CartoonDems

 

US to European Allies: 'Immediately' Act to Lower Diesel Prices

The United States on Thursday told its European allies to help lower global diesel prices by releasing strategic reserves "immediately," with EU member states due to discuss the crisis on Friday.

"Our European partners should accelerate delivery on their existing commitments and make additional supplies immediately available to address ongoing disruptions," U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

 

 said in a post on social media.

EU member states will meet with the European Commission Friday to discuss a coordinated response to soaring fuel prices, a Commission spokesman said.

Reports said the Trump administration wants France and Germany in particular to tap their strategic reserves of diesel to try to curb prices sent soaring by the war on Iran.

Washington is piling on pressure to get European help with fuel costs, with President Donald Trump on Wednesday floating the possibility of banning diesel exports.

High energy costs loom as a threat to Trump's Republican Party in next month's midterm elections.

"It is in Europe's best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers," a U.S. official told AFP.

At G20 trade talks in Milwaukee, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer 

 

 struck a conciliatory tone, saying there was an "eagerness on both sides to work together" on the diesel issue.

- 'Unexpected' -

Still, EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic

 

 told reporters Thursday that any move by the U.S. to ban diesel exports would be "unexpected for Europeans."

He spoke on the sidelines of the two-day G20 trade ministers' gathering in Milwaukee, after meeting with Greer.

Sefcovic told reporters that he did not go into details with Greer on energy exports.

But the transatlantic partners "decided to stay in close touch to avoid any surprises here," he said.

"It would have very dramatic consequences for our economic performance," Sefcovic said of any potential diesel export ban.

A U.S. ban on diesel exports could tighten supplies in Europe as well as other markets that rely on American refined fuel, potentially pushing wholesale diesel prices higher if alternative supplies could not quickly make up the shortfall.

In the United States, restricting exports could increase domestic availability and put downward pressure on diesel prices, but the effect could vary by region and could also affect gasoline prices by changing how refiners balance production of different fuels. European concerns over an export ban therefore reflect the possibility that a measure aimed at lowering U.S. fuel costs could simultaneously make an already-tight European market even more expensive.

 

- 'Can't imagine' -

France's minister delegate for international trade, Nicolas Forissier, told AFP in Milwaukee: "I can't imagine that there will be a ban."

He stressed the importance of diesel to the United States and European countries, adding both sides will "try to find solutions."

"In France, we'll try to find balanced solutions all over the world," Forissier added. "If not with the Americans, it will be with other countries."

Trump on Wednesday said he was still considering a possible ban on U.S. diesel exports, while adding that he thought it could ultimately cause gasoline prices to rise.

"I'm thinking about it," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Speaking alongside Trump, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday that the world would "hear announcements from our friends in Europe" to push diesel prices down.

Asked about a release from strategic reserves, the French presidency said no such demand had been made when Emmanuel Macron and Trump met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last week.

Macron would also soon convene a video meeting of G7 leaders "to make progress on the various levers that can be used to address the rising fuel prices... including coordination on releasing reserves."

Macron announced on Sept. 18 a plan for such a meeting. The G7 gathering is expected in mid-October, according to Macron's press office.

Average U.S. diesel prices have surged more than 70 percent to $6.39 a gallon since the start of the Iran war, according to AAA motor club data.

Fuel prices have caused living costs to soar, leaving some in Trump's Republican Party fearing it could lose control of Congress in November's midterm elections.

Newsmax contributed to this report.

 

California Changed the Title of Proposition 39. Voters Should Know Why.

Words matter. And when those words come from the government and appear on a ballot, they matter even more.

When ballots drop on October 5th, Californians will begin voting on Proposition 39, a constitutional amendment concerning voter identification and citizenship verification. But before voters ever reach the substance of the measure, they will encounter something worth examining: the words the State of California has chosen to describe it.

When the initiative that became Proposition 39 qualified for the ballot, the Secretary of State announced it using the Attorney General's circulating title: “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements.”

The title voters will see in the state's official voter guide is considerably different: “Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.”

Those two sentences describe the same ballot measure, but they don't read the same way. That's something Californians should pay attention to, regardless of how they ultimately vote on Proposition 39.

California's ballot initiative process gives citizens extraordinary power. Voters can change statutes, amend our state Constitution, and make policy decisions that ordinarily would be left to elected lawmakers. With that power comes a responsibility on the part of government: Give voters clear information and let them make the decision.

The Attorney General has an important role in that process. His office prepares the official titles and summaries for ballot measures, and those few words can shape a voter's first impression of an initiative long before he or she reads the actual text. That's precisely why neutrality matters.

Supporters of Proposition 39 challenged the revised language in court, arguing that it was prejudicial. A Sacramento County Superior Court judge rejected that challenge and concluded that the new title and summary accurately described the measure's effects. That ruling is an important part of the record and should be acknowledged.

But a court's determination that language satisfies the requirements of the law doesn't end the broader conversation about how California should communicate with its voters. The question isn't simply whether each word can be defended as technically accurate. It's whether the government's description gives voters a neutral understanding of the policy choice before them.

Today's voter ID initiative may be tomorrow's tax increase, criminal justice reform, environmental regulation, or constitutional amendment. Californians across the political spectrum should want the same standard applied to all of them.

Imagine a ballot title concerning a policy you strongly oppose. Now imagine the government rewriting that title using language favored by the policy's supporters. You probably wouldn't be satisfied simply because every individual word could be defended as technically accurate. The standard we expect when our side is out of power should be the same standard we defend when our side is in power.

Government shouldn't need to persuade voters through a ballot title. Campaigns exist to make arguments. Supporters can tell voters why they should vote yes. Opponents can tell them why they should vote no. Newspapers, advocacy organizations, political parties and citizens can argue the merits as vigorously as they want. The government's job should be different: Tell voters what the measure does.

That principle becomes even more important in a state where voters are routinely asked to decide complicated questions of law and public policy through the initiative process. Most Californians don't have hours to study every provision of every measure, which means the official title and summary can carry significant weight.

Those words should inform, not persuade.

Give us the facts. Spare us the framing. And trust California voters to decide the rest.

---

Credit: 

Mike Garcia is a former U.S. Congressman,

 

 F/A-18 Navy combat fighter pilot, and aerospace executive. He is Chairman of America First California at the America First Policy Institute and serves on the Department of War’s Defense Policy Board.

 

Wannabe World Mall Cop Mamdani Tells Theo Von the US Should Join the ICC and Arrest Netanyahu

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (Communist) believes the United States should join the International Criminal Court (ICC) and enforce its arrest warrants, including the one against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Everybody, feel free to point and laugh at the wannabe world mall cop.

Mamdani made the comments during an appearance on comedian Theo Von’s podcast, “This Past Weekend.”

Asked whether Netanyahu would have been arrested in New York if Mamdani had his way, the mayor could hardly contain the excitement in his little terrorist-adjacent body.

“If I had my say, the US government would have joined the ICC and honored every single warrant that they’ve issued,” he told Von.

Von, who oftentimes sounds like Kenny Crandell in "Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead," — The dishes are done, man — responded with the level of intellectual analysis you might expect.

"F*** yeah!" he said.

(WARNING: Language)

“When you ask about the prime minister, we’re talking about the architect of a horrific genocide," Mamdani added, a familiar refrain from those who support Hamas and don't feel the appropriate response to the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel was to level those behind it.

By contrast, Mamdani has referred to the attack that killed approximately 1,200 people and led to the abduction of 251 hostages — ranging from infants to the elderly, including Americans — as something that “should be deeply opposed with every single fiber of our being.”

How do you go about "opposing" it with every fiber, Sport? Netanyahu kind of figured that part out.

The mayor's wife, Rama Duwaji, it should be noted, also liked Instagram posts on the day of the attack celebrating Palestinians “breaking the walls of apartheid,” and later liked a post calling reports of Hamas rapes a “mass hoax.”

