Suddenly, For Some Mysterious Reason, Canada Wants to Put Limits on Chinese Steel Imports


Posted originally on CTH on July 16, 2025 | Sundance 

Well, what do you know?   An interesting article about Canada suddenly proposing to put limits on the amount of Chinese steel and aluminum they import.  Although missing in the article is a reference to what this means about the prior process that did not have such limits.

Essentially, if you drop the pretending within the Wall Street Journal/MSM narrative, the decision by Mark Carney to limit Chinese Steel is a direct admission of their knowledge to a preexisting level of imports that violated the USMCA and all previous demands to block imports of Chinese steel.

Trump always said Canada was a transnational shipper and entry into the USA.  Trudeau and Carney previously denied this was the reality.  Well, if that wasn’t the reality, then why the need to change? I digress.

OTTAWA—Canada introduced limits on how much foreign steel produced in countries other than the U.S. and Mexico can be imported, as the Liberal government tries to help a domestic sector reeling from President Trump’s 50% tariffs on Canadian steel.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said Wednesday that the series of import limits and the tariffs targeting steel products with Chinese links are required because the Canadian economy has been too reliant on foreign steel to meet the needs of the construction and manufacturing sectors. He cited data indicating that two-thirds of total steel consumption in Canada comes from abroad, compared with one-third for the U.S. and one-sixth in Europe.

Carney added that the changes would also guard against foreign steel entering Canada to bypass Trump’s tariffs. Canada has had a “disproportionately open import market” when it comes to steel, Carney said at a steel factory in Hamilton, Ontario.

He added that he wouldn’t allow the current trade conflict with the U.S.—combined with unfair trade practices elsewhere—to gut the nation’s steel industry at a time when Ottawa will require the metal to embark on trade-infrastructure projects such as ports, energy corridors and pipelines.

“We must diversify our trade relationships, and above all we must rely more on Canadian steel for Canadian projects. Those shifts start today,” he said. (read more)

We have awesome Canadian Treepers; however, I would like to ask the Canadians who are stuck in denial of the steel transnational shipping issue, why Canada needed to change?

{Non-Pretending Background Here}

We Are At the Beginning of a Left-Wing insurrection: Charlie Calls For Perp Walks and Indictments


Posted originally on Rumble By Charlie Kirk show on: July 12, 2025 at 2:00 pm EST

“Stop Sending Us Useless Representatives!”


Posted originally on Rumble on Bright Bart News Network on: July 13, at 1:00 pm EST

Green Energy Isn’t Really Green, GO NUCLEAR!


Posted originally on Rumble on Bright Bart News Network on: July 13, at 1:00 pm EST

BREAKING: Kash Patel Considering Resigning If Dan Bongino Leaves


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 12, 2025, at 1:00 pm EST

Ep 3683b-D’s Took The Epstein Bait, Comey, Brennan, Multiple Agencies Investigating, It’s All Connected


Posted originally on Rumble By X 22 Report on: July 9, 2025 at 6:15 pm EST

The Deep State Wins Again


Posted originally on Jul 13, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

Every single person who was on the January 6th Commission that was trying to call it an insurrection to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from even running for office should be hauled out and put on trial under 18 U.S. Code § 595 – Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments. The objective of that entire committee was treasonous, and its members should be put on trial for the world to see. The judges who presided over the January 6th cases should also be disbarred. Until this is carried out, the Deep State will survive and prevail.

There can be no free society or equal protection of the law until every member of that committee is criminally charged and put on trial.

Deep State 1

MARK KRIKORIAN: President Eisenhower got illegals to leave on their own; most self-deported.


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 11, 2025, at 1:00 pm EST

Natalie Winters: ‘Simple Sabotage’ The Latest Trump Resistance Efforts By The Deep State


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 10, 2025, at 2:00 pm EST

IRS to Combine Church and State


Posted  originally on Jul 11, 2025 by Martin Armstrong

Politicial Corruption Ahead

The Internal Revenue Service has deemed it legal for tax-exempt places of worship to back political candidates. The Trump Administration pushed for this measure, repealing a 70-year tax code enacted in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson known as the “Johnson B. Amendment.”

The Johnson Amendment deemed it necessary for religious organizations to maintain nonpartisan status to protect the Constitutional conditions of separation of church and state. The law forbids churches and other religious organizations from using funds to endorse political candidates. Organizations could vocally support a candidate, but by law, they were unable to financially enter politics as their tax-exempt status came with a nonpartisan clause. All of this is now changing.

“Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the IRS said in the joint filing Monday with the National Religious Broadcasters group in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]” nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’ within the ordinary meaning of those words,” the filing said.

Last year, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming that the Johnson Amendment violated their First Amendment rights. The organization believes that the First Amendment protects them from any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of exercise of religion. Yet, these places of worship also enjoy tax code 501(c)(3) that prevents the government from collecting taxes. In Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (2000), a church attempted to sue after its tax-exempt status was revoked for financially backing a political candidate. The court once again ruled that the Johnson Amendment did not violate the First Amendment.

The court stated that the church was not prohibited from freedom of speech, as they could vocalize their support. However, the tax benefit comes with the condition of remaining nonpartisan. The ruling found the burden was not “substantial” enough to violate constitutional protections.

Repealing the Johnson Act would drastically alter political endorsements as these religious institutions not only have massive funds to spare but could turn them into tax-deductible super PACS. Dark money would certainly flow through these organizations to alter politics as any funds to the church or religious organization could be untraceable. Foreign citizens and nations could also anonymously funnel unlimited amounts of money through these tax-deductible super PACS and directly influence domestic elections.

Jewish temples would become the new AIPAC, the Catholic Church could install their candidate of choice, which would NOT have been Donald Trump, mosques would use donations as they deemed fit, the list goes on and on.

Churches and places of worship are tax-exempt because they maintain “benevolent neutrality,” which dates back to medieval England before it was brought over to colonial America. Political donations are not charitable work or philanthropy. The IRS is attempting to blur the lines between church and state. Conservatives may think that this measure could only benefit their cause, but that is far from the truth, as what constitutes a religious organization is quite vague in the United States. Then public trust of religious institutions would erode as they would be seen as political entities. The core mission of assisting those in need would be completely lost.