Tag Archives: Central Planning

May 12 2017

Brussels & Berlin Reject the Core of Macron’s Political Campaign


Armstrong Economics Blog/European Union

Re-Posted May 12, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Emmanuel Macron has shown just how inexperienced he is when it comes to international trade. Both Berlin and Brussels have rejected Macron’s central platform in his election campaign that all government purchases should be made from exclusively European companies. They realize that while Le Pen cheered “France First”, Macron called that nationalist, he proposed European Nationalism. Germany needs open markets to retain its current account surplus. Without that, Germany fears its economic power will collapse. Macron’s proposals are rejected already behind the curtain. Hence, the French people will find he is their Obama – great expectations for change, but no leadership leads to the same old status quo.

Macron’s “Buy European Act” was his a central promise during his campaign. Macron’;s entire plan was to solve unemployment with protectionism but not exclusively for France, but for Europe. Macron’s formula was to be that only companies that have settled at least half of their production in Europe would qualify to sell goods to the government. He calls this the plan that would protect Europe in this new age of globalization.

At the end of the day, the difference between Le Pen and Macron was a sense of power. Le Pen realized the authority of the president ended at the French border. Macron, thought he really would have a say in Brussels and Berlin. Ah, what fools we mortals can be

May 12 2017

IMF Proposed a Capital Levy – Tax on Money in Bank Accounts & Raise Property Taxes


Armstrong Economics Blog/The Hunt for Taxes

Re-Posted May 12, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is always the cheerleader to raise taxes to support government. They are instructing Germany to raise taxes and also talking about just imposing a 10% tax on all money that deposits in banks throughout Europe. Yes – you read that one correctly.

The IMF has told Germany it should raise its property tax, cut social welfare contributions and invest more to reduce income inequality. The demands are contentious in an election year. Once again the IMF has demanded higher taxes on savings deposits in Germany. Germany must do more for to raise taxes to impose more socialistic idea to somehow tax the rich to create a broader participation of all citizens in the fruits of economic growth, if somehow raising taxes actually ever creates economic growth. The IMF warns that there is a relatively high tax burden on lower incomes with a comparatively low burden on assets.

The IMF argues for higher taxes on property  are in fact necessary and that the government should demand higher wages to also give impetus to the growth in Germany, yet this is magically creating no inflationary impact. Years ago, Italy simply imposed a tax on money in one’s account. This was called a “capital levy”. This was a one-time charge as an exceptional measure to restore the sustainability of the debt. The IMF is also suggesting that measure be invoked to help the coming Sovereign Debt Crisis. The attractiveness of such a measure is that such a one-time tax can be levied before a tax evasion can even occur, especially if cash is eliminated and money can only exist in bank accounts. This requires the belief that this measure is unique and never repeated.

The IMF has already calculated how much the measure would cost every Eurozone citizen:

“The amount of the tax would have to bring the European sovereign debt back to the pre-crisis level. In order to reduce the debt to the level of 2007 (for example in the euro area countries), a tax of about 10 percent is needed for households with a positive asset. “

As you can see, there is NEVER any discussion about reducing taxes or the size of government. The solution is always to raise taxes and to not even look at the old Italian trick of a 10% seizure of all cash in your account. We highly recommend to diversify to assets that are MOVABLE and not subject to taxation merely to possess.

May 11 2017

Robert Lighthizer Confirmed as U.S. Trade Representative – Senate Vote: 82-14


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 11, 2017 by

All positions have some bearing on the average American; however, some confirmation votes are more directly tied to the well-being of ordinary people than others.  This confirmation will directly and specifically make the lives of middle-class workers, and ordinary American people, improve.

Thank you to those who contacted their Senator and applied the pressure.  There was a great deal of feedback received by the senate in the past 24 hours.  There are those within the swamp lobbying community who are beginning to understand that WE KNOW far more than they ever thought we know.  Change is a direct consequence of that reality.

In a strong showing of bi-partisan support for Trump’s ‘America First’ trade platform the nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 82-14.  The U.S. Trade Representative is a critical position ahead of renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

Three Republicans voted NO: ♦Cory Gardner (Colorado), ♦John McCain (Arizona), and ♦Ben Sasse (Nebraska).