That sounds like a couple who supports October 7th with every fiber of their being.

During his mayoral campaign, Mamdani had vowed to have the Israeli leader arrested if he set foot in the city. He conceded in July that City Hall has no legal authority to enforce the 2024 warrant.

Now he just balls his little fist up like the Arthur meme and pouts about it on podcasts by useful-idiot comedians.

Mamdani hosted a Gaza “photojournalist” who has openly refused to condemn the October 7 Hamas massacre and has praised Yahya Sinwar, the architect of that slaughter, at his Gracie Mansion home.

You understand he shares common cause with these people, correct?

When he's not cozying up with like-minded terrorists, Mamdani is sending out a top aide to broker a meeting with Iran, which, like the mayor, would have ill intentions if they somehow managed to get their hands on the Israeli PM.

The United States is at war with Iran. Trying to communicate with an enemy of war and openly planning to apprehend an ally used to be referred to as treason.

Instead, we get deep two-word commentary from comedians like Von, who echo the sentiment of everybody in legacy media.

Editor’s Note: New York City is now facing the consequences of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s socialist takeover.

Credit:  https://redstate.com/

 

Remembering the False Gloom and Doom of the 1992 Elections — and the Upcoming Midterms

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidential election partly on the basis of his campaign's false accusation that George H. W. Bush had overseen "the worst economic performance since the Great Depression." Or so claimed Clinton's running mate, Al Gore.

James Carville, chief campaign adviser to Clinton-Gore, amplified that message with the constant refrain: "It's the economy, stupid."

That strategy worked for three reasons.

First, third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 19 percent of the vote. Most of his supporters would otherwise likely have gone to Bush. Perot allowed Clinton to win with a mere 43 percent of the popular vote, in part by echoing the false narrative of a crushing Bush recession.

Second, the brilliant Bush campaign strategist Lee Atwater, who had virtually destroyed the Dukakis campaign in 1988 — remember the tank ad, the Boston Harbor ad, and the Willie Horton ad? — had died in 1991 at the age of 40 from a brain tumor.

Atwater's canny but hardball 1988 tactics had turned off establishment Republicans. So in 1992, Republicans reverted to the notion of losing nobly rather than winning ugly and resumed unilaterally playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. The result of Democratic demagoguery was that the sober and competent elder Bush was branded a heartless elitist who had wrecked the economy and defended Kuwait only for "blood for oil." And without Atwater, the Bush team utterly failed to refute such caricatures and counterattack.

Third, and most important, the anemic Bush reelection campaign never refuted the Clinton-Gore economic hysteria. That "recession" deception had drowned out the historic foreign policy achievements of Bush's four years, from the successful policies that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to the decisive 1991 Gulf War.

Despite overwrought claims about a recession or even a new Great Depression, in truth, the recession had ended in March 1991. In fact, final GDP growth for 1992 was a robust 3.52 percent. That was hardly a recessionary indicator. Indeed, the election-year growth proved even stronger than in Clinton's first year of governance in 1993.

While unemployment was still high at 7.5 percent, the 1992 stock market nonetheless grew by 7.6 percent. And the 1992 inflation rate had stayed moderate at 2.9 percent.

In other words, the economy had already begun to recover from the 1990-91 recession, which — to reiterate — had officially ended 20 months before the 1992 election.

One cause — eerily now familiar — of the earlier 1990-91 downturn was that oil prices had initially doubled after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the U.S. military response. But prices collapsed as soon as Operation Desert Storm began, despite the later torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields and continued uncertainty in the Gulf. Yet by the November 1992 election, oil prices had long been back to pre-invasion levels.

In short, the Democrats' charge that 1992 saw the worst recession in 60 years was absurd. (The 1973-75 and 1981-82 recessions were far worse than the 1990-91 recession.)

Fast forward to the present. The economy today is far better than in 1992. But Democrats' successful 1992 demagoguery should remind Republicans that the perception of the economy peddled by campaign rhetoric can often decide elections more than the reality does.

