President Donald Trump announced
Saturday morning that he will raise the existing 10% worldwide tariff to
15%, escalating his administration's trade agenda a day after a Supreme
Court ruling addressing his tariff authority.
In a post
on Truth Social, Trump blasted what he called a "ridiculous, poorly
written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued
yesterday" by the high court, saying that after a "thorough, detailed,
and complete review," he would act immediately.
"Please let this statement serve to
represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be,
effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries…
to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level," Trump wrote.
He added that during the "next short
number of months," his administration will "determine and issue the new
and legally permissible Tariffs," describing the move as part of what
he called an "extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great
Again — GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!"
The Supreme Court's ruling this
week addressed the scope of presidential authority in imposing tariffs,
with the justices weighing limits under existing trade and emergency
powers statutes.
While the administration has
characterized the decision as flawed, Trump signaled that it still
leaves room for higher duties within what he called "fully allowed" and
"legally tested" levels.
Tariffs have been a central pillar
of Trump's economic strategy, which he argues protects American workers,
reduces trade deficits, and pressures foreign nations he says have
"been 'ripping' the U.S. off for decades."
Critics, however, warn that broad-based tariffs risk higher consumer prices and retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Saturday's
announcement underscores that, despite legal scrutiny, the
administration views expanded tariffs as a key component of its economic
and trade policy moving forward.
I have ripped the Los Angeles Times on plenty of occasions
because it saddened me over the years to watch the once great newspaper
turn into yet another progressive mouthpiece. I cancelled my
subscription over a decade ago because of its far-left stance on
virtually everything that matters to everyday Americans.
But a funny thing happened on the way to democratic socialism… The
outlet has actually produced some quality reporting as of late,
especially when it comes to LA Mayor Karen Bass and her disastrous
response to the devastating wildfires that ravaged the Pacific Palisades
and Altadena neighborhoods of the city.
I'm not sure what she did
to them to get on their bad side, but it certainly seems like a
coordinated effort to bring her down, the kind you don't see from them
regarding numerous other extremist Golden State politicians like Sen.
Adam Schiff, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and failed presidential candidate Kamala
Harris.
But now they’ve come out with another bombshell: the Los
Angeles County Fire Department was more interested in covering their
reputations — and Bass’ — than they were in examining the systemic
failures that led to the disaster. Reportedly, an internal memo focused on shaping the media narrative above all else:
The 13-page memo on LAFD letterhead aimed to shape media coverage of the Palisades fire after-action report.
The
memo detailed plans to protect Mayor Karen Bass and others from
“reputational harm” in connection with the city’s handling of the
catastrophic blaze, records obtained by The Times show.
Bass
wanted key findings in the after-action report removed or softened,
sources told The Times this month. The mayor has said that The Times’
story was “completely fabricated.”
Mayor Karen Bass, LAFD and the
City's PR firm all had a plan to "protect Mayor Bass, the City and the
LAFD from reputational harm" associated with the After-Action-Report
even after it was sanitized. Link to full document here
The report, labeled as “for internal use only,” seemed to imply that facts were secondary to the “narrative”:
“It’s
our goal to prepare and protect Mayor Bass, the City, and the LAFD from
reputational harm associated with the upcoming public release of its
AARR, through a comprehensive strategy that includes risk assessment,
proactive and reactive communications, and crisis response,” the memo
states, referring to the acronym for the LAFD’s report.
The
13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for
department officials, representatives of Bass’ office and public relations consultants hired
to help shape messaging about the fire, although it is not known to
whom it was eventually distributed. The Times obtained the memo, titled
“LAFD AARR: Strategic Response Plan,” from the LAFD through the
California Public Records Act.