For the past 30 years Lighthizer has been a trade lawyer representing American steel companies in their efforts to fight dumping of foreign-made steel below costs and unfair steel subsidies from foreign governments. He has pledged to strengthen enforcement of existing trade deals and to find new legal tools to combat unfair trade practices.

Lighthizer has criticized some Republicans for being too pro-free trade. He told a Senate panel this year that the U.S. should have an “America first trade policy.”  “We can do better in negotiating our trade agreements and stronger in enforcing our trade laws,” he said.

(Reuters) […]  [President]  Trump has said the 23-year-old trade pact devastated U.S. workers and has vowed to tear it up if he fails to get a better deal.

Some Democrats, while critical of Trump’s own views on trade, said they were confident Lighthizer, who served in the Reagan administration as deputy U.S. Trade Representative, would work to help U.S. workers.

“He’s a real pro,” Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said before voting in favor of Lighthizer’s nomination.

Lighthizer’s approval came despite the objections of two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said they were worried Lighthizer did not appreciate NAFTA’s benefits.

While the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has ballooned since the trade deal was enacted in 1994, U.S. farmers have profited from exports to America’s southern neighbor while automakers have cut costs by building cross-border supply chains that benefit from lower Mexican wages.

Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and voted in favor of Lighthizer’s nomination, also urged the incoming trade representative to be careful not to put at risk the gains NAFTA has brought.  (read more)

Here’s how they voted.

Voted NO:

Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Harris (D-CA), Nay
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay

Voted Yes:

Alexander (R-TN), Yea – Baldwin (D-WI), Yea – Barrasso (R-WY), Yea – Bennet (D-CO), Yea – Blunt (R-MO), Yea – Booker (D-NJ), Yea – Boozman (R-AR), Yea – Brown (D-OH), Yea – Burr (R-NC), Yea – Cantwell (D-WA), Yea – Capito (R-WV), Not Voting – Cardin (D-MD), Yea – Carper (D-DE), Yea – Casey (D-PA), Yea – Cassidy (R-LA), Yea – Cochran (R-MS), Yea – Collins (R-ME), Yea – Coons (D-DE), Yea – Corker (R-TN), Yea – Cornyn (R-TX), Yea – Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea – Cotton (R-AR), Yea – Crapo (R-ID), Yea – Cruz (R-TX), Yea – Daines (R-MT), Yea – Donnelly (D-IN), Yea – Duckworth (D-IL), Yea – Durbin (D-IL), Yea – Enzi (R-WY), Yea – Ernst (R-IA), Yea – Feinstein (D-CA), Yea – Fischer (R-NE), Yea – Flake (R-AZ), Yea – Franken (D-MN), Yea – Graham (R-SC), Yea – Grassley (R-IA), Yea – Hassan (D-NH), Yea – Hatch (R-UT), Yea – Heinrich (D-NM), Yea – Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea – Heller (R-NV), Yea – Hirono (D-HI), Yea – Hoeven (R-ND), Yea – Inhofe (R-OK), Yea – Isakson (R-GA), Not Voting – Johnson (R-WI), Yea – Kaine (D-VA), Yea – Kennedy (R-LA), Yea – King (I-ME), Yea – Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea – Lankford (R-OK), Yea – Leahy (D-VT), Yea – Lee (R-UT), Yea – Manchin (D-WV), Yea – McCaskill (D-MO), Yea – McConnell (R-KY), Yea – Menendez (D-NJ), Yea – Moran (R-KS), Yea – Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting – Murphy (D-CT), Yea – Murray (D-WA), Yea – Nelson (D-FL), Yea – Paul (R-KY), Yea – Perdue (R-GA), Yea – Peters (D-MI), Yea – Portman (R-OH), Yea – Risch (R-ID), Yea – Roberts (R-KS), Yea – Rounds (R-SD), Yea – Rubio (R-FL), Yea – Scott (R-SC), Yea – Shaheen (D-NH), Yea – Shelby (R-AL), Yea – Stabenow (D-MI), Yea – Strange (R-AL), Yea – Sullivan (R-AK), Not Voting – Tester (D-MT), Yea – Thune (R-SD), Yea – Tillis (R-NC), Yea – Toomey (R-PA), Yea – Udall (D-NM), Yea – Van Hollen (D-MD), Yea – Warner (D-VA), Yea – Wicker (R-MS), Yea – Wyden (D-OR), Yea – Young (R-IN), Yea

K-Street wants to retain three decades of Wall Street control over trade to position the multinational interests as a priority.  President Trump wants to break K-Streets lobbying grip and work trade policies that benefit Main Street, not Wall Street.

The issue(s) behind the argument is/are complex, and the political lobbying expenditures only compound the matter.  In essence over the past three decades large portions of U.S. agriculture have been sold to multinational corporations.  With control over production principles, those multinational corporations manipulate the market value of U.S. agricultural outputs to retain the highest profit margin.

It is not a free market system, it’s a controlled market system; and the control is not domestic ownership, it’s multinational corporations.  Part of the way they control the pricing of U.S. agriculture outputs is through export control; the traditional supply and demand commodity equation is non-existent.

This is not a free market.  When multinational corporations control commodity pricing, it is not a free market.  The paradigm that everyone needs to remember is that a free market doesn’t exist because the owners (control agents) of the market are not independent – they are massive institutional multinational corporations.  Through heavy handed contracts pushed on farmers they control the product from field to processing and beyond.

The export of domestic food production is a big part of the reason why U.S. food prices have skyrocketed in the past decade.  The corporations factor in an ability for the U.S. to afford higher prices than alternative destination nations; they know you have the ability to pay more, so they export more and recipient nations pay less.

Again, it’s a complex dynamic but this also ties into the same groups lobbying for increased consumer welfare payments on SNAP and EBT (food stamp) legislation.  Yes, multinational corporations -who control agriculture- lobby congress to fund more subsidy payments for food.  This allows them to export more, tighten the domestic supply, drive up U.S. pricing and increase their profit.  It’s a deeply tentacled controlled process toward increasing the bottom line profit margin of the Wall Street entities.

They have more to export (they make more money), and they drive up the domestic pricing (they make more money), and they pay the lobbyists for welfare legislation to subsidize U.S. food pricing (they make more money).   That’s the basic scheme, and when you know the financial con you can spot their motives.

 
May 11 2017

James Comey Pens Farewell Letter…


Re-Posted From The Conservative Tree House on May 10, 2017 by

FBI Director James Comey pens a farewell letter to his colleagues.  Cue the sad virtue signaling music:

**sniff**

May 11 2017

Senators John McCain and Ben Sasse Announce Intent to Vote Against Robert Lighthizer Trade Rep Confirmation…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 10, 2017 by

The economic lobbyist community known as The Big Club is represented most visibly by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Tom Donohue.

Via the Wall Street community, CoC President Donohue pours tens of millions of multinational corporate contributions into DC lobbying efforts to retain control over politicians and legislation that relates to U.S. trade and economic matters.   [FYI Donohue’s Chamber of Commerce lobbying group were the primary architects of the now dispatched TPP trade deal; they actually wrote the U.S. part of the construct.]

Tom Donohue funds a large number of politicians in DC in an effort to control the outcomes of legislation and policies that could become adverse to his multinational interests.  Two of those primary beneficiaries are John McCain and Ben Sasse.

As a consequence it doesn’t come as a surprise to see McCain and Sasse announce their intention to block the confirmation of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer:

REUTERS – Republican U.S. Senators John McCain and Ben Sasse said on Wednesday they would vote against President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, because of his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Unfortunately, your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole,” McCain and Sasse said in a letter to Lighthizer. (read more)

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and President Trump strongly support Lighthizer for U.S. Trade Rep.   The institutional control agents within K-Street, aka the economic lobbying group, do not.

The bottom line arguments center around retention of global multinational economic interests that are antithetical to President Trump’s ‘America-First’ economic and trade platform.   K-Street wants to retain three decades of Wall Street control over trade to position the multinational interests as a priority.  President Trump wants to break K-Streets lobbying grip and work trade policies that benefit Main Street, not Wall Street.

