~ Featuring ~  
Trump Is NOT 'Starting 
a Trade War' With China
Mark Alexander  
Who Is to Blame for America’s 
Disturbing Iran Policy?
by George Will } ~ Difficulties with Iran will recur regularly, like the oscillations of a sine wave, and the recent crisis — if such it was, or is — illustrates persistent U.S. intellectual and institutional failures, starting with this... The Trump administration’s assumption, and that of many in Congress, is that if the president wants to wage war against a nation almost the size of Mexico and almost four times larger than Iraq and with 83 million people more than double that of Iraq, there is no constitutional hindrance to him acting unilaterally. In April, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was pressed in a Senate hearing to pledge that the administration would not regard the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against al-Qaeda and other non-state actors responsible for 9/11 as authorization, 18 years later, for war against Iran. Pompeo laconically said he would “prefer to just leave that to lawyers.” Many conservatives who preen as “originalists” when construing all the Constitution’s provisions other than the one pertaining to war powers are unimpressed by the Framers’ intention that Congress should be involved in initiating military force in situations other than repelling sudden attacks. The Economist, which is measured in its judgments and sympathetic to America, tartly referred to the supposed evidence of Iran’s intentions to attack U.S. forces, allies, or “interests” as “suspiciously unspecific.” Such skepticism, foreign and domestic, reflects 16-year-old memories of certitudes about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction: Remember Secretary of State Colin Powell spending days at the CIA receiving assurances about the evidence. There also are concerns about the impetuosity of a commander in chief who vows that military conflict would mean “the official end” of Iran, whatever that means. U.S. policy makes easing economic sanctions against Iran contingent on Iran doing twelve things, most of which e.g., halting development of ballistic missiles, withdrawing from Syria, ending support for allied groups it almost certainly will  not do. This U.S. policy is congruent with U.S. disregard of this truth: Any nation, however prostrate, poor, or ramshackle, that ardently wants nuclear weapons can acquire them. Just four years after Hiroshima, the Soviet Union, which had been laid to waste by World War II, became a nuclear power. China was an impoverished peasant society in 1964 when it detonated a nuclear weapon. Pakistan’s per capita income was $470 in 1998 when it joined the nuclear club. In the more than a decade since North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, U.S. policy has pronounced this “unacceptable.” But U.S. behavior has been to accept it while unfurling the tattered flag of arms control — hoping to talk North Korea into giving up what it has devoted three decades to developing...  
Top Iranian official: Iran will 
'defend against any war efforts'
by Zachary Halaschak } ~ Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Sunday his country would defend itself against any potential war that might arise between the U.S. and Iran... Zarif, speaking in Baghdad alongside Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Hakim, said that Iran would not back down should tensions in the Middle East continue to escalate. “We will defend against any war efforts against Iran, whether it be an economic war or a military one, and we will face these efforts with strength,” Zarif said.There has been an overt “maximum pressure” campaign by the U.S. to target Iran’s finances, including new sweeping sanctions against Iran’s metals industry. The U.S.  deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the Middle East earlier this month. Hakim condemned the pressure campaign against Iran, referring to it as an “economic blockade.” “We are saying very clearly and honestly that we oppose the unilateral actions taken by the United States. We stand with the Islamic Republic of Iran in its position,” Hakim said.This month, Saudi Arabian oil tankers were attacked, with the U.S. placing the blame on Iran. Saudi Arabia is a key U.S. ally in the region and a powerful geopolitical foe of Iran. Also this month, a rocket of the  same model used by Iran detonated outside the U.S. embassy in Iraq Sunday. Trump responded by declaring that a war would be “the official end of Iran.”
Localism still has a heartbeat, even in California
by David Davenport } ~ In a move with national implications, California lawmakers recently stopped Senate Bill 50, which would override local zoning laws to require much higher density in housing... There in the Sacramento wreckage is a microcosm of the political themes and policy playbooks of our time: crisis, emergency, climate change, NIMBY not in my backyard, the demise of local government, the rise of tech companies at the expense of livable cities — you name it. Let me deconstruct the scene for you. California’s housing stock is not keeping up with demand. Experts say the state needs to be building 180,000 units a year, but, for a decade, it has averaged only 80,000 new units. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, says California needs a nearly five-fold increase in home building to keep up, and he intends to lead the charge .In Senate Bill 50 would have increased housing density by requiring cities to permit apartment complexes near rail stations and job centers and to allow two to four homes to be built on lots presently zoned for one. Suburbanites saw their California dreams disappearing along with their front yard lawns and backyard barbecues. Although Democrats hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature, enough Democrats represented those suburban districts to fight the bill off for a year. Unusual as it is for a liberal Democratic policy to die on a suburban hill of local control, there are several important policy stories here. One is the guise of crisis and emergency that seems to be driving our politics and policy everywhere. There was no time to deliberate or compromise; this was a crisis and we needed action now. Everything in Washington is wars and emergencies: We fight a war on poverty, a war on crime, a war on drugs, a war on terror; meanwhile we live under 31 states of national emergency. Some California legislators actually said we need to take more time with this, look for something less extreme, and find a political compromise. Good for them. This battle was also full of the politics of shaming and blaming. Proponents of the bill exposed suburbanites for their selfishness in not wanting housing solutions in their backyard. Meanwhile, these same proponents had their own selfish interests with the bill supported by labor, business, the California Chamber of Commerce, and others who wanted to build more houses and make more money. It’s just that their interests happened to coincide with the crisis of the moment, so they sought to be the good guys and shame the selfish bad guys who liked their local communities as they are. Indeed, the most serious housing shortages in California have been caused by business, namely technology companies that attract workers, paying little or no attention to their housing needs. I am sure homeowners wondered why a lack of planning on the part of technology executives became their crisis...  
Conservative Group Files Suit to Force FEC to 
Rule on Whether scumbag/liar-Clinton Campaign, DNC Broke Law to Get Dossier
by Madison Dibble } ~ The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is facing a lawsuit for its inaction on a complaint filed against scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton‘s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)... The right-leaning Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed a lawsuit — obtained exclusively by IJR — on Wednesday morning in the hopes of getting a ruling that would force the FEC to address the complaint it filed on August 1, 2018. Its original complaint with the FEC requested an investigation into scumbag/liar-Hillary for America — the official name of scumbag/liar-Clinton’s campaign — and the DNC for their role in obtaining and financing the anti-Donald Trump dossier penned by former British spy  Christopher Steele. By law, if the FEC does not rule on a filed complaint within 120 days, the party that filed the complaint has the authority to sue the commission. Almost 300 days have passed since the Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed that original complaint, and nothing has happened. The original FEC complaint alleged that scumbag/liar-Hillary for America and the DNC breached campaign finance law by issuing a false report with the intention of misleading the American people. The complaint notes that campaign expenditure forms show that the DNC and scumbag/liar-Hillary for American paid their mutual legal advisers at Perkins Coie, LLP for “legal services,” but the law firm turned around and paid Fusion GPS for the Steele dossier. The Coolidge Reagan Foundation argues that scumbag/liar-Hillary for America and the DNC used Perkins Coie, LLP as a “strawman” organization to distance themselves from Fusion GPS and Steele and submitted a false FEC complaint in the process...
Pulosi and Dems Have ‘No Proof and No 
Evidence’ of Any ‘Cover-Up’ by Trump
by  Hogan Gidley, the deputy White House press secretary, appeared on Fox News Channel’s “Mediabuzz” with host Howard Kurtz on Sunday... and made very clear why President Donald Trump continues to use Twitter and other methods for getting his thoughts and messages directly to the American people. Gidley also explained why members of the White House staff needed to explain the president’s “behavior” at a recent meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pulosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck scumbag-Schumer, the minority leader: It’s because the mainstream media almost never share an accurate characterization of exactly what was said or of the mood and demeanor of the meetings or of the president himself. That recent meeting continues to be discussed widely as Pulosi and other Democrats toss out allegations of  a “cover-up” by the president.Kurtz asked Gidley if he found it awkward for advisers to need to vouch for the president in regard to his behavior. “Absolutely not,” said Gidley. “We have to vouch for him all the time. It’s amazing how the media covers what he does and what he says in a slant that makes everything negative, no matter how positive the subject matter may be.” Gidley also explained that the president delivered his thoughts and “left the meeting. There was no time limit set beforehand … He walked in and gave a statement to Nancy Pulosi, who just minutes before had accused him of engaging in a cover-up, engaging in a crime with no proof and no evidence, and quite frankly, that’s like Russia collusion — witch hunt hoax 2.0. They did this for two years, where they accused him of colluding with a foreign power with no proof and no evidence. And now they’re saying he’s in a cover-up and they’ve provided no evidence.” “And not one media member,” added Gidley, “has asked Nancy Pulosi two questions: One, what proof do you have for any of this? Where’s the evidence? And second of all, if you have all this proof and all you have all of this evidence, why do you need all these investigations? Just show us the proof and evidence and we’ll get it done today.”...
Trump Is NOT 'Starting a Trade War' With China
Mark Alexander:  The United States has been in a trade “long war” with Red China for some three decades. This war involves an ever-growing trade deficit due to China’s unwillingness to open its markets, as well as its blatant and continual theft of our technology and intellectual property.

To suggest, however, that we’re actually “in” this war is an overstatement. The truth is we have been a cowering target of those attacks — until Donald Trump took command.

For years, American political leaders have been incrementally surrendering to Chinese economic weapons of war — selling out American exceptionalism  and betraying American workers and their families. The result now is a catastrophic example of the “boiled frog” fable, wherein a frog is put into tepid water that is then slowly brought to a boil, with the incremental danger being imperceptible until it’s too late.

A quick review of our disgraceful trade-deficit record with China illuminates how we ended up in this untenable position. In exchange for a market that has for years been flooded with cheap Chinese goods, American politicians have empowered Communist China to become the greatest existential threat to our national security.

Not surprisingly, Trump is the first president with the political courage to fight back, and that fight is long overdue.

As I noted last year, “The day Trump arrived in DC, he dropped a bomb on the status quo in Congress and its special interests. He dropped a bomb on the regulatory behemoths and their bureaucratic bottlenecks. He dropped a bomb on the trade and national security institutions and alliances that failed miserably over the previous eight years. And he dropped a bomb on all the pundits and mainstream media outlets.”

I deliberately mentioned “trade and national security” in the same context for a reason — the two are indelibly linked. (More on that below.)

The Trump administration has been ratcheting up the pressure on China to work toward more balanced trade deals. But because China reneged on terms it had agreed to during earlier negotiations, on 10 May Trump ordered an increase of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports — from 10% to 25%.

Accordingly, the Chinese reciprocated, betting that in two years they’ll have another cupcake in the White House — a president who’ll do what past presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have done: fold. As Trump noted, “The reason for the China pullback and attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to ‘negotiate’ with loose lips-Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to rip-off the United States ($500 Billion a year) for years to come.”

Based on loose lips-Biden’s popularity, his history of pandering to and placating China, and the prospects for what I believe will be a loose lips-Joe Biden/lowlife-Kamala Harris ticket in 2020, Chinese President Xi Jinping is taking decent odds.

China knows loose lips-Biden plays checkers, while Trump is a chess master. Indeed, Robert Gates, who was an scumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips-Biden secretary of defense for three years, says, “I think [loose lips-Biden] has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

The current trade battle will be more arduous than the domestic battles Trump has undertaken to, demonstrably, Make America Great Again.

Of course, our historical resistance to engage and fight China is due to three BIG advantages they enjoy in the conduct of the ongoing trade war.

First, because we hold free elections, the Chinese are able to target their tariff countermeasures to do the most political damage to politicians representing particular economic sectors, like agriculture. At the same time, Communist Chinese leaders face no political recourse  from the Chinese people over the impact of their policy decisions.

Second, because Democrats are trying to undermine  Trump’s economic agenda with their now-unending  threats of impeachment in order to undermine confidence in Trump, inducing an economic recession (and thereby enhance their presidential prospects in 2020), they are also undermining our strength to negotiate trade on a level playing field.

Third, because we have a “free press,” the Red Chinese and Democrats can pursue their strategies with the full aid and comfort of the mainstream media, which is, itself, in relentless open and hostile warfare with Trump and Republicans.

In World War II, the enduring idiom of “loose lips sink ships” was a warning for Americans to avoid careless talk that could be picked up by the enemy and used against us. In the case of our trade war with China, loose Democrat and Leftmedia lips are sinking the prospects of increasing the number of American cargo ships bound for China.

The fact is, this is much more than a tit-for-tat trade war. It is an epic battle over the theft of millions of American jobs, and the theft of war-fighting technology, which poses a much greater cybersecurity threat than any threat posed by Russia.

It is a rapidly emerging battle for the future of American Liberty, and Trump is no longer going to play nice with Chinese leaders or their NoKo nuclear puppet Kim Jong-un, whom they have used as a bargaining subterfuge to contain Trump’s threatened trade sanctions.

And that is why, as noted above, I mentioned “trade and national security” in the same context.

Retired Admiral William McRaven, former head of U.S. Special Operations Command, observed that “Trump does not get enough credit” for his foreign policy decisions. “Engaging with North Korea was the right thing to do. … China has got to be pressured; China has got to be held accountable.”

Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer declared of the latest tariff increase, “We have to be strong with [China]. … We ought to hang tough.”

In 2016, Donald Trump campaigned, in large part, on the need for a long-overdue correction of grossly unbalanced trade practices and agreements, primarily with China. But his concern was clearly as much about national security as it was trade and jobs.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, the fundamental position statement under which American foreign policy is formulated under each president, departed significantly from previous administrations regarding the reliance on declining “liberal alliances” of the past (such as NATO and various trade agreements and treaties). Instead, the Trump NSS relies on what the administration calls “principled realism” in four key policy areas: protecting the homeland; promoting American prosperity; preserving peace through strength; and advancing American influence.

On the first page of the NSS, the administration notes, “Unfair trade practices had weakened our economy and exported our jobs overseas.”

The NSS makes clear that China is a primary challenger to “American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”

It notes further, “For decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others. … Part of China’s military modernization and economic expansion is due to its access to the U.S. innovation economy, including America’s world-class universities. … Today, they are fielding military capabilities designed to deny America access in times of crisis and to contest our ability to operate freely in critical commercial zones during peacetime.”

Fortunately, even some of the most entrenched American scholars on China are awakening to the dangers, and their assessment is in line with the Trump administration’s NSS.

Stanford University’s Hoover Institution convened a distinguished group of China scholars, who issued a report on the current state of affairs with China. James Mulvenon, a renowned expert on Chinese economic espionage, summed up their revised perspective on China: “It speaks to the disillusionment of an entire generation of China specialists who thought they were helping China emerge onto the world stage only to discover that the project had gone badly awry.” Similarly, Winston Lord, Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to China, whose expertise began when he was a key adviser to Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, concluded, “All of us have become more pessimistic about [China’s] trends.”

But their collective assessment will fall on deaf socialist Democrat Party ears if the American people fail to reelect Donald J. Trump.

China isn’t using traditional weapons of war against the United States. It’s using economic weapons of war. But make no mistake: The gross imbalance of U.S. dollars flowing into China right now is being used to acquire, develop, and produce advanced weapons of war. The sole purpose of those weapons is to help secure a future in which China is not just the world’s dominant economic power but its dominant power, period.

Bombs may not be dropping, but we are at war. Just wars have always required economic sacrifice. This war, if we are going to engage, will require economic sacrifice. The question is: Do we have the national will to make the sacrifices now, or, in the name of political expedience, will future generations of Americans be forced to sacrifice much more than curbing the quantity of cheap products?  ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 12


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Michael RamirezPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Trump National Diversity Coalition's Bruce LeVell: President’s Support Among Blacks, Hispanics Will ‘More Than Double’ In 2020

Bruce LeVell, the National Diversity Coalition for Trump executive director, said on Sunday evening he predicts President Donald Trump will win even higher levels of support in the black and Hispanic communities in 2020 than he did in 2016.

“Pastor Darrell Scott is the CEO, we started this back in 2015,” LeVell said on Breitbart News Sunday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel on Sunday evening about the National Diversity Coalition for Trump. “It is the largest diversity coalition platform in history for a Republican candidate, not to mention a sitting president, and there are millions of guests that sign on and sign up that are part of this. If you look on the website, you see African Americans for Trump, Haitian Americans for Trump, Korean Americans for Trump, Chinese Americans for Trump, Hispanic Americans for Trump–all very large. They all stand in one agreement that they believe in this great president and that he is here for all and wants everyone to be successful. It’s pretty flattering, honestly, to be a part of this. It just totally debunks everything that they try to make him out to be–a racist, which he’s not. The numbers prove that he’s not. You can see where he’s rising in terms of the Hispanic vote, and the African American vote. It’s just really going to be mind-boggling on the next go-around. I guarantee it. It’s going to more than double because people are happy; they’re working.”

LeVell, when asked for his rationale on why he thinks Trump’s support in 2020 among blacks and Hispanics will more than double, attributed it to the results President Trump has gotten for those communities.

“Sometimes you have to speak things into existence,” LeVell said. “The president said, ‘What do you have to lose?’ That challenge, especially in the underserved communities, well, yeah, what do we have to lose? We tried it this way for 30 or 40 years. Some of these cities and municipalities were under Democrat rule, as you might say, for many years, and then you say, ‘You know what? Let’s make the ask.’ You know, the president made the ask. Sometimes, you just have to ask, ‘Hey, what do you got to lose? Try this.’ Let’s try one of the biggest, strongest bills that he’s signed, that was so beneficial, called the Opportunity Zones. This bill right here alone is bringing a lifeline to some of these underserved communities and is projected to bring in over hundreds of billions of dollars in these underserved communities, which are predominantly African American communities. For example, in Atlanta, there are minority business contractors teaming up with other business contractors building a hotel in an Opportunity Zone. This community has just been blighted for God knows how long. These are the things that people are starting to see–the light at the end of the tunnel. Here’s a businessman that understands what I call a balance sheet, a P & L sheet of profit and loss. The president wants to see the country profitable, not losses. So that’s what he does. He says, ‘Okay, where can we improve? What can we do?’”

He continued, “Like I said earlier, I think the Opportunity Zones is a sleeper; it has so many moving parts to it where you can sell a piece of property for $2 million and instead of paying that very high capital gains [tax] you can identify those funds over the zone, and then, you can build another little hotel or a shopping center for economic empowerment for that community. So there’s so many initiatives out there for people of color, like myself, who see opportunities. You know, how about this? You live in a black community under the Trump administration, you walk down the street and say, ‘Wow, 98 percent who live in the community are African American,’ and you say, ‘Why don’t you build that grocery store? Why don’t you build that gas station?’ Wow, you’re right. I can. The programs that are out there, like in the Small Business Administration, you get as little as five or ten percent down, and they can maturize it to 30 years, and if you’re a veteran, they waive the fees. There are so many tools out there, and you saw the president when he adjusted Dodd-Frank last year; that was a terrible, terrible deal they did in 2009 and 2010 that literally almost just choked and killed the business community because of the Dodd-Frank, going in there and regulating these small community banks, which were life support for these small communities especially in the African American community, where he readjusted that last year and made it work. These are the things this president understands that as a businessman he can bring his lifelong talents to the White House and can help America. The biggest thing about this is, remember, the president is not beholden to any special interest group; this is a very key part of this conversation right here because he can go in there and govern without having to worry about paying back favors.”

According to NBC News analysis in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, Trump actually outperformed now-Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)–then the former governor of Massachusetts–in the 2012 election when it came to both the black and Hispanic communities.

“Trump claimed 29 percent of the Hispanic vote on Tuesday, compared to Romney’s 27 percent in 2012,” NBC News wrote. “With blacks, exit polls show Trump claimed 8 percent of the vote to the previous Republican nominee’s 6 percent.”

If Trump is able to double support in the black and Hispanic communities in 2020, as LeVell predicts he will, no Democrat will stand even close to a chance of defeating him; the margins they would need for victories in a number of states would be significantly eroded. Perhaps that is why the Democrats are now attempting to paint Trump as a racist amid his battle with the so-called “Squad” of socialist Reps. Alexandria Ocasi0-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). The new faces of the Democrat Party, the “Squad,” in other words, is worried they may lose the election in 2020 if LeVell and other Trump backers are right. But the scurrilous accusations of racism for quick political gains, which have also been leveled at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Joe Biden in recent weeks, LeVell warns, may undermine the ability to stand up to actual racism where it exists.

“At first, it was kind of bizarre,” LeVell, who knows Trump well and has known him prior to his run for president, said of the false racism accusations. “Now, it’s just plainly un-American. It’s so anti-patriotic. You know, the interesting thing about it for me as a black conservative or Republican–I like to define myself as a Frederick Douglass Republican–most of the name-calling comes from people who actually look like me, 90 percent of it. It’s bizarre, and it’s because our thinking process is not lining up with theirs. It’s the only playbook they have, like I said earlier, which is, ‘Let’s just use the race card.’

LeVell went on to say, “Getting back to the president, I’ve been around him–I was just with him at the rally–in very intimate settings, behind the scenes at the rally, and you’re right: I’ve traveled with him, been on the plane with him. I’ve been in private meetings with him. I’ve talked with him, and you know–let me tell you something: I’m 55 years old, I’ve lived my whole life in the South, and I’m world-traveled. Let me tell you: I know racism when I see it. This man is nowhere near being a racist. It’s so sad because it does such a disservice to this great nation that they would throw that name and throw those words around. I mean, you have people calling Biden racist. They’re calling Pelosi racist. They’re calling the dog-catcher racist because he impounded the black dog instead of the white dog. Come on. What’s next? You know, it’s kind of sad because it’s pretty much watered down things that are legitimate, to where people are just going to get so numb with it, and people are just being like, ‘Wow, are you serious?’”

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service