Xi to Biden at Start of Virtual Summit: “I’m Very Happy to See My Old Friend”…Why Would He Say That?

BIden Xi Summit

FoxNews.com reports that

China’s President Xi Jinping referred to President Biden as his “old friend” ahead of a highly anticipated virtual summit meeting Monday evening that followed months of tense diplomatic relations between the two nations.

Xi’s choice of words to describe his relationship with Biden contradicted the way both the president and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki have characterized their relationship. Biden has touted his rapport with Xi as an advantage during increasingly fraught diplomatic dealings between the US and China, even as he has disputed the idea they are friends.

“It’s the first time for us to meet virtually. Although it’s not as good as a face-to-face meeting, I’m very happy to see my old friend,” Xi said through a translator at the start of the meeting.

Biden has claimed on multiple occasions to have “traveled 17,000 miles” with Xi during his time as vice president in the Obama administration. But the president bristled during a June press conference when Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked if Biden would call Xi “old friend to old friend” to demand China’s cooperation with efforts to investigate the origins of COVID-19.

“Let’s get something straight: we know each other well, we’re not old friends,” Biden said. “It’s just pure business.”

Psaki reiterated that assertion just hours before the meeting, telling reporters during her daily press briefing that Biden “still does not consider him an old friend.”

The pleasant exchange preceded a meeting in which top Chinese and American officials were expected to discuss several sources of tensions. Relations between the U.S. and China have deteriorated in recent months amid international disputes over Beijing’s aggressive stance toward self-ruled Taiwan, territorial disputes in the Indo-Pacific region, economic tensions, and public sparring over handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Both Biden and Xi spoke of clear communication as the key to long-term diplomatic relations.

Biden called for the establishment of “common sense guardrails” to prevent disputes from escalating to conflict and for collaboration on climate change and other “vital global issues.”

“All countries need to play by the same rules of the road. It’s why the United States is always going to stand up for our interests and values and those of our allies and partners. If past is prologue, I’m sure that today we’ll be discussing those areas where we have concerns, from human rights to economics to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Biden said.

Attendees of the summit meeting included members of Biden’s Cabinet, including Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, as well as Xi’s closest government advisers.

Now, why would Xi call Biden an “old friend”?

Well…

FoxNews.com reported on October 16th of last year that

One of the people on an explosive email thread allegedly involving Hunter Biden has corroborated the veracity of the messages, which appear to outline a payout for former Vice President Joe Biden as part of a deal with a Chinese energy firm.

One email, dated May 13, 2017, and obtained by Fox News, includes a discussion of “remuneration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.

The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details. Fox News spoke to one of the people who was copied on the email, who confirmed its authenticity.

Sources told Fox News that “the big guy” is a reference to the former vice president. The New York Post initially published the emails and other controversial messages that Fox News has also obtained.

Hunter Biden was the point of the spear in a Foreign Policy scandal which is just a small part of what will go down as the most corrupt Presidential Administration in history, making the Warren G. Harding Teapot Dome Scandal pale in comparison.

All of this boggles the mind. Think about it:

The Clinton Foundation Pay-for-Play

The Bidens’ misuse of the power of the Vice-President for personal gain

President Barack Hussein Obama’s $150 billion bribe of the murderous Mullahs of Iran which included hosting Radical Islamists like the late (Thank God) Gen. Quassem Soleimani at the White House

The trading of Muslim Terrorists for the traitorous Bowe Bergdahl

And, of course “Spygate”, the Steele Dossier, and the unmasking of Gen. Flynn

The entire attack on Former President Trump, which lasted his entire first term, the Special Counsel’s “Russian Collusion” investigation, and the hurried Democratic Sham Impeachment were all part of a strategy to cover up the out-of-control corruption, both foreign and domestic, which took place during the Obama Administration with the knowledge and consent of President Barack Hussein Obama, himself.

That would certainly explain the Democrats’ over-the-top reaction to losing the 2016 Presidential Election and their vicious rhetoric and unconstitutional political actions and schemes since.

Former President Trump was right all along.

Just let this soak in, boys and girls…

We have a President of the United States of America who is owned by Communist China!!!

If the dots can be connected in the case of Hunter Biden’s and his father’s history of corruption and the Obama White House and their Foreign Policy, it could be absolutely huge.

If our Sovereign Nation is to survive, this out-of-control political corruption, perpetrated on behalf of a Shadow Government by Deep State Operatives, must be dealt with and those responsible brought to justice.

No matter to whom the trail of corruption leads.

By the way, where IS Hunter Biden?

Until He Comes,
KJ

DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.

 

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Trump Says “Major Conflict Possible” With North Korea…But Prefers Diplomacy

NK-Missile-Test-600-LI

“Whatever comes from the U.S., we will cope with it. We are fully prepared to handle it.”

“If the U.S. comes with reckless military maneuvers, then we will confront it with the DPRK’s (North Korea’s) pre-emptive strike. We’ve got a powerful nuclear deterrent already in our hands and we certainly will not keep our arms crossed in the face of a U.S. pre-emptive strike.” – North Korea’s Vice Foreign Minister Han Song Ryol

Reuters.com reports that

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday a major conflict with North Korea is possible in the standoff over its nuclear and missile programs, but he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute. “There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely,” Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview ahead of his 100th day in office on Saturday.

Nonetheless, Trump said he wanted to peacefully resolve a crisis that has bedeviled multiple U.S. presidents, a path that he and his administration are emphasizing by preparing a variety of new economic sanctions while not taking the military option off the table.

“We’d love to solve things diplomatically but it’s very difficult,” he said.

In other highlights of the 42-minute interview, Trump was cool to speaking again with Taiwan’s president after an earlier telephone call with her angered China. He also said he wanted South Korea to pay the cost of the U.S. THAAD anti-missile defense system, which he estimated at $1 billion.

He said he intended to renegotiate or terminate a U.S. free trade pact with South Korea because of a deep trade deficit with Seoul. Trump said he was considering adding stops to Israel and Saudi Arabia to a Europe trip next month, emphasizing he wanted to see an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Trump said North Korea was his biggest global challenge. He lavished praise on Chinese President Xi Jinping for Chinese assistance in trying to rein in Pyongyang. The two leaders met in Florida earlier this month.

“I believe he is trying very hard. He certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death. He doesn’t want to see it. He is a good man. He is a very good man and I got to know him very well.

“With that being said, he loves China and he loves the people of China. I know he would like to be able to do something, perhaps it’s possible that he can’t,” Trump said.

‘I HOPE HE’S RATIONAL’

Trump spoke just a day after he and his top national security advisers briefed U.S. lawmakers on the North Korean threat and one day before Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will press the United Nations Security Council on sanctions to further isolate Pyongyang over its nuclear and missile programs.

The Trump administration on Wednesday declared North Korea “an urgent national security threat and top foreign policy priority.” It said it was focusing on economic and diplomatic pressure, including Chinese cooperation in containing its defiant neighbor and ally, and remained open to negotiations.

U.S. officials said military strikes remained an option but played down the prospect, though the administration has sent an aircraft carrier and a nuclear-powered submarine to the region in a show of force.

Any direct U.S. military action would run the risk of massive North Korean retaliation and huge casualties in Japan and South Korea and among U.S. forces in both countries.

Trump, asked if he considered North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to be rational, said he was operating from the assumption that he is rational. He noted that Kim had taken over his country at an early age.

“He’s 27 years old. His father dies, took over a regime. So say what you want but that is not easy, especially at that age.

“I’m not giving him credit or not giving him credit, I’m just saying that’s a very hard thing to do. As to whether or not he’s rational, I have no opinion on it. I hope he’s rational,” he said.

Trump, sipping a Coke delivered by an aide after the president ordered it by pressing a button on his desk, rebuffed an overture from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, who told Reuters a direct phone call with Trump could take place again after their first conversation in early December angered Beijing.

China considers neighboring Taiwan to be a renegade province.

“My problem is that I have established a very good personal relationship with President Xi,” said Trump. “I really feel that he is doing everything in his power to help us with a big situation. So I wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him.

“So I would certainly want to speak to him first.”