RedState has already reported on how Bass allegedly tried to soften reports to make herself look better:
The
more news that comes out, the harder it becomes to escape the thought
that it seems like Karen Bass and her cronies have engaged in a
long-term, extensive cover-up:
When an internal memo is written by
officials whose sole goal was “to prepare and protect Mayor Bass, the
City, and the LAFD from reputational harm,” it’s not hard to have the
phrase "organized crime-level corruption" fly through your mind.
The local Planning Commission in the historic city of
Winchester, Virginia, is getting some unwelcome heat after voting
against adding the Pledge of Allegiance to its business meeting agenda.
It should be noted that the Commission did not previously recite the
Pledge, but Chairman Beau Correll proposed formalizing the meeting
structure by adding it to the agenda.
Pretty simple addition. It
takes all of 15 seconds to say the Pledge. It's a commonplace practice
in various town and city meetings throughout the country. Worse than the
outright rejection was the reasoning by some as to why it should be excluded.
Commissioner Leesa Mayfield offered the most strident opposition to the motion.
"When
he (Correll) brought [it] up to me beforehand about the Pledge of
Allegiance, I was like, 'Is that really necessary?'" she asked.
“I would prefer to remove the Pledge of Allegiance under Public Hearings Section C under Article 5,” Mayfield said of the amendment to the proposed bylaws.
"The Pledge of Allegiance has an importance, of course," Mayfield added. "But the need to recite it at the beginning of every city meeting in a performative way seems unnecessary."
Commissioner Sandra Bloom sided with that sentiment.
“I
would agree with that as well, actually. I’m glad we don’t do any
pageantry or rituals before we just dive into business," she added.
“The
chair calls for a vote to remove the Pledge of Allegiance from the
agenda,” Correll said prior to the roll call vote. It fell in a 4-2
decision.
“The Pledge of Allegiance is removed from the agenda,” Correll said following the vote.
There
was significant backlash to the move on social media, most taking
umbrage at the comments of those who opposed adding the Pledge of
Allegiance to the business meeting agenda.
"It's not pageantry,
it's a reminder of where their loyalties and duties lie. If they're that
bothered by it, then they're up to no good," the Virginia Project wrote on X.
It is an interesting twist in a city with some significant ties to a Founding Father.
Winchester,
Virginia, played an indirect but significant role in the founding of
the United States through its importance as a frontier town that helped
shape key figures and events in the lead-up to the American Revolution.
A
teenage Washington surveyed lands there in 1748, erected and
headquartered Fort Loudoun there during the French and Indian War, and
launched his political career when he won his first election to the
Virginia House of Burgesses in 1758.
In 1775, Daniel Morgan, one
of the most respected battlefield tacticians of the American
Revolutionary War, led riflemen on the famous "Beeline March" to Boston.
You can’t say we didn’t warn New York what was going to
happen if it elected Zohran Mamdani, but I gotta say, I don’t think
anyone predicted it would start collapsing so quickly. But, alas, it
has. That socialist utopia that Mamdani was supposed to deliver has
instead turned into a slow-motion fiscal catastrophe a mere two months
in — and even the liberal media is starting to notice.
Mamdani unveiled a $127 billion budget for fiscal year 2027 this week — a staggering $5 billion increase over the prior year.
But what's $5 billion between socialists, right?
To
put that into perspective, Mamdani’s proposed budget is actually larger
than the budgets of 47 U.S. states, including Florida, which has nearly
twice the population. And somehow, it still isn't enough. The city is
staring down a $5.4 billion deficit, with the real gap potentially
closer to $12 billion when you do the actual math.
So what was his plan? Tax someone else.
Mamdani
went straight to Albany looking for a handout, demanding that Gov.
Kathy Hochul raise taxes on the "ultra-wealthy" and the most profitable
corporations. When Hochul told him to pound sand and cut spending
instead, he obviously couldn’t do that, and now he is looking at
saddling homeowners with a 9.5% property tax hike.
“Faced with no other choice, the city would have to exercise the only revenue lever fully within our own control,” he said.
“We would have to raise property taxes. We would also be forced to raid
our reserves. To balance the budget as required by law, our preliminary
budget takes the only path within our control: the second path. The
options of the second path are the options of last resort. Options that
we will only employ if there is no other means of arriving at a balanced
budget.”
As a New York resident, I can say there’s finally something I can
agree with Hochul on. Why should the rest of the state subsidize
Mamdani’s socialist experiment in New York City? Let it foot the bill
for the mistake of electing Mamdani. Remember, this is the guy who
campaigned on affordability and making the rich “pay their fair share,”
and now he’s already in a position where he has to tax regular people to
cover the costs of his promises.
This budget crisis he’s facing two months into his term comes on top of him taking heat for poor trash cleanup and snow removal on his watch. Two months into the job, and the basics aren't getting done.
Conservatives
warned about exactly this before last year's election. We said a
self-described democratic socialist running one of the world's most
financially complex cities was a recipe for disaster. Voters in New York
went ahead anyway. Now the city faces the reckoning that was entirely
predictable.
"No one in New York is ambitious enough to
dramatically reshape city government, and residents either vote for
class warfare or vote with their feet," the Washington Post editorial
board observed. “A reckoning will have to come eventually. The question is how bad it gets before reality sets in."
That question may answer itself sooner than anyone expected.
You can’t turn around these days without seeing
some leftist somewhere whining about white men. As a white man, it seems
like every Democrat is an obsessed stalker – it’s enough to make us
want to take out a restraining order. I speak for all white men in this
piece because, after watching a week’s worth of fawning coverage of the
death of Jesse Jackson that glossed over or ignored his racism, affair
(oh, the stories I’ve heard) and grifting, I remembered who he simply
appointed himself a “leader” and the corporate media crowned him the
spokesman for black people, so I’ll take the job for whitey for today.
What is the obsession the left has with us? It’s flattering, I
suppose. We’ve done pretty well, though you never know it from the way
Democrats talk about us. We created democracy, pretty much all the
rights everyone enjoys and all the concepts behind them, in one way or
another. Literally all the technology Democrats use to complain about us
– television, computers, internet, print, etc. Hell, even the languages
most liberals speak. We don’t sit around and demand everyone rub our
feet over the endless list of things we’ve created and/or made better,
but not being screamed at for the penis envy of bigots isn’t too much to
ask.
But there’s no money in honesty with Democrats; bigotry pays well on the left and victimhood is their Bitcoin.
Bigot
trash and child of criminal immigrants, Wajahat Ali, hates white men
and can’t stop talking about us. Maybe he blames us for his corrupt parents and their role in the fraud scheme that got them sent to prison? He’s mad
about it, rather than at them for their role in it – can’t really blame
him, how wants to believe the worst about their parents? But we didn’t
have anything to do with it.
Ali was whining to fellow bigot Joy
Reid about us, “The fragility of mediocre, terrified white men is
destroying America.” We’ve done pretty well for “mediocre, terrified”
people, considering all we’ve accomplished. The enlightenment alone
would be enough for us to rest on the way our subset of Greeks basically
rest on creating democracy and feta cheese, but we didn’t.
And thank God we didn’t. Without us, medicine would consist of
leeches and meteorology would basically be dancing and farming would be
throwing babies into volcanoes. Considering how Democrats love abortion,
maybe denying them that baby-throwing outlet is part of the reason
they’re so angry?
Of course, when not whining
about the existence of white men, Democrats whine about “cultural
appropriation” and other garbage people use as cover for their hatred.
Reid, now blonde – which I don’t think occurs in nature – has made a
living with that. Every couple of months, there’s a new “outrage” over
some which chick who got dreadlocks or braids, even though the Vikings
were doing both long before anyone knew the world was round.
Actor
John Leguizamo demanded whitey not go to his movies if they support the
enforcement of US immigration laws. I was way ahead of him on that one,
as were most people of all configurations. He’s not very good at
acting, but does like playing “offended” by cultural appropriation.
“There
should be a rule if you don’t like a certain ethnic group or race that
you cannot eat their food or use their inventions that they’ve given the
world,” the Hispanic man who played an Italian in the original Super
Mario movie said. He then went on to list a bunch of food items white
people shouldn’t be allowed to eat, weirdly ignoring how many of those
food items are enjoyed by black and Asian people as well, or how the
language of the region is from Spain…in Europe. Is he willing to give up
Spanish? I somehow doubt it. Nor will he give up the Spanish influence
in the food he listed, but whatever.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There’s a reason these bigots
simply spew their nonsense and never act on it, and it’s not the
exclusive love of the culture they profess to be superior. I’ll take
Johnny seriously when he demands to be cut out of “The Odyssey” by
Christopher Nolan and returns the money he was paid to play Eumaeus, as I
doubt he’s from Colombia like Leguizamo is.
If we can’t eat taco
shells (I didn’t say tacos because where cows come from would be a
disappointment to him), he can’t play…well, anything but Colombians.
It’s
much more fun to impose the rules on others than it is to live under
them, which is why that’s what Democrats of all configurations
constantly do. To hell with all of them.
Democrats can blame us
for everything under the sun to distract from their failures, but if you
follow the policies and issues they spend their time whining about, at
the root, you will find something a Democrat created and imposed on
people. Some were created by white men, others by different shades of
humans, all by liberals. They can say whatever they want about us, but
we aren’t going to sit by and take responsibility for, or ownership of,
their failures.
In the meantime, maybe we should look into that restraining order…
US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump attend a dinner
with state governors in the East Room of the White House in Washington,
DC, on February 21, 2026.
Arriving hand in hand with First Lady Melania Trump, President Donald
Trump delivered remarks on Saturday evening at the National Governors
Association dinner in Washington, D.C., addressing the nation’s state
leaders during the high-profile gathering at the White House.
The annual bipartisan dinner is designed to bring together leaders
from both parties to foster relationships, exchange ideas, and explore
bipartisan policy solutions.
Trump opened the evening by thanking his Cabinet members and the
nation’s governors for their attendance, emphasizing the importance of
collaboration between state and federal leadership.
The president also highlighted upcoming major sporting events taking
place in the United States, including the World Cup and the 2028 Summer
Olympics.
The president also touted what he described as record-setting
recruitment numbers across the board, including police and fire
departments as well as every branch of the military.
“The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Coast Guard, we
have waiting lists to get in,” Trump explained. “In fact, if you’d like
to make those great services larger, this is an awfully good time to do
it. Let’s make them larger if you want, but we’ve never had anything
like it. We went from a year and a half ago, nobody wanted to join. We
could not even come close to our recruitment numbers. And now we’re
setting records.”
He went on to highlight what he touted as key accomplishments during
his first year back in office, pointing to border crossing reaching an
all-time low and asserting that the U.S. is now “back on track.”
“Our country is back on track. We had a horrible, horrible, dead
country one and a half years ago,” the president stated. “We were dead.
Now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world, as many world
leaders have said. And speaking of leaders, we have a great leader, a
great military leader named Pete Hegseth, and he is going to say Grace.
He’s a man who has turned out to be absolutely fantastic at what he
does.”
Hegseth, the Secretary of War, then took to the podium.
.@SecWar prays before the Nat'l Governors Association dinner at the White House:
"King
Jesus, we come humbly before Your throne praising You for all the
Providence You have bestowed upon this nation for over 250 years… One
Nation Under God and, certainly, In God We Trust." pic.twitter.com/8lY5zwJawG
Vice President JD Vance also delivered remarks and praised the nation’s governors for their work, courage and leadership.
“To the governors here, we admire your courage, we admire your
leadership and to the president of the United States, we admire you for
all the great things you’re doing for our country,” he said.
