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: Obama administration
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 ….
More Obama Incompetance
Will it never end?
Re-bloged from
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/24/report-kurds-offered-to-help-stop-isis-months-ago-but-didnt-hear-back-from-the-white-house/
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/24/report-kurds-offered-to-help-stop-isis-months-ago-but-didnt-hear-back-from-the-white-house/
It’s not some shadowy anonymous source from the peshmerga’s middle management who’s claiming this, do note. It’s Nechirvan Barzani, the Kurds’ prime minister. That’s the second time in four days that a major foreign official has accused Obama’s America of being a fickle, disengaged ally.
Thoughtfully considering the Kurds’ offer and declining so as not to get sucked back into Iraq would be one thing, but that’s not what happened according to Barzani. Apparently, we simply didn’t respond.
The Kurds became especially alarmed at signs that ISIS had already formed a shadow government in Mosul, weeks before initiating the carefully preplanned takeover of the city 10 days ago. According to the same Kurdish military sources it was accomplished with ease and without serious fighting after local Iraqi commanders agreed to withdraw.
The prime minister of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, Nechirvan Barzani, says he warned Baghdad and the United States months ago about the threat ISIS posed to Iraq and the group’s plan to launch an insurgency across Iraq. The Kurds even offered to participate in a joint military operation with Baghdad against the jihadists.
Washington didn’t respond—a claim that will fuel Republican charges that the Obama administration has been dangerously disengaged from the Middle East. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki dismissed the warnings, saying everything was under control.
The Kurds’ intelligence head, Lahur Talabani, says he handed Washington and London detailed reports about the unfolding threat. The warnings “fell on deaf ears,” he says.
Those ears weren’t really deaf, though. Remember, even American intel officials were sounding alarms about ISIS last year. Obama knew the threat existed. He just declined to address it, either because he thought there was nothing the U.S. could do to stop ISIS or because he badly misjudged the Iraqi army’s willingness and ability to repel the jihadis themselves. I’ve got to believe it’s the latter; if it’s the former, that America was powerless to damage ISIS, why on earth is Kerry hinting about U.S. airstrikes now when ISIS is stronger and richer than it was before? Logically, the time to start bombing was before they became entrenched in Mosul and started eyeing Baghdad, not after.
There’s a third possibility: Maybe O knew ISIS was a major threat, thought a joint U.S./Iraqi/Kurdish operation could do something to neutralize it, but decided he wasn’t going to get involved in Iraq again unless and until the country faced an existential crisis — and even then, he’d do the bare minimum. (Says one Special Ops vet of the 300 troops being sent in, “These guys are being given an impossible mission. What are they going to do? Host a dinner party?”) His genesis as a national figure was his opposition to military action in Iraq; he’s not going to spend his last two years as president cleaning up a mess he didn’t personally make, whatever responsibility his country may have had in making it. Except that … he did help make this mess, whether he realizes it or not. Read Peter Beinart’s indictment of O for refusing to do anything over the past five years to pressure the Iraqi government to reconcile with the Sunnis and Kurds. This is a guy who swept to office in 2008 promising that he’d use diplomacy and economic levers — “smart power” — to achieve America’s goals, yet when it came time to put a little diplomatic pressure on Maliki, he passed on every opportunity.
For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from. A few months before the 2010 elections, according to Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, “American diplomats in Iraq sent a rare dissenting cable to Washington, complaining that the U.S., with its combination of support and indifference, was encouraging Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies.”…
The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.
On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides,“See! The Americans don’t care.”
Obama even looked the other way at Iraq’s tainted election four years ago, brokering a settlement that kept Maliki in power while doing nothing to ensure that the secular Shiites who were supposed to receive cabinet posts in the deal actually got what they were promised. The next time you see him on TV wheezing that Iraq’s problems can’t be solved militarily but only through sectarian reconciliation, ask yourself why he didn’t give a wet fart about nudging Maliki on reconciliation until ISIS was at the gates of Baghdad. His disengagement made it easier for jihadis to seize Anbar province, which means we’ll be dealing with terror camps in Iraq for years to come. (Here’s a sneak preview from across the border, although there’s really no meaningful border at all anymore.) That’s what Obama’s “America is done with Iraq” policy has produced. We’re less “done” now than we were after withdrawal. Why didn’t he at least pressure Maliki to accept the Kurds’ offer of joint operations with Baghdad against ISIS when they offered?
In lieu of an exit question, read the entire Daily Beast piece on what the Kurds told Washington and London. There’s an interesting digression in there about Assad’s role in creating ISIS, even though they’re desperate to kill him and every other Shiite in Syria. Per Jamie Dettmer, Assad went easy on ISIS at first and focused his military attention on Syria’s more “moderate” rebels instead. His thinking, I guess, was that if the most insane jihadis took over Syria’s Sunni areas, the local Sunnis might conclude that rule by Assad wasn’t so bad by comparison. Or maybe Assad thought that the more ISIS succeeded, the easier it’d be for him to argue to the west that the Sunni “rebels” in Syria were really the same sort of Salafist cretins that knocked down the Twin Towers. Either way, Frankenstein’s out of the lab now.
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!
Centinel2012 