It was originally reported on April 30th, 2018, that Kim Jong-un had moved three U.S. nationals (w/ South Korean ancestry) from labor camps to Pyongyang where they were undergoing medical treatment, rehabilitation and rest in advance of a plan to be released.
Those initial reports are now being confirmed by alternate media sources. The original report from inside the DPRK stated they were “reportedly being prepared to be released to US authorities either prior to or on the day of the US-North Korea summit”; and the captives were being debriefed (“coached” or “indoctrinated”) to tell authorities their human rights were not violated during their stay in the DPRK.
(left to right) Kim Dong Chul, Kim Sang Duk, Kim Hak Soon
Kim Dong Chul, Kim Sang Duk, Kim Hak Soon are the names of the three hostages being released. Two of the captives, Hak-Soon and Sang Duk, belong to the Pyongyang Univ of Science & Technology and were taken in in Apr & May 2017: they’ve been held for a year. The third, Kim Dong Chul, is an ordained minister taken in 2015 when he was commuting to Rason from China and and has been serving a 10-year sentence on espionage charges.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo specifically requested their release while visiting Pyongyang on Easter weekend. The three are US citizens with Korean heritage. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Fox News Sunday that North Korea could show its sincerity by releasing US hostages prior to the summit.
In March of this year Sweden was initially playing a large role and helping negotiate the terms of the North-South Korea summit as well as the release of three Americans held captive in North Korea.
“We believe that Mr. Trump can take them back on the day of the U.S.-North Korea summit, or he can send an envoy to take them back to the U.S. before the summit,” said Choi Sung-ryong, an activist pursuing release of North Korea’s political prisoners.
Yesterday Texas and six other states filed a lawsuit against the the Trump administration over the Presidents’ failure to terminate DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals); an Obama-era program created through ‘executive action’ that allowed work permits and legal status for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Brownsville on Tuesday; asking the court to rule on whether President Obama’s 2012 decision to grant deportation protections and two-year work authorizations to young undocumented immigrants — without congressional approval — was lawful.
A similar program in 2014 known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) was ruled unconstitutional in 2016. However, the first executive action, ‘the DACA policy’, has never been challenged in court.
Today, a judge was assigned by random draw for the DACA case, and universal karma has come full circle with the outcome. Federal Judge Andrew Hanen was drawn as the presiding judge for the DACA challenge.
It cannot be overstated how significantly damaging that judicial draw is to the activist groups who are trying to support the Obama Executive Action. Judge Andrew Hanen was the original judge on the 2015 DAPA challenge.
Not only was Andrew Hanen the federal judge in the prior DAPA challenge, but Hanen was specifically furious at the gross misconduct by the Obama DOJ during the prior legal proceedings. Hanen wasn’t a little bit angry at the DOJ, he was FURIOUS (see here).
During the 2015/2016 DAPA proceedings, the DOJ lied -numerous times- to Hanen’s court; and at the conclusion of the SCOTUS ruling (supporting the Hanen rulings), Judge Hanen demanded that all of the DOJ lawyers attend ethics classes – and lambasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch for allowing such gross ethical misconduct.
Additionally, Judge Hanen is an incredibly brilliant judge when it comes to writing opinions that cannot be rebuked by appellate courts or even SCOTUS. In the 2015 DAPA case Hanen specifically waited to see how a Mississippi appeals court ruled on a tangential aspect to his case before writing his ruling. As a result the 5th CCA could not overrule his decision. –BACKSTORY HERE–
Texas -vs- DACA drawing Judge Hanen also means the immigration activists in congress will now have to work on legislating a solution. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer scored a big loss today:
WASHINGTON – Texas has already caught its first break in its new lawsuit to stop the Obama-era DACA program, after the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen.
A Republican appointee to the bench, Judge Hanen has already ruled against a similar deportation amnesty in 2015. And during that case he expressed skepticism about DACA itself, saying it seemed to stray beyond the bounds of discretion then-President Obama had claimed in setting up the program.
Judge Hanen, whose courtroom is in southern Texas, was one of the first to spot to surge of illegal immigrant children headed to the border in 2013 — a surge which crested in 2014 with the UAC wave that overwhelmed the Obama administration, and whose repercussions are still being felt today with the latest caravan of illegal immigrants.
He will now oversee the latest in an ever-expanding and complicated legal battle over DACA, which Mr. Obama created in 2012 to grant tentative legal status to illegal immigrant “Dreamers.” DACA was controversial from the start, and President Trump attempted to phase it out. (read more)
QUESTION: You ignore that Trump will create a deficit of a trillion in one year with his tax cuts for the rich. What do you have to say about that one!
HT
ANSWER: So what? Obviously, you probably are a CNN watcher. They never said anything about Obama who created the first trillion deficit and maintained that throughout his presidency between 2009 to 2012. What does it matter? Nobody ever intends to pay it back. Just in case you just noticed, that is the least of our problems. Try talking about the Pension Fund Crisis that will hit all the people directly. The Trump deficit will put money back into the economy directly whereas the Obama deficits were never something that actually stimulated the people directly. It was like Quantitative Easing – welfare for the bankers, not the people.
Ambassador Lighthizer comments on NAFTA prior to departing for China. In the auto sector, Mexico and Canada are still arguing for more Asian/Chinese parts for U.S. automobiles. The U.S. position is for higher North American content. Loggerheads.
I still find it stunning how many people cannot see the ridiculous side of the Mexican and Canadian position; and how that showcases the insanity of NAFTA. Can/Mex are not arguing for more Canada and Mexico content, they are holding out for more Asian content. Their economic models are nothing more than brokering the assembly of cheap Asian goods through their NAFTA access to the U.S. market. Ridiculous.
WASHINGTON/MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said on Tuesday that if a deal to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement cannot be reached with Canada and Mexico in about three weeks, its approval by the U.S. Congress could be in jeopardy.
Lighthizer said at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event that a deal to update NAFTA was needed quickly because of the lengthy notification process for congressional approval of trade deals.
If a deal takes too long, he said approval by the current Republican-controlled Congress may be on “thin ice” without sufficient time for a vote before November elections put a new Congress in control in January 2019.
Lighthizer is traveling to Beijing for trade talks with Chinese officials on Thursday and Friday, but will resume intensive negotiations with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo on May 7.
“We’re going to meet again on Monday, and we’ll see,” Lighthizer said. “If we can get a good agreement, I’d like to get it done a week or two after that. If not, then you start having a problem.” (read more)
Regarding China, Lighthizer expanded his comments drawing attention to the inherent differences between a communist “controlled” state policies, and the free market:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief trade negotiator said on Tuesday he was not looking to negotiate changes to China’s state-driven economic system in trade talks in Beijing this week but would seek to expose it to more foreign competition.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he viewed the talks with top Chinese officials on Thursday and Friday as the start of a long learning process for Washington and Beijing to better manage their trade differences.
“It is not my objective to change the Chinese system,” Lighthizer said. “It seems to work for them. … But I have to be in a position where the United States can deal with it, where the United States isn’t the victim of it; and that’s where our role is.”
Lighthizer will be part of a Trump administration delegation that includes U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House trade and manufacturing adviser Peter Navarro and new White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow.
Ross said earlier on Tuesday that Trump was prepared to levy tariffs on China if the delegation did not reach a negotiated settlement to reduce trade imbalances.
Speaking to CNBC television before traveling to China for the talks, Ross said he had “some hope” agreements could be reached to resolve the trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies.
But Ross and Navarro, who spoke to steel company executives in Washington on Tuesday, both said any final decision would be made by Trump. (read more)
I have warned that one of the clever ways taxes are raised is by changing the definition of the rich. We can see that when FDR came into office, the definition of the rich became $5 million because he was planning to introduce the payroll tax and everyone had to pay. That was a lot of money when a Cadaliac cost $600. After the war, the definition dropped dramatically. Then we see in the ’90s, the definition was raised to $250,000.
