Trump has been attacking Canada once again on trade. He blasted the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying the U.S. can no longer afford to be the “stupid country.” He pointed out that Canada imposes such onerous tariffs on U.S. products, such as shoes, that people are forced to “scuff ’em up” in order to “smuggle” them home. Trump has pointed out that Canada is seemingly confusing tariffs with duties.
I can attest to this problem. When we try to send materials to Canada for a conference, shipments are held-up, delayed, and they want all sorts of explanations even for materials that are handed out with no cost. It has become a real problem just trying to often ship anything outside the country. To get around this, we are having to try to find someone to manufacture mugs, pens, notebooks in the host country. It has become hopeless trying to just send cases of mugs that are handed out for free at our conferences.
Indeed, countries are sneaking in huge duties for sending anything into their country in place of tariffs.
Citigroup has issued a press release back in March stating that it will penalize banking clients who engage in gun sales even though they comply with federal, state, and local laws. Citigroup’s new policy tells businesses what kind of firearms and accessories they can stock in their stores, and who they can sell them to. This sort of bank interference in commerce and discrimination is actually illegal in itself. Under the FDIC rules, a bank may NOT under any circumstances discriminate against any business or person without just cause.
Under FDIC rules, it is “[u]nlawful discriminatory practices range from the overt to the very subtle. The motivations behind such practices range from prejudice to simple ignorance of the law. Violations generally fall into two categories: technical and substantive. Within the category of technical violations, some may be procedural, such as not having the Equal Housing Lender poster on display. However, technical violations, especially of a repetitive nature, can be indicators that possible substantive violations may also exist. Substantive violations involve actual discrimination on a prohibited basis, either disparate treatment or disparate impact.”
In this case, Citigroup is clearly engaging in political discrimination which goes all the way to violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It is not up to Citigroup to rewrite the Constitution or the prevailing laws. They are in effect violating the very foundation of a democratic structure and moving into a position of a corporate rough dictatorship. They can easily just as well discriminate and say everyone who sells condoms or birth control pills they will refuse to lend to because they believe that there should be no birth control. Or they could refuse to lend money to anyone who is a Muslim claiming they might be connected to some terrorist act.
This policy of Citigroup is flat outright illegal. Of course, the federal court in New York City rules in favor of banks. Any suit must be brought outside of New York where a violation takes place.
Any policy displaying a conscious orientation to reality (common sense) that extracts the U.S. from the insufferable fallacies of U.N. ‘councils’ means another winnamin is in order.
WASHINGTON/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United States withdrew from a “hypocritical and self-serving” United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday over what it called chronic bias against Israel and a lack of reform. (more)
Secretary Pompeo and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley deliver remarks to the press on the UN Human Rights Council, at the Department of State:
[Transcript] SECRETARY POMPEO: Good afternoon. The Trump administration is committed to protecting and promoting the God-given dignity and freedom of every human being. Every individual has rights that are inherent and inviolable. They are given by God, and not by government. Because of that, no government must take them away.
For decades, the United States has led global efforts to promote human rights, often through multilateral institutions. While we have seen improvements in certain human rights situations, for far too long we have waited while that progress comes too slowly or in some cases never comes. Too many commitments have gone unfulfilled.
President Trump wants to move the ball forward. From day one, he has called out institutions or countries who say one thing and do another. And that’s precisely the problem at the Human Rights Council. As President Trump said at the UN General Assembly: “It is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the Human Rights Council.”
We have no doubt that there was once a noble vision for this council. But today, we need to be honest – the Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights.
Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.
The only thing worse than a council that does almost nothing to protect human rights is a council that covers for human rights abuses and is therefore an obstacle to progress and an impediment to change. The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those who have committed no offense. A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives.
Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.
There is no fair or competitive election process, and countries have colluded with one another to undermine the current method of selecting members.
And the council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable. Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined.
The United States has no opposition in principle to multilateral bodies working to protect human rights. We desire to work with our allies and partners on this critical objective that reflects America’s commitment to freedom.
But when organizations undermine our national interests and our allies, we will not be complicit. When they seek to infringe on our national sovereignty, we will not be silent.
The United States – which leads the world in humanitarian assistance, and whose service members have sacrificed life and limb to free millions from oppression and tyranny – will not take lectures form hypocritical bodies and institution as Americans selflessly give their blood and treasure to help the defenseless.
Ambassador Haley has spent more than a year trying to reform the Human Rights Council.
She is the right leader to drive our efforts in this regard at the United Nations. Her efforts in this regard have been tireless.
