Story 1: Made In America Terrorist Tested In Afghanistan — Mother of All Bombs — Who is Next? North Korea, Syria, Iran — Videos —
OFFICIAL M.O.A.B FOOTAGE RELEASED (Afghans React to M.O.A.B Bomb) *Compilation 2017 HD*
OFFICIAL M.O.A.B FOOTAGE RELEASED (Afghans React to M.O.A.B Bomb) *Compilation 2017 HD*
Former UN Amb. Bolton on Afghanistan bombing: Magnitude roughly equivalent to small nuclear weapon
Lt. Col. Peters on Afghanistan bombing: A message to North Koreans
President Trump Statement on Dropping MOAB on ISIS 4/13/17
Breaking! U.S. Drops Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb on Afghanistan! “Mother of All Bombs”!
Trump Drops the ”Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan
WORLDS LARGEST Non-Nuclear Bomb GBU-43 B Massive Ordnance Air Blast
Published on Apr 13, 2017
Mother of all bombs GBU-43 B Massive Ordnance Air Blast.
U.S. on 04.11.2017 dropped the most powerful conventional bomb in its arsenal on Nangarhar, Afghanistan.
The bomb, known in military ranks as “MOAB,” or the “mother of all bombs,” was used Thursday for the first time in combat, though it was developed in the early 2000s.
Dr. Steve Pieczenik: Syria Strike Was A Message To China And North Korea
Can the U.S. handle the North Korea threat without China?
Children of Mother of All Bomb
Boeing Delivers Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) 37,000 LB Bombs To The USAF – GBU-57
PUBLISHED: 12:52 EDT, 13 April 2017 | UPDATED: 16:50 EDT, 13 April 2017
The United States has dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon after it targeted ISIS a network of caves and tunnels in eastern Afghanistan.
U.S. forces used a GPS-guided GBU-43 bomb, which is 30 feet long and weighs a staggering 21,600 pounds.
It is known as the ‘Mother Of All Bombs’ – a play on ‘MOAB,’ an acronym that stands for ‘Massive Ordnance Air Burst.’
A crater left by the blast is believed to be more than 300 meters wide after it exploded six feet above the ground. Anyone at the blast site was vaporized.
President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he was ‘very, very proud’ and called the operation ‘really another successful job. We’re very, very proud of our military.’
The Pentagon is denying that the attack was a revenge strike despite the fact that it came in the same area of Afghanistan where a Green Beret soldier was killed on Saturday.
Staff Sgt. Mark De Alencar, of 7th Special Forces Group, was cut down by enemy small arms fire while his unit was conducting counter-ISIS operations.
The military used a GBU-43 (pictured), which weighs a staggering 21,600 pounds, and has earned the moniker ‘Mother Of All Bombs
That MOAB’s first practical test was carried out on March 11, 2003 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida
President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he had authorized his military commanders to take actions like the one put into play on Thursday
Trump suggested he had not personally ordered the bomb strike but delegated authority to commanders in the field.
‘Everybody knows exactly what happened. So, what I do is I authorize my military … We have given them total authorization,’ he said.
The move marks the fulfilment of a 17-month-old campaign promise Trump delivered in Iowa, when he scoffed at ISIS terror forces and said he ‘would bomb the s**t out of them’ if he became president.
It also comes at a moment in the young Trump presidency when tensions are rising with Russia over its role in Syria, where ISIS has its headquarters.
Huge: The MOAB test fired in 2003 shortly before final preparations for it to be loaded onto an MC-130 attack aircraft
Then-candidate Donald Trump told an Iowa audience in November 2015 that he would fight ISIS from the air as president: ‘I would bomb the s**t out of them’
The explosion will also send a saber-rattling message to North Korea and Iran that rogue states’ nuclear-weapons ambitions could be met with brute force.
Trump said of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un: ‘I don’t know if this sends a message. It doesn’t make any difference if it does or not.’
‘North Korea’s a problem. The problem will be taken care of.’
The Department of Defense is denying that Thursday’s attack was revenge for Saturday’s death of Green Beret sergeant Mark De Alencar in the same region of Afghanistan
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that MOAB is ‘a large, powerful and accurately delivered weapon’ whose use was intended to collapse underground spaces used by ISIS terrorists to move freely and attack U.S. and allied troops.
‘The United States takes the fight against ISIS seriously, and in order to defeat the group we must deny them operational space – which we did,’ Spicer said.
He referred reporters’ questions to the Pentagon and ignored a shouted question about whether Trump had been aware the bomb was dropped before or during the military operation.
Trump said during a November 2015 campaign rally in Fort Dodge, Iowa that ISIS was ‘making a tremendous amount of money’ because of ‘certain areas of oil that they took away’ after the Obama administration withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
‘They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the s**t out of them,’ he said to wild cheers. ‘I would just bomb those suckers. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes. … I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.’
Trump said in 2015 that he would ‘Bomb the sh*t out of ISIS’
Preparations: This was the scene as the only other MOAB to be exploded was readied for action in 2003 in Florida. The tail rotor is part of the guidance system for it to exploded over a specified target
Mushroom cloud: This was the aftermath of the test explosion seen outside Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida
The MOAB was pushed out the back door of a giant cargo plane on Thursday, flying to its target with GPS guidance. A MOAB has only been exploded once before – in a 2003 test
A specialized MC-130 ‘Hercules’ cargo aircraft released the weapon at 7:00 p.m. local time.
It was too big to drop from a traditional bomb-bay door or release from an aircraft wing, so ‘we kicked it out the back door,’ a U.S. official told Fox News.
The weapon’s sheer power produces a blast that can be felt miles away, largely because of its construction.
Engineers used an unusually thin aluminum skin to encase MOAB’s payload, in order to avoid a thicker steel frame interfering with the impact on a target.
The U.S. fast-tracked the MOAB in 2003 for use in Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the Defense Department later decided that the enemy provided too little resistance to justify its deployment.
It was available to the Obama administration throughout the former president’s entire two terms, but he never deployed it in combat.
Its first practical test was carried out on March 11, 2003 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
Sean Spicer announces dropping of GBU-43 bomb in Afghanistan
HOW ‘MOAB’ WORKS
Known as the ‘Mother Of All Bombs’
The U.S. military’s largest non-nuclear weapon
Each bomb costs around $16 million (£12.8 million)
Its explosion is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT and the blast radius is a mile wide
First tested by US forces in 2003
It is designed to destroy heavily reinforced targets or to shatter ground forces and armour across a large area
30 feet (9 meters) long and 40 inches (1 meter) wide
Weighs 21,000lbs (9,500kg) – heavier than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb
Leaves no lasting radiation effect
How it’s deployed:
The bomb has ‘grid’ fins that fold into the body and then open up in flight to help control its descent
It can only be deployed out of the back of a large cargo plane due to its size
The bomb rides on a pallet, a parachute pulls the pallet and bomb out of the plane
The pallet then separates so that the bomb can fall to its target
It accelerates rapidly to its terminal velocity and is partially guided to its target via satellite
It explodes six feet (1.8 meters) above the ground
The idea behind this ‘airburst’ mechanism is to spread its destructive range
The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that the explosive colossus was dropped in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, making it the first time America’s largest non-nuclear weapon has been used in a combat situation.
Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said it was the first ever combat use of the bomb, which contains 11 tons of explosives.
Stump said the bomb was dropped on a cave complex believed to be used by ISIS fighters in the Achin district of Nangarhar province, very close to the border with Pakistan.
Gen. John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement about ISIS that ‘as ISIS-K’s losses have mounted, they are using IEDs, bunkers and tunnels to thicken their defense.’
‘This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against [ISIS-K].’
News reports suggest Nicholson made the decision to drop it from the sky.
He added that ‘[t]he strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities.’
The ISIS faction in Afghanistan is known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria-Khorasan province, or ISIS-K.
Story 2: Trump To NATO Members: Pay You Bills (2% of GDP For Military Spending) — NATO Not Obsolete — Videos —
Donald Trump “NATO is Largely Obsolete, It’s Got To Be Changed”
President Trump: I will work to enhance NATO
President Trump Holds a Joint Press Conference with Secretary General Stoltenberg
How Powerful Is NATO?
What is NATO?
Story 3: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov To United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — Show Us The Evidence of Chemical Gas Attack in Syria — Assad –“100% Fabrication” — Not Enough Evidence — Videos —
Rex Tillerson holds joint news conference with Russian Foreign Minister after meeting Vladimir Putin…
Sec. Tillerson, Russian Minister Lavrov. News conference in Moscow. Syria. April 12. 2017
Russian President Vladimir Putin: US strike on Syria an act of war against Russia – LoneWolf
Gen. Jack Keane on Secretary Tillerson’s meeting with Putin
BREAKING NEWS 4/13/17: Assad Gives First Interview
Bashar al-Assad First Interview after chemical attack in syria: chemical attack was 100% fabrication
Ron Paul on Syria gas attack: ‘It doesn’t make sense. Zero chance Assad did this.’
What You Need to Know About Assad, Syria, Chemical Attacks and Potential Military Action
Evidence Suggests S-Y-R-I-A G-A-S ATTACK Is False Flag
Trump Orders Attack On Syria! Will Russia Respond? Is Trump Wrong?
TRUMP’S ATTACK ON SYRIA PART OF MUCH LARGER GLOBAL POLICY SHIFT
PUTIN SAYS SYRIA ATTACK IS A FALSE FLAG
BREAKING NEWS TRUMP 04/13/17: FOX NEWS SHOW THURSDAY
Story 4: Trump Will Not Name Communist China As Currency Manipulator –United States Is A Currency Manipulator — Video —
A New Approach to Currency Manipulation?
How China’s devaluation impacts the U.S.
How Does China Manipulate Its Currency?
China’s Currency Manipulation
Donald Trump Economic Speech | Calls China as a Currency Manipulator | Monessen, PA | Mango News
Trump Tv | Japanese reporter asks Trump about China currency Manipulation | February 10 2017
Why Trump Should Stop Accusing China of Yuan Manipulation
Chinese Yuan Devaluation is an Act of War
C. Fred Bergsten on Currency Wars and US Economy
China’s Upward Currency Manipulation Might Have To End – FX Reserves Are Falling
Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR
It is a standard belief of many in the US, including the new President, Donald Trump, that China is a currency manipulator. This is true, China has indeed been manipulating the value of the yuan. However, contrary to popular belief it has, at least recently, been manipulating that value up against the American dollar, not down. This of course makes Chinese exports to America more expensive and reduces the trade deficit between the two countries. Not that simple facts tend to change many peoples’ beliefs about the economy of course.
However, this all might come to an end soon enough because China’s foreign currency reserves are falling as a result of their interventions. In fact, that those reserves are falling is the very evidence we need to show that they are intervening up, not down:
China’s foreign exchange reserves unexpectedly fell below the closely watched $3 trillion level in January for the first time in nearly six years, though tighter regulatory controls appeared to making some progress in slowing capital outflows. China has taken a raft of steps in recent months to make it harder to move money out of the country and to reassert a grip on its faltering currency, even as U.S. President Donald Trump steps up accusations that Beijing is keeping the yuan too cheap.
As we can see the general assumption in the financial markets, and the correct assumption too, is that China has been intervening to keep the value of the yuan up, not down. The major way it has been doing this being by limiting the amount that Chinese citizens can move out of the country:
Further erosion of the world’s largest stockpile may prompt policy makers again to tighten measures for controlling outflows and on companies transferring money to other countries. Authorities recently rolled out stricter requirements for citizens converting yuan into foreign currencies as the annual $50,000 foreign exchange quota for individuals reset Jan. 1.
For a capital outflow does indeed reduce the value of a currency:
China’s foreign exchange reserves fell below the $3 trillion mark for the first time in almost six years as capital continued to flow out of the world’s second-largest economy, data from the People’s Bank of China showed Tuesday.
The reserves fell by $12.31 billion from the previous month to $2.998 trillion, following a drop of $41.08 billion in December. Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal had expected a $1 billion decrease in January.
The reason a capital outflow does this should be obvious. Yuan work only in China. Thus, to take money out of China you must sell yuan and buy some other form of money. That sale reduces the value of the yuan (more of something for sale does usually mean a price fall) against those other currencies. And thus the truth of those accusations of currency manipulation. As we can see the Chinese government is placing restrictions on peoples’ ability to sell yuan. This is thus manipulation which keeps the value up, not such that pushes it down.
All of which leaves us with an interesting point. The general demand is that China stop manipulating the value of its currency. OK, so, let’s insist upon that. The value of the yuan will fall, Chinese exports to America will be cheaper and we might well then see an increase in the US trade deficit. Which isn’t really what the people complaining about manipulation want, is it? But it may well be what they’re about to get.
Trump says he will not label China currency manipulator, reversing campaign promise
By Ana Swanson and Damian PalettaApril 12
During his presidential campaign Trump talked tough on China, accusing them of undervaluing the yuan. The International Monetary Fund has said that Chinese currency is “no longer undervalued”. Does China still deserve to be called a “currency manipulator”?(Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)
President Trump on Wednesday said he would not label China a currency manipulator, contradicting one of the biggest economic promises he made on the campaign trail.
Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he had changed his mind because China is not currently manipulating its currency, adding that he hoped to enlist China’s help on containing the nuclear threat from North Korea.
Trump also indicated that he might be open to keeping Janet L. Yellen as Federal Reserve chair after her term expires. “I like her, I respect her. … It’s very early,” he said when asking about her reappointment.
Trump was highly critical of Yellen during the campaign. He accused her of keeping interest rates low to benefit the Obama administration and said she should be ashamed of herself. But Yellen has a reputation for being slow to raise interest rates, and Trump had also professed his preference for low interest rates in the past.
“I do like a low-interest rate policy, I must be honest with you,” he told the Journal, when asked about Yellen.
The president is also “very close” to naming a vice chair and filling another open seat that governs community banking on the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during the interview.
In the interview, Trump also inveighed against the strong U.S. dollar, saying that the strength of the currency stemmed partially from people’s confidence in him, but that it was also hurting the economy.
“It’s very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their currency,” he said.
Eswar Prasad, a professor of international trade at Cornell University, said it was striking that a sitting president would comment so directly on the value of the dollar.
“It could also be taken as an implicit threat to other countries that if the dollar stays strong and if U.S. bilateral trade imbalances with its major trading partners stay high or continue to expand, that he will take some sort of action,” Prasad said.
The judgment on currency manipulation was scheduled to be released in a semiannual report from the Treasury Department that is due this week.
China defies international trade rules in some respects, economists say, but devaluing its currency is not currently one of them. While China suppressed the value of its currency for years to make its products cheaper abroad and boost its exports, for the past several years it has been intervening in currency markets to prop the yuan up, which actually benefits American exporters.
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.
“Certainly for the past six months, which is the period notionally covered by the April 15 report, China has been intervening to raise the value of its currency, not to suppress it,” said Matthew Goodman, a former Treasury official who helped to label China a currency manipulator during the Clinton administration.
China was a favored target of Trump’s on the campaign trail. He often said the world’s second-largest economy was taking advantage of the U.S., and that he would respond on his first day in office by labeling China a currency manipulator. He has also said he would impose tariffs of up to 45 percent on China if the country does not negotiate better trade terms with the United States.
Labeling a country a currency manipulator triggers an investigation and can eventually lead to tariffs or other economically punitive measures.
But when Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago last week, the conversation was much more genial. The outcome of the talks was a 100-day plan to reevaluate the countries’ trading relationship, including trying to boost American exports to China.
President Trump met with China’s president on April 6, after months of criticizing China and promising big trade changes. From blasting China for currency manipulation to accusing them of “raping our economy,” here are some of his biggest blusters from the campaign trail. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
President Trump and the Chinese leader Xi Jinping at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida last week. Mr. Trump has promised to take action on Chinese trade and currency issues.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Has the United States mismanaged the ascent of China?
By April 15, the Treasury Department is required to present to Congress a report on the exchange rate policies of the country’s major trading partners, intended to identify manipulators that cheapen their currency to make their exports more attractive and gain market share in the United States, a designation that could eventually lead to retaliation.
It would be hard, these days, to find an economist who feels China fits the bill. Under a trade law passed in 2015, a country must meet three criteria: It would have to have a “material” trade surplus with the rest of the world, have a “significant” surplus with the United States, and intervene persistently in foreign exchange markets to push its currency in one direction.
While China’s surplus with the United States is pretty big — almost $350 billion — its global surplus is modest, at 2.4 percent of its gross domestic product last year. Most significant, it has been pushing its currency up, not down. Since the middle of 2014 it has sold over $1 trillion from its reserves to prop up the renminbi, under pressure from capital flight by Chinese companies and savers.
Even President Trump — who as a candidate promised to label China a currency manipulator on Day 1 and put a 45 percent tariff on imports of Chinese goods — seems to be backing away from broad, immediate retaliation.
And yet the temptation remains. “When you talk about currency manipulation, when you talk about devaluations,” the Chinese “are world champions,” Mr. Trump told The Financial Times, ahead of the state visit of the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, to the United States last week.
For all Mr. Trump’s random impulsiveness and bluster — and despite his lack of a coherent strategy to engage with what is likely soon to become the world’s biggest economy — he is not entirely alone with his views.
Many learned economists and policy experts ruefully acknowledge that the president’s intuition is broadly right: While labeling China a currency manipulator now would look ridiculous, the United States should have done it a long time ago.
“With the benefit of hindsight, China should have been named,” said Brad Setser, an expert on international economics and finance who worked in the Obama administration and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.
There were reasonable arguments against putting China on the spot and starting a process that could eventually lead to American retaliation.
Yet by not pushing back against China’s currency manipulation, and allowing China to deploy an arsenal of trade tactics of dubious legality to increase exports to the United States, successive administrations — Republican and Democratic — arguably contributed to the economic dislocations that pummeled so many American workers over more than a decade. Those dislocations helped propel Mr. Trump to power.
From 2000 to 2014 China definitely suppressed the rise of the renminbi to maintain a competitive advantage for its exports, buying dollars hand over fist and adding $4 trillion to its foreign reserves over the period. Until 2005, the Chinese government kept the renminbi pegged to the dollar, following it down as the greenback slid against other major currencies starting in 2003.
American multinationals were flocking into China, taking advantage of its entry into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, which guaranteed access to the American and other world markets for its exports. By 2007, China’s broad trade surplus hit 10 percent of its gross domestic product — an unheard-of imbalance for an economy this large. And its surplus with the United States amounted to a full third of the American deficit with the world.
