Trump offers Iowa Gov. Brandstad ambassador to China post, sources say

President-elect Donald Trump has offered the key post of U.S. Ambassador to China to Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, two GOP sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Fox News early Wednesday.
Branstad met with Trump at Trump Tower in New York Tuesday afternoon.
When reporters asked Branstad if Trump had offered him a job following their meeting, the governor said he couldn't comment, but was proud he supported Trump and was excited about a Trump presidency and the "quality of the people that he's attracting to the Cabinet."
Trump's offer was first reported by Bloomberg.
Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence will hold a "Thank You" rally for supporters in Des Moines on Thursday. In last month's presidential election, Iowa voters backed the Republican ticket for just the second time since 1984.
Branstad, 70, was an early and staunch supporter of Trump, and his son, Eric, served as the state director for Trump's campaign in Iowa.
If Branstad accepts the role, he would assume the post at a pivotal moment in U.S-China relations, following Trump's Dec. 2 phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen.
The conversation broke nearly four decades of U.S. diplomatic protocol. Trump followed that with a series of Twitter posts over the weekend challenging China's trade and military policies.
As a presidential candidate, Trump repeatedly accused China of manipulating its currency and trying to "rape our country" with unfair trade policies.
Bloomberg reported that Branstad has a longstanding relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The pair first met in 1985, when Xi, then a provincial agricultural official, visited Iowa.
More recently, Brandstad gave a dinner for Xi in Des Moines in 2012 and has visited China four times in the past seven years.
At a campaign rally in Sioux City Nov. 6, Trump called Branstad up the stage, saying the governor "would be our prime candidate to take care of China."
Trump has pledged to be more "unpredictable" on the world stage, billing the approach as a much-needed change from President Barack Obama's deliberative style and public forecasting about U.S. policy. But Trump's unpredictability is likely to unnerve both allies and adversaries, leaving glaring questions about whether the foreign policy novice is carrying out planned strategies or acting on impulse.
China's authoritarian government likes predictability in its dealings with other nations, particularly the United States. The U.S. and China are the world's two largest economies with bilateral trade in goods and services reaching nearly $660 billion last year.
While there have been sharp differences between Beijing and Washington on China's island building in the South China Sea and over alleged Chinese cybertheft of U.S. commercial secrets, the two powers have cooperated effectively on climate change and the Iran nuclear deal.

Lame Duck Obama Cartoons

Biden says, 'I'm going to run in 2020'

:-)

Twenty-seven days after Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters he would make his third bid for the highest office in the land four years from now.
"I'm going to run in 2020," Biden, 74, told a group of reporters at the Capitol Monday evening. "So, uh, what the hell, man."
When asked if he was serious or joking, the vice president paused for about four seconds and sighed. He was then asked if he would run for president.
"Yeah, I am," Biden said. "Yeah, I am. We're going to run again."
When pressed further, Biden backed away somewhat from his statement, saying, "I'm not committing not to run. I learned a long time ago fate has a funny way of intervening."
Biden was on Capitol Hill to preside over the Senate as it cleared away procedural hurdles to a biomedical research bill he's supporting. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., got the Senate to rename a portion of the bill after the vice president's son Beau, who died of brain cancer last year.
Biden's possible entry into the 2016 presidential race was a subject of intense will-he-or-won't-he speculation. He ultimately decided last October not to challenge eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The vice president previously sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008. He suspended his first campaign in September 1987 after becoming embroiled in a series of plagiarism controversies. In 2008, Biden ended his bid for the Democratic nomination after the Iowa caucuses and later endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama.
Biden will turn 78 shortly after the 2020 election. Ronald Reagan was just a few days short of turning 78 when he left office in January 1989, making him the oldest person to serve as president.

Gingrich: Trump's phone call with Taiwan leader 'a very tough signal to Beijing'

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended President-elect Donald Trump's phone conversation with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, saying the break with decades-long diplomatic tradition was a "deliberate ... specific signal."
In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity Monday night, Gingrich favorably compared Trump's Taiwan call to President Barack Obama's visit to Cuba earlier this year.
FORMER OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SAYS TRUMP CALL WITH TAIWAN 'DIDN'T BOTHER ME'

"[Trump] accepted a phone call from the freely elected head of a democracy of 23 million people and frankly, if it’s OK for President Obama to go down and hang out with the Castro dictatorship, it ought to be OK for Donald Trump to talk to a democracy," Gingrich said.
"But he’s also sending a very tough signal to Beijing," the former Speaker continued. "This ain’t the old order, we’re not gonna let you push us around. You don’t dictate to us."
Gingrich also defended Trump's agreement with Carrier that enabled the air conditioning manufacturer to keep hundreds of jobs in Indiana, calling the president-elect a pragmatist "in the classic American sense."
"Trump is the first American president to realize that we are in a worldwide economic competition, just like the 50 states are in competition," Gingrich said. "I mean, these guys who yell 'free trade!', have they ever tried doing business in Mexico? Have they tried doing business in China? What are they talking about?
"I think these guys who are sitting around these academic centers spouting off ideology are as much out of touch with reality as left-wingers who are sitting around similar centers spouting off their version of ideology."

Pentagon reportedly buried study exposing $125 billion in waste

Senior defense officials suppressed a study documenting $125 billion worth of administrative waste at the Pentagon out of fears that Congress would use its findings to cut the defense budget, the Washington Post reported late Monday.
The report, which was issued in January 2015 by the advisory Defense Business Board (DBB), called for a series of reforms that would have saved the department $125 billion over the next five years.
Among its other findings, the report showed that the Defense Department was paying just over 1 million contractors, civilian employees and uniformed personnel to fill back-office jobs. That number nearly matches the amount of active duty troops — 1.3 million, the lowest since 1940.
The Post reported that some Pentagon leaders feared the study's findings would undermine their claims that years of budget sequestration had left the military short of money. In response, they imposed security restrictions on information used in the study and even pulled a summary report from a Pentagon website.
"They’re all complaining that they don’t have any money," former DBB chairman Robert Stein told the Post. "We proposed a way to save a ton of money."
Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who originally ordered the study, told the paper that the plan laid out in the report was "unrealistic."
"There is this meme that we’re some bloated, giant organization,” Work said. “Although there is a little bit of truth in that ... I think it vastly overstates what’s really going on."
Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook echoed Work's claim in a statement to Fox News, which said that the DBB report "had limited value" because it "lacked specific, actionable recommendations appropriate to the department."
Work claimed that some of the report's recommendations were being implemented on a smaller scale and would save an estimated $30 billion by 2020. However, the Post reported that most of the programs had been long-planned or unreleated to the Defense Business Board report.

The limits of outrage: Liberal journalists coming to grips with Trump's win, Hillary's loss

Kurtz: Are anti-Trump pundits guilty of ‘outrage porn’?

As liberal pundits struggle to come to terms with the Trump victory they never expected, some are finally pulling themselves out of denial.
They are still appalled by Donald Trump, but they are edging toward more honesty about why Hillary Clinton lost and how they need to calibrate their opposition to the next president.
I don’t think the media have gotten over the shock either. Trump continues to use disruptive tactics, and many journalists are still smacking their foreheads in the belief that “this is not how it’s supposed to be done.” It’s the same mistake they made during the campaign. Governing is much harder, of course, and some tactics can backfire, but every president brings his own style—and takes advantage of new technology.
In a kind of meta-tweet, Trump wrote yesterday: “If the press would cover me accurately & honorably, I would have far less reason to ‘tweet.’ Sadly, I don't know if that will ever happen!”
Almost everything Trump has done since the election has kept him in the news, and has riled up the left. He gets little credit for conciliatory gestures. I mean, the guy met with Al Gore yesterday and talked about finding common ground on climate change. That certainly seems like reaching out.
In the New Republic, Eric Sasson, while ripping Trump, suggests that the liberal side might want to dial it down:
“It is painfully clear that all our outrage didn’t work. And now there’s a danger of getting sucked into a vortex of what I’d like to refer to as ‘outrage porn.’”
In other words, everything shouldn’t be cranked up to 11.
“Trump’s horrific statements aren’t going to stop. He’s going to keep tweeting about every sleight and alleged offense, from Hamilton controversies to unflattering Saturday Night Live sketches to the untold thousands of protests and articles and taunts forthcoming. And he will use these incidents to cement his reputation as a political outsider with his voters. He will weaponize these reactions, holding them up as proof of just how much know-it-all elites loathe his ‘deplorable’ white base.”
The piece argues that Trump’s more entertaining tweets distract from his business conflicts and controversies, and that left-wingers have every right to be outraged about, say, his Cabinet picks:
“But shouting into an echo chamber will not amplify our voices. To the extent that our outrage forces us to stay vigilant and harness our anger to formulate a plan of resistance, it can be useful. But we must remind ourselves that the television media, especially the cable news networks, will continue to highlight the glamorous if petty squabbles like the one between Trump and Alec Baldwin, while paying almost no attention to issues of grave importance like climate change.”

I would argue that the media’s coverage of Trump, tweets and all, is getting more substantive. The journalistic uproar over his call with Taiwan’s president wound up sparking a debate about the U.S. relationship with Taiwan (which is strong, despite the polite fiction that it doesn’t really exist) and the risk of antagonizing China (whose cooperation we will need on North Korea and other geopolitical matters).
At the same time, the initial media reports fed the narrative of Trump as a foreign policy neophyte unconcerned with decades of protocol. But the Washington Post reported yesterday that pro-Taiwan Trump advisers had been working on the call for weeks.
The same goes for Trump doing a deal to save 1,000 Carrier jobs in Indiana. The press loved the symbolism, but has explored whether the tax breaks involved amount to crony capitalism and provide leverage for other companies considering moving production to foreign countries.
There also may be an evolution on the left on the reasons for Clinton’s loss. (Yes, she won over 2.5 million more popular votes, but everyone builds their campaigns to win the Electoral College.)
In the Huffington Post, which when Arianna ran it included an editor’s note eviscerating Trump as a racist in every story, Zach Carter sympathizes with the Clinton campaign, but says its “defense of its own righteousness helps explain why the election was close to begin with.”
While Trump ran a “deeply bigoted campaign,” he insists, “his dominant performance among white working-class voters wasn’t due to his campaign message alone. Much of Clinton’s poor performance resulted from her campaign’s strategic decision to not even contest the demographic. A good chunk of the Democratic Party intelligentsia applauded Clinton for taking the moral high ground, declaring the entire white working class to be a deplorable racist swamp. The notion that economic issues played literally no role ― zero ― in Trump’s appeal became a common Democratic talking point. Democrats were Good People, and anyone even considering voting for Trump was a Bad Person.”
While saying some working-class Trump fans may be bigots, the author says, “the job of a presidential candidate is to appeal to our better angels and win votes anyway…Writing off the white working class is a pretty bad way to start…All of this was obvious to the Democratic Party, which plowed ahead anyway, insisting that anyone who wasn’t on board with the first woman president was a vile sexist.”

During the campaign I argued that Hillary didn’t seem to have much of a core message other than not being the scary Donald Trump. Now her folks could point you to 25 policy planks on the economy, but to me she didn’t seem to speak to people who worked in factory or service jobs and are anxious about their future. And, of course, she blew off Michigan and Wisconsin till the very end of the campaign, assuming the states would as usual vote for the Obama party.
Media liberals who want to rebuild the Democratic Party or effectively challenge Trump need to grapple more honestly with the earthquake of 2016. Some are finally digging their way out of the rubble.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Iran vows not to let Trump destroy nuclear deal

Iran vows not to let President-elect Donald Trump to rip up its nuclear agreement that was signed with world powers, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday.
"(Trump) wants to do many things, but none of his actions would affect us ... Do you think the United States can rip up the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal)? Do you think we and our nation will let him do that?” Rouhani said in a speech at the University of Tehran.
Rouhani added, "Some man is elected in the U.S. whatever plans he has, it will be revealed later. Yes, he may desire many things. He may desire to weaken the nuclear deal. He may desire to rip up the deal. Do you suppose we will allow this?"
The Iranian leader’s remarks were the latest attempt by the country to calm concerns over the future of the deal in the wake of Trump’s election.
Trump has vowed to renegotiate the deal, possibly imperiling an agreement that has put off the immediate threat of Tehran developing atomic weapons.
On the campaign trail, Trump called the deal “catastrophic” and vowed to renegotiate it. However, Trump’s video in which he laid out his first 100 days in office mentioned nothing about the deal.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in Beijing on Monday that each of the seven world powers involved in the agreement “have the obligation to fully implement it.”
The July 2015 deal came after two years of negotiations between Iran, the United States, China, Britain, France, Germany and Russia. The agreement imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear activity in exchange for the end of wide-ranging oil, trade and financial sanctions.

More on this...

• Iran says US threatens nuclear deal, warns of 'strong reaction'

• In message to Trump, China, Iran say nuclear deal must stand

• Sen. Bob Menendez becomes second Democrat to oppose Iran nuclear deal

Meanwhile, Iran is warning President Obama not to sign an extension of sanctions, saying the bill is a violation of the landmark agreement.
The Senate on Thursday noted to extend the Iran Sanctions Act by 10 years. Rouhani told Iranian Parliament Sunday that Obama is “obliged” to let the sanctions expire.
Rouhani promised a "prompt response" from Iran if the U.S. sanctions are extended.
"We are committed to an acceptable implementation of the deal but in response to non-commitment, violation or hesitation in its implementation, we will act promptly," he said.
Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi also warned the U.S. of a “firm and strong reaction” if it persists in actions he claims are endangering the nuclear deal.

China Cartoons

Federal judge rules Michigan recount to start at noon Monday

Trump supporters file lawsuits to stop recounts

DETROIT –  Michigan must begin its presidential recount at noon Monday, a federal judge ruled in a late-night order that could make it more likely the state will complete the count ahead of next week's deadline.
In his ruling Sunday night, Judge Mark Goldsmith rejected an effort by state officials to delay the hand-counting of about 4.8 million ballots.
Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein argued that a law requiring a break of at least two business days is unconstitutional. Goldsmith found that Stein had "shown the likelihood of irreparable harm" if the count was delayed even by two days and rejected the state's arguments about the cost to taxpayers.
Republican Donald Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, or two-tenths of a percentage point, in Michigan. Stein received about 1 percent of the vote.
Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette, the Trump campaign and super PACs have filed separate lawsuits asking state courts to prevent the recount, arguing that Stein, as the fourth-place finisher, is not "aggrieved" because she has no chance of winning in a recount.

More on this...

• Exclusive: Jill Stein updates presidential recount effort

• Green Party switches strategy in Pennsylvania recount

• Trump lawyers push back against Mich. recount, blast Stein

The Green Party also wants recounts in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Stein has argued, without evidence, that irregularities in the votes in all three states suggest that there could have been tampering with the vote, perhaps through a well-coordinated, highly complex cyberattack.
Elections officials in the three states, all narrowly won by Trump, have expressed confidence in their results. Even if all three recounts happen, none were expected to give Clinton enough votes to emerge as the winner.

Ryan blasts decision to block Dakota Access pipeline route

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision Sunday to deny a government permit for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in southern North Dakota “big government decision-making at its worst.”
Ryan, R-Wis., tweeted out his displeasure hours after the decision was made. He added that he looks "forward to putting this anti-energy presidency behind us."
The decision handed a victory to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its supporters, who argued the project would threaten the tribe’s water source and cultural sites.
Ryan comments echoed the sentiments echoed by other North Dakota leaders. Gov. Jack Dalrymple called it a “serious mistake” that prolongs the dangerous situation” of having several hundred protesters who are camped out on federal land during the bitter winter season. U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer said it's a "very chilling signal" for the future of infrastructure in the United States.
The company building the pipeline, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, slammed President Obama’s administration in a statement, calling the move political.
The company said the decision was "just the latest in a series of overt and transparent political actions by an administration which has abandoned the rule of law in favor of currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency." The company reiterated its plan to complete construction of the pipeline without rerouting around Lake Oahe.
The four-state, $3.8 billion project is largely complete except for the now-blocked segment underneath Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir. Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said in a news release that her decision was based on the need to "explore alternate routes" for the pipeline's crossing. Her full decision doesn't rule out that it could cross under the reservoir or north of Bismarck.
"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Darcy said. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."
The news was met by cheers and chants of “mni wichoni” – “water is life” in Lakota Sioux. Some in the crowd banged rums. Miles Allard, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux, said he was pleased but remained cautious, saying, "We don't know what Trump is going to do."
"The whole world is watching," Allard added. "I'm telling all our people to stand up and not to leave until this is over."

• Feds block controversial Dakota Access pipeline route

• Hundreds of veterans arrive to support pipeline protesters

• Emergency officials say they won't let pipeline protesters freeze

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Sunday that the Department of Justice will "continue to monitor the situation" and stands "ready to provide resources to help all those who can play a constructive role in easing tensions."
"The safety of everyone in the area - law enforcement officers, residents and protesters alike - continues to be our foremost concern," she added.
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, whose department has done much of the policing for the protests, said that "local law enforcement does not have an opinion" on the easement and that his department will continue to "enforce the law."
U.S. Secretary for the Interior Sally Jewell said in a statement that the Corps' "thoughtful approach ... ensures that there will be an in-depth evaluation of alternative routes for the pipeline and a closer look at potential impacts."
Earlier Sunday, an organizer with Veterans Stand for Standing Rock said tribal elders had asked the military veterans not to have confrontations with law enforcement officials, adding the group is there to help out those who've dug in against the project.
About 250 veterans gathered about a mile from the main camp for a meeting with organizer Wes Clark Jr., the son of former Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark. The group had said about 2,000 veterans were coming, but it wasn't clear how many actually arrived.
"We have been asked by the elders not to do direct action," Wes Clark Jr. said. He added that the National Guard and law enforcement have armored vehicles and are armed, warning: "If we come forward, they will attack us."
Instead, he told the veterans, "If you see someone who needs help, help them out."
Authorities moved a blockade from the north end of the Backwater Bridge with the conditions that protesters stay south of it and come there only if there is a prearranged meeting. Authorities also asked protesters not to remove barriers on the bridge, which they have said was damaged in the late October conflict that led to several people being hurt, including a serious arm injury.
"That heavy presence is gone now and I really hope in this de-escalation they'll see that, and in good faith . the leadership in those camps will start squashing the violent factions," Cass County Sheriff Paul Laney said in a statement, reiterating that any violation will "will result in their arrest."

After Carrier deal, Trump vows tax of 35 percent for US business going overseas

President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday that he’ll slap a 35 percent tax on U.S. companies that move jobs or operations to other countries -- days after announcing a controversial deal with Carrier to keep roughly 1,100 manufacturing jobs in the United States.
Trump, a prolific tweeter with about 15 million followers, needed six posts, each limited to 140 characters, to get out his message.
“The U.S. is going to substantially reduce taxes and regulations on businesses,” Trump tweeted. “But any business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. without retribution or consequence, is WRONG!
“There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35% for these companies ... Please be forewarned prior to making a very expensive mistake! THE UNITED STATES IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.”
The string of tweets follow Trump’s announcement last week that he had reached a deal with the Carrier furnace and air-conditioning manufacturer to keep the jobs in Indiana, instead of moving them to Mexico where labor costs are significantly less expensive.
Trump made vowing to keep Carrier in the country and returning other good-paying manufacturing jobs to the economically challenged Midwest a major part of his successful presidential campaign.
But the Carrier deal -- which purportedly includes $6 million in tax incentives and $1 million in job-training grants over 10 years -- has been criticized by liberals and conservatives alike.
Among them are self-described socialist and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who suggest the deal was an example of “crony capitalism.”
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who remains governor of Indiana until next month, defended Trump’s effort on Carrier on NBC’s “Meet the Press."
“We were heartbroken when we heard Carrier was pulling up stakes,” said Pence, who acknowledges he couldn’t broker the deal. “The only reason Carrier is staying in the United States is because Donald Trump was elected president.”

Trump remains on defensive after call with Taiwan president

President-elect Donald Trump defended his call to the Taiwanese president in a series of tweets Sunday, a breach of diplomatic protocol as the U.S. shifted recognition from Taiwan to China nearly 40 years ago.
"Did China ask us if it was OK to carry out a number of actions such as build up disputed islands in the South China Sea or take economic measures hurtful to the United States," Trump tweeted.
Taiwan President Tsai Ing-Wen called Trump Friday to congratulate him on the election in a call set up by an American third party. Taiwan's official Central News Agency, citing anonymous sources on Saturday, said that Edwin Feulner, founder of the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, was a "crucial figure" in setting up communication channels between the sides.
The call seemingly irked China, prompting Beijing to send a complaint to the U.S. government. Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Saturday that the contact was "just a small trick by Taiwan" that he believed would not change U.S. policy toward China, according to Hong Kong's Phoenix TV.
"The one-China policy is the cornerstone of the healthy development of China-U.S. relations and we hope this political foundation will not be interfered with or damaged," Wang was quoted as saying. Chinese officials said they lodged a complaint with the U.S. and reiterated a commitment to seeking "reunification" with the island, which they consider a renegade province.
Trump’s top aides defended the call earlier Sunday.
Senior adviser KellyAnne Conway said on “Fox News Sunday” that it was “just a phone call.”
“President-elect Trump is not out there making policy or policy prescriptions,” she added.

More on this...

• Conway: Trump's talk with Taiwan leader 'just a call,' not a sign of policy shift

• Trump's call inspires hope in Taiwan, concern in Beijing

• Why Trump was right to talk with Taiwan's president

Conway said Trump is “fully aware of the One China policy” and that he is routinely briefed by foreign policy and military experts, amid reports he doesn’t take daily State Department briefings.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the call shouldn’t necessarily be considered a shift in U.S. policy. He shrugged off the attention to the incident as media hype.
"It was a courtesy call," Pence added.
Over the decades, the status of Taiwan has been one of the most sensitive issues in U.S.-China relations. China regards Taiwan as part of its territory to be retaken by force, if necessary, if it seeks independence. It would regard any recognition of a Taiwanese leader as a head of state as unacceptable.
Taiwan split from the Chinese mainland in 1949. The U.S. policy acknowledges the Chinese view over sovereignty, but considers Taiwan's status as unsettled.
Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said Trump's conversation does not signal any change to long-standing U.S. policy on cross-strait issues. Yet the phone conversation prompted mixed reactions.
Taiwanese newspapers ran banner headlines Sunday about the call, and two noted on their front pages Sunday that Trump referred to Tsai as "the president of Taiwan," a formulation that would be a huge shift in American policy and infuriate China.
The Taiwanese presidential office said Trump and Tsai discussed issues affecting Asia and the future of U.S. relations with Taiwan. Tsai also told Trump that she hoped the U.S. would support Taiwan in its participation in international affairs, the office said, in an apparent reference to China's efforts to isolate Taiwan from global institutions such as the United Nations.
Taiwan's presidential office spokesman, Alex Huang, said separately that Taiwan's relations with China and "healthy" Taiwan-U.S. relations can proceed in parallel. "There is no conflict" in that, he said.
China's foreign ministry said Beijing lodged "solemn representations" with the U.S. over the call.
"It must be pointed out that there is only one China in the world and Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory," Geng Shuang, a ministry spokesman, said in a statement. "The government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing China."

Recount Cartoons

Billionaire Bashing: Media suggest Trump's wealthy picks will screw the rest of us

Kurtz: Press dumps on Trump and his gazillionaires

Donald Trump’s Cabinet is shaping up to be really, seriously, fabulously rich.
And that’s news.
But is it bad news?
Is it some kind of class-warfare plot by America’s first billionaire president?
Should the media automatically assume that these super-wealthy folks are on a mission to screw the middle class?
We’re starting to see such criticism bubble up from journalists and pundits who are presumably in far lower income brackets than the new Treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs and hedge fund guy Steve Mnuchin; or the new Commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross (estimated wealth $2.5 billion), or the new Education secretary, Betsy DeVos, whose family co-founded Amway (estimated family wealth $5.1 billion).
Now it’s perfectly fair to look at their records, including past controversies in the business world. And it’s equally fair to say that Trump made Goldman Sachs a symbol of a rigged system—remember his focus on Hillary Clinton’s big-money speeches to the investment bank?—and is now tapping more than his share of Goldman people.
But the idea that this will be an administration of the rich, by the rich and for the rich?
Was that true of FDR or JFK, both of whom were born into elite families of great means? Obviously not.
The Washington Post starts out by questioning the team’s lack of government credentials:
“Many of the Trump appointees were born wealthy, attended elite schools and went on to amass even larger fortunes as adults. As a group, they have much more experience funding political candidates than they do running government agencies.”
Then comes the zinger:
“Their collective wealth in many ways defies Trump’s populist campaign promises.”
A University of Virginia faculty member is paraphrased as saying Trump and his lieutenants “won’t be able to draw on the same sort of life struggles that President Obama did, in crafting policy to lift poor and middle-class Americans.”
So rich Americans need not apply, because, in this teacher’s word, they would lack “empathy”?
A political scientist at Duke says that “when you put a bunch of millionaires in charge, you can expect public policy that helps millionaires at the expense of everybody else.” And Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, not surprisingly, says Trump will have “a billionaire and millionaire cabinet, with a billionaire agenda… to hurt the middle class.”

So is the reverse true? Was Bill Clinton, because he grew up with modest means in small-town Arkansas, out to soak the rich?
These questions don’t seem to come up in Democratic administrations. Obama’s Commerce secretary, Penny Pritzker, happens to have an estimated net worth of $2.5 billion.
But it’s becoming a hot media issue. Politico on “Trump’s Team of Gazillionaires”:
“Donald Trump campaigned as a champion of the ‘forgotten man’ and won the White House on the strength of his support among the white working class.
“So far, he’s stacking his administration with masters of the universe.”
Liberal columnist Paul Waldman:
“Donald Trump has named Steve Mnuchin — a Goldman Sachs alum and hedge fund manager — to be his secretary of the Treasury, in keeping with his repeated promise to take on Wall Street and the powers-that-be on behalf of the little guy.
“So can we stop pretending that Trump's campaign ‘populism’ was anything other than just one more con?”

For what it’s worth, Mnuchin told CNBC that there will be “no absolute tax cut for the upper class”—meaning any reductions would be offset by cutting deductions—and there will be a “middle-income tax cut.”
Now if the new administration does push a tax cut tilted toward the wealthy, is too cozy with Wall Street and slashes programs for the poor, the press should be all over that.
But right now, some of the coverage seems built on the assumption that anyone who’s rich is mainly interested in raiding the Treasury to help themselves and their well-heeled friends.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Defense Secretary Ash Carter says US, partners need to stay in Iraq after ISIS defeat

Defense Secretary Ash Carter on strategy to defeat ISIS

The American military, along with its international partners, will need to remain in Iraq even after the expected defeat of the Islamic State group, outgoing Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Saturday.
Carter said the U.S. and its coalition partners must not stop after completing the current campaign to expel ISIS from Iraq's second largest city of Mosul.
He said the militants are on a path to lasting defeat.
"But there will still be much more to do after that to make sure that, once defeated, ISIL stays defeated," he said, using an alternative acronym for ISIS. "We'll need to continue to counter foreign fighters trying to escape and ISIL's attempts to relocate or reinvent itself. To do so, not only the United States but our coalition must endure and remain engaged militarily."

Related stories...

• ISIS militants exploit rain, hit Iraqi militias west, south of Mosul

• Europe police reveal which nations ISIS could target next

• Long way to go: One-fifth of Mosul freed from ISIS control, US military says

"In Iraq in particular, it will be necessary for the coalition to provide sustained assistance and carry on our work to train, equip, and support local police, border guards, and other forces to hold areas cleared from ISIL," said Carter.
Carter did not say how long this continued U.S. military presence might be necessary or how many troops would be required. At any rate, those decisions are likely to fall to the Trump administration after it takes office in January.
While describing recent Pentagon actions to put a stranglehold on ISIS worldwide, Carter said the Obama administration has directed the secretive Joint Special Operations Command to prioritize destroying the militant group's ability to conduct attacks in the West.
Carter said that in his final weeks in office, he is focused on ensuring a smooth transition to his successor.
Earlier this week, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he intends to nominate retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to be his defense secretary.
Carter congratulated Mattis on Saturday, who is a former commander of U.S. Central Command overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I've worked with Jim for many years, he's a friend, and I hold him in the highest regard," Carter said. He made no mention of the aspect of the Mattis selection that has drawn the most attention: the fact that his nomination will require legislation by Congress to exempt Mattis from a legal prohibition on a retired military officer serving as secretary of defense before he has been out of uniform for a minimum of seven years. Mattis retired in 2013.
Carter made his remarks at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

