Trump Offers Blunt, 3-Word Response After Canada’s New PM Says Country Is ‘Not for Sale’

President Trump had three little words for newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Tuesday after the commander in chief again said he wanted Canada to be America’s 51st state.

“I say, ‘Never say never,’” the 78-year-old said. “I’ve had many, many things that were not doable and ended up being doable.”

Trump was responding to Carney, 60, telling him that Canada is “not for sale” and that the Canadian view on becoming part of the US “is not going to change.”

“As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale,” the Liberal PM said.

During a post-meeting news conference at the Canadian embassy, Carney said he had told Trump behind closed doors to “stop” publicly musing about annexing Canada — but did not reveal what the US president said in response.

“We are masters in our own home,” the prime minister added, “and we can give ourselves far more than any foreign government can ever take away.” (Read more from “Trump Offers Blunt, 3-Word Response After Canada’s New PM Says Country Is ‘Not for Sale’” HERE)

Another White Teen Brutally Attacked by Thugs… Crickets From the Mainstream Media

These days, it feels like we’re constantly reporting on black-on-white crime, and that’s only because the propaganda media refuses to do its job and share these stories. Now here we are again: three black teens were arrested for armed robbery and for shooting an innocent 17-year-old outside a local store in Moore County, North Carolina. More on this horrific story in a moment…

Most recently, we covered another one of these forgotten stories about a young white mother named Emily Carlson, who was stabbed to death by a black career criminal in Chicago.

Revolver

A white mother from Austin, Texas, was allegedly murdered by a black career criminal — and once again, the propaganda media shrugs their shoulders, while the politicians look the other way.

In today’s upside-down America, there’s only outrage when it fits the regime’s narrative. We all know by now that if the races were reversed, this story would be flooding every news channel, with riots raging in the streets. But when a white victim dies at the hands of a violent black criminal, the media does everything it can to bury it — or worse, pretend that it’s an isolated incident with no bigger meaning.

That type of storytelling is what makes fake news so dangerous.

And sadly, here we are again, telling you about yet another young white victim, brutally attacked by three degenerate thugs, and right on cue, the media stays silent.

(Read more from “Another White Teen Brutally Attacked by Thugs… Crickets From the Mainstream Media” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Elon Musk Discovers 100,000 Active Federal Employees Illegally Getting Unemployment Benefits

By WND. Elon Musk, President Donald Trump’s leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, has made a startling discovery, saying there are more than 100,000 active federal employees illegally receiving unemployment benefits.

The DOGE chief revealed the stunning figure Saturday to Lara Trump, host of “My View” on Fox News.

“We’ve actually found there’s a lot of people who are federal government employees, that are active employees, who nonetheless have applied for and received unemployment insurance,” Musk explained.

“While they are federal employees,” an incredulous Trump responded.

“Yes, and this appears to be at least 100,000 people,” Musk continued.

“Wow!” Trump said. (Read more from “Elon Musk Discovers 100,000 Active Federal Employees Illegally Getting Unemployment Benefits” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Elon Musk, DOGE Team Credit Fed Workers for Helping Trim Waste, Fraud: ‘There Is Conflict, but That Is the Exception’

By New York Post. . .Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency team expressed their gratitude Thursday to the federal employees partnering with the cost-cutting agency as they work around the clock to eliminate wasteful spending and modernize the workforce.

The billionaire tech entrepreneur, 53, and several male staffers told Fox News host Jesse Watters that they’ve seen increased willingness from federal workers and agencies to collaborate with DOGE to improve government operations — noting that conflict is often a rare exception that’s heightened in the media.

“We’d like to just give a big thank you to all the government employees who are helping reduce the waste and fraud, because this is — we really couldn’t do it without you,” Musk said during a 10 p.m. staff meeting inside DOGE headquarters that was highlighted on “Jesse Watters Primetime.”

“I’m not trying to sort of say all government employees are bad. That’s absolutely not the case. It’s just that there actually just does need to be a serious effort to reduce the waste and fraud. And we’re just making that happen,” the DOGE chief continued. (Read more from “Elon Musk, DOGE Team Credit Fed Workers for Helping Trim Waste, Fraud: ‘There Is Conflict, but That Is the Exception” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Top California Democrats Fight To Protect Purchasing Sex With Kids

Should it be a felony to purchase an underage minor for illegal sex?

