Wow, President Trump Crowd for New Hampshire Rally Easily Breaks Record with over 11,500 inside and 8,000 to 9,000 outside!


President Trump said the MAGA rally at the SNHU Arena in Manchester, New Hampshire, beat all venue records for crowd attendance.

The anti-Trump media nuts immediately went bananas trying to disprove it.  The funny things is, not only was President Trump correct – he underestimated the crowd.

According to the Manchester Fire Marshal there were over 11,500 people inside the arena (pictured above), and around 8,000 to 9,000 outside watching jumbo screens (pic below).  The total exceeds 20,000. The previous record was 11,300 for an Elton John concert.

‘The Trump people wanted the fire marshal to let more people in, and at some point they say no,’ the official said. But there were tons and tons more outside. It’s not like they couldn’t fill the place.’  (via Daily Mail)

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

https://www.pscp.tv/w/cCX70TFvTlFsTFJub1dwUXd8MWRSS1ptWWt2V0R4QgDdx6zsehz5dCy3Cuu-fvxk9tMe0HF2COWaRpuz_Ceu?t=16s 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Thank you New Hampshire. KEEP AMERICA GREAT! #KAG2020

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
55.5K people are talking about this

David Martosko

@dmartosko

So it turns out @realDonaldTrump was right about breaking Elton John’s attendance record in Manchester, NH. The fire marshal counted “11,500-plus,” breaking the record by at least 200. Marshal also estimated overflow crowd of “8,000-9,000” standing outside https://mol.im/a/7365155 

NH fire marshal: Trump DID smash Elton John’s arena attendance record

Manchester’s deputy fire marshal said Trump’s rally crowd Thursday night was ‘just over 11,500,’ and 8,000-9,000 more stood outside watching on TV. Elton John’s record had stood at 11,300.

dailymail.co.uk

2,327 people are talking about this

Politics to Support Wall Street Multinationals – Democrats Plan to Block Trump Trade Reset…


On Thursday June 20, 2019, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Washington DC for a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and democrat leadership.  After the political ideologues held the meeting, Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland tabled the Canadian ratification on the USMCA trade agreement.

It was obvious both groups of avowed leftists agreed to stall the USMCA for politics.

On August 13th White House emissary National Security Advisor John Bolton met with Britian’s Chancellor of Exchequer Sajid Javid, and the public became aware of efforts toward a six month post Brexit U.S-U.K trade agreement that would become effective on November 1st, 2019; immediately the day after Brexit was official.

On August 14th Speaker Nancy Pelosi quickly rushed a press release saying the House would never support that interim U.S-U.K trade agreement, using cover story of worry about Ireland/Northern Ireland peace accord.  Beyond all the talking points the baseline reason for Pelosi’s opposition is Democrats do not support Brexit.  Both the immediacy and the construct of the counter-maneuver by Pelosi were noted. [House in recess].

Immediately after the deal between President Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson became public; an intense international media effort began to push a narrative of the “U.S. heading to a recession”.  The group of corporate financial media interests; those who advance the interests of Wall Street and are adamantly adverse to a global trade reset; and the political opposition to Donald Trump, began using a recession talking point in unison.

There is a clear, albeit complex, timeline of Trump’s trade strategy that is evident to those who are following closely.

The confrontation with China is one part; the removal of the back-doors into the US economy (NAFTA) is another part; a looming confrontation with the EU over their protectionist exploitation of one-way tariffs is yet another part.

The strategy to deal with each of the three primary negative trade elements (China, NAFTA, EU) is clear within President Trump’s trade reset.

  • Bilateral deals with ASEAN partner nations and simultaneous crushing tariffs on China deals with one problem.  China’s removal of U.S. wealth and jobs is halted.
  • The construct of the USMCA, and country of origin for source material and strict enforcement mechanisms, deals with the second problem: NAFTA’s fatal flaw.
  • An reciprocal and barrier removing agreement between the U.S. and U.K; which can open a tariff free trade highway between North America and Europe; creates the leverage for Trump (benefit for Johnson) that begins to deal with the EU problem.

