USA Import/Export with Mexico, Canada, China, Japan, Germany and the UK

In 2016 the USA exported $3.51 trillion and imported $4.88 trillion dollars.  A difference or deficit of 1.37 trillion dollars. How many USA manufacturing jobs is that? I am not an expert and do not know.  I do know as a businessman I would not like to be buying 1.38 trillion dollars more of product than I was selling.

In 2016 we exported to Canada $266 billion and imported $296 billion; to Mexico exported $229 billion and imported $302 billion; to Japan exported $63.2 billion and imported $130 billion; to the UK exported $55.3 billion and imported $61.6 billion; to China exported $115 billion and imported $385 billion; imported from Germany $118 billion dollars and we exported less to Germany than Germany imported from the Netherlands, France, Belgium or Italy; we imported from France $36.1 billion and like Germany we exported to France less than they imported from Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

The USA are these six countries best customers for their exported products.  Yet, in most cases they buy (import) less from the USA than they do other countries.
Can you see why they do not like President Trumps rhetoric?  We mean far more to them than they mean to us.  They need us far more than we need them!

Previous Republican and Democrat Administration since 1965 have allowed these trade deficits to exist and to grow. The Citizens of the USA have sat by passively and allowed it to happen.  We watched in silence as politicians and political parties strangled our steel mills, textile industries, oil/gas/coal industries, automobile industries, and outsourced our jobs to foreign soil. We even like fools kept electing these same people to office term after term. It took its toll on our manufacturing industries and as a results the economy has plummeted. In 1965 53% of our economy depended on manufacturing jobs, in 1988 only 39% and by 2004 only 9%. When any country lacks a strong domestic manufacturing sector it quickly becomes dependent on foreign nations.

President Trump came to office and immediately began to try and address the problem and the foolish Liberals/Democrats and Rino's attack him. Those of us that are intelligent enough to know that we cannot continue to exist as a nation if we do not begin to make changes have sat  back and allow these fools to get away with it.

Since 1998 the USA has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. Can President Trump correct the bad political decisions of the past.  I frankly do not know, but I know one thing no previous President Republican or Democrat, since Roosevelt, could or did and thank God President Trump is trying.

The Liberals, Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are quick to criticize the President, but they have not done one damn thing to address the problems.  If these people criticizing the President are so damn smart why do they not run for the office of President? Why did the Liberals and Democrats not address the problems when they control the Office of President, House and Senate for two years? They only dug the hole deeper.

They could have fixed all the integration problems they now gripe and blame on President Trump. The truth is they do not care about the Black or Brown skin or middle class people and it seems that many in that segment of society are too stupid to realize it. The Liberals and Democrats only care about getting votes.

If America does not manufacture and sell goods, then money only leaves the country.  The USA now imports twice as much as it exports around the world.  This has resulted in a trade deficit that has ballooned to an unprecedented $800 billion on an annualized basis.  Unfortunately, this trend showed no signs of abating until President Trump took office.

Every time an American manufacturer closes and then reopens elsewhere, the foreign country gains American technology.  Not having to spend resources developing technology, foreigners can focus on improving or beating it. Boeing is especially guilty of this by their outsourcing labor in China, Japan and other countries.  They produce 70% of all their airplane parts abroad.

Do not let the globalization admirers fool you by saying only low skill jobs are going overseas because their people are unskilled. As of 2005 China will produce 3.3 million university graduates, all of who speak English.  India will turn out 3.1 million English speaking graduates. China will produce 600,000 engineers and India will produces 350,000 as of 2005.  Compare that to the 70,000 the USA produced as of July 2005.There are no difference in skills the difference is foreign workers will work seven days a week for $1.00 an hour.  Americans may be happier now that they can buy cheaper toys, but this will not last.  One day Americans will no longer be able to afford their toys regardless of how cheap the price.

I have seen what can happen when the USA loses manufacturing jobs.  My dad preached to me college and then go to work in the steel mill. He told me you will be set for life.  He was a Supervisor at Sheffield Steel in Houston, Texas.  They worked 3 shifts a day, 365 days a year.  It is now a rust bucket and has been closed for years.  My dad complained about the electric steel mills the USA give Japan after WWII, but he never dreamed it would be the end of the steel industry in the USA. The days when blue collar jobs were passed down the line to family members are over.

Corporate leaders that have moved their operations overseas for a quick profit are also fools.  They never stop to think that the Americans are the major buyer of their products and one day Americans will not be able to afford their products.  There was a time following WWII Japanese were willing to work for low wages and no benefits, but today their minimum wage is higher than the USA.  China and India will experience the same and then all their products will increase in price.

You had better remember as manufacturing jobs go so goes the nation!

More to follow in days to come.

Things I did not know about Israel/Palestine

Last week I began to think how can the Arab’s believe Israel is taking over the Middle East.  There are 22 Arab and or Muslim nations. Iran is not considered and Arab nation. Israel is surrounded by Arab and or Muslim nations. How can anyone say "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East or trying to take over the Middle East?

The Arab countries occupy 640 times the amount of land as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. How convenient that today's Arab Nations are forgetting that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine". Why are they not demanding Jordan return that area to the Palestinians?

In 1916 control of the southern portion of the Ottoman Empire was turned over to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank" and Gaza ) was given to Great Britain.  Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine.

The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an attempt to rid the land of swamps and malaria and to prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land did not only attracted Jews back to the land it also attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt by the Jews to get rid of the Arabs in the land.

in 1946 Trans-Jordan was renamed to "Jordan". The remaining 18% of Palestine, now WEST of the Jordan River, was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland.  However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now. With the help of the British the Jews were forced out of Trans-Jordan!

The British at first tried to maintain order but soon due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East they turned a blind eye. It became clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs and drive out the British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.

The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 18% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State  based upon population concentrations.  The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River. Therefore, the resolution was not carried out and it never became legally binding! The Arabs started the 1948 war.

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war.

The truth is that most of the Arab Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 – between 400,000 to 500,000 – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jews. They left because they believe the Jews would be exterminated and would return afterwards to reclaim their homes, and to inherit Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong.  The Jews  did not throw out all the Palestinian Arabs living in Israel they chose to leave after being encourage to do so by the seven Arab nations that invaded Israel. Those Arabs who did not flee became Israeli-Arab citizens.

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State. From 1949-67 when all of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem were under Arab [Jordanian, Syria and Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Why do many in the world want the Jews to give up part of their country when none of the Arabs were willing to concede any of their land to the 'so called' Palestinian Arabs?

Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist most of its planes were destroyed while still on the runways. Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel, while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel. The Arabs lost the battle in six days they had once again underestimated the Jewish Nation of Israel.  

Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war started by seven Arab nations and fought by three Arab nations the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they would stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel.

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious Israeli General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. I think this was madness. The Arabs would have slaughtered the Jews if they would have had an opportunity to do so and to this day are still trying to. Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza and inside Israel Proper itself. He thought he would be able to build a healthy relationships with the Arabs – how wrong he was.  If he build a bridge to the Arab world it was a bridge to terrorism.

Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. Why do they not give the 'so called' Palestinians their own land to establish a State or Nation. 

Another thing that is interesting to me is the term "Palestinian". The name had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940's, and has been slowly redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. I guess political correctness started much earlier than we thought. 

The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," or in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. The Palestinians are a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs. Yasser Arafat’s family came to Gaza from Egypt and a wealthy family of current PA President Mahmoud Abbas moved to Tzfat from Damascus, Syria!

The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization and in many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

Grow a full beard and become holy, wise and loved by Muslims.

A senior bishop in the Church of England believes the vicars, or parish priests, should grow full beards as a way of reaching out to the fast-growing Muslim community. What will he want next? I guess Christian women should begin to wear the Hijab and men wear the Kufis. I live in the Philippines where the Muslim community is prominent in the malls and streets. I respect what they wear if that is what they want to wear to tell the world they are followers of Islam. I do not expect them to wear a crucifix simply because the Philippine people are predominantly Catholic.  

The senior bishop thinks we Christians should make ourselves as appealing to Muslims as possible – political correctness really gone amuck. He claims the beards will make their Christian ministers appear to be more holy to the Muslims. I am not interested in my bishops and priest appearing to be holy I am interested in them trying to BE holy.

He said, “In Islam beards are viewed as an adornment and Muslim men are encouraged to wear them to honor the Prophet Mohammed.” That is all the more reason for me not to want to wear Islam garb or grow a full beard. I honor and serve Jesus Christ not the Prophet Mohammed.

He also claims a scripture in Leviticus bans a man from shaving. I believe Leviticus is Old Testament (old covenant) and Christians are supposed to adhere to the New Testament (new covenant). I find it strange that he would pick one scripture in Leviticus that supports his personal belief about reaching out to Muslims and ignore all the other laws of Leviticus.

 The Rev Adam Atkinson, Vicar of St Peter’s church in Bethnal Green one of the first to start wearing a full beard has said the reason he did so was he saw it as an alternative to getting a tattoo. That sounds real holy to me! He also said he had since been struck by how often it helped him forge new links with teenage boys who might not normally want to talk to a vicar.

Sometimes it is hilarious how church leaders use scripture. One of the scriptures they use for growing full beards is St Paul saying, ‘I become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some’, 1 Corinthians 9:19. If this is isolated from the rest of Scripture one can assume that Paul was willing to do anything to reach the lost, including adopting their lifestyle and compromise his ethics, moral and beliefs. This is a doctrine that is popularized among the evangelism crowd today. If we use this logic then one cannot reach a drug addict unless we become one and we cannot reach a drunk unless we drink alcohol. Paul did not mean that.

 Paul taught that believers are to “abstain from any appearance of evil”, 1 Thess. 5:22. Paul would not have done anything contrary to Christ and His ways in his own life and ministry. Remember he rebuked Peter for his compromise of the gospel to the Jewish brethren. Paul was simply saying when speaking to a religious Jew he would use the law to speak to them and when speaking to a gentile he would use his conscience and culture to speak to them.

Remember I wrote earlier what is next. Reverend Atkinson said, “A Muslim friend said to him, ‘I will lend you a hat (kufis) and you can join me on Friday [prayers]. It was done in a jokey way but I felt it was quite affirming.”

The other vicar, the Reverend Rogers of All Hallows Bow, said: “One guy approached me about a year and a half ago and said ‘I can respect you because you have got a full beard’. If wearing a full beard made the man respect him then the man must be very shallow. Charles Manson a mass murder wore a full beard. He went on to say the full beard shows wisdom and he added: “I like the idea of being the ‘wild’ priest rather than the gentleman priest.

The Senior Vicar said, “David Beckham is the nearest we have to a popular secular saint, and his flirtation with various styles of beards has stimulated countless imitators.” David Beckham also gets a lot of attention by modeling underwear so I guess priests and vicars should start running around in their underwear. David Beckham is no saint to me.

Growing a beard in Islam is not dictated in the Holy Koran. It's a tradition. It is not a commandment of the Prophet Mohammed it was a suggestion. The prayers of those who shave off their beard are heard just as those with full beards.

Wearing a cross does not make you a Christian and having a full beard does not make you holy or a Muslim. Keep in mind the Hutterites, prevalent in the Canadian Parries and the Amish, prevalent in the Northeastern USA are Trinitarian Christians and have always worn full beards. Orthodox Christian priests and Orthodox Jews wear full beards. I think the fact that Orthodox Jews who wear full beards are hated by radical Muslims proves that having a full beard means little to Muslims/Christian relationships.  

I thought the timing of the beard comments by the Vicar in England was appropriate. His suggestion came two days after the earliest Christian community in Iraq was wiped out by radical Muslims and at a time when militant Islam is harassing, persecuting and murdering Christians – beard or no beard – across three continents. 

I support strict immigration laws to the United States

A petition calling for Donald Trump to be banned from entering the UK has attracted more than a quarter of a million signatures more than enough for a committee to consider sending the motion for parliamentary debate. The petition is in response to Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. due to the threat of terrorism. It seems when the media and political pundits talk about the ban they always fail to add that Trump said the ban was only temporary until the U.S. government had procedures in place to properly vet refugee immigrants.

Suzanne Kelly, a woman from Aberdeen, Scotland, is responsible for the petition and is the same person who has actively campaigned against Trump's political and business activities. Her real problem with Trump stems from her opposition to Trump building a high-end golf resort in Aberdeen, which saw him come into conflict with locals. She has a personal vendetta with Trump. She first tried to get Aberdeen’s Robert Gordon University to strip Trump of an honorary degree it bestowed on him five years ago.

Aberdeen has plans to build eleven wind turbines just off shore and where they plan on putting them is near Trumps resort and golf course. He opposed and eventually lost in court. The project has not progress for lack of funds and will probably not materialize. Suzanne Kelly is an environmentalist and Internet journalist and a supporter of the wind turbines. Trump has stopped the construction of a 140 luxury hotel in Aberdeen because of the dispute and is building in another city in Scotland.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who doesn't usually comment on U.S. presidential candidates, said through a spokesman that Trump's comments to ban Muslims from the United States, was "divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong."

We heard a lot in the U.S. media about the ban on Trump in the U.K., but we heard little on the petition that citizens of England are circulating that calls on British leaders to "stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated." That petition has more than 440,000 signatures.

Trump raised the anger of British Prime Minister David Cameron after last month’s terror attack in San Bernardino, California, by proposing to keep Muslims out until more rigorous security checks are in place. Donald Trump never called for a permanent ban on Muslims entering the United States he only wants to make sure Muslim refugees can be properly vetted before they enter our country. We have already seen proof that terrorist ISIS is infiltrating the refugees fleeing to other countries.

Cameron now says he does not support banning Trump from England. I wonder if his change in tone may have something to do with Trump threatening to halt investment plans totaling more than $1 billion in Scotland if he gets turned away.

What I find really interesting is Mr. Cameron who had harsh and nasty words for Mr. Trump is now proposing making it harder for migrant Muslims to remain in the country if they do not learn to speak English. He claims he is proposing this legislation because Muslim men are abusive to Muslim women and keep them locked away from the public because the women cannot speak English.

Mr. Cameron claims forced Muslim gender segregation, discrimination and social isolation from mainstream British life fosters extremism.” Basically what he is calling for is Muslims to become more British than Muslim. He also feels Muslim women cannot contribute to the economic growth of England because 22% of Muslim women in England cannot speak English after living decades in England. Muslim leaders say the number is only 6% not 22% as Cameron claims.

In October anyone arriving in Britain on a five-year spouse visa will need to take a test, after two-and-half-years they will be tested to prove their English is improving and after five years if they cannot speak English they will be forced to leave.

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of a Muslim organization accused Cameron on Monday of trying to appear tough on rising concerns over Muslim immigration during the current migrant crisis. It appears to me Cameron is playing politics and trying to satisfy two different factions in England. I prefer Donald Trump’s tough approach and being honest about it.

Cameron’s remarks come amid an increasing backlash against asylum seekers in Europe following the revelation that hundreds of women were sexually assaulted and robbed in Cologne on New Year’s Eve by a mob of foreign-born men, at least some of whom were asylum seekers.

Mr. Cameron now says the time has come for them to be more assertive about their values, more clear about the expectations they place on those who come to live in England. Maybe the Prime Minister and other political leaders judged Mr. Trump too quickly and too harshly. Perhaps they are rethinking what Mr. Trump proposed and are beginning to think it is not such a bad idea after all.

Since late 2010 the spouse or civil partner of a British citizen or person settled in Britain has been required to pass an English language test before coming to the country. In 2015 the English Supreme Court rejected a challenge against an immigration rule requiring spouses to be able to speak English before moving to the UK. This law requires all immigrants even those married to British citizens to pass an English proficiency test regardless if they are Muslim or not. I believe that to be stricter than what the U.S. presently requires and Mr. Trump proposed, but I would like to see the same law passed in the U.S. 

One of the few U.S. immigration laws that makes any sense to me is the one requiring immigrants to learn and speak English before they can attain citizenship. I would like to see a law that required anyone wishing to earn an income in the U.S. be able to converse in English before arriving and in five years of their arrival pass an English proficiency test or leave. There are areas in California, Florida and Texas that an American English speaking citizen cannot shop unless they speak Spanish.

Learning English would lead to assimilation, and assimilation is not all bad if you want to stay in the United States. Immigrants are also particularly vulnerable in a new environment, so it’s even more important for them to know English before choosing the U.S. as their homeland so they can be well-versed in their rights and the laws protecting them. Frankly, I am not fond of the idea that one day the United States will be like the ‘Tower of Babel’. In 2007 the government reported, there are 37.9 million immigrants in the U.S. speaking 311 languages.

I now live in the Philippines where there are over 170 languages or dialects spoken throughout the islands. The 1987 Constitution declares Filipino as the national language of the country. Filipino and English are the official languages. When my caregiver’s family comes to visit they cannot communicate fluently with my housekeeper and all of them were born and raised on the island of Mindanao, but in different parts of the island. I honestly believe the language problems in the Philippines is a hindrance to economic development, contributes to problems in the education system and contributes to a lack of nationalism.

Conclusion:  

Immigration to the United States has become too lax. Immigration laws are being ignored. Borders are not adequately protected. Even some U.S. citizens have come to believe that immigration to the U.S. is a guaranteed right and not a privilege. 

I believe the United States has the right to impose restriction on immigrants to our country. You cannot immigrate to the Philippines, Mexico and many other countries and go to work or open a business so why should we allow it in the United States. Other countries require you show proof of income before you can extend a tourist visa. No country allows you to qualify for welfare assistance as soon as you enter except the United States. 

Other countries expect immigrants to contribute to the growth and security of their society and the United States should expect the same. Our government under the Democrat and some Republican leadership has become a welfare state and it times to stop it. 

I know what I have written will offend many, but I do not want to see the United States become a Third World Country or a dumping ground for people with few skills and no education. We have too many natural born citizens suffering from lack of medical care, food, shelter, job opportunities, training and education. Why allow immigrants to enter that will only contribute to that problem. When we can meet the needs of our own people then make immigration easier, but in the meantime I am only for legislation and immigration laws that make us a stronger country not weaker.

I do not have any problem showing proof of income in order to live in the Philippines and I do not see why anyone should be insulted to do the same if they choose to move to the United States.