If it does go nuclear more than just a handful of bomb’s few few will survive and the tech will fail in those shelters before the radiations drops to safe levels. Keep in mind the a target might be a Nuclear power plant — 🙂
The haves and have nots of the next, gritty era of aftermath will be those who have the means to survive when the system has failed, and those who do not
MARCH 25, 2017
Ultimately, no one can stop what is coming.
The haves and have nots of the next, gritty era of aftermath will be those who have the means to survive when the system has failed, and those who do not.
For the wealthy, and prepper minded elite, hidden fortified layers purchased for insurance will preserve most of the luxuries of life above ground, and in the cities, even as society crumbles and burns to the ground.
Others, without the means to purchase these luxuries, may have still set aside the necessary materials to live and thrive after a great collapse, where anything and everything from the electric grid, to the fuel…
View original post 659 more words
I’m sorry but you have too many Muslims now so this will not end.
Large steel structures, bollards, and crash-proof barricades have been installed in central London overnight, in the wake of the deadly car-and-knife rampage.
The new defenses have been erected in the City of Westminster to make it more difficult for an attacker using a vehicle to ram into people.
“They are not oppressive and they are here for our security. It doesn’t stop people going about their normal daily business but it does help stop any terrorist attacks, such as the ones in Berlin or in Westminster the other night,” Derek, a Londoner, told Ruptly.
Together with these new defenses, specialized firearms officers have been stationed at checkpoints throughout the City of Westminster. Typically, British police don’t carry guns, so special firearms units have to be called in for terrorist attacks and arresting armed suspects.
View original post 400 more words
Of course Obama did that is who he is!
The mighty CIA has fallen victim to a major breach, with WikiLeaks revealing the true scope of the Agency’s ability for cyber-espionage.
Its tools seem to be aimed at ordinary citizens – your phone, your car, your TV, even your fridge can become an instrument of surveillance in the hands of the CIA. How does the CIA use these tools, and why do they need them in the first place? And as WikiLeaks promises even more revelations, how is all of this going to shape the already tense relationship between new president and the intelligence community? A man who has spent over two decades in the CIA’s clandestine service – Gary Berntsen is on SophieCo.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Gary Berntsen, former CIA official, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Now, Vault 7, a major batch of CIA docs revealed by Wikileaks uncovers…
View original post 188 more words
The Demorats will need to come to Trump.
US President Donald Trump is recruiting the entire population of the US to help create a replacement for Obamacare, according to a tweet in which the president warns the healthcare act is a ticking time bomb.
In the tweet sent Saturday, Trump warned “ObamaCare will explode” but told people not to worry as “we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan.” Trump’s words imply that his own healthcare proposal, which was withdrawn on Friday after it failed to shore up enough votes in support, is no longer in the running.
Trump has supported “exploding”Obamacare, also known as The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, this week, telling the Washington Post“The best thing politically is to let Obamacare explode.”
Trump distanced himself from increases…
View original post 193 more words
Armstrong Economics Blog/Basic Concepts
Re-Posted Mar 25, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Mr., Armstrong, your solution video is splendid. What you say about government only interested in a crisis and not preventing anything makes perfect sense. I believe it was George Washington who said: “Government Is Not Reason, It Is Not Eloquence — It Is Force”
Thank you for standing your ground.
ANSWER: I do not believe Washington ever said that. I tried to find the source and could not. The earliest claim is only from 1902 with no hard evidence. Yet, the words are very true. It is just questionable whether anyone in government, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson, would have ever dared to utter such a phrase.
What I can equate this to is Aristotle and Plato. To them, the Greek doctrine is very clear on this subject. The very essence of the state consists of is the essence of force. The existence of force is for Plato and Aristotle alike, a sign not of the state dignity or Majesty, but of a state’s utter failure. The more a state moves toward economic bankruptcy, the more they will use force to retain power.
The view of Aristotle and Plato, with respect to the state’s exercise of power, comes from the struggle between conflicting misconceptions of what is good or being happy. Insofar as men conceive the good or being happy, this happiness is not actually the primary exercise of virtue personally, but it is the exercise of virtue in governing an ideal state. The best states are closely knit together so that the interests of one person are the same as the interests of all. Consequently, a person who acts for his or her own interest must also act for the interest of all fellow citizens. In a way, this is Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. It therefore would follow that discussions of Aristotle’s altruism are generally misconceived. From a collective standpoint, people are united politically and the state therefore represents their common agreement. However, when that unity breaks down into opposing forces due to self-interests as we have today (left v right), then the state historically turns to force to retain its own power. The good of the individual is subordinated to the survival of the state. Since all groups eventually divide along opposing philosophic concepts, whether a perfect union ever exists is typically measured a brief periods of prosperity in between moment of utter upheaval and chaos. The key is to eliminate the self-interest of the state which is the power of force and then if the two factions are restrained from dominating the other, then society can prevail undisturbed. The likelihood of that being sustain indefinitely appears to defy history and cycles.
Consequently, “Government Is Not Reason, It Is Not Eloquence — It Is Force” is a correct statement. It was not spoken by Washington, but it is a correct statement.
Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics
Re-Posted Mar 25, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: You said McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that raised the same question as Obama. In your legal view, was Obama qualified to be president or not?
ANSWER: The Constitution does NOT say that someone must be born on US soil. It merely requires naturally born to be an American.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
Someone is a natural born citizen as long as they have one American parent. The other possibility is that neither parent is American, but they are born in the United States. That also would qualify as a “natural born citizen”. In my view, the birth issue was bogus for both Obama and McCain. Others raised the same issue when McCain wanted to run, but the argument was frivolous in both cases.
Obama’s mother was American. Therefore, if he were born in Kenya, it really does not matter for he is still a “natural born Citizen” – not adopted. Therefore, the issue was very much a joke. Some went as far as to claim that Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was born a dual citizen (British and American). That is absurd, for Americans can have more than one citizenship.
These were just desperate claims first raised by Hillary out of desperation.