In the big picture President Donald Trump has purposefully stalled the process of supply chain globalization and cheap labor evaluation.  Trump is resetting global manufacturing supply chains, with U.S. incentives for relocation.   This is bringing wealth and jobs back into the United States (and North America).

In essence Titan Trump is engaged in a process of: (a) repatriating wealth (trade policy); (b) blocking exfiltration of wealth (main street policy); (c) creating new and modern economic alliances based on reciprocity (bilateral deals); and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshall plan of global trade and one-way tariffs (de-globalization).

In all of these efforts U.S. multinational corporations, big companies on Wall St, are heavily opposed to President Trump because they have invested in those overseas operations.  Those companies facilitated the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

There is also now a clear alignment between those Wall Street multinationals, and democrats like Nancy Pelosi.   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.

Current Politics – A Semi Parody…


Content created by Som3thingwickeed who uses the Dennis Leary Ford commercial theme to create a commercial explaining the current state of politics. [A Little Salty]

Nails It – Economic Analyst El-Erian: The Era of “De-Globalization” is Here…


Finally an economic analyst gets prime-time media pundits to listen as he describes the fundamental difference between the U.S. “Economy” (Main Street) and the U.S. “Markets” (Wall Street).  Charles Payne understands most of this, but El-Erian has it nailed.

Allianz Group chief economic advisor, Mohamed El-Erian, accurately describes what is happening in an era where deglobalization is taking place. The U.S. economy is strong; however, the multinationals on Wall Street -invested overseas- are exposed.  Thus there’s a disconnect and accompanying market volatility.

This is well worth watching because this is the first well-regarded financial pundit that is speaking truth to Wall Street in terms the panel pundits will understand/accept.

.

There is nothing that China and the EU can do to stop the de-globalization process; and efforts to stimulate their economy, more quantitative easing (pumping money) while the global supply chains are being shifted, are futile.

The more a nations’ economy is dependent on exports, the more exposure they have to the inherent downsides of de-globalization.   U.S. companies that are invested in these nations will lose their investment over time; some rapidly.  This will keep the stock market volatile, yet the Main Street USA economy is thriving.

President Donald Trump has purposefully stalled the process of globalization, and is resetting global supply chains. This is bringing massive amounts of wealth back into the United States.

In essence Titan Trump is engaged in a process of: (a) repatriating wealth (trade policy); (b) blocking exfiltration (main street policy); (c) creating new and modern economic alliances based on reciprocity (bilateral deals); and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshall plan of global trade and one-way tariffs (de-globalization).

President Trump MAGA Rally – Manchester, New Hampshire – 7:00pm EST Livestream…


Tonight President Donald J. Trump is holds a MAGA/KAG campaign rally at SNHU Arena in Manchester, NH.  The President is scheduled to speak at 7:00pm EST with pre-rally speakers and events ongoing.

UPDATE: Rally Video Added

RSBN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – GST Livestream Link

.

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


Chopper pressers are the best pressers.  A confident, cool and assertively diplomatic President Donald Trump holds an impromptu press conference with media as he departs New Jersey for a campaign rally in New Hampshire. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, tremendous retail numbers were announced today, which really is a great indicator of how well our country is doing, how well our economy is doing. Those are real numbers. Walmart announced; others announced. We had some tremendous numbers come out today, which I’m sure you saw. So we’re very happy about that. We’re doing very well.

The economy is incredible. The consumer — probably above all else, the consumer is doing incredibly.

So, go ahead. Any questions?

Q What actions are you prepared to take to avoid a recession if this yield curve thing is really predictive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we’re going to have a very long period of wealth and success. Other countries are doing very poorly. As you know, China is doing very, very poorly. The tariffs have really bitten into China. They haven’t bitten into us at all — except for the reporters that want to make it look that way, but they don’t understand what’s happening.

The tariffs, we’ve taken in close to $60 billion in tariff money. And the consumer has not paid for them. Now, at some point, they may have to pay something. But they understand that. And who really understands that is our great farmer. The farmers of this country really understand it. They know we had to do something about China, and we’re doing something about China.

With that being said, I think we’re having very good discussions with China. They very much want to make a deal. We’ll see what happens. We had a deal and they decided not to make it. Now, I think they would like to have had that opportunity again, because I think they really would —

Q Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: I think they really missed a great opportunity. I think they feel that they missed a great opportunity. But China very much wants to make a deal. We’re talking to them. We’ll see what happens.

Yeah.

Q Why did you feel the need to get involved in the two congresswomen’s trip to Israel?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m only involved from the standpoint of they are very anti-Jewish and they’re very anti-Israel. I think it’s disgraceful, the things they’ve said. You have lists of — and this isn’t just a one-line mistake; what they’ve said about Israel and Jewish people is a horrible thing. And they’ve become the face of the Democrat Party.

So I did absolutely put out a very strong statement. I think, if you look at their language, if you look at what they’ve said, if I ever said it, it would be a — it would be a horrible — it would be a horrible month, to put it mildly.

So the things that they’ve said — Omar, Tlaib — what they’ve said is disgraceful. So I can’t imagine why Israel would let them in. But if they want to let them in, they can. But I can’t imagine why they would do it.

Q Are you worried that a prolonged trade war with China will pitch the economy into a recession?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think the longer the trade war goes on, the weaker China gets and the stronger we get. We’re taking in massive amounts of money. Billions and billions of dollars, Steve, as you know. And I think the longer it goes, the stronger we get. I have a feeling it’s going to go fairly short. I think it’s going to be –

China has lost millions of jobs; you saw that reported today. Thousands of companies are closing in China. And I don’t know, you know, maybe they want to do this for a year. They’d love to have somebody like Biden, who doesn’t know what he’s doing. I mean, I just put a clip where he said, “Oh, we want to build up China. We want to build up China.” Well, they gave us a very strong China. China has taken out over $500 billion a year for many years from our country. And that’s not going to happen anymore.

Q Sir, just —

Q How concerned are you — let me just follow up, sorry.

Q Sure. It’s okay.

Q How concerned are you about a violent crackdown by the Chinese in Hong Kong?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am concerned. I wouldn’t want to see a violent crackdown. I put a little bit of a memo out last night. He’s a man I like a lot. I get along with him very well — President Xi.

And I said that I would be willing to bet that if he sat down with the protesters — a group of representative protesters — I bet he’d work it out in 15 minutes. I bet he’d work it out very quickly. I know it’s not the kind of thing he does, but I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea. I really believe if he sat down — they have a certain little leadership pool. If he sat down with that leadership pool, I’ll bet he’d work something out very quickly.

It really seems like things — it could be worked out pretty easily.

Q Did you speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the congresswomen coming?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to comment about who I spoke to, but I think my social media statement pretty well speaks for itself. I feel that they are so anti-Israel, so anti-Jewish. Again, if other people made that statement, there would have been hell to pay. So — but I did speak to people over there.

Yeah.

Q Sir, China has said that they want to retaliate, that they’re going to retaliate because of the tariffs increase that you announced. What’s your response to that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if they did retaliate — which I don’t think they will do because we’re talking to them and they’re offering things that are very good. I don’t think they’ll retaliate. But if they did, we have the ultimate form of retaliation. I think that they’d have very few jobs left in China, because we’d be able to step it up.

Just so you understand, I’ve been very mild about it. Very, very mild. There’s a long way I can go. And somebody had to take on what was happening with China. We can’t allow China to take, out of our country, $507 billion every year, not including intellectual property theft and so many other things.

So, we’re having very good talks with China. I think things will happen, but we’ll see.

Q If they do retaliate, will you want your team to meet with them in September as planned, or no?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s too — I — look, September, the meeting is still on, as I understand it. But I think, more importantly than September, we’re talking by phone and we’re having very productive talks. They would like to do something, I will tell you that.

And the talk we had a few days ago with my two representatives, nobody knew what was on that talk except for myself, China, and those two people. That was a very good conversation.

Q Do you want Jay Powell to cut interest rates some more?

THE PRESIDENT: Jay Powell should be cutting rates because every country all over the world is cutting, and we want to stay, sort of, even. And I don’t mind if we’re higher — we’re better — we’re a better credit — but we’re way too high. Jay Powell has made a big mistake. He raised them too fast, and he also quantitative tightened. He did quantitative tightening. That was a big mistake — $50 billion a month. And it put us in a position.

And interestingly, even with normalized interest rates, President Obama was paying nothing. And we have a much better economy.

And you have to look at our economy also from the day after my election, because we picked up tremendous steam the day after the election. That’s not attributable to President Obama. They only did that because of us.

So when somebody says “from January 20th,” it’s not from January 20th; it’s from November 9th, the day after the election. We picked up. The fact that I won lifted our economy greatly. And if I didn’t win, it would go down. And, frankly, if, for some reason that happened in the 2020 election, you’ll see this economy go down the tubes. I will tell you that right now.

Q Mr. President, do you have any idea on when China’s going to follow through on their (inaudible) and crack down on fentanyl?

THE PRESIDENT: They want to follow through very quickly. This was part of the conversation that we had. They had a special representative actually come over and talk to us — a different group — and a message to me, a very strong message to me. They want to start doing that very quickly. I’ll be honest, I’m not there yet.

Q Did you — did you tell Israel to —

THE PRESIDENT: It’s not China; I’m not there yet. We’ll see what happens.

I do want to — I really would like to see China, in a humane way, solve the problem in Hong Kong — humanely solve the problem in Hong Kong. And I think they could do it very quickly. You know, I said yesterday: I really have a lot of confidence in President Xi. I know that if he sat down with their representatives, I have no doubt he would solve that problem quickly.

Q In your conversations with people connected to Israel, did you encourage them to reject the (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t encourage or discourage. I think that if Israel allowed them to come in for the normal reasons, other than those reasons, I really believe that it would be a terrible thing for Israel. I think it would show a terrible sign.

They want to do boycotts. They said horrible things about Jewish people. They said horrible things about Israel and Israelis. I think it would be terrible thing, frankly, for Israel to let these two people, who speak so badly about Israel, come in.

And they have become, amazingly, the face of the Democrats. The Democrats don’t want to do anything to condemn them. If they were — if this were 10 years ago, or if this were maybe a different time or different people or whatever, they would be condemned for the things they’ve said. They’ve said some of the worst things I’ve ever heard said about Israel. So how can Israel say, “Oh, welcome”? I don’t think it would be a good thing for Israel.

Q Mr. President, do you think that Steve King needs to resign?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know the situation with Steve King. It looked like — I read a statement that supposedly he made. I haven’t been briefed on it, but certainly it wasn’t a very good statement.

Q So, you’re going to go to the G7 pretty soon, and I think you’re going to meet with Boris Johnson. Are you going to have some sort of declaration about the intent to seal a trade deal with him, with the Britons?

THE PRESIDENT: So, we’re dealing with the UK on trade and a trade deal, and we’re going to have a great deal made. I’ve been dealing with Boris Johnson. I just spoke to him yesterday. I’ll speak to him again. He and I are very much aligned. We feel very good about each other. I think we’ll make a fantastic and big trade deal with the UK.

Actually, we should do much more business than we’re doing with the UK. You know, it’s a — they’re probably — I don’t want to say our “closest,” because I don’t want to insult other people, but certainly — or countries — but certainly they’re one of our closest allies anywhere in the world. And we’re going to have a fantastic relationship with UK. And we’re going to have a great trade deal with UK. And that’s moving along rapidly.

Q Any other goals for the G7, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I think just relationship. We’ll see what happens. We have a lot of things to discuss, a lot of things to discuss.

Q Is Corey going to announce tonight?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. Corey Lewandowski, I think, would be terrific if he ran, but I don’t know that he’s going to run. I spoke to him about it a week ago. Frankly, I think it’s something he’d like to do, but I don’t know that he’s going to do it. I think he’d be very good. He loves New Hampshire. He loves our country. If he did it, I think he’d be very formidable.

Q What executive actions are you prepared to take on guns? Executive actions on guns, are you prepared —

THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to look at that very closely, and we’re looking at the whole gun situation.

I do want people to remember the words “mental illness.” These people are mentally ill and nobody talks about that. But these are mentally ill people, and people have to start thinking about it.

I think we have to start building institutions again because, you know, if you look at the ‘60s and ‘70s, so many of these institutions were closed. And the people were just allowed to go onto the streets. And that was a terrible thing for our country. They closed them; cities couldn’t afford them and they closed them. I mean, I can tell you: In New York, they closed a lot of them. And the people went out; they went out onto the streets. And it’s a terrible thing. But a lot of our conversation has to do with the fact that we have to open up institutions. We can’t let these people be on the streets.

So, we have a tremendous crowd in New Hampshire. It’s — all over the place, everybody is saying, “Wow.” Our competitor has virtually no crowd. I don’t know what that means. I assume that’s a poll of some kind. But I think we’re going to do very well in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire should have been won last time, except we had a lot of people come in at the last moment, which was a rather strange situation. Thousands and thousands of people coming in from locations unknown. But I knew where their location was.

Q Where (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: But I think we’re going to have — I think we’re going to have a tremendous success in New Hampshire. These are great people. And the relationship is very good.

Q Do you still plan to commute the sentence of Blagojevich?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re looking at it. I feel very badly. I think he was very harshly sentenced, but we’re looking at it very strongly. People feel very strongly about that. I floated it and I wanted to see where the Democrats stood, where the Republicans stood.

People feel very strongly about Rod Blagojevich and his sentence. He’s been in there for seven and a half years; that’s a long time. And what he did was terrible, but it’s a long time. It’s a long time.

Q Are you pushing Mitch McConnell on background checks?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve been dealing with Mitch McConnell. He’s a man who we have had tremendous success with judges and judicial appointments. We’re going to be up to 179 federal judges within the next two months. Nobody would have believed that’s possible. And that was because President Obama was unable to get them completed. So I inherited about 138 empty seats. Nobody can believe it. And we will have them almost all filled with tremendous judges and tremendously talented, smart people. They’ll be filled within two months.

So I have 179 judges and 2 Supreme Court justices. That’s something that nobody would have ever thought possible. I want to thank, very much, President Obama for that.

Q But I was asking about background checks for gun owners, for gun purchasers.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we do. I’ve been speaking to Mitch about that. I’ve been speaking to everybody about it. And we don’t want to see crazy people owning guns. But I also want to remember that mental illness is something nobody wants to talk about. These people are mentally ill and we have to study that also. Because, you know, it’s them; they pull the trigger. The gun doesn’t pull the trigger. They pull the trigger. So we have to look very seriously at mental illness, and we’re doing that at a level that hasn’t been done before. Okay?

Q (Inaudible) speaking with, Mr. President, besides the Senate Majority Leader and Pat Toomey? Is there anyone else who you’re talking to?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Yeah. I’m speaking to many Republicans. And I’ll tell you, it’s — it’s been pretty — an amazing experience. They want to see something happen. And basically, it’s very simple, they don’t want to have insane people, dangerous people, really bad people having guns. Republicans agree with me on that, I think, you know, I would say, pretty much uniformly.

Q Do you think this will be easy to do when the Senate comes back? Or how (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m afraid that if we came up with a good bill, I think the Democrats then might up it, and then do things that can’t be done and that the public wouldn’t want done. I hope that wouldn’t happen, but that’s happened in the past. You understand.

Q Do you support universal background checks?

THE PRESIDENT: I support strong, meaningful background checks, where people that should not have guns, people that are insane, people that are mentally ill, people that are bad, bad people — like this guy in Philadelphia, who has been arrested numerous times; he’s a bad guy — where people like that would not have guns. And, frankly, people like that should be locked up. He shouldn’t have even been on the streets.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Q Did you talk to Xi directly? Was that who you talked to in China?

THE PRESIDENT: I will speak to him. We have a call scheduled soon — President Xi. We’ll be speaking to him very soon. I really believe he can work it out. I know him well. If he wants to, he can work that out in a very humane fashion. He can work something that everybody is happy. Thank you.