She has asserted American leadership on everything from the Assad regime’s chemical weapons use, to the pressure campaign against North Korea, and the Iran-backed provocations in the Middle East.
Ambassador Haley has been fearless and a consistent voice on behalf of our ally Israel. And she has a sincere passion to protect the security, dignity, and the freedom of human beings around the world – all while putting American interests first. She has been a fierce defender of human rights around the world.
I will now turn it over to Ambassador Haley for her announcement on how the United States will move forward with respect to the UN Human Rights Council.
♦AMBASSADOR HALEY: Thank you. Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Pompeo for his friendship and his partnership and his leadership as we move forward on these issues.
One year ago, I traveled to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. On that occasion, I outlined the U.S. priorities for advancing human rights and I declared our intent to remain a part of the Human Rights Council if essential reforms were achieved. These reforms were needed in order to make the council a serious advocate for human rights. For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.
Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council. The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks.
Therefore, as we said we would do a year ago if we did not see any progress, the United States is officially withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council. In doing so, I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from human rights commitments; on the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.
We did not make this decision lightly. When this administration began 17 months ago, we were well aware of the enormous flaws in the Human Rights Council. We could have withdrawn immediately. We did not do that.
Instead, we made a good-faith effort to resolve the problems. We met with ambassadors of over a dozen countries in Geneva. Last September, in President Trump’s speech before the UN General Assembly, he called for member-states to support Human Rights Council reform. During High-Level Week last year, we led a session on Human Rights Council reform cohosted by the British and Dutch foreign ministers and more than 40 other countries.
Our efforts continued all through this year in New York, where my team met with more than 125 member-states and circulated draft texts. Almost every country we met with agrees with us in principle and behind closed doors that the Human Rights Council needs major, dramatic, systemic changes, yet no other country has had the courage to join our fight.
Meanwhile, the situation on the council has gotten worse, not better. One of our central goals was to prevent the world’s worst human rights abusers from gaining Human Rights Council membership. What happened? In the past year, the Democratic Republic of Congo was elected as a member. The DRC is widely known to have one of the worst human rights records in the world. Even as it was being elected to membership in the Human Rights Council, mass graves continued to be discovered in the Congo.
Another of our goals was to stop the council from protecting the world’s worst human rights abusers. What happened? The council would not even have a meeting on the human rights conditions in Venezuela. Why? Because Venezuela is a member of the Human Rights Council, as is Cuba, as is China.
Similarly, the council failed to respond in December and January when the Iranian regime killed and arrested hundreds of citizens simply for expressing their views.
When a so-called Human Rights Council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name. Such a council, in fact, damages the cause of human rights.
And then, of course, there is the matter of the chronic bias against Israel. Last year, the United States made it clear that we would not accept the continued existence of agenda item seven, which singles out Israel in a way that no other country is singled out. Earlier this year, as it has in previous years, the Human Rights Council passed five resolutions against Israel – more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran, and Syria combined. This disproportionate focus and unending hostility towards Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights.
For all these reasons, the United States spent the past year engaged in a sincere effort to reform the Human Rights Council. It is worth examining why our efforts didn’t succeed. At its core, there are two reasons. First, there are many unfree countries that simply do not want the council to be effective. A credible human rights council poses a real threat to them, so they opposed the steps that would create it.
Look at the council membership and you see an appalling disrespect for the most basic human rights. These countries strongly resist any effort to expose their abusive practices. In fact, that’s why many of them run for a seat on the Human Rights Council in the first place: to protect themselves from scrutiny. When we made it clear we would strongly pursue council reform, these countries came out of the woodwork to oppose it. Russia, China, Cuba, and Egypt all attempted to undermine our reform efforts this past year.
The second reason our reforms didn’t succeed is in some ways even more frustrating. There are several countries on the Human Rights Council who do share our values. Many of them strongly urged us to remain engaged in the council. They are embarrassed by the obsessive mistreatment of Israel. They share our alarm with the hypocrisy of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of Congo, and others serving on the council.
Ultimately, however, many of these likeminded countries were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo. We gave them opportunity after opportunity and many months of consultations, and yet they would not take a stand unless it was behind closed doors. Some even admittedly were fine with the blatant flaws of the council as long as they could pursue their own narrow agenda within the current structure.
We didn’t agree with such a moral compromise when the previous UN Human Rights Commission was disbanded in 2006, and we don’t agree with it now. Many of these countries argued that the United States should stay on the Human Rights Council because American participation is the last shred of credibility that the council has. But that is precisely why we must leave. If the Human Rights Council is going to attack countries that uphold human rights and shield countries that abuse human rights, then America should not provide it with any credibility. Instead, we will continue to lead on human rights outside the misnamed Human Rights Council.
