Tuesday, February 9, 2016

SHOCK: Ford Makes Massive Announcement… Trump Was Right About Everything

SHOCK: Ford Makes Massive Announcement… Trump Was Right About Everything [Read Full Story Here]

One of the cornerstones of Donald Trump’s campaign has been the fact that millions of jobs have been lost to overseas industries because it is often too expensive to do business in America anymore.
Many liberals have criticized Trump for these statements, but the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Ford’s latest production move showed that Trump was exactly right.
Ford planned to build a new assembly plant in Mexico in order to produce 500,000 more vehicles in Mexico than it currently does. Last year Ford’s Mexican output was 433,000 vehicles, which translates to about 14 percent of its total production in North America.
This deal had not been publicly confirmed and a Ford spokesperson simply stated, “We do not comment on speculation,” when asked about the company’s plans for Mexico.
Ford to open a new plant in Mexico
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) February 8, 2016

Mexico has become a serious competitor in the car-making market with “low wages, improved logistics and an arsenal of free-trade deals,” the Wall Street Journal explained.
If the report proves true, Ford will join a long line of auto dealers making the pivot to Mexico, including BMW, General Motors, Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda and Kia.
This shift is only expected to grow because the United Auto Workers labor union recently struck a deal to increase wages for U.S. factory workers, making domestic production just that much more cost-prohibitive.

As wages in the U.S. go up, Mexican wages stay the same, and it therefore becomes even cheaper to do business with Mexican factory workers as opposed to American laborers.
The UAW insisted that auto companies don’t need to run to Mexico because they can afford to pay their workers high wages.
“They’re making huge amounts of profits,” UAW President Dennis Williams stated. “There is no reason mathematically to go ahead and run to countries like Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.”
Trump has long advocated making deals with foreign countries that aren’t as one-sided as those currently in place. If foreign market places weren’t so attractive, companies would remain in America and employ Americans, helping to reduce the unemployment rate, boost the economy and reduce welfare and other expenditures.
Share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think of Ford’s decision to increase Mexican production.
Do you agree with Ford's move?

Donald Trump Bobblehead

Product Image
Love him or hate him, you can't deny that Donald Trump's candiacy has added a very facinating and entertaining new twist to this election cycle. While hardly considered a viable candidate at the beginning, Trump has taken the Republican electorate by storm and is still climbing higher and higher in the polls.

While the Trump campaign continues to gain momentum, his haters get more vicious and his fans get more rabid. Anyone who falls into the "fan" side of the aisle will absolutely love this high-quality bobblehead of the Donald himself. Who knows, maybe even the haters will want one too?

Now when you hear the word "bobblehead", you're probably thinking of some cheap plastic toy that breaks after a few weeks. But these bobbleheads are nothing of the sort. Crafted in high-quality resin with great attenti  Continue Reading...

Supreme Court threatens Obama's climate agenda

King Obama’s Royal Declaration: “I can do whatever I want” -
[King Obama’s Royal Declaration: “I can do whatever I want”
Oooop's maybe not self appointed el King for life!  Or would that be fake Harvard Law professor? Y'all be the Judge ha

President Barack Obama will leave office next January with the fate of one of his biggest environmental achievements hanging in the balance.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday took the unusual step of blocking EPA's landmark carbon rule for power plants, throwing into doubt whether Obama's signature climate change initiative will survive a legal battle before the high court.
The decision to grant the stay is no guarantee the justices ultimately will strike down the rule, but the development is a bad sign for EPA's chances, and the agency's foes quickly cheered the news, with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey calling it a "great victory."
"We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule's immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues," he said in a statement.
The Supreme Court issued its short order putting the Clean Power Plan on hold at the request of states and companies that had asked the high court to intercede early - even though a lower court had already declined to do so.

The ruling was on a 5-4 vote, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - the court's liberal wing - lining up against staying the rule.
Environmentalists quickly downplayed the stay, noting that it did not come to any conclusions about the legality of the rule itself.
"The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation's clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts," said Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund's general counsel.

The White House and EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The justices did not explain their decision, but the order indicates they believe the rule threatens imminent and irreparable harm. The states and groups challenging the rule noted that the Supreme Court last year identified a major flaw with an EPA regulation limiting mercury emissions from power plants only after that rule had started to take effect, and they urged the justices not to allow something similar to happen with the carbon rule.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has put the case on a fast track, with oral arguments scheduled for June 2. That indicates a ruling from that court in late summer or fall, and tees up a Supreme Court appeal for as early as 2017.

"The stay is a signal the Supreme Court has serious concerns with the Power Plan," said Mike Duncan, head of the coal-supported advocacy group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
Coal-heavy utilities, mining companies and 27 states are among those suing to reverse the rule, which opponents say exceeds EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act.
The stay may only delay implementation of the rule by two or three years if EPA eventually triumphs at the Supreme Court. But it will keep the rule on hold into the next administration, increasing the chances that it could be undone if a Republican is elected to the White House this year.

At the very least, some efforts to replace power plants' coal with cleaner-burning natural gas and carbon-free wind and solar power are likely to be delayed. And the stay could foreshadow an eventual court decision tossing out the rule altogether, which may severely limit how far the government can go in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
This is not the first big Obama environmental rule to be stayed during litigation. In late 2011, just two days before it was to take effect, the D.C. Circuit put a stay on EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which targets pollutants like nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide that float downwind across state lines.
The circuit later struck down the rule - but the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court and ultimately won the case 6-2, and the rule took effect three years after its original start date.

With the rule's legal defense stretching into the next administration, the possibility of a Republican president casts a thick fog over the regulation's future. All of the GOP candidates have repudiated the rule as a threat to the economy and vowed to overturn it, and a Republican president would have several avenues for kneecapping the Clean Power Plan, including simply accepting a possible circuit decision to strike down the rule without filing an appeal - a more likely outcome after Tuesday's stay.
Environmental groups have quietly prepared for that possibility by preserving their own right to defend the rule in court.
A combination of Supreme Court rulings and scientific findings is likely to eventually compel EPA to regulate power plants' greenhouse gas emissions in some manner, though the extent of such regulations is up in the air.

In the meantime, EPA's foes will double down on their efforts to get the Clean Power Plan tossed out for good. Critics argue that the Clean Air Act does not allow EPA to require tools such as renewable energy mandates to control pollution, and they say the agency's authority is limited to cutting emissions from coal plants themselves.
EPA counters that the law allows it to choose the best path forward, and that the agency should receive deference to interpret conflicting statutes that were passed by Congress and signed into law.
Coal producer Peabody Energy, represented by liberal law icon Laurence Tribe, has also raised several constitutional concerns over the Clean Power Plan, though it remains unclear whether the courts will be receptive.