The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s So-Called Tariff Wars

 

Where are we in the trade wars, the tariff wars?

The stock market recently has recovered somewhat. We’re about where it was in August. I didn’t think it was too bad in August of 2024. It’s recovering 1% to 2%, on occasion. And why is that? Because Donald Trump has announced that JD Vance and his wife, who is of Indian legacy—her family was born in India—met with the Indian government officials, and there may be a trade deal.

Japan has been talking with us. They both want—us and Japan—want a deal. Japan says we moved the goalpost. We say, “They’re not serious.” But there’s going to be a deal there.

And more importantly, Donald Trump said he was willing to lower tariffs on China. Now the Left says, “Oh, he’s caving, he’s caving. This was all unnecessary.”

You could interpret it that way. But it’s more likely “Art of the Deal.”

In other words, “We’re going to invade Panama,” but we’re not going to invade Panama. We just want Panama to let American companies run the exit and the entry to the canal—and that’s probably going to happen.

“Canada’s going to be the 51st state.” No. It’s not going to be the 51st state. But Canada should defend themselves and pay 2% of their GDP, and they need to address a $65-$100 billion deficit.

But, “We want to absorb Greenland.” No. We don’t. We want Denmark—a colonial power with this huge North American colony—we want them to help them a little bit. And indeed, they’re starting to put Greenland on their imperial flags, and they gave them a billion dollars, and the base is secure. And the Greenland people, 50,000 or so, will want U.S. security. So, that is the “Art of the Deal.”

And to get China to come and reduce its $300 billion trade surplus with the United States, Donald Trump talked about these huge tariffs. Now, he will talk down and we’ll probably get a deal in an “Art of the Deal” fashion.

We saw that with NATO. He harangued them in 2018. They were furious. Said he might not come to their aid. They haven’t met their 2%, 2014 promises. And guess what? They started to spend more in defense. Timely so, because when the Ukraine war broke out, Europe had spent a billion dollars more on defense expenditure. And more importantly, they had Finland and Sweden, two of the most muscular of all the European nations in terms of munitions and defense readiness, now both part of NATO. That worked.

And I think the same thing is happening with trade. Here’s the dynamic: the Europeans detest Donald Trump more than they see their self-interest. In other words, they would rather be on the outside of these trade negotiations and punish Donald Trump than they would be with the Asian powers and make a deal and profit, mutually with the United States. And partly that’s because they’re akin to the American Left. And, as we saw with Jamie Raskin, a representative in the Congress, he said to each country, “If you cut a deal with this administration [the Trump administration] we’re going to remember that.”

So, the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down. And then they could come in later with more favorable concessions from the United States.

The problem with that thinking is that if India cuts a deal and South Korea cuts a deal—and now they’re talking about Japan, Taiwan, Australia—the Trump administration has already established, openly, transparently, that those countries that are first to cut a deal will get the most favorable terms.

And so, the more people that come in and have a reciprocal agreement with the United States—I’m not saying it’s going to be parity. I’m not saying we’re going to get down to zero deficits—but if we cut this trillion-dollar deficit by half, that will be a considerable achievement. The Europeans, then, will see that they’re left out. And especially if we come to an accord in the next month or so with China—not that we’re going to be able to force China to have no tariffs on their part. But we might be able to lower them and then make them buy American products to reduce that $300 billion—If that were to be true, then Europe has missed the boat.

The bottom line. The trade war, or tariff war was never really a war. It was just an effort to stop a 50-year-cycle of chronic American trade deficits that had harmed the industrial interior. There’s one caveat I would like to leave you with, and it’s this: as long as Donald Trump talks about parity and the desirability of lowering our trade deficits and the unfairness of our trade partners, and a idealized goal of no tariffs, he’s got a winning issue.

However. Caveat. If he starts talking about tariffs in pre-1913 terms, before the income tax, when tariffs were the primary source of American revenue. In other words, if he thinks, “I’m going to get all this money coming into the United States from these countries that are going to have to give us this money. And then I can cut taxes on tips, I can do this…” that’s not going to work.

No country will wanna make a deal when they think that we’re doing tariffs, not in pursuit of fairness, but in pursuit of gouging, whether true or not. So, as long as he talks about any other aspect of tariffs except revenue raising—that is a losing political issue.

What Is Democrat Legality?

 

Since 2021, the Left has waged a veritable war against the American legal system in a variety of ways.

One serial target of Democrats and the Left has been the Supreme Court.

In 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke to an angry throng of pro-abortion protesters assembled at the very doors of the court chambers.

He threatened two of the justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, by name. Schumer yelled to the volatile crowd that the justices’ views would make them “reap the whirlwind,” and the two would not know what “hit” them.

In the ensuing months, protesters mobbed some of the conservative justices’ homes—likely committing felonies. The sympathetic Biden Justice Department chose not to follow the law, and so did nothing—although eventually a would-be assassin turned up.

Former President Joe Biden himself bragged that he would try to ignore the Supreme Court ruling banning his arbitrary cancellation of billions of dollars in student loans. Indeed, he boasted, “The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me.”

In response, no one on the Left ever complained about endangering the “rule of law” or Biden as “a dictator.”

For three years, four local, state, and federal prosecutors warped the law to neuter Donald Trump. Most of the charges had never been brought against other political figures in similar circumstances.

The vast majority of the 93 weaponized indictments backfired on the liberal prosecutors, who had contorted the legal system for political purposes and now face their own ethical or legal quagmires.

The federal prosecutor Jack Smith belatedly reported accepting $140,000 in free legal services.

Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis was removed from the Trump case and fined, and is now under further investigation.

New York prosecutor Letitia James is now facing allegations of falsification of documents and loan fraud.

Federal immigration law prohibits the illegal entry into and residence within the United States. Yet the Biden administration deliberately violated the law by allowing somewhere between 10-12 million illegal aliens to cross the border. Thousands had criminal records.

No one on the Left decried any of these various affronts to the legal system.

In polls, by overwhelming majorities—above 70%—the public wants the Trump administration to close the border, begin deportations, and start with criminals or those with violent histories and gang ties.

The recent deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien from El Salvador, to the vast majority of Americans seems to fit that profile.

Garcia entered the U.S. illegally and was later found consorting with members of MS-13—a State Department-designated terrorist organization—who were selling drugs. Informants reported that he was a gang member. His own tattoos likely confirm those accusations.

Two prior immigration judges found such evidence sufficient to allow deportation proceedings. In 2019, a third judge allowed Garcia to stay temporarily, but only on the grounds that hostile gangs might harm him should he return to El Salvador.

Garcia was pulled over for speeding without a driver’s license—but with eight illegal aliens who reportedly all lived at the Garcia residence. The officer released him, despite suspicions that Garcia was engaged in human trafficking.

Garcia’s live-in girlfriend, now wife, was physically assaulted by Garcia on two occasions, suffered injuries, and initially sought restraining orders against him.

The Left claims Garcia is a “Maryland man” without an arrest record.

But he is not a U.S. citizen or a legal resident of Maryland. Instead, Garcia is in legal limbo and remains what he always was—a citizen of El Salvador with gang ties and formerly residing illegally in the U.S.

Garcia is now back home on El Salvadoran soil and was mistakenly sent to a high-security prison. But his own government in El Salvador will ultimately decide how involved Garcia is or was with MS-13 gangs. And then, as a sovereign nation, it will act according to its own policies about its own citizens’ associations with that terrorist organization.

The Left has demanded that Garcia be returned to the U.S. He has become a cause célèbre as a purported victim of the supposedly fascist Trump. Returning Garcia is seen by leftists as a performance art act to derail the Trump agenda, which otherwise they have neither the power nor public support to thwart.

The Left also ignores its own hypocrisies and ironies.

Those who weaponized the court system and destroyed the border now rail that Trump is acting unlawfully by not returning an illegal alien, an MS-13 member, and a domestic abuser with a propensity to ignore our laws.