However, this is called “household” income. They have already begun to apply this to people with disability. If a parent is disabled and is living with a child, the government wants to reduce the social security benefit because the “household” income is too high, So in a clever way, the government is denying you social security benefits if your combined income with you children exceeds their threshold.
The talk behind the curtain is that since children over 30 are living with their parents, the “household” income should now include all children living with their parents. Of course, they fail to see that they are creating a crisis by forcing children out the door who cannot afford an apartment by sending their parent tax rate higher. They never consider the social impact of taxation.
For the Health Insurance Marketplace, a household usually includes the tax filer, their spouse if they have one, and their tax dependents who are children they claim. Under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), they have adopted this new definition of household income called Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). The government is defining households and income for the purposes of determining eligibility for benefits based on everyone in the house.
If you got divorced on December 31st, the tax code will be applied to a single person at a higher rate for the entire year. If you claim Head of Household as an unmarried person for tax purposes, the qualifying person is limited to your son or daughter or eligible foster child – not even your parents.
Beware of applying the definition of “household” income to the income tax. That is clearly another thing on the Democrat’s wish list.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I was discussing the history of money with a professor at our university where they have a display of coins. I asked why were there no Egyptian coins. He referred me to your site and said that you are the expert in the world monetary system. I read your piece on the Egyptian debenmonetary system. The Egyptians began with a representative money rather than coins. Is this the oldest civilization with pyramids and paper money?
JY
ANSWER: From a monetary perspective, the Egyptian monetary system is by far the first representative form of money. In other words, they used a derivative of paper money proving that money also need not be tangible as has been the case in modern times. The central element of any monetary system hinges upon whatever the people “believe” has value. In Egypt, gold was seen as the tears of god and was reserved EXCLUSIVELY for royalty. Gold did not serve as any sort of medium of exchange until about 700 BC. Why? For anything to serve as the medium of exchange it must exist in sufficient quantity. As long as gold was rare, it was exclusively the property of kings and represented a luxury with no PRACTICAL value whatsoever.
Egypt’s monetary system began with barter. It was primarily based on agriculture – grain. This evolved into official Graineries and a farmer would then take his crop to the Grainery and receive a receipt. With time, the monetary system evolved where people would then accept these receipts (paper money) in payment.
The huge difference between Egypt and Mesopotamia can be seen through the monetary system. The earliest use of metal appears to be in Mesopotamia cast in the form of silver rings. In ancient Egypt, silver was probably more expensive than gold which was rather common after the exploitation of the Numbian mines. Evidence supporting this idea comes from a New Kingdom Period wall painting depicting a man weighing big gold rings which were discovered in Thebes. This is the Deben Monetary System.
Eventually, gold rings became customary to carry out trade with the outside world. So we tend to find the beginning of a two-tier monetary system using grain receipts for local small transactions and gold rings for international payments of a higher monetary value. We see this type of two-tier monetary system throughout the ancient world right into modern times. Ancient Athenian Decadrachms are traditionally discovered around the Mediterranean seaport rather than in Greece reflecting they were high denominations used in international trade. Bretton Woods used gold dor international payments and paper money for domestic US transactions when gold was illegal for citizens to possess. The two-tier monetary system lasted in modern times up until August 1971.
To make trade between Phoenicia and Mesopotamia easier they created a system that could have been based on the traditional Egyptian measurement known as deben that was equal to about 86 grams, which would exchange for 12 shekels used by Babylon and Phoenicia of about 7.2 grams per unit. Pictured here is a dishekel of the Phoenician city of Tyre, which is believed to be the earliest known coin circa 450-425BC. The date of the first Phoenician coins is uncertain. The earliest date generally accepted by scholars is about 450 BC and initially, the coins were all silver with weights based on variations of the Babylonian shekel of 7.2 grams. The most interesting aspect is that Phoenicia possessed no precious metal mines. The source of their silver came from trade with distant mines in Spain and possibly Sardinia. The motif is that of a dolphin riding the waves and the reverse with the wisdom of the owl.