Last night, shortly after 8:00 p.m. Central, cnn.com posted the following information online…

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Thursday that China threatened the North Korean government with sanctions if it undertook another nuclear weapons test.Tillerson made his comments on Fox News ahead of a visit to the United Nations and amid rising tensions over the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

“They confirmed to us that they had requested that the regime conduct no further nuclear test,” Tillerson said of the Chinese. “In fact, we were told by the Chinese that they informed the (North Korean) regime that if they did conduct further nuclear tests, China would be taking sanctions action on their own.”

That simple action and reaction alone, is more than Barack Hussein Obama accomplished in 8 year of his failed “Smart Power” Foreign Policy.

The leader of the country formerly referred to as “Red” China, actually listed to the President of the United States of America, and sided with him, against on of his own allies.

That’s “YUGE”.

Liberal Internet and Facebook Trolls have been making unequal comparisons between the Obama’s penchant for vacationing on our dime and the Trumps spending every weekend down at the “Southern White House”, Mar-a-Lago, in Florida.

The difference between the Obama’s trips and Trump’s weekend visits is the fact that Trump OWNS Mar-a-Lago. The Obamas did not own the place they stayed in Hawaii…and certainly not anyplace in Spain that Mooch, Mudear, and the girls visited.

But, I digress…

What made President Trump’s visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping a success, was not only the fact that Trump was negotiating with the Chinese Leader from a position of strength, he was also negotiating from a position of experience.

Trump has negotiated billion dollar business deals, as has his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.

America know longer has Professional Politicians who can talk the talk, but have never walked the walk, negotiating for our Sovereign Nation with other World Leaders.

We actually have Men of Accomplishment, who have negotiated in critical situations IN THE REAL WORLD, negotiating to ensure that America remains strong and safe.

Refreshing, isn’t it?

Oh, one more thing…to those Liberal Internet and Facebook Trolls, who are hung up on Trump going to the Southern White House every weekend and playing golf with World Leaders: There is a difference between trump’s Golf Outings and Obama’s Golf Outings.

Trump is actually conducting the Business of America while entertaining World Leaders.

Obama was entertaining Reggie Love.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Cut National Defense to 1950 Level

When he assumed office, President Ronald Reagan faced the daunting task of rebuilding our National Defense, decimated by his ineffectual predecessor, Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan, as he always did, went directly to the American people, in a televised speech given on the night of March 23, 1983.

Presidentialrhetoric.com provides the transcript:

…The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression. This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable – quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.

There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age. We can’t afford to believe that we will never be threatened. There have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn’t start them and, indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn into them. But we were ill-prepared for both. Had we been better prepared, peace might have been preserved.

For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous military might. They didn’t stop when their forces exceeded all requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they haven’t stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons- weapons that can strike directly at the United States.

…This is why I’m speaking to you tonight – to urge you to tell your Senators and Congressmen that you know we must continue to restore our military strength. If we stop in midstream, we will send a signal of decline, of lessened will, to friends and adversaries alike. Free people must voluntarily, through open debate and democratic means, meet the challenge that totalitarians pose by compulsion. It’s up to us, in our time, to choose and choose wisely between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.

President Reagan coined a very famous, but simple, phrase describing his Foreign Policy:  

Trust, but Verify.

Evidently,  our 44th president and his Administrative Staff only believe in the first half of that phrase.

LATimes.com reports:

President Obama greeted the Chinese heir apparent in the Oval Office on Tuesday morning, a venue where the U.S. president usually receives only the nation’s closest friends.

But even as the two countries eye one another warily, the Obama administration wants to keep its options open with Vice President Xi Jinping as he prepares to take his place as president next year.

In a joint appearance before their meeting, Obama told reporters that the U.S. relationship with China is based on “mutual interest and mutual respect,” and that such a relationship is in the interests of the rest of the world, too.

The United States welcomes China’s “peaceful rise,” Obama said, which he said has the power to “help to bring stability and prosperity to the world.”

As Al Jolson once said:

Wait a minute…wait a minute…you ain’t seen nothing yet!

According to the Associated Press :

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

All you Americans in your 50s, like me, and older…remember the old “Duck and Cover” films we watched in school?

Well, those things we learned from those films, won’t help now.

I suggest prayer.