How ironic that those who rail about colonialism now sound like 19th-century Yankee imperialists.

Democrats do not own El Salvador—although they act like it when dictating to its government that El Salvador cannot detain one of its own citizens on its own soil for its own reasons.

Democrats’ Radical Changing of the Guard

 

I’d like to talk today, if I could, about the changing of the Democratic guard. There was some news lately that Sen. Dick Durbin from Illinois—he was the author, remember, of the DREAM Act. He was a hardcore liberal. You could even say he was left of center. He’s stepping down. He’s in his 70s.

And there’s a changing of the guard.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in some polls, is running—I cannot believe it—behind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for his upcoming senatorial bid by 20 points and more in a primary.

And then, as a force multiplier, I just saw Rep. Nancy Pelosi, she was at a public event. I think she’s 85, turning 86. She was as incoherent as former President Joe Biden.

So, what’s Victor trying to say? We’re watching a changing of the guard, both due to aging—and we see that with Joe Biden, and the Biden generation is over with, and Nancy Pelosi. And then the next cohort in their 70s, the septuagenarians, they’re terrified.

Dick Durbin’s terrified of being in a primary. And so is Chuck Schumer. He took the dignified way out. Chuck Schumer will probably fight to the very end and be humiliated by AOC.

Who are these people? Well, “the squad,” remember, traditionally was Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somalian who allegedly had married her brother to gain citizenship access to the United States. There was Ayanna Pressley. She was the radical African American congresswoman. We had, of course, AOC, who was a prominent member. And we have also, in addition, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, she was a member of the squad, she was the Michigan pro-Hamas congresswoman.

Then we had the Democratic National Committee. And we had Ken Martin who won the DNC chairmanship. He’s very much to the left. And really to the left is his subordinate, David Hogg, the vice chairman. He was a survivor of the Parkland shooting, remember, in 2018. And he transmogrified into anti-Second Amendment. But then he got even more and more and more radical. I don’t think he’s ever really done anything except raise money.

But here’s my point. We’re watching a metamorphosis of the Democratic Party that is out of power. The old guard: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin—that old guard did not deliver the 2024 election. And they lost the House. They lost the Senate. They don’t have a majority in the Supreme Court. They lost the popular vote. They lost the Electoral College. So, in the eyes of the Democratic youth, they’re discredited.

But here’s the key. They didn’t lose the 2024 election because they were too far—they didn’t go far left enough. They lost it because former Vice President Kamala Harris and her supporters tried to move her from her hard left. And can I make a parentheses here? She had the most left-wing voting record in the U.S. Senate—to the left of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And she couldn’t even move a little bit to the center, although she tried. She said, remember that she was for fracking and she wanted the border wall and she was for deportation? That was all untrue.

But the point I’m making is, the party tried—in a very anemic fashion—to move to the center, where they knew the votes were. But this new cohort is saying, “You lost the election because you didn’t go far left enough. And maybe we represent 20% of the Democratic registered cohort, but we’re young. And we’re charismatic. And we’re dynamic. And we’re gonna take this party, in the 2026 midterms and the 2028, to victory. And we’re gonna do it by a socialist agenda. And a radical, radical, new, new, new green deal. And an open border. And a trans banner on every campaign event. That’s who we are. And a disarmament. And we’re gonna raise taxes on the billionaires.” And that’s their message. It has no public support.

So, even though they think they’re charismatic and they’re youthful, we get back to the old proverb of the 80-20 paradigm. The Republican Party has been on the 70% to 80% of where the people are on the border, on foreign policy, on the economy, on social and cultural issues. These people—these Jacobin French revolutionaries—they’re pulling 20% to 30% on this issue.

I’ll leave you with a final thought. The Republicans are not afraid. They’re not afraid of the squad and the Jacobins and this new cohort, the David Hoggs of the world. But you know who’s terrified of them? Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, because they don’t know how to handle them. They’re part of themselves. It’s an incestuous relationship.

And they’re saying to them, “But we’re the old guard.” And they’re saying, “You may be the old guard, but we’re going to guillotine you and get rid of you. And we’re coming in with a revolutionary fervor they’re terrified of.”

Here’s What Trump Has Done During His First 100 Days in Office

 

We’re coming up over the three-month mark or the proverbial “100 days” are on the horizon of a new administration.

When that happens, people like to take stock of it. Given the furious pushback against Trump—both from the Left, from the Democratic Party, and many centrist independents, even libertarian Republicans—you’d think that things were not going well.

But a recent poll by CNN showed that President Donald Trump had wide approval. Another poll has just come out where he was up to 54%. Given the media hostility, you would think that he would be completely negative, but he’s not. He has the confidence of the majority of the American people. Why is that? Let’s just take a quick tour of what he’s done in the first 100 days.

He has completely reversed 10,000 people coming in a day—over 300,000 a month, 12 million in four years—to essentially 97%, 98% of the border is secure. In fact, there is no open border now.

Now he has pivoted to try to address the 12 million people that former President Joe Biden not only let in but scattered all over the United States on often state, federal, and local subsidies. That’s gonna be a task. But he has shut the border. No comprehensive immigration reform. None of the things they said was necessary. None of the things that said that it was impossible, that hampered by. He just did it. We’ve never seen anything like it.

He has revolutionized energy. There is no New Green Deal. There’s no electric vehicle mandate. We’re not going to be funding more boondoggles of high-speed rail. We’re going to burn clean coal, restore the Appalachian coal fields, those in the West as well. We’re leasing out new oil fields. We’re trying to get liquid national gas shipped to Europe, that’s in dire need of it. We’re continuing fracking.

We’re producing so much energy that the price of oil has gone—at one point in the Biden administration, it was $120 a barrel. It’s down to almost $60. And by the way, he’s not draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And he won’t do that before a midterm. If anything, he will begin filling it again pretty soon.

On the diversity, equity, and inclusion front, he didn’t have to get into DEI. That’s the third rail. He just said it’s over with because it violates the recent Supreme Court ruling that found that Harvard and the University of North Carolina were culpable for racist practices against Asian-American applicants.

The law is on Donald Trump’s side. The court decisions are on Donald Trump’s side. And now DEI is being purged from government auspices and private corporations.

Everybody says, “I’m Rip Van Winkle. I woke up. What were we doing?” We were doing exactly the opposite of what Martin Luther King—we were judging people by the color of their skin, by their superficial appearance, not the content of their character. That is a revolution.

And then suddenly everybody said he wiped out the stock market because he insisted on not just free trade but fair trade. And he said he was going to sanction China. And he did. Now all of a sudden we have 70 countries trying to negotiate. And as I’m speaking, nations such as Italy or Japan want to make a deal. What is a deal? A deal is they’re not going to run up surpluses at the same extent.

We have a $1.1 trillion trade deficit. Donald Trump is going to get in the next few weeks a few major nations, and once he does—to make a deal—all the others will not want to be without a chair when the music stops. They will want to follow. When they follow, China will be eager to negotiate because its efforts to get Europe on its side have failed.

If you look very quickly abroad, Donald Trump is still trying to find peace. And no, he’s not Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet. He’s been very tough on Putin. He suggests he would have a secondary oil boycott on nations that bought Russian oil, something Biden never imagined. But he is getting frustrated by both sides. And he’s putting renewed pressure.

In the Middle East, Iran is at its weakest point. Israel’s ready to take out the nuclear facilities, to the extent it cannot without sophisticated, heavy bombers. And Donald Trump is not looking for an optional war. He’s telling the Iranians, “Time is running out. Settle. Dismantle your nuclear facilities or else.”

The Red Sea is open for navigation. The Houthis are in retreat. There is nobody in the United States who wants to negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah. It’s an entirely new game.

China is very worried that its companies are gonna be delisted, that are fraudulent, from the stock market in the United States. They’re very worried. There are 300,000 students—that is their pipeline to the ex-appropriation of technology in the United States—might have to go home. There’s so many levers to pull against China and so much culpability on their part that I think they will make a deal.

So what am I getting at? Forget what the media says. Forget what his opponent said. Forget Kilmar Abrego Garcia, forget Luigi Mangione, all of these distractions. The first 100 days have been revolutionary. We’ve never seen anything like it, not during the Reagan administration, not during FDR, in terms of the magnitude of the changes. And that is why people are furious.

No one in their right mind thought anybody would try to stage a counterrevolution and be so successful in the first 100 days.

New Polling Data Delivers Another Gut Punch to the Dems

 

New polling data is confirming what we’ve known about the Democratic Party since 2020: they’re insular, exclusionary, snobby, and don’t care about other people who aren’t college-educated and wealthy. The Democratic Party agenda is niche, regional, and elitist. The party once had working people in their ranks—Barack Obama did well with white working-class voters—but the hordes of the far-left, who are mostly overeducated rich white kids, took over the messaging in 2020, and things unspooled.

Bill Maher, who always torched conservatives on his show, now is firing more inside the ship since his side has become abjectly insane. There is a suffocating condescension with Democrats where if you don’t meet their criterion, you’re less than, unworthy of being heard, and, even more ghoulish, should suffer due to what they perceive to be your bad decisions. Not everyone can go to college, guys. I don’t know what ivory city you grew up in, but it’s not an option for most Americans. As we’ve noted, the Democrats would yell at a homeless person for not owning a house—that’s how detached they’ve become.

New polling data shows that Democrats have the lowest net favorability ratings since the 1990s. Concerns about inflation, public safety and immigration during the Biden Administration were major reasons, says Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik. But another factor is “a sense that… pic.twitter.com/O22GAfOccd

— 2WAY (@2waytvapp) April 23, 2025

On 2Way, Mark Halperin spoke with Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik about the party’s dismal approval ratings, where he also noted that the electorate sees Democrats as cultural elitists. They weren’t going to vote for people who looked down on them, and that’s likely not going to change. Democrats slobbering over an MS-13 gangbanger who was deported for being in this country illegally who also might have beaten his wife is another example of this party being hopeless in finding a coherent message. It’s all catered to the most unhinged sects of America.

According to the NYT, Democrats think they lost because they aren't "cool" and they think being more bitchy will make them more cool. pic.twitter.com/0gNoDk6JEn

— Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports (@honestpollster) April 22, 2025

"All those Clinton guys that you're talking about, those working class guys from the 90's, they're all Trump guys now"

Scott Jennings nails it, the Republican Party is now the party of the working class. pic.twitter.com/6jXIvcnvEo

— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) April 23, 2025

Trump Signals Big Change on China Tariffs

 

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering de-escalating Washington’s trade war with China after slapping hefty tariffs on Chinese imports.

Shortly after Trump announced the tariffs, Beijing responded by issuing duties on American products and vowed that it would not back down as the president seeks a better trade deal.

Sources told The Wall Street Journal that the president might seek to ease up on tariffs to bring China to the negotiating table.

The Trump administration is considering slashing its steep tariffs on Chinese imports—in some cases by more than half—in a bid to de-escalate tensions with Beijing that have roiled global trade and investment, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump hasn’t made a final determination, the people said, adding that the discussions remain fluid and several options are on the table.

One senior White House official said the China tariffs were likely to come down to between roughly 50% and 65%. The administration is also considering a tiered approach similar to the one proposed by the House committee on China late last year: 35% levies for items the U.S. deems not a threat to national security, and at least 100% for items deemed as strategic to America’s interest, some of the people said. The bill proposed phasing in those levies over five years.

“President Trump has been clear: China needs to make a deal with the United States of America. When decisions on tariffs are made, they will come directly from the President. Anything else is just pure speculation,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said.

Trump said Tuesday he was willing to cut tariffs on Chinese goods, saying the 145% tariffs he imposed on China during his second term would come down. “But it won’t be zero,” he said. The development was welcome news to investors who had been spooked by the White House’s aggressive moves in recent weeks.

The Chinese government indicated it is willing to engage in trade discussions with the White House, but stressed that it would not bow to President Trump’s threats. Chinese officials view this development as an indication that Trump might fold.

Trump on Wednesday told reporters that the tariffs on Chinese products will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero. It used to be zero.”

We were just destroyed. China was taking us for a ride, and it's not going to happen. We're going to be very good to China. I have a great relationship with President Xi, but they would make billions and billions and billions of dollars a year, and they would build their military out of the United States and what they made, so that won't happen. But they're going to do very well, and I think they're going to be happy, and I think we're going to live together very happily and ideally work together. I think it's going to work out very well.

Trump: 145% is very high, and it won't be that high. It will come down substantially. It will not be zero. It used to be zero. pic.twitter.com/2MOhrkXrkH

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 22, 2025

China’s Foreign Ministry stated that Washington should “stop its threats and coercion, and engage with China on the basis of equality, mutual respect and reciprocity” if they want a better trade deal, according to CNN.

“Claiming it wants to reach an agreement with China while constantly applying maximum pressure is not the right way to engage with China — and it simply won’t work,” Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for the ministry, said during a press conference.

CNN also noted that China views Trump’s new tone as a sign that he is backing down.

Trump’s shift in tone also went viral on the Chinese internet. On Wednesday, the hashtag “Trump chickened out” was trending as a top topic on social media platform Weibo, racking up more than 150 million views.

The world’s two largest economies have slapped record tariffs on each other in a swiftly escalating fight that has roiled global markets, disrupted supply chains and stoked recession fears.

So far, China has struck a defiant tone and refused to back down. Instead, it retaliated by raising tariffs on US goods to 125%, adding more American companies on its export control list and unreliable entity list, and restricting the export of critical minerals used in everything from iPhones to missile systems.

Beijing also moved to exert pain on key US industries, restricting the number of Hollywood movies shown in the country and returning at least two Boeing jets intended for use by Chinese airlines to the US.

Of course, this could have been Trump’s plan all along. He is known for opening up with a more radical version of what he is demanding, then negotiating down to something that more closely resembles his ultimate objective.

The president will have to navigate possible trade negotiations with China in a way that allows its government to save face while also ensuring better conditions for the US. It is not certain how long this back-and-forth will persist until both governments reach a deal.

Brutal: Elizabeth Warren Has No Idea What to Say When Confronted With Her Lies About Biden's Decline

 

This clip is delicious because the question obviously caught Warren off guard. She's no stranger to lying shamelessly, including about her own biography and racial identity, so there's something beautiful about watching a practiced liar stammering and struggling like this. She's drowning, and she knows it (her laugh/gulp at the 15 second mark is the exact moment she realized this particular back and forth wasn't going to go well), so she attempts a feeble pivot, which only highlights her evasion of the actual, simple question. Kudos to the interviewer for asking it — his c'mon facial expression when she briefly tries to pretend she didn't notice any decline in Joe Biden — and for repeatedly following up. She has nothing. She tries to stifle giggles about how totally implausible her dishonest justifications and spin are, plainly recognizing how implausible and dishonest they are. It's written all over her face.

But while it's objectively funny to watch her flail here, sure, it's actually quite frightening how virtually an entire political party and much of the “news” media emphatically pretended that an increasingly senile sitting president wasn't merely perfectly fine! sharp as a tack! hard to keep up with! etc. for many months, but also insisted he was fully capable of serving another four-year term. They declared this to be the case, attacking and smearing anyone who noticed with their own eyes and ears that it wasn't true, until they couldn't keep the lie afloat any longer — a moment that arrived shortly after 9 pm ET on June 27, 2024. More of the people who participated in that dangerous lie should be challenged like this. The trouble is that many of the people who are in positions to pose such questions also participated in the dangerous lie, for the exact same reasons. Nevertheless, behold this amazing exchange:

If you watch a clip today, let it be this one of Elizabeth Warren stumbling all over herself as she’s repeatedly pressed on why she lied about Joe Biden’s senility. pic.twitter.com/pyMjQjAaUo

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 22, 2025

As a Republican aide quipped in response, "She thinks the question is, 'What are we going to do now?' but actually the question is, 'What should the ramifications be for you, senator, given you lied to the American people and covered for a cognitively impaired patient who held the most powerful office in the world?'" Indeed, although I'll add a small quibble: She doesn't really think the question is, “What are we going to do now?'” She wishes that were the question, so she'd no longer be forced to embarrassingly grapple with the lies she told, exclusively for partisan reasons. The phony, preening “Country Over Party” crowd was entirely willing to deny reality — and maintain a dangerous status quo in which the President of the United States was sliding into an incapacitated figurehead role — in order to maintain their grip on power, and prevent their opponents from attaining it. The resulting cover-up (which I'm absolutely convinced would have continued if the June debate had never happened, or gone even slightly less disastrously) is one of the greatest scandals in presidential history.  