Though the requirement that the Treasury identify currency manipulators “gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade” dates back to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, China was never called out.
There were good reasons. Or at least they seemed so at the time. For one, China hands in the administration of George W. Bush argued that putting China on the spot would make negotiations more difficult, because even Chinese leaders who understood the need to allow their currency to rise could not be seen to bow to American pressure.
Labeling China a manipulator could have severely hindered progress in other areas of a complex bilateral economic relationship. And the United States had bigger fish to fry.
“There were other dimensions of China’s economic policies that were seen as more important to U.S. economic and business interests,” Eswar Prasad, who headed the China desk at the International Monetary Fund and is now a professor at Cornell, told me. These included “greater market access, better intellectual property rights protection, easier access to investment opportunities, etc.”
At the end of the day, economists argued at the time, Chinese exchange rate policies didn’t cost the United States much. After all, in 2007 the United States was operating at full employment. The trade deficit was because of Americans’ dismal savings rate and supercharged consumption, not a cheap renminbi. After all, if Americans wanted to consume more than they created, they had to get it somewhere.
And the United States had a stake in China’s rise. A crucial strategic goal of American foreign policy since Mao’s death had been how to peacefully incorporate China into the existing order of free-market economies, bound by international law into the fabric of the postwar multilateral institutions.
And the strategy even worked — a little bit. China did allow its currency to rise a little from 2005 to 2008. And when the financial crisis hit, it took the foot off the export pedal and deployed a giant fiscal stimulus, which bolstered internal demand.
Yet though these arguments may all be true, they omitted an important consideration: The overhaul of the world economy imposed by China’s global rise also created losers.
In a set of influential papers that have come to inform the thinking about the United States’ relations with China, David Autor, Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Gordon Hanson from the University of California, San Diego; and David Dorn from the University of Zurich concluded that lots of American workers, in many communities, suffered a blow from which they never recovered.
Rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs, one paper estimated. Another found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.
Economic theory posited that a developed country like the United States would adjust to import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that competed successfully in global markets. In the real world of American workers exposed to the rush of imports after China erupted onto world markets, the adjustment didn’t happen.
If mediocre job prospects and low wages didn’t stop American families from consuming, it was because the American financial system was flush with Chinese cash and willing to lend, financing their homes and refinancing them to buy the furniture. But that equilibrium didn’t end well either, did it?
What it left was a lot of betrayed anger floating around among many Americans on the wrong end of these dynamics. “By not following the law, the administration sent a political signal that the U.S. wouldn’t stand up to Chinese cheating,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “As we can see now, that hurt in terms of maintaining political support for open trade.”
If there was a winner from this dynamic, it was Mr. Trump.
Will Mr. Trump really go after China? In addition to an expected executive order to retaliate against the dumping of Chinese steel, he has promised more. He could tinker with the definitions of “material” and “significant” trade surpluses to justify a manipulation charge.
And yet a charge of manipulation would add irony upon irony. “It would be incredibly ironic not to have named China a manipulator when it was manipulating, and name it when it is not,” Mr. Setser told me. And Mr. Trump would be retaliating against the economic dynamic that handed him the presidency.
China is No Longer Manipulating its Currency
C. Fred Bergsten (PIIE)
November 18, 2016 9:45 AM
US President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to instruct his Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, just as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney did in 2012. He would then presumably seek to negotiate with the Chinese to reduce their large trade surplus, which equals roughly half the total US trade deficit of about $500 billion, under the threat of limiting imports unilaterally if they failed to cooperate (and risking retaliation against US exports). A declining US trade deficit, if it could be achieved, would increase US economic growth. But China has not manipulated its currency, the renminbi, for the past two years, and even an erroneous designation would not enable the new president to take any retaliatory trade actions.
China was the champion currency manipulator of all time from 2003 through 2014. During this “decade of manipulation,” China bought more than $300 billion annually to resist upward movement of its currency by artificially keeping the exchange rate of the dollar strong and the renminbi’s exchange rate weak. China’s competitive position was thus strengthened by as much as 30 to 40 percent at the peak of the intervention. Currency manipulation explained most of China’s large trade surpluses, which reached a staggering 10 percent of its entire GDP in 2007.
China was not the only manipulator. A number of other Asian economies, including Taiwan and Hong Kong, also intervened regularly to keep from losing their competitive position to China (and thus to the United States as well). A few others, including Japan and Korea, intervened occasionally as well.
Naming a country a manipulator, however, has no significant operational consequences (which is one of the reasons it has not been done in recent years). The relevant US law, dating from 1988, requires only that the Secretary of the Treasury launch a negotiation with the indicted countries in an effort to rectify the situation. Trump and his advisors have suggested they would use a designation to impose new import restrictions against China, up to the level of the renminbi undervaluation that resulted, but they would have to invoke other US statutes to justify such action. (Regardless of manipulation, the administration might authorize the Commerce Department to apply countervailing duties against imports that were subsidized by undervalued exchange rates in China and elsewhere; this would probably run afoul of US obligations in the World Trade Organization, however, and might also be challenged domestically unless Congress explicitly authorized such treatment.)
I was among the first to call attention to the manipulation by the Chinese and others and to advocate strong action to counter it, but it must be recognized that the situation has changed dramatically over the past two years. China has experienced large outflows of private capital that have driven its exchange rate down and indeed sparked market fears of disorderly renminbi devaluations. To their credit, the Chinese have intervened heavily on the opposite side of the market: Instead of buying dollars to keep the renminbi weak, they have sold large amounts of dollars to prevent it from sliding further. Their recent intervention has promoted US competitiveness rather than undermined it. Manipulation (including by other countries) has passed largely into remission.
It would thus be factually incorrect, as well as ineffectual, for the new Trump administration to label China a currency manipulator (and the Chinese might well refuse to negotiate under such circumstances). Indeed, the White House would be running counter to the thrust of the new US currency law (although it could still label a country as a “manipulator,” even if it did not meet the terms of that law). The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 spells out three criteria for identifying a country for currency misbehavior:
a large bilateral trade surplus with the United States, which China has;
a material global current account surplus, which the Treasury Department interprets as meaning more than 3 percent of a country’s GDP, a bit more than China is now running; and
“persistent one-sided intervention” in the currency markets, to keep its exchange rate from rising, which China is clearly not conducting.
These tests would have caught China for eight consecutive years, from 2003 through 2010, but Treasury currently has placed China only on a “monitoring list” along with five others that meet at least two of the criteria or have met them in the recent past. There is always a possibility that China (and others) could resume the competitive nonappreciation of the earlier period if market pressure again pushed the renminbi upward, especially if China’s economic reforms faltered and its growth rate sank below the new target of 7 percent. So we cannot be confident that the problem has been definitively resolved.
Indeed, it would be desirable for the Trump administration to add a new tool to the US policy arsenal, to ensure the problem will not resurface, by announcing that the United States will counter any future manipulation by others with offsetting intervention of its own. If China buys $1 billion in an effort to keep the dollar artificially strong, the United States could buy $1 billion worth of renminbi to neutralize any impact of the Chinese action on the exchange rate between the two currencies. The Chinese currency and bond markets are now large enough to permit any foreseeable level of US intervention that might be needed. But simply the announcement of a policy of such “countervailing currency intervention” would almost surely deter future manipulation efforts, requiring very little if any actual activity. It should thus prolong the current remission of manipulation indefinitely. The Senate passed a bill authorizing “remedial currency intervention” in 2011, but the policy could be adopted under current law.
Trump’s economic team may decide to address a number of Chinese policies that support its exports and impede its imports, in an effort to reduce the Chinese surplus and the US deficit, as its predecessors have done for many years. There are several US statutes that provide a basis for doing so. Currency manipulation is not one of these, however, especially at the present time. The new administration should look for alternative paths to any immediate action while shoring up the country’s defenses against possible recrudescence of currency aggression in the future.
C. Fred Bergsten is senior fellow and director emeritus of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He was the founding director of the Institute from 1981 through 2012. He was previously assistant secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and is coauthor, with Joseph E. Gagnon, of the forthcoming Institute book Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States.
Story 5: Trump Favors Fed Chair Yellen’s Unconventional Accommodating Easy Money Policy — Government Intervention in Money Markets — Financial Repression of American Savers — Videos
Trump Says Dollar ‘getting too strong’
Trump: Fed’s Yellen Keeps Rates Low for Political Reasons
Published on Oct 16, 2015
Oct. 16 — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump sits down with Stephanie Ruhle about the state of the US economy and whether or not he shares the view of Carl Icahn who says we are headed for financial disaster. They speak on “Bloomberg ‹GO›.”
Donald Trump Says The Dollar’s Too Strong, And It’s Partially His Fault | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
Yellen, Trump actually on the same page on fiscal policy?
President Donald Trump’s Hint Targets Janet Yellen’s Future | Squawk Box | CNBC
Battle brewing between Yellen, Trump?
Yellen’s Fed Bad For America but will be Good For My Investments
Story 6: Trump Supporters and Talk Radio Will Dump Trump Should He Continue Flip Flopping and Listening To Liberal Democrat/Moderate Advisers — Videos
RUSH: It’s Clear That The Democrats Are SCARED TO DEATH Of Bannon
LIMBAUGH: The WORLD Was SPYING On Trump To IMPRESS Hillary
Rush Limbaugh 04/14/2017 | Judge Napolitano Was Right! The World Was Spying on Donald Trump
Roger Stone Explains Why Steve Bannon Was Removed From National Security Council
Dr. Jerome Corsi About Syria And White House Internal Struggle
What would happen if Trump fired Steve Bannon?
Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner are tearing the White House apart
Roger Stone About Steve Bannon And Jared Kushner
Cohn: Trump pushing us hard on tax cuts
Cohn: We are very, very concerned about economic growth
Trump advisor Cohn: We can absolutely get to 3% growth this
Trump’s base turns on him
Steve Bannon’s downgrade is just one of many complaints. ‘We expect him to keep his word, and right now he’s not keeping his word,’ says one campaign supporter.
Donald Trump’s true believers are losing the faith.
As Trump struggles to keep his campaign promises and flirts with political moderation, his most steadfast supporters — from veteran advisers to anti-immigration activists to the volunteers who dropped their jobs to help elect him — are increasingly dismayed by the direction of his presidency.
Their complaints range from Trump’s embrace of an interventionist foreign policy to his less hawkish tone on China to, most recently, his marginalization of his nationalist chief strategist, Steve Bannon. But the crux of their disillusionment, interviews with nearly two dozen Trump loyalists reveal, is a belief that Trump the candidate bears little resemblance to Trump the president. He’s failing, in their view, to deliver on his promise of a transformative “America First” agenda driven by hard-edged populism.
“Donald Trump dropped an emotional anchor. He captured how Americans feel,” said Tania Vojvodic, a fervent Trump supporter who founded one of his first campaign volunteer networks. “We expect him to keep his word, and right now he’s not keeping his word.”
Earlier this week, Vojvodic launched a Facebook group called, “The concerned support base of President Trump,” which quickly drew several dozen sign-ups. She also changed the banner on her Facebook page to a picture of Bannon accompanied by the declaration: “Mr. President: I stand with Steve Bannon.”
“I’m not so infatuated with Trump that I can’t see the facts,” she said. “People’s belief, their trust in him, it’s declining.”
The swiftness and abruptness of Trump’s shift from bomb-throwing populist outsider to a more mainstream brand of Republican has taken the president’s stalwarts by surprise.
“It was like, here’s the chance to do something different. And that’s why people’s hopes are dashed,” said Lee Stranahan, who, as a former writer at Breitbart News, once worked with Bannon. “There was always the question of, ‘Did he really believe this stuff?’ Apparently, the answer is, ‘Not as much as you’d like.’”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The deflation of Trump’s base threatens to further weaken a president who’s already seen his public support drop to historic lows. Frustration among the president’s allies has intensified in recent days, with many expressing worry that Bannon, the intellectual pillar of the nationalist movement that catapulted Trump to the presidency, is being pushed out.
As Bannon’s influence wanes, on the rise is a small group of Wall Street-connected advisers whose politically moderate and globalist views are anathema to the populist cause.
The palace intrigue intensified this week after Trump refused to say he still had confidence in Bannon and downplayed the former Breitbart chairman’s role in his campaign victory. And it’s feeding suspicions that the president is changing his priorities.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the president’s most vocal backers on Capitol Hill, said he’s been disheartened by the chief strategist’s isolation.
“A lot of us look at Steve Bannon as the voice of conservatism in the White House,” said King, who has known Bannon for years.
The displeasure over Bannon’s reduced status has trickled down to Trump’s grass-roots army of volunteers. Among those unsettled is Shane Bouvet, a 24-year-old campaign volunteer and blue-collar single father from Illinois who became something of a hero in the Trump movement. On the eve of the inauguration, Trump, who had read about how Bouvet trekked across the country by car so he could watch the swearing-in, gave him a check for $10,000.
Bouvet later said the gift saved the life of his father, who was battling cancer and needed the money to cover medical costs.
That day, Bouvet also was introduced to Bannon. The two spoke briefly, and Bouvet came to identify with the adviser who, like him, represented a “forgotten America” that Trump had appealed to with his blue-collar pitch. He said in an interview that he still supports the president, but is troubled by reports that Bannon is on the outs and that senior adviser Jared Kushner, a New York City real estate scion, is accumulating influence.
“I see a lot of people upset about his role,” Bouvet said of Bannon.
“I love our president,” he added. “I would tell him, follow his heart instead of whispers in his ears.”
On his South Florida-based radio show, Trump backer John Cardillo has begun to hear from listeners who are disillusioned with the rising influence of moderate staffers like Kushner and Gary Cohn, the Goldman Sachs executive-turned-Trump economic adviser.
For Cardillo, too, it’s been a letdown. During the 2016 Republican primary, he was attracted to Trump because of his insurgent streak. As a former New York City police officer, Cardillo identified with the candidate’s blue-collar style. He fell hard and got aboard the Trump train early, backing the insurgent candidate over home-state favorite Marco Rubio.
Trump voters “felt like they were voting for an anti-establishment candidate — and they’re terrified, they’re losing faith,” Cardillo said. “They’re saying, ‘Why does he have these people around him?’”
The gripes go beyond Bannon’s apparent downgrade. Many of Trump’s most stalwart supporters, including radio show hosts Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham, called last week’s bombing of Syria a betrayal of Trump’s pledge to be an “America First” commander in chief who would avoid unnecessary conflicts overseas.
Concerns about Trump’s foreign policy approach intensified on Wednesday when he backed away from his oft-repeated campaign line that NATO is “obsolete.” Instead, during an appearance with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump called the organization a “great alliance.”
Howie Carr, an influential Boston radio show host and a vocal Trump backer, said he’s been mostly satisfied with the president’s tenure so far. But he said he and his listeners weren’t on board with the Syria bombing and warned against a U.S.-led push to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“People are concerned because it’s such a morass over there,” Carr said. “I don’t think any of my listeners have any great stomach for overthrowing Assad, as odious as he is.”
Other Trump boosters worry that he’s ditching his economic agenda. They wonder why he backed off his vow to label
China a currency manipulator, and are chagrined by his reversal on his position to eliminate the Export-Import Bank.
On Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer took issue with the premise that Trump’s switch on labeling China a currency manipulator amounted to abandoning a campaign promise.
“The president’s tough talk … on a variety of subjects was to get results for the American people. That’s what he has pledged to do, to get more jobs here, to grow more manufacturing, to keep our country safe,” Spicer told reporters. “At the end of the day, this is always about developing a better situation for the American people, and I think he’s done that.”
Still others are concerned about Trump’s lack of progress on reforming the tax code.
Larry Kudlow, a veteran economist who advised Trump’s campaign, expressed dismay that the president hadn’t yet released a tax plan. He said he was beginning to wonder whether the president is about to walk back his pledge to cut taxes.
“What is their product?” Kudlow asked. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not giving up hope. But it’s looking very shaky to me.”
Conservative economist Stephen Moore, who also advised the Trump campaign, said he’s reached out to the White House about the lack of a tax package.
“They’re all over the map,” he said. “I don’t know if they’re listening or not.”
Then there’s immigration, the issue that catapulted Trump to front-runner status. Activists are increasingly alarmed that the president has yet to follow through on his pledge to rescind protections for undocumented parents and children put in place under former President Barack Obama.
Brenda Sparks, an “angel mom” whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant, appeared onstage with Trump at an August campaign event in Phoenix. She said he promised her that he would overturn the program known Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in short order.
While Sparks said she didn’t think it would be done immediately, “I had expected it before now.”
“I still support Trump, but I’m going to hold his feet to the fire,” she said. “He has not lived up to that promise.”
Michelle Dallacroce, an anti-immigration activist, is more pointed. Immigration is “why we voted for Donald Trump,” she said. “This could be the most elaborate reality show. I’m wondering, was this all an illusion for us, using our movement so he could get in there?”
Trump is hardly the first president to get crosswise with his supporters. After running on a promise to infuse Washington with change, Barack Obama faced sharp accusations from backers that he was moving too slowly to change the culture of the capitol. Governing, Obama learned, is a lot different than campaigning.
Not all of the president’s backers are disappointed. They point to his successful nomination of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and his rollback of environmental regulations as early wins.
“There’s always going to be things that aren’t perfect, but it’s exciting,” said Ed Martin, a conservative leader in Missouri.
But as Trump evolves, some of his loyalists are beginning to compare him to another Republican who lost the support of the party’s base: Arnold Schwarzenegger. After being elected California governor in 2003, the former movie star took on entrenched Democratic interests, lost badly, then tacked sharply to the left.
This week, some Trump die-hards passed around a column by conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter headlined: “Trump Can’t Let His Real or His Fake Friends Turn Him into Schwarzenegger Part 2.”
Schlichter, in an interview, said conservatives are fundamentally distrustful of Republican politicians who had often misled them. He urged the president to take some immediate actions, however small, to put his supporters at ease.
“You’ve got to understand the base. It’s like dating a girl whose father cheated on her mother. She’s always going to be suspicious,” he said. “He’s got to constantly provide wins because he’s got an emotionally damaged base that’s been abused.”
