U.S Chamber of Commerce Decides Not to Join any Lawsuits Over Trump Tariffs


Posted originally on CTH on April 17, 2025 | Sundance

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has decided against joining any lawsuits targeting the tariffs put into place by President Trump, Commerce Secretary Lutnick and the National Economic Council.  This is quite a new shift in tone from the generally hostile CoC.

In the background, the U.S. CoC has historically surveyed their corporate sponsors and conducts extensive polling on their interests as part of their decision-making process.  Perhaps the CoC is starting to realize a larger American awakening of their long history selling out middle-America is too risky for them politically.

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has no immediate plans to join the growing number of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs, two people with direct knowledge of discussions confirmed to POLITICO.

The business group, one of the most influential trade associations in Washington, will instead focus on lobbying the Trump administration on the tariffs directly, said the people, who were granted anonymity to divulge sensitive and developing discussions.

[…] “While we believe that tariffs under [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act] are legally questionable, the president has other tools to impose similar tariffs that equally damage America’s Main Street Businesses,” the Chamber said in a statement to POLITICO. “The only way to provide immediate relief is for the Administration to pull back on these harmful tariffs.” (more)

Posted

Brace Yourselves – Hermes Announces Price Increase Due to Trump Tariffs, $50,000 Handbags Now $55,000


Posted originally on CTH on April 17, 2025 | Sundance

Folks, I know this is going to be hard, but we must remain steadfast in bearing the burden of new tariffs for our essential items.  Hermes has announced they will pass along the cost of President Trump’s tariffs to consumers.

Currently, Hermes branded purses ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 are purchased by a whopping 0.001% of Americans, yet 90% of wives for Wall Street hedge fund managers have them.

Yes, this is going to be a painful price increase; however, it is our patriotic duty to withstand it.  We can survive it.

NEW YORK – […] The Paris-based company — which manufactures the vast majority of its goods in France — will raise prices enough to offset any hit to growth from the current 10% tariff on the European Union, according to Eric du Halgouet, Hermes’ executive vice president of finance.

If Hermes adds the 10% tax, US shoppers could pay an additional $2,000 on a lower-cost model, or an extra $20,000 on a $200,000 handbag. (read more)

If you have any tips or advice on how to deal with increased emotional anxiety as a result of this horrific announcement, please provide your words of wisdom in the comments section.  If we lean on each other for support, we can get through this.

“Reciprocity! The nerve of that man.”

Tucker Carlson Interviews Canadian Politician Maxime Bernier


Posted originally on CTH on April 17, 2025 | Sundance 

In the background of the conversation the leading candidates for Prime Minister, Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre both hold similar trade and tariff views, both support a new alignment with the EU, and both support cultural Marxism.  Canada has their own version of the UniParty.  WATCH:

Chapters:

0:00 Who Was Justin Trudeau Really Working For?
7:53 the Invasion of Canada
9:19 Pierre Poilievre Is a Fraud
13:25 The Attempts to Destroy Christian Countries
15:51 The Trade War Between Canada and the US
20:03 The Canadian Government’s Ridiculous Climate Change Agenda
21:59 China’s Control Over Canada

28:50 The Corruption of Canadian Media
32:00 The Growing People’s Party
38:36 Is Trudeau Fidel Castro’s Son?
39:33 The Death of Canada’s Healthcare System
43:19 The Canadian Exodus
44:07 Canada’s Mass Gun Control
46:16 The DEI Initiatives in Canada
49:45 Is Canada Headed Towards a Revolution?
52:05 Who Is Mark Carney?
55:33 Canada’s Gold Crisis
1:03:17 What’s Happening to All of Canada’s Natural Resources?
1:08:51 Is Canada Fixable?

REPORT: President Trump Opposed Israeli Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites


Posted originally on CTH on April 17, 2025 | Sundance

The report comes as a result of leaks to the New York Times. Which, given the nature of the subject matter and administration officials involved, indicates the sourcing is from the domestic IC side of things. Specifically, the greatest likelihood is from someone in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) talking to media.  Keep that in mind.

According to leaked information to the New York Times, President Trump did not agree with an Israeli proposal to launch military strikes against Iran.  According to the narrative as advanced, President Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were in agreement to attempt diplomatic solutions instead of bombing Iran.

Israel could not conduct the attack without U.S. support, which President Trump decided not to give.  Instead, Trump wanted a more forceful push toward engagement and diplomacy with Iran surrounding the ongoing contentious issue of nuclear development.

NEW YORK TIMES – Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.

Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.

For now, Mr. Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action. (Read More)

This is where we need to insert the element that all media generally refuse to associate, Russia.

