Here’s Why Trump Is 100% Right To Blast Boeing

JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MD - DECEMBER 6: Air Force One is seen on the tarmac on December 6, 2016 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. President-elect Donald Trump tweeted this morning that the government should cancel the order for the new Air Force One replacement from Boeing, citing the more than $4 billion price tag. U.S. President Barack Obama is traveling to Tampa, Florida and will deliver his final national security speech. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch - Pool/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump fired a shot across the bow of aerospace giant Boeing on Tuesday morning. In a tweet, Trump noted his displeasure with the price tag associated with the $4 billion price tag associated with the building a pair of Boeing 747s to serve as Air Force Ones, and even suggested the U.S. government cancel the order.

When asked about his comment by a reporter later in the day, Trump reiterated his objections.

“The plane is totally out of control. It’s going to be over $4 billion for the Air Force One program and I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump later said to a reporter at Trump Tower. “I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money.”

Boeing has responded to the President-elect’s statement, saying they look forward to delivering “the best value” for taxpayers.

So, was Donald Trump out of line to publicly blast Boeing? Hardly.

Boeing has a history of engaging in the very type of crony capitalism Trump has promised to bring to an end. The company’s lucrative relationship with Washington insiders has been well documented.

Most recently, the company’s very public ties with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been a source of controversy.

In April of 2014, The Washington Post reported Clinton’s cozy ties with the Boeing corporation, saying that Clinton made a “shameless pitch” to Russia on behalf of Boeing to secure a $3.7 billion contract for the Aerospace company. In an article entitled “For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship”, the Post reported:

On a trip to Moscow early in her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton played the role of international saleswoman, pressing Russian government officials to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to buy dozens of aircraft from Boeing.

The November 2009 episode was an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship between one of the world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.

So what did the Clintons get in return?

According to The Washington Post, two months after the deal, the Clinton Foundation received a $900,000 donation from Boeing. Two years later, Boeing also paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech.

The Washington Post also reports that Boeing’s in-house lobbyist, former Bill Clinton aide Tim Keating, co-hosted a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary, a super PAC backing Hillary Clinton’s presidential run.

With this kind of crony-capitalist quid-pro-quo as a backdrop, perhaps the American people should be looking into whether or not Boeing deserves this or any contract it has with the U.S. government.


Benson, Fowler dig into Trump’s Boeing message



Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!