Sen. Ruben Gallego Boasts About Using Filibuster To Block Trump Agenda After Campaigning To Abolish It

/in , , /by

By Adam Pack

Written by Adam Pack

Editors’ Note: What a disaster Gallego, Mayes, and Hobbs have been for the state of Arizona.  They are a certifiable embarrassment to the state. While the Arizona voters are ultimately responsible for this poor choice, we can’t help but think that a divided and disorganized Republican Party is not well serving a state that went for Trump and has a Republican legislature. Republicans need to get organized and stop their internal bickering. Remnants of the McCain wing of the party need to quit belly-aching and get on the team. Trump has remade the party, and MAGA will continue with J.D. Vance in the wings. So-called moderate Republicans need to decide whether they are with the Republican team or support the radical Democrats.

BUCKS COUNTY, Pennsylvania — Democratic Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego reassured a crowd of left-wing voters at a Pennsylvania Democratic-party sponsored town hall Saturday afternoon that Senate Democrats are using the filibuster to block GOP legislation whenever possible.

Gallego, who is viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party due to winning a competitive race in a state President Donald Trump won last November, traveled to another crucial battleground state with a message of broadening the party’s tent in order to win back power in Washington. He boasted about using the filibuster to tank GOP legislation when asked by an attendee what Senate Democrats had in their toolkit to fight Trump and congressional Republicans. (RELATED: ‘The Hypocrisy Is The Point’: Kyrsten Sinema Is Having The Last Laugh On The Filibuster)

“Some of the things that are pissing you guys off the most aren’t even going through the Senate,” Gallego said regarding cuts by the president’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). “Normally … DOGE would actually run their cuts through the Senate, through the House, and then we’d actually use procedures, like to stop that: voting procedures, holding procedures, filibusters. They’re literally going around all that because they know that we will do that. That’s the frustrating thing out of this.”

“What I have within my power are certain things like … I’m holding every political appointee from the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs],” Gallego said referring to Senate Democrats’ various holds on the president’s nominees. “We’ve used the filibuster whenever we can, but again they’re not running through this [the Senate].”

Gallego’s apparent embrace of the filibuster to block Trump-backed legislation is a stark departure for the Arizona Democrat who used his support for eliminating the Senate procedural tool as a wedge issue against his predecessor Democrat-turned-independent Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

Gallego entered the Arizona 2024 Senate race to challenge Sinema on a platform to eliminate the filibuster.

“My position is that the filibuster has to get reformed,” Gallego told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell in January 2023 the day after he launched his bid. “It’s not a tool of compromise, it’s a tool of obstruction … At the end of the day, this [the filibuster] is actually really used to stop real moral movement and actual laws actually help people in this country.”

“Unlike Kyrsten Sinema, Ruben Gallego will vote to abolish the filibuster in order to be on the right side of the issues that matter,” Gallego’s personal campaign account X account posted in June 2023.

 

Sinema fiercely defended the filibuster during her single term in the Senate, calling the procedural requirement to get 60 votes to pass most legislation a “guardrail” for democracy. Her support for the upper chamber’s procedural rule made her ripe for criticism by Gallego and national Democrats and earned the former senator a censure by the state Democratic Party. She left the party and registered as an independent in 2022.

After Sinema decided not to seek reelection in 2024, Gallego narrowly won the race to replace her in the Senate, defeating Republican nominee Kari Lake by just over two percentage points. On the same ballot, Trump carried Arizona by 5.5 points over failed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.

Gallego’s campaign platform called for waiving the filibuster for Democratic Party-favored legislation, such as so-called “voting rights” bills.

He characterized the filibuster as “a relic of the Jim Crow era” primarily used to obstruct progress in a December 2021 tweet.

 

Senate Republicans have taken note of Gallego and other Senate Democrats’ apparent flip-flops on the filibuster since losing their majority and former President Joe Biden in the White House.

“I’m forgetting … the rules are different for Democrats,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor in February. “If you’re a Democrat, it’s perfectly fine – and not at all hypocritical – to plan to abolish the filibuster should you gain a majority in the Senate, but to use it regularly when you do not.”

Senate Democrats have filibustered four pieces of legislation since Republicans took control of the Senate in January.

Democrats led in part by Gallego killed a motion to proceed on bipartisan crypto legislation Thursday.

Less than two days later the Arizona senator defended the practice in a room full of anxious Democratic voters who implored him to fight harder against the GOP-controlled Congress.

“Be mad, stay mad and we fight,” Gallego said to the town hall attendees. “How do we fight? We fight them in the courts, everywhere we can.”

One Arizona political observer predicted that Gallego would “realize he loves the legislative filibuster” in a scenario where he would serve in the upper chamber’s minority. Democrats held a majority in the Senate at the time.

“[It] is not inconceivable that one day Ruben Gallego will end up defending what he called a ‘Jim Crow’ relic – the legislative filibuster  — and that all those progressive Democrats who hate Kyrsten Sinema will tomorrow view her intransigence as her crowning virtue,” Arizona Republic editorial columnist Phil Boas wrote in April 2023 shortly after Gallego launched his Senate campaign. “We should know what Gallego would do if Republicans win the Senate. Was his opposition to the filibuster a matter of principle or merely a raw play for power?”

Gallego’s office did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

India is China 2.0 thumbnail

India is China 2.0

/in , , , /by

By Spencer P Morrison

Written by Spencer P Morrison

Free trade with India isn’t a win for America—it’s déjà vu with China: cheap labor, ignored externalities, and another gut punch to U.S. industry dressed as opportunity

India is taking President Trump up on his offer for reciprocal free trade, proposing zero-for-zero tariffs on specific goods like pharmaceuticals, steel, and automobile components.

This has electrified President Trump’s base—the reciprocal tariffs are working! India’s coming to the table!

Sorry to burst your bubble: America will not benefit from free trade with India—or any other Third World country. Why? One word:

Externalities.

President Trump would be wise to remember that tariffs are not about moving factories from China to India—they’re about moving factories back to America.

Hunting Unicorns

Real international free trade—much like real communism—has never been tried. Why? It’s impossible.

The reality that economists & libertarians refuse to recognize is that different countries are different. And not just different in a nominal sense—different in real and practical ways that prevent economic integration.

First, America and India have different levels of economic development that cannot be reconciled without seriously rebalancing the factors of production.

The average annual wage in America is $63,000, while the average annual wage in India is just $2,500—the average American earns 25x more than the average Indian. Labor is often the largest input cost for making products, accounting for approximately 30–35% of the cost of American manufacturing—and it’s an even higher proportion in many service industries.

If America and India traded freely, India’s low wages would undercut America’s labor market—either Americans will need to accept lower wages domestically, or the factories will relocate to India to take advantage of dirt-cheap labor.

How do we know this will happen? The exact same thing happened after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.

In 2001, the average annual wage in America was $30,846, while the average annual wage in China was just $1,127—the average American earned 27x more than the average Chinese. What happened when American workers competed with Chinese workers? American factories moved to China, and wages stagnated.

In fact, the process has been going on even earlier than 2001. America has run global trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative value of these deficits is $25 trillion, after adjusting for inflation. This has decoupled wages for American workers from their productivity—even though workers produce more value, they aren’t paid for it. Why? Because the wages are suppressed by competition with cheap foreign labor.

Notice how the price differentials respecting America and China in 2001 and America and India today are almost identical. Why do we think the result will be different this time around?

From India With Love

In addition to obvious market asymmetries like the price of labor, the cost of doing business in India is lower because of externalities. Essentially, there are many costs of doing business in America that are baked into the final price of a product, such as the costs of environmental remediation, labor standards, and upholding higher quality control standards.

These costs are not baked into the price of Indian products. Instead, the costs of pollution or abusive labor standards are externalized to the environment or society at large.

But of course, we always pay the piper. Rather than pay 10 cents more per spatula, we live with plastic trash from India floating up on American beaches or mercury poisoning the fish we eat—we may not pay the price at the store, but we certainly pay it with our health and with our soul—all for the sake of “cheap” goods.

Often, foreign goods are not actually cheaper than American goods: they simply do not reflect the full cost of production. For this reason, America cannot produce goods as cheaply as China or India—not unless we are willing to destroy our standard of living—not unless we are willing to sacrifice our environment—not unless we are willing to outlaw morality in the name of business and sell our very soul for profit.

No. Reducing the cost of business to compete with India on price is simply not desirable. Nor is it possible.

Remember, even if America allowed manufacturers to externalize all costs, our economy is structurally distinct from India’s. In America, private corporations dominate the market. Although these corporations are large, and many are owned by the same few investment firms—like BlackRock—they remain private entities.

This is not the case in India, where the state is crafting a cohesive industrial policy designed to industrialize the country. Part of this policy appears to be to piggyback on America’s consumer market when it comes to strategic industries, like steel or pharmaceuticals—just like China.

Ultimately, the only way to protect America’s market from asymmetrical competition from countries like China or India is to price in these externalities by imposing protective tariffs. This is discussed in detail in my book Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home & Revive the American Dream.

The Shock and Awe of Reality

Different countries have different levels of economic development, legal systems, tax structures, histories, geographies, languages, cultural and business norms, and demographics. All of these differences can create market asymmetries that are simply not relevant domestically.

At best, free traders can reduce tariffs and other visible trade barriers, like taxes, transportation costs, and legal disharmonies. However, they cannot uproot the sort of cultural norms and political corruption that make doing business in India—or China, or Mexico, or Italy—different than doing business in America.

Ultimately, America’s interests are not served by moving industry from China to India. The industry needs to come home. Let’s not make the same mistake with India that we did with China—say no to free trade and raise the tariff walls.

*****

This article was first published on American Greatness, and is reproduced here with permission

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Report Damns FBI Spin of 2017 Congressional Baseball Game Shooting

/in , , /by

By Joshua Arnold

Written by Joshua Arnold

Editors’ Note: What a sad commentary when the highest levels of law enforcement employed ” false statements and manipulation of known facts” to cover up political terrorism by Democrats. Irony is really not a strong enough word.

The FBI employed “false statements and manipulation of known facts” to downplay the significance of a 2017 assassination attempt on Republican congressmen, according to a 27-page report released Tuesday by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“This demonstrates why it was important to get the Deep State out of control of [the Justice Department] and FBI,” said Chris Gacek, Family Research Council senior fellow, in a statement to The Washington Stand.

On June 14, 2017, James Hodgkinson traveled from his home in Belleville, Illinois, to Alexandria, Virginia, where he shot more than 50 rounds from cover at Republican members of Congress practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. Hodgkinson shot four people, including two police officers and then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., before he was shot and killed by police.

Hodgkinson supported Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and had a history of anti-Republican statements. Nevertheless, within a week of the attack, the FBI announced that it was “investigating this shooting as an assault on a member of Congress and an assault on a federal officer,” but did “not believe there is a nexus to terrorism.”

This conclusion provoked strong reactions for its loose relationship with the facts. “I have always been incensed by this obvious fraud,” Gacek bemoaned.

Among those upset by the FBI’s conclusion were those familiar with the definition of domestic terrorism stated in U.S. law (18 U.S.C. §2331(5)):

Activities that—(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

If the motive was not terrorism, there had to be an alternative explanation.

“An FBI Executive Intelligence Briefing doubled down on this hasty determination,” claiming that the shooter’s motive “most aligns with an act of ‘suicide by cop,’” the congressional report narrated. However, the report observed the illogic of this conclusion, pointing out that “there were no uniformed police officers present at the time of the attack,” “Hodgkinson took several actions that may indicate he hoped to survive the firefight,” and “suicide is not mutually exclusive with domestic terrorism.”

These facts were evident at the time of the shooting in 2017. But at that time, the Russia collusion hoax was at its height, special counsel Robert Mueller’s grueling, lengthy, and ultimately fruitless investigation was in full swing, and the media was far too focused on painting Donald Trump as a villain to pursue any news item featuring a left-wing domestic terrorist.

The report’s negative verdict does not rely on long-known facts but on new evidence. Specifically, the committee perused 2,500 pages of documentation in March and another 1,900 pages in April—all the information the FBI has on the incident. FBI Director Kash Patel provided this information to the committee after Rep. Trent Kelly, R-Miss.—a member of the committee who was at the fateful baseball practice—pressed him to set the record straight.

In fact, the FBI likely recognized that its initial hasty cover story to explain away the incident would never pass serious muster. “The FBI—as I understand it—released a ‘Clean-Up on Aisle Nine’ report in 2021—when Biden was safely in power and the lies in the first report no longer had to be maintained,” said Gacek.

The committee report makes the same point. “The FBI then spent the next four years privately guarding the basis for its determinations by impeding Congressional oversight. It was not until the FBI was investigating January 6 protesters and the application of Congressional pressure that the FBI changed course,” it said. The FBI then admitted, “The shooter was motivated by a desire to commit an attack on Members of Congress . . . This conduct is something that we would today characterize as a domestic terrorism event.”

But “Members of Congress” is an imprecise description of the shooter’s hit list. The shooter wanted to kill Republican members of Congress. According to an FBI Internal Executive Analytical Report cited by the committee, “Hodgkinson … had a history of writing ‘angry’ letters to his local newspaper and making phone calls to his local congressman highly critical of the Republican Party, conservative political agendas, and the current administration. Law enforcement also found a piece of paper with a list of Congressional Members containing six Republican names.”

If the committee report is correct, the FBI’s 2021 retreat was still far too generous to the grievous mishandling of the 2017 investigation—or perhaps “cover-up” is a more appropriate word.

For starters, “the FBI investigation failed even to conduct substantive interviews of all the shooting victims and other eyewitnesses,” the report stated. “For example, Congressman Mo Brooks was neither on the list [of secondary victims] nor interviewed. Yet, he was on the attacker’s handwritten list, was present for the baseball practice, and even received a Medal of Merit from the U.S. Capitol Police for his ‘bravery in the face of an active shooter.’”

Another aspect of thorough investigations that was missing from the FBI case file was “a comprehensive timeline and detailed description of events,” the report added. “It does not even describe Hodgkinson’s route that morning as he carried out the attack.” The FBI could still impose a predetermined political conclusion on a thorough investigation, insisting that Americans simply take its word for it. But here, it even failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

That raises another issue: Instead of sharing information about such a highly relevant matter in a transparent fashion, the FBI insisted that Americans—and even members of Congress—simply take its word for it.

“The entire investigative case file is classified at the Secret level,” the report notes. Yet “there were only four documents marked as classified,” and these documents were “either unclassified material that was improperly marked or documents that do not belong in an investigative case file.”

“A principal and grave concern of the Committee is the degradation of investigative standards and the Intelligence Community’s (IC’s) analytical integrity and objectivity,” the report opined. “Time and again in high-profile cases, the IC has violated the objectivity standard that is required by 50 U.S.C. § 3364 and necessary for our Republic. From Russian collusion to Anomalous Health Incidents, political considerations appear to have been the primary factor in analyzing facts for end-use intelligence products.”

“This demonstrates why it was important to get the Deep State out of control of DOJ and FBI,” Gacek concluded. “In Trump-45, it was basically weaponized against the administration. Part of that was covering up terrorism, like this crime, that would counter the Left’s narrative about Trump.”

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

‘Twin Deficits’: A Tale of Fiscal Folly, Not Trade Failure

/in , , , , /by

By Donald J. Boudreaux

Written by Donald J. Boudreaux

Editors’ Note: We respectfully disagree with some of the author’s points. We feel some trade practices are patently unfair to the US and its workers at home, and we would like to see that addressed. Adopting free trade unilaterally, when most of your competitors are cheating, is like adopting pacifism unilaterally in a world filled with war. We also think that until our competitors adopt free trade, we must protect vital defense industry infrastructure. We wish Trump critics on trade would turn their intellectual wrath on some of our competitors, like overtly mercantilist China. Trade with China is just one item in a big picture where China aims to dominate us. On the other hand, citizens should be free to buy foreign goods if they are cheaper and of higher quality than those produced at home. Anyone who remembers the junk made by American auto companies in the early 1970s recalls what a relief it was to buy a good Japanese car. Competition is always good. As we have written, trade policy has more implications than explaining problems by adhering to narrow accounting definitions. Please also note the complete absence of commentary about how trade deficits are a representation of the outsourcing of American jobs and factories; instead the author characterizes it flatteringly as an “inflow” of foreign investment. In other words, foreign producers are psyched about the ultra-consumerism of American citizens–or as our author dishonestly says, they’re “especially keen.” Somehow, this decades-long run of “foreign investment” coincides with the loss of 70,000 factories and 5.7 million manufacturing jobs. However, we agree with the author on some of the broader issues. US fiscal policy, creating inflation and capital distortion, makes our country less productive. We would add that so do overbearing regulations, militant unions that get special protection, and an unnecessarily complex tax code. Our educational system is also failing us. If America wants to be great again, it must compete more vigorously, albeit we hope on a more level trade playing field. While we have nuanced disagreements with the author, your time would be well spent hearing him out.

Irresponsible government spending is caused by Congress and the White House’s fiscal recklessness, not by foreigners making attractive offers of imported goods to Americans

No notion in economics is responsible for more misunderstanding and misguided government policies than that of the “balance of trade” (or “balance of payments”).

Rightly ridiculed in 1776 by Adam Smith as “absurd,” the so-called “trade balance” supplies protectionists with cheap yet convenient cover for their destructive interventions. The main reason is language: Saying that a country’s trade is “imbalanced” – especially if that country has a “trade deficit” – suggests to the economically uninformed that something is amiss. Who, pray tell, is comfortable with being out of balance?! All talk of “trade deficits” conveys the impression that the home economy is malfunctioning, or that foreigners are cheating at trade, or both.

But as I and others have explained repeatedly, this impression is not only false, it’s backwards. While hypothetical examples can be conjured in which a country’s trade deficit is a signal of domestic economic trouble, in reality U.S. trade deficits are overwhelmingly evidence of America’s economic vigor, at least relative to other economies. The reason is that U.S. trade deficits – or, more precisely, current-account deficits – arise whenever foreigners, during some period (say, some month), invest more in America than Americans invest abroad. Not only does this net inflow of global capital add to America’s capital stock, it’s also solid evidence that global investors are especially keen on the U.S. economy. Why Americans should be bothered by these realities is mysterious.

Nevertheless, if someone is intent on making the best case possible for being concerned about U.S. trade deficits, that case would point to the connection between U.S. trade deficits and U.S. government budget deficits – the so-called “twin deficits.”

Unlike trade deficits, which do not necessarily increase Americans’ indebtedness, U.S. government budget deficits do necessarily push American citizens further into debt: When the government borrows money to cover its current spending, future Americans are put on the hook to repay this debt. They’ll do so by paying higher taxes, by taking government-spending cuts, or by losing wealth through inflation.

So what’s the connection between U.S. trade deficits and U.S. government budget deficits? It’s the following: One of the countless ways for foreigners to invest dollars that they don’t spend on American exports is to lend those dollars to the U.S. government. These foreign investments in the U.S. both raise U.S. trade deficits and represent increased American indebtedness.

Is this a problem? Yes and no.

It’s a problem for what it signals, namely, government’s fiscal irresponsibility. It’s not a problem for what it does, namely, bringing more capital to the U.S. to help Americans shoulder the burden of Washington’s unsavory mix of gluttony (for spending) and cowardice (to raise taxes).

The U.S. Government’s Fiscal Incontinence

To the extent that U.S. trade deficits rise because the government sells more U.S. Treasuries – that is, borrows more dollars by issuing bonds – that part of the increase in U.S. trade deficits does in fact reflect a real problem in the U.S. That problem, again, is irresponsible government spending. But it’s vital to note that irresponsible government spending is caused exclusively by the fiscal recklessness of Congress and the White House; it’s not caused by foreigners making attractive offers of imported goods to Americans, or by Americans choosing to accept these offers. Regardless of how many or few imports Americans buy from foreigners, if the U.S. government lived within its means, there would be no new U.S. Treasuries for foreigners (or for Americans) to buy.

Someone might respond that foreigners’ eagerness to invest in safe U.S. Treasuries encourages Congress and the White House to spend irresponsibly. Such a causal connection between foreigners’ investment preferences and U.S. government budget deficits is logically possible, but it’s practically implausible, and highly so.

First, more than 60 percent of all federal spending today is non-discretionary; it’s on entitlements and debt service. These expenditures are obligatory. They are at today’s levels because of irresponsible commitments made by the government in the past.

It’s farfetched to think that Congress, through the years, arranged for entitlement spending and debt-service expenses to increase as much as they have (without being covered by increased taxes) because members of Congress were convinced that foreigners would eagerly lend to the government to cover these outlays. What happened instead is that politicians bought votes in the upcoming elections while giving little or no thought to just how these promises would be paid for. “Vote for me! I arranged for grandma today, and you tomorrow, to have more Social Security and government-funded medical care. And I didn’t raise your taxes to do it!” 

Because the benefits to politicians of making such fiscal deals are reaped by those office holders immediately (in the form of greater electoral support), while the costs of these deals come due only in the future (when many of those same officials will be long gone from office), politicians who vote for increased entitlement and debt-service spending that isn’t covered by corresponding increases in taxes simply give no thought to how this spending will be paid for.

Second, discretionary government spending is driven overwhelmingly by similar political considerations. Politicians who vote for, say, agricultural subsidies without corresponding tax increases don’t do so because foreigners’ willingness to buy U.S. Treasuries keeps the government’s borrowing costs lower than otherwise. No. Even if the Almighty announced to Congress just before such a vote was to take place that only Americans and not foreigners can purchase U.S. Treasuries, the politicians who support these boondoggles wouldn’t in the least be deterred from voting for them. All that matters to these politicians is that the costs of today’s promises will be paid for tomorrow, largely by people who aren’t among today’s voters. And today’s politicians give absolutely no thought to the nationalities of the creditors to whom those future U.S. taxpayers will be obliged to pay.

Third, foreigners today own only about 23 percent of U.S. government debt. The bulk of this debt, in other words, is owned by Americans. If, therefore (and contrary to fact), the U.S. government’s fiscal incontinence is rightly to be blamed on people’s willingness to buy U.S. Treasuries, most of this blame would fall on Americans. Yet I’ve never heard any protectionist demand that the government obstruct Americans’ commerce with each other in order to reduce the profitability of that commerce and, in turn, diminish Americans’ willingness to lend to the U.S. government.

Before moving on, it’s worthwhile to make one further observation about protectionists who point to foreign purchases of U.S. Treasuries as evidence that U.S. trade deficits are a problem. In doing so, these protectionists portray the U.S. government as mindlessly borrowing money from foreigners that it shouldn’t borrow and spend. Yet to prevent this reckless borrowing and spending, protectionists propose giving that very same government more power to obstruct Americans’ freedom to trade. What miracle do protectionists have in mind that would transform a government that can’t be trusted to make sound decisions about how to spend its citizens’ tax dollars into a government that can be trusted to make sound decisions about how to obstruct those citizens’ decisions about how to spend their own dollars?

Foreigners Help Americans Share that Burden

Foreigners’ purchases of U.S. Treasuries push real interest rates in the U.S. lower than these rates would be absent such purchases. These purchases, therefore, help to encourage more productive investment in the private economy even if the projects on which the government spends the borrowed funds are wasteful or destructive. If foreigners were to stop lending money to the U.S. government, interest rates would rise and that part of the budget deficit once financed with funds borrowed from abroad would be financed instead with funds borrowed from Americans. In turn, Americans would devote fewer funds to private investment projects. The growth rate of the American economy would be made slower.

There’s no question that the government’s grotesque fiscal irresponsibility and resulting budget deficits pose a real threat to America’s economy. It’s a threat that should be taken much more seriously. If saner heads somehow manage to prevail and restore a measure of fiscal restraint, U.S. trade deficits might indeed fall, as foreigners buy fewer U.S. Treasuries. But, perhaps counterintuitively, U.S. trade deficits might instead rise. Greater fiscal responsibility in the U.S. would improve the future prospects of America’s economy. Attracted by these improved future prospects, foreigners might well increase their investments in the U.S. private sector by more than they decrease their lending to the government.

Either way, however, pointing to U.S. trade deficits as an excuse to have politicians – who are today incapable of fiscal responsibility – restrain Americans’ freedom to trade is, to use the most scientifically precise term, totally bonkers.

*****

This article was published by AIER, the  American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

 

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Would the Left Finally Explain the Inexplicable?

/in , , , , /by

By Victor Davis Hanson

Written by Victor Davis Hanson

The left broke norms, erased borders, and weaponized justice—not to govern, but to crush Trump and cling to power by any means necessary

Somewhere between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens were invited into the United States by the Biden administration.

As far as logistics go, Biden could not flee Afghanistan without getting 13 Marines killed and abandoning to the terrorist Taliban $50 billion in munitions, a billion-dollar embassy, and a $300 million retrofitted huge airbase.

But Biden and his handlers proved far more logistically capable when their target was fellow Americans.

After all, they somehow managed to stop the congressionally approved continuance of the border wall, to subvert federal immigration law, to emasculate the border patrol, and to ensure that millions of people around the world could simply walk into the U.S. illegally, unaudited and with impunity.

But why did Biden or his puppeteers do something so anarchic, so injurious to their fellow Americans?

Why cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars in massive new entitlements?

Why swamp the social services of our own poor citizens?

Why turn loose half a million criminal aliens and gang members to prey on our own weak and defenseless?

Was the idea to alter the demography in one fell swoop? To grow the dependent class, thereby expanding government?

Was it pure spite born of hatred of half the country?

Was it to ensure future constituencies, given that the Democratic agenda no longer appeals to most Americans?

Was it a globalist gambit to demonstrate borders are anachronistic?

Was it to fast-track new voters under the laxity of post-2020 early- and mail-in voting protocols?

They knowingly fixed the 2020 primaries to ensure a non-compos-Biden would be nominated. Under the cover of the COVID lockdowns, they kept him in his basement while operatives radically altered the voting laws in the key swing states.

For the next four years, they put their waxen effigy in a hermetically sealed cocoon—one of avoidance of the press, three-day workweeks, and four-hour workdays.

Yet Biden could still not read huge-font, teleprompted scripts. He could not finish a simple call for unity without snarling, screaming, and damning his opposition as “semi-fascists,” “ultra-MAGA,” and “garbage.”

Was the point to salvage the Democratic Party for one last hurrah before the Squad, and the Sanders socialists inevitably took over and destroyed it?

Was that the idea behind clearing the primary field and anointing a decrepit “good ol’ Joe Biden from Scranton” veneer?

Or was it more sinister still in the sense that a debilitated Biden facade was a godsend for the left? Did his pseudo-centrist cover ensure that his handlers—the Obama crowd, the DEI chauvinists, and the Sanders socialists—could enact from the shadows the most radical agenda since 1933?

Will anyone ever tell us why they endangered and nearly ruined the country with a zombie president?

Why did the left break every prior pretense of legality and of fair play in trying to wreck an entire legal system just to destroy Donald Trump?

Why did the so-called stewards of jurisprudence coordinate four local, state, and federal prosecutions to cook up 93 indictments—the vast majority of them ridiculous contortions that will never be charged against any other American?

What was behind the disastrous effort to de-ballot Trump in most of the blue states? To “save” democracy by destroying it?

Why did they twice impeach a president and then try him as a private citizen?

