Steve Bannon Picks a Side in Pennsylvania Governor’s Race – The Morning Call

Steve Bannon picks a side in Pennsylvania governor's race

Sept. 26, 2017 by MARC LEVY of the Associated Press

HARRISBURG — President Donald Trump hasn't endorsed a candidate in Pennsylvania's gubernatorial election next year, but Scott Wagner might have something close to it: Steve Bannon's stamp of approval.

Bannon, the divisive ex-Trump strategist, urged a conservative gathering at a St. Louis hotel on Sunday to support the Republican state senator from York County.

Conservatives could start “taking” the country back in Tuesday's U.S. Senate GOP primary in Alabama, where Bannon and Trump campaigned for different candidates, and “when Scott Wagner runs in Pennsylvania,” Bannon told the gathering.

Wagner, a Trump supporter who runs the municipal waste-hauling company he founded, spoke right before Bannon at the gathering and criticized not only Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf but also his fellow Republican lawmakers.

Harrisburg, he said, is a “real swamp.”

Wagner told the crowd that his two-hour trip flying to St. Louis with Bannon left him “500 percent more emboldened.”

“Tomorrow in Pennsylvania the gloves are coming off and the message is, `The hardworking Pennsylvanians, you're being shafted by the corruption in Harrisburg, OK?“’ Wagner said. “Career politicians, Democrat and Republican. But I now see firsthand serving in the Senate. We now have a veto-proof majority, we went to 34. I watched Republican leaders giving our governor a free pass, and you know what? Enough is enough.”

What Wagner was talking about, Bannon told the crowd, was not about beating just Democrats but also the Republican establishment.

“The first thing we've got to get through is a corrupt and incompetent Republican establishment,” Bannon told the crowd to cheers.

Republicans in Congress have failed to support Trump's “populist, nationalist, conservative” message and ideas, Bannon said.

About 400 people were at the rally hosted by Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, a spinoff of the conservative think tank Eagle Forum, which Schlafly founded and led until her death last year.

Former health care consultant Paul Mango, of suburban Pittsburgh, also is seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Wolf's bid for a second term next year. Meanwhile, lawyer Laura Ellsworth, of suburban Pittsburgh, has said she is seriously considering running and is expected to announce a decision around the end of September. House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, has been silent about his plans to run.

Wagner said Bannon asked him a lot of questions on their flight together to St. Louis, which Wagner chartered from Baltimore. Primarily, he said, Bannon peppered him with questions about why he is running and about Pennsylvania, his campaign and his message.

“So, he said, `Pennsylvania taxpayers are getting the shaft by cronyism and special interest groups,“’ Wagner said.

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-steve-bannon-pennsylvania-governors-race-20170926-story.html

InfoWars: DR. MICHAEL COFFMAN, PATRIOT WHO EXPOSED AGENDA 21, PASSES AWAY

DR. MICHAEL COFFMAN, PATRIOT WHO EXPOSED AGENDA 21, PASSES AWAY 

The resistance loses a hero of rural America, but he won't be forgotten 

Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - JULY 17, 2017

Dr. Michael Coffman, a firebrand patriot known for exposing Agenda 21 and the globalist gameplan to end rural America, passed away after a battle with cancer.

Before his passing, Dr. Coffman left the following message for patriots like you to advance the resistance:

As a scientist and writer, I have been fighting the global agenda that would destroy America as we know it for decades.

As a researcher in the American paper industry, I ran a multimillion dollar research project on the effects of acid rain. When the results came in that it was basically a non-issue, I was told to quash my results or find a new job. That was when my eyes were opened to the fact that it was politics driving the science and not the other way around.

In 1994, myself and a few other individuals stopped the cloture vote to move forward to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty which would have destroyed property rights in our country, thereby destroying free enterprise, the American way of life and ultimately Freedom itself.

That is the goal of the globalists. It is not “saving the planet,” and it’s not even redistribution of wealth ultimately. It is control: global control of everyone and everything.

Together with my wife and all who have worked with us, both as colleagues and as fellow warriors in the fight for freedom, we have labored to inform citizens and policy makers, and to stop this agenda.

To all of you who read this, I say this: Don’t give up. Keep fighting. Keep working. Keep doing whatever it is that God has called you to do.

For me the fight is over. After a two-and-a-half year battle with cancer, I am going Home. My time here is almost over. I thought I had more to do, but God is saying otherwise.

Thank you to all who have fought and are continuing to fight for freedom.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. 1 Cor. 15:58

INFOWARS LINK  |  OBITUARY

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Some Real Fake News on Trump and Trade Data

Friday, 24 February 2017

Posted by Alan Tonelson    LINK

Talk about a non-story. That some globalization cheerleaders have tried to blow up into a scandal. And all because the Trump administration seems to be interested in correcting important distortions in some commonly used U.S. trade data that presents a misleading picture of America’s exports, imports, and trade balances.

Here’s the situation. Last Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported that  “The Trump administration is considering changing the way it calculates U.S. trade deficits, a shift that would make the country’s trade gap appear larger than it had in past years, according to people involved in the discussions.”

According to the Journal, “The leading idea under consideration would exclude from U.S. exports any goods first imported into the country, such as cars, and then transferred to a third country like Canada or Mexico unchanged….”

Continued the article, “Economists say that approach would inflate trade deficit numbers because it would typically count goods as imports when they come into the country but not count the same goods when they go back out, known as re-exports.”

So in other words, President Trump and his minions are thinking of artificially deflating the figures describing what the United States sells to the rest of the world, but not making a corresponding change on the import side that would reduce the amount of goods that the nation buys from its trade partners. The result would be a larger U.S. trade deficit, and added ammo for the administration’s claim that America’s trade policy needs major surgery. Talk about creating “alternative facts,” right?

That’s what the Journal‘s editorial board concluded. Charged these trade zealots, the Trump-ers’ “effort to recalculate U.S. trade flows to show larger deficits” is a “trick….borrowed from the political left” that “deserves to be hooted down as an attempt to manipulate statistics to assist bad economic policy [i.e., curbs on trade flows].”

But these allegations aren’t even close to the mark – that is, if you believe theJournal‘s own reporting. For as the original piece eventually reveals (based, as is the entire article, on anonymous sources), the president’s team is indeed mulling making those import data changes, too – which would involve switching the import measure “to ‘imports for consumption,’ a slightly narrower way of measuring imports that would make less of a difference in the overall balance. “

Which means that – weirdly – the Journal reporters decided not to tell those outraged economists that the supposed Trump administration exercise would make statistically valid symmetrical changes, or that these (of course nameless) economists received this info from the reporters and decided to ignore it in order to try to create the appearance of impropriety. It also means that Journal editorial writers either didn’t read their own publication’s coverage all the way through, or chose to ignore that decisive material. Either way, someone has just massively violated their profession’s ethics.

As for the change (reportedly) under consideration itself, it’s entirely justified because those re-exports that under the main system for presenting trade data are counted as real exports literally are not Made in America. As indicated above, they enter the U.S. economy from abroad and then are shipped overseas (or across the border to Canada or Mexico) in nearly all cases entirely or virtually unchanged.

This means that they add virtually nothing to American economic growth or employment – a major and entirely valid reason that exports are so beloved). Andalthough, as some trade advocates claim, their transit into and through the United States creates logistical jobs (in transportation and,warehousing services), such logistical jobs would be created anyway if those goods were domestically produced (Unless you think that such products typically don’t need to be stored after production and then transported to customers, too?)

Moreover, the distortions resulting from sloppy methodology of the main exports numbers are anything but bupkis. Last year, for example, failing to strip out foreign-produced goods boosted total U.S. merchandise exports by 15.43 percent – or $224.33 billion. Relatively speaking, the impact on manufactures exports was even bigger – 17.48 percent, or $223.36 billion.

And the effects on America’s goods exports to Mexico and Canada, its partners in the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), are especially noteworthy. Proper counting would reduce 2016 U.S. merchandise exports to the former by 23.19 percent and manufactures exports by 25.30 percent. The comparable numbers for Canada are 17.14 percent and 17.93 percent.

Moreover, since proper counting has little effect on import totals, either globally or for NAFTA trade, raising its profile would definitely show higher U.S. deficits. And the export gap has been growing steadily across the board.

Fittingly, this story can be closed on an absurd note, too. As indicated above, the U.S. government already compiles and reports (though in an unsatisfactorily low-profile way), export and import data that quantify exports actually produced in America, and imports actually consumed in America (although, as discussed inthis solid Public Citizen analyses, the import numbers could still use some improvement). So a changeover to more accurate figures that reveal trade’s true impact on U.S. production and job creation looks to be pretty easy. Think we’ll be reading about that in The Wall Street Journal?