Should India Continue Buying Russian Oil?


Posted originally on Jul 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Crude Oil Production

President Trump announced a 25% on India beginning August 1 due to its continued purchase of Russian oil. “Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country,” the president posted to Truth on Wednesday morning. “Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia’s largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE,” he added.

India began drastically increasing its imports of Russian crude at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, with good reason, as the oil became significantly cheaper and India was able to resell it at a premium to nations that simply wanted to bypass all things Russia. In January 2022, India was importing around 68,000 barrels per day (bpd) in Russian crude, which represented only 0.2% of crude imports. The war broke out a month later and by June India was importing 1.12 million bpd from Russia who overtook Iraq as the nation’s top supplier. Nearly a year later in May 2023, Russian imports peaked at 2.15 million bpd, with India currently importing around 1.7 million to 2.1 million bpd as of July 2025.

Around 35% to 40% of India’s crude oil now comes from Russia. Now, Russian crude was around $50 per barrel in May 2025 when imports to India peaked. Middle Eastern grades were around $10 to $20 higher at the time. The deal was a no-brainer.

India-US bilateral trade hit $118.4 billion in 2024. India exported approximately $79.4 billion in goods to the US and imported $39 billion. The current trade deficit with the US sits at $45.7 billion. A 25% tariff could cost India billions in lost revenue from exports and threaten jobs in key sectors such as autos, chemicals, jewelry, gems, electronics, and textiles. Other Asian exporters would become more desirable, but China actually purchases more Russian crude than India at this point and other nations in the region have drastically smaller economies. Estimates state India could risk losing $15 billion to $20 billion annually as a result of the 25% tariff.

Now, if India were forced to buy from the Middle East for $10 to $20 more per barrel, the nation would need to spend around $6 to $10 billion more on energy annually. India does refine and resells Russian crude and is said to bring in around $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion from that practice.

On paper, it would seem as if India has more to lose by continuing to purchase Russian oil. However, the US is showing the world that it has the ability to dictate political policy through economic warfare. India declared that it remains committed to continuing “mutually beneficial bilateral trade” with the US after the 25% tariff was announced. The US will go after all BRICS nations in an attempt to dismantle the alliance, but BRICS members have shown that they no longer need to rely on the West, and tariffs from the US may not hold the same leverage as they once did.

The Disaster of Kallas & Russia’s View odd Events


Posted Jul 29, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Kaja Kallas displayed her incompetence as she is conflicted by personal hatred of Russians. Despite her catastrophic meeting with China’s High Commissioner for Foreign Relations, she tried to lecture him about EU values and democracy when neither she nor Ursula had been elected. She then demanded that China submit to the rules-based order of the EU and unimaginably demanded that China condemn Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, cease providing support, and use its influence to tell Putin to surrender and stop Russia’s advance westward.

Wang Yi respectfully stated that China was not helping Russia in the conflict with Ukraine. He added that he had no intention of interfering in that conflict. Moreover, he bluntly informed Kallas that China had no intention of standing idly by and watching Russia lose. He stated that China believes that if Russia were defeated, the EU and NATO would turn on China next. It was reported that observers never saw Wang Yi so angry at the arrogance of Kallas.

As Sun Tzu said, you must know your enemy and yourself to be able to succeed. If you do not know either, you will be defeated. Here, Lavrov and he view from a speech just the other day, the Russian interpretation of what is truly going on.

Canadian Officials Continue Wondering Why Trump Administration Projects Ambivalence Toward U.S-Canada Trade Deal


Posted originally on CTH on July 29, 2025 | Sundance

The reality of the U.S-Canada economic relationship and the position of President Donald Trump is not that difficult to understand if you take all the disparate datapoints and quotes from Trump and put them into context.

During a White House meeting with Mark Carney, President Trump essentially told the Canadian Prime Minister why he was in no hurry to get to a deal with Canada.

The 35% tariffs on non-USMCA goods are going to trigger on August 1st, because the main priority of Trump -looking toward Canada- is to dissolve the USMCA.

During the May 6th oval office meeting with Carney, President Trump was discussing the USMCA and said:  “As you know it terminates fairly shortly. It gets renegotiated fairly shortly.” … “This was a transitional deal, and we’ll see what happens, we’re going to start renegotiating that” … “I don’t know if it serves a purpose anymore.”  …. “And the biggest purpose it served was, we got rid of NAFTA.”

To understand why President Trump wants to dissolve the USMCA {SEE HERE}.  To understand the technical value of dissolving the USMCA {SEE HERE}.  It’s not a complicated economic analysis; it’s common sense.

Currently, approximately 60% of the traded goods and services between the U.S. and Canada are covered by the USMCA; the remaining 40% will be hit by tariffs on August 1st at a 35% rate.

When the USMCA is renegotiated, predictably dissolved in favor of two bilateral trade agreements – one for Mexico and one for Canada, all of the U.S-Canada trade sectors will be part of the enlarged free trade negotiation.  As a result, there is absolutely no motive to engage in trade discussions now.

♦ President Trump’s position is essentially to talk about the details when the USMCA is dissolved; hence, the ambivalence.

Politico is noting the Canadian trade team simply doesn’t understand this. “[D]espite months of back and forth, the terms for a deal have not yet been set, a senior government source said, with the White House informing the Canadian side that Trump is more focused on securing deals with other partners like India.

(Politico cont..) […] Earlier this month, Canada conceded that any deal with Trump is likely to include tariffs.

Carney’s government wants stability around the tariffs Trump invoked using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

They are crushing Canada’s auto, steel, aluminum and forestry industries. Trump also plans to hit imported copper with 50 percent tariffs starting Aug. 1 — with semiconductor and pharmaceutical imports likely to follow.

Canada ultimately wants the tariffs eliminated or lowered to a fixed level that doesn’t fluctuate, the senior government official said. “If we know what world we’re going into, then we can have better plans and policies to attract investment.”

Canada’s premiers say the unpredictability is punishing the economy.

“Private investment is not growing because everybody’s on pause,” Quebec Premier François Legault told reporters last week. “They are waiting to see what will happen. I’ve been in business — it’s about the worst thing you can have is uncertainty.” (read more)

The certainty the Canadians are looking for can be found easily if they stop pretending.

(1) U.S. tariffs against non-USMCA products from Canada will go into effect on August 1st.  (2) As soon as the USMCA is reopened, it will be dissolved.  (3) After the USMCA dissolution, a bilateral free trade agreement between the USA and Canada will be negotiated.

Every current effort by Canada to change the nature of the trade system, between now and the reopening of the USMCA (to dissolve it), is futile.

Again, I’m not exactly sure why this reality is so challenging for the Canadian govt to understand.

“So, you’re saying there’s a chance.”

Episode 4663: Trump Meets With EU Leaders; Bringing Giuliani Era Law And Order To England


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 28, 2025

Sunday Talks – OMB Director Russ Vought Discusses the FED and Spending Cuts


Posted originally on CTH on July 27, 2025 | Sundance

Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) Director Russ Vought appears on CNN to discuss the problems noted with the Federal Reserve (FED) as the organization viewed their ‘independent’ status as meaning beyond accountability.  The FED has been operating without any oversight until President Trump and Russ Vought began a baseline review of how they spend taxpayer funds.

As noted by Director Vought, the FED can have independence and yet they must be held accountable to the American people. President Trump is that accountability piece and the FED were not familiar with scrutiny. They are now.

.

Russ Vought also appeared on Face the Nation to receive questions from the insufferable and ever-pontificating Margaret Brennan.  Video and Transcript Below:

[Transcript]  – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin today with the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, welcome to ‘Face The Nation.’

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RUSSELL VOUGHT: Thanks for having me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There’s so much to get to with you. Let’s start on what’s going on with the Federal Reserve. If you take the president at his word, he does not intend to fire the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell- though he’s still criticizing him. What is the President seeking in a successor when his term ends in May 2026?

VOUGHT: Well, I think he’s looking for a chairman that’s not continually too late to the developments in the economic marketplace. And I think what we’ve seen with Chairman Powell, he was very late in the Biden administration to raise rates, to articulate the concern with regard to the Biden administration’s spending. We all knew on the outside- even Larry Summers knew that we were going to have an issue with regard to inflation. And we saw, you know, recent, historical inflationary levels that we hadn’t seen before. And now he is too late to lower inflation rates and so that is the kind of thing that we want to see in the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. And one of the reasons why is–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –More of a focus on inflation?

VOUGHT: –want an ability to recognize the developments in the economic marketplace. In this case, we want to be able to see lower rates and to have an ability to get the economy going. And one of the things we saw with Powell is that one of the reasons he was so late was because he didn’t understand that inflation is largely a monetary phenomenon. He kept saying that inflation was transitory. He didn’t tackle the problem, and now he’s, again, too late, and you marry that with fiscal mismanagement at the Fed. It’s a huge problem that we’re trying to raise the country’s awareness level with.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But as you know, the Fed is structured in a way where he doesn’t have unilateral control. There’s a governing board. Others weigh in. You did work on Project 2025, and we went back and looked at what they said in there about the Fed. As people may know, that’s a Heritage Foundation product that got a lot of scrutiny during the campaign. the chapter on the Fed called for Congress to overhaul the Fed’s focus and powers. Is that what you’re looking to do in 2026?

VOUGHT: I don’t even know what that chapter says. All I know, in terms of the President, the President has run on an agenda. He’s been very clear about that. All that we’re doing is- in this administration is running on- is implementing his agenda.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t want to overhaul the Fed?

VOUGHT: We want an economic system that works for the American people, that includes the Fed. And the President has been very clear that all he’s asking from the Fed is lower interest rates, because he thinks it’s important. When you look at across the across the globe, and you have countries lowering rates, and yet we don’t see that in this country, given all of the positive economic indicators that we’re seeing. And then we have fiscal mismanagement at the Fed with regard to this building renovation that I’m sure you will ask me about. Those are the kinds of things that we want to see from the Fed. This is not part of an existential issue with regard to the Federal Reserve.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Fed is indicating that they are trending towards a rate cut, though probably not as soon as this week. We mentioned those renovations at the top of the program, but I do want to ask about spending, or lack thereof, that the Trump administration is trying to direct. The White House said they will actually release the remaining $5 billion in education, funds that had been withheld from public schools until recently. There were 10 Republican senators very worried about this, and came out and said, your claim that the money goes to radical left wing programs was wrong. What changed your mind? What made you release this money?

VOUGHT: Well, we had been going through a programmatic review with these funds. These are programs that, as an administration, we don’t support. We’ve called for the elimination of them in the President’s budget for precisely the reasons of which they flow to often left wing organizations. Thankfully, the President came into office, put an executive order that said it can’t- these funds can’t go to these types of initiatives. I’ll just give you one example, English language acquisition was flowing to the New York school public education system to go into illegal immigration advocacy organizations. Preschool development grants doesn’t actually go to preschoolers. It goes to the curriculum for putting CRT into the school system for people as young- children as young as four years old.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, these senators said it goes to adult learners working to gain employment skills and after school programs.

VOUGHT: And what we–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you deemed it is necessary?

VOUGHT: We believe that it’s important to get the money out right now, but we have taken an extended time frame to be able to make sure it doesn’t go to the types of things that we saw under the Biden administration.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because, you know, Senator Lindsey Graham told the Washington Post, the administration is looking at considering clawbacks from the Department of Education. This, you know, rescissions process. Is that the plan? Are you seeking to claw back education funds in a rescissions package? And if so, when are you sending that up?

VOUGHT: We may be, we’re always looking at potential rescission options. This is an- this is a set of funding that we wanted to make sure it got out. We did our programmatic review. We wanted to make sure it got out before the school year, even though it’s multi-year funding. This is not funding that would expire at the end of this year. We are looking to do rescissions package. We’re always gauging the extent to which the Congress is willing to participate in that process, and we’re- be looking at a lot of different options along those lines, but certainly have nothing to announce here today. But we’re thrilled that we had the first rescissions package in decades, and we’ve got the process moving again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So no rescissions package before September?

