At a time when our president and other politicians tend to apologize for our country's prior actions, here's a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our country. JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible Rusk responded, "Does that include those who are buried here?" DeGaulle did not respond.
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush. He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." You could have heard a pin drop. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, "Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?" A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?" You could have heard a pin drop. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?" Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German." You could have heard a pin drop. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE ... Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry-on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. "Then you should know enough to have your passport ready." The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it." "Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France !" The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
Mr. Obama and the rest of you liberals, please stop apologizing for America. We have nothing to apologize for. We may not be perfect, but we come closer than any other nation in the history of the world.
/
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Where Have We Seen This Before
In today's news, the following:
"Newly proposed legislation by Democrats would give the federal government authority to seize and even switch off the Internet during a national crisis."
Now let's see - wasn't it Rahm Emanuel that said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"?
The problem, while overlooked by many, is simply this - WHO determines what constitutes a "crisis"? The Feds, of course. And in the past 18 months alone the Obama administration has noted a "crisis" no less than 6 times. So, according to this bill, they could shut down the internet WHENEVER they wish, for whatever reason(s) that appeal to them.
Imagine if in 1776 the British were able to shut down communications between the colonies, thereby preventing Americans from participating in the Revolution.
Now I will ask just one simple question:
"Where have we seen this before - a government that sets itself up to be able to shut down the internet in their countries?"
The answer: Communist China, Communist Venezuela, Communist Cuba, Communist North Korea, Pakistan & Iran.
Is that where America wants to go? Are those the countries we wish to emulate?
Tell your congress persons to reject this tyrannical idea. The free flow of information is the greatest protection of freedom for us all.
/
"Newly proposed legislation by Democrats would give the federal government authority to seize and even switch off the Internet during a national crisis."
Now let's see - wasn't it Rahm Emanuel that said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"?
The problem, while overlooked by many, is simply this - WHO determines what constitutes a "crisis"? The Feds, of course. And in the past 18 months alone the Obama administration has noted a "crisis" no less than 6 times. So, according to this bill, they could shut down the internet WHENEVER they wish, for whatever reason(s) that appeal to them.
Imagine if in 1776 the British were able to shut down communications between the colonies, thereby preventing Americans from participating in the Revolution.
Now I will ask just one simple question:
"Where have we seen this before - a government that sets itself up to be able to shut down the internet in their countries?"
The answer: Communist China, Communist Venezuela, Communist Cuba, Communist North Korea, Pakistan & Iran.
Is that where America wants to go? Are those the countries we wish to emulate?
Tell your congress persons to reject this tyrannical idea. The free flow of information is the greatest protection of freedom for us all.
/
Thursday, June 17, 2010
They're BA-A-A-CK
Just when sane and intelligent people thought a little truth and sanity were beginning to come through, the far-left lunatics who touted ETHANOL are at it again. Once again they are pushing ethanol as a viable solution to petroleum, and they even have the liberals in Congress considering passing legislation that would put 15% into all gasoline products instead of the current 10% requirement.
It does not matter to these loons that ethanol has already been proven to be a very bad idea.
First, it is more expensive to produce than oil - about 80% more expensive, which is why the government pays out billions of your tax dollars as subsidies to those who make it.
Next, it takes MORE petroleum to actually make ethanol - the oil for the equipment to plant, irrigate, harvest, transport and convert plants to ethanol requires roughly 1.4 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
Next, it has already been determined that ethanol is corrosive to vehicle engines built before 2001.
And then there is the simple fact that in order to produce enough ethanol just to fuel cars and trucks would require more farm area than is available in the entire country.
And finally, it is just plain stupid to use our food supply as fuel. Since the inception of ethanol, food prices across the board have risen greatly - ice cream, pizza, beef, cheese, milk - you name it. Corn used for ethanol cannot be used to feed livestock, dairy cattle or people. Doubt it? Read the next "gallon" of ice cream you buy - you will note that it is no longer a gallon, or even close to it. It is only 3/4 of a gallon, but the price has still increased, though the amount has decreased.
Ethanol is just another lie the liberals and "greenies" tell in order to push their own insidious agenda designed to bring America down to the level of the rest of the world, all in the name of "saving the planet". Even though America is polluting less than any other industrial nation - and the greatest polluters have already stated they will not reduce their own emissions.
Wake up, America. In almost every case, anything "green" is not green at all. Those curly lightbulbs that reduce electricity usage? Forget it. It costs three times as much to produce them, requires nearly 5 times as much glass (which is produced by heat, created by fuel), and includes a toxic element (mercury) which requires the used bulbs to be disposed of only at hazardous waste sites - and more than 95% of the population lives about 1-2 gallons of gas away from the nearest site.
Green? Not a chance.
/
It does not matter to these loons that ethanol has already been proven to be a very bad idea.
First, it is more expensive to produce than oil - about 80% more expensive, which is why the government pays out billions of your tax dollars as subsidies to those who make it.
Next, it takes MORE petroleum to actually make ethanol - the oil for the equipment to plant, irrigate, harvest, transport and convert plants to ethanol requires roughly 1.4 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
Next, it has already been determined that ethanol is corrosive to vehicle engines built before 2001.
And then there is the simple fact that in order to produce enough ethanol just to fuel cars and trucks would require more farm area than is available in the entire country.
And finally, it is just plain stupid to use our food supply as fuel. Since the inception of ethanol, food prices across the board have risen greatly - ice cream, pizza, beef, cheese, milk - you name it. Corn used for ethanol cannot be used to feed livestock, dairy cattle or people. Doubt it? Read the next "gallon" of ice cream you buy - you will note that it is no longer a gallon, or even close to it. It is only 3/4 of a gallon, but the price has still increased, though the amount has decreased.
Ethanol is just another lie the liberals and "greenies" tell in order to push their own insidious agenda designed to bring America down to the level of the rest of the world, all in the name of "saving the planet". Even though America is polluting less than any other industrial nation - and the greatest polluters have already stated they will not reduce their own emissions.
Wake up, America. In almost every case, anything "green" is not green at all. Those curly lightbulbs that reduce electricity usage? Forget it. It costs three times as much to produce them, requires nearly 5 times as much glass (which is produced by heat, created by fuel), and includes a toxic element (mercury) which requires the used bulbs to be disposed of only at hazardous waste sites - and more than 95% of the population lives about 1-2 gallons of gas away from the nearest site.
Green? Not a chance.
/
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
His Marxism Is Showing Again
In Obama's speech this evening, he stated that he will "inform BP that they are to put money aside" in an escrow account, to insure payment of debts caused by the oil spill.
Excuse me, Mr. President, but I guess you forgot. This is America, not Venezuela or Cuba. In America, not even the President of the United States can order a private company to place funds into escrow without a little thing called "due process". That's right, Mr. Harvard graduate, professor of Constitutional studies. You cannot order a business to put funds aside, no matter how good of an idea it may be. Only the courts can order that, and only after BP is legally found at fault.
I do agree that BP needs to pay for all damages. But if forced to put billions into escrow, they will have less available to drill for oil that brings in that money. If you hamstring someone, they simply cannot produce effectively. And the last thing we need is for BP to be so emasculated by Obama's lust for power to the point that they become UNABLE to pay.
But in any case, Mr. Obama has neither the authority nor the right to order that they put money aside. He is not KING, and this is not yet a dictatorship. He would do well to remember that, and leave his Marxism in the closet.
/
Excuse me, Mr. President, but I guess you forgot. This is America, not Venezuela or Cuba. In America, not even the President of the United States can order a private company to place funds into escrow without a little thing called "due process". That's right, Mr. Harvard graduate, professor of Constitutional studies. You cannot order a business to put funds aside, no matter how good of an idea it may be. Only the courts can order that, and only after BP is legally found at fault.
I do agree that BP needs to pay for all damages. But if forced to put billions into escrow, they will have less available to drill for oil that brings in that money. If you hamstring someone, they simply cannot produce effectively. And the last thing we need is for BP to be so emasculated by Obama's lust for power to the point that they become UNABLE to pay.
But in any case, Mr. Obama has neither the authority nor the right to order that they put money aside. He is not KING, and this is not yet a dictatorship. He would do well to remember that, and leave his Marxism in the closet.
/
Friday, June 11, 2010
Improving America's Image
One of Obama's main "selling points" during the 2008 election was that he would improve America's image in the world, and build friendships and cooperation with other nations.
When I awoke this morning and turned on the news, I saw that Mexico is royally pissed at us, the UK, our staunchest ally is even angrier at Obama's politicalization of the BP disaster that will harm millions of Brits, and Israel is questioning, rightfully, whether America is still on their side.
The best and closest allies America has had, and Obama is successfully alienating them faster than the oil is spilling in the Gulf.
We have two other trusted allies - Canada and Australia. I'm waiting to see how he will turn them against America.
/
When I awoke this morning and turned on the news, I saw that Mexico is royally pissed at us, the UK, our staunchest ally is even angrier at Obama's politicalization of the BP disaster that will harm millions of Brits, and Israel is questioning, rightfully, whether America is still on their side.
The best and closest allies America has had, and Obama is successfully alienating them faster than the oil is spilling in the Gulf.
We have two other trusted allies - Canada and Australia. I'm waiting to see how he will turn them against America.
/
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Why The Economy Still Stalls
We have been in recession for well over 2 years, with no relief in site. Most recessions only last about 18 months. So, why is this one being so tenacious?
There are a number of aspects to this, but the biggest one is the mixed message being sent by the White House. On the one hand, they order the Fed to provide huge sums to the banks, to ease the credit crunch. But on the other hand, the administration takes the banks to task with their "financial reforms" bill, effectively preventing financial institutions from loaning that money out. So the credit crunch is not eased, businesses cannot grow, and the economy continues to suck.
And then there is the administrations' stated intent to hamstring businesses with higher taxes, increased capital gains taxes and more regulation and stronger unions. What business will hire or expand under those conditions? Not mine, that's for certain.
All in all, it appears the administration is purposely trying to derail the free market and capitalism (in order to introduce socialist policies), but in the process they put on the APPEARANCE of trying to "fix" the economy.
This is just like a coach who gives his football players a great pep talk and provides the best padded equipment, then orders them to not come in physical contact with the opponents because someone might get hurt. It is a certain recipe for losing.
/
There are a number of aspects to this, but the biggest one is the mixed message being sent by the White House. On the one hand, they order the Fed to provide huge sums to the banks, to ease the credit crunch. But on the other hand, the administration takes the banks to task with their "financial reforms" bill, effectively preventing financial institutions from loaning that money out. So the credit crunch is not eased, businesses cannot grow, and the economy continues to suck.
And then there is the administrations' stated intent to hamstring businesses with higher taxes, increased capital gains taxes and more regulation and stronger unions. What business will hire or expand under those conditions? Not mine, that's for certain.
All in all, it appears the administration is purposely trying to derail the free market and capitalism (in order to introduce socialist policies), but in the process they put on the APPEARANCE of trying to "fix" the economy.
This is just like a coach who gives his football players a great pep talk and provides the best padded equipment, then orders them to not come in physical contact with the opponents because someone might get hurt. It is a certain recipe for losing.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)