Mamdani’s Twisted Priorities: Focusing on "Bigotry" While Dodging Islamic Terror at Gracie Mansion

OPINION- In a press conference that will live in infamy, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani addressed the “Gracie Bombing” with the moral clarity of a man reading from two different scripts. An anti-Islam protest organized by Jake Lang outside the mayor’s official residence turned chaotic when two men hurled improvised explosive devices at the crowd. The attackers, Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi, traveled from Pennsylvania, allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, and hoped to top the Boston Marathon bombing. NYPD and federal prosecutors are charging them with ISIS-inspired terrorism—yet Mamdani’s first instinct was not to name radical Islam.

Instead, the mayor opened by branding the protest “a vile protest rooted in white supremacy” and “rooted in bigotry and racism.” He called it appalling. Only then, almost as an afterthought, did he condemn the violence that actually put lives at risk. He did pause to affirm that even those he abhors have a “sacred” right to peaceful protest—effectively patting "white supremacists" on the head while the chaos from Islamist IEDs that failed still lingered in his own neighborhood.

Conveniently absent from Mamdani’s remarks: any mention that the bombers were Muslim. No condemnation of the ideology that radicalized them. No acknowledgment that the very protest he smeared as racist was warning against the exact threat that was just about to explode on his doorstep. As the city’s first Muslim mayor, he had a golden opportunity to draw a bright line between peaceful Muslim New Yorkers and the jihadists who tried to maim their critics. He chose selective silence.

This is more than tone-deaf. It’s dangerous. When Islamist terrorists attack Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, the response cannot begin with lectures about “white supremacy.” New York’s communities and especially Latino communities—large, vibrant, and often on the front lines of urban crime and terror threats—deserve better than a mayor who prioritizes identity politics over public safety.

If local leadership refuses to call radical Islam by its name, perhaps it’s time for federal intervention. Donald Trump may indeed need to step in to protect all New Yorkers from the very ideology Mamdani refuses to confront. Free speech is sacred. So is the truth.

Trump Begins Trade War Against Mexico, Canada and China!

The trade war has begun (again)! The United States has established tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China’s goods after both countries failed to meet the demands set by Donald Trump nor alleviate his concerns regarding the trade deficit. As a response, both Canada and Mexico have imposed tariffs on American goods. However, considering that the United States imports more goods from these countries than it exports, this trade war could ultimately benefit the U.S. economy. Higher tariffs may encourage American businesses to seek alternative suppliers or boost domestic production, potentially creating jobs and reducing reliance on Mexico and Canada.

Canada was hit with 25% tariffs on most goods, except for oil, natural gas and electricity. These exceptions are facing a 10% tariff. The United States is a world leader in refining oil, this serves to alleviate the costs leaking into the common market and foreign markets. As for Mexico, the tariffs reflect the same 25%, however, all of their goods are taxed at this rate, which will have an effect on car parts and other manufactured goods. Given that the United States is heavily consumerist, other countries, such as those in CAFTA-DR and Peru with PTPA, stand to benefit significantly from this trade war.

The United States Dollar has increased in value against both of these currencies. Within 24 hours against the United States Dollar, the Mexican Peso suffered a loss of around 2.7% and the Canadian dollar suffered around 1.3%, respectively. The trade war is already impacting forex speculators and it will likely worsen for Canada and Mexico as this trade war deepens.

The Role of Spanish Colonization in Preserving Latin American Indigenous Languages and Cultures

OPINION—It’s always entertaining to hear progressives declare that the Spanish colonized Latin America and obliterated its languages, as if many indigenous cultures uniformly operated with written systems. Most pre-Columbian societies in Latin America were oral societies. This posed inherent challenges to preserving their linguistic and cultural heritage which colonization further impacted the survival and interpretation of these traditions. Modern understanding of surviving pictographs, glyphs, and symbols is therefore inevitably shaped by subjective perspectives.

For societies with writing systems or other forms of physical record-keeping, documentation was greatly facilitated; however, this primarily benefited larger indigenous empires or a few well-organized smaller societies.

Yes, the Spanish engaged in warfare—both with and against indigenous groups—but ironically, their documentation efforts have become an indispensable resource for modern scholarship on pre-Colombian languages and cultures that survived their conquest. Loanwords in Spanish today bear testimony to the rich linguistic communication of indigenous societies, preserved through colonial texts. It’s worth noting that without Spanish record-keeping, we’d have far less insight into the intricate dialects and traditions of these oral societies.

While colonization undoubtedly came with atrocities, including bloody violence and losses of lives and many cultural traditions, blaming the Spanish for failing to preserve what oral societies themselves could not document is a reductive oversimplification that ignores the complexities of history. Oral traditions are invaluable for sharing stories and culture; however, physical record-keeping transcends the limitations of a human lifespan.

We can acknowledge the harms with coercive assimilation and the near-total destruction of indigenous languages and traditions, but we cannot dismiss the cultures and records that have survived or been expanded upon after Spain’s conquest.

Did Joe Biden Soil Himself At D-Day Ceremony in Normandy, France?

