This is the part where I make an opinion.

The trade relationship with China was grossly mismanaged during the George W. Bush years. It has created a disaster for the USA. It has left the USA Consumer impoverished.

All this hardship cast on the USA was under the leadership of a man that was distracting the nation's attention, through nationalism, to wars; one of which we never should have fought.

It is not China's fault. China was simply a Wall Street play toy. 

The USA and China both have challenges. China needs to build it's own consumer market by increasing production of products that Chinese citizens will purchase. Right now it is mostly luxury goods for the Chinese wealthy. China needs to develop a Middle Class. It's own consumer class to purchase the goods it makes.

The USA needs to increase the wages of the Middle Class and seek to expand it's manufacturing sector. The USA manufacturing sector is ravaged by China. I could not believe Siemen's abandoned it's solar industry.

If the USA doesn't raise the Minimum Wage, it will continue STRUCTURAL unemployment until China grows it's own consumer economy and Middle Class. 

The West has a problem and it has a problem with China created by a USA War President. 

China needs better energy sources which the country is capable of building. China also needs far better mentoring to grow it's Middle Class. 

Some of the tech jobs in China belong back in the USA. The tech industry is hurting itself by outsourcing all their manufacturing. It makes no sense. They are undercutting their own markets.

China is not the culprit. A few Americans thought they would take advantage of China and turn a quick buck. China needs better mentors that sincerely care about the country, especially the Chinese people.

Former President Clinton made huge strides in bringing 'a value system' to Eastern Asia. Those countries love him. They celebrate his friendship. I would think China would seek to market more American made products than they do and bring that trade deficit into line, otherwise, they too will crash their own economy. Their exports are dependent on The West.

But, what is more troubling than any other aspect of this is the fact China was never mentored into producing high quality goods. It was as though the American people were dummied down to accept what they could afford as they fell further and further into poverty. I know China doesn't want that and they are as much a victim of such ruthless tactics as the American people were.

China has plans to improve the quality of life of it's people. It was made evident in the latest five-ten year plan announced about a year or so ago. I was happy for them. They found a noble mission. As the Chinese people find more and more footing in a Middle Class the relationship with the USA will improve. We will have more in common.

We were duped. For eight years the American people were driven into fear that distracted them, nationalized them and forced them into poverty while raping the American Dream. We were lucky Barak Hussein Obama came along. I could not mean that more.

We cannot return ruthless politicians to the Oval Office. The American people need to realize they are creating own economic emergencies. They are allowing politicians to place them into a 'funk' that provides exploitative realities whereby the Upper One Percent are the only victors in our economy. The Middle Class and the Poor need to be victorious from here on. 

An entire generation of Americans were out of work as soon as they graduated. That is America? 

It is time we take our country back. All the way back. Our children and their future demand it.

2014 and 2016 are pivotal elections where we return our economy to function or we retreat into a far more poor scenario. We haven't recovered completely due to a structural unemployment rate. We need to elect those that believe in higher wages, good benefits and the education of children.

Don't blow it.

The USA is sustaining nearly a $3 tillion US trade deficit with China annually.

The maximum imports from China matched with USA trade exports topped in 2000 to the tune of about $20 billion. The trade was balanced when President Clinton left office.

By Frank Holmes  
Apr 26, 2010, 1:00 PM

Just as the U.S. consumer (click here) is key for Chinese exporters, so too is the Chinese consumer key as an export destination for the rest of emerging Asia.

A research note this week from the Hong Kong-based brokerage CLSA Asia Markets spells out how important the Chinese consumer was in pulling its neighbors up and out of the Great Recession. Many of these countries have more than doubled their exports to China since the depths of the recession in late 2008 and early 2009. Exports from technology-oriented Taiwan to the mainland, for example, are up more than 160 percent from the bottom, while Singapore has boosted its exports to China by more than 120 percent and South Korea by nearly 100 percent.

Those are relative numbers – how important is China to its neighbors in absolute terms? Nearly 30 percent of Taiwan’s total exports, accounting for 15 percent of its GDP, now go to the mainland. A quarter of South Korea’s exports (10 percent of GDP) are China-bound. For both of these countries, and others as well, China is more than twice as important as the United States in terms of exports....
 
The disparity in export-import with China and the USA occurred in 2005 and the USA economy felt it nearly immediately. There were complains and all the jobs in the USA were disappearing. 

This is from Brad Setser. (click here) Chinese exports are down 17.5%, but imports are down a stunning 43%:...

Did you know that Henry Paulson became USA Treasurer to a Republican Presient in 2006 because of the economic downturn and the burgeoning housing crisis. Did you know he spent most of that time in China and now has a financial firm there?

That big dip in exports and imports in 2009 is the Global Economic Crash. It didn't change the relationship. 

As of June 2013 the USA was averaging a $24 billion US trade deficit PER MONTH with China. (click here).

$24 billion per month trade deficit with China. That is $2 trillion, 8 hundred and 80 billion US deficit per year with China. 

Right.

Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin is 86 years old. He's is in the picture below.

...Social stability (click here)
Jiang Zemin was at the forefront of Chinese politics for 15 years.

As president from 1989 to 2003, he took the helm of the world's largest country in the wake of the Tiananmen Square killings.

When he came to power, China was a virtual pariah state. By the time he had handed the presidency over to Hu Jintao, it had become the fastest-growing economy in the world....

Do you know the first energy project conducted in China by USTDA?

That coal plant was built in 2006 under "W" and what does "W" do? He turns right around and states China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Really?

The People's Republic of China is the largest consumer of coal in the world, and is about to become the largest user of coal-derived electricity, generating 1.95 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 68.7% of its electricity from coal as of 2006 (compared to 1.99 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 49% for the US). Hydroelectric power supplied another 20.7% of China's electricity needs in 2006.

The dominant image (click here) of China’s energy system is of billowing smokestacks from the combustion of coal. More heavily dependent on coal than any other major country, China uses coal for about 70 percent of its energy (NBS, 2008). Furthermore, until recently, China had very few environmental controls on emissions from coal combustion; recent efforts to control sulfur dioxide emissions appear to be meeting with some success (Economy, 2007, 2009). Figure 1 shows the dominant use of coal in China’s energy system from 1950 to 1980 (NBS, various years). However, this is just one side of China’s energy story.


 

Forty years isn't very long considering how far China has come.

Richard M. Nixon until 1974

Gerald R. Ford 1974 until 1977

Then Carter was in office for four years.

Ronald Reagan 1981 until 1989

George H. W. Bush 1989 until 1993

Tianamen Square Massacre in 1989 which brought a cooling off of official government relations between the USA and China. There was a G7 conference in 1990 in Houston that would place economic sanctions on China.

The United States Trade and Development Agency activities were suspended from 198 to January 2001. Clinton opened up the USTDA before leaving office.

William Jefferson Clinton 1993 until 2001. The last President in the 20th Century.

Then "Clint-un." That is what the leaders of Asia called him. "Clint-un." They liked him, even North Korea. They still do. I think it wasn't until "Clint-un" did they actually meet a real American.

But, it was "W" that really broke bread with China after September 11, 2001. Bush rationalized China had lost people in NYC and it was time to end any rift.

George W. Bush 2001 until 2009.

China (click here)

USTDA's program in China focuses on trade capacity building initiatives and projects in the environment (air and water pollution), clean energy, and aviation safety/security sectors. These projects aim to provide significant opportunities and benefits to both China and the United States, and build upon existing agreements and cooperative initiatives. USTDA projects in China include the following:
Trade Policy Initiatives...

Since the USA began a relationship with China 26 of those years were spent with Republican Presidents. About 14 of those years were spent with Democratic Presidents. The primary development years were spent with "W," his Secretary of Commerce, Evans and Treasury, Paulson. We all know what happened there.

