Wednesday, October 12, 2011

China Has ALREADY Retaliated For Last Night's Big Currency Vote In The Senate


Everyone Missed It, But China Has ALREADY Retaliated For Last Night's Big Currency Vote In The Senate

zhou china chineseThings move fast.
Last night, the Senate passed a bill that would impose tariffs on currency manipulators like China.
It's not expected to pass the House or get signed by The President, but China has already responded to the provocation.
As Nomura explains, it fixed the yuan shockingly low against the dollar last night, moving it in the exact opposite direction the US wants:
The disappointing USD/CNY fix today, 116 pips higher than yesterday’s (to 6.3598) and compared with our model forecast of 23 pips could reflect an element of Chinese retaliation to the Senate’s vote. The last time we saw such a big fix (compared to the previous session) was on 29 November 2010 (147 pips), which came on the back of EUR weakness (broad USD strength) on EU-related debt concerns (primarily Ireland). Previous large USD/CNY fixes that surprised on the upside (in October-November 2010) coincided with either North Korea provocation or followed major political events (the G20 Leaders summit, Premier Wen Jiabao’s October visit to Europe)

DATA EYE IN SKY...BIG BROHER WATCHING??



IN SUPPORT OF OWL MOVEMENT


I’m going to diverge a bit from our RedState Echo Chamber® and come out in support of the Occupy Wall Street protests. I’m struggling to find a downside to this bit of theater for conservatives or the GOP. I don’t really see an upside to it for the Administration and the Democrats.
Personally, I can’t think of anything more amusing than several heavily blue cities being overrun by unwashed hipster trash protesting the excesses… or existence… of the industry group that has given Obama truckloads of money. If heads are broken, it will be under the direction of Democrat mayors. If people are inconvenienced they are by and large Democrat voters.
The media will eat it up as they vicariously relive their recollections of what Woodstock would have been like if only they had been conceived or out of diapers at the time. Night after night the nation will be reminded of exactly who is in the White House.
The administration fantasizes that it will create some sort of counter Tea Party but misses the obvious disconnect. The Tea Party was for something rather than merely an inchoate protest for the sake of protest. More to the point, where the Tea Party found a natural, if somewhat strained, alliance with the GOP, it is hard to see how these protesters find alliance with the political party that came to, and remains in, power by monetary contributions from Wall Street.
What they forget is that the street demonstrations of the mid-1960s did not help the Democrat party. To the contrary the protests of 1967 and 1968 led directly to the decision of LBJ to decline to seek a second term and to the election of Richard Nixon.
I think the conservatives should get behind this movement. We should make sure these people are able to stay in downtown Boston and New York City and Atlanta and wherever. We should send aid convoys from Red States to the #OWS protests to show that we, too, have been victimized by Barack Obama’s donor base. And we should make sure they get free bus tickets to the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

GREEN BOARDER SECURITY AS EFFECTIVE AS GREEN ENERGY


More Democrat hypocrisy on the environment
Energy productivity isn’t the only thing that is hampered by laws governing so-called endangered species.  For decades, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have encumbered border security operations with layers of environmental restrictions and regulations.  Additionally, the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has been forced to pay millions in taxpayer dollars, known as mitigation funds, to offset the “environmental effects” of their roads, fences, and surveillance towers in or near national parks and other federally owned lands.  Now, Rep. Rob Bishop is seeking to exempt the border patrol agents from these laws, so they can focus on their real job – protecting the border.
Bishop’s bill (H.R. 1505) prohibits the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior from impeding border security operations that are currently stymied by three dozen environmental regulations, including the Wilderness Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and the 1965 law known as the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  This bill allows CPB to construct roads and fences, use patrol vehicles, and set up monitoring equipment within on all federal lands within 100 miles of both the northern and southern borders.
The bill passed the Natural Resources Committee on a party line vote.  Now Republican leaders must schedule a floor vote on this vital legislation.
Not surprisingly, the environmental groups and administration appointees at the DOI and USDA are feigning outrage over this bill.  Far-left Rep. Raul Grijalva said that the bill “may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here.”  Unfortunately, they have never expressed any consternation over the fact that the drug cartels are ravaging our national parks along the borders with their roads, vehicles and ‘offices.’  In fact, some of these parks have been off limits to visitors, and if we fail to obtain operational control over the border, we won’t have to worry about the animals in the parks anyway.  60% of Organ Pipe in Arizona remains closed due to drug trafficking.
Liberals might believe that regulations create jobs, but in this case, those jobs will go to the drug cartels, which have free reign over our border parks.
Obama and the Democrats claim that they support border enforcement against criminal aliens, yet they have shown no interest in providing the border patrol with the requisite resources to fight the dangerous drug cartels and preserve our parks along the border.  Or, do they believe that the pronghorn antelope, dunes sagebrush lizard, spotted owl, and delta smelt are not harmed by drug cartel vehicles?
Republicans should make this bill a priority on their floor schedule.  In theirPledge to America, they promised to “ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.”
Well, this would be a convenient way to fulfill their promise.  They have shown some tepidness in delivering on the budgetary promises of the pledge, so this one should be an easy way to earn back public trust.

HIPPIES AND GREED...OWL..INDEED!