Within Trump’s inner circle, a moderate voice captures the president’s ear
Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, has found an edge within the Trump administration by hiring two dozen policy experts, most with government experience. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
As power struggles and ideological battles engulfed the White House, an unlikely player is exercising new influence on the direction of President Trump’s administration.Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, is capitalizing on his new position as director of Trump’s National Economic Council to push a centrist vision and court bipartisan support on some of Trump’s top agenda items such as tax reform and a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.The growing strength of Cohn and like-minded moderates was on display this week as Trump reversed himself on several high-profile issues — including a less confrontational approach to China, an endorsement of government subsidies for exports and the current leadership of the Federal Reserve. The president’s new positions move him much closer to the views of Cohn and others on Wall Street, not to mention mainstream Republicans and Democrats.It was the clearest sign yet that an alliance of moderates in the White House — including Cohn; senior adviser Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and another influential Goldman Sachs alumna, Dina Powell — is racking up successes in a battle over ideology and control with hardcore conservatives led by chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who held sway at the start of the administration.In a White House short on experienced personnel, Cohn has found an edge by hiring two dozen policy experts, most with government experience. His team produced detailed proposals on overhauling the tax code, rebuilding infrastructure, cutting back financial regulations and restructuring international trade deals. He is widely considered a future candidate to be chief of staff.
From left, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Dan Scavino, assistant to the president and director of White House social media, listen during a news conference this week at the White House. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
“Cohn might be a newbie to policy and Washington, but you have to give him credit for one thing,” said Gene Sperling, who held Cohn’s job during the Obama administration. “While others seemed engaged in ideological and ‘House of Cards’-like staff warfare, he quietly and quickly focused on the first rule of governing: He hired some competent, professional staff at the NEC, and it has paid off for him.”
Cohn now finds himself in the awkward — and politically risky — position of being praised by Democrats but shunned by conservative allies of Trump who see the former Goldman Sachs executive as anathema to the values that got Trump elected.
“From a pure political perspective, I do not know if the White House appreciates how Gary Cohn is a liability with the Republican and conservative base, as well as the Republican Congress,” said Sam Nunberg, a strategist on Trump’s 2016 campaign. “The Trump White House will always be held in suspicion when you have someone who’s consolidated full economic power in the White House who is also a liberal, New York Democrat.”
Cohn has been getting flak in the conservative media as he has risen in profile. Rush Limbaugh last week called him “a very ideological liberal Democrat” and a “trader at Goldman Sachs.” He expressed concern that Cohn and his allies in the White House “are starting to have sway” at Bannon’s expense.
Cohn, who declined to comment for this article, has given thousands of dollars to candidates from both parties, including President Barack Obama and former candidate Hillary Clinton.
White House aides say Cohn has done well because Trump sees him, more than anything else, as a dealmaker. Cohn represents a bloc of White House officials who are working harder than before to court Democratic support for key parts of Trump’s agenda, having seen the Republican Party splinter during the health-care debate.
“I’m not a Democrat, and I’m not a Republican,” Cohn often says in meetings with business executives, according to two people familiar with his exchanges. “I just want to get things done.”
People who have met with Cohn in his new role said they weren’t aware of what his ideology was. He just seemed driven to forge agreements.
That philosophy has led Cohn to show enthusiasm for ideas such as a new tax on carbon — a Democrat-friendly idea which would raise revenue to ease tax reform, a top presidential priority, while also helping to curb carbon emissions. The idea is ridiculed by many conservatives on Capitol Hill, and the White House rapidly distanced itself last week after word leaked that senior officials were studying the concept.
“I think the National Economic Council has done a terrible job,” said Larry Kudlow, who was one of Trump’s top economic advisers during the campaign. “It’s the NEC’s job to put a plan together and show the president options and make decisions. So far, I would say they are way behind the eight ball.”
But even as the legislative agenda struggles to gain momentum, Cohn and his allies are having a clear impact on the president’s thinking. In the past week, Trump reversed his earlier statements and said he supported the Export-Import Bank, would not declare China a “currency manipulator” and said flattering things about Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen.
Conservatives took aim at the Ex-Im Bank and the Fed throughout much of Obama’s term, while Trump, as part of his tough trade rhetoric, promised to go after China’s currency practices on Day One of his administration.
Cohn’s stature among the top advisers is notable because he is one of the few who played no role in the campaign. Cohn, who grew up in a middle-class family and struggled in a number of schools because of dyslexia, graduated from American University and took a job with U.S. Steel in Ohio. During a trip to New York, he coaxed a well-dressed senior Wall Street executive into sharing a cab with him to the airport, acting as if he knew financial markets (he knew virtually nothing), according to an interview he gave author Malcolm Gladwell. Cohn schmoozed his way into his first Wall Street job and then climbed the ranks, eventually becoming Goldman’s president and chief operating officer.
While friends say he loves his new job, they say Cohn also holds the traditions of Washington in low regard.
At a recent dinner with friends in New York, he called Washington a “s—show,” according to a person familiar with the exchange.
Cohn has not tried to shirk his past at Goldman Sachs or hide his lavish lifestyle. He recently had drinks at the Four Seasons with Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, and shortly after the failure of the House GOP health-care legislation, he went on vacation in the Bahamas.
If he is able to deflect the growing criticism from hardcore conservatives, White House officials say Cohn will have a strong future as a Trump adviser given his experience and the deep bench of experts he has established.
This includes DJ Gribbin, an infrastructure expert, and Shahira Knight, a former congressional aide on tax policy who joined the White House from Fidelity Investments.
Other top members of the team include Kenneth Juster, who is slated to play a top White House role in international negotiations; Jeremy Katz, a former White House official in the George W. Bush administration; and Ray Starling, who works on agriculture issues and was formerly the general counsel for the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
While Cohn has met with lawmakers from both parties and executives from numerous companies in his role, he rarely telegraphs what the White House plans to do.
One exception came last week, when — during a gathering of chief executives — he went into great detail about how the U.S. air-traffic-control system needed to be reworked.
He quickly moved through a technical discussion on why the United States should scrap its land-based radar system and adopt a global-positioning system, suggesting he had already devoted time to the topic. He said their approach would save 25 percent of the jet fuel consumed each year.
“We are going to cut flight times down fairly dramatically,” he told the executives. “We are going to cut the experience down. We are going to cut tarmac time down.”
His penchant for dealmaking has even attracted the admiration of Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, a tough fiscal conservative and longtime critic of government spending. Cohn, working to fulfill Trump’s pledge to spend billions to rebuild infrastructure, has toyed with an idea that would pair $200 billion in taxpayer money with $800 billion in additional funds, mostly from private investors.
“You’ve got to give these Goldman Sachs guys credit,” Mulvaney said this week on CNBC about Cohn’s plan. “They know how to lever up.”
Bannon was previously a US Navy officer, a Goldman Sachs banker, a radio host, a research director, a film producer and then a media executive. He was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, serving on the destroyerUSS Paul F. Foster as well as at the Pentagon. After his military service, he worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions Department. When he left the company, Bannon held the position of vice president. In 1993, he was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2. In the 1990s, he became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry and has produced 18 films since 1991.
In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. In one of Bannon & Co.’s transactions, the firm represented Westinghouse Electric which wanted to sell Castle Rock Entertainment. Bannon negotiated a sale of Castle Rock to CNN, which was owned by Ted Turner at the time.Instead of a full adviser’s fee, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld, which was in its third season. Bannon still receives cash residuals each time Seinfeld is aired.Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in 1998.
In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the closed-system experiment project shifted emphasis from researching human space exploration and colonization toward the scientific study of earth’s environment, pollution and climate change. He left the project in 1995.
Bannon persuaded Goldman Sachs to invest, in 2006, in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment. Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From 2007 through 2011, Bannon was the chair and CEO of Affinity Media.
Bannon was a founding member of the board of Breitbart News, an online far-right news, opinion and commentary website which, according to Philip Elliott and Zeke J. Miller of Time, has “pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material into the vein of the alternative right“.
In March 2012, after founder Andrew Breitbart‘s death, Bannon became executive chair of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach toward its agenda. Bannon declared the website “the platform for the alt-right” in 2016. Bannon identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: “We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-‘ the permanent political class.”
In 2016, Ronald Radosh claimed in The Daily Beast that Bannon had told him earlier, in a book party on November 12, 2013, that he was a Leninist, in that “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment”. While Snopes considers this claim unproven, other media such as Time magazine and The Guardian have reported or discussed it.
In a 2014 speech to a Vatican conference, Bannon made a passing reference to Julius Evola, a twentieth-century, Nazi-linked Italian writer who influenced Mussolini‘s Italian Fascism and promoted the Traditionalist School, described by a New York Times writer as “a worldview popular in far-right and alternative religious circles that believes progress and equality are poisonous illusions.” In referring to the associated views of Vladimir Putin, who is influenced by Evola follower Aleksandr Dugin, Bannon stated “We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as Traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.” He has likewise quoted French anti-Enlightenment writer Charles Maurras approvingly to a French diplomat.
On November 15, 2016, U.S. Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island released a letter to Trump signed by 169 Democratic House Representatives urging him to rescind his appointment of Bannon. The letter stated that appointing Bannon “sends a disturbing message about what kind of president Donald Trump wants to be”, because his “ties to the White Nationalist movement have been well documented”; it went on to present several examples of Breitbart News’ alleged xenophobia. Bannon denied being a white nationalist and claimed, rather, that he is an “economic nationalist.”
On November 18, during his first interview not conducted by Breitbart Media since the 2016 presidential election, Bannon remarked on some criticisms made about him stating that “Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.” The quote was published widely in the media.
Trump responded to the ongoing controversy over Bannon’s appointment in an interview with The New York Times by saying “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”
Bannon and other advisors watching Trump sign an executive order.
White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon shake hands with WH Chief of Staff Reince Priebus at 2017 CPAC
Several days after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Bannon told an American newspaper, “The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote this: the media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”
At the end of January 2017, in a departure from the previous format of the National Security Council (NSC), the holder of Bannon’s position, along with that of the Chief of Staff, were designated by presidential memorandum as regular attendees to the NSC’s Principals Committee, a Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering national security issues. The enacted arrangement was criticised by several members of previous administrations and was called “stone cold crazy” by Susan E. Rice, Barack Obama’s last national security adviser. In response, White House spokesman Sean Spicer pointed to Bannon’s seven years experience as a Navy officer in justifying his presence on the Committee.
In February 2017, Bannon appeared on the cover of Time, on which he was labeled “the Great Manipulator”. The headline used for the associated article was “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?”, alluding to Bannon’s perceived influence in the White House. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in the aftermath of the 2016 election, Bannon analogized his influence to that of “Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors“.
Bannon was removed from his NSC role in early April 2017 in a reorganization by National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, who Bannon had helped select. Some White House officials said Bannon’s main purpose of serving on the committee was as a check against former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn, who had resigned in February 2017 for misleading the vice president about a conversation with the Russian operatives. Hence, with Flynn gone, Bannon was no longer needed. Bannon reportedly opposed his removal from the council and threatened to quit if president Trump went forward with it, although Republican megadonor Rebekah Mercer urged him to stay. The White House said Bannon had not attempted to leave, and Bannon said any indication that he threatened resignation was “total nonsense”. Bannon had only attended one NSC meeting.
Bannon has been married and divorced three times. He has three adult daughters.
His first marriage was to Cathleen Suzanne Houff. Bannon and Houff had a daughter, Maureen, in 1988 and subsequently divorced.
Bannon’s second marriage was to Mary Louise Piccard, a former investment banker, in April 1995. Their twin daughters were born three days after the wedding. Piccard filed for dissolution of their marriage in 1997.
Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness in early January 1996 after Piccard accused Bannon of domestic abuse. The charges were later dropped when his now ex-wife did not appear in court. In an article in The New York Times Piccard stated her absence was due to threats made to her by Bannon and his lawyer:
Mr. Bannon, she said, told her that “if I went to court he and his attorney would make sure that I would be the one who was guilty” … Mr. Bannon’s lawyer, she said, “threatened me,” telling her that if Mr. Bannon went to jail, she “would have no money and no way to support the children.” … Mr. Bannon’s lawyer … denied pressuring her not to testify.
Piccard and Bannon divorced in 1997. During the divorce proceedings, Piccard alleged that Bannon had made antisemitic remarks about choice of schools, saying that he did not want to send his children to The Archer School for Girls because there were too many Jews at the school and Jews raise their children to be “whiny brats”. Bannon’s spokesperson denied the accusation noting that he had chosen to send both his children to the Archer School.
Bannon’s third marriage was to Diane Clohesy; they divorced in 2009.
Jared Corey Kushner (born January 10, 1981) is an American real estate investor and developer, publisher, and senior advisor to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump. Together with Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon he formed Trump’s leadership team. Kushner is said to be President Trump’s most trusted advisor, showing “unwavering loyalty” to his father-in-law.
He was principal owner of the real estate holding and development company Kushner Companies and of Observer Media, publisher of the weekly, on-line New York Observer. On January 9, 2017, Kushner was named to be a Senior White House Adviser to his father-in-law, President Donald Trump. As a result, Kushner resigned as CEO of his family’s real estate company and as publisher of the Observer. He also divested “substantial assets”.
Kushner was raised in a Modern Orthodox Jewish family in New Jersey. He graduated from the Frisch School, a private, coed yeshiva high school, in 1999. According to a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, he was an honors student and a member of the debate, hockey, and basketball teams while at Frisch.
According to Forbes, in 2017 Jared Kushner and his parents had a personal fortune of around $1.8 billion. Kushner is a real estate investor, and has increased the Kushner Companies’ presence in the New York City real estate market as a principal in his family’s real estate company. His father, Charles Kushner, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal campaign donations, and witness tampering in 2004, and was eventually convicted on all charges (by the then U.S. Attorney Chris Christie) and sentenced to two years in federal prison.
Kushner Companies purchased the office building at 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007, for a then-record price of $1.8 billion, most of it borrowed. However, following the property crash in 2008, the cash flow generated by the property was insufficient to cover its debt service, and the Kushners were forced to sell the retail portion in the building to Stanley Chera for more than $1 billion and bring in Vornado Realty Trust as a 50% equity partner in the ownership of the building.
In 2015, Kushner scored spot No. 25 on Fortune Magazine’s 40 under 40 list ranking the most influential young people in business.
At age 25, Kushner purchased the New York Observer, a weekly New York City newspaper, for $10 million, using money he says he earned during his college years by closing deals on residential buildings in Somerville, Massachusetts, with family members providing the backing for his investments.
After purchasing the Observer, Kushner published it in tabloid format. Since then, he has been credited with increasing the Observer‘s online presence and expanding the Observer Media Group. With no substantial experience in journalism, Kushner could not establish a good relationship with the newspaper’s veteran editor-in-chief, Peter W. Kaplan. “This guy doesn’t know what he doesn’t know,” Kaplan remarked about Kushner, to colleagues, at the time.  As a result of his differences with Kushner, Kaplan quit his position. Kaplan was followed by a series of short-lived successors until Kushner hired Elizabeth Spiers in 2011. In December 2011, the New York Post reported that the Observer expected to become profitable for the first time. Spiers left the newspaper in 2012. In January 2013, Kushner hired a new editor-in-chief, Ken Kurson. Kurson had been a consultant to Republican political candidates in New Jersey and one-time member of Rudy Giuliani‘s unsuccessful 2008 presidential primary campaign.
According to Vanity Fair, under Kushner, the “Observer has lost virtually all of its cultural currency among New York’s elite, but the paper is now profitable and reporting traffic growth … [it] boasts 6 million unique visitors per month, up from 1.3 million in January 2013″. In April 2016, the New York Observer became one of only a handful of newspapers to officially endorse United States presidential candidate Donald Trump in the Republican primary, but the paper ended the campaign period by choosing not to back any presidential candidate at all.
Kushner stepped down from his newspaper role in January 2017 to pursue a role in President Donald Trump’s administration. He was replaced by his brother-in-law, Joseph Meyer.
Jared Kushner had been a life-long Democrat and had made major donations to its candidates for years before reportedly undergoing an “ideological conversion” and supporting the 2015–16 Trump campaign. Kushner has had no prior involvement in campaign politics or in government before his father-in-law, Trump’s, campaign.
Trump presidential campaign
From the outset of the presidential campaign of his father-in-law Donald Trump, Kushner was the architect of Trump’s digital, online and social media campaigns, enlisting talent from Silicon Valley to run a 100-person social-media team dubbed “Project Alamo”. Kushner has also helped as a speechwriter and was tasked with working to establish a plan for Trump’s White House transition team should he be elected. He was for a time seen as Trump’s de factocampaign manager, succeeding Corey Lewandowski, who was fired in part on Kushner’s recommendation in June 2016. He has been intimately involved with campaign strategy, coordinating Trump’s visit in late August to Mexico and he was believed to be responsible for the choice of Mike Pence as Trump’s running mate. Kushner’s “sprawling digital fundraising database and social media campaign” has been described as “the locus of his father-in-law’s presidential bid”.
According to Eric Schmidt, “Jared Kushner is the biggest surprise of the 2016 election, Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources.” Eric Schmidt said, “Jared understood the online world in a way the traditional media folks didn’t. He managed to assemble a presidential campaign on a shoestring using new technology and won. That’s a big deal. Remember all those articles about how they had no money, no people, organizational structure? Well, they won, and Jared ran it.”Peter Thiel said “If Trump was the CEO, Jared was effectively the chief operating officer.”
On July 5, 2016, Kushner wrote an open letter in the New York Observer addressing the controversy around a tweet from the Trump campaign containing allegedly antisemitic imagery. He was responding to his own paper’s editorial by Dana Schwartz criticizing Kushner’s involvement with the Trump campaign. In the letter, Kushner wrote, “In my opinion, accusations like “racist” and “anti-Semite” are being thrown around with a carelessness that risks rendering these words meaningless.”
The Washington Post, New York Times and numerous other national news authorities explain Kushner was an influential factor behind the firing of New Jersey governor Chris Christie as head of the transition team, as well as the dismissal from the Donald Trump transition team of anyone connected to Christie. A source familiar with the Trump campaign explained that “Jared doesn’t like Christie. He’s always held [the prosecution of his father, Charles Kushner] against Christie.” Kushner told Forbes that the reports that he was involved in Christie’s dismissal were false: “Six months ago Governor Christie and I decided this election was much bigger than any differences we may have had in the past, and we worked very well together. The media has speculated on a lot of different things, and since I don’t talk to the press, they go as they go, but I was not behind pushing out him or his people.”
Senior Advisor to President Trump
Japanese PM Shinzō Abe, Jared Kushner, Ivanka, and President Trump, November 17, 2016
Trump put Kushner in charge of brokering peace in Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well as making deals with foreign countries, although in what way he is in charge is unclear. Furthermore, after Donald Trump became President-elect, Kushner and his wife met with Japanese Prime Minister and other Japanese officials while his wife was conducting a licensing deal between her namesake clothing brand and a Japanese government-owned company. His wife sat in on a meeting between her father, then President-elect Donald Trump and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In February 2017, his wife Ivanka Trump was a surprise attendee at the Chinese Embassy’s New Year’s party. In late March 2017 he was also given the new role of leading the “White House Office of American Innovation”.
On January 20, 2017 Cohn took office as Director of the National Economic Council (NEC) in President Donald Trump‘s administration, a position which did not require Congressional confirmation. By February 11, 2017, The Wall Street Journal described Cohn as an “economic-policy powerhouse” and The New York Times called him Trump’s “go-to figure on matters related to jobs, business and growth”. With the confirmation of Trump’s December 12, 2016 nominee for Secretary of Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, being held back by Congressional hearings, Cohn filled in the “personnel vacuum” and pushed “ahead on taxes, infrastructure, financial regulation and replacing health-care law”. Had Cohn stayed at Goldman Sachs, some believed he would have become CEO when Lloyd Blankfein vacated that office. His severance package at Goldman Sachs amounted to $285 million. Additionally, Cohn sold a stake valued at $16 million in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world’s largest bank as of 2017.
Cohn supports reinstating the Glass-Steagall legislation, which would separate commercial and investment banking.
Cohn started his career at the U.S. Steel home products division in Cleveland, Ohio. After a few months, he left U.S. Steel and started his career as an options dealer in the New York Mercantile Exchange. He taught himself the basics of options by reading about it in the days between meeting the hiring manager and joining the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Cohn was recruited by Goldman Sachs in 1990. In 1996, he was named head of the commodities department and in 2002, he was named the head of the entire Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Division (FICC) division. In 2003, he was named co-head of Equities and in January 2004, Cohn was named the co-head of global securities businesses . He became President and Co-Chief Operating Officer and director in June 2006.
In late 2009, Cohn led a delegation from Goldman Sachs to meetings with the government of Greece, which included proposals (that were not adopted) to push debt-due dates far into the future, “much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.” Goldman Sachs had been scrutinized for creating or pitching products used by Greece to “obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels”.
In 2010, Cohn testified to Congress on the role of Goldman Sachs in the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Cohn testified: “During the two years of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs lost $1.2 billion in its residential mortgage-related business. We did not ‘bet against our clients,’ and the numbers underscore this fact.”
In February 2015, Cohn hosted the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference in San Francisco. As host, Cohn asked questions of Tim Cook, CEO of Apple Inc., while Cook was on stage.
Cohn’s salary at Goldman Sachs was US$22 million in 2014. He received $21 million in 2015.
He received a severance package worth around $285 million – mostly in stock – from Goldman Sachs upon leaving to join the administration of Donald Trump.
Personality and work style
Critics of Cohn attribute to him an arrogant, aggressive, abrasive and risk-prone work style. They see his “6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs” as intimidating, as he might “sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader’s desk, his thigh close to the employee’s face and ask how markets were doing” According to former Bear Stearns Asset Management CEO Richard Marin, Cohn’s arrogance is at the root of the problem.
When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody’s a counterparty, not a customer, not a client.
“He’s a trader. He has that whole feel in his body and brain and fingertips.”
Ovitz sees Cohn’s toughness as a “positive” value, explaining that a high ranking executive can’t be “all peaches and cream.”
Donna Redel, who was Chairman of the Board of the New York Mercantile Exchange when Cohn worked there as a silver trader, remembers Cohn as “firm,” “strategic” and “driven.” Martin Greenberg, her predecessor, said Cohn “was tough,” and added that “Gary got in with the right people, worked his ass off and used his head.”
In 2009, the Hillel International building at Kent State University was named the Cohn Jewish Student Center in recognition of a gift from Cohn and his wife. It is the first Hillel building built directly on the campus of a state university.
Cohn has been a supporter of Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities and has supported Harlem RBI since 2011. At that time, Harlem RBI was given the chance to build its own charter school. Mark Teixeira of the New York Yankees and Harlem RBI director Rich Berlin asked Cohn if he could help them raise the capital they needed to build the school.
In December 2012, Cohn attended the 12-12-12 Concert for Sandy Relief which raised money for the Robin Hood Relief fund to help victims of Hurricane Sandy.
On June 17, 2013, Cohn was honored at the annual “Bid for Kids” gala in order to raise funds for Harlem RBI and the DREAM charter school. Cohn said in an interview that Harlem RBI is a project that is “very near and dear to his heart.”
Cohn has written editorials in prestigious journals and newspapers. In March 2014, he wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, discussing “The Responsible Way to Rein in Super-Fast Trading.”
Story 1: Russia Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack on Subway — Videos
Russia confirms identity of St Petersburg suicide bomber
St. Petersburg Metro bomber identified as Kyrgyz-born Russian citizen
Kyrgyzstan native identified as bomber of Russian metro
Any Conspiracy Theory About the St. Petersburg Metro Blast Is OK So Long As It’s About Russia
Russian Metro Bomb Suspect a Muslim Born in Central Asia: Investigators
By Reuters | April 4, 2017 | Last Updated: April 4, 2017 3:56 pm
OSH, Kyrgyzstan/ST. PETERSBURG, Russia—A Russian suicide bomber originally from mainly Muslim Kyrgyzstan detonated the explosives in a St Petersburg train carriage that killed 14 people and wounded 50, authorities said on Tuesday.
The suspect had radical Islamist links, Russian media cited law enforcement officials as saying, raising the possibility Monday’s attack could have been inspired by the ISIS terrorist group, which has not struck a major city in Russia before. So far, no-one has claimed responsibility for the blast.
Kyrgyz officials identified the suspect as Akbarzhon Jalilov, born in the city of Osh in 1995, and Russian officials confirmed his identity, saying he had also left a bomb found at another metro station before it went off.
Biographical details pieced together from social media and Russian officials suggested Jalilov was an fairly typical young St Petersburg resident with an interest in Islam as well as pop music and martial arts but no obvious links to militants.
His uncle, Eminzhon Jalilov, told Reuters by telephone that his nephew was a mosque-attending Muslim, but that he was “not a fanatic”.
The explosion in the middle of Monday afternoon occurred when the train was in a tunnel deep underground, amplifying the force of the blast. The carriage door was blown off, and witnesses described seeing injured passengers with bloodied and blackened bodies.
State investigative authorities said fragments of the body of the suspect had been found among the dead, indicating that he was a suicide bomber.
“From the genetic evidence and the surveillance cameras there is reason to believe that the person behind the terrorist act in the train carriage was the same one who left a bag with an explosive device at the Ploshchad Vosstaniya station,” they said in a statement.
Russia has been on alert against attacks in reprisal for its military intervention in Syria, where Moscow’s forces have been supporting troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad against Western-backed armed groups as well as ISIS, which grew out of the conflict.
ISIS, now under attack by all sides in Syria’s multi-faceted war, has repeatedly threatened revenge and been linked to recent bombings elsewhere in Europe.
If it is confirmed that the metro bomber was linked to radical Islamists, it could provoke anger among some Russians at Moscow’s decision to intervene in Syria, a year before an election which President Vladimir Putin is expected to win.
Officials said they were treating the blast as an act of terrorism, but there was no official confirmation of any link to Islamist radicals.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it was cynical to say the bombing in St Petersburg was revenge for Russia’s role in Syria. He said the attack showed that Moscow needed to press on with its fight against global terrorism.
A page on social media site VKontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, belonging to someone with the same name and year of birth as Jalilov, included photos of him relaxing with friends in a bar, smoking from a hookah pipe. He was dressed in jackets and a baseball cap.
A Reuters reporter visited a house in Osh, southern Kyrgyzstan, which neighbors said was the family home of Jalilov. The home, a modest but well-maintained one-storey brick building, was empty.
Neighbors said Jalilov was from a family of ethnic Uzbeks, and that while they knew his parents they had not seen the young man for years. They said his father worked as a panel-beater in a car repair shop.
“They are a very good family. Always friendly, never argue. And they have good kids,” one of the neighbors, Mirkomil Akhmadaliyev, told Reuters.
Later on Tuesday, Jalilov’s mother appeared but refused to speak to reporters, saying she needed to retrieve something and hurry back to a security service office.
Osh is part of the Fergana Valley, a fertile strip of land that straddles Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan which is mainly populated by ethnic Uzbeks. It has a tradition of Islamist radicalism and hundreds of people have set out from the area to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
A blast at a nightclub in Istanbul on New Year’s Eve that killed 39 people involved a suspect from the same part of central Asia. The bomber in that attack said he had been acting under the direction of ISIS militants in Syria.
Jalilov’s uncle said his nephew moved to Russia in 2012. He is registered at an upscale apartment in the north of St Petersburg, according to a source in the Russian authorities, and he has a Daewoo Nexia car registered in his name.
A man who said he was a representative of the apartment’s owner told Reuters that Jalilov had never actually lived there, but had given the address as his residence in official documents.
His VKontakte page included links to a site featuring sayings from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an eighteenth century preacher on whose teaching Wahhabism, a conservative and hardline branch of Islam, is based. But there were no links to Islamist terrorists.
Putin Visit ‘Noteworthy’
Russia’s health minister Veronika Skvortsova said on Tuesday that the death toll from the blast, which hit at 2:40 p.m. (1140 GMT), had risen to 14, with 50 wounded.
St Petersburg television showed footage of the corpse of a man they said was the perpetrator. The man, with a close-cropped beard, resembled footage of a young man wearing a blue beanie hat and a jacket with a fur-lined hood captured on closed circuit television identified by Russian media as a suspect.
“It has been ascertained that an explosive device could have been detonated by a man, fragments of whose body were found in the third carriage of the train,” Russia’s state investigative committee said in a statement.
“The man has been identified but his identity will not be disclosed for now in the interests of the investigation,” the statement added.
President Putin, who was visiting St Petersburg at the time of the blast, went to the site late on Monday.
The Kremlin said it was “noteworthy” that Putin had been in the city. It did not elaborate, but said such attacks on Russia were a challenge for every citizen, including the president.
Two years ago, ISIS said it had brought down a plane carrying Russian tourists home from a Red Sea resort. All 224 people on board the flight were killed.
Monday’s blast raised security fears beyond Russian frontiers. France, which has itself suffered a series of attacks, announced additional security measures in Paris.
Story 2: North Korea Ballistic Missile Launch — Videos–
US officials: North Korean missile launch likely a failure
Breaking News – North Korea Fired Ballistic Missile Into Japan Sea
Published on Apr 4, 2017
Breaking News – North Korea Fired Ballistic Missile Into Japan Sea
April 5th, 2017 – North Korea fired a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan on Wednesday morning, US and South Korean officials said. The US official believes the projectile was likely a ballistic missile. North Korea’s missile test comes just a day before Chinese President Xi Jinping visits US President Donald Trump for a summit in Florida.
The projectile used in Wednesday’s test was launched at 6:42 a.m. Seoul time, from a site in the vicinity of Sinpo, South Hamgyong province, a South Korean Defense Ministry official said. It flew a distance of around 60 kilometers (37 miles), South Korean officials said.
North Korean missile fired ahead of US-China summit | April 5, 2017
North Korean missile fired ahead of US-China summit | April 5, 2017
Donald Trump: ‘We have a big problem’ in North Korea
Japan issues ‘strong protest’ over N.Korea missile launch
Official: North Korea fires projectile
Trump calls on China to get tough on North Korea
Can the Trump administration get North Korea under control?
Ash Carter: US Will DESTROY North Korea
US Military sends MOST DEADLY MESSAGE to North Korean Military
Published on Mar 26, 2017
A great video of the US Military sending it’s most deadly message to the leadership of the North Korean Military in Military exercise.
WATERS SURROUNDING THE KOREAN PENINSULA, Republic of Korea
(March. 19, 2017)- U.S. Navy ships assigned to Commander, Task Force (CTF) 30 and CTF 70 are scheduled to begin a series of exercises with the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy March 21, 2017 to strengthen maritime interoperability and tactics, techniques and procedures.
The U.S. routinely conducts CSG operations in the waters around the Republic of Korea to exercise maritime maneuvers, strengthen the U.S.-ROK alliance, and improve regional security.
“This exercise is yet another example of the strength and resolve of the combined U.S. and the ROK naval force,” said Rear Adm. James Kilby, commander, Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group. “The U.S. and the Republic of Korea share one of the strongest alliances in the world and we grow stronger as an alliance because of our routine exercises here in South Korea and the close relationship and ties that we forge from operating at sea together.”
The exercises will consist of a routine bilateral training, subject matter expert exchanges, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare drills, communication drills, air defense exercises, counter-mine planning and distinguished visitor embarkations.
“This defensive exercise focuses on enhancing the interoperability between the ROK and US navies and helps both navies maintain a combined defense posture to protect the ROK from future North Korean unprovoked acts of aggression,” said Rear Adm, Choi, Sung-Mok, the chief of staff for the Republic of Korea Fleet.
Additional surface, subsurface, and air assets joining the bilateral exercise include Carrier Air Wing 2, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Wayne E Meyer (DDG 108), USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Stethem (DDG 63), Los Angeles-class nuclear fast attack submarine USS Columbus (SSN 762), and P-3/P-8 Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft from Commander, Task Force 72.
Vinson deployed to the region under U.S. 3rd Fleet command and control, including beyond the international dateline, which previously divided operational areas of responsibility for 3rd and 7th Fleets. Third Fleet operating forward offers additional options to the Pacific Fleet commander by leveraging the capabilities of 3rd and 7th Fleets. This operational concept allows both numbered fleets to complement one another and provide the foundation of stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
The U.S. Navy maintains a presence in the Indo-Asia-Pacific to help preserve peace and security and further our partnerships with friends and allies. Our forward presence contributes to freedom of navigation and lawful use of the sea, as well as furthers operational training and enables an exchange of culture, skills, and tactical knowledge.
For a list of participating Republic of Korea assets, please contact the Republic of Korea Navy Headquarters Public Affairs.
Video Description Credit: Lt. Joshua Kelsey
Video Credit: US Military
Thumbnail Credit: US Navy
US says it has ‘spoken enough about North Korea’ after new missile launch
Rex Tillerson’s enigmatic statement comes after Trump warned US would act alone on Pyongyang provocation if China did not intervene
Tuesday 4 April 2017 19.51 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 5 April 2017 10.29 EDT
Japan and South Korea have condemned North Korea after it launched another ballistic missile – but the US refused to be drawn in, with secretary of state Rex Tillerson saying the country “has spoken enough about North Korea”.
Japan lodged a strong protest over the “extremely problematic launch”, which landed in waters off the Korean peninsula on the eve of a summit between US and Chinese leaders that is expected to focus on Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programme.
The South Korean foreign ministry said it “threatens the peace and safety of the international community as well as the Korean peninsula”.
But Tillerson responded to the test with an aenigmatic statement saying only: “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.”
A few hours earlier, before news of the new missile launch broke, a senior Trump administration official suggested time was running out for a diplomatic solution.
“We would have loved to see North Korea join the community of nations,” the official said. “They have been given that opportunity over the course in different dialogues and offers over the course of four administrations with some of best diplomats and statesmen doing the best they could to bring about a resolution.
“The clock has now run out and all options are on the table for us.”
The missile was launched on Wednesday from Sinpo, a port city on North Korea’s east coast, and flew about 60km (37 miles), South Korea’s office of the joint chiefs of staff said in a short statement. Sinpo is the site of a North Korean submarine base.
The launch comes as the US president, Donald Trump, and China’s president, Xi Jinping, prepare for a summit this week at which adding pressure on the North to drop its arms development will take centre stage.
Abraham Denmark, a senior Asia policy official in Barack Obama’s Pentagon, said the North Korean launch was a statement of defiance ahead of the meeting, in which North Korea will top the agenda. “I would interpret the message to the United States and China from North Korea as ‘we’re going to continue to move down this path, and you cannot do anything about it,” Denmark said.
Tillerson’s reticence contrasts with Trump’s more aggressive recent comments on North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme.
In an interview with the Financial Times this week, Trump warned that the US was prepared to take unilateral action against Pyongyang if China failed to put pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme.
“Well, if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will,” Trump said. Asked how he would tackle North Korea, he said: “I’m not going to tell you. You know, I am not the United States of the past where we tell you where we are going to hit in the Middle East.”
He added: “China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won’t. And if they do, that will be very good for China, and if they don’t it won’t be good for anyone.”
North Korea’s foreign ministry criticised Trump’s comments and ongoing joint military exercises involving South Korea and the US that Pyongyang claims are a dress rehearsal for an invasion.
The “reckless actions” are driving the tense situation on the Korean peninsula “to the brink of a war”, a ministry spokesman was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency. It said the idea that the US could deprive Pyongyang of its “nuclear deterrent” through sanctions was “the wildest dream”.
Any launch of objects using the ballistic missile technology is a violation of UN security council resolutions but the North has defied the ban, claiming it is an infringement of its sovereign rights to self defence and pursuit of space exploration.
In a statement the US Pacific Command said it had detected and tracked the missile launch at 11.42am Hawaii time. “The launch of a single ballistic missile occurred at a land-based facility near Sinpo. The missile was tracked until it landed in the Sea of Japan at 11.51am. Initial assessments indicate the type of missile was a KN-15 medium range ballistic missile,” the statement said.
Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, warned of the possibility of further provocations by North Korea and said Tokyo would continue to work closely with the US to counter threats from missile launches.
Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS thinktank in Honolulu, said he was expecting North Korea to draw attention to itself to coincide with the Trump-Xi summit, perhaps by conducting a nuclear test.
“I’ve joked before that they don’t mind being hated but they definitely hate to be ignored,” Cossa said.
Pyongyang has also conducted two nuclear weapons tests since January 2016 and is believed to be developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could hit the US, with its leader, Kim Jong-un, vowing to test launch one at any time.
Experts and officials in the South and the US believe the North is still some time away from mastering all the technology needed for an operational ICBM system, such as re-entry of the atmosphere and subsequent missile guidance.
Topping the agenda of the US-China summit in Florida will be whether Trump will make good on his threat to use crucial trade ties with China as a means of pressuring Beijing to do more to rein in Pyongyang.
A senior White House official said Trump’s meeting with Xi was a test for the US-Chinese relationship and that Trump wants economic ties that are fair, balanced and based on reciprocity.
China has condemned North Korean nuclear and missile tests but is wary of any measures that could lead to the regime’s collapse. Beijing fears political turmoil in the North could trigger a refugee crisis and see tens of thousands of South Korean and US troops lined up along its border.
On Tuesday in Idlib, a province in the Northwest of Syria, at least seventy people were killed, 20 of them children, in what appears to have been a chemical weapon attack in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Initial reports point to the nerve agent Sarin gas. Our panel of experts asks who was behind this attack. What explanations are being given, and do they stack up?
Click here for PART TWO.
Another suspected chemical weapons attack is latest chapter in brutal Syrian conflict
‘Assad Has Unleashed Horror in Syria’: World Reacts to Alleged Chemical Attack
Syria Gas Attack: Russia says chemical depot held by rebels bombed
Turkish President Erdogan calls chemical attack in Syria “inhuman and unacceptable”
“The Desperate BBC Propaganda Machine Blames Assad For Chemical Attack Before Any Investigation.”
Russia denies involvement in reported Syrian chemical attack
Children caught in Syria ‘chemical attack’- BBC News
Published on Apr 5, 2017
The UN Security Council has held an emergency session to discuss the suspected gas attack on a rebel-held town in Syria. The attack is believed to have killed more than 70 people, including children. The Syrian government has denied responsibility, while its ally Russia says the gas came from rebel weapons on the ground. But those claims have been widely rejected by western governments, as our Chief International Correspondent Lyse Doucet reports.
Syria conflict: ‘Chemical attack’ in Idlib kills 58 – BBC News
Published on Apr 4, 2017
At least 58 people have been killed and dozens wounded in a suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town in north-western Syria, a monitoring group says. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that strikes on Khan Sheikhoun by Syrian government or Russian jets had caused many people to choke. Later, aircraft fired rockets at local clinics treating some of the survivors, medics and opposition activists said. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons.
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley Condemns Russia, Iran After Chemical Attack In Syria | NBC News
UK: Chemical Attack Bears All Hallmarks of Assad
UNSC holds emergency meeting on Syria chemical attack
WATCH LIVE: U.N. Security Council Holds Emergency Meeting On Syria Chemical Attack | TIME
Story 4: Valid Use of National Security Agency (NSA) Intelligence or Abuse of Power of NSA Intelligence For Political Purposes — Big Lie Media Blackout of Obamagate Surveillance/Spying Scandal with Susan Rice Unmasking American Identities For Foreign Intelligence Purpose (Legal and Legitimate) or Political Partisan Purpose (Illegal and Illegitimate) — Videos
Malzberg | Andrew McCarthy: Rice Unmasking “Extraordinarily Serious”
Chicago’s Morning Answer – Andrew McCarthy – April 5, 2017
Fmr. FBI agent defines the Susan Rice unmasking
Hannity: Exposing the Obama administration’s sabotage
Tucker Carlson Tonight Full Show 4/4/2017 – Fox News HD April 03, 2017
Judge Napolitano on if Susan Rice did anything illegal
Susan Rice: ‘I Leaked Nothing To Nobody’ About Intelligence (Exclusive) | Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC
The optics of the Susan Rice revelations
Ron Paul on the fallout from the Susan Rice controversy
Susan Rice Slithers Through A Maze of Mendacity, Lies and Misrepresentation With MSM Support
Did Susan Rice break any laws?
Gutfeld: Did Susan Rice break the law?
Rand Paul: Susan Rice ‘Ought to Be Under Subpoena,’ Asked If Obama Knew About Eavesdropping
Why the Susan Rice Unmasking Case Is Important and What You Need to Know
Ingraham blasts lack of media coverage on Susan Rice story
Laura Ingraham takes on the Susan Rice revelations
Where does the Susan Rice story go from here?
Krauthammer: Susan Rice appears to be contradicting herself
Bloomberg Reports Susan Rice Repeatedly Asked To Unmask Names of Trump Aides – Hugh Hewitt
Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY April 4, 2017 12:08 PM
Her interest was not in national security but to advance the political interests of the Democratic party.
The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence investigations.
Why is that so important in the context of explosive revelations that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national-security adviser, confidant, and chief dissembler, called for the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials whose identities and communications were captured in the collection of U.S. intelligence on foreign targets?
Because we’ve been told for weeks that any unmasking of people in Trump’s circle that may have occurred had two innocent explanations: (1) the FBI’s investigation of Russian meddling in the election and (2) the need to know, for purposes of understanding the communications of foreign intelligence targets, the identities of Americans incidentally intercepted or mentioned. The unmasking, Obama apologists insist, had nothing to do with targeting Trump or his people.
That won’t wash.
In general, it is the FBI that conducts investigations that bear on American citizens suspected of committing crimes or of acting as agents of foreign powers. In the matter of alleged Russian meddling, the investigative camp also includes the CIA and the NSA. All three agencies conducted a probe and issued a joint report in January. That was after Obama, despite having previously acknowledged that the Russian activity was inconsequential, suddenly made a great show of ordering an inquiry and issuing sanctions.
Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence “products” for the rest of the “intelligence community,” they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under “minimization” standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as “obsessive” in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.
The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
The FBI, CIA, and NSA generate or collect the intelligence in, essentially, three ways: conducting surveillance on suspected agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and carrying out more-sweeping collections under two other authorities — a different provision of FISA, and a Reagan-era executive order that has been amended several times over the ensuing decades, EO 12,333. As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.
As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.
Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports.
Thus, Comey added, these consumers “can ask the collectors to unmask.” But the unmasking authority “resides with those who collected the information.”
Of course, the consumer doing the asking in this case was not just any government official. We’re talking about Susan Rice.
This was Obama’s right hand doing the asking. If she made an unmasking “request,” do you suppose anyone at the FBI, CIA, or NSA was going to say no? That brings us to three interesting points.
The first involves political intrusion into law enforcement — something that the White House is supposed to avoid. (You may remember that Democrats ran Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales out of town over suspicions about it.) As I have noted repeatedly, in publishing the illegally leaked classified information about former national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the New York Times informs us that “Obama advisers” and “Obama officials” were up to their eyeballs in the investigation:
Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.
The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. [Translation: “asked not to be named committing felony unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”] The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal. [Emphasis added.]
It appears very likely that Susan Rice was involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn. Was she also monitoring the FBI’s investigation? Was she involved in the administration’s consideration of (bogus) criminal charges against Flynn? With the subsequent decision to have the FBI interrogate Flynn (or “grill” him, as the Times put it)?
The second point is that, while not a pillar of rectitude, Ms. Rice is not an idiot. Besides being shrewd, she was a highly involved, highly informed consumer of intelligence, and a key Obama political collaborator. Unlike the casual reader, she would have known who the Trump-team players were without needing to have their identities unmasked. Do you really think her purpose in demanding that names be revealed was to enhance her understanding of intelligence about the activities and intentions of foreign targets? Seriously? I’m betting it was so that others down the dissemination chain could see the names of Trump associates — names the investigating agencies that originally collected the information had determined not to unmask.
Third, and finally, let’s consider the dissemination chain Rice had in mind. The most telling remark that former Obama deputy defense secretary Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.”
The most telling remark that former Obama deputy defense secretary Evelyn Farkas made in her now-infamous MSNBC interview was the throw-away line at the end: “That’s why you have all the leaking.”
To summarize: At a high level, officials like Susan Rice had names unmasked that would not ordinarily be unmasked. That information was then being pushed widely throughout the intelligence community in unmasked form . . . particularly after Obama, toward the end of his presidency, suddenly — and seemingly apropos of nothing — changed the rules so that all of the intelligence agencies (not just the collecting agencies) could have access to raw intelligence information.
As we know, the community of intelligence agencies leaks like a sieve, and the more access there is to juicy information, the more leaks there are. Meanwhile, former Obama officials and Clinton-campaign advisers, like Farkas, were pushing to get the information transferred from the intelligence community to members of Congress, geometrically increasing the likelihood of intelligence leaks.
By the way, have you noticed that there have been lots of intelligence leaks in the press?
There’s an old saying in the criminal law: The best evidence of a conspiracy is success.
The criminal law also has another good rule of thumb: Consciousness of guilt is best proved by false exculpatory statements. That’s a genre in which Susan Rice has rich experience.
Two weeks ago, she was asked in an interview about allegations by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) that the Obama administration had unmasked Trump-team members. “I know nothing about this,” Rice replied. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.” Well, at least she didn’t blame it on a video.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Story 1: Trump’s Taiwan Telephone Transmissions or New Trump Two China Policy? — The Arms Race For The South China Sea — China Buys Gold and Currency Wars Lead To Trade Wars To Real Wars — Videos —
Donald Trump defends his call with Taiwan’s president: She ‘called me’
Trump Calls Taiwan President #Fail
Amb. Hill on Trump’s call with Taiwan President
China protests Trump, Taiwan pres. phone call
Published on Dec 3, 2016
China says it has lodged a protest with the relevant side in the United States after President-elect Donald Trump spoke with the Taiwanese president in a rare phone conversation.
China’s Foreign Ministry said that the one China principle is the political basis of the Beijing-Washington relationship. It urged the relevant side in the US to uphold this policy and carefully handle the Taiwan issue to avoid unnecessary disturbances in ties. During the conversation between Trump and Tsai Ing-wen, the two sides highlighted the importance of closer economic, political, and security ties. China recognizes Taiwan as part of its territory. The White House has also reacted to the phone conversation, saying there has been no change in the United States’ longstanding “One-China” policy. The objection from the White House was followed by a series of tweets by Trump in which he defended the phone call.
BREAKING – TRUMP talks to TAIWAN – History of US/China Relations, Explains Media’s Reaction to this
Trump and the China Issue
Donald Trump and China’s Currency War!
Published on Sep 19, 2016
Donald Trump flayed China and called it a Currency Manipulator in his Speech. – On April 2016, a Treasury report targets five countries in particular: China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany. Each meets at least two of the three criteria that “determine whether an economy may be pursuing foreign exchange policies that could give it an unfair competitive advantage against the United States.”
At a time when currency devaluation has become a major tool used by multiple countries to stimulate growth, the U.S. is looking to protect its own interests. The report is an outgrowth of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, a bipartisan effort aimed at stemming the global race to the bottom.
The criteria to determine whether a country should be on the “Monitoring List” of countries using unfair currency practices are: a trade surplus of larger than $20 billion, or 0.1 percent of U.S. GDP; a trade surplus with the U.S. that is more than 3 percent of that country’s GDP; “persistent one-sided intervention,” defined as purchases of foreign currency amounting to more than 2 percent of the country’s GDP in a one-year period
Currency war * full documentary
Death By China: How America Lost Its Manufacturing Base (Official Version)
China Lodges Representations to US over Trump’s Phone Talk with Taiwan Leader
Geraldo: Trump’s ‘outrageous’ Taiwan call may be brilliant
Trumps talks with Taiwan president: Tsai Ing-wen calls Donald, Western media flips out
US Military TURNS UP THE HEAT on China with more US Navy Ships
America’s Greatest Weapon Against China
China Vs USA : Who Would Win – Latest News
China vs USA: Empires at War
China vs India – Race to the Top of the World – Documentary by BBC
U S Navy 7th Fleet
U.S. NAVY SEVENTH FLEET IN KOREAN WAR, FORMOSA CRISIS, COLD WAR 73492
US Aircraft Carrier In Action Operating In The South China Sea
Steve Bannon Lays Out His AMAZING Political Philosophy
White House rebuke for Trump over Taiwan phone call as Obama administration says it’s baffled he would speak to its president
Trump bit into the forbidden fruit on Friday when he accepted a call from Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen
‘I think it’s hard to determine exactly what the aim was of the president-elect,’ White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said today
Talk upended 40 years of U.S. foreign policy; last time an American president spoke to Taiwan leadership was in 1979
Officially Trump transition officials says it was a courtesy call; a report today says it was a long-planned act meant to provoke China
By Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 14:03 EST, 5 December 2016 | UPDATED: 08:08 EST, 6 December 2016
The White House said Monday that it didn’t understand why Donald Trump upended nearly 40 years of U.S. foreign policy by speaking to Taiwan’s president.
Trump bit into the forbidden fruit on Friday when he accepted a call from Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen. His transition team is officially saying it was a ‘courtesy’.
‘I think it’s hard to determine exactly what the aim was of the president-elect,’ White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said today.
White House press secretary Josh EArnest said Monday that the Obama administration doesn’t understand why Donald Trump upended nearly 40 years of U.S. foreign policy by speaking to Taiwan’s president
White House reaffirms ‘One China’ policy after Trump’s call
The Obama administration official warned Trump that he risked damaging U.S. interests and creating unrest in the Taiwan Straight, which separates the island from the mainland, with the gesture.
‘Some of the progress that we have made in our relationship with China could be undermined by this issue flaring up,’ Earnest said.
It is also ‘unclear’ how it helps the people of Taiwan, he stated. Already, it has provoked China to ‘ratchet up’ its rhetoric against Taiwan, which is also the United States’ ninth-largest trading partner.
‘These are significant issues,’ he said, ‘and worthy of careful consideration.’
The White House says two national security officials in the U.S. talked to their counterparts in Beijing and restated the Obama administration’s commitment to its one-China policy.
‘The Chinese government and senior officials in the Chinese government are sophisticated enough to understand the complexities in the U.S. political system,’ he said. ‘Our message…was intended to make clear that the policy position of the Obama admin had not changed.’
Trump said in a four-tweet statement that Tsai called him.
He used the occasion to whack China, saying the country devalues its currency and built ‘a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea’ without U.S. permission. ‘I don’t think so,’ he added.
Vice president-elect Mike Pence said Sunday that the incident was overblown.
‘She reached out to the president-elect and he took the call from the democratically elected leader of Taiwan,’ he said on Meet The Press. ‘I think most Americans, and frankly most leaders around the world, know this for what it was.’
Donald Trump, pictured, accepted a phone call of congratulations from Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen on Friday and it has caused diplomatic issues with the Beijing
Trump claimed on his Twitter feed that the Taiwanese government had called him. His vice president said he took the call as a ‘courtesy’
Pence said it was a ‘courtesy’ call and Trump intends to ‘engage the world on America’s terms.’
‘It’s striking to me that President Obama would reach out to a murdering dictator in Cuba and be hailed as a hero,’ he said. ‘And President-elect Donald Trump takes a courtesy call from the democratically-elected president of Taiwan and it becomes something of a thing in the media.’
Earnest referred to Pence’s statements today and the conflicting portrait presented in the Washington Post. The publication claimed Trump had been planning the move since before he became the Republican nominee for president.
‘It’s unclear exactly what this strategic effort is, what the aim of this strategic effort is,’ the Obama spokesman said. ‘And it’s unclear exactly what potential benefit could be experienced by the United States, China or Taiwan. But I’ll leave that to them to explain.’
Trump responded to criticism of the phone call with an attack on China
China rebuked Trump through the official publication of its Communist Party for taking the call – the first conversation between a U.S. leader and Taiwan since 1979.
The overseas edition of the People’s Daily said ‘creating troubles for the China-U.S. relationship is creating troubles for the U.S. itself’ and Trump ‘would greatly reduce the chance to achieve the goal of making America great again’ if he continues down this path.
China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, said Monday that his county had launched ‘stern representations with the relevant side in the U.S.’ but would not say who officials spoke to, Reuters said.
‘I think it’s easy to understand “the relevant side,” ‘ Lu stated. ‘In fact, China has maintained contacts and communication with the team of President-elect Trump.’
President-elect’s Taiwan call, tweets signal his approach will be more adversarial
Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen speaks on the phone with U.S. president-elect Donald Trump at her office in Taipei on Dec. 3. PHOTO:TAIWAN PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE/REUTERS
By DAMIAN PALETTA, CAROL E. LEE and JEREMY PAGE
Updated Dec. 5, 2016 10:41 p.m. ET
The exchange signaled a new and potentially more adversarial relationship between the world’s two largest economies, as Mr. Trump moves to follow through on his campaign-trail promises to challenge China’s trade and currency policies.
Chinese officials late Friday and early Saturday played down Mr. Trump’s precedent-breaking phone call with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, which a transition official said had been arranged by Bob Dole, the former Republican senator and presidential nominee. The call went beyond pleasantries and included a discussion about China and stability in the Asia-Pacific, according to a person familiar with the call. The Chinese directed their ire at Taiwan and not at Mr. Trump.
But they signaled their displeasure with a series of Twitter posts Mr. Trump leveled at China over the weekend, as he criticized its currency policies and military presence in the South China Sea.
In a packed press briefing Monday, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang suggested that Beijing had made its unhappiness directly known to members of Mr. Trump’s team.
The People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s leading newspaper, said in a front-page commentary in Monday’s overseas editions that “Trump and his transition team ought to recognize that creating trouble for China-U.S. relations is just creating trouble for the U.S. itself.” It criticized Mr. Trump’s tweets for portraying the phone call “as not a big deal” and warned that if such “petty tricks” are allowed to go unanswered, Beijing could expect to see more of these provocations once he’s in office.
President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter to criticize China over its economic and military policies. China’s Foreign Ministry’s response to the tweets suggested that Beijing had made its displeasure known directly to Mr. Trump’s team. Photo: Getty Images
Mr. Dole, in an interview, said the law firm he is affiliated with does work with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., and that the firm played a role in arranging the phone call. “It’s fair to say that we may have had some influence,” Mr. Dole said.
U.S.-China experts said both Mr. Trump and Beijing appear to be trying to establish boundaries for a new relationship between the countries, which is expected to be more adversarial than that favored by President Barack Obama since 2009.
At the White House, officials fielded multiple calls from Chinese officials over the weekend in which China complained about Mr. Trump’s actions and said it needs stability and predictability in its relationship with the U.S., a senior Obama administration official said.
The Chinese also were seeking guidance on Mr. Trump’s policy intentions, and White House officials said they didn’t know what they are, the administration official said.
“What you have seen in the past eight years is possibly too much predictability” from the U.S. in its approach to China, said Christopher Johnson, a former senior China analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency. “A little unpredictability is a good thing, but too much is scary. There’s a fine line there between good unpredictability and scary, and that’s the balance that has to be found.”
A man reads a newspaper with the headline that reads ‘U.S. President-elect Donald Trump delivers a mighty shock to America’ at a newsstand in Beijing on Nov. 10.PHOTO: ANDY WONG/ASSOCIATED PRESS
After Mr. Trump becomes president on Jan. 20, his first real test with China could arise in mid-April. That’s when the Treasury Department is required to make public a “currency” report that details the behavior of other nations. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to label China a “currency manipulator,” a designation that would require negotiations between both countries and could be a step toward penalizing Beijing. Such talks could reset the way they engage with each other.
On Sunday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence declined to say during an interview on NBC whether Mr. Trump would label China as a currency manipulator. Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s transition operation, declined on Monday to expand on Mr. Pence’s comments.
Mr. Trump hammered China during the campaign for its currency and trade policies, and threatened to impose tariffs of between 35% and 45% on Chinese exports to the U.S. It was unclear if he would soften those pledges once elected, but his Friday call with Ms. Tsai brought questions about his approach to China into sharper focus.
Messrs. Trump and Pence described the conversation between Mr. Trump and Ms. Tsai as a congratulatory call initiated by Taiwan. But during the discussion with Taiwan’s leader, which lasted for about 12 minutes, Mr. Trump stressed to Ms. Tsai that his top priority is the U.S. economy, said the person familiar with the call.
“The conversation was about regional stability,” said the person, adding the call was planned weeks in advance. It marked the first of its kind since at least 1979, when the U.S. established formal relations with Beijing.
The terse exchanges between an incoming U.S. president and the country with the world’s second-largest economy have, over the course of 72 hours, broken from more than a decade of fragile diplomacy, experts said.
A rise in U.S.-China tensions before Mr. Trump takes office could shape any cooperation between the two countries on high-stakes issues. It comes amid growing alarm over the nuclear threat from North Korea, for which Mr. Trump will need China’s help to resolve.
Mr. Trump’s call with Ms. Tsai and subsequent tweets accusing China of currency manipulation, over-taxing U.S. imports and building “a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea” have generated a “tremendous amount of uncertainty” in Beijing, said David Dollar, the Treasury Department’s economic and financial emissary to China during Mr. Obama’s first term.
“Some of the issues with China are best settled quietly and confidentially,” Mr. Dollar said. “If the whole policy is diplomacy-by-tweet, it’s hard to think that’s going to meet U.S. objectives.”
A number of conservatives, including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have cheered Mr. Trump’s engagement with Taiwan. Mr. Cotton said it was a sign that the U.S. wasn’t going to be complacent anymore over China’s behavior. During the campaign, Mr. Trump complained about Beijing’s ability to lure U.S. manufacturers to relocate to China, a message that resonated with voters in Rust Belt states that helped sweep Mr. Trump to victory. For some observers, his confrontation with China is a welcome change.
Last Friday morning, Mr. Trump’s secretary received a call at Trump Tower from Ms. Tsai and patched her through to the president-elect, according to people familiar with the call. It was 10 a.m. in New York and 11 p.m. in Taipei. Ms. Tsai had a prepared set of talking points and was surrounded by Taiwan’s foreign minister, David Lee, as well as two top National Security Council officials and her spokesman, Alex Huang.
Stephen Yates, a former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney who worked as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan, said that for at least a week Ms. Tsai’s name was on Mr. Trump’s list of foreign leaders whom he would speak with by phone.
“To my knowledge, Taiwan was on that list early, and it took some time to arrange,” said Mr. Yates, who is seen as a candidate for a post on Mr. Trump’s national security team. “It was a message in the sense that Donald Trump is not necessarily going to be told what he can or can’t do because a foreign leader says so. That’s exactly the kind of thing that millions of Americans detest about Washington,” said Mr. Yates, who currently is visiting Taiwan for meetings with senior officials.
“If it’s going to cause some pain, then so be it,” he said.
He said the call didn’t necessarily signal a change in policy or strategy on Taiwan, which didn’t rank among the top global challenges for the incoming administration.
“Definitely, there was preparation so the president-elect was not blindsided that there might be reaction from China, from China experts, from the State Department and the White House,” he said. “I don’t think any part of the Trump team is looking for a military conflict. But I also don’t think you have to walk on eggshells to get anything out of Beijing.”
Mr. Yates played a role in introducing the strongest-ever statement of support for Taiwan in the Republican Party’s platform at its national convention this year. The platform incorporated for the first time the “six assurances” given by President Ronald Reagan to Taiwan in 1982. Those include a pledge not to set a date for ending arms sales.
Mr. Trump’s complaints about China are often focused on its economy, which has for decades relied on the purchasing power of consumers in other countries, particularly the U.S.
The U.S. in many cases charges a tariff on imports from China and many other countries, ranging between 2.5% and 2.9%. Mr. Trump has in the past floated the idea of imposing a tariff against China more than ten times larger.
While Mr. Trump has appeared to soften some of his other campaign stances, on issues such as climate change and torture of terrorism suspects, he has not backed off his calls to more aggressively challenge Beijing.
His approach in recent days “could force the Chinese to feel they have to respond,” saidMichael Auslin, a resident scholar in Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Auslin said China could decide to take any number of steps, including putting “another 1,000 missiles across the [Taiwan] strait.” It also could signal that it will back away from recent United Nations sanctions against North Korea, or launch a round of cyberattacks against U.S. agencies.
—Jenny W. Hsu in Taipei contributed to this article.
The president-elect’s moves so far don’t adhere to strict conservative or outsider themes
President-elect Donald Trump, shown in Head of the Harbor, N.Y., over the weekend, hasn’t shown a clear ideological bent so far.PHOTO:EVAN VUCCI/ASSOCIATED PRESS
By GERALD F. SEIB
Updated Dec. 5, 2016 3:22 p.m. ET
If President Barack Obama sought to usher America into a postracial era, it is increasingly apparent that President-elect Donald Trump is opening the door to the postideological era.
In fact, it’s nearly impossible to identify a clear ideological bent in the incoming president’s early moves. It’s probably a mistake to try, because the definitions of left and right, liberal and conservative, are being scrambled right before our eyes.
Some Trump moves so far track with his populist outsider campaign image. Others are moves a conventional conservative could make. Some on his team would have been comfortable picks by any standard-issue Republican; some could as easily have been made by a Democratic president-elect.
President-elect Donald Trump has offered few clues for his choice of who will become his Secretary of State. With an expanding list of candidates, the confusion makes it difficult to discern how his foreign policy will be run when he is president. Photo: AP
The emerging picture suggests only two safe predictions about the Trump presidency. The first is that there will be a continuing struggle between the populist Donald Trump, who battles the corporate world and its love of free markets above all else, and the more conventionally Republican Donald Trump, who is comfortable with the leaders of that same corporate, free-market-loving world.
The second safe prediction is that there are no safe predictions. At a Harvard University postelection conference last week, Trump campaign pollster Tony Fabrizio said the president-elect can’t be viewed through traditional “ideological lenses.”
“Donald Trump is postideological,” he said. “His movement transcends ideology in a lot of respects.”
This also shows why the 2016 presidential election was disruptive in ways that extend well beyond Mr. Trump’s victory, momentous as that event was. We have just witnessed that rarest of things, a realigning election, in which the coalitions and prevailing ideological lines within both political parties have been shaken up and are going to be put back together in new patterns.
Mr. Trump won with the votes of blue-collar whites who once were reliably Democratic, and without the votes of many in the business world who once were reliably Republican. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.5 million, but her attempt to bridge the Democrats’ rising liberal wing of Bernie Sanders and the moderate wing still embodied by her husband, Bill Clinton, left everybody a bit dissatisfied. Both parties have to reconsider their ideological and geographical coalitions.
This discombobulated terrain is seen in the Trump transition. On the personnel front, it’s easiest to see the populist side of the president-elect in his choice of the antiestablishment firebrand Stephen Bannon to continue serving as a senior counselor.
But there have been some other appointments of figures known more for challenging convention than for adhering to it. Rep. Mike Pompeo brings the unlikely background of tea-party favorite into his new role as director of central intelligence. Sen. Jeff Sessions, tapped to be attorney general, is a member of the insiders’ club of the U.S. Senate, but on issues such as immigration, he has been more of an outside agitator. Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, broke with the intelligence mainstream with his outspoken views of Islam.
Other appointments are completely mainstream, and even bipartisan. Treasury Secretary-designate Steven Mnuchin brings the kind of Wall Street background that presidents of both parties have traditionally favored in that role, and he has a longer history of helping Democrats than of helping Republicans. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, picked to be ambassador to the United Nations, and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus could have fit comfortably into the administration of any of the mainstream Republicans Mr. Trump defeated.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence and incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price are traditional ideological conservatives, naturally wary of government power, but incoming Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has shown he knows how to take advantage of government power to protect industries in which he has invested.
After publicly shaming Carrier Corp. throughout the presidential campaign, Donald Trump announced a deal on Thursday with the company’s parent to keep 1,000 jobs in Indiana in exchange for state tax breaks. Is this model repeatable with other companies? WSJ’s Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. Photo: Getty
It’s equally hard to find a straight ideological line in early policy moves. The early emphasis on overturning the Affordable Care Act is entirely in keeping with putting a priority in overturning what conservatives call government overreach. But the move to save jobs in Indiana by convincing Carrier Corp. to stop plans to move an assembly line to Mexico was a classic use of government power—both through economic incentives and threats of reprisal made explicit in a Twitter shout-out Friday night—to try to dictate decisions in the marketplace.
On the foreign-policy front, some conservative national-security thinkers cheer Mr. Trump’s decision to hold a conversation with the president of Taiwan and thereby shake up decades of American policy protocol and risk the ire of China. But those same conservatives are aghast at the prospect of a cozy Trump relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
None of this is conventional, but, for Mr. Trump, that may be the point. If there is a discernible Trump ideology, it may be simply to display strength, whether in staring down a corporate chief executive or the Chinese government. That doesn’t make Trump world very predictable—which also seems to be how the president-elect likes it.
Story 1: North Korean Nuclear Weapons Threat Becoming A Reality — The End of North Korea As We Know It — Massive Retaliation? — Videos
North Korea Claims 5th Successful Nuclear Test : September 9, 2016
North Korea conducts ‘biggest ever’ nuclear test
How America Would Crush North Korea
Yikes! TRUMP Advocates NUCLEAR Weapons for Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia???
North Korean nuclear test reverberates on the campaign trail
Why North Korea Thinks Donald Trump is a “Wise Leader”
Should You Be Afraid of a North Korean Nuke? | TIME
North Korea vs The United States – Who Would Win The War?
South Korea vs North Korea – WATCH OUT North Korea, THIS is South Korea Military Power
North Korea nuclear EARTH SURFACE detonation PART1 Breaking News September 8 2016
EARLY EDITION 18:00 N. Korea “successfully” carried out nuclear warhead test: KCTV
North Korea conducts fifth nuclear test: S. Korea defense ministry
North Korea’s Largest Nuclear Test: “Maniacal Recklessness”
North Korean Threat U.S. Pentagon Beefing Up Missile Defense in Response – Kim Jong-un
Published on Mar 16, 2013
The Pentagon is beefing up the nation’s missile defense in the wake of provocative nuclear threats from North Korea and is set to deploy 14 additional ground-based interceptors at missile silos in Alaska and California, congressional and U.S. officials tell Fox News.
The extra interceptors on the West Coast, designed to counter attacks from an intercontinental ballistic missile, would bring the total number of interceptors to 44, a plan originally proposed by the Bush administration. President Obama stopped the deployment of the additional interceptors when he took office in 2009, leaving the total number at 30.
Congressional sources claim that by stalling the original plan and forcing the military to bring back on line silos that otherwise would have been operational, the Obama administration has effectively wasted millions in taxpayer’s dollars.
It’s a sentiment that is not likely to sit well with conservative lawmakers when the plan is announced on Monday, particularly as they seek new austerity measures.
A senior Pentagon official hinted at the decision Tuesday in a speech to the Atlantic Council in Washington just days after Pyongyang threatened a “pre-emptive” nuclear strike on the United States.
“North Korea’s shrill public pronouncements underscore the need for the U.S. to continue to take prudent steps to defeat any future North Korean ICBM,” James Miller, undersecretary of Defense for policy, said.
Upon completion of Missile Field Number One at Fort Greely, Alaska, Miller said, “we have the ability to swiftly deploy up to 14 additional ground-based interceptors if needed.” In addition to Fort Greely, current interceptors are set up at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Missile Field Number One was one of the areas where the Obama administration stopped construction in 2009. Congressional sources say it will cost at least $205 million to bring that missile field up to speed, more than it would have cost four years ago. These officials say the price of the missiles themselves also has increased.
An Obama administration official tells Fox News that the increase in interceptors is a logical response to an evolving threat from North Korea and that “anyone who suggests we should have stayed the course” with the Bush administration’s plan is engaging in “Monday morning quarterbacking.”
This official says the North Korean threat is much different from what it was in 2009. Along with the continued testing of nuclear weapons and longer-range delivery systems, the North Koreans have advanced their mobile missile capability, even within the last six to eight months.
“What we were defending against (from North Korea) four years ago was a single rogue missile, now with the mobile missile developing you have got to be able to counter multiple missile threats … so you have to expand your capability.”
Whether intentional or not, the announcement also coincides with 30th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative speech. The nation’s first ground-based interceptors were set up in 2002 under President George W. Bush.
Money & Power in North Korea. The Hidden Economy Documentary
North Korea Military Parade, 70th Anniversary of Workers’ Party
35 ILLEGAL PHOTOS THAT WERE SECRETLY SMUGGLED OUT OF NORTH KOREA
North Korea Documentary – Why Invading North Korea Would be Insane – Secret State of North
101 Facts About North Korea
North Korean prisoner escaped after 23 brutal years
North Korea Through the Eyes of Witnesses
ALERT: Kim Jong Un Orders Nukes to be Readied for Use After UN Toughest Sanctions on North Korea
Published on Mar 3, 2016
North Korean state media is reporting that Kim Jong Un has ordered nuclear weapons to be readied for use “at any time.” Leader reportedly tells military to adopt ‘pre-emptive’ posture after imposition of toughest UN sanctions to date
The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has ordered his country to be ready to use nuclear weapons “at any time” in the face of a growing threat from enemies, according to official media.
Kim also said the North should turn its military posture to a “pre-emptive basis” because enemies were threatening the state’s survival, the regime’s KCNA news agency announced on Friday.
According to the agency, Kim made his comments while monitoring the test firing of a new large-calibre multiple rocket launcher on Thursday, just hours after the UN security council unanimously adopted a resolution penalising the North for its recent nuclear test and long-range rocket launch.
South Korea’s defence ministry said the North fired half a dozen rockets about 100-150km (60-90 miles) into the sea off its eastern coast on Thursday.
In a clear threat to neighbouring South Korea, Kim said the new rocket launcher should be “promptly deployed” along with other newly developed weaponry.
“At an extreme time when the Americans … are urging war and disaster on other countries and people, the only way to defend our sovereignty and right to live is to bolster our nuclear capability,” Kim said.
The US-drafted UN resolution adopted by the security council late on Wednesday laid out the toughest sanctions imposed on Pyongyang to date over its nuclear weapons programme and will, if implemented effectively, apply significant economic pressure to Kim’s regime.
North Korea’s Nuclear Threat: VICE News Interviews Victor Cha
Published on Mar 9, 2016
Victor Cha was President George W. Bush’s top advisor on North Korea and participated in the Six-Party Talks, in which the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea tried to negotiate with the regime of late leader Kim Jong-il to halt North Korea’s nuclear program. The talks were unsuccessful, and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have never been greater.
In January, North Korea conducted a nuclear test for the fourth time since 2009, successfully detonating what it claimed was a hydrogen bomb. A month later, North Korea launched a satellite into orbit, violating an international ban on ballistic missile testing. The UN Security Council recently voted to enact harsh new sanctions, which prompted young leader Kim Jong-un to publicly order his military to ready their nukes for use at any time.
VICE News sat down with Cha, now a senior adviser and the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to talk about North Korea’s nuclear threats, Pyongyang’s uneasy alliance with China, and the state of the Kim regime.
North Korea’s Nuclear Blasts Keep Getting Stronger
By MICHAEL FORSYTHE SEPT. 9, 2016
Researchers at the Earthquake and Volcano Monitoring Division, in Seoul, the South Korean capital, checking the seismic waves that were measured on Friday.CreditWoohae Cho/Getty Images
The device detonated on Friday looks to have had a force equivalent of 10 kilotons of TNT, according to the South’s Defense Ministry. In contrast, the last device tested by the North, in January, had a force equivalent of six kilotons of TNT, the South’s intelligence agency said. The aboveground Trinity Test in New Mexico in July 1945, which ushered in the nuclear age, had a yield of 20 kilotons.
But power is not the only measure of a device’s lethality. The weapon must also have a way to be delivered. South Korean, American and Japanese officials want to determine whether the North Koreans are capable of building a miniaturized nuclear device that can be mounted on a ballistic missile and successfully detonated at a target hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the launch site. In the past decade, South Korean and American experts have said that the North appears to be closer to achieving that goal.
Here is a timeline of how North Korea built up the capability of its nuclear weapons. The earthquake magnitudes are from the United States Geological Survey, which differ from those measured by the South Korean authorities. They may also be slightly revised from numbers reported immediately after the events.
Oct. 8, 2006: 9:35 p.m. E.T.
Magnitude of Earthquake: 4.3
Device: United States officials said at the time that the weapon usedplutonium and had a yield of less than one kiloton.
Missiles: Three months before the nuclear test, North Korea fired a barrage of missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a Taepodong 2 intercontinental missile designed to be capable of reaching Alaska. The Taepodong 2 test was a failure, with the missile falling into the sea before its first stage burned out.
May 24, 2009: 8:54 p.m. E.T.
Magnitude of Earthquake: 4.7
Device: Chinese scientists estimated that this bomb had a yield of 2.35 kilotons.
Missiles: A failed satellite launch using a Taepodong 2 missile in April 2009 sent its payload into the Pacific Ocean. On July 4, 2009, North Korea launched three missiles into the sea, with none apparently flying more than 300 miles.
Feb 12, 2013: 9:57 p.m. E.T.
Magnitude of Earthquake: 5.1
Device: North Korea said this bomb, stronger than the first two tests, was miniaturized. After the launch, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agencyestimated with “moderate confidence” that North Korea had learned how to make a miniaturized nuclear weapon capable of being delivered by a ballistic missile. But the report said the weapon’s “reliability will be low.” Military officials in the United States and South Korea publicly expressed doubt that North Korea had actually developed such a warhead.
Device: North Korea claimed this device was a hydrogen bomb. In May, American and South Korean intelligence officials concluded that North Korea was now able to mount nuclear warheads on short- and medium-range missiles that would be capable of hitting Japan and South Korea.
Device: South Korean officials said this was North Korea’s most powerful device to date.
Missiles: In June, North Korea successfully launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile into high altitude after five consecutive failures. The missile may be capable of reaching American forces based on Guam, in the Pacific Ocean.
Story 2: Trump Speech To Values Voter Summit in DC — Videos
NEW YORK — With Election Day less than two months away, Democrats are increasingly worried that Hillary Clinton has not built a formidable lead against Donald Trump despite his historic weaknesses as a national party candidate.
Even the Democratic nominee’s advisers acknowledge that she must make changes, and quickly. Clinton leads Trump by three percentage points, having fallen from her high of nine points in August, according to the latest RealClearPolitics average. That tightening has frustrated many Clinton allies and operatives, who are astonished that she isn’t running away with this race, given Trump’s deep unpopularity and his continuing stream of controversial comments.
“Generally, I’m concerned, frankly,” said former Democratic Senate leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.). “It still looks positive, and I think if you look at the swing states and where she is right now, she’s got a lead. But it’s certainly not in the bag. We have two months to go, and I think it’s going to be a competitive race all the way through. I would say she’s got at least a 60 percent chance of winning.”
At the same time, Daschle said, “all the things that Trump has done, the numbers should be far more explicitly in her favor, but they’re not.”
Among Democrats’ concerns is the fact that Clinton spent a great deal of time over the summer raising millions of dollars in private fundraisers while Trump was devoting much of his schedule to rallies, speeches and TV appearances — although many of those didn’t go as well as his campaign may have hoped.
Clinton has focused more heavily on fundraising than Democratic strategists had hoped would be necessary at this stage, partly to help Democrats running for Congress and state offices who would be useful to Clinton if she is president and partly to hold off further erosion in the polls.
One new goal for Clinton now, aides said, is to spend more time trying to connect directly with voters by sharing a more personal side of herself — and by telling them where she wants to take the country.
Trump closes in on Clinton’s projected electoral lead: Reuters/Ipsos Poll
By Chris Kahn
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Republican Donald Trump appears to have carved out a wider path to the White House as a number of states including Florida and Ohio are no longer considered likely wins for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday.
The project, which combines opinion polls with an analysis of voting patterns under different election scenarios, still shows Clinton would have the best chance of winning the presidency if the Nov. 8 election were held today. Yet Trump has caught up to her level of support in several states.
Clinton now has an 83 percent chance of winning the election by an average of 47 votes in the Electoral College, the body that ultimately selects the president. In late August, the States of the Nation estimated that Clinton had a 95 percent chance of winning by an average of 108 electoral votes.
Over the past few weeks, Clinton’s lead in the national polls has slipped considerably. Polls tend to narrow as Election Day nears, and the Clinton campaign has struggled to overcome controversy about how she handled classified information while serving assecretary of state.
A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll of likely voters showed an 8-point lead for Clinton has vanished since the last week of August.
Clinton is still favored to win 17 states, including many with large, urban populations such as New York, New Jersey and California that heavily influence the outcome of the election. Trump would likely win 23 states, many of them with smaller populations.
The number of states projected for Clinton has dropped over the past few weeks. Two of those states, Ohio and Florida, were considered likely wins for Clinton in late August. Now the candidates are about even in support. Five more states, including Michigan and North Carolina are also up for grabs.
The sample size was insufficient to determine the outcome in Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and the District of Columbia, though Alaska usually votes Republican and Washington D.C. for the Democratic Party candidate.
The Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project is driven by an online survey that gathers responses from about 15,000 people per week. Their responses are weighted according to the latest population estimates, and each respondent is ranked according to their likelihood to vote.
Once the poll is complete, the project tallies the levels of support and estimated error for both candidates, and then runs multiple election simulations given their respective support.
Story 1: Limbaugh Exposes Audio Dirty Trick On Cruz — Another Fox SNAFU (Situation Normal All Foxed Up) — Similar Audio Feed Problems With Trump Speech ABC Audio Feed– Audio On Limbaugh Show Experiences Similar Audio Glitch — Verified All Over America –New York Values? — Limousine Liberal Big Media Values — New York, New York — Breaking News: 7.1 Magnitude Earthquake in Southern Japan — Videos
Frank Sinatra – “Theme from New York New York” (Concert Collection)
Frank Sinatra-New York,New York-Lyrics
Start spreadin’ the news, I’m leavin’ today
I want to be a part of it
New York, New York
These vagabond shoes, are longing to stray
Right through the very heart of it
New York, New York
I want to wake up, in a city that never sleeps
And find I’m king of the hill
Top of the heap
These little town blues, are melting away
I’ll make a brand new start of it
In old New York
If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere
It’s up to you, New York..New York
New York…New York
I want to wake up, in a city that never sleeps
And find I’m A number one, top of the list
King of the hill, A number one….
These little town blues, are melting away
I’ll make a brand new start of it
In old New York
If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere
It’s up to you, New York..New York New York!!!
Rush Limbaugh – April 15, 2016 Full Podcast
Ted Cruz FULL SPEECH at 2016 New York State Republican Gala (4-14-16)
John Kasich FULL Speech at 2016 New York State Republican Gala (4-14-16)
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump at the New York State Republican Gala (4-14-16) New York GOP Gala
LIVE Donald Trump New York State Republican Gala Grand Hyatt FULL SPEECH HD STREAM (4-14-16)
Q15 – Cruz, Trump – What are “New York Values?”
Donald Trump On “New York Values”
Donald Trump on New York Values – In His Own Words
Trump talks New York values at GOP gala
What does limousine liberal mean?
Trump widens lead in Fox News Poll, but voters have concerns
The Green Papers
2016 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions
Republican Convention Presidential Nominating Process Debate – Fox – Cleveland, Ohio: Thursday 6 August 2015 Debate – CNN – Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California: Wednesday 16 September 2015 Debate – CNBC – Boulder, Colorado: Wednesday 28 October 2015 Debate – Fox Business News – Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Tuesday 10 November 2015 Debate – CNN – Las Vegas, Nevada: Tuesday 15 December 2015 Debate – Fox Business Channel, Charleston, South Carolina: Thursday 14 January 2016 Debate – Fox – Iowa: Thursday 28 January 2016 Debate – CBS – South Carolina: February 2016 (presumably) Debate – NBC/Telemundo – Texas: Friday 26 February 2016 Debate – CNN – TBD: March 2016 (presumably) Debate – Salt Lake City, Utah (announced 20 February 2016): Monday 21 March 2016 41st Republican National Convention: Monday 18 July – Thursday 21 July 2016
Popular vote total includes AK,AL,AR,AZ,DC,FL,GA,HI,IA,ID,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MP,MS,NC,NH,NV,OH,OK,PR,SC,TN,TX,UT,VA,VI,VT,WI.
2,472 total delegates – 560 base at-large / 1,305 re: 435 congressional districts / 168 party / 439 bonus
HOW TRUMP CAN LOCK UP GOP NOMINATION BEFORE THE CONVENTION
BY STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
To all the political junkies yearning for a contested Republican convention this summer: not so fast.
It’s still possible for Donald Trump to clinch the nomination by the end of the primaries on June 7. His path is narrow and perilous. But it’s plausible and starts with a big victory Tuesday in his home state New York primary.
Trump is the only candidate with a realistic chance of reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the July convention in Cleveland. His rivals, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, can only hope to stop him.
If Cruz and Kasich are successful, politicos across the country will have the summer of their dreams – a convention with an uncertain outcome. But Trump can put an end to those dreams, and he can do it without any of the 150 or so delegates who will go to the convention free to support the candidate of their choice.
What comes next isn’t a prediction, but rather, a way in which Trump could win the nomination outright on June 7.
To be sure, Trump will have to start doing a lot better than he has so far. He gets that chance starting Tuesday, beginning the day with 744 delegates.
There are 95 delegates at stake in the Empire State, and it’s important for Trump to win a big majority of them. It won’t be easy.
There are 14 statewide delegates and three delegates in each congressional district.
If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the statewide vote, he gets all 14 delegates. Otherwise, he has to share them with other candidates.
If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote in a congressional district, he gets all three delegates. Otherwise, again, he has to share.
Trump leads statewide in the most recent preference polls, with right around 50 percent. New York is a large and diverse state, so he probably won’t win all the congressional districts.
Let’s say Trump does make it to 50 percent, but Kasich or Cruz wins five congressional districts; Trump will take 77 delegates on the night.
Trump’s running total: 821 delegates.
Five states have primaries on April 26, with 172 delegates at stake: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Rhode Island.
Pennsylvania could be trouble for Trump. The state has a unique system in which 54 delegates – three from each congressional district – are listed by name on the ballot, with no information for voters to know which candidate they support.
That means even if Trump wins Pennsylvania, he’s only guaranteed to claim 17 of the state’s 71 delegates.
Connecticut awards 13 delegates to the statewide winner and three to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 28. The New York real estate mogul needs to win his neighboring state. If he does well, he could get 22 delegates.
Delaware’s 16 delegates are winner-take-all, increasing the importance of this small state. If Trump loses Delaware, he has to make it up elsewhere.
Maryland awards 14 delegates to the statewide winner and three to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 38. Recent polls show Trump with a significant lead. If he does well, he could get 32 delegates.
Trump can afford to lose Rhode Island, which awards its 19 delegates proportionally.
In all, it’s a day on which we’ll say Trump claims 93 delegates.
Trump’s running total: 914.
Five states hold contests in May, with a total of 199 delegates at stake: Indiana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Washington State.
Indiana’s May 3 primary is important for Trump. The state awards 30 delegates to the statewide winner and three delegates to the winner of each congressional district, for a total of 57. If Trump can win the state and a majority of the congressional districts, he could collect 45 delegates.
West Virginia is another unique state in which voters elect 31 delegates in the May 10 primary. In West Virginia, however, the delegates will be listed on the ballot along with the presidential candidate they support. If Trump does well here, he could pick up 20 or more delegates.
Nebraska’s 36 delegates are winner-take-all. But if Nebraska is like its neighbors Kansas and Iowa, two states Cruz won earlier in the race, Trump can’t count on these delegates.
Oregon and Washington state award delegates proportionally, so even the losers get some.
We’ll give Trump 70 delegates for the month.
Trump’s running total: 984.
This could be Trump’s D-Day. Or his Waterloo.
Five states vote on June 7, with 303 delegates up for grabs. The biggest prize is California, along with New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana and New Mexico.
The only state Trump can afford to lose is New Mexico, which awards 24 delegates proportionally.
New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana are winner-take-all, with a total of 107 delegates.
California is more complicated, with 172 delegates at stake. The statewide winner gets only 13. The other 159 are awarded according to the results in individual congressional districts.
Each of the state’s 53 congressional districts has three delegates. You win the district, you get all three.
For Trump to clinch the nomination on June 7 – the last day of the primary season – he has to win a big majority of California’s congressional districts. If he wins 39 districts, he gets 130 delegates.
On the last voting day of the primary campaign, we’ll say Trump wins 242 delegates.
Trump’s running total: 1,226 – or 11 delegates short of the magic number.
Missouri has certified the results of its March 15 primary, with Trump beating Cruz by 1,965 votes. If the results survive a potential recount, Trump wins Missouri and another 12 delegates.
Angry and frustrated upstate New York swings behind Trump
What do a New York lawyer, a business owner who calls himself a left-leaning Republican and a construction worker who elected Barack Obama have in common? They’re voting for Donald Trump.
None of them live on the breadline. They share surprisingly varied opinions. Yet they are profoundly frustrated — with the economy, with career politicians and with perceptions of declining American prestige.
The Republican frontrunner’s supporters are often portrayed as undereducated, underearning whites.
But in upstate New York, where Trump calls himself “the most popular person that’s ever lived,” the breadth of support spotlights his enduring appeal, albeit as the Republican elites plot to bring him down.
The most divisive presidential campaign in a generation hits New York on Tuesday.
“I don’t think he’s the Hitler everyone puts him out to be, I really truly don’t and as a New Yorker I grew up with the guy,” says Lloyd Knecht, 59, who owns a heating and air conditioning company that employs 30 people.
Knecht works in Binghamton, one of the fastest-shrinking towns in America and a pale imitation of an illustrious past where IBM was founded more than a century ago and where the flight simulator was invented.
The gradual departure of IBM and other manufacturing corporations, taking jobs and technology overseas, has left behind unemployment above the US average and a poverty rate higher than the state average.
Knecht worries about rising insurance and wage bills, though he believes in “some sort of national health plan.” He fears the economy is becoming sluggish. He supported Obama’s decriminalization of petty drug crimes.
Trump’s populist message promising to bring back jobs and restore national pride with his say-it-how-it-is manner strike a deep chord in an area that has long felt forgotten by state and federal politicians.
Bernie Sanders, trailing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential ticket, was this week the first candidate to visit Binghamton since George W. Bush 16 years ago.
– Heroin-addicted ghost town –
Ahead of next week’s crucial primary Trump leads the Republican polls in New York state on 53.4 percent to Ohio Governor John Kasich’s 21.7 percent and Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s 17.6 percent, according to a RealClearPolitics average.
Christopher Love, a union member who has lived in the area 42 years and works in construction, says Binghamton has gone from “valley of opportunity” to a “ghost town” where young people either leave or get hooked on heroin.
Trump, a billionaire real-estate mogul and reality television star, is the only candidate talking about issues that matter to him, says Love.
“We’ve got to do something different. What we’ve been doing the last 30 years isn’t working,” he told AFP, wearing a Trump 2016 trucker hat. His octogenarian father-in-law, who described Democrat John F. Kennedy as the best US president in his lifetime, is also supporting Trump.
Binghamton supporters are not blind to Trump’s shortcomings — his tabloid divorces, business flops, dubious policy pronouncements, talk of banning Muslims. But it just makes him more human, they argue. He may be imperfect, but he’s the best of the bunch, they say.
Those who spoke to AFP dismissed Cruz as too radical, too religious, unlikeable — even “scary.”
They write off Kasich and have no time for Clinton, a two-time New York senator, even if one couple admitted to voting for her in the past.
“I think it’s just the frustration of people who have voted for many years and they’re getting disgusted, tired, desensitized even,” said Love, 49, asked about Trump’s appeal.
– You’re kidding –
Conrad Taylor, a 19-year-old student and elected Democrat on the Binghamton city council, says it is rural areas where Trump, 69, is making hay.
“Would I ever vote for Trump in a million years? No, but I can easily identify why so many people in our area think that he’s a good candidate,” he said.
People are angry with Republican grandees conspiring to deny Trump, who has never held elected office, the nomination — exposing a gulf between Washington’s elites and party rank-and-file.
“Frankly, I’m fed up,” said Kevin Guyette, a lifelong Republican who specializes in personal injury and criminal defense law — and another backing Trump for the White House.
He is exasperated by Republicans who deny climate change, marginalize women, explain the world through the Bible and refuse to entertain Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.
“They make some outlandish comments that defy logic,” he said, appearing to ignore remarks by Trump that have seen him accused of everything from misogyny to inciting violence at his rallies.
But upstate New York is by no means monolithic. Trump has a favorability rating of 57 percent and an unfavorable rating of 39 percent among upstate Republicans, says Don Levy, director of the Siena College Research Institute, underlining how he sharply splits opinion.
Even in death, it seems, that remains.
Barbara Fuller, a retired music teacher and Democrat, says her late father supported Trump. But when she mentioned that at his funeral, there was disgust.
“They were all like, ‘You’re kidding. No, no, no,'” she said.
Most Powerful Earthquake in the World Ever – Full Documentary
Richter magnitude scale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Richter magnitude scale (also Richter scale) assigns a magnitude number to quantify the energy released by anearthquake. The Richter scale, developed in the 1930s, is a base-10logarithmic scale, which defines magnitude as the logarithm of the ratio of the amplitude of the seismic waves to an arbitrary, minor amplitude.
As measured with a seismometer, an earthquake that registers 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times that of an earthquake that registered 4.0, and thus corresponds to a release of energy 31.6 times that released by the lesser earthquake. The Richter scale was succeeded in the 1970s by the moment magnitude scale. This is now the scale used by the United States Geological Survey to estimate magnitudes for all modern large earthquakes.
In 1935, the seismologistsCharles Francis Richter and Beno Gutenberg, of the California Institute of Technology, developed the (future) Richter magnitude scale, specifically for measuring earthquakes in a given area of study in California, as recorded and measured with the Wood-Anderson torsion seismograph. Originally, Richter reported mathematical values to the nearest quarter of a unit, but the values later were reported with one decimal place; the local magnitude scale compared the magnitudes of different earthquakes. Richter derived his earthquake-magnitude scale from the apparent magnitude scale used to measure the brightness of stars.
Richter established a magnitude 0 event to be an earthquake that would show a maximum, combined horizontal displacement of 1.0 µm (0.00004 in.) on a seismogram recorded with a Wood-Anderson torsion seismograph 100 km (62 mi.) from the earthquakeepicenter. That fixed measure was chosen to avoid negative values for magnitude, given that the slightest earthquakes that could be recorded and located at the time were around magnitude 3.0. The Richter magnitude scale itself has no lower limit, and contemporary seismometers can register, record, and measure earthquakes with negative magnitudes.
(local magnitude) was not designed to be applied to data with distances to the hypocenter of the earthquake that were greater than 600 km (373 mi.). For national and local seismological observatories, the standard magnitude scale in the 21st century is still . This scale saturates[clarification needed] at around = 7, because the high frequency waves recorded locally have wavelengths shorter than the rupture lengths[clarification needed] of large earthquakes.
Later, to express the size of earthquakes around the planet, Gutenberg and Richter developed a surface wave magnitude scale () and a body wave magnitudescale (). These are types of waves that are recorded at teleseismic distances. The two scales were adjusted such that they were consistent with the scale. That adjustment succeeded better with the scale than with the scale. Each scale saturates when the earthquake is greater than magnitude 8.0.