United States President Joe Biden was at the 80th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France where he was there to commemorate our fallen and living soldiers of World War II. During the event, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, leans forward after shaking Emmanuel Macron's hand. Emmanuel Macron—the Prime Minister of France—and Jill Biden continue to please the crowd as Joe Biden leans forward stiffly which has garnered attention. Humorously, commenters on social media are referring to the event as #ShitGate2024, or simply 'Shitgate'.

At the D-Day Ceremony—after sharing a handshake with Emmanuel Macron—Joe Biden leaned forward stiffly. It seemed he could not move and was trembling for moments, which concerned many people. He regained his composure and stood upright again, however, after his time on stage, he was whisked away by Jill Biden, his wife. Speculators have made their comments on the events.

As ShitGate2024 is underway, the media quickly shares their interpretations of events. Republicans and conservatives have taken the moment to jab at the president after previous 'accidents' that Joe Biden has had. Previously, Joe Biden was rumored to have soiled his pants at the Vatican when meeting with Pope Francis, although no official statement has been made confirming this event. Democrats have been mum on the story but may release more context. There is no official declaration on whether he soiled himself (at this time).

As the 2024 Presidential election draws near, situations like "ShitGate2024" will be more common as there will be more rumors and claims coming from all sides about Joe Biden and Donald Trump. As far as Shitgate is concerned, Joe Biden would need to appear more strong at public events to avoid any claims against his ability to lead or negative views about this health.

The 2024 Libertarian National Convention | Donald Trump Is Challenged By Libertarian Voices As Democrats Rage

The Libertarian community is a loud few in the United States but large enough to become the third largest political party in the United States. Donald Trump has been able to court libertarians in the past when people were unsure of his leadership, but now libertarians have cooled off. Donald Trump faced judgment in front of libertarians at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The convention comes after a successful run at his 2024 South Bronx Presidential Rally.

Libertarians have always bounced around policies they liked or disliked from the Republican Party. Before Donald Trump, the populist, was elected, he woke up the drive that was once there during the Tea Party Movement and the Ron Paul Revolution that simmered out. However, libertarians are holding him to some major mistakes, such as the bump stock ban and his vocal support for red flag laws. Trump's inability to successfully drain the swamp and his poor decision to keep reckless people out of his cabinet has led to some distrust in the libertarian community. Trump met boos; His performance was fair, but his legacy did not move the crowd. Garnering praise for some non-interventionism will always be a strong suit of Trump.

However, Donald Trump has done something few politicians have done. Not many Republicans or Democrats take the time to speak directly to the libertarian community—likely because upset enthusiasts will be outspoken. Libertarians tend to be very vocal against the two-party system that suppresses third-party activists like those in the Green Party and the Constitution Party. Libertarians have reorganized and focused on local elections, but the internal instability of the party leads to wide-ranging candidates.

Will Donald Trump be able to court Libertarians? It would be difficult to say; if the libertarians follow a more religious doctrine or a social-conservative edge, they may be more inclined to support the populist. The anarcho-capitalists will not warm up to Donald Trump—yet a few minorities will carve some relationship with other conservatives.

The 2024 Libertarian National Convention will paint a picture for Libertarians as they will get Republican recognition at the national level. Democrats have called the entire event embarrassing for Donald Trump but have not considered the exposure that Libertarians will get. Libertarians are far more likely to support non-interventionist policies overseas. The Democrats and Republicans have a legacy of questionable extrajudicial actions. Democrats have been losing many Latinos, and although Republicans have picked up many, most have remained independent. However, there is growing sentiment from younger libertarian-leaning centrists and conservatives. Democrats have challenged the Latinos on their culture with Latinx, so that may shake up the 2024 election.

With the Israeli-Hamas conflict continuing, anti-war sentiment has grown tremendously as those are calling for a ceasefire. Few progressives and most libertarians hold non-interventionist views. Pro-Palestinian activists will hurt Joe Biden and Donald Trump's chances to secure a landslide victory in the 2024 Presidential Election as Libertarians historically get one to three percent of the general election vote.

Donald Trump took a gamble going to the 2024 Libertarian National Convention, but it may have paid off for third parties.

Cuban-Owned Restaurant 'Threatened' By Black Lives Matter Protesters

A Latino-owned restaurant of Cuban refugees in Louisville, Kentucky was harassed by Black Lives Matter supporters who made demands that the business must sign a contract to pay primarily black organizations a monthly fee and officially declare that they will increase the number of black employees to reflect the demographics of the city. They have also made numerous other demands in their 'contract'.

La Bodeguita De Mima, the Cuban-owned restaurant, received demands from local Black Lives Matter supporters such as maintaining that roughly 23% of their employees are black and they included to increase the representation of black products by the same proportional amount. The demands from Black Lives Matter have also included that the restaurant pay organizations like Black Lives Matter 1.5% of their monthly profits if they don't meet the targeted representation numbers. The protesters have set their deadline for their demands for August 17, 2020. There are also many other demands made by the protesters which include further 'protests' at the establishments who do not sign the contract.

