July 27, 2014
Last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the troubled bastion of mainstream liberal journalistic thought in the great American heartland published a short, but typically piquant editorial piece slamming Patrick J. Buchanan for his soon-to-be released memoir of the 1968 Presidential campaign entitled, "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create a New Majority.” The Post-Dispatch, anticipating the release of Buchanan’s work launched what may be charitably labeled a pre-emptive strike on Buchanan, even though his new book does not concern the PD. Tony Messenger, the newspaper editor, picked an unnecessary fight with Pat Buchanan, and, like a good modern liberal, Messenger ignored reasoned debate, filled his piece with snarky personal attacks, questioning of opponents motives, and an overpowering sense of preening moral superiority.
The reader might, at this point, legitimately ask: Who cares about the St. Louis Post-Dispatch? Actually, very few people care about the PD if one considers their sinking subscription and readership numbers. This anti-Buchanan editorial does, however, offer a clear window into the liberal mind at work in a major metropolitan daily newspaper. It is not a pretty picture.
First of all, a little background is in order here. Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative titan, is certainly familiar to all Townhall readers. Buchanan started his career as an editorial writer at the old St. Louis Globe-Democrat. After three years as an editorial page assistant editor, a debater against student radicals at Washington University, and a general man about town, Buchanan, chagrined that his employer had declined to endorse Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign, decided that he had accomplished as much in St. Louis as possible, and he began to explore other employment options. He signed on as a media liaison to the nascent Nixon-For-President-in-’68 campaign at the beginning of 1966, after meeting the former Vice-President at a house party in Belleville, Illinois. Buchanan has now written his book on the 1968 campaign, using as his primary sources the thousand pages of memos he wrote to Nixon as a senior advisor, and the candidate’s responses.
For some unknown reason, the Post-Dispatch has decided that this is their business. They begin their editorial piece by lobbing personal insults at Pat Buchanan, the target of their ire. As the editorial states, "We’re not sure that there’s room in St. Louis for yet another blowhard editorial writer, particularly one with a worldview as skewed as Pat Buchanan’s…” Why is that the case? Does the PD believe that they already have a monopoly on that particular position? The editorial then states, "…Buchanan recalls his time in St. Louis as an editorial writer for the long defunct Globe-Democrat…” The Globe-Democratis indeed defunct. The venerable paper was the main casualty of a collusion agreement, in violation of anti-trust laws, involving SI Newhouse, Inc. the parent company of the Globe-Democrat, and Pulitzer Publishing Inc. the parent company of, yes, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The collusion agreement, which brought Newhouse into a fifty year profit sharing arrangement with Pulitzer Publishing, put the Globe-Democrat out of business in late 1986.
At any rate the editorial continues in the same insulting and charged tone. Buchanan explains, in his book, that he was losing interest in the daily grind of editorials, mainly on state and local issues. The PD response was characteristically harsh, "For those in our business who have been at the craft for much longer than three years, and who still maintain a high level of enthusiasm for making the world a better place, we say: Good Riddance.” Note the undiplomatic nature of this slam. The Post-Dispatcheditor says nothing about a former colleague making a jump into politics, does not congratulate this man for finding his calling outside of journalism, does not note that he has succeeded beyond a mere editorial writer’s wildest dreams, it simply applies a disdainful and summary epitaph to the man’s career.
The editorial goes on to state, "…we’re not sure he would have cut it as an editorial writer much longer anyway.” This is quite a possibility since the late 1960s was the heyday of post-war American liberalism, and most of the major newspapers were surrendering to the New Left, leaving little room for conservative firebrands like Pat Buchannan. The editorial finished with a flourish, stating that Buchanan fed Globe-Democrat publisher Richard Armitage a 2,000 word feature on putative candidate Nixon, which the Globepublished under Armitage’s own byline. The PD take on this episode was characteristically smarmy: "A career writing stale talking points was launched.” In his finish to the editorial Mr. Tony Messenger unwittingly shows his own petulance and contempt for reasonable debate. He challenges Buchanan’s motives, and his overall ethical base. He contrasts his own moral superiority ("…trying to make the world a better place.”) with his adversaries moral bankruptcy. Finally, he takes a slap at Buchanan’s abilities, stating that he would not have lasted long in the newspaper business, so he fled to the world of politics.
Do we sense a dollop of professional envy in this editorial? Is Tony Messenger slightly jealous of the fact that Pat Buchanan left St. Louis for fame and fortune, while Messenger remains stuck in the heartland? Those few people who read the Post-Dispatchnote the paper’s continuing lament that St. Louis is not New York, San Francisco, Washington, or Boston and the corresponding exhortation to the area to become more like the aforementioned cities. It seems that Tony Messenger seems uncomfortable with his own position and he resorts to attacking Pat Buchanan.
Yes, last week the Post-Dispatch picked an unnecessary fight. They waded into something that was none of their own business, and created an "issue” with Patrick J. Buchanan. This seems to have been motivated solely by the petulance of the PD editor, Tony Messenger, and his desire to bash PJB. Finally, when we consider the conclusion to the editorial, we realize that Tony Messenger is clearly wrong in his assessment. Patrick J. Buchanan, the originator of the phrase "The Silent Majority”, and the best-selling author of many books, and countless commentaries and opinion pieces never wrote "talking points”. That practice and the silly name applied to the practice was a creation of Bill Clinton, perjurer, petty criminal, serial sexual harasser, and Democratic Party folk hero. Still, no one ever expects factual accuracy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
|Al Qaeda on the march|
By Alan Caruba
July 26, 2014
Charles Krauthammer has a first-rate mind; of that there can be no dispute. But the good doctor has been around Washington too long and perhaps has lost that capacity for original thinking that marks truly great thinkers.
One example of this was his inability to grasp who Obama was until after the Immaculation; Dr. Krauthammer admits it was several weeks into the Obama Presidency before he realized Obama was really a socialist. This prompted gasps of shock from Rush Limbaugh, who had been warning (along with many others) that Obama was a wolf in sheeps clothing for quite some time. www.americanthinker.com/...limbaughkrauthammerwill_tiff...
Well, we are witnessing this lack of appropriate discernment from Dr. Krauthammer again.
Dr. Krauthammer, writing in National Review Online, makes the argument that Obama's seeming inaction while the world burns is demonstrative of a worldview that sees history as immutable - much like Karl Marx - and seeks to allow things to run their course. "Putin is on the wrong side of history" so there is no need to intervene in the Ukrainian crisis, since "history" will win out in the end.
According to the NRO article:
"The preferred explanation for the president’s detachment is psychological. He’s checked out. Given up. Let down and disappointed by the world, he is in withdrawal.
Perhaps. But I’d propose an alternative theory that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea.
When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it. He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is one of Obama’s favorite sayings. Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands."
This is, I believe, a far too charitable view, one that ignores Obama's domestic history.
IF Dr. Krauthammer's explanation is correct, why has the Obama Administration risked political catastrophe with a hyper-aggressive domestic agenda? Why did he ram Obamacare through Congress despite the illegality of the way it was done (Harry Reid simply rewrote the House bill and then voted on THAT, overruling the House's authority to author spending bills). A man who believed in historical inevitability would not have endangered his party's power so, yet Obama did precisely that. How about EPA regulations? These are not popular, and if