McCarthy Flips On Free Trade

It has long been said that it is a woman’s prerogative to change her mind. Apparently the same applies to prospective Speakers of the House.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), a presumptive favorite to succeed Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, defended President Trump’s decision to implement tariffs on US allies such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union.  McCarthy’s statements represent an evolution on the trade issue.

“I believe there is a better way of solving a problem than getting into a trade war,” McCarthy told reporters last December.

On Sunday, the congressman denied that President Trump’s unilateral application of national security tariffs on American allies represented a trade war, even as US trading partners unveiled retaliatory tariffs on American products from steel to crops to motorcycles.  

“We are in the middle of a trade discussion. Nobody wants to be in a trade war. Nobody wins a trade war,” McCarthy said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But we are standing up for the process of where we're moving forward that we have fair trade.”

“A word that I would not use to describe it is ‘a trade discussion,’” responded Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

McCarthy did not define what would constitute a trade war in his view.

Rep. McCarthy’s flip-flop on free trade was not sudden. In March, he told Fox Business that tariffs could be a good thing. Shortly after President Trump made his initial announcement of aluminum and steel tariffs, McCarthy said, “Standing up and putting a different perspective on this will turn out to be a very positive aspect.”

Farmers from McCarthy’s home state are less enthusiastic about Trump Trade than he seems to be. New Chinese tariffs on almonds, pistachios and wine hit the California counties that supported President Trump. Even though Trump cannot count on California’s electoral votes, if his supporters become disillusioned with his trade policies, it would be bad news for California’s already-shrinking Republican congressional delegation.

“Is the administration going to get us a better deal? How long will it take to get that better deal?” asked almond farmer David Phippen. “We have sustainability, but it’s limited.”

At the moment, the outlook for California farmers and the American export industry appears as if it will get worse before it gets better. Whether the current situation is a trade war or a trade discussion, the effect on American exports is the same. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Where In The World Is Melania Trump?

Melania Trump has not been seen in public in more than three weeks and her disappearance is fueling speculation. This is especially true after the Trump Administration announced that Melania will not be attending the North Korea summit in Singapore or the G7meeting in Quebec. The Huffington Post even posted picture of a milk carton with Melania’s picture on the side. Theories range from Melania simply staying out of sight to take care of Barron to the tinfoil hat idea that she is being imprisoned to prevent her from testifying for Robert Mueller.

The First Lady last appeared in public at an event on May 10 greeting three returned prisoners from North Korea. A few days later, Melania checked into Walter Reed National Medical Center on May 14 for a kidney procedure. CNN reported at the time that she was expected to remain in the hospital for “the rest of the week.” Even though Melania was reportedly recovering well, she has not appeared in public, either with the president or by herself, since.

Perhaps most curious, the First Lady did travel with the family to Camp David for a weekend trip on June 1. Donald, Jr., Tiffany, Ivanka and Jared Kushner visited the presidential retreat with President Trump over the weekend without Melania.

On May 30, just prior to the Camp David weekend, Melania’s twitter account did post the message, “I see the media is working overtime speculating where I am & what I'm doing.  Rest assured, I'm here at the @WhiteHouse w [sic] my family, feeling great, & working hard on behalf of children & the American people!”

Mrs. Trump is scheduled to attend a reception Monday night for Gold Star families, but the event is not open to the public or press. The closed nature of the reception means that it is unlikely that it will erase speculation about why Melania is avoiding the spotlight.

While no one seriously claims that Melania’s disappearance is the result of foul play, there is speculation that her absence may be the result of health problems or marital difficulties. The fact that her absence began after her hospital stay could indicate problems with the recovery.

Melania’s absence from both official and family events may also be related to problems with the president. In the months since the revelation broke about Donald Trump’s affair with stripper Stormy Daniels shortly after Melania gave birth to Trump’s youngest son, Barron, there have been signs that the relationship may be rocky. In April, the First Couple attracted national attention when Melania seemed to resist holding hands with the president. A People report from early May quoted a friend of the family who said, “They [the president and First Lady] spend very little to no time together.”

Melania’s absence and subsequent reports that she will not accompany the president on the big diplomatic trips to Singapore and Quebec lend credence to the reports that the First Lady is not happy with the president. Who could blame her? Dealing with marital infidelity is difficult for any couple, but having the affair and subsequent coverup splashed across national news would make it many times worse. This is especially true for a private person like Melania Trump.

No one outside the Trump family and White House workers knows for sure why Melania is missing or how long her public absence will last. What is certain is that a missing First Lady is very unusual and presents an awkward public relations situation for the Trump Administration.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump trade war starts tomorrow

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the US will impose tariffs on steel and aluminum products from Canada, Mexico and the European Union starting on Friday. The close US allies had previously been given exemptions from the tariffs that the president imposed on other countries last March.  

All three trading partners vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs on the US in return. The Wall Street Journal reports that the European Union has prepared a list of $7.5 billion worth of US exports that could begin to be subject to increased tariffs on June 20. Mexico said that it will target US products “up to an amount comparable to the level of damage” that US tariffs inflict on Mexican exports. Canada did not make a specific statement, but had previously vowed to retaliate if the Trump Administration imposed new tariffs.

Canada and Mexico are parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the US, which eliminated tariffs on much trade between the three countries. They were exempted from the earlier tariffs as negotiations to revise NAFTA proceeded. It is uncertain how the new tariffs will affect the trade pact.

“Those talks have been taking longer than we had hoped,” Secretary Ross told reporters.

The EU also had a temporary exemption as trade representatives tried to reach a permanent agreement. “We continue to be quite willing and indeed eager to have further discussions with all of those parties,” Ross said.

Additional tariffs on China are slated to go into effect next month. The Trump Administration called a truce to the Chinese trade war in May, but then announced it would proceed with the tariffs. The Chinese government has also vowed to retaliate.

The new tariffs on Canada, Mexico and Europe have the potential to be much more damaging to the US economy than the previous round of tariffs. Canada and Mexico rank first and third respectively in steel exports to the US. The two countries send more steel to the US than the rest of the top five countries combined.

Canada and Mexico also rank second and third, just behind China, as America’s top trading partners. Four European countries, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, are also among the top ten trading partners.

The trade war is already expanding beyond the steel and aluminum industries that Trump originally set out to protect. The Washington Post reports that European retaliatory tariffs include products as varied as Kentucky bourbon and Harley Davidson motorcycles. Mexican duties will be imposed US pork bellies, blueberries, apples, grapes, cheeses and steel.

If the tariffs go into effect, the result could be a slowing economy in the months prior to the midterm elections. This could give Democrats a desperately needed issue with which to attack Republicans. If trade becomes an issue in the election with Democrats embracing free trade and Republicans defending big government tariffs, politics will have officially turned upside-down.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trey Gowdy Blows Up 'Spygate'

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) just undercut President Trump’s claims about “Spygate.” The fiery former prosecutor from South Carolina responded to the president’s accusations of illegal spying on his campaign by saying that the FBI has an “obligation” to follow leads.

“When the FBI comes into contact with information about what a foreign government may be doing in our election cycle, I think they have an obligation to run it out,” Rep. Gowdy said as he discussed President Trump’s accusations about improper conduct by the FBI on CBS News on Wednesday.

“Based on what I have seen, I don't know what the FBI could have done or should have done other than run out a lead that someone loosely connected with the campaign was making assertions about Russia,” Gowdy continued. “I would think you would want the FBI to find out whether there was any validity to what those people were saying.”

Gowdy, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, was one of the congressional leaders briefed by the Department of Justice on the surveillance of Trump campaign associates last week. After the briefing, Gowdy says he is confident that Russia was the target of the investigation and not the Trump campaign itself.

“I think the FBI, if they were at the table this morning, they would tell you that Russia was the target and Russia's intentions toward our country were the target,” Gowdy said. “The fact that two people who were loosely connected to the Trump campaign may have been involved doesn't diminish the fact that Russia was the target and not the campaign.”

In response to a question, Gowdy said that he doesn’t know why President Trump persists in using the term “spy” to describe the FBI informant. In his role as a prosecutor working with law enforcement, Gowdy said that he had never heard the word “spy” used to describe an informant.

“Under cover, informant, confidential informant, those are all words I'm familiar with, I've never heard the term spy used,” Gowdy said.

Rep. Gowdy said that he doesn’t believe that President Trump has enough information about the investigation to understand the true aim of the probe. “I think his lawyers have an obligation to share with him what Devin [Nunes] and Paul [Ryan] and I saw last week,” Gowdy said. “I'm convinced when he sees it, he's going to say, 'you know what, that's what I told [James] Comey I wanted the FBI to do.”

Gowdy said he believes that the president should agree to testify before Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, saying, “He didn't collude with Russia, he doesn't know anything about it, and if anyone in his campaign did, he wants the public to know it, I think that's what he ought to tell Mueller.”

Gowdy also criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia probe. “If I picked someone to be the country’s chief law enforcement officer and they told me later, ‘oh, by the way, I’m not going to able to participate in the most important case in the office,’ I would be frustrated too,” Gowdy said. President Trump immediately used Gowdy’s comment to attack Sessions.

So far, none of the congressional leaders briefed by the DOJ have backed President Trump’s claims that the FBI acted improperly. It is undisputed that the FBI investigated members of the Trump campaign, the questions are whether there was probable cause for them to do so and whether the surveillance was political in nature rather than a legitimate counterintelligence investigation. To date, the president has not supplied evidence that the surveillance was scandalous rather than necessary.

Claims that the FBI investigation were used to undermine the Trump campaign seem implausible. Even though the Steele dossier was investigated in the summer of 2016, it was not public knowledge until after the election was over. Where the FBI did intervene to affect the election, Comey’s October memo to Congress, it was to Donald Trump’s benefit.

President Trump has a duty to clarify his accusations against the FBI and the Department of Justice. If he has evidence of improper conduct, he should come forward with it. If he cannot provide evidence, he should stop publicly attacking and undermining America’s top law enforcement agency.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Puerto Rico Hurricane Deaths Undercounted By Thousands

It turns out the rumors of a massive loss of life in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria were true. A new study by Harvard University estimates that the official estimate does not count thousands of people who were killed during and after the storm, which hit the island on September 20 of last year.

The new study is not definitive, but it raises serious questions about the accuracy of the official numbers published by the government of Puerto Rice which puts the death toll at 64. Other organizations previously estimated that as many as 1,000 people died as a result of the storm, but the Harvard study puts the estimate much higher at 4,645.

The Harvard study used statistical analysis to arrive at its conclusion. Researchers visited 3,299 household on the island and asked residents several survey questions.

“Statistically, it's like having interviewed the whole island,” Domingo Marqués, one of the report’s authors told CNN.

The survey included questions about deaths in the household, whether related or not to the storm. The researchers then compared the survey data to 2016 mortality data from the island to arrive at an estimate of how many deaths were related to the storm.

The statistical analysis showed that between 793 to 8,498 people died during the storm or in the unsafe conditions that lingered for months afterward. The number cited in the report, 4,645, is the average between the two extremes. While the range of possible deaths is extremely large, even the low end of the range is more than 17 times larger than the official estimate. The exact death toll will never be known.

“The lack of electricity and basic services meant that people couldn't get the help they needed for a long time after the storm," Christy Delafield, a spokeswoman for relief agency Mercy Corps told USA Today. "The elderly, people with health problems and the very young were at particular risk.”

The government of Puerto Rico is not disputing the higher estimated death toll. In a press release, Carlos R. Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, said, “The Government of Puerto Rico welcomes the newly released Harvard University survey and we look forward to analyzing it.”

Hector Pesquera, head of Puerto Rico's public safety department, said at a press conference that the island’s government did not have a reason to question the Harvard statistics. A George Washington University study on the death toll commissioned by the government is still forthcoming.

The Harvard report also faulted both the federal government and the territorial governments for an inadequate response to the hurricane. A post-hurricane analysis of the FEMA response plan found that they agency did not anticipate the extent of damage and overestimated the ability of local and territorial agencies to respond.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told USA Today, “We have been supportive of Gov. Rosello's efforts to ensure full accounting and transparency, and those who have suffered from this tragedy deserve nothing less.”

Sanders pointed out that the relief effort was the largest FEMA disaster response in history. At its height, more than 19,000 workers from 80 agencies were on the ground in Puerto Rico.

Bonnie Castillo, executive director of National Nurse United, said the higher estimate matched what volunteer nurses reported on the ground. “Our volunteer RNs came back to the U.S. and said again and again, ‘The people of Puerto Rico are dying. Do something!'” she said.

Castillo said that returning nurses told of people “left to die” and that the government relief effort had “failed its own American citizens.” Whether the failure was the result of incompetence or inability to imagine the devastation that a storm like Hurricane Maria could wreak, for the people of Puerto Rico, the result was the same.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why North Korea Won't Disarm

It appears that the on-again/off-again summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will actually happen. As the world watches, hopes are high for peace on the Korean Peninsula, but it is unlikely that the North Koreans will disarm. Here’s why.

North Korea has a long history of scamming American presidents. Since the North Korean nuclear age began, the country has had several rounds of peace talks – and made several deals – with several presidents. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a deal in which the US and its allies provided the North with $4 billion in energy aid, including two nuclear reactors that could not manufacture weapons-grade material. In exchange, North Korea was supposed to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Instead, North Korea announced in 2002 that it had nuclear weapons. President Bush, who had called North Korea a part of the “Axis of Evil,” removed North Korea from the state terror list in order to advance the Six Party Talks, which also included South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. The group came to an agreement in which Pyongyang agreed to give up its nuclear program in exchange for food and energy aid.

Instead, the North Koreans announced in 1996 that they had exploded a nuclear weapon. The Obama Administration applied sanctions in coordination with the UN Security Council. In 2012, Kim Jong Un agreed to halt nuclear tests in exchange for more aid, but the North continued to test both nuclear weapons and missiles.

For more than 20 years, North Korea’s modus operandi has been to rattle its saber and extort aid from the West and East Asian democracies. Over the past two years, they tried the same thing with Donald Trump. To his credit, President Trump did not fall for this tired North Korean gambit.

When President Trump responded to North Korea’s saber rattling with saber rattling of his own, Kim Jong Un proved that he is a rational actor rather than a crazy person. Instead of continuing to escalate the situation, Kim backed off.

This doesn’t mean that Kim Jong Un is willing to bargain away North Korea’s nuclear weapons. It just means that he has shifted tactics. He is no longer playing the unhinged warmonger. Instead Kim is now using flattery and, if Donald Trump’s past behavior is any indication, flattery will get you everywhere. In the past, Trump has shown that he is eager to hit back when attacked, but he is equally eager to return flattery when complimented.

President Trump may also have benefitted from a good timing. The Wall Street Journal reported in April, about the same time that Kim Jong Un’s détente began, that the North Korean nuclear testing site was unusable. The underground testing site collapsed after the last nuclear test there in September 2017, a large explosion that is suspected to have been a hydrogen bomb. It was after this test that Kim announced a halt to nuclear tests. On May 24, the North Koreans destroyed the tunnels to the already-useless nuclear test site, possibly to prevent the release of radioactive material as well as for public relations purposes.

So far, Kim Jong Un has made three concessions. The first was to stop nuclear testing, which Kim said was now unnecessary because the North’s nuclear capability had been “verified.” At the same time, the North suspended long-range missile tests. North Korea would have probably had to suspend testing anyway until a new facility could be constructed. The third concession was the release of three Americans held prisoner in North Korea. It is worth noting that similar promises have been made to previous presidents.

In contrast, Kim Jong Un has already extracted several concessions from President Trump. The first is Trump’s agreement to bilateral talks. In the past, it has been American policy to conduct Six Party talks with all the regional powers rather than bowing to North Korean demands for direct talks. President Trump also agreed to the North Korean summit." without preconditions, something that past Republicans such as John McCain and Mitt Romney sharply criticized President Obama for considering.

President Trump also canceled a B-52 Stratofortress training mission over South Korea  in May after North Korea threatened to withdraw from the summit. Trump previously agreed to postpone another exercise last January in order to “de-conflict the Olympics.”

In the final analysis, Kim Jong Un is willing to meet with President Trump because it offers him prestige and the opportunity to wheedle more concessions out of the US. What Kim won’t do is put North Korean nuclear weapons on the table.

The North Korean regime has one overriding goal and that is survival. The Kim family has survived 70 years of antagonism with the US for two reasons. First, they have the protection of China and, second, the have nuclear weapons. The North Koreans will maintain their nuclear arsenal as a hedge against the possibility that China will sell them out.

The North Koreans have watched several dictators topple over the past 50 years. The Taliban fell in 2002. Saddam Hussein in 2003. Before that there was Manuel Noriega. Kim probably learned a compelling lesson from the case of Muammar Gaddafi, who voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003 and then was killed with his sons less than 10 years later at the hands of rebels backed by European armies. Kim presumably wants to avoid this fate and knows that his nuclear weapons are the biggest obstacle to regime change on the Korean Peninsula.

“What Kim is unclear about is that he has concerns about whether his country can surely trust the United States over its promise to end hostile relations (with North Korea) and provide a security guarantee if they do denuclearization,” South Korean President Moon told ABC News.

Kim has obviously watched President Trump’s numerous flip-flops over the past few years as well as the unfolding rejection of President Obama’s Iran deal. Going back further, President Obama did not honor the security agreement with Ukraine during Vladimir Putin’s invasion. The North Koreans certainly understand that a deal made with one US president may not be honored by the next. Given the national paranoia and the long history of hostility between the two countries, the chances are extremely remote that Kim Jong Un would agree to nuclear disarmament, which would put his regime at the mercy of presidential whims.  

It hasn’t helped that the Trump Administration has openly likened North Korea to Libya. Vice President Mike Pence said, “This will only end like the Libyan model ended if Kim Jong Un doesn't make a deal,” a statement which Kim would obviously interpret as a threat.

Kim Jong Un is caught between a rock and a hard place. He cannot disarm and his threats no longer work. Without nuclear weapons, he cannot keep the world at bay and continue to prop up his regime. Without aid from other countries, his grasp on the country could also become weaker as he struggles to feed North Korea’s population.

With two untenable options, Kim’s plan is to change strategy and use flattery to extract promises of aid from President Trump. It may take years, but, after the summit is over, look for North Korea to restart its nuclear program and missile testing once the heat dies down.

Originally published on The Resurgent

CIA: North Korea More Likely To Open McDonald's Than Give Up Nukes

Since President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un opened the possibility of holding a summit, there has been much speculation as to whether the North Koreans would be willing to give up their nuclear weapons. A newly revealed CIA assessment reportedly shows that the agency considers it unlikely that the hermit kingdom will hand over its nukes, but did suggest the possibility of a surprising concession to President Trump.

The CIA assessment, reported by NBC News and sourced to three US officials, detailed the agency’s belief that North Korea would not voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons any time soon. The CIA did conclude that Kim is interested in a peaceful overture toward President Trump. The report concluded that the North Koreans might be willing to open a McDonald’s hamburger franchise in their capitol city of Pyongyang, citing Donald Trump’s affinity for the fast food chain.

In 2016, Trump said that he would welcome Kim Jong Un to the United States, but that he would not offer him a state dinner. “We should be eating a hamburger on a conference table, and we should make better deals with China and others and forget the state dinners,” Trump said at the time.

The intelligence report contradicted recent statements by President Trump. In an April 22 tweet, the president said that the North Koreans had “agreed to denuclearization.” The president’s tweet may have been based on another NBC News report detailing South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s claim that the North had agreed to “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula without conditions.

Since Moon’s statement in April, there has been no further news of North Korean concessions. The summit was canceled by President Trump, but now appears to be on again. CNN reported this morning that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, is flying to New York to assist in preparations for the summit. Vice Chairman Kim is the highest ranking North Korean to visit the United States since 2000.

The Trump Administration has not commented on the CIA assessment, but an early morning tweet by President Trump seemed optimistic that that a meeting between the two leaders would go forward. There was no comment on the possibility of a McDonald’s in North Korea in lieu of denuclearization.

Although North Korea is frequently racked by famines and starvation, settling for Big Macs instead of denuclearization would seem to be a disappointment. In the opinion of this writer, if the North Koreans offer the expansion of a corporate franchise as a concession, President Trump should hold out for permission to build a Trump Hotel, Casino and Golf Course in Pyongyang.

Originally published on The Resurgent