Media Bias Exposed: J6 Rioters Vilified, BLM Rioters Sanitized

The Tale of Two Riots

The January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and the 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests represent two of the most significant episodes of civil unrest in recent U.S. history. Yet, the media’s treatment of these events couldn’t be more different: J6 rioters were virtually prosecuted as threats to democracy, while BLM rioters—despite causing 25+ deaths and billions in damages—were routinely painted as peaceful. This stark double standard reveals a troubling bias that shapes public perception and undermines trust in media narratives. Let’s examine the facts, the coverage, and the implications of this disparity.

I. The Tale of Two Riots: A Factual Comparison

• January 6, 2021 (J6): A mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. Over 140 officers were injured, and the event led to 5 deaths (none ruled homicides directly caused by rioters). Property damage was estimated at $2.7 million (Architect of the Capitol, 2021).
• BLM Protests (2020): Sparked by George Floyd’s killing, protests swept the nation, with 93% being peaceful (ACLED, 2020). But the violent minority caused havoc: 25+ deaths (including officers and civilians), 2,000+ injured officers (FBI, 2020), and $2 billion in property damage across 140+ cities (Axios, 2020). Entire city blocks burned in places like Minneapolis and Portland.

II. Media Narratives: Vilification vs. Sanitization

• J6 Coverage: The media framed J6 as an “insurrection” and a “lethal attack on democracy.” Outlets like CNN and The New York Times ran wall-to-wall coverage, emphasizing the riot’s threat to lawmakers and democratic norms. Terms like “domestic terrorism” dominated headlines, and 63% of Americans came to believe J6 rioters directly killed an officer—a myth that persisted despite corrections (YouGov, 2021). The narrative cast J6 participants as a coordinated, existential threat, with little nuance for individual motivations.
• BLM Coverage: Despite the staggering toll—25+ deaths, including officers like David Dorn, killed by looters in St. Louis—the media consistently labeled BLM protests as “mostly peaceful.” NBC News and The Washington Post focused on systemic racism and police brutality, often framing violent actors as “opportunists” not reflective of the movement. Footage of burning businesses or injured officers was downplayed, while peaceful marches were amplified. In Portland, where riots spanned 100+ nights, The Guardian described the unrest as “largely symbolic.”

III. The Consequences of Media Bias

• Public Perception: The media’s portrayal shaped how Americans viewed each event. A 2021 Gallup poll found 76% of respondents saw J6 as a “crisis for democracy,” while only 45% viewed BLM unrest as a significant threat, despite its far greater death toll and destruction. This disparity fueled polarized narratives: J6 rioters were cast as irredeemable villains, while BLM rioters were often excused as part of a noble cause.
• Political Weaponization:
  • J6: Democrats and media allies used the “insurrection” framing to justify sweeping investigations into Trump supporters, pushing for a January 6 Commission and labeling dissenters as “apologists.”
  • BLM: Progressive leaders, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, supported bail funds for arrested protesters, and outlets rarely pressed for accountability, focusing instead on police reform.

IV. Legal Treatment: A Glaring Double Standard

• J6 Prosecutions: The federal response was relentless—1,350+ charges filed, with 335+ guilty pleas for assaulting officers (DOJ, April 2025). Sentences averaged 2-3 years, often for non-violent offenses like obstruction of Congress. The FBI deployed facial recognition and public tip lines, treating J6 as a national security threat.
• BLM Prosecutions: Most charges were handled locally, often for arson or looting, with lighter consequences. In Portland, only 10% of 2020 protest-related arrests led to convictions (Oregon DOJ, 2021). Despite 2,000+ injured officers and 25+ deaths, there was no federal task force or national dragnet. High-profile cases like Dorn’s murder were covered briefly, then faded.