If Warren would like a reality check answer to her preferred “what do we do now?” deflection, it would be, never trust Elizabeth Warren or her ilk again on any matter of importance. We are now being treated to $30-a-pop books describing just how bad things were getting behind the scenes, further confirming what many of us could plainly see for ourselves in real time — observations that generated angry attacks and deceitful spin from the partisan deniers and their media handmaidens. I'll leave you with a figure within the Democratic echo chamber pronouncing himself aghast and so very angry about what he's suddenly "discovering," months and years after the obvious and troubling truth had been repeatedly and publicly demonstrated for the world to see. Sure, dude:

🚨NEW: Ex-Obama Aide Tommy Vietor says he has no desire to hear Biden give speeches🚨

"I don’t want to hear him giving speeches right now — I’m sorry. I know that’s sh*tty, I know that’s petty ... I’m very mad at Joe Biden still. I’ve been reading Jake Tapper’s book about the… pic.twitter.com/PwS979Fq65

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) April 17, 2025

"I’m very mad at Joe Biden still. I’ve been reading Jake Tapper’s book about the Biden administration and the steps taken to kind of hide his decline. I can’t get into the details — it’s still embargoed — but it is enraging."

Advertisement

Incredibly, many of us managed to pick up on Biden's decline, despite efforts to hide it, without any embargoed book excerpts. We did that all on our own, through the innovative approach of...watching him.

President Trump Just Exploded on Zelensky

 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after he rejected a US proposal that would recognize Russian control of Crimea as part of a peace deal.

Advertisement

This comes as Washington continues its efforts to hammer out a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv. During a press conference, Zelensky said, “Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea” and that “There’s nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution.”

The Wall Street Journal noted that Zelensky’s statements could throw the Trump administration’s peace plans into disarray.

Zelensky’s dismissal upends Trump’s latest gambit to halt the war in Ukraine—now in its fourth year—and casts new uncertainty on the future of the relationship between Kyiv and Washington, which Trump has made conditional on a quick deal.

American officials had presented a series of ideas for ending the war, including the Crimea proposal, to Ukrainian officials last week and expected an answer on Wednesday at a summit in London, where Ukrainian, U.S. and European officials will gather.

Zelensky said Russia should agree to a cease-fire before further talks to demonstrate “serious steps, and not childishness.” He said that Ukrainian officials meeting with U.S. and European officials in London would have a mandate to discuss a partial or full cease-fire, which Ukraine agreed to last month but Moscow rejected.

In a post on Truth Social, President Trump went on a long tirade against Zelensky, arguing that Zelensky’s perspective “is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.”

Trump continued, “Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

The president said, “It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.”

I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever. The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the “killing field,” and nobody wants that! We are very close to a Deal, but the man with “no cards to play” should now, finally, GET IT DONE. I look forward to being able to help Ukraine, and Russia, get out of this Complete and Total MESS, that would have never started if I were President!

Zelensky’s comments reveal deep divisions between Kyiv and Washington. The Ukrainian leader questioned the legitimacy of a cease-fire agreement that did not include reciprocal moves on Moscow’s part. He said the Kremlin should demonstrate “serious steps, and not childishness.”

Others have doubted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sincerity when it comes to ending the war. Even though he announced a 30-hour ceasefire for Easter, “the Russians never fully stopped their attacks,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Still, Zelensky’s sentiments appear to line up with his constituents. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 39 percent of Ukrainians would be willing to relinquish territory if it ends the war. This is an increase from eight percent in late 2022. However, 50 percent of respondents were opposed to such an idea.

Advice for Ivy League Universities: Take the Trump Deal, Before It’s Too Late

 

. We’ve talked about higher education before, but now it’s come into sharper focus with the Trump administration’s deadlock with Harvard University over its unwillingness or inability—whatever term we like to use—to meet the administration’s demands that it ensures an antisemitic-free campus that does not allow people to disrupt classes. It doesn’t use race, after the Supreme Court decision that went against Harvard and said that affirmative action was no longer legal.

Columbia had the same type of disagreement, other campuses are.

I don’t think it’s a wise thing for them to get into a fight with the federal government. If they are dependent on federal funding, these big private marquee universities—Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Duke—and they want federal money, then the federal government is going to ask for some transparency. And we, the public, really don’t know much about it.

It’s like a rock, a traditional rock on moist ground. You don’t wanna turn it over because there’s going to be things underneath there that you would better not—it would be better not to be seen. And that’s what the public is going to learn about higher education.

Now, what do I mean? I mean loans. These universities are raising tuition higher than the rate of inflation. And that started when the federal government said, “We will ensure these loans for students.” Once that happened, the moral hazard shifted away from the university. So, they have been gouging students for room and board.

I’ll give you an example. Hillsdale College, its room, board, and tuition is about $45,000 a year. It takes no money. Harvard gets about $9 billion in total. Its room, board, and tuition is about $95,000. Same with Stanford. They’re about double what Hillsdale charges. And one of the reasons is that they’re so dependent on federal money and therefore they can spend like drunken sailors.

Remember, of that 1.7, about 10%, 8% are nonperforming and about maybe 14% are late. The public doesn’t know all that. But they’re paying for it—especially kids, the half of the cohort 18 to 30 that’s not going to college, they’re subsidizing this university boondoggle.

The second thing is the university doesn’t really obey the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. If you get accused of particular crimes as a student, faculty member, let’s say, sexual harassment or untoward speech, hate speech—whatever the term they use—it’s very unlikely you’re going to get Fourth and Fifth, maybe Sixth Amendment protection. That is, you’re not going to have an open hearing. You’re not going to be tried by a jury of your peers. You’re not going to necessarily have legal counsel. You’re not necessarily going to know who your accusers are.

The affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court outlawed the use of race in admissions. And we have civil rights statutes that also do that. But the universities do something funny. They have safe spaces. They have theme houses. And they have auxiliary graduations. But the common denominator, they’re predicated on race. So, a black theme house, a Latino theme house has almost very few people.

Nobody would want a European, so-called white theme house or an alternate white graduation. And you would say, “Why not, Victor?” Because it would be considered racist, I suppose.

But at Stanford, only 22% of the student body is white. Are they going to say, “Well, we’re one of the minorities now. Why don’t we do this?” That’s where it will lead if you enhance tribalism.

There’s no intellectual diversity. The National Association of Scholars did a study not long ago. They found not one of the 133 faculty members at Bryn Mawr was a Republican. At Williams, I think they found one or two. They found a lot of elite universities where there was nobody who openly acknowledged that they were a Republican.

There are a couple of other things that are disturbing too. And that is the universities get individual faculty grants—Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health. And usually, in most private foundations, the university is not following their model.

What I mean is, a private scholar at a think tank, they might deduct 15% for the use of the phone or office that they would get out of that federal grant. But universities like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, they can go from 40% to 50% to 60% and they’re relying on that multimillion-dollar—I guess we’d call it—price gouging from the federal government.