Last year, during the United States presidency of the Security Council, we initiated the first ever Security Council session dedicated to the connection between human rights and peace and security. Despite protests and prohibitions, we did organize an event on Venezuela outside the Human Rights Council chambers in Geneva. And this past January, we did have a Security Council session on Iranian human rights in New York.
I have traveled to the – to UN refugee and internally displaced persons camps in Ethiopia, Congo, Turkey, and Jordan, and met with the victims of atrocities in those troubled regions. We have used America’s voice and vote to defend human rights at the UN every day, and we will continue to do so. Even as we end our membership in the Human Rights Council, we will keep trying to strengthen the entire framework of the UN engagement on human rights issues, and we will continue to strongly advocate for reform of the Human Rights Council. Should it become reformed, we would be happy to rejoin it.
America has a proud legacy as a champion of human rights, a proud legacy as the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid, and a proud legacy of liberating oppressed people and defeating tyranny throughout the world. While we do not seek to impose the American system on anyone else, we do support the rights of all people to have freedoms bestowed on them by their creator. That is why we are withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, an organization that is not worthy of its name.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Ambassador, is the timing related to the criticism of the border policy?
QUESTION: Do you believe that the criticism is justified?
Representative Mark Meadows dropped a few bombshells at the very end of almost seven hours of testimony from Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Meadows follows up on numerous rounds of questions challenging the reason why the Inspector General was forced to hide the names of FBI employees within his report.
.
Sally Moyer and who?
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
House Judiciary member Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) unmasked the ID of anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG. One is SALLY MOYER who allegedly was having a romantic relationship with a male FBI attorney, mirroring Page & Strzok
According to multiple confirmed reports last Friday FBI Agent Peter Strzok was escorted out of the building. His employment status is unknown/pending.
According to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General a referral for conduct review was sent to the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility for several people outlined within the IG report. Presumably Peter Strzok was part of that OPR review process.
Coincidentally, or not considering the delay in reporting of the escorted removal, today Mr. Strzok’s attorney had an Op-Ed in The USA Today defending his client. It would appear the article –published today– was written after Mr. Strzok was escorted out of the FBI. Apparently, with the Op-ed published, a green-light was given to release the information surrounding Strzok’s hidden status.
A letter from Peter Strzok’s attorney accompanies the latest news:
My guess/supposition would be that Strzok was a cooperating element during the IG investigation as it pertains to the Clinton-email probe (w/ perhaps immunity therein); however, Strzok was not a cooperating element in the current IG investigation of the Trump-Russia probe and FISA abuse.
In reality it could be likely that Peter Strzok is a target as an investigative outcome of the ongoing IG probe and the OPR referral.
[…] With all of the texts released and the independent investigation completed, it’s clear that Pete is far from the monster that political operatives have self-servingly tried to create. But if what Pete has done in 20 years of law enforcement is not enough to convince you, consider what he hasn’t done.
In October 2016 Pete was one of a handful of people at the FBI who knew the full scope and gravity of the Russia investigation. Significantly harming — even stopping — the Trump presidency could have been accomplished by leaking that information to the news media. Instead, Pete and others at the FBI went out of their way to prevent leaks and, in the weeks before the election, actively ensured that news reports didn’t overplay the seriousness of the investigation. (link)
From the U.S. Dept. of Commerce – Today, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced the affirmative preliminary determination in the first antidumping duty (AD) trade case the Federal government has initiated since 1985. This historic self-initiated AD investigation concerns imports of common alloy aluminum sheet from China.
This investigation, and the companion countervailing duty investigation, was initiated by the Enforcement and Compliance division of the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration under the authority granted to the Secretary in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The CVD investigation reached a preliminary determination in February 2018 and is still being adjudicated.
“The Department of Commerce will do everything in its power to stop the flow of unfairly subsidized or dumped goods into U.S. markets,” said Secretary Ross. “We will continue to strictly enforce U.S. laws to defend American workers, industries, and communities from the scourge of unfair and unbalanced trade.”
In its preliminary finding, Commerce determined that exporters from China have sold common alloy aluminum sheet in the United States at 167.16 percent less than fair value.
As a result of today’s decision, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits from importers of common alloy aluminum sheet from China based on these preliminary rates.
In 2017, imports of common alloy aluminum sheet from China were valued at an estimated $900 million.