For most of us, the answer is a very easy yes. This is not a hard one. You will likely encounter three dozen questions today or tomorrow that will be considerably more difficult to answer. Generally, if someone is asked if there should be severe legal penalties for underage sex trafficking, the response is an immediate, unhesitating affirmative.

Democrats in California feel differently. The state assembly there this past week considered a bill — AB-379 — that would have amended state law to make it a felony to solicit paid sex from “any person under 18 years of age.” In other words, if you seek out and pay a minor for sex — if you engage in child sex trafficking — you would be guilty of a felony.

This should have been an easy move for the assembly; the debate should have taken about 30 seconds and ended with a unanimous vote, passage to the state senate, and a quick signature by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The ink should have still been drying on the bill by suppertime on Wednesday.

Democrats were not so obliging. In fact, they mounted a major opposition to the bill. By the time they were done with it, the bill’s protections for 16-year-old sex crime victims had been stripped from the measure. Democrats added language claiming it was “the intent of the Legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year old victims.” Which is strange since, when given the opportunity to do just that, they refused.

What reason could Democrats have for opposing the bill? Advocates in no small part seemed concerned that the measure could disproportionately affect … LGBT Californians. (Really stop and think about that for a minute.) The ACLU of Southern California claimed in part that similar measures “have been used disproportionately against … LGBTQ+ individuals.” Other opponents of the bill claimed that the measure could be used by parents who are upset that their children are in “LGBTQ relationships.” (Read more from “Top California Democrats Fight To Protect Purchasing Sex With Kids” HERE)

Trump Bans Federal Funding for ‘Dangerous’ Gain-Of-Function Research

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday banning all federal funding for “dangerous” gain-of-function research in China, Iran and other countries and blocking all federal funding for foreign research that could cause another pandemic.

The president signed the order Monday afternoon to improve the safety and security of biological research in the U.S. and around the world.

The White House said the order “will drastically reduce the potential for lab-related incidents involving gain-of-function research, like that conducted on bat coronaviruses in China by the EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Gain-of-function research typically involves modifying a virus to make it more infectious among humans. Gain of function research took place at the Wuhan Lab before the COVID-19 pandemic began.

The White House said the order will protect Americans from lab accidents and other biosecurity incidents, “such as those that likely caused COVID-19 and the 1977 Russian flu.”

The president’s order ends any present and all future federal funding of gain-of-function research in countries with insufficient oversight of research, and it empowers U.S. research agencies to identify and end federal funding of any other biological research that could pose a threat to American public health, public safety or national security. (Read more from “Trump Bans Federal Funding for ‘Dangerous’ Gain-Of-Function Research” HERE)

Buttigieg Says Black Babies Come At ‘Discount’ — Gets Smacked Down By Adoption Expert

A leading adoption advocate rebuked former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for suggesting racial disparities in adoption fees, calling the claim “ignorant” and misleading.

In an op-ed published in The Hill, National Council for Adoption President Ryan Hanlon addressed Buttigieg’s suggestion that adopting white children involves a “list” and a “deposit on a fetus” while implying black children are adopted at a discount. Hanlon said such language grossly misrepresents how private domestic adoption works and perpetuates harmful myths about adoption and race.

“Anybody who says race is not a thing in this country should experience an adoption process, where there are literally different lists if you say that you want a white kid only versus if you say that doesn’t matter,” Buttigieg said on Flagrant, a podcast hosted by comedian Andrew Schulz. “Literally a different list. The list for ‘white kid only’ is longer. And not only that, there was actually a discount — or, you didn’t have to pay a deposit on the fees. This is, like, how it works. I couldn’t believe it.”

“As someone who has worked with hundreds of adoption agencies and professionals across the country for decades, I can confidently say that [Buttigieg’s comments] misrepresent how private adoption works,” Hanlon wrote. “More importantly, when media narratives confuse or conflate key facts, the real harm falls on children and families.” (Read more from “Buttigieg Says Black Babies Come At ‘Discount’ — Gets Smacked Down By Adoption Expert” HERE)

‘What the Machine Uprising Might Look Like’: Video Shows Robot ‘Going Berserk’

A video has appeared online of a malfunction of a robot at a China factory.

“Malfunction,” however, might not be the most accurate term.

“This is what the machine uprising might look like: a video is going viral online showing a robot going berserk during testing,” explained NEXTA, a large Eastern European media concern, which posted the video.