END 5:23 P.M. EDT

Evidence Surfaces of Intentional Employment Violations by Mississippi Companies Raided by ICE…


After federal authorities raided seven chicken processing facilities in Mississippi last week evidence is now surfacing (within probable cause affidavits – full pdf below) of willful and intentional illegal hiring practices.  But don’t look for all the employers to be prosecuted.

The Washington Post has an excellent outline of the seven facilities citing dozens of instances where evidence shows each company knew they were hiring people who were not legally eligible for work.

In a surprising number of cases the illegal employees were arrested by Border Patrol in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona and released on electronic-monitoring programs, including ankle bracelets, to await court dates.

According to the affidavits federal authorities tracked the GPS locators on some of the employees and found they were illegally working in all of the facilities.  During interviews with the workers they stated how friends and family members in Mexico and Guatemala told them where to go for work in Mississippi.

Apparently the ability to gain illegal employment at the Mississippi facilities, and specifically where to go to get hired, was widely known throughout the home communities of the migrants.  After they were detained at the U.S. border, they were processed, received monitors, allowed to leave, and then immediately went to Mississippi to begin work.

They were not allowed to work legally in the United States while wearing the ankle-bracelets and monitored.  However, they just went to the chicken plants because that was all just part of the anticipated program.

The hiring examples include the customary use of multiple aliases, forged paperwork and ID’s, and using social security numbers of deceased people.

The Washington Post article is really quite remarkable:  SEE HERE.

[Excerpt] … The records detail how ICE linked undocumented immigrants to the companies. Investigators found some employees via GPS coordinates at plants operated by all five companies. The employees previously had been arrested by Border Patrol agents in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona and released on electronic-monitoring programs, including ankle bracelets, to await court dates. In each case cited, the individuals listed addresses in small towns in central Mississippi where they could be located.

An undocumented Mexican woman working in a Peco Foods plant in Bay Springs, Miss., told immigration officials that she had come to the state because people in Mexico had told her that jobs were available at the chicken plants there.

In cases cited in the affidavits, people on ICE’s electronic-monitoring programs were not authorized to work. But according to the affidavits, dozens of employees in such programs were found working at the seven chicken plants in 2018 and 2019. One successful job applicant was told by a supervisor during her interview that she would need to keep her ankle monitor charged while she worked. (read more)

Now, at first review it might sound like the plant employers would be in big trouble; however, buried deep in the article is this statement from one of the employers (Koch Foods), that everyone should pay attention to:

Koch spokesman Jim Gilliland told The Post that Koch Foods risked violating federal law that bans discrimination on the basis of national origin for requesting documents beyond what an applicant provides, if those materials appear authentic.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that what Mr. Gilliland says there is absolutely accurate.  There are two sets of laws in conflict with each-other; and you can be sued, and/or fined, by the United States Department of Labor and/or the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division for not hiring illegal aliens.

If you question the authenticity of any applicants identity; and that applicant is one of a legally protected category (think “ethnicity” or “origin”); and the employers authenticity challenge results in a “disparate impact” of non-eligibility for employment – as determined by ethnicity (Latino); then you are in violation of U.S. labor laws.  This happens regardless of it being unlawful to hire illegal aliens.

If you challenge the presented documents, and all the outcomes of those challenges result in non-eligibility of Hispanics as a greater percentage than non-Hispanics, you are violating employment law under the DOJ (Civil Rights Division) definition of “disparate impact.”   In this example, and it is common (believe me), additional employment eligibility checks due to suspicions of false ID’s, is unlawful and legally risky.

It’s also completely stupid.

.

Consumer Spending Beats Expectations – Shoppers Reject Phony Media Recession Fears…


If you needed any empirical evidence to prove the doomsday proclamations by the financial pundits are false claims, just look at the July consumer spending results. July 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)

Trade and Manufacturing Advisor Peter Navarro Discusses “Next Step” Chinese Trade Tariffs…


White House trade and manufacturing policy advisor Peter Navarro appears on Fox News to discuss the status of the U.S-China trade negotiations and the reason for a USTR delay on some product tariffs.

Peter Navarro confirms what we noted from the office of USTR Robert Lighthizer yesterday.  On December 15th “the tariffs will go on.”   While the statement flies over the head of Stuart Varney, Navarro confirms the “next step” process that Lighthizer implied.

.

More below

The U.S. stock market continues reacting to an unusual dynamic. 50% of all companies manufacturing in China are U.S. owned multinational corporations. Those companies don’t want tariffs to succeed in disrupting their supply chain. As a consequence those Wall St. Corps also don’t want lower U.S. Fed interest rates designed to combat China’s currency devaluation.

Normally Wall St. would like lower rates (cheap money), but in this dynamic the U.S. multinationals are against it. Wall Street is schizophrenic. Domestic U.S. companies benefit from the lower rates; however, now, lower rates are adverse to the interests of the multinational companies.

It was Albert Einstein who aptly stated:

“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”

The same basic principle applies to those who are trying to understand and evaluate current economic activity yet failing to disengage themselves from their historic economic frames of reference.

Minds who are framed around thirty years of financial/monetary political policy; intended to influence the U.S. economy and created by vested interests who were building out the legislative priorities based on Wall Streets’ best interests; will struggle to understand the new landscape which is entirely formulated to benefit Main Street.

There are two economic engines: Wall Street and Main Street.

The two economic engines are divergent and detached. Time (30+ years), along with monetary focus only on Wall Street interests (multinationals), pushed those two economic engines further apart. The same monetary policies which worked in the immediate past will not work in the immediate future.

We are now in the economic space between both engines. The traditional cause and effect (Fed) is now uncoupled.  The administrators of the economy are perplexed; this is unfamiliar terrain.

The exact same areas of the country which have gone through three decades of economic contraction are now seeing economic expansion and revitalization. The Fed policy which influences Wall Street was not, and is not, domestic centric. The fed policy was corporate driven monetary policy and globalist in influence.

Until the two economies gain parity in value – any fed activity, taken as a consequence to their familiar traditional measurements (interest rates etc.), will have minimal to negligible impact on Main Street.

Senator John Cornyn

@JohnCornyn

Overlooked on economy? Rising paychecks for blue-collar workers are shrinking the wage gap

We need more emphasis on blue-collar trades. There’s more than one path to a solid paycheck, especially given demographic and workplace trends.

usatoday.com

238 people are talking about this

U.S. Delays and Modifies “Next Step” Tariffs on Chinese Products…


Early on Tuesday United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announced the modification of “next step” tariffs on Chinese products.  [See Here] “Products in this group include, for example, cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, and certain items of footwear and clothing.”

President Trump responded to the delay/modification when questioned in New Jersey.  President Trump noted a “very productive” phone call between Lighthizer and Vice-Premier Liu He of China:

[Transcript Segment] – […] Q Why did you make the decision on the tariffs, to delay the implementation of the tariffs?

THE PRESIDENT: Only to help, I think, a lot of different groups of people. And we had a very good talk yesterday with China — a very, very productive call. I think they want to do something. I think they’d like to do something dramatic. I was not sure whether or not they wanted to wait until a Democrat has a chance to get in. Hopefully that’s not going to happen because the economy would go to hell in a handbasket very fast.

But they really would like to make a deal. The call itself was very productive. I’m not sure if it was the tariffs or the call, but the call was very productive. Again, they’ve said this many times; they’ve said they’re going to buy farm products. So far, they’ve disappointed me with the truth. They haven’t been truthful, or, let’s say, they’ve certainly delayed the decision. But it’s their intention to buy a lot of farm product.

And we did — we had a very good call with China. I mean, they would really like to do — as you know, they have a problem in Hong Kong, but they would like very much to do something.

Q Would you consider moving the tariffs, even? Delaying them even further, past December 15?

THE PRESIDENT: No, we’re doing this for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers, which, so far, they’ve had virtually none. The only impact has been that we’ve collected almost $60 billion from China — compliments of China. But just in case they might have an impact on people, what we’ve done is we’ve delayed it so that they won’t be relevant for the Christmas shopping season.

Q Mr. President, are you more optimistic now that there’s a chance of getting a deal between China on trade?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve always been optimistic. My only question is whether or not they were willing to wait and take the chance on winning the election and deal with somebody who’s weak and ineffective and doesn’t know what he’s doing or she’s doing, like they’ve had in the past.

This should have been done 25 years ago. It should have been done 10 years ago or 5 years ago. This should have been done a long time ago. This should have been done by Biden and Obama. China is taking out $500 billion a year, and much more than that, if you include the theft of intellectual property. What I’m doing now should have been done many years ago.  (link)

At the 30,000 ft level, the decision to postpone and modify looks political from the perspective of timing.  Additionally the use of the term “next step tariffs” by USTR Lighthizer implies a sense of inevitability to a pre-determined process of increasing tariffs.

It would appear that President Trump has made a move based on a statement by Liu He about China making good on a prior promise to purchase significant agricultural products.  Whether or not Vice-Premier Liu He is being misled (or used) by Beijing’s strong-arm and duplicitous Commerce Minister Zhong Shan is yet to be determined.

Minister Zhong, who previously worked under Xi when the president was at the helm of Zhejiang province, is viewed as a hardliner who has strictly toed the party line.  Zhong was moved into primary trade negotiation position when China reengaged with the U.S. team.

My hunch is President Trump has delayed the Sept. 1st tariffs to see if Liu He will deliver on the agriculture promise, or if Zhon Shan is manipulating a lie to gain breathing room. While the latter seems more likely; it would make sense for President Trump to see of a multi-billion Ag purchase will take place.  The benefit to the U.S. would mean a pending  farm subsidy wouldn’t be needed; and based on the timing of the phone contact and message from China, this scenario appears to be the most likely background.

In essence President Trump appears to be looking to save U.S. money by avoiding a subsidy; and simultaneously benefit from the optic of the upcoming trade discussions with China in Washington DC in early September.

Pushing the full tariff decision to December 15th, puts a window of activity between now and the “next step” toward China.

Within that window President Trump will be traveling to Biarritz, France, (August 24th through 26th) for the G7 [U.S., U.K, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and Canada +EU weasels)] where it is now anticipated an interim U.S-U.K trade deal will be announced.  [Maybe some unspoken five-eyes ‘spygate’ leverage for wheel grease]

Also within that window, the IG report on FISA abuse and ‘spygate’ (Sept?).

Also within that window, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison will be coming to the White House for an official state visit, and state dinner, in September.  A key strategic trade ally, geopolitical foil against China, and ASEAN member. [Maybe more five-eyes ‘spygate’ wheel-greasing leverage]

Also within that window the Canadian election will take place on October 21st; which, depending on outcome, could radically change the time-frame for the USMCA ratification.

It still seems more likely than not that President Trump (Team USA) and Shinzo Abe (Team Japan) have hammered out the U.S-Japan trade agreement.

Most forget, but team USA and team Japan met for weeks of negotiations before Trump’s state visit to Japan, and the G20 in Osaka soon thereafter.

Everyone suspected a trade announcement, but curiously there was no mention.  Instead, everyone immediately became distracted by President Trump’s visit to the DPRK and meeting with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ.

I suspect there was a purposeful intent (dual purpose) in the DPRK distraction; and I suspect the U.S-Japan trade announcement is being purposefully delayed based on the ongoing issues with China and the tentacles that extend globally and financially.

If my suspicions are accurate, President Trump is positioning the U.K. trade deal to be the ultimate leverage to force the EU into negotiations…. socialism is hit hard.  Then, if/when the Canadian election concludes, the USMCA ratification will be a primary focus…. Then comes an announcement of the U.S. and Japan deal…. then comes the hammer on China (and/or possibly now including Hong Kong)…. and communism is hit hard.

With the foundation of the USMCA, UK and Japan providing the overwhelming financial momentum, both parasitic wealth-sucking book-ends: China and the EU, are hit in a sequence of trade actions (tariffs) that could radically alter the global supply chain.

Just a hunch.

It all seems rather Trumpian.

No-one else could ever possibly pull this off.

No-one else would even try.