Friday, September 20, 2019

Making Sense Of..


Making Sense of 

Israel’s Post-Election Political Chaos


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his would-be dethroners vie to form a governing coalition, let’s break down the possibilities.

The vote count in this week’s Israeli national elections is now 99 percent complete, allowing for a sense of which party obtained what number of seats. Unfortunately for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the results will make it extremely difficult for him to form a coalition, putting his long-running tenure in jeopardy. As of this writing, Netanyahu is planning to skip the U.N. General Assembly meeting next week to focus instead on building a government.

Does he have a chance? Let’s take a look at the math. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has 120 seats to be divided up among the various political parties. No single party has ever obtained a majority of 61 or more seats, so every Israeli government has been a coalition of parties. After elections, parties must recommend their preferred prime minister to Israel’s president (currently Reuven Rivlin). The president is then responsible for deciding which party to task with forming a coalition. Once he makes his choice, the head of that party is given six weeks to draft an agreement with other parties to form a government.

This time around, it is unclear which party will be able to make a coalition, as almost every possible combination of like-minded parties cannot reach a 61-seat majority. To see why, let’s break down the results by party.
*    *    *
Blue and White: 33 seats
Blue and White is an amalgamation of three factions. It’s led by Benny Gantz, a former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff, and boasts two other former chiefs of staff as well as TV host Yair Lapid, who originally entered politics on a platform fueled by secular voters’ resentment of the ultra-Orthodox, in its ranks.

The political positions of Blue and White are rather vague, falling somewhere in the center. In appealing to voters, the party has drawn on its leaders’ security credentials to project strength, while portraying itself as tough on Israel’s enemies in the same way as the Likud. Secular Israelis who take umbrage at ultra-Orthodox citizens’ control of Israel’s religious institutions and their unwillingness to serve in the IDF were drawn to support Lapid.

No less important, however, is what Blue and White is not: Netanyahu. In both campaigns, its leaders consciously presented themselves as free of the corruption, hedonism, and hunger for power that many Israelis see in the long-time prime minister.

Likud: 31 seats
The Likud party has been led by Netanyahu for almost a decade and a half. In that time, it’s seen its support grow steadily to its current 31 seats. After the Second Intifada, in which hundreds of Israelis were killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, voters turned to the right. Right-wing politicians, they felt, were the best bet to keep the country safe. Likud, which runs on a free-market, traditionalist platform and paints itself as resolute on security issues, has been the main beneficiary of this trend.

Netanyahu rose with the Likud to become Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. He claims responsibility for guarding Israel’s stability through the Arab Spring, the subsequent collapse of many Arab states, and the civil war in Syria. He sees himself as a Churchill-like figure fighting the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran. But he has been dogged by corruption allegations throughout his tenure — he currently faces looming indictments on bribery and fraud charges — and his response has been to accuse the police and legal system both of participating in a “leftist conspiracy” to overthrow him.

Joint List: 13 seats
Four different Arab-Israeli political parties came together to form the Joint List, whose current head is Ayman Odeh. The coalition has managed to work together despite the wildly disparate ideologies of its constituent parties, which range the gamut from the far-left, Communist-rooted Hadash to the more conservative, Islamist Ra’am. No Arab-Israeli party has ever sat in a coalition government, and Odeh’s post-election statements to the press suggest that streak is unlikely to be broken this time around.

Yisrael Beytenu: Eight seats
This secular-nationalist party aims to be a voice for Israelis who emigrated from the former Soviet Union en masse in the early 1990s. It was founded in 1999 by Avigdor Lieberman — a Moldovan immigrant who once worked as a nightclub bouncer and began his political career as a protégé of Netanyahu — when Lieberman recoiled at Netanyahu’s handling of the peace process. Lieberman has brought the party into coalition with Netanyahu multiple times over the last decade, but broke from the PM in 2018 and has vowed not to join any coalition government that includes the ultra-Orthodox parties.

The Rest
Several more parties represent voters from all over the political map. Israel’s two ultra-Orthodox parties — Shas (nine seats) and United Torah Judaism (eight seats) — don’t fall easily along the left–right spectrum, but generally oppose the mandatory draft of yeshiva students, which causes friction with secular and moderately religious Israelis, friction given voice, most notably, by Lieberman and Lapid. The New Right and Jewish Home parties (seven seats combined) ran together as the Yamina bloc in the election but have since separated. It is thought that both will remain on Netanyahu’s side, though the comments of former Yamina leaders in the election’s immediate aftermath have cast doubt on that prospect.

Meanwhile, on the left, the once-mighty Labor party (six seats), whose members included many of Israel’s founding fathers, has withered in recent years as Netanyahu’s Likud has come to dominate the country’s politics. Its head is Amir Peretz, a longtime party member and former minister of defense, and it partnered with a much smaller party, Gesher, in this week’s election. Rounding out the results, the latest incarnation of the Meretz party, called the Democratic Union (five seats), is the farthest to the left out of all parties that won seats.

*    *    *
So that’s the breakdown. What does it mean for the upcoming negotiations? Netanyahu’s previous coalitions were all made up of right-wing and ultra-Orthodox parties. Assuming the former Yamina bloc is willing to join with Likud, Shas, and UTJ, Netanyahu can count on a total of 55 seats, six shy of a majority. Lieberman, who through Yisrael Beytenu controls eight seats, precipitated the election by refusing to sit in coalition with Likud and the ultra-Orthodox parties.

There are even fewer options with which to form a center-left government. Partnering with Labor-Gesher and the Democratic Union would give Gantz’s Blue and White just 44 seats. Yisrael Beytenu’s eight seats would get Gantz up to 52, assuming Liberman was willing to join with the left-wing parties. Gantz could conceivably try to bring the ultra-Orthodox parties into an agreement, but that seems exceedingly unlikely for a number of reasons. For one thing, Lieberman has refused to join in coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties. For another, many ultra-Orthodox leaders have vowed not to sit with Gantz’s colleague Lapid, and Haredi parties sitting in a coalition with the leftist Labor-Gesher and Democratic Union would lead straightaway to conflicts over gay rights and the place of religion in the Israeli state. If somehow these many obstacles were overcome, Gantz would control only 61 seats — just enough to govern in a highly unstable coalition.

If the Arab party joined a left-wing coalition, that could be a game changer, but it’s highly unlikely. Many Arab Knesset members are unwilling to be formally part of an Israeli government, and many Jewish centrist politicians disdain the Arabs’ anti-Zionism.

One option to resolve the stalemate is a so-called unity government comprising Blue and White and Likud, with the parties’ leaders taking turns as prime minister. Such an arrangement has happened in Israeli politics once before, in the 1980s, with Likud and Labor sharing power. But it would have a high potential for instability, and Gantz has said that he won’t support any government headed by a Netanyahu-led Likud if Netanyahu is formally charged in the pending corruption cases against him. A pre-indictment hearing to determine if Netanyahu will be charged is scheduled for early October.

There of course remains the possibility of a revolt within the Likud against Netanyahu. During the election, both Lieberman and Lapid indicated that senior Likud politicians would consider ousting the prime minister and bringing the Likud into a unity government without him. But Likud members generally place a high value on loyalty to their leader, and several months ago Netanyahu pushed through a change to the party’s bylaws that makes it harder to expel him, perhaps sensing that some in the party were growing restless.

None of this bodes well for anyone who’d been hoping to see Netanyahu remain in power. But his political obituary has been written before, and he’s still standing, at least for the moment. It is entirely possible that the prime minister, a masterful political tactician, will try to find a different path. He may entice politicians in the center-left bloc to defect to his side, or offer the moon in hopes of changing Lieberman’s mind, or even try to scuttle the negotiations if he can’t win them and precipitate an unprecedented third election, which all involved have suggested they wish to avoid. Only time will tell.

Pentagon will deploy US forces to the Middle East after attack on Saudi Arabia oil facilities


Article by Amanda Macias



WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will deploy U.S. forces to the Middle East on the heels of strikes on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced Friday.
“The president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defense,” Esper said, adding that Saudi Arabia requested the support. “We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves,” he added.
President Trump has said that it “certainly looks” like Iran appears to be responsible for the attack, but that he wants to avoid war.
Esper reiterated that the United States does not seek a conflict with Iran and called on Tehran to return to diplomatic channels. He also said that there could be additional U.S. deployments if the situation were to escalate.
On Thursday, the Pentagon called the recent strikes on the Saudi Arabian oil facilities as “sophisticated” and represented a “dramatic escalation” in tensions within the region.
“This has been a dramatic escalation of what we have seen in the past. This was a number of airborne projectiles, was very sophisticated, coordinated and it had a dramatic impact on the global markets,” Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said, adding that the strike is an international problem.
The strikes on the world’s largest crude-processing plant and oil field forced the kingdom to shut down half of its production operations. What’s more, the event triggered the largest spike in crude prices in decades and renewed concerns of a budding conflict in the Middle East. All the while, Iran maintains that it was not behind the attacks.
On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia’s defense ministry said that drone and missile debris recovered by investigators shows Iranian culpability. Saudi coalition spokesman Col. Turki al-Maliki said during a press briefing in Riyadh that all military components retrieved from the oil facilities “point to Iran."

The latest confrontation follows a string of attacks in the Persian Gulf in recent months.


In June, U.S. officials said an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down an American military surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran said the aircraft was over its territory. Hours later, Trump said Iran made a “very big mistake” by shooting down the spy drone. The downing came a week after the U.S. blamed Iran for attacks on two oil tankers in the Persian Gulf region and after four tankers were attacked in May.


The U.S. in June slapped new sanctions on Iranian military leaders blamed for shooting down the drone. The measures also aimed to block financial resources for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Though Trump has threatened to bring military action or even “fire and fury” against American adversaries, he has also said he does not want to throw the U.S. into another prolonged military conflict. In a tweet Tuesday, Trump called his measured response to the strikes “a sign of strength that some people just don’t understand!”
 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/the-pentagon-will-deploy-us-forces-to-the-middle-east-on-the-heels-of-the-iranian-attack-on-saudi-arabian-oil-facilitiees

HO: Super Hercules USAF


Ernst Pushes Bill to...


Ernst Pushes Bill to Prevent 

Fed Splurge on Lobsters, Candies, Video Games


Sen. Joni Ernst pushing legislation to prevent end-of-year spending surge



Sen. Joni Ernst / Getty Images


Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) wants to ban federal agencies from frivolous end-of-year spending that costs taxpayers an estimated $100 billion each year.

"It just seems common sense to me to look at some of those issues," Ernst said at a closed-door meeting with reporters. "A lot of those agencies and departments are asking for Congress to do something about it, but we aren't acting."

The senator's legislative push comes on the heels of a March report from the transparency advocacy group Open the Books, which found that federal agencies often spent millions on luxury items like lobsters and video games.

Federal agencies prefer to spend their entire budget by whatever means possible rather than admit that they can operate on less money, according to the report. They worry that Congress will appropriate less money in the next fiscal year if they are unable to exhaust current budgets. Ernst's bill will combat this practice by limiting an agency's spending in the final two months of the fiscal year to no more than the average monthly spending up until that point.

"[Federal agencies] would be forced to follow their budget and not spend wastefully at the end of the fiscal year," Ernst said of her bill. "What we see is that they are following the guidelines in the first ten months of the year … But at the end of the year, we have this bloated excess."

Ernst, an Army national guard veteran, singled out the Department of Defense (DoD) as a culprit for overspending. Open the Books said that the Pentagon accounted for about 60 percent of the total end-of-the-year spending by all federal agencies.

"Specifically I would like to target the DoD," she said. "I love the DoD, but there's a lot of waste there. They've spent money on lobster tails, candy bars, video games, all kinds of stuff that we really didn't need in the federal government."

