Immigration: What would Teddy Roosevelt Say?

Lately I've been hearing a lot about how "progressive" President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt was. The left seems to believe that he was a rare good Republican who reflects their position on life in the United States. So now I'm going to help relieve them of that nonsense.

The following picture and text was taken from an email that is circulating. I can't swear the picture goes with the speech, but it looks believable. And it has been associated with the speech at many web sites. I checked at Snopes, who label it "True" As an side, there is more to be learned about President Roosevelt and immigration at the Snopes page.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

History. It is a wonderful thing.

Paul Volcker: VAT "not as toxic an idea". What?

Proof again that the geniuses in Washington DC are not.

Paul Volcker, current Whitehouse adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairmen under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan says the value-added tax (VAT)...

"was not as toxic an idea." (Reuters)

Not toxic to whom? Politicians and Corporations? Ex-fed chairmen?

It is toxic to me.

I have to say that I believe these people in Washington are totally out of touch with the American people and the American way of life. Never once have they considered that the deficits and debt are a result of their uncontrolled spending or that if they want to reduce deficits and debt, cutting spending might work.

Just say "no" to spending.

At least the US Senate was thinking with 85% clarity, when they voted 85 to 13 opposing a VAT in a nonbinding "sense of the senate" bill. (Read about it here)

There many reasons why a VAT would be a bad thing. The top four are...

1. Inflation
2. The poor are the hardest hit
3. It is super insidious
4. Why do we need another tax?

It is inflationary because it adds to the cost of everything that congress wants to tax. All businesses pass along any cost of doing business to the customer. Always. A 3% VAT would at least 3% to the cost of vehicles, gasoline, housing, food, transportation, clothing and food. If they make it 6% then everything goes up that much. The government already jaacks up the price of everything with a 35% corporate tax. The VAT will be added on top of that corporate tax (the same way they do it in Germany)

The poor would be hit hardest because they have less income to spread around to the different products and services needed. While a loaf of bread doesn't even show up on the radar of a wealthy person, it becomes decision time for poor family. (Do we get the whole wheat @ $4.00, or white at $3.25?) This same scenario goes to everything they need and choices they make to stretch the money out to cover everything they need, and would no doubt would adversely affect children's birthdays and Christmas. (And they describe Republicans as "mean spirited").

I, and many others, believe that a VAT is very very insidious as it is a tax hidden that consumer never sees. The way a VAT works is the government collects a tax each time "value" is added to a product.

Take oil pipe for instance. Oil comes out of the ground through steel pipe 2- 3.5 inches in diameter. To make the final product iron ore goes through many "value adding" processes. At each improvement, the value added tax is slapped to it. After each process that adds value, the VAT is added to the cost. When I worked at US Steel the the major steps went like this.

1. Iron ore is dug up and shipped to US Steel (Lorain Cuyahoga Works) and converted into blocks of steel - Value Added
2. It is sold to the Blooming mill and turned into bar stock and billets - Value Added
3. Billets are sold to the Pipe mills who then sell it to the lapping mill (a department of the Pipe Mill) - Value Added
4. The billets are extruded into 25 to 30 foot lengths of seamless pipe - Value Added
5. The pipe is sold to Number 2 lap, where threads are added to both ends of the pipe. - Value Added
6. The pipe is sold to 3 Seamless, where a coupling is screwed on to one end of the pipe - Value Added
7. The pipe is sold to the shipping department for final sale.

The oil companies who buy the pipe will not know how much VAT is being paid on the pipe, they just buy it at their best price and add the cost into calculating how much to sell the oil for (which has its own value adding process), and it all comes out of your pocket.

You may never know when the VAT rate is increased by congress (I was going to say 'when it goes up or down', but that would be crazy talk), unless you are watching Fox News who will tell you when they change the rate.

Why do we need another tax on top of all the other taxes we pay now? Let's have a look at how much money we are sending to government.

If you are working, own a home & pay utilities, drive to work, and live in America, you hand over about half of your income to all levels of government.

You are paying income tax, payroll tax Medicare & Social Security), sales tax, property tax, state & federal gas taxes, fees for services (I use the term loosely), corporate taxes (that's right, it gets passed along as part of doing business), excise taxes on various services (tanning salons comes to mind), room taxes if you travel, airport taxes, communication taxes on your telephone, cell phone and not-so-smart phone, internet access taxes, connection taxes, use taxes, etc., etc., etc.

And all of that does not include a VAT.... yet.

Contact your representatives and the president and tell them you are supporting someone else if they try and add a VAT to the cost of living in this country.

The US Space Program Loses to the Audacity of Inexperience,

Yesterday the President of the United States went to the Space Coast to tell NASA workers that even though he was killing the US space program at a cost of an estimated 10,000 jobs, he is not killing the US space program. In fact, if anyone wanted to train for a new line of work, he was provided funds to retrain them. (Remarks by the President on Space Exploration in the 21st Century)

I have to ask; Who told him to say that? He has proved that he knows almost nothing, which goes to the value of a Harvard education, and he is listening to people who do not much about anything or being an authentic American either.

After his obligatory comments for the locally spawned Democratic Party Senators and Congresspersons, and then repeating his own heartfelt history with the space program, he said,

"So let me start by being extremely clear:"

I've come to know that when he says this, whatever comes next is the exact opposite of what he really feels or means, if he has any thoughts or feeling at all on the topic. It's hard to tell sometimes because, while his advisers are fairly clueless (in this case, he is apparently blaming the White House Budget Office), his speech writers do know what Americans want to hear. Especially after he has screwed with any particular group, such as NASA employees.

He continues...

"I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future. (Applause.) Because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways that we can scarcely imagine."

We can tell he is "100 percent committed" because, according to CBS in Miami (KDKA TV) on February 1st, 2010, Mr. Obama intends to cut $100 BILLION from NASA's budget and shut down their return to the moon effort known as Constellation Program, in favor of spending $9 Billion to outsource the work NASA has been doing. This is being described as an "increase" to NASA's budget. Yeah, that won't cost any jobs. In Texas, the Examiner is reporting that Mr. Obama's 2011 budget will cost 6000 jobs in Houston and 30,000 engineer jobs around the country. He sure seems to enjoy destroying jobs.

Losing jobs, really? I'm afraid the answer is 'yes'. Not only do we know this from his forced bankruptcy of GM and setting aside centuries of contract law, someone added this to his speech in Florida.

"Now, it’s true -- there are Floridians who will see their work on the shuttle end as the program winds down. This is based on a decision that was made six years ago, not six months ago, but that doesn’t make it any less painful for families and communities affected as this decision becomes reality."

OK, just a moment. He takes another opportunity to blame President Bush for what, losing jobs? It doesn't matter, just as long as he can blame anyone but himself for anything that could be construed as bad"" that happens, while taking credit for anything good that happens, even if it was initiated before his presidency.

He continues...

"So I’m proposing -- in part because of strong lobbying by Bill and by Suzanne, as well as Charlie -- I’m proposing a $40 million initiative led by a high-level team from the White House, NASA, and other agencies to develop a plan for regional economic growth and job creation."

Riddle me this. If he was not killing jobs, why would he need to add a program to retrain workers who already have jobs?

He is not done yet.

"And I expect this plan to reach my desk by August 15th. (Applause.) It’s an effort that will help prepare this already skilled workforce for new opportunities in the space industry and beyond."

Now we learn that he really does not have a plan. He would merely like to have a plan for the soon to be unemployed. I wonder if congress will put this one ahead of Cap & Trade, crippling the financial sector, or are they concentrating their re-election prospects.

Personally, I believe he is killing the Constellation Program for two reasons.

1. It was a created under the Bush administration and he must remove any hint of anything that Mr. Bush did that Americans can take pride in.

2. The space program has been a binding force that brings Americans together and evokes pride, patriotism and the American competitive spirit. It is a force that glues Americans to a television to join in with cheering on the astronauts while watching in amazement. President Obama and others of his ilk cannot stand the idea of competition as something that anyone would volunteer to engage in as it leads to unequal outcomes. And, unlike his campaign promises, this shows that he is no "uniter".

There are winners and losers in life. He wants government to equalize the playing field, beating down the successful and redistribute wealth to those who do not succeed, and anything that works against this goal is the enemy.

Having never been required to compete for anything himself, he may be unable to understand the rewards that come with it. I do not count his presidential victory or his senate wins as "competitive" events. For the US Senate race his opponent was a last minute emergency nominee that wasn't even a resident of Illinois. And in the presidential race, his gangland staff was able to write pretty speeches conveniently displayed on a teleprompter and devoid of detail for his benefit. He relies on the legacy media to repeat his propaganda and demonizes those to reveal the truth of his actions. He seems to be determined to destroy any competitive efforts in this country.

I have to add that I first heard President Obama described as the first "Post American President" on the Bill Bennett Show, Morning in America, when a guest (whose name I do not recall offered the title for our president. With the information above and other actions (HCR, Stimulus 2009, bankrupting GM, Chrysler, Lehman Bros, etc.) by this president, I now believe that the label is more accurate that we can imagine.

The space program does not deserve to be handicapped this way. I am writing my representatives in DC to insist that they extend the shuttle program, build new space shuttles, reinstate the Constellation Program, and keep the USA in the forefront of space exploration.

I hope our friends on the left, who often complain that President Bush did not spend enough on science and research will join me in contacting their representatives and renew the space program. It's not that hard to do.

Rep. Wasserman-Shulz: No free Speech for the Religious.

Rep. Wasserman-Shultz (D) was on Fox News Sunday, along with Rep. Ryan (R) during the March 21st show.

I did learn something interesting from the exchange. Apparently, Ms. Fisherman-Shultz doesn't believe everyone has free speech rights in America.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ:

"I'm sure the nuns would be surprised to learn that they don't have the right to weigh in on health care reform."

Did Chris Wallace ask her that question? No, she volunteered it.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised to know that. I knew many Democrats in public service (using the term loosely) believe that Americans have different rights based on any of their various prejudices. But more and more, this truth is being displayed on news shows, in speeches and are getting codified into law. Last Summer we heard our president say,

"But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking." (Breitbart TV)

They even censor their mailings from the US House and restrict Republicans from mailing important information that they disagree with (a chart showing the ObamaCare routes that compared to the allowed "HilaryCare chart back in 1993). They even got to the US House Franking Commission (run by Democrats, go figure). (CNS News).

They can't even be honest with the AGW debate. Last December the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming's Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) refused to allow testimony from a global-warming skeptic. (Democrats Censor Climate Skeptics in Congress, Jillian Bandes)

They are even censoring twitter (Mark Hopkins).

I'm beginning to think that these people believe that they are supposed to tell us what we can say and when we can say it, which our "hate crime" laws testify to, and we should stop bothering them with our antiquated ideas that doesn't get them anywhere.