'Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups' A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! I
n the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here?
I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns.................We Are 'Citizens'. Without Them.........We Are 'Subjects'.
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28.
Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends! True gun control is hitting where you're aiming!
AND NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SURRENDER YOUR GUNS!!!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Does Any Of This Ring True - Learn From History
Jefferson was right!In light of what is currently going on in this country, itʼs interesting toread what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
Thomas Jefferson:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe , we shallbecome as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who arewilling to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson: It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. Aprinciple which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson: I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the governmentfrom wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care ofthem.
Thomas Jefferson: My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from toomuch government.
Thomas Jefferson: No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson:The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and beararms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny ingovernment.
Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson: To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas whichhe disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our libertiesthan standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks tocontrol the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation,the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprivethe people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on thecontinent their fathers conquered.'
Wake Up Americans Now
Thomas Jefferson:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe , we shallbecome as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who arewilling to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson: It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. Aprinciple which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson: I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the governmentfrom wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care ofthem.
Thomas Jefferson: My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from toomuch government.
Thomas Jefferson: No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson:The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and beararms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny ingovernment.
Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ofpatriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson: To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas whichhe disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our libertiesthan standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks tocontrol the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation,the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprivethe people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on thecontinent their fathers conquered.'
Wake Up Americans Now
Thursday, November 20, 2008
WHO WILL FEED THE COW
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was whileteaching third grade. The presidential election washeating up and some of the children showed an interest. Idecided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaignspeech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated byother class members. We discussed what kinds ofcharacteristics these students should have. We got manynominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked torun for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Bothcandidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have anadvantage because he got lots of parental support. I hadnever seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when theywere to make their speeches.
Jamie went first. He hadspecific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every oneapplauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will votefor me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to. Adiscussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the icecream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it orwould the class pay for it. She didn't know. The classreally didn't care. All they were thinking about wasice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers icecream, and fifty two percent of America reacts like nine yearolds.
They want ice cream.
The other forty eight percent knowthey're going to have to feed the cow.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated byother class members. We discussed what kinds ofcharacteristics these students should have. We got manynominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked torun for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Bothcandidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have anadvantage because he got lots of parental support. I hadnever seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when theywere to make their speeches.
Jamie went first. He hadspecific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every oneapplauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will votefor me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to. Adiscussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the icecream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it orwould the class pay for it. She didn't know. The classreally didn't care. All they were thinking about wasice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers icecream, and fifty two percent of America reacts like nine yearolds.
They want ice cream.
The other forty eight percent knowthey're going to have to feed the cow.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Obama’s R oad to Damascus By John Perazzo FrontPageMagazine.com Tuesday, November 11, 2008 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=376A8A3B-62DD-407F-8D48-F38B2A63B96E
History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations.
An aide to Malley reports, “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests” than has President Bush. The Bush administration, it should be noted, has rightly recognized Syria to be not only a chief supporter of the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, but also the headquarters of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the longtime sponsor of Hamas—the terrorist army whose founding charter is irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel.
Yet unlike President Bush, Obama and Malley have called for Israel to engage in peace negotiations with Syria. A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer=2 0to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign.
At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee). In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East.
Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998). Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party.
A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.” In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart.
This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat (the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolph Hitler) for the failure of the peace process.
Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch.
It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).
Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq).
In addi tion, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing …” Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran.
Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.
Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah….
The result has been a policy wit h all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.” This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.
It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying:
“Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”
History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations.
An aide to Malley reports, “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests” than has President Bush. The Bush administration, it should be noted, has rightly recognized Syria to be not only a chief supporter of the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, but also the headquarters of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the longtime sponsor of Hamas—the terrorist army whose founding charter is irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel.
Yet unlike President Bush, Obama and Malley have called for Israel to engage in peace negotiations with Syria. A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer=2 0to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign.
At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee). In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East.
Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998). Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party.
A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.” In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart.
This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat (the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolph Hitler) for the failure of the peace process.
Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch.
It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).
Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq).
In addi tion, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing …” Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran.
Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.
Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah….
The result has been a policy wit h all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.” This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.
It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying:
“Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Why Do We Allow This To Continue
>> Hey, $6 million to fly her home every year is just a drop in the
>> bucket on what they cost us. Congress is one of the biggest
>> "industries" that we have in the government. That's why their rating
>> is lower than our President, who always gets the blame for
>> Congressional spending. Not fair at all!!! Can you just imagine
>> what Congress would say if GWB flew to Texas every weekend!! They
>> would impeach him!
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet
>> that comes with the Speaker's job, no, Madame Pelosi was
>> aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so
>> she ordered a Big Fat 200 seat jet that could get her back
>> to California without stopping! Many, many legislators
>> walked by and grinned with glee as Joe informed everyone
>> that Nancy's Big Fat Jet costs us, the hard working
>> American tax payers, thousands of gallons of fuel every
>> week.
>>
>> Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas
>> guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California,
>> cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way!! As Joe
>> put it, 'Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back
>> on Monday night.' Cost to us another $60,000.
>> Folks,
>> that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the
>> taxpayers of $5,760,000!!! No wonder she complains about
>> the cost of this war, it might cramp her style and she is
>> styling, on my back and yours!
>>
>> I think of the military families in this country doing without
>> and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress
>> in the history of this
>> country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing!
>>
>>
>> Madame Pelosi wants you and me to conserve our carbon
>> footprint?! She wants us to buy smaller cars and Obama
>> wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires!!!
>> These people are nuts!
>>
>> bucket on what they cost us. Congress is one of the biggest
>> "industries" that we have in the government. That's why their rating
>> is lower than our President, who always gets the blame for
>> Congressional spending. Not fair at all!!! Can you just imagine
>> what Congress would say if GWB flew to Texas every weekend!! They
>> would impeach him!
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet
>> that comes with the Speaker's job, no, Madame Pelosi was
>> aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so
>> she ordered a Big Fat 200 seat jet that could get her back
>> to California without stopping! Many, many legislators
>> walked by and grinned with glee as Joe informed everyone
>> that Nancy's Big Fat Jet costs us, the hard working
>> American tax payers, thousands of gallons of fuel every
>> week.
>>
>> Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas
>> guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California,
>> cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way!! As Joe
>> put it, 'Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back
>> on Monday night.' Cost to us another $60,000.
>> Folks,
>> that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the
>> taxpayers of $5,760,000!!! No wonder she complains about
>> the cost of this war, it might cramp her style and she is
>> styling, on my back and yours!
>>
>> I think of the military families in this country doing without
>> and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress
>> in the history of this
>> country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing!
>>
>>
>> Madame Pelosi wants you and me to conserve our carbon
>> footprint?! She wants us to buy smaller cars and Obama
>> wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires!!!
>> These people are nuts!
>>
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Here is How We Got Here
Disregarding the political bent of the writer, this is a thought provoking read for us all. I sincerely believe that, short of an immediate program of great sacrifice by all Americans, we are entering many years of great difficulty. We may well continue as the United States of America, but we will not continue to enjoy the highest standard of living. A strong argument can be made that we've already lost leadership in that regard. And we certainly won't be viewed as a global leader. It's fair to assume that it would be really hard to be a world leader when all the strong countries we're trying to lead are our creditors...to the tune of trillions of dollars. And so it goes.
China's Path to World Power
by Patrick J. Buchanan
For decades, before a heedless congregation, some of us have preached the old Hamiltonian gospel.
Great nations do not have trade partners. They have trade competitors and rivals. Trade surpluses are superior to trade deficits. Tariffs on foreign goods are preferable to taxes on U.S. producers. Manufacturing, not finance, is the muscle of the nation.
Economic independence is vital to political independence.
Following Hamiltonian precepts, the United States grew from 13 rural and agricultural colonies into the greatest industrial power in all history, producing 42 percent of the world's manufactured goods. We were the awe and envy of mankind, the self-sufficient republic, maker of half of the armaments produced by all the nations in World War II.
That is the America we grew up in -- that has now vanished.
Chrysler, Ford, perhaps GM, may be dying. Manufacturing has sunk to 10 percent of U.S. employment, a level unseen since before the Civil War. Europeans and Asians are to assemble in Washington this week to impose upon the United States a New World Economic Order like the one we imposed on them at Bretton Woods in 1944.
Such are the fruits of free-trade ideology.
Across the Pacific, a nation that studied how America rose, and watched as America declined, chose a different path. China adopted and pursued a China First policy of economic nationalism.
In July, Charles McMillion of MBG Services testified to the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China's progress.
Beijing began its astonishing rise by devaluing its currency 45 percent in 1994, slashing the prices of exports in half and making imports twice as expensive. As America threw open her market and invited China to come in and capture it, China had erected a Great Wall around her own.
Results: China's worldwide trade surplus in manufactures, $31 billion in 2001, hit $401 billion in 2007, a 1,300 percent increase, and may reach $500 billion in 2008. China has shoved Germany aside to become the world's greatest exporter and now leads the world in the export of manufactured goods to Japan and the European Union, as well as the United States.
While running trade deficits with Asian neighbors like Taiwan, to tie them politically to Beijing, China is running record trade surpluses with the European Union and the United States, making America and the West as dependent upon China for our manufactures as we are on OPEC for our oil.
Chinese auto production has quintupled since 2001. She now produces more cars than Germany and may exceed the United States in 2009. While Chinese auto exports are still heavily in parts, finished cars are coming soon to a dealer near you. The Chinese will likely run the sword through the last standing member of America's Big Three.
Before 2004, China's manufacturing trade surplus with America was largely in textiles and apparel. But, since then, China's rocketing trade surplus in electronics, computers and parts has far exceeded her surplus in textiles and apparel.
China's trade surplus in computers and components rose from $8.1 billion in 2001 to $73.5 billion in 2007. In cellular phones and parts, her worldwide trade surplus grew from $3 billion in 2003 to $50 billion in 2007, and may reach $60 billion by year's end.
China still imports commercial airliners. But she now has a large and growing trade surplus in airplane parts. This follows the pattern in textiles, computers and autos. First, the Chinese learn by assembling parts in factories in China. Then, China begins to produce the parts. Then, China produces the finished products and goes out to capture the world market, while protecting her own by keeping her currency cheap.
On items the Commerce Department categorizes as advanced technology products (ATP), America began running a trade deficit for the first time early in the George W. Bush years. China now exports to us four times as much, in dollar value, in ATP items as we sell to Beijing.
As America mothballs the shuttle, relying on Russian rockets to get our astronauts back up to a space station we built, China is putting men into space and heading for the moon.
Since America ushered China into the World Trade Organization in 2002, Beijing's growth rate has been four times that of the United States, accelerating from an average 10 percent of gross domestic product to 12 percent in 2007.
With her immense trade surpluses, China's reserves have surged from $200 billion in 2002 to $2 trillion. Awash in dollars, Beijing now waits patiently, writes McMillion, to cherry-pick the crown jewels of America's industrial empire -- "patents, talents, natural resources, brands" -- at fire-sale prices in the global crash.
As America plunges into recession and our industry hollows out, while China is still growing at 9 percent, as the 20th century's greatest creditor nation now borrows from Beijing to pay for booster shots for its sick economy, may we hear once again the Bush-Clinton refrain about how the terrible danger we all face is from "protectionism."
China's Path to World Power
by Patrick J. Buchanan
For decades, before a heedless congregation, some of us have preached the old Hamiltonian gospel.
Great nations do not have trade partners. They have trade competitors and rivals. Trade surpluses are superior to trade deficits. Tariffs on foreign goods are preferable to taxes on U.S. producers. Manufacturing, not finance, is the muscle of the nation.
Economic independence is vital to political independence.
Following Hamiltonian precepts, the United States grew from 13 rural and agricultural colonies into the greatest industrial power in all history, producing 42 percent of the world's manufactured goods. We were the awe and envy of mankind, the self-sufficient republic, maker of half of the armaments produced by all the nations in World War II.
That is the America we grew up in -- that has now vanished.
Chrysler, Ford, perhaps GM, may be dying. Manufacturing has sunk to 10 percent of U.S. employment, a level unseen since before the Civil War. Europeans and Asians are to assemble in Washington this week to impose upon the United States a New World Economic Order like the one we imposed on them at Bretton Woods in 1944.
Such are the fruits of free-trade ideology.
Across the Pacific, a nation that studied how America rose, and watched as America declined, chose a different path. China adopted and pursued a China First policy of economic nationalism.
In July, Charles McMillion of MBG Services testified to the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China's progress.
Beijing began its astonishing rise by devaluing its currency 45 percent in 1994, slashing the prices of exports in half and making imports twice as expensive. As America threw open her market and invited China to come in and capture it, China had erected a Great Wall around her own.
Results: China's worldwide trade surplus in manufactures, $31 billion in 2001, hit $401 billion in 2007, a 1,300 percent increase, and may reach $500 billion in 2008. China has shoved Germany aside to become the world's greatest exporter and now leads the world in the export of manufactured goods to Japan and the European Union, as well as the United States.
While running trade deficits with Asian neighbors like Taiwan, to tie them politically to Beijing, China is running record trade surpluses with the European Union and the United States, making America and the West as dependent upon China for our manufactures as we are on OPEC for our oil.
Chinese auto production has quintupled since 2001. She now produces more cars than Germany and may exceed the United States in 2009. While Chinese auto exports are still heavily in parts, finished cars are coming soon to a dealer near you. The Chinese will likely run the sword through the last standing member of America's Big Three.
Before 2004, China's manufacturing trade surplus with America was largely in textiles and apparel. But, since then, China's rocketing trade surplus in electronics, computers and parts has far exceeded her surplus in textiles and apparel.
China's trade surplus in computers and components rose from $8.1 billion in 2001 to $73.5 billion in 2007. In cellular phones and parts, her worldwide trade surplus grew from $3 billion in 2003 to $50 billion in 2007, and may reach $60 billion by year's end.
China still imports commercial airliners. But she now has a large and growing trade surplus in airplane parts. This follows the pattern in textiles, computers and autos. First, the Chinese learn by assembling parts in factories in China. Then, China begins to produce the parts. Then, China produces the finished products and goes out to capture the world market, while protecting her own by keeping her currency cheap.
On items the Commerce Department categorizes as advanced technology products (ATP), America began running a trade deficit for the first time early in the George W. Bush years. China now exports to us four times as much, in dollar value, in ATP items as we sell to Beijing.
As America mothballs the shuttle, relying on Russian rockets to get our astronauts back up to a space station we built, China is putting men into space and heading for the moon.
Since America ushered China into the World Trade Organization in 2002, Beijing's growth rate has been four times that of the United States, accelerating from an average 10 percent of gross domestic product to 12 percent in 2007.
With her immense trade surpluses, China's reserves have surged from $200 billion in 2002 to $2 trillion. Awash in dollars, Beijing now waits patiently, writes McMillion, to cherry-pick the crown jewels of America's industrial empire -- "patents, talents, natural resources, brands" -- at fire-sale prices in the global crash.
As America plunges into recession and our industry hollows out, while China is still growing at 9 percent, as the 20th century's greatest creditor nation now borrows from Beijing to pay for booster shots for its sick economy, may we hear once again the Bush-Clinton refrain about how the terrible danger we all face is from "protectionism."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)