And finally, these universities don’t have multimillion-dollar endowments anymore. They have multibillion-dollar—$30 billion, Stanford $53 billion. And they’re predicated—the income—on that. And sometimes they get almost 10%. They’re very good in investing. This $5 or $6 or $7 or $4 billion a year in income is tax-free, for the most part. Tax-free. And that’s predicated that they’re nonpolitical, they’re nonpartisan. But when you look at the makeup of the faculty and the use of race and gender, contrary to federal law, you can see they’re very partisan.

So, let me just sum up. Does the university really want to get in a fight with the Trump administration and then bring all of this information about their endowments; their lack of intellectual diversity; their segregation; their lack of due process for people who undergo inquiries or accusations; their separate racial graduations, safe spaces, theme houses; the use of student loans? I don’t think they want to do that. The public would be shocked. And it’s a losing proposition.

If I were the presidents of these major universities, I would do this: I would make a deal with the Trump administration. And I would welcome it because then I would tell my radical students, “You can’t wear a mask. I’d like you to, but the federal government won’t let me.” Or, “We can’t have racially segregated dorms anymore, theme houses. I’d like to, but it’s against the law.” And that would be their way out.

Is that going to happen? I don’t think so. And I think we’re going to see some accountability. And the universities are not going to like the consequences.

The Mainstream Media’s Everlasting Love Affair With Joe Biden

 

I’d like to look at Joe Biden’s speech, if I could, for a moment. It was billed as his first post-presidential speech. He gave it in Chicago, to an activist group that is trying to support and help people who are disabled. It may or may not have actually been his first public speech, but it was billed as such.

But my interest is this: I watched it twice and then I compared the coverage in The Wall Street Journal. If you watch the speech, it’s, to tell you the truth, quite embarrassing. And that is why some former Biden aides said that they cringe to see how Joe Biden has descended into confusion and chaos.

He walked out to the podium when there was entry music, and then he began to speak for 15 or 20 seconds while the music was going on. No one could hear him, and yet, he didn’t stop. Nobody said, “Joe, we can’t hear you. You’re speaking. That was the introductory music.” Then he continued.

Traditionally—at least in the first year—an ex-president does not attack his successor.

He immediately went into a harangue about Donald Trump. And he did it in his typical style. That is, it’s a projectionist mode, where, as many people on the Left, if they are guilty of something, they project that onto a target. So, he was a full Snagglepuss—Snarly-puss. He was angry.

And, he said, “and he’s gonna cut Social Security, Donald Trump. And he’s—we’ve never been—but—we need unity.”

So, in other words, the man, who at one point called half the country, Donald Trump’s supporters, “garbage.” And has called them semi-fascist, ultra MAGA. And earlier during campaigns, he’d called them chumps and drags. He was now saying that Donald Trump was divisive, and he was calling for unity, while he was angry. As Biden is, often.

Then he went in and said that Donald Trump is going to destroy Social Security. Trump has promised, ad infinitum, he is not going to touch Social Security. What he did say was he’s going in with the DOGE auditors to see, for example, why thousands of people who were born before 1920 are still on the Social Security roles. Are they getting money? Are they dead? Are they alive? Are people 90, 100, 110? That’s something that’s interesting.

And then, finally, Joe Biden said, “When I was young and I saw a bus of colored kids…” “Colored kids.” That’s a term that nobody uses. It’s considered offensive. And it’s consistent with what Joe Biden has said as president. He called two of his important aides who were African American, “boys.” I think he referred to Satchel Paige, the great pitcher, at one point, as “colored.”

Remember in the Obama primary of 2008 he said Obama was the first “clean” and “articulate” black. He bragged that Delaware had been a “slave state,” as if he was acquainted, then, with African American’s issues.

I could go on—”put you all in chains.” So, it was a disastrous point. But my point is this: The Wall Street Journal headline was that he attacks Trump. Accuses him of cutting Social Security. And the article said that Biden looked rested.

That was just a complete distortion. And when you start looking every single day, as I’m doing, if it’s tariffs, it’s a disaster. If it’s DOGE, it’s a disaster. If it’s Ukraine, Trump is doing something wrong, he’s favored Putin too much. It’s a disaster.

Everything. If it’s the mistakenly deported Mr. Garcia, there’s no background about who Mr. Garcia really is. It’s a disaster. Almost every article—it’s like an itch or a twitch—is negative, negative, negative, negative. The news division makes the headlines—but the columnists now—and I like many of them and so do you—but they’re pretty much negative.

They can’t find a good thing to say. But yet, when we look at the first hundred days, as we’re going talk about in a later video: Border? Good. Effort to stop the Ukraine War? Admirable. Middle East? Iran has got its back against the wall. Energy? All these things are good. There’s nothing there. Why are they doing this?

I’ll just finish with this observation. I wrote 20 years for the National Review magazine. And they got into the same frame. They were obsessed with Donald Trump and felt that he had been a disaster. This was in 2015 and ’16, ’17. They got obsessed with it. And before they knew it, they were criticizing him for positions they had once held.

I hope The Wall Street Journal doesn’t get into that frame of mind. The New York Post, which is also a Murdoch venue, has not It’s been pretty objective. But something’s going on at The Wall Street Journal. And I fear that it’s going to lose them thousands of subscribers.

Trump’s Counterrevolution Strategy: Flood the Zone, Drain the Swamp

 

We’re about—getting close to 90 days and even coming up close, in a week, 10 days, to the first 100 days of the Trump administration and this counterrevolution that he’s waging.

I thought it might be wise just to see where we are as far as the political landscape and the dynamics of the progress of this counterrevolution. What is President Donald Trump trying to do? I think I would sum it up as flooding the zone. And that is, he’s going to try to propose and enact so many radical corrections or revolutions or reforms or recalibrations that his opposition doesn’t know where to start.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

So, abroad, he is looking at the Iran deal and he got rid of it. He put sanctions. He’s got maximum pressure. And now, the Iranian economy is about defunct. And they want to negotiate about this nuclear weapon. I don’t think they’re going to negotiate it away, but we’ll see.

And then, he’s dealing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin and trying to get a ceasefire. He’s basically dealt with the Houthis.

On the domestic front, there is no more illegal immigration. He’s basically stopped it. Now, the task is what to do with the 12 million illegal aliens that came under former President Joe Biden. And what do you do with the 20 million-plus, maybe 30 million that were here already illegally but for a longer period of time?

At the same time, he’s had a blanket mandate that in every Cabinet they will eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion and, by association, things like transsexual, biological males competing in women’s sports.

Women—lowering the physical standards so women could compete and pass these very rigorous endurance physical tests so that they would be in combat units on an equal level. No problem that they can’t. But they have to have the same physical requirements as men.

I could go on, but you see what he is doing. He’s doing so many radical corrections in a way that a Romney or a McCain or the Bushes, even Ronald Reagan would not have dreamed of that he feels the opposition will say, “Well, what do we do? Should we reply here? Do we put our interest here? Should we do this?”

And so, what is the strategy that the Left is using? They’re flooding the zone, too. But they’re doing it not with counterproposals. They don’t say, “This is what’s wrong with closing the border and we wanna reopen it. This is what’s wrong with the Houthis policy. This is what’s wrong with the trade deficit. This is what’s wrong”—no specific proposal.

They’re just flooding it with hysteria, the Spartacus talk, late-night comedy trashing him, another person arrested saying that he wants to kill Donald Trump, keying Teslas, firebombing Tesla agencies, outrageous things from Hollywood stars, videos from Congress. All of a sudden—we didn’t even know who Rep. Jasmine Crockett was. She’s filled that void.

But what I’m saying is they want to be so rambunctious, so crazy, so 360 degrees unhinged that they’ll create an image or a malu—where everybody wants to get almost in a fetal position: “Please, please make it all go away. I don’t know what Trump is doing but it’s so disturbing. Everybody’s so angry.” That is their strategy.

Now, what is Trump’s counterstrategy? His counterstrategy is to actually get people on the other side of the aisle in Congress or in the country at large or in the popular culture and try to at least be friendly to them so then they can say, “I don’t agree with Trump but what he’s doing might be needed.”

