This will cause the Mahogany-headed Mahoney in the White House to stain his shorts.
Posted by Peccable at February 17, 2011 11:58 AMSounds about right to me. Maybe we could get the English-speaking provinces of Canada to consider becoming states as well.
Posted by Roger Drew Williams at February 17, 2011 12:05 PMBrought the biggest smile to my face that I have had in ages. I especially like the idea of a 51st state, and RDW, probably only the Western provences of Canada would make good states.
Posted by Bill_K at February 17, 2011 2:56 PMSo WTF Gerard, you running for Secretary of State or something? You got my vote. Does this mean we get to bitch slap Chavez and Morales?
Posted by Scipio at February 17, 2011 3:36 PMProblem is, everybody's sea lanes are our sea lanes, and our companies ship things through them. I suppose you could declare that the Navy would only be defending US-flagged vessels.
Posted by Maureen at February 17, 2011 4:04 PMDeep sigh! Better than dessert.
Posted by Jewel at February 17, 2011 5:23 PMHugs...
Ha! I'm gonna have to use that one.
Israel as a 51st, state? Hmmm... I like it.
Hi Scipio! Welcome back!
Posted by cond0010 at February 17, 2011 8:08 PMRave on, guys. I'm sure Canadians would LOVE to become a part of the U.S. and thereby assume collective responsibility for the multi-trillion dollar U.S. debt. Not to mention being ruled over by somebody like Shrub, Obongo, Hillary, Huckabee, or the Plastic Mormon. Such a deal!
Posted by Quent at February 18, 2011 10:46 AM
Skip the Sec of State and go for POTUS. Any of the commentators here could replace the current SOS and do a better job.
Posted by ChiefTestPilot at February 18, 2011 12:25 PMWhat farrago of good sense and embarrassing anti trade, anti freedom economic illiteracy.
"All profits made by US companies will be only be allowed to be reinvested in facilities ..." Really? Does this apply to Vanderleun too? Does he now approve of the government seizing private property aka corporate profits? How about if the American company is investing in dirty foreign facilities in dirty rotten foreign countries, like Canada, in stuff like Alberta oil sands, to flow desperately needed oil to the USA? Is that OK then? Who will decide if a foreign investment is a good idea or a bad one? Vanderleun? I know! A government committee!!! I'm sure they'll do great job, they always do.
"...reducing our current balance of trade to zero by fiat..". Apparently you do not understand that a negative balance of trade is a good thing. You get goods and services now in exchange for promises and paper that can only be exchanged for your production, later and at a price of your choosing. I'm sure you'll say "But the evil foreigners will buy up our country" to which I respond "Rockefeller center". QED. I'm sure you'll come up with a bunch of reasons to screw up free trade every bit as stupid as good old Smoot and Hawley.
"225% surcharge for any spending done outside the United States". Once again, you pretend to be conservative and yet approve the seizure of private property. Good protectionist move too, really encourages foreigners to travel in the USA. Were you even aware that the USA is the number 2 tourist destination in the world and makes a load of money off dirty, despicable foreigners?
300% on foreign cars? So you would once again destroy economic freedom and private property to force people to drive badly designed junkers made by over paid union thugs? Are you sure you're not a Democrat?
"But if we need extra oil and we ask, you'd better think twice before you say no". Oh good, you also like theft and extortion under threat of violence. Now I am sure you're a Democrat.
Posted by Fred Z at February 19, 2011 5:46 PMFred,
Gerard doth thou need an adjustment of the satire detector or do I?
Posted by vanderleun at February 19, 2011 8:30 PMHot questions regarding new trx force kit replied and therefore the reasons you will need analyze every single word of this write up.
Posted by trx trainer exercises at September 12, 2012 3:18 AM