Am watching my favorite program AgDay. China just ordered 2.5 million metric tuns of soybeans and farmers are extremely happy. All due to the presidents new trade deal with China.

Canada, Mexico and now China. Next President Trump will real in the EU. All because he stood up to the bad trade agreements made by Clinton, Bush and Obama, yet the democrat's relentlessly denounce his advances. The big question they won't answer is why? Why do the democrat's want to maintain trade agreements that rob America and only benefit other countries and undermining our economy?

Migrant group delivers ultimatum to the Trump administration

Two groups of Central American migrants marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana with an ultimatum to the Trump administration: either let them in the U.S. or pay them $50,000 each to go home.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/migrant-group-delivers-ultimatum-trump-054638700.html

---------------------------

... and they are so helpless, single mothers with kids? Sounds like a protectionist threat. Give them either one and we'll have a mass influx of Central American people.

Mexico let them in, let Mexico keep them or pay them $50,000 (1,003,931 peso's) each.

So these are the type of "immigrants" the democrat's want into the country? Issuing ultimatums?

IMO, finding someone online seldom works out. Personality is a huge make or break part that one cannot perceive online. At this point real life meeting is the best way. One can (almost) immediately sense if there is any kind of emotional and physical attraction.

I understand that physical attraction is not everything (especially at our age) but for a man and woman to become romantically involved there has to be some amount of physical attraction. Without it they're just friends.

We are all living the facts as we live in today's world.

FACT: Monday, 3, December 2018 4:00am broadcast. AdDay report. USMCA trade agreements with Canada and Mexico have been signed. Mews media are gloomy because the president came through on this deal.

Next deal: CHINA. China is our largest new cold war adversary. They talk friendly with the media but are stealing our technical discoveries and the resell them back at an inflated price. The Chinese will suck close to $3,000,000,000 out of our economy from unfair practices and the democrats look the other way. Obama knew this 6 years ago, made mention of it in a speech but offered ZERO protection to America. Trump is protecting our industries and the liberals think he's terrible.After Trump signed a deal with China he'll next work on the EU. All bad deal sinitiated by Clinton, Bush and Obama.Very poor examples of a president of our nation.

"Whoever controls the media, controls the mind." - Jim Morrison

---------------

... and it sure isn't the President who is in control of the media. Though, at times, it seems he plays their biases against themselves.

PARIS (AP) — France's most violent urban riot in more than a decade engulfed some of central Paris on Saturday as "yellow jacket" activists torched cars, smashed windows, looted stores and tagged the Arc de Triomphe with multi-colored graffiti.

Protesters angry about rising taxes and the high cost of living clashed with French riot police, who closed off some of the city's most popular tourist areas and fired tear gas and water cannon as they tried to quell the mayhem in the streets. At least 110 people were injured.

------------------

Thus the success of the European socialist experiment. Add to this the boarder line bankruptcy of the medical insurance programs in France, Germany, Denmark and England.

This present younger generation has not been taught or forgotten the lessons of the Soviet Union. Politicians:

" ... give us your money and we'll (try to) make everyone equal". In reality those who rule are more equal than those who give there money to unfulfillable promises.

But the socialism being put forward by democrat's is quite different than the communist Soviet Union.

Socialism plays on the greed of humanity. Give us more and more. A perfect second example was the old Roman Empire. More and more wanted to live off of the state and eventually Rome fell. Socialism is a failure waiting to find fulfillment.

Politicians wanting more control (republicans and democrats) and people was everything for nothing. Fewer and fewer people are willing to work hard to obtain it when others are given it by the state.

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was a perfect example.

IMO, any guy who wants to date a woman 20 years older than himself is either desperate or looking for sex.

There are lots of older women available in the local retirement centers.

We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, we don't need stoned ones piled up beside them and killing others.

When in college I knew a guy who smoked the stuff every night. By the end of the first year his personality had shifted. Couldn't make important, at the moment decisions. Everything's ok mannnnnnnn. From what I've read it deposits a film on nerve receptors. This may be why after continuous use it takes less and less to get stoned. At least that was the experience fellow college students had.

For medical purposes I have no complaint though I wouldn't go that route. Inhaling any type of smoke intensely surely will have a side effect on ones lungs that can't be good.

No, this is a very accurate analogy. If read correctly the Chicago residents would move into areas where there would be no housing, without jobs, expecting the locals to take care of them. Obviously those supporting the free influx of illegal aliens want to down play this analogy.

By the way, on CBS evening news(last week) they interviewed numbers of these caravan participants. They all talked about the people who had organized this march from central America to the USA.

And it is totally our responsibility to unconditionally let in any and all who decide to invade our country without consent?

As I stated in an earlier post, they need to return home and do what we had to do during the Revolution and Civil War's in order to make our nation great.

----------------

Let's put the shoe on the other political foot.

For those who feel they should be allowed in:
Mid town Chicago is a war zone. I live in north central Indiana and the constant news reports of drug and gang murders fills our news.

There are hundreds of thousands (if not a million) who live in this war zone who want out. What if these hundreds of thousands decided to march out of downtown Chicago and set up residence in neighborhoods predominantly democratic on the west and north side of the Chicagoland area?

No one gives them the OK, they just decide to do it. Sound like the humane thing to do?

Shall we organize it?

Any volunteers?

What would downtown Chicagoland turn into?

Would it, eventually, turn into a cancer that would infect the rest of Chicago?

Wouldn't a better idea be to assist the inner city people of Chicago to retake their neighborhoods?

So how many asylum seekers is acceptable to you?

When the Vietnam war ended hundreds (plural) of thousand of "boat people" made every effort to leave and come to the USA.

I understand Hispanics are living in bad conditions but it is not our responsibility to police the world and take in all people who have it bad, as bad as that sounds. Some, yes, but we have poor, homeless, gang members, young single moms, etc. We don't need more. It may feed the political ego but it will break the countries economy.

If we open the boarders the flood gates will begin. 84,989 will only be a small beginning. We need to control who comes in and they should do so legally with proper paperwork. BTW, all other nations do the same. Just like we did in Ellis Island where my grand parents came through in the early 19 hundreds.


If the democrat's want to hand over the sum of their paychecks so be it. My family members can't a ford free everything.

I lived through President Johnson's "Great Society" act. Such a flop. All it did was make a whole generation of young black Americans trapped to the government welfare program. Johnson talked about educating young black's but little ever transpired.

Successful social medicine in Europe

In Italy, the UK, Spain and France, cuts of varying depths are now being introduced. In France, where the health system is usually seen as the best, the budget is exceeded by billions of euros every year: the head of the association of French pharmacies says the system cannot survive more than six years without deep reform. In the UK, the new director of the Care Quality Commission that oversees standards, said after his appointment earlier this year that “the system is on the brink of collapse.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-across-the-world-idUSBRE99S14U20131029

---------------------

Democrat's brag about European medicine as a wonderful example for America. The above comments by European leaders disagrees. And this is where democrat's want to take the USA. Looking just beneath the surface shows quite a different story. Strangely the media is rather silent in this area. One wonders why?

The socialist prayer seems to be "our father who art in Washington". We are a much larger nation. Miscommunication and corruption will be a much bigger problem here than in any of the individual countries of Europe.

"Medicare for All"
According to medicare officials they can only screen 1% (in the news broadcast they said less than 1%) of their claims. National insurance companies do a much better job which requires them to have more overhead to perform this. Increasing Medicare's personnel overhead will make it significantly less efficient, especially since it's a government agency. Any time government gets involved inefficiency increases massively. And who pays in the end? The tax payer. Less take home pay for less performance: always. Canadians who live close to the American boarder are coming to America for medical care because the socialistic medical system has left them waiting in long lines while their American counter parts wait less.

It's not a fear tactic to prevent our nation from being overridden by millions of people who:

1. Have no working skills.
2. Expect to go to our colleges at no cost while our sons and daughters have to pay massive amounts for an education.
3. Who will become wards of the state (look at California).
4. Telling our citizens how to write and enforce our immigration laws.
5. Pressuring society to Entienden Espaniol (learn Spanish).

America didn't become the great nation it did by chance. We went through a revolution against the one world super power of it's day: the UK.

Next we went through a civil war to:
1. Maintain the union
2. End slavery

The people of Central America need to return home and retake their nations. Possibly create a United States of Central America.

To open the boarders as democrat's are pressing for will cause a mass exodus to the USA. We can't take in all of central America. Open the boarders and you bet they'll come en'mass. I would if I were them.

When all that in central America is left are gangs, corrupt politicians and drug lords what will our boarder be like then?

Unfortunately they need to go through what we did in the civil war. Inhumane? No one, today, talks about our revolution and civil war as so inhumane they shouldn't have happened. everyone forgets or ignores about how tragic they were. I suggest watching Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War.

Flood our nation with people who are married to the state for existance and see what happens here. This mentality is noble but not practical. If a life boat can handle 100 people and 1000 are in the water which few get to come in the boat? If one says everyone can get in what happens to the boat? It capsizes.

Our nation is already in massive red ink financially (that's to ALL of our political leaders). It's financial suicide to expect to take in millions from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Yet this is what liberal socialists are demanding.

They seem to be fulfilling what conspiracy theorists are saying about the deep state: bring America to it's knees so they can make a one world government and financial system.

Before getting to excited remember that some of those are what they call Social Democrat's. Quite a bit more socialistic than the garden variety democrat's. They may demand that Nancy Pelosey move the nation further to the left (socialism). This may work against the democratic party which could work for the republican's in 2020.

Wait and see.

Statistically, all midterm elections had house switches except for Roosevelt, Bush and Clinton so it's not abnormal.

In 1938 the democrat's lost 72 seats, in 2010 the democrat's lost 63. See what happens in 2020.

Democrat's: continuously upping the tax and spend policies of America which reduces the after taxes take home pay of citizens and profits of companies. A second issue is the continuous increase of regulations hamstringing industry which causes companies to send manufacturing overseas.

Republican's: continuously voting to allow companies and industries to excessively charge the American public. A good example of this are pharmaceutical companies. A prescription pill in the USA costs $10, in Canada it costs less than $2 and $.25 to manufacture and then limit trade so other countries can't compete. Republican's, also, tend to deregulate "to much" allowing industry to cause severe environmental destruction just to make a few $$$.

The democrat approach tends to show up quickly where as the republican, many times, takes years or decades to show up. Both parties should be working for the good of the people with industry second but human nature shows as our national ethics degrade so do the politicians. Most often the political candidates selected are the ones who the party thinks has the best chance of winning rather than the best policies: popularity contest. We get who we "allow to run" and who we "voted in".

Is it any wonder in time they become part of the Washington Swamp?

Again, both the house and senate terms need to be changed. Each term is 4 years with a limit of 2 terms for any one person. No more professional politicians.

BTW, saved on my laptop are video files of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Senator Schumer, Nancy Pelosey, Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama stating we need to control our boarders because of illegal aliens between 2005 and 2012.

Why the sudden change in ideology in all of them? Sounds like political orders.

BTW, my early morning AgDay program just came on (Friday, 9 November 2018 4:00am EST).

The opening story:

Chinese soybean imports from USA jumped dramatically! How devastating the Presidents trade policies are for our farmers and the nation.

USMCA (NAFTA replacement) and now China! Can we stand anymore?

The 2008 economic down turn and the banking issues:

Much of what we went through financially did not begin with but received a huge boost by two issues:

1. The ACORN case (Barack Obama Chicago attorney). Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack were forced to give loans to people they knew could not pay them back.
2. Bill Clinton built on this. He pushed bills through congress that opened the credit flood gates. During his administration the Good credit, Bad credit, No credit at all philosophy really took off.

Unwisely, many Americans borrowed themseves into ruin but had Obama, Clinton and Dodd not pushed what they did the downturn, most likely, would not have been as devastating.

The media bragged about the economy being "Red Hot" when Clinton left office. At the time I was saying he and Obama were causing the economy to expand like a balloon (the sides were getting thinner and thinner).

While I have issues with George Bush's administration there was one thing, it "appears", he tried to do. In September of 2006 his secretary of the treasury went before the senate banking committee and stated the president was saying the banking industry needed updated rules because things were getting out of control. Senator Dodd (fortunately for himself and the democrat's retired in 2008) stated "there is nothing wrong with the banking industry". Fortunately I have this CBS news broadcast saved on my laptop as proof. CBS has deleted that news broadcast very conveniently.

Two years later the economy and the banking system fell on it's face and democrat's blamed George Bush for it all. Bush played his part for sure but the democrat's and news media absolutely refuse to even talk about the ACORN case or the part Bill Clinton played in this fiasco.

On top of this George Bush never made any kind of response to the accusations which seems fishy to me. They say past presidents don't get involved in presidential politics which is why Bush was so quiet. However, Dad Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama sure haven't observed this "quiet philosophy" with regards to Donald Trump.