Why did SWAT teams swarm an ex-president’s home to carry off over 10,000 documents in order to find 102 classified files?

Why did the FBI bring their own pre-prepared classification labels? Why scatter photo files on the floor?

Had Trump destroyed subpoenaed evidence like Hillary Clinton’s emails?

Had Trump stored the files, Biden-style, at four different locations?

Had Trump earlier just flunked rather than aced the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, would special counsel Jack Smith—as did Robert Hur in the Biden file case—have dropped all the charges against Trump on the grounds he was “an elderly man with a poor memory?”

So, what was behind the four years of trying to blow up and discredit our legal and law enforcement system just to destroy Trump?

Was their goad his accent, his bombast, or his tan that so drove the elite left into insanity?

Were they convinced they could never beat him in another election?

Did they hate him because, in his first term, he had secured the border, grown the economy, and had no wars abroad?

Or was it an unstoppable fixation, a destructive addiction?

In sum, the more he mocked them, the more they sought to destroy him—and all the more they ensured he would be president again.

*****

This article was first published on American Greatness, and is reproduced here with permission

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Why Truth? Why Not Tucker Carlson-ism?

/in , , , , /by

By Conlan Salgado

Written by Conlan Salgado

I must confess that my title is slightly misleading. I am not against Tucker Carlson-ism in the way that I am against, for example, Karl Marxism. Tucker does some excellent work. Really excellent work. However, he is also a prolific retailer, and his retail products are sometimes dirt cheap in terms of fact-value and truth-value. I am against what some have called the woke right, and which I will term the cultural right (as opposed to the political right). Tucker just happens to be its most persuasive and most interesting representative.

The cultural right does not have its own grammar. This is partly because it does not have any powerful and devious philosophers to create a grammar for it, in the way that the Left had Nietzsche, Marx, or Foucault. GK Chesterton, alas, remains criminally under-read and undervalued.

The cultural right, grammar-less as it was, and suddenly finding itself in the position of speaking to millions who were previously deaf to it, quickly adopted a leftist dialect (which sounds suspiciously Canadian to me), even as it articulated right-wing or even conservative positions.

My previous case study, on which I wrote an article, was Darryl Cooper’s magnificent pulverizing of WWII history, on a podcast coincidentally hosted by—you guessed it, Tucker Carlson.

In the article referenced above, I attempted to refute his most outlandish claim—that the Germans accidentally killed millions of Soviet Soldiers, but for the purposes of this article, I will cite another one: that the Black Forest bombings were among the worst terrorist attacks in history.

Even confining ourselves only to WWII, the Black Forest bombings do not qualify as some of the greatest terror attacks perpetrated. The most obvious examples would be the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although since, during wartime I for one have a strange partiality to saving American lives, I am glad we dropped the bombs RATHER THAN sending 100,000 young American men to certain death in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. If not the atomic bombings, how about selecting Hamburg or Dresden, the former of which certainly had terroristic qualities about it?

The greatest act of terrorism in WWII was the Holocaust. After the Holocaust, it was the implementation of Generalplan Ost. After Generalplan Ost, it was probably the Rape of Nanking. After Nanking, perhaps the Bataan Death March. Needless to say, in the company of such depraved acts, the Black Forest bombings are almost irrelevant.

Darryl Cooper, however, did not confine himself to WWII; he allowed himself the latitude of “history”. Are the Black Forest bombings equal to the Destruction of Thebes, or Carthage, or the campaigns of Ghenghis Khan, or thousands of Roman executions, or the Great Leap Forward, or the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, or perpetual regime of terror needed to maintain the Soviet Union, or any of the “historically significant” acts of terrorism over millennia?

Such a stupid statement laid to rest any doubt that Cooper was a historian. He is a pundit and a salesman. His product is cultural relevance and a founding myth for the right-wing moment. Mr. Cooper did tell one important truth: the “Manichean” account of WWII has become the Left’s genesis story about the “Fall” of the Right—and its original sins of racism and fascism.

Mr. Cooper’s response to this violent abuse of history is an equally violent counter-abuse. Puts me in mind of Ibram Kendi’s terrifying claim that the only way to mend past discrimination is with present discrimination.

Having discerned the need for a founding myth, having discerned that WWII has become a rhetorical weapon, Mr. Cooper decided to kill two birds with one stone: put the lie to the left’s version of WWII (being a cautionary parable about populism) while simultaneously transforming the story into a piece of right-wing rhetoric. Instead of a parable about Hitler, Grandfather of the populist right, perhaps we can tell a different story: that of Winston Churchill, Grandfather of the Neo-con and globalist elite. Perhaps, if we can perpetrate a myth about Churchill bearing primary responsibility for WWII, we might show how evil, genocidal, and altogether intolerable globalism and Neo-conservatism have always been. If the pen is mightier than the sword, we shall use Mr. Cooper’s to sever the heads of warmongering elitism and its patron saint Churchill.

If one is searching for a politician on whom to blame WWII, other than Hitler, try Woodrow Wilson out for size. He, among others, brokered the devastating and unfair post-WWI peace which authorized the rise of someone as repulsive as Ol’ Adolf.

As I’ve observed elsewhere, both the cultural right and the cultural left seem to agree that truth is not a function of history, only power is. In truth, WWII does not flatter either the right or the left, nor is it a cautionary tale about any ideology other than totalitarianism, whether arising out of the right-wing or the left-wing.

Interlude

In analyzing the crude and dishonest journalism of the Cooper interview, I am reminded as well of Tucker Carlson’s more recent interview with the Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Aal Thani, whose country has spent 6.3 billion dollars buying American Higher Ed institutions off. Perhaps the increased financing of American elite universities from Qatar (2 billion alone in the last 4 years) has little to do with the virulent brand of Islamism appearing in greater frequency on campuses (though I think not), but I could swear Tucker Carlson was deeply offended at foreign countries interfering in the domestic politics of the American body politic.

Apparently buying gigantic amounts of influence at culture-shaping institutions which train the next generation of bureaucrats, doctors, and judges–institutions such as Cornell, Harvard, Texas A&M, and many others–does not constitute interference in domestic politics. For the life of me, I have a difficult time finding anything more offensive or pernicious than a foreign country with totally alien values attempting to buy the minds of American youth.

This was either deliberate omission on Carlson’s part or journalism so derelict it does not deserve the name journalism. NOT ONE SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT THIS FOREIGN INFLUENCE OPERATION BY QATAR. NOT ONE.

WWII Again

Since the Manichean account of WWII was indeed the founding myth of the Liberal World Order, it is unsurprising to hear the Global Left constantly rely on terms or tropes which first arose in the War’s context. Often, these tropes are used in lieu of serious analysis. For instance, the notion that Putin will likely invade Poland if we cede Ukrainian territory to him is meant to conjure up the image of a brutal Hitler—poised to take Poland as a prelude to his brutal subjugation of much of the European continent.

The cultural right, or an increasingly large segment, seems also to enjoy loading scary WWII terms with the responsibility of an actual argument, and then flinging the thing at their opponents. Witness the rise in accusations that Israel is committing genocide. Genocide is a word invented to describe the systematic killing of European Jewry. Genocide is a succinct word for industrial murder, which constituted the most awful and impactful invention of the 20th century, far exceeding the atomic bombs’ horror. The 20th century was in some sense defined by industrialized murder, which was the preferred method of the Soviet Union, CCP, and Global Communism in dealing with its enemies.

If we accept Hamas’ casualty figures (we will do so for the sake of argument, acknowledging that they are almost certainly inflated and manipulated) of 53,000 civilians, and subtract about 22,000 for the number of militants Israel claims are dead, then we arrive at 31,000 collateral civilian deaths. This is almost two years into the conflict.

By comparison, the Allied powers killed 40,000 civilians over 14 days when it bombed Hamburg; needless to say, although civilian sections were specifically targeted by British bombers, Hamburg did not constitute a genocide. It was a brutal urban warfare campaign. If Israel had actually been indiscriminately bombing a densely populated urban environment with 5+ million people over the span of months, the death toll would not be 31,000 civilians. It would reasonably be 150,000 civilians at the most conservative estimate, perhaps as high as 500,000 civilians.

Given how Hamas strategically uses large civilian populations as both shield and bargaining chip for its own existence, it is almost miraculous that only 31,000 civilians have died. Whatever Israel is doing, it is not a genocide. One may adopt the position that it is an unjustified brutal urban war, or, as I myself do, one may adopt the reasonable position that Israel is prosecuting a justified brutal urban war.

Case in point: the cultural right, in a fight, relies primarily on pulling the pin and lobbing an emotional grenade. Genocide—BOOOMMM! Genocide is a more frightening word than most, and it is meant to make you categorize Israel with the worst regime in human history, not because facts have been followed to conclusions, but because the emotional impact of a word such as genocide will hopefully prohibit any need for fact-finding at all.

In any case, I trust the reader has absorbed my general concern. The cultural right is a coalition of resentments and odd postmodern insights. It is mostly an internet driven phenomenon. It reproduces through memes and podcasts. It is not nearly obsessed enough with orthodox Christianity. It eerily approximates a digital version of the French Revolution.