So, we have Bill Maher going to Mar-a-Lago and actually saying very nice things about Donald Trump.

On the one hand, we have Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fighting with a bulwark of the Left at one time, fighting with left-wing people who were calling him all sorts of names and saying that he is illiberal.

We had Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan. She was in the White House. Can you believe it? She was so embarrassed about a photo-op. She had to almost cover her face.

But you can see what Trump is doing. He’s trying to get people from all sides of the Democratic and liberal progressive movement and not compromise them, but get in the picture, so then the Left will say, “Well, how can we appeal to the public and get them all angry and frenzy and hysterical when some of our major celebrities, our political figures are in Mar-a-Lago?”

Will Harvard Go Full Hillsdale?

 

Harvard University has rejected various demands of a presidential commission on antisemitism.

The task force wants to persuade Harvard to ensure Jewish students on its campus are no longer harassed, or else lose its federal funding.

Harvard retorts that it won’t be bullied by Washington.

Among its other requirements, the Trump administration also warned Harvard to cease using race as a criterion in its admissions, hiring, and promotion, contrary to law.

And it also directed the campus to ban the use of masks that, in the post-COVID-19 era of protests, have emboldened violent demonstrators with anonymity.

The administration’s order to stop race-based bias was in accordance with civil rights statutes, and a recent Supreme Court decision specifically banning affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.

No matter. Harvard claimed that the Trump administration infringed upon its First Amendment rights.

So, it has temporarily rejected the administration’s orders. At least for now, Harvard has lost its annual $2.2 billion grant of federal funds.

Former President Barack Obama, among others, lauded Harvard’s rejection of the demands of the administration’s antisemitism task force. He claimed the Trump administration’s efforts were ham-handed.

But what academic freedom are Harvard and Obama talking about? The freedom to discriminate and segregate by race in hiring, admissions, dorms, and graduations?

The freedom of 500 Harvard students to crash the classes of others, shut down traffic, and harass students on the basis of their religion or views on Israel?

Despite all of Harvard’s platitudes, its classrooms are still being disrupted. Jewish students remain fearful.

And what would Obama say if, for example, African-American students at Harvard were harassed on campus by masked disrupters?

Or black studies classes were crashed by students wearing scarves over their faces as they vented their hatred? Would he press the Trump administration to force Harvard to honor federal civil rights protections?

Remember, Harvard is a private university with a largely untaxed endowment of over $50.2 billion. Yet again, it still receives some $2.2 billion—now suspended—in federal funds.

The administration task force is not forcing Harvard to run its university according to its version of federal dictates.

Instead, the Trump commission is simply warning Harvard that if, in addition to its huge sources of private funding, it still wishes continuance of some $2.2 billion in public money from the federal government, then it must comply with existing laws and executive orders.

Does Harvard remember the embarrassing testimony of its former president, Claudine Gay?

She failed to assure a congressional committee that Harvard had taken action against openly hostile antisemitic student protestors during its growing protest movements.

Does Harvard understand why the Supreme Court ruled it had violated the “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment and was culpable of prejudice against Asian-Americans?

Does Harvard have any clue why it has lost some $150 million per annum of donor giving?

Does Harvard realize that no one believes its pretenses anymore that it “cannot and will not tolerate disruption” of classes—given that it still happens all the time at its various professional schools and undergraduate courses?

Perhaps Harvard should follow the strategy of independent Hillsdale College, which long ago wished to be free of federal dictates.

So, unlike Harvard, the college put its proverbial money where its mouth was and agreed unilaterally to give up all federal funding to be free of Washington’s octopus tentacles.

Yet, there is one critical distinction between Hillsdale and Harvard.

Hillsdale does not take federal money, period—whether doled out by either a Democratic or Republican administration.

It sincerely believes that too often the federal government itself does not follow the Constitution, impinges on freedom, and forces colleges to violate equality under the law when discriminating by race and gender.

Harvard has no such principles.

Its beef is not with the notion of an overweening federal government, eager to coerce private colleges to follow particular protocols.

Instead, it is at war only with the Trump commission or, in theory, any other similar conservative administration that might wish it to adhere to the law as a condition of being federally funded.

Otherwise, Harvard has no problem with an activist federal government, as long as it is a liberal one forcing all sorts of Title IX or diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on private and Christian colleges that apparently lost their autonomy by accepting federal money. It has said nothing when state and federal governments in the past gratuitously hounded Hillsdale. So, Harvard loudly can set itself free by permanently pursuing its agenda on its own $50 billion, in the same manner Hillsdale does quietly with its $1 billion—without the taxpayer’s dime, whether Democratic or Republican.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills Doesn’t Know It Yet, But She’s an ‘Insurrectionist’

 I want to wade into a very controversial topic. I want to be very careful. It’s the issue of whether biological men who have transitioned to the female gender should compete in female sports. And what is the reaction of those who say they should versus the federal government, under President Donald Trump’s executive orders, that said it’s not fair to women?

And the locust classicists or the state is the—the best example is now Janet Mills, the governor of Maine, in the White House, said she was going to resist that.

Donald Trump issued an executive order saying that all sports programs in the public sphere have to make sure that only biological women that remain women compete in women’s sports. And the same as for male sports. And she’s resisting. As is the California Legislature and, apparently, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and a lot of blue states.

There’s two fundamental issues we should all watch here.

No. 1: Do states have the right to resist the federal government? Donald Trump says they don’t. And he has threatened to cut off massive federal funds to Maine—which would be devastating to the economy—to force her to comply with federal law.

Note that when former President Joe Biden issued executive orders, if people on the right opposed them, they went to court. If they lost, they followed it.

But this is a neo-Confederate idea that goes back to 1832 with South Carolina and tariffs. And in the 1850s, in the South, when the Antebellum South said, “We’re not gonna listen to the federal government,” the federal government said, “Then you’re in insurrectionary mode.” And we know what happened.

We have 600 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States on matters of illegal immigration, where they say, “We’re not gonna turn over illegal aliens that have committed a crime and are held. We’re not gonna turn them over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” The same issue now with trans.

Janet Mills may not know it, but she’s an insurrectionist. She’s a neo-Confederate. She is taking states’ rights to the extreme. Rather than saying, “I oppose the federal government. I will go to court to stop you. But if I lose, I will comply because the states are subordinate to the federal”—she’s not doing that. She’s right in the spirit of the old Confederacy.

The other issue, very importantly, is the trans issue itself. And I wanna be very careful. Transsexualism, transgenderism is an ancient phenomenon. It appears throughout the medieval world. It appears in late antiquity. It appears in early antiquity.

I can cite you chapter and verse from the poems of Catullus to the novels of “Satyricon,” of Petronius, “The Satyricon,” of men who dress up like women. Both as transvestites who are still, I guess you’d say heterosexual, but they have a fetish to wear women’s clothes or who really want to be women. In the case of a poem or two, they castrate themselves. It’s found in ancient history.

And statistically, if you go back before this controversy happened, it was a very small number of the population. About less than 1% identified as transgendered or transsexual. Then it became, in the last decade, the next civil rights frontier. And all of a sudden, we had universities where students were polled at 10% or 20% or 30%, thought they might want to transition. It became almost a cult following.

But in the process, we did something that no one ever imagined. People on the left side of the spectrum, the liberal side, had always argued that under Title IX women should get the same amount of support for their sports as men do, even if they didn’t make the same amount of revenue in football, basketball, etc. And America came over to that position—slow, but maybe begrudgingly, but they accepted it. And they promoted women’s sports. And it was successful.

And now biological males with a muscular skeletal framework have enormous physical advantages over females. We all know that. And they are systematically undermining women’s sports as a civil rights issue—and the Left doesn’t know what to do because it’s also an anti-feminist, anti-woman issue.

But there’s another thing to think about. There are transitioned or transsexual males. These are people born female with all the characteristics—muscular, skeletal—of females, of women, and they then either have operations or hormone treatments or both and become men. And guess what? When they compete in sports, they don’t do very well.

