It was a beautiful evening last night….. a state dinner at Buckingham Palace. The whole day was a spectacle of pomp and ceremony. Besides FLOTUS stealing the day and all the media watching the President’s every move……. let’s give a hat tip to Kellyanne Conway who was stupendous in silver, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders in red…… even Steve Mnuchin was particularly dashing.

Yet, today is the meeting with Theresa “One foot out the door” May. There is a reception which focuses on BUSINESS LEADERS in the UK. Surprised….. not.
Here’s the schedule. As we did yesterday, we will plug in photos as we receive them, creating a large archive. Thank you to ALL who responded with tips and pics yesterday. When we do these “group” posts – the results are amazing.
Note: Interesting that the late afternoon/evening of Day 2 is spent almost exclusively with Prince Charles and Camilla. Unusual?
Note: We’ve been warned by the entire MSM, the media and protests will be fierce today. Get ready and be prepared. We also have an exclusive picture from the leftist state dinner. Check it out.

The State Visit ~ Day Two 
9:10am BST / 4:10am EST THE PRESIDENT departs Winfield House (U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson Residence) Landing Zone en route Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
9:20am BST / 4:20am EST THE PRESIDENT arrives Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
9:30am BST / 4:30am EST THE PRESIDENT departs Buckingham Palace Landing Zone en route St. James’s Palace, London, United Kingdom
9:40am BST / 4:40am EST THE PRESIDENT arrives at St. James’s Palace, London, United Kingdom
9:45am BST / 4:45am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a business round table, London, United Kingdom
11:10am BST / 6:10am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart St. James’s Palace en route No. 10 Downing Street, London, United Kingdom
11:20am BST / 6:20am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive No. 10 Downing Street, London, United Kingdom
11:25am BST / 6:25am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a greeting with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
11:40am BST / 6:40am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a expanded bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
12:25pm BST / 7:25am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a working lunch with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
1:45pm BST / 8:45am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a press conference with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
2:25pm BST / 9:25am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a tour of the Churchill War Rooms, London, United Kingdom
3:20pm BST / 10:20am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Churchill War Rooms en route Buckingham Palace Landing Zone
London, United Kingdom
3:30pm BST / 10:30am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
3:40pm BST / 10:40am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Buckingham Palace Landing Zone en route Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
3:50pm BST / 10:50am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
7:45pm BST / 2:45pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a greeting with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
8:10pm BST / 3:10pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a Pre-Reciprocal Dinner Reception with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
8:20pm BST / 3:20pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a presentation of guest with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
8:35pm BST / 3:35pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a Reciprocal Dinner with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
9:50pm BST / 4:50pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in the guest book signing with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
Here’s a map which might help to orient us a little better.

And when all else fails……. just remember…… there was a reason we left. We were the Americans. We were the ones who defied authority and created a more perfect union.

Yet, when it comes to saving freedom, democracy, and western civilization, from evil empires. we work the Brits. My father-in-law went to Omaha Beach and survived. Freed towns in Belgium and proposed to my Mother-in-Law in a letter, written on Christmas Eve, Battle of the Bulge, 1944. He didn’t know if he would live through the next day. Let’s not forget what this 75th Anniversary of D-Day, Operation Overlord, represents.

 

The Media is winding up. Get ready!
The President, FLOTUS Melania, all the adult children, and a large contingent of the Trump Admin are in London this week. The adult children have taken the entire floor of  prestigious lodgings, the Corinthian.

Protesters are drooling over the aspect of protesting the President of the USA and approx. 20K UK Police will be on hand for the “Trump” visit. The Brexiteers are thrilled by the presence of the Trump family and the headlines will be wild this week. Please post photos and topic related items in this thread.

In about an hour, the President will meet with the Queen, kicking off a long day of high profile events. Here is the schedule.
Schedule for Day 1: 
4:00am EDT / 9:00am BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at London Stansted Airport, Stansted, United Kingdom

4:10am EDT / 9:10am BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart London Stansted Airport en route to Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom, Stansted, United Kingdom

4:40am EDT / 9:40am BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Winfield House [U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson] Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom

7:00am EDT / 12:00pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Winfield House Landing Zone en route to Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
7:10am EDT / 12:10pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom


7:20am EDT / 12:20pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY are introduced to the Members of the Royal Household and British Suite with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom

7:35am EDT / 12:35pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in official welcome ceremony with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom

8:00am EDT / 1:00pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY introduce the American Suite to Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom

8:15am EDT / 1:15pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a private luncheon with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom
9:00am EDT / 2:00pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in royal collection gift review with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom

10:00am EDT / 3:00pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Buckingham Palace en route to Westminster Abbey, London, United Kingdom
10:10am EDT / 3:10pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Westminster Abbey, London, United Kingdom

10:15am EDT / 3:15pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, London, United Kingdom

10:20am EDT / 3:20pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY tour Westminster Abbey and sign the guestbook, London, United Kingdom

10:50am EDT / 3:50pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Westminster Abbey en route to Clarence House, London, United Kingdom

11:00am EDT / 4:00pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Clarence House, London, United Kingdom

11:05am EDT / 4:05pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a photo opportunity with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
11:15am EDT / 4:15pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY have tea (“high tea”) with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
11:30am EDT / 4:30pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Clarence House en route to Buckingham Palace Landing Zone,
London, United Kingdom

11:35am EDT / 4:35pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom

11: 45am EDT / 4:45pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Buckingham Palace Landing Zone en route to Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom

11:55am EDT / 4:55pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom

2:30pm EDT / 7:30pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Winfield House Landing Zone en route to Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
2:40pm EDT / 7:40pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
3:10pm EDT / 8:10pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a presentation of guests with Her Majesty the Queen,
London, United Kingdom
3:30pm EDT / 8:30pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a royal procession with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom
3:45pm EDT / 8:45pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a State Banquet with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom


 
The Royal Procession into the Dining Room with The Queen and President Trump leading.  Link



5:35pm EDT / 10:35pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a reception after the State Banquet with Her Majesty the Queen, London, United Kingdom
6:00pm EDT / 11:00pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Buckingham Palace en route to Winfield House, London, United Kingdom
6:20pm EDT / 11:20pm BST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Winfield House, London, United Kingdom

 

 
 
 

All due credit and attribution to our former Tree and Sundance. I have reposted his work, including his bolding for emphasis found with the transcript. Yes, I understand it is odd to repost work from our former tree, yet this interview, with Attorney General Bill Barr, is extremely important for all Americans to see. 
Today, across social media we see snippets of quotations from the interview. It’s important to have the audio of the interview AND the full transcript for context. 
Here we go, and again, thank you to Sundance. 
“U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a 48 minute interview to CBS on a variety of issues related to recent events. The interview is packed with insight about the ongoing DOJ investigations of prior DOJ and FBI conduct in the 2016 election.
Rather than post the edited excerpts of the interview as broadcast, the full audio and transcript is below. Very interesting. [Hit orange play arrow to begin]:
https://soundcloud.com/cbsthismorning/exclusive-ag-william-barr-on-special-counsel-mueller-and-the-russia-probe
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/629487828″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&visual=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
.
[Transcript] JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn’t make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel’s office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision but–

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would’ve stopped him in the regulations or in those…that opinion itself, he could’ve — in your view he could’ve reached a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could’ve reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.
JAN CRAWFORD: Now you have testified that when you met with Mueller at the Justice Department, you had that meeting, that you were surprised that he told you then that he was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, Rod and I were both surprised by that.
JAN CRAWFORD: Did you ask him, look, we need you to make a conclusion on this? You should make a conclusion.
WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t say I really pressed him on it. I was interested in his thinking on it and he explained his position, said he was still thinking it through and- and- but I didn’t really press him nor did Rod.
JAN CRAWFORD: So, but you left that meeting thinking that he wasn’t going to have a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you feel because he didn’t do that, did he fulfill his responsibility as special counsel? If you look at regulations, it seems to anticipate that you would get a confidential report explaining why he made a decision to either prosecute or decline to prosecute. He didn’t do that, seems to me.
WILLIAM BARR: Right, but on the other hand he did provide us a report and what he viewed to be the relevant facts. And that allowed us as the, as the leaders of the department to make that decision.
JAN CRAWFORD: What is the fundamental difference? Why…I mean, he said he couldn’t exonerate the president. That he had looked at the evil there – these 11 instances of possible obstruction. He couldn’t exonerate the president, if he could he would’ve stated so. You looked at that evidence and you did. I mean, what is the fundamental difference between your view and his?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was, he was not going to make a determination one way or the other. And he also said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction.
JAN CRAWFORD: As a matter of law?
WILLIAM BARR: As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.