One response on social media tried to explain it away: “Clearly unbalanced, then tried using algorithms to rebalance, but the algorithms were not tuned which led to wild oscillations, furthering the imbalance. This is ‘not’ an “attack.”

That might not be reassuring to two workers, near the robot when it powered up, who then jumped out of reach of the flaying robot arms, then circled around to try to stabilize the stand to which robot was attached.

The robot has become so violent it was moving the stand across the floor. (Read more from “‘What the Machine Uprising Might Look Like’: Video Shows Robot ‘Going Berserk’” HERE)

This Vaccine Lowers Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke by 26% — so Why Was It Discontinued in the US?

. . .A type of herpes virus — the varicella-zoster virus — causes chickenpox in childhood and shingles later in life.

Shingles travels along nerves, triggering a distinctive blistering rash and what some have described as the worst pain they have ever experienced.

A shingles infection can cause blood vessel damage, inflammation and clot formation, raising the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Older adults, people with weakened immune systems and those who’ve had chickenpox are at higher risk of shingles. Experts say vaccination is the most effective way to reduce this risk.

Now, a new study out of South Korea reports that a certain type of vaccine can offer benefits beyond lowering the risk of shingles — but it’s no longer available in the US.

The live zoster vaccine, which contains a weakened version of the shingles virus, can lower the risk of heart failure, a stroke, a heart attack or death from heart disease by 26% for up to eight years, according to research published Monday in the European Heart Journal. (Read more from “This Vaccine Lowers Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke by 26% — so Why Was It Discontinued in the US?” HERE)

Replacing the Income Tax With Tariffs?

During the 2024 campaign and since, President Trump has mused about replacing the income tax with tariffs. Trump believes that tariffs will put the burden of financing the U.S. government on the backs of foreigners.

Nice idea. Who wouldn’t want somebody else paying our government’s bills? To support his case, Trump correctly points out that until the modern income tax was adopted by the 16th Amendment in 1913, the United States collected the bulk of its revenue through tariffs (customs duties) and manufacturers excise taxes (discussed below).

So why can’t the U.S.do that again? If foreign producers of products imported into the U.S. in fact pay tariffs, it might be good idea. The problem is that’s just not how it works.

What is a Tariff?

A tariff (or customs duty) is an excise tax on foreign products brought into the U.S. An excise tax is imposed on a specific product or activity. Examples of excise taxes on products are those on cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline.

A tariff is paid by the domestic importer, not the foreign producer. For example, suppose ABC Imports, Inc., a U.S. corporation, brings $1 million of home goods into the U.S. from Mexico. At the point the products are received in a U.S. port, ABC Imports pays the tariff to the U.S. government. The amount of the tariff is based on the specific goods in question. Different products have different rates. The amount also depends on the foreign source of the product. Products from China may carry a heavier tariff than products from the European Union, for example.

The price of the tariff gets folded into the overall cost that ABC Imports pays for the product. That price is passed on to the retailer, and then to the final purchaser. As such, when a foreign product is sold in the U.S., the tariff is ultimately paid by the end-user of the product. President Trump’s apparent belief that foreign producers take the hit on tariffs ignores the economic reality that corporations don’t pay taxes; people do. Corporations invariably pass production and distribution costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods, or lower quality goods at the same price.

The economic reality of a tariff is that U.S. consumers pay it, not the foreign producer or foreign government. That makes foreign products more expensive for U.S. consumers.

Why Impose Tariffs?

1. Raising revenue. Raising revenue to help fund the government is one reason to impose tariffs. However, the revenue raised from tariffs by the federal government in the present era is insignificant. In 2024, the U.S. collected about $4.92 trillion in revenue from all sources. Only about 2 percent of that came from tariffs.

To consider replacing all income taxes with tariffs, there would have to be massive increases in tariff rates, on a huge number of and from most nations. This would have substantial negative economic effects, not the least of which is substantially higher prices on consumer goods, and likely a substantial reduction in consumer options as foreign products become increasing unavailable. At a minimum, such a move would trigger retaliatory tariffs by other governments. We are already seeing some of this with the new tariffs.

2. Encouraging and protecting domestic investment and production. As stated above, tariffs make imports more expensive. Because those products are more expensive, they become less desirable to U.S. consumers. This can favor U.S. producers. For example, suppose a U.S.-produced home good sells at Walmart for $25. A comparable un-tariffed Chinese product with a wholesale cost of $10 sells at retail for $20. Consumers will generally choose the less expensive Chinese product.

