The Restoration Alliance…


Link to Graphic with Explanation HERE

When we see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion (Mike Flynn); when we see that in order to invoke our sixth amendment right to due process, we need to obtain permission from men who rebuke the constitution (FISA Court); when we see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics (James Comey); when we see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme (Robert Mueller), and our representatives don’t protect us against them, but protect them against us (SSCI); when we see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified (Eric Holder); we may well know that our freedom too is soon to perish…

Borrowing from Mike Vanderboegh 

This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible.

Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later.

We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory….

Advertisements

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Discusses China, Hong Kong, Huawei and Iran…


Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sits down for a wide-ranging interview with Martha MacCallum to discuss ongoing multi-layered issues between the U.S. and China.

President Trump and PM Boris Johnson Discuss Brexit and Trade Deal…


According to the White House:

President Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom earlier today to discuss a wide range of trade and economic issues. Prime Minister Johnson also provided the President with an update on Brexit. The President expressed great enthusiasm for his upcoming meeting with the Prime Minister at the G7 Summit in Biarritz, France. (link)

The G7 is being held August 24th – 26th.  The word of a tentative post-Brexit U.S-U.K trade agreement was first released last week. The potential construct has the assembly of mutual benefit and follows a plan previously recommended by President Trump to Prime Minister Theresa May.

Aides to Trump and Johnson are laying the groundwork for an announcement on the issue when they meet on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in France. Such a statement could outline a road map for negotiations and how the two countries envision their future trade ties, the official said.

The timing of it — during the G-7 and at their first meeting — would be intended to demonstrate a united front between the U.S. and the U.K as Trump and Johnson gather with European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron.

CTH could see the outline of what President Trump had in mind back in 2017.  If my suspicions are accurate, it’s a stunning maneuver but also difficult to explain.   Think of it like a U.K. version of the NAFTA fatal flaw where Britain is positioned like Mexico/Canada, and the U.S. is positioned like China. There would be massive, beyond stunning, economic up-side for Britain.

What Trump and Johnson could construct is a bilateral trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K that has genuine reciprocity and negligible trade barriers.  Like a trade freeway between the U.K and the U.S, but only between the U.K. and U.S.

With the EU no longer able to influence trade agreements involving the U.K. European companies, and countries (Poland, Hungary etc.) could get tariff-free access to the U.S. market by operating out of Britain, or using transnational shipping through Britain.

Simultaneously, the U.S. could ship tariff free into the EU (to a receiving EU corporation, or EU subsidiary of a U.S. corporation) by exporting to Britain.  The UK would be the hub for massive economic activity between North America and Europe.

If France (the EU) is charging Canada a high duty for imported Canadian cheese; Canada, through the USMCA pact could ship to a holding company in Britain who would then transfer product (duty free) to the receiving French company who is operating in the U.K, and distributing in France.  [A French company in the U.K. would receive in the U.K without the French (EU) duty.]

Eventually all corporations in the EU, who wanted to do business with North America, would start operations in the U.K….. OR, the EU would have to drop it’s one-way tariff policy (ie. the Marshall plan is ended).  Think about the leverage this creates.

Of course this process would completely change the trade dynamic in Europe; and completely change the trade dynamic between Europe and North America.  So how would Trump and Johnson start?  Answer: Establish an interim tripwire to measure success. Hence you get this phrase:

 “[…] Such a deal could last for something like six months, the official told reporters.”…

Of course an interim deal… because the EU bloc will respond to it… so a reevaluation at six months, prior to any massive investment outlays, is exactly what a CEO would create.

Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he’s working through a plan for what he views (we agree) is bigger than any ideological aspects.  “Economic Security is National Security.”

After the G7, President Trump and First Lady Melania are scheduled to travel to Poland as the special guests of Polish President Andrzej Duda and his wife Agata Kornhauser-Duda.

Lots of supporters in nearby Denmark are trying to get President Trump to visit while he is in the area…

[Copenhagen, Denmark Link]

BNL NEWS@BreakingNLive

WATCH: Major Trump sign in central Copenhagen, Denmark ahead of President Trump’s possible visit in September:

Embedded video

1,009 people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I promise not to do this to Greenland!

View image on Twitter
81.6K people are talking about this

 

Multinational Business Roundtable Now Claims “Social Responsibility” More Important than Profit….


CTH suspected this was going to happen. This was predictable if you have followed the fracture between Main Street (Trump) and Wall Street (multinationals).  Remember, there are trillions at stake.  This news today is part of the battle.

Here’s the cut through the BS motive behind the multinational association of Business Roundtable CEO’s (these are all pure Wall St.) suddenly saying “social responsibility should be put above profit“…

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Top CEOs say companies should put social responsibility above profit.  Corporate America is responsible for providing economic benefits to all, not just its investors, the Business Roundtable group said on Monday.

The group’s “statement of corporate purpose” was signed by the heads of more than 180 U.S. companies, including the CEOs of Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), American Airlines (AAL.O), the largest airline in the world; and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), the biggest American bank.

Although largely symbolic, the group’s statement goes against a roughly 30-year-old viewpoint that corporations exist to serve shareholders. (read more)

This is self-serving and highly manipulative decepticon double-speak.   They haven’t changed their view on ‘stewardship’, not one bit.  They are stewards for self, and by extension they were ultimately stewards for their shareholders.   However, their allegiance was/is always to the bottom line; the “international” bottom line.

The multinational corporations that make up the Business Roundtable are the same multinationals who exported jobs, destroyed manufacturing industry in the U.S., and created the rust belt.  These are the Wall Street multinationals who benefited the most from purchased political policy over the past 30 years.

What they are doing now, ties directly into what Nancy Pelosi is doing.

The Democrats and big multinational business interests are now in alignment.  Their common adversary is President Trump.   Pelosi, Schumer et al, have spent years blaming corporate greed for all the ills within society; while simultaneously taking billions from their trough.  It was always a con; it is part of the UniParty aspect of DC.

Now Pelosi and Schumer need to use their commonality with the Big Club to attack their common adversary: President Donald Trump and his Main Street America-First agenda.

The forecast long-term interests of the Multinational Roundtable means they need to align with the social proclamations of Pelosi’s Democrats.

They will do this fake metamorphosis by shifting from “shareholder” stewardship (those who own stocks), to “stakeholder” stewardship (those who purchase their products and demand a seat at the table to influence corporate ideology).

That’s the motive for the change in position.

According to their strategy, as soon as President Trump is removed everyone goes back to their former activity.  Business as usual for UniParty, and business as usual for the Big Club.

If these U.S. corporations were concerned about “social responsibility” they would pack-up their overseas operations, invest in the United States economy, and join with President Trump in trying to maximize the benefits to Main Street.  But that ain’t their plan….

Their plan is to retain their overseas investments and fight against U.S. policy that undermines their multinational business models.  Ergo they need to re-brand, put on the mask of social justice, and find alignment with Democrats toward the united objective.

That’s what they are doing, and it is brutally transparent if you understand the fight.

Cue an Example:

Peter Schiff@PeterSchiff

This is going to be an inflationary recession. There’s no way out and it’s political disaster for Trump because the recession is going to start before he finishes this term, which means he won’t have a second term. https://schiffgold.com/videos/peter-schiff-theres-no-way-out-and-its-political-disaster-for-trump/ 

Peter Schiff: There’s No Way Out and It’s Political Disaster for Trump

Peter Schiff appeared on Fox Business After the Bell last week after the yield curve inverted and the Dow dove 800 points. Peter said the looming economic disaster for the US will turn into a polit…

schiffgold.com

Peter Schiff is the CEO of  “Euro-Pacific Capital” an investment group that puts their investment portfolio where?…  Europe and China.   The entire purpose of their existence is to funnel and manage investment funds in Europe and Asia.

Do you think Peter Schiff and his Euro-Pacific investment firm might be uniquely exposed to capital losses while the economy of Europe and China shrinks?

President Trump’s economic plans and trade activity is 180° in opposition to Peter Schiff’s entire portfolio.  If Trump is successful, if the USA wins, Schiff goes out of business.

Nuf said.

This is the battle we’ve been waiting for.  This is the USA -vs- the Multinationals who almost destroyed Main Street and the U.S. middle-class.   President Trump is the only candidate who would have waged this fight…

There are trillions at stake.

.

…”complicated business folks, complicated business”…

U.K. PM Boris Johnson Planning Brexit Face-to-Face With Macron and Merkel…


Operation Fear” is the globalist, multicultural, left-wing operation aimed at trying to stop Brexit by any means necessary.   The promoters of Operation Fear include almost all EU and British media along with U.S. political EU allies such as Nancy Pelosi, the Big Club Republicans, Wall Street multinationals and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

We are moments away from watching all of the U.S. Democrat presidential candidates deliver their narrative enhancement aimed at supporting the collectivist argument.  No  threat is as significant to their ideological interests as deglobalization, nationalism and the sovereign respect for self-determination.  [See: U.S. Rivkin Project roadmap]

Against the October 31st Brexit deadline, Operation Fear is about to go into fully weaponized narrative distribution.  Predictably the deployment will likely be the largest psychological war carried out in the modern era.

Understanding how Operation Fear is carried out in Sept/Oct will prepare U.S. voters for a similar deployment in the 2020 presidential race.  As a consequence what is about to happen in Great Britain is well worth paying close attention to.

LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will deliver his message on Brexit to French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel during visits this week, a government spokeswoman said on Monday.

“Ahead of the G7 the prime minister believes it is important to speak to the leaders of France and Germany to deliver the message that he has been setting out through the phonecalls he’s had with leaders and face to face,” the spokeswoman said.

“It is likely they will discuss other issues: foreign policy issues, security issues and so on, but clearly Brexit will form a key part of both bilateral meetings.”

Johnson’s spokeswoman repeated that there can be no formal negotiation with the European Union until the backstop, designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, has been dropped.  (link)

PREDICTIONS:

♦U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already planted her flag of Brexit opposition around the Ireland -vs- Northern Ireland border.  It’s a disingenuous position; transparently a ridiculous excuse; but that allows her to give the appearance of not interfering while the actual her objective is ABSOLUTELY to interfere.

♦The corporate leftist social media will also engage.   Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and similar media sites will begin pushing down (or eliminating) pro-Brexit content, and pushing up the anti-British pro-EU positions across all engagement.  The objective will be to give the impression that Brexit is not supported.

For the historic reader, you will find strong parallels to the Soviet propaganda campaign around Polish independence and the Solidarity Movement.  In this era the Social Media groups will play the role of the soviet propagandists, and British citizens will metaphorically be the Poles.

♦Hopefully Nigel Farage and/or the Brexit party have proactive rallies planned where the Brits can assemble and publicly show the scale of their support. [*Hint*Hint*] Openly visible public support is the easiest way to refute the media propaganda narrative. [See Trump rallies circa 2016 throughout]  It is harder for the psy-op engineers to refute what is openly visible to the eye and ear.

♦ Mainstream media activity around Brexit in September/October is where we are likely to see the approach deployed in the U.S. for the 2020 election.  They’ll likely be developing strategies and testing out which social engineering approaches work best.  Cue a current audio/visual example to highlight the approach:

(Daily Beast) Donald Trump’s Twitter habit has caused no shortage of controversy during his presidency. Now, Democrats are hoping to turn it into a liability for his re-election.

One of the party’s top think tanks has been privately encouraging lawmakers and candidates to attack the president for failing to deliver on the promises he made because he’s too consumed by social media.

It is, undoubtedly, the first case of a campaign tactic geared towards turning a president’s online behavior into a liability; though rarely has a president’s reliance on—and use of—a media bullhorn been such a defining personality trait. Those pushing it have offered new polling data to bolster the idea that the argument will move voters. (read more)

I digress…

♦Internet Service Providers throughout Europe, but especially in the U.K., will play a significant role in Sept/Oct deployment of the leftist plan behind “Operation Fear”.

Anticipate widespread manipulation of internet travel based on the ISP provider network and subscription.  The networks will block content that is adverse to Operation Fear, and in some cases will direct -or redirect- the internet user to content far away from the intended destination.

♦Search engines like Google will have operators and engineers working 24/7 to specifically maintain and deploy algorithms intended to impede any search query that would be flagged as pro-Brexit.   Malware code will be inserted by the engineers at strategic times to disrupt website content adverse to their agenda.  The Brexit party content will be targeted for disruption, and elements within central government agencies will open doors for assistance therein.

It will be worthwhile to watch how all of the EU operations are carried out; and pay particular attention to the reports of the type of manipulation that we will see.  Being able to map all of the ideological efforts will allow us to formulate plans and strategies to avoid similar deployment when it takes place next year in the U.S.

CTH has a significant amount of U.K visitors.  I can assure you that we will do everything in our power to assist our British friends as Operation Fear places them under siege in the next 60 days.

Wolverines!

.

 

Secretary Ross Adds 46 Subsidiaries to Huawei “Entity List” – Grants 90-Day Window for U.S. Companies to Withdraw…


Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the security concerns around Chinese company Huawei and technology products designed to extract intelligence and data.  [Details of Commerce Announcement Follow Video]

Secretary Ross explains the Commerce Department decision to add 46 new Huawei subsidiaries to the restricted entity list requiring U.S. companies to apply for temporary licenses for Huawei purchases.  Due to the potential security ramifications the Commerce Dept. is giving U.S. companies 90-days (under Temporary General Licenses) to find alternate suppliers before all commercial engagement is halted.

WASHINGTON – Today, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce identified 46 additional Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. affiliates that require inclusion on the Entity List, as part of a routine review of all Entity Listings.

Since May, the Department has added over one hundred persons or organizations to the Entity List in connection to Huawei. The new restrictions on these affiliates are effective today, August 19th.

BIS has also announced that it will extend the Temporary General License (TGL) authorizing specific, limited engagements in transactions involving the export, reexport, and transfer of items – under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) – to Huawei and its non-U.S. affiliates which are subject to the Entity List.

The continuation of the TGL is intended to afford consumers across America the necessary time to transition away from Huawei equipment, given the persistent national security and foreign policy threat. This license will be effective on August 19, 2019 and last an additional 90 days.

“As we continue to urge consumers to transition away from Huawei’s products, we recognize that more time is necessary to prevent any disruption,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “Simultaneously, we are constantly working at the Department to ensure that any exports to Huawei and its affiliates do not violate the terms of the Entity Listing or Temporary General License.”

Outside of the scope of the TGL, any exports, reexports, or in-country transfers of items subject to the EAR will continue to require a license granted after a review by BIS under a presumption of denial.

Huawei was added to the Entity List after the Department concluded that the company is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, including alleged violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), conspiracy to violate IEEPA by providing prohibited financial services to Iran, and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation of those alleged violations of U.S. sanctions, among other illicit activities.

The Bureau of Industry and Security’s mission is to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership.

BIS is committed to preventing U.S.-origin items from supporting Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) projects, terrorism, or destabilizing military modernization programs. (link)

President Trump Impromptu Presser Departing New Jersey – Video and Transcript…


Earlier today President Trump, Melania Trump and Barron Trump arrived in Morristown, NJ, airport en route back to Washington DC.  Prior to boarding Air-Force-One the President delivered brief remarks and answered media questions for 36 minutes.

[Note: longer version of video provided to see young 13-year-old (very tall) Barron Trump as he arrives with Mom and Dad.  (Full Video (begin 6:45) and Transcript below)]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, we had a lot of meetings yesterday on Afghanistan, on the economy — which is doing very well. We have the strongest economy, by far, in the world. The tariffs have cost nothing, in my opinion, or certainly very little. We have import prices from, and through, July — all the way through July. And they’re down 1.8 percent so that the import prices have actually gone down.

China is eating the tariffs because of monetary manipulation. And also, they’re pouring a lot of money into their country because they don’t want to lose jobs. They’re losing, as you probably know, because you reported it, but they lost over 2 million jobs in a short period of time. And they want to make a deal; we’ll see what happens. But they definitely want to make a deal.

I’d like to see Hong Kong worked out in a very humanitarian fashion. I hope President Xi can do it. He sure has the ability, I can tell you that, from personal knowledge. He certainly has the ability to do it if he wants to. So, I’d like to see that worked out in a humanitarian fashion. I think it would be very good for the trade deal that we’re talking about.

And other than that, if you have any questions?

Q What’s the status of your deliberations on the Afghanistan — the troop withdrawal and where things stand?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at Afghanistan. We’re talking to Afghanistan, both the government and also talking to the Taliban, having very good discussions. We’ll see what happens. We’ve really got it down to, probably, 13,000 people. And we’ll be bringing it down a little bit more, and then we’ll decide whether or not we’ll be staying longer or not. We’re having very good discussions with the Taliban. We’re having very good discussions with the Afghan government.

Q What’s the argument for staying?

THE PRESIDENT: I think just that we’ve been there for 19 years. We’re like a police force. And that’s about it, frankly.

I think it’s very important that we continue intelligence there, in all cases, because it is somewhat of a nest for hitting us. If you look at what happened with the World Trade, it essentially came out of Afghanistan. Most of the people, I think, they may not have come from Afghanistan originally, but that’s where they were taught. So there’s a big argument to be made. And I buy that argument.

You know, it’s very tough when somebody says, “Well, this is a big breeding ground.” And it is a breeding ground. And we have things under control very well with a small force. We can probably make it a little bit smaller, and then we’ll decide. It’ll depend on the Taliban. It’ll depend on the Afghan government. But there is a case to be made. And the case also is that we’re going to be leaving very significant intelligence behind for just the reasons I stated.

Q Have you spoken to President Xi, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I can’t comment on that. Can’t do it, Maggie.

Q Can you comment at all on where things stand in terms of the China negotiations? You said there was progress.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think President Xi obviously has this in mind because he probably would’ve acted faster. So I think he has at least something in mind, having to do with trade, because it’s something he could do fairly easily. It could be, unfortunately, very ruthless. So I do think it plays on his mind, and I do think he — he’s thinking about what I’ve had to say. It would have an impact on trade; there’s no question about it.

Q Is there any U.S. land holding that you would be willing to do in exchange —

THE PRESIDENT: Little louder, Maggie.

Q In order to get your interest in Greenland, which has been widely reported, is there anything —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Greenland, I don’t know — it got released somehow. It’s just something we talked about. Denmark essentially owns it. We’re very good allies with Denmark. We protect Denmark like we protect large portions of the world. So the concept came up and I said, “Certainly, I’d be. Strategically, it’s interesting, and we’d be interested.” But we’ll talk to them a little bit. It’s not number one on the burner, I can tell you that.

Q Would you ever make an exchange with them of any kind for U.S. territories?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, a lot of things can be done. I mean, essentially, it’s a large real estate deal. A lot of things can be done. It’s hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700 million a year carrying it. So they carry it at a great loss. And, strategically, for the United States, it would be nice. And we’re a big ally of Denmark, and we help Denmark and we protect Denmark, and we will.

In fact, I’m supposed to stop. I’m thinking about going there. I’m not necessarily definitely going there, but I may be going. We’re going to Poland and then we may be going to Denmark — not for this reason at all. But we’re looking at it. It’s not number one on the burner.

Q Mr. President, sir, back to Afghanistan. Two questions on that. First of all, have you seen the reports about the suicide bomber at a wedding? There were more than 60 people killed. And so, why then could you trust the Taliban to keep Afghanistan safe from terrorists when you have a suicide bomber killing so many people there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not trusting anybody. Look, I’m not trusting anybody. It’s a horrible situation that’s going on in Afghanistan. It has been for many years. Russia tried to do something. And at the time they did it, they were the Soviet Union, and now they’re Russia. They spent all their wealth on trying to do something in that land. There have been many, many great nations in that land. It’s a difficult territory.

There are a lot of very good people there, I will say, but they’re also good fighters. We have it very much under control as far as what we’re doing. But the rest is — you know, a lot of bad things happen in Kabul. A lot of bad things are happening in Afghanistan, and some very positive things.

But we would — look, we’re there for one reason: We don’t want that to be a laboratory. Okay? It can’t be a laboratory for terror. And we’ve stopped that, and we have a very, very good view. I mean, some things are going to be announced over the next couple of weeks as to what happened, who’s been taken out. A lot of people have been taken out that were very bad — both ISIS and al Qaeda.

Q And Senator Lindsey Graham said that for you to withdraw the U.S. troops from Afghanistan and entrust the Taliban would be the biggest mistake since Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess that means Lindsey is a very tough man, isn’t he? Huh?

Okay. What else?

Q On Huawei — is the administration going to allow U.S. businesses to continue selling to Huawei? Is there going to be an extension of the license tomorrow?

THE PRESIDENT: No. That was reported. And, actually, it’s the opposite. Huawei. Huawei is a company we may not do business with at all. And it was sort of reported, I think the opposite, today — I was surprised — that we are open to doing business. We’re actually open not to doing business with them. So I don’t know who gave the report.

Now, they have little sections of Huawei, like furniture and other things that we could do. But when you cut out sections, it gets very complicated: what’s being sold, what’s coming in.

So, at this moment, it looks much more like we’re not going to do business. I don’t want to do business at all, because it is a national security threat. And I really believe that the media has covered it a little bit differently than that. So we’re looking, really, not to do business with Huawei. And we’re actually talking about not doing any business, because, again, the rest of it is not national security, but it’s very difficult to determine what’s coming in and what’s not coming in. It’s still Huawei. So we’ll be making a decision over that in the not-too-distant future. But it’s a little bit the opposite of what seemed to be reported this morning.

Q How were your meetings at Bedminster, sir? How was your meeting with Tim Cook? Did you meet with other folks? Who did you golf with?

THE PRESIDENT: I had a very good meeting with Tim Cook. I have a lot of respect for Tim Cook. And Tim was talking to me about tariffs.

And, you know, one of the things — and he made a good case — is that Samsung is their number-one competitor, and Samsung is not paying tariffs because they’re based in South Korea. And it’s tough for Apple to pay tariffs if they’re competing with a very good company that’s not. I said, “How good a competitor?” He said they are a very good competitor. So, Samsung is not paying tariffs because they’re based in a different location, mostly South Korea, but they’re based in South Korea. And I thought he made a very compelling argument, so I’m thinking about it.

Q And, sir, there’s reporting on CNN that Larry Kudlow may be leaving at some point soon. Do you have confidence in him?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope not. I love Larry Kudlow. I think he’s done a fantastic job. He has been going through health problems, as you know. But I watched him this morning; he was terrific. I think Larry is a fantastic guy. But I haven’t heard that at all.

Q And are you doing any planning, or are you going to be directing your administration to plan for the possibility of a recession?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t see a recession. I mean, the world is in a recession right now. And — although, that’s too big a statement. But if you look at China, China is doing very, very poorly. They’ve had — I just saw a report — they’ve had the worst year they’ve had in 27 years because of what I’ve done. And they want to come to the negotiating table. You know, they’re having companies lose — I mean, they’re leaving. The companies are leaving. And they’re laying off millions of people because they don’t want to pay 25 percent. And that’s why they want to come to the table. I don’t think there’s another reason other than President Xi, I’m sure, likes me very much. But they’re losing millions and millions of jobs in China. And we’re not paying for the tariffs; China is paying for the tariffs, for the one-hundredth time.

And I understand tariffs work very well. Other countries it may be that if I do things with other countries. But in the case of China, China is eating the tariffs, at least so far.

Q But a lot of economists say that you should be preparing for a recession; that no President is immune from a recession, and that it’s malpractice for the government not to be doing something to get ready for that scenario.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Phil, honestly, I’m prepared for everything. I don’t think we’re having a recession. We’re doing tremendously well. Our consumers are rich. I gave a tremendous tax cut, and they’re loaded up with money. They’re buying. I saw the Wal-Mart numbers; they were through the roof, just two days ago. That’s better than any poll. That’s better than any economist.

And most economists actually say, Phil, that we’re not going to have a recession. Most of them are saying we’re not going to have a recession.

But the rest of the world is not doing well like we’re doing. The rest of the world, if you look at Germany, if you look at European Union; frankly, look at the UK — I mean, look at a lot of countries — they’re not doing well. China is doing poorly. Parts of Asia are doing poorly.

We are doing better than any country, or even area, anywhere in the world. We’re doing great. And our consumer is really, really strong, and it looks like they’re going to be for a long time.

Also, when you go in and analyze the curve, the curve always means that about two years later maybe you’ll go in. That’s a long time — two years. But I don’t think so. Interest rates are low. I think I could be helped out by the Fed, but the Fed doesn’t like helping me too much. But, you know, frankly, we have money that’s pouring into our country because they want the security of the United States.

We have billions and billions of dollars daily that’s pouring in — we’ve never had anything like this — because they want to come into the United States. That’s a great thing. That means we can loan that money out.

Mortgage rates are at an all-time low. Borrowing costs are at an all-time low. It’s probably a great time. I told Secretary Mnuchin that this is a great time to refinance our bonds, or some of our bonds.

You know, it’s — I mean, the money is pouring into the U.S. like never before and like no other country has ever experienced, including China money. I mean, China money — everybody — they’re all coming into the U.S. So we’ve never had anything like it. I think our economy is very, very good.

Q But if it were to slow down, could you win reelection?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’d be prepared for it. We can do — sure, we can do a lot of things. But if it slowed down, it would be because I have to take on China and some other countries.

Look, you have other countries that are just as bad as China, the way they treat us. You take a look at what’s happening with the European Union; they have barriers, they have tariffs. Take a look at other — I’m not going to mention all the countries because you’ll be surprised. But we’re treated very badly — a lot of them by our allies. We’re treated very badly.

When all of that normalizes, we’ve got a rocket ship. Our country is going to be stronger, by far, than ever before. I mean, if I wanted to make a bad deal and settle on China, the market would go up but it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. I’m just not ready to make a deal yet. China would like to make a deal. I’m not ready.

Q Do you have an updated on the Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar that has (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: No, no update, other than Iran would like to talk also. I have to say “also.” China wants to talk, but Iran would like to talk. They just don’t know quite how to get there.

Look, they’re very proud people, but their economy is crashing. It’s crashing. Inflation is through the roof. They’re doing really badly. They’re not selling oil. Even — I mean, we put the sanctions on. The oil is selling much less — I mean, much less — than we thought. It’s like a trickle. And they very much want to make a deal. They just don’t know how to call because they’re proud people, and I understand that. But I have a feeling that maybe things with Iran could work out, and maybe not.

If you notice, they haven’t taken any of our boats. They haven’t taken our ships. They’ve taken ships, but they haven’t taken our ships, and they better not.

But I will say this: I really think that Iran wants to get there. They have a great potential. I say this about North Korea. North Korea has tremendous potential. Also, Iran has tremendous potential, and we can do something very fast, but they don’t quite know how to begin because they’re proud people. They’re very proud people. But their country is crashing. Their economy is a disaster. They’ve got to do something, so let’s see what happens.

Q What about gun control, Mr. President? Where does that stand?

THE PRESIDENT: So, Congress is working on that. They have bipartisan committees working on background checks and various other things. And we’ll see. I don’t want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. I don’t want them to forget that, because it is. It’s a mental health problem. And as I say — and I said the other night in New Hampshire; we had an incredible evening — I said: It’s the people that pull the trigger. It’s not the gun that pulls the trigger.

So we have a very, very big mental health problem, and Congress is working on various things, and I’ll be looking at it. We’re very much involved. We’re very much involved in looking at what they’re studying.

Q Mr. President, the Dayton shooter had a 100-round-capacity magazine. Would you support banning high-capacity magazines?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to look at a whole list of things, and I’ll make a determination then. But I will say, Congress is now, as you know, meeting in a bipartisan way. We’ll see what happens. A lot of things are happening on the gun level. A lot of things are happening.

But you have to remember, also, it’s a big mental — I was talking about mental institutions. They closed so many — like 92 percent — of the mental institutions around this country over the years, for budgetary reasons. These are people that have to be in institutions for help. I’m not talking about as a form of a prison. I’m saying for help. And I think it’s something we have to really look at — the whole concept for mental institutions.

I remember, growing up, we had mental institutions. Then they were closed — in New York, I’m talking about. They were — many of them were closed. A lot of them were closed. And all of those people were put out on the streets. And I said — even as a young guy, I said, “How does that work? That’s not a good thing.” And it’s not a good thing. So I think the concept of mental institution has to be looked at.

Unrelated to that, I believe that the concept also of voter identification has to be looked at, because you can’t have great security for the voter. People that vote, you can’t have that national security unless you’re going to have voter identification. It’s something people have to look at very strongly.

Q Sir, what does that have to do with guns?

Q Can you say who you golfed with, sir, and who else you met with at Bedminster? I know you did a lot of work.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I did. We had a lot of meetings, and the golf was the least of it. I played two days. The golf was the least of it. I don’t care about — look, I like golf; it’s fine. It’s so unimportant to me. Usually, I’ll play with senators, I’ll play with people where it can help. Golf is not important from that standpoint other than it’s a little form of exercise, and that’s not so bad.

Q Sir, on Taiwan, any answer on — or response, rather, on the sale of F-16s to Taiwan?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, there is. I mean, I’ve approved the deal. The deal is approved. Got to be approved by the Senate, but I’ve approved the deal. It’s $8 billion. It’s a lot of money. That’s a lot of jobs. And we know they’re going to use these F-16s responsibly. But we approved the deal. A lot of money. And it’s a great aircraft. And we really believe — or we perhaps wouldn’t have done it — they’re going to use it very responsibly. But it’s tremendous numbers of jobs. It’s $8 billion.

Q And, Mr. President, you brought up voter ID laws in the context of the gun control debate.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, just — I said, “unrelated.” I wanted to bring that out while I’m here with you. I think voter ID laws are — if you look, voter identification. So when people show up to vote — because, if you look, Judicial Watch made a settlement with California, I guess, or Los Angeles, where they found over a million names that was very problematic — a problem.

And you just take a look at that settlement; that’s a lot of names. You had people that were well over 100 years old that were voting, but we know they’re not around any longer.

So, you have a lot of voter fraud. The way you stop it, the easiest way, is voter identification. We have to go and think about that. I hope Republicans and Democrats can vote, sit down, and work something out on voter ID.

Q But your commission on voter fraud didn’t find any actual fraud. It disbanded.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let the commission — the commission was having a tremendous problem, legally, getting papers from various states like California. They were absolutely hard-lining. They didn’t want to give this commission — it was just a quick commission, headed up by Vice President Pence, to look at voter fraud.

The problem the commission had is we had to have a vast amount of lawyers, which I didn’t want to bother with, because California and other states were giving up no information whatsoever. And the reason they weren’t giving up information is because they were guilty. They were guilty of it. And they know they’re guilty of it. Many, many people voted that shouldn’t have been voting. Some people voted many times. What I’m saying is we need voter identification. We need voter ID.

Q I know it’s not a top priority for you with Greenland, but when you go to Denmark, is this something you’re going to want to talk to them about?

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe. Maybe. I don’t think Denmark has been absolutely set in stone yet, going there. But if I did, I’d certainly talk about it. But not — not top in the list.

Q How much is it worth? How much do you think it’s worth?

THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t gotten there yet. First, we have to find out whether or not they have any interest.

Look, they’re losing almost $700 million carrying it. That’s a lot of money for Denmark. They’re losing a tremendous amount of money. So we’ll see what happens.

Q And I’ve got this — this Fox News poll the other day — I don’t know what to make of polls at this point, but it showed you underwater.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Fox has always given me — I’ll tell you, Fox is a lot different than it used to be, I can tell you that. Juan Williams. Then they have the wonderful woman that gave Hillary Clinton the questions. That was a terrible thing. And all of a sudden, she’s working for Fox. What’s she doing working for Fox? Fox has changed. And my worst polls have always been from Fox. There’s something going on at Fox, I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it.

Q (Inaudible.) What do you think the change is at Fox?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know what’s happening with Fox, but when they have, like, a Juan Williams, who has never said a positive thing, and yet, when I show up at the Fox building, he’s out there, “Oh, sir, can I have a picture with you? Could I have a picture?” And he was 100 percent nice. I mean, you’ve never asked me for a picture.

Q I have not. Should the Murdochs, sir, change the management at Fox? Or should they bring in new —

THE PRESIDENT: No. No. They have to run it the way they want to run it. But Fox is different. There’s no question about it. And I think they’re making a big mistake, because Fox was treated very badly by the Democrats — very, very badly — having to do with the debates and other things. And I think Fox is making a big mistake. Because, you know, I’m the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates. I guess we’re probably planning on three of them.

Q You might not debate, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m very — I’m not happy with Fox. I’m certainly happy — I think Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs, and I think Tucker Carlson and Laura and Jesse Watters, and Jeanine. We have a lot of great people. Even Greg Gutfeld; he wasn’t good to me two years ago. Now he sees all I’ve done, and he said, “Would you rather have a great President or a nice guy?” I don’t know, I think I’m a nice guy. But nobody has done in two and a half years what I’ve done. And I say that a lot. And very few people can challenge it.

The first two and a half years, nobody has done what I’ve done in terms of tax cuts, regulation cuts, the military, the vets, the Choice, so many different things. Nobody has done that.

Yeah.

Q Can you clarify what you meant when you said that you don’t want to do business with Huawei? Are you not going to extend this license for 90 days to temporarily allow —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m talking to my people, but ultimately, we don’t want to do business with Huawei for national security reasons.

Q But not even a temporary extension that —

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see what happens. I’m making a decision tomorrow. It could be temporary — could be — and maybe not. But we’re going to make a decision tomorrow.

