Posted on 01/30/2005 7:57:07 PM PST by beaelysium
Source: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Sikorsky Aircraft Statement on VXX Announcement
Friday January 28, 5:32 pm ET
STRATFORD, Conn., Jan. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation received word today that its H-92 helicopter was not selected as the next Marine One helicopter. The company anticipates a full debrief on the Navy's evaluation and analysis.
"Sikorsky and our All-American supplier team are disappointed with this outcome. We're honored to have flown U.S. Presidents for nearly half a century and believe we put forward an exceptionally strong proposal to continue this tradition," said Stephen N. Finger, president of Sikorsky Aircraft. "I want to extend my sincere thanks to all who worked so diligently. Everyone at Sikorsky Aircraft, as well as our partner companies across the country, should be proud of their efforts.
" I am confident in the future of the S-92,"Mr. Finger added. "Sikorsky is a growing company committed to providing our customers with outstanding quality and value. We are focused on doubling our business by 2008, with a portfolio of products and aftermarket services for military and commercial customers worldwide. We anticipate achieving this goal even absent the VXX."
Published data shows that the S-92, the baseline version of the H-92, flies farther, flies faster and carries more than the EH-101. Independent data confirms that the S-92 is lower in cost and costs less to operate.
The Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency have certified the S-92 to a higher standard of safety than virtually every helicopter flying today, including the EH-101. Furthermore, since certification in December 2002, the S-92 and H-92 have won every other competition against the EH-101, including selection by the governments of Canada, Turkey, and Turkmenistan; Gulf Helicopters in Qatar; and CHC, the world's largest offshore oil operator.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE: UTX -News ), of Hartford, Conn., which provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.
Media Contact:
Ed Steadham
(203) 386-7143 Source: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Rell wants Navy to reconsider award of Marine One contract
By NOREEN GILLESPIE
Associated Press Writer
January 30, 2005, 4:13 PM EST
HARTFORD, Conn. -- In a letter to President Bush, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she wants the Navy to reconsider the decision awarding the Marine One helicopter contract to Lockheed Martin instead of Stratford-based Sikorsky Aircraft.
Rell toured the Sikorsky facility Friday, moments after the contract was announced. The decision prompted anger from state officials, lawmakers and workers, who said the president's helicopter should be 100 percent American-made.
I was, I am, at a loss to understand this decision," Rell wrote.
" I wish you could have been there on the factory floor, Mr. President, as I comforted a woman who wept and asked me, "WhySikorsky has been the lone contractor for the Marine One program for 45 years. The deal with Lockheed raised would our President fly in a helicopter that wasn't all American?" she wrote.
questions about the outsourcing of American jobs and how open the U.S. military market is to foreign contractors.
The fight for the contract was fierce. Maryland-based Lockheed and its European partners employed the help of political leaders from England and Italy to wage a major public relations campaign to win the contract.
Lockheed's winning entry, the US101, is based on a British-Italian AgustaWestland aircraft, now owned by Finmeccanica. The helicopter has several key components, including the main transmission and rotor blades, that will be built overseas.
The contract calls for building 23 high-tech, high-security aircraft at a cost of $6.1 billion.
At the least, Rell said, the workers at Sikorsky deserve a better explanation. If reconsidering the contract is not possible, she said, Bush should direct the Department of Defense to describe the criteria used to make the decision, and what other factors may have played a role.
" The 7,000 men and women of Sikorsky and thousands upon thousands of others at more than 200 suppliers around the country were prepared to give their all for a chance to build this highly visible and instantly recognizable symbol of American pride," Rell wrote in the letter, dated Friday and made public over the weekend.
Members of the state's congressional delegation have also said they want a better explanation of the decision. U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Friday that the delegation will seek a meeting with the secretary of the Navy.
Lieberman and U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., also said the delegation plans to pursue legislation that would block funding to Lockheed or any other company used for Marine One that does not completely supply parts and use workers from the United States. They acknowledged, however, that it will be an uphill battle because most contract decisions are final.
" There's no way we need 23 presidential helicopters."
I'd have to agree here, more so in view of the cuts in other military programs like the F-22 and 737MMA.
I confess, I do not have details as to how many and exactly where, but many of the Presidential fleet are pre-positioned in other parts of the world, American bases from England to Japan. Helicopters are not designed for transcontinental flight, would have to be shipped by naval vessel for any foreign visit, at least two so one is hot 24/7.
A.M. Mora y Leon
01 30 05
Dodd undermines Venezuela's democrats
It doesn't get worse than when some ignoramus from U.S. Congress steps in to defend an indefensible government, undermining its oppressed people. In an letter addressed to the Washington Post, Senator Chris Dodd blithely defends Chavez's regime on the premise that Venezuela is a democracy, like other democracies. Dodd says the only problem with the state of US.-Venezuelan relations is Bush, whose dislike of Chavez is a matter of ideology.
So, Dodd, if Bush were just ... nicer ... and ignored Venezuela's gag law, its attacks on reporters, its land confiscations, its electoral fraud, its judicial stacking, its Cuban agents, its prosecution of NGOs who took cash from Dodd's own Democratic-Party-owned National Democratic Institute via NED, its abuse of oil workers, its guerrillas in the midst - and a slew of other outrages - Chavez would respond in kind and stop speculating about sex with United States Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice?
My response to that is unprintable.
Bush gets along just fine with people on the left who are democrats - Blair, Lula, Lagos, Gutierrez - even Bill Clinton for crying out loud! But that inconvenient fact is invisible to Senator Christopher Dodd, who berates the Washington Post for its superb editorial.
I'm looking for signs of a payoff in his case. Dodd's action makes no sense unless he's just stupid, ad I don't think he's just stupid.
Here is a Venezuelan reaction to the guy's sanctimonious defense of tyranny, and here is my own take. The three-word to you, Senator Dodd.
washingtonpost.com
Words and Deeds in Venezuela
Saturday, January 29, 2005; Page A24
The Post aptly pointed out in a Jan. 14 editorial that in Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez, democratic institutions have been under stress. But the editorial wrongly concluded that I or my colleagues regard these developments with nonchalance.
In fact, my colleagues Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) and I traveled to Venezuela during the second week of January to assess Venezuela's democracy and the likelihood of a disruption in our relationship with the fourth-largest oil supplier to the United States.
There is no question in my mind that many of Mr. Chavez's actions have been provocative. But the reality is that he was democratically elected -- a fact The Post seems to ignore.
Mr. Chavez's rule highlights a broader U.S. foreign policy challenge: how to respond to democratically elected leaders whose actions challenge established democratic institutions. I believe that the institutions of democracy must be nurtured and encouraged, regardless of who is in office. They should not be relegated to the shadows simply because we don't share the political views of an elected leader of the moment. That means we must keep the door open to dialogue.
In the case of Mr. Chavez, dialogue may serve as a restraint on his most controversial policies. We know that isolating him has not. Mr. Chavez had encouraging words to say to us about wanting to reengage with the United States. We welcomed those words but told him that the course of our relationship will be decided by whether he lives up to the principles of democracy.
But building a better relationship is a two-way street. To that end, we have urged the administration to reconsider its failed approach toward Venezuela.
There is no denying that a healthy U.S.-Venezuela relationship is in our interests. Such a relationship is more likely if we keep lines of communication open while making clear our differences with aspects of Chavez rule. Our visit to Venezuela was an effort to do that. I hope the Bush administration will follow suit to test whether words can be translated into deeds on both sides.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
U.S. Senator (D-Conn.)
Washington
We can never simply rely on the Democrat's stupidity for our own election success. Granted, with the likes of Kerry, Dodd and Teddy Kennedy working against us, we have nothing to fear. But on the other hand. considering the very formidable Clintons, we had best stay at the top of our game. Keeping all our Ts crossed and is dotted, we can sling the truck loads of mud that will be called for when hillary runs again.
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200501240801
January 23 - On Sunday, only days after Senator Christopher Dodd and Senator Lincoln Chaffee grilled National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice for her critical views of the Chavez government during a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mocked Dr. Rice on state television. Minutes before his comments, a presenter on a Venezuelan government television program had joked that Dr. Rice "wants it badly or is in love with Chavez."
Who Is Protecting Hugo Chavez?
By Christopher Whalen
Chavez never openly provokes the United States but deviously works to 'erode the position of his enemies,' says a U.S. official. Last year a popular but disorganized opposition movement in Venezuela threatened the government of Hugo Chavez, the self-styled populist who has taken that nation's battered political economy on a strange journey into social chaos after gaining power in 1999. In March of last year, Insight predicted the ouster of Chavez and he was forced out of office. But a bizarre combination of factors returned this protege of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro to power.
More than a year later, experts on Latin America tell this magazine that Washington's soft line on Chavez in Venezuela adversely is affecting U.S. security and the stability of the entire region. This hands-off policy toward Chavez seems to originate from the highest levels of the Bush administration, these foreign-policy specialists say, and has evolved to the point of negligence of a crisis that already constitutes the greatest threat to regional stability since Castro took power in Cuba in 1959. Indeed, even as Congress has been intent upon removing travel restrictions to Castro's island prison, say these regional specialists, the Cuban leader is working with Chavez to destabilize governments in the region.
A senior U.S. official who worked in Venezuela during the rise of Chavez speaks with grudging admiration of the Venezuelan leader's classic Marxist-Leninist approach to expanding power: two steps forward, one step back. "Chavez is constantly underestimated by people who do not understand his patient, methodical approach to recruiting and strategy," says this retired Army officer. "Chavez never provokes the U.S. or other nations, but instead works obliquely to erode the position of his enemies."
As an example of Chavez's successful approach, the official cites U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS) John Maisto, a former ambassador to Venezuela and Nicaragua. He reports that Maisto was the chief exponent of what the source calls the absurd argument that Chavez is a democrat at heart and that the United States should not "push" Chavez into the arms of Castro. "Maisto did the same thing in Nicaragua," says the official, "until Washington lit a fire under him." In fact, this observer says, Chavez has been a radical all his life, influenced by Marxist and authoritarian political theorists, and has been expanding his influence in the region using his links to Cuba and terrorist groups in the Middle East [see "Fidel May Be Part of Terror Campaign," Dec. 3, 2001, and "Fidel's Successor in Latin America," April 30, 2001].
On Oct. 6, U.S. News & World Report published a scathing expose' by Linda Robinson on Venezuela's links to terrorism, including the fact that the Chavez regime "is giving out thousands of Venezuelan identity documents that are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon." And Robinson confirms earlier Insight reports that Chavez has provided training facilities for known terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiyya al Gammat, which operate from Margarita Island off the coast of Venezuela. She cites Gen. James Hill of the U.S. Southern Command, who said in a speech last month: "These groups generate funds through money laundering, drug trafficking or arms deals and make millions of dollars every year via their multiple illicit activities. These logistic cells reach back to the Middle East."
Robinson also quotes Roger Noriega, the new U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, as saying: "Any actions that undermine democratic order or threaten the security and well-being of the region are of legitimate concern to all of Venezuela's neighbors." Noriega told the House International Relations Committee on Oct. 21 that "the government of Venezuela has a special responsibility to ensure that all Venezuelans are able to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of association and expression."
But readers of Insight should not take his comments as any indication of a coherent U.S. policy toward Venezuela, real or imagined. No amount of effort by Noriega and his like-minded peers can make up for the fact that the Bush administration has failed to confront the growing threat in Venezuela. Indeed, when it suits his tactical situation, Chavez attacks Washington with impunity to energize his political supporters. Most recently, Chavez claimed that the CIA is plotting to overthrow the Venezuelan government and assassinate him. Secretary of State Colin Powell called such accusations "absurd," but insists that "it's up to the Venezuelan people to determine who their president will be, not up to the United States of America."
Though it went unnoticed in the major media, Robinson's article landed like a bomb in the hear-no-evil atmosphere from which Washington has ignored Chavez. According to well-placed sources in Caracas, shortly after the article appeared on newsstands, U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Charles Shapiro met with Chavez and assured him that the State Department is not in the least hostile to him. But an outraged administration source tells Insight that the Robinson article "just scratched the surface" and there is a great deal of activity in Venezuela that requires U.S. attention. Irate military sources say Shapiro, a career Foreign Service officer with extensive experience in Cuba and other Latin America posts, effectively has shut down intelligence gathering by the U.S. Embassy in Caracas.
In September, Martin Arostegui of UPI reported Chavez had dismantled U.S.-trained intelligence units that tracked terrorist connections among the half-million members of the Venezuelan Arab community and instead had brought in Cuban and Libyan advisers to run his security services, according to U.S., British and other European diplomatic officials in Caracas. He also reported that Caracas refuses to cooperate with the FBI and other U.S. agencies trying to track the whereabouts of Venezuelan nationals of Arab descent with links to the 9/11 terrorists who flew an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon.
The lack of concern shown by Washington toward mounting evidence of a national-security threat emanating from Venezuela can be explained on a number of levels, say Washington insiders. First and foremost, says one, is the legacy of James Baker III, the former secretary of state and of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and today a key member of George W. Bush's inner circle. This well-placed source charges that Team Bush is so focused on Europe and Asia that it has tended to ignore Latin America. He says this appears to have resulted in the United States having no policy on the region generally, or even toward problematic venues such as Cuba and Venezuela.
For example, while members of the U.S. military and policy communities talk freely about the growing terrorist threat in Venezuela, some Bush officials deny any problem exists. After the appearance of the Robinson article, Brig. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, director of operations at the Pentagon's Miami-based U.S. Southern Command, was following the official line when he told the Miami Herald that Southern Command has no information about Venezuela supporting terrorists. Yet the daily El Mundo in Caracas says that the article in U.S. New & World Report "tells us nothing that we have not known for a long time."
Is it possible senior U.S. officials responsible for regional security don't know what is known even to Venezuela's tabloids? No, sources say, the information is widely known, but the White House has not had a sufficient sense of urgency to forge a consistent policy on what to do about Chavez. Another reason suggested for the hands-off policy is that Chavez has welcomed U.S. oil-services companies even as he has built a forward-operations base for terrorists that potentially could be used to strike the U.S. mainland. Companies such as Halliburton, ConocoPhillips and other U.S. giants have taken the lion's share of Venezuela's oil-contract business, say senior officials in Washington, leaving little reason for these corporations to complain about Venezuela's left-wing government.
Indeed, Washington insiders say part of the reason the White House has not taken a strong position in dealing with Chavez is that the Marxist leader has several very effective advocates. First and foremost is U.S. Ambassador to the OAS Maisto. The inside account goes that Maisto was diverted from retirement, first to take the Western Hemisphere post on the National Security Council (NSC) and now the OAS post because Vice President Dick Cheney valued his expertise in the region and also because he wanted to thank Maisto for sorting out a difficult legal problem in Venezuela for Halliburton when Cheney was the company's chief executive officer and Maisto was serving under Clinton during his tenure as ambassador.
Maisto served as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela and to Nicaragua and as special assistant to President Bush and senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the NSC. Several Latin specialists in Washington say Maisto has been among the chief proponents of ignoring the deteriorating situation in Venezuela, arguing that Chavez's bark is worse than his bite. With an inside track to Cheney because of his former tenure in Venezuela and his work on "Plan Colombia" when he was assigned to Southern Command in Miami, Maisto reportedly has been one of Chavez's most effective protectors. Gonzalo Gallegos, public-affairs adviser at the State Department, refused to comment about Maisto's views on Chavez, but confirmed that U.S. officials recently have had discussions with the Chavez government "at the highest levels" about the need to be vigilant against terrorism.
Maisto is described as a pragmatist within the Bush inner circle, but there also are prominent Republicans reportedly working for Chavez behind the scenes, among them former New York congressman and GOP vice-presidential nominee Jack Kemp. The Wall Street Journal reported in June that Kemp developed a friendship with the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, former oil executive Bernardo Alvarez, and accompanied him on public-relations missions, including an editorial-board meeting at the Journal. Kemp's office at Empower America did not return repeated calls by Insight seeking to ask if the former congressman has been acting as an unregistered agent of Venezuela.
Kemp reportedly is trying to sell crude oil to the U.S. Strategic Reserve on behalf of a company formed by the Venezuelan government to sell royalty oil. The newsletter Petroleum World reports that the company, Free Market Petroleum LLC, has links to international fugitive Marc Rich, who received a last-minute pardon from outgoing president Bill Clinton. According to Petroleum World: "Jack Kemp ... is using his unquestionable influence in the U.S. political scene to try to swing a deal of over $1.2 billion in Venezuelan oil, serving on the side as a public-relations adviser to Bernardo Alvarez and the Chavez government. The 'normal' commissions on such a deal would be of the order of $50 million. Not bad."
Neither Kemp nor his firm are registered with the U.S. Justice Department as foreign agents for Venezuela.
Also helping to keep Chavez in power has been the attention of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), at the time of the brief coup the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, and his chief foreign-policy aide, Janice O'Connell. Columnist Robert Novak wrote in April that Dodd and particularly O'Connell hold a grudge against Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich, a conservative and anticommunist. This antagonism to Reich in particular, and conservatives generally, fuels Dodd's aggressive stance on U.S. policy in Latin America.
Novak reported and Insight sources confirm that, with the Democrats in control of the Senate, O'Connell made it clear to career officials in the State Department that it was she who was calling the shots on U.S. policy in Latin America. As a result, career State Department officials were unwilling to take risks by supporting the democratic opposition in Venezuela for fear of retribution by O'Connell. Foreign-policy insiders say that during the 48-hour period when Chavez was removed from the presidency, Dodd's office was very active - and successful - at guaranteeing that Washington did nothing to assure Chavez's permanent ouster. "Dodd clearly called the shots on Latin America policy," said one State Department official. "There is no conservative counterbalance to Janice O'Connell in the Senate now that Jesse Helms is gone." O'Connell did not return telephone calls seeking comment for this article.
A year ago this magazine reported that House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) sent Bush a powerfully phrased letter warning that the triumvirate of political extremists leading economic powerhouse Brazil, oil giant Venezuela and the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Cuba had become an emerging Axis of Evil that the United States must stop. Nonetheless, the Bush administration studiously has ignored the deteriorating political situation in Caracas and, indeed, has gone out of its way to comfort and reassure the Chavez government even as he uses thuggish tactics to obliterate what remains of Venezuela's political opposition.
One of the more egregious examples of Washington's conflicting signals regarding Venezuela came when the State Department stripped the U.S. visa of Venezuelan Gen. Enrique Medina after he participated in a public protest against the Chavez government. In a May 21 letter from the U.S. Embassy obtained by Insight, general counsel Sandra J. Salmon informed Medina that his tourist and consular visas had been revoked because of "involvement in terrorism." The real crime committed by the former military attach' for Venezuela in Washington and division commander was that he was seeking political redress from Venezuela's anti-American regime.
One military officer who has known Medina for decades says that he is a true friend of the United States and that the withdrawal of his visa by the State Department for resisting Chavez illustrates the policy muddle that now prevails in Washington. Medina wrote in the Caracas daily El Universal on Oct. 8 that while Chavez may believe he has "neutralized the armed forces in Venezuela with acts of open repression and less obvious attacks on political liberties," the day is approaching when the military will not tolerate further political outrages.
Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst for Latin America Stephen Johnson argues that ignoring Chavez no longer is the best way to deal with him, if it ever was, and that the White House needs to articulate a clear policy toward this Castroite demagogue. Indeed, some U.S. officials believe that because of the growing presence of Middle East terrorists operating freely in the country, the Bush administration soon may be faced with a Caracas-based threat - or an actual attack on the U.S. homeland from radical Islamists operating from a training base in that country.
A senior U.S. military officer intimately familiar with the situation confirms that the all-important Venezuelan army has been "cleansed" of independent elements and now is under the control of pro-Chavez activists and the growing ranks of Cuban advisers. "A lot of former officers in the Venezuelan army rue the day that Chavez was allowed to return to power," the U.S. expert on Venezuela laments. "They believe that last year's abortive coup may have been the last chance to save their country."
Christopher Whalen is a New York-based writer and investment banker and a contributing writer to Insight.
Insight on The News
Archivo
Regresar a la pegina principal
As opposed to what? The Global worker? You can keep your corporate Marxism.
So when is the Presidential limousine going to become a Mercedes or Lexus?
The American industrial worker has been royally screwed over the last 30 years, so rejoice. His high paying jobs and industries sent overseas and to Mexico.
My evidence: Our lethal trade deficit running at 730 billion dollars per year
Bush is punishing Dodd for his attack on Rice and Dodd's continuing support for dictators rather than Freedom fighters.
"a rose is a rose is a rose" When asked what she ( gertrude stein) meant by "a rose is a rose is a rose," she explained that in the time of Homer, or of Chaucer, when the language was new, "the poet could use the name of the thing and the thing was really there." But as memory took it over, it lost its identity, which she was trying to recover. She boasted, "I think in that line the rose is red for the first time in English poetry for a hundred years."
"a dictator is a democrat is legitimate "
Orwell was sure that the decline of a language had political and economic causes. Orwell writes in his essay, "Politics and the English Language." "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought," he continues. (the concept behind the invention of Newspeak.) To illustrate this idea that language can corrupt thought Orwell created 'Newspeak'; without a word for freedom, for example, the concept of freedom cannot exist, or to use the word 'freedom' for many other things than the idea of freedom, the idea of freedom is lost, though the word may remain.
For all of Bush's critic's claiming that he's no bard, he may be the biggist stickler for the precise useage of words in action around.
I am a proponent of the free market and, generally, see no real problem with the foreign production of goods for use in the US.
However, there is one MAJOR exception this - namely - any and all manufacturing and services that serve national security.
It is suicide to allow foreign governments, no matter how allied (or neutral) they might be, to have ANY contracts which impact on our national security.
T-Online (a subsidiary of the German Telekom - a state run corporation) had/has a contract with the Secret Service for mobile telephones. What is to prevent the "parent" from accessing information from T-Online and passing that information to German Intelligence?
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Swiss baned exports to the US of components used to make hand grenades (because the did not support the US position).
These are just two incidents that I am aware of that could cause grave harm to US Troops / our national security.
There is NO reason to allow this - especially when there are domestic companies that are capable of providing the same service / product - even when the domestic company charges more than the foreign one.
Here's a couple of Teddy Roosevelt quotes that may be of interest to You:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (1918)
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else." (year?)
(i've been flamed by know-nothings for posting these before so don't anyone even bother trying.) :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330985/posts?page=77#77
The Air Force flies them to their overseas destination prior to a Presidential visit in C-5 and C-17 transport aircraft.
So how many is too many? I happen to think 23 is too many. Where would you draw the line? 25? 125? 1025? If he currently has 19, then 19 is just fine -- he doesn't need four more. Just replace the 19 that are aging with 19 new ones.
Absolutely hilarious. LOL
Some evidence. You worry about job losses and falling wages, while citing to the notion that we buy foreign stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.