Take the just-released 2025 poverty rate. It hit an all-time low of 10.2 percent. Child poverty also fell to a historic low. Such amazing news refutes wild leftist charges that uncovering vast welfare fraud, deporting thousands of illegal aliens, and cutting 400,000 federal jobs would spike poverty. In fact, those actions more likely contributed to reducing poverty, as did an astounding lowest violent crime rate in some 70 years.

Median household income also hit a record high of $87,460. That is the highest median household income in the world, dwarfing all other large industrial nations that are not petro-states or tax havens. The same holds true for our GDP per capita — which, incidentally, was already over $34,000 higher than in Canada.

New business reports show that this past August manufacturing achieved its largest monthly increase since 2022. And service-sector growth jumped to its highest level since 2021. New orders for metals, machinery, computers, appliances, communications — in truth, almost everything — continue to rise every month, especially and most recently in August.

Despite the Iran war and its global petroleum interruptions, the Atlanta Federal Reserve now predicts that third-quarter GDP growth will finish at a blistering 5 percent. The Dow and the S&P have grown by a strong 8.1 percent and a staggering 13.5 percent, respectively, in 2026.

Take away the climb in gas prices from a January 2026 average of $2.81 a gallon to $4.50, and the inflation rate was only 2.5 percent — below the 2025 yearly average of 2.7 percent — and Wall Street estimates put the annual rate at around 2.2 percent once the Iran war ends and a huge influx of oil hits the global market. The United States is now the greatest producer of oil and the greatest producer and exporter of natural gas in history — and is still increasing output.

August unemployment was a low 4.1 percent, while 162,000 new jobs were created in that month alone. Consumer spending remains strong.

The U.S. economy is entering a boom cycle. Its growth ensures that it remains the largest in the world and continues to outpace all competitors.

Many of the dire predictions at the millennium about the supposedly superior collectivist paradigm of the European Union — or the inevitable rise of a China of 1.4 billion people — surpassing the United States simply did not come true.

The EU has about 100 million more people than the U.S. China's population is four times larger than America's. Yet both have fallen further behind the U.S. in terms of economic production.

Indeed, the U.S. economy is roughly $10 trillion larger than either China's or the EU's. Far from some predictions of a decade ago that within 10 years China would overtake the United States, the opposite has occurred. America's nominal GDP of $18.8 trillion in 2016 soared to $32.4 trillion in 2026 — as the American share of global GDP increased to 26 percent. In contrast, the EU's share of global GDP actually shrank, and China's still stayed well behind the United States.

In key categories such as digital media, software, AI, bioengineering, and space technology, American companies remain the world's largest and most successful. They usually dominate global top-10 rankings, with eight or nine U.S. corporations among the top slots.

If the Republicans broadcast this positive news about the economy, it will in turn complement Trump's unambiguous foreign policy successes, which are largely underappreciated, if not unknown, among the public.

But they remain impressive: the rebooting of NATO by getting its members to rearm and take up their fair share of collective defense; the acquisition of new treaties ensuring an American military presence in the Greenland to monitor the contested Arctic; the radical transformation of much of the Western Hemisphere from leftist and anti-American nations into pro-American, tough-on-crime, free-market countries; the expulsion of the Chinese bad actors from the Panama Canal and the extradition of the anti-American communist Maduro from Venezuela; the restoration of Pentagon recruitment; and the change in Pentagon procurement to emphasize quantity of weaponry along with quality.

The verdict on the unpopular war against the Iranian theocracy is still out. But the idea that the last seven months of on-again, off-again strikes and negotiations amount, in terms of human and material costs, to a "forever war" is absurd and a lie.

 

While all our soldiers' deaths are tragic, the conduct of the war against the terrorist powerhouse of the Middle East had deliberately been waged to limit the loss of American lives. Indeed, the average daily fatality rate due to accidents in all branches of the military during the seven months of the Iran conflict is some 11 times greater than the number of those killed fighting Iran.