Fernando Martinez, a partner of the Ol Restaurant Group who owns the La Bodeguita de Mima and Taco Luchador, publicly rejected the demands made by the Black Lives Matter local group. Martinez labeled the demands as "mafia tactics". Many supporters of the Latino-owned business have also voiced their concerns and also have rejected the demands from BLM activists. Fernando Martinez and associates feeling threatened by these demands have replied to protesters that "La Bodeguita is open to everybody." He stated, "How can I be called a bigot and a racist when my family is Black? When my son is gay?" Martinez, who escaped Cuba to come to the United States, could not believe that he would be under this level of scrutiny after all that he has experienced.

Sadiqa Reynolds, the CEO of the Louisville Urban League and one of many voices who have supported the protests against the restaurant, has made multiple public statements on behalf of the local BLM community and dismisses their statements.

This business stood up against the protesters as other local businesses agree to the demands. Talesha Wilson, a local activist who also assisted in writing the list of demands, says she believes that it was a "temper tantrum that could have been solved by a conversation." It is expected that they will be boycotting the organization as protests pick up against the restaurant owner. 

Is Antifa A Terrorist Organization?

(OPINION) - There is no question that many of our readers know who the Antifa are, and there's a lot of people suggesting that we should classify their group as a terrorist organization. In many ways, I can support that sentiment, and in others, it would be tough to classify them as such.

There are a lot of things to consider when characterizing a group as a terrorist organization. Naturally, just by the general definition of terrorism and the FBI's description of domestic terrorism, we can see a great deal of violence coming from Antifa groups against people who peacefully support the United States President, Donald Trump, and these attacks are inspired by political motives. These attacks include throwing "milkshakes" at people, throwing cement at commuters, and outright violent confrontations with other protesters where weapons such as hammers, crowbars and other blunt objects are used. For some Antifa members, the political motive is due to having a "white nationalist" president and opposing him, others are more directly opposed to our current economic system as they support blatant anti-capitalist values. Of course, these attacks on people are not justified but are they uniform or are they organized?

We can view some of their attacks, where they unjustly attacked people, as an act of domestic terrorism, not extreme violent terrorism that has led to mass murder but politically-inspired assaults. Generally speaking, most individuals who claim they are Antifa are just riding the bandwagon. This doesn't mean their concerns are not just but it does suggest that they are easily influenced by organized Antifa rhetoric. Not every single member of the Antifa participate in these attacks, but many within their ranks condone these attacks. The 'organized' Antifa members or those who allegedly may have gained their funds from rich donors are the primary suspects for the violence and this has naturally created a wedge between the moderate left and far-left, even within the Democratic Party. Most Antifa groups tend to not be organized; in fact, many are locally grown communities and they tend to be "leaderless" even though they do have public speakers who represent said local Antifa groups.

These leaderless groups are not classified as a registered organization, and if the US Federal authorities were to try and declare them as such, they may inadvertently place innocent Antifa protesters in the crosshairs of a nasty political war. It would be tough to classify them as a terrorist organization with no leader and no real chain of command. This doesn't suggest that they can't be arrested but it's a slippery slope to classify them all as a domestic terrorist threat, and if we do classify them as such their ranks will grow as they continue to spread misinformation through social media sites.

There is no question that Antifa engages in terrorist actions, and so far they have not directly resulted in mass murder as a collective but I think it's important to monitor the groups further as a possible Homegrown Violent Extremist (HVE) threat. I do consider them to be far-left wing terrorists, however, we must be certain to separate the militant Antifa group from the peaceful protesters who oppose Donald Trump. We need to be certain of whom we are classifying and if we target them all, this will lead to a far worse unintended consequence.

Anarchism Is Not 'Extreme'

OPINION - Anarchism isn't the 'extreme', it is the natural 'order' of the world. What is extreme is the millenniums of abuse by governments to try and submit the will of the people to its own doctrines or rules of what is 'moral' for society.

Anarchism has had a very negative connotation especially when it comes to statist Americans defining them within in the United States. The typical anarchist in the eyes of authority is just a group of violent individuals who want to seek the destruction of common way of life, even though the vast majority of anarchists are actually community-oriented individuals working together to better each other's lives including their own. Anarchism and chaos go hand-in-hand according to conservatives and Democrat liberals that dominate our two-party system yet its this very two-party system that has led to major disasters across the globe. They both blame the anti-war crowd for their own failures, or they point the blame at the opposing party without taking any responsibility for the violence they promoted. Who are truly the violent ones? The violent ones have been consistently those who advocate for violence against peaceful people, no matter if you're on the left or the right, the violence has been here for centuries and it has continued in many of our communities whether white, black, or Latino (and for others).

Anarchism is no more extreme than you telling your neighbor that you don't wish to be oppressed by their political views, naturally, your neighbor won't care because at the end of the day the democracy or the constitutional republic that we are in, are filled with people who do not want to protect your rights, and will ultimately not care about your personal individual feelings of oppression by the system that they defined, defend and prop up. That very system is the authority, or the force, that comes in with armoured personnel with armoured vehicles ready to turn on the hoses and force the community away from the protests they justly formed. Again, they force this action against the public who has very just concerns. Why is nonviolence an extreme for one group, but the system can exhibit all forms of censorship and violence, and yet do not get the same treatment for the rhetoric and the actions they actually have committed? Why is anarchism generally an 'extremist' ideology and statism is not?

It's unjustified to claim Anarchism is extremist in most cases, unless you truly believe living peacefully and nonviolently without fear of government coercion is extreme in our society. I don't believe it is extreme, we were all born free, it was a 'society' that pushed their thoughts and bigotry onto the individual, it wasn't the individualist anarchist.

Republicans Are Not The Party of Small Government

Republicans have claimed for decades that they are the party of a small, fiscally responsible government but in the state of Florida, that doesn't always seem to be the case. Its one thing to say you advocate for a smaller government, but to say that they are "the party of small government", that's quite a long shot.

Florida state governor, Ron DeSantis, has had a commendable time so far as Governor of Florida. Lots of things were unexpected, such as his push for medical marijuana, but my main concern about Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party of Florida is their support for the expansion of federal authority, particularly with handling immigration. Republicans here have, essentially, permitted local police forces to act as federal immigration agents in apprehending illegal immigrants. To me that is a sign of the encroachment of one of the biggest governments of all, the United States federal government. Yet, the excuse they make is that securing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants is a matter of national security; I argue that its just a waste of money. Instead of making it easier for immigrants to enter this beautiful and prosperous country, and making the process cheaper and less strenuous on our resources, they would rather push federal responsibilities onto local police forces, wasting our tax dollars as the police patrol the streets for illegals, instead of solving the astounding unsolved murder rates in Florida.

Immigration is one of my biggest concerns and its one of those subjects that can make or break a candidate for me, but another example of where the Republican Party of Florida falters is that they increased the age to own a rifle from 18 to 21. Granted, I am older than 21 years old, so why would I have a problem with this? It's a matter of principle. If an 18 year old is able to serve in the US military, then I believe, they too should be able to own a rifle at that age as well. The fact that Republicans here "love and support the military" so much and yet are willing to restrict them as civilians just baffles me. Why should any military servicemen serve this country, when Florida politicians want to limit their rights? The same argument goes for Chicago, Illinois, and the entire state of California. Why should they serve? I find it odd that Republicans here are willing to give up some of their rights under the Trump administration, but absolutely attacked Barack Obama for simply suggesting the same things.

Speaking about the military, which is a huge example of 'big government'. The US military in-of-itself is a perfect example of where republicans lie to themselves about being the party of small government. Till this day, republicans, not just in the state of Florida, but across the country advocate for an even stronger military, and have been quite hawkish about going to war in the Middle East and starting a larger conflict in South America (Venezuela's conflict is an example of this). Government sponsored wars are not a sign of a small government, not in the slightest, it is in fact the complete opposite. You cannot be the party of small government as you promote nation building and martial law in other countries, its just impossible unless you believe your constituents are ignorant and are going to believe you, and well sadly, they do.

Republicans like to wrap their rhetoric in a red, white and blue paper wrap, with a small american flag attached to it. Yet when you pay attention to their rhetoric about being pro-small government and fiscally responsible, just look at the destruction that was left after the wars... if that doesn't convince you, then look at our federal budget and balance sheet. If republicans were the party of small government, Florida, specifically, wouldn't be in so much debt. I admit, there are some republicans across the country who do advocate for a smaller government, like Justin Amash, and Rand Paul, yet the majority of the Republican party can't carry that label of being fiscally responsible and advocates of smaller governments.

'Dollar Is Going To Self Destruct': Ron Paul Suggests Bitcoin As Alternative

In an interview with Bitcoin Magazine, Dr. Ron Paul publicly praised Bitcoin and suggested that Americans should adopt stable cryptocurrencies to combat an overreaching government. What are your thoughts on Bitcoin?



Dr. Ron Paul has always held a strong position with gold as being "real money", and he is a longtime critic of fiat currencies, but cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, in particular, has not gotten much attention from Dr. Paul over the years. He admitted that he is "not a computer person", but has praised Blockchain technology and has grown fond of it as he has learned more about the advancements in its security. Dr. Paul defended Bitcoin in stating, "I think what Bitcoin offers: An alternative. I want a free marketplace."

Governments such as the United States, China, and Russia have held very conservative opinions about Bitcoin, and some politicians are even calling to ban cryptocurrencies altogether which is a big worry to any free market, or cryptocurrency enthusiast. "There will be hostility but it will be more dignified. They will work behind the scenes and put in roadblocks if they can. The more successful that cryptos are, the more the government will get involved.", warned Paul.  Cryptocurrencies have begun to take a more political tone, but many enthusiasts fear that politicians are far too ignorant about the technology to be able to make responsible policy decisions.

Dr. Ron Paul expands on politicians attempting to ban cryptocurrencies within the interview. These politicians, according to him, retain a jingoist mindset about defending the United States Dollar in global affairs. Ron Paul says that the "[US] Dollar is going to self-destruct" to the notion that people shouldn't "mess with the dollar". Ron Paul believes that there should be regulators, but questions the validity of anyone being capable of regulating cryptocurrencies without destroying individual liberty. It would go against his ideals of freedom to support the government regulating the free exchange of goods, no matter how the government perceives packets of data transfers.

Ron Paul completes the interview stating that he doesn't own cryptocurrencies although he does accept cryptocurrencies at his foundations. Ron Paul still retains the belief that private property and gold are the best investments to secure a future, but cryptocurrencies are the alternative. 

UN Security Expert Claims World In Higher Risk Of Nuclear War

U.N. security expert, Renata Dwan, claims that the world today is at a higher risk of nuclear war compared to tensions in World War II. Dwan states that this is an 'urgent' issue that must be addressed by the global community.



The Director of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) mentions that most of the nuclear superpowers are seeking ways to modernize their nuclear weapons as trade tensions and border tensions flared up in 2018. Worrying particularly of advancements of weapons technology emerging from the United States and Chinese trade conflict. So far, only 23 have signed the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The United States and Russia have both opposed this treaty. Countries like Cuba, Mexico, South Africa, etc have signed the treaty.

“I think that it’s genuinely a call to recognize – and this has been somewhat missing in the media coverage of the issues – that the risks of nuclear war are particularly high now, and the risks of the use of nuclear weapons, for some of the factors I pointed out, are higher now than at any time since World War Two.” - Renata Dwan

 What are your thoughts about using nuclear weapons? Should we use nuclear energy at all?

Foxconn Founder Demands Communist China Recognize The Republic of China (Taiwan)

Foxconn Founder, Terry Gou, has been pushing for a presidential run in Taiwan for the 2020 presidential election to combat a political infiltration by Beijing's leadership (The People's Republic of China) on the island, this comes during an increase of the US-China trade war.

Terry Gou has challenged Beijing's leadership as he said: "[China] must acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China." The Republic of China is Taiwan's official name. The People's Republic of China, what we commonly know as "China",  has been restricting Taiwanese leadership while trying to influence politicians to favor Beijing leadership. Gou is apart of the Kuomintang political party, which is a historical party that has had violent conflicts with the People's Republic of Beijing.

Terry Gou is one of Taiwan's richest person, estimates value him at around $7.8 Billion. He and many other Taiwanese businessmen want more autonomy from Beijing and hope to expand trade with the west. Beijing, and the Communist Party of China, recently have expanded the Trade war against the United States in retaliation to Trump's tariffs. China has retaliated by expanding tariffs of their own affecting over 1000 products, and hundreds of large and medium-sized corporations that rely on shipments from Taiwan. Today, the Dow Industrial Average fell over 600 points after the announcement of China's new tariffs.

The United States currently has a $410 Billion deficit with China. The current president of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Tsai Ing-wen, is the first woman to hold that office. She is currently serving 4 years per term with an election arriving in 2020. She assumed office on May 20th, 2016.

ACLU: Travel Warning For Minorities Over Sanctuary Cities Fight In Florida

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has issued a travel warning for immigrants and minorities who are traveling to Florida as state Republicans attempt to push a strong immigration bill banning sanctuary cities while pushing to limit the asylum seeking process.

The ACLU has issued a "travel advisory urging immigrants and people of color to use extreme caution when traveling to Florida", as stated from a social media post, on April 8th, 2019. The ACLU claims the bills being passed are "draconian anti-immigrant" legislation. The bills under question are HB 527 and SB 168, two prominent bills being pushed through the Florida legislature. The Florida legislature consists of a Republican majority.

SB 168 was introduced by State Senator Joe Gruters, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. Gruters stated that the bill will prohibit cities and local municipalities from non-cooperation with the federal government regarding immigration laws and regulations, even if the local populace voted against federal legislation. Some are calling it the willful encroachment of the federal government supported by the state legislature. Ron DeSantis is very supportive of President Donald Trump's immigration policy and he will likely back legislation banning sanctuary cities like those proposed today.

Donald Trump has been targeting sanctuary cities and attempting to limit established asylum legislation that has helped thousands of DACA recipients in this country. His stance has caused a large rift within Florida which has a strong Latino population and has divided the state, even among some Republicans. It's very likely that Republicans in Florida will support this legislation, but the general populace seems to be unsupportive of their strict policies and would rather seek alternatives.

Do you support Donald Trump's immigration policy? Do you support how Ron DeSantis is handling the state?

IRS To Pay Tax Refunds During Trump's "Border Wall Shutdown"

Donald Trump, some members of the GOP and the Democrats still have not came up with an agreement on what to do with the "migrant crisis" on the United States southern border, which has caused a "partial shutdown of the US federal government".

Trump aides have suggested to put the United States' Border crises as a National Emergency which means Donald Trump could enact new laws without congressional approval using his legal executive power. Which could mean militarizing our southern border with the National Guard, and ramping up Coast Guard operations. Opponents claim that Donald Trump is exaggerating the threats of recent booms in migrations, citing that these movements are related to drug cartels and are not as dangerous as pro-Trump conservatives claim. Trump plans to make a public televised visit to the southern border, this all comes after Trump simmered down on his Stance about Afghanistan and Syria, it seems like we won't be bringing our troops back just yet.

For those unaware, during a federal shutdown most federal welfare programs are still active during a federal shutdown, but some unnecessary agencies will be closed. Some people feared that tax returns would not be paid out to American tax filers. Locals in Central Florida were very concerned, recent polls from the Morning Consult show that roughly 46% of floridians approve of Donald Trump in December (Donald Trump has fallen in approval rating since he took office in January 2017). The IRS has made a public clarification regarding your tax returns.

Will The IRS Pay Back My Tax Returns?

The IRS stated that the tax season will proceed as it normally would, and it will begin this January 28th. IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig stated that "[The IRS is] committed to ensuring that taxpayers receive their refunds...". Hundreds of IRS workers will be returning for work during this tax season.

Are you prepared for this tax season? How do you feel about the partial government shutdown?

US Airstrike Near Abu Kamal, Estimated Over 30 Civilians Killed

US Airstrikes occurred late midnight (GMT +3) on Friday, near Abu Kamal in the Deir ez-Zor province. Syrian state media, SANA, estimates 30 civilians, women and children, have been killed, while US sources, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, suggests roughly 54 people were killed in general (including civilians and militants), no official number of wounded.

Local reports suggest the US had deliberately struck the region, as everyone slept, under false pretenses. Many people around the struck towns of al-Souseh an al-Baghouz Fowqani, and around Abu Kamal believe the US purposely bombed the region over its decision to refuse the entry of US backed military personnel, such as the Qasad militia (which is to have suspected members of ISIS). Throughout the civil war, the US has been accused of supporting ISIS militants, through untrustworthy deals with certain rebel groups on the ground. The region that was struck by the United States is currently controlled by the Syrian national government, although, US media claims the region is controlled by Daesh (ISIS) operatives.

Trump Has The Best Job Unemployment Rate In Decades? Read More...

The war in Syria has taken a large toll on the citizenry, and it may finally come to an end, as US backed militias are threatening to dissolve and rejoin the Syrian National government, which may be a big loss for US interest in Syria after supporting the civil war. The rebels, who are threatening to dissolve, currently hold roughly 30% of Syria's territory. The Syrian government is currently winning the conflict against the rebels, and ISIS, as it holds more strategic, populated areas. If the Syrians do end their civil war, then ISIS will be all but eradicated from Syria, guaranteed. We have yet to see a formal peace deal between the Syrian Rebels and the Syrian national government.

Trump Bombs Syria With France & UK | Read More...

President Donald Trump of the United States and President Vladimir Putin of Russia will be meeting Monday in Helsinki, to discuss important economic and military concerns, especially, after the start of the trade war, and the escalation of conflict via US foreign policy. Russia is also planning to make a deal with Israel to ensure that Iran remove their troops in the region, as the war begins to wind down. Israel refuses to allow any strong Iranian Shi'ite military presence in Syria.

Trump Begins Trade War, Russia & China Respond

Trump has officially begun the trade war with China, and now Russia has also responded, ultimately, this will have serious ramifications for the global community.

President Donald Trump has been a strong proponent in advancing US job growth, but has been favoring a protectionist idealism instead of a purely capitalist position. Protectionism, naturally, leads to more government oversight in the market, and tends to prop up certain businesses who benefit from particular favors from politicians. Examples of protectionism could be the funding of Solyndra, and Fisker Motors by the Obama Administration which led to mass layoffs and even the closure of Solyndra which has resulted in the US lowing millions of dollars on a shady investment. One of Obama's many scandals...

Donald Trump Has The Lowest Unemployment Rate... but... | Read More...

Propping up big steel, and big farms in the US will actually have some serious economic ramifications, especially for those who are homeless, living in poverty, or are within the lower class. Prices of goods always seem to increase when protectionism expands, protectionism is just a short term gain that leads to long term loss, especially if the investment is unsuccessful. It is a gamble. Other than domestic problems, we now have to deal with Trump's trade war which will make the situation worse.

Trump fulfilled his word on imposing tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods. China has retaliated against the Trump administration by imposing a similar tariff of 25% on over 500 US products, which includes automobiles. Russia is responding to the tariffs by subsidizing Russian alternatives to US products (like construction equipment, businesses that work with oil, gas and energy, etc). China officials have been on record stating they do not wish to have a trade war with the United States, but now that Trump is pushing their hand, China feels they, and their allies, must retaliate against a very economically aggressive American regime. Notably, not only has Trump expanded tariffs on China and Russia, Trump has also notably put tariffs on Canada, Mexico and even the European Union! Notable corporations like BMW have publicly stated that they will not be able to maintain operations with China if the Trade war expands throughout the EU.

Donald Trump Wants Death Penalty For Drug Dealers? | Read More...

The trade war is a downright risky move, but some risks may have large rewards. If this plays out horribly, the reward may be a full blown hot war (at worst), and at best in a horrible scenario, we would suffer yet another global recession.

How do you feel about Donald Trump's trade war?

Trump Orders Strike On Syria With France and UK

Donald Trump has just confirmed that France and the UK will join the US military on a strike on Syrian "chemical targets". The US claims Bashar al-Assad's regime was behind the chemical attack in Douma, near Damascus (the capitol of Syria), which had claimed the lives of more than 40 people on April 7, 2018.

Is Donald Trump Supporting Islamic Jihad? Read More...

Syria, who is allied with Russia and supported by China, has been blamed for multiple gas attacks that have occurred throughout the Syrian civil war, but it has yet to have been proven. In fact, there is more evidence that shows it was the United States backed rebels that committed these atrocities under the Obama administration in 2013, which it seem history is repeating itself under the Trump administration.

Many supporters of Trump have applauded his actions and his toughness against the Syrian regime while others are puzzled by the actions of Trump as they mirror the actions of Obama when handling allegations of chemical attacks. There has not been any official deceleration by any non-partisan investigators that confirm that the Syrian government was behind the chemical attacks.

Trump Bans Venezuela Cryptocurrency? Read More...

This could lead to some major problems between the United States and Russia, and may even effect our already rocky relationship with China. Beijing and Damascus do have a fair relationship, Beijing has even offered to assist Syria in reconstruction as the civil war (which is currently being won by Assad) was slowly coming to an end but this action by the United States may end that deal.

Russia, who has called for multiple international investigations over these chemical attack allegations, has repeated for the US to not attack its military ally, Syria, or face repercussions. Russian and US relations are deteriorating quickly over these past few administrations, which return us to a high tension point which could lead to another cold war.

Donald Trump is treading in dangerous waters with war hawks. China and Russia have gone on the defensive with Trump pushing too strongly. This may lead to some serious economic tension between these economic powerhouses.

Trump Bans Venezuela's Cryptocurrency!

President Donald Trump has just prohibited the purchases of Venezuela's Cryptocurrency (Petro), that was released in February, 2018, as tensions increase over economic sanctions that was placed onto Venezuela.

President Maduro had issued the currency, originally as a way to curb the United States sanctions against the nation. It was to serve as a medium of exchange, where Venezuela is claiming that it will be backed with the value of oil, diamond, gasoline and gold reserves, which would help jump start the crumbling Venezuelan economy. Maduro had ordered all nationalized corporations to accept the Petro. The Petro is based off NEM and members of it's team are going to create a cryptocurrency exchange and expand its marketing across other exchanges. The Petro is set to possibly replace the failing Venezuelan Bolivar which suffered major devaluations over the past few years.

The US Treasury Department had called the Petro "another attempt to prop up the Maduro regime...". The IRS, in general, has been attempting to give gag orders to companies who do not disclose their private information to the IRS for tax purposes. With this order by Trump could mean very dangerous times for cryptocurrency users. If there is a serious witch-hunt on any individual then that could mean a major conflict between cryptocurrency privacy advocates and national governments seeking resolutions to their "national security".

Poverty has dramatically increased in Venezuela for the past few decades, and inflation has skyrocketed to over 6,000% in February. Long lines for those living in poverty hoping to eat, and so many people malnourished that food is scarce and so is medicine. Its a modern tragedy. Maduro's regime is no doubt one of many governments in the world that need to collapse, but there are some very moral positions we must make clear in regards to the cryptocurrency.

This cryptocurrency sure is a controversial one as it is being backed by a national government who has consistently opposed US interference within their economy (while committing multiple acts of atrocities against its own citizens), but there is something quite immoral about Trump's actions. This could have some serious ramifications for average cryptocurrency users if we are to be vilified just for owning a particular cryptocurrency. Imagine being arrested for owning, buying or selling a Chinese Yuan, it doesn't seem to be justified. It depends how serious they take this move by Venezuela, if they see the threat as a serious national security risk, then we may see a massive purge against cryptocurrency users by the US government, or possibly the United Nations.

Gun Rights Are Necessary For A Free Society

As each year passes us by, we are struck by another tragedy that gets greatly politicized. Whether it be school shootings, mass shootings, etc., These events rile up the public and polarizes them. We have pro-2nd amendment groups fearing that their guns will be banned and we have pro-"sensible" gun regulation (along with fringe, Anti-gun) groups demanding that their rights be limited. It's a constant cycle that has become predictable even though in some cases these events are not predictable at all.

These events, are used and abused for political gain and public hysteria is absolutely loved by the media. It's tragic that these things happen, it absolutely is, but I am dumbfounded that people are willing to limit their freedoms and fear monger each other into believing that the police should only have these weapons, or that the government should limit gun rights. Yet, it was just a few months ago that people were protesting about police brutality and government cover-ups and corruption, so they are very inconsistent with their positions, as it seems.

Just for your information, I do not support the 2nd amendment. I personally believe that The Constitutional amendment should not be the end all be all. I support gun rights through and through and I don't believe our rights should be limited in those regards. The Constitution is but a document, a document that is manipulated and cherry picked, and quite frankly, hasn't limited the government as it was intended.