Trump speaks with Taiwan's president, risking China tensions

NEW YORK –   In a break with decadeslong diplomatic tradition, President-elect Donald Trump spoke directly with the president of Taiwan, a move that drew an irritated response from China and looked set to cast uncertainty over U.S. policy toward Asia.
It is perhaps unprecedented for a U.S. president or president-elect to speak directly with a leader of Taiwan, a self-governing island the U.S. broke diplomatic ties with in 1979.
In first comments apparently meant to downplay the significance of the call, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Saturday that the contact between Taiwan's president and Trump was "just a small trick by Taiwan" that he believed would not change U.S. policy toward China, according to Hong Kong's Phoenix TV.
"The one-China policy is the cornerstone of the healthy development of China-U.S. relations and we hope this political foundation will not be interfered with or damaged," Wang was quoted as saying.
Washington has pursued a so-called "one China" policy since 1979, when it shifted diplomatic recognition of China from the government in Taiwan to the communist government on the mainland. Under that policy, the U.S. recognizes Beijing as representing China but retains unofficial ties with Taiwan.

A statement from Trump's transition team said he spoke Friday with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who offered her congratulations on his election win.
Trump tweeted later that Tsai "CALLED ME." He also groused about the reaction to the call: "Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call."
The Taiwanese presidential office said Trump and Tsai discussed issues affecting Asia and the future of U.S. relations with Taiwan.
"The (Taiwanese) president is looking forward to strengthening bilateral interactions and contacts as well as setting up closer cooperative relations," the statement said.
Tsai also told Trump that she hoped the U.S. would support Taiwan in its participation in international affairs, the office said, in an apparent reference to China's efforts to isolate Taiwan from global institutions such as the United Nations.
It said the two also discussed "promoting domestic economic development and strengthening national defense" to improve the lives of ordinary people.
Taiwan's presidential office spokesman Alex Huang said separately that Taiwan's relations with China and "healthy" Taiwan-U.S. relations can proceed in parallel. "There is no conflict (in that)," he told reporters in Taipei.
The White House learned of the conversation after it had taken place, said a senior Obama administration official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive diplomatic relations involved.
China's embassy in Washington and its foreign ministry and Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing did not respond to requests for comment.

Friday's call is the starkest example yet of how Trump has flouted diplomatic conventions since he won the Nov. 8 election. He has apparently undertaken calls with foreign leaders without guidance customarily lent by the State Department, which oversees U.S. diplomacy.
"President-elect Trump is just shooting from the hip, trying to take phone calls of congratulatory messages from leaders around the world without consideration for the implications," said Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Glaser said such a call was "completely unprecedented" or at least has never been known publicly. China is likely to be trying to identify whether this signals any intent on the part of Trump to alter long-standing U.S. policy toward Taiwan, Glaser said.
"They will hope that this is a misstep, but I think privately, they will definitely seek to educate this incoming president and ensure that he understands the sensitivity of Taiwan," she said.
In particular, China would want to highlight to the incoming administration the risks involved in any form of signal from the United States that it supports strengthening a relationship with Taiwan under a president that Beijing views as pro-independence, Glaser added.
Last month, Trump had a call with Chinese President Xi Jinping during which Trump's office described him as saying he believed the two would have "one of the strongest relationships for both countries."
Despite China's muted response Saturday, concern about Trump's policy toward China is growing, said Shi Yinhong of Renmin University in Beijing, one of China's best-known international relations scholars.
"In the mind of Chinese leaders, concerns are mounting about U.S. policy toward China" under Trump's administration, Shi said.
Tsai was elected in January and took office in May. The traditional independence-leaning policies of her party have strained relations with Beijing.
The call with Trump could "convince people in Taiwan that the island can establish good relations with the U.S. and encourage (Tsai) to continue to resist pressure from Beijing," Shi said.
Over the decades, the status of Taiwan has been one of the most sensitive issues in U.S.-China relations. China regards Taiwan as part of its territory to be retaken by force, if necessary, if it seeks independence. It would regard any recognition of a Taiwanese leader as a head of state as unacceptable.
Taiwan split from the Chinese mainland amid civil war in 1949. The U.S. policy acknowledges the Chinese view over sovereignty, but considers Taiwan's status as unsettled. The U.S. has legal commitments to help Taiwan maintain the ability to defend itself.
Taiwan's official Central News Agency said Edwin Feulner, former president of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank, was a "crucial figure" in setting up communication channels between the sides, leading to the call. Feulner could not immediately be reached to comment on the report, which cited anonymous sources.
Feulner had met with Tsai in October when he led a delegation from the think tank on a trip to Taiwan, according to a release at the time from Taiwan's presidential office. That release says Tsai called Feulner a "longtime friend to Taiwan" and conveyed her gratitude to his foundation for its support.
Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said Trump's conversation does not signal any change to long-standing U.S. policy on cross-strait issues.
In Beijing, a U.S. business group said it expected the new U.S. administration to respect the status quo.
"American business operating in Asia needs certainty and stability," said James Zimmerman, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. "The new administration needs to get up to speed quickly on the historical tensions and complex dynamics of the region."

