Democratic precedential hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren was once again reminded of her Faux Pas about here “alleged” Native American heritage at a recent campaign stop. It occurred during a Warren campaign rally in Georgia.
While introducing herself to a small crowd of only about 1,000 supporters in a Lawrenceville high school, a man shouted “Why did you lie?” Warren replied back “Be easy, be easy,” while the crowd chanted her name and clapped.
According to Fox News, the man was holding up a campaign sign that read “1/2020.” After his heckling of Warren, he was quickly escorted out of the building.
Warren released DNA results examining her possible Native American ancestry last year in response to criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.
Just a Fraction of the Truth
That DNA test revealed she could be anywhere between 1/64th and 1/1,204th Native American. In early February, she apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking the test, which angered some tribal leaders who felt that being a part of the nation was rooted in centuries of culture and laws, not through DNA tests.
The incident in Georgia came just days after Warren suggested President Trump “may not even be a free person” in 2020.
Warren made that particular comment at the Veterans Memorial Building in Cedar Rapids in front of a crowd of a few hundred. The Massachusetts senator argued that Democrats should resist the urge to respond to “a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly” when choosing whether or not to spar with Trump.
“Are we going to let him use those to divide us?” Warren said, according to a report from the New York Times.
“By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president,” she continued. “In fact, he may not even be a free person.”
When asked to clarify her statements, Warren pointed to the multiple open investigations into the president, which includes the Russia probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two additional investigations led by federal prosecutors in New York and Democrats who won back the majority in the House of Representatives this past November.
Warren’s comments came after President Trump took a jab at her on Twitter shortly after she announced her presidential campaign.
“Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President,” he tweeted. “Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?”
From its introduction in Congress, the Affordable Care Act (nee Obamacare) has been the subject of controversy. It was sold to the public – and to a lot of members of Congress – on the improbable promises that all the uninsured would get good health coverage at a low cost – and any one could keep their doctor. None of that turned out to be true.
To make it even marginally viable, the law had to force everyone to purchase an Obamacare health plan or face a fine. The less they could afford, the worse the coverage and the higher the deductible. In some cases, the annual deductible was so high – up to $6000 dollars – that a healthy young person would have zero coverage for normal health needs – like a bout of the flu or a broken arm.
While it promised health coverage for all, it expanded to less than half of the estimated 30 million Americans without insurance. And the promise that you could keep your doctor was proven to be false as many doctors simply refused to take Obamacare patients. Why? Because many could not pay the deductible and Uncle Sam is a very slow payer. It is the same reason not every doctor will take Medicate and Medicaid patients.
No promise was more disingenuous than the assurance that premiums would be low and reasonable. Thanks to economist Robert Genetski, we can now know just how badly we the people were deceived by President Obama and his team of advisors. This was not a mistake or an unanticipated outcome. Obama’s senior advisor, Jonathan Gruber, later admitted that they had lied … yep, told a whopper … in order to get Obamacare passed.
Genetski recently did a formal economic analysis of Obamacare’s impact on insurance premiums. It is worse that we thought. The first paragraph of his report is a stunner. He reads:
“An analysis of health insurance premiums, out of pocket expenses and deductibles indicates the Affordable Care Act (aka, ACA or Obamacare) has added $10,000 a year or more to the average family’s cost of health insurance.”
The report went on to say:
“Once the ACA was fully implemented, its impact increased the total annual cost of health insurance to individuals by $3,400 to $4,400 and to families by $10,000 to $12,000.”
According to Genetski’s report, “The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates the average premium for the most popular individual Obamacare policy increased by 182% from 2013 to 2018.”
When Obamacare took effect in 2013, the average annual premium for a family was approximately $5,000. In a normal trajectory – not impacted by Obamacare – the 2014 average annual premium would have been in the $5,200 range. But because of Obamacare, it soared to $7,000 per year. If you look at 2018, the normal increase would have had the average family premium in the $6,200 range. But thanks to Obamacare, the 2018 figure is a whopping $14,000 per year.
Thanks to Democrat obstructionism and Republican ineffectiveness, the frequent promise to repeal and replace the Obamacare failed to be realized. The removal of the mandate requiring the purchase or facing a penalty was a step in the right direction. Despite the political fighting, Obamacare will be replaced some day because it is currently economically not viable or sustainable. It will crash at some point in the future – and then even its defenders will have to concede defeat
We were famously told by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that we would have to pass the legislation to see what is in it. We did and we can now see what is in it – and it is not a pretty picture.
So, there ‘tis.
Former Deputy FBI Director – and temporary acting Director – Andrew McCabe has broken his silence to explain who and why he initiated an obstruction of justice investigation against the President of the United States. According to him, he and others in the top ranks of the FBI – including Director James Comey, who had just been fired – were deeply concerned that President Trump had gained office with the conspiratorial assistance of the Russian government.
In out takes from his upcoming ABC’s 60 Minutes interview, McCabe branded himself as some sort of national patriot – defending the Republic from a presidential usurper. He confirmed that he wanted to launch the investigation in such a way that it could not be shut down for any reason. He alleges to have feared that Trump and others, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, would terminate the investigation quietly.
McCabe further underscored the claimed seriousness of their concerns by revealing that Rosenstein had discussed wearing a body wire to record Trump making incriminating comments. The group – dare I say, cabal – then supposedly discussed the possibility of using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
As expected, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement media jumped on this story as if it were gospel. They spun and spun the story to re-enforce the idea that the expressed concerns and fears McCabe alleged were real. According to the pandering press, McCabe & Co. were great Americans doing their job. Saving the Republic from an illegitimate President.
It is said that most often the simplest explanation is the correct one. In this case, the facts and history suggest a far simpler and far darker explanation. Though McCabe put his known actions in the most positive manner possible, he did admit that he and others were looking to bring down President Trump by alleging – concocting – a criminal case against him.
This has the stench of a palace coup, with several of the top leaders of the FBI as the coup-plotters. Among the most prominent besides McCabe would be the recently terminated James Comey, Special Agent Peter Strzok (and his paramour co-worker Lisa Page), Bruce Ohr (and wife Nellie) and a couple of lesser go-alongs.
There are a number of important facts that cast doubt on McCabe’s self-serving explanation. First and foremost is that he not only had motivation to lie about the events, but he is been proven to be a liar. It got him fired without pension from the FBI as an outcome of an internal Inspector General investigation.
McCabe is a disgruntled – to say the least – former employee, who has every motivation to get even with those who “done him wrong.” The fact that the eastern elitist media takes a disgruntled liar at face value says a lot about their journalistic ethics – or lack thereof.
We also have to remember that the plot to take Trump down did not commence with the firing of Comey. No. No. No. They were hell-bent on stopping Trump from being elected. They had all their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket. Their animus against Trump was unconcealable. As The Hill wrote: “It is no longer in dispute that they (Strzok, Page and others) held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trump from becoming president.”
It was after those text messages went public that Strzok was bounced from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team – and one can only wonder why Strzok was selected in the first place. Mueller most certainly must have known of his feelings about Trump in advance.
The interest in protecting Clinton was evident when Comey concluded an investigation and articulated a number of ethical and legal lapses on the part of candidate Clinton but recommended against criminal indictment and prosecution. Oh wait! Comey did more than recommend against prosecution – which was in and of itself an abuse of his authority – he actually decided she should not be prosecutor. He falsely and improperly assumed the role of the Department of Justice by saying that no prosecutor would pursue the case.
It is also noteworthy that Strzok — who had the lead in the Clinton investigation – who arbitrarily altered the final report to remove wording that would suggest criminality on the part of Clinton.
McCabe’s interest in Clinton was reflected in the fact that his wife was not only a Democrat candidate for the State Senate in Virginia but was closely tied to Clinton. In fact, Jill McCabe received approximately $500,000 though Clinton’s top fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
According to rumors, Comey’s skin in the game was to be retained as FBI Director AND the prospect of having his name replace the controversial and largely discredited J Edgar Hoover’s name on the FBI headquarters in D.C.
It was during the campaign that the bogus dossier surfaced alleging that Trump had been indiscreet in Moscow – salacious sex, of course – and that Vladimir Putin had the goods on him. The unsubstantiated dossier was obtained by the Clinton campaign from Russian sources through a former British intelligence agent Michael Steele — a fact that should have garnered the attention of the FBI as a case of Russian meddling in the American election, but strangely did not.