In other words, transgendered men cannot beat biological men, which brings up the issue: If you’re transgendered, isn’t there still a difference biologically, hormonally from people born into that sex? In other words, if women transition to males and they cannot beat biological males, why do we keep insisting that males who transition as women are no different than biological women when, in fact, we know they are, they know they are?

And Donald Trump has tried to address this issue both in purposes of honesty and fairness and equality for women. And these state governors and legislatures that are resisting him are really breaking the federal law, but more importantly, they’re echoing and they’re resonating the old Confederacy.

Europe, You Can’t Sit on the Sidelines Anymore

 

I’d like to talk today about the role of China, the United States, and the European Union, or just Europe in general, in the context of these tariffs and the so-called trade wars.

Right now, President Donald Trump has given a 90-day reprieve from high tariffs. I think that 10% tariffs are still in existence. And they are negotiating with a number of European countries and particularly, Asian dynamic economies, such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. In addition to that, they are targeting China with tit-for-tat tariffs. And we are maybe on the brink—nobody wants it, but we might be on the brink of a trade war, which we’ve addressed in earlier videos.

But here’s my point. What is the attitude of Europe? Roughly, China has a $1 trillion deficit with the world. We have about a $1 trillion deficit in trade with the world. But here’s the ratios. About a third of our deficit is with China, which makes up a third of their surplus. In addition to that, Europe makes up about a third of their surplus.

So, China has called on Europe to join forces with it to prevent all of the retaliatory tariffs that the United States has threatened Europe, which has a $200 billion surplus with us, and China, which has a nearly high $300 billion, maybe even $400 billion, who knows?

It’s kind of crazy, isn’t it, that these illiberal apparatchiks in China would think that a Western democracy would want to join them against the United States?

I don’t think that’s gonna happen. But the European Left is very angry at the Trump administration.

So, Choice One might be, “Well, we don’t like the Chinese and we are an ally of the Americans, who subsidize our defense, but we detest the Trump administration. So maybe, (wink and nod) we’ll either be quiet or hope China wins that trade war and the United States, under the Trump administration, backs off all tariffs.”

That would be a big mistake given their vulnerabilities they have with the United States vis-a-vis security.

The second attitude might be the Europeans will just say, “We’ll lay low. We won’t say much at all. We’ll kind of drag out our tariff negotiations with the Trump administration. And we’ll let the Chinese and the United States battle it out. And if Trump should win and he lowers the amount of trade with China, maybe that will be an opening for us to replace China as the United States chief importer.”

That is something that I don’t think will happen.

The third scenario is what I would suggest for the Europeans. They should say the following: “Despite our disagreements with the Trump administration, the United States is an ally. And we know that we have been as victimized by Chinese mercantilism, high tariffs, cheating on patents, copyrights, dumping, financial money manipulation—all the things the United States complains about, we do too. In fact, we as Europeans in a whole have about the same deficit with China as the United States does. So, we are kindred spirits. So, what we will do is, even though we have disagreements on our surplus with the United States and their efforts to reduce it, we will ally with the United States.”

And that would represent about two-thirds of China’s total trade action or monetary value. And especially, if Japan and our allies in South Korea, Taiwan would join, then China would find out that about 85% of its trade is in a block. That is, they are united. And they have common complaints against China. And China would not be able to say to the United States, “We’re going to cut deals with Vietnam and Japan and Taiwan and South Korea and the EU and leave you out in the cold.”

Instead, the Europeans and, to a lesser extent, the Asian powerhouses would join the United States and say, “You know what? We’ve been quiet. We’re afraid of China. They’re bullies. But now that you’ve stood up, we’re embolden ourselves to air the same complaints as you are and hope that you win. And maybe a byproduct of reduced trade with China from the United States will open a door. So, even though we might have to lower our tariffs, there will be more opportunity in the American market with a less prominent Chinese trade profile that we can then be welcomed in as a kindred ally.”

So, Europe has two or three choices in this proposed Chinese-American trade standoff. Nobody wants a trade war with anybody. No one wants it with China. But this is long overdue. And Europe has to decide what course they’re going to take. And for everybody’s sake, let’s hope they choose wisely.

Harvard’s Radicalization: Lower Standards, Middle Eastern Cash, Politicization

 

I wanna talk about a little esoteric topic very quickly: law schools. Specifically, our so-called elite law schools: Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, UC Berkeley’s law school.

I know you think, “Well, who cares?” Well, we should care.

If we look at all of these district judges that are issuing injunctions against President Donald Trump or we look at many of the most powerful people in the Obama or Biden Justice Department, or even anybody’s DOJ, or if we look at these PACs and political organizations that are trying to influence public opinion and look at the lawyers, we find these law schools—Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Duke—mentioned all the time.

And the problem with them is that they’re no longer empirical. About 95% of their faculties are Democratic or left-wing. And more importantly, they have started to do things they didn’t do in the past. They’ve lowered their admission standards and they have become politicized and they’ve been recipients of large amounts of foreign cash.

Let me give you a few examples.

As we speak right now, Harvard University got together a group of its radical law students for a complete weekend-long session. You know what they were doing? They were trying to collectively go into Wikipedia and warp the descriptions of major law firms that had said to Harvard, “If you continue the antisemitism that is endemic on campus in general and at the law school in particular, we may not wanna hire you.”

So, they were retaliatory. And they were going through their entire caseload to try to damage them in the public eye on Wikipedia.

At the same time this was happening, though, Harvard was always traditionally ranked, along with Yale or Stanford, No. 1, No. 2. It dropped out of the top five. It dropped out of the top five by the U.S. News & World Report rankings, which kind of polls admissions officers and tries to get the general opinion of the relative merit of each of these law schools.

And it reflects something else that was going on at Harvard. Harvard has a traditional math class—it’s very difficult—that most undergraduates are supposed to take, but they couldn’t pass it. So now, Harvard, because they have changed their admissions—and remember for three or four years, like other campuses, they didn’t rate comparative GPAs or really require the SAT—they have to have remedial math at Harvard.

And what am I getting at? These law schools then, by changing their curricula to diversity, equity, and inclusion and changing their admissions policy, where they were not looking at the LSAT or grade point averages in the way they used to say was important, and more importantly, in garnering huge amounts of money from the Middle East, Qatar in particular—if you go back to any news account from 2010 to 2020, it’s all about Qatar and Middle East money pouring into places like Harvard Law School.

So, what am I getting at? They created people who, under their own—people, students—under their own requirements a decade or two earlier wouldn’t have qualified. They changed their curriculum and they became politicized. And especially, they reflected the interest of radical groups in the Middle East. And the result is law firms, when they see the recent graduates, they get disappointed.

I want to just end with Stanford Law School. They follow that same trajectory. And in 2022, only about 84% passed the bar on the first try. Five other law schools—this was when Stanford was rated No. 2 in the country. The University of Southern California had a much higher rate.

Stanford went into full panic. They said, “Oh my gosh, the post-George Floyd admissions, the change in the curriculum, our students are not passing. We’ve got over 15% flunk the bar from Stanford.” And by the way, the California bar had lowered its standards and it had itself become woke.

So, what did Stanford do? Well, very quietly, they began to readjust their admissions policy. They began to get more, not a lot, but two, three, four conservative or at least middle-of-the-road law professors and they began to crack down on radical student activism. This year, 95% passed. Just, three years, two-and-a-half years later in 2024.

So, what am I getting at? The law schools are very important. They’re very politicized. And they went in a politicized, ideological direction rather than empiricism and traditional law curriculum. And the result is that law firms and agencies look at these law graduates and they’re not impressed.

And that’s why, for example, Vanderbilt is starting to surge up to 14. Cornell is going down to 18. And we’re watching a very interesting transformation.

Wouldn’t it be good that we just hire people not on their blue-chip brand—Harvard, Stanford, Yale—but actual quality of their graduates to the degree they pass bars on the first try, they are impressive in interviews?