About the only thing these hippies, hipsters, senior citizens who never grew up, and college trust funders out protesting can agree on is that greed is bad. They want the whole capitalist system pulled up by the root and replaced with something else because of greed.
What they either do not understand or choose to ignore is that greed is not a capitalist invention. Greed exists because people do. Greed exists in capitalist societies, socialist societies, and communist societies.
All men are created equal and all men are born into this world as sinners. One of those sins is greed.
The few people who claim to be without greed are typically greedy for the praise of others or full of pride at not being greedy. Pride is a far worse sin than greed because pride is the root of most every sin.
But of all the varieties of greed out there, what the hippies do not seem to understand is that greed in a capitalist society is far less pernicious than the greed in the systems they advocate, be it socialist or communist.
Greed in a capitalist system takes the form of money — lust for it, the acquisition of it, and the hoarding of it.
Greed in socialist and communist systems takes the form of power. Just as a CEO has a house in the Hamptons while his workers make vastly less than he does, the Politburo member has a dacha on the Black Sea while his constituents wait in a bread line half starved.
In a capitalist system, one can take a risk, dare to compete with the greedy 1%’er, and quite possibly become one of those 1%’ers. And when unable to do it alone, a group of people can pool their money together and compete with the rich.
In the communist system these kids are advocating, the powerless cannot compete with the powerful. And it is hard to pool power together to compete against power, because while a CEO might be able to pull off a hostile take over of your company, the greedy communist can kill you with his power. One can escape a CEO of one company for the CEO of another company or become their own CEO. One must go under barbed wire and dodge bullets to escape their communist masters.
What these dirty urban hipsters want is a form of greed themselves. They don’t want the rich capitalist to have his money. The hipsters covet power. They are greedy in their own way for their own power. They want the power to set the salaries of the CEO and determine, based on their own sense of fair play, what is and is not fair and what is and is not just.
What the hipsters want is far more dangerous than what the top 1% in this country have — the hipsters want the power to control all our lives through force of government. The capitalists just want to sell us things.
There are very few, if any, capitalist systems that tend toward totalitarianism because of competition and the ability of money to flow to others as monopoly enterprises become inefficient and collapse. Socialist and communist systems tend to become totalitarian over time because power, unlike money, is much more easily hoarded.
In a capitalist system there is greed. But that greed necessitates the capitalist produce a good or service the rest of us want. And we can always say no. There is no saying no to the communists.
And the hipsters want us to be unable to say no to them.
Communists, socialists, and capitalists all have poor people in their systems. But the odds are greater that more people are poorer and hungrier the further removed from capitalism they go. And in all, there is greed.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

DON'T ASK...DON'T TELL...TRUTH COMES OUT...WELL, WELL, WELL!


Wallace and Glom It


Remember back during the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" debate when homosexuals said all they wanted was the chance to serve their country openly? Turns out, that wasn't all they wanted. The military wasn't even two weeks into its "coming out" party when activists unleashed a second round of demands, including the right to "weddings" on base--and access to service chaplains to perform them. Like most conservatives, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) knows that once homosexuals get their boot in the door, there will be no stopping them on this or any other flagrant anti-family, anti-security agenda. On Friday, McKeon wouldn't budge on the House's position, which is that the repeal is still ancillary to federal law, and it plainly states marriage is the union of a man and woman. For that reason, Congress tacked two amendments onto the annual Defense Authorization bill. One beats back the Pentagon's new guidelines on same-sex "marriages" on military bases, and the other reiterates that the Defense Department is not exempt from the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Its policies, like the entire federal government's, are subject to Congress's definition of marriage.
"This is one of the concerns that we had," McKeon said on C-SPAN last week, "that we were rushing this, to eliminate [Don't Ask, Don't Tell], before we had fully prepared things. And DOMA is the law of the land," McKeon said. "I'm hopeful that the Senate will look at those votes and will understand our feelings on the issue." If they don't, McKeon implied, the House may just kill the Defense Authorization Act altogether. Asked if he'd rather not have a bill than give an inch on marriage, McKeon said, "Yes."
Predictably, the Left jumped on his comments, claiming that McKeon was jeopardizing America's mission to "advance his own narrow, social agenda." Funny, that's exactly what the Left did in shoehorning the repeal into a lame-duck session without any concern for military readiness or the safety of an entire force! McKeon is right to be cautious and establish the boundaries up front. What's more, his agenda isn't "anti-gay," as Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) implied, it's pro-law. Our soldiers are on the battlefield this second, fighting to preserve the very laws that their commander-in-chief ignores. We applaud Chairman McKeon and others who are intent on protecting the statues these brave men and women are sacrificing for.
Meanwhile, the media seems intent on making Sen. Rick Santorum the punching bag for being the most outspoken about keeping the military focused on its mission to fight and win wars. But if Chris Wallace and others honestly think they can get the Senator to blink on his beliefs, then they don't know Rick Santorum. His position, which mirrors that of our military service chiefs, is that "The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in a time of war, would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale, and would result in ultimate defeat." In a heated exchange with Wallace, who tried to catch Rick with some "gotcha" questioning, Santorum didn't back down. "...I know the whole gay community is trying to make this the new civil rights act. It's not... You are black by the color of your skin. You are not homosexual by... the color of your skin... It is behavioral." Wallace tried to turn the tables by suggesting that Sen. Santorum was questioning the homosexual soldiers' service. "They're all volunteers," Wallace said, "defending our... country." "That's exactly the point, Chris," Santorum fired back. "They are all volunteers, and they don't have to join in a place where they don't feel comfortable serving with people because of that issue."

Featured Post

by Jm Moran 2025-11-12T13:45:57.000Z from Facebook via IFTTT from Facebook via IFTTT