JAN CRAWFORD: Before you became attorney general you wrote a memo to the justice department looking at the — the question and the legal standards for obstruction and suggesting that the president has the authority to say back off of the Flynn investigation and could have fired James Comey under his executive authority, how much – I mean when you’re talking about, can you explain that a little more. When you’re talking about your judgment that no obstruction occurred based on the evidence that Mueller produced and your understanding of the law, can you explain a little more why wasn’t that obstruction?
WILLIAM BARR: Well let’s take the firing of Comey for example I think we would have said as a matter of law, and I’m not relying on my – my legal memo that I wrote as a private citizen but really on the views within the department of the people who think about these things and are responsible for framing the views of the department, and I think we would have said that as a matter of law the obstruction statutes do not reach facially valid exercise of core presidential authority or official authority even, decisions by the attorney general in administering the executive branch or litigation.
But we didn’t rely on that, we then looked at that issue let’s take the again the firing of Comey. One of the elements is that you have to show that the act objectively speaking will have the probable effect of obstructing a proceeding and we don’t believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding. There was also we would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn’t feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases
JAN CRAWFORD: When you see some of the criticism and you’ve gotten quite a bit of it that you’re protecting the president that you’re enabling the president, what’s your response to that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that’s intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.
JAN CRAWFORD: The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that’s going on it’s not lawful for me to just make that public.
JAN CRAWFORD: Not even to Congress?
WILLIAM BARR: Not even–
JAN CRAWFORD: So you could even give Congress, which of course is demanding that and threatening to hold you in contempt because you’re not giving them the full report
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right, and so–
JAN CRAWFORD: But by law you can’t?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, and so because we were not involved in the investigation we would have no way looking at the report of determining what was grand jury material and what wasn’t, so we had for a period of weeks been asking the special counsel’s office to highlight the stuff so we could quickly process it for release and I guess–
JAN CRAWFORD: For a period of weeks you had asked for this material?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah even before the March 5 meeting we had asked or raised the subject–
JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?
WILLIAM BARR: And then at the March 5 meeting I made it explicit and then after the March 5th meeting we asked..
JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?
WILLIAM BARR: We thought it was being– we thought it was being done and I do believe they were putting in more footnotes in that would be necessary ultimately in identifying the material but whether the wires were crossed or whatever it didn’t come in a form that identified the 6E material.
JAN CRAWFORD: And that was a surprise to you when you got the report?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: It was.
WILLIAM BARR: And it immediately meant that you know it was going to be a period of weeks before we could get the report out if I had my druthers I would have liked to get the report out as quickly as possible.
JAN CRAWFORD: So instead, you turned this four page summary?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, because I didn’t think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every- there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth–
JAN CRAWFORD: And saying that publicly?
WILLIAM BARR: Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and–
JAN CRAWFORD: And you knew that to be false?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very–
JAN CRAWFORD: Wild and irresponsible. The former intelligence officials’ speculation–
WILLIAM BARR: Right, and talking heads and things like that, and these things affect the United States’ ability to function in the world. We have an economy. It could affect the economy. It can affect – it can affect our foreign relations during very delicate period of time with, you know, serious adversaries in the world. So I felt- that in order to buy time, in order to get the report out, I had to state the bottom line just like you’re announcing a verdict in a case. My purpose there was not to summarize every jot and tittle of the report and every, you know, angle that – that Mueller looked into. But, just state the bottom line which I did in the four page memo.
JAN CRAWFORD: You didn’t say in that four-page memo that the report would not exonerate the president on obstruction. That line–
WILLIAM BARR: I said that, yes. In the- in the- in my four-page memo, I said that Mueller did not reach a decision. He gave both sides and that- and then I quoted that sentence which is, while we didn’t find a crime, we didn’t exonerate the president. That was in the four-page letter.
JAN CRAWFORD: The- did not- we would so clearly state the preface to that.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.
JAN CRAWFORD: That, that was not in there, and there was some criticism that in the summary, and the attorney- I mean, the special counsel himself wrote the letter saying, People are misunderstanding. There’s been some confusion, that the summary had caused some confusion–
WILLIAM BARR: Right, right.
JAN CRAWFORD: That perhaps, and he didn’t say this, but the- the response was that you were too soft on the president, that actually the special counsel was a little sharper on obstruction.
WILLIAM BARR: Well again, I wasn’t trying to provide all the flavor and nooks and crannies of the report. I was just trying to state the bottom line, and the bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes. He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and he- his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either. And, for the purposes of the point, I think that that was what was required for the body politic because actually most of the letter then goes on to explain how Rod Rosenstein and I reached a decision and the criteria we applied in finding no obstruction.
JAN CRAWFORD: He wrote the letter taking issue, saying there caused- you had caused confusion. Did that catch you off guard?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, sure. I was surprised he just didn’t pick up the phone and call me given our 30 year relationship, but–
JAN CRAWFORD: Why didn’t he?
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t, I don’t know, but, as I said it in the hearing, I thought it was- the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven–
JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt, but we had a good conversation–
JAN CRAWFORD: Because otherwise you would have picked up the phone?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, well, which I did, and we had a good conversation. And I think, I think the matter is now been fully vetted, and I think he was concerned that there should be more context and texture to his work given, and that in the absence of that, the vacuum had been filled with media reports that were then causing confusion, and he wanted it clarified by putting more of an explanation of his reasoning out. And I said that I didn’t want to put out dribs and drabs, I wanted the whole report out. And then I wrote a letter again to Congress saying, look, I didn’t- this is not intended to be a full summary. Bob’s thinking is reflected in the report. Everyone’s going to have access to it. They should look at that to determine, you know, what Bob’s reasoning was. So that’s where we let it sit till the report was released.
JAN CRAWFORD: You said that you had wanted to release the report in full, and you largely have with the grand jury material being, of course, the exception.
WILLIAM BARR: Right. And in the second volume that’s one tenth of one percent of the report has been taken.
JAN CRAWFORD: You, I just want to be clear on this. How long and how many, you expected the special counsel’s office to redact that material, so to point out what should be redacted —
WILLIAM BARR: Right. Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: So the four-page summary would have been unnecessary?
WILLIAM BARR: Correct.
JAN CRAWFORD: You expected, could you just tell us again, you expected to get the report with the grand jury material identified and then what was your plan?
WILLIAM BARR: My plan was to figure out how long it would take us to redact what had to be redacted.
JAN CRAWFORD: And what did you anticipate that would be?
WILLIAM BARR: And if we could readily, if we could readily identify the 6E material, I thought we could do it in a you know less than a week. And if I had been looking at a matter of days like that, then I probably would have just told people what the timeline is do people knew when it would be coming out when they would see it, but once I realized it was going to take 3 or 4 weeks, I felt I had to say something in the interim.
JAN CRAWFORD: But if you had had that material pointed out this would have all been different, you wouldn’t have written the four-page summary?
WILLIAM BARR: Probably not, no.
JAN CRAWFORD: I guess just to finish up on this topic then, when we saw the special counsel yesterday, you put out the statement that there wasn’t really any kind of discrepancy in some of things that you had been saying.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, we both put out the statement.
JAN CRAWFORD: Was that the first time there had been a joint statement?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: And why —
WILLIAM BARR: I believe so.
JAN CRAWFORD: — And why was that necessary?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, because I think there was some people who let the facts interfere with their narrative and were trying to suggest that there was a difference of opinion about the role played by the OLC opinion, which simply wasn’t true.
JAN CRAWFORD: The difference is your views on obstruction and–
WILLIAM BARR: — Well the difference was this so —
JAN CRAWFORD: I understand what you’re saying and I guess, I guess you focused on the role the OLC memo, opinion played–
WILLIAM BARR: –Right–
JAN CRAWFORD: –In the statement?
WILLIAM BARR: The so-called discrepancy was that I had, I had testified earlier that Bob had assured me that he had not reached a decision that there was a crime committed but was not willing to pursue it simply because of the OLC opinion and that remains the fact. That’s what his position is. That’s consistent with what he said yesterday. And it certainly is consistent with the joint release we put out. The confusion arose because what Bob Mueller’s position was was that the OLC opinion coupled with other things as a prudential matter made him feel that he shouldn’t even get into the analysis of whether something was a crime or not and that’s a different question than —
JAN CRAWFORD: Right, because you…just because there’s evidence of obstruction or crime was committed doesn’t mean the person is going to be charged or indicted or found to have committed that crime.
WILLIAM BARR: Right and he didn’t’ even get into that analysis. In other words, what I was discussing earlier was, was Bob, did Bob make a decision there was a crime and the only reason he wasn’t saying that was because of the OLC opinion. The fact is Bob did not make a decision that there was a crime. He didn’t get into the analysis at all. Part of the reason for that was his judgment about the OLC opinion coupled with other things he just didn’t think it was proper exercise of his authority. So it’s a totally different issue and that’s why, that’s why both us feel that this idea that there’s been a discrepancy over the OLC opinion is simply wrong.
JAN CRAWFORD: Did you watch him give the statement yesterday?
WILLIAM BARR: I watched a re-run of it, yeah.
JAN CRAWFORD: Anything new or different?
WILLIAM BARR: No I mean to me it was a reiteration of some of the key elements of his report. I think he wanted to stress a number of things that were in the report. There had been a lot of commentary about his work. I had made some critical remarks about it. So I think it’s quite understandable he wanted to hammer home a few of the key points that were in the report and I thought that that was fine.
JAN CRAWFORD: He said he’s not going to be testifying.
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think he should?
WILLIAM BARR: You know, I think as I said, you know, it’s up to Bob, but I think the line he’s drawing which is that he’s going to stick what he said in the report is the proper line for any Department official.
JAN CRAWFORD: But you’ve testified under oath, answered questions under oath. He took no questions yesterday. Is that sufficient?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think it’s sufficient because, you know, he was handling a specific investigation and normally we don’t, we allowed our prosecutors and have them interrogated about how they handled a particular case. I think —
JAN CRAWFORD: But you wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify?
WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify. I do think that his view that he should stick to what is in the report is consistent with the department’s views of these things.
JAN CRAWFORD: So the last thing that he said yesterday was to remind us that Russia tried to sway our election. He said there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere and that deserves the attention of every American. How’s the Justice Department working now to ensure this doesn’t happen again in 2020?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, we do have. I think an increasingly robust program that is focusing on foreign influence in our election process. The FBI obviously has the lead in that and I’ve been briefed on it on a regular basis and I think it’s a very impressive effort but, we are ramping up. I talked recently to the director of the FBI about putting together a special high-level group to make sure we’re totally prepared for the upcoming elections.
JAN CRAWFORD: And the high level group would be? Who would that include?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, it would include the FBI, the Department of Justice, DHS and intelligence agencies.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.
JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?
WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know–
JAN CRAWFORD: –As part of the review?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April–
JAN CRAWFORD: –of 2016–
WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.
JAN CRAWFORD: I want to talk to you about the investigation. Um, because your, that’s suggesting that was obviously inadequate, but when you talk to Director Wray about appointing this high level group and efforts to ensure that this doesn’t happen again in 2020, has he expressed any concern to you that the kind of review that you are now going to undertake, or this investigation of the investigation, that that could hamper these efforts in 2020?
WILLIAM BARR: We’ve discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that and–
JAN CRAWFORD: —You have discussed that with him?
WILLIAM BARR: Oh yes, and I think he is being very supportive and we’re working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.
JAN CRAWFORD: So when we are talking about the kind of the– well you have used the word spy. You have testified that you believe spying occurred.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: Into the Trump campaign.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve gotten some criticism for using that word.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I mean, I guess it’s become a dirty word somehow. It hasn’t ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it’s an important tool the United States has to protect the country.
JAN CRAWFORD: On using the word, I mean, do you understand, and I know that some of the, some former intelligence chiefs have said that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that there is spying, this is a witch hunt, this is a hoax, and so your use of that word makes it seem that you are being a loyalist.
WILLIAM BARR: You know, it’s part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’re saying that spying occurred. There’s not anything necessarily wrong with that.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: As long as there’s a reason for it.

WILLIAM BARR: Whether it’s adequately predicated. And look, I think if we — we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.
JAN CRAWFORD: So it’s just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling?
WILLIAM BARR: Well they’re both, they’re both troubling.
JAN CRAWFORD: Equally?
WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.
JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.
JAN CRAWFORD: Did that happen?
WILLIAM BARR: There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I’m not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.
JAN CRAWFORD: So–
WILLIAM BARR: That’s one of the, you know, one of the key responsibilities of the Attorney General, core responsibilities of the Attorney General is to make sure that government power is not abused and that the right of Americans are not transgressed by abusive government power. That’s the responsibility of the Attorney General.
JAN CRAWFORD: You know the- I guess- we’ve spent the last two years or more talking about and hearing about Russian interference into the elections and what occurred there. And so now we’re shifting to talking about actually investigating, reviewing that investigation and the people who did that. So I guess in making this turn can you help us understand, I mean what’s- what is the concern? What have you seen, what’s the basis for that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well I don’t want to get you know, too much into the facts because it’s still under review. But I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I’m sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I’ve selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who’s been there over thirty years, he’s now the U.S. attorney.
WILLIAM BARR: But he has, over the years, been used by both Republican and Democratic attorney generals to investigate these kinds of activities. And he’s always gotten the most laudatory feedback from his work. So there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s going- he’s going to conduct a thorough and fair review of this. And we’re working closely with the intelligence agencies, the bureau and the agency and others to help us reconstruct what happened. And I want to see, what were the standards that were applied. What was the evidence? What were the techniques used? Who approved them? Was there a legitimate basis for it?
JAN CRAWFORD: The Inspector General is looking at only, it is my understanding, a small part of this? Is that correct? the FISA warrant?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I wouldn’t say small but he’s looking at a discrete area that is- that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page.
JAN CRAWFORD: And could he have… could you have just said I want to expand this investigation? Why did you feel it was necessary to turn to John Durham?
WILLIAM BARR: Well the inspector general at the department, Mike Horowitz, who you know is a superb government official he has limited powers. He doesn’t have the power to compel testimony, he doesn’t have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited
JAN CRAWFORD: So he wouldn’t have been able to go and try to speak with some of the former officials who are making these decisions, necessarily?
WILLIAM BARR: Right
JAN CRAWFORD: If they are not in the department anymore.
WILLIAM BARR: Right
JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what’s the status of Huber’s investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.
WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would’ve been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he’s been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition.
JAN CRAWFORD: So he won’t be involved in this really at all then?
WILLIAM BARR: No.
JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it’s done?
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up–
WILL BARR: Yes, right.
JAN CRAWFORD: –this. So again, just to go, just so that I think so people can more fully understand this, I mean have you, and I know it’s early in the investigation, but when we are talking about the basis for this and why you think it is important and obviously any kind of government abuse of power, I mean, you were in the CIA in the ’70s. You can see how that can have….
WILLIAM BARR: Right, when I, when I joined the CIA almost 50 years ago as an intern and this was during the Vietnam, civil rights era and there had been a lot…there were a lot of pending investigations of the CIA and there the issues were what was- when was it appropriate for intelligence agencies, the FBI too was under investigation.
You know, the penetration of civil rights groups because at the time there was concerns about contacts with, you know, communist funded front groups and things like that and you know how deeply could you get into civil rights groups or anti-Vietnam war groups. A lot of these groups were in contact with foreign adversaries, they had some contact with front organizations and so forth and there were a lot of rules put in place and those rules are under the attorney general.
The attorney general’s responsibility is to make sure that these powers are not used to tread upon first amendment activity and that certainly was a big part of my formative years of dealing with those issues. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.
JAN CRAWFORD: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I’ll say at this point is that it, you know, I- like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.
JAN CRAWFORD: What do you mean by that?
WILLIAM BARR: That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving, and I’m not saying at this stage that–
JAN CRAWFORD: Was it a timeline?
WILLIAM BARR: There was a timeline, there’s some timeline–
JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, there’s a concern that this may have happened before we realized that the investigation was initiated in July. I mean, what…
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to get into those details at this point. I would just say that, you know…
JAN CRAWFORD: But you said there’s a timeline concern.
WILLIAM BARR: Well I won’t, I won’t confirm that, but I’ll just say that, you know, there’s some questions that I think have to be answered, and I have a basis for feeling there has to be a review of this.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve said, you’ve said the time frame between the election and the inauguration, you’ve said this publicly, was kind of strange. Some strange things may have happened. What concerns you there? Specifically, the meeting at Trump Tower.
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to- I don’t want to get into that.
JAN CRAWFORD: Okay. Yes. So kind of going back to what we were talking about with Director Wray, I mean obviously you’ve seen this like the people are raising concerns that this is going to undermine FBI morale. The rank and file- what are we saying here- but you said in recent Senate testimony, “this is not launching an investigation of the FBI frankly to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon.”
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.
JAN CRAWFORD: So there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon?
WILLIAM BARR: Correct. In other words, I don’t believe this is a problem you know, rife through the bureau.
JAN CRAWFORD: What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?
WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters–
JAN CRAWFORD: And you’re talking about James Comey, McCabe?
WILLIAM BARR: I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don’t view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies. And they’re being very cooperative in helping us.
JAN CRAWFORD: They’re being cooperative?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’re working with the DNI, the head of CIA. I want to ask you about something- just declassification. But the president has tweeted and said publicly that some in the upper echelon, Comey, McCabe, etc., committed treason. I mean do you agree with that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I- as a lawyer I always interpret the word treason not colloquially but legally. And you know the very specific criteria for treason- so I don’t think it’s actually implicated in the situation that we have now. But I think what he–
JAN CRAWFORD: Legally.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: You don’t think that they’ve committed treason?
WILLIAM BARR: Not as a legal matter, no.
JAN CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes but you know, when you’re dealing with official government contact, intent is frequently a murky issue. I’m not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.
WILLIAM BARR: That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really you know, shouldn’t be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don’t see that. So that’s why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are people- you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that.
JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation?
WILLIAM BARR: Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling. And if the shoe were on the other–
JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling.
WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damningand I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?
JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it’s not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what’s your response to that? Is that legit?
WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus
JAN CRAWFORD: So did you ask the president for authority to declassify?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: You asked the president?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes and also you know, the direction of the intelligence agencies to support our efforts.
JAN CRAWFORD: So did you discuss this with the DNI and head of the CIA?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: And what’s their response?
WILLIAM BARR: That they’re going to be supportive.
JAN CRAWFORD: And so you won’t will you declassify things without reviewing it with them it seems like you have the authority to do that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well in an exceptional circumstance I have that authority but obviously I intend to consult with them. I’m amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I’m going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods.
I’ve been in the business as I’ve said for over 50 years long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I’m in the best decision to make that decision
JAN CRAWFORD: I know you’ve seen some of the criticism and the push back on- on this. Do you have any concerns that doing this investigation, talking about de-classifying certain materials- that that’s undermining your credibility or the credibility of the department?
WILLIAM BARR: No I- I don’t. I think it’s- actually the reaction is somewhat strange. I mean normally–
JAN CRAWFORD: Strange?
WILLIAM BARR: Sure.
JAN CRAWFORD: Their reaction?
WILLIAM BARR: Well the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.
JAN CRAWFORD: You are only the second Attorney General in history who’s served twice. I think the first one was back in 1850.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: But you are working for a man who is- I mean you are an establishment figure in a way. You’ve had a long career in Washington but you are working for a man who is not establishment. And some of his tweets about officials and the rule of law, how do you react when you see those? Are you on Twitter? Do you read his tweets?
WILLIAM BARR: No, I am not on Twitter and every once in a while a tweet is brought to my attention but my experience with the president is, we have- we have a good working, professional working relationship. We, you know, we talk to each other and if he has something to say to me I figure he’ll tell me directly. I don’t look to tweets for, you know, I don’t look at them as directives or as official communications with the department.
JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it’s like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What’s your response to that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You did?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.
JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?
WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I’ve you know–
JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it’s the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?
JAN CRAWFORD: So you don’t regret taking the job?
WILLIAM BARR: No.
JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today?
WILLIAM BARR: I’d rather, in many ways, I’d rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it’s important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.
JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?
WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.”
[Transcript End]

What is a Rare Earth Element?: Rare earth elements are a group of seventeen chemical elements that occur together in the periodic table (see image). The group consists of yttrium and the 15 lanthanide elements (lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). Scandium is found in most rare earth element deposits and is sometimes classified as a rare earth element. Link

How are rare earth elements used and why are they important?: The USA originally used “rare earth elements” when we started to make color television sets in the 1960’s. Europium was the essential material for producing the color images. The Mountain Pass Mine began producing europium from bastnasite, which contained about 0.1% europium. This effort made the Mountain Pass Mine the largest rare earth producer in the world and placed the United States as the leading producer. Link
“Rare earth metals and alloys that contain them are used in many devices that people use every day such as computer memory, DVDs, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting and much more.” Link  During the past twenty years, there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals. Twenty years ago there were very few cell phones in use, but the number has risen to over 7 billion in use today. Link

Control over the commodity, “rare earth elements” became important for the economic health of the USA. The Italians built their empire, in part, based on the trade of salt. To the ancient Chinese, silk production gave them an advantage. The British Empire sailed the world for spices. Control over a highly desired commodity gives a country leverage, power, economic advantage, and creates the hegemons throughout history. The Chinese began to encroach on American advantage and our leaders did not protect this industry. We had it……and we didn’t fight to keep it.
Control the Commodity, Gain Advantage, Control the World: Beginning in the 1980’s, the Chinese returned to an age old strategy of cornering the market on a particular commodity, rare earth elements. Once the Chinese obtained significant control of these mines, they dropped the prices, and ran the American mines out of business. This is the “rinse and repeat” model for the Chinese as they adopted this philosophy across all industries, from common housewares to fabric production, and from stone to satellites.
The Chinese Model:  The Chinese gain a significant foothold in a particular industry. Then, via subsidies, they drop the prices to run all other competition out of business. Because the USA does not support industries or sectors in such a way, our manufacturing is ripe for the picking. Going forward, with no competition in sight, ….. the Chinese set the market price (prices have risen over 500%). Using this chart, we can begin to see the divergence between the USA and China, starting in the mid-80’s. By the late 90’s, China was setting the price. The USA…….. blinked.

Other Commodities Worth Mentioning: China also looked beyond their borders to control world mines as demand increased for various resources. Cobalt and Lithium are NOT rare earth elements but the Chinese model is similar and worth mentioning in this context. Several POUNDS of rare earth elements are needed to manufacture electric car batteries. When lithium (used for cell phone batteries) and Cobalt (used for car batteries) were discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the race for control over the mines began…. along with human rights abuses.
Somewhere between 35,000-40,000 children are excruciatingly exploited in these mines. Link  The video from this WaPost article of the mines will make your blood curdle. Link  While UK Daily Mail’s article focused on a 4yr old who worked in the mine, this Guardian article highlights a 7yr old. Link American Child Labor laws and OSHA mining safety requirements don’t exist when the Chinese come to play….. Because “trillions are at stake” and because Control = Power.
The Election of President Trump Presents a Problem for the Chinese: With the election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency and the confrontation of illicit Chinese trade practices dominating our headlines, the Chinese have resorted to their old playbook. Those rascally Chinese still think we’re stupid and/or Donald Trump is the same as other US Presidents….. Surprise!
China, once again, is threatening to withhold rare earth elements in the recent trade tension with the USA. The business channel pundits are in full meltdown because the prospect of their IPhone upgrade is in danger. Yet, WE ARE THE NEWS, now, and we remember the last time the Chinese played this card. To understand this recent threat from China, we need context and the history of the LAST TIME China tried to extort Japan in the same way.
No, it’s not the first time China has taken such a position. They tried it with Japan back in 2010, when China controlled 95% of the world market. Why aren’t the pundits telling us about the same Chinese playbook? Back in 2010, prices rose another 10% globally because of China’s extortion and the dust-up with Japan. The issue was taken up by the WTO and China was forced to begin exporting once more. Does China think we have forgotten their past deeds? Link  Well, apparently the pundits have forgotten.
We also remember how the world reacted to the Chinese extortion over rare earth elements. Other countries began to search for additional resources. This chart shows China’s rise in rare earth elements and their subsequent decline as other countries became wise to Chinese treachery.

 
Look at the bottom right of the chart. See the rise of Australia right after the dust-up of 2010? Look at the top left of the chart. See the elimination of the USA after we let China into the WTO in 2001? Coincidence?
What you DO NOT SEE is Japan’s reaction…… yet, or more precisely, Japan’s search for a consistent supply of rare earth elements for their economy. Keep in mind, China is the #1 consumer of rare earths, Japan is #2, and the USA (was) #3.  Link
So, where do you find rare earth elements? They’re sometimes formed from volcanic activity, but mostly they were formed from the supernova during the creation of the earth. Over millions of years, wind and weather eroded the mountains, which is why these elements are scattered across the earth. To find these elements in concentrated abundance is rare. To find an undisturbed cache of rare earth elements, it makes sense to look in a place which has remain undisturbed for millions of years….. the earth’s crust….. which is exactly where the Japanese went looking.

See this picture above? Take a look at the date of the photo from Reuters. “Yasuhiro Kato, an associate professor of earth science at the University of Tokyo, displays a mud sample extracted from the depths of about 4,000 metres (13,123 ft) below the Pacific ocean surface where rare earth elements were found, at his laboratory in Tokyo July 5, 2011. REUTERS/Yuriko Nakao”
That’s right, July 5, 2011. After the dust-up of 2010, the Japanese went looking for their own supply of rare earth elements…… and Japan found them. I’m not just guessing Japan targeted their own supply of natural rare earth elements, CNBC and Reuters were reporting on it back in 2014. Link
The study says Japan found 16 million tons. Here is the study – heavy on the technical, make a pot of coffee to get through it all.  Link
“The cache lies off of Minamitori Island, about 1,150 miles southeast of Tokyo. It’s within Japan’s exclusive economic zone, so the island nation has the sole rights to the resources there.”  “There’s enough yttrium to meet the global demand for 780 years, dysprosium for 730 years, europium for 620 years, and terbium for 420 years.”  Link
 
 
From mid-2018. “This is a game changer for Japan,” Jack Lifton, a founding principal of a market-research firm called Technology Metals Research,  Link.   A game changer. Ya’ think? Since rare earth elements are needed for manufacture in the fastest growing segment of all global economies, the procurement of rare earths would be quite important. ……… And a good relationship with countries who produce/control a large supply of rare earth elements would be a good thing…… right?

Dearest China, tell me again….., tell me how stupid you think the Americans are……
And to the business pundits, who ignore their own prior reporting on these discoveries, mislead the public, create tension and discord, while President Trump is dealing with China on trade negotiations…… shame on you.
And one more thing, since I’ve mounted the soapbox. Let’s speculate, as our dearest business pundits love to do. If the President and his administration can clear enough red tape to allow the build of an 11 billion dollar LNG port in a swamp in Cameroon Parish, Louisiana, in about 18 months, how long do we think it would take for the Trump Administration to PLOW THE ROAD for mining to continue at USA facility – Mountain Pass Mine in California.

Note: the company who owned Mountain Pass, Molycorp, took a 1.7 BILLION dollar loss because of Chinese subsidies, running competition out of the market, and the company went bankrupt in 2015 – selling the mine for 20.5 Million dollars —- yes, our leaders were stupid.) Link   You won’t believe this BUT, at one point, Mountain Pass produced 50K tons/yr and sent the minerals TO CHINA for processing…… yes, that’s how stupid our leaders were.
Yes, Americans remember. We never forget. We are the news now!
We remember well. For me, it was 6th grade, Social Studies, when we studied South America. I had to report on the country of Chile. Mandated by Mrs. Dodson, my teacher, necessary on our reports were the locations of copper, silver, iron ore, and bauxite (necessary for aluminum production) mines, as well as other natural resources, rich and abundant fisheries, and historical versus modern trading routes. Carrying the “bigger than me” white poster board to school to present my project was cumbersome. I lost one of the silver dimes glued on to represent a Chilean silver mine…. distressing to a 6th grader, and the goldfish crackers I glued off the coastline, to represent fisheries, were broken. I grumbled. Mrs. Dodson, surely was unreasonable, making us do these extravagant reports about a far away country, and mines wherein I had no interest………. Little did I know……..
Thank you, Mrs. Dodson.
We would be remiss, however, if we did not consider ALL locations for natural resources. Right? Think bigger. Have you ever heard the name Naveen Jain? He was an Indian national who came to the USA with $5 in his pocket. He wants to mine the moon. It’s an estimated 16 QUADRILLION worth of metals. His companies name is Moon Express. Link
…….. And just think…… we were puzzled when President Trump and Prime Minister Abe talked about going to the Moon and Mars together. Does it all make sense now?

It’s all possible with great leaders.
End.
 

Backstory: When I met my second husband, he wanted to move south, out of the snow and rat race of Boston. Problem was, I owned a B&B with my ex-husband’s last name (my married name) proudly displayed on the sign. The B&B had a great reputation with significant return clientele – I couldn’t change the name. Second husband felt his need to put a “man-stamp” on the house, and we decided to renovate and build a pool. Well, the pool tile was $112,000. I didn’t care how much money he had, I wasn’t about to spend $112K on pool tile. I knew what I wanted but wasn’t about to pay retail. And thus began my sojourn into the import business. It took me a year, contracts with Maersk, background checks by FBI, licensing, etc., but finally the pool tile arrived —–>>> $7,000 plus shipping.
Over the next year, I made several mistakes, trusting foreign nationals to honor their word. Frustrated but unwilling to capitulate, I got the crazy idea to hire the most highly competent foreign nationals I could find, men who were highly respected in their own communities, to work for me…. Their job was to act as my “second”, to check on blocks of stone BEFORE they were cut, to supervise our orders within a factory, and to properly manage the packing of our delicate freight. As our backyard project grew, 12 containers arrived from all over the world. I made quite a ruckus in a small town.
My former husband was a general contractor and I kept the “rolodex” in the divorce. Pretty soon, I started receiving phone calls from other architects (and girlfriends), “Hey Daughn, do you suppose you could get me some slabs of Italian marble….. A x B dimensions….” and so on. Soon, my side business was born. When the crash of 2008 happened, that business became a necessity.
I placed a Christmas phone call to a company owner in Brazil, to wish him well in the new year. He was desperate and mad at me — the American. He thought I should have an answer, be the leader. And I got an idea. Because of the dire economic conditions, I spearheaded a “consortium of sorts”. We saved about 200 factories, assets that were generations old, and their employees, along the way. Many proud men cried to me on the phone, grateful for our cooperation. I kept their secrets, their moment of weakness carefully guarded, and never – ever, held it against them. We built amazing loyalty among the best factories, small and large, all over the world. It worked. We survived and kept the lights on and our families fed. It was an incredibly emotional time.
In 15 years, I have 64 employees, all men, thousands of years of experience, working for me in 14 countries, plus all the factories and quarries we work with. My ex-husband was hired to do take-offs for large condo projects, and my son was hired by one of my clients. Current husband handled a lot of the banking transactions and worked as house counsel…. being a lawyer and all….. I hired over-educated girlfriends with incredibly sweet southern accents to provide basic customer service and track shipping. I did the heavy lifting and played Diplomat.
Here’s the deal. Without realizing it, and because of my mistakes, I set up our company to do what no other company could. Imagine, for instance, you’re building the Burj hotel in Dubai. You want white Thassos marble from Greece, a blue granite from Peru, a gorgeous gray marble from Italy, and you need a gold from Egypt or Pakistan, plus a black granite in a thin panel…… only made in China. Well, that meant a project manager in Dubai had to call and find companies to sell him all the material, from 5 different countries. Often, the project manager would have to travel, endlessly, to approve material, and argue with the vendors…… cuz once you arrive…. it’s never quite what you ordered. OR – that project manager could sit back, sleep well at night, and call Daughn. You know Daughn? She’s the one who sits upon her mountain top, in rural Mississippi, but could reach out and touch a quarry with a phone call……. and had people on the ground, in every corner of the world, all the time. The savings and ease of order for the project manager made my company successful in a very strange and complex market.
Now, what I haven’t told you is that the above example was an actual job for the Burj Marina. I was sent the specifications in one year, spent weeks pricing up the job, locating and shipping samples, only for the architect to decide he wanted to do it himself. Okay, fine. I was mad, but it happens. Three years later, I received a phone call from a buddy who was an Indian national, working in Doha, Qatar. He had this great order and was sooooooo excited, but didn’t know how to fulfill it…….. it was the same damn order. You think it’s a little odd? One of the most famous buildings built in the last 20yrs ended up on my desk, in lil’ ole Mississippi…….. twice? Funny that.
It has been one helluva ride….. all because I wanted a better price….. and made a whole lot of mistakes along the way.
That I was a woman was a shock to most quarry and factory owners. Contrary to America, most countries in the world don’t believe in “equality” for women, women in business, or politically correct……. anything. That I was an old-school woman, who understood the promotion of a husband’s career, was a blessing in disguise. To large factory owners, 12th generation quarry owners, and project managers, I became their business wife. I was the good wife, who could find their keys and read their thoughts. I was the problem solver who could take care of the budget for the project…. and deliver stellar material, correctly, and on time. I took care of their stress, and was often the ONLY person who could step between two powerful men who were arguing….. and, boy-oh-boy, did they ever argue.
That I was an American AND a woman, in the back end bowels of the stone business, made me a freak of nature. Many in our group, at Q Tree, are foreign or were American and now live overseas. They can vouch for this statement. I had no idea when I started, but there is a strange automatic deference given to the “American” in the room. We are presumed to be in charge. It is assumed we will lead well and…….. fairly. It’s a FACT, and as Americans, we have to be benevolent leaders as we represent more than “a regular customer doing an order” overseas. We also represent our country. No use in fighting it. Wear that red, white, and blue with pride.
I have hundreds of wild stories of Russian oligarchs, rich Arabs, hiring Polish mafia “to collect”, building embassies for countries who don’t like each other, shipping gold, oil contracts, and wild sons of rich men who get in trouble, BUT………. FLEP’s post about the new alliance he sees President Trump forming, Japan/India/USA, to throttle China, reminds me of of how much the Chinese and the Indians detest each other. For them, it’s personal. We have 11 people in China and 15 in India. I was the bridge between the two.
We won’t get into the thousands of years of wars between the Indians and the Chinese, many of you are better versed in this subject than I. This story however, will encapsulate the natural born contempt between the citizens of these two countries.
Prada is a luxury Italian designer which makes items I can’t afford and don’t need. Nonetheless, they were building out a store at Lenox Square in Atlanta. For their store, they needed black granite, but they wanted the best black granite possible. Their Italian designer for the store had rejected 36 different samples of black granite over 4 months. The project manager in Atlanta and the architect in New York were growing frustrated and the project was at a standstill. Somehow, I got the desperate phone call for superior black granite (we sell about 30 different shades of black – just out of India).
I had a hunch what they needed but promised nothing. “Oh please, you have to help us”, Antolini said. I paused for that glorious moment, hanging in the air, and said, “I’m right here. It will be okay. I’ll call you back in 12 hours. Go to bed now.” I love it when they beg, but quickly turned my attention to the task at hand. My head man in India had been waxing poetic about a new black granite quarry. He spoke of the perfection of the stone like he would his first love, the one that got away. The owner of the quarry was an old school chum. They played on the same cricket team 40yrs prior and they were both Christians, which was very important to them both. My head man was pushing me to invest in the quarry because it was “a sure thing”, but I was reluctant to drop $200K on a whim. In any event, whether I invested or not, we needed a customer for the “new” black. I had him send me a sample ASAP….. and it was truly, extraordinarily, fine. He was right.
In the meantime, the Chinese learned of the new black quarry, and I was dragging my feet on “investing” or giving the cricket guy an order. The Chinese scurry over the land like ants, looking for raw material. You can squish one, or burn down the ant hill, but the Chinese always return…… like ants. A team of purchasers was dispatched from China to make a deal for the quarry. My head man and his friend…… left the Chinese team…..in a hotel, cooling their heels…… for three solid weeks. The Chinese were at their wits end.
My sample, the 37th sample, was approved by Prada, but we were in a rush to manufacture the stone. Whatever we did in India, shipping would take 6 weeks. It’s a long way from Chennai to Atlanta. Prada, the Project Manager, and the Architect could not wait six weeks. I was ordered to charter a plane and fly it, $83,000 for the plane ALONE, and given 10-12 days to manufacture it. It was an impossible task…… that we managed to complete. My head man called an old buddy, a Raj, who owned several factories. We split the order among the three, he supervised everything, kissed the packages lightly, and sent them to Atlanta.
We pulled the best black blocks from the quarry with borrowed diamond saws from a friend of mine, and other trucks and equipment from more friends. The Chinese were jumping up and down, taking photos, making phone calls, gesticulating wildly…… and sneaking into our factories where we were manufacturing……. to drool ALL OVER our black granite. But – there was nothing they could do. I played the bad cop to the Chinese on this occasion. They were stymied by the vision of an illusive but clever American, when it was really the two Indians who would rather do business with the devil than the Chinese.
As luck would have it, when we got close to the end of the order, the luxurious silken black granite started to run bad. Very unusual, quarries usually run for years. My head man was terrified we would not be able to finish the order. We were pulling 5 blocks for one block of good material. Fortunately, we finished on time with perfect material. The rest of the quarry, by then, was pretty much a crap shoot. Bad silver veins….. and cracking. As my head man said in perfectly crisp British, “No large blocks, only pebbles.”
Prada was elated with their granite and my reputation was bolstered among the NY stuffy architects. The project manager in Atlanta was a joy to work with and I sent my ex-husband to deal with him. The cricket playing quarry owner made a small fortune on our order. Plus, he sold the quarry to the Chinese for $750K, more than his original asking price. He moved to Sri Lanka and opened another factory for manufacture of tiles. The Chinese ended up with a worthless plot of land……. and lots and lots of pebbles.
I moved on to the next order.
For perspective, this story happened about ten years ago. Yet, to this day, I can mention the perfect black “Prada” granite to my head man, and he howls with laughter over how he and his buddy screwed the Chinese. He loved it. The Chinese and the Indians are like the Hatfields and McCoys……. they’ve been fighting for so long, they can’t remember what started the argument. Yet, the Chinese and Indians are WORSE…….., they’ve been fighting for thousands of years. It’s weird though. With me in the middle, the American woman, they all get quiet, straighten their backs, and act like 8yr old school boys, who poke at each other when mom is not looking.
If Flep is right, and I think he is, we are in for a super-duper special treat with Donald J. Trump at the helm of this new alliance between Japan/India/USA. Plus, we will get a master class in geopolitics for how it all spins around the Chinese.
I can’t wait. Not enough popcorn in the world.
End.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Have you ever wondered what you could do, individually, to help our country or President? To make YOUR voice heard? Well, we might have found an answer. It’s pretty simple = #PostItAmerica has received attention from the Chinese and now, autofills on Twitter. It’s an easy way to push BACK against China, and defend our President, our farmers and workers in the USA.
Here’s how it all started.
About a week ago, Trish Regan of Fox News interviewed Steve Bannon. See Below:

 
Steve Bannon is the ENEMY: Soon after the interview, Chinese State TV labeled Bannon as an enemy, and the USA should not listen to him. Pretty cool, eh? Badge of honor for Steve Bannon.
Trish Regan Weighs in on China:  Well, Trish was pretty hard on the Chinese in her comments. Americans have a quite a bit of pent up anger after 30 yrs of being abused in bad trade deals, and having our intellectual property stolen. We’ve done everything we can, even with bad leadership, to bring China into the world of nations to trade in good faith. China has cheated at every turn. We’re ready to push back in this economic war. It’s time.
The Chinese respond to Trish:  Last night, Chinese State TV did a hit piece on Trish Regan. Can you imagine? A Chinese propaganda chic, on her version of the “curvy couch”, broadcasting in ENGLISH to the English speaking world, was trashing Trish Regan. I stopped on a dime and turned up the volume. Chinese State TV said Trish was “emotional” and was “spitting fire from her eyes” and “had no facts”. I eyes were glued to the television, laser focused… but my jaw was on the floor….. China was attacking an American TV pundit, a woman, because SHE was a threat. Have we ever seen that before?

Kudos to Trish Regan:  Trish Regan should have asked for a raise. Major street cred for Trish Regan. The Chinese tried to dismiss her, demean her as a woman in a way that was actually chauvinist – not ‘fake’ chauvinist like the Dems try to do in a PC culture. The Chinese tried to trivialize her background in finance….
What happens when a woman gets angry?:   … I was a partner in a brokerage firm…. and I was furious. The hair stood up on the back of my neck. I worked on Wall Street, but I also worked in a grocery store and punched a clock for a long time. ANY woman would have been incensed by these comments. The way the Chinese talked about Trish Regan was scurrilous. I submit, any American man who saw a woman demeaned in such a way would instantly rise to his feet to defend her. Yeah, the Chinese effort to smear Trish Regan backfired……… and I got mad.
Targeted and effective anger:  I responded to Trish’s post of the segment on Twitter. A few months ago, I started a little campaign in my local grocery store which I named #PostItAmerica. I took sticky notes and posted a small note on to Chinese items. It was an effort to make people think before they buy. If 70% of the US economy is consumer driven, and women do most of the buying, we can send a BIG message with a little bit of effort. Normally, it’s the men who buy the big items. Their impact is bigger, but consistent small purchases overwhelms the Chinese like death from 1,000 cuts.

 
And what about our FARMERS?: We KNOW American farmers are purposely targeted by China to weaken support for President Trump during Trade Negotiations. Indirectly, the Dems are cheering for the Chinese and against America…… cuz they don’t want to see President Trump win….. even if it hurts America. I was even more angry and posted more pics to support AMERICAN farmers along with #PostItAmerica and #DontBuyFromChina.

What happens when more than one woman gets angry?:  The pics from my local grocer and WalMart were loaded up to Trish’s Twitter feed along with the #PostItAmerica and #DontBuyFromChina hashtags. Overnight, my twitter feed blew up. Now, the #PostItAmerica hashtag autofills on Twitter, which means it is beginning to trend. Wow, lil’ ole me, with my silly lil’ sticky notes. Twitter heard me….., but the best was yet to come.
When China notices the Americans are ANGRY:  After morning covfefe, I checked my Twitter feed. I had an actual Chinese troll. No kidding. I thought, “Huh, Twitter isn’t allowed in China” or so we thought. Must be a Chinese national located in a place where the state doesn’t censor Twitter. Yet, I checked the trolls feed and it was all post for the Chinese Olympic Team. Interesting, eh? And now, I have THREE Chinese trolls…. one who thinks he can see my bra……. all the way from China….. or wants me to run naked without Chinese clothing…….
https://twitter.com/174TTTZ/status/1131602335606513664
So, what does this tell us?
1. China is watching social media in the USA to gauge reaction and check support for Trump in their trade negotiations. Public opinion is strong in the USA and for the past 30yrs, public opinion has influenced our Presidents and their foreign policy. The Chinese would be mistaken to rely upon liberal polling, however, with President Trump. He doesn’t care. Just like Steve Bannon said, the Chinese were woefully unprepared for a President Trump.
2. It’s time to wake the sleeping giant, the American consumer, and send China a message. We understand what works. We get it….. now.
3. I’m a speck of dust on China’s radar. If I merit my own Twitter troll, they’re worried.
But I was thrilled!
Bolstered by the idea that I had my own Chinese Twitter troll, I dropped the pics in a few MORE places. THEN, I got this response. Pay close attention to the #’s used and where this Chinese troll sent my pics. He/she sent them to the 5G and Huawei # feeds. Gee whiz, do you think they’re hyper vigilant and watching our social media to gauge our temperature on China?
https://twitter.com/kingmingto/status/1131624407644876800
And here’s my big question. Who starts a hashtag called #spy? Think about that one for a minute. I have so many questions about #mengwanzhou #renzhengfei #spy #tradewar #china #ccp #pla #prc
Bottom line: Are you sick and tired of Dems and pundits controlling the narrative? Ready to push back? Well then, please join me at #PostItAmerica and #DontBuyFromChina and send a message to the Chinese. We support our President and our trade team. How dare they go after our farmers! China has seriously overstepped!
Happy Memorial Day to ALL!

 

You have to see this video. Talk about gaining perspective!
Sometimes, you know how it is…… We watch a youtube video, then the phone rings, we get distracted, youtube still runs, and we come back to something completely unexpected.
Well, this was a gobsmack of an unexpected video.
The clip was posted by a guy name Matthew Murray, in November of 2017. It’s a rock concert…. but there is no rock star…….. no band…… the stars are the concert goers.
It looks like the stagehands were testing the equipment, and happened to play Bohemian Rhapsody to check the sound……. and a strange thing happened.
Everyone started singing.
Everyone.
All 60,000 people sang, on cue, hit the high notes, clapped during the staccato, jumped up and down during the rock portion, swayed together during the slow portion. THEY ALL did it…… together. Look at the crowd. They ALL know the song.
We can tell, the person recording the video didn’t expect it to happen because we miss the very first portion of the song. Thankfully, someone turned on a camera from the stage to capture the video. It was a thing of beauty.
It’s been 28 years since Freddie Mercury died, and 35 years since the song came out. Can you imagine what it would have been like to be there? At that moment? Be honest. We all know the words; you were probably singing along as well. ….. I was.
THIS is what a unified culture looks like. If I were an enemy, I wouldn’t want to go to war with this country. Even a bunch of concert goers all sing the same “battle hymns”. Old or young, color of skin, gender, none of that crap matters…… they’re together. If they can sing together, surely, they can get along.
Think of how the Boston Red Sox sing “Sweet Caroline” at the 7th inning, or how we all know the same Christmas carols, or yes, our National Anthem. We all know the same songs. The music make our culture unique to others.
Remember the stories of WW2 when the Allies were trying to question an enemy? They would ask, “Who was the 1st baseman for the Brooklyn Dodgers?”, or…. the words to a song, or Lana Turner’s measurements. When the ‘spy’ didn’t know the answer, they were quickly outed. We need an American culture that unifies us…….. not a media, Hollywood, and music, which relishes in division and angst.
We’ve read the history of Queen and we’re familiar with what they went through to get this song made and played on the radio. It was a long song, true, and the DJ’s didn’t think people would listen…….. but we did. Yeah, 35 years later, it was worth it. Bohemian Rhapsody has become an anthem. Despite everything, the people, ordinary concert goers, understand.
Maybe the music can bring us back together. Solve some of the discord in America? Gee, it’s hard to hate when you’re singing and dancing. It’s often said, music brings out our innate tribal rhythms. Well, maybe it’s time for us to realize we’re all part of the same tribe.
Enjoy the video, and sing along!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp7j3ji5U24
 

Was looking at Twitter this morning and saw a retweet from FLEP, by Charles Payne.

We can probably all agree, FLEP has keen insight when it comes to good news, hidden news, especially indicators of shifts in economics. Thank you, FLEP. Glad you’re on our side. It’s a good guess we will be seeing that tweet later on today in the News RoundUp.
So, I started thinking about what happens when 1.4 BILLION Chinese start to tighten their spending habits. I thought about how the Chinese economy works, how their system is set up, as compared to how the USA operates. We’re very different.
Although Chinese civilization is thousands of years old and America is a but a babe, the industrialization of China only occurred in the last 25yrs. The great move to the coast by roughly 600 million Chinese, is a new thing. Children of family farms left the interior and moved to bigger cities to join the factory workforce. Most of these workers still go home for Spring Festival, when China all but shuts down their factories for three weeks…. cuz it takes that much time to travel home and back again.
America was developed differently. Sure, we started on the coastlines but moved inland on rivers, and over the Appalachians fairly quickly. Our agrarian economy developed all over the nation. Cities sprung up, and trade flowed from the interior to the coasts and back again. We raced to build transcontinental railroads….. and then Eisenhower built the great interstates…… which beget terrific cars out of Detroit….. and truckers to move goods from coast to coast in three days. We even made movies ABOUT truckers.
Be honest. Who among us has NOT slipped in behind a friendly semi…… to join a CONVOY!!!!!!! Only in the USA.

 
We’ve done business in China since 2003. About three years ago, I had a huge problem with a client order. The factory, located in interior China, was working too slowly and I was going to miss the deadline for shipment to the USA. I wanted to move the raw slabs to another factory at the coast, so they cut to order quickly, making the ship. To move 2 containers, 800 miles, was damn near impossible and cost me a little over $6000. What was really funny….. it was an unknown problem for them…. something they had not encountered before. Wow.
To an American, if we want to move goods from Dallas to Memphis, Boston to DC, Seattle to San Fran, we call a trucking line, or use an APP on our phones, to schedule a pickup. We load at a dock, and the goods arrive in less than 24 hours. Not in China. Again, thank Eisenhower for your interstates. Ease of distribution makes everything else possible.
Remember the scene from the movie, “Hunt for Red October”, where the “Second” wanted to live in Montana, marry a round American wife, raise rabbits, and TRAVEL from state to state…. no papers…. maybe even own an RV and live in Arizona in the winter? Or visit an American grocery store?  Freedom to travel, choices of where we want to live, THAT’s America.

I live in Mississippi, now, but I miss the food from my home towns of New Orleans, Chicago, New York, and Miami. As an American, I can order King Crab legs from Alaska, key limes from Florida for the pie, and bagels from my favorite deli in NYC, to arrive by tomorrow. In fact, most of these same things are available at my local grocery store, less than a mile from my home. THAT’s America, choices, freedom. Thank you, President Eisenhower.
Have you ever been to a grocery store in a foreign country, maybe 30 miles outside of a major city? I have. It’s NOTHING like the grocery stores in the USA. Choices are non-existent. Good heavens, we have 37 different kinds of toothpaste available. I can buy Turkish towels, grapes from Chile, or a blender from China…… in less than 20 minutes.
An old employee called me for 1/4″ rebar/20′ sections (he was being artsy-making a lawn ornament), which is almost non-existent. I searched on-line, while we were talking, found some in Seattle, and had it on his doorstep in less than 36 hours. God Bless America…… and Eisenhower.
Years ago, during the fall of the Soviet Empire, we were all in the kitchen one day, speculating on the primary cause. Some thought it was because of Desert Storm, and that the Soviets learned our weapons really did work. Others thought it was because of Reagan’s military build up = We outspent the Soviets. Husband spoke up and said, “No, it’s about food.” We were all curious about his odd answer and asked him to explain further. He said, “They can’t ship a potato across 13 time zones…. they have no roads…. how are they going to go to war and defend both coasts plus the Caspian Sea?”
But it all came to a head last night, when the realization finally hit me.
We got a call for the B&B from a potential guest at about 9:00pm, nice couple, looking for a room for the night. We were trying to figure out how close they were to us to give them directions. They were on the interstate….. Eisenhower’s interstate, which runs from Chicago to New Orleans. The wife said, “We just past a Circle K” Husband replied, “Well, there’s probably a Circle K at every exit ramp, can you give me another hint?”
Sure, there probably is a Circle K at every exit ramp. Once the interstate went in, the 7-11 or Circle K pops up. Then, we get the gas stations, a hotel, a grocery store, dry cleaner, small businesses, bigger factories, a residential community, etc. It’s how we developed our economy…… and it all started with the interstates. China doesn’t have them and neither does Russia…… not like we do in the USA.
Take a look at Europe. One would think Europe would have roads and distribution on par with the USA. Italy has great “stradas”/interstates and Germany has the famous “Autobahn”. Yet, have you ever tried to take the coastal roads in Italy? It’s scenic, sure, but it takes forever and it’s nothing like AIA in Miami to Palm Beach or US1 in California. Small town France is terrific for public transport back to Paris, but try moving a truckload of goods from Normandy to Nice.
Central and South America are far worse. Have you ever driven in Mexico? Or Columbia, Chile…… even Brazil from the coast up to Minas Gerais? Wear comfortable clothes if you do, cuz you’ll have to change your shorts when you arrive. Yes, we are spoiled in the USA. Our roads and interstates are a luxury.
Heck, as the story goes, the REASON Eisenhower was inspired to build our interstates was because of his experience moving trucks, equipment, men and supplies around Europe during WW2.
It makes me wonder, what do you suppose it’s worth, our distribution system as a whole, to our GDP? What kind of an advantage does it give us above other countries? The train woke me up this morning at 5:00am. Instead of complaining, I was happy. It’s the sound of America on the move. Goods being shipped. AND it wasn’t long ago our tracks were in serious jeopardy of being pulled up. Now, we have 5-6 trains a day. Gotta love it.
We take it for granted. We’re all familiar with the ease of travel in the USA. Because we have a B&B, we take frequent last minute trips if we are not booked for a few days. All of our vacations have to be spontaneous. I have a packing list, taped to the inside door of the closet, so I don’t forget something. Makes it easy to put together a quick go-bag. I’m thinking no one in China or Russia does the same thing. Travel can be spontaneous for us.
One of our QTreepers is in Florida right now. She posted that she was sipping wine and feeding crackers to the turtles. I miss those little turtles and mentioned it to husband. He gave me an impish grin, checked the spot on his wrist where he once wore a watch, and said, “Ya’ know, we can be there in 7 hours.”
Yeah, in America, we could. Thank you, President Eisenhower.
It might be time for a Cannonball Run….. to the beach.

 
We’ll see you, somewhere on the road……. in America! We are eastbound and down…. very soon!

 
Hit the road this summer….. America is a beautiful place.

We bought the B&B in March, a few days after my fiance’s birthday. The house was a wreck. No one lived here for 23yrs, and we undertook a complete renovation. He was quite a bit older than me (13yrs) and had been married before. His ex-wife was a manipulative and mean woman who “ran off” all his friends. I was determined our life, our home, would be open and welcoming to his friends. Every guy needs man friends, right? During the renovation, one of his buddies wandered by and casually mentioned, “Hey, it’s a shame you’re almost finished, we should have had another one of OUR birthday parties BEFORE the house was all fixed up.”
Now, I grew up in different cities, not in the same small town. Thus, I was unfamiliar with the history, the “lore”, the stories of their wild days in their 20’s. Yet, I learned five of them all had birthdays close to each other and those birthday parties were legendary. I made a mental note………. and decided to throw a birthday party for husband and his buddies the following year.
We opened in 6 months, September, and were married in December, with the reception at the house. By the time the next March rolled around, I had several big parties under my belt and a staff which was ready for anything. BUT this was a personal party – not a client party, …… and it was a blowout.
But I had a problem.
While the guys were all wild as hell in their youth, they had grown up. NOW….. they all went to church, paid taxes, went to rotary….. stuff like that…… NOW…. they were all upstanding members of the community. One owned the biggest lumber company within 30 miles. One was the head of a 50 man architectural firm, a prominent southern firm. One was the Mayor and a zillionaire. One owned a 7K acre farm and worked his way up to Pres of the MS Cattlemen’s Association. AND, one was my husband, who owned a large construction company. They were all in their 40’s (I was 32) and the idea of another “wild” party might damage a few reputations. It is a small town, and people do gossip. So….., I made up rules for the party.
Those who read here, Q Treepers, know me well enough to know, I don’t like rules. Daughn’s rules for the party went as follows:

1. There will be no pictures taken at the party.
2. If you buy a new “outfit” for the party, we will know, and you won’t be invited back.
3. If you talk about the party, hit on someone else’s wife, or spread gossip, we will know, and you won’t be invited back.
4. This is our one event, once per year, where we all get to have fun. So, have fun.
5. Come hungry, we’re cooking!

With 5 locally prominent guys and one massive birthday party, the guest list became unmanageable. I decided to print up an “announcement” and ran off 300 sheets on the printer, giving each guy 50-60 announcements to send to whomever they wanted. Easiest way to solve that problem. Most of the guys knew the SAME people = duplicates. I figured half would come, with a guest, and we would have, at most, 100-250 people for the party. Right?
The party was scheduled for the first weekend in March. I swear, I could write the Farmer’s Almanac when it comes to predicting the weather. Usually, I’m pretty good. Without fail, in our little town, the weather for the first weekend in March is absolutely perfect. Around March 4-10th, we get our first break of spring. It’s 72 degrees, and glorious weather after a long (6-8 weeks) winter. Everyone throws on their flip-flops and shorts. We come out of hibernation. It’s a perfect weekend for a party.
At 5:00pm, we had 3-4 inches of snow on the ground. In the south, if it snows, everything comes to a standstill. It wasn’t sticking on the streets, sidewalks, and driveway, but my husband was devastated. He paced in front of the big window in the parlor, “No one is going to come to my party.” He looked like a sad little kid.
I said a little prayer and hoped for the best, because we were READY.
We planned the party for a month, which meant the anticipation had time to build. People made travel plans and the party grew. I heard rumblings, “Hey Daughn, is it okay if I invite……”, to which I always said, “Sure, the more the merrier!” And people did make travel plans.
The word went out. They came from everywhere….. They brought more friends….. and they brought food. The staff and I had cooked for three days……. but the food…. the food was overwhelming and the generosity of others was humbling.
Husband’s cousins came in from Milwaukee. These were the Harley Davidson cousins. They rented a truck, and brought 180 cases of beer, and a few kegs of craft beer, 10 EXTRA kegs…….. in case we ran out. They brought with them their best friends, who owned the biggest catering company in Wisconsin (catered for Bill Clinton when he hosted the Governor’s Assoc/ did 50K people at golf tournaments, etc), and they brought more brats, salamis, and cheeses, than I’ve ever seen in my life. They also brought THEIR grill they used for golf tournaments. They all stayed at Mother-in-law’s house.
Some of my old, but very dear, and very wealthy, gay friends decided to come up from New Orleans. They brought 250lbs of shrimp and 25lbs of raw fresh shucked oysters. Do you have any idea how many oysters that is? OMG, it was endless. Plus, because there is no tax on liquor in Louisiana, they brought hard liquor for the party. We unloaded case after case after case of Jack Daniels, Absolute, Bacardi, a load of Tanqueray + 4 cases of Champagne……… cuz we had to toast the birthday boys. They all stayed at Grandma Della’s house.
Since the owners of the town liquor store were invited, they contributed all the “house wine”…. in pickup trucks. ……. We took over the neighbor’s garage for extra storage and the police were guarding the house…. like it was their party.
My old biz partner from Miami, who married my best friend, maid of honor in our wedding, decided to come. They brought stone crab claws and and our neighbor’s extra fridge was filled with Jewish Deli from Wolfie’s, Roast Beef… Pastrami… Corned Beef….. it was heavenly.
Then, the Cattlemen’s Assoc. boys…….. from DALLAS….. decided to come, in a Winnebago, with their traveling BBQ team. I have no idea how much beef and pork they brought with them….. it was unimaginable.
And our staff had cooked for days, mostly Italian and hors d’oeuvres. We set up three bars. We had a formal bar in the house, hard liquor/bartenders and more food on the side porch. Horse troughs for beer and 13 tables for BBQ on the back porch and yard. The Cattlemen and Wisconsin BBQ’s were set up on a parking pad – we took over the neighbor’s house as well. I marinated half the shrimp and we boiled half.
The guys set up a fish cooker for the oysters, and we made this weird concoction – on a skewer, you start with a half-cooked piece of bacon, thread an oyster (which has marinated), thread the bacon, another oyster, more bacon, on and on, ending in bacon. Then, the whole thing is fried in a fish cooker. I stopped counting at 1000 made, and I didn’t get to eat a single one. People hovered over the fish cooker and a whole tray of them never made it into the house. Scarfed. 
We had the main food set up in the dining room with desserts in the library. We moved our entire ground floor master bedroom, upstairs, so we had more room for prep – expanding the kitchen. Husband brought in two MOAR fridges and tables from the shop.
Food and CD’s with the outdoor speakers went from about 6-8pm. The birthday boys got together, chipped in, and hired a “really good band”.  The band started at about 8:30pm, with the unmistakable rift of Eric Clapton’s “Cocaine”.

We set the band up in the garage, and the parking circle was a perfect dance floor. At the time, we had a 3 car garage but it did not have a garage door. So, it was like a cave. The garage is next door to the tall brick walls of the school. The echo was phenomenal. My girlfriend was at Wal-Mart, about a mile away, picking up extra sodas for mixers. She was in the parking lot and heard the band gear up…….
Well then….
To combat the cooler temps, the construction/farm guys brought in “concrete heaters” or “shop heaters” which were like enormous space heaters that ran on kerosene. Somewhere along the way, a group built a LARGE bonfire in the backyard, perfect for the chill in the air.
The band was really cranking and I remember dancing so hard we were sweating, with snow on the ground. Wild, eh? I walked toward the house to take a break and check on the kitchen, when a girlfriend from Culture Club stopped me. “That was a GREAT song. What was that?”, she said. I looked at MaryLynn and was dumbfounded. How could she possibly live through the 70’s and not know about ZZTop and “Tush”? She had no idea. She was so sheltered.

I do recall sitting in the staircase hallway with my banker, shooting tequila, when four policemen walked through the back door into the hallway. His face went white. He thought we were being raided. He was a Baptist Deacon who “never drank”. No, it was shift change at the police station and those boys were hungry. I do love my police department. Sensing his nervousness, one of the detectives told him they were off duty, “It’s okay Mr. X, they put a sign up on the switchboard which read ‘Party at X House tonight. Unless there is a fire, leave them alone.”
Then, he then told me the Sheriff left town, went fishing, for the weekend of our party…… incommunicado.
We had an epic moment when the tile crew guys decided to join, and jam, with the band. They went through everything from George Thorogood to Muddy Waters. The band was HOT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl4oWQLnjXk
The party went off without a hitch. It was as if it wasn’t my party, or our party…… it was everyone’s party. All night long I saw people bundling trash, passing a platter, washing a dish, putting another log on the fire………., everyone contributed in big ways and small ways. There were no “guests”. It was more like a big family reunion.
There was one moment. I was standing on the back porch, looking over the rail at the crowd. Lots of people I did not know, but all good people. I had no idea how much they “needed” a party, a chance to get together, a chance to eat, drink, and be merry. It really wasn’t just a party for my husband, or the five guys. I was looking for the wallflowers, the people who were not mixing. There weren’t any.
Some say there were 1000 people here that night. I doubt it. Others said 600, another said not more than 400. I have no idea. I did count 9 judges…..
The next morning, we all arose and were kind of tired and groggy. The Winnebago crew was stirring and people were sleeping on couches upstairs, but they were all part of the party/hosts/crew and belonged here. Husband started coffee. The farmer woke up, because if the sun is up, he’s awake. He wandered downstairs and started picking at the leftover food on the dining table. The shrimp, oysters, crab claws were all gone. No telling how much meat and Italian food we went through. We did wrap and save what we could before going to bed, including those huge cheese rounds from Wisconsin.
Farmer: “Gosh, I missed this last night….”, plunging a stale frito into an unknown dip.
Husband: (wandered into the dining room) “I wouldn’t eat that if I were you”
Farmer: “Aw, a little bit of bacteria won’t hurt me…. the Jack Daniels will kill everything.”
Husband: “I’m not talking about food left out all night”, he pointed to the little cat paw prints in the dip……..
Farmer: “Gotcha”.
By the next morning the weather cleared and it was at least 65 degrees by 9:00am. Snow gone. Perfect weather. I saved the Corned Beef, 10lbs. of it, and we made a scratch Corned Beef Hash, 20lbs of potatoes, simmered in beef bullion (with the corned beef) and 5 dozen eggs….. and brats, for breakfast, on the golf tournament grill. The Harley crew, and the gay guys, showed up for breakfast…. with grandmas in tow.
They ate it all.
We did have beer left….. for the Harley guys….. for breakfast.
The Cattlemen said our party was, “Bigger than Dallas.”
And the gay guys made Mimosas with leftover champagne.
What a party….. with a LOT of help……. from great friends.
Finally,
After everyone left, husband turned to me, “That was fun. Can’t wait ’til next year……..!”
Next year……..

Here we go. LIVE THREAD!!!!!!
Our President is a busy guy. He’s in Louisiana today, visiting Cameron Parish, LNG facility.
https://www.kplctv.com/2019/05/08/hackberry-residents-react-president-trump-visiting-cameron-lng/
From the article above: Residents are excited. Take a look at the comments.

HACKBERRY, LA (KPLC) – Hackberry residents are starting the countdown to President Donald Trump’s visit to Cameron Parish next week.

“I think it’s a good thing,” Charles Marz said. “I’m looking forward to it. I want him to bring me a cap. I want one of them red caps. Make America Great Again. Yes! MAGA 2020, just MAGA, I’ll take either one.”

“Everybody was like surprised like what?” Carlos Lopez said. “We’re waiting. Everybody is excited. Everybody.”

Lopez says he has worked at Cameron LNG for the last three years.

“Yeah I was a little shocked,” Jim Brown said. “I didn’t realize he would take the time to come down this far to Cameron Parish. Real excited about that. I’m really glad to see he takes the time to come this far south.”

Brown owns Brown’s Grocery in Hackberry, which recently celebrated 40 years of business.

“Very surprised and very happy to see him come,” Carl Giles said. “I’d like to be down here when he came.”

I will edit and add details as we learn more.
Here is the Fox News Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1t_8of0Ngs
Or clink the link here: Link to live feed.