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.
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)
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)
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 spacebetween 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.
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.
The situation in Hong Kong is a geopolitical dynamic that will likely become much more volatile in the next few weeks, months and/or years. One constant in an ever-changing universe is how the UniParty in DC will attempt to drag the U.S. into the issues.
First, Hong Kong is China. Whether a generation of people look back with regret to the time when Great Britain ceded the territory to Beijing is irrelevant. China has, and will have, full control over Hong Kong; and that’s the way it is. This will not be reversed.
Any effort for the people within Hong Kong to reverse the situation and escape the clutches of oppressive communism while retaining their liberty will only lead to massive bloodshed.
Unfortunately for Hong Kong, as President Trump decouples the U.S. economy from the duplicitous communist Chinese enterprise, Beijing will grasp more control over the heavily Western-influenced economic strata in/around Hong Kong.
Stand back and look at the bigger picture. President Trump has neutralized, essentially made irrelevant, Beijing’s use of their proxy province, North Korea. President Trump has embraced Kim Jong-un, not as much out of a position of warmth – but rather as a tactic to block China from weaponizing the DPRK as leverage during the U.S-China trade confrontation.
Beijing still uses their influence to shoot rockets, test missiles etc and president Trump ignores it now. Why? Because North Korea already has nuclear missiles; they’re the same nuclear missiles China has… and it is silly now to think China will remove their nuclear missiles to gain an economic benefit.
If U.S. policy isn’t trying to remove nuclear weapons from China, then why would U.S. policy try to remove nuclear weapons from the DPRK.? They’re the same nukes.
Losing their DPRK leverage, and understanding Beijing has no direct tools to defeat the U.S. in an direct economic confrontation, means China will look elsewhere. That’s where Hong Kong comes into play.
[Always remember, despite the U.S. tariffs on China, there are no tariffs on Hong Kong]
Do we feel sympathy watching a once free society slip into the grips of an oppressive and totalitarian system now ruled by a communist dictator for life in Chairman Xi Jinping? Sure we do. But they made these choices decades ago… now they have the consequences.
If Hong Kong tries to resist Beijing, they will be crushed. Hundreds more will be arrested and disappeared. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will be killed. There is already a ongoing flight of wealth out of Hong Kong as the smart and wealthy position their assets overseas to survive the arrival of Beijing’s storm troopers.
The future for Hong Kong is dark. It is not going to end in anything resembling what exists today. Hong Kong will be Beijing 2.0, and will be entirely dominated by Chinese authoritarian rule. The difference in 2019 is the speed at which it is happening.
Things are speeding up now in direct proportion to the severity of the U.S. decoupling our economy from China. As the Chinese economy weakens, Beijing will get more desperate.
Many voices around President Trump will cry out for intervention. The UniParty will demand intervention and decry President Trump’s instinct to stay away from the self-made crisis.
It is not our issue; and engaging in Hong Kong only opens up another pathway for China to play the duplicitous leverage game…. Beijing will play the “we’ll spare, delay, or dilute the Hong Kong absorption, if you agree to our trade terms” game. [lies, lies, lies]
President Trump needs to engage with China and Hong Kong as one nation, under one rule, with one motive and intent. Trying to win a Chinese trade conflict while parsing the economy of China from the economy of Hong Kong, is like trying to parse the nukes in China from the nukes in North Korea.
Hong Kong is lost. Hong Kong belongs to China. Thousands of Hong Kongers will be killed or disappeared into camps as Beijing absorbs the region. The U.S. cannot continue to engage globally in an effort to protect nations from the consequences of their own decisions.
If Great Britain wants to send an armada of battle ships to warn Beijing against aggression with Hong Kong, then we should support. Wait… wha? Oh, Great Britain no longer has a Navy because the high-minded EU collective wanted to hold hands and sing ‘we-are-the-world’ instead of planning to defend its interests for the past twenty years…. I digress.
Hong Kong is not our issue.
The CIA will try to make it our issue. The State Department will try to make it our issue. The UniParty in DC will try to make it our issue. John Bolton will try to make it our issue. Activists in Hong Kong will try to make it our issue. All of the far-left globalists will try to make it our issue…. Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney will try to make it our issue; but it’s not our issue.
We pray for peace and send our prayers, but we cannot succeed in the larger economic confrontation with cunning China if we attempt to ignore the direct connective tissue between Beijing and Hong Kong.
Instead, start applying the Chinese tariffs on Hong Kong as soon as Beijing tanks arrive.