And in that case, if we were to do that, I think these Ivy League and prestigious schools would have to adjust very, very quickly and stop the politicalization, the foreign money coming in, and especially, the antisemitism.

Rate this:

My Top 8 Games of 1995

 

Note: Though no one knew it at the time, 1995 was the beginning of a major change in the video game industry. Once dominated by Nintendo and Sega, 1995 saw the release of the Sony PlayStation. Nintendo and Sega still dominated the conversation for much of the year, but change was coming.

Note (2): I realized today (11/13/2024) that the list I use to pull these games had placed Secret of Evermore in 1996 when it actually launched in the US in 1995. As a result, I initially omitted it from this list. I’ve now revised the list, placing Secret of Evermore in its proper place.

Honorable Mentions:
– Arcade: Marvel Super Heroes
– Sega Genesis / Super NES: Primal Rage, Spider-Man
– Sega Saturn / Sega CD: Panzer Dragoon, Lunar: Eternal Blue
– PlayStation: Gex, Rayman
– Super NES / Super Famicom: Breath of Fire II, C2: Judgment Clay, Earthbound, Secret of the Stars, Ys V: Lost Kefin, Kingdom of Sand

8. Kirby’s Dream Land 2 (Gameboy)(Tie)
Building off of the original Gameboy title as well the NES classic, Kirby’s Adventure, Kirby’s Dream Land 2 offers excellent platforming levels along with an array of powers for Kirby to take advantage of. Complimenting these powers are three new animal friends that Kirby can ride, with each offering their own take on Kirby’s acquired power(s). Kirby’s Dream Land 2 is also compatible with the Super Gameboy adapter for the Super NES, meaning the title would have it’s own color scheme and border when played via said adapter.

8. Super Adventure Island 2 (Super NES)(Tie)
You can read more about this title in my previous two entries covering the Adventure Island franchise, but in summation, Super Adventure Island 2 throws out most of what you knew about the series in favor of gameplay more in line with the latter Wonder Boy titles. This title is far more open world than previous entries and sees Captain Higgins armed with a sword and sporting a suit of armor. Levels will need to be revisited (via an overworld map) as you find new abilities. I’m a fan of both the Adventure Island and Wonder Boy series, and this title pulls positive elements for both.

8. Venom/Spider-Man: Separation Anxiety (Super NES)(Sega Genesis)(Tie)
The sequel to Maximum Carnage had some big shoes to fill, and while Separation Anxiety falls short of its predecessor, it is still plenty of fun to play through, due in no small part to the fact that you can now pick to play as either Venom or Spider-Man, or play along with a friend, utilizing both. Separation Anxiety brings back the hero cameos from Maximum Carnage, but reduces the variety by a bit. While this is disappointing, an entirely new array of enemies shake things up. My brother and I spent countless joyful hours playing through this and beat it a number of times.

7. Mega Man 7 (Super NES)
Oddly enough, Mega Man 7 almost didn’t see the light of day. Finished in 1994, it was shelved in favor of the Mega Man X series, and was only released after backlash from fans of the series. This is made more baffling by the fact that Mega Man 7 received largely positive reviews. While it wasn’t compared favorably to the X series, it was compared favorably to previous entries in the Mega Man series. Mega Man 7 also includes numerous secrets to discover, including the Rush Adapter introduced in Mega Man 6, an upgrade that, in my opinion, completely changes the game for the better once it is acquired. Mega Man 7 is also the first time Bass and Treble are seen in the series.

6. Castlevania: Dracula X (Super NES)
Dracula X for the Super NES is an odd title. While not a direct port of the TurboGrafx-16 title, Rondo of Blood, it does share some levels and has a near identical plot. It doesn’t include all of the levels from Rondo, but does add levels that are new to Dracula X. This was done due to the limitation of the Super NES compared to the TG-16 as well as licensing agreements involving Rondo of Blood. While Dracula X is an enjoyable title, I’ve never felt that the controls were as tight as they could have been, and some of the level design left me cold. Still, this is a traditional, level based Castlevania title, and it does play as such. Even with a few shortcomings, it is well worth your time to give it a chance, especially if you’ve never had the opportunity to do so before.

5. Chrono Trigger (Super NES)
Let’s get this out of the way right here. While I genuinely like this game, I never got out of it what many others have. I’ve never been sure why given my love of this genre. It may be due to the fact that I didn’t get to play this until it was re-released on the PlayStation some years later. Regardless, this is yet another classic RPG on the Super NES. Plot heavy with many numerous characters, Chrono Triggers sees you jumping through time to stop an upcoming calamity. Chrono Trigger is unique in that, at a certain point, you are able to challenge the final boss at a time of your choosing, allowing for a dozen different endings. Chrono Trigger remains a popular game even today, and is one I should truly revisit myself.

4. Addams Family Values (Super NES)
If you’ve been following my blog journey through the years, then you know I’ll occasionally pick a game that most people would never mention. For 1995, this is that title. While most people probably considered this a cash-in on the movie, a write-up in Nintendo Power convinced me to try this game, and it is far better than it has any right to be. While the plot of the game is similar to the film, it is vastly expanded upon. Addams Family Values tasks you, as Uncle Fester, with tracking down baby Pubert, who is being held somewhere on the Addams estate by Debbie Jelinsky. Addams Family Values plays almost identically to A Link to the Past, with a vast overworld, multiple “dungeons,” numerous items to find, and secrets aplenty. Truly, the only downside of this game is the use of a password system, given to you by a family member that is not always easily found. In the age of emulation and save states, this has become a moot point (even when using the original cart on a system such as the Retron5).

3. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island (Super NES)
With Yoshi’s Island, Nintendo showed that they were not afraid to play with their most famous franchise. Instead of simply offering a direct gameplay sequel to Super Mario World, Yoshi’s Island instead puts you in the role of one of a number of Yoshis, trying to get Baby Mario to an imprisoned Baby Luigi, who is being held by Kamek and Baby Bowser. Yoshi’s Island is wildly imaginative in its level design, and uses a pastel and chalk aesthetic that have allowed the visuals to age extremely well. While I don’t prefer this title to Super Mario World (though it seems most gamers do), it is still an excellent game with ageless level design.

2. Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy’s Kong Quest (Super NES)
As good as Donkey Kong Country is, I think that Diddy’s Kong Quest is actually a superior experience. In this title, Donkey Kong has been captured and it is up to Diddy and Dixie Kong to rescue him. Diddy and Dixie play very similarly. Both are small, quick, and extremely agile. The primary (and maybe only) difference is that Dixie can float down slowly by spinning her hair, a lifesaver in a game with some very tight platforming sections. DKC 2 adds a few new gimmicks to the levels while pulling some from DKC. It also brings back the animal crates that were so crucial to surviving in DKC. It takes true genius to top Nintendo’s in-house games, and Rare was up to the challenge with DKC 2.

1. Secret or Evermore (Super NES)
I’ve written about this game a couple of times now because it is a game I adore. I originally purchased Evermore because I came across it for $20.00 at Wal-Mart and it looked intriguing. I had no clue at the time that I was buying a game that I would complete numerous times and would still go back to play nearly thirty years later. Evermore is an action RPG title that plays much like Secret of Mana, though I feel that Evermore controls a bit better. You, as the main character, along with your dog (also controllable) are pulled into a fantasy world by an odd machine you encounter in an abandoned mansion. After initially landing at a space station, you are ejected to a jungle area and are off to determine what has happened to you and to find a way to return to your own land. Evermore is a sprawling game that sends you through multiple themed areas. Weapons, items, and magic (called Alchemy in Evermore) are all present, as you would expect of a game in this genre. I love this game. Again, it’s one of those games that I come back to every couple of years because it gives me joy in a way that many games can’t. Anytime I can put a spotlight on it anywhere, I jump at the chance, and I’m happy to do so here (again) by making it my #1 game of 1995.

Other Yearly Top 8 Posts: