We Salute Those Who Gave All
May 28, 2012
May 25, 2012
General Electric Moves to China
"Peter" has some thoughts on General Electric moving their X-ray division to China.
General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha , Wis. to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year, but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the United States.
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs. If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does. Please pass this information to others and think about it before you buy a GE product.
Checked with Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ge.asp
May 24, 2012
Dumbing Down the Vote
"Peter" has some thoughts on the "Progressives.
A very important lesson from history
At the time of the founding of this Republic, only property owners could vote. This history lesson explains why.
The Founders set up a system that would have allowed us to STAY at the stage where liberty had lead to abundance. And we would have stayed at that stage, except for....
Of course our "progressives" just HAD to mess it up, first by proclaiming that tax payers should be allowed to vote - whether they own or rent. Then by conveniently forgetting about voters having to be tax payers. Then by giving immature teenagers the right to vote. Then by loosening residence requirements, or the need to be alive, or registered, and finally even the requirement to be a citizen (no voter ID laws, remember?). What else can possibly follow from this sequence but a raid on the treasury, the rise of the welfare state, deficit spending and out of control national debt?
There are people actually proclaiming the right of foreign countries to vote in our elections, and our duty to let them, because America has such a ubiquitous presence and such huge impact on the world that every human on Earth is affected by how we vote....
Gee, did Lenin ask US if we wanted Russia to go communist? Did Mao ask US if we wanted China to go communist? Did Nixon ask US if we wanted to "open" China? Did Wal-Mart ask US if we wanted them to flood the country with cheap and cheaply made Chinese goods? No? In fact, we did NOT want any of that. Yet we've been paying a huge price for all of them.
May 23, 2012
Former Senator Trent Lott a RINO?
"Peter" has some thoughts on former Senator Trent Lott.
See the link in the forwarded message, below.
Well, at least he is not in the Senate to vote on it. Hopefully nobody listens to him anymore. In deference to friends and acquaintances I am desperately trying to keep myself from stating the obvious yet again, which is that former Senator Lott has as usual for him managed to provide us with an illustration why people are so frustrated with "establishment" Republicans and RINOs. This is a CLASSIC illustration of the recurring characterization of coastal Republicans as "me too, but slower." Eventually they all come around to the globalist liberal way of thinking....
Here are some details:
Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty.
The United States objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests. Due to Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention.
Some of the key features of the Convention are the following:
* Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage" through those waters;
* Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit passage" through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage;
* Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through such designated sea lanes;
* Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection;
* All other States have freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
* Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ's of coastal States of the same region or sub-region; highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection;
* Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and more under specified circumstances;
* Coastal States share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 miles;
* The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf shall make recommendations to States on the shelf's outer boundaries when it extends beyond 200 miles;
* All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures to manage and conserve living resources;
* The limits of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of islands are determined in accordance with rules applicable to land territory, but rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf;
* States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas are expected to cooperate in managing living resources, environmental and research policies and activities;
* Land-locked States have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States;
So much for the concepts of national sovereignty, integrity of national borders, property rights, etc.
Begin forwarded message:
Trent Lott explains support for treaty he once opposed.
May 22, 2012
Obama Writes He Was Born in Kenya
"Peter" has some thoughts on Obama and the "Birther" arguement.
Yea. Like a publicist would research, write or just make up this kind of stuff. No, it comes from the author:
Uh oh. Obama’s literary agent required clients to write their own bios » The Right Scoop -
Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website (original emphasis): “[Y]ou should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it….Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.”
And therefore:
All material she used in our proposals came directly from me and my writing partner. She edited our rough-draft proposals and gave us feedback, but the final versions were all ours. Our final versions, bio included, were then simply photo-copied ...... I was asked to write the bio in the third person.
Why would they change the procedure just for Obama, in 1991 or 1998 or 2003 or 2005 or 2007?
They wouldn't. Obama was just continuing his lifelong practice of changing his story for momentary personal gain, as he did in his school and college years, conveniently switching between minority and immigrant status and family names as he needed to.
There is no mystery here, just calculated confusion.
Speaking of which, now there is a "documentary" claiming that Obama Sr, is not his father?
(Film: President’s father not Barack Obama). YEE HAW. Don't we live in interesting times...
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Fwd: Hey birthers: In His Imperious Majesty's Own Words....
...And those of others:
WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, including the following: “Barack Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. His first book is ‘Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
the biographies are just a few of numerous published reports – as well as personal claims – that Obama was born abroad, including the recent testimony of a Chicago-area postal worker who reported he was told by the parents of Bill Ayers that Obama was a foreigner.
an internal bulletin from the Kenyan National Security Intelligence Service, or NSIS, that states that the Kenyan government in 2009 commissioned a cultural museum in the Obama home village of Kogelo to honor the “birthplace of President Barack Obama” ...... The Daily Nation, which published an artist’s sketch of the proposed Kogelo cultural center, referred to it as Obama’s “ancestral home.” ......Kenyan MP James Orengo at one point asked the nation’s parliament, “How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?” ...... after Obama’s election, MP Boni Khalwale asked fellow members, “Could we allow … a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?”
Michelle Obama herself created a stir of new questions when she spoke of her husband visiting “his home country in Kenya”
Begin forwarded message:
I guess this makes him one of the few people who can truly be called "African-American." This hyphenated formulation has traditionally been reserved to new or recent immigrants, not to people who have been Americans for dozens and dozens of generations....
May 21, 2012
Did We Bailout GM, Only to Have Them Sell-Out to China?
"Peter" has some thoughts on trade with China.
There is NOTHING new here in this video. China six years ago (that is, well before the GM bail-out), was full of high end Buicks - designed and made in China.
China never allowed "investment" in China without technology transfers. They were not about to be treated like a third world colony; that is, be flooded with factories manned only by low end workers, while all the good stuff remains outside China. And American corporations have been going along with their conditions because China is such a huge potential market. The Chinese also have a great work ethic. They also take education extremely seriously, while our own federalized education establishment can't get out of its ideologically induced and government-enforced death spiral. The Chinese have more honors students than our entire student population, and the numbers are out of proportion even after adjusting for the size of our total populations.
While the charlatans and idiots chortle over the "smarts" of our leaders for financing the ballooning welfare state with money borrowed from China, and for the great "service" that retailers such as Walmart are providing our consumers by importing cheap goods from China, no one stops to ask, what are the Chinese doing to protect their investment, what are they doing with all that money? Well...., they are just buying up everything worth anything, that's what. They are doing that all over the world, so why would they not do so here in the US. too? If we insist on acting like stupid colonials, why would we not expect them to act like colonialists? And if we preach and practice globalism, branching out or moving our businesses to other countries throughout the world, how could we then be simultaneously turning protectionist and telling foreigners they can't buy up our stuff here at home?
It did not start with Obama or Romney. Clinton and his globalist hi tech cronies were big on technology transfers to China. Nixon just HAD to go make a name for himself and "open" China, instead of letting it choke on its Marxist vomit. They all wanted to do to China what we've done to western Europe, Japan and Taiwan. But hey, we are all progressive humanitarians at heart, aren't we? What's the problem?
Why are we shocked (if we are, that is) that our tax, regulatory and education policies are driving our companies off shore?
Why are we shocked (if we are, that is) that our politicians and corporate leadership are slaves to globalism, if that is what we preach in our colleges, that is whom we promote in our companies, that is whom we elect to office in our governments at all levels?
Obama was right in 2008. We need hope and change. We need fundamental transformation.
Hope that we remember who we used to be, before we savaged our Constitution.
Change things back they way they were before is too late, if it's not too late already.
Fundamentally transform away from a hundred years of progressivism and the welfare state; back to the small government, rugged individualist, free market entrepreneurs we used to be.
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Sell-out to the Communist Chinese
Please watch this sobering, maddening video about how we have paid to bailout GM so that it could sell-out to the Communist Chinese. Listen closely to the words of the acting GM Chairman speaking in China...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo&feature=youtu.be
May 18, 2012
Will the Republicans Try to Save ObamaCare?
"Peter" has some thoughts on the Republicans and ObamaCare.
Rush Limbaugh just completed a segment on the developing news that the Republican leadership is preparing bills to save Obamacare in case the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of it.
Sorry, folks, but this is the kind of CRAP that has fueled anger at the establishment in the past, and is fueling the Ron Paul "revolution" now.
For example, the leadership wants to save the provision to keep kids on the parents' health plan till age 26. FINE. Just as long as they also repeal that stupid Amendment that gave 18 year olds the vote. If you are still a kid at age 26, then you are still too young to vote.
As another example, they want to force insurance companies to forego exclusions or limits on pre-existing conditions. NO. Insurance companies write these provisions into the contract because they don't want people to buy insurance only when they absolutely need it, use it, then dump it. Doing so totally sets the very idea of insurance on its head. If some people suddenly need help with pre-existing conditions, then the solution for that is welfare, not insurance. Insurance is a way of pooling resources and spreading the risk over time and over a large enough population to make the arrangement fiscally sound. It is not just another welfare scheme.
In the Republican leadership's proposals so far there is absolutely no mention of the most egregious features of Obamacare, such as the 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce it, the hundreds of new federal and thousands of new State agencies staffed by hundreds of thousands of additional bureaucrats to administer it, a million pages of new regulations still being written, and the death panels who will decide that you are too old to be given treatment and care to extend your life a few more years -- go away and do your duty to die.
The leadership's proposals also do not address an entire library of provisions totally unrelated to health care, the only purpose of which is to put the federal bureaucracy in total control of the minutest, most private details of your life. Such as the 3.8% sales tax on real estate transfers. Or government access to ALL of your bank, brokerage, IRA and other financial accounts. Just to cite a few examples, off the top of my head.
Once again, the Republican leadership is reverting to their role that has become the norm since the "progressive" and New Deal eras: the Democrats find a way to write some marxist garbage into law, and the Republicans revise it and provide the managerial expertise to implement it in some less repulsive manner.
Don't fail to write to your congressmen and Senators:
No, thank you. Enough of this.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it is written in plain English, using words that can be understood by all. It is clear to anybody who can read that NOTHING in the Constitution allows the federal government to meddle in the area of health insurance in particular, or in the free market in general.
Start acting as if you have actually read and approve of the Constitution, which, when you took office, you had to swear you will preserve and protect.
Start dismantling the socialist assault on the Constitution that has been underway, especially since the elections in 2006 and 2008. Repeal EVERYTHING that Obama has ever signed - every act of Congress, every Executive Order, every regulation written by his minions in the federal bureaucracies, every treaty or "understanding" he negotiated with the UN and foreign governments.
Maybe THEN we will be back on course to restore the constitutional republic that our Founders had left in our trust.
May 17, 2012
Liberty Counsel Applauds North Carolina’s Stand for Marriage
|
|
|
|
|
Washington, DC – Liberty Counsel applauds North Carolinians who ignored the voices of the elite media, Hollywood, and even the Obama Administration, and resoundingly voted to affirm marriage as one man and one woman.
|
|
May 16, 2012
The Planned Re-Election of Obama, Revolutionary Style
"Peter" has some thoughts on a recent article in a Canadian publication.
IT'S THE FOREIGN PRESS AGAIN...
With the administration's radical revolutionary background (Czars etc.) there may be much truth in this article . Educate yourselves, it is your Freedom!
Every four years we engage in a mass conspiracy to wrestle power from one bunch of crooks and give it to another bunch of crooks, figuratively or literally. The mass conspirators are the political parties and the conspiracies are the elections. And it's OK because we do it in full view of the p
ublic.
Then every once in a while here comes a great crisis and a great patriot, a man on a white horse, a messianic savior, such as Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, and countless lesser tin pots who get "elected" by "popular" vote, and that is the last time their slaves ever get to vote, except when marched out to drop pre-marked ballots into the box under the eagle eyes of spies and the police.
But NO, on no, THAT can NEVER happen here in the USA....OR CAN IT?
Begin forwarded message:
Obama administration, including his czars and his closest Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. Using the media to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals
The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style
According to my source, there is talk among the highest levels of the uppermost echelon of the Department of Homeland Security, which he describes as effectively under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. During this call, he said that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that “a civil war” is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it,” stated my source.
“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S.,” stated my source. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source. He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives. “It’s like Fast & Furious” but in the social realm,” he added.
Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”
“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing,” stated my source. They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people,” stated my source.
“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them,” he added. The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them - indefinitely.”
My sourced stated one more thing that seemed to tie things together. He urged me to recall the quote by Henry Kissinger who was speaking at a Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, on 21 May 1992:
Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.
May 15, 2012
Obama's Evolvement to Support of Gay Marriage
"Peter" has some thoughts on Obama's support of gay marriage.
An obvious, inescapable fact of nature or God's law (however you want to put it) is being stood on its head. A pretender-to-the-throne "president" has not flip-flopped, he has "evolved"?He consulted his pre-teen daughters to facilitate this "evolvement"?
Marriage is between a man and a woman for the simple biological fact that women and only women can get pregnant and be the sustenance of the baby both before and after birth; and in this temporarily but necessarily incapacitating condition the mother and her baby need the protection and support of the proverbial "big strong man." Later, children need both their female mother and their male father so they will grow up to be healthy adults.
Marriage is not a concept applicable to two people thoroughly confused about the nature, function and purpose of certain body parts, because no two homosexuals can ever produce a child, no matter how hard they try. Even if gay adoption is legal, they still must rely on us lowly "breeders" to make a baby for them.
But "gay marriage" was cast and recast as a legal issue. It is not fair that a spouse has legal rights that are not accorded to friends, lovers, etc., not even if all of those "automatic" rights, like all contractual agreements, can be and always could be set up between any two people for any reason, to cover any circumstance, contingency or emergency.
"Gay marriage" was cast and recast as a more comprehensive "civil rights" issue. An issue of "fairness." An issue of "equality." An issue of "equal justice." (An artificially pumped up issue of pure BS.)
As a matter of fact, "gay marriage" became a civil rights issue because of economics, nothing else. It is not "fair" that a heterosexual can claim as dependents a spouse and their children.
Huh?
Just where did this notion of "dependents" come from? How did it become a hook for advancing a uniquely destructive social agenda, striking at the very foundation of civilization?
You have to look back a hundred years to the progressive era and Woodrow Wilson, under whose guidance and administration we got saddled with the major cornerstone of marxist theory, the income tax.
Then you have to look to another cornerstone of marxist theory, wage and price controls, put into effect during those fascist years of World War Two, in which we ironically fought against... fascism! "Fringe benefits" became an institution because companies were not allowed to compete on price, that is, the wages they are willing to pay to attract and keep competent employees. So they invented "benefits." Come work for us and we'll start a pension fund for you, we'll buy health insurance for you and your family, etc. The government cooperated by allowing these expenses to be treated as any other cost of doing business.
All of a sudden your romantic preferences became the government's business. No, you can't claim your girlfriend or your same-sex friend as your dependent, because you are not married. No, you can't claim a second wife because you are allowed to have only one. "Dependent" came to mean only your wife (this was still the era of non-working, stay-at-home wife) and your natural children. Later they allowed adopted children, "common law" marriage, and husbands as dependents. Like everything else in your most private life, the definition of marriage and the definition of dependents were reduced to a matter of infernally complex accounting rules in the increasingly more infernally complex IRS code.
What if there were no IRS code?
What if Congress had finally read the Constitution and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and realized WHY there was no income tax, WHY the income tax is unconstitutional? What if we repealed the 16th Amendment, and replaced it with the only tax compatible with a truly free economy, which is a national retail sales tax, currently being promoted as the Fair Tax?
Then POOF, magically it would no longer be up to the federal government to be concerned with the definition of marriage, or anything else in your private life. Gay or straight, married or not, monogamous or polygamist or "open," having a dozen kids or none, law abiding or criminal, working as an employee or self-employed or business owner, none of that matters; you pay a tax only if and when you buy something, only if and when you have money to spend, only if and when you can afford to spend it, and only as much as you can or want to spend. If you are poor and buy fewer, cheaper things, you pay less; if you are rich and spend more, you pay more. The concepts of tax evasion and underground economy are meaningless. Tax revenues are directly dependent on the health of the economy, as indicated not by surveys and studies but by immediate tax receipts directly proportional to the level of economic activity, and therefore it is even in the government's self-interest to be an advocate of the free market.
Everybody wins - everybody except the agenda-driven, class-war mongering, divide-and-conquer socialists.