Robert D. Hormats (click here)
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment 

Asia Society

New York City

March 6, 2012

I am so pleased to join you tonight to mark a historic event – the 40^th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s visit to the People’s Republic of China.
I want to thank the Asia Society and Orville Schell for this tremendous opportunity.
Images of President Nixon meeting with Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972 are etched in the American consciousness for those who witnessed them live on TV.
As a staffer in Dr. Kissinger’s National Security Council, it was a great thrill for me to have been involved in the preparation for, and the follow-up to, that historic meeting. And it is an equally great privilege to still be working on advancing the U.S.-China economic relationship as Under Secretary of State some 40 years later.
Over this period, in my many visits to China, I have observed, and been privileged to be modestly engaged in several aspects of one of the truly great historic events of the 20^th Century – the resurgence of this great society and great people.
At the time President Nixon made his visit to Beijing, the focus was primarily strategic in nature. For the U.S., it was very much part of our effort to strengthen our negotiating position vis-à-vis North Vietnam. For China, and for the U.S., it counterbalanced what was seen to be a growing Soviet military threat to China....

Why looky thar. It is Mao and Tricky Dick.

Nixon was a Republican. I just thought I'd point that out.

President Nixon Goes to China
February 21, 1972 (click here)
Look at the tags on your clothes or your backpack and see where they were made. There's a chance it was China. Today, the U.S. has an open-trade policy with China, which means goods are traded freely between the two countries, but it wasn't always this way. On February 21, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon arrived in China for an official trip. He was the first U.S. president to visit the People's Republic of China since it was established in 1949. This was an important event because the U.S. was seeking to improve relations with a Communist country during the Cold War. What sorts of issues do you think Nixon discussed?

Bloomberg has a list of companies in China.

Fourteen Pages (click here)

ABA Chemicals - Page 1

SU at the bottom of Page 11 has a solar company or two

ZYNP Corp. - Page 14

Amazing.

Did you know that Michael Bloomberg is a Republican Mayor of New York and a Billionaire? I just thought I'd point that out.

Human rights abuses worsening in China, U.S. diplomats say (click here)

By William Wan

August 02, 2013

BEIJING — U.S. officials said Friday that human rights abuses in China are worsening and that their latest talks with the Chinese government on the issue “fell short of expectations.”
Of particular concern, U.S. diplomats said, are the growing number of instances of officials targeting the families and lawyers of human rights activists to try to silence them.
“This is a worrisome trend and one we’ve raised at senior levels of the Chinese government,” said Uzra Zeya, the U.S. acting assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor. During a news conference in Beijing, she described such actions as “extralegal punishment and measures that are inconsistent with China’s own laws.”...

This is when the "One China Policy" really began.

As a side note, I find the image of Putin as an underhanded spy is sort of like the Pot calling the Kettle, isn't it?

Did you know H.W. was a Republican? I just thought I'd point that out. 

CIA Director George H.W. Bush listens intently at a meeting following the assassinations in Beirut of Ambassador to Lebanon Francis E. Meloy, Jr. and Economic Counselor Robert O. Waring.


...in October 1971...Ambassador George H. W. Bush, (click here) who led the U.S. delegation to the UN, diligently lobbied to preserve Taiwan's seat, but believed that Kissinger's travel schedule would undermine that purpose.  As Sharon Chamberlain's transcripts of the tapes disclose, Bush requested Nixon to change Kissinger's schedule, arguing "I think this thing [Kissinger's trip]--to be candid as I've told Henry--will not be helpful at all" (see document 6), a striking contrast to Kissinger's later recollection that neither he or Bush thought that "the UN vote would be decisively affected."(1)  Nixon was well aware that Taiwan enjoyed important support in the United States---"there's a lot of people that don't want to see us  ... let Taiwan go down the drain"--but he could only advise Bush to "fight hard."   For Nixon, however, rapprochement with Beijing had priority over Taiwan's UN status and Kissinger's schedule was left unchanged.  With the PRC's widespread support among Third World delegations, Bush's efforts to save Taiwan's seats were to no avail.  On 25 October 1971, while Kissinger was returning from China, the General Assembly, by the vote of a substantial majority, admitted the People's Republic of China to the UN and expelled the Republic of China....

