Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn said on Fox Business Friday that Democrats are sinking fast, despite the media’s relentless attacks on President Donald Trump.
A poll says Americans are losing confidence in Trump’s economic leadership as his tariffs and trade policies rattle global markets. During an appearance on “Kudlow,” Penn said his polling shows support for Trump’s immigration policies surging, but only when Trump’s name is removed from the equation.
“I think it’s very interesting when you look at the polls on immigration. If I ask about Trump’s policies without Trump, support is 70% to 80%, OK? So when you put Trump in there, it comes back down to, in my poll, 50% to 55%.” Penn said.
“That means he has room to grow. That means as his presidency rolls out, look, the media is not for him, right? They focus on every single negative thing they possibly can. But underneath, when it comes to immigration, the universities, antisemitism, all of those policies, he has overwhelming support,” Penn added.
Penn also pointed to what he said were self-inflicted wounds by Democrats that caused their approval ratings to crater.
As we approach the 100 day mark of President Donald
The Associated Press
Poll finds Trump’s second term follows Americans’ expectations, but many question his priorities.
“The Democrats have fallen off a cliff. They have gone from ratings in the 40s to the 30s, even the 20s. I’ve never seen such ratings. And so I think he has room to grow. I think, again, you can’t expect miracles in the first month, especially when it’s a polarized country,” Penn said. “The job as president is to bring that polarization down, right? And during an election, you can win with 48. A successful president wants to get 65.”Trump’s overall approval rating hovers around 42%, according to Reuters. That number exceeds former President Joe Biden’s ratings for much of his time in office, and 45% of respondents voiced support for Trump’s immigration agenda.
The vice president told Fox News Digital that he met Pope Francis on Easter Sunday but “didn’t plan to see the Holy Father because he was ill.”
Pope Francis meets with Vice President JD Vance and his delegation during an audience at Casa Santa Marta on April 20, 2025 in Vatican City. (Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images)
“But we were invited to come and visit with him before he went and did his Easter mass appearance,” Vance explained.
“I was one of, if not the very last world leader to actually meet with the pope,” Vance said. “I took one of my relatively junior staffers, who is a devout Catholic, and I looked back at him when he was about to meet the pope, and he was crying—it sort of drives home how important this, not just this man, but this institution is to over a billion people worldwide.”
“There are 1.5 billion practicing Catholics in the world, so that was a very big moment,” Vance said.
Vance told Fox News Digital that he had a “very gracious meeting” with the pope on Easter Sunday.
“The pope was very kind—he was obviously very frail,” Vance said. “We didn’t spend a lot of time together. It was mostly exchanging pleasantries, but he gave a few gifts—he gave my kids Easter baskets, and there was just this very sweet moment.”
During the meeting, the pope gave the Catholic vice president three big chocolate Easter eggs for Vance’s three young children, who did not attend, as well as a Vatican tie and rosaries.
“I definitely cherish it,” Vance said.
Pope Francis meets with Vice President JD Vance and his delegation during an audience at Casa Santa Marta on April 20, 2025 in Vatican City. (Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images)
Following their meeting, the vice president went to Easter Sunday Mass in Rome at the Tomb of St. Paul with his family, before getting on a plane to India.
“I was very excited about that trip—my wife’s parents are from India and I’d never been there,” said Vance. “And about an hour after we landed, a staffer came over and said, ‘Sir, the pope died.’”
“I obviously felt very sad, and my thought went immediately to the pope, but also to all these Catholics who love him,” Vance said.
“But then it kind of hit me—oh my God—I was one of the last people to talk to him,” Vance said. “I just take it as a great honor and a sign from God to remember that you never know when your last day on this Earth is.”
Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.
Differences of opinions have been in the mix for many years. We still respect our past Pope for his and the next Pope’s and the world’s opinions. We all know the U.S. has been the bread basket of the world and has worked with the world to keep PEACE by injecting our country in wars that were not necessary and still are.
President Trump was elected by he Conservatives of the country to bring the country out the abyss of socialism which has been formed by the Democrats starting with Presidents Clinton/Obama/Biden and the One World Order. As the world knows – the country has been going through a house-cleaning with GOGE since the election in 2024 and has found corruption (12 years worth) to the core. At the moment, adjustments are being made and the Democrat Socialists are not happy because they lost their identity as Democrats and therefore have lost their soul. They will not assist in working with the President in the clean-up and have been lost in their own corruption not knowing in which direction to go.
