Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

Today’s Red Pill: 1947, Palestinians granted, but rejected independence

Published

on

[AUTHOR’S NOTE: Before reading this article, you should first select a large glass and then fill it – to the rim – with your beverage of choice. Get ready to swallow today’s Red Pill.]

You’ve likely heard of the long sought-after “Two-State Solution” for the area modernity refers to as Palestine, a solution designed to bring peace to the Middle East and end the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Get ready to gulp.

Glug.

Glug.

Glug.

Here’s today’s Red Pill: The Two-State Solution was already passed on November 29, 1947 and was officially begun on May 14, 1948. That’s right, the Arab Palestinians were granted their own independent state.

So… What went wrong?

The “great irony” of the situation, as Alan H. Luxenberg of George Washington University explains, is that [1]:

…the leadership of the Arabs of Palestine consistently rejected the two-state solution in the belief that they could have everything; the result was that they ended up with nothing.  In contrast, the Zionist leadership—perhaps more desperate for a piece of land no matter how small and certainly more pragmatic—was willing to accept very little, and they ended up with nearly everything.


BRIEF RECAP:

In my last Red Pill article, There Never Was a “Palestine,” I presented an historical timeline  of the area – from Ottoman rule through 1947 – disproving the commonly-believed myth that “Palestine” was at some point an autonomous country.

As elucidated in the article’s timeline, while the Jewish Palestinians accepted a plethora of compromises from the ruling British, agreeing to numerous concessions along the way, the Arab Palestinians refused each offer of statehood and each offer of peace.

This pattern has continued to this very day. As Luxenberg explained [2]:

[None of the plans] were entirely unacceptable to the Arab leadership, and they fought a war to exterminate the Jewish state just three years after the German effort to exterminate the Jewish people had come to an end.  After that war, the Israelis ended up with an even higher percentage of the land.

The real stumbling block to the creation of a Palestinian state are Palestinians—Hamas, in particular—who cannot bring themselves to accept a state that doesn’t comprise all of “historic Palestine.”  Tragically, the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas means there will be no two-state solution—and no peace agreement.


1947 UNITED NATION TWO-STATE SOLUTION:

Picking up where the last article’s timeline left off – the year 1947 – the below timeline historically and chronologically illustrates the establishment of two states – one Palestinian Jewish, one Palestinian Arab – between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and the events that led to the Arab’s self-inflicted forfeiture of independent statehood (maps and historical photographs included).

2 April 1947

After continued talks failed to produce any viable solutions, compromises, or agreements, the British referred the “Palestine Problem” to the United Nation [3].

15 May 1947

A special committee was formed to create: the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). Representatives from 11 nations concluded that the only solution to the recurring conflict in Western Palestine would be a two-state solution [4].

16 June – 3 July 1947

UNSCOP members embarked on a tour of the British Mandated area of (Western) Palestine. Committee held 12 public hearings. Committee members were presented with evidence and testimony from Jewish groups and British authorities. The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) boycotted the UNSCOP proceedings and threatened Arab opposition leaders with death should any choose to speak with the committee [5]. Despite the Arab boycott, several Arab officials met secretly with UNSCOP members [6].


11 July 1947

4,515 “Displaced Persons” (survivors of Hitler’s Final Solution), including 655 children, sailed from Europe to the British Mandate aboard the Exodus 1947 ship [7]. Several babies were born during the voyage.

August 1947

Two maps were drawn up and put forth for a vote. See each map and accompanying plan below.
1) The Majority Plan:
“Seven nations – Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay – recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave.” [8]

August 1947

2) The Minority Plan:
“The minority proposed the establishment of a binational federal state.” [9]

8 Sept 1947

“Ultimately, the British take the refugees from the Exodus 1947 to Hamburg, Germany, and forcibly return them to DP camps [Displaced Persons camps]. The fate of the Exodus 1947 dramatized the plight of Holocaust survivors in the DP camps and increased international pressure on Great Britain to allow free Jewish immigration to Palestine,” [10].

29 Nov. 1947

The UNSCOP voted on and passed the majority’s two-state solution for the partition of Western Palestine [11]. (Resolution 181)
The “checkerboard appearance” of the UN’s official partition map “was largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations. This demographic factor insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.” [12]
“These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state’s frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.” [13]
60% of the new Jewish state was comprised of desert lands, “while the Arabs occupied most of the agricultural land” [14].
The British accepted the plan, the Palestinian Jews reluctantly accepted the plan, and the Palestinian Arabs immediately rejected it, vowing to spill blood.

Prior to the UN’s partition vote, the spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee told the UNSCOP that the Arabs were committed to drench “the soil… with the last drop of blood,” were the UN to allow a Jewish state to exist in Palestine [15].

This promise came to fruition immediately following the UNSCOP vote to partition British Palestine.

30 Nov. 1947

Arabs attack:
“Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Hagenah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan,” [16].

 

The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee declared that the Arab world would “fight for every inch” of Palestine [17]. Days later, holy men from Al-Azhar University (Cairo) commanded the Muslim world to engage in a jihad (holy war) against the Jews [18].


THE INVASIONS OF 1948:

“Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine,” [19].

– John Bagot Glubb, The British commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion

Jan. 1948

The first large-scale attacks began. “Approximately 1,000 Arab Muslims attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine” [20].

Feb. 1948

“By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion[21].

Sadly, the United Nations was prevented from upholding its duty to ensure a peaceful transition between British Mandated Palestine and the May 14, 1948, official establishment of two independent states, because both the Arabs and the British never permitted the UN to enter Mandated Palestine [22].

16 Feb. 1948

The Commission on Palestine, reporting to the United Nations Security Council, cast the blame for the increasing violence in Mandated Palestine directly on the Arabs, declaring that “Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein,” [23].

16 Apr. 1948

The Arab representatives proudly and bluntly took full responsibility for the violence in front of the United Nations Security Council, stating, “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight” [24].

26 Apr. 1948

Transjordan’s King Abdullah said, “All our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine” [25].

14 May 1948

The British officially end their Mandate over Western Palestine, in accordance with the UNSCOP resolution, and two independent states were created: one for the Arabs and one for the Jews, with Jerusalem remaining in the position and care of the United Nations.
That same day the independent state of Israel declared its independence [26].
The U.S. President, Harry Truman, officially recognized the state of Israel within the first hour of its birth [27].


A “WAR OF ANNIHILATION”:

“It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades,” [28].

– Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League

14 May 1948

Rather than celebrating the independence of a Arab Palestinian state, the Arabs rejected peace and chose war. The very night the British Mandate over Palestine ended, and the two new, independent Jewish and Arab states were officially born, the armies of five Arab states – Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq – immediately invaded Israel [29]. “Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command. British trained forces from Transjordan eventually intervened in the conflict,” [30]. (See the map of the invasion below.)

15 May 1948

The governments of the Arab League states issued a formal Declaration of Invasion under the auspices of establishing order and democracy, and for the liberation of Palestine [31].

19 May 1948

Jerusalem, which had been designated an independent, international city under the control of the United Nations, is cut off by Arab forces [32].

28 May 1948

The “Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem falls to the Jordanian Arab Legion” [33].

31 May 1948

The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) is formed [34].

15 July 1948

“The initial phase of the fighting ended after the Security Council threatened July 15 to cite the Arab governments for aggression under the Charter. By this time, the Haganah had been renamed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and succeeded in stopping the Arab offensive” [35].


THE LOSS OF AN INDEPENDENT ARAB STATE:

“After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive,” [36].

– The US State Department’s Summary of the Israeli War for Independence

24 Feb. 1949

The Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement was signed [37]. (The Armistice talk had begun back on January 12, 1949.)

23 Mar. 1949

The Israel-Lebanon Armistice Agreement was signed [38].

3 Apr. 1949

The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement was signed [39]. (The Armistice talk had begun back in March of 1949.)

11 May 1949

Israel was admitted to United Nations as 59th member [40].

20 July 1949

The Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement was signed [41]. (The Armistice talk had begun back in April of 1949.)

(See the below map of Israel’s borders following the conclusion of the war.)

In the end, the Arab-Israeli War did not go as the Arabs had anticipated. What was intended to be a “war of annihilation,” ended in a victory of Israel.

Although the war has never officially been ended between the various Arab countries and Israel, “Arab countries signed armistice agreements with Israel. Iraq was the only country that did not sign an agreement with Israel, choosing instead to withdraw its troops and hand over its sector to Jordan’s Arab Legion,” [42].

Egypt gained control of the Gaza Strip, while Transjordan gained control of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As illustrated by the map below, the “Arab war to destroy Israel failed. Indeed, because of their aggression, the Arabs wound up with less territory than they would have had if they had accepted partition,” [43].


Citations (in order of usage):

[1] “The Ironic History of Palestine,” Alan H. Luxenberg, George Washington University, retrieved at: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168

[2] Ibid.

[3] “The Partition Plan: Background and Overview”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-u-n-partition-plan

[4] Ibid.

[5] UNSCOP Report, 1947, retrieved at: http://www.mideastweb.org/unscop1947.htm

[6] Morris, Benny, “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War”

[7] Immigration to Israel: Exodus 1947 Illegal Immigration Ship (July 1947), retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-exodus-1947-quot-illegal-immigration-ship

[8] See [3].

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Timeline of Jewish History: Modern Israel & the Diaspora (1946 – 1949),” Retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-of-modern-israel-1950-1959

[11] “Palestine, Partition and Partition Plans,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestine-partition-and-partition-plans

[12] See [3].

[13] Ibid.

[14] “Myths and Facts,” p. 30, retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=38

[15] J.C. Hurewitz, The Struggle for Palestine, (NY: Facts on File, Inc., 1948), p. 231.

[16] “Milestones: 1945-1952,” The United States Office of the Historian, retrieved at: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

[17] New York Times, (December 1, 1947).

[18] Facts on File, p. 48. See [14].

[19] John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, (London: Staughton and Hodder, 1957), p. 79.

[20] “Israeli War of Independence: Background & Overview (1947 – 1949),” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-israel-war-of-independence

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Security Council Official Records, Special Supplement, (1948), p. 20.

[24] Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19.

[25] Howard Sachar, A History of Israel, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 322.

[26] See [20].

[27] See [10].

[28] “Interview with Abd al-Rahman Azzam Pasha,” Akhbar al-Yom (Egypt), (October 11, 1947); translated by R. Green.

[29] See [20].

[30] See [16].

[31] The Arab League: Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine (May 15, 1948),retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/arab-league-declarationon-the-invasion-of-palestine-may-1948

[32] See [10].

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] See [20].

[36] See [16]

[37] “Israel War of Independence: Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement (February 24, 1949),” retrieved at: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-egypt-armistice-agreement-1949

[38] “Israel War of Independence: Israel-Lebanon Armistice Agreement (March 23, 1949),” retrieved at: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-lebanon-armistice-agreement-1949

[39] “Israel War of Independence: Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (April 3, 1949),” retrieved at: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-jordan-armistice-agreement-1949

[40] See [10].

[41] “Israel War of Independence: Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement (July 20, 1949),” retrieved at: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-syria-armistice-agreement-1949

[42] See [20].

[43] Ibid.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign Affairs

The United Nations only opposes terrorism if it’s not directed towards Israel

Published

on

The United Nations only opposes terrorism if its not directed towards Israel

The hypocrisy and lunacy of the United Nations was made crystal clear today. Despite receiving a majority of votes on a resolution to condemn Hamas for their terrorist and military attacks on Israel, the 2/3 threshold was not met. The resolution will not be adopted.

By doing this, the U.N. has officially accepted terrorism as an acceptable means of dealing with the nation of Israel. Most nations do not agree, but as a governing body they have made their choice. More importantly, we are now aware of which nations support Hamas despite their heinous acts against the Jewish state.

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. laid down the stakes just prior to the vote.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley gave a speech that resonated with enough nations to bring about the simple majority. This is an accomplishment even if the resolution ultimately failed.

My Take

This is a good thing for Israel. One can argue it’s even better than had the resolution passed. United Nations resolutions are about as worthless as a press release. But seeing the United Nations being unwilling as a group to condemn the undisputed terrorist and military activities perpetrated by Hamas against Israel helps take away the governing body’s waning credibility.

We know who is more fair than others towards Israel. The European Union, for example, has been outspoken in their condemnation of many of Israel’s actions. But they voted as a unified block to condemn Hamas. This is a sign of hope that alerts Israel and the United States that the anti-Israel bias at the U.N. isn’t absolute. Some are willing to be at least a little more fair than usual.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Its nature, stated goals, and actions have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact the U.N. will not condemn them after condemning everything Israel does is a clear indicator the organization is corrupt.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

China demands Canada release Huawei executive

Published

on

China demands Canada release Huawei executive

BEIJING (AP) — China on Thursday demanded Canada release a Huawei Technologies executive who was arrested in a case that adds to technology tensions with Washington and threatens to complicate trade talks.

Huawei’s chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, faces possible extradition to the United States, according to Canadian authorities. The Globe and Mail newspaper, citing law enforcement sources, said she is suspected of trying to evade U.S. trade curbs on Iran.

The timing is awkward following the announcement of a U.S.-Chinese cease-fire in a tariff war over Beijing’s technology policy. Meng was detained in Vancouver on Saturday, the day Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met in Argentina and announced their deal.

Stock markets tumbled on the news, fearing renewed U.S.-Chinese tensions that threaten global economic growth. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng lost 2.5 percent and the DAX in Germany sank 1.8 percent.

A Chinese government statement said Meng broke no U.S. or Canadian laws and demanded Canada “immediately correct the mistake” and release her.

Beijing asked Washington and Ottawa to explain the reason for Meng’s arrest, said a foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang. He said arresting her without that violated her human rights.

But the Ministry of Commerce signaled Beijing wants to avoid disrupting progress toward settling a dispute with Washington over technology policy that has led them to raise tariffs on billions of dollars of each other’s goods.

China is confident they can reach a trade deal during the 90 days that Trump agreed to suspend U.S. tariff hikes, said a ministry spokesman, Gao Feng.

Huawei Technologies Ltd., the biggest global supplier of network gear used by phone and internet companies, has been the target of deepening U.S. security concerns. Under Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, Washington has pressured European countries and other allies to limit use of its technology.

The United States sees Huawei and smaller Chinese tech suppliers as possible fronts for spying and as commercial competitors. The Trump administration says they benefit from improper subsidies and market barriers.

Trump’s tariff hikes on Chinese imports stemmed from complaints Beijing steals or pressures foreign companies to hand over technology. But American officials also worry more broadly that Chinese plans for state-led creation of Chinese champions in robotics, artificial intelligence and other fields might erode U.S. industrial leadership.

“The United States is stepping up containment of China in all respects,” said Zhu Feng, an international relations expert at Nanjing University. He said targeting Huawei, one of its most successful companies, “will trigger anti-U.S. sentiment.”

“The incident could turn out to be a breaking point,” Zhu said.

Last month, New Zealand blocked a mobile phone company from using Huawei equipment, saying it posed a “significant network security risk.” The company was banned in August from working on Australia’s fifth-generation network.

On Wednesday, British phone carrier BT said it was removing Huawei equipment from the core of its mobile phone networks. It said Huawei still is a supplier of other equipment and a “valued innovation partner.”

The Wall Street Journal reported this year U.S. authorities are investigating whether Huawei violated sanctions on Iran. The Chinese government appealed to Washington to avoid any steps that might damage business confidence.

Huawei’s biggest Chinese rival, ZTE Corp., was nearly driven out of business this year when Washington barred it from buying U.S. technology over exports to North Korea and Iran. Trump restored access after ZTE agreed to pay a $1 billion fine, replace its executive team and embed a U.S.-chosen compliance team in the company.

Huawei is regarded as far stronger commercially than ZTE. Based in Shenzhen, near Hong Kong, Huawei has the biggest research and development budget of any Chinese company and a vast portfolio of patents, making it less dependent on American suppliers.

Its growing smartphone brand is among the top three global suppliers behind Samsung Electronics and Apple Inc. by number of handsets sold.

Meng was changing flights in Canada when she was detained “on behalf of the United States of America” to face unspecified charges in New York, according to a Huawei statement.

“The company has been provided very little information regarding the charges and is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng,” the statement said.

A U.S. Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

Huawei said it complies with all laws and rules where it operates, including export controls and sanctions of the United Nations, the United States and European Union.

Meng’s arrest also threatened to inflame disagreements over Iran and Trump’s decision to break with other governments and re-impose sanctions over the country’s nuclear development.

Geng, the foreign ministry spokesman, said China objects to unilateral sanctions outside the United Nations. China has said it will continue to do business with Iran despite the possible threat of U.S. penalties.

Meng is a prominent member of China’s business world as deputy chairman of Huawei’s board and the daughter of its founder Ren Zhengfei, a former Chinese military engineer.

Despite that, her arrest is unlikely to derail trade talks, said Willy Lam, a politics specialist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“I think too much is at stake for Xi Jinping. He desperately wants a settlement,” said Lam.

Longer term, however, the case will reinforce official Chinese urgency about developing domestic technology suppliers to reduce reliance on the United States, said Lam.

Trump has “pulled out all the stops” to hamper Chinese ambitions to challenge the United States as a technology leader, Lam said. That includes imposing limits on visas for Chinese students to study science and technology.

“If the Chinese need further convincing, this case would show them beyond doubt Trump’s commitment,” said Lam.

David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador to China, said U.S. and Canadian business executives could face reprisals in China.

“That’s something we should be watching out for. It’s a possibility. China plays rough,” Mulroney said. “It’s a prominent member of their society and it’s a company that really embodies China’s quest for global recognition as a technology power.”

___

Gillies reported from Toronto. AP researcher Yu Bing in Beijing contributed.

Continue Reading

Economy

Conservatives opposed Sanders, Schumer on tariffs for a reason

Published

on

Conservatives opposed Sanders Schumer on tariffs for a reason

Now that President Trump has made tariffs a good thing in the eyes of most Republicans, many conservatives seem to have forgotten why we adamantly opposed them for years. Many have selective memory regarding their opposition to Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders as they pushed for tariffs on China. The reason fiscal conservatives do not support tariffs is because it’s American consumers and businesses who pay for them, not China.

This is a fact. It’s not contested, though it’s conveniently ignored by those who so desperately want President Trump to win they’re unwilling to speak out when his victories align with fiscally irresponsible Democrats.

In June, Schumer said, “I thought what he did on China is right.” Just before that, Sanders said, “I strongly support imposing stiff penalties on countries like China.” It seems the Republican Party has aligned with the backwards economic policies of the left that increase costs to American businesses and consumers simply because Tariff Man said it was going to work. It won’t.

When Chinese companies are forced to pay a tariff to export to the United States, they don’t just take the hit and roll with it. They raise prices to compensate. That means American companies and their consumers are forced to pay more. This isn’t complicated economic math. Conservatives have always opposed tariffs because we realize the benefits are greatly outweighed by the detriments.

Tariffs are a way for the federal government to essentially tax Americans through the increased money they pay to foreign countries for their imports. They sometimes have the benefit of forcing companies to turn away from imports and pay higher prices to domestic sources, which is one of the goals the President has highlighted. But whether these companies are paying higher prices because of the tariffs or higher prices to domestic sources, the end result is American consumers invariably pay more for their products.

Free trade works in this global economy because it minimizes the costs passed through to consumers. We are a consumer-driven nation. Our economy does not thrive through “fair trade” because we are no longer reliant on exports to drive us fiscally. That’s not to say exports are bad. Generally speaking, they’re no longer our forte. Tariffs worked in the first half of the 20th century because the global economy allowed for it. Today, the global economy has producers and consumers. We fall in the latter category, and that’s not a bad thing. It means we need to produce through innovation and expansion, not reliance on exports to keep our economy afloat.

Democrats have perpetuated the false pretense that tariffs still benefit Americans today because it’s an additional source of revenue drawn from American businesses and consumers that does not need to be classified as a tax. However, tariffs act like a tax that’s filtered through other countries. We charge China. China charges American businesses. American businesses charge consumers. In the end, it’s Americans paying more of their hard-earned money that ends up in the federal government’s coffers.

Conservatives need to remember why a majority of Republicans opposed tariffs until three years ago. We need to remember why Schumer and Sanders so adamantly support them. Just because they’re being pushed by Republicans doesn’t mean they’re right.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report