Adam Andrzejewski, the founder of Open the Books, emphasized that many government officials, including procurement officers, want Congress to take action to curb excessive end-of-year spending.

"Your procurement officers, they don't like the situation," Andrzejewski said. "For instance, they have to work weekends at the end of the year. They are working 12 and 13 hour days to push all these contracts out the door. They don't like that. … The procurement officers want a solution to this, they want Congress to crack down, this is the piece of legislation to crack down."

Ernst said her bill, which does not have a co-sponsor, is struggling to build momentum because, "it's not one of those big, sexy topics that people want to tackle." She added that proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars is a bipartisan issue, no matter how boring budget matters may seem to pundits.

"Senators would like to have their name associated with this topic or that topic in the news, and not really focus on what's going on at the ground level," Ernst said. "It's really difficult to break through the news of the day."

Leftist CEOs Swoop in to..


Leftist CEOs 

Swoop in to 

‘Save the Day’ on Guns 



Last week, 145 American CEOs sent a letter to the U.S. Senate pleading for action on gun violence. In one resounding voice, they cried out to the federal government to just “do something!”

The question is, so what?

All of a sudden, the media dropped their demonization campaign of corporate executives, whom they routinely accuse of buying political access and influence, to shower these out-of-touch elites with glowing praise. Now that Big Business supports leftist policies, these CEOs are suddenly enlightened individuals who know what they are talking about and care about the safety of the nation.

Is there any doubt that if this was a group of businesses not on the left, perhaps manufacturers of firearms sending a pointed letter to national officials urging them to uphold the Second Amendment and prevent needless restrictions to a person’s right to bear arms, there wouldn’t be an outcry from CNN or the Washington Post? How about pharmaceutical companies asking for less regulation so they can develop and distribute drugs faster at less cost to the consumer? No doubt we would hear no end of how corrupt Washington is and how politicians are in bed with the NRA or Big Pharma.

Now that companies with woke CEOs are speaking out, however, it is suddenly okay for influential billionaires to dictate policy. Now we have to pretend that, say, CEO of Jack Dorsey of Twitter is just a neutral party on gun control — and just ignore his aggressive campaign to silence conservatives on this issue and others. The hypocrisy is maddening.

It does not help that the gun control agenda these CEOs are advocating is yet another in a line of ineffectual, reactionary policies to gun violence in our country. Whenever a tragedy occurs, such as the recent shooting in El Paso, Texas, gun control activists attempt to resurrect these ideas from the policy graveyard. Do these CEOs not understand that these policies are dead on arrival for a reason? In addition to failing to solve the problems they attempt to address, they encroach upon the fundamental liberties of everyday Americans who have absolutely nothing to do with the violence that plagues our society.

There are a bevy of problems with gun control laws that should alarm all Americans, especially gun owners. Writing for USA Today, former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint noted how red flag laws could be abused. Red flag laws trample over due process, assuming guilt and requiring proof of innocence. Imagine using this warped sense of justice by reporting on a neighbor you dislike or somebody who opposes you on political matters. To even consider red flag laws, there has to be a burden of proof and accountability for mishandling these cases. Sadly, there is very little accountability and trust in our governmental institutions.

Take for example what happened in Oregon when the FBI seized a retired Marine’s weapons because he spoke out against the left-wing domestic terror group Antifa. Though not charged with any crime, his personal property was seized by law enforcement because he spoke about how he would defend himself should they come to his town. Good riddance, First and Second Amendments! What comes next?

There is no reason the United States Senate should heed the demands of these 145 CEOs. For every business that signed onto this letter, how many did not? How many average Americans did not? Corporate executives should not be able to sway Congress by a flick of the pen, and the Republicans who control the Senate would do well to ignore this recent attention-seeking tactic.

Billy Aouste (baouste@heartland.org) is a media specialist with The Heartland Institute.

Electoral College Encourages

Electoral College Encourages Candidates to Get to Know All Kinds of Americans


Voters line up for primary elections in Fort Worth, Texas, March 1, 2016. (Photo: Ron Jenkins/Stringer/Getty Images)


The Electoral College is under fire. Again.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently proposed killing it on the grounds that the presidential selection mechanism leads candidates to focus on just a handful of “swing states” that are most likely to determine the election.

If presidents were picked via a nationwide popular vote, she implies, candidates would journey more widely, going anywhere there are potential votes to be won.

While it’s true that presidential candidates concentrate on swing states, there is no electoral system that would push them to tour all of the nation’s 3,007 counties, 64 parishes, and 41 independent cities. 

All electoral systems, including the Electoral College, enshrined in the Constitution create incentives to home in on a limited set of places that are most likely to determine the outcome.

The question is not whether it is better for presidents and presidential candidates to care about, and travel to, the entire country or just a portion of it. The question is whether it is better for presidential hopefuls to focus on winning over swing states (as they do under the Electoral College) or big cities (as they would if a nationwide popular election was instituted).

Given these two realistic alternatives, the Electoral College system is far healthier for the country as a whole.

Warren is right that presidential candidates would likely travel to places like Massachusetts and California if the Electoral College were replaced by a nationwide popular vote. These states and the cities therein have enormous shares of the population. 

But would candidates travel to Jackson, Mississippi (pop. 166,965), where Warren issued her proposal? Probably not. And would they take a swing through the Rust Belt, the Corn Belt, or the Bible Belt? Not a chance.

Popular elections push politicians to focus on the most densely populated areas. Just look at state gubernatorial politics. 

Like all states, New York selects its governor by a statewide popular vote. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has governed the state for eight years and still has not visited three of its rural counties. Ten other counties have seen the governor only once.

By contrast, Cuomo has made 601 trips to New York City and another 223 trips to the three suburban counties surrounding the Big Apple. If the Electoral College were done away with, presidential candidates, like New York governors, would home in on big cities and rarely set foot anywhere else.

The reason swing states are swing states in the first place is because they are fairly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural areas, industry and agriculture. They are, in a sense, a microcosm of the nation’s various cleavages writ small.

Because these pivotal states are won by such small margins and because there are relatively few of them, presidents have the incentive and the time to travel throughout town and country, metropolis and mining town.

While presidential candidates may not visit Pascagoula, Mississippi, they don’t bypass Pensacola, Florida. This sort of representation by proxy is not perfect, but it assures that presidential candidates visit (and gear their platforms to) a wider array of places representing a broader cross-section of interests.

When swing states cease to be closely contested, they cease to be swing states. Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and Colorado are only on the front lines of the war for the White House now because they happen to have a relatively equal mix of right-leaning and left-leaning factions. 

But that won’t be the case forever.

Partisan fault lines will move. The demographics of swing states will shift. Eventually, other states will become the battlegrounds of presidential contestation. 

So, in time, Mississippi may well get its chance to host the quadrennial maelstrom just as deep-blue California and dark-red Arkansas once did.

Densely populated metropolitan areas—whether they line the Pacific or Atlantic, the Great Lakes or the Gulf of Mexico—share much culturally and have similar economic interests. (Large cities, after all, tend to be where large corporations and big banks are headquartered.) 

They also lose or gain population slowly.

While the swing states of two decades ago are different than the swing states of 2016, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have been the three most populous cities for 70 years. 

Do away with the Electoral College, and these same cities would be determining the outcomes of presidential elections for decades into the future.

Given the great diversity of interests spread across our country, a system that forces candidates to compete in every region makes sense. Those who seek to become the leader of these United States should not be encouraged to ignore “fly-over country” to concentrate on currying favor among a handful of mega-cities.

Originally published in the Chicago Tribune.

On Immigration, Hispanic Americans Support Trump: ‘This is my country, and I want it to be safe’




More and more Hispanic voters are supporting President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, despite 2020 Democrat hopefuls’ claims that they will decriminalize illegal border crossings, essentially having an open border, to increase immigration into the United States.  Talk about professional pandering.

A group of Hispanics were interviewed by the Albuquerque Journal who said they support Trump’s immigration agenda to end illegal immigration, and they support building a wall.
That’s because Hispanic voters are no different from anyone else who understands that illegal immigration is killing our country, despite Democrats claiming the border crisis is a manufactured one.

“I believe in the wall,” Trump supporter Marcella Trujillo Melendez told the Albuquerque Journal. “I believe in security. This is my country, and I want it to be safe.”

There you go.  A true American patriot who gets it.  Melendez understands the president isn’t being racist, doesn’t hate migrants.  He is just trying to fix a decades-old problem that is out of control, thanks to politicians from both parties who have a personal interest in keeping the flow of illegals coming into our country, in many ways, at our own citizens’ expense.

“The most important thing to me is that I believe he truly loves America,” Melendez continued. “I believe that he knows his job. His job is to put America first. He’s not the president of the world.”

A Harvard poll shows that even though Hispanics continue to vote as a majority for Democrats, they support Trump on the issue of immigration.  They are against the immigration plans of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MAO) and former vice president Joe Biden (D-MARS).  Hispanics want less immigration, and like most other Americans, they don’t think the taxpayers should be stuck owing immigrants a living.  They believe immigrants coming into the country should be able to sustain themselves and not have the taxpayers foot their bills.  Like most Americans, Hispanics believe in a safety net, but not a safety hammock.  And Hispanics by 73 percent said they are against illegal aliens being able to vote.

From Breitbart:
majority of 56 percent of Hispanic Americans said they support denying green cards to legal immigrants who are found to be a burden on taxpayers because of their use of welfare. Another 65 percent of Hispanic Americans said illegal aliens should not be allowed to take welfare.
With his agenda of less immigration and increased border controls, Trump won more Hispanic Americans in the 2016 election than failed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney did in 2012. For the first time in U.S. history, due to immigration, Hispanic Americans are set to outpace black Americans as the largest voting minority in the 2020 presidential election.

President Trump Warns Media They are Embarrassing Themselves With “Whistleblower” Story


Earlier today in the oval office President Trump was questioned about the intelligence “whistleblower” story.  The President warned media they are setting themselves up for another fake news embarrassment:  

Pillsbury Warns Beijing

Things Could Get Worse: 

“tariffs could go to 50 percent or 100 percent” 



Michael Pillsbury traveled to Hong Kong recently to help explain the goals and objectives of President Trump’s U.S-China trade position.  During an interview, Mr. Pillsbury warns Beijing interests not to interpret the current U.S. position as aggressive, because the dragon has yet to see the severe side to Trump’s position.
During an interview with the South China Morning Post, Pillsbury points out there are a great many more ways that President Trump is prepared to respond if the combative trade position from China remains hostile to any concessions.  This first option was their best option.  However, should they choose further trade conflict, President Trump will happily oblige.

CTH research on Trump’s outlook, vis-a-vis China, has led us to believe there is no upper limit to the economic weapons President Trump is willing to deploy; and considering that Pillsbury can be relied upon to deliver honest, accurate and deliberate remarks about the White House position, these warnings from a close advisor to the President should be weighted accordingly.
(South China Morning Post) – The United States is set to ramp up the pressure on China if a trade deal is not agreed soon, a key White House adviser said, adding that Washington has so far imposed only “low level tariffs” on the Asian giant.
Described by US President Donald Trump as “the leading authority on China”, Michael Pillsbury said in an interview in Hong Kong on Thursday that Trump had been “remarkably restrained in the pressure he has brought to bear on China in the trade field”.
“Does the president have options to escalate the trade war? Yes, the tariffs can be raised higher. These are low level tariffs that could go to 50 per cent or 100 per cent,” he said, adding that Trump’s critics were wrong to assume the president was “just bluffing” when he threatened an all-out trade war.
“There are other options involving the financial markets, Wall Street, you know, the president has a whole range of options,” he said.
[…] “I believe President Trump uses social media, especially on China, to convey his thinking. So I reject the idea that I or anyone else is some kind of adviser to him on China,” he said.
“His focus is revealed frequently in the tweets that I think everybody should take very seriously as presidential statements.” (read more)

President Trump has been brutally consistent for more than three decades on his intent and purpose with the Chinese.
President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.
There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. President Trump takes strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly. President Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praises Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.

Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.

Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately.  The Art of War.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.

It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.
In essence Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.

Additionally, while carrying out the objectives of the confrontation, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Ambassador Lighthizer and adviser Navarro are well aware of Beijing’s panda mask; POTUS Trump will never let them forgetabout it.

President Trump will not back down from his position; the U.S. holds all of the leverage and the issue must be addressed.  President Trump has waiting three decades for this moment.  This President and his team are entirely prepared for this.
We are finally confronting the geopolitical Red Dragon, China!
Some call it ‘Globalism vs Nationalism’, at other times it is best described as “Wall Street -vs- Main Street”; however, the overarching bigger picture is a battle over economics and the financial power structures that oppose President Trump.

CTH has often said ‘everything is about the economics’, because it is. Ask the ‘why’ question five times to any issue and you will find the root issue is money.  Power, greed and control, it is all about the money and the economics.

Opposition to President Trump’s singularly unique and transformational reset of the U.S. economic system boils down to a battle against the ‘Big Club’.

The process of U.S. Agriculture multinationals charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth.
It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive multinational corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, it’s almost everything, including food.

Yes, President Trump, the man and his policy team, is an existential threat to the elitist hierarchy of things well beyond the borders of the DC Swamp. In the era of explaining the complex it’s a planetary economic reset almost too massive and consequential to encapsulate in words.

There are massive international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.

President Trump has single-handily, and purposefully, stalled the global economy and is forcing massive amounts of wealth back into the United States. In essence Titan Trump is engaged in a process of: (a) repatriating wealth (trade policy); (b) blocking exfiltration (main street policy); (c) creating new and modern economic alliances based on reciprocity; and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshall plan for global trade and one-way tariffs.

Every minute element within this process, no matter how seemingly small, has President Trump’s full attention. He has assignments to many, but he relies upon none.

They say he’s one man. They say they have him outnumbered. Yet somehow, as unreal as it seems, he’s the one who appears to have them surrounded.

And they are beginning to realize he will win!

Rep. Matt Gaetz Publicly Exposes Al Sharpton’s Lifetime of Racism, Bigotry and Prejudice



Gaetz goes Full Wolverine

Wow.  Representative Matt Gaetz delivered a thorough evisceration of Al Sharpton today that will long be remembered.  Keep in mind that every Democrat candidate for President has kissed the ring of Sharpton in recent months.  Oh, the backfire in this hearing was over-the-top.  Chairman Nadler was so stressed out he couldn’t function.

The democrats on the House Judiciary Committee went absolutely bonkers and lost their minds as Gaetz continued to expose Sharpton’s history of bigotry and antisemitism.  A whole new generation of younger viewers were treated to the history of Sharpton.

This is epic. Major Hat Tip DaveNyiii for the video:  


But wait, LOL, it gets better. Representative Jim Jordan yielded his time to his colleage, giving Mr. Gaetz a second round with Al Sharpton. Watch: 









DOJ And The DNI Tell Adam Schiff To FOAD Over Whistleblower Report And Schiff Makes A Toothless Threat To Go To Court



The current scandal floating around Washington is something that may or may not have happened. At a classified briefing today, Intelligence Community IG Michael Atkinson was asked about a rumored “whistleblower” case that Adam Schiff believes a) concerns President Trump b) talking to a foreign leader that c) offended said whistleblower. At issue is a law that requires the IC to provide certain investigative reports to Congress under certain circumstances. 

The Washington Post has reported this:
Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the president’s handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.
The best guess is that the foreign leader was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the “promise” was of better relations with the US if the Ukraine reenergized its investigation into Joe Biden’s role in influence peddling to aid his son, Hunter, when he was a director (how did that happen, right?) of Ukraine’s largest national gas company and his intervention to get the prosecutor looking into Hunter Biden’s corruption fired. This is Joe Biden’s quote:
“I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t. …
“They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
This is Schiff’s letter to Atkiknson earlier in the month demanding to see the complaint.
Chairman Schiff’s office has released the first letter IC IG Atkinson sent them about the whistleblower complaint, dated September 9th. pic.twitter.com/zY0mIZJRji
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) September 19, 2019
Things got a lot hotter today when Atkinson refused to confirm or deny any part of the story. What is clear from the letter Atkinson sent to Schiff on September 17, is that the Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence are directing him to not talk to Schiff and that he’s not happy about it.

 Schiff, being the needle…ummm…pencil neck that he is threatened legal action.

President Trump’s Approval Rating Surpasses Obama’s, and Not Just on Rasmussen



If you listen only to the mainstream media, you might well believe that President Trump is the foulest, most evil, despicable (and let’s not forget, the most RACIST!) president this country has ever seen. On the other side of the coin, every Trump rally is full to way beyond overflowing, with thousands of people standing outside the main venue watching him speak on big-screen video displays. The point I’m making is this: the mainstream media and the radical leftists that own them are totally focused on destroying him and everything he has done. Trump, on the other hand, has won the hearts of huge numbers of the American population, and the approval numbers grow every day…including that of the polls less inclined to give him a high rating.
President Donald Trump’s job approval rating this week averaged across major polls surpassed that of his predecessor President Barack Obama at the same time eight years ago, giving some actual good news to Trump who is known to cite only conservative-leaning polls to bolster his image.
Trump’s approval rating on Wednesday was 44.3 percent, according to a Real Clear Politics average of more than a half-dozen major polls. That is higher than Obama’s average approval rating of 43.9 percent on September 18, 2011, by the same measure.
The 45th president’s average approval rating surpassed that of his predecessor on Monday and stayed on top for the next two days. Trump’s average approval rating on Monday was 44.1 percent compared to Obama’s 43.9 percent on September 16, 2011, and 44 percent on Tuesday compared to Obama’s 43.8 percent on September 17, 2011.
Here is a seven-day look at average approval ratings for Trump in 2019 and Obama in 2011:
  • September 18: Trump 44.3 percent vs. Obama 43.9 percent
  • September 17: Trump 44 percent vs. Obama 43.8 percent
  • September 16: Trump 44.1 percent vs. Obama 43.9 percent 
  • September 15: Trump 43.9 percent vs. Obama 44 percent
  • September 14: Trump 43.8 percent vs. Obama 44 percent
  • September 13: Trump 43.3 percent vs. Obama 43.9 percent
  • September 12: Trump 43.4 percent vs. Obama 43.7 percent
  • September 11: Trump 43.1 percent vs. Obama 43.3 percent
Trump has not tweeted this week about achieving a higher average approval than Obama, whom he has continued to criticize. But on Monday, the day he came out ahead of Obama, Trump tweeted an image of himself with “50% APPROVAL RATING” attributed to the conservative Rasmussen Reports, which consistently rates him higher than other major polls.
“Thank you, working hard!” Trump tweeted, along with the hashtag #KAG2020 which stands for his reelection campaign slogan, “Keep America Great.”
It is not clear whether Trump is aware he has had a Real Clear Politics higher average approval rating than Obama for the past three days.
Conservative content websites on Tuesday reported on Trump’s better ratings based on Rasmussen Reports, which indicated a wider gap between the presidents’ numbers. Conservative Fighters cited Trump’s 50 percent approval rating by Rasmussen Reports on Monday and noted that Obama on September 16, 2011, was four points lower at 46 percent, according to the poll.
Trump Obama Approval Ratings Infographic

A guest author for The Political Insider on Tuesday wrote that “the highly respected Rasmussen poll revealed that the president is actually at his highest point in two years” and that “perhaps even more significant,” Trump had topped Obama.