In the simplest scenario, if the government imposes a 50% tariff on the Chinese product, the wholesale cost goes from $10 to $15, and the retail price goes from $20 to $30. That imported product now costs $10 more than the similar domestic product. This can have the effect of encouraging domestic production of that product.

The irony is that increased tariffs on foreign products can reduce tariff revenue. A seminal economic principle is that what you tax you get less of. When you tax foreign products, you get fewer foreign products. High tariffs incentivize manufacturers to produce their product domestically so as to avoid the tariff. Likewise, customers are incentivized to purchase lower-cost domestic products. In both cases, people stop paying the tariff, undercutting the goal of raising revenue.

3. Addressing market distortions. A “distortion” is a phenomenon that leads people to do something they otherwise would not do; or discourages people from doing something they otherwise would do. All taxes cause distortions at some level. Graduated income taxes, for example, cause distortions in that they discourage production because the more money one earns, the higher the rate of tax is paid; thus, the less a person benefits from his own labor and industry.

Tariffs can mitigate market distortions caused by foreign governments flooding U.S. markets with subsidized products or those produced with (by U.S standards) artificially cheap labor.. The Chinese workforce does not enjoy the luxury of U.S. labor unions, minimum wage laws, workmen’s comp protections, medical insurance, and retirement benefits, etc. Because of that, Chinese products are frequently far cheaper than comparable U.S. products. The distortion is that U.S. consumers are driven to purchase the lower-cost product, where they might otherwise purchase the U.S.-produced product at a comparable price.

4. Retaliation and negotiating leverage. Tariffs can be used to retaliate against other nations that are trading unfairly.. In this regard, tariffs serve to level the playing field between nations. The U.S. imposes tariffs and then promises to remove them if the unfair behavior stops. This undercuts both the goals of domestic production and of raising revenue, since the entire point of the tariffs is to eventually negotiate them away.

5. National security. The U.S. may impose tariffs on certain foreign products deemed essential to U.S. national security. High tariffs on such items discourage imports, thus protecting domestic producers. This helps to ensure that the U.S. does not become dangerously dependent on foreign products that are integral to national security and defense.

Can Tariffs Replace the Income Tax?

The president argues that because the United States operated chiefly on tariffs and manufacturers excise taxes in the past, it can do so again. The reason that the federal government could operate on tariffs 125 years ago is because the federal government spent very little money. Its need for revenue was nowhere close, even in inflation-adjusted numbers, to what federal spending is today.

Between the years 1895 and 1910, federal spending went from about $366 million (not billion) to $758 million per year. Today, the federal government spends over 1,300 times more than that on interest payments alone.

During that same period, around 60 to 70 percent of federal revenue came from tariffs. The balance came from excise taxes and other insignificant sources. The modern personal and corporate income tax did not begin until after 1913.

To make Trump’s idea work, the federal government would have to slash its spending considerably. And by that, I don’t mean by 3 to 5 percent, or even 10 to 20 percent. Even cutting spending in half would require the federal government to collect about $3 trillion in revenue from a system that currently collects only about $100 billion.

And even if that would work to raise enough revenue, it would be impossible for Trump to accomplish his other tariff goals, such as encouraging domestic production or negotiating better trade deals. Tariffs work against themselves, which is one of the reasons they are such a destructive tax, one the U.S. should avoid layering on top of its already uncompetitive tax system.

Sean Penn Compares Trump to a Spouse Murderer: ‘He Might Destroy the World’

President Donald Trump resembles a “jealous spouse who murders another partner” and he may “try to destroy the world” if any third-term ambitions were left unfulfilled, left-wing actor Sean Penn has grimly warned.

His dire forecast came during a joint appearance on Jim Acosta’s Substack podcast, The Jim Acosta Show, alongside Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell.

Oscar-winner Penn said, “I do think it’s a reasonable theory that Donald Trump is not unlike the spouse of someone who leaves him… who then murders their former partner because if they can’t have her, nobody can.”

Then he cautioned, “Trump and his solipsism may have that relationship with the world… this destruction is in part a power play. And also a literal intention of his final out,”

Acosta asked whether Penn believed Trump might make good on his threats to try and retain power after his second term. “I think he might try to destroy the world before he ages out of life,” Penn replied. (Read more from “Sean Penn Compares Trump to a Spouse Murderer: ‘He Might Destroy the World’” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr