Exclusive — Donald J. Trump: Jobs Data ‘Shocking,’ ‘Only Going to Get Worse’ if Clinton

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

David J. Phillip/AP

by MATTHEW BOYLE8 Jun 2016Washington, DC3,096

Billionaire developer Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States, told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Wednesday that the anemic economic growth —  just 38,000 new jobs in the month of May is a “shocking development.” 

Trump says that under the economic policies of President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, things are “only going to get worse” because the “incentive” to do well in America has been destroyed by the institutional left.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trump said of the jobs numbers:

It’s a shocking development. It’s a shocking development, and it’s only going to get worse because so many companies are leaving our country because of taxes, because of regulations, because of so many other reasons and restrictions. There’s so many companies leaving the country and it’s literally a shocking number when you see that. If that were in China, if that were in some of these countries where they’d get down to 7 percent GDP, they’d raise the alarm systems. When I heard 38,000—it’s the lowest in seven years—when I heard that number I was absolutely shocked. Shocked in one sense, but not that surprised in another sense—because there’s no reason for us to be doing well. There’s so little incentive in the country—the incentives have been taken away. There’s so little incentive in the country. Obama has done a terrible job with the economy. The number of course—to show you how phony the number is, of course we have the lowest job number in 7 years with the 38,000, and the unemployment rate went down from 5 to 4.7 percent or whatever number it was.

Trump added that the unemployment rate’s fall from five percent down to 4.7 percent is a “phony” tumble, because people are not working anymore—and have given up trying to work in the Obama-Clinton economy.

“They’re phony numbers,” Trump said. “People have given up looking for work, and they’re taken off the unemployment rolls.”

He added that record high levels of Americans outside the workforce—now nearly 100 million who could be working—means the signs for the future are grim.

“Almost 100 million people are out of the workforce,” Trump said. “And those people are considered ‘employed.’”

advertisement

Trump said that under his administration, things will be different because he will create an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. Trump said:

Number one, we’re lowering taxes. Very important, for the middle income, for everybody. We’re lowering taxes for everybody but big league for business so that business can thrive. That’s going to have a tremendous effect. But we’re lowering taxes. Number two, and very importantly, we’re going to make it very difficult for companies to leave our country—where they fire people and leave our country—and number three we’re not going to allow countries to devalue their currencies like they do without a penalty. So if China or other countries, like they do, devalue their currencies, they’re going to have to pay a very big penalty. In a way it’s a form of cheating.

More from Trump’s latest exclusive interview with Breitbart News after he and Clinton became the official presumptive nominees of their parties is forthcoming.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government,Economics, barack obama, Donald Trump,economy, Hillary Clinton

Trump: I ‘Like’ Giving Minimum Wage To the States

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by IAN HANCHETT12 May 2016253

advertisement

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump stated that he likes “giving” the minimum wage “to states to determine” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Trump said, [relevant remarks begin around 5:50] “[T]he only thing I am talking about a little bit is I want — I like the idea of the states looking at minimum wage, because if they don’t, New York is totally different than if you go to Alabama or Arkansas…you’re talking about a whole different cost of living. So, what’s good for New York is not necessarily good for some place else. .. So, I really like giving it to states to determine. Plus, they have to compete with each other, among other things, but they have to compete with other. So, I like the concept of giving it to states.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter@IanHanchett

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Breitbart TV,Economics, Donald Trump, minimum wage

The Panama Papers: ‘Biggest Data Leak In History’ Claims to Expose How the Powerful Hide Their Riches

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

AFP

by JOHN HAYWARD4 Apr 2016169

The UK Guardian describes the trove of confidential data stolen from Mossack Fonseca, a Panama-based law firm that specializes in administering offshore accounts, as “the biggest data leak in history.”

This refers to both the size of the database given to the Guardian and the BBC – 11.5 million files totaling over 2.6 terabytes in size, covering 200,000 clients of the firm – and its significance. The Panama Papers are touted as blowing the lid off the extremely complex financial arrangements employed by world leaders to conceal their vast wealth, and shelter it from the very tax systems some of Mossack Fonseca’s clients preside over.

The Guardian says the Panama Papers leak is an order of magnitude larger than either the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks in 2010 or the trove of intelligence documents stolen by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, two leaks that indisputably changed the political conversation around the world. Snowden himself chimed in on Twitter to agree that the Panama Papers are the “biggest leak in the history of data journalism.”

Journalists from over 80 countries are said to be analyzing this mountain of data, which was provided by an anonymous source last year.