V. The Human Cost: What the Media Ignored

• J6 Impact: The riot disrupted a constitutional process and injured 140 officers, but no homicides were directly attributed to rioters. The media’s focus on “lethality” exaggerated the body count while ignoring the event’s symbolic damage to democracy.
• BLM Impact: The 25+ deaths included civilians shot during riots, officers killed by looters, and bystanders caught in crossfire. In Minneapolis, the 3rd Precinct police station was burned to the ground, and entire neighborhoods were reduced to ash. Yet, the media’s “mostly peaceful” refrain minimized these losses, framing the violence as an unfortunate footnote.

VI. Why the Bias Matters

• Erosion of Trust: When the media vilifies J6 rioters as domestic terrorists but sanitizes BLM rioters despite their deadlier toll, public skepticism grows. If 93% of BLM protests were peaceful, why wasn’t the 7% that killed 25+ people and caused $2 billion in damage scrutinized equally?
• Unequal Justice: The aggressive federal response to J6 versus the lenient, localized approach to BLM raises questions of fairness. If J6 rioters face years in prison for assaulting officers, why didn’t BLM rioters who injured 2,000+ officers face similar scrutiny?
• Polarization: The media’s double standard fuels division. Conservatives see J6 coverage as proof of a “witch hunt,” while progressives view BLM leniency as justified by systemic racism. Both sides dig in, and nuance is lost.

VII. Moving Forward: Demanding Media Accountability

• Call for Balance: Media outlets must apply consistent standards. If J6 is an “insurrection,” then BLM riots that killed 25+ people and torched cities deserve equal scrutiny—not a free pass as “mostly peaceful.”
• Equal Accountability: Legal systems should prioritize fairness. Intent (overturning an election vs. protesting racism) shouldn’t dictate such drastic differences in prosecution.
• Focus on Truth: The media should amplify facts over narratives. J6 was a serious breach of democratic norms, but BLM’s violence had a far higher human cost. Both deserve honest reckoning.

Final Note:
The media’s treatment of J6 and BLM rioters reveals a glaring bias: J6 participants were virtually prosecuted as threats to democracy, while BLM rioters—despite killing 25+ people and setting fire to cities—were painted as peaceful. This double standard distorts reality, erodes trust, and deepens division. As political tensions persist, media accountability is more urgent than ever.

Why Does the Left Keep Ghosting Pollsters Like a Bad Tinder Date?

A Tragicomedy of Polling Disappointments and Election Night Surprises, featuring our favorite Ecadorian politicians Daniel Noboa and Luisa Gonzalez.

1. Enthusiasm Gap: The "Retweet ≠ Vote" Paradox

• Youth Mobilization vs. Boomer Reliability:
  Young progressives often mistake social media activism for electoral impact. In Ecuador, only 58% of under-30 urban voters showed up, while 85% of rural voters over 50 stormed the polls (Ecuador NEC, 2025).
  → Lesson: Retweets don’t fill ballot boxes. The right’s older base treats voting like a religious ritual; the left’s youth treat it like an optional group project.

---

2. Social Desirability Bias: The "Virtue-Signal Vortex"

• Pollsters vs. Privacy:
  Voters often tell pollsters what’s socially acceptable (e.g., “I support climate justice!”) but prioritize pocketbook issues in the booth. González’s anti-austerity rhetoric won applause, but Noboa’s “lower gas prices, crush cartels” pitch won votes.
  → Analogy: It’s like ordering a kale salad in public… then Uber Eats-ing a pizza at midnight.

---

3. Polling Methodology: Urban Echo Chambers

• Sampling Bias:
  Pollsters over-indexed on Quito’s college students while ignoring rural farmers—who turned out at 2:1 ratios (Ecuador NEC, 2025). Rural voters were as visible to pollsters as Area 51 aliens.
  → Flaw: Polling landlines in a TikTok era is like using a typewriter to code Python.

---

4. Late-Deciders: The "Panic-Buy Voter"

• Crime Trumps Ideology:
  Undecided voters broke for Noboa after his “cartel annihilation” pledge. González’s focus on corruption felt abstract; Noboa’s promise felt like a SWAT team for daily safety.
  → Metaphor: Undecideds are Black Friday shoppers—they’ll grab the last TV on the shelf, even if it’s not their dream brand.