Sniping, if that is what one wants to call it, between the PRC and USA went on for a long time.

Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao, with Zhou Enlai behind them in Beijing

Kissinger is a Republican. I just thought I'd point that out.

...Other issues caused difficulties for the talks.(click here) The United States proved unwilling to lift the embargo, to allow exchanges of journalists, or to engage in high-level meetings until China agreed to renounce the use of force in unifying Taiwan with the mainland. For China, Taiwan was strictly an internal issue. The status of Taiwan became the major obstacle that prevented accommodation between the United States and China until the early 1970s. Protocol issues affected the talks as well. In late 1957, the United States attempted to end the talks by transferring Ambassador Johnson to Thailand and sending a representative of lower rank to meet with Wang. As a result of this action, the two sides suspended the talks for nine months. In September of 1958, the U.S. Government appointed its Ambassador to Poland, Jacob Beam, as its representative and the talks continued, on and off, in Warsaw.

After the initial agreement on repatriation in the autumn of 1955, the talks continued for sixteen years and 136 total meetings without making further progress. They ended when President Richard Nixon visited China and set the stage for eventual U.S. recognition of the People's Republic....

Ever wonder where Taiwan came from?

The Chinese Civil War (click here)

From about 1927 to 1950 resulting in two nations; China (PRC - People's Republic of China - Mao Tse Tung) and Taiwan (Republic of China - which had a governor).

The People's Republic of China (China) was not recognized for some time by the USA due to it's loyalty to Taiwan. Taiwan didn't trust the USA and didn't want to be a territory of the USA. The relationship continues today.

The USA attempted to block PRC from becoming a member of the United Nations. It didn't work and now they are permanent nuclear nation. The tensions between China and the USA continued until the 1970s. I think the tensions were mostly imagined by the USA to allow it's support of Taiwan.

Taiwan is south of Japan and north of the Philippines. I just thought I'd point that out. Today the USA has a "One China Policy."

The change in Chinese and USA relations in significance in 1930s.

Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill at the Cairo Conference in 1943.

In the 1930s, (click here) China was a divided country. In 1927 Chiang Kai-Shek had formed a Nationalist Government – the Kuomintang (the KMT), but his dictatorial regime was opposed by Mao Tse Tung’s Communists (CCP). Civil war between the Communists and Nationalists erupted in 1930 – the period of Mao’s legendary ‘Long March’....

Americans like to think it defeated Japan by itself in WWII. That is not entirely accurate. 

And.

Mao Tse Tung sought a relationship with the USA, but, was rejected nearly on the basis that USA policy favored it's loyalty to any offshoot of the Chiang Kai-Shek government. So, the trouble in Vietnam did stem out of WWII and the French tied of their mission in South Vietnam. The USA already had their affiliations with China and knew it would not be disturbed if it focused on Mao.

Mao was influential in ruling North Vietnam.

The Late President Kennedy didn't want the war. It was Johnson that garnered enough USA fear after the Gulf of Tonkin incident to start military maneuvers and a draft. But, the USA had a great deal of respect for China both in Vietnam, but, also the Korean conflict.

China was very different. It was isolated and liked it that way.

The Qing Dynasty which can be discerned in segmented lines of this map was the primary ruling family when The West would come to call.

China's history is not one of a conquering peoples. The nation was always self-serving. They didn't really engage in wars unless it was to defend themselves. China built walls.

Oh, there were a few Chinese considered to be conquers. There was Shih Huang, but, that was BC. The Qing Dynasty would not come to prominence until the 1100s.

SHIH HUANG  (click here)
259-210 BC
The boy known as Ch'eng inherited a minor throne in China at the age of just 13. As an adult, he was a superb organiser. His achievement was not just in conquering the different regions of China in just nine years, but unifying them as an empire. With two trusted ministers, he established a bureaucracy, taxation, standardised weights and measures and a system of ruthless punishments for lawbreaking. The first emperor of China is perhaps most famous for the terracotta army guarding his tomb. More than 8,000 life-sized warriors were created, as well as 600 horses and 130 chariots. In the centralised government he created, the emperor was almost a figurehead. The structure of government was so successful that when Shih Huang died at 49, his two most powerful ministers carried on without him for four years before they quarrelled and his death became public knowledge.

The Chinese leadership, even today, simply love their history. They love to embrace the past and encourage archeological digs to learn more and more of their past. They still maintain the "China" focus in their politics. They don't like negativity in regard to their nation.

There is also Genghis Khan, but, he was a Mongolian. He was known to carry out vicious campaign about the beginning of the 13th century. He was born in 1162 and died in 1227. So most of his mischief was in the late 12th and early 13th century. In all honesty, Khan was never really considered to be baseline Chinese.

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies (click here)

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 14, 2003

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today....

But, for the most part China was a closed society whereby the people considered China the center of the universe. They didn't identify a world outside of China. Their rituals and customs were all based in the understanding China was at the center of their lives. 

The Qing (Pronunciation:  ch ee ng) Dynasty lasted from 1644 - 1911 (click here). The Chinese primarily conquered within their territory. Before the Qing Dynasty was the Ming Dynasty. They simply changed leadership.

The late 1800s provided very challenging for the Qing Dynasty when The West came to frequent it's shores. The article below provides some insight.

Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, 2007, 405–445 (click here)

It must be pointed out that Fairbank later corrected his views on Chinese history. He admitted that China’s modernization was primarily a result of internal Chinese dynamics and initiatives, with only limited Western influence. See John Fairbank, Meiguo yu Zhongguo

This is a footnote from the article. It validates my understanding of the Chinese culture. They are self contained. They don't fancy conquest so much as security.

The origins of capitalism in the form we know it today began with Mercantilism.

Raw materials out of colonized nation-states to Europe where they were turned into manufactured goods.

The system was and today is still quite cruel. In the days when colonialism the people of other lands were considered enslaved. They had no value to Europe's empires, except, to extract the minerals and spices. There was no quality of life for colonists and their burden was difficult. It was not uncommon for native peoples to die while working to satisfy their emperors, kings and queens.

...This system dominated Western European economic thought and policies from the sixteenth to the late eighteenth centuries. The goal of these policies was, supposedly, to achieve a “favorable” balance of trade that would bring gold and silver into the country and also to maintain domestic employment. In contrast to the agricultural system of the physiocrats or the laissez-faire of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the mercantile system served the interests of merchants and producers such as the British East India Company, whose activities were protected or encouraged by the state....

It's Sunday Night

"It's Just Business" by Awaken I Am (click here)

What happened to the world? The conversation's over
We tried to turn your lives into our thoughts
And what they really mean
Piece by piece we are building a story
You seem to be on every single page

And so hey, well can you hear them say?
The princess will fall while the prince has his kingdom to save
So make a sound and make it loud
You took the fall, to lead me home

But now they are using their best words on me,
Although they are not the right ones, are they?
I guess you're turning on me
Well can you hear me? (can you hear them, can you hear them, can you hear them)

And so hey, well can you hear them say?
The princess will fall while the prince has his kingdom to save
So make a sound and make it loud
You took the fall

And so hey, well can you hear them say?
The princess will fall while the prince has his kingdom to save

So make a sound and make it loud

Expanding demand of "Moral Mondays

Now that "Moral Mondays" are well established as a movement seeking to impress the legislators in Raleigh; it will soon make it's first appearance in Charlotte.

by The Associated Press

Posted on August 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- For the Rev. William Barber, (click here) Moral Monday protests are more than just weekly demonstrations drawing thousands of people to Raleigh.   
They're part of a major North Carolina movement. They are uniting coalitions fighting for social, economic and environmental justice over divisive legislation by Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly. 
Barber is president of the North Carolina chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He says he's now coordinating Moral Monday demonstrations in the state's 13 Congressional districts.  
One is planned Aug. 19 in Charlotte....

There is nothing wrong with Detroit's pension. If NYC can get a 10% return in one year, there is no reason why Detroit can't get 8%.

August 11, 2013

...Larkin's claim Larkin’s claim that Detroit (click here) did not need to file for bankruptcy is based on financial assumptions that are, needless to say, much rosier than those of Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr. To take the most obvious point of contention, Larkin proclaims that the city’s two pension funds are not underfunded by more than $3 billion, as Orr stated in his June 14 plan of reorganization.

Rather, Larkin says the funds are financially sound and assumption of a long-term 8% rate of return is realistic, despite Orr’s concerns that it’s too optimistic. "Stock market" returns are indeed volatile, and yet the 25-year average of annualized returns for the S&P 500 has not been below 8% since 1954,” Larkin wrote....

"Need to Know"

Thank you Senator McCain. I knew someone would start to ask questions about the access available to private contractors.

I sincerely hope Senator McCain will reclaim the national security of the USA.

I realize Senator McCain is annoyed with Mr. Snowden and with Russia, but, in all honesty sir how did Mr. Snowden get the information he had? And, indeed, where was Senate oversight to all these issues. Right now, the USA's national security is an open book and so is the privacy of it's citizens.

Do you think Jesus would win a Senate race today?

Was Jesus a venture capitalist without moral content?

He cleansed the temple of those that tried to use his name for profits.

Luke 3:11

"If you have two coats, give one away," he said. "Do the same with your food." 

I don't think Ted Cruz chased anyone out of the Republican Temple.

Total Funding for Ted Cruz Senate Run: $14,318,952

His funding was #10 out of 60 Senate Candidates

Total Spent: $14,618,952

Spending $11 out of 60 Senate Candidates

Cash on Hand: $479,413

Cash on Hand $16 out of 60 Senate Candidates

That was candidates, not Senators.

Dewhurst: "I Have Been the Leading Advocate For Life in the Texas Senate"

August 8, 2013

Townhall.com

Daniel Doherty

On Wednesday, Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst announced he was officially running for re-election for a fourth consecutive term. Though he lost a U.S. Senate primary run-off to Ted Cruz in 2012 (some charging he was too “moderate” a candidate to represent Texas in the upper chamber), Dewhurst is nonetheless by all accounts a bona fide conservative with a legislative track record to prove it. And if re-elected, he says, he’ll expand the policies that have made the Lone Star State the envy of the nation.

- See more at: http://www.daviddewhurst.com/news/articles/dewhurst-i-have-been-the-leading-advocate-for-life-in-the-texas-senate#sthash.OT0QgPq5.dpuf

Dewhurst (click here): "I Have Been the Leading Advocate For Life in the Texas Senate" August 8, 2013 Townhall.com Daniel Doherty On Wednesday, Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst announced he was officially running for re-election for a fourth consecutive term. Though he lost a U.S. Senate primary run-off to Ted Cruz in 2012 (some charging he was too “moderate” a candidate to represent Texas in the upper chamber), Dewhurst is nonetheless by all accounts a bona fide conservative with a legislative track record to prove it. And if re-elected, he says, he’ll expand the policies that have made the Lone Star State the envy of the nation....

Thomas Leppert was Mayor of Dallas. Now he is COO of Kaplan. He claims to be a Southern Baptist.

January 8, 2013
Former Dallas mayor (click here) and U.S. Senate hopeful Tom Leppert has accepted a position with education company Kaplan, the Morning News reports.  Leppert will become president of the New York-based company, but remain in Dallas. The multi-billion dollar company is owned by the Washington Post Company, and has its fingers in everything from standardized test prep to online courses to law. It’s most recent evaluation was $2.5 billion....

There was one Republican organization that did not support Ted Cruz. The GOP invested in Cruz to lead them into voting Republican in 2014 and 2016. The guy is from Harvard, they figured they could not go wrong. They don't realize the Hispanic Community in the USA benefits a great deal from Democratic principles, policy and programs. It is not about choosing a party for them, it is about choosing the American Dream and securing it.

Conservatives Acting Together for Political Action Committee (Catpac) gave Michael Williams $172,721 to run for the same Senate seat.

Conservative Renewal Action Committee (PAC) gave Dewhurst $513,000 to challenge Cruz.

Leppert received no endorsements or money from any PAC or Catpac. Cruz was going to be elected he just needed name and face recognition with the electorate in Texas.

Cruz's election to the Senate was never about morality or values; it was about creating an image the Hispanic American would vote for, even if that meant voting against their own best interests. I mean, nobody would vote against Jesus, would they?

Committee Name	Support/Oppose	Total Spending
Texas Conservatives Fund	Oppose	$5,511,602
Senate Conservatives Fund	Support	$961,028
Club for Growth	Support	$673,287
Club For Growth Action	Support	$621,656
Senate Conservatives Action	Support	$510,650
Freedomworks For America	Support	$447,172
Ending Spending Fund	Support	$157,157
Our Country Deserves Better/TeaPartyExp	Support	$140,315
Endorse Liberty Inc	Support	$123,358
Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC	Support	$2,431

These are social conservative, not fiscal conservatives or those interested in a fiscally functional economy.

They oppose equality. Voters should realize when these folks run for office they will experience social regression on most issues and incredible increases in inequality including poverty.

Their comfort zone is not American, it is Christian. They are seeking a theocracy, not a democracy. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is a reality to them, not an atrocity. Their comfort zone with war and killing is exceptional and a worry to the global community, including the Russians. Their extremism as a comfort to Israel is misguided.

By Anthony Capps

Staff Writer

August 10, 2013

Hundreds of evangelical Christians and social conservatives (click here) gathered at Stephens Auditorium on Saturday to promote their agenda Saturday for the Family Leadership Summit, organized by The Family Leader.
The day-long event covered topics from family values and marriage to the economy and foreign policy, and featured several high-profile, big name conservatives, including business magnate and television personality Donald Trump, who headlined the event.
He predicted Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, and hit on many other topics, including the climate of U.S. business and immigration.
He, like many speakers, opposed amnesty for immigrants, which is what the Democrats in office want, he said. It makes immigrants sway to the Democrats and would be a big blow to the Republican Party.
“They’re just going to be voting Democratic. That’s just the way it is,” said Trump, the final speaker of the summit, which was also sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, Citizens United and the Alliance for Defending Freedom, all of whom support socially conservative Republican candidates and policies....

I take it Donald Trump could not talk George Takei into believing Gayism is a mental health problem.

December 5, 2012
By Cavan Sieczkowski 

George Takei Lunches With Donald Trump, Discusses Gay Marriage (click here)

Friends, I had lunch with Donald Trump today at the Trump Tower Grill. It was a lively and engaging hour-long conversation that touched upon his personal position on marriage equality. He confided that he recently attended a same-sex wedding and that he'd found it "beautiful."
I remarked that NY is now a marriage-equality state, and that after all, marriage is better for business! Minds are changing across America, and I am always ready to speak to those ready to listen. I hope that my chat with The Don might have some effect on his stance on the subject.

I am looking forward to the USA Olympic Sports Ambassadors to make a positive impression to soften the harsh image the Russian people may have of the citizens of the USA.

The USA has benefited by being diverse and inclusive. There is no reason for any country to believe USA values are wrong to any citizen. We do want peace. We do not want conflict and war.

By Doug Williams
August 6, 2013

John Teller (click here) has spent much of his life on the slopes of California’s Mammoth Mountain. 

Even while he was still playing with blocks and learning his ABCs he was carving his first turns and racing other little skiers down the beginner slopes. His mother, who worked in the resort’s daycare facility, took John with her. Soon he was begging to be outside.

“I was bugging her at the daycare, and basically when I got old enough, 4 or 5, I could go out and ski on my own or be with somebody else,” said Teller, 30, who grew up in Mammoth Lakes and still lives and works in his hometown. “Basically the mountain was our daycare. So there was a group of friends that I had. … All of us, since we were 5 years old, we were out there on the mountain every day, and that’s probably a big part of this, because I can probably ski better than I can walk,” he added, laughing...

DONATE (click here) 

If the USA is incapable of competing anywhere besides London because of it's won intractable politics, why bother? 

Parking Star War missiles at Russian Borders is in direct conflict with Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

Non-Proliferation is an EQUITY issue. Each side of the non-proliferation has to stand down from this hideous military stance.

Parking missiles at Russian borders directly effects the ability to promote non-proliferation.

The USA missiles at Russian borders are to intercept their missiles.

The USA missiles at Russian borders actually escalates tensions by destroying 'The Balance of Power.' 

There is every reason to believe the USA military in cooperation with Poland is seeking to escalate the tensions with Russia to the point of war. Absolutely. Poland killed well over one thousand people unable to protect themselves. That is NOT a reason to escalate tensions with Russia.

Jan. 21, 2010
The United States (click here) intends to field Patriot air- and missile-defense systems in northern Poland about 35 miles from the border with Russia, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 11, 2009).
The town of "Morag was chosen as the location long ago, but we didn't make it public," the Polish PAP news agency quoted Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich as saying.
Klich said the decision to deploy the Patriot missiles so close to Russia's Kaliningrad region had "no political or strategic meaning -- its good infrastructure is the only reason."... 

It is very safe to say the current 'Old World' relationship the USA has with Poland is hideous and dangerous. How can the USA back a Poland that kills people?

The USA missiles in Poland aren't necessary. The USA missiles at Russian borders anywhere is inappropriate and very dangerous. There are PEACEKEEPES along those borders. What seems to be the problem?

Russia ready to join UN peacekeeping mission on Israel-Syria border (click here)

Published time: June 07, 2013 12:58
Edited time: June 08, 2013 16:17 

Russia proposed to replace Austrian UN peacekeepers who withdrew from the Golan Heights on the Israel-Syria border. However, the mandate of the UN mission does not allow Russia to do so, the organization’s spokesman said.
Russia was ready to send around 300 peacekeepers to the Golan Heights, said Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin.
“We are talking about the replacement of the same number from the Austrian contingent, in other words about 300 peacekeepers or roughly a battalion,” Churkin said.
While a number of UN Security Council member states welcomed Russia’s initiative, Churkin added that the parties concerned must give their agreement for Russia to send peacekeepers.
However, the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which has been in the Golan under the 1974 Israeli-Syrian agreement, does not allow Russia to deploy its troops in the area, said UN spokesman Martin Nesirky....

Israel doesn't trust Russia and sees them as a force willing to back Assad so Israel will do it themselves and risk a great war. 

I tell you what. Since Israel is a very important ally, why doesn't the USA and Russia provide peacekeepers to work together along the Syrian-Israel Border and act to end any escalation. Sounds like a plan to me.

September 24, 2009
Power: Obama would not rule out U.S. peacekeepers (click here)

A top national security aide to President Barack Obama, Samantha Power, said this week that Obama would not rule out the possibility of using U.S. troops as peacekeepers. However, she also said that U.S. money or logistical support would often be more effective....

...the United States is willing to consider. It’s not something that he would rule out. But one always wants to do the cost benefit analysis there. I mean, there are certain places where U.S. forces are not, in fact, likely to be the greatest asset to a peacekeeping force, not because they wouldn’t be terrific peacekeepers, but because there is a political dimension to a U.S. deployment that has to be taken into account. And so one always wants to ask how do we balance our strategic priorities, the fact that we have so many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how would we assess the relative impact that U.S. forces would make to a peacekeeping mission.

Sometimes economic benefits are cheaper AND better (US AID) than deploying US Peacekeepers, however, the problems with Syria are outside the realm of economic development. There is no sovereign access to seek economic development to raise the citizens out of poverty. At this point the international community is lucky to get survival humanitarian aid to the Syrian people.