The strict enforcement of U.S. trade law is a primary focus of the Trump Administration. Since the beginning of the current Administration, Commerce has initiated 118 new AD and CVD investigations – this is 59 percent more than the 74 initiations in the last 514 days of the previous administration.
Antidumping duty laws provide American businesses and workers with an internationally accepted mechanism to seek relief from the harmful effects of the unfair pricing of imports into the United States. Commerce currently maintains 449 antidumping and countervailing duty orders which provide relief to American companies and industries impacted by unfair trade. (read more)
A joint committee from House Oversight and House Judiciary are conducting a hearing today at 10:00am EDT with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Unlike the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday the House team has representatives far more knowledgeable of the issues. Hopefully, expertise will deliver better questions.
Members to watch: Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy, Ron DeSantis, Mark Meadows, Louie Gohmert, John Ratcliffe, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs and Steve King. (list) and (list)
Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has direct primary oversight authority over the DOJ. Chairman Trey Gowdy comes from the aggregate Oversight/Reform Committee. Far more House members have read the 568-page IG report. Due to a better informed group of members we are more optimistic for detailed, specific, confrontational and challenging questions to draw out the key issues. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
A joint committee from House Oversight and House Judiciary are conducting a hearing today at 10:00am EDT with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Unlike the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday the House team has representatives far more knowledgeable of the issues. Hopefully, expertise will deliver better questions.
Members to watch: Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy, Ron DeSantis, Mark Meadows, Louie Gohmert, John Ratcliffe, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs and Steve King. (list) and (list)
Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has direct primary oversight authority over the DOJ. Chairman Trey Gowdy comes from the aggregate Oversight/Reform Committee. Far more House members have read the 568-page IG report. Due to a better informed group of members we are more optimistic for detailed, specific, confrontational and challenging questions to draw out the key issues. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
When you plant your tree in another man’s orchard, you might end up paying for your own apples; it’s a risk you take…
….and President Trump knows how to use that leverage better than anyone could possibly fathom; because in this metaphor Beijing relies upon the U.S. for both the seeds and the harvest. President Trump drops the $200b M.O.A.T (Mother of All Tariffs):
White House – On Friday, I announced plans for tariffs on $50 billion worth of imports from China. These tariffs are being imposed to encourage China to change the unfair practices identified in the Section 301 action with respect to technology and innovation. They also serve as an initial step toward bringing balance to our trade relationship with China.
However and unfortunately, China has determined that it will raise tariffs on $50 billion worth of United States exports. China apparently has no intention of changing its unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology. Rather than altering those practices, it is now threatening United States companies, workers, and farmers who have done nothing wrong.
This latest action by China clearly indicates its determination to keep the United States at a permanent and unfair disadvantage, which is reflected in our massive $376 billion trade imbalance in goods. This is unacceptable. Further action must be taken to encourage China to change its unfair practices, open its market to United States goods, and accept a more balanced trade relationship with the United States.
Therefore, today, I directed the United States Trade Representative to identify $200 billion worth of Chinese goods for additional tariffs at a rate of 10 percent. After the legal process is complete, these tariffs will go into effect if China refuses to change its practices, and also if it insists on going forward with the new tariffs that it has recently announced. If China increases its tariffs yet again, we will meet that action by pursuing additional tariffs on another $200 billion of goods. The trade relationship between the United States and China must be much more equitable.
I have an excellent relationship with President Xi, and we will continue working together on many issues. But the United States will no longer be taken advantage of on trade by China and other countries in the world.
We will continue using all available tools to create a better and fairer trading system for all Americans.
Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.
Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately. The Art of War.
President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.
It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.
In essence Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.
President Trump will not back down from his position; the U.S. holds all of the leverage and the issue must be addressed. President Trump has waiting three decades for this moment. This President and his team are entirely prepared for this.
We are finally confronting the geopolitical Red Dragon, China!
The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace and war. The symbol in any figure’s right hand has more significance than one in its left hand. Also important is the direction faced by the symbols central figure. The emphasis on the eagles stare signifies the preferred disposition. An eagle holding an arrow also symbolizes the war for freedom, and its use is commonly referred to the liberation fight of righteous people from abusive influence. The eagle on the original seal created for the Office of the President showed the gaze upon the arrows.
The Eagle and the Arrow – An Aesop’s Fable
An Eagle was soaring through the air. Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt the dart pierce its breast. Slowly it fluttered down to earth. Its lifeblood pouring out. Looking at the Arrow with which it had been shot, the Eagle realized that the deadly shaft had been feathered with one of its own plumes.
Moral:We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.
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
Centinel2012 