Month: December 2018

President Trump’s ten percent tariffs on imported aluminum have brought the domestic aluminum industry and American jobs roaring back in the economy, new research reveals.

Research by the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) Robert E. Scott finds that since Trump implemented the aluminum import tariffs, primary aluminum producers are on track to create 1,075 American jobs and downstream producers are to create more than 2,000 jobs in the industry.

During years of lawmakers protecting the free trade status quo, between 2010 and 2017, a total of 18 of 23 aluminum smelters in the U.S. were closed, Scott notes. This eliminated 13,000 high-paying jobs in the industry.

By 2016, only three aluminum refineries supplied U.S. smelters. Just a year later, all but one of those aluminum refiners had closed.

This downward trend of the American aluminum industry has started to reverse thanks to tariffs implemented by Trump’s Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March 2018, Scott writes:

U.S. primary aluminum production is projected to increase by 67 percent (500,000 tons per year) between 2017 and the end of 2018. Three smelters are being restarted, and another has announced a capacity expansion. Seven smelters in total will be in operation by the end of 2018. These restart and expansion projects will create over 1,000 new jobs and generate over $100 million in new investment. [Emphasis added]

Since Section 232 tariffs were imposed, 22 new and expansion projects have been announced in downstream aluminum industries producing extruded (rod and bar, pipe and tube, and extruded shapes) and rolled (sheet and plate) products. These new and expanded facilities will employ over 2,000 additional workers, generate $3.3 billion in new investments, and add nearly 1,000,000 tons of annual rolling and extrusion capacity to the downstream, domestic aluminum industry. [Emphasis added]

All of the aluminum industry data is compiled by Scott, here:

In March 2016, New Madrid, Missouri’s Noranda Aluminum plant closed after filing for bankruptcy, putting 900 Americans out of work. Soon after Trump’s aluminum tariffs were announced, a new aluminum smelter was announced, the Magnitude 7 Metals plant. This new smelter, alone, is set to create about 450 American jobs.

Similarly, the aluminum tariffs have produced large gains for American workers in downstream production. For example, in Ashland, Kentucky, a new aluminum mill is set to open by 2020, creating about 600 high-paying American jobs.

The new aluminum mill is a fresh start and much needed for the small community of Ashland. In 2016, during the Obama administration, AK Steel laid off 633 American steelworkers who were forced to claim unemployment.

Scott also calculated the actual jobs gained or lost in the U.S. manufacturing and services industries between February and October 2018, debunking two studies by the pro-free trade Trade Partnership.

For instance, the Trade Partnership studies claimed that 20,000 American manufacturing jobs would be eliminated from the economy due to Trump’s tariffs and trade retaliation. Instead, at least 176,000 American manufacturing jobs have been created since the implementation of the tariffs.

In the services industries, the Trade Partnership studies claimed Trump’s tariffs and the subsequent trade retaliation would eliminate more than 520,000 U.S. jobs. Instead, more than 1.4 million service industry jobs in the U.S. economy have been created since the tariffs were implemented.

Likewise, Trump’s 25 percent tariff on steel imports has been a boon to American steelworkers. As Breitbart News reported, there have been about 11,100 U.S. jobs created due to Trump’s protective tariffs.

On the other hand, there have been about 514 job losses directly tied to the tariffs. There are 20 times as many American jobs that have been created in the last six months thanks to Trump’s tariffs on imported foreign goods than jobs that have been lost.

Free trade between the U.S. and China eliminated at least 3.4 jobs for Americans in all 50 states and every congressional district between 2001 and 2017.

The vast majority of those jobs lost from free trade with China has been in the U.S. manufacturing sector, making up 74.4 percent of all jobs lost and amounting to 2.5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs lost since 2001.

Many House and Senate Democrats voted to fund the same bollard-style fencing constructed by Presidents Bush and Obama that they now oppose under President Trump.

Ahead of a government shutdown, Trump is asking the Republican-controlled Congress for $5 billion in funding — just a fifth of the funding needed — to build what he continues to call a U.S.-Mexico “border wall,” though the barrier is almost identical to the bollard fencing erected by both Bush and Obama.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with their Democrat caucuses in the House and Senate, have objected to funding any barriers resembling a wall along the southern border.

Many of those same Democrats now opposing the funding of border barriers, once supported the use of fencing at the southern border less than a decade ago.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of the same style of bollard fence that Trump is building at the border, was supported by 26 Senate Democrats at the time. In the House, 64 Democrats joined 219 Republican lawmakers to fund the border fencing.

Those Democrats in support of funding the bollard border fencing included:

• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
• Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
• Then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

All 54 Senate Democrats, in 2013, voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.

Though the border legislation never became law, the Democrat-backed plan would have authorized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement “a Southern Border Fencing Strategy to identify where 700 miles of fencing and technology should be deployed along the Southern border.”

As the New York Times has noted in a series of charts, almost 700 miles of barriers have been constructed at the southern border since 2006 with little-to-no objection from elected Democrats.

The Trump administration’s bollard fencing is more than 10 feet higher than those same fences constructed by the Bush and Obama administrations. Since his inauguration, Trump has replaced portions of existing border fences with this new 30-foot high bollard fence.

As these photographs show, the Calexico, California project was completed in October:

This same bollard-style fencing, between 18 to 30 feet high, was used by the Trump administration in June to begin replacing about 14 miles of existing fencing in San Diego, California. Similarly, in El Paso, Texas, the 18-foot bollard fencing is replacing chain link and metal fences.

In Santa Teresa, New Mexico, the Trump administration has constructed the 18 to 30-foot tall bollard fencing to replace existing fencing in the region.

Photographs captured below show the construction underway in April of this year:

The bollard fencing is nearly identical to the border project constructed by Obama and finished by Trump in Sunderland Park, New Mexico, seen here in these photographs:

The Obama bollard fencing was showcased in a short video by PBS called “Obama’s Border Fencing” where a Texas resident living on the border complained that the fencing had been constructed by DHS in her backyard.

Watch the video here to see a clip of the fence:

While House and Senate Democrats say they will risk a government shutdown to not fund border barriers under Trump, illegal immigration to the country has soared to record levels over the past two months.

In November 2018, there were close to 52,000 border crossings on the southern border, alone, marking the highest level of illegal immigration in the month of November since 2006.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

The Ponsonby Central Mall in New Zealand constructed a giant “gender-busting” Santa Claus to greet Christmas shoppers and destroy the innocence of young children.

“Santa Poppins” is not a “nanny,” but a “manny,” and he/she is a fat man with a full beard in a red suit;  only the red suit is the famous coat worn by Mary Poppins. He/she is also holding the famous Mary Poppins’ umbrella and large purse.

Unlike either Santa Claus or Mary Poppins, though, the mall put Santa Poppins in panties and a garter — because, hey, if you are going to destroy the innocence of young children, you might as well go for it.

The mall explains on its Facebook page, Santa “has had many changes over the years but he is always on trend (& a wee bit cheeky!). This year he is Santa Poppins, the ultimate nanny (or should we say ‘manny’).”

Commenters were not happy. Here is a fair sampling:

I am all for equality but did you seriously have to take Santa and turn him into a sexual joke? This is not ok, if you want to role play a dirty Santa fantasy do it in your own home not is a public place where my very innocent children who still believe in Santa will see it. This is not ok.

Why did you sexualise santa?? Why does everything have to be sexualised? Hate it.

The problem with it is that it sexualises Santa – a character which is exclusively for the interest and benefit of children. That’s why it’s so wrong.

Xmas should be kept innocent for the children until they grow up and choose to be trendy adults.

Well, obviously not a place to take your children.

One commenter made an excellent point:

You sure as hell wouldn’t put a women in her underwear like that.

As of this writing, 43 comments were left, fewer than five were complimentary.

Last week a survey showed that 27 percent of Americans was Santa to be female or gender-neutral.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Monday on “Fox & Friends,” House Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) predicted there would not be a government shutdown over the $5 billion border wall funding.

Jordan was asked for a “one-word prediction” on if the government would shut down.

“No,” he replied.

Jordan shared that he thinks there will be enough votes in the House to pass the wall funding.

“This was a central theme, central promise we made the voters in 2016,” Jordan said. “Everyone knows just good common sense we should be able to secure our southern border. We need to stand firm and get that done.”

He added, “Let’s just do what we said. Everyone knows we promised a border security wall to secure our southern border. … Let’s stand with the president to get this done.”

Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent

I’m guessing the TSA guy may have had ulterior motives.

Via Twitchy:

Model Daisy Fuentes Marx questioned why she was allegedly forced to remove her sweater at a security checkpoint while others in line, including a woman in a “full burka or head wrap,” were not:

In responses to various Twitter users, she made clear that it’s not a religious issue for her but one of security where some travelers are exempt from the rules:

Keep reading…

Students at the University of Southern California are demanding the termination of a professor who defended due process rights for those accused of sexual assault.

Earlier this semester, USC Professor James Moore came under fire after he decided to defend due process rights for those accused of sexual assault. Moore sent an email to his academic department, expressing his thoughts about the state of discourse surrounding due process in the context of sexual misconduct allegations. Moore’s email was inspired by the Christine Blasey Ford congressional hearings that were taking place at the time.

“If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now,” Moore wrote in his email.

Dozens of students immediately called for Moore to be terminated. They organized a group protest and called on the administration to take action against Moore.

Moore ultimately caved and apologized to the protesters. In a statement, he reasserted his beliefs about due process after saying that he didn’t intend to hurt students.

“It is never my intention to hurt anyone.  My intention is to protect more students than we currently do from being punished for acts of misconduct they have not committed. Any of us might stand accused of any number of misdeeds, and each of us at that point will want to be treated fairly under due process,” Moore wrote.

The incoming Democrat House majority is readying legislation to criminalize private gun sales.

Ironically, the push comes nearly 227 years to the day after private gun ownership was hedged in by the Founding Fathers via the Second Amendment, which was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Politico reports that Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) is spearheading the current gun control push through “universal background” legislation. Such checks criminalize private gun sales, making it illegal for a neighbor to sell a firearm to his neighbor, a friend to his lifelong friend, and even a father to his son.

Under the Democrats’ plan, a background system like that in California would require a gun seller to seek government permission for any sale or transfer of a firearm. Such a system was put in place in California in the early 1990s and has failed to prevent some of our nation’s most heinous mass public attacks.

Breitbart News’s Joel Pollack observed:

Note that @Politico assumes whatever legislation Democrats propose to control guns will also curb “gun violence.” The reason #2A advocates have objected to past efforts is that there is no cause-and-effect. https://t.co/AE0caCNnkp cc: @BresPolitico, @heatherscope, @lbarronlopez

— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) December 17, 2018

Nevertheless, Thompson expects to push his gun control bill within “the first 100 days” of the new Congress.

Incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has already assured his colleagues that he will move the bill “very quickly” once it is introduced.

The criminalization of private gun sales would not have stopped a single 21st century mass shooting, as nearly every mass shooter bought his firearms at retail via a background check. The exceptions to this norm are the two or three mass shooters who stole their guns.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.