RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/trump-takes-on-a-globalist-trading-system-rigged-against-the-u-s/

For decades, U.S. presidents and congressional leaders from both parties rolled over and accepted global trading arrangements that have put the United States at a great disadvantage. The result is that the United States had a $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, the largest of which has been with China.  

A fact sheet issued by the White House on April 2nd explains the stakes in what amounts to other countries’ economic attacks on America: “Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; resulted in a lack of incentive to increase advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.”

President Trump has decided that enough is enough. He is using America’s enormous leverage to pressure its trading partners to ditch their unfair trade barriers and level the playing field. The White House fact sheet calls this “the golden rule on trade: Treat us like we treat you.”

America’s trading partners have imposed tariffs on U.S. goods imported into their countries that are far steeper than the tariffs that the U.S. has imposed on their goods. Even more insidiously, America’s trading partners have erected high non-tariff trade barriers that stifle U.S. companies’ access to their markets. These countries also flood the U.S.’s far more open markets with goods at prices subsidized by foreign governments that American companies cannot compete with.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/05/from-one-fake-left-wing-hysteria-to-the-next/

The decade-old age of fables like Russian collusion, laptop disinformation, or the pangolin/bat cause of COVID is not over; it is just hitting midstream.

For much of April, amid stock downturns, in the classical paranoid style, we were assured by the Wall Street Journal news reporters and the liberal press that Trump had either a) guaranteed an inevitable recession, b) engineered a losing trade war he likely regretted, c) crashed the stock market, d) lost his once majority favorability ratings, e) mostly had a failed first 100 days, or f) all of the above.

Some of us thought these diagnoses and prognoses were absurd. How in mediis rebus, during a radical counterrevolution never quite seen before, could anyone issue such bleak predictions? Would these same observers have said the U.S. was doomed to lose World War II after the bleak first five months of mostly failure in the Pacific, or North Africa, after the utter U.S. army disaster at the Kasserine Pass?

When the Biden administration compiled two consecutive quarters of negative GDP—the supposedly classic definition of a recession—most of these same pundits assured us that the data was meaningless and irrelevant. The same left-wing media throng insisted Biden was in his cognitive prime until hours before he abdicated from the ticket under pressure. They swore to us that Robert Mueller’s “walls were closing in” on Donald Trump, who would legitimately go to jail, buried by 93 lawfare indictments.

As for their polls showing that Trump was all but through after three months in office, almost all of them were not just off in the 2016 presidential race, but again in 2020. And given the chronic temptation to warp polls to create Democratic momentum and fundraising, they rigged their polls yet again in 2024—even when they knew in disgrace that they were ruining their brand. A former Harris campaign official just admitted that internal polls never showed Harris ahead—even as the majority of polls predicted her victory.

So why would anyone believe any of these people? Take the now-defunded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Its recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll assured us that 45 percent of the public gave Trump an F for his first 100 days, with only 42 percent expressing approval of his job so far.

But this is the same bunch that also assured us in its final authoritative 2024 election poll, on the very eve before the voting, that Kamala Harris would win the race by 4 points—a lead proverbially “outside the margin of error.” (The next day, she lost the popular vote by 1.5 percent or 2,284,952 votes and the Electoral College by 312-226). The public broadcasting polling partnership was off 5.5 points, perhaps suggesting that it wished to aid the Harris campaign more than either adhering to professional and ethical norms or fearing to lose what little was left of its reputation.