Now, just to address your comment that Egypt has the oldest pyramids, that is an incorrect statement. Caral has the distinction of being the oldest known city in the Americas and one of the oldest in the world. In fact, the Caral Pyramids were built approximately 5,000 years ago and they are actually OLDER than the Egyptian pyramids by around 100 years. They predate the Inca Pyramids by some 4000 years. Like other pyramids in history, the Caral pyramids are believed to have religious significance. There are six total pyramids.
The Norte Chico civilization flourished between the 4th and 2nd centuries BC. It appears to have been simply a barter civilization, yet there are many mysteries yet to be solved. For instance, there remain some very curious questions unanswered such as why are there no surviving evidence of ceramics? They appear to have used gourds instead of ceramics. Gourds may be good for storage and drinking or eating, but would not function as pots for cooking. There appears to also be missing any evidence of agriculture so it is possible they never eat bread. We do know that they used blue whale vertebrae as stools suggesting that they lived off the sea. It is entirely possible that they eat fish raw like the Japanese.
On some of the gourds, figures have been discovered which may represent a deity. Very few have survived but they may represent some form of a god reflecting a religious belief system that appears to be common to all civilizations. There is also no sign of significant surviving art perhaps because they were made from organic material, which did not survive.
In many regards the transfer of the CIA Director to the Position of Secretary of State is a natural continuum. Most career foreign office CIA operatives work under the auspices of being State Department personnel. The CIA and State Department are inherently connected.
[A familiar reference would be, the synergy of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton during their Libya and Syria operations in 2010, 2011, 2012.]
Today Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrives at Foggy Bottom (State HQ) in Washington DC to meet the diplomatic corps. He delivered introductory remarks:
.
[Transcript] DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being here. It’s a great honor to be here to introduce our new Secretary of State. Before I do so, I wanted to thank all of you, each and every one of you, for your hard work over the last six weeks. The pace of world events doesn’t pause to allow the United States Government to change from one secretary of state to another, but it’s because of your dedication and professionalism that this department has continued to meet its mission for the American people. So thank you to all of you for all you’ve done the last six weeks. (Applause.)
And now it’s my great honor to introduce our new Secretary. You all know his bio; he’s a former three-term member of Congress, former-now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
I offer my own perspective as somebody who comes from the private practice of law; in looking at his bio, I looked at it through the lens of a former law firm partner, and I imagined how I would assess his bio if I were looking at our opposing counsel, and I had to advise my client on who we were going to be dealing with. And what stood out to me was we have a tank commander who then went to Harvard Law School and was elected to the Harvard Law Review, which is a pretty unusual combination.
So if I were advising my client about who we were going to be dealing with on the other side of the table if we’re in negotiation, or if it were in a court room, I’d say, “Wow. Well, ma’am, we’re dealing with a cross between George Patton and Oliver Wendell Holmes.” (Laughter.)
So that’s a pretty tough combination to face as an opponent, but the good news for us is he’s coming here to lead our team. It’s the adversaries of the United States who are going to be facing that formidable opponent across the table.
So without further ado, I’ll turn over the microphone to the 70th Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. (Applause and cheers.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for those most gracious words, John. And thank you for your service and standing in the gap. You’ve done a remarkable job; the whole team has. I’ve had the chance to work alongside you as the CIA director when you were the acting secretary, and you have done this organization incredibly proud. America should be proud of you, and thank you for this amazing work. (Applause and cheers.)
So I think I have the record for the longest trip to the first day of work. (Laughter.) And I am humbled to be here. I tried to prepare myself for this moment, but to stand here and look at the most important diplomatic corps in the world is enormously humbling to me. I talked in my hearing about the fact that this nation is so exceptional and so incredibly blessed. And the facts that derive from that are that it also creates a responsibility, a duty for America all across the world. And I know for certain that America can’t execute that duty, can’t achieve its objectives absent you all, absent executing America’s foreign policy in every corner of the world with incredible vigor and incredible energy. And I am looking forward to helping you all achieve that. (Applause.)