---

5. Strategic Voting: The "Lesser Evil Calculus"

• Survival > Socialism:
  Voters prioritized “not getting kidnapped” over wealth redistribution. Noboa’s law-and-order pitch resonated in a country where 65% feel unsafe walking at night (Latinobarómetro, 2024).
  → Reality Check: You can’t eat ideological purity. Fear of chaos often outweighs hope for utopia.

---

6. Turnout Machines: Left’s Kryptonite

• Right-Wing Discipline:
  Noboa’s base treated voting like jury duty (skip it, face consequences). González’s supporters treated it like a New Year’s resolution—abandoned by January 2.
  → Data: A 15% turnout gap between left and right bases sealed her fate (Ecuador NEC, 2025).

---

Global Pattern: Polling’s Recurring Nightmare

• Historical Parallels:
  Hillary’s 2016 “certain win,” Brexit’s “Remain lead,” Kamala's "Appointment to the Presidency" and now Ecuador’s shocker all share a thread: polls underestimate silent majorities prioritizing stability over idealism.
  → Solution: The left needs rural GPS (ground game beyond cities) and ditch hashtag activism for turnout operatives with clipboards and caffeine addictions.

---

Conclusion: How to Stop the Ghosting

• For Pollsters:
  Mix IVR surveys with TikTok pulse checks. Track late-deciders like FBI most-wanted lists.
• For the Left:
  Swap “revolutionary” slogans for pothole-fixing pragmatism. If your base won’t vote, you’re just a philosophy club.
• For Voters:
  Stop lying to pollsters. They’re not your therapist.

Until then, Magic 8-Balls might outperform Cedatos. At least they’re honest about being clueless. 🔮

Debunking the $10,000 Myth: The Real Cost of a Made-in-USA iPhone

The idea that an iPhone manufactured entirely in the United States would cost $10,000 has gained traction in popular culture, fueled by comedians and YouTubers. While the claim makes for an entertaining punchline, it oversimplifies the complexities of global manufacturing and economics. In reality, the cost of a U.S.-made iPhone would be higher than its current price, but NOT EVEN CLOSE TO the exaggerated $10,000 figure.

The Labor Cost Factor

One of the main arguments for the $10,000 claim is the higher labor costs in the United States compared to countries like China. Currently, Foxconn, Apple’s contracted manufacturer in China, pays its employees around $3.00 per hour. By contrast, the iMac Pro is assembled in Texas, where workers earn closer to $30.00 per hour. While this significant wage disparity would indeed increase manufacturing costs, analysts estimate that labor costs alone would raise the price of an iPhone by approximately 20%. For example, an iPhone 16 Pro, currently priced at $1,199, might rise to up to $1,450 due to labor expenses, or around $250.00 more.

Additionally, there’s another factor—Apple may decide to automate more of the production process, much like Xiaomi’s new Automated Factory, which has significantly reduced labor dependency.  If they did this, the cost would be practically the same as the current costs in China, but won't add very many jobs in the USA.  Even in this scenario however the fact that they would most likely buy more parts and logistics in the USA would end up increasing total employment.

The increase in cost to Apple would be closer to just $135!

Alternatively, in order to retain market share, Apple could cut its massive margins, which are currently around double the industry average. With these measures in place, a U.S.-manufactured iPhone would see price increases, but not anywhere near the extreme $10,000 claim.

Supply Chain and Component Sourcing

Another critical factor is the global supply chain. Many iPhone components, such as displays and processors, are manufactured in countries like South Korea and Taiwan. Even if assembly were moved to the U.S., Apple would still need to import these parts, potentially facing tariffs and logistical challenges. However, just as the Trump Administration allowed a carveout for smartphones to avoid high import taxes, a similar carveout would likely apply if iPhones were manufactured in the U.S. This could exempt smartphone parts from high tariffs or tax them at a lower 10% rate, significantly mitigating cost increases. Analysts suggest that even with these adjustments, the price of a high-end model would likely be closer to $1,500—not $10,000.