The roughly $40 billion cost of the war so far, while substantial, amounts to about 25 percent of the conservative estimates of recently discovered welfare corruption and fraud in California alone — involving theft of Medi-Cal, unemployment insurance, in-home services, and hospice funding.

The war will be judged by historians, fairly or not, on whether it delays for years or, if not, ends Iran's quest for nuclear weapons altogether, and on whether it so weakens the theocracy that it permanently loses its terrorist leverage over the Middle East — if not eventually implodes from popular resistance. If such a regime collapse should follow the conflict, the Middle East miasma of the last 70 years would largely end, marking the most profound American achievement abroad since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

So much is at stake.

Nevertheless, the Republicans have not yet developed a strategy to inform the public that the economy is sound and improving — and will likely soon take off, after the Iran conflict is over, oil becomes plentiful again, and tax cuts, foreign investment, deregulation, and productivity gains from AI take their full effect.

Most importantly, Republicans have still not articulated why the "affordability" issue persists. Under Joe Biden, average prices were nearly 21 percent higher than when he took office, with a yearly average increase of more than 5 percent.

The Trump administration nearly halved that annual rate in 2025. It will reduce Biden's yearly inflation rate substantially again in 2026.

But neither Trump nor any other president could or would wish by design to engineer radical deflation to restore prices to the pre-Biden levels of 2020 during Trump's last year in office.

Trump's first-term total four-year inflation rate was under 8 percent, averaging about 2 percent per year — far less than half the yearly inflation average of the subsequent Biden years.

In 2025, wages still climbed higher than the rate of inflation. But it would require a damaging recession to undo Biden's 20 percent rise in prices. And worse still, the cost of staples such as food, shelter, vehicles, fuel, and insurance rose nearly 30 percent over Biden's four years.

Nor have Republicans made the easy case that the midterms are no longer merely a matter of liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, or even progressives versus MAGA.

Rather, November 3 represents normality and common sense pitted against an unrecognizable "Democratic" revolutionary party that is driven by Islamist-sympathizing socialist zealots who are not fond of the United States as it has existed for 250 years. They are not shy about planning to remake America along the lines of, at best, radical European socialism and, at worst, something resembling Cuba.

Needless to say, if they get their way, even the most lurid false liberal claims about our current alleged economic problems will pale by comparison.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won," from Basic Books. You can reach him by emailing authorvdh@gmail.com.

 

The Shocking Part About the NYTimes Piece on the Cornell Gang Rape Story

The Cornell seven has once again sparked a national conversation about rape and college campuses. And it’s the same old problems: everyone rushing to judgment before all the details are hashed out. The seven named in the civil suit are accused, not guilty. This story isn’t the first time the national media and the public writ large thought they knew the story, only to have it blow up in their faces. And every major story of this nature turned out to be a hoax. The Duke lacrosse team was a hoax, with the accuser eventually admitting in 2024 that she fabricated the rape allegations. The University of Virginia saw Rolling Stone get wrecked by a libel suit over a gang rape that never happened. And it seems this one is heading for similar waters. The rule is simple: let’s wait and see. 

 

The case isn’t clear-cut; it's fraught with nuance and has many layers, each requiring in-depth analysis. It’s not like she was drugged and these guys took turns. We had a fraternity party, some apparent group sex, drug use, and Jane Doe consenting to some activities. Yet it could also be a case where she did not consent to some activities, though where that began and when remain a mystery. This incident occurred in 2024. Doe is now a former student and filed the civil suit on September 16. 