Green Party switches strategy in Pennsylvania recount

Hours after a Green Party-backed campaign dropped its case in state courts they announce a change to their strategy to force a statewide recount of Pennsylvania's Nov. 8 presidential election, won by Republican Donald Trump, and said late Saturday night that it will seek help in the federal courts, rather than the state courts.
The campaign announced that it would seek an emergency federal court order on Monday for a recount.

Related Image

 

Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein (AP)

Jonathan Abady

"Make no mistake — the Stein campaign will continue to fight for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania," recount campaign lawyer Jonathan Abady said in a statement issued a little before midnight. "We are committed to this fight to protect the civil and voting rights of all Americans."
Abady said barriers to a recount in Pennsylvania are pervasive and the state court system is ill-equipped to address the problem.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, raised over $6.9 million to fund recount efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Stein framed the issue as an effort to explore whether voting machines and systems had been hacked and the election result manipulated. Despite Stein's lawyers having offered no evidence of hacking in Pennsylvania's election.
The state Republican Party and Trump asked for a dismissal in the state court case.

The decision came two days before a state court hearing was scheduled in the case. Saturday's court filing to withdraw the case said the Green Party-backed voters who filed it "are regular citizens of ordinary means" and cannot afford the $1 million bond ordered by the court by 5 p.m. Monday. Green Party-backed efforts to force recounts and analyze election software in scattered precincts were continuing. The court's order can be read here.
The Wisconsin recount began on Thursday, while a potential recount could begin in Michigan next week.
No Republican presidential candidate had captured Pennsylvania since 1988.
Stein announced Pennsylvania's recount purpose was to ensure "our votes are safe and secure."
They have unsuccessfully sought to get various counties to allow a forensic examination of their election system software.
Trump’s lawyers and the state Republican Party claimed there was no evidence or allegations that tampering occurred with Pennsylvania's voting systems. Pennsylvania law does not allow a court-ordered recount, they argued, and a lawyer for the Green Party had acknowledged that the effort was without precedent in Pennsylvania.
Republican lawyers also argued that the case has threatened the state’s ability to certify its presidential electors by the December 13 federal deadline.
On Saturday, a GOP lawyer, Lawrence Tabas, said the case had been meant "solely for purposes to delay the Electoral College vote in Pennsylvania for President-Elect Trump."
The state's top elections official, Secretary of State Pedro Cortes, a Democrat, has said there was no evidence of any sort of cyberattacks or irregularities in the election. Cortes predicted that a recount would change few votes.
As of Friday, Trump's margin of victory in Pennsylvania was 49,000, or less than 1 percent, out of 6 million votes cast, according to state election officials. State and county officials did not expect any outstanding uncounted votes to change the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania's automatic statewide recount trigger is 0.5 percent. Stein drew less than 1 percent of the votes cast.

Democrats Whining Cartoons

Illegal immigrants don't want American values, Originally published May 27, 2006

It is appalling the way our government is so casually throwing away American citizenship. There is no country in Europe that would allow any individual to enter and establish a legal life in direct violation of their laws. Mexico would not allow Americans to illegally enter Mexico and stay.

For over two centuries, the Stars and Stripes hung with pride over a nation of solid citizens. Yet today, we fight over the details of a law to throw our citizenship to illegal immigrants who slithered across our borders and laughed at our laws.

It is shameful that any American could have such a low self-esteem that they would consider a criminal worthy of the highest honor we can bestow on someone born in another nation — the right to call themselves an American.

For over two centuries, tens of thousands of immigrants have slaved for years to prove to us that they shared our values by first entering America legally, then studying our history and laws so they could stand proudly as they took the oath of allegiance. The new breed of immigrants refuse to study our language, yet they demand citizenship! Why? If they do not want to earn citizenship, what is it they want? Just a free ride!

One illegal proudly boasted on national TV that he owned over a dozen eateries and only hired illegals. That's national pride — for Mexico, not America.

Also, illegals cannot have a Social Security card and therefore cannot pay taxes. Remember that 35 percent the government took from your last paycheck? Illegals cannot pay that. They keep every cent of their pay! An employer can pay an illegal 40 percent less than a legal and keep them in the same economic class. Oh, how many true Americans would love to work in a restaurant, but can't find a job because illegals have them?

No sane person would say that a law-breaker is not a criminal. What the illegal immigrant community has proven is their total disdain for our values, laws and safety. Remember that over the decades, we have seen news coverage of the murders committed by the gangs crossing our borders ... The bodies found in the Texas, Arizona and New Mexico deserts, the dead Border Patrol members who are turning in their graves for the lives they wasted uselessly, defending our homeland from the invading throng.

David Darcy

Poplar Road