Cost Breakdown: Parts vs. Labor

To better understand the cost dynamics, here’s a breakdown of the estimated costs for an iPhone assembled in China versus the USA:

Cost Component	China	USA
Parts (e.g., display, processor, etc.)	$400	$400
Labor (assembly)	$40	$200
Additional logistics/tariffs	$50	$25
Total Estimated Cost	$490	$625

This chart illustrates that while labor and logistics costs would increase somewhat in the U.S., the total cost would still fall far short of the $10,000 myth.  The ACTUAL increase in cost to Apple would be closer to just $135!  Last year, Apple sold almost 232M iPhones.  That works out to a cost increase of around $31B.  While sure, nearly 1/3rd of their profits, if they didn't increase the price.  However Apple's total profits last year was over $90B on nearly $400B in revenue.  If they say, "split the difference" and maybe raise the price by $68, their profits at $75B WOULD STILL be greater than BOTH Alphabet (Nearly $74B) and Microsoft (Just over $72B)

The $10,000 Myth: Where Does It Come From?

The exaggerated $10,000 figure likely stems from a misunderstanding of manufacturing economics. It assumes that every aspect of production, from raw materials to assembly, would be relocated to the U.S. instantly and without optimization. In reality, Apple would likely adopt a phased approach, leveraging existing infrastructure and negotiating tariff exemptions to mitigate costs.

Why the U.S.-Made iPhone Is Feasible

While a fully U.S.-made iPhone would face challenges, it’s not impossible. Apple has already demonstrated its ability to manufacture products domestically, such as the Mac Pro in Texas. With strategic investments, automation, and policy support, the company could gradually increase U.S.-based production without reaching the astronomical price point of $10,000.  Realistically the Mac Pro a BEAST of a machine is around $6K, so how could they possibly sell a tiny iPhone with far less power for $10K!  It's just ridiculous.

Conclusion

The claim that a U.S.-made iPhone would cost $10,000 is more myth than reality. While higher labor costs and supply chain adjustments would increase the price, estimates suggest a more realistic range of $1,500 to $3,500 for high-end models. With potential carveouts for smartphone parts, as seen in past trade policies, the cost could be further reduced. Moreover, when considering that Foxconn pays workers $3.00 an hour compared to $30.00 an hour for iMac Pro manufacturing in Texas, it’s clear that automation and margin adjustments could make U.S. production feasible. As discussions about domestic manufacturing continue, it’s essential to separate fact from fiction and focus on the real challenges and opportunities of bringing production back to the United States.

Is America Isolating Itself When It Comes to Global Trade?

Global trade has long been a cornerstone of economic growth and international cooperation, with the United States historically playing a pivotal role. Compared to almost all of its trading partners, the USA has nearly always had the most free and open markets. But here's the problem: after World War II, the USA allowed countries in Europe and Asia to protect their industries with high tariffs while, at the same time, letting them sell to the USA with very few trade barriers. For decades, the USA ran trade deficits with these countries as they enriched themselves with American dollars.

The WTO has 164 member nations.  Only China has been an issue.  198 complaints were filed against China, nearly half of all disputes!

At one point, manufacturing towns such as Detroit, Chicago, and Pittsburgh literally had the highest standard of living on the planet. These cities are now merely shells of themselves, as their manufacturing core—the very heartbeat that brought wealth to these cities—was ruthlessly cut away and moved to countries such as Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam, and cities like Berlin. This loss of industrial power raises an important question: Is America truly isolating itself in trade, or is it simply reacting to decades of economic policies that have hollowed out its manufacturing base?