My remarks today will be relatively brief. Tomorrow the President will be here to do my official swearing-in. I think much of the cabinet will be here as well. It’s an important day for the President’s first trip to this important place, and I’m looking forward to being there with many of you and having the honor to have the President of the United States do my formal swearing-in.
I then will, sometime either later this week or beginning of next, do more to develop my commander’s intent, what it is I hope to achieve with your help. I’ll speak to the entire work force, I’ll lay out for you my expectations and my hopes, and most importantly, share with you my leadership style. And this is very different. Like, one of the first rules is don’t talk down to people, right? (Laughter.) So I’ll speak to you all right up here, exactly.
But alongside that is that I feel like I know you. I’ve worked alongside you as a member of Congress when I traveled. I’ve had the chance to watch when I was traveling around the world and I would go into an embassy and I’d arrive late at night and there were the folks in the political section or the economic section toiling, doing great work on behalf of America.
So I have a great deal to learn about the State Department and how we perform our mission, but as people, I’m confident that I know who you are. I know that you came here. You chose to be a Foreign Service officer or a civil servant or to come work here in many other capacities and to do so because you’re patriots and great Americans and because you want to be an important part of America’s face to the world. My mission will be to lead you and allow you to do that, the very thing you came here to do. (Applause.)
I will get to as many parts of this organization as I can. I said in my testimony that I’ll spend as little time on the seventh floor – I think it’s the seventh floor, right? Yeah. (Laughter.) I’ll go up there in a minute. I’ll be – I’ll travel. I’m going to get out to USAID as quickly as I can to see their important part of our mission as well. I know that every task, every endeavor that each of you undertakes is a critical part of achieving that ultimate objective, which is to deliver President Trump and America’s foreign policy around the world, to be the diplomatic face that achieves the outcomes that America so desperately needs to achieve in the world.
I’ve told this story a couple of times, but it’s worth repeating: The best lesson I ever got was from a fellow named Sgt. 1st Class Petry. He was the first platoon sergeant in my first tank platoon when I was 22 or 23 years old. And I arrived there and he, when I hopped out of the jeep, he said, “Lieutenant, you’ll do well to just shut up for a while.” (Laughter.) And he – and actually, I think he meant that, but – (laughter) – but what I took him to be saying was that it’s important that we listen and learn, and I know that I have an enormous amount to listen to you about and to learn from you. I talked about getting back our swagger, and I’ll fill in what I mean by that, but it’s important. The United States diplomatic corps needs to be in every corner, every stretch of the world, executing missions on behalf of this country, and it is my humble, noble undertaking to help you achieve that.
So I look forward – (applause) – thank you. (Applause.) I look forward to meeting just as many of you as I can get a chance to do, to learning from just as many of you as I can, and to leading that team onto the field. I know that we will deliver for this President and for this country. Thank you. May the Good Lord bless each of you. I’ll see you all around the building. Thanks. (Applause.)
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte sends a letter (full pdf below) to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting an investigative review of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the potential interference/influence by Principal Asst. Deputy Attorney General (PADAG) Matthew Axelrod.
In the letter Chairman Goodlatte references the previous Inspector General report which outlined an October 26th, 2016, conversation between Main Justice and the FBI about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. The concern is undue influence by the DOJ over the investigation; potentially leading to a compromise of the investigation itself.
McCabe–PADAG Call on the CF Investigation (August 12)
McCabe told the OIG that on August 12, 2016, he received a telephone call from PADAG regarding the FBI’s handling of the CF Investigation (the “PADAG call”). McCabe said that PADAG expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the CF Investigation during the presidential campaign.
According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking “are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe told us that the conversation was “very dramatic” and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level Department official in his entire FBI career.
From the OIG report: 4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)
McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.
On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”
According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.
Stuff just got seriously elevated. Main Justice is making inquires, Attorney General Loretta Lynch is making inquiries, and now James Comey has to be brought into the loop. How does McCabe explain the call from Main Justice, and Loretta Lynch, to his boss, James Comey?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has requested another delay in the sentencing of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, citing the status of the special counsel’s investigation.