VOUGHT: Not here to say that. We’re looking at all of our options, we will look at it and assess where the Hill is, what are the particular funding opportunities that we have, but nothing that we’re going to announce today,

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because some of the funds that do expire in September have also been held up on the health front. Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, 13 other Republicans, came out with a letter saying that you’ve been slow in releasing funds for the National Institute of Health for research into cardiovascular disease, cancer. Are those funds going to be released?

VOUGHT: Again, we’re going through the same process with the NIH that we did with the education. I mean–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But there’s a time cost here.

VOUGHT: –$2 million for injecting dogs with cocaine that the NIH spent money on, $75,000 for Harvard to study blowing lizards off of trees with leaf blowers. That’s the kind of waste that we’ve seen at the NIH. And that’s not even getting to the extent to which the NIH was weaponized against the American people over the last several years, with regard to funding gain of function research that caused the pandemic. We have a- we have an agency that needs dramatic overhaul. Thankfully, we have a great new head of it, but we’re going to have to go line by line to make sure the NIH is funded properly.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you going to release the cancer funding research? And the cardiovascular disease research funding?

VOUGHT: We’re going to continue- we’re going to continue to go to the same process that we have gone through with regard to the Department of Education, that every one of these agencies–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Before September, that money will be released?

VOUGHT: –and we will release that funding when we are done with that review.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because, as you know, there’s concern that you’re withholding the money, hoping it just won’t be spent. I mean, if you look at the White House budget, it does call for a 26% cut to HHS, $18 billion cut to NIH. Is this just a backdoor way to make those cuts happen?

VOUGHT: Well, I don’t want to speak to any specific program with regard to what we might do with regard to rescissions throughout the end of this fiscal year, but we certainly recognize that we have the ability and the executive tools to fund less than what Congress appropriated, and to use the tools that the Impoundment Control Act, a bill we’re not- a law that we’re not entirely thrilled with, gives us to- to send up rescissions towards the end of the fiscal year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So just for our viewers, the Impoundment Control Act is the legal mechanism for the President to use to delay or avoid spending funds appropriated by Congress. You seem to want to have an argument, or Democrats think you want to have an argument, over the power of the purse and who holds it. Do you want that to go to the Supreme Court?

VOUGHT: Well, look, for 200 years, presidents have the ability to spend less than the congressional appropriations. No one would ever dispute, and our founders didn’t dispute that Congress has the ability to set the appropriation ceiling. But 200 years of presidents, up until the 1970s had the ability to spend less, if they could find efficiencies, or if they could find waste that an agency was doing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: — That sounds like a yes?–

VOUGHT:– We lost that ability in the 1970s. The president ran on restoring that funding authority to the presidency, and it’s vital. If you look at when we started to lose control fiscally, it was right around the time of the 1970s.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, many senators, Republican senators, are very uncomfortable with the tactics that you are using. Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, that chair of the appropriations committee that is really running this- this funding process. And Senator Collins said you’re pushing the limits of what the executive can do without the consent of the- of the legislative branch. You need to work with her to get your budget through. And in fact, you need to also be able to get Democrats on board to get to that 60-vote threshold to pass any kind of government funding to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September.

VOUGHT: I have a great relationship with Senator Collins. I appreciate the work she does. She is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so obviously we’re going to have differences of opinion as to the extent to which these tools should be used. I mean, she had concerns with the rescissions package. The rescissions package was a vote that Congress had to make these cuts permanent–

MARGARET BRENNAN: — Under- on a party line vote, she says, you want to go do these clawbacks. You do it through regular order, and you can put- you can put rescissions into an appropriations bill–

VOUGHT: –But that was in fact, under regular order. That’s the challenge, is the appropriators want to use all the rescissions, they want to put them in their bills, and then they want to spend higher on other programs. We act- we’re $37 trillion in debt, Margaret. We actually need to reduce the deficit and have a dollar of cut go to $1 a deficit reduction. That’s not what the appropriators want, and it’s not news that the Trump administration is going to bring a paradigm shift to this town in terms of the business of spending.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You would acknowledge that you just added to the debt and to the deficit with this–

VOUGHT: — No, I would not acknowledge that. We reduced–

MARGARET BRENNAN: — The spending and tax bill that just passed?

VOUGHT: Correct.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Where you lifted the debt ceiling.

VOUGHT: The debt ceiling is an extension of the cap on what’s needed to pay your previous bills. In terms of the bill itself, it is $400 billion in deficit reduction, $1.5 trillion in mandatory savings reforms, the biggest we’ve seen in history.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I want to make sure I get to the rest of this before I let you go here, because we’re running out of time. You said, a few weeks ago, that the appropriations process needs to be less bipartisan. You only have 53 Republicans. You do need Democrats to get on board, here. Is saying something like that intended to undermine negotiations? Do you actually want a government shutdown?

VOUGHT: No, of course not. We want to extend the funding at the end of this fiscal year. We understand, from a math perspective, we’re going to need Democrats to do that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, what does less bipartisan mean?

VOUGHT: Well, Margaret, the whole week, the Democrats were making the argument that if you pass the rescission bill, that you were undermining the bipartisan appropriations process. So, if Brian Schatz and every other appropriator is making that argument for a week–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee is who said that–

VOUGHT: –you have to be able to respond and say, if you’re going to call a rescissions package that you told us during the month of January and February that we should use to do less spending, if you’re going to say that is undermining the bipartisan appropriations process, then maybe we should have a conversation about that. That is all it was meant to convey.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But, the alternative to this process is another continuing resolution, these stop-gap measures. Are you open to that, because that would lock in Biden-era funding? What is your alternative here? If you want a less bipartisan process, how do you solve for this? Because it sounds like you’re laying the predicate for a shutdown.

VOUGHT: We are not laying the predicate for a shutdown. We are laying the predicate for the fact that the only thing that has worked in this town- the bipartisan appropriations process is broken. It leads to omnibus bills. We want to prevent an omnibus bill, and all options are on the table to be able to do that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All options are on the table?

VOUGHT: We need an appropriations process that functions. We’re going to go through the process. We’re going to work with them, and we’re going to do everything we possibly can to use that process to have cheaper results for the American taxpayer.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m told we’re out of time. Russell Vought, thank you for your time today.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

DAVID MALPASS: “To Finish The Job We Need A Total Fed Overhaul.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 25, 2025

Phillip Patrick: “There Is A Standoff Happening Between The Fed And The Administration.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 25, 2025

LAVORGNA: Biden Printed Money, Trump Fueled Real Growth With Pro-Business Policy


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 22, 2025

Cash Accepted Here – Payment Choice Act


Posted originally on Jul 23, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

cashless society electronic money

Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Fetterman (D-PA) have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Payment Choice Act, which would require businesses to accept cash payments. Money is merely the medium of exchange that someone is willing to accept for goods or services. Businesses across America have inadvertently contributed to the push toward a cashless society by refusing to accept cash as a form of payment.

“Any person engaged in the business of selling or offering goods or services at retail to the public who accepts in-person payments at a physical location … shall accept cash as a form of payment for sales made at such physical location in amounts up to and including $500 per transaction,” the measure stipulates, in part.

The war on cash is part of the broader agenda to eliminate all financial privacy and control every transaction. Refusing to accept cash is not merely a business decision but a step toward a totalitarian digital monetary system. Why bother with cash if you cannot use hard currency to pay for goods and/or services? Governments and central banks are pushing digital currencies to track, tax, and control every penny in circulation. If businesses start denying cash, they’re doing the state’s dirty work for them unintentionally.

Certain businesses prefer the convenience of credit cards and not all payment systems are equipped to accept cash. Yet, as Senator Cramer stated in his argument when proposing the bill, physical cash is legal tender, and businesses are limiting consumer choice by forcing the use of debit and credit cards for transactions. Then you have businesses that pass on the 3% transaction fee to consumers, adding to inflationary pressures. “Do you accept cash?” has become a common courtesy, as consumers are aware of the need to travel with a card to ensure purchases. Naturally, governments have cracked down on businesses that only accept cash, as they assume these businesses are attempting to avoid taxation. This is the first piece of legislation that actually supports the consumer over the government it is refreshing to see it gain bipartisan support.