Gun rights, in my opinion, are absolutely essential for the freedoms we look forward to in a free society. Not only do guns help protect our own lives on the street or protect the lives of others, it also prevents the government from over stepping their boundaries. History has shown to us that government isn't always the best, and is not at all honest. History also shows that when gun confiscation comes, then violent crime rises, or worse, government genocides or outright government massacres. In order to be free one must be able to defend themselves from those wishing to abuse them or their rights. If they choose not to then it is their choice, but in a dangerous circumstance, they likely wish that they had some form of protection. Police may help, but only after the carnage has begun.

Now, I must say that the mentally ill should not own weapons, but who am I or the government to determine that they indeed are mentally ill? What if the government has decided one day that being anti-government is a mental disorder? Would it be justified to limit my gun rights?

I think with the issue of the mentally ill and weapons, it gets really convoluted. How can we know for certain they are suitable to own a weapon? Obviously, I'm speaking about the mentally ill in general, which could mean various amounts of diseases/disorders. I personally believe that the gun seller should determine who should buy the gun, not the government. Everyone should be free to buy a gun but it shouldn't be forced upon responsible gun sellers.

Should gun sellers also sell grenades? Or maybe even tanks and RPG's? Absolutely, if they so choose. As technology improves, it becomes easier to expose unjust violence, and as such, it becomes easier to hold people accountable for their actions. If the second amendment was meant for us to defend ourselves from the government (which it was) then why has the government limited our rights? For control. If we are disarmed, if we are weaker, then we become easier to control, we become easier to become victims of oppressors whether it be a street thug or a raging dictator.

Imagine if North Koreans were able to buy guns, the Un dynasty would not have the amount of dystopian authoritarian control that they currently hold. They would be free from such an oppressive regime, similar to us here in the US but sadly some Americans want us to be easily controlled. Gun rights are essential to a free society and Americas history has shown how great gun rights are for ending dictatorial control, but why are we slowly becoming more of a dictatorship, especially overseas?

It's a no brainer... I understand this is controversial but freedom should be praised, not rejected. If we lose our guns, we lose our capability to fight back and speak out against injustices committed by our government. Gun rights weren't meant for hunting, they were meant to protect ourselves. For a minority of gun users who commit atrocities, why are all gun owners villifies and threatened to give up their rights? That doesn't seem right to me.

Is Donald Trump Backing Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Islamic Violent Jihad?

Donald Trump has recently made an incredible arms deal with the Saudi Arabian's but will this benefit the US government against the war on terrorism?

King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Center) and US President Donald Trump (Center Right with Melania Trump behind them)

Saudi Arabia has been accused of exporting terrorism throughout the Middle East by funding Sunni extremists (such as the likes of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh). Is this the truth? The situation in Saudi Arabia (which has committed into several human rights abuses and even promotes strict Sharia Law in their country) is quite muddy overall. The Saudi King rejects any notion that his associates are involved with funding and supplying terrorists with weapons but many reports have shown that is not the case.

Members of the Saudi Arabian government and even organizations organized by private citizens within the country have been direct funders of an overwhelming 50+ terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, West Asia and Africa. Directly contradicting the Saudi King's narrative that Saudi Arabians do not support terrorism. Of course, we cannot assume that all citizens in Saudi Arabia back terrorism, but some of these organizations within the country have been at the forefront of funding extremist regimes in some branches of Islam most notably Wahhabists, Sunni and even Shi'a terrorists.

The Wahhabi regime follows a very strict doctrine of Islam, where those on the West call this strict idealism and push of religious-political power, as Sharia Law. Sharia Law, for those who are unaware, is a very controversial and, of course, many may say that it is a dangerous doctrine, where religious zealots enforce their religion through violence and persecution of nonbelievers through the use of a centralized government. Naturally, those on the west reject Sharia Law as it is directly opposed to secularist democracies, and natural liberty as a whole.

With Donald Trump's recent arms agreement of $350 billion (over the course of 10 years) it really applies shade to our relationship with secularists and Donald Trump's own anti-Sharia Law rhetoric, which he highlighted very much in his 2016 Campaign for the United States Presidency. It seems though he is being rather hypocritical in opposing Sharia Law, when he is directly supply arms to Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. Many Trump supporters are baffled by this move, but have yet to condemn his actions in supporting a Pro-Sharia Law nation such as Saudi Arabia. Trump supporters who support this Arms Deal say that this will bring many jobs to Americans and promote a growth in the economy, but I personally do not believe that jobs are more important than stopping extremist Jihadi terrorists in the Middle East. Donald Trump believes that this arms deal will help us fight the war against ISIS, but it doesn't seem like these Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia are looking to end the ISIS conflict and instead they may push for further war in Yemen.

What do you think about this move by Donald Trump? Will this help end the War on Terror, or will this expand violent Jihad beyond the Middle East (as we've witnessed with the ISIS Bombing of Brussels and the recent attack in Manchester during an Ariana Grande concert?