America’s Unique Trade Position

Unlike most countries, the United States relies significantly less on trade as a percentage of its GDP. This distinct position stems from America’s vast internal market and economic resilience. After World War II, the goal of global trade was to enrich other nations and prevent another world war—a vision in which the USA played a central role. However, this dynamic has created a dependence among other nations on trade with the USA, far outweighing America's reliance on them. If the world shifted toward an isolationist model, the USA would be the least affected economically, underscoring its unparalleled ability to thrive independently.

Is it fair to maintain protectionist tariffs and trade barriers in their own countries while expecting the USA to abide by a different standard? 

Recent Isolationist Trends

The impact of globalization and shifting trade policies is evident in the decaying cities across the United States, such as Detroit and Chicago. Once thriving hubs of manufacturing and innovation, these cities were gutted as jobs were shipped overseas to countries like China, Korea, and Vietnam. Entire industries collapsed, leaving workers without the livelihoods that sustained their communities for generations. The men who once powered the manufacturing backbone of America were faced with an impossible choice—reinvent themselves in a world that told them to "learn how to code" or grapple with the harsh reality of economic displacement. These stories fuel America's pivot toward protectionist trade policies, aiming to reclaim the industries lost to globalization.

China and the WTO Spotlight

The World Trade Organization (WTO), with its 164 member nations, serves as a critical platform for resolving trade disputes. Last year, 198 complaints were filed against China, accounting for nearly half of all disputes. These complaints highlight issues such as industrial subsidies, forced technology transfers, and intellectual property violations. America has been among the most vocal critics of China’s trade practices, further straining trade relationships and influencing the global conversation around fair trade.

American military power guarantees their trade security ... yet at the same time, they shield their own markets...

Economic Implications for the U.S.

The introduction of 25% steel tariffs in 2018 marked a turning point for America's trade and industrial policies. Designed to counteract issues such as Chinese overcapacity, dumping practices, and structural barriers in other markets, these tariffs aimed to bolster U.S. steel production and safeguard national security. While critics feared long-term price hikes, the measures ensured the preservation of critical manufacturing capacities for military and infrastructure needs. However, they also reshaped trade relationships, increasing costs for certain industries reliant on imported steel. This protectionist stance highlights the trade-off between reducing foreign dependency and managing the economic impact on domestic manufacturing sectors.

Global Perception and Fair Trade Standards

While other nations may seek closer ties with one another and question America’s commitment to free trade principles, they must also confront a critical question: Is it fair to maintain protectionist tariffs and trade barriers in their own countries while expecting the USA to abide by a different standard? The United States already operates the most open markets in the world, but this openness comes at a cost. Should the American middle class be sacrificed on the altar of free trade? This discrepancy underscores the need for a more balanced approach to global trade—one that fosters fairness for all participants without disproportionately disadvantaging certain economies or communities.

One out of every three world trade dollars originates from the United States

The Question of Security

One final question that no one is talking about: Who ensures global trade routes remain safe? Years ago, when Somali pirates began attacking Chinese and EU shipping lanes, who was called in to put an end to their reign of terror? It wasn’t China, nor was it the European powers—it was the United States. More recently, when the Houthis started targeting EU ships filled with Chinese goods, did China deploy its vast naval resources to stop the attacks? Did the British Royal Navy extend its forces? Did France send the mighty Marine Nationale to dispatch the Houthi threat? Of course not! It was the United States, committing two strike groups at a staggering cost of $6.5 million per day each.

This underscores a deeper issue: Asia, Africa, and the EU rely on American military power to guarantee their trade security, yet at the same time, they shield their own markets from U.S. companies while demanding free access to American markets. Does that seem fair? While America shoulders the burden of global stability, it continues to see its manufacturing base eroded and its wealth creation opportunities hollowed out. As trade policies evolve, the question remains—should the United States continue footing the bill for global security while receiving little in return?

Conclusion

America’s trade policies have sparked debate about its future in the global economy. But as a recent Chinese TikToker pointed out, one out of every three world trade dollars originates from the United States. That fact underscores a fundamental truth—the customer is always right. For decades, nations have benefited from America’s open markets, selling their goods freely while imposing protective barriers on their own industries. The expectation that the USA should continue this practice indefinitely, even at the cost of its own economic well-being, is simply unsustainable.

More importantly, the dollars that America sends abroad do not simply fuel foreign economies—they are frequently redeployed into massive military buildups, some of which begin to challenge the United States itself. At what point does free trade cross into an existential threat? Should America continue enriching nations that, in turn, use those resources to undermine its global position? That would be an exercise in suicide. As trade policies evolve, the real question is not whether America is isolating itself, but rather whether the world is demanding an unfair and dangerous trade arrangement—one that risks America's economic and national security.

Trumps Freeze on $2B Harvard Grant Begs the Question. Why Are We Subsidizing The Rich?

Why the U.S. Should Stop Subsidizing Elite Universities with Billion-Dollar Endowments

Elite universities in the United States, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, have long been bastions of academic excellence and innovation. However, these institutions also boast astronomical endowments, with some exceeding $500,000 per student. Despite their financial independence, these colleges still benefit from federal subsidies and tax exemptions—a practice that raises critical questions about fairness and priorities in funding education.

Endowments: More Than Enough Wealth

Harvard University, for example, holds an endowment of over $53 billion, making it wealthier than the GDP of some countries. These funds are generated through investments, donations, and alumni contributions, and often grow exponentially over time due to favorable market conditions. While these endowments are used to fund scholarships, research, and campus infrastructure, a significant portion is restricted to specific uses, limiting flexibility for broader spending.

Nonetheless, the sheer size of these endowments highlights the self-sufficiency of these elite institutions. They possess the resources to not only sustain themselves but thrive—making the case for federal subsidies increasingly difficult to justify.

Federal Support: Misplaced Priorities

Each year, elite universities receive substantial federal funds through research grants, work-study programs, and other initiatives, in addition to benefiting from their tax-exempt status as nonprofit organizations. This federal support is intended to drive innovation and provide educational opportunities, but it disproportionately benefits institutions that are already financially flush. Meanwhile, public colleges, community colleges, and smaller universities—often serving lower-income and underprivileged populations—struggle to secure adequate funding.

Redirecting subsidies from wealthy elite universities to underfunded schools and programs could address disparities in higher education and better serve the nation’s needs.

The Case for Accountability

Critics argue that elite universities should be treated like businesses and taxed accordingly. While the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a 1.4% excise tax on the investment income of the wealthiest endowments, this tax is far lower than what other businesses or individuals pay on capital gains. Taxing these institutions at a higher rate—or ending federal subsidies altogether—could generate billions in revenue and encourage these universities to use their wealth more responsibly.

The Ethical Debate

Elite universities often justify their federal funding by pointing to their contributions to research and societal progress. However, the question remains: Should taxpayers be responsible for subsidizing institutions that already have access to vast private wealth? The funding disparity raises concerns about equity in education and whether public dollars are being used to promote the common good.

Conclusion

At a time when educational access and affordability are growing concerns, the United States should reevaluate its policies regarding federal support for elite universities. Institutions with endowments exceeding $500,000 per student clearly have the means to operate independently and should no longer rely on taxpayer funding. Redirecting these resources to support public colleges, community colleges, and underserved populations would create a more equitable education system and ensure federal dollars are spent where they’re needed most.

The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices: The Legacy of Trump's Tariffs

On March 2018, the Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel imports, aiming to boost U.S. steel production, reduce dependency on certain foreign suppliers, and strengthen national security. While critics feared long-term price increases, the tariffs led to a shift in trade relationships and a boost in American industry. But behind the economic reasoning was an even bigger concern—America's ability to defend itself in a time of war.

Why Were the Tariffs Implemented?

The steel tariffs were introduced to address several pressing issues in the global steel market:

• Chinese Overcapacity & Dumping: China was producing far more steel than its domestic market required, leading to dumping—selling steel internationally at far below production costs. This practice threatened the viability of U.S. and allied steel industries, pushing prices dangerously low and forcing plants to shut down.

• Structural Barriers in Other Markets: Countries like South Korea and members of the European Union had trade policies and subsidies that created barriers for U.S. steel exports, further disadvantaging American producers.

• National Security Concerns: U.S. planners recognized a larger strategic risk—if China bankrupted steel industries in America and its allied nations, the ability to produce warships, aircraft, tanks, and other military assets could be severely weakened in the event of a conflict.

Safeguarding Industrial Capacity

The tariffs ensured America retained critical manufacturing capabilities rather than becoming dependent on adversarial nations for essential materials. This protectionist approach prevented a potential scenario where the U.S. military might struggle to source steel in a crisis. Beyond trade policy, the initiative encouraged:

• Onshoring steel production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

• Strengthening supply chains with close allies like Canada and Mexico rather than competitors.

• Boosting domestic steel investments to ensure long-term production viability for military and infrastructure needs.

A Short-Lived Price Spike

When the tariffs first took effect, steel prices rose, including the cost of steel rebar—a vital material for construction. However, these price increases were temporary, as the market adjusted to new supply chains and domestic production expanded.

Positive Impacts on Trade & Jobs

Beyond price fluctuations, the tariffs reshaped trade relationships and expanded job opportunities across multiple industries. Some key benefits included:

• Trade Realignment: Instead of relying heavily on Chinese steel, the U.S. increased imports from trusted allies like Canada and Mexico, strengthening economic ties with neighboring trade partners.

• Domestic Steel Production Growth: Many American steel manufacturers ramped up operations, leading to a stronger, more self-sufficient industry.

• Job Creation Beyond Steel: The expansion of U.S. steel production led to the creation of around 6,000 new jobs—not only in steel mills but also in trucking, logistics, warehousing, and support services. This growth extended beyond manufacturing and boosted economic activity in related industries.

A Market Correction

Despite early price increases, the steel market stabilized as global supply chains adapted. By the early 2020s, steel prices—including steel rebar—had dropped below pre-tariff levels, proving that initial inflationary fears were overblown.

Looking Ahead

The steel tariffs demonstrated the power of protectionist policies in revitalizing domestic industries and preserving America’s national security interests. While debates continue about their long-term economic impact, one undeniable result was the strengthening of U.S. steel production, job growth in multiple sectors, and ensured capacity for military manufacturing in case of future geopolitical threats. 

As trade policies evolve, the challenge will be finding the right balance between economic protectionism and global competition.

Plandemic 451 | Journalist No Longer Care About Censorship

     It's been years since I posted anything here and as a matter of fact I had to reset my Blogger account to even post this.  I say this to you guys to point out how important I thought it was that I speak out here.  
     So a few days ago, a friend of mine sent me a link to Plandemic, a  video posted on Facebook and told me to watch before it got taken down.  I thought to myself, "Yeah right, they're going to take down a video, what is this China?"

     I proceeded to watch the video and thought OK, that was a lot to digest, but immediately there were some things that she said that sounded to me like crazy talk.  Either way I decided to check for myself if some of these things were true... Later.  
     Later was yesterday and when I went to look at the video again.  It was gone.  I checked YouTube and basically found the videos you see in the above picture, mostly videos panning Plantemic.  I checked Google and found a LOT of journalist talking about how Facebook, YouTube Vimeo and Twitter were all scrambling to delete Plandemic.  They then went on to talk about how everything she said was crazy talk.  

     I really wonder what Ray Bradbury, the writer of Fahrenheit 451 would think about what's going on today with the censorship we're now living with by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

     There are several things that bothered me about the Journalists response to Plandemic.  The first was the fact that they were all perfectly OK with and seemed to agree with the Censorship going on at Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo and Twitter!  Journalists OK with Censorship?  Journalists AGREEING with censorship??  Truth is that removing a video from YouTube is the equivalent of a Book Burning and yet they talk about these private corporations having the right to censor what goes on.  I disagree.  If you're going to let private corporations who own a monopoly no less, decide who gets access and who doesn't at what point do you draw the line?  Can AT&T or Comcast or a regional Power Company decide that they don't like your ideas and wish to block you from disseminating your "Dangerous" ideas by cutting off your service?  This is the equivalent of Facebook cutting you off.  Can you go and make your own Facebook, YouTube or any other public utility?  

     The second problem I had with these "Journalists" is that they brushed off everything she said, not by digging into most of what she said, but by pointing out a failed research paper, because God knows that NO ONE has ever had any failures in life.  They also pointed to the fact that she was arrested and how "The case was bolstered by a Colleague admitting that he took the laptop on behalf of Mikovits".  Interesting, that the journalists wouldn't ask, "Why was the person who ACTUALLY STOLE the laptop not the one being punished?"  Interesting that the Journalist wouldn't care to question why there was a Gag order to begin with?  Interesting that the Journalist wouldn't care to find out why Mikovits was fired and what her research was at the time?  The fact that 13 researchers signed off on this study and yet somehow it took TWO YEARS later to recant?  None of that makes any sense.

     The Journalists all then go on to explain away Fauci's Profiteering on AIDS by claiming that he donated his shares of the profits.  Well isn't that nice.  Of course they didn't ask follow up questions like, "Did that reduce your taxable income with all these donations that you're giving away?" Of course not, what's the point of asking questions?  Oh right, you're a JOURNALIST and it's your job to ask questions!  They move on the the question of where Mikovits also appears to cast doubt on the official statistics regarding COVID-19 deaths, saying that doctors and hospitals have been "incentivized" to count deaths unrelated to the disease as having been caused by the coronavirus infection because of payouts from Medicare.  They claim that there is no proof of this, yet there's been several articles saying the exact opposite and agreeing with Mikovits.  Another thing that they claim is that her insistence that if someone is treated with Hydroxychloroquine a Doctor could lose their Medical license.  They go on to say that the AMA can't do this, yet doctors have been complaining that they ARE being threatened with the loss of their license if they use anything that hasn't been specifically approved by the FDA.

     Finally Mikovits points out another study that the Elite hope no one will actually read.  As far back as 2012, there have been reports that the probability of respiratory infections other than the Flu went up 5 fold in children given the flu shot, the list of OTHER infections included Coronavirus infections!  Even the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) reported the same thing earlier this year.  Yet when Mikovits points out that this could be linked to the new Flu Shot given in Italy in late 2019 and let's keep in mind that unlike the USA, Italy MANDATES flu shots, you MUST get your flu shot or be labeled a criminal!  But again, no one WANTS to ask the tough questions.  Is it possible?

     In conclusion there's lots of evidence that the government is trying to "Trump Up" the numbers on COVID-19, they've already said that "If someone dies WITH COVID-19, they're counted as dying OF COVID-19"  The truth is that just 2 years ago we had over 80,000 people die from Influenza H2N1.  There was no economic lockdown, they didn't destroy the economy in dealing with that outbreak and as deadly and devastating as C-19 has been, it's not really any more deadly than anything we've dealt with before.  Is the real agenda here profit?  Is the real agenda to get everyone to agree to get vaccinated with the new C-19 vaccine that they will SURELY come out with in the next year or two?  Considering that the Drug Industry both spends the most advertising dollars AND the most in lobbying dollars on politicians around the world, is it really so hard to believe that those dollars are investments in the control of information?  Viral vaccines are not like bacterial vaccines.  If you got a vaccine for Polio or another bacterial based disease, you probably don't ever need that again.  Virus' though, have to be boosted again and again and again.  Look at the Flu virus.  You need it EVERY year.  What if, just like Italy they're going to pass a law that says EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated from C-19 worldwide.  Wouldn't the Drug companies stand to make not Billions but Trillions of dollars?