Watching Hillary Clinton admit at the
Munich Security Conference that migration “went too far” and needs to be
fixed in a humane but secure way is striking — not because Democrats
suddenly care about Americans, but because this confession smells of
political recalculation. After years of enabling open-border rhetoric,
the Clinton acknowledgement looks like damage control aimed at shoring
up a fragile coalition rather than a genuine rethink. The timing and
tone tell you everything about who they think they’re trying to fool.
Old
footage of Barack Obama reminding audiences that the president must
enforce the law has resurfaced, and it’s being used selectively by the
left to suggest they were always for borders — just not when it was
politically inconvenient. Sure, Obama once spoke about obeying the law
and the need to deter dangerous crossings, but Democrats have steadily
moved left on enforcement even as chaos unfolded at the border. This
selective memory is a convenient cover for a party that wants credit for
fixing problems they helped create.
Let’s be clear about the
facts: under the Biden administration the country saw historic highs in
migrant encounters, a reality that battered communities and flipped
electoral maps. That surge was not an abstract policy debate; it was a
lived crisis in Texas, Arizona, and big cities that saw overwhelmed
shelters and strained services. When Democrats now murmur about “a
problem” they helped fuel, hardworking Americans should ask why change
only comes when it’s electorally expedient.
Don’t be naive — this
is a trap. By suddenly sounding tough, prominent Democrats hope to bait
Republicans into taking the blame for any enforcement-heavy solutions
while they recast themselves as the compassionate caretakers of
migrants. Republicans must not fall for theatrical confessions and
bipartisan photo-ops that leave America less safe; they should demand
policies that secure the border first and fix the legal morass later.
Conservative
victories on the border have real consequences: recent enforcement
measures have driven crossings down to levels not seen in decades,
proving that firm policy works when it’s followed through. The lesson is
simple — results matter more than virtue signaling, and voters remember
who delivered safety to their neighborhoods.
Patriots should be
skeptical of Democratic contrition offered mid-crisis and ready to push
for permanent, enforceable solutions rather than performative gestures.
Hold the line for law and order, insist on real accountability for the
chaos of the last few years, and don’t let the establishment swap blame
for applause. America deserves leaders who put citizens first, not
politicians spinning a narrative to save their reputations.
I can do this, but I need one quick clarification before I research and
write: do you mean “Indians” as in Native Americans or people from
India? Also please paste the YouTube link (or the channel/name and post
date) for the exact video so I can research the story it references and
accurately report on it.
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he
has signed an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff on all
countries, saying the measure will take effect "almost immediately."
Posting on
Truth Social, Trump said it was his "Great Honor" to sign the order
from the Oval Office, describing it as a "Global 10% Tariff on all
Countries."
The move comes just hours after the Supreme Court struck down his
earlier attempt to implement tariffs under emergency authorities.
In a second post, Trump sharply criticized the justices who ruled against his prior tariff plan.
"Those members of the Supreme Court who voted against our very
acceptable and proper method of TARIFFS should be ashamed of
themselves," he wrote.
"Their decision was ridiculous but, now the adjustment process begins,
and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we
were taking in before!"
Earlier Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s use
of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, dealing a setback to
President Trump’s trade agenda and raising fresh questions about the
scope of presidential authority over trade policy.
In a third post later in the day, Trump criticized two of his own
Supreme Court appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett —
for siding against the administration in the ruling.
“What happened today with the two United States Supreme Court
Justices that I appointed against great opposition, Neil Gorsuch and Amy
Coney Barrett, whether people like it or not, never seems to happen
with Democrats,” Trump wrote. “They vote against the Republicans, and
never against themselves, almost every single time, no matter how good a
case we have.
He added, "At least I didn’t appoint Roberts, who led the effort to
allow Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years to
continue to do so — But we won’t let it happen. The new TARIFFS, totally
tested and accepted as Law, are on their way!”
The ruling effectively halted the previous tariff framework, prompting the administration to pursue a new approach.