It renders history in the service of ideology. Frankly, I must confess that as much as I love Donald Trump, I do not believe MAGA will save the culture. It may save the federal government, and I shall be delighted if it does so. What will save American culture is orthodox Christianity and the destruction of the social media ethic and the emergence of a more sophisticated manner of spreading ideas other than memes.

Common sense is not an adequate replacement for Christianity; Tucker Carlson-ism is not a worthy replacement for truth.

Conclusions are important, and to the extent that the cultural right has very different conclusions than the left, it must be considered an infinite improvement. Ends, though, do not justify means, and leftist ways of thinking and feeling are uncouth and dangerous ways of reaching such conclusions.

Nietzschean methods breed Nietzschean monsters. Indeed, it remains for the cultural right to answer a thoroughly Nietzschean question with an enthusiastically un-Neitzschean answer: Why Truth? Why Not Strategic Falsehood?

For it was a ferociously anti-Nietzschean Jewish preacher who first gave an insight which a country trying to reclaim its freedom would do well to contemplate and hold dearly: “If you abide in [Truth], you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Pulitzer Prize Remains A Crown For Left-Wing Propagandists

/in , , /by

By M.D. Kittle

Written by M.D. Kittle

‘Once you realize Pulitzers are awarded for propaganda, it’s kind of funny to see who wins and who loses.” – The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway

About a decade ago, I was “considered” for a Pulitzer Prize for an investigative series on Wisconsin’s unconstitutional John Doe investigations. There was no need to get a big head about it. The Pulitzer is a bit like the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Anyone can enter; few will win. Unlike the sweepstakes, which is free to enter, entrants have to pay to play in the Pulitzer — a “nonrefundable handling fee of $75 via credit card.”

Anyone may enter anyone’s journalistic work for Pulitzer Prize consideration, “whether an editor of a news organization, an individual journalist or a reader.” Technically, someone being treated for blunt force head trauma or a Biden era press secretary could “nominate” a journalist, although the Pulitzer Prize Board frowns on entrants using the term “nominated.”

The now-defunct statehouse organization I worked for submitted my name and some of the stories from the series, “Wisconsin’s Secret War.” Don’t get me wrong. I’m proud of the series, which ultimately numbered hundreds of stories, shone a spotlight on one of the darkest chapters in Wisconsin history, and challenged a false narrative from corrupt corporate media. Sound familiar?

But I knew a decade ago what I know now: I had no chance of winning a Pulitzer — or really being “considered.” I’m not saying my series would have won or even made the cut as a finalist. What I am saying is it could not have won the Pulitzer. Let’s just say conservative journalists aren’t the Pulitzer people’s kind of people.

A series about a politically-motivated secret investigation to punish a Republican governor and his conservative allies for successfully taking on powerful public sector unions isn’t the stuff of Pulitzer Prizes. Sure, it had all the elements that typically catch the eye of the people running the puffed-up, century-plus old prize: Government agents illegally spying on citizens, pre-dawn, armed raids on the homes of victims, sweeping prosecutorial abuse. But the people unjustly targeted in Wisconsin’s political John Doe investigations didn’t fit the left-infected legacy media’s definition of a “victim.” The story of abusive bureaucrats and creepy Democrat prosecutors certainly didn’t fit the usual narrative from the usual corporate media suspects — then or now.

‘Distinct Political Dimension’

Such liberal provincialism is nothing new in Pulitzer Land. As The New Criterion opined more than 30 years ago, Pulitzers are ever destined for the piously liberal. 

“It has long been recognized that there is a distinct political dimension to the awarding of the Pulitzer Prizes. Briefly stated, the Pulitzers favor the expression of liberal opinion. No other mode of political belief is considered eligible for Pulitzer consideration. It is thus the main business of the Pulitzer committees to hand out the Prizes to other liberals, both in the press and in the arts,” the editors of the conservative magazine wrote in May 1992.

The piece reflected on the awarding of the prize in the category of “Commentary” to Anna Quindlen, “the often angry, always lachrymose columnist for The New York Times.” The columnist-turned novelist, in the estimation of The New Criterion, was honored for being emblematic of the modern liberal school of thought obsessed with “the emancipation and gratification of the self.”

The story remains the same 33 years later.

‘Reported Cautiously’

This week we learned The Washington Post, complicit in chloroforming democracy in darkness, won the Pulitzer in the “Breaking News” category for its tentative coverage on last July’s assassination attempt on then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The same news outlet that covered for and carried water for a senile Joe Biden, wrote off the Hunter Biden laptop scandal as Russian disinformation, and aided and abetted in the Russia collusion hoax long after that old chestnut died of unnatural causes, has been awarded with yet another Pulitzer. The latest chapter in liberals loving liberals. 

But as my Federalist colleague Brianna Lyman wrote, the Trump-hating WaPo, in its Pulitzer Prize-winning breaking story, was slow to believe that the man it had so often vilified could be the target of an assassin’s bullet. The first headline, according to the archives, was “Trump rushed off stage after loud noises at rally.” As we know and learned quite quickly following those “loud noises,” Trump had been shot in the ear, escaping assassination by a fragment of an inch. One of his supporters at the July campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was murdered; two others were seriously wounded. The Post knew it, too. After all, the online version of the newspaper published the photo showing blood pouring down the side of Trump’s face as he stood up and yelled, “Fight! Fight!”

“Two days later, the paper’s Paul Farhi defended the media’s coverage that deliberately downplayed the horrific event, saying media outlets ‘reported cautiously about what had occurred’ since ‘it wasn’t immediately clear what was unfolding,’” Lyman noted.

“Cautiously”, of course, is a convenient word to defend corporate media players that clearly bristled at the fact that the left’s Public Enemy No. 1 was the victim of a violent political crime during an election they desperately wanted Trump to lose.

‘Awarded for Propaganda’

Meanwhile, the Pulitzer’s “prestigious” public service medal went to leftist propaganda pusher ProPublica. The news outlet won for its disgustingly disingenuous reporting on women who, ProPublica claimed, died from medical care delays in states with “strict abortion laws.” ProPublica featured a slanted story about Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman pregnant with twins who, as The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported, “died in 2022 after … suffer[ing] untreated complications from the dangerous [abortion] drug regimen responsible for more than half of the nation’s abortions … ProPublica “blam[ed] confusion about Georgia’s lifesaving abortion limits for [her] death.”

ProPublica’s leftist spin was just the kind of piously liberal reporting worthy of Pulitzer Prize attention. It definitely fit the requisite narrative, facts be damned. 

For corporate media’s gaggle of leftist elites, the Pulitzer still means something, a crowning achievement. For those who have watched these self-important reporters defile the once-noble craft of journalism, the Pulitzer Prize is a prom queen crown awarded to the most insufferable leftists on the dance floor.

“Once you realize Pulitzers are awarded for propaganda, it’s kind of funny to see who wins and who loses. Also funny to see who thinks it’s a prize that you want to win or should be complimented for winning rather than mocked over,” Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway, winner of several meaningful journalism awards, wrote this week on X.

*****
This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.
Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Battle Over Education: Indoctrination vs. True Learning

/in /by

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by Frontpage Mag

In a clear, non-partisan breakdown, this piece examines the ongoing debate in education where accusations of indoctrination clash with calls for reform. Author Daniel Greenfield knowledgeably outlines how efforts to end perceived biases in institutions like West Point are met with resistance, framing it as a fight for intellectual integrity. The analysis is straightforward: one side sees curriculum changes as necessary corrections, while critics view them as overreach. This balanced view underscores the need for evidence-based approaches to foster genuine learning, without the baggage of ideology. It’s a timely reminder that education’s future hinges on thoughtful evolution. (138 words)

Key Takeaways

  • Greenfield argues that anti-indoctrination efforts are being labeled as indoctrination themselves, potentially stifling educational reforms.
  • This conflict could lead to policy shifts in academia, according to the article's perspective.
  • The piece notes that without resolution, such debates might erode trust in educational institutions nationwide.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

History Made: The First American Pope and Its Implications thumbnail

History Made: The First American Pope and Its Implications

/in /by

By The Editors

/by

Published by The American Spectator

Oh, please, an American Pope? That’s just rich—talk about the ultimate plot twist in global affairs. Jeffrey Lord dives in with his trademark snark, calling out how Chicago-born Cardinal Robert Prevost’s election shakes up the Vatican and, yeah, probably ruffles some anti-establishment feathers. This isn’t some feel-good story; it’s a bold reminder that U.S. influence now reaches the holy halls, potentially clashing with traditional powers. Lord’s pull-no-punches style nails the irony: while the world gawks, this could mean more conservative pushes in church politics, or just more headaches for the global elite. Either way, buckle up—it’s going to be a wild ride. (148 words)

Key Takeaways

  • Prevost’s election as the first American Pope is breaking Vatican norms, which might shift church policies toward U.S. values.
  • Lord highlights potential conflicts with international leaders, leading to broader geopolitical ramifications.
  • According to the article, this stunning development could inspire conservative reforms or spark resistance from traditionalists.