So, criticizing our President is nothing new. He and his family have been put through hell on earth and we ask the world to be more patient in their criticism.
It is confusing to the citizens that the U.S. is being criticized for wanting to build a wall at our southern border; but, it is okay for the Pope’s city to have a wall and that Germany had a wall dividing its own city during the WWII. Excuse my bluntness!
America has always been a generous country to the world and is the world now turning their back on the U.S. because we have to pause and regroup due to the Democrat Socialism corruption and stop being so generous?
Our only hope is that our next Pope will work for peace in the world and be qualified to represent ALL of the people.
Towards the end of his speech, Cardinal Giovanni Re, the dean of the College of Cardinals, said, “Pope Francis incessantly raised his voice, imploring peace and calling for reason and honest negotiation to find possible solutions … ‘Build bridges, not walls,’ was an exhortation he repeated many times.”Related video: Trump and Biden arrive for pope’s funeral (The Associated Press)
The Associated Press
Trump and Biden arrive for pope’s funeral
This echoed Francis’ criticism of Trump’s plans to build a wall on the US-Mexico border during his first term in 2016.
Francis had called those plans “not Christian.”
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel,” the pontiff had said.
During his second term, Trump’s strict border policies and sweeping immigration crackdown compelled the pope to write a letter to U.S. bishops in February, warning that the forceful removal of migrants deprives them of their inherent dignity and “will end badly.”
Furthermore, the Pope stated that deporting migrants “places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.”
Citing the Book of Exodus and Jesus’ own experience, Francis said people have a right to seek shelter and safety in other lands and described the deportation plan as a “major crisis.”
“What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly,” he said.
(That is true as long as you abide by the laws of the U.S. Constitution.)
He made his last public appearance on Easter Sunday, when he stepped out to bless thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square and treat them to a surprise drive through the piazza, drawing loud cheers and applause.
The following is not intended to criticize anyone; but, only for placing more ideas on the table since we all have different experiences with our money.
First, we must understand the rules of the road:
Is President Trump right when he says the US faces unfair trade?
14 February 2025 Share
Ben Chu
Donald Trump has ordered his team to come up with plans to impose a new set of taxes – known as tariffs – on goods coming into the United States.
Trump wants to introduce “reciprocal tariffs” – taxes on imports to the US which are set at a similar rate to taxes other countries put on goods they import from the US.
The president says other countries often have higher tariffs on imports from the US than the other way round and believes America “has been treated unfairly by trading partners, both friend and foe”.
Under the terms of membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), countries are permitted to impose tariffs on imports.
Those tariffs can differ depending on the item being imported.
So, for instance, a nation can impose a 10% levy on rice imports and a 25% tariff on car imports.
But under WTO rules, they are not supposed to discriminate between nations when setting the tariff they charge on a particular imported good.
So Egypt, for example, would not be allowed to impose a 2% tariff on wheat coming from Russia, but a 50% tariff on wheat coming from Ukraine.
This is known as the “Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) principle in international trade: everyone has to be subject to the same tariff by the country imposing the tariff.
There is an exception when two nations sign a free trade agreement between themselves that covers most of their trade. Under these circumstances they can charge no tariffs on goods passing between them but maintain tariffs on goods coming from everywhere else in the world.
What tariffs do countries currently have?
While most countries have a range of tariff rates covering different goods imports, they also report an average external tariff to the WTO, which reflects the overall average tariff rate applied to all imports.
The US had an average external tariff of 3.3% in 2023.
That was slightly lower than the UK’s average tariff of 3.8%.
It was also below the European Union’s average tariff of 5% and China’s average tariff of 7.5%.
America’s average tariff was considerably lower than the average tariff of some of its other trading partners.
For instance, India’s average tariff was 17%, while South Korea’s was 13.4%.
America’s average tariff was lower than Mexico’s (6.8%) and Canada’s (3.8%), though trade agreements between the US and these countries mean that American exports to them are not subject to tariffs. The same is true for South Korea, with which the US has a free trade agreement
But, broadly speaking, it is legitimate for Trump to point out that some countries have a higher average tariff on imports than America’s.
And those tariffs push up the cost of many American exports to those countries, which might be said to disadvantage US exporters relative to exporters in those countries selling into the US.
However, whether this amounts to unfair trade that serves to harm the US is not clear cut.
Most economists judge that the costs of import tariffs are, ultimately, borne by households in the country that imposes them because they can mean that imported goods become more expensive.
This could mean nations with higher average external tariffs than the US would be penalizing their own consumers rather than Americans.
On 10 February, Trump suggested it could mean the US imposing the same average external tariff on imports from each individual nation as those countries impose.
He told reporters: “If they charge us, we charge them. If they’re at 25, we’re at 25. If they’re at 10, we’re at 10.”
This would likely break the MFN rules of the WTO, which require a nation to impose the same tariff on particular goods, regardless of where they came from.
If the US imposed, say, a tariff of 9.4% on all goods coming from Vietnam but 3.8% on all goods coming from the UK (the same as their own average external tariffs) that would be a breach of the rules.
If the US could show the targeted country was already itself breaching the organisation’s rules in some way it might be able to claim that specific retaliatory tariffs against that country are justified under WTO rules.
But simply imposing reciprocal tariffs as a general principle would likely constitute a breach.
What about reciprocal tariffs on individual goods?
Another possibility is that Trump could attempt to match not average national tariff rates, but tariff rates on individual items imposed by different countries.
For example, the EU imposes a 10% tariff on all imported cars from outside the bloc, including from America.
The US might decide to impose a 10% tariff on cars from the EU in order to level the playing field.
However, if it tried to match tariffs on every type of import with every different country this would be an extremely lengthy and complex exercise, given the vast range of goods involved in global trade and the distinct tariff regimes operated by the 166 members of the WTO.
Trump’s official memorandum outlining the policy said the administration’s reciprocal tariffs might also be designed to offset so called “non-tariff barriers” to trade such as other countries’ regulations, domestic subsidies, currency values and Value Added Taxes (VAT).
America does not charge VAT on goods, but most other nations do, including the UK.
This could make the exercise of designing the tariffs even more complex.
While economists agree that domestic regulations and subsidies can constitute important non-tariff barriers to trade, they insist that VAT does not fall into this category because it is levied on all goods sold domestically, and therefore does not lead to any relative cost disadvantage for imports from the US.
If Trump were serious about exactly matching individual tariffs from other nations it could also, in theory, require the US to lower some tariffs, not to raise them.
The US has higher tariffs on certain agricultural products than some of its trading partners.
The US milk tariffs are designed to protect US dairy farmers, including many in the swing state of Wisconsin, and lowering the tariff for milk exporters from New Zealand would likely face political resistance from politicians from that state.
Similarly, a genuinely reciprocal US tariff regime based on individual goods would pose challenges for the US automotive industry.
So a US reciprocal tariff with the EU on imported trucks would, in theory, mean the US lowering its tariff here.
While a reciprocal tariff on EU cars might be welcomed by American automakers, a reciprocal tariff on EU trucks might not be.
However, Trump on Thursday made clear that some of his planned tariffs such as on steel and aluminium would be “over and above” his reciprocal tariffs, suggesting that true reciprocity on trade is not, in fact, his principal objective.
We adhere to strict standards of editorial integrity to help you make decisions with confidence. Some or all links contained within this article are paid links.
President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs have sent shockwaves across the globe, as he attempts to rein in the massive trade deficits the U.S. has with other nations.
While many economists have criticized Trump’s blunt approach — and markets have reacted poorly — the issue he’s targeting is far from trivial. While the president has since gone back and forth on levying the tariffs, legendary investor Warren Buffett has been sounding the alarm on America’s growing trade deficit for decades.
Back in 2003, Buffett wrote a Fortune article with the striking title: “America’s Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling The Nation Out From Under Us. Here’s A Way To Fix The Problem — And We Need To Do It Now.” In it, he issued a stark warning about the long-term risks of persistent trade imbalances.
MSNBC
A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more than it exports. While that might sound harmless, Buffett warned that over time it leads to something far more serious: a steady transfer of national wealth to foreign hands.
To drive the point home, he introduced a parable involving two fictional islands: Thriftville, whose industrious citizens produce more than they consume and export the surplus, and Squanderville, whose inhabitants consume more than they produce, financing their excess consumption by issuing IOUs to Thriftville.
Over time, Thriftville accumulates substantial claims on Squanderville’s future output, leading to a scenario where Squanderville’s citizens must work harder just to repay the debt, effectively becoming economically subservient to Thriftville.
Buffett took the analogy further, warning that Thriftville’s citizens might lose faith in Squanderville’s IOUs.
“Just how good, they ask, are the IOUs of a shiftless island?” Buffett wrote.
“So the Thrifts change strategy: Though they continue to hold some bonds, they sell most of them to Squanderville residents for Squanderbucks and use the proceeds to buy Squanderville land. And eventually the Thrifts own all of Squanderville.”
Buffett’s central concern was that the U.S. was behaving just like Squanderville — consuming far more than it produced, and becoming increasingly indebted to the rest of the world.
He warned that, at the trade deficit level at the time, foreign ownership of U.S. assets would “grow at about $500 billion per year.” As that ownership increases, he cautioned, so too will the net investment income flowing out of the country.
“That will leave us paying ever-increasing dividends and interest to the world rather than being a net receiver of them, as in the past,” he wrote. “We have entered the world of negative compounding — goodbye pleasure, hello pain.”
That was more than two decades ago. But Buffett’s warning still resonates today. By the end of 2024, the U.S. net international investment position had plunged to -$26.2 trillion — meaning foreign investors now own over $26 trillion more in U.S. assets than Americans own abroad.
Buffett’s market-based fix: a ‘tariff called by another name’
Buffett proposed a bold fix: a concept he calls the “Import Certificate” system — a market-based solution to reduce the U.S. trade deficit.
Here’s how it works:
Exporters earn certificates — For every dollar an American company earns by exporting goods or services, it receives an Import Certificate of equal value.
Importers must buy certificates — To bring goods into the U.S., importers must purchase these certificates from exporters.
This effectively limits total imports to the value of exports, achieving trade balance. It also creates a powerful financial incentive to export, since companies can sell their certificates on the open market to importers.
How does Buffett’s idea compare to the sweeping tariffs currently being implemented by Trump?
Buffett himself acknowledged that, “in truth,” his import certificate system is “a tariff called by another name.” But he was quick to note that it avoids the typical pitfalls of traditional tariffs — namely, industry favoritism, geopolitical tension, and the risk of escalating trade wars.
“This is a tariff that retains most free-market virtues, neither protecting specific industries nor punishing specific countries nor encouraging trade wars,” he wrote. “This plan would increase our exports and might well lead to increased overall world trade. And it would balance our books without there being a significant decline in the value of the dollar, which I believe is otherwise almost certain to occur.”
In other words, Buffett’s proposal is designed to nudge markets toward equilibrium — not to punish America’s trading partners.
While Buffett’s solution was never implemented, it’s clear that investors haven’t responded well to Trump’s version. Markets around the world have tumbled in the wake of his tariff announcements, with the sell-off wiping out trillions of dollars in global equity value.
And while headlines are dominated by recession fears and rising geopolitical tensions, Buffett has consistently emphasized one unwavering belief — his confidence in America.
“American business — and consequently a basket of stocks — is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead,” Buffett wrote in his 2016 letter to shareholders.
That same optimism carried through in his 2022 letter:
“I have yet to see a time when it made sense to make a long-term bet against America. And I doubt very much that any reader of this letter will have a different experience in the future.”
When it comes to individual investors, Buffett’s advice is as simple as it is enduring.
“In my view, for most people, the best thing to do is own the S&P 500 index fund,” he famously stated. This straightforward approach gives investors exposure to 500 of America’s largest companies across various industries, providing diversified exposure without the need for constant monitoring or active trading.
The beauty of this approach is its accessibility — anyone, regardless of wealth, can take advantage of it. Even small amounts can grow over time with tools like Acorns — a popular app that automatically invests your spare change.
Signing up for Acorns takes just minutes: simply link your cards, and Acorns will round up each purchase to the nearest dollar, investing the difference — your spare change — into a diversified portfolio. With Acorns, you can invest in an S&P 500 ETF with as little as $5 — and, if you sign up today, Acorns will add a $20 bonus to help you begin your investment journey.
While investing in an index fund is straightforward, some investors may want guidance on building a portfolio tailored to their specific financial goals. That’s where a professional can help.
With Advisor.com, you can find the best advisor for your needs — both in terms of what they can offer your finances, and what they’ll charge to work for you.
Advisor.com is a free service that helps you find a financial advisor who can co-create a plan to reach your financial goals. By matching you with a curated list of the best options for you from their database of thousands, you get a pre-screened financial advisor you can trust.
In Houston, an enclave of 11 homes fully powered by Tesla technology is drawing fervent interest from buyers — all as Elon Musk navigates turbulent waters with ongoing vehicle vandalism.
Demand is unrelenting, with inquiries flooding in from as far afield as Washington State and overseas.
We have honestly had no issues with Trump and Musk backlash. In fact, I had over 150-plus people at my brokers’ open. It was insane, people were very excited,” Jamie Fallon, a Houston-based real estate broker handling the homes’ sales, told Realtor.com. (Musk himself is not involved.)
Nestled in the Oaks of Shady Acres neighborhood, these properties — constructed by Utopia Homes, in partnership with Tesla — boast the company’s solar roof tiles, Powerwall batteries and electric vehicle chargers, offering a lifeline of continuous electricity in a state plagued by power outages due to its independent grid.
“It’s the only community of its kind in North America,” Fallon told The Post. “They created this product because of the loss of power that we continuously have here.”
Elon Musk. Bloomberg via Getty Images
“All of our electrical is above the air. It’s not buried underground. And so when there’s a power storm, it’ll knock out a transformer, it knocks out power lines monthly. And so we continuously have power outages.”
The homes, priced at $524,000 for smaller models and $544,900 for larger ones, far exceed Houston’s median listing price of $365,000.
In Houston, a community of 11 Tesla-powered homes has sparked intense buyer interest despite challenges facing Tesla and its founder, Elon Musk. K2 Imagery
“Houston is an oil and gas place, so having the first Tesla-powered homes is unheard of,” she said.
Only four homes remain unsold, Fallon told The Post.
The homes are equipped with Tesla’s solar roof shingles, Powerwall battery storage and EV chargers. K2 Imagery
These homes ensure uninterrupted power — a critical feature in Texas, which has faced prolonged outages. K2 Imagery
One home currently available spans 1,907 square feet. K2 Imagery
The homes’ energy independence, powered by corrosion-resistant steel solar tiles and backed by Powerwall storage, eliminates electric bills and ensures 24/7 outage protection, according to listing details.
The properties blend cutting-edge sustainability with high-end design.
When Tesla released their solar roof, it peaked consumer interest
Exploring Tesla Solar Roof vs. Solar Panels
Fallon said they wanted to partner with Tesla because they offered “aesthetically pleasing shingles.”
“Tesla is one of the only ones that has actual shingles. So these aren’t the ugly solar panels, the big rectangle square ones, these are true shingles,” Fallon told The Post. “We didn’t want something that looked aesthetically gross.”
Priced at $524,000 and $544,900, well above Houston’s median list price of $365,000, the homes have drawn buyers from near and far. K2 Imagery
The homes feature modern designs with steel solar tiles, floor-to-ceiling windows and premium amenities like Quartz countertops and spa-like bathrooms. K2 Imagery
An available three-bedroom, 1,907-square-foot home features floor-to-ceiling windows, a sleek kitchen with Whirlpool appliances and Quartz countertops — and a spa-inspired primary suite with a soaking tub and an expansive shower.
The listing touts a “private yard, perfect for relaxation or entertaining,” and proximity to local trails and shopping.
Buyers, described by Fallon as “normal, everyday people,” include international prospects eager to secure these innovative dwellings.
“The cooler thing is in those neighborhoods close by, there’s houses that don’t have any of this technology that are around the same price. So why would you purchase one of those [homes] when you can get one of these?” Fallon asked.
A look inside one of the bedrooms. K2 Imagery
A spa-like bathroom seen in one of the homes. K2 Imagery
A balcony. K2 Imagery
“While we are big on oil, gas and generators, now people are seeing that they can have Tesla-powered homes at similar price points. We are not selling sunset; we are selling power,” she told Realtor.com.
The fervor suggests a potential shift in Texas, where Fallon believes such homes could become a blueprint for future development.
“What legislation we have in Washington is going to dictate it, but going toward clean energy is where I think the country is headed. I think there is a mindset shift happening,” she added.
Fallon herself is sold on the technology, planning to install Tesla’s solar shingles — priced between between $50 and $88 per square foot — on her own home.
“The next time I have to replace my roof, I’m putting Tesla shingles. You can’t even tell [what they are], they look so good,” she said.
****
Beautiful.
It is the future of real estate.
I was raised in wide open spaces and have lived in both environments.
The site of grass/wild flowers and the stars at night is a site to see.
MSNBC
kommonsentsjane 