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. Earlier today President Trump delivered remarks and held and impromptu press conference from the airport in Morristown, NJ, prior to departing for Pennsylvania. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: The stock market continues to do very well. We have very, very strong numbers. We have a lot of artificial numbers from other countries because they’re all devaluing their currencies. They’re really doing things that aren’t very good for their countries, in my opinion. But, short term, it’s very good for their countries. Long term, possibly not.
And we’re not following suit. We have a Fed that decides not to cut interest rates, which is a very bad thing. Because, right now, we have to follow suit; we should be following suit. But we have a very powerful country, a very strong economic and military country. We’ve never been better. The stock market is way up today for various reasons, including tariffs.
I just see where we’ve collected close to $59 billion in tariffs so far. And, in my opinion, the consumer has not paid for it because of the devaluation by China. They devalued and they pumped a lot of money into their system. So, it’s really been an amazing — it’s been an amazing period of time.
Yeah.
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, can you please explain your decision to retweet that comment about Jeffrey Epstein and the —
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he’s a very highly respected, conservative pundit. He’s a big Trump fan. That was a retweet. That wasn’t from me; that was from him. But he’s a man who has half a million followers. A lot of followers. And he’s respected.
And, as you know, Bill Barr wants to do an entire investigation of the whole Epstein matter, what happened. He’s been going on for a long — that’s been going on for a long time, the whole Epstein episode. And I know it’s under investigation by Attorney General Barr, and I’m sure he’s going to be handling it.
The retweet, which is what it was — it was a retweet — was from somebody that’s a very respected, conservative pundit. So I think that was fine.
Yeah.
Q But is it appropriate for you to be spreading that kind of conspiracy theory? I presume you don’t know that that’s true.
THE PRESIDENT: No, basically what we’re saying is we want an investigation. I want a full investigation, and that’s what I absolutely am demanding. That’s what our Attorney General — our great Attorney General — is doing. He’s doing a full investigation.
Q Are you concerned about what you’re seeing in Hong Kong? Do you want China to exercise restraint?
THE PRESIDENT: The Hong Kong thing is a very tough situation. Very tough. We’ll see what happens. But I’m sure it’ll work out. I hope it works out for everybody, including China, by the way. I hope it works out for everybody.
Q Have you seen the gathering of military troops, apparently close to protestors? And there’s worries about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, it’s a very tricky situation. I think it’ll work out. And I hope it works out for liberty. I hope it works out for everybody, including China. I hope it works out peacefully. I hope nobody gets hurts. I hope nobody gets killed.
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.
Q On another issue: Ken Cuccinelli today said, on NPR, that maybe there ought to be a different poem on the Statue of Liberty that says immigrants who come can stand up for themselves and take care of themselves. Do you think that should be changed?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t think it’s fair to have the American taxpayer — you know, it’s about “America First.” I don’t think it’s fair to have the American taxpayer paying for people to come into the United States.
So what we’ve done is institute what took place many, many years ago — at our founding, virtually. But we are just reinstituting it. And I think it’s long overdue.
I am tired of seeing our taxpayer paying for people to come into the country and immediately go onto welfare and various other things. So I think we’re doing it right.
Q Mr. President, you tweeted about a word that Chris Cuomo found racially offensive. Even Sean Hannity defended him. Is that appropriate for you to tweet about that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that what Chris Cuomo did was horrible. His language was horrible. He looked like a total, out-of-control animal. He lost it. And, frankly, I don’t think anybody should defend him because he spews lies every night. So I don’t know why anybody would defend him. But Chris Cuomo was out of control. I watched it. I thought it was terrible.
So I don’t know who’s defending him. Maybe they didn’t see it. Maybe they haven’t gotten a full picture. But I think anybody that would have seen Chris Cuomo would have said that was a disgrace. You’ve never seen me do that.
Q But you wound up tweeting in response to it, saying that maybe he should be flagged by a “red flag” list. Doesn’t that sort of undermine the whole argument that’s going on right now and the push for that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Chris Cuomo was so out of control that I would not have wanted to see a weapon in his hand. I guess his fist is not a weapon or he would have done something. You know, he talked about it but he didn’t do anything.
But I think Chris Cuomo was very much out of control, actually.
Q Mr. President, Anthony Scaramucci today is calling on Republicans to challenge you in 2020, saying that you’ve “gone off the rails.” Do you have a response?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Anthony was a guy who worked for me, who really didn’t have a clue. He worked for 11 days. He made terrible statements and gestures and everything to people that worked in the office. I think you’ve heard Mercedes Schlapp talk about it in great detail.
Anthony didn’t support me at the beginning; he was with somebody else and then he went to somebody else. And he only supported me after it was a foregone conclusion that I was going to win.
I’m not a fan of Anthony. I haven’t been for a long time. I think Anthony is really somebody that’s very much out of control. And he doesn’t have what it takes. I mean, he really doesn’t.
He wanted to come back into the administration for the last five months, begging me to come back in. I said, “Anthony, I can’t take you in. I’m sorry.” He called so much. He’s a nervous, neurotic wreck. He called so much, and I said, “Anthony, I’m sorry. I can’t do that. I can’t take you in.” And I said, “You got to stop all these phone calls. Too many calls, Anthony.” And I wouldn’t take his call. And lo and behold, now he feels differently.
But Anthony is upset because he wanted certain things. The main thing he wanted was to come back into the administration. And as you remember better than I do, he was a disaster for the 11 days.
Q Mr. President, the factory you’re going to today is going to make plastics. You must be aware of all the reports that say the world is awash in plastic and the last thing it needs is more plastic. What’s your feeling on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have tremendous plastics coming over from Asia, from China, and various others. It’s not our plastic. It’s plastics that’s floating over in the ocean and the various oceans from other places.
No, plastics are fine, but you have to know what to do with them. But other countries are not taking care of their plastic use and they haven’t for a long time. And the plastic that we’re getting is floating across the ocean from other places, including China.
Q How is the progress going on background checks? Are you convinced that Mitch McConnell is going to put that up for a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: I am convinced that Mitch wants to do something. I’ve spoken to Mitch McConnell. He’s a good man. He wants to do something. He wants to do it, I think, very strongly. He wants to do background checks, and I do too, and I think a lot of Republicans do. I don’t know, frankly, that the Democrats will get us there.
But I spoke with Chris Murphy, Senator. We had a very good conversation. We’ll see what happens. But I believe that Mitch — and I can tell you, from my standpoint, I would like to see meaningful background checks. And I think something will happen.
Look, it’s very simple: There is nobody more pro-Second Amendment than Donald Trump, but I don’t want guns in the hands of a lunatic or a maniac. And I think if we do proper background checks, we can prevent that.
Q And back on the tweet question: Do you really think the Clintons are involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s death?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I know he was on his plane 27 times and he said he was on the plane 4 times. But when they checked the plane logs, Bill Clinton — who was a very good friend of Epstein — he was on the plane about 27 or 28 times. So why did he say “four times”?
And then the question you have to ask is: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? Because Epstein had an island that was not a good place, as I understand it. And I was never there. So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That’s the question. If you find that out, you’re going to know a lot.
President Trump travels to Pittsburgh, PA, today to tour the Shell cracker plant and deliver remarks on “America’s Energy Dominance and Manufacturing Revival.” The anticipated start time is 2:10pm EST. [Update – Video Added]
The GST Livestream is active now – all others will activate closer to speech time.
First rule in geopolitics, it’s always about the economics. Second rule in geopolitics: refer to rule #1. Understanding this basic truism is the key to understand how President Trump is able to be so effective. There are trillions at stake, and infinite interests.
“Economic security is national security.” ~President Trump
All politics circles back to the underlying economics; whether it is an individual financial self-interest for a specific politician, or whether it is a larger financial interest for a group or even a nation. Everything is always about the money, and that essential truth is why Donald Trump is so uniquely qualified, influential and stunningly effective. Today:
(VIA CBC) The United States would “enthusiastically” support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the British government decided to do, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton told reporters on Monday.
[…] As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union on Oct. 31, its biggest geopolitical shift since the Second World War, many diplomats expect London to become increasingly reliant on the United States.
“If that’s the decision of the British government we will support it enthusiastically, and that’s what I’m trying to convey. We’re with you, we’re with you,” said Bolton, in London for two days of talks with British officials. The U.S. administration is seeking an improved U.S.-British relationship with Prime Minister Boris Johnson after sometimes tense ties between Donald Trump and Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May.
A central message Bolton was making is that the United States will help cushion Britain’s exit from the EU with a free trade agreement that is being negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and his British counterpart, Liz Truss. (read more)
Notice how President Trump doesn’t rely on John Bolton to deliver his message. President Trump builds inherent checks into the process when others deliver his messages about economic deals, strategies and trade proposals. Classic CEO Executive Trump.
It is not that President Trump doesn’t trust Bolton, but rather Trump understands a difference in political priority exists. Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he’s working through a plan for what he views (we agree) is bigger than any ideological aspects.
The economics of all things is the priority for President Trump…. step into that lane, or bring forth a policy directive that crosses into that economic lane, and you step into an administration agenda item completely controlled and directed by Donald Trump.
Every policy engagement from the big to the small goes through the prism of economics first and last. Essentially this is the foundation of the Trump doctrine. Brexit, Huawei, Iran, the larger EU etc. all cross paths with President Trump’s primary focus, U.S. economic wealth, influence and security.
Donald Trump isn’t leaving anything to chance or misinterpretation…. He’s full bore economic Obsessive Compulsive! …And unapologetic about it.
President Trump has single-handily, and purposefully, stalled the global economy and is forcing 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; and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshall plan for global trade and one-way tariffs.
Every minute element within this process, no matter how seemingly small, has President Trump’s full attention. He has assignments to many, but he relies upon none.
(Reuters) – The United States overtook Germany as the biggest supplier of imports into Britain for the first time since the early 2000s in the last financial year, the UK government said on Friday.
British trade minister Liz Truss has said the United States tops her priority list for post-Brexit trade deals and has been in Washington this week, along with Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, to promote UK-US ties.
Imports from the United States increased by 14% to 78.27 billion pounds ($94.43 billion) in the year to April, the Department for Trade said, while imports from Germany fell by 0.1% to 78.26 billion pounds.
While Germany has long been Britain’s biggest source of imports, the United States was already Britain’s largest export market, with exports reaching a record high of 121.6 billion pounds in the last financial year.
“Now that the U.S. is our largest market for both exports and imports, there has never been a better time for us to make the most of this golden opportunity and deliver a free trade agreement with the US,” Truss said in a statement. (more)
The White House has announced the Trump administration will enforce long-standing immigration laws that require entrants to be economically self-sufficient and limits public welfare benefits. An entry alien who is -or becomes- dependent on public welfare assistance, is known as a “public charge”. Aliens will be barred from entering the United States if they are deemed likely to become public charges, or welfare dependent.
These immigration rules have been in place for over 100 years, and generally were strictly enforced until the last 25 years. The Trump administration is re-enforcing the rules.
.
The enforcement action will have a direct bearing on the current immigration process as most border arrivals are economic migrants manipulating asylum claims. Immigration based on self-sufficiency has been U.S. law for generations.
[White House] – The Trump Administration is taking action to help ensure that non-citizens in this country are self-sufficient and not a strain on public resources.
* The Trump Administration is releasing a final rule that will protect American taxpayers, preserve our social safety net for vulnerable Americans, and uphold the rule of law.
* This action will help ensure that if aliens want to enter or remain in the United States they must support themselves, and not rely on public benefits.
* An alien who receives public benefits above a certain threshold is known as a “public charge.”
Aliens will be barred from entering the United States if they are found likely to become public charges.
Aliens in the United States who are found likely to become public charges will also be barred from adjusting their
immigration status.
* President Trump is enforcing this longstanding law to prevent aliens from depending on public benefit programs.
The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that those seeking to come to the United States cannot be a public charge.
* For many years, this clear legal requirement went largely unenforced, imposing vast burdens on American taxpayers. Now, public charge law will finally be utilized.
ENCOURAGING SELF-SUFFICIENCY: Self-sufficiency has long been a basic principle of our Nation’s immigration laws that has enjoyed widespread support.
* Public charge has been a part of United States immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility.
* Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed two bipartisan bills in 1996 to help stop aliens from exploiting public benefits.
This included the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
As Congress made clear at the time, it is our national policy that aliens should “not depend on public resources to meet their needs.”
* Americans widely agree that individuals coming to our country should be self-sufficient, with 73 percent in favor of requiring immigrants to be able to support themselves financially.
PRESERVING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET: We must ensure that non-citizens do not abuse our public benefit programs and jeopardize the social safety net needed by vulnerable Americans.
* Large numbers of non-citizens and their families have taken advantage of our generous public benefits, limited resources that could otherwise go to vulnerable Americans.
* 78 percent of households headed by a non-citizen with no more than a high school education use at least one welfare program.
* 58 percent of all households headed by a non-citizen use at least one welfare program.
* Half of all non-citizen headed households include at least one person who uses Medicaid. (White House Link)
President Trump wields his Twitter sword to brand Baltimore a disgusting, filthy, rat & rodent infested mess. Democrats leap to defend Rep. Elijah Cummings, who represents the city in Congress, against what they call a racist attack against the Black lawmaker and his many Black constituents. But could Trump’s remark actually help save Baltimore? Right Angle is a production of the Members at BillWhittle.com, who fund 48 new shows each month, and a private conservative enclave where they write their own vibrant blog. Join them now at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
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.
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.
Centinel2012 