Only President Trump could get the Canadians to vote for an exit to the USMCA, and he did it brilliantly.

To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the NAFTA renegotiation.  If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.

During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.

In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed the NAFTA agreement was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two seperate bilateral trade agreements. One between the USA and Mexico, and one between the USA and Canada.

In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole.  The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.

Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the ‘environmental’ aspirations of their progressive politicians.  Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs.  Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.

Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement.  President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward.  Trudeau said he would not support it.  Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.

(more…)

CBS 60-Minutes has been one of the most deliberately manipulated news and opinion programs in the past several years.  They have been so over-the-top in their gaslighting and biased media coverage, that all credibility within the weekly broadcast TV show has been eviscerated.

Bill Owens has been the executive producer of the show since 2019, specifically responsible for increasing the bias and propaganda openly displayed.  President Trump has sued 60-Minutes over their extremely manipulative editing of an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024.  That lawsuit is ongoing.

Today, Bill Owens announced he is resigning as executive producer of the broadcast, citing his inability to continue making independent decisions about the subject matter presented on the broadcast.

(VIA MSM) – Bill Owens, the executive producer of 60 Minutes, said Tuessday that he is resigning from the program, telling staffers he had lost his ability to make independent decisions about the show.

“Over the past months, it has also become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it,” Owens wrote in a memo obtained by Deadline. “To make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience. So, having defended this show – and what we stand for – from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward. (read more)

(more…)

When did citizens of other nations gain USA constitutional rights?

According to Senator Van Hollen discussing illegal alien Abrego Garcia has U.S. “Constitutional Rights.”  Van Hollen claimed on CBS, “I want to be really clear, this is not a case about just one man whose constitutional rights are being ignored and disrespected. Because when you trample on the constitutional rights of one man, as the courts have all said is happening in this case, you threaten the constitutional rights of every American.”  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has decided against joining any lawsuits targeting the tariffs put into place by President Trump, Commerce Secretary Lutnick and the National Economic Council.  This is quite a new shift in tone from the generally hostile CoC.

In the background, the U.S. CoC has historically surveyed their corporate sponsors and conducts extensive polling on their interests as part of their decision-making process.  Perhaps the CoC is starting to realize a larger American awakening of their long history selling out middle-America is too risky for them politically.

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has no immediate plans to join the growing number of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs, two people with direct knowledge of discussions confirmed to POLITICO.

The business group, one of the most influential trade associations in Washington, will instead focus on lobbying the Trump administration on the tariffs directly, said the people, who were granted anonymity to divulge sensitive and developing discussions.

[…] “While we believe that tariffs under [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] are legally questionable, the president has other tools to impose similar tariffs that equally damage America’s Main Street Businesses,” the Chamber said in a statement to POLITICO. “The only way to provide immediate relief is for the Administration to pull back on these harmful tariffs.” (more)

(more…)

The report comes as a result of leaks to the New York Times. Which, given the nature of the subject matter and administration officials involved, indicates the sourcing is from the domestic IC side of things. Specifically, the greatest likelihood is from someone in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) talking to media.  Keep that in mind.

According to leaked information to the New York Times, President Trump did not agree with an Israeli proposal to launch military strikes against Iran.  According to the narrative as advanced, President Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were in agreement to attempt diplomatic solutions instead of bombing Iran.

Israel could not conduct the attack without U.S. support, which President Trump decided not to give.  Instead, Trump wanted a more forceful push toward engagement and diplomacy with Iran surrounding the ongoing contentious issue of nuclear development.

NEW YORK TIMES – Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

(more…)

It’s not the first part of the 46-page ruling [SEE HERE] by Judge James Boasberg, threatening to hold President Trump and Main Justice in criminal contempt of court, that presents the biggest problem; it’s the second part where Boasberg is threatening to appoint an independent Judicial Branch prosecutor against the DOJ and Trump that makes a constitutional crisis tilt toward a near civil war between the branches.

Outlining his determination that President Trump defied a court order, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg states, “the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

As noted by Politico, within the ruling Boasberg goes on to say:

…”if the administration doesn’t rectify the issue, the judge said he may require administration officials to testify under oath so that he can identify the specific individuals responsible for violating his order. He would then request that those individuals be prosecuted.

The judge signaled he could appoint an outside lawyer to prosecute the contempt case if the Justice Department declines to do so.” (link)

I think we all know the very select group of “beach friend” people whom Boasberg would lean toward in appointing someone to prosecute Pam Bondi and DOJ officials representing President Trump.

High on the list of possible judicial branch appointments, who would be subject to review by the authority of Boasberg himself, would be his prior friendship with a previous appointee, Mary McCord.  Or possibly Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen, David Laufman or any other credentialed member of the Lawfare alliance.

(more…)

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has been a key strategic ally for the Trump administration in support of the deportation and repatriation of hundreds of criminal aliens and gang members from the region.

Beginning in 2012, supported by President Obama, thousands of criminal gang members from south and central America flooded into the USA.  In 2017, President Trump began to secure the border; however, in 2021 Joe Biden made the entry of alien gang members even easier.  In 2025, President Trump is utilizing President Bukele and his maximum detention centers in El Salvador to reverse the flow and remove the gangs.

President Bukele has initiated major criminal justice reform in the nation of El Salvador, liberating millions of people who were terrorized by the criminal element. Today President Trump thanked Bukele for his partnership in the White House and held an open press assembly.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Things are again not what they seem, but you have to stand back to understand the right questions.

People have asked about the recent release of the declassified FBI documents (a partial release) and what they mean.  Having spent years deep in the research, here’s my take.

At first blush people may say there’s nothing really there that we didn’t already know. I would differ on that perspective because the process is telling us something very loudly, and the absence of material is shouting even louder.

Simple question:  This stuff was declassified by President Trump and released by the FBI, correct?  If so, then why isn’t the release simply uploaded to the FBI.Gov website.  Why release it to congress and then leak it to John Solomon?

Read the underline.  First things first. Explain to me exactly how these were “obtained.”  Where did Solomon get them?

[SOURCE]

If it’s all on the up-and-up, and if it is simply an outcome of declassified material, then why is sourcing for the documents clouded in some weird mystery.  Shouldn’t we know the process?  Those of you who remember the FISA application release, will know why this process issue is important.

Next, the information is given to the founding member of the “Tick Tock” club.  John Solomon has singularly been responsible for more purposefully controlled information releases than any other ‘conservative’ media rep for the Intel Community.  The Russiagate files coming from Solomon should be the first big “red flag” that causes pause.

Who game them to Solomon?  And again, why not just upload them to a .gov website (DNI, FBI or even HPSCI).

I suspect the intention here, the motive of the process, is to focus on the politics of the release, NOT the illegal nature of the conduct that is contained within the evidence the release outlines.  They want the public focused on the “politics” not the “illegal surveillance” and unlawful conduct that underpins Russiagate.

(more…)

President Donald J Trump announcing the end of the 80-year-old Marshall Plan (aka The European Recovery Program) of one-way tariffs against American imports has triggered a very predictable response from the European Union.

While saying the EU is prepared to enter negations toward a zero-tariff trade reciprocity, Comrade Ursula von der Leyen simultaneously announced that Brussels is prepared to launch countermeasures against The United States, in an effort to retain economic control and access to a U.S. consumer market they must exploit for their economic survival.

Speaking in very deliberate terms, the EU Komisar states the U.S. decision to demand reciprocity, and fairness will deliver “immense” and “dire consequences” for the New World Order and “global trading system.”  von der Leyen proclaims that global citizens will be impacted with higher grocery bills, shortages of medication and increased costs for transportation.

The leader of the world’s largest bureaucracy stunningly proclaims President Trump’s tariffs will increase the “burdens of bureaucracy.” The one-sided benefits and “interests of the European Union” will be protected at all costs.   WATCH:

.

Regarding “countermeasures.” Again, we repeat the predicable response.  Together with their unelected ally in Canada controlling the North American response, watch for the EU to target Big USA Tech companies and financial service sectors.

The goal of the EU will be to assemble a tariff countermeasure response that will deliver political pain, not economic consequences.  That’s just how they roll.  The EU will leverage disgruntled Wall Street, banking and Technocracy sectors in order to put political pressure on Donald Trump to back down.

Optically this is the worst possible type of pontificating EU spokesperson to generate internal American opposition.  Frankly comrade Ursula, MAGA don’t give a damn. [Pinky Finger Salute]

(more…)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spins a tale of Automaker Stellantis temporarily shutting down auto plants in Canada and Mexico as an outcome of President Trump’s tariffs.  Unfortunately, the gaslighting by Carney might work on less intellectual SnowMexicans, but it fails here.

Stellantis, an EU centered auto company who sell Dodge, Ram (made in Mexico) and Dodge, Durango (made in Canada), have been in a deepening crisis for over a year as a result of poor brand management, poor development and weak North American sales.  In short, their cars and trucks are not selling, that’s why the CEO quit in December, and they fired and replaced the North American leadership team.  It has nothing to do with Trump’s auto tariffs against Mexico and Canada.

That said, Mark Carney used the Stellantis plant closing (Windsor) as cover to announce that Canada would match the auto-tariffs with a 25% countervailing duty against all U.S. made cars and trucks. [Prompted]

This approach only raises the ceiling for the U.S. tariffs against Canada.  Quite frankly, I’m not sure why President Trump would continue to play this game with Carney and should (for the sake of simplicity) just cancel all trade with Canada and begin an immediate embargo and border blockade.

Tell the Carney clown to stay at home, shut it all down and let the Canadians live as a sovereign nation under the rule and regulation of the EU while they continue to destroy their energy resources and import foreign workers.  It’s silly to keep entertaining Canada as if they really matter.

If it wasn’t for the national security threat they could represent on our border, Canada would likely get little policy attention from any administration.   The Trudeau/Carney’s of the world are just annoying now.  Sorry Canada, but this Carney guy is even worse than the last Prime Minister.   They won’t even say “USMCA” because it’s Trump or something.  So, Carney says “CUSMA” 😂🤣😂 Childish, silly and so typically leftist. Too funny!

(more…)