This is why Obama will never defeat HIllary.  He is just too stupid.  Libs think Bush is stupid because he has speech issues in public.  Well, I'd rather have somebody who knows what they are doing (usually), and not be able to speak perfectly, than some phony moron who has not one CLUE about anything.

The American Revolution Continued

..well, heir minds are filled with sumpthin', anyway!

Yeah. And it smells....

"Oh, don't be so hard on him, Marge. It's easy to miss Canada, all tucked away down there..."
-- Homer Simpson (B. Hussein Obama's intellectual equal)

It will be interesting to see just how much the Clinton media will eat off of Obama. They may go to far and ruin his chance at VP. I was hoping Obama would be more of a force,  but he is showing his inexperience almost daily now. Looks as if Clinton is going to get a free ride to the primaries.

Audacious audacity!

NAFTA - a review

Clintoon championed NAFTA in 1993. The dimocrat controlled Congress passed it (in other words, if the dimocrats don't like NAFTA, it is their own fault.  Apparently, all of the candidates and the media, except Hussein Obama, have forgotten that).

Trade has increased dramatically amongst the three nations since NAFTA. In the period of 1993–2004, total trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners increased 129.3% (110.1% with Canada and 100.9% with Mexico).

NAFTA has been an unqualified success. Which leads one to beg the question. Why did Hussein Obama say that he would change it?

The reason is that he was simply pandering to the audience - the AFL-CIO.

The auto and auto parts trade is by far the most important sector within NAFTA- it represents 20% of total intra-NAFTA trade. Mexico has successfully integrated their auto industries into the existing market between the US and Canada, which had been integrated since the 1965 Auto Pact and enhanced by CUSFTA, NAFTA's predecessor. 

We know only two well what the unions have done to our industries, in general, and specifically to our auto industry.  Nevertheless, the unions' point of view is that NAFTA is if not wholly to blame, it is at least partially to blame for the state of the industry.  This, of course, is baloney.  If you don't think so.  Look at the industries in our country that are largely union free - they are thriving. 

Regarding Hussein's miss step - who cares?  He is nothing more than a straw man to ensure Billary "the tempest in a B cup" Clintoon is the dimocrat candidate for president. 

Just one opinion--an extract from the Economic Policy Institute

"Americans were promised that NAFTA would generate large numbers of net new good jobs. Instead, over a million jobs that would otherwise have been created were lost, and wages were pressured downward for a large number of workers with less than a college education.

Mexican employment did increase, but much of it in low-wage “maquiladora” industries, which the promoters of NAFTA promised would disappear. The agricultural sector was devastated and the share of jobs with no security, no benefits, and no future expanded. The continued willingness every year of hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens to risk their lives crossing the border to the United States because they cannot make a living at home is in itself testimony to the failure of NAFTA to deliver on the promises of its promoters.

Canada likewise saw continental integration undercut working families. Except for those at the top, real incomes have virtually stagnated. Canadians were assured that NAFTA and the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement were necessary to save the social safety net of which they are justly proud. Yet a dozen years later, government transfers to individuals have dropped from 11.5% of GDP to 7.8% of the country’s GDP, and Canadian government’s overall (non-military) program spending fell from 42.9% of GDP in 1992 to 33.6% of GDP in 2001  

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author: