Sunday Talks: Senator Tom Cotton Discusses, China, Micro-Tech (Semiconductors), 2020 Election and Elizabeth Warren as Joe Biden’s Treasury Secretary…,

~ Tom Cotton Summarizes The Stakes of 2020 ~

What Senator Tom Cotton discusses in this interview is essentially what’s at stake in the 2020 election; and as an extension why radical leftists, democrats, media and Wall Street are united against their ‘America First’ enemy, Donald Trump.  There are trillions at stake.

The Chinese Communist Party influence over Wall Street and U.S. multinationals is very well known.  The CCP influence over Big Tech, and U.S. tech labs is starting to become more widely known; along with revelations about CCP influence inside major universities.

The Trump administration have direct policy positions to counteract each of these CCP influences; however, CCP financial beneficiaries from Hollywood to sports and pop-culture, to universities and ultimately U.S. politicians, do not want to lose affluence.


Behind a great deal of the visible resist Trump movement (whether financial or ideological) is a CCP dragon wearing a panda mask and writing big checks to keep the resistance operations strong.

What better laundry operation could exist to benefit the CCP than Black Lives Matter? Beijing can ship funds to BLM in a myriad of ways, and that money is then transferred –via Act Blue– into the coffers of those political voices supporting Joe Biden’s campaign.

Some smart sleuthing by Raheem Kassam and Natalie Winters at The National Pulseshows the donations made to Black Lives Matter actually go to ActBlue.  From there ActBlue takes those contributions and sends them forward to the Joe Biden Campaign.

While the Biden campaign insists it doesn’t support efforts to defund the police, it may happily profit from Black Lives Matter (BLM) efforts, and is complicit in taking money from an organization partnered with those spearheading the dangerous policy that has already taken root in Minneapolis, New York, and Los Angeles.

After reaching the BLM homepage, which features a “Defund The Police”petition front and center, if a user chooses to donate, they’re rerouted to a site hosted by ActBlue and prompted with the message: “We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.”

Joe Biden is the top beneficiary of the ActBlue’s fundraising efforts.  (link)

This means donations to Black Lives Matter are actually a funding mechanism for Joe Biden 2020; and that explains why national democrats (Pelosi) and the DNC have changed their position on BLM as an activist organization, and now embrace them openly.

The financial arrangement also further solidifies the purpose for BLM (Obama/Holder) to align with the AME Church network (Clyburn, Sharpton, et al) which facilitates the DNC agenda (Biden, Perez, et al).

The 2020 financial problem that was being faced by the Democrat National Committee was solved through the use of Black Lives Matter as a funding mechanism for the 2020 election.  The more money the resistance movement can push into their BLM advocacy, the more money that actually flows into the DNC for 2020.

As of May 21st, ActBlue has donated $119,253,857 to the “Biden for President” effort.

It’s a smart workaround and provides a back-door for all of the Hollywood and social influence crowd to use.  By supporting donations to Black Lives Matter, the leftist movement writ large is essentially funding the DNC.   The BLM movement is simply a vessel for them to use and exploit.

Keep in mind you are now hearing of multi-million donations to Black Lives Matter from big corporations.  Any corporation that pays into this scheme is actually paying to fund Joe Biden 2020 and the Democrats.  Now all of those “donations” make sense.

Over the past couple of weeks, in the wake of the protests over extrajudicial killings of Black people, tech companies have made tens of millions of dollars in commitments to racial equity organizations. (link)

The scale of the DNC effort to enhance national antagonism based on race now makes much more sense.  The Democrats are exploiting activism and outrage in order to fund their national political campaigns; and it’s likely the average donor has no idea.

Black interests are not only being exploited by Democrats for votes; their community concerns are also being used to siphon money from their special interests.  Typical.

With that knowledge, does this look a little different now?

China’s Great Wall of Murder!

Many years ago I had a conversation with a man from China who had relocated to the United States. He was a talented artist who became art director at company that hired me to do commercial art on a contract basis. He was smart and spoke English well.

I mentioned to him that I had recently read a book by Jung Chang titled, “Mao, The Unknown Story,” which I thought was a very compelling and horrific indictment the Chinese communist leader. I mentioned a few lines from the book and he laughingly dismissed what I said. He claimed the Chinese were peaceful and it was the west who were the conquerors—going around stirring up trouble. Mao and his benevolent communists had nothing but the best intentions for their people. I didn’t press the issue because political matters are best left under the table at the workplace, but several things went through my mind such as Mao starving his own people. Tens of millions died because food was shipped to the Soviet Union in exchange for military hardware. I did not bring up Tiananmen Square, Tibet, their support for North Korean dictators or the Chinese invasion of Vietnam.

China under the communists did not bring about a peaceful utopia and in fact, the outcome we observe today has been predictable. Communists are ruthless atheists who worship only themselves and their own power. They are without honor or ethics and have no respect for human beings or even life itself. Look at the pollution in China. Look at how animals are treated in China. Look at how the Falun Gong, Muslims, and Christians are persecuted there.

Kissinger and Nixon set a bad precedent by appeasing the Chinese. They thought by placating Mao, they might help usher in a peaceful resolution for the South Vietnamese. At the time it was seen as the penultimate in statesmanship and it set a trend for future presidents. They all acquiesced to China, which received top trading status and entry into the World Trade Organization. The Chinese were allowed to control factions in the UN as well as steal our technology, send spies to our universities and influence our media in order to make sure a bad word was never uttered about the Chicoms.

Hillary claimed Trump colluded with Russia to ‘steal’ the 2016 presidential election. It’s a claim she hasn’t relinquished despite a mountain of evidence that proved otherwise. Bill and Hillary made sure the communist Chinese received missile technology to advance their military capabilities. In exchange, Bill received reelection funding from the Chinese. The Clintons, like Obama and Joe Biden, have sold out America for their own personal gain. She even quipped that if Russia is helping Trump, perhaps the Chinese should help the Democrats. This has already happened and it’s ongoing. Biden made sure his son Hunter received millions of dollars from the Chicoms in exchange for the former vice president’s pro-China influence.

The Democrat Party has turned into the Bolshevik party and they want what the Chinese have. A high-tech police state with total power, control, and tracking of citizens. The Chinese are big pushers of 5G to make the ‘smart’ control grid happen and this is being rolled out in America, too. The media and Silicon Valley are complicit. Facebook is banning Trump’s political ads while Zuckerberg fawns over President Xi and even asks him to name his child. They Democrats love China and its communist system. The Chicoms enjoy the kind of power and control the Democrats covet. They all want communism to replace our current system. It’s why we’re seeing statues of our founding fathers being pulled down. It’s why we see HBO produce documentaries such as the one about Roy Cohn. It’s not that Cohn wasn’t a ruthless character—he certainly was. The real reason they put out such a piece of propaganda was to laud the Rosenbergs—arch communists who funneled atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union. HBO pretends they are heroes while Cohn was shown as a reprehensible conservative for saying they were traitors who deserved the death penalty.  In a heavy-handed manner, HBO also portrayed Trump as a close friend of Cohn, but Trump knew everyone in New York in those days so this came across as nothing more than clumsy, anti-Trump propaganda.

Trump has been the first president to stand up against the Chicoms and for this has been viciously attacked not by our own media and corporate establishment. That’s telling in and of itself.

—Ben Garrison

Hong Kong & Sanctions

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Hong Kong is the source for US dollars for China. If Trump imposes serious sanctions, this would actually lead to a shortage of dollars in Asia. What do you see as a possibility in the middle of this madness?


ANSWER: The actual composition of the sanction from the United States remains unclear. The Trump administration is not likely impose extreme sanctions against Chinese financial institutions. Such a move would cut them off outright from the  the US dollar payment system which is the foundation of the entire Swift network. In addition, it is unlikely that Trump would unleash a financial war with China over Hong Kong given the unsettled world economy at this stage. It would not make sense at this stage to undermine the original phase one trade deal. There are political factions pushing for precisely that sort of response. I see them as the typical war mongers.

Huawei is an International Threat

But the Meng Wanzhou Case is the Wrong Battle

Colin Alexander image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJune 2, 2020

Huawei, Meng Wanzhou

Both Canada and the US botched the extradition case against Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the founder of Huawei that’s still pending. You don’t have to like anything about China to know that the case for extraditing Meng to the US compounds tensions for no useful purpose.

Here’s a summary of what happened. On December 1, 2018 Canada Border Services officers detained Meng on arrival by air in Vancouver, where she owns sumptuous homes. The RCMP then formally arrested her on a provisional US extradition request. The US alleged that she was involved with multiple financial institutions in breach of their sanctions against Iran.

The first thing you have to know about dealing with Asians is the culture of face. Losing face, or incurring public humiliation, strikes at the core of identity and honor. In all cultures, a favorable personal disposition and mutual respect between leaders helps to enable good outcomes in international affairs. Similarly, antagonism exacerbates challenges. It’s especially risky to humiliate a powerful adversary from a position of weakness, and Canada stands against China as a mouse against a carnivorous dragon.

Canada’s Extradition Act

Given the symbiotic relationship between Huawei and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it was foreseeable that China would regard Meng as having quasi diplomatic status, and would deliver reprisals following her arrest. That connection threatens security throughout the western democracies. And that relationship is why the CCP wants to maintain it. The imprisonment without charges of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor could hardly have come as a surprise. Nor the trade reprisals.

Canada’s Extradition Act provides for the political oversight that China evidently expected to work in Meng’s favor. It says this, under the subhead Minister’s approval of request for provisional arrest:

The Minister [of Justice] may, after receiving a request by an extradition partner for the provisional arrest of a person, authorize the Attorney General to apply for a provisional arrest warrant …

What the Minister may do, the Minister may also decide not to do. The Act also says “the Minister is responsible for the implementation of extradition agreements.” Although it might be problematic to abort the process once started, implementation could presumably end at any time during the process.

Violating US sanctions against Iran is not an offence under Canadian law, and not therefore a valid reason for extradition under the Act. But it was only on January 28, 2019, eight weeks after her arrest, that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) additionally announced financial fraud charges against Meng. In February DOJ came up with the further charges that Huawei had stolen trade secrets from the US company,  T-Mobile.

Both the US and Canada have better ways to deal with Chinese assertiveness

Arguably, the US put Canada in a jam with the extradition request. Nevertheless, what could Canada have done? And was China entitled to expect Meng’s release after her arrest?

As happens in Canada’s slow-moving justice system, the extradition process has been delayed for a year and a half and counting. Why didn’t Meng appear before a judge for a summary disposition within a week, or two at the most? Evidently, the Americans didn’t have their case ready by then for offences that would have been criminal in Canada. So the court could have thrown out the claim for extradition summarily. Then she could have left Canada and stayed away.

After the US produced the new charges, and given Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s love-in for China and all things Communist, the CCP could have expected that Meng’s case would be amenable to pressure on the justice system—as in China. With politics, big business and the justice system so closely aligned in Canada, the CCP will have known that the SNC Lavalin case was only a rare instance when a few honest people couldn’t stomach the corruption. (There are obvious self-serving reasons why Canada’s lawyers and judges uphold self-regulation so strenuously and resist credibly independent oversight.)

Instead, last month BC’s Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes almost certainly ruled correctly in law to sustain Meng’s extradition. But that’s not the point. Both the US and Canada have better ways to deal with Chinese assertiveness than proceeding with her prosecution. Even if the US extradited her and sentenced her to life imprisonment, what good would that do?

Reallocation of capital investment and reducing reliance on the supply chain from China

Reallocation of capital investment and reducing reliance on the supply chain from China comprise the primary recourses for countering real and prospective hostile action by Huawei and the CCP. Whatever Meng’s prominence, she’s only a cog in the machine.

Faced with increasing pressure from the US government, last year Huawei announced that it was moving its entire research operations to Canada. But given China’s predations, do we need that? What about Canada standing solid alongside the US against Huawei in parallel with their withdrawal from the extradition process for Meng—and, presumably, to obtain the release of Kovrig and Spavor?

Since Huawei began expanding into Canada in the late 2000s, the company received $22 million in corporate welfare from the cash-strapped government of Ontario, as well as tax credits from the federal government. For the future, however, the recourse available, and clearly necessary, is for the US and Canada to rein in Huawei and, especially, to exclude it from involvement in the 5G network.

Having won a significant victory in court, the US is now in a position to be magnanimous from the high ground by reversing an unnecessarily provocative action against Meng that serves no purpose. Recognizing that there’s a not-so-cold trade war with China, it’s important to fight battles that are winnable and effective. Meng’s case is not one of them, neither for the US nor for Canada.

Sunday Talks: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Discusses China, Hong Kong and a Shift In U.S. Policy…

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss current events surrounding China and their aggression toward Hong Kong.

Within the discussion Secretary Pompeo outlines how the Trump administration is currently in the process of changing multiple levels of cabinet regulations (treasury, trade, state and commerce) and U.S. policy as it pertains to the new geopolitical threat presented by a new and more hostile Chinese Communist Party approach.

China v USA

QUESTION: Obviously, China is not Hitler or Napoleon with dreams of conquering the world. The days of empire building are gone. China has always been the one who is invaded from the Mongols and Japanese to the Europeans. Do you see China becoming more dominant in empire building retaking Taiwan?


ANSWER: I am working a report on this subject. You are correct that China historically has not been the aggressor. They were conquered by the Mongols and were invaded by Japan. They never set out on a world domination plan like Hitler or Napoleon because that culture was not prevalent in Asia compared to Europe where each country at one point was the dominant political state in Europe. Russia, on the other hand, believed that it was their position to spread communism to the world.

That said, both Hong Kong and Taiwan were part of China historically. From their perspective, it is not a conquest compared to reunification as Germany viewed the return of East Germany.

What has protected Hong Kong is the economy. That is why China was willing to allow it to retain a lot of its freedom. Now that the world economy is under assault, the protection of both Hong Kong and Taiwan is not as secure as it once was. Alienate China and they have no incentive to just observe.

This is not the war of old. Standing by and not engaging against Hitler and hoping he would stop each time was the wrong decision BECAUSE Hitler was motivated by revenge and conquering Europe. That incentive is no longer present today among the superpowers. Nobody wants to occupy the other. As long as everyone got along economically, that was the bottom-line benefactor to prevent war. Today, war would be strikingly different. It would not be one of conquest, but of annihilating an enemy. Stop the world economy and you encourage war today.

President Trump Holds White House News Conference – 2:00pm ET Livestream…

President Donald Trump is holding a news conference at the Rose Garden of the White House on China and other matters.  Anticipated start time 2:00pm ET.  Links below.

UPDATE: Video Added

WH Livestream Link – PBS Livestream Link – RSBN Livestream Link




The Cheerleaders of War

China Proposes A Law Allowing Citizens To Sue US For Starting Coronavirus Pandemic which is entirely understandable after the US Congress proposed Americans can sue China in US courts for the same reason. So lawsuits will be filed, each country will decide against the other, and the people will be entitled to confiscate each other’s assets in their country. Ya – that should be great for the economy!

Of course, what the Congress proposed was a violation of international law. They can no more waive sovereign immunity of another country than the USA would be subject to suit in China. But law no longer matters. This is all just politics now on both sides.

What is going on is really absurd. The US threatens sanction if Beijing passes the new laws on Hong Kong which GUARANTEES that they they then MUST do so. I do not know if we have the dumbest politicians in history right now, but it certainly seems to be. You cannot threaten sanctions against a major power be it Russia of China and actually expect that they will back down. All this does is build the cold war with higher walls that lead to war.

Of course, I get the typical hate mail that twist it to say I just “love” China. They are the typical cowards like Dick Cheney who have no problem sending other people’s children off to war to die so they can cheer while watching it on CNN as some video game completely detached from reality or human responsibility. I would love to send such people to the front lines in a war and they should be the first to die for their childish nonsense. I lost 50% of my high school friends to Vietnam. What die the die for? Strip clubs in Vietnam? Communism fell all by itself because Marxism is unsustainable no matter how many times these people try.

These people who are cheering war will, unfortunately, get their way. They will be sitting drinking their beer and watching CNN as if this is a sports game and their team will smash the other. They are total idiots who have no idea what unfolds in war. Nevertheless, they will cheer it like the sick individuals they really are. I am sure they just party on Memorial Day and have never for one second thought about all the people who have died fighting wars that have never been about what the politicians claim.

Dragon Move – Chairman Xi Imposing Mainland National Security Laws Upon Hong Kong…

China is signaling they will drop the panda illusion and take a full frontal dragon approach toward Hong Kong. Chairman Xi Jinping is deploying, some say he has already deployed, the Ministry of State Security – China’s leading intelligence agency – into Hong Kong to begin formal control through national security laws.

The move appears to be a direct signal that communist Beijing will not longer accept or allow Hong Kong’s current autonomous status as a free democracy. Beijing signaling “enough is enough”, and Hong Kongers are rightly concerned.  If Xi follows through, we can expect to see even more protests and confrontations; and the possibility President Trump will remove the “special trade status” the U.S. gives to Hong Kong.

Right now Hong Kong is exempt from U.S. tariffs and other economic measures the U.S. has deployed against China.  If Beijing takes full control, that could quickly change.

(Reuters) – Beijing appears determined to stamp out any renewed rebellion against the Communist Party’s authority over the former British colony. China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress, is preparing to circumvent the city’s lawmaking body, the Legislative Council, in drafting the new laws.

The fear among many in Hong Kong is that China intends to criminalize existing freedoms, including criticism of the central government and its policies. It is the latest and biggest step in a concerted effort by Beijing to assert control over Hong Kong and its 7.4 million people.

In recent weeks there had been widespread speculation here that Beijing was planning this move, described by some local commentators as the “nuclear option.” Thursday’s announcement by China nonetheless stunned pro-democracy lawmakers, business leaders and lawyers in the city. It was, they said, a historic turning point – the end of “one country, two systems,” the formula Beijing had promised would allow Hong Kong to retain its way of life and freedom for at least 50 years after the 1997 handover to Chinese rule.

“This represents a real demolition of the one country, two systems idea and also the idea of Hong Kong’s autonomy,” said barrister Wilson Leung, a member of the Progressive Lawyers Group. Leung said extremely harsh sentences had been imposed on dissidents, journalists and lawyers on the mainland under vaguely expressed but draconian laws. “These same vague concepts are now being introduced to Hong Kong,” he said.

Many details of the new laws and exactly how they will be absorbed into Hong Kong’s existing statutes remain unclear. But Beijing has openly expressed its intentions in recent months. It wants to end the cycle of mass protests that have thwarted successive post-colonial administrations each time they have moved to more closely align the city with China’s political and legal system.

[…] Hong Kong is a vital cog in China’s economy. While China still has extensive capital controls and often intervenes in its financial markets and banking system, Hong Kong is one of the most open economies in the world and one of the biggest markets for equity and debt financing.

China uses Hong Kong’s currency, equity and debt markets to attract foreign funds, while international companies use Hong Kong as a launchpad to expand into mainland China. The bulk of foreign direct investment in China continues to be channeled through the city. And many of China’s biggest firms have listed in Hong Kong, often as a springboard to global expansion.  (read more)

Prior to the Wuhan virus President Trump was positioning the confrontation between the U.S. and China based on economics and trade.  Within that dynamic Beijing had a weak hand and President Trump exploited their vulnerabilities with a geopolitical strategy to dismantle China’s one-belt/one-road expansion plan.

President Trump used access to the strong U.S. market to leverage multinational companies away from Chinese manufacturing.  Trump’s tariffs against China were extremely effective; and led to Beijing’s initial acquiescence.   However, it was soon evident that China would not accept their diminished economic outcome.

If Xi moves on Hong Kong, there’s a very strong likelihood President Trump will remove the HK special trade status which will have an immediate impact.

“The List” – Interesting and Quietly Overlooked Remarks by Secretary Pompeo…

With an increased awareness of how some U.S. politicians appear to be reacting to the COVID-19 challenges; and with a new American perspective toward the way media outlets, some businesses and many politicians appear to be influenced by China; it’s worth revisiting a recent speech by Secretary of State Pompeo that might have been overlooked.

Pompeo’s remarks were made to the National Governors Association (NGA) Feb 8, 2020; and there’s an interesting segment where Pompeo reveals his awareness of a list of U.S. governors compiled by China’s communist party; and their alignment with China’s interests. A transcript of the key excerpt from his speech is provided. WATCH:


[Transcript at 01:45] […] “Last year, I received an invitation to an event that promised to be, quote, “an occasion for exclusive deal-making.” It said, quote, “the opportunities for mutually beneficial economic development between China and our individual states [are] tremendous,” end of quote.”

“Deal-making sounds like it might have come from President Trump, but the invitation was actually from a former governor.

I was being invited to the U.S.-China Governors’ Collaboration Summit.

It was an event co-hosted by the National Governors Association and something called the Chinese People’s Association For Friendship and Foreign Countries. Sounds pretty harmless.

What the invitation did not say is that the group – the group I just mentioned – is the public face of the Chinese Communist Party’s official foreign influence agency, the United Front Work Department.

Now, I was lucky. I was familiar with that organization from my time as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But it got me thinking.

How many of you made the link between that group and Chinese Communist Party officials?

What if you made a new friend while you were at that event?

What if your new friend asked you for introductions to other politically connected and powerful people?

What if your new friend offered to invest big money in your state, perhaps in your pension, in industries sensitive to our national security?

These aren’t hypotheticals. These scenarios are all too true, and they impact American foreign policy significantly.

Indeed, last year, a Chinese Government-backed think tank in Beijing produced a report that assessed all 50 of America’s governors on their attitudes towards China. They labeled each of you “friendly,” “hardline,” or “ambiguous.”

I’ll let you decide where you think you belong. Someone in China already has. Many of you, indeed, in that report are referenced by name.

So here’s the lesson: The lesson is that competition with China is not just a federal issue. It’s why I wanted to be here today, Governor Hogan. It’s happening in your states with consequences for our foreign policy, for the citizens that reside in your states, and indeed, for each of you.

And, in fact, whether you are viewed by the CCP as friendly or hardline, know that it’s working you, know that it’s working the team around you.

Competition with China is happening inside of your state, and it affects our capacity to perform America’s vital national security functions.” (Keep Reading)

It sure sounds to me like Secretary Pompeo and President Trump have that list of China-friendly governors…. Oh my.  Very interesting.

UPDATE:  Axios had an article earlier this year and included the Chinese Communist Party Report [Cloud pdf Here]

It will be interesting to see how and when each of these governors responds to the re-opening of their economy post COVID-19 peak.   Will there be a correlation to their CCP assigned alignment?

We’ll keep watching…