Joaquin Castro is personifying the ‘Mamet Principle’ as he justifies his action in posting lists of President Trump donors/supporters for targeting by political opposition.
Pretending an action is something else, other than what is clearly evident in that action, is exactly the approach used by leftists to deflect from their behavior; it is also the way leftists turn themselves into victims as an outcome of their own activity.
To deconstruct this illogical fallacy, direct questions must be asked.
Direct questions, perhaps uncomfortable questions, which cannot be avoided by deflection and obfuscation; and cut to the heart of the matter. Example: If your intention is to make public the identification of private citizens contributing to your political opposition, then would you support federal legislation requiring all Trump supporters to wear visible armbands or insignia in public?
.
Here’s a video discussion with one of the people identified in Castro’s “Hit List”. What is described is exactly the outcome that Representative Castro denies in his justification.
Mark Hanrahan, the CEO of MidAmerican Aerospace, speaks exclusively to Fox News Digital about Rep. Joaquin Castro’s tweet identifying him and dozens of Trump donors in the San Antonio area.
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. As President Trump departed the White House to travel to Dayton, OH and El Paso, TX, he stopped to deliver remarks and answer questions from the press pool. [Video and Transcript below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, we’re going to Dayton first, and then we’re going to El Paso. And we’ll be meeting with first responders, law enforcement, and some of the victims, and paying my respects and regards. I’ll be going with the First Lady. And it’s a terrific opportunity, really, to congratulate some of the police and law enforcement. The job they’ve done was incredible. Really incredible.
Q Mr. President, no doubt — I don’t think anybody will argue this is a difficult time in our country for all of us. So, from your heart, from your mind, what do you say to your critics that believe it’s your rhetoric that is emboldening white nationalists and inspiring this anger?
THE PRESIDENT: So, my critics are political people. They’re trying to make points. In many cases, they’re running for President and they’re very low in the polls. A couple of them, in particular, are very low in the polls. If you look at Dayton, that was a person that supported, I guess you would say, Bernie Sanders, I understood; Antifa, I understood; Elizabeth Warren, I understood. It had nothing to do with President Trump.
So these are people that are looking for political gain. I don’t think they’re getting it. And, as much as possible, I’ve tried to stay out of that.
Q Mr. President, Senator Ted Cruz today said that people on both sides of the political aisle need to tone down the rhetoric. Do you agree with that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I do agree, but I think we have toned it down. We’ve been hitting — we’ve been getting hit left and right from everybody. Many of the people, I don’t know. A couple of people from Texas — political people from Texas that aren’t doing very well. I guess somebody said — the mayor — I had one very nice conversation with the mayor of Dayton; could not have been nicer. And then she goes and says I tried to call her. Well, I spoke to her, and I didn’t receive any call.
So they’re trying to make political points. I don’t think it works because, you know, I would like to stay out of the political fray.
As I was saying, and as just came out, the Dayton situation — he was a fan of Antifa. He was a fan of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Nothing to do with Trump. But nobody ever mentions that.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q (Inaudible) supported Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Should they be blamed for (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t blame Elizabeth Warren, and I don’t blame Bernie Sanders in the case of Ohio. And I don’t blame anybody. I blame — these are sick people. These are people that are really mentally ill, mentally disturbed. It’s a mental problem.
And we’re going to be meeting — we’re going to be meeting with members of Congress. I’ve already got meetings scheduled. And I have had plenty of talks over the last two days. And I think something is going to be come up with. We’re going to come with something that’s going to be, really, very good — beyond anything that’s been done so far.
Q Do you support bringing the Senate back to consider legislation on —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to see where we are. We’re dealing with leadership right now. And, you know, you have two sides that are very different on this issue, and, let’s say, all good people. But two sides that are very different. If we get close, I will bring them back. But it has to be — you know, we have to see where we are with leadership.
Normally, this has been, really, a decision — Congress gets together and they try and do something. But if you look over the last 30 years, not a lot has been done.
Q The background check bill already that has passed the House, what good (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m looking to do background checks. I think background checks are important. I don’t want to put guns into the hands of mentally unstable people or people with rage or hate, sick people. I don’t want to — I’m all in favor of it.
Q What about assault rifles? A lot of people would like to see them banned. What is your position?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can tell you that there is no political appetite for that at this moment. If you look at the — you could speak, you could do your own polling. And there’s no political appetite, probably, from the standpoint of legislature.
But I will certainly bring that up. I’ll bring that up as one of the points. There’s a great appetite — and I mean a very strong appetite — for background checks. And I think we can bring up background checks like we’ve never had before. I think both Republican and Democrat are getting close to a bill on — they’re doing something on background checks.
Q (Inaudible.) South Korea and Japan exports are (inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. South Korea and I have made a deal. They’ve agreed to pay a lot more money toward the United States. As you know, we’ve got 32,000 soldiers on South Korean soil, and we’ve been helping them for about 82 years. And we get nothing. We get virtually nothing. And South Korea and I have made a deal where they’re paying a lot more money, and they’re going to pay a lot more money. And the relationship is a very good one.
But I felt, all along, I felt for years it was a very unfair one. So they’ve agreed to pay a lot more, and they will agree to pay a lot more than that. And we’re with them. We’re with them.
Q Mr. President, you banned bump stocks. Would you consider a ban on these huge, large-capacity magazines?
THE PRESIDENT: So, you have to have a political appetite within Congress. And, so far, I have not seen that. I mean, I can only do what I can do. I think there’s a great appetite to do something with regard to making sure that mentally unstable, seriously ill people aren’t carrying guns. And I’ve never seen the appetite as strong as it is now. I have not seen it with regard to certain types of weapons.
Q Mr. President, how concerned are you about the rise in white supremacy? And what are you going to do about it?
THE PRESIDENT: I am concerned about the rise of any group of hate. I don’t like it. Any group of hate, I am — whether it’s white supremacy, whether it’s any other kind of supremacy, whether it’s Antifa, whether it’s any group of hate, I am very concerned about it. And I’ll do something about it.
Q Do you believe that your rhetoric has any impact on (inaudible)?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t think my rhetoric has at all. I think my rhetoric is a very — it brings people together. Our country is doing incredibly well. China is not doing well, if you look at the trade situation.
China just admitted yesterday that they’ve been a currency manipulator. First time they’ve ever been called out. Companies are moving out of China by the thousands, and our country is doing very well. We’re going to see how it all works out. Somebody had to do this with China because they were taking hundreds of billions of dollars a year out of the United States. And somebody had to make a stand. So, I think our country is doing really well.
Q What’s your reaction to the market reaction to the trade war? And what’s next with China?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the market — I think the market reaction is anticipated. I would have anticipated. I would have maybe anticipated even more. But ultimately, it’s going to go much higher than it ever would have gone because China was like an anchor on us. China was killing us with unfair trade deals. The people that allowed that to happen are a disgrace. China, what they were doing to us, for years and years, taking hundreds of billions of dollars out, stealing intellectual property, targeting our farmers. All of that is ending, and they understand that.
Q Mr. President, you still believe there’s no political appetite for an assault weapons ban, but as the leader of this country, do you personally believe people should be able to buy assault weapons?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s right. I’ll be — I’ll be convincing some people to do things that they don’t want to do, and that means people in Congress. But you’ve got a lot of people on one side, and you have a lot of people in the other. But I can — I have a lot of influence with a lot of people, and I want to convince them to do the right thing.
And I will tell you, we’ve made a lot of headway in the last three days. A lot of headway.
Q Mr. President, do you still believe that illegal immigration into this country is an invasion? You and the shooter in El Paso used that same language. Do you regret that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that illegal immigration — you’re talking about illegal immigration, right? Yeah? I think illegal immigration is a terrible thing for this country. I think you have to come in legally. Ideally, you have to come in through merit. We need people coming in because we have many companies coming into our country. They’re pouring in. And I think illegal immigration is a very bad thing for our country. I think open borders are a very bad thing for our country.
And we’re stopping; we’re building a wall right now. We won the lawsuit in the Supreme Court two weeks ago. The wall is well under construction. It’s being built at a rapid pace. We need that. We need strong immigration laws. But we want to allow millions of people to come in because we need them. We have companies coming in from Japan, all over Europe, all over Asia. They’re opening up companies here. They need people to work. We have a very low unemployment rate.
So, I believe we have to have legal immigration, not illegal immigration.
Q Are you watching the stock market’s reaction to China, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I am. I think the market reaction is to be expected. I might’ve expected even more.
At some point, as I just said, we have to take on China. They’ve been taking — look, they’ve been taking us to the cleaners for 25 years. This should’ve been done long before me as a President. You know the story better than anybody. You know it better than I do, frankly. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year taken out of our country. Stealing intellectual property.
And you know what? We, right now, we’re sitting on top. We have money pouring in. We have powerful companies, strong companies. China is losing so many — they’re losing — thousands and thousands of companies are leaving China now because of the tariffs. And we’re in a very good position as to whether or not a deal will be made. I will tell you this: China would like to make a deal very badly.
Q Mr. President, Joe Biden. Joe Biden says you have more in common with George Wallace than George Washington.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, Joe is a pretty incompetent guy. I’ve watched his interviews. I’ve watched what he said and how he said it. And I wouldn’t have rated him very high in the first place, but Joe Biden has truly lost this fastball, that I can tell you.
Wow. Go Wilburine! U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has slapped a whopping $4.4 billion countervailing duty on Chinese cabinet manufacturers. The rate of manufacturing subsidy identified within the ‘wood cabinet‘ study shows a massive 229% subsidy rate via discounted land, free lumber, electricity, raw materials, direct grants from government and discounted loans from Chinese banks to enhance export incentives.
The current study and duty only applies to wood cabinets and vanities, but if you ever wondered how come Chinese furniture is so cheap, well, it’s not a stretch to consider those same subsidy rates likely apply to their household furniture and wood products.
(Bloomberg) Add $4.4 billion in imported cabinets to the long list of Chinese goods slapped with U.S. levies in the escalating trade dispute between Washington and Beijing.
The Commerce Department said Tuesday it will ask the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect cash deposits from importers of the wooden cabinets and vanities from China based on subsidy rates of as much as 229%. Commerce issued a preliminary determination in response to a petition filed earlier this year by the American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance, alleging at least $2 billion in harm from the Chinese shipments.
The petition alleged dumping margins of more than 200%. Tim Brightbill, a trade lawyer from Wiley Rein LLP in Washington representing the industry, said in March that Chinese exporters get double-digit subsidy margins based on the number of programs supporting their domestic industry, including discounted land, electricity, raw materials, grants, discounted loans and export incentives.
“Today’s determination gives the American kitchen cabinet industry the hope it needs in our fight against China’s unfair trade practices,” Stephen Wellborn, director of product and research development at U.S. manufacturer Wellborn Cabinet and a member of the American alliance, said in an emailed statement. (more)
That $4.4 billion is a pretty hefty duty within a relatively small manufacturing sector. Can you imagine if anyone has filed a trade/manufacturing complaint against the much larger ‘wood furniture’ and household goods? Jumpin’ ju-ju bones.
In related news a lot more exporters operating manufacturing in China are starting to see the writing on their noses, realizing that Trump tariffs are only going to get worse, and are making plans to get the heck out of China, ASAP.
(CMP) Traditional export manufacturers in China’s Pearl and Yangtze River Delta regions already struggling under the weight of existing tariffs levied by the Trump administration expect the new tariffs on US$300 billion of Chinese imports to cause their businesses to shrink, force them to lay off workers, and for some, speed up relocation plans. (more)
Think of China like a big lake filled with U.S. dollars and economic value; the result of our purchases of their products. Through his ASEAN discussions with Vietnam, S Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, Japan, et al, President Trump has stealthily built a thin levy, an ASEAN dam of sorts, that will direct the China lake of economic value into Southeast Asia.
At any given moment Trump can blow that dam by triggering bigger tariffs. The exodus will benefit those who partnered with Trump. Vietnam’s economy has jumped over eight percent so far this year…. almost exclusively as a result of companies leaving China.
China has no substantive tools in their economic armory to defend against President Trump in a one-on-one battle. And Trump keeps landing body blows, the latest was the seizure of all Venezuelan assets. The number one investor in Venezuela is China (by a mile). China owns 49% of PDVSA Venezuela’s state owned oil company as an example.
The labeling of China as a currency manipulator opens the door to even more sanctions, and Beijing has no measurable way to respond. Beijing can threaten other trade partners, but more than China everyone wants access to the U.S. market; so no-one wants to become a target for Trump by standing near Xi Jinping or engaging in transnational shipping.
(On Devaluation) Shen Jianguang, chief economist at JD Digit and a veteran Chinese economy watcher, said the timing is not good for Beijing to allow the yuan to slide below seven, and that a currency war would not favour China.