The issue(s) behind the argument is/are complex, and the political lobbying expenditures only compound the matter.  In essence over the past three decades large portions of U.S. agriculture have been sold to multinational corporations.  With control over production principles, those multinational corporations manipulate the market value of U.S. agricultural outputs to retain the highest profit margin.

It is not a free market system, it’s a controlled market system; and the control is not domestic ownership, it’s multinational corporations.  Part of the way they control the pricing of U.S. agriculture outputs is through export control; the traditional supply and demand commodity equation is non-existent.

This is not a free market.  When multinational corporations control commodity pricing, it is not a free market.  The paradigm that everyone needs to remember is that a free market doesn’t exist because the owners (control agents) of the market are not independent – they are massive institutional multinational corporations.  Through heavy handed contracts pushed on farmers they control the product from field to processing and beyond.

The export of domestic food production is a big part of the reason why U.S. food prices have skyrocketed in the past decade.  The corporations factor in an ability for the U.S. to afford higher prices than alternative destination nations; they know you have the ability to pay more, so they export more and recipient nations pay less.

Again, it’s a complex dynamic but this also ties into the same groups lobbying for increased consumer welfare payments on SNAP and EBT (food stamp) legislation.  Yes, multinational corporations -who control agriculture- lobby congress to fund more subsidy payments for food.  This allows them to export more, tighten the domestic supply, drive up U.S. pricing and increase their profit.  It’s a deeply tentacled controlled process toward increasing the bottom line profit margin of the Wall Street entities.

They have more to export (they make more money), and they drive up the domestic pricing (they make more money), and they pay the lobbyists for welfare legislation to subsidize U.S. food pricing (they make more money).   That’s the basic scheme, and when you know the financial con you can spot their motives.

Unfortunately, when you know the con it can explode your blood pressure to fully grasp how much we are getting ripped off.  Especially when you read their insufferable reasoning to keep the current system in place.

So knowing that, here’s the letter of opposition from McCain and Sasse who are being paid by these lobbying entities to retain this controlled market system:

Dear Mr. Lighthizer,

We write to explain our intent to oppose your nomination to be United States Trade Representative (USTR). Unfortunately, your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole. We fear that you do not have an appreciation for the millions of jobs created by this free trade deal, and that you would not champion agriculture during your time as USTR. Furthermore, we worry that you would not negotiate trade deals that would protect the American consumer and expand economic growth. These concerns, along with the need for Congress to grant you a waiver to serve in the Trump Administration in a must-pass omnibus spending bill is troubling.

Beyond your vocal advocacy for protectionist shifts in our trade policies, the Administration’s ongoing, incoherent, and inconsistent trade message has compounded our concern. This is especially troubling because confirming a USTR grants the Administration additional legal authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress must consider under “fast track” procedures. Given these circumstances, granting the Trump Administration additional legal powers through your confirmation without understanding how you or the Administration intend to use those powers would be irresponsible.

A constant theme throughout your confirmation process has been your failure to grasp the importance of protecting agriculture in trade negotiations. Your meeting with one of us (Senator Sasse) did nothing to disabuse of us this notion. America needs a USTR who will effectively defend agriculture during trade negotiations and fight to expand agricultural export markets, not let America’s farmers and ranchers become collateral damage in a trade war.

You also have made your skepticism of NAFTA well known, which we find to be alarming. America deserves a USTR who will renegotiate NAFTA in order to build on its successes, not as a pretext for unraveling it. Mexico and Canada are two of our largest export markets and the free movement of goods is essential to the growth of our national economy. For example, Mexico is Arizona’s number one trading partner, accounting for 40 percent of the State’s exports to foreign markets. This is due to the free trade policies in NAFTA that create fewer trade barriers with Canada and Mexico, which makes it easier for Americans to make a living and provide for their families. Further, according to the Nebraska Farm Bureau, a withdrawal from NAFTA could cost Nebraska farmers and ranchers more than $2.6 billion per year in agricultural exports. Increasing trade barriers with Canada and Mexico, and risking a trade war, only hurts American families and small businesses.

The Trump Administration’s incoherent and inconsistent trade posture to date makes it impossible for us to overlook our concerns with your nomination. On April 29, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that required the Secretary of Commerce and the USTR, in consultation with several federal agencies, to “conduct comprehensive performance reviews” of all of the United States’ free trade agreements and “renegotiate or terminate” policies that the Administration believes are harmful to the United States. This executive order was signed only days after the release of troubling reports of the Trump Administration’s preparations to withdraw from NAFTA. Reports that the Administration is even considering withdrawal from NAFTA is contrary to previous statements from key Administration officials – including Dr. Peter Navarro,[1] Secretary Wilbur Ross, [2] and Secretary Steve Mnuchin,[3] – that NAFTA would only be up for re-negotiation, not withdrawal. These disjointed positions are causing great uncertainty over the Administration’s trade objectives.

Moreover, this incoherent and protectionist message on trade has caused serious uncertainty for export markets, and has harmed our valuable relationships with Canada and Mexico. The Administration’s actions may also encourage our trading partners to move their markets elsewhere, especially if they believe that future negotiations will hurt their interests. For example, Mexican officials have cited the possible re-negotiation of NAFTA as a major reason why they are currently pursuing actions to import less corn from the U.S. and more from other nations, including Argentina and Brazil.

Other countries may follow Mexico’s suit. For example, China continues to advance the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a regional multilateral trade agreement in the Pacific that includes our current FTA partners, South Korea and Australia, as well as Japan, a potential FTA partner. According to the Congressional Research Service, should the RCEP move forward in its current form, the “United States would face higher tariffs in RCEP markets”[4] and thus many of our trading partners could run to RCEP markets under trade rules set by China.

Confirming your nomination would allow the Trump Administration to negotiate “fast track” trade agreements, a power that Congress granted the executive branch in the 2015 reauthorization of TPA. For us to consider the complete implications of confirming you, the Administration would need to provide Congress with clear trade objectives with respect to: 1) the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as a timeline for upcoming negotiations; 2) other free trade agreements (FTA); and 3) future FTAs, including which countries the Administration intends to pursue trade negotiations and timelines on those intended negotiations.

We hope the future actions and the Administration’s future actions will prove us wrong. The economic well-being of consumers, small businesses, farmers, and ranchers across our country depend upon it.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Ben Sasse

U.S. Senator John McCain

(source link)

Now you can see why this same group of usurping senators are refusing to accept the NAFTA letter of intent from Secretary Ross.  We have to fight these jackasses head on.  The first step in fighting them is to understand the rigged system they control and why they are controlling it…. that is currently important battle-space.

Advertisements
May 11 2017

The Dow & Volatility


Armstrong Economics Blog/Dow Jones

Re-Posted May 11, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

With the CBOE Volatility Index (STOXX: .VIX) at its lowest level in over 10 years, many people call this the fear gauge and are concerned that people have become complacent. The VIX, is by no means a perfect measure of overall fear in the market. How we measure volatility depends upon the formula. Here are just three indicators of volatility each measured differently (1) internal being the different between the high and low of that session, (2) the close to close degree of volatility, and then (3) overnight volatility which is measured from the day’s close to the next day’s open.

The VIX is not a perfect indicator and it is different from how we look at volatility. You can see here that we ran our Internal Volatility measurement on the VIX and the low was January 2012. Here is the comparison on the Dow so you can see where the VIX low took place whereas our Internal Volatility has declined since that period of time.

The biggest risk to volatility going forward was Trump’s dismissal of Comey. This could now act as a battle cry to stop his tax reform – very stupid decision.

May 11 2017

Trump Fires Comey – Right Decision – Wrong Timing


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted May 11, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Trump fired Comey who was the head of the FBI. Trump said he fired Comey for his handling of an election-year email scandal involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. This is a perfectly valid argument, but he should have done that some time ago. Removing Comey now has only raised suspicions among Democrats and the Republic Elite who both want to stop Trump from really reforming anything for they like their perks as is. Worse still, this was a stupid decision that may now put in jeopardy his whole tax reform.

The timing of this is really bad when it is the FBI probe that is involving Russia and the claims that his people were in contact with Putin. Some Democrats compared this move to the “Saturday Night Massacre” of 1973, when President Richard Nixon fired an independent special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

Trump should have had better judgment in this matter. I question his real motives because he had plenty of time to fire Comey and should have done so for his whitewash of Hillary. Moreover, Comey was the Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York – the most corrupt judicial post in the nation. Comey always did his part in protecting the bankers. His whitewash of Hillary was interlinked with that position and should have been questioned long ago.

Nevertheless, this raises concerns about Trump’s political advisers. Are they really this stupi

May 11 2017

Macron to Hand All Sovereignty to Brussels


Armstrong Economics Blog/France

Re-Posted May 11, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Emmanuel Macron’s victory promises no change for Europe and it has been the blessing Brussels wanted so badly to further advance the federalization of Europe. Macron will surrender far more French sovereignty to Brussels than anyone suspects. Macron is a technocrat and the youngest President in France ever at 39. His message of surrendering the sovereignty of France was the subtle use at his rally in Paris of the European anthem, Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” rather than the Marseillaise. This was indeed a powerful gesture of a surrender to Brussels that will be full and complete. It also signal there will be no change in direction or reform.

The New York Times called the defeat of Marine Le Pen, was a battle against the evil forces of “xenophobic nationalism exploited by President Donald Trump.” They also reported that this is the end of populism as expected for they classified BREXIT as “Britain’s dismal decision last year to leave the European Union, and in the face of Trump’s woeful anti-European ignorance, was critical” to Macron’s victory. It is just stunning how the New York Times cheers on the EU and socialism yet never looks at the data to see if they are correct in pronouncing that the EU has created growth rather than destroyed it.

The New York Times and their biased position will NEVER bother to just look at the numbers. GDP growth in Britain peaked in 1973 and has declined ever since joining the EU. So what’s the problem? Are the people at the New York Times blind, stupid, the party idiot, or just too corrupt to be objective?

If Macron was in the USA, they would be calling for the prosecution of his wife as a child molester. They met when he was 15 years old and she was his high school teacher at 40 years old. When his parents found out he was romantically involved with his teacher when she was still married to the father of her three children. His were so stunned, they removed their teen son from the school and sent him to finish his education in Paris. Now he is the leader of France.

May 10 2017

Secretary Tillerson Welcomes Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov To State Dept…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 10, 2017 by

Earlier today, following a brief visit to the White House, Secretary Rex Tillerson welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to the State Department.

.

STATE DEPT – “I want to welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov to the State Department and express my appreciation for him making the trip to Washington so that we can continue our dialogue and our exchange of views that began in Moscow with the dialogue he hosted on a very broad range of topics. Thank you.”

~ Secretary Rex Tillerson

Again, the multidimensional politics of how President Trump utilized the leverage of Comey’s firing to diffuse the toxic antagonism with the Russian relationship is so far beyond diplomatic history making – modern historians have not yet been born who can aptly outline its consequence.

♦ President Trump stroked the Chinese Panda perfectly in Mar-a-lago.
♦ Today President Trump tickled the Russian Bear.
♦ We have already seen the jaw-dropping benefits from the Panda.
♦ Now we get to watch the results from the Bear.

History in our lifetime, and yet the media can’t even fathom the scope and details within the execution of a strategy…. right down to the optics of the tie.

“complicated business folks,… complicated business”

May 10 2017

Officials Being Interviewed for Interim FBI Position – With VP Mike Pence Interview…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 10, 2017 by

(Via ABC) U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are interviewing candidates to take over the FBI as interim director, after James Comey’s firing Tuesday.

Four candidates are being interviewed today, fielded from senior FBI and Justice Department officials and the heads of FBI field offices across the country, according to a Justice Department official.

The four candidates: FBI Executive Assistant Director Paul Abbate, who leads the agency’s cyber and criminal branch; National Counterintelligence Executive William Evanina; Special Agent Adam Lee, who runs the Richmond field office; and Special Agent Michael Anderson, who runs the Chicago field office.

A new FBI director is expected to be chosen and announced within the next 24 to 48 hours.

“The president is in the process of evaluating individuals who will be able to fill that spot, lead the FBI and restore the confidence in the American people,” Vice President Mike Pence said today on Capitol Hill.  (read more)

Watch Vice President Mike Pence:

,