Q So the — what I was asking about, the Fox poll, that they had you underwater against your main Democratic (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t believe it.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t believe it. Every place I go, we have lines outside. Then we have even phony stuff with that. You guys were in New Hampshire. Maggie was there. You saw, that room was packed. And they had thousand — Maggie — there were thousands of people outside. And then, I see some phony website some wise guys put up. That place was packed.

Q Where do you see that? Where did you see that?

THE PRESIDENT: And the New York Times actually saw that, and actually, there was a massive flag behind — and even the seats behind the flag where you had no view —

Q But there were pictures of empty seats that were on Twitter.

THE PRESIDENT: Because those people came down to be on the floor.

Q Who showed you those pictures? Where did you see those?

THE PRESIDENT: But all of the people — any empty seat, you had the people come down to be on the floor because they were so far away. Plus, you had a big flag.

Look, we had, I think they said, 17,000 people outside that couldn’t get in. The fire marshals close it at a certain level. The arena announced — I don’t know the people at the arena — that I broke Elton John’s record. And then, I have fake news. The fact is that people tend, during a speech that I make, they love to come down to the floor if they’re sitting in the high areas. And they’re not allowed, for fire reasons, to have any more people.

So, that was an amazing evening, and you saw the enthusiasm. But we had a lot of people sitting behind that massive American flag that couldn’t see, so they moved over and they moved down, and they came down to the floor as the speech started.

But Maggie Haberman was very fair. And she was there and she saw the beginning of that speech. Every seat was packed. But then they tend to come down. They do it all the time.

Q But Mitt Romney did his last rally there the night before the election and it was packed.

Q It was.

Q He ended up losing the election, but — so it’s —

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I don’t know. Phil. Phil, what can I tell you? Do I think I’m going to win? Yes. Do I think I have more enthusiasm now than I had before this — you know, the 2016 election? Yes. I think we’re — I think you people do too. And some of you have reported it.

I think there is more enthusiasm for President Trump than there was even for Mr. Trump. Because what I said that I was going to do, I did. The tax cut, the regulation cuts — the biggest in history. In two and a half years, more than — and that’s one of the reasons our jobs are so good, because of the regulation cuts.

Q So, why can’t you tell us whether you talked to President Xi?

THE PRESIDENT: I just don’t want to comment on that

Q Is there a call set up for next week?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can speak to him any time. But he understands how I feel. I just can’t comment as to whether or not I spoke to him. But I will tell you this: We’re having very, very substantive talks with China, and with others, but with China.

Q Did you watch any of the coverage of the Hong Kong protest? Huge numbers of people.

THE PRESIDENT: I can’t believe it. You know, I tell you, I’ve never seen 2 million people. When you talk about crowd size, Maggie, those are serious crowds — the Hong Kong crowds. I mean, when they said 2 million people on the streets, that really looked like 2 million people on the streets.

Q What changed your mind, sir? Because the other day you were saying that it was, sort of, China’s problem and Hong Kong’s problem to figure this out. And why have you moved?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it would be very hard to deal if they do violence. I mean, if it’s another Tiananmen Square, it’s — I think it’s a very hard thing to do if there’s violence.

And, you know, that — I’m President, but that’s a little beyond me because I think there’d be — you know, I think there’d be tremendous political sentiment not to do something.

So I hope — because I think we’re going to end up doing a very good deal. And I think China, by the way, needs a deal much more than we do. But I really do believe that if this weren’t part of the deal, possibly something would have happened already a long time ago.

Q Do you support the principles of the protestors — the pro-democracy movement?

Q That’s — that’s what I’m asking.

Q Do you think democracy matters?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ll tell you what I do support: I support liberty. I support democracy. I understand what’s going on very well over there. I’d love to see it worked out in a humane fashion. And I think they have a great chance of doing it.

Look, I put out — and I told you that I really believe — I have a confidence in the — in the talents of President Xi. I think if he met with the protestors, within a very short period of time, they would work something out that’s good for everybody. I really believe that.

He’s a very talented man. I mean, aside from everything, he’s a very talented man. He’s very smart, very talented. And I know him well, probably as well as anybody, And I believe if he sat down with them — now, you know, he’s not — that’s not his deal, sitting down with people. You know, he doesn’t do that. But I think, maybe, the world changes. I really believe if President Xi sat down with representatives of the protestors — and they do have representatives; pretty good representatives, pretty strong representatives. I’ve been watching and seeing them. If he sat down, I think he’d work something out. And I think it would be good for everybody. But it does put pressure on the trade deal. If they do something negative, it puts pressure.

Now, that deal I can sign by myself. It’s structured so I don’t have to go to Congress. But I respect Congress. I respect the views of Congress. And I respect, most importantly, the views of the people of our country. And I think it would be much harder for me to sign a deal if he did something violent in Hong Kong.

Q But do you support cutting $4 billion in foreign aid?

THE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the —

Q Rescission.

THE PRESIDENT: — rescission? Yeah. I support many of those things. We’ll negotiate it out. But, you know, I’ve cut back a lot on countries. You know, we give billions of dollars to countries that don’t even like us. And I’ve been cutting that a lot.

We give billions and billions of dollars to countries that don’t like us — don’t like us even a little bit. And I’ve been cutting that. And we just put a package of about 4 billion additional dollars in. And, in some cases — you know, in some cases, I could see it both ways. In some cases, these are countries that we should not be giving to.

Q How do you see that cutting aid to them is helping the United States, though? Does it make us safer? Does it make us wealthier?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. And if I thought it would, I’d probably do it. But, you know, I cut back $1.3 billion a year to Pakistan. And when I cut it back, I have a better relationship with — as you know, the President came in, and we have a great relationship. Prime Minister came in. We have a great relationship with Pakistan now. He — we had a really good meeting.

So, what happened: I cut back $1.3 billion. We have a better relationship now. I also cut it back on the Palestinians because they speak very badly about our country. So I cut it back on the Palestinians. We were paying $500 billion a year, and now we’re paying nothing. But I think we’re going to get further because I could see opening that up again. I think we’re going to do much better the way I’m doing it. You know, we’re trying to negotiate a peace deal. Everybody said that’s the deal that’s totally impossible. They talk about a deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis as the toughest deal you could possibly do, no matter what deal you’re talking about.

And I stopped payment on $500 million a year, but I think they’re going to make a deal. And I think one of the reasons they’d want to make a deal is because of that. Okay?

Q Are you going to wait until after the Israeli elections to put out your Middle East Peace plan?

THE PRESIDENT: I probably will wait, but we may put out pieces of it. We have some very talented people — as you know, our great ambassador and others. We have some very talented people.

But that’s probably the toughest deal of all — peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians — because they’ve been decades of hate. And it’s tough to make a deal when there’s that much hate.

But I think I’ve helped it very much by saying, “Look, until there’s a deal, we’re not going to pay you anymore.” And other people should have done that long before me. So these are things, when you talk about rescission — and that’s not part of rescission, by the way — but we have a lot of things like that in the rescission.

Phil?

Q Sir, you’re going — you’re heading back to Washington after a week off. Do you have any thoughts on the Cabinet? Is the Cabinet solid and going to stay in place, or is somebody going to change?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we have a great Cabinet. Yeah, there will always be people changed, because, you know, after — you’re going to be three years now. It’s a long time. They’re under a lot of pressure. And — but I think we have a great Cabinet. I really do. I think our Cabinet is terrific. Some of them will leave for a period of time; they may come back. I mean, the relationship I have is very good with the Cabinet and with others.

But, you know, it’s almost three years now, if you can believe it. Right? And at a certain point of time, people do tend to leave.

Q Are you still considering withdrawing from NAFTA if Nancy Pelosi doesn’t bring up the USMCA on the House floor?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t said whether or not I would, but I would say NAFTA is one of the worst deals ever made in the history of trade deals.

If you look at NAFTA, and you take a look at what it’s done to our country, thousands of factories closed, millions of jobs. It’s been a one-way street. And the USMCA is a great deal. The unions love it. The farmers love it. Everybody wants it. But it’s up to Nancy Pelosi. If she wants to put it for a vote, she’s going to get overwhelming bipartisan support. And I view that as a bipartisan deal. I would imagine she’d put it up.

There’s an easy thing to do. It will be totally bipartisan, which is good for the Democrats and the Republicans. And everybody wants it. I mean, the unions like it. The unions hated NAFTA, but they love the USMCA. The farmers, above all, love it, especially the American farmers. Our farmers love it more than the other two sides. They love it. So, a lot of good things going.

But we have to see; they have to put it up for a vote. You know, it’s political season, if you haven’t noticed. So they have to put it up for a vote.

Q You talked about some people coming back into the administration. Could Nikki Haley come back into the administration in any role?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, at some point, maybe, if she wanted to. Yeah.

Q Have you been talking to her about that?

THE PRESIDENT: I really haven’t. I’ve been talking to a lot of people.

Q (Inaudible) change on the ticket, would you, Mr. President? This continues to get asked about.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m very happy with Mike Pence.

Q You are?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Mike Pence has been an outstanding VP. I think that he’s been incredible in terms of the love that a lot of people — especially if you look at the Evangelicals and so many others, they really have a great respect for our Vice President. And so do I. And so do, I think, most people.

No, I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t be thinking about that. A lot of people — a lot of people, you know, amazingly, they bring different names up. And they brought a lot of different names up.

Q What are the names?

THE PRESIDENT: And that’s — and that’s, by the way — (laughs) — at some point, I’ll let you know — but that’s, by the way, standard. You know, that’s standard. Everybody thought that President Obama was going to change Biden. They all thought that in the, you know, second term, he was going to change it. Everybody thought it. And he didn’t do that.

But, no, I’m very happy with Mike Pence.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you.

Q Could just be a little clearer on the gun — your gun position? I don’t —

THE PRESIDENT: Which one?

Q Your position on background checks and guns. What would you support exactly?

THE PRESIDENT: So, Congress is looking at it very strongly. Bipartisan. I put in certain parameters, which you somewhat know about. I’m also very, very concerned with the Second Amendment, more so than most Presidents would be. People don’t realize we have very strong background checks right now.

If you go in to buy a gun, you have to sign up. There are a lot of background checks that have been approved over the years. So I’ll have to see what it is.

But Congress is meeting. Bipartisan. A lot of people want to see something happen. But just remember this: Big mental problem, and we do have a lot of background checks right now.

Q But you’re not willing to support universal background checks right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not saying anything. I’m saying Congress is going to be reporting back to me with ideas. And they’ll come in from Democrats and Republicans. And I’ll look at it very strongly. But just remember, we already have a lot of background checks. Okay? Thank you.

Q Have you spoken to Wayne LaPierre again, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Say it?

Q Have you spoken to Wayne LaPierre this week at all during your trip?

THE PRESIDENT: I have. Well, I spoke to him a week ago. And, look, I’ve had a great relationship with the NRA, and I will always have a great relationship. I’ve been very good for the NRA.

If you just look — I mean, we have now two Supreme Court justices — great ones. And who would have thought that was going to happen in, you know, long prior to three years?

So, we have two. And equally importantly, we will have, within another 90 days, 179 federal judges. And I say, “Thank you very much, President Obama.” Because he was unable to get them filled. I don’t know what happened to him, but he was unable. So, President Obama did not do his job. And I inherited 138 empty positions. And, honestly, from his standpoint, and the standpoint of where he’s coming from, that shouldn’t have happened.

And we did do one other thing. I saw last night where some people were talking about criminal justice reform — very liberal Democrats. I’m the one that got it done. And I saw that, and I said, “You know, isn’t it a shame? You do something…” — and I’ve had very conservative people wanting it and very liberal people wanting it.

But if you take a look at — if you take a look at that reform package, without Donald Trump, it doesn’t happen. And you know what? I don’t need the credit. I get enough credit. But they never even mention my name. And these were people that were begging me to do it — calling me, begging me like you’ve never seen. And now that criminal justice reform is done — beautiful package, wonderful — they don’t even mention my name. So stupid. So stupid.

Thank you. Thank you.

END TRANSCRIPT 5:09 P.M. EDT

Arrival at White House – South Lawn:

About That “Dinner” With Tim Cook – Completed FoxConn China Factory May Sit Idle…


Last Friday President Trump had dinner with Tim Cook, aka “Tim Apple.”

The dinner came on the heels of USTR Lighthizer announcing a postponement of “next step” 10 percent tariffs against Chinese manufactured products…  Interestingly, the one of the product groups within the delay is personal computers…. Interestingly, Tim Apple was going to launch production assembly of the Macintosh personal computer in China.

Now, consider this:

CHINA – When ground was broken in March 2017 for a new US$9 billion factory owned by a subsidiary of Foxconn Group, the event was witnessed by then Guangdong party secretary Hu Chunhua and Terry Gou Tai-ming, the Taiwanese billionaire who created Foxconn, the world’s largest assembler of Apple’s iPhones and tablets.

Now, after two years of construction in the Guangzhou suburb, the plant’s main structure is completed, and on a recent visit trucks were seen going in and out of a gated compound.

Workers at the site said production lines were being shipped in and installed so the factory could start producing liquefied crystal displays with 8K resolution, which makes screens clearer.  This enthusiasm has given way to unease amid rumours that the factory is for sale.

The local authority in Zengcheng said it had not received any information about a potential sale and that the factory was still on schedule. The original plan called for it to begin operations next month.

One source with direct knowledge of the project’s progress said that everyone involved was now “a bit embarrassed” about the uncertain future. “It wouldn’t be an easy sale, everyone knows,” the source said.

[…] Peng Peng, vice-president of a Guangdong-based non-governmental think tank, said the Chinese factory would turn from a blessing into a curse if Gou were to sell and no buyer could be found.

“If the project is abandoned, the impact on the local economy will be enormous,” he said.

In addition to direct economic losses, the Guangdong government’s plan of creating “clusters of related supply chains” would vanish.   (read more)

That Friday night dinner between President Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook takes on a greater depth of context and makes a lot more sense:

…If you plant your tree in another man’s orchard, don’t be surprised when you have to pay for your own Apples….

 

Sunday Talks: Peter Navarro -vs- Margaret Brennan, Martha Raddatz and Nancy Pelosi – Aligned Ideologues Cheer for Recession…


White House Trade and Manufacturing Advisor Peter Navarro appears on CBS ‘Face the Nation’ and ABC ‘This Week’ to outline the strength of the U.S. economy, and the current U.S-China trade reset, including tariffs.

There are trillions at stake.

Food for thought – contemplate how Sunday media bookings take place.  The ‘subject‘ for  Sunday interview discussions, and who they need for their narrative engineering sessions (ie. interview schedules), are made by MSM *corporate media early in each week.  [*U.S. Media are owned by Wall Street multinational conglomerates]

Obviously, as noted in the WH scheduling requests, the corporate MSM was planning to follow up and exploit their 48 hour engineered narrative (Tue/Wed) surrounding a false recession.  Unfortunately the excellent Commerce Dept. economic data released Thursday crushed their objectives… Thus, the corporate media were tripped up mid-plan.

Here’s Martha Raddatz trying desperately to cling to the pre-planned narrative and talking points:

.

If you needed any empirical evidence to prove the doomsday proclamations by the media pundits are false claims, just look at the July consumer spending resultsJuly spending more than doubled expectations.

July results were +0.7 percent, against the economic forecast of +.03 percent. Consumer spending makes up over two-thirds of the U.S. GDP and overall economy. Doesn’t exactly sound like Main Street is on the precipice of a recession. Oh my.

Average wage growth remains +3.5% year-over-year. The growth of overall income for American workers exceeds +5.4 percent year-over-year. Unemployment is a low 3.6% and U.S. consumer inflation remains low at 1.4 percent. Meaning: the middle-class has more disposable income to save or SPEND; and that’s what is happening….

  • Reminder #1: Consumer spending is two-thirds of the U.S. economy.
  • Reminder #2: We consume more than 80 percent of our own production (products created in USA). We do not rely on exports.
  • Reminder #3: Because of #1 and #2, the “Main Street” U.S. economy is self sustaining -much stronger- and more protected from the negative impacts on the global economy.
  • Reminder #4: Who/What is at risk from global contraction? The Wall Street economy (compromised primarily of multinationals). What is not at risk, the Main St economy.
  • Reminder #5: Because of #3 and #4, Wall Street can drop while Main Street thrives.

This is the fundamental disconnect. These Main Street results, this dynamic, is the space between two economic engines that CTH has been describing for three years. The investment class on Wall Street can go through pain, while the middle-class on Main Street thrive. We are in the space between.

Wall Street Journal: WASHINGTON—American shoppers gave the U.S. economy a solid boost in July, a counter to weakness in the manufacturing sector and Wall Street jitters about faltering growth.

Retail sales, a measure of purchases at stores, restaurants and online, climbed a seasonally adjusted 0.7% in July from a month earlier, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

The robust report—the strongest reading since March and a sign that American consumers remain a source of fuel for the economy—is a positive signal for the U.S. amid warning signs of a global economic slowdown. (link)

Oh noes, the Deplorables are shopping:

Walmart (WMT) beat expectations on both the top and bottom lines for its second quarter. The world’s largest retailer also boosted its fiscal 2020 adjusted EPS and same-store sales forecast. Walmart shares soared 5% as of market open Thursday. (read more)


There is also a clear alignment between those Wall Street multinationals, and democrats like Nancy Pelosi. [Evidence Here] Wall Street’s ability to pay Pelosi and political leadership to protect their multinational interests; in combination with corporate promises of funding to Pelosi’s party; has created the unholy alliance of united interests.

That’s why Nancy Pelosi instructed Justin Trudeau to stall the Canadian ratification of the USMCA. That’s the motive behind why Pelosi is working to stall, perhaps even eliminate, the USMCA ratification in the House. This is also why Pelosi reacted so quickly to the framework of a deal between President Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

It is a political strategy and calculation for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to attempt to sink the U.S. Main Street economy. Weakening Trump’s China confrontation; blocking the USMCA; and impeding a trade agreement between the U.S. and U.K. are part of that calculation.

Prior to this week Hollywood was openly praying for a recession to weaken President Trump’s reelection efforts. However, this week we are now seeing Wall Street, and the media pundits therein, openly cheering for an economic recession for exactly the same purpose.

The aligned interests of Wall Street, media pundits and Democrats are all contingent upon harming the U.S. economy. That is how severely ideological modern democrats are.

The democrats are willing to destroy Main Street in order to retain power.

There are trillions at stake.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The Associated Press

@AP

As President Donald Trump heads to the Group of Seven summit in France next week with his “America First” agenda, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been quietly engaging the world with another point of view. http://apne.ws/NTHax3t 

House speaker as US emissary: Pelosi emerges as force abroad

WASHINGTON (AP) — There’s an American leader whose words resonate on the global stage. Who draws attention in foreign capitals. Who carries a message from the United States by simply…

apnews.com

2,794 people are talking about this

Sunday Talks: Peter Navarro -vs- Jake Tapper…


White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy Advisor Peter Navarro appears on CNN to debate economic policy with Jake Tapper. As customary Tapper attempts to use the Multinational Big AG talking points to identify farmers as victims.

♦The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note dropped to 1.623% Wednesday for less than one hour; momentarily below the 2-year bond rate of 1.634%. The cause was a rapid influx of foreign capital, mostly from the EU (due to negative interest rates), into the U.S. to secure a return. This is not comparable to the historic ‘bond rate inversion’.

♦The biggest fallacy pushed in this interview, YET AGAIN, surrounds price impacts on Chinese imports. Tapper takes the talking points of the Wall Street multinationals, and their paid think-tanks, to push an empirically false assertion of the U.S. consumer paying for tariffs on China. Here’s the easiest refutation of that nonsense:

  • The Steel (25%) and Aluminum (10%) tariffs have been in place for two years.
  • The 25% tariff on $250 billion Chinese goods have been in place over a full year.
  • The current inflation rate (Consumer Price Indexis only 1.4%.

(Bureau of Economic Analysis – Personal Income and Consumer Price Index)

If the tariffs on China were impacting consumers, inflation would be much higher. In fact the exact opposite is happening. Because the protectionist Chinese and EU currency manipulation hits *ALL* imports, including non-tariff products, we are actually importing deflation.