“It is not in China’s interest to escalate the trade war into currency or financial fields,” Shen said. “The countermeasures available for Beijing are quite limited.” (more)
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You had once written the Christine Lagarde was only a lawyer and she was really put in the role of the IMF chief by Obama. What do you have to comment on this new Bulgarian selection? DO you know her?
HU
ANSWER: Kristalina Georgieva will probably take over the International Monetary Fund (IMF). At least this Bulgarian is an economist, and she has banking experience whereas Christine LaGarde did not. Georgieva is currently chief executive of the World Bank. I do not know her personally, although we probably shook hands yet nothing more.
Georgieva was considered back in 2016 for the post of the UN Secretary General, but was passed over for the Portuguese António Guterres. For the IMF, Georgieva was the candidate of France and of some Eastern European states. Germany and others were backing the former Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. This time the French won.
If we look at Georgieva background, she does hold a doctorate in economics and research at the London School of Economics and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). From 1993 to 2010 she worked at the World Bank. She headed the Environmental Department of Washington Bank and, in the meantime, her representative office in Moscow. In 2010 she moved to Brussels becoming a Commissioner as Europe’s top development aid worker.
When Jean-Claude Juncker took over the Presidency of the Commission in 2014, he made Georgieva Vice-President in charge of the budget. Georgieva had been involved in a major restructuring at the World Bank turning it greener. We should keep in mind that Georgieva wrote her doctoral thesis on “Environmental Policy and Economic Growth in the US.”
QUESTION: I have the deepest and highest respect for your work and your sources.If it was not the CIA orchestrating the Ukraine events who could all the Billions Obama and Nuland spent there have been going to and being used for??Nuland stating USA behind regime change on camera. Chevron Oil sign indicative?
UD
ANSWER: The Ukraine Revolution and 911 have a common thread. In both cases, they were instigated by non-CIA type parties. Yanukovich himself inspired the revolution when he passed a billin parliament with a quick show of hands by his communist loyal MPs contrary to the usual system of electronic voting.
Yanukovich outlawed unauthorized tents in public areas as well as erecting stages or amplifiers in public places. Those who violate the law now face a hefty fine or detention. In addition, he outlawed more than five vehicles in “Automaidan” motorcades which prompted people displays signs I and the 5th car – do not follow.
He then outlawed free speech making it a criminal act to slander any government official, including himself. The penalty was one year of hard labor in prison.
This is what caused the uprising. The Western powers could not have pulled that off. Then Yanukovich brought in Russians for his police from the East and that resulted in the Western Ukrainian police supporting the people.
The US THREATENED the people who were NOT satisfied over the politicians who then stepped up to seize power for they were still part of the same system who claimed to see the light. Without those punitive actions by Yanukovich, the people would not have risen up in such mass. The CIA was not capable of getting Yanukovich to act so irrationally.
In the case of 911, the first World Trade Center bombers drew the twin towers with planes flying into them on the wall of their cell in Manhattan’s MCC.
In both cases, the government did not instigate the events, but they stepped in a used them for political advantage. I really do not care what they may think they did, I was actually advising the people in Ukraine, not the government politicians.
QUESTION: This whirligig talk of whether the Fed cuts rates by 25 or 50 basis points is carnival-level absurdity. Does the Fed have the “pretense of knowledge,” as F.A. Hayek, said, that they can regulate the economy like turning up or down the thermostat? I know you don’t agree with this, Martin, but then, Wall St. trades on daily sentiment not ideology.
TM
ANSWER: I understand the theory, but where it is seriously flawed is the idea that people will borrow simply because you lower rates. More than 10 years of Quantitative Easing, which has failed, answers that question. The way the Fed was originally designed allowed it to stimulate the economy by purchasing corporate paper directly, which placed it in a better management position. Buying only government paper from banks who in turn hoard the money fails. As Larry Summers admitted, they have NEVER been able to predict a recession even once.
The Fed lowered rates during every recession to no avail just as the ECB has moved to negative rates without success. The central banks are trapped and they are quietly asking for help from the politicians which will never happen.
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
Joaquin Castro is personifying the ‘Mamet Principle’ as he justifies his action in posting lists of President Trump donors/supporters for targeting by political opposition.
Centinel2012 