Profile cover photo
Profile photo
George Kanaris
single euro male,living in Australia most of my life,love the beach and Byron Bay
single euro male,living in Australia most of my life,love the beach and Byron Bay

George's posts

Post has attachment
President Donald Trump told the leaders of Canada and Mexico on Wednesday that he will not terminate the NAFTA treaty but will renegotiate it with them, a White House statement said.
The announcement came as White House officials disclosed that Trump and his White House advisers were considering issuing an executive order to withdraw the United States from the trade pact with Canada and Mexico.

The White House said Trump spoke by telephone with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and that he would hold back from a speedy termination of NAFTA, in what was described as a "pleasant and productive" conversation.

"President Trump agreed not to terminate NAFTA at this time and the leaders agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation of the NAFTA deal to the benefit of all three countries," a White House statement said.

"It is my privilege to bring NAFTA up to date through renegotiation. It is an honor to deal with both President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Trudeau, and I believe that the end result will make all three countries stronger and better," Trump was quoted as saying in the statement.

Mexico's peso and Canada's dollar fell against the U.S. dollar, with the peso shedding about 1.5 percent in just over an hour, while Canada’s “loonie” lost about 0.45 percent. Stocks in both U.S. neighbors also weakened, with Mexico’s benchmark IPC index falling more than 1 percent in 15 minutes.

The White House has been considering an executive order as early as Trump's 100th day in office on Saturday, but there was a split among his top advisers over whether to take the step.

Such an order could unravel one of the world's biggest trading blocs. News of the potential presidential action drove the Mexican and Canadian currencies lower.

Trump had threatened to renegotiate the NAFTA pact during the election campaign as he said it had destroyed American jobs, although he has backed off tough action in trade since taking office in January.

“There is some discussion,” said another source with direct knowledge of the discussions. “There are some who are pushing for things sooner rather than later but that’s the same on every issue.”

A disruption in trade between the three NAFTA partners could wreak havoc in the auto sector and other industries, hitting profits at companies that have benefited from zero-level tariffs and Mexico's relatively low labor costs. It would also hit U.S. agricultural exports hard.

"To totally abandon that agreement means that those gains are lost," said Paul Ferley, an economist at Royal Bank of Canada.

Chicago Board of Trade corn futures fell 5 cents a bushel, reflecting concerns that the pact was under real threat.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to pull out from the 23-year-old trade pact if he is unable to renegotiate it with better terms for America. He has long accused Mexico of destroying U.S. jobs. The United States went from running a small trade surplus with Mexico in the early 1990s to a $63 billion deficit in 2016.

Trump has stopped short of a formal threat to kill NAFTA so far, but legal experts say he likely has the authority as president to give a 60-day notice that America is exiting the pact. It was under an executive order signed by Trump on Jan. 23 that the United States pulled out of the sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Details about the draft order on NAFTA were not immediately available.

Trump has faced some setbacks since he took office in January, including a move by courts to block parts of his orders to limit immigration.

Withdrawing from NAFTA would enable him to say he delivered on one of his key campaign promises, but it could also hurt him in states that voted for him in the election.

"Mr. President, America's corn farmers helped elect you,” the National Corn Growers Association said in a statement. "Withdrawing from NAFTA would be disastrous for American agriculture."


The first administration source told Reuters that there were diverging opinions within the U.S. government about how to proceed and it was possible that Trump could sign the executive order before the 100-day mark of his presidency.

The source noted that the administration wanted to tread carefully.

“There is talk about what steps we can take to start the process of renegotiating or withdrawing from NAFTA,” this source said.

Mexico had expected to start NAFTA renegotiations in August but the possible executive order could add urgency to the timeline.

The Mexican government had no comment on the draft order. The country's foreign minister said on Tuesday that Mexico would walk away from the negotiating table rather than accept a bad deal.

Trump recently ramped up his criticism of Canada and this week ordered 20 percent tariffs on imports of Canadian softwood lumber, setting a tense tone as the three countries prepared to renegotiate the pact.

Canada said it was ready to come to talks on renewing NAFTA at any time.

"At this moment NAFTA negotiations have not started. Canada is ready to come to the table at any time," said Alex Lawrence, a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Post has attachment
On Tuesday’s broadcast of CNN’s primetime edition of “The Lead,” OMB Director Mick Mulvaney said that President Trump is willing to sign a government spending bill that doesn’t include money for a border wall, and “We just thought that it would be a good first step to get these things that everybody agrees on and take that idea of a government shutdown off the table.”

Mulvaney was asked, “A source close to efforts to avoid a government shutdown tells CNN that the Republican proposal in the House will not include funding for President Trump’s border wall with Mexico. Is President Trump willing to sign a government spending bill that does not include that money?”

He answered, “Yeah. Because I think the bill — at least the offer that we received from the Democrats — the last couple days — included a good bit of money for border security. The Democrats said they’d go to the mat and shut the government down over the border wall, the bricks and mortar. But there’s a lot of things we agree on, both parties do, in securing the border. And it allows the president to follow through on his promise to make that border more secure, stop people coming over, stop drugs from coming over. So, there’s things we can do, by way of maintenance and technology, gates, bridges, roads, that kind of stuff, that make a real difference in that southern border security.”

Mulvaney added, “We’re not backing down. Keep in mind, this is just — this bill is just for the last five months of this year. … The discussion for what to do in fiscal year ’18, which starts October 1st, that discussion actually starts as soon as this bill is signed. So, we’re going to continue these conversations. We just thought that it would be a good first step to get these things that everybody agrees on and take that idea of a government shutdown off the table.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Post has attachment
In a report for Politico Magazine, Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty analyzed the geographical data of where journalists work and determined that the so-called liberal “media bubble” is even worse than suspected.
The liberal bubble has only grown worse as the news business has transition from print media to online publications. As Shafer and Doherty report, “Today, 73 percent of all internet publishing jobs are concentrated in either the Boston-New York-Washington-Richmond corridor or the West Coast crescent that runs from Seattle to San Diego and on to Phoenix.”

From Politico Magazine:

As the votes streamed in on election night, evidence that the country had further cleaved into two Americas became palpable. With few exceptions, Clinton ran the table in urban America, while Trump ran it in the ruralities. And as you might suspect, Clinton dominated where internet publishing jobs abound. Nearly 90 percent of all internet publishing employees work in a county where Clinton won, and 75 percent of them work in a county that she won by more than 30 percentage points. When you add in the shrinking number of newspaper jobs, 72 percent of all internet publishing or newspaper employees work in a county that Clinton won. By this measure, of course, Clinton was the national media’s candidate.

Resist—if you can—the conservative reflex to absorb this data and conclude that the media deliberately twists the news in favor of Democrats. Instead, take it the way a social scientist would take it: The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected—deeply affected—by the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his newspaper’s staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The “heart, mind, and habits” of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion, gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times’ news reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region’s dominant predisposition. And yes, a Times-ian ethos flourishes in all of internet publishing’s major cities—Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Washington. The Times thinks of itself as a centrist national newspaper, but it’s more accurate to say its politics are perfectly centered on the slices of America that look and think the most like Manhattan.

Something akin to the Times ethos thrives in most major national newsrooms found on the Clinton coasts—CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico and the rest. Their reporters, an admirable lot, can parachute into Appalachia or the rural Midwest on a monthly basis and still not shake their provincial sensibilities: Reporters tote their bubbles with them.

In a sense, the media bubble reflects an established truth about America: The places with money get served better than the places without. People in big media cities aren’t just more liberal, they’re also richer: Half of all newspaper and internet publishing employees work in counties where the median household income is greater than $61,000—$7,000 more than the national median. Commercial media tend to cluster where most of the GDP is created, and that’s the coasts. Perhaps this is what Bannon is hollering about when he denounces the “corporatist, global media,” as he did in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference. If current trends continue—and it’s safe to predict they will—national media will continue to expand and concentrate on the coasts, while local and regional media contract.

Post has attachment
Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough blew up at his co-host Mika Brzezinski after he compared accusations of nepotism in the Trump White House regarding President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump to that of the Kennedy White House when then-President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert Kennedy attorney general.

When Brzezinski asked if he was making such a comparison, Scarborough responded by objecting to Brzezinski’s question and said he wasn’t saying Robert Kennedy was Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

Partial transcript as follows:

SCARBOROUGH: As it was when my hero — my political hero was appointed attorney general for his brother, and Republicans didn’t like that back then. I think if you looked at Bobby Kenendy’s record, some good things came out of that. And no —

BRZEZINSKI: So you’re comparing Ivanka Trump to Bobby Kennedy?

SCARBOROUGH: You don’t have to be so snotty. I was about to say, you didn’t let me get it out.

BRZEZINSKI: I was curious —

SCARBOROUGH: You don’t have to be so rude. The fact of the matter is that they are not Bobby Kennedy as I was about to say but you wanted to get your cheap shot in so you got your cheap shot in. No, I am not saying Jared and Ivanka are Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy did a lot of things before he became attorney general of the United States of America.

But, I am saying just like when John Kennedy had a question, he called the one person he could trust in the world, Bobby Kennedy to come into the Oval Office and they sat there and talked. When Donald Trump needs to talk to somebody, he talks to these two people. You may like it. You may not like it. But as Willie said, that’s the reality.

(h/t Mediaite)

Post has attachment
In a major move on the GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, the conservative Freedom Caucus of the House of Representatives has announced its endorsement of the latest bill after New Jersey Republican Tom MacArthur introduced substantive changes.
The Freedom Caucus was a key voice against the bill introduced by the Republican leadership last month, causing House Speaker Paul Ryan to pull the bill from consideration. But since Ryan’s failure to pass the bill, Republicans have been negotiating amendments to make it more attractive to conservatives.

Days ago House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Breitbart News that he expected an Obamacare repeal bill to pass by the end of May, and now the group has announced its support of the newest measure.

House Freedom Caucus ✔@freedomcaucus
NEWS: Freedom Caucus announces support for AHCA with Rep. MacArthur's amendment included. Statement:
2:51 AM - 27 Apr 2017
House Freedom Caucus Announces Support for House AHCA Bill with MacArthur Amendment
Washington, D.C. -- The House Freedom Caucus released the following statement on the American Health Care Act:"Over the past couple of months, House conservatives have worked tirelessly to improve...
268 268 Retweets 257 257 likes
The group said in a Wednesday press release:

Over the past couple of months, House conservatives have worked tirelessly to improve the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to make it better for the American people. Due to improvements to the AHCA and the addition of Rep. Tom MacArthur’s proposed amendment, the House Freedom Caucus has taken an official position in support of the current proposal.

The MacArthur amendment will grant states the ability to repeal cost driving aspects of Obamacare left in place under the original AHCA. While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs. We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare.

House Freedom Caucus ✔@freedomcaucus
We will work with our Senate colleagues to improve the AHCA. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare.
2:51 AM - 27 Apr 2017
House Freedom Caucus Announces Support for House AHCA Bill with MacArthur Amendment
Washington, D.C. -- The House Freedom Caucus released the following statement on the American Health Care Act:"Over the past couple of months, House conservatives have worked tirelessly to improve...
174 174 Retweets 284 284 likes
Liberals in the U.S. Senate have vowed to oppose any moves to change Obamacare. New Jersey Democrat Senator Chris Murphy’s reaction was representative of that sentiment when he called the Republican bill a “dumpster fire” early in March.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at

Post has attachment
Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall?
The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown.

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government.

The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending ourborders — not Ukraine’s borders.

Building a wall is not only Trump’s constitutional duty, but it’s also massively popular.

Although Trump doesn’t need congressional approval for a wall, it was smart for him to demand a vote. Let the Democrats run for re-election on opposing the wall.

Let Sen. Claire McCaskill explain to the parents of kids killed by illegals that she thought a wall was inhumane.

Let Sen. Angus King say to the people of Maine that instead of a wall that would block heroin from pouring into our country, he thought a better plan was to sponsor a bunch of treatment centers for after your kid is already addicted.

Let Sen. Chuck Schumer tell us why it’s OK for Israel to have a wall, but not us.

Let open borders Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio tell African-Americans that it’s more important to help illegal aliens than to help black American teenagers, currently suffering a crippling unemployment rate.

Republicans are both corrupt and stupid, so it’s hard to tell which one animates their opposition to the wall. But the Democrats are bluffing. They’re trying to get the GOP to fold before they show us their pair of threes.

Now that Trump has capitulated on even asking for funding for a wall, the Democrats are on their knees saying, “Thank you, God! Thank you, God!”

No politician wants to have to explain a vote against the wall. What the Democrats want is for Trump to be stuck explaining why he didn’t build the wall.

Then it will be a bloodbath. Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesn’t build a wall. Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, Democrats will have a 300-seat House majority, and Trump will have to come up with an excuse for why he’s not running for re-election.

The New York Times and MSNBC are not going to say, “We are so impressed with his growth in office, we’re going to drop all that nonsense about Russia and endorse the Republican ticket!”

No, at that point, Trump will be the worst of everything.

No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!

You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.

Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.

Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”

No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them.

It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.

He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.

Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Border, Ann Coulter, Border Wall, Donald Trump

Post has attachment
The California judge who blocked President Trump’s executive order seeking to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary cities” reportedly raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for former President Barack Obama, donor records show.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick III, of the Northern District of California, ruled against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president’s plan to withhold federal funding from cities or counties that harbor illegal aliens, Fox News reported.

Judge Orrick said that Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

Orrick’s decision will block Trump’s executive order for now, while the federal lawsuit makes its way through the courts.

The judge not only raised $200,000 for Obama in 2008, but he also raised $30,000 to committees supporting the former president that year.

The Federalist reported that the same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the Center for Medical Progress, the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos that reportedly showed Planned Parenthood employees planning to sell baby organs.

Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Obama, Pre-Viral, Executive Order, federal funding, former President Barack Obama, fundraising, san francisco, Sanctuary Cities, Santa Clara, Trump Administration, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III

Post has attachment
The New York Times cited a senior administration official Wednesday saying that President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order to pull the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
According to the Times report:

It was not clear what the language of the executive order would be, or what steps would come next. But an executive order could start a required six-month notification period for withdrawal, during which time talks on renegotiation could be pursued.

Trump harshly criticized NAFTA throughout the 2016 presidential race, calling it, among other things, “one of the worst things that ever happened.” Trump’s election platform included a pledge to exit from or negotiate the terms of the 1994 agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The last week has seen Trump strongly signal he is ready to begin the process of realigning trade within North America. He told the Associated Press Monday that “I am going to either renegotiate it or I am going to terminate it.” Tuesday, Trump announced a tariff of up to 24% on Canadian lumber imports, according to him in retaliation for our northern neighbor’s treatment of American dairy exports.

NAFTA has been a point of political contention ever since negotiations over its creation began under President George H.W. Bush in 1990, taking center stage in the 1992 presidential election with outsider candidate Ross Perot famously telling voters to listen for a “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving to Mexico. Should Trump issue an executive order threatening withdrawal from NAFTA, it could represent the most significant reform to the organization since it came into effect 24 years ago. During that time, America’s economy has grown by leaps and bounds, but, as President Trump pointed out in his campaign screeds against NAFTA, the same period has seen a significant erosion of the once dominant American manufacturing sector.

Post has attachment
Wednesday on the Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated radio show, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said if Congress doesn’t help President Donald Trump begin to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall, voters will walk away from the GOP in 2018.

Ingraham asked, “The President comes out yesterday and says there’s going to be a wall. So what is the RNC doing specifically to push the Trump agenda and help it get traction in Congress?”

McDaniel replied, “Well I think part of it is communicating to our lawmakers what we are seeing on the ground. And I’m from Michigan. I was part of the Trump movement as a Michigan chair, and I know that our voters are going to hold us accountable in 2018 if we do not keep the campaign promises that were made. When you get to Washington, sometimes you forget what was said outside and it’s important that we bring that back to Washington and let them hear what the voters expect of this government and of the president.”

She added members of Congress would “lose the trust of our base if we don’t keep our promises.”

“Our base is going to walk away,” she continued. “They’re going to feel like, ‘Hey, you said one thing on the campaign trail to get elected and you didn’t act on it.’”

(h/t CNN)

Post has attachment
Globalist French President candidate Emmanuel Macron faced animosity from workers at a Whirlpool plant facing closure during a campaign visit after anti-mass migration candidate Marine Le Pen made a surprise visit hours earlier.
What started as a planned campaign stop to visit the union bosses of a Whirlpool plant facing closure in Amiens ended in disaster for Mr. Macron after a surprise visit from his presidential rival.

Mr. Macron was shoved and shouted at by workers who may lose their jobs as the factory is scheduled to be relocated to Poland next June French broadcaster BFMTV reports.

The 39-year-old Presidential hopeful was greeted with shouts of “Marine President!” and was whistled at by some of the 295 workers expected to lose their jobs.

The reaction was in large part due to a surprise visit from the former Front National leader Marine Le Pen just hours before. Ms. Le Pen used the opportunity to talk with workers about their concerns and stressed the need to protect French jobs.

Marion Le Pen ✔@Marion_M_Le_Pen
Les ouvriers de #Whirlpool sifflent #Macron et scandent "Marine présidente !" :
1:00 AM - 27 Apr 2017
1,528 1,528 Retweets 1,843 1,843 likes
“In Amiens where I went to meet and support the workers at Whirlpool. With me, their factory won’t close!” Le Pen wrote on Twitter and posted pictures of herself with many of the workers. The anti-mass migration candidate was greeted with cheers and applause from the workers in the car park outside the factory.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Marine Le Pen ✔@MLP_officiel
À #Amiens où je suis allée rencontrer et soutenir les salariés de #Whirlpool. Avec moi, leur usine ne fermera pas !
9:33 PM - 26 Apr 2017
2,221 2,221 Retweets 3,468 3,468 likes
Ms. Le Pen released a statement on her campaign website of her proposals to save the plant saying, “after receiving 40 million euros in state aid under the CICE, the group’s managers decided to relocate this profitable plant to Poland. I will require that these amounts paid under the CICE be refunded in the event of the departure of the company.”

“If the group persists in wanting to leave,” she added, “the state will put all its energy, under my direct supervision, to find serious industrial buyers and who are committed to preserving jobs.” Le Pen also slammed globalisation saying, “I consider that nothing is more important than the fate of the employees who could undergo a scandalous decision taken by a multinational eager for profits.”

When Mr. Macron was finally able to address the crowd he attempted to tell them how globalisation was actually good for them.

“The answer is not to suppress globalisation and close borders,” he told the workers.

The En Marche! party leader went on to slam Le Pen on Twitter writing, “Marine Le Pen spends ten minutes with party members in front of cameras, while I spend and hour and a quarter working with the unions, with no press.”

In her speech after the first round of the French presidential election Sunday night, Le Pen framed the second round as a debate between globalisation and French patriotism saying the “survival of France” was at stake.

Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at
Wait while more posts are being loaded