Because of this, researchers in the 1970s developed the moment magnitude scale (). The older magnitude-scales were superseded by methods for calculating the seismic moment, from which was derived the moment magnitude scale.
About the origins of the Richter magnitude scale, C.F. Richter said:
I found a  paper by Professor K. Wadati of Japan in which he compared large earthquakes by plotting the maximum ground motion against [the] distance to the epicenter. I tried a similar procedure for our stations, but the range between the largest and smallest magnitudes seemed unmanageably large. Dr. Beno Gutenberg then made the natural suggestion to plot the amplitudes logarithmically. I was lucky, because logarithmic plots are a device of the devil.
The Richter scale was defined in 1935 for particular circumstances and instruments; the particular circumstances refer to it being defined for Southern California and “implicitly incorporates the attenuative properties of Southern California crust and mantle.” The particular instrument used would become saturated by strong earthquakes and unable to record high values. The scale was replaced in the 1970s by the moment magnitude scale (MMS); for earthquakes adequately measured by the Richter scale, numerical values are approximately the same. Although values measured for earthquakes now are (MMS), they are frequently reported by the press as Richter values, even for earthquakes of magnitude over 8, when the Richter scale becomes meaningless. Anything above 5 is classified as a risk by the USGS.
The Richter and MMS scales measure the energy released by an earthquake; another scale, the Mercalli intensity scale, classifies earthquakes by their effects, from detectable by instruments but not noticeable, to catastrophic. The energy and effects are not necessarily strongly correlated; a shallow earthquake in a populated area with soil of certain types can be far more intense in effects than a much more energetic deep earthquake in an isolated area.
Several scales have historically been described as the “Richter scale”, especially the local magnitude and the surface wave scale. In addition, the body wave magnitude, , and the moment magnitude, , abbreviated MMS, have been widely used for decades. A couple of new techniques to measure magnitude are in the development stage by seismologists.
All magnitude scales have been designed to give numerically similar results. This goal has been achieved well for , , and . The scale gives somewhat different values than the other scales. The reason for so many different ways to measure the same thing is that at different distances, for differenthypocentral depths, and for different earthquake sizes, the amplitudes of different types of elastic waves must be measured.
is the scale used for the majority of earthquakes reported (tens of thousands) by local and regional seismological observatories. For large earthquakes worldwide, the moment magnitude scale (MMS) is most common, although is also reported frequently.
The seismic moment, , is proportional to the area of the rupture times the average slip that took place in the earthquake, thus it measures the physical size of the event. is derived from it empirically as a quantity without units, just a number designed to conform to the scale. A spectral analysis is required to obtain , whereas the other magnitudes are derived from a simple measurement of the amplitude of a specifically defined wave.
All scales, except , saturate for large earthquakes, meaning they are based on the amplitudes of waves which have a wavelength shorter than the rupture length of the earthquakes. These short waves (high frequency waves) are too short a yardstick to measure the extent of the event. The resulting effective upper limit of measurement for is about 7 and about 8.5 for .
New techniques to avoid the saturation problem and to measure magnitudes rapidly for very large earthquakes are being developed. One of these is based on the long period P-wave; the other is based on a recently discovered channel wave.
The energy release of an earthquake, which closely correlates to its destructive power, scales with the 3⁄2 power of the shaking amplitude. Thus, a difference in magnitude of 1.0 is equivalent to a factor of 31.6 () in the energy released; a difference in magnitude of 2.0 is equivalent to a factor of 1000 ( ) in the energy released. The elastic energy radiated is best derived from an integration of the radiated spectrum, but an estimate can be based on because most energy is carried by the high frequency waves.
The Richter magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by seismographs (adjustments are included to compensate for the variation in the distance between the various seismographs and the epicenter of the earthquake). The original formula is:
where A is the maximum excursion of the Wood-Anderson seismograph, the empirical function A0 depends only on theepicentral distance of the station, . In practice, readings from all observing stations are averaged after adjustment with station-specific corrections to obtain the value.
Because of the logarithmic basis of the scale, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured amplitude; in terms of energy, each whole number increase corresponds to an increase of about 31.6 times the amount of energy released, and each increase of 0.2 corresponds to a doubling of the energy released.
Events with magnitudes greater than 4.5 are strong enough to be recorded by a seismograph anywhere in the world, so long as its sensors are not located in the earthquake’s shadow.
The following describes the typical effects of earthquakes of various magnitudes near the epicenter. The values are typical only. They should be taken with extreme caution, since intensity and thus ground effects depend not only on the magnitude, but also on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of the earthquake’s focus beneath the epicenter, the location of the epicenter and geological conditions (certain terrains can amplify seismic signals).
Microearthquakes, not felt, or felt rarely. Recorded by seismographs.
Continual/several million per year
I to II
Felt slightly by some people. No damage to buildings.
Over one million per year
II to IV
Often felt by people, but very rarely causes damage. Shaking of indoor objects can be noticeable.
Over 100,000 per year
IV to VI
Noticeable shaking of indoor objects and rattling noises. Felt by most people in the affected area. Slightly felt outside. Generally causes none to minimal damage. Moderate to significant damage very unlikely. Some objects may fall off shelves or be knocked over.
10,000 to 15,000 per year
VI to VIII
Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly constructed buildings. At most, none to slight damage to all other buildings. Felt by everyone.
1,000 to 1,500 per year
VII to X
Damage to a moderate number of well-built structures in populated areas. Earthquake-resistant structures survive with slight to moderate damage. Poorly designed structures receive moderate to severe damage. Felt in wider areas; up to hundreds of miles/kilometers from the epicenter. Strong to violent shaking in epicentral area.
Causes damage to most buildings, some to partially or completely collapse or receive severe damage. Well-designed structures are likely to receive damage. Felt across great distances with major damage mostly limited to 250 km from epicenter.
10 to 20 per year
Major damage to buildings, structures likely to be destroyed. Will cause moderate to heavy damage to sturdy or earthquake-resistant buildings. Damaging in large areas. Felt in extremely large regions.
One per year
9.0 and greater
At or near total destruction – severe damage or collapse to all buildings. Heavy damage and shaking extends to distant locations. Permanent changes in ground topography.
The intensity and death toll depend on several factors (earthquake depth, epicenter location, population density, to name a few) and can vary widely.
Minor earthquakes occur every day and hour. On the other hand, great earthquakes occur once a year, on average. The largest recorded earthquake was theGreat Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960, which had a magnitude of 9.5 on the moment magnitude scale. The larger the magnitude, the less frequent the earthquake happens.
Beyond 9.5, while extremely strong earthquakes are theoretically possible, the energies involved rapidly make such earthquakes on Earth effectively impossible without an extremely destructive source of external energy. For example, the asteroid impact that created the Chicxulub crater and caused the mass extinction that may have killed the dinosaurs has been estimated as causing a magnitude 13 earthquake (see below), while a magnitude 15 earthquake could destroy the Earth completely. Seismologist Susan Hough has suggested that 10 may represent a very approximate upper limit, as the effect if the largest known continuous belt of faults ruptured together (along the Pacific coast of the Americas).
The following table lists the approximate energy equivalents in terms of TNT explosive force – though note that the earthquake energy is released undergroundrather than overground. Most energy from an earthquake is not transmitted to and through the surface; instead, it dissipates into the crust and other subsurface structures. In contrast, a small atomic bomb blast (see nuclear weapon yield) will not, it will simply cause light shaking of indoor items, since its energy is released above ground.
Approximate TNT equivalent for
seismic energy yield
“Limousine liberal” is also a reference to celebrities who use their fame to influence others into agreeing with their political and societal points of view. Such celebrities’ critics (including proponents of the pejorative) assert that their wealth and status keeps them out of touch with the American middle and lower middle classes they purport to support, and that they are typically blind to this disconnect.
It was a populist and producerist epithet, carrying an implicit accusation that the people it described were insulated from all negative consequences of their programs purported to benefit the poor, and that the costs and consequences of such programs would be borne in the main by working class or lower middle classpeople who were not so poor as to be beneficiaries themselves. In particular, Procaccino criticized Lindsay for favoring unemployed blacks over working-class ethnic whites.
One Procaccino campaign memo attacked “rich super-assimilated people who live on Fifth Avenue and maintain some choice mansions outside the city and have no feeling for the small middle class shopkeeper, home owner, etc. They preach the politics of confrontation and condone violent upheaval in society because they are not touched by it and are protected by their courtiers“.The Independent later stated that “Lindsay came across as all style and no substance, a ‘limousine liberal’ who knew nothing of the concerns of the same ‘Silent Majority‘ that was carrying Richard Nixon to the White House at the very same time.”
In the 1970s, the term was applied to wealthy liberal supporters of open-housing and forced school busing who didn’t make use of public schooling. In Boston,Massachusetts, supporters of busing, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, sent their children to private schools or lived in affluent suburbs. To some South Bostonresidents, Kennedy’s support of a plan that “integrated” their children with blacks and his apparent unwillingness to do the same with his own children, was hypocrisy.
The New York Observer applied the term to 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for paying $400 for a haircut and, according to the newspaper, “lectures about poverty while living in gated opulence”.
In 2009, the term was applied by many commentators to former Senate Majority Leader and then-Obama cabinet appointee Tom Daschle for failing to pay back taxes and interest on the use of a limousine service.
The term has often been applied to documentary filmmaker Michael Moore over the years by both critics on the left and right due to his habit of traveling around New York City in a limousine.
Al Gore is often called a limousine liberal by his critics for his use of private jet planes and SUVs, while giving speeches calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In the May 16, 2007 edition of TIME magazine, the term was used in the allegation that that “His (Gore’s) Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home”
“Lexus liberal” is a variant on the term, used to describe an upper-middle class individual who supports the same ideas of the limousine liberals, but is still out-of-touch with the actual poor they purport to feel for. The term “Lexus” is used as these liberals are wealthy enough to afford a luxury car or high-end vehicle, such as the Lexus.
The number of dead from a volcanic eruption in Japan has climbed to nearly 50 after more victims were recovered from Mt. Ontake, which unexpectedly spewed toxic gas last week as people hiked near the 10,000-foot summit.
“Precarious conditions at the summit have made the search an on-off effort, and other bodies may still be undiscovered.
“Japanese media reports have said up to 20 people remain unaccounted for, although local emergency services say a greater number have been reported missing.”
As we reported previously, more than 200 people made it to safety from Ontake after Saturday’s eruption that sent rocks and plumes of ash billowing down the mountainside.
Authorities say the death toll from Mt. Ontake, located 125 miles west of Tokyo, is the largest for a Japanese volcano since 1926, when an eruption on the northern island of Hokkaido killed 144 people. Ontake, a popular tourist spot, last erupted in 1979.
Lack of warning in Japan’s Mt. Ontake volcano eruption raises questions
BY ANGELA FRITZ
September 30 at 8:15 am
With all of the technology in place to monitor volcanoes and earthquakes, especially in Japan, it’s a fair question to ask: why was there no warning before the deadly eruptionof Mount Ontake in Japan on Saturday?
Compare Mount Ontake’s eruption to that of the recent lava show of Bardarbunga in Iceland. Seismometers in Iceland detected the potential movement of magma about two weeks in advance of the fissure eruption in the Holuhraun lava field, and officials were issuing warnings to surrounding residents well in advance.
But on Mount Ontake, the only warning hikers received on Saturday was a loud boom, “like thunder,” minutes before a massive ashcloud overtook the mountain.
Though it may seem that Saturday’s eruption took scientists by surprise, there’s probably little else they could have done to prevent the tragedy, at least with the current monitoring equipment. And when it comes to predicting the events themselves, “it depends on the type of eruption,” says Joe Dufek, professor of geophysics at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Dufek explains that Saturday’s eruption had a large steam component — what scientists call a phreatic eruption. Red hot magma boiled ground water around the volcano until it exploded and was released as steam, launching ash high into the air. Saturday’s phreatic eruption was similar to those seen on Mount Ontake in 1979, 1991, and 2007.
The difficult aspect of this kind of eruption is that it can go virtually undetected. “An eruption like this doesn’t even require magma to move around,” says Dufek, which means that it wouldn’t have been noticeable on seismometers, like the Iceland eruption was.
Of the 110 active volcanoes in Japan, 47 of them are monitored closely by scientists. Mount Ontake is one of them. Scientists have 12 seismometers on the volcano, as well as five GPS instruments and a tiltmeter, used to measure whether or not the ground is moving. Eleven minutes before the eruption, the seismometers showed a volcanic tremor, but neither the GPS nor the tiltmeter showed any changes.
However, some argue that with different monitoring devices, early signs might have been visible to scientists. David Cyranoski of Nature News writes:
Some volcanoes in Japan, although not Ontake, also have devices for measuring gas release. This could, for example, show whether increased amounts of sulphur dioxide are escaping — a possible sign of an imminent eruption. Some volcanoes also have devices for measuring underground electrical conductivity: an increase in conductivity can signal rising water or magma.
While it was possible for officials to have taken some action prior to the eruption — tremors were recorded earlier this month — the question remains whether that kind of precautionary step would be a good idea, especially when there’s very little evidence suggesting there could even be an eruption. “We could just restrict everywhere, but people don’t want that,” said Toshikazu Tanada, the head of volcano research at the Japan National Research Institute for Earth Science, in an interview with Nature News.
There will likely be future conversations in Japan of how to better predict volcanic eruptions, but Dufek cautions that in fairness, the country’s geo-monitoring system is already quite advanced. “There’s not a lot of lead time in this kind of eruption,” said Dufek. “The monitoring in Japan as a whole is probably the densest network anywhere in the world. If anyone could catch it, it would probably be these guys.”
Photographing a Catastrophic Explosion at Mt. St. Helens
Volcano erupts at St Helens – Mega Disasters – Documentary
Mt. St. Helens Eruption May 18, 1980 720p HD
Dome collapse and pyroclastic flow at Unzen Volcano
Volcano Eruption – The Eruption of Mt St Helens (1980) – Rare Footage
In 1980, a major volcanic eruption occurred at Mount St. Helens, a volcano located in Washington, in the United States. The eruption (which was a VEI 5 event) was the only significant one to occur in the contiguous 48 U.S. states since the 1915 eruption of Lassen Peak in California. The eruption was preceded by a two-month series of earthquakes and steam-venting episodes, caused by an injection of magma at shallow depth below the volcano that created a huge bulge and a fracture system on the mountain’s north slope.
volcano eruption, volcanic eruption, st helens, mount st helens eruption, st helens reporter, volcanoes erupting, why do volcanoes erupt, how do volcanoes erupt, arenal costa rica, mt st helens facts, st helens rugby, erupting volcano, st helens school, volcano eruption video, volcano erupting, costa rica volcano, how volcanoes erupt, how to make a volcano erupt, mount st helen, mt st helen, volcano eruptions, what causes a volcano to erupt, mt st helens eruption video, st helens volcano, st helens chamber, biggest volcano eruption, iceland volcano eruption, recent volcano eruption, mt st helens national park, mt st helens video, my st helens, volcano eruption in hawaii, mt st helens hike, mount st helens national park
Fukushima: 108 Active Volcanoes in Japan [IGEO.TV]
NOVA In The Path Of A Killer Volcano
PBS Nova S33E04 Volcano Under the City – Full Documentary
13 Impressively Beautiful Snowcapped Volcanoes of Japan
s part of the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, Japan is one of the countries in the world with so many active and inactive volcanoes. These volcanoes whether active or dormant are popular tourist attractions. These volcanoes are scattered in the different parts of the country which is consists of many islands and islets.
Volcanoes included on this article are the snowcapped ones.
Segment 1: Bureau of Labor Statistics Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) Increased To 9.0% With 13.7 Million Americans Unemployed and Total Unemployment Rate (U-6) Increased To 15.9% With 24.4 Million Americans Seeking Full Time Job–Economy Adds 244,000 Jobs But Initial Unemployment Claims Hit Eight Month High of 474,000!–Videos
Segment 1: Ron Paul Is Running For President of The United States In 2012!–The Third Time Is The Charm–A Man Of Integrity–A Candidate For Peace and Prosperity–Neither A Big Government Warfare Republican Nor A Massive Government Welfare Democrat–A Man Of And For The American People–A Tea Party Patriot–Ron Paul–Videos
Segment 2: President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Speech Of April 13, 2011–Eat The Rich And Killing The American Dream Class Warfare–Cuts National Security Spending and Raise Taxes On The Rich–Produces Massive Deficits, National Debt, and Higher Unemployment For 12 More Years–Progressive Radical Socialist Economic Stagflation–Videos
Segment 1: Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos
Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos
Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos
Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos
Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos
Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos
Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos
Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
Segment 1: The Truth And Consequences About Undeclared Wars–Real Strange Bedfellows–Obama Allies U.S. with Libyan Rebels Including Islamic Jihadists, Moslem Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda!–Give Peace A Chance–AC-130 Gunship–A-10 Warthogs–F-15E Strike Eagles and Special Operation Smash Squads
Segment 2ne Unconstitutional and Undeclared War Too Many: The Great Pretender, Peace Candidate And Noble Peace Prize Winner, President Barack Obama Undeclared War On Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi In Defense Of Libyian Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Rebels Linked To al-Qaeda and The BP Libyian Oil Deal Linked To Obama Campaign Contributions–A Political Payoff!–Obama Has To Go In 2012–Videos
Segment 3:Earthquake Damages Japanese Nuclear Plant At Fukushima Daiichi, Four Explosions and Four Nuclear Reactors Flooded With Seawater To Contain Release Of Radioactive Material and Plant Released Radioactive Materials To Stop Pressure Buildup–Partial Meltdown Of Nuclear Core Feared–Radioactive Material Escaping From Plant–Over 250,000 Ordered Evacuated From 20 Kilometer (12.4 Miles) Radius From Plant–Videos
Segment 1: The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
Segment 2, Gallup–U.S. Unemployment Hits 10.3% In February 2011 Vs. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Unemployment Rate Declined By .1% To 8.9% in February 2011 With Job Creation of 192,000 In February 2011–Over 13.7 Million Americans Unemployed More Than Worse Month of Great Depression!
For more information and videos related to this show click on links below:
President Obama’s Saint Valentine’s Massacre of The American People–Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Buster–Spending $3,729 Billion–Taxes $2,627 Billion–Deficit $1,101 Billion–Dead On Arrival–DOA– 3 Million Tea Party Patriots To March On Washington D.C. On Friday, April 15, 2011 In Protest!
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below: