The U.S. on Monday signed two trade deals with Japan that are intended to alleviate the hardships American farmers have encountered since President Trump imposed tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports to certain countries. The first and third largest economies in the world signed the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement and U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement, just days before U.S. trade negotiators are set to meet with senior officials from the globe’s second largest economy, China, in Washington on Thursday. The two somewhat restrained trade deals cut $7.2 billion worth of tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Japanese Ambassador to the U.S. Shinsuke J. Sugiyama signed the agreements at a ceremony at the White House. “This is a huge victory for America’s farmers, ranchers and growers. And that’s very important to me,” Trump said in remarks at the signing ceremony. “From day one my administration has worked tirelessly to achieve a level playing field for the American worker.” American farmers bore the brunt of Trump’s decision to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement in 2017. One of the new deals does away with $4.3 billion in tariffs on American food products including wine, cheese, nuts, berries, and grains as well as $2.9 billion in tariffs on beef and pork products. The other agreement commits Japan and the U.S. to $40 billion worth of digital trade. Republican Senator from Iowa Chuck Grassley called the agreement great news for Iowa farmers and said the new deal “strengthens” the administration’s negotiating position with China, which has battled with the U.S. on trade since Trump took office. Nevertheless, the agreements keep U.S. tariffs on Japanese automobiles at 2.5 percent, in line with what Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Trump promised him, that tariffs on Japan-made cars would not be hiked up. The trade deficit between the U.S. and Japan was $58 billion last year, long a point of contention for Trump.
President Donald Trump, in a late Sunday evening Twitter rant, did what he does and continues to do and with just a few short characters spread over a few short tweets, utterly slammed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff. This is why Trump’s “poll numbers are defying the impeachment mess,” as CNBC recently wrote. He’s the “junkyard dog who digs” out all the dirt on the government, as CNBC’s Jake Novak recently put it. Yep. He’s the guy who doesn’t quit, doesn’t cave, doesn’t back down — and doesn’t sell out the middle-of-America fly-over country citizens to cut lucrative personal-albeit-shady deals with government’s elites. What’s more: He goes on the offensive and attacks when all the cards — all the cowards — say he should retreat. “Nancy Pelosi knew of all of the many Shifty Adam Schiff lies and massive frauds perpetrated upon Congress and the American people, in the form of a fraudulent speech knowingly delivered as a ruthless con, and the illegal meetings with a highly partisan ‘Whistleblower’ & lawyer …,” Trump tweeted. “This makes Nervous Nancy every bit as guilty as Liddle’ Adam Schiff for High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” he said, in a follow-up tweet, “and even Treason. I guess that means that they, along with all of those that evilly ‘Colluded’ with them, must all be immediately Impeached!?” Priceless. Classic Trump. No wonder Sen. Kamala Harris, seeking the high White House office for 2020, wants Twitter executives to boot Trump from the social media platform. She wouldn’t be able to stand his tweeting fire if she were to become the candidate of Democratic Party choice. As it is, Trump took the calls for impeachment those on the left have been railing against him for years — and turned the tables. Flipped the accusations around. Pointed the same fuzzy impeachment finger back at his accusers. Legal? Lawful? Possible under the Constitution to officially impeach Pelosi and Schiff? Well, put it this way: It’s more lawful than going after a president for impeachment when there are no crimes he’s committed that are impeachment-worthy. It’s the messaging that matters. And on that, Trump is aces. He’s taken the cry for impeachment, flipped it around, and slung it right back at his political foes. Let Schiff and Pelosi feel some of the political heat for a while. Let Schiff and Pelosi face the uncomfortable — unAmerican — prospect of proving their own innocence over accusations that aren’t even formally charged. What goes around comes around. Even in politics. Especially with Trump. And for those who’ve still not caught on to the facts: That’s why Trump was elected in the first place.
Agreed.. Thanks to Cheryl Chumley for that spot-on op/ed. Excellent!! 🙂
President Trump on Monday touted a host of new investments in the U.S. worth billions of dollars. One of the investments is a $4 billion joint venture on behalf of Hyundai, Kia and Aptiv to develop autonomous driving technologies, which the president noted would bring a lot of “great jobs” back to America. The companies said last week that the driving platform would be available for robotaxi providers and automotive manufacturers in 2022. Additionally, Trump said Navistar, a leading manufacturer of trucks and buses, would be building a $250 million truck factory in San Antonio, Texas – bringing an additional 600 jobs. Navistar recently announced plans to invest $125 million in the Huntsville, Alabama, engine plant. Trump also mentioned – as previously reported by FOX Business – that tech giant Apple will build its new Mac Pro in Austin, Texas, after it was granted exemptions from tariffs to import parts from China. “The Mac Pro is Apple’s most powerful computer ever and we’re proud to be building it in Austin,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a statement last week. “We thank the administration for their support enabling this opportunity.”
More great news in this Trump economy!! 🙂
He wasn’t supposed to release the transcripts. Or the whistleblower report. He was expected to do what any president would have done – what President Obama always did. Hide the evidence. As House Democrats rolled out their latest meticulously choreographed, perfectly timed, and broadly coordinated attack on President Trump, they weren’t counting on the president’s unprecedented transparency. Nobody releases a transcript of calls between heads of state. But Donald Trump did. In the process, he screwed up the narrative. Again. As scripted, the president was intended to (rightly) claim executive privilege and withhold the written notes of his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. That would allow House Democrats to ramp up speculation about what the president was hiding. If that sounds familiar, it should. It’s the opening move in the same script deployed against Justice Kavanaugh. Democrats would ask for documents they knew were privileged, then Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would send out a tweet asking, “What is he hiding?” when the documents weren’t produced. We saw it again with the Mueller investigation. For example, when Intelligence Committee Democrats wanted to release a memo critical of the president – one which happened to include sensitive national security information – the president had to delay while the memo was redacted. Schumer’s response? A tweet. “Millions of Americans are asking one simple question: what is he hiding?” Nothing, apparently. The president soon cleared the memo for release. Having been on the House Oversight Committee during the duration of the Obama presidency, I can attest that the administration fought every document request every time, releasing only the bare minimum. No excuse was too thin to withhold documents or testimony. In contrast, President Trump did the unthinkable: he actually waived both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege for the Mueller investigation. What other president would allow his general counsel to be interviewed for more than 30 hours? Donald Trump does. He should be winning awards for his openness and transparency. We’ve never seen anything like it before. And it’s messing with the Democrats’ narrative. This time, once again, the script hasn’t gone according to plan. Before Schumer could type his 140 characters to ask what the president was hiding in the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, the transcript and the memo were declassified for all to read. We know what comes next. There will be more whistleblowers with more claims that cannot be definitively verified. They will all be afraid to come out in the open for fear of their lives, or fear of flying, or fear of retaliation. Until the Democrats need to use them and forget them, as they did to Ford’s still-unverified allegations and to Schiff’s now-debunked memo. Americans are not fooled. By now most of us have heard the message loud and clear. Rep. Al Green told us exactly what it was about when he told MSNBC in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” Pelosi reiterated that message during her September 24, 2019 announcement of the impeachment inquiry. Finally acquiescing to the demands of her hyperventilating resistance movement, she explained why impeachment of Trump must proceed: “What’s more serious is that he can’t win. That is very serious to our country.” In 2016, Americans voted for a disruptive, unconventional president who would do things differently than they had ever been done before. That’s exactly what they got. And it’s driving the left nuts.
Agreed!! And well said, Congressman. Former Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is the author of that spot-on op/ed. Mr. Chaffetz was the Chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah. He is the author of “Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic.” 🙂
There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.” Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic Party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen … which is why you could bet the ranch that it would. Plan A was to get Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions. Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump not reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case. Upon becoming President Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton improperly set up a private, non-secure system for email communications. It featured her own personal server, stored in her home and, later, maintained by a private contractor. Secretary Clinton used this private email system for all of her official State Department communications, notwithstanding that doing so (a) violated government regulations (which, as the department head, she was responsible for enforcing); (b) violated governmental record-keeping and record-production obligations imposed by federal law; and (c) made it inevitable — due to the nature of her responsibilities — that streams of classified information would flow through and be stored in the non-secure system. This lack of security meant that top-secret intelligence — some of it classified at the highest levels, some of it involving Clinton’s communications with the president of the United States and other top national-security officials — became accessible to people who were not cleared to see it. Accessible not just to those lacking security clearance but also to hostile actors, including foreign intelligence services and anti-American hackers. When asked, nearly two years after leaving office, to surrender copies of her emails (by an Obama State Department under pressure from congressional investigators and Freedom of Information Act claimants), Clinton caused tens of thousands of her emails to be destroyed. Not just deleted. Destroyed. As in: purged with a special software program (“BleachBit”) designed to shred electronic documents. The aim was to prevent their being recovered. Ever. By anyone. In all, Clinton undertook to destroy over 30,000 emails, even though some of them had been demanded by congressional subpoena. And this would not be a Clinton story if we failed to note that, in the time-honored family tradition, Hillary lied her head off about the substance of the destroyed emails: We were to believe that, in thousands upon thousands of email exchanges, one of the busiest public officials and most obsessively political creatures on the planet had lolled her days away gabbing about yoga routines, family vacations, and her daughter’s wedding. President Obama took care of undermining any prosecution for her mishandling of classified information. He had a deep interest in doing so: He had knowingly communicated with his secretary of state through the private system, and he had misled the public about it — claiming to have learned about Clinton’s private email practices from news reports, like everyone else. All of that could be neatly buried in two steps. First, invoke executive privilege (without calling it that — too Nixonian) to seal the Obama–Clinton emails from public view. Second, ensure that the Clinton-emails case would never be prosecuted: If Clinton was never accused of criminal conduct, then Obama’s role as a minor participant would not become evidence in a criminal case. In April 2016, on national television, the president made clear that he did not believe an indictment should be filed against former Secretary Clinton, who, by then, was the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Obama explained that, in his considered judgment, Clinton meant no harm to national security. Plus, the intelligence involved, though technically categorized as “classified,” was not really, you know, the super-secret stuff — “There’s ‘classified,’” Obama scoffed, “and then there’s classified.” It was a classic Obama straw man. The criminal provisions pertinent to Clinton’s case did not require proof of intent to harm the United States, only that she was trusted with access to intelligence and nevertheless mishandled it, either intentionally or through gross negligence. Moreover, no one was accusing Clinton of trying to damage national security. That is a different, more serious criminal offense that was not on the table. It was as if Obama were claiming that a bank robber was somehow not guilty of the bank robbery because she hadn’t murdered anyone while committing it. There was no way on God’s green earth that the Obama Justice Department was ever going to authorize a prosecution involving conduct that would embarrass the president. Nor was it ever going to indict Obama’s former secretary of state — certainly not after Obama, revered by Democrats and pundits as a first-rate lawyer, had pronounced her not guilty, had provided a legal rationale for exoneration, and had endorsed her as his successor. Wonder of wonders: The “no intent to harm the United States” rationale President Obama had glibly posited in insisting Clinton had done nothing wrong was echoed in the ensuing months by his subordinates. Justice Department officials leaked to their media friends that Clinton was unlikely to be charged because there was scant evidence of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, very shortly after Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s case, FBI director James Comey and his closest advisers began drafting remarks exonerating Mrs. Clinton. Over a dozen critical witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not yet been interviewed. Salient evidence had not yet been examined. No matter. With the end of the story already written, the rest was just details. When Director Comey finally announced that Clinton would not be indicted, his rationalizations were indistinguishable from Obama’s. Thus “exonerated,” the former first lady was on her way to the Oval Office — this time as president. Or so she thought — as did the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, every progressive activist from Boston Harbor to Silicon Valley, and every political pundit from the Beltway to the Upper West Side. Alas, there was just one problem — a problem the president and his myrmidons could not fix for Mrs. Clinton. That problem was Mrs. Clinton. As would have been manifest to less politicized eyes, she was an atrocious candidate. Clinton was the same fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, broadly unpopular candidate she had been in 2008, when she couldn’t convince Democrats to support her. You may recall this as the reason there was a President Barack Obama in the first place. You say, “Hey, wait a second. Donald Trump was fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and broadly unpopular, too.” Maybe so, but if hammering away at an opponent’s malignance is the path to victory, shouldn’t you perhaps nominate a candidate who doesn’t mirror his defects? The only differences between the “It’s My Turn” Senator Hillary! of 2008 and the “Stronger Together” Secretary Clinton who expected a 2016 coronation was that she now had hanging around her neck the Benghazi debacle, a desultory tenure as secretary of state, a shades-of-2008 inability to convince Democrats that she was the preferable candidate (this time, not in comparison to a charismatic young progressive, but to a 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who had joined the Democratic party about five minutes before announcing his presidential aspirations), whispers that her health was deteriorating, and an email scandal that smacked of both national-security recklessness and rules-don’t-apply-to-me arrogance — precisely the kind of controversy that reminded Americans of how exhausting the last scandal-plagued Clinton administration had been. The Obama administration’s exoneration gambit came up snake-eyes because of Clinton herself. Democrats can con themselves (and attempt to con everyone else) into believing that her failure is due to Vladimir Putin’s perfidy or Trump’s demagoguery. In the real world, though, Clinton lost because of her epic shortcomings. That loss made it inevitable that the Obama administration’s exploitation of counterintelligence powers to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign would come to light. That made it imperative to promote the notion that there had been a Trump–Russia scheme worth investigating — a dark cloud of suspicion that would straitjacket and shorten the Trump presidency. The collusion narrative.
..which we now know to be a total hoax; a complete fabrication. Thanks to attorney Andrew C. McCarthy for this outstanding piece. Its an excerpt from his new book: “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig and Election and Destroy a Presidency.’ So, you’ll have to pick up a copy to read the rest of this.. Excellent!!! 🙂
Director and activist Jaco Booyens touted President Trump’s historic work in fighting sex trafficking and defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as “incredible people” who helped keep children safe. Fox News host Mark Levin asked Booyens whether Trump did more to address the issue than other presidents, including former President Barack Obama. “No question,” Booyens responded on “Life, Liberty, and Levin,” airing Sunday. Booyens said that despite all the criticism surrounding ICE, the agency has become a vital partner in combatting sex trafficking. “These are incredible men and women that help us … incredible people who actually go and keep America’s children safe. This president has empowered them to do so,” he told Levin. His movie “8 Days” tells the story of a 15-year-old girl who’s forced into sex trafficking after attending a party with her friends. Booyens said the film is available on Netflix and other places. Booyens claimed that he tried taking his story to CNN and MSNBC but faced “closed doors.” “I say that not to point finger or blame, that’s just a fact. This crime doesn’t ask ‘are you conservative or liberal?'” Levin asked Booyens whether CNN and MSNBC were too focused on their own “ideological agenda” to cover the issue. “You want to believe they’re too busy to pay attention and yes they are because they’re busy with silly stuff — accusing the president,” Booyens responded. He also argued that sex trafficking was rooted in sex addiction fueled by mass media. “It is sex addiction that in its core is fueled … it starts with a pornographic culture, soft porn, it’s the objectification of women — which we as a country have done a great job at completely objectifying women.” Specifically, Booyens said, Hollywood was to blame along with the Internet.
Indeed.. Catch this interview tonight on Fox News if ya can…and tell your friends, especially your liberal, Democrat ones. 🙂
Two Democrats seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination faced sharp criticism on social media Saturday after linking the massacre in El Paso, Texas, to President Trump’s rhetoric. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., one of nearly two-dozen Democrats hoping to block Trump’s bid for a second term in the White House, made her remarks at a labor forum event in Las Vegas. “The individuals who do the shootings are responsible,” Klobuchar said, referring to mass shootings such as the one in El Paso that left 20 dead and 26 injured, “but I do think Trump’s rhetoric has fueled more hate in this country.” Klobuchar also pushed for gun reform legislation on Twitter. “Today innocent people—families—went to that mall in El Paso,” she wrote. “Some of them never came home. The U.S. House has passed common sense gun safety legislation. It is long past time to pass it in the Senate. The question to ask: Whose side are you on? The NRA’s or the people’s.” Former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke also placed some blame on the president for the shooting while speaking in El Paso, which he represented when he was in Congress. “He is a racist, and he stokes racism in this country,” O’Rourke told reporters. “We’ve had a rise in hate crimes every single one of the last three years. During an administration where you’ve had the president call Mexicans rapists and criminals.” The shooting in El Paso occurred at a Walmart store on Saturday afternoon. A suspect was later taken into custody, police said. While some on social media praised the candidates’ comments, others criticized them for politicizing the shooting.
Typical Dem reaction to a shooting.. They blame Trump somehow, and clamor for more useless gun-control legislation that wouldn’t have prevented the shooting in the first place. It’s shameless politicizing of a horrific event for their own self-serving reasons. The good news is that neither of these obnoxious tools will be our next president. They have NO chance of getting the nomination of their party, much less beating Trump. Anyway, for more, click on the text above.