The question is how did these ‘children’ get from Central America to the where the US southern boarder use to be? Did Obama pay to have them taken there, if not who did?
Tag Archives: Crowd Control
Ideology: Why Care?
Good blog to watch in the future
“Nero In The White House” (Best summation of the OWEbozos ever)
This says it all he has it 100% right!
Obama’s Transformation is almost completed
But the results will not be what he expected
The American government has been infiltrated by the Muslin brotherhood which was formed in Egypt decades ago and this has created a major conflict. The Brotherhood are Sunni Muslims who are 80% of the Muslims and they have no love for the Shea Muslims who are less than 20% of the Muslims. The conflict that arises is that Iran is predominantly Shea and the Saudis and the ISIS are Sunni; and the more fundamental Muslims e.g. the ISIS want to reestablish a Caliphate which rules using Sharia Law. The problems that the Muslims have and therefore this administration has is that Sharia Law is basically what existed in the Arabian peninsula when Mohamed started the Islamic beliefs which made the then existing tribal habits customs or laws of the 7th century inhabitants of that part of the world into unchangeable religious dogma. Sharia Law is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with Western Civilization and that is indisputable fact that even the American founding fathers including the Progressives favorite, Thomas Jefferson understood.
When Obama and his Progressive/Marxist followers started the policies of Fundamental Transformation of America they also believed that this transformation could be spread worldwide and since their handlers in the Muslim Brotherhood supported this view the Arab Spring was initiated. The Brotherhood wanted the existing leaders removed since they were not true believers in the new Caliphate that they wanted. I would not be surprised to learn that they also had an influence in the Bush administration for the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein; although I do not belief that Bush had anything but the best interests for America as he was not looking to Fundamentally Transform the country.
Off the subject but relevant is that the Cloward-Piven strategy is what Obama is using to change the country and it is, to first cause a breakdown of the society that you want to change by using it against itself. It this case to use environmental and social policies to destroy the middle class by making it to easy to not work and by putting so many regulations in place that the small business go under. I drive a lot in Cleveland and I see hundreds of abandoned buildings and store fronts in all parts of the city.
Because of the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports their numbers many if not most of those closing business to not show in the official monthly numbers; this segment has taken a large hit since 2007 and has not recovered. Neither has the good production section recovered and again a large percentage of the middle class was employed there. There are now (4,625,800) fewer people earning a living today in good paying jobs then in 2007 and the 3,816,400 increase in mostly lower paying jobs leaves a net loss of over (809,440) jobs.
To achieve this reduction in jobs the federal government, not counting the Post Office, has been increased by 8.6% or 168,300 jobs presumably these are mostly in Washington DC and are good paying jobs. So one could say that for every federal job created we lost almost 5 private sector jobs, and the transformation is not over.
As the middle class jobs are eliminated more goods have to be produced in China, India and else ware to make up the difference and that means more borrowing from those countries to pay for those goods and services. Since October 2007 $3,892,702,000,000 has been borrowed from these countries and when added to domestic borrowing the total borrowed is $8,437,873,000,000 more debt since then.
So one could say that to get rid of one good paying job we had to borrow $10,424,334 a good return for someone but not the middle class.
The reduction in jobs and the increase in debt is a direct result of the policies of those running the government as they try to move us from a market based system to a central planning based system. There are many of us that don’t think that will turn out well but the voters have spoken and this is therefore either what they want or they have partaken of the Kool Aid.
It cannot be dismissed that the Brotherhood may have contributed to this transformation but whether it was or not the transformation has been done and the result will be a diminished American economy and world presence; which leaves a power vacuum which must be filled to re-stabilize the world. The last time this happened was in the 1920-1930’s and that resulted in WW II. If one wants to look at patterns one would say that a major war must happen and that the most likely date is 2018; and it will probably be with the Muslims’ since this administration has given them the opening that they need. The Brotherhoods influence in our government makes it impossible to counter this infiltration without being accused of being anti-Muslim so the deck has been dealt and the cards are all in the hands of the players and its only how they will be played that will determine the winner.
But we also know that the Obama administration is severely deficient in the quality of the strategic thinking ability of its members so it’s very unlikely they can play their cards to a good outcome ….
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE…….HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN IT?
If it offends anyone maybe they should consider leaving this country!
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
When I was in the first grade we started each day standing next to our desk, facing our flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a tradition I recall that carried up until high school. I don’t know why it ever ended, I don’t recall anyone ever being offended.
Today the argument against reciting The Pledge of Allegiance in public is that it may offend someone. Did you catch that, “may” offend someone.
Who does it offend? If it offends you…..I would like you to reply/comment back, I would really like to know why. I doubt I get many, if any, responses.
How many of our young people today know the words or have recited the Pledge?…
View original post 48 more words
Journalist That Exposed Bowe Bergdahl as a Traitor and Deserter Murdered in Possible ‘..FBI Assassination Cover-up..’
A Military Prospective on Politics from those that have served
This is a repost from Special Operations Speaks a private source of information from former military NCO’s and Officers that served in the elite units of the US military. We are the ones that were the boots on the ground and we (especially the higher ranking) know better than anyone in Washington what is going on. The only exceptions are the very few that are there and have served. This repost is from.
Dennis B, Haney – Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Wild Weasel #1023
SOS Operations Coordinator
Special Operations Speaks
www.SpecialOperationsSpeaks.com
This past weekend, the Obama Administration treated us to a Rose Garden event unparalleled in its arrogance and symbolic malevolence toward all that America represents. As the co-opted and simpering American press watched, the President exploited the distraught parents of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, and hailed Bergdahl’s release from the clutches of the jihadists who held him for five years in exchange for the unleashing of five notoriously dedicated terrorists, all fat and sassy straight out of Gitmo, upon the world scene.
But what America really witnessed on Saturday was President Obama’s continuing deliberate and traitorous dismantling of three of our four fundamental elements of National power: Diplomacy, Information and the Military. The fourth element is the Economy, and if we try, we could likely make a case for that as well.
The tortured decision-making that led to the release of five prime enemies, who were each made fit and combat-ready, compliments of the U.S. taxpayers, flies in the face of logic and of the U.S. National interest. Yet it follows a long pattern of policies favoring militant Islam over United States and world safety.
The Muslim Brotherhood long ago infiltrated our Nation’s capital, coming to settle in key Executive Branch advisory and appointed positions. The Muslim Brotherhood, whose operatives now influence so many policy-level decision-makers across this Administration, in fact are the ideological soul mates of the jihadis who captured Bergdahl. The Obama administration used Qatar, a Taliban supporter and home-away-from-home for Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood, as a go-between to negotiate with the Taliban and Haqqanis. The Brotherhood influence was never more evident than in the Rose Garden act of prime time symbolic surrender, and very likely helped shape the terms of the GITMO detainee release. That same influence was also at work in the days leading up to and during the Benghazi massacre, when four Americans were sacrificed to the jihad and to the overarching demands of the 2012 Presidential campaign. Jihad is alive and well in Washington, D.C.
The Saturday Rose Garden drama was a National tragedy; a clinic in strategic psychological operations. It was an Islamist demonstration of the level of control they exercise over the governance of the United States, through this President and his key advisors.
Special Operations Speaks condemns the dismantling of our Military while upgrading the militant forces of the jihadists.
We condemn the media for its culpability in the active dis-informing and demoralizing of the American people.
We condemn the deliberate dismantling of American diplomatic image, credibility, and its hard-won standing as a bona fide champion for good around the world for the past century.
We urge our flag officers, in uniform and retired, to step up to the plate and be counted just as many of their warrior privates have done in these past days as they witness the daily dismantling of the Republic that has granted them the special trust and confidence of the American People.
Special Operations Speaks votes No Confidence in this administration and in its destructive policies.
What Started Us Down the Path of Destruction to Our Constitution?
I am in the final stages of publishing a book exposing the false claims that mankind is destroying the planet by the use of fossil fuels i.e. coal, oil and natural gas. The lies that have been told on this subject put the lies of Hitler and Goebbels into the league of rank amateurs. But like those two infamous Politicians those Politicians today that practice those same arts of lies and deceit have the same motives in mind; absolute power over the people.
When I became a Green Beret one of the things I was taught as an officer, besides the arts of war, was how to bring down a government for that was our original mission. So today when I see what is being done in America I see that there are those that are doing what I was taught to do. The only way to counter that is with the truth and that is the purpose of this blog as I stated in my About section.
The wedge that those that desire “power” are using against us is “CLIMATE CHANGE” that we are told is caused by too many people and using too much energy therefore we are not sustainable. The truth is that the climate has always changed and that there isn’t enough carbon based fuels on the planet to do what they claim will happen. The original projections of doom and gloom have continued to be pushed into the future as we reach points in time where the disasters were to happen and they were not there. The latest IPCC assessment AR5 does this again. So what follows is a section from the introduction of the book I am written to destroy this travesty against our way of life.
The belief that CO2 is causing climate change on the planet by raising the planet’s temperature came primarily from the late 1960’s. The belief was that the increased temperatures, from CO2, would then change the world’s climate patterns which would then result in the melting of the world’s glaciers, increased storms and probably loss of valuable crop lands by rising sea levels. The implied result on the world’s civilizations will be catastrophic and therefore there will be a significant loss of life from both the climate change and the probable wars that will be fought over dwindling resources.
To prevent this from happening the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972, made a statement part of which is, “… having considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment …” and then they established a set of principles and an international forum, the first of which was held in Rio de Janiero in June 1992 and then later Kyoto in 1997 where goals for a reduction in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels primarily from petroleum, coal and natural gas were agreed to by the parties. Efforts to date have been totally unsuccessful and the CO2 levels have now reached 400 ppm and the rate of growth is increasing at an accelerating rate that is currently above ~2 ppm per year.
The first major program to began the task of changing how the entire world would adapt to the “required” reductions in Carbon Dioxide was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections that was published in book form the following year:
Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.
The goal of UN Agenda 21 is to create a world economic system that equalizes world incomes and standards of living and at the same time reduces Carbon Dioxide levels back to the levels that existed prior to the industrial age of ~300 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and growing at a geometrically increasing rate now a bit over 2 ppm per year and at that rate we will reach 500 ppm in 2050 at which point the UN Climate models and there spokespersons Al Gore and James Hansen say we will have an ecological and economic disaster that is irreversible.
There are only two ways to achieve this reduction back to their ideal ~300 ppm and they are not mutual exclusive. One is to reduce the world’s population and the other is to either reduce energy consumption or make a switch to non carbon burning fuels such as solar PV or wind turbines. Agenda 21 is the driver for all the sustainability programs that are being implemented at this time in the United States and the European Union; which mean that if the belief that Carbon Dioxide is the ultimate reason for changes in global climate is not true, that untold trillions of dollars and massive economic restructuring would be unwarranted.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) we are using about 500 Quad of energy world wide right now of which maybe 15% is classed as sustainable, and there are estimated to be 7.0 billion people on the planet. That means that 425 Quad of energy usage is not sustainable and the world’s population could reach 9.0 billion by 2050. By then we would be using 900 Quad of energy at current growth trends of which probably 650 Quad will not be sustainable if nothing major changes. The goal of Agenda 21 is therefore to find ways to reduce the number of people or significantly reduce how much energy they use. Carbon taxes and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries are the means to achieve this but there are no engineers on the planet that would say it would be possible to produce 650 Quad of sustainable generating capacity in 35 years (335% more than now), especially since no real effort has yet been made. And some of the “sustainable” categories are mutually exclusive e.g. growing plants for ethanol verses food.
To put this in perspective if we could make 250 Quad of reliable sustainable generating capacity annually that would mean that we could not have more than 1 billion people (actually the goal seems to be about half of that) on the planet and even those would not be able to live as well as we in the US do now. Prior to the 2008 financial collapse the US used about 100 Quad and had 300 million people. If the goal is 250 quad and 1 billion people that would mean a 25% reduction in the standard of living for all the advanced socialites. Since this is what is “required” to achieve the stated goals of preventing 500 ppm from happening it’s very obvious that there is a major problem brewing.
How did all this negativism about our future come about? Well actually it started in 1798 when Thomas Robert Malthus (b-1766 to d-1834) who was a cleric in the Church of England and a famous Classical English economist published his An Essay on the Principle of Population. This work and understanding it is critical to understanding our current situation. From Wikipedia we have the following. Malthus argued in his Essay (1798) that population growth generally expanded in times and in regions of plenty until the size of the population relative to the primary resources caused distress:
“Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition”.
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 18 in Oxford World’s Classics reprint.
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, “preventive checks” to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability. Malthus also argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit and that would also prevent this from happening.
Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages. In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes.
Despite facts to the contrary as science found ways to provide more food from less land, the limitation of the world’s population has been the goal of many thinkers ever since. Today that view started by Malthus is promoted by the Club of Rome which was founded in 1968 about the same time as all the other like organizations started. From this group and others like it a one world government has been promoted which would be run by the world’s intellectual elites and they would limit growth and population to achieve a level that they believe is sustainable.
There are many scientists in the world that do not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC, not necessarily from bad science but from a lack of sufficient knowledge of all the relevant variables and the lack of computers of a sufficient capability to properly process the number of equations that would be required. Many of these scientists also believe that the world’s temperature is primarily controlled by other factors than CO2. The problem has been showing a provable theory based on science and physics on how this might occur and how could this alternative explanation be used to predict future global temperatures.
In this book we will show that properly constructed mathematical modeling can be used to predict world temperature with significantly greater accuracy than the IPCC computer models. The reason that the model proposed here is more accurate is that it is based on past changes in temperatures that have been observed and have documented patterns and those patterns have a reoccurring cycle. When those patterns are broken down into their simplest from and then properly modeled and plotted into the future it is found that the resultant model’s predictions match very closely with the observed world temperatures as published monthly by NASA.
The Responsibilities of the Citizens and the Press
The unsaid understanding of the Constitution
The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 ended with a Proposal to Change the existing Articles of Confederation to the Constitution that we now have. There was a procedure to make changes in the Articles just as there is in the present Constitution and so a national debate ensued. On one side were those that wanted a stronger agreement between the states to solve existing problems; on the other side were those that felt the proposed Constitution went too far. Those for the Constitution were the Federalists and those that were not (as written) were the Anti-Federalists. The compromise to get the votes necessary to make the change, were what we now know as the Bill-of-Rights which are the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Specifically they were a listing of things that the Federal Government could not do or had no jurisdiction over, the reason these were enacted as the first order of business of the new government was that the citizens, who had just fought the American Revolutionary War, did not want a Ruling Class to take over and negate what so many had just died for. We would call this process consensus today as everybody got enough of what they thought was needed to get all 13 states to agree, albeit it was a long process lasting until 9th state ratified it on June 8, 1778 making it legal by the terms of the Articles. Four years later Vermont, the last state, ratified the Constitution making it all thirteen.
The first Amendment of the Constitution was of a guarantee of various fundamental freedoms; of freedom of religion, of free speech, a free press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government. This was very important and so it was the first of what ended up being the Bill-of-Rights.
That held for almost 200 years and then we became spoiled and forgetful and to trusting of our elected representatives and we are where we are now with a congress, both the House and the Senate, and President and Vice President that have desires to nullify much of the Constitution and Bill-of-Rights. These 537 elected representatives, both political parties, are now trying to tell 317,674,000 Americans (when this was written) that they know better than we do how to live our lives. Most families have issues managing 3 or 4 individuals so to assume that, that so few a number could manage the most complex economy that ever existed is frankly absurd.
There were three checks to the concentration of Federal power. The first was a knowledgeable citizenry, the next were the states themselves, and the last was the press. The Free Press was the last defense for maintaining a free country. Their duty was to question and research everything the government was doing and to assume that there were nefarious reasons for anything that they proposed. There should have been no distinction as to who was in power as all of them are human and we all have the same faults, self interest.
The politicians are no different from any of us and if given the opportunity they will find ways to gain power and influence. One of the ways they do this is to convince us that they are different from any of the rest of us, how that would be possible I’m not sure since they have the same DNA as we do. According to them Businessmen and Financiers are all corrupt and they need to be managed by them. This would be no different from letting the Fox guard the hen house. The people in the government and the people in private business are identical and many go back and forth between the two sectors. The only difference between the two is if a business does not provide a service or product you don’t like you don’t buy it and with no sales they go out of business. In the public sector what you want does not matter it’s what the government will give you that you will get and if they need more money they tax you, which is not a choice you will pay them what they want.
The free Press is now incapable of doing its job, for various reasons, and so the citizens are not aware of what has been going for the past twenty some years. The problem is that there are a host of very fundamental changes in play now in this country; it’s unlikely, in my opinion, that many of these “fundamental” changes will be successful and that will result in a high probability of economic collapse.
What is left of the free press will be one of the first to go. Unless they wake up!
The Repeating Cycles of Social Time
A Major War is Coming!
Strauss and Howe in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning An American Prophecy outline how social or political time runs in cycles. There is much they have to say in their book and much of that goes all the way back to the Roman times where they find the name for this cycle from the Romans and it’s a Saeculum meaning a long human life of 80 to 90 years. This Saeculum is composed of 4 generations of about 20 some years each. Read the book for the full analysis which is very compelling but for here the salient point is near the end of each Saeculum there is a major war, no exceptions.
The cycles they identify go back to England and the war of the Roses 1459 to 1487 and since then there have been five complete cycles and we are now in the final stages of the sixth cycle which according to them ends around 2025 plus or minus a few years. This period that we are now in is the fourth turning (a turning meaning going from one generation to the other in the Saeculum) hence the name of the book. They can pin down the basic times that all this occurs because these changes have repeated themselves for 555 years now.
The last three major wars going back from the present were: WW II from 1941 to 1945; the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865 and then the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783. The civil war started 86 years after the American Revolution; WW II started 80 years after the Civil War started. The scary thing right now is that 80 years from 1941 is 2021 which is a likely start for the next major world war. However over all the Saeculum’s since the War of the Roses have been getting progressively shorter so that 80 years may not be a good guess.
Straussand Howe are not the only ones to see the pattern but even still they go to great lengths to show why it occurs and how many other sociologists have also seen all or some of the pattern they have identified in their book. I read the book after it came out in 98 or 99 and thought it was interesting and put in on my book shelf. After 9/11 I went back and read the book again since I remembered that they talked about that kind of an event happening around 2005. Since then I’ve read it a couple more times and I am now convinced they are right on and a major war is now eminent.
So based on current events (read my previous post on the Ukraine) which seem to parallel the years before WW II started, actually in 1938 in Europe, we can make a case for the next world war to start any time from 2016 to no later than 2022.
Centinel2012 