Among the prominent political leaders with offshore tax havens managed by Mossack Fonseca is Russian president Vladimir Putin, who is portrayed as using his associates to siphon $2 billion from Russian banks into offshore accounts. Putin cronies named in the scheme include his best friend and godfather of his daughter, cellist Sergei Roldugin, and former Olympic ice dancing champion Tatiana Navka, the glamorous wife of Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Everyone involved in helping Putin conceal his fortune in these offshore accounts grew very rich themselves, according to theGuardian.

The UK Daily Mail quotes Peskov denying the Panama Papers revelations, portraying the story as an attack by foreign intelligence services on Putin’s legitimacy “in the context of the coming parliamentary election.”

“Putinophobia has got so hot that a priori nobody can say anything good about Russia, they must say bad things and if there is nothing to say, one must make something up,” Peskov alleged.

The Daily Mail has Navka claiming she does not know anything about the offshore asset company she is listed as the beneficiary of, and implying that her passport, which was found among the company’s papers, might have been stolen and used without her knowledge.

“My wife never had any offshore company and does not have it now, she never opened it and, accordingly, she could not close it down,” declared Peskov, referring to the November 2015 liquidation of the offshore company.

According to the Daily Mail, there appears to be a Russian media blackout on the Panama Papers story in effect, even though it should be a huge story with the potential to shake up the government, because “Russian law forbids senior officials and their families from using foreign financial institutions and offshore vehicles.” Also, the Guardianobserves that Putin has been publicly urging his citizens to bring money from abroad back home to Russia, which makes the discovery that Putin has been shuffling billions through secret offshore tax havens more than a little inconvenient.

NBC News spoke with several Russia experts who thought the scandal was more likely to embarrass Putin than severely damage him, noting that he is meticulous about keeping his own name away from the most incriminating documents. However, Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer suggested Russia could “respond aggressively” to everyone involved in what it perceives as an attack on its presidency, including billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, which provided funding for the group of journalists that broke the Panama Papers story.

“I feel fairly confident that the Kremlin will be going after the U.S., Soros, the CIA and this is going to make Russian policy towards the U.S. actually much more sharp and antagonistic,” said Bremmer.

Other national leaders implicated in the scandal include Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif, former Vice President of Iraq Ayad Allawi, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, Iceland’s Prime Minister Signundur Davio Gunnlaugsson, and one of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s sons, Alaa Mubarak.

Furthermore, according to the Guardian’sreview of the data, six members of the British House of Lords and three former Conservative MPs had offshore assets, as did the families of at least eight current and former members of the Chinese Politburo.  23 of Mossack Fonseca’s clients were under international sanctions, including supporters of the regimes in North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

The Associated Press reports the Panama Papers leak has already caused a firestorm in Australia, where over 800 wealthy citizens are now under investigation by the Australian Taxation Office, in cooperation with the Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission, and Austrac financial intelligence agency.

The Daily Mail observes that some of Mossack Fonseca’s clients appear to be “billionaire husbands” using the firm to “hide their fortunes from the wives they divorce,” including Russian oligarch Dmitri Rybolovlev, aviation tycoon Clive Joy, and late British billionaire Scot Young. In fact, internal emails from employees of the firm have them cracking jokes about how the offshore companies they helped create were used to protect assets “against the unpleasant results of a divorce.”

As just about every story on the Panama Papers concedes, there appears to be nothing illegal about the services Mossack Fonseca performed for its clients.

In a lengthy statement to the Guardian, the firm challenged the accuracy of some stories circulating around the data leak, and noted the leaked documents confirm that the company “routinely denies services to individuals who are compromised,” or who fail to provide the information needed to comply with regulations.

“It is legal and common for companies to establish commercial entities in different jurisdictions for a variety of legitimate reasons, including conducting cross-border mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcies, estate planning, personal safety, restructuring and pooling of investment capital from different jurisdictions in neutral legal and tax regimes that does not benefit or disadvantage any one investor,” Mossack Fonseca wrote.

“Our services are regulated on multiple levels, often by overlapping agencies, and we have a strong compliance record,” the firm continued. “In addition, we have always complied with international protocols… to assure as is reasonably possible, that the companies we incorporate are not being used for tax evasion, money laundering, terrorist finance or other illicit purposes.”

The firm also noted it does not manage its clients’ companies, does not take possession of their money, and does not “have anything to do with any of the direct financial aspects related to operating their businesses.”  

Mossack Fonseca took strong exception to the idea that “the primary function of the services we provide is to facilitate tax avoidance and/or evasion,” and said it was not responsible for the potential “misuse of companies that we incorporate, or the services we provide.”  The firm insisted it would never willingly help individuals associated with rogue regimes to violate international sanctions.

On the other hand, the firm charged that theGuardian was given “unauthorized access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company and have presented and interpreted them out of context,” and reminded the paper that “using information/documentation unlawfully obtained is a crime,” for which they would not hesitate to press charges.

Read More Stories About:

National Security, Russia, Vladimir Putin,Economics, Panama, Hosni Mubarak, tax avoidance, tax evasion, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Panama Papers,offshore accounts, ayad allawi

Rubio, Cruz, Kasich All Backed Obamatrade, Pretend They Didn’t at Miami Debate

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
 iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Rhona Wise/Getty

by JULIA HAHN10 Mar 2016Miami, FL163

MIAMI, Florida — At Thursday night’s Republican debate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Kasich, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)all parroted talking points about trade that do not seem to match their prior legislative records and statements on the critical issue.

While Donald Trump has articulated his vociferous opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda in practically every GOP debate, tonight marked the first debate in which all of the other candidates were asked about their previous support for trade globalism. Breitbart News reported extensively on debate moderators’ prior failure to cover the issue in previous debates.

According to Pew polling data, by a nearly five-to-one margin Republican voters believe these so-called free trade deals lower wages rather than raise them.

At tonight’s debate CNN Moderator Jake Tapper asked Rubio: “If elected, will you support free trade deals even if it means the inevitable loss of U.S. jobs?”

In response, Rubio said:

I support free trade deals that are good for America… The problem is we’re a low-tariff country. To import something into the United States is not very expensive, but many of these countries we can’t export to because their tariffs are too high. And so I am in favor of deals that allow us to bring down those tariffs so that America can sell things to all these people around the world.

However, Rubio endorsed President Obama’s trade agenda. Rubio cast the critical 60th and deciding vote for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to fast-track President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement — a deal which Sen. Rubio said would be a “pillar” of his hoped-for presidency.

Jake Tapper then asked Cruz: “You were a supporter of the Pacific trade deal [TPP], but after taking some heat from conservatives, you changed your position. Why should these voters who don’t like these trade deals trust that you will fight for them all the time and not just in election years?”

In response, Cruz said:

Actually that’s incorrect. There are two different agreements. There’s TPA and TPP. I opposed TPP and have always opposed TPP, which is what you asked about. And when it comes to trade, look, free trade, when we open up foreign markets, helps Americans. But we’re getting killed in international trade right now. And we’re getting killed because we have an administration that’s doesn’t look out for American workers and jobs are going overseas. We’re driving jobs overseas.

However, Cruz voted to fast-track the TPP by voting for TPA on the first go-around. When TPA came up again in the Senate, Cruz changed his position to oppose it while under intense scrutiny from conservatives.

At the time, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)—who has since endorsed Trump for president—implied that voting to give President Obama fast-track authority was essentially a proxy vote for TPP: “A vote for fast-track is a vote to authorize the President to ink the secret deal contained in these pages—to affix his name on the Union and to therefore enter the United States into it,” Sessions said.

That’s because fast-track eliminates the ability for senators and congressmen to offer any amendments to the deal, eliminates the Senate filibuster, kills the ability for a treaty vote, and authorizes the President to finalize and sign the agreement– as a result, no deal placed on a fast-track has ever been blocked.

Moreover, prior to casting his vote to fast-track TPP, Cruz penned an op-ed with now House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in the Wall Street Journal endorsing Obama’s trade agenda –helping give needed momentum for Obama’s new trade powers to be successfully enacted. In that op-ed, Cruz described the TPP as an “historic” agreement that “would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.”

This written statement seems to contradict Cruz’s declaration in tonight’s debate that, “I opposed TPP and have always opposed TPP.”

During that time, Cruz also dismissed Sen. Sessions’ concerns about the deal’s erosion of U.S. sovereignty. Cruz said that Sessions’ assertions were “not accurate… It is simply false to say this would create some trans-national body that could change U.S. law.” However, it has since been revealed that Sessions was indeed correct, and Article 27.1 of the deal will ensnare the U.S. in a global governing commission similar to a nascent European Union.

As Tapper pointed out, after vocally campaigning for Obamatrade, Cruz eventually reversed his vote. Cruz’s campaign now says he will not support TPP “in its current form” — leaving the door open to supporting a slightly altered version of it in the future.

Moreover, both Cruz and Rubio have voted to continue to allow the illicit trading practice of currency manipulation. Last year, both Cruz and Rubio voted down an amendment spearheaded by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) to address currency manipulation.

In the past, Cruz has said that he opposes cracking down on currency manipulation because it is a “protectionist” argument. In a 2011 interview, Cruz was pressed about expressed unwillingness to support a modest measure that would crack down on currency manipulation. Cruz said in response, “Look, protectionist arguments, particularly when you have unemployment, they resonate because people are out of a job and they are ticked off.”

In tonight’s debate, Kasich similarly adopted talking points that seem to contradict his support for Obama’s trade agenda. Kasich told Tapper:

I grew up in a blue collar family. And the simple fact of the matter is that of course we’re sensitive about trade… my position has always been we want to have free trade, but fair trade. And I’ve been arguing all along that it is absolutely critical that when other countries break those agreements, we don’t turn the process over to some international bureaucrat who comes back a couple years later and says, “Oh, America was right,” and people are out of work. The fact of the matter is we have to have an expedited process. When people cheat, when countries cheat and they take advantage of us, we need to blow the whistle. And as president of the United States, I absolutely will blow the whistle and begin to stand up for the American worker. But we don’t want to lock the doors and pull down the blinds and leave the world. Because frankly, if we do that, prices will go up. People will buy less. Other people will be out of work. And we don’t want to see that happen. Trade, though, has to be balanced and we have to make sure that when we see a violation, like some country dumping their products into this country, believe me as president, I will stand up and I will shut down those imports because they’re a violation of the agreement we have and the American worker expects us to stand up.

However, Kasich has similarly been a supporter of Obama’s trade agenda, which economists say could have a significant impact on the nation’s manufacturing core. According to analysis from the Economic Policy Institute, in 2015 Kasich’s home state of Ohio lost 112,500 jobs due to the nation’s trade deficit with TPP countries.

In particular, the Wall Street Journal writes that TPP would harm the U.S. automobile industry. Citing a study by Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University, the WSJ writes that, “the TPP could boost imports by an extra $30.8 billion by 2025, compared with an exports gain of $7.8 billion.” While the Japanese auto industry has “hailed” the TPP agreement, American automakers including Ford —recognizing the unfair advantage it will give their foreign competitors — have come out against it.

This could have a detrimental impact on Ohio in particular, as “Ohio is at the center of the motor vehicle industry with 72.2 percent of [North] American light vehicle production either in Ohio or within 500 miles (805 kilometers) of its borders,” according to a Ohio governmentreport. “Seventy-five of Ohio’s 88 counties have at least one motor vehicle industry establishment,” the report states.

Yet despite the impact the TPP could have on Ohio auto industry and its workers, in November, Kasich said that “The trade agreement – the TPP – it’s critical to us not only for economic reasons and for jobs because there’s so many people who are connected to getting jobs because of trade, but it allows us to create not only economic alliances, but also potentially strategic alliances against the Chinese.”

“I’m a free-trader. I supported NAFTA, I believe in the PTT [sic] because it’s important those countries in Asia are an interface against China,” Kasich said in January.

By contrast, Donald Trump’s campaign has previously argued that his Presidency is the only way to stop Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, writing in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News: “A Trump Presidency is the only guaranteed way to keep America out of this disastrous trade deal.”

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Economics, Paul Ryan, European Union,TPP, Obamatrade, TPA, Sen. Jeff Sessions,NAFTA, Sen. Rob Portman

Poll: Millennials Pick Socialism Over Capitalism

Lazlo Balogh/Reuters

by MIKE FLYNN11 Feb 2016366

A new survey from YouGov finds that millennials have more favorable views of socialism than of capitalism.

As Santayana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Less than two decades after socialism seemed to have been confined to the dust-heap of history, another generation may have to learn hard lessons.

The survey, taken at the end of January, found that 43 percent of Americans under 30 had a favorable view of socialism. Less than a third of millennials had a favorable view of capitalism. No other age or ethnic demographic preferred socialism over capitalism.

Seniors, unsurprisingly, had the most favorable view of capitalism. Just 23 percent of Americans older than 65 had a positive view of socialism. Sixty-three percent of seniors, though, had a favorable view of capitalism.

Seniors, after all, experienced the long-standing intellectual battle between capitalism and socialism played out in real life. They witnessed a post-war economic euphoria grind down into a socialist malaise, only to be reinvigorated by a global embrace of disruptive technology, deregulation, and global trade.

In the past 20 years, the number of people living in poverty worldwide has fallen by half. In 1990, 43 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. In 2013, the United Nations estimated that just 22 percent of the world’s population continued to live in extreme poverty.

“Never in history have the living conditions and prospects of so many people changed so dramatically and so fast,” the UN Human Development report said.

Even if millenials aren’t swayed by the dramatic improvement in worldwide living standards, one would hope they would see the benefits of capitalism in the products and services that inhabit their world.

They live, and thrive, in a consumer-driven, on-demand society. They have immediate access, at their fingertips, to more knowledge, art, music, and communication than the wealthiest oligarch just a few decades ago.

Each and every one of the products and services they use every day was developed by someone chasing profit and market-share. It is a cliche to say that capitalism has powered the technological and scientific innovations that have improved all our lives. Apparently, however, it is a cliche that bears repeating.

On a postive note, every other demographic block in America still prefers capitalism over socialism. Well, Democrats, perhaps naturally, are evenly split between the two economic systems. At least Democrats, though, have slightly higher unfavorable ratings of socialism than capitalism.

The danger, of course, is that the demographic in America that does prefer socialism is also the future of the country. Of course, they have the luxury of looking positively on socialism, since any impact on their lives is restricted to dusty history books.

The finding also presents something of an existential dilema for the conservative and libertarian movement. Since the 1980s, the institutional infrastructure of the conservative and libertarian movement has grown exponentially.

Aside from dozens of national think tanks and advocacy organizations devoted to propogating conservative and free market views, there are more than a hundred free-market think tanks in states across the country.

It is safe to say that billions of dollars have been spent over the past two decades promoting and educating the public on the benefits of capitalism and free markets. There are publishing imprints, media companies and new conservative news sites everywhere. Yet, something has gone horribly wrong.

Many in the commentariat have watched the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with a certain touch of condescending nostalgia. “Oh, look a socialist is running for President, isn’t that cute,” you can almost hear them type.

For many, Bernie’s label as a socialist was something he would have to overcome to make a serious run for the White House. It may now be, however, something he needs to more warmly embrace.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Economics, socialism, Millennials,capitalism, hispanics

SOCIALISM AT WORK: France Declares State of Economic Emergency

KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty Images

by SARKIS ZERONIAN20 Jan 2016329

As investor sentiment plunges across the world, President François Hollande of France has unveiled an economic plan to deal with what he describes as his country’s “state of economic emergency”.

Setting out a new €2 billion (£1.5 billion) job creation plan for France, the socialist leader said the country is facing an “economic and social emergency” as well as an “uncertain economic climate and persistent unemployment”, reports the BBC.

Recently President Hollande said that the social emergency in France, caused by unemployment, was as every bit as serious as the emergency caused by terrorism. In his annual speech to business leaders he reinforced that idea, prioritising his response to it.

“Our country has been faced with structural unemployment for two to three decades,” he said, “and this requires that creating jobs becomes our one and only fight.”

France’s unemployment rate has soared to an 18-year high of 10.6 per cent, against a European Union average of 9.8 per cent and 5.4 per cent in Britain. Facing re-election next year an increasingly desperate President Hollande proposes to pay French employers to hire young unemployed people as a means to restore confidence in his country’s “broken” economic model, one which is marred by low output and stagnant growth.

France’s state of economic emergency was declared at the same time as Germany faces its most difficult start to a year in recent memory, reports The Express. With consumer confidence plummeting, industrial production growth in the EU’s biggest economy has slipped to zero per cent.

Germany and France are the eurozone’s two biggest economies, and two of the six largest economies in the world. Economists have warned that if the French and German economies collapse the ensuing domino effect would bring down the entire eurozone and severely damage the global economy at a time when it is already under considerable stress.

Some are even warning that with the downturn in China a global recession is now more likely than at any time since the 2008 financial crisis.

Follow Sarkis Zeronian on Twitter: Follow @SarkisZ or e-mail to: szeronian@breitbart.com

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Germany, France,Economics, Francois Hollande, 2008 financial crisis, economic crisis

China’s Market Chaos: Obama Should Lift Page from Trump to Avert Crisis

Charles Krupa/AP Photo

by PETER MORICI20 Jan 201637

China’s economic chaos is fomenting fear across global stock markets, and President Obama would do well to start listening to Donald Trump about the menace posed by Beijing’s economic strategies.

For two decades we have heard about the coming Asian Century and how China’s hyper growth and socialist market economy provide developing countries with a better alternative to western-style capitalism.

In reality, China’s strategies are remarkably patterned after the “Japanese miracle” of the 1970s and 1980s. An undervalued currency—calculating what a yuan actually buys in China it should be trading at about 3.53 per dollar, not the current rate of about 6.49—makes its products artificially inexpensive at Wal-Mart and many western products prohibitively expensive in China.

Additionally, developing economy status in the WTO permits China to maintain much higher tariffs than western nations, and its banks have provided endless credit to state-owned enterprises even as profitability dwindles into losses.

To satisfy a resulting ravenous appetite for energy and materials, commodity rich nations like Saudi Arabia, Chile and Australia invested heavily in more oil wells, bigger mines and refining facilities.

Its export juggernaut imposed trade deficits on the U.S. and many European economies, and slowed their growth and jobs creation.

During the Bush/Obama presidencies, the U.S. economy has averaged only 1.8 percent annual growth. That’s about half the pace achieved during the Reagan-Clinton years and goes a long way towards explaining falling family incomes.

Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, consumers in the United States and Europe borrowed heavily against homes and through their governments to maintain living standards. Meanwhile, China manufactured its own real estate frenzy by forcing farmers into new cities with inadequate employment opportunities and few real economic imperatives but to boost construction activity and juice GDP statistics.

When the bubbles burst, the Europeans and Americans reformed their banks, whereas Beijing encouraged even more lending for everything from factories to luxury flats. And it encouraged ordinary Chinese to pour savings and borrow from banks to purchase stocks and drive equity prices to unrealistic levels.

Like Japan at the dawn of its lost decade in 1990, Chinese businesses cannot grow their exports or domestic sales enough—and ordinary folks can’t find good enough paying jobs—to support all the debt and many would be bankrupt if domiciled in the West.

The Chinese collapse is driving down global oil and resource prices, sending commodity-based economies into recession and pummeling the U.S. mining and petroleum sectors.

Chinese private investors are heading for the doors—panic selling stocks and converting their yuan into dollars as fast as they can find ways around Beijing’s restrictions on investing outside the Middle Kingdom.

Fear of a permanent collapse in global commodity markets is inspiring private investors elsewhere to also seek safe haven in the dollar by buying real assets, such as New York condominiums, and Treasury securities.

All of this is driving the dollar up against the yuan and other currencies and killing the demand for U.S.-produced goods and services.

U.S. businesses are increasingly reluctant to invest in factories and equipment, and the durable goods industries—the backbone of U.S. exports—has shed 35 thousand jobs since last summer.

Now, disappointing holiday season sales indicate pessimism is spreading to consumers, and the economy could easily slip into recession this winter.

If Obama does not want his presidency punctuated by another economic crisis, he must finally do something radical about the overvalued dollar—especially against the yuan.

Donald Trump’s proposed 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports  is remarkably similar to a tax suggested by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and a logical step to stop Beijing from shifting its unemployment and financial woes onto the backs of hardworking Americans.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist. He tweets @pmorici1.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, National Security,Economics

EXCLUSIVE – Media Grinches Claim Israel Stole Bethlehem Christmas; Distort Facts, Ignore Muslim Persecution

Flickr / Sarah_Ackerman

by AARON KLEIN22 Dec 2015169

JERUSALEM – Major news media outlets are presenting a misleading picture of the current situation in Bethlehem, blaming an obscure, leaderless “wave of violence” – purportedly instigated by both Israel and the Palestinians – for a downturn in the number of tourists visiting the historic city this Christmas season.

The outlets in question completely ignore the rampant Palestinian incitement that is driving the current violence and fail to report that the pseudo-intifada is instigated almost entirely by the Palestinians.

Also missing from the reportage is the larger story of Bethlehem’s dwindling Christian population. Over the last two decades, Christians have been fleeing persecution at the hands of Muslims.

A case in point is an AFP article republishedin numerous newspapers and websites titled, “Unrest puts heavy damper on Bethlehem Christmas festivities.”

The piece reports that “a wave of violence and protests has deterred many tourists from making the annual pilgrimage to the ancient city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, though much of the unrest has occurred away from Bethlehem, usually considered a safe destination.”

The article does not distinguish between Israeli victims of terrorism and Palestinian terrorists killed by Israelis in self-defense. As the AFP states:

The violence has killed 120 on the Palestinian side, several of them in and around Bethlehem, as well as 17 Israelis, an American, and an Eritrean.

Similarly, the Catholic News Servicepublished an article titled, “Few pilgrims, no sales: Mideast situation dampens Bethlehem Christmas.”

The first paragraph draws a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and their victims as if both sides are equally to blame.

‘Though the Christmas tree was lit in Nativity Square in the traditional ceremony, and some  pre-Christmas parades have taken place, the Christmas spirit this year in Bethlehem has been dampened by the political situation which, since October, has taken the lives of almost 100 Palestinians and 22 Israelis.’

The article also distorts the cause of the violence, implying that “extremist Jews” provoked the Palestinians.

‘The most recent violence that has limited the tourists followed attempts by extremist Jews to visit and pray at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif compound, which is holy to both Jews and Muslim. Riots have broken out in the West Bank, and Palestinians have stabbed Israeli civilians as well as Israeli police and soldiers, both within the Green Line and in the West Bank.’

The “extremist Jews” in question were guilty of simply wanting to pray at Judaism’s holiest site.

The Catholic News Service failed to report that the Palestinian media fabricated a Jewish “threat” to the Al Aqsa Mosque in order to incite Palestinians to violence.

On the Temple Mount, the outlawed radical Islamic Movement has been mobilizingArab youth in an attempt to smuggle fire bombs, pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, and stones into the site in order to attack Jews.

While Palestinian media outlets have been broadcasting misinformation about Israeli police storming the Al Aqsa mosque unprovoked, Islamic Movement-tied youth have been using the mosque as a staging area to attack Jews. The goal seems to be to draw Israeli security forces into the sensitive mosque compound and thus fuel the cycle of rumors regarding Israeli incursions.

The Catholic News Service also neglected to mention that, while claiming there is an Israeli plot against the Al Aqsa mosque, hundreds of Palestinians in October set fire to the Joseph’s Tomb complex, causing severe damage to the revered burial place, considered Judaism’s third holiest site.

The news service went on to complain.

Bethlehem depends on the tourism industry, which has been hard hit for the past two months. Hotels are reporting dismal occupancy rates and no new reservations for the coming months, noted Manhal Assaf, director of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism Information Office in Bethlehem.

Meanwhile, the Guardian blamed “recent violent incidents” for putting a damper on “this year’s Christmas celebrations in the holy city.”

“Fewer streets were decorated, some festivities were cancelled, and there was no fireworks display, which traditionally marks the lighting of the Christmas tree,” the Guardian reported.  The newspaper did not specify which “violent incidents” it was referring to.

The Guardian noted that progress in Bethlehem is difficult because “82% of Bethlehem falls inside Area C, which is territory under direct Israeli military and administrative control.”

The newspaper, like other media outlets, glossed over a far more important statistic. At Israel’s founding, Bethlehem was 80% Christian. But after the city was handed over to the Palestinians as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the city’s Christian population plummeted to 23%. And that statistic includes the satellite towns of Beit Sahour and Beit Jala. Christians now make up only about 12% of the population in the city limits.

What accounts for the Christian exodus?

As reported at WND:

‘As soon as he took over Bethlehem, Arafat unilaterally fired the city’s Christian politicians and replaced them with Muslim cronies. He appointed a Muslim governor, Muhammed Rashad A-Jabar, and deposed of Bethlehem’s city council, which had nine Christians and two Muslims, reducing the number of Christians councilors to a 50-50 split.

‘Arafat then converted a Greek Orthodox monastery next to the Church of Nativity, the believed birthplace of Jesus, into his official Bethlehem residence.

‘Suddenly, after the Palestinians gained the territory, reports of Christian intimidation by Muslims began to surface.

‘Christian leaders and residents told this reporter they face an atmosphere of regular hostility. They said Palestinian armed groups stir tension by holding militant demonstrations and marches in the streets. They spoke of instances in which Christian shopkeepers’ stores were ransacked and Christian homes attacked.

‘They said in the past, Palestinian gunmen fired at Israelis from Christian hilltop communities, drawing Israeli anti-terror raids to their towns.’

Human rights lawyer Justus Weiner toldCBN News:

‘The threat of persecution, including beatings and forced marriages between Christian women and Muslim men, are some of the reasons Christians have left.’

Christians in Bethlehem also speak of their land being unilaterally confiscated by Muslim gangs.

“There are many cases in which Christians have their land stolen by the [Muslim] mafia,” said Samir Qumsiyeh, a Bethlehem Christian leader and owner of the Beit Sahour-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station.

“It is a regular phenomenon in Bethlehem. They go to a poor Christian person with a forged power of attorney document, and then they say we have papers proving you’re living on our land. If you confront them, many times the Christian is beaten. You can’t do anything about it. The Christian loses, and he runs away,” Qumsiyeh said.

Last year, a Christian woman from Bethlehem revealed to Fox News that her uncle was murdered because he refused to pay the jizyah, or “protection tax” to Muslims there.

In October, Breitbart News reported on threats to the First Baptist Church of Bethlehem, which has been bombed 14 times.

Apparently, the news media is mysteriously uninterested in highlighting the true plight of Bethlehem’s Christians or the real reasons for this year’s downturn in tourist visits to the city.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”  Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart Jerusalem

Paul Ryan: ‘I Hate Omnibus Bill’ But I Did It Anyway

AP/J. Scott Applewhite

by MICHELLE FIELDS22 Dec 20153,074

House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) told radio host Bill Bennett that he hates Omnibus bills, but he passed a $1 trillion omnibus last week anyway.

“I hate omnibus bills and I don’t like doing these last-second bills,” Ryan said. He added that he blames Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) who filibustered, “all but one appropriations bill” and also his caucus who, “seized up in the middle of the summer, unable to pass any appropriations bills because of some poison pill amendments.”

Ryan was asked why $1.6 billion was allocated to the refugee program, especially considering there was support from dozens of Republican members of Congress for a proposal introduced by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) that would temporarily halt the refugee program. Despite the broad support, Ryan decided to fund President Obama’s refugee program, which includes Syrian refugees. He argued that:

$1.6 billion is not simply for Syrian refugees. It’s for the entire refugee program. You remember the unaccompanied children that got dumped onto the border from Honduras and El Salvador? We had to go do emergency legislation…and put new resources on the border in anticipation of that. Well, there’s a fear that could happen again, so that’s what this money is for, to prevent and prepare for any chance that we might have a whole new raft of unaccompanied children getting put on the border.

Ryan also discussed what he hopes to accomplish in 2016, saying that Americans are, ” going to see us put a bill on the president’s desk going after ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood.”

He added that Americans will “see a return to regular order, where men and women in Congress can bring their bills to the floor, make their amendments in order, and we will run Congress the way the Founders intended it to be run.”

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Paul Ryan,Economics, omnibus, Bill Bennett

Sharia in Obamatrade–Analyst: Sultan of Brunei Could Bypass U.S. Courts, Acquire American Land and Infrastructure

Sharia in Obamatrade–Analyst: Sultan of Brunei Could Bypass U.S. Courts, Acquire American Land and Infrastructure

Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty Images

by ALEX SWOYER21 Dec 2015Washington, DC3,692

The text of the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries reverses policies that were originally put into place to prevent a foreign takeover of the nation’s infrastructure, argues political consultant Curtis Ellis, who adds that the deal threatens U.S. national security interests.

Ellis explained:

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.  The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect our national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim our national security interests violate the T.P.P. agreement and force the U.S. to pay billions of dollars in damages.

Ellis says that Chapter 11 in the more than 5,000-page trade deal provides foreign investors with special rights to acquire U.S. land, businesses, natural resources and investments.

“Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their ‘rights’ under the TPP,” Ellis argues.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the T.P.P., the Sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his T.P.P. country under Sharia law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits.” The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to our national security.

Additionally, the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei — a country that’s a party to President Obama’s trade agenda — hasoutlawed Christmas and threatens to place offenders in prison.

Ellis points to an event in 2006 that supports his concerns within the TPP.

According to Ellis, Dubai Ports World (DPW), an enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to purchase a company in 2006, which operated six U.S. ports. During that time, Ellis says, “Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks,” but he argues that the 2006 “controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.”

Ellis’s concerns with TPP is that the TPP, like the Oman pact, gives foreign investors special rights to own and operate U.S. businesses and an option to sue if they feel their rights are violated. He adds that the public outcry in 2006 blocked the sale.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT reads: “For greater certainty, if a Party invokes [the “Security Exception] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”

“In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign ‘trade’ tribunal could overrule it,” Ellis told Breitbart News.

According to Ellis, the TPP eliminated this “crucial stipulation.”

“As a result, any company operating in a T.P.P. country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a crucial American asset based on national security grounds,” he explains.

Ellis argues that without a footnote to “Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its judgment for that of our own government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.”

“The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal,” he stressed.

Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand each listed their own foreign investment review laws, according to Ellis. However, the U.S. did not do so.

Breitbart News reached out to the United States Trade Representative’s office about Ellis’s concern but did not receive comment.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, National Security,Economics, national security, Trans Pacific Partnership, Trade Deal, Curtis Ellis