The text message showed that she did not consider herself a rape victim, even texting with the men who allegedly assaulted her. What was surprising about the lengthy Times piece on this story was that it was right down the line. It details the party, Jane Doe’s processing of what happened, and the conclusion that she feels she was a victim of rape. The problem is that everyone is off to the races condemning these guys. Let the slow process play out. As with anything, this is a grey-area case, but everyone seems to know the verdict, whereas the mountain of evidence quite directly points to Lindsay Clancy murdering her children, and the mental illness defense is absolved, and the patience factor is honored. That’s not the case with rape — once the allegation, true or not, is dropped, the accuser is guilty. I’m waiting for a trainwreck to happen again (via NYT):

On Sept. 16, Jane Doe also filed a lawsuit against seven men, accusing them of sexual assault. Lawyers for at least three of the accused men have broadly denied criminal wrongdoing; others have not yet made public statements.

What had not been known publicly, until now, were the detailed filings collected during the private Title IX proceedings — hundreds of pages of emails, text messages, photographs and interviews with Jane Doe, her friends and those she accused.

[…]

At 3:05 a.m. on Oct. 20, 2024, one of Jane Doe’s roommates sent her a text.

“Are you coming home tonight?” she asked.

Four minutes later, Jane Doe texted back that she didn’t know.

The roommate went to sleep, she would tell investigators. When she woke up at 11 a.m., she uploaded a photo of her empty room to Snapchat. “Only I made it back home,” she wrote on the post.

Around 11:15 a.m., she said, Jane Doe arrived home, still in her “big boots and small dress” from the night before, according to the roommate. She had consumed ketamine and had sex with multiple men, she told her two roommates. One roommate told investigators that Jane Doe did not use the word “rape” or “assault” yet.

[…]

The next day, on Oct. 21, Jane Doe went to her “big sister” — a woman designated as a mentor — at Cornell’s Tri Delta sorority

 

and told her there were rumors circulating that she was a “slut.” The big sister, a junior at Cornell, told investigators that Jane Doe added with a laugh that “unfortunately they are true.”

[…]

That same day, Jane Doe received a text message from Jonathan Newell, one of the men she would go on to accuse of sexual assault.

“I just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night,” Mr. Newell wrote. He then said that both he and Matthew Ingalls, another of the men she would later accuse of assault, both felt terrible for being too under the influence of drugs and alcohol to “shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand.”

Jane Doe replied and reassured him.

“At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt,” she wrote.

A lawyer for Mr. Newell did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Ingalls declined to comment.

[…]

On Oct. 23, Jane Doe texted Mr. Ingalls.

“Bro,” she wrote, “everyone knows.”

She said the episode was “RUINING my life temporarily” and that her reputation had been destroyed. She said all she could do was “sleep and cry all day.”

According to the documents, Mr. Ingalls assured her that it would all blow over soon, noting “how fast nonsense spreads at this school,” and said she did not have “anything to be ashamed of.”

“You’re right,” Jane Doe wrote. “It’ll get better.”

Jane Doe’s sorority big sister received a text that week: “Have you heard the rumor about your little?”

In the meantime, Jane Doe gave one of her roommates strict instructions: “If anyone asks about this,” she said, according to the roommate’s testimony, “say it didn’t happen.”

Doe had seen a post on an online forum about Greek life, specifically about the group sex that occurred at this first party. Meanwhile, when she was disinvited from the fraternity’s Halloween party, despite them saying she was always invited to their house, the mood changed dramatically:

By Nov. 3, Jane Doe appears to have concluded that she was assaulted at the October party. She sent a text to Mr. Newell.

“let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. i was given more key than i can remember,” she said, using a shorthand for ketamine, “and i know that i told u i felt uncomfortable and i didn’t know anyone in the room.”

She would get a rape kit done four days later. 

I have no idea what happened. Neither do you. But there are times when some have mistaken regrettable sex as rape. Aziz Ansari had to head into the bunker for an extended period during the Me Too moment when he was accused of sexual misconduct: it turns out it was just a bad date. 

Now, the Snapchats sent during this escapade are not good for the accused, especially the “free pussy upstairs” messages. Let’s wait and see. But there are going to be twists and turns here, and it’s going to take some time. One thing is for sure. The media has often failed miserably in reporting on such complex topics. Be skeptical. Maybe this isn't a hoax, but given the past track record, it wouldn't shock me. 

