Have We Reached The Tipping Point Vis A Vis The Mass Media? What If Mexico Collapses? Trump and Trade-Don't Despair. History Lesson. Allen and Melania!

There comes a time when Americans reach a "Tipping Point."  We are a generous people, often slow to react but when we do, we do so convincingly. The mass media have betrayed their responsibility as our nation's ombudsman, as faithful reporters in pursuit of facts and the courage of protecting our freedoms.

Trump-Haters and an assortment of political malcontents smear  FOX , but for obvious reasons,  their derision has not gained traction. (See 1 below.)

And:

What will these radicals do if Mexico collapses and turns into another Venezuela? http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/mexicos-new-leftist-president-not-threat-collapse-mexico/#.WzuX1Ta6Nug.aolmail
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What Trump seeks is no tariffs.  Do not count him out simply because the initial knee jerk reaction is what it has been because when you take candy from children they become petulant, stamp their feet and cry.  European and Asian leadership is no different.

If we make what others want and need they will negotiate and if they steal our technology they need to be taught a lesson.

If your next door neighbor always stole their tools I assume you would eventually quit lending them.(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friend and fellow memo reader, Allen West, opens the window so you can get a peek of what lefties really  want. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A walk down history lane. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One day maybe those angry Americans will look back and realize how shameful they were  to attack our elegant First Lady because she married someone they could not abide. (See posting above and  5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Fake News Network Reaches New Low

 True Daily Staff

CNN has reached a new embarrassingly low ratings. The Daily Caller reports:

Fox News marked its 66th consecutive quarter as the most-watched cable television network as rival CNN failed to top even Home and Garden Network and the Discovery Channel.

According to Nielsen Media Research’s ratings for the second quarter of 2018, Fox finished number one in both total day and primetime viewers. The network averaged 1,409,000 million in total viewers and 2,447,000 in primetime viewers and claimed 10 of the top 15 shows in total viewers.

“Hannity” was the most-watched cable news program with 3,368,000 average viewers, besting the 2,752,000 average viewers for MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show.”

MSNBC finished second in total viewers behind Fox and third in primetime behind Fox and TNT, which received a major boost from the NBA playoffs.

CNN’s fake news has destroyed its reputation with conservatives, but even liberals are switching to other news channels.

_____________________________________

2)Trump's trade critics are wrong -- His tariffs could bring major benefits to America

I happen to agree with this and in particular the comments on China They have been stealing our technology for years

As President Trump prepares to head to a summit with NATO allies in Belgium July 11 and another summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Finland July 16, he’s drawing criticism from Democrats, some Republicans and many foreign governments for imposing tariffs on imported goods.

The president’s critics accuse him of recklessly starting a trade war that will be bad for America and the global economy. They couldn’t be more wrong – and here’s why.

President Trump imposed 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports and 25 percent tariffs on steel imports in June and has threatened to impose tariffs on autos and other products. In retaliation, Canada imposed $12.6 billion in tariffs on a broad range of U.S. products Sunday, joining other nations – including China, Mexico, and European countries – that have slapped retaliatory tariffs on goods imported from the U.S.

It’s understandable that our foreign trading partners are upset by President Trump’s trade actions – they had good deals going before he took office, with many racking up many billions of dollars in trade surpluses with the U.S. each year.

The better and fairer trade deals the president wants to negotiate are designed to level the playing field on trade. This will benefit the U.S. because the current playing field is distinctly tilted in favor of our trading partners.

President Trump’s actions on trade shouldn’t surprise anyone who followed his 2016 presidential campaign. Again and again as he crisscrossed the U.S., the author of “The Art of the Deal” told crowds and the media that negotiating better trade deals was a key part of his Make America Great Again agenda.

While all Americans have benefitted from imported low-priced products, the costs in lost jobs and reduced incomes have primarily fallen on America’s working class. They noticed. They heard candidate Trump’s trade message and elected a president who promised to use his negotiating skills to improve the trade dynamic.

Discussing presidential candidate Trump’s pledge to negotiate better trade deals during the presidential campaign, President Obama asked: “How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

Changing times require changing policies. Just because America’s trade practices made sense decades ago does not mean these same trade practices make sense in the 21st century.  

President Trump has since explained what “magic wand” he will use. But it’s not magic at all. It’s smart negotiating. In simplified terms, here’s how it works:

With a trade deficit over $500 billion running in their favor, we need to create incentives for our trading partners to renegotiate our current relationships. That’s because nations – like people – rarely give up economic benefits they’ve grown used to having simply because doing so would be fair. They operate in their self-interest.

However, given this current trade imbalance, our trading partners have more to lose from reduced trade than we do. Using the potential of fairer and more balanced – but still lucrative – trade relationships as the carrot and economically punitive tariffs as the stick isn’t a magic wand. However, it could be a very effective approach in the hands of a skilled negotiator willing to do what it takes to convince our trading partners that we are serious – but open to negotiation.

When considering trade policy, it is important to recognize the difference between using tariffs to tilt the international playing field in favor of American businesses and using them as a negotiating tool.

The U.S. objective in such negotiations would be to level a playing field tilted against American businesses, prevent a flood of foreign products designed to destroy American industrial sectors from pouring into our country, and protect our crown jewels of technology.

Like President Trump, I am a strong believer that more trade is better than less trade – assuming balanced and reciprocal trade relationships. But, with all due respect for the benefits of free trade, it isn’t truly free if it isn’t truly fair.

Times have changed, and the playing field needs to change with them. Looking back at history can help us understand the situation America faces now on trade.

Following the horrible devastation of World War II, the United States was the only economic power on Earth with undamaged industrial and agricultural sectors. To rebuild the world economy, the U.S. worked to reduce trade barriers and spread free-market capitalism.

At the same time, our trading partners imposed high trade barriers on certain products, while we allowed their goods to flow more freely into the U.S.

While socialist governments in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China restrained worldwide economic growth during the Cold War, the capitalist economies in Western Europe and Japan rapidly thrived. But following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 and China’s transition from pure socialism to a limited form of free market capitalism in the 1990s, the world economy soared.

Since 1995, the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have published an annual Index of Economic Freedom. According to the 2018 edition, with rising economic freedom, including trade freedom, “by a great many measures, the past two decades have been the most prosperous in the history of human kind.” Over this period, “world GDP (gross domestic product) has nearly doubled” cutting “the global poverty rate by two-thirds.”

This unprecedented growth dramatically improved the economic condition of America’s trading partners. According to the World Bank, as a region, North America now accounts for about 27 percent of the world’s overall GDP of $87.5 trillion. The U.S., as the world’s largest economy, is responsible for just over 23 percent. However, Asia accounts for 36 percent, with China at about 16 percent and Japan at about 6 percent. Europe accounts for 26 percent.

The economic fortunes of our trading partners have clearly recovered. Our trade policy needs to recognize this indisputable fact.

In fact, looking forward, a study by the private services firm PwC projects that by 2050, China will be world’s largest economy, India will be second and the United States will drop to third, with fourth place going to Indonesia. This would be a dramatic drop from our traditional position as the world richest economy.

Changing times require changing policies. Just because America’s trade practices made sense decades ago does not mean these same trade practices make sense in the 21stcentury.  

We have moved beyond the post-World War II and Cold War period when America’s economic dominance was unchallenged and trade concessions were essential to worldwide economic growth. While our trading partners’ economies have meaningfully improved, America’s approach to trade failed to adjust, leading to increasingly large trade deficits.

For example, the U.S. imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on car imports. But American car manufacturers must pay a 10 percent tariff to sell their cars in Europe – four times higher than Europeans must pay to sell their cars in the U.S. This helps explain why German manufacturers sell three cars in America for every car we sell in Germany. It also helps explain why our trade in goods deficit with Germany was $64 billion in 2017.

Japan’s protectionist trade barriers are so restrictive that in 1989 the Reagan administration labeled Japan an unfair trading partner. Today those protectionist policies largely remain in place. As a result, Japanese car manufacturers sell 100 cars in the U.S. for every car we sell in Japan. Our trade deficit in goods with Japan stood at $49 billion in 1989. It jumped to $69 billion in 2017.

While China is not as yet a major auto exporting nation, since 2008 it has manufactured more cars annually than any other nation. It primarily sells those cars inexpensively within China, while imposing a 25 percent tariff on American cars imported into the country.

Although it has been a member of the World Trade Organization since 2001, China nonetheless continues to engage in predatory trade practices and intellectual property theft. In 2001, our trade in goods deficit with China was $83 billion. In 2017, it was a staggering $376 billion.

While the U.S. has its own protectionist tariffs (for example, a 25 percent tariff on imported trucks), our competitors generally have higher tariff and non-tariff trade barriers than we do. And in some cases, our foreign competitors benefit from much cheaper labor costs and other lower operating costs because of lax regulation and state subsidized industries.

As a result, America’s total annual trade deficit in goods with countries around the world was $810 billion in 2017. Even including services (where we have a trade surplus of over $200 billion), our trade deficit has ballooned to $568 billion. We should at least consider the possibility that it’s time to level the playing field.

President Trump has done what any president should do – he’s made it clear that America will not allow the unfair trade practices that have led to enormous trade deficits to continue.

No one can say for certain what the outcome of President Trump’s tariffs and other trade policies will be. But it’s in America’s interest for the president to do his best to eliminate trade barriers, level the playing field and shrink our trade deficit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)

Allen West: What Is It That the Progressive, Socialist Left Really Wants?

I remember in 2000 when actor Mel Gibson decided to step out of the genre of strong man roles, such as William Wallace of “Braveheart.” He did a movie called “What Women Want.” I must admit, it was a rather fun, comical, and different side of Mel Gibson. He played an advertisement/marketing agent who by way of a strange accident, was able to read the minds of women. Now, what man would not want that blessing, or it could be a curse, as Gibson found out? That film came to mind as I watched last week’s incessant on-camera apoplectic meltdown of the progressive, socialist left.

Of course, many of you, myself included, looked upon these different irrational outbursts singularly. Then I asked myself: What is it that the left really wants?

Let’s begin with this over the top hyperbolic reaction to the knowledge about illegal immigrant separations. I seem to not recall such mania when during the Obama administration cages and foil blankets were being used. This situation has been noted and is being rectified by the Trump administration, which issued an Executive Order. However, as one Rahm Emanuel stated, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The left has become like an overly exuberant doggie that cannot let go of the bone. So now we have what was once considered a “fringe” position being touted by many leftist political leaders – “Abolish ICE” (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). As well, this past weekend, the left did what they do best: emotional ranting and protests for no real or apparent reason. Someone on the leftist side blew the metaphysical doggie whistle, and they all started barking and howling at the moon.

But what is it that the left really wants? Are we to believe now the left wants no enforcement of our immigration laws? Can it be that they truly do not embrace the ideal of America as a sovereign nation with borders to protect? Does the progressive, socialist left in America now “feel” that America is just an open store, and anyone can enter and shop, while others pay the bill?

I found it rather perplexing to listen to interviews on various news stations where it seems that these protesters just think that if you do not like your own country, just come here. This is a dangerous concept. The left is saying they are not for open borders, but the abolishment of said borders. If they indeed want to abolish ICE, they seek to abolish our borders. By suggesting that they don’t want enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws, the left is signaling what they really want – the end of America as a nation.

Speaking of laws, our Constitution states that a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. I have some different perspectives on that. The one thing, however, that tends to disrupt that constitutional directive is that we as humans are finite, and so are our cognizant abilities. Our minds and bodies fail, and therefore, the ability to make proper judgements, or in the case of one Supreme Court justice, to stay awake during a State of the Union address wane. And so it was that last week Justice Anthony Kennedy decided to step down from the Supreme Court in order to enjoy his life. But no, that cannot be the case, nor is it in any way acceptable to the progressive, socialist left. As a matter of fact, last week, the left went manic over several SCOTUS rulings to include upholding the temporary travel injunction against countries on the terror watch list and the end of mandated union dues for government employees. Then this trifecta of disaster decision hit them, and they did not take it well at all. It has become so absurd that we even have Democrat Senators demanding a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Justice Kennedy’s retirement. Yes, the Senate Democrats want a hearing because a Supreme Court Justice wants to retire. Anyone ever heard of such a thing? During Barack Obama’s tenure as President, he appointed two Justices to the bench, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Yes, these are two very far left, liberal, progressive justices, but hey, that was his prerogative. Now, for some odd reason, President Donald Trump does not have that same constitutional prerogative?

I mean, you have the left ranting about blocking Supreme Court nominations, and yes, that also includes a progressive Republican Senator, Susan Collins. What does the left really want in this case? They want judicial control. If the left cannot mandate via legislative or executive means, they will advance their ideological agenda by way of judicial activism. It is abhorrent to the left to believe that they may not be controlling the Supreme Court. And what is the doggie whistle they are using in this matter? You guessed it: Roe v. Wade. I guess it is perfectly fine with the left in America that since that decision, some 17-18M black babies have been murdered in the womb – talk about family separation. I do believe Roe v. Wade should be reexamined because I do not agree with killing unborn babies as a means of birth control, nor can I reconcile myself to accepting it as a right to take the life of our most innocent and vulnerable.

But understand, this mania from the left has nothing to do with our Constitution and its processes. It has everything to do with one of the critical pillars of support for leftist, socialist advancement in America: the court – the others being schools and the media. What does the left really want? They want control of the American court system.

Last week we saw what the Democratic party – now the leftist, socialist party of America – really wants, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young, charismatic 28-year old professed Democratic Socialist who touts every single failed progressive, socialist idea known to man as her platform. The left in America wants more protests, more resistance, more intimidation/violence (as we saw Antifa clash with conservatives in Oregon). What the left wants is ideological domination. Sadly, this cannot be attained by way of intellectual discourse, civility, and open debate because, as in Venezuela, all they embrace is and has been unsuccessful. Therefore, the progressive, socialist left in America, aided by a very unobjective liberal media fourth estate, pushes the emotional, irrational, and unreasonable approach as a means to their end.

What does the progressive, socialist left in America want? They want zero opposition.

Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center to support its mission to expose and neutralize liberal media bias.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE- as ratified July 4, 1776

Introduction Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.	In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Preamble Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[80]	"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Indictment A bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties.[80]	"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. "He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. "He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people. "He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging Waragainst us. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. "He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Denunciation This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[80]	"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Conclusion The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.	"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Signatures The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents (Benjamin Harrison) were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin(age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[81]	New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward Jr., Thomas Lynch Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5) Melania's Surprise Visit Staying under the radar of the press is something that First Lady Melania strives to accomplish. Recently, she did it again, traveling Tuesday to visit wounded soldiers and their families. According to The Daily Caller: Melania Trump made a surprise visit Tuesday to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to visit injured service members and their families. “@FLOTUS has just arrived to @WRBethesda for an unannounced visit to combat-injured service members & their families,” the first lady’s spokesperson Stephanie Grisham tweeted. “This administration will never stop supporting our men & women in uniform & the families who love them,” she added. “Thank you!!!” Trump underwent kidney surgery at the medical center in May for a benign embolism and missed President Donald Trump’s trip to Singapore for the historic meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong-un and the G-7 summit in Canada. Another act of kindness and compassion by the first lady in which she wants none of the attention. ++++++++++++++++++++++