Iran has reengaged with officials from President Trump’s administration following a letter Trump wrote to the leadership in Iran.  President Trump wants Mideast peace; he also wants to avoid the issue of Iran having a nuclear weapon. President Trump views military action as the last possible resort for failed diplomatic and geopolitical efforts.

Israel wants to attack Iran.  President Trump wants to support Israel but doesn’t want expanded military conflict that pulls the USA into more Mideast war.

As we see in the continued issues within Ukraine, the CIA supports expanded conflict in both Ukraine and Iran.   Israel and the CIA are in alignment. Hence, in our ongoing restaurant analogy, the CIA is the kitchen, and Israel has a table there.

Russian President Vladimir Putin could be an influential geopolitical partner with President Trump, if Trump can get the issues of Ukraine and Russia solved and then pivot to Iran.

Unfortunately, the CIA does not want the issues within Ukraine solved, doesn’t want Trump and Putin coordinating and certainly doesn’t want Trump and Putin to work out a new strategic global map that does not contain useful conflict.  Again, Israel and the CIA are in alignment.

[It’s a busy kitchen – GO DEEP]

If President Trump builds a new bridge to Putin the bypass will significantly hurt traffic around the restaurant.  The congressional zoning commission (House) is sympathetic to the long-term contract held by the chef, and the Israeli chamber of commerce are paying the county commissioners (senators) ‘indulgency fees’ to maintain the current ingress and egress.

With the January change in shingle, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now the maître d at the front of the house.  Secretary Rubio is not using the menu options created by the kitchen team.  The kitchen is not happy (drones into Moscow). DNI Gabbard in place as the IC hostess, is trying to keep the restaurant operation seamless so the customers generally don’t notice.  Unfortunately, the kitchen isn’t soundproof, and we can hear plates crashing (NYT leaks).

Around the neighborhood, the locals are worried the kitchen staff might start spitting in their food if they are seen enjoying the new service and menu options.  A few of the regulars have told the maître d and hostess about the rumors.  The issue is being discussed as part of a pre-planned remodel.

The interior architect (Trump) and interior designer (Musk) are proposing to remove the walls so the customers can see the kitchen operation as part of a new and modern decor, style and ambiance [transparency].  However, the guys who eat in the kitchen aren’t going to be happy if they are exposed to the riffraff and forced to eat at ordinary tables.

We keep watchin

April 17, 2025 | Sundance

Maria Bartiromo Explains How Trump’s Tariffs Will Fix China’s Cheating


Posted originally on Rumble By Charlie Kirk show on: Apr 16, 2025 at 7:00 pm EST

The Kids are All Right! The New Yale Youth Poll Shows Gen Z’s Dramatic Rightward Shift


Posted originally on Rumble By Charlie Kirk show on: Apr 16, 2025 at 8:00 pm EST

How Trump’s Iran Strategy Rejects War Fever To Put America First


Posted originally on Rumble By Charlie Kirk show on: Apr 16, 2025 at 7:00 pm EST

Can Trump Fire Powell from the Federal Reserve


Posted originally on Apr 17, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

FederalReserve 1

I draw the line with Trump when it comes to the Federal Reserve.

The President nominates the Chair of the Federal Reserve, and the Senate confirms them. The term for the Chair is four years, but they can be reappointed. For example, Jerome Powell was nominated by Trump and then reappointed by Biden. But can a President remove the Chair before their term is up?

The Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve System. Members of the Board of Governors, which includes the Chair and Vice Chair, serve 14-year terms, but the Chair’s term is four years. The key question is can Trump remove Powell? The Act states that a President can remove a Federal Reserve Board member “for cause,” but what does “for cause” mean exactly? That’s a bit vague. It probably means something like misconduct or neglect of duty, not just policy disagreements.

Burns Arthur

There was a case in the past where a President tried to remove a Fed Chair. It was Arthur Burns during the Nixon administration. Nixon wanted Burns to lower interest rates, but Burns resisted. However, Nixon couldn’t fire him because he didn’t have legal grounds. Instead, he might have pressured him in other ways. That example suggests that a President can’t just fire the Fed Chair over policy disputes.

Volcker Rediscovery

Another example is when President Reagan reportedly considered not reappointing Paul Volcker, who was known for tough anti-inflation policies. But Volcker chose not to seek a third term, so Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan instead. This shows that while a President can decide not to reappoint a Chair, they can’t remove them before their term ends without a valid reason.

The law is structured this way to protect the Fed’s independence, which is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to prevent politicians from manipulating interest rates for their political gain. If a President could fire the Chair at will, it would undermine that independence and potentially lead to politically motivated monetary policy, potentially harming the economy in the long run. That would undermine the US Treasury market and the dollar and transform the United States into a banana republic. Therefore, the legal framework requires a high bar for removal, ensuring that the Chair can make decisions based on economic factors rather than political pressure.

The President can’t directly fire the Fed Chair without a valid cause, such as misconduct. The “for cause” provision in the Federal Reserve Act limits the President’s power to remove the Chair. This is intentional to maintain the Fed’s operational independence. However, the President can influence the Fed through appointments when terms expire and through public statements or persuasion, but not by direct removal.

The President of the United States cannot unilaterally fire the Chairman of the Federal Reserve before the end of their term, except under specific legal conditions. Here’s a structured breakdown:

  1. Appointment Process:
    • The Fed Chair is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 4-year term, which is renewable. The Chair also serves as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who have 14-year terms.
  2. Legal Framework:
    • The Federal Reserve Act allows the President to remove a Board member (including the Chair) only “for cause” (e.g., misconduct, neglect of duty). This does not include policy disagreements or political differences.
    • This provision ensures the Fed’s operational independence from short-term political pressures, safeguarding its role in managing monetary policy.
  3. Historical Context:
    • Past presidents (e.g., Nixon with Arthur Burns, Reagan with Paul Volcker) have faced limitations in influencing Fed Chairs. While they could apply political pressure or decline reappointment, outright removal was not legally feasible without just cause.
    • Courts have historically upheld the Fed’s independence, reinforcing that “for cause” requires a high threshold, such as ethical violations or incapacity.
  4. Practical Implications:
    • A President can indirectly influence the Fed by shaping its leadership through appointments (when terms expire) or public persuasion. However, abrupt removal to impose preferred policies would face legal challenges and undermine institutional credibility.

Conclusion

Trump is Looking at this as a Borrower & Not a Lender

The President lacks the authority to dismiss a sitting Fed Chair without demonstrating legitimate cause. This design protects the Federal Reserve’s independence, ensuring monetary policy decisions prioritize economic stability over political agendas. Interest rates decline in recessions and depressions BECAUSE people are not interested in borrowing when the future is uncertain. Rates rise during boom times naturally BECAUSE there is a demand for money.

Supply Demand

Central Banks do NOT control the interest rate – THAT IS ANOTHER MYTH!!!!!!

1927 Secret Banking g4
DowIntRates 1927 1932

There was a G4 in 1927 where Europe convinced the NY Fed to lower rates, hoping to reverse the capital inflows. That failed, and then the Fed started raising rates all the way into 1929, and it had no effect.

PlazaAccord 1

Then there was the 1985 Plaza Accord when James Baker thought that if the five main central banks banded together, they could intervene and control the currency markets. I warned President Reagan that it would result in a crash, which, because of the 1987 Crash, was caused by their currency manipulation.

Louvre Accord Plaza Accord

The dollar had already turned down thanks to market forces. When the Plaza Accord announced that they wanted to lower the dollar by 40%, then the decline in the dollar was becoming critical so then they had the Louvre Accord in February 1987 and declared that the decline in the dollar had been enough. When the dollar continued to decline, the world woke up that the central banks could NOT control the free markets, and that resulted in the 1987 Crash, and foreign capital panicked, selling US assets, fearing another 40% decline.

If Trump gets Congress to remove Powell, then we will see a Financial Panic.

1987 Crash Brady Commission

China Demands Respect & Trump’s Art of the Deal Does not work in Asia


Posted originally on Apr 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Dollar into Yuan

COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong, I understand you would never want to get into politics. I know that you were even asked if you would run for president back in the nineties. I respect your personal desires, and to some extent, I can understand your perspective. But few people have the experience you do globally. It’s not book knowledge. You were even the first American calling in by the Bank of China during a crisis. That was a huge honor.

The fact that you understand the Asian view, unlike the European view, is no small experience. China is willing to agree to trade talks, but it has insisted that President Trump needs to show more respect and even stop the disparaging remarks by members of his cabinet. You should be the one advising Trump on this mess. You even have offices in China, and they respect you. Who better for this job than you?

annonymous

REPLY: I greatly appreciate your clarity. It does seem that nobody on Trump’s team understands Asia. I give you that. But there is also an ego issue on the part of Trump. I’m not entirely sure I would want to step into this food fight. I would consult, but actually stepping into the negotiation, the Democrats would rise up and use it to bash Trump, me, my family, and China. Politics is a horrible profession. I have never had the patience for the disgusting behavior I have witnessed. Once upon a time, I could have intelligent, common-sense discussions with heads of state. I am not sure there is anyone in the West who would even want to listen anymore.