds.

Collins also asked about the possibility of retaliation from other countries. Some foreign leaders have hinted at potential countermeasures, while others have opted to observe before making a move. Bessent urged patience. “One of the messages that I’d like to get out tonight is everybody sit back, take a deep breath, don’t immediately retaliate, let’s see where this goes. Because if you retaliate, that’s how we get escalation.”

RelatedKevin O’Leary Slams Canada’s 'Sheer Stupidity' in Trade Standoff With Trump

When Collins pressed him on whether such escalation could turn into a full-fledged trade war, Bessent dismissed the idea. “Not a trade war. Depends on the country,” he said, before explaining that history favors the United States in such disputes.

“Remember that the history of trade is, we are the deficit country. The deficit country has an advantage,” he explained. “[The others] are the surplus countries. The surplus countries traditionally always lose any kind of a trade escalation.”

His message to foreign governments was clear: Acting hastily would be a mistake. “As a student of economic history or a professor of economic history, I’d advise against it,” he said. When Collins sought further clarification, he reinforced the point: “I would say that doing anything rash would be unwise.”

Bessent’s remarks leave no doubt that Trump’s trade policies are rooted in historical precedent and strategic calculation. While globalists may panic, the Trump administration remains confident that America is in a stronger position than its trade partners. And history is on our side.

Bessent's message is clear: Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/03/heres-why-trump-will-win-the-tariff-standoff-n4938553?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl