Florida Gov. Rick Scott Cartoons

The U.S. is Making ‘Zero Concessions’ Before Talks with North Korea, According to the White House

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks to the media during the daily briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, Friday, March 9, 2018.

The White House says North Korea must take “concrete and verifiable” steps before President Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un.
During Friday’s briefing, Sarah Sanders said a time and place have not yet been determined for the meeting, and the president is hopeful the U.S. can make continued progress.
She also said the U.S. will make “zero concessions” before talks.
Sanders announced the president’s pardon of Kristian Saucier, who was sentenced to one year in prison for taking pictures inside a nuclear submarine.
The case was a major talking point during the 2016 elections as the president said Saucier was ruined for doing nothing compared to Hillary Clinton.

Trump's North Korea meeting sure beats a military attack

If President Trump goes ahead with announced plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, he would open the door to potentially solving our nuclear dispute with the Communist nation short of war. This is a far better course that listening to the calls from some to give up on diplomacy and use military force against the North.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, for example, recently put forth an argument – echoed by a number of establishment foreign policy members – that America was legally justified in conducting a preventive military strike on North Korea.

But the case that a military attack on the North is necessary and would be effective is both flawed and wrong. Such a drastic and costly course of action should only be taken as an absolute last resort to forestall an imminent attack by North Korea.
Bolton claimed that those who oppose striking in the absence of a North Korean attack “argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an ‘imminent threat.’ They are wrong. The threat is imminent.”
Bolton added that the U.S. “should not wait until the very last minute.” Otherwise, he continued, we “risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.”
If such a U.S. strike were ordered, it would have catastrophic consequences for us. Far from ensuring our safety, it would impose egregious levels of casualties on U.S. forces and American civilians, and harm – not help – our security and our prosperity.
Also critical is the fact that only Congress can authorize such a strike. Subsection 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 expressly limits the president’s ability to use military force abroad under only three conditions: First, when Congress has declared war; second, when Congress has specifically authorized such action; or third, during a national emergency “created by (an) attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
There is nothing in the law that authorizes the president to use lethal military force against an adversary merely because it possess a capability to attack us. Absent an actual or imminent attack, such use would violate U.S. and international law.
Though the Constitution prevents the president from taking such unlawful actions, there is also a very practical reason for refusing to do so: It isn’t necessary to keep us safe.
David Kang, a North Korea expert and professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, argues that – contrary to some alarmist claims –  the North Korean regime isn’t “crazy,” but is in fact very predictable.
“There are exactly zero examples of a time North Korea caved in to pressure,” he wrote in The Washington Post. “North Korea won’t attack first,” he continued, “because to do so would be regime suicide. But it will fight back if attacked.”
Moreover, should the U.S. launch a war on the Korean Peninsula, the cost to the troops would be astronomically high.
As The New York Times reported: “Roughly 10,000 Americans could be wounded” or killed in combat “in the opening days alone.”
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley added: “The brutality of this will be beyond the experience of any living soldier.”
It is important to recognize what should be the core objective of U.S. policy on North Korea: to use the most efficient and effective means possible to ensure the North never uses its nuclear weapons.
While a war might eventually eliminate the North Korean military threat, the cost in lives of doing so could be measured in the millions.

Nuclear weapons might be used against American citizens, and egregious damage would be done to the Asian economy, which would have a direct and negative effect on the United States.
Such casualties need never be suffered, however. There are far superior ways to ensure America’s core interests are protected short of preventive military strikes leading to war.
“Deterrence has worked for 65 years, and it can continue to do so indefinitely,” Kang explains. Evidence and logic strongly endorse his analysis. President Trump’s diplomatic opening is a move in the right direction and immediately lowers the danger of war.
Much work remains. Kim has worked for many years to reach the stage where he has an operational missile that can reach the U.S. mainland. He will not give up his only domestic deterrence cheaply and will almost certainly make major demands of the U.S.
Talks are a great beginning but reaching the goal of denuclearization will likely take a lot of painful back-and-forth negotiations. Kim must eventually take concrete, verifiable action to prove his intentions. President Trump is not likely to repeat diplomatic mistakes of the past and will require tangible evidence of compliance.
President Trump has been right to resist those advocating the use of military force to solve the North Korean crisis. Time will tell if Kim is sincere in his claim to work towards full denuclearization. But as has been the case for the past 65 years, even during negotiations, deterrence will continue to keep America safe.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments and an assignment as an adviser to the South Korean Army. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

President Trump to talk tax cuts, economy at Boeing in St. Louis

President Trump is expected to visit St. Louis to discuss the benefits of his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on Wednesday.

After negotiating a savings of more than $1 billion on the order for the next Air Force One, President Donald Trump will visit a Boeing plant during a visit to Missouri next week.
Wednesday's scheduled trip will be his third to the Show Me State since taking office — and first since passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

This is what #taxreform means to Missourians ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/oUKME9Cf5P

— Senator Roy Blunt (@RoyBlunt) March 1, 2018

At Boeing’s St. Louis plant Trump is expected to talk taxes during what the White House described as a “roundtable discussion” focusing on the projected benefits of the tax bill, which the president signed into law in December, the newspaper reported.
According to Friday’s jobs report, U.S. employers added 313,000 jobs in February, more than forecast, and saw moderate wage growth and continued low unemployment.
Trump’s trip to the Boeing facility follows an informal agreement between the two parties on a fixed contract for the new Air Force One program.
“Thanks to the president’s negotiations, the contract will save the taxpayers more than $1.4 billion,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said.

Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2016

Trump had taken to Twitter in late 2016 to criticize the high cost of building the aircraft.
The new deal will be valued at $3.9 billion, down from the original estimate of more than $5 billion for two 747 jets, which will serve as presidential aircraft, and a development program.
Joining Trump in the roundtable discussion will be Missouri state Attorney General Josh Hawley and other Republicans, FOX2 St. Louis said. Hawley is vying to replace Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill in November's election.

President Trump to visit St. Louis Wednesday for economic roundtable https://t.co/K196FFOQyu pic.twitter.com/Ycj5mVuh7b

— FOX2now (@FOX2now) March 10, 2018

Hawley has also been pursuing an antitrust case against Google, and his Senate campaign can help to amplify that effort, Bloomberg reported.
Wednesday's event is billed as “invitation only,” though it will be open to media.
The president’s two previous Missouri visits were to Springfield in August and St. Charles in November while promoting his tax-reform plan, the Post-Dispatch reported.

NRA files lawsuit saying Florida gun bill approved by Gov. Scott violates 2nd Amendment

The National Rifle Association reacted Friday with a federal lawsuit after Florida lawmakers approved gun legislation that would raise the age to buy guns. The group's argument: that the proposed law violates the Second Amendment.

News of the lawsuit came just hours after Florida Gov. Rick Scott publicly went against allies in the NRA in signing a gun control bill that was drafted in response to the fatal school shooting in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14. Seventeen people were killed in that gun attack, attributed to a 19-year-old named Nokolas Cruz.

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Acton, has matainted that the bill “punished punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual."
The lawsuit is asking a federal judge to block the new age restriction from taking effect.
The bill signed by Governor Scott raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks, attachments that enable semiautomatic rifles to approximate the firing speed of fully automatic ones.  Such bump stocks were used in the recent gun massacre in Las Vegas in which several dozen people died. The bill did appeal to Republicans with the inclusion of a provision that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns, something President Trump was passionate about immediately following the Valentine's Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland.

China Steel Cartoons

Trump tariffs bring hope, plans for jobs, to struggling small towns across US -- though broader effects remain uncertain

Jason Fernandez, United Steelworkers member

The steel and aluminum tariffs that President Donald Trump formally authorized Thursday have already brought some hope -- and plans for hundreds of jobs -- to economically distressed small towns across the U.S.

The good news comes as critics and trade groups sound the alarm about the tariffs' potentially negative long-term economic effects, including the possibility of a trade war, net job losses, and higher prices for goods across the globe.

TRUMP AUTHORIZES TARIFFS, EXEMPTS CANADA AND MEXICO -- FOR NOW
Citing the prospect of fairer trade conditions, Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel announced this week that it would restart a steelmaking blast furnace next month in the small Illinois town of Granite City, the Chicago Tribune reported.
The move is reportedly expected to bring about 500 employees back to work, just two years after the company idled the plant and laid off thousands of workers.
“Our Granite City Works facility and employees, as well as the surrounding community, have suffered too long from the unending waves of unfairly traded steel products that have flooded U.S. markets,” U.S. Steel President and CEO David B. Burritt said in a statement.
In Kentucky, Century Aluminum announced that the tariffs would allow the company to hire up to 300 workers for its Hancock County smelter, WKYU in Bowling Green reported.
CALIFORNIA STEEL MAKERS SAY TRUMP'S TARIFFS WILL HURT THEM
But despite the positive news in some towns, critics say the tariffs may have negative economic consequences when they take effect in 15 days.

For many distressed cities and Towns in the U.S., President Trump's tariff plan offered some much-needed hope after years of decline.  (Associated Press)

“The threat of the tariff has increased prices already," Jim Russell, director of Utah's Division of Facilities and Construction Management, who predicts the cost of construction projects, told the Salt Lake Tribune, "and we’re trying to get our arms around what that impact will be and how we can try to mitigate it — if we even can, and I’m not sure we can.
“It’s kind of a waiting game at this time to see what we can do, because we’re not in a position to procure the steel at this point.”
In a report Monday, the pro-trade non-partisan group the Trade Partnership predicted a net loss of nearly 150,000 jobs as a result of the tariffs.

A Donald Trump supporter waves an American flag at a Trump campaign rally in Bethpage, N.Y., April 6, 2016.  (Associated Press)

The consulting group said job growth in the steel and aluminum industries will be dwarfed by job losses resulting from the increased costs of working with those resources.
But in Granite City, population 29,000, the dire predictions did not seem to dampen residents' measured enthusiasm.
“The feeling I think is more gleeful,” Jason Fernandez, a member of United Steelworkers Local 1899, told KMOV in St. Louis.

"The feeling I think is more gleeful."

“It’s going to be a wait and see just a little bit longer," Fernandez added. “But there’s a lot more encouragement coming out of the decision today than there was yesterday.”
A real estate agent and lifelong Granite City resident told the paper her feelings were less mixed.
"We’re ecstatic,” Tina Besserman told the Tribune.

Cal Thomas: Trump boldly wades into cutting federal government down to size -- will it work?

President Donald Trump gestures as he walks as he leaves the White House, Friday, Feb. 16, 2018, in Washington.  

Of all the promises candidate Donald Trump made during the 2016 presidential campaign, none will be more difficult to fulfill than cutting the size and cost of the federal government. That’s because Congress, which must decide whether to keep a federal agency, has the final word in such matters and spending – especially spending in one’s home state or district – is what keeps so many of them in office. Who doubts that self-preservation is the primary objective of most members of Congress?

Ronald Reagan made similar promises about reducing the size of the bloated federal government, but was unable to fulfill them because of congressional intransigence. Perhaps his most notable failure was attempting to eliminate the Department of Education, an unnecessary Cabinet-level agency created by Jimmy Carter, reportedly as the fulfillment of a campaign promise to the National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the United States, which backed him in the 1976 and 1980 elections. This pithy statement by Reagan got to the heart of the issue: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

President Trump has asked every federal agency to submit a reorganization plan to the White House. Some programs, like the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Biological Survey Unit (BSU), are decades old. The BSU was established in 1885, and among its tasks is the preservation of the whooping crane. Last I checked those birds seemed to be doing OK, but why is this, along with so many other things, a responsibility of the federal government?
Reorganization of these outmoded and unnecessary programs and agencies should not be the goal. Elimination should be the goal. Unless they are killed off, the risk of their return is likely.
What’s needed is a strategy that shames Congress, which sometimes seems beyond shame, for misspending the people’s money. What will help in that shaming is for the president to establish an independent commission made up of retired Republicans, Democrats and average citizens. This commission would conduct a top-to-bottom audit of the federal government and present its findings to Congress, while simultaneously releasing them to the public, which would then apply pressure on Congress to adopt them.

Congressional budget-cutters spared the $440,000 spent annually to have attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used by representatives and senators.

The commission would be modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) of the ’80s, which eliminated military bases that were no longer needed for the defense of the country. Some members of Congress complained about BRAC, but in the end they could not justify maintaining the bases.
The president might want to start with some of these ridiculous programs recently highlighted by Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose mission it is “to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in government.”
“Without authorization,” notes Schatz, “the feds spent $19.6 million annually on the International Fund for Ireland. Sounds like a noble cause, but the money went for projects like pony-trekking centers and golf videos.
“Congressional budget-cutters spared the $440,000 spent annually to have attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used by representatives and senators.
“Last year, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $4.2 million to conduct a nebulous ‘National Conversation on Pluralism and Identity.’ Obviously, talk radio wasn’t considered good enough.
“The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency channeled some $11 million to psychics who might provide special insights about various foreign threats. This was the disappointing ‘Stargate’ program.”
The list goes on and on. Go to cagw.org, read all about it and remember it’s our money paying for these boondoggles (definition: “a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation”) that helps keep our free-spending career politicians in office where they get benefits the rest of us can only dream about.
Yes, entitlements are the main drivers of debt and they, too, need reform. But starting with programs most people would find outrageous and worthy of elimination is a good way to build confidence and make the tackling of entitlements more palatable.

Tammy Bruce: California chaos -- Unchallenged liberalism leaves homelessness, drug abuse, garbage in its wake

Liberal policy failure is all around us and destroys lives every day. In California, the destruction of society and individual lives has become so overwhelming, the state’s liberal overseers now spend their time covering up where they can and normalizing the chaos as much as possible.
Since 2013, when now-liberal icon Eric Garcetti was elected mayor of Los Angeles, and the nation had just re-elected Barack Obama as president, Los Angeles’ homeless population skyrocketed 46 percent. During the Obama years, where unchallenged liberalism was pushed and accepted (wrongly) as the new normal, we saw the leftist economic menace rage through the entire nation, destroying businesses and the full-time jobs that went with them.
In California, the destruction is particularly acute. As the social structure in major cities continues to break down, the state focuses on banning plastic straws, whether to release from prison a mass murderer from the Manson family, while cheering at becoming as sanctuary state.
Just this week, the Los Angeles Times issued an editorial titled, “Los Angeles homeless crisis is a national disgrace.” Actually, it’s not — it’s a California disgrace. The editorial exemplifies the refusal of liberals to not just admit their responsibility to social destruction, but an inability to even relate to reality.
The Times editorial board chided, in part, “Today, a greater and greater proportion of people living on the streets are there because of bad luck or a series of mistakes, or because the economy forgot them — they lost a job or were evicted or fled an abusive marriage just as the housing market was growing increasingly unforgiving.”
They refer to the “economy” as though it’s a mean thing with a life of its own, and simply “forgot” people. There’s no need to consider the actual people in charge of policy and the economy. That lost job, or domestic strife, a mean housing market are all pointed at, as though they were all dropped on earth by Martians.
The other factor is, of course, the social justice issue: “All the great social issues of American society play out in homelessness — inequality, racial injustice, poverty, violence, sexism. …” Never mentioned: idiotic and incompetent liberal leadership that destroys business and jobs; regulations, waste, fraud and abuse that leave human beings on the street because the theory of socialism is all that matters.
Fox News reported that 25 percent of the nation’s half million homeless live in California, the largest of any state. Why is California in such trouble? Todd Spitzer of the Orange County (California) Board of Supervisors “blames the problem on two issues: legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown over the past several years that has eroded the penalties for drug use, possession and petty crimes to where police often don’t bother making arrests; and the change in a law so that treatment is no longer forced for drug abuse or mental health issues.”
For liberals, social chaos is their friend. They need it to prey on the emotions of others, while then using it as an argument for more government control of our lives.
As if living in those conditions is just another life choice, the ACLU tried to stop Mr. Spitzer’s effort to clean up a homeless camp of 700 people living along a riverbed next to Angels’ Stadium. He prevailed, but so dangerous was the environment, it took hazmat crews to clear out the encampment.
“Trash trucks and contractors in hazmat gear have descended on the camp and so far removed 250 tons of trash, 1,100 pounds of human waste and 5,000 hypodermic needles,” the report said.
The left has a history of working hard to hide their failure, malevolence and destruction of society. Years ago, this column brought to you the effort by San Francisco to move their homeless to an island. Now the story is about how the city spends $30 million trying to clean city streets of hypodermic needles and human feces.
“[An] Investigation reveals a dangerous mix of drug needles, garbage, and feces throughout downtown San Francisco,” reported NBC Bay Area. Their “Investigative Unit photographed nearly a dozen hypodermic needles scattered across one block, a group of preschool students happened to walk by on their way to an afternoon field trip to city hall. ‘We see poop, we see pee, we see needles, and we see trash,’ said teacher Adelita Orellana. ‘Sometimes they ask what is it, and that’s a conversation that’s a little difficult to have with a 2-year old, but we just let them know that those things are full of germs, that they are dangerous, and they should never be touched.”
Congratulations, Democrats!
As Democratic leadership tries to normalize their degradation of society, others have had to adapt. One person created the “Human Wasteland” map that, according to the Daily Caller, “charts all of the locations for human excrement ‘incidents’ reported to the San Francisco police during a given month. The interactive map shows precise locations of the incidents by marking them with poop emojis.”
Having used needles and human waste on your sidewalks isn’t just a disgusting inconvenience, it’s a deadly biological hazard and an indicator of the breakdown of civil society. So the next time a Democrat tells you they know best, laugh and let them know your family deserves better than poo maps, hazmat homeless camps, and little girls having to avoid drug needles on the sidewalk.
This column originally appeared in The Washington Times.
Tammy Bruce is a radio talk-show host, New York Times best-selling author and Fox News political contributor.

GOP lawmakers: Trump's 'strong stand' on North Korea 'starting to work'

President Donald Trump's planned meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un was met with cheers from many Republican lawmakers -- but some skepticism from others.  

South Korea's national security director Chung Eui-yong said the two world leaders agreed to meet by May. Trump tweeted: “Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!”

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., praised the president’s efforts to denuclearize North Korea, saying that it “gives us the best hope” to “peacefully” resolve escalating tensions.
While Graham acknowledged North Korea’s past as being “all talk and no action,” he warned Kim directly that “the worst possible thing you can do is meet with President Trump in person and try to play him.”
He added, “If you do that, it will be the end of you – and your regime.”
U.S. Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said the invitation showed that sanctions on North Korea were “starting to work.”
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also praised the sanctions implemented by Congress, saying that they “are having a real effect.”
However, some members of the committee remained skeptical.
U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said the “price of admission” for Trump and Kim meeting must be “complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also said that the invitation was the “beginning of a long diplomatic process” and that Trump needed to avoid “unscripted” remarks that could derail it.
Evan S. Medeiros, a former adviser in the Obama administration, warned that Kim “played” South Korean President Moon Jae-in and “is now playing Trump.”
Medeiros added, “Kim will never give up his nukes.”
The White House confirmed the Trump accepted the invitation but did not reveal and details surrounding when or where a meeting might happen.