Read the Original Article

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

0 0 The Editors 2025-05-09 07:47:07History Made: The First American Pope and Its Implications

Peterson’s Critique: Ivy League Battles and Academic Integrity

/in /by

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by Daily Wire

With straightforward commonsense, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson unpacks the feud between President Trump and elite universities like Harvard, zeroing in on the appointment of an underqualified dean with a plagiarism scandal. As a libertarian conservative, Peterson argues that this reflects a broader issue: institutions prioritizing ideology over merit, which harms academic freedom. He delivers a matter-of-fact takedown, noting how such decisions erode trust and stifle real intellectual pursuit. In the end, it’s a call for reforms that put facts and individual liberty first, cutting through the noise to expose what’s at stake for higher education. (132 words)

Key Takeaways

  • Peterson is criticizing Harvard's leadership choices, which could damage institutional credibility and student outcomes.
  • The ongoing conflict with Trump might lead to policy changes in education, per the episode discussion.
  • Plagiarism allegations against the dean underscore the consequence of prioritizing diversity over competence.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Trump’s Bold Appointment: Judge Jeanine Takes on D.C. Prosecutions thumbnail

Trump’s Bold Appointment: Judge Jeanine Takes on D.C. Prosecutions

/in /by

By The Editors

/by

Published by Daily Caller

In a move that’s as engaging as it is unexpected, President Donald Trump has tapped Fox host Judge Jeanine Pirro as interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C.—a decision that pulses with potential upheaval in the justice system. This appointment signals a shake-up aimed at rooting out what many see as entrenched biases in prosecutions. Pirro’s no-nonsense background brings a compelling edge, promising to challenge the status quo with sharp, fact-driven reforms. As D.C.’s legal landscape braces for change, this could redefine how high-profile cases are handled, drawing both supporters and critics into the fray. It’s a riveting chapter in American politics, where bold actions meet the quest for fairness. (148 words)

Key Takeaways

  • Trump is appointing Pirro to lead D.C. prosecutions, which might overhaul local justice practices and expose biases.
  • This decision could lead to heightened scrutiny of past cases, according to Daily Caller reports.
  • Pirro’s expertise highlights the potential for aggressive reforms in a city long criticized for inconsistencies.

Read the Original Article

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

0 0 The Editors 2025-05-09 07:46:48Trump’s Bold Appointment: Judge Jeanine Takes on D.C. Prosecutions

A Measured Look at the U.S.-UK Trade Deal’s Mixed Outcomes thumbnail

A Measured Look at the U.S.-UK Trade Deal’s Mixed Outcomes

/in /by

By The Editors

/by

Published by Washington Examiner

With a commonsense lens, it’s clear that the recent U.S.-UK trade agreement offers some progress but falls short of full resolution. Tariffs on British goods remain higher than pre-April levels, a fact that underscores the deal’s limitations in restoring normalcy. Author Dan Hannan points out that while this agreement chips away at trade barriers, it doesn’t erase the economic disruptions from earlier policies. This matter-of-fact assessment reveals how such pacts can benefit both nations through freer markets, yet persistent tariffs highlight ongoing challenges. Ultimately, it’s a reminder that economic recovery demands straightforward, populist reforms rather than convoluted negotiations—keeping everyday impacts in focus for the average citizen. (152 words)

Key Takeaways

  • U.S. tariffs on UK goods are still elevated, which could stifle transatlantic trade growth, according to Hannan’s analysis.
  • The agreement partially rolls back April’s disruptions, but its incomplete nature might prolong economic strains for businesses.
  • Hannan notes that without further reforms, these tariffs represent a missed opportunity for stronger bilateral economic ties.

Read the Original Article

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

0 0 The Editors 2025-05-09 07:46:33A Measured Look at the U.S.-UK Trade Deal’s Mixed Outcomes

Unpacking the Latest National Security Threats in a Changing World

/in /by

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by Washington Times

In the tradition of reasoned historical analysis, one must consider the evolving landscape of U.S. national security as detailed in this podcast discussion. Veteran journalists Ben Wolfgang and Guy Taylor delve into pressing geopolitical issues, emphasizing depth over sensationalism. They explore how current events, from global conflicts to domestic politics, demand a deliberate and mature approach to understanding threats. This isn’t mere alarmism; it’s a call for thoughtful policy rooted in historical precedents, where informed insiders provide expertise on war and international affairs. As we navigate these complexities, the podcast underscores the need for steady, evidence-based strategies to safeguard American interests, reminding us that true security arises from wisdom, not haste. (198 words)

Key Takeaways

  • Experts like Wolfgang and Taylor are dissecting key U.S. national security issues, which could heighten global tensions if ignored, according to podcast insights.
  • The focus on depth over hot takes highlights the consequence of superficial analysis in geopolitics, potentially leading to misguided policies.
  • Insiders with war expertise warn that ongoing conflicts might escalate, underscoring the need for deliberate historical context in decision-making.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Make The Switch To Patriot Mobile – Here are the Key Steps

/in , , , , /by

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

The Prickly Pear is proud to bring you news articles and information from both local and national sources. We are happy to be part of the wave of citizen journalism replacing the legacy liberal media that can no longer be trusted. We are equally proud to bring our readers alternative opportunities and services we use in our daily lives.  The Prickly Pear supports Patriot Mobile Cellular and its Four Pillars of Conservative Values: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Right to Life, and significant support for our Veterans and First Responders. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do you support these causes, but most customers will also save up to 50% on their monthly cellular phone bill. 

Here at The Prickly Pear, we know that switching to a new cellular service can be challenging at times. Let’s face it, no one wants the hassle.  But that hassle is necessary if Conservatives want to support those who support them.   

Here are some helpful tips to make your switch to Patriot Mobile a smoother and more rewarding process. We want all our readers to have the opportunity to switch their mobile service and know they are getting the same major cellular network of their choice from the Big Three Network providers, with improved quality of customer service and tech support, all of which is 100% U.S.-based.    

Before porting your phone number to Patriot Mobile, ensure you have the following information available from your old carrier. This will make your switch easier and more efficient. 

  • Old Carrier’s Account Number: This can be found on your wireless bill. 
  • Correct Name and Address: Ensure these match exactly as they appear on your old mobile or wireless bill from your previous carrier.
  • Remove Phone Number Port Lock: This is a fraud protection measure that must be removed from every phone number you wish to port. This is usually accomplished when requesting the (NTP) Number Transfer Pin. 
  • Number Transfer PIN (NTP): Obtain this from your old carrier.
  • Know your device IMEI. This can be found by going to your phone app as if you were going to make a call, and entering/typing *#06#

Important Notes:

If you are on a multi-service plan (e.g., cable and internet), make sure to get the WIRELESS account number.

  • The name and address must match precisely to avoid transfer failure due to fraud detection.
  • Failure to remove the port lock could prevent the transfer.

Many NTPs expire within 4-7 days, so obtain the NTP and start your Patriot Mobile activation as soon as possible.

*****

Image Credit: GROK image generator

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Make the Switch to Patriot Mobile. Here’s How…

/in , , , , /by

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

The Prickly Pear is proud to bring you news articles and information from both local and national sources. We are happy to be part of the wave of citizen journalism replacing the legacy liberal media that can no longer be trusted. We are equally proud to bring our readers alternative opportunities and services we use in our daily lives.  The Prickly Pear supports Patriot Mobile Cellular and its Four Pillars of Conservative Values: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Right to Life, and significant support for our Veterans and First Responders. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do you support these causes, but most customers will also save up to 50% on their monthly cellular phone bill. 

Here at The Prickly Pear, we know that switching to a new cellular service can be challenging at times. Let’s face it, no one wants the hassle.  But that hassle is necessary if Conservatives want to support those who support them. 

Here are some helpful tips to make your switch to Patriot Mobile a smoother and more rewarding process. We want all our readers to have the opportunity to switch their mobile service and know they are getting the same major cellular network of their choice from the Big Three Network providers, with improved quality of customer service and tech support, all of which is 100% U.S.-based.    

Before porting your phone number to Patriot Mobile, ensure you have the following information available from your old carrier. This will make your switch easier and more efficient. 

  • Old Carrier’s Account Number: This can be found on your wireless bill.
  • Correct Name and Address: Ensure these match exactly as they appear on your old mobile or wireless bill from your previous carrier.
  • Remove Phone Number Port Lock: This is a fraud protection measure that must be removed from every phone number you wish to port. This is usually accomplished when requesting the (NTP) Number Transfer Pin.
  • Number Transfer PIN (NTP): Obtain this from your old carrier.
  • Know your device IMEI. This can be found by going to your phone app as if you were going to make a call, and entering/typing *#06#

If you are on a multi-service plan (e.g., cable and internet), make sure to get the WIRELESS account number.

  • The name and address must match precisely to avoid transfer failure due to fraud detection.
  • Failure to remove the port lock could prevent the transfer.

Many NTPs expire within 4-7 days, so obtain the NTP and start your Patriot Mobile activation as soon as possible.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Germany Designates Leading Conservative Opposition Party ‘Extremist’

/in , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Written by Neland Nobel

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance condemned the decision

Germany has long had a “democracy” problem. It evolved neither under the English tutelage nor under Switzerland’s independent federal development.

First under the Kaiser, then under Hitler, and then under Soviet occupation of the East, Germany has had difficulty dealing with its past and creating democratic norms. Is it just us, or does it seem that after unification, Germany has taken more leadership from the East than the Western part of the nation—the Western part that Britain, France, and the American occupation powers had administered?

The East was run as a dictatorship under the careful supervision of the security services, the Stasi.  It seems not too long after taking the Berlin Wall down, German politicians want to put up an internal wall so they don’t have to deal with political opposition.

They have adopted radical green policies that deindustrialize the country, bankrupt farmers, implement radical transgender policies, and open borders to all comers. Some Germans rightfully object. How about debating ideas and letting German citizens decide? Moreover, it is interesting that Germany’s “security services” made this decision, which strikes us as a very undemocratic process.

On Friday, the German security services officially designated the Alternative für Germany (AfD Party) a right-wing extremist organization.

Oddly, these same “security services” have been silent as millions of Muslims have swarmed into the country, carrying with them Islamism, an ideology fundamentally opposed to Western cultural, religious, and political tradition. These Islamists are deemed less of a threat to the security and “democracy” of Germany than the Conservatives. That is quite a decision of historic import.

In a snap election last February, the AfD doubled its vote share to over 20%, which is significant in a parliamentary system.

This opens the possibility of banning the largest opposition party in Germany. That’s not healthy for “democracy,” is it?  Where do the party members go, and how can they express their opinions?

Should this designation be upheld in courts, the German security services will also have an increased ability to spy on the party. 

We are not making a brief necessarily for all positions and all members of the AfD. But we are suggesting they are a legitimate voice, the most popular party, and should have a voice. Reasonable people can disagree on the nature of mass migration and the beliefs of Islam. From what we have read, the AfD is not monolithic in its positions.

AfD co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla reacted to the decision .“Today’s decision by the Office of the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German Democracy,” the statement read, continuing, “In current polls, the AfD is the strongest force.”

The designation was given because of what they called “language” that seems to exclude other groups, espeically non German migrants. They did this with a straight face while they “excluded” with “language” Germans who might disagree with open borders policies.

Interesting. The AfD uses language while their opposition uses the police powers of the state and its “security agencies.”  Speech is not force, but German authorities seem eager to conflate the two. Secretary of State Rubio called it “tyranny in disguise” and Vice President Vance also condemned the move suggesting the Berlin Wall was being rebuilt.

At a critical time in talks with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, this also seems like a strange time to pick a fight with the Trump Administration and the cohesion of NATO.

Late note:

On May 2, 2025, the German government, through its domestic intelligence agency (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV), changed the designation of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organization. This escalated from its previous classification as a “suspected” extremist group. This new designation allows for increased surveillance, including using informants and interception of communications.

However, on May 8, 2025, posts on X indicated that the BfV had temporarily withdrawn this classification pending a court decision, though it would continue operating under the previous designation. This suggests the “extremist” label is currently under legal challenge, with the AfD filing a lawsuit against the BfV, alleging the designation is politically motivated and a “blow to democracy.”

The situation remains fluid, with the designation change initially implemented but now paused for judicial review.  However, no matter the outcome, the German government is trying to destroy perhaps the largest opposition political party in the country.  Rather than political competition in the marketplace of ideas to be decided by voters, especially over the issue of mass migration, the German establishment is using the police powers of the state to “support democracy.” The irony is too obvious to miss. Moreover, this would seem like trying to clamp a lid on a boiling pot of water, with predictable outcomes.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Labeling Constructive Criticism as “Myth-Information” thumbnail

Labeling Constructive Criticism as “Myth-Information”

/in , , , /by

By Anne Marie DiCarlo

Written by Anne Marie DiCarlo

On April 13th, the Prescott Courier ran an article written by Superintendent Clark Tenney as a rebuttal to the valid criticisms raised about yet another year of overall poor performance by Arizona’s schools, including the PUSD.

Subsequently, the Superintendent extended an invitation to meet and discuss the results and challenges faced by our schools, and I accepted. The discussion with Superintendent Tenney & Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, Kelsey Secor was informative, transparent and productive. The result was a much clearer picture of the multiple issues and challenges faced by our local schools. In many ways, the administration is genuinely working for the betterment of the students and there are many positives, including a focus on the development of critical thinking skills. However, to address the root causes and formulate an improvement plan, the negatives deserve a close inspection.

In the April 13th article, the superintendent was quick to dismiss the claim that Arizona’s schools are among the worst in the nation, according to the recent results published in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), stating that there is no objective measure to compare each state’s educational system. While that may be true, the NAEP (despite its random sampling selection of student participants) does serve to measure the level and mastery of material at every grade level and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Sound reasoning would dictate that the material tested at each grade level should guide each state in setting standards. Currently, the US has no federally mandated education standards. This is shocking, given that we have had a federal Department of Education for decades. While school control should remain at the local level, a clear set of objectives to be achieved at each grade level would guide individual school districts and empower curriculum development that could bring uniformity across the nation, regardless of demographics.

An attempt to achieve this took place in 2015. At that time, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, required states to set “challenging academic standards” but granted autonomy in design. The ESSA mandates annual assessments in reading and math (grades 3–8, and once in high school). In 2010, the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)  provided voluntary standards known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for math and English language arts (ELA) to ensure college and career readiness. Forty-six states initially adopted these, but as of 2025, only about 20 states entirely use CCSS. Others have modified or replaced them for political reasons.

Arizona is one of the states that has moved away from the CCSS and implemented its own standards.

Superintendent Tenney stated that the PUSD students score “above state averages in every subject level, in every grade level, with the current exception of middle school math”.  While accurate, the state results are very poor; the PUSD scores higher in each category but still fails to produce a majority of students who are proficient in subject material, according to the state benchmarks.  PUSD testing results for the core subjects are detailed here.

The website details student performance on the whole and at each grade level and groups students into four categories: minimally proficient, partially proficient, proficient, and highly proficient. According to the 2024 state’s testing results for the PUSD, the bar chart below illustrates the composite score for students, by grade and subject, who fall below proficiency (minimal or partially proficient):

(note: science represents grade 5 as testing not done in grade 4)

According to school administrators, the complicated system of interpreting state standards of expectations ( for each subject at each grade level) and the development of the metric that defines the category into which each student falls based on the assessment tests does not necessarily mean that the student is not ‘proficient’ in reading, for example, but not proficient in meeting each goal within the state standard, which may include critical comparison in addition to basic comprehension. Currently, according to the school administration, teachers are not given the detailed test results for these assessments, and as a result, have no clear idea why students did not meet the state’s expected results. Without such detailed results, it is nearly impossible for the teachers to adjust the curriculum effectively. This needs to change.

For the parent or citizen, this explanation produces much ambiguity about the goals and the success of the chosen curriculum. This is precisely why clear, measurable objectives are necessary for K-12 students. If the explanation that state standards are set so high such that the majority of students are not able to achieve ‘high expectations’, then why do Arizona students only score an average of 18-19 on the ACT college entrance tests (depending upon the year) and such scores are considered ‘partially’ proficient or at the lowest range of proficiency by the ACT board itself?

These results should lead to a reform of the state standards for education and how such standards are communicated to the schools. In addition, there is a need for a complete re-evaluation of the curriculum and materials used to teach the core subjects at the primary level—an audit that becomes a regular process to identify deficiencies and aim for continuing improvement.

One fantastic example of success by changing course is the state of Mississippi. 

Mississippi went from being ranked second-worst in 2013 for fourth-grade reading to 21st in 2022. The “Mississippi Miracle” began in 2012 when the Republican governor/legislature introduced phonics-based instruction and began to hold back ~10% of 3rd graders per year who failed the reading test. Perhaps Arizona needs to consider a similar tactic or a requirement that minimally proficient students must attend summer school to progress to the next grade level. Currently, state law has no provision for this. Targeted intervention in the early primary grades is critical in changing the downward trajectory.

Looking back to the 1999-2000 school year, PUSD produced far better results than in the most recent school year. According to state data, the PUSD met proficiency standards in math and reading for that school year by a total of 55% and 60% of the student body, respectively.

Mr. Tenney also correctly noted that Arizona is ranked 50th in terms of academic spending per student. While this is true, more money is not always the sole solution. Other states are an excellent illustration of this. According to the most recent data available, Arizona K-12 schools spend $10,315 per pupil for a total of over $11 billion annually. Idaho spends $9,670 per pupil but ranks 21st in the K-12 education component of the ranking in 2024, in comparison to Arizona’s average rank of 40th- 45th. Mississippi and Tennessee K-12 schools spend between $10,000 and $12,000  per pupil and also produce better educational results. Some states, like Washington and Wisconsin, spend somewhat more per student, $14,842 and $15,423, respectively, but ranked 4th and 10th in the nation in education, surpassing states like New Jersey and New York that spend up to $29,000 per student. 

While funding undeniably affects the quality of education, other factors need to be considered, like the cost of living, curriculum, and teacher certification standards.  In addition, standardized academic achievement scores in Arizona significantly influence funding.  Arizona has a Results-Based Funding (RBF) program allocates financial resources to schools based on their performance in statewide assessments. High-performing schools, particularly those serving low-income communities, receive additional funding to support teacher salaries or expand successful programs. Consequently, failing to produce better results affects a school’s funding.

Another financial consideration is how education dollars are spent regarding the ratio between instruction and administration. Currently, the split is about 60% to 40%, of instruction to administration and support.  Perhaps more dollars directed toward instruction would produce better results. In Prescott, the PUSD has eight K-12 schools serving 3,948 students. The organization chart is as follows:

The exact number of support staff employed by the PUSD was not readily available, but LinkedIn profiles suggest between 200 and 500, excluding teachers and aides. It would be interesting to know if there has ever been a reassessment of the necessity for the current size of the administrative support staff at each level and whether those dollars could be better utilized by directing them towards the direct education of students, like tutoring, etc. It may also be beneficial to investigate whether tiny districts, like Skull Valley, Crown King, and Congress, should share administrative support with the larger districts nearby.

The PUSD average class size varies by grade but can be as high as 35. I agree with the Superintendent that reducing class size and hiring additional qualified teachers to improve the student-to-teacher ratio would be money well spent.

Generally speaking, however, the administrative expenditures in public schools across the US have increased dramatically over time. The following graph illustrates the growth in administrative staff versus teachers and students in public schools from 2000 through 2019:

It is time to examine how money is spent, not just how much is spent.

If nothing else, this dismal analysis should lead to a genuine attempt to correct the course rather than dismiss or deny it. The school boards should call for a review of state guidelines, curriculum, the efficacy of SEL (social/emotional learning), adequacy of tutoring, class hours, homework, social promotion, and enforcement to deal with absenteeism. 

Lastly, parents need to be called to become actively involved in their children’s education. According to school administration, up to 30% of parents are not actively involved in monitoring their child’s performance. Far more people show up for social gatherings than do for educational meetings. The first principle of a strong society is an engaged family unit. Parents, it is time to start paying a lot more attention.

In closing, we can continue to create slogans to dismiss the problems with our public school education system, or we can demand accountability and work together for change. Future generations are counting on us.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Not All Tariffs Are Created Equal

/in , , , , /by

By Michael Lind

Written by Michael Lind

Editors’ Note: We disagree that Liberation Day was a “debacle of historic proportions”. The market was vulnerable due to thinning performance, reliance on only about seven stocks to keep it afloat, was overvalued, and the product of an economy running on monetary steroids. Yes, the announcement of tariffs could have been handled better, but the market quickly erased the losses. This is not exactly of “historic proportions.” Nevertheless, the author makes some solid and interesting points worthy of your time.

The Trump administration’s rollout of its tariff strategy on “Liberation Day,” April 2, was a debacle of historic proportions, causing the greatest stock market crash since the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat of an even more frightening flight from the dollar as a safe asset. Nevertheless, from the wreckage, some useful policies might be salvaged. After all, the central initiative of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in his first term, the National Recovery Administration, collapsed in chaos and confusion even before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1935. But elements of the NRA’s grand scheme were re-created by the Social Security Act of 1935 and the minimum wage established in 1938 by the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the same way, some of the components of the Clinton administration’s failed effort at comprehensive health-care reform, the proposed Health Security Act of 1993 (“Hillarycare”), were repurposed and included in the more modest and successful Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare”).

In sifting through the rubble of Liberation Day, in search of useful policies, we can distinguish among tariff policies that are good (sector-specific tariffs and country-specific tariffs), bad (“reciprocal tariffs” which are not really reciprocal), and ugly (the global or universal tariff).

Let’s begin with sector-specific tariffs. With the exception of libertarian ideologues, thoughtful Americans, right, left, and center, recognize the need for protection and some promotion for manufacturing supply chains critical to national defense and independence. In 1791, in his Report on Manufactures for Congress, America’s first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, stressed the need for promoting American manufacturing industries that would allow the United States to be “independent of foreign nations for military and other essential supplies.” The emergence of China as a superpower rival on all fronts—military, industrial, commercial, and diplomatic—makes the need for a high degree of American industrial independence as urgent in the 21st century as it was in earlier eras.

To succeed, sector-specific tariffs must be accompanied by comprehensive industrial policies tailored to each targeted sector.

How broadly should “defense-critical” manufacturing be defined? Clearly it should not be defined so broadly that every domestic industrial lobby, no matter how minor, can successfully claim that its products deserve protection because they are essential to national security.

At the same time, the definition of defense-critical manufacturing cannot be limited narrowly to what is misleadingly called “the defense industrial base”—corporate defense contractors that make weapons and specialized goods only for the U.S. military and the militaries of U.S. allies and clients. The success of the Union in the Civil War, and of the United States in the world wars, came about because it was possible to convert and expand preexisting civilian industrial production for military purposes. The decision of U.S. leaders after the Cold War to allow much of America’s civilian manufacturing base to erode, in the hope that a small set of specialized defense industry contractors would be sufficient to maintain America’s great power status, in hindsight was one of the greatest strategic blunders in world history.

The Chinese Communist Party state has adopted a strategy of “military-civil fusion” (MCF). According to the U.S. State Department:

As the name suggests, a key part of MCF is the elimination of barriers between China’s civilian research and commercial sectors, and its military and defense industrial sectors. The CCP is implementing this strategy, not just through its own research and development efforts, but also by acquiring and diverting the world’s cutting-edge technologies—including through theft—in order to achieve military dominance . . . Key technologies being targeted under MCF include quantum computing, big data, semiconductors, 5G, advanced nuclear technology, aerospace technology, and AI. The PRC specifically seeks to exploit the inherent “dual-use” nature of many of these technologies, which have both military and civilian applications.

The true scale of the military spending of China, a secretive autocracy, is disputed. What is not disputed is that in the last generation, with help from unpatriotic American investors and unpatriotic American corporations such as Apple, authoritarian China has used state-led industrial and trade policies to become the world’s dominant manufacturing power.

In 2023, China’s share of value-added production in manufacturing was 29 percent of the world total—more than the United States, Japan, Germany, and India combined. China’s lead in global gross manufacturing production in 2020 was even greater: 35 percent, more than the combined total of the United States, Japan, Germany, India, South Korea, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom. Today China produces a third of global automobile manufacturing, half of the world’s steel, and 80 percent of the global civilian drone market. China is second only to Japan in manufacturing robots and is the world’s leader in factory robot installations. While China controls half of global commercial shipbuilding, America’s share of the global shipbuilding market has dwindled to 0.1 percent. What this means is that while the United States may lead China in the number of overseas bases and military spending, China would find it much easier than the self-weakened, partly deindustrialized United States to convert its superior civilian manufacturing base to military production.

Most Republicans and Democrats alike now share the goal of reducing America’s dependence on China for at least some critical manufactured goods and supply chains, like the semiconductors subsidized under the CHIPS and Science Act. One option for partial decoupling from China involves “friendshoring,” the sourcing of key manufactured goods and inputs from U.S. allies or other friendly nations.

The problem with the friendshoring strategy is that most of America’s “friends” are on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. Even worse, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India are next to China and thus are subject to blockade or intimidation in a serious Sino-American conflict.

The United States continues to extend one-way military guarantees to countries like Japan and South Korea whose largest trading partner is China. Among America’s so-called NATO allies, Germany found its largest single trading partner in China, until the United States surpassed China as a market for German exports in 2024. America’s East Asian and European allies are too deeply integrated into the Chinese economy for an American-led bloc that limits Chinese imports to be politically realistic…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Tablet Magazine.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Global Markets Surge on Potential Trump-UK Trade Breakthrough thumbnail

Global Markets Surge on Potential Trump-UK Trade Breakthrough

/in /by

By The Editors

/by

Published by ZeroHedge

Deliberately examining the ripple effects of a prospective Trump-era trade deal with the UK, this development signals a return to robust economic strategies that prioritize national interests. As a historian would note, such agreements echo past trade wars and alliances, where decisive actions reshaped global markets. The jump in futures reflects investor optimism amid tariff fears, underscoring the delicate balance between protectionism and growth. This thoughtful push could fortify transatlantic ties, but it demands careful consideration of long-term implications for international trade dynamics.

Key Takeaways

  • Investors are rallying markets based on a rumored Trump-UK deal, which might ease tariff pressures and boost profits, according to market analysts.
  • This surge could reduce global economic uncertainty, but at the risk of inflating asset bubbles, as per the article’s data.
  • The deal highlights potential shifts in trade policies, leading to stronger alliances, based on expert quotes.

Read the Original Article

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

0 0 The Editors 2025-05-08 09:26:35Global Markets Surge on Potential Trump-UK Trade Breakthrough

Hawley Blasts Democrats for Overlooking National Decline

/in /by

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Published by Daily Caller

In a clear and knowledgeable overview, Sen. Josh Hawley’s recent remarks underscore the economic and security challenges facing the nation, attributing them to Democratic policies. With a non-partisan tone, the analysis reveals how Hawley’s critique highlights issues like border management and global standing, urging a balanced approach to governance. This piece distills complex arguments into digestible insights, emphasizing the need for fiscal prudence and strong institutions. Hawley’s call for accountability serves as a reminder that effective policy requires transparency and evidence-based decisions, potentially paving the way for bipartisan solutions.

Key Takeaways

  • Sen. Josh Hawley is calling out Democrats for ignoring economic and border woes, which could lead to voter backlash, according to his Fox News statements.
  • This criticism might escalate partisan divides, resulting in stalled legislation, as evidenced by ongoing congressional debates.
  • Hawley's remarks point to a need for policy reforms, potentially improving national security, per expert opinions in the article.

Read the Original Article

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.