The bill makes exceptions for businesses that have “a sale system failure” or those that do not have enough cash available to provide change. In fact, companies would not be required to accept $50 or $100 bills under this legislation to prevent the latter. It is quite disappointing to see the freedoms many are willing to relinquish in the name of convenience.

Once cash is gone, you’ll have no ability to opt out. So yes, we need to protect cash, and that may require legal guarantees that it remains a valid and accepted form of payment.

Canada Accepts They’re Not Going to Get a Trade Deal Before 35% Tariffs Kick In


Posted originally on CTH on July 22, 2025 | Sundance 

I’ll repeat it as much as needed, until it sinks in.

The U.S-Canada trade deal status is simply a no-brainer. President Trump will answer questions about Canada and tariffs, he’ll put people into seats to discuss trade with the Canadian delegation, and he’ll give every outward appearance of being favorable to Prime Minister Mark Carney…. BUT…

In the background, Trump is simply waiting for the USMCA timeline to trigger a renegotiation. President Donald Trump is ambivalent to the trade partnership with Canada. This moot-status reality is why there’s no substantive engagement.

‘No deal’ -until USMCA redo- is a win for President Trump.

For some bizarre reason that I simply cannot fathom, almost every Canadian politician seems entirely oblivious to this reality. Instead, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.

An article in Politico notes the Canadian premiers are now accepting the August 1st deadline will pass without any agreement, and the 35% reciprocal tariffs on non-USMCA products (meaning a lot of stuff) is going to trigger.

Literally, everything from Canada that has a non-USMCA component is going to be tariffed. Think about all the stuff from China, Asia (writ large) and Europe that Canada assembles for finished goods. All of that stuff will be subject to the tariffs.

That said, there’s good news coming from the recent meeting between Prime Minister Carney and the Premiers. Within their statement they use the term “developing large infrastructure projects.” That’s Canadian political codespeak for them realizing they are going to have to get back to regular energy development, raw material use/refinement and ACTUAL MANUFACTURING.

Canada is going to have to bring back their ‘dirty’ industrial jobs.

For our Treehouse friends in Canada, this is very good news. The Canadian assembly economic model has to change in order to get compliant with U.S. trade rules. THAT’S TRUMP’S ENTIRE POINT!

The environmentalists within Canada will not like this, but economically they will have no choice; it’s the only way to avoid a complete economic depression.

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s premiers are tempering expectations that they’ll strike a new economic and security deal with Donald Trump by the end of the month.

“We would like to have the ideal deal, as fast as possible. But what can we get?” Quebec Premier François Legault said Tuesday. “You almost need to ask Donald Trump, and I’m not even sure he knows himself what he wants.”

It’s a shift in tone from the premiers and Carney, who ran for election on his economic record, arguing he’d be the best person to negotiate with the president. But Canada is finding it harder than it looks.

Carney met the premiers in Muskoka, cottage country north of Toronto, to update them on Canada-U.S. negotiations.

As the leaders emerged from a three-hour meeting, they downplayed hopes of an Aug. 1 deal, arguing that achieving a “good deal” is more important than hitting a deadline.

[…] As the negotiations continue, the premiers spent Tuesday carving out a strategy to offset the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs on the aluminum, steel, auto and lumber sector. They spoke about developing large infrastructure projects, breaking down trade barriers between provinces and encouraging a “buy Canadian” approach. (READ MORE)

Canada is going to go into a deep economic recession; there’s no way to avoid it.  However, if they restart their industrial base, drop the ridiculous ‘green’ energy stuff, start exploiting their own natural resources and train an apprentice generation -just like we are trying to do- then Canada can bounce back stronger than ever.

We know there are Canadian wolverines who understand this concept; we saw thousands of them in the Truckers’ vaccine strike.  Make Canada Great Again, by Making Dirty Jobs Great Again, eh?