Credit:  https://townhall.com/

 

Texas: Trump delivers address at Peterbilt Motors manufacturing plant in Denton

President Donald Trump delivered an address at the Peterbilt Motors manufacturing plant in Denton, Texas, using the venue to highlight his administration’s economic policies, uplift GOP Senate hopefuls and champion a resurgence in American manufacturing.

Speaking before factory workers and company leadership, Trump emphasized how trade protections, tax cuts and deregulation have directly benefited domestic production, pointing toward the Denton assembly facility as a primary example of his “Made in America” agenda.

“Workers like you and companies like this have always been loyal to our country,” Trump said. “But for decades, you were heartlessly betrayed by politicians, lousy politicians who let foreign trade cheaters plunder your wages, loot your factories, close up your jobs, and they robbed our country blind.”

Peterbilt said that 1,000 jobs were added at the Denton facility.

Central to the address was the impact of trade measures enacted in late 2025, specifically the 25% tariffs imposed on foreign medium- and heavy-duty trucks as well as non-compliant vehicle components under the USMCA trade agreement.

White House officials and company leadership credited these trade barriers with driving major domestic operational growth, allowing Peterbilt and its parent company, PACCAR, to expand production facilities and add over 1,000 local manufacturing jobs at the North Texas plant. 

 

During his remarks, Trump further highlighted how these protective measures successfully stopped the decade-long trend of heavy truck manufacturing migrating overseas, forcing auto and commercial vehicle makers to reinvest directly in American assembly lines.

The speech also served as an opportunity for the Trump administration to address national economic data while building momentum ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. The president notably used his remarks to deliver an enthusiastic endorsement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is currently running for the U.S. Senate.

Trump praised Paxton’s tenure, calling him “the single greatest attorney general in the United States of America” while emphasizing his importance to the state.

“We need Ken so badly, and that’s why I’m here. I wanted to stop here,” the president declared. He also went on to warn voters that losing the seat to his Democrat opponent, James Talarico, would be “a horror to the system” and “such a horror to your state and such a horror to the country.”

Trump then acknowledged Paxton from the podium, humorously noting at first, “I didn’t even know he was here,” before pointing out both him and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the audience.

At another point, while acknowledging debates over employment figures, Trump referenced recent job gains in the manufacturing and construction sectors as evidence that long-term industrial investment is shifting back to the United States.

Analysts say that visit marks the beginning of an “intensified domestic campaign tour,” during which the 47^th president reportedly plans to visit key industrial sites across the country to tout the impact of his administration’s commercial and trade initiatives.

President Trump: Thanks to our strong tariff policy, American exports have surged to the highest level in history. Our trade deficit with China has plummeted to the lowest level in four decades. Wages for manufacturing workers are up. This year, the U.S. has added 60,000 new… pic.twitter.com/7dTb6XzAHD

— One America News (@OANN) October 2, 2026

President Trump says “tariff” is his “fifth favorite” word as he highlights new factories, manufacturing and jobs returning to the United States.

Trump says tariffs have helped keep out foreign products that previously hurt American jobs.

For more updates, watch OAN on OAN… pic.twitter.com/TQfsyWdMUb

— One America News (@OANN) October 1, 2026

President Trump: "We ended that, we're getting them out, we've gotten tremendous numbers of them out."

For more updates, watch OAN on OAN Live or click the link in our bio. pic.twitter.com/CVF2nq3asb

Credit: 

— One America News (@OANN) October 1, 2026

 

Mayor Zohran Mamdani Finally Gets FBI Clearance After 9 Months

Mayor Zohran Mamdani has finally received a federal security clearance after a nine‑month wait. That may sound like paperwork drama, but this clearance matters. It allows the New York City mayor to sit in on classified FBI briefings about terrorism, threats, and other national security risks that affect the city he runs.