WASHINGTON DC – Lawyers for both special counsel Robert Mueller and President Trump’s former national security adviser want two more months until Michael Flynn is sentenced.
In a court filing in Washington on Tuesday afternoon, Mueller’s office asks for a postponement “due to the status of the special counsel’s investigation.”
Lawyers for Flynn — who pleaded guilty in November to lying to the FBI about conversations with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016 — agreed. (read more)
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross discusses the ongoing trade initiatives with China ahead of the U.S. delegation departing later tonight. Secretary Ross, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, U.S. Trade Representative/Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow and White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro are all heading to Beijing to meet with their Chinese counterparts.
Secretary Ross is like the Babe Ruth of trade-baseball. Wilburine has a way of taking complex issues pitched to him, and knocking them out of the ballpark with an extremely fast common sense bat. He makes it look effortless. Watch:
.
Two quick thoughts. First, I think this is the first time every member of Team America (Ross, Mnuchin, Lighthizer, Kudlow, Navarro) has unified into one specific set of trade negotiations. That helps understand the scale of importance of the China trade relationship.
Second, there’s no traveling parallel contingent consisting of outside government members/advisers from of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is a significant change from the past 30 years of Wall Street policy manipulation by the CoC. Many people may not be aware but until President Trump the U.S. government didn’t actually write the trade agreements.
For all prior administrations the actual negotiations and agreements were willingly sub-contracted out to U.S. Chamber of Commerce delegations. This is how the multinationals took control of trade policy and eventually the U.S. economy. CoC President Tom Donohue must be apoplectic now that he is facing an administration actually writing the trade agreements.
I cannot emphasize enough how much of a paradigm shift the President Trump trade approach is. When you understand what was taking place before, you can see why those interests are frothing-at-the-mouth angry about team Trump.
There are trillions at stake.
Previous administrations allowed BIG LABOR and BIG BUSINESS to write all the agreements and rules. In their backrooms they worked out the details. Policy was willingly handed over to corrupt Wall Street interests and corrupt Labor Union leadership.
A recent point of reference was within the Obama administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote the actual verbiage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP agreement. Obviously the beneficiaries were those who the U.S. CoC supported; ie. Wall Street multinational corporations. In return those multinationals give the U.S. CoC hundreds of millions in contributions (payoffs for policy).
In exchange for control over the trade policy, the U.S. CoC pay the politicians. This is why the U.S. CoC is the biggest lobbyist (by far) in Washington DC. In essence, for three decades all prior administrations were allowing Wall Street to write the trade agreements.
Now think about that.
In essence, by giving up control over our nation’s trade agreements, all previous administrations were giving away control over the U.S. economy to multinational corporations.
Understanding this former dynamic, is it a surprise why the middle-class was destroyed and Wall Street benefited?
Remember, there are TRILLIONS at stake.
President Trump took the atomic sledgehammer to this process and said NO MORE!
President Trump put the U.S. trade team together that actually makes the deals now. And those deals are independent of consideration for the corporate needs of any individual players, or groups of players, on Wall Street.
Ross, Mnuchin and Lighthizer et al, are only looking out for the U.S. best interests. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been cut out completely; and as a direct consequence Wall Street -and by extension their multinational corporations- no longer has any influence on U.S. trade agreements.
This is a massive economic paradigm shift that most people don’t comprehend.
Understand this dynamic and you understand the opposition to Trump.
Remember, all U.S. media are multinational corporations.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
ANSWER: From a monetary perspective, the Egyptian monetary system is by far the first representative form of money. In other words, they used a derivative of paper money proving that money also need not be tangible as has been the case in modern times. The central element of any monetary system hinges upon whatever the people “believe” has value. In Egypt, gold was seen as the tears of god and was reserved EXCLUSIVELY for royalty. Gold did not serve as any sort of medium of exchange until about 700 BC. Why? For anything to serve as the medium of exchange it must exist in sufficient quantity. As long as gold was rare, it was exclusively the property of kings and represented a luxury with no PRACTICAL value whatsoever.
Centinel2012 