And how did that phony dossier get into the hands of the Trump adversaries in the FBI? Weeeell, it was provided to another member of the cabal, Special Agent Bruce Ohr. And from whom did he receive this fraudulent document? From his wife, Nellie, who worked for the consulting firm that fronted for the Clinton campaign and actually paid for the document.
The unsubstantiated – and later discredited – dossier was used by the FBI to intimidate Trump and eventually as a reason to seek surveillance warrants on Trump campaign in the person of Carter Page. It was an investigation in search of a crime by Trump.
In sworn testimony, Comey admitted that he had improperly – and perhaps illegally – leaked damaging information on Trump to a friend who was directed to get it to the friendly New York Times. Comey confirmed that his intent was to trigger the appointment of a special counsel to go after Trump.
We also have to keep in mind that all this Trump stuff was ancillary to the reasons for the Special Counsel. The primary purpose was to investigate the broad issue of Russia interference in the election. Initial findings suggested that Russia did interfere, but not just in favor of one side. For those with memories longer than the life span of a fruit fly, Russian social media activities were directed to help Clinton by hurting Trump, to help Trump by hurting Clinton and to spread general public consternation – especially in race relations. The subsequent focus on Trump and the Campaign was the product of the Resistance Movement and a dishonest and unfair news media – AND the effort of the cabal within the FBI.
Once Trump was elected, the conspiracy against him at the FBI did not cease – and that is the scary part. That is when politicization of the FBI in a campaign became the abuse of the FBI to unseat a duly elected President.
We know something was afoot – as they say in those old British detective movies – when Strzok assuaged his lovers concerns over the election of Trump by assuring here that “they” had an “insurance policy.” The plural “they” makes it clear that the cryptic “insurance policy” was the work of a conspiracy. And who those “they” may be has become clearer and clearer by their own Inspector Clouseau-style bumbling.
We have to address the fact that both Comey and McCabe have what is called “contemporary notes” supporting their position. These are said to be “strong evidence” by Democrats and the fawning news media. Really? Do you really believe that intelligence agents who are willing to prop up a phony dossier are not cleaver enough to salt the mine with phony reports? In view of all the actions and lies, it would be foolish to take those contemporary notes at face value.
Oh … then there is the issue of the 25th Amendment. It is being bantered about as evidence of the seriousness of the investigation into Trump. They say it was being seriously considered.
What utter nonsense.
Read the 25th Amendment. It does not remotely apply. It is designed to address the physical incapacitation of a President – you know, one who may be in vegetative state from a stroke. It requires the consent of the Vice President and the Cabinet.
The anti-Trump cabal in the FBI and the folks at the Department of Justice are all very smart lawyers. They know that the 25th Amendment is not at all applicable — and it is impossible to believe that they would engage in serious conversation of using it against Trump no matter how much they hated him and want him out. It is nothing more than another one of those phony narratives advanced for public consumption.
Not since old J. Edgar Hoover was blackmailing politicians – including presidents of the United States – and abusing the FBI to go after Martin Luther King, has the agency been so damaged by the misdeeds and misconduct of its most senior officials. At least Hoover was only blackmailing them. These characters were hoping to derail a presidential candidate, then overthrow an election.
So, there ‘tis.
European Girls in Vienna are Wearing Headscarves to Avoid Assaults by Male Muslim Migrants.
Marcus Franz, a physician and former MP from the conservative Austrian People’s Party created outrage on social media after he said the non-Muslim European girls in Vienna have started to wear Islamic headscarves to prevent street harassment and assault by male Muslim migrants.
During an appearance last week on OE24, a local Austrian television station, Franz stated, “Speak with women on the street, speak with children, speak with young girls. I know fathers who, when their daughters come home in the evening when they live in the problem area, give them headscarves so they won’t be recognized as Austrians. I know this personally, in the 15th district [of Vienna], this is a fact.”
The doctor and former MP went on to say that native Austrian women were afraid because of ‘permanent micro-aggressions’ and being sexually propositioned by Muslim men on the streets of Vienna. This is especially common in the districts where lots of migrants live.
Franz added that European girls who don’t wear Islamic headscarves were being “propositioned with unpleasant aggression and attitudes, and the girls and women, quite simply, are afraid.”
“You can see it in the population if you work in a social profession like me,” Franz remarked, adding, “We need to distinguish clearly between the settled population and those who have arrived more recently.”
This story shares unsettling similarities to how some native German girls who attend the schools with significant migrant populations have also been wearing hijabs to prevent harassment and aggressive behavior aimed at them.
In March of last year, a number of news outlets reported that the headmaster of school in Frankfurt, Germany, told a mother whose daughter was being aggressively bullied by Muslim students due to her blonde hair, Christianity, and because she didn’t wear a headscarf, to cover her up with a hijab to prevent the harassment.
“Your daughter does not have to say that she is German. Besides, you can give her a headscarf!” the headmaster told her.
The mother of the student told BILD, a German news outlet, that she was ‘forced to take her daughter out of school for her protection’ because the Muslim girls were bullying her to such a significant degree.
In late 2016, a UN-sponsored advertisement in Germany encouraged women to wear Islamic headscarves to show ‘tolerance.’ The German government used public funds to run the 18-second ad.
Many women in Sweden have also started to wear Islamic headscarves to avoid sexual harassment and assault. Sexual assaults in Sweden have skyrocketed since the migrant crisis began in 2015.
Migrant violence against women has spread like a like a plague throughout Europe since the EU first allowed an enormous influx of migrants from Northern Africa and the Middle East in 2015. Reports of sexual harassment and assault against European women are much higher in Western European countries where more migrants have been allowed in (i.e., Germany, Sweden, Austria).
Meanwhile, reports of the same nature are virtually non-existent in countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia (the Visegrád Group), where the governments have taken a hardline stance against mass migration from majority Muslim countries.
Perhaps the governments of Western Europe should be taking their cues from the Visegrád countries.
On Sunday, thousands of French protestors clad in red scarves gathered in Paris to protest against ‘violence’ and ‘disruption’ which they attribute to the three months of anti-government demonstrations by the Yellow Vest movement.
Over the span of eleven consecutive Saturdays, the Yellow Vest movement has paralyzed much of France with street demonstrations and road blockades.
Similarly to the Yellow Vest movement, what first began as an online movement has now moved to the streets of France. They call themselves the ‘Red Scarves’. Many of the ‘Red Scarves’ are former ‘Yellow Vests’ who share similar concerns like the rising cost of living. Other than their attire, what separates the Red Scarves from the Yellow Vests is their opposition to the violence or vandalism of any kind, which a minority of individuals within the Yellow Vest movement have indulged in over the past few months.
Since the Yellow Vest movement began on November 17th of last year, 11 people have lost their lives while over 2,000 have been injured during violent clashes with police. The creation of the new Red Scarves movement unveils deep divisions within French society that were previously unseen during the last three months of protests.
While Yellow Vest protests accuse government forces of using an excessive amount of unwarranted force against them, representatives from the Red Scarves claim that the police have right and obligation to intervene to restore order.
Participants in the Red Scarves counter-protest marched toward Bastille square in French capital with signs that read ‘hands off my Republic’ and ‘stop the violence’. The counter-protestors shouted ‘Long live our policemen! Long live our gendarmes!’
The Red Scarves were originally founded by John Christophe Werner. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Dauphiné Libéré, Werner said that he first created the group because “French citizens are being penalized every day by the Yellow Vests’ methods”. “Today, a lot of people are scared to leave their houses, to use the roads, to drive to their jobs,” he added.
In their joint manifesto, the group has states, “We denounce the insurrectional climate installed by the Yellow Vests. We also reject the threats and constant verbal abuse [suffered by non-Yellow Vests].”
“We reject violence. We defend the Republic. We promote dialogue,” they proclaim.
According to various news outlets in France, a split has already occurred among the Red Scarves over whether they should or shouldn’t show support for President Macron.
The Red Scarves currently have over 21,000 followers on Facebook.
While Democrats have cried foul, and have even invoked the “I” word, President Trump says the hush money payments made to women by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, were nothing more than “simple transactions.”
This was Trump’s reaction to the initial court filings on Friday, December 7th which spelled some trouble for Trump.
When the news of the court filings broke, Democratic U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler told CNN that if the payments are proven to be felony campaign finance violations, that could be grounds for impeachment. “Well, they would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question,” said Nadler, who will lead the Judiciary Committee when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in January.
However, this was all said before a teary-eyed Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison on Wednesday, December 12, for a “veritable smorgasbord” of crimes that included the hush payments to the two women before the 2016 election. During a plea for mercy in Manhattan federal court, Cohen — who once said that he would “take a bullet for the president” but has since turned on his former boss, and has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation — said his “blind loyalty” to Trump had “led me to choose a path of darkness over light.”
The problem for Trump now lies in that Cohen has not only pled guilty to a crime, but has said under oath that it was with the full knowledge of, and at the behest of then-candidate Trump, who can now be considered an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in a federal crime.
Trump Denies Ordering Cohen to Break the Law
Trump did not respond to questions that were shouted to him during a White House event following Cohen’s sentencing. Since then, however, in his favorite form of communication, the President has tweeted that he never ordered Cohen to break the law.
“I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law. He was a lawyer, and he is supposed to know the law. It is called ‘advice of counsel,’ and a lawyer has great liability if a mistake is made,” Trump tweeted.
In the series of tweets, which seem to be setting up Trump’s defense, should he be indicted, Trump wrote, “That is why they get paid. Despite that many campaign finance lawyers have strongly stated that I did nothing wrong concerning campaign finance laws, if they even apply, because this was not campaign finance.”
“Cohen was guilty on many charges unrelated to me, but he plead to two campaign charges which were not criminal and of which he probably was not guilty even on a civil basis.”
“Those charges were just agreed to by him to embarrass the president and get a much-reduced prison sentence, which he did-including the fact that his family was temporarily let off the hook. As a lawyer, Michael has great liability to me!”
At the crux of the matter, Cohen pleaded guilty to paying porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal to stay silent about alleged affairs with Trump, then a candidate for president. According to prosecutors, the payments should have been disclosed as campaign expenditures.
Trump continues to deny that the affairs with Daniels and McDougal ever took place, and argues that the payments to them were not “campaign contributions.”
Legal experts — split along party lines as you might imagine — are divided as to if the Constitution provides that a sitting president can be indicted for a crime, or that if the campaign finance violations represented by the pay-offs rise to the level of criminal offenses.
Late last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government officials have to obtain a warrant in order to track an individual’s location data via cell phone records over an extended period of time.
“In the 5-4 ruling, the court said police generally need a court-approved warrant to get access to the data, setting a higher legal hurdle than previously existed under federal law. The court said obtaining such data without a warrant from wireless carriers, as police routinely do, amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment,” writes Newsmax.
In the case named Carpenter v. United States, the court ruled in Timothy Carpenter’s favor after he filed the suit after police connected him to several armed robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Ohio and Michigan. His location data was tracked by police for 127 days back in 2011.
Carpenter’s lawyers argued that the police violated the Fourth Amendment because they needed “probable cause” to get Carpenter’s digital records from third-party carriers, therefore should have gotten a warrant.
“We hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI (cell-site location information),” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s ruling. “Although such (cell phone) records are generated for commercial purposes, that distinction does not negate Carpenter’s anticipation of privacy in his physical location.”
Roberts also pointed out that technology is both a blessing and a curse, along with playing a “pervasive and insistent part of daily life.”
“Virtually any activity on the phone generates, including incoming calls, texts, or e-mails and countless other data connections that a phone automatically makes when checking for news, weather, or social media updates,” said Roberts. “Here the progress of science has afforded law enforcement a powerful new tool to carry out its important responsibilities. This tool risks Government encroachment of the sort the Framers after consulting the lessons of history, drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent.”
This is the latest case where the court has boost privacy rights in the digital realm, but government officials can still get access to real-time location information.
This is still a step in the right direction and a victory for privacy advocates.
“For 40 years, the assumption has been that individuals have no expectation of privacy in any information we voluntarily share with third parties — from phone records to bank statements to how and where we buy and sell goods,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst. “Even though today’s ruling argues that cell-site location data is unique, it’s easy to see how it will open the door to countless other contexts in which privacy advocates and criminal defendants will argue for similar privacy protections – and similar warrant requirements.”
ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler expressed similar sentiments and said the case was “a groundbreaking victory for Americans’ privacy rights in the digital age.”
“The Supreme Court has given privacy law an update that it has badly needed for many years, finally bringing it in line with the realities of modern life,” said Wessler.
Author’s note: We still have a long way to go, but this case will likely inspire more rulings that protect individual’s privacy rights and personal data.
Editor’s note: Our privacy rights are the key to all of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Are we ever going to reverse this trend?
A majority of voters blame the parents of children who are separated at the border for the current illegal immigration crisis — not the federal government, according to a new survey.
The results give an interesting look into how people feel about who is ultimately responsible for the immigration debacle, which is now playing out on television screens around the world.
When families are arrested and separated after attempting to enter the United States illegally, 54 percent of likely U.S. voters say the parents are more to blame for breaking the law. Just 35 percent of those surveyed believe the federal government is more to blame for enforcing the law. Another 11 percent say they are not sure.
These are the findings of a new Rasmussen Report survey conducted by phone and online interviews from June 19 – 20. Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order to stop the policy of separating families of those caught entering the U.S. illegally along the U.S.–Mexico border.
Further analysis of the survey shows that 82 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of voters not affiliated with either major political party feel the parents are more to blame for breaking the law. But 60 percent of Democrats say the government is more to blame for enforcing the law.
The survey also queried participants about how aggressively the Trump Administration was enforcing the rule to separate children from parents. Once again, the results showed partisan divisions, with 75 percent of Democrats saying the Trump administration is too aggressive. Only 23 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of unaffiliated voters felt the administration was too aggressive.
The Trump Administration this week announced plans to use a 1977 emergency law to block Chinese investment in US tech and to limit tech exports to China.
More specifically, the proposal blocks companies with at least one-quarter Chinese ownership from purchasing US firms involved in “industrially significant technology” and seeks to limit the export of certain technologies to China.
The two-pronged approach is specifically designed to stop China from accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” initiative to become globally dominant in 10 areas of technology by the year 2025.
“The President has made clear his desire to protect American technology,” says Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross. “All possibilities that would better protect American technology, including potential changes to export controls, are under review.”
While the block on Chinese investment isn’t expected to have a huge effect on American businesses, some industries worry the new export controls could harm their businesses by preventing them from taking advantage of their technological edge. Others worry that declaring a national economic emergency will have a negative effect on the stock market and on US companies operating in China.
The proposal, which is still subject to change, would apply only to new deals and would not seek to undo existing ones. The Administration also said US industries would have the opportunity to comment on the proposal before it takes effect.
“There is opportunity for the administration to arrive at a formula for policy that addresses national-security risks in a targeted way and not put a blanket on activities that our companies are involved in every single day,” says Josh Kallmer of the Information Technology Industry Council, adding that he expects several companies to comment on the proposal.
The twin measures against China are among a series of economic actions Trump has justified by claiming a national security threat.
The steel and aluminum tariffs were imposed under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
The new restrictions on China will be enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 – an emergency law which gives the president certain powers in the case of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” – that threat in this case being China’s spying and theft of intellectual property.
Opponents have criticized Trump for using the security threat rationale to accomplish his trade objectives.
“The administration is saying, ‘if we declare everything a national security issue we can do whatever we want,’” argues China expert Derek Scissors. “It’s a misuse of executive power.”
The new restrictions on China follow threats by Trump to impose tariffs on up to $450 billion of Chinese goods. A 25% tariff on $34 billion of Chinese imports is scheduled to go into effect on July 6th.
Thanks to increased federal scrutiny of foreign deals, Chinese investment in the US has already dropped more than 90% compared to this time last year. And Congress is also considering a separate proposal that would further increase the scrutiny of foreign business deals to determine the risk that “critical technology” will be transferred to other countries.
Editor’s note: This IS a threat and Trump is negotiating fiercely. No other president seems to have ever had the guts to go toe to toe with not only China, but Europe and our other trading partners who have been taking advantage of our good will.