What the federal security clearance actually does

A federal security clearance is not a ceremonial badge. Once cleared, the mayor can receive classified briefings from the FBI and other federal agencies. Those briefings offer raw intelligence about plots, foreign influence, and emergencies. Until now, Mayor Zohran Mamdani had to rely on summaries from the NYPD and aides who already had clearances. That is not the same as hearing the information firsthand. New Yorkers deserve their mayor to have direct access to national security intel when decisions must be made fast.

Why the delay drew concern

Backlog or extra scrutiny?

The big political question is why the clearance took so long. Some say there is a nationwide backlog in processing clearances. Others point to extra scrutiny because of Mamdani’s public profile and associations. The mayor’s office says the clearance was granted this week, and that’s that. He also met with President Donald Trump recently, and conservatives immediately wondered whether that meeting helped cut the red tape. We don’t know. What we do know is that the delay left the city’s top official one step removed from the most sensitive national security conversations.

Politics shouldn’t slow down security

Let’s be blunt: national security is not a prop for political theater. Whether you cheer for Mayor Zohran Mamdani or not, you should want him to have timely access to classified information that keeps New Yorkers safe. If the clearance process is clogged by paperwork or weaponized by politics, that is a problem. If it was delayed because of serious, verifiable concerns, the public deserves a clear explanation. Vague hints, rumor, and internet outrage do not substitute for transparency.

It is good news that Mayor Zohran Mamdani now has his FBI clearance and can join classified briefings in person. Still, the unanswered questions about why it took so long remain. Officials should explain the cause of the delay and assure New Yorkers that national security was never put on hold for politics or bureaucracy. Until then, the city has its answer but not yet its explanation.

Credit:  https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/

 

Trump’s Morally Binding AI Accord Is Just an Industry Pinky Swear

President Donald Trump invited the biggest names in tech into the East Room this week and walked out with what the White House called a one‑page “accord” on AI safety. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Dario Amodei, Alex Karp and other CEOs posed, smiled, and agreed to a set of voluntary steps meant to curb risks from advanced systems — a deal the President labeled “morally binding.” If you like bold talk and fuzzy commitments, this was your moment.

What the accord actually says (and what it doesn’t)

The headline is simple: the industry agreed to internal risk reviews, outside audits or evaluations, and independent board review of audit findings. In plain English, companies promise more paperwork, more meetings, and more checks on model behavior. That’s a start — and the tech CEOs called it practical. But the key word here is “voluntary.” No statutory deadlines. No uniform standards for auditors. No penalties for bad actors. In short, this is self‑regulation dressed up in an East Room photo op.

Why “morally binding” reads like a pinky swear

President Trump said the pact is “morally binding.” Cute. Morals and moral suasion work at Thanksgiving; they don’t replace enforceable rules when a runaway system or a bad actor hits the real world. Conservatives who favor innovation should welcome industry stewardship, but stewardship needs teeth. Audits are good — if they’re independent, transparent, and repeatable. Vague promises are not a substitute for clarity about signatories, timelines, and who picks the auditors.

 

Rhetoric vs. results: the Super Intelligence rebrand and America.gov

The White House also rolled out a push to call advanced systems “Super Intelligence” in official speak and launched an AI‑powered America.gov portal. That’s a branding exercise, not regulation. The portal’s early answers got some embarrassing coverage, which underlines the point: fancy words and new websites won’t fix real safety gaps. If the administration wants to protect the public and keep innovation humming, it should insist the pledgeers post the full accord, name the signatories, and explain how audits and board reviews will actually be enforced.

So what should happen next?

Let the private sector lead where it can. But Congress, the White House and the public have the right to demand specifics. Speaker Mike Johnson’s presence showed lawmakers are watching. Release the signed text. Tell us which companies formally committed. Publish standards for external auditors and a timetable for reviews. If the industry refuses, then don’t be surprised when lawmakers of both parties dust off real legislation. Conservatives who love growth and liberty should push for transparent, accountable self‑governance — not theatrical agreements that evaporate when the cameras go off.

Credit:  https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/

 

CartoonDems