USA news on Youtube Feb 14 2019

On the night of Feb. 5, President Donald Trump delivered his second State of the Union address

to a joint session of Congress.

Just under 46.8 million people watched the president's 82-minute address across 12

networks.

The viewership was up by 10 percent compared to 2018.

The president touched on issues such as border security, abortion, the economy, criminal

justice reform, ending unfair trade practices, bringing American troops back and more.

Trump also lambasted the resurgent trend of socialism in the United States.

Here in the United States, we are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our

country.

America was founded on liberty and independence, and not government coercion, domination, and

control.

We are born free and we will stay free.

USA!

USA!

USA!

Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.

USA!

USA!

USA!

According to one count, the president was interrupted by applause 98 times.

A CBS and YouGov poll found that 76 percent of viewers approved of Trump's speech, versus

just 24 percent who disapproved.

About 97 percent of Republicans approved of the speech, 82 percent of independents approved,

and 30 percent of Democrats approved.

I also attended the State of the Union address.

I saw Democrats enter the room glum and angry at Trump, but they left the speech clapping

and laughing.

Sure, when the president first mentioned his special guests, the 90-year-old World War

II heroes, the Democrats were guaranteed to stand and clap.

But the spontaneous moment came when Trump celebrated the fact that this Congress had

the most women representatives in American history.

That's when Democratic women cheered and gave each other high fives.

Does this mean much?

What has been changed and what has not been changed.

Here is my discussion with Tom Del Beccaro.

What is your biggest takeaway from President Trump's State of the Union address?

I think there were two big takeaways: Number one, President Trump once again defied his

critics and gave a really good speech.

And it was a unifying speech.

Even the Democrats on several occasions stood up and applauded.

And that's why you saw that even in the CBS and CNN polls that the approval rating

for the speech was in the mid-70s.

So that's number one.

Number two, and perhaps the most striking picture, was when President Trump said that

we would not become a socialist nation, and the whole country, if not the world, got to

see the Democrats sitting there in defiance of that statement and made it very much look

like they wanted us to be a socialist nation.

And we have to ask whether the Democrats are becoming the socialist party of America.

So do you think the American people are with the president on this?

First, we don't want to be a socialist country.

Second, we are on track to become one.

Well, remember long ago Thomas Jefferson said the natural order of things is for liberty

to yield and government to gain ground.

The United States government sector has been growing for decades.

We now have a $4.4 trillion federal budget and overall government spending is 36 percent

of the economy.

And we have government schools, government pensions, government health care, and many

other government programs.

So yes, we are becoming a massive government-based economy.

We're still only at 36 percent.

Europe's above 50 percent.

But if we kept going in that direction, yeah, you could make the case that we would be becoming

a socialist country.

Trump's right to stand up for that because, as you know, the larger the government sector

the lower the growth in the private sector and, over the long term, the lower the standard

of living.

Americans don't want that.

But then again, government doesn't creep so much in the eyes of Americans.

It does it sort of behind the scenes, so they don't realize how very big their government

is.

But if the Republicans were smart and demonstrated how big it is and what the cost is, then I

think Americans would be on their side.

What do you think the president wanted to achieve through this speech, and do you think

he achieved it?

Well, keep in mind half the nation is prepared to dislike President Trump, especially when

they get their news from places like CNN and MSNBC.

So I think the biggest thing that Trump wanted to achieve was to show that he's not the

ogre that they make him out to be and that America can achieve things.

He wanted to rise above the divided era, if you will.

And I think he did achieve that.

That's how you saw such sky-high approval ratings.

For more infomation >> The Two Biggest State of the Union Takeaways - Duration: 5:38.

-------------------------------------------

White House drafts order that would ban Huawei from U.S. Los Angeles Times - Duration: 9:05.

White House drafts order that would ban Huawei from U.S. Los Angeles Times

The White House is preparing a sweeping executive order that could bar Chinese companies from selling equipment for use in future U.S. telecommunications networks, claiming Beijing could exploit the technology to carry out cyber intrusions and espionage.

The main target of the draft order, expected to be released in days, is Huawei, the worlds largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer. The order would not affect U.S. consumer electronics companies whose products incorporate components from China.

Huaweis attempts to penetrate the U.S. market have alarmed intelligence agencies for years.

The order is certain to further inflame tensions with Beijing as the Trump administration seeks to conclude a trade deal with China. U.S. officials insist the proposed executive order is unrelated to the trade negotiations.

But in hopes of limiting the fallout, the White House canceled plans to hold a ceremony where Trump would sign the directive in public. Huawei has repeatedly denied any role in Chinas sophisticated digital espionage.

Despite U.S. denials of a tie in to the trade talks, the Chinese may view the targeting of Huawei, based in Shenzhen, China, as a pressure tactic to gain concessions. It could stiffen Beijings resolve to resist what it sees as American efforts to contain Chinas growing economic and political clout.

The United States and several allies have moved on multiple fronts against Huawei over the last year. The campaign has included criminal prosecutions and high level pressure on other governments to ban Huawei systems and equipment, which are widely used in Europe and Africa.

The direct impact of the proposed executive order is largely symbolic, since major U.S. telecommunications carriers have largely shunned Huawei routers, switches and other hardware under pressure from intelligence agencies.

Smaller carriers that bought and installed Huawei equipment, in part because of its low cost, would not be required to remove it, according to industry officials.

But excluding China from fifth generation, or 5G, networks is of critical importance, U.S. officials argue. Those networks will carry far more data, extending wireless communications into self driving cars and other areas of everyday life, making compromise of data potentially even more damaging.

In a new effort to allay U.S. concerns, Huaweis founder, Ren Zhengfei, said the company would rebuff any Chinese government requests to disclose confidential information about its foreign customers and their communication networks.

We would definitely say no to such a request, he last month in Shenzhen.

The planned executive order does not mention China or Huawei, according to current and former officials who have read it.

It orders an investigation, likely to be carried out by U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security, into the risk from telecommunications equipment from countries considered U.S. adversaries. A number of Chinese and Russian firms are likely to be examined.

But once the investigation is complete, a process likely to take several months, it is virtually certain to recommend barring Huawei from the U.S. on national security grounds, according to officials and industry lobbyists who have seen the directive.

Under Chinese law, the government can compel Chinese companies to hand over data and the Communist Party has exercised greater authoritarian control over spheres of business and society in recent years.

The CIA and the National Security Agency, which focuses on digital espionage, have studied Huaweis operations for over a decade. But current and former U.S. officials say the spy agencies have no smoking gun showing conclusively that Huawei executives have helped Chinese security services penetrate Americas wireless networks.

Some attempts to penetrate overseas telecommunications networks that employ Huawei equipment have been traced to China, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence. But Huaweis involvement is unclear.

The officials cite other reasons why Huawei should be excluded from the U.S. telecom backbone, including alleged links between company executives and the Chinese Communist Party, allegations that Huawei has sought to evade international sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and recent allegations that a Chinese intelligence operative was on the companys payroll in Poland.

Should there be a cost associated with the fact that theyve done all these sorts of things? asked a senior U.S. official, who spoke about the company in return for anonymity. The answer is that now there is starting to be a cost. Their past is starting to catch up with them.

In December, , Meng Wanzhou, daughter of company founder Ren, at the request of the U.S. Justice Department on charges that she helped Huawei evade sanctions on Iran.

U.S. authorities have started extradition proceedings against Meng, who is also deputy chairwoman of the board at Huawei. She has denied any wrongdoing; a hearing is set for March 6.

The FBI and Justice Department are also reportedly investigating whether Huawei stole trade secrets from U.S. companies.

Last summer, the U.S. barred the use of equipment from Huawei and other Chinese companies in Pentagon and other government telecommunications networks, and prohibited the sale of Huawei cellular phones on military bases.

This week, on a trip to Europe, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo urged officials in Hungary and Poland, NATO members that bought heavily from Huawei, to cut off purchases, warning that the Pentagon would have to scale back military cooperation unless they complied.

Weve made clear that if they make a certain set of decisions, that it will be more difficult for the Department of Defense to work alongside of them that is, well never put our equipment in a place which would present risk to our technology from having Chinese technology co located alongside of it, Pompeo told reporters Tuesday.

Trump is also considering taking a potentially more damaging action against Huawei blocking U.S. companies from selling or exporting critical components to it, just as the administration did last April with ZTE, Chinas second largest telecom company after Huawei.

The move against ZTE, for sales that violated sanctions on North Korea and Iran, paralyzed the company since it relied heavily on San Diego based Qualcomm for semiconductor chips.

After Chinese President Xi Jinping appealed directly to Trump, the Commerce Department lifted the ban on ZTE in July after the company agreed to pay a dollar 1 billion fine and overhaul its leadership.

But a similar move against Huawei would be far more explosive, industry analysts say. It would disrupt the companys supply chain, which is heavily dependent on U.S. components.

It also would threaten the smooth operation of Chinas domestic wireless networks, which are heavily dependent on Huawei, analysts said.

Chinese telecom sales to the United States are tiny. Huawei has effectively been blacklisted by Washington for several years and made little market headway beyond limited sales in rural markets.

A House intelligence report in 2012 warned that deploying Huawei equipment could make U.S. infrastructure vulnerable to spying and cyberattacks from Beijing. The executive order would signal that Washington views the risks as far more serious.

"It could inhibit Huaweis upcoming 5G competitiveness," said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative leaning think tank in Washington.

U.S. industry lobbyists say Trump may back down against Huawei, just as he did with ZTE, to get a trade deal with China before new tariffs are due to kick in on March 2. But some telecom executives are publicly supporting stiffer action against Huawei.

At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday on the proposed merger of Sprint and T Mobile, the chief executive of T Mobile, John Legere, reassured lawmakers that Chinese telecom equipment would not be used in the merged companys networks.

There is no Huawei or ZTE equipment in the network of T Mobile, he said. There will not be any. ... In fact, weve had a litigious relationship with them, and we are, frankly, very supportive of the United States governments increased action.

The Trump administration is looking at tougher export controls to thwart Chinas access to tech supply chains and some administration officials and lawmakers are pushing more broadly to decouple the U.S. economy from Chinas.

Huawei is less dependent on U.S. suppliers than ZTE, but people familiar with Huaweis business say it bought about dollar 12 billion in chips and other products from Qualcomm and other American companies last year.

A ZTE like ban would clearly hurt and could slow Chinas push to roll out 5G at home and abroad.

But analysts say it also could propel Beijing to seek supplies from other countries and develop its own supply chain. Some industry analysts question the strategy if it hurts U.S. suppliers and pushes China to speed up its own manufacturing capabilities.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin are scheduled to meet with senior trade officials in Beijing on Thursday, but analysts are not optimistic of a breakthrough.

The Chinese side has shown little indication it will give up state led economic practices that discriminate against U.S. firms.

Without a deal, the Trump administration has said it would raise tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on dollar 200 billion of Chinese imported goods. On Tuesday, Trump indicated he could put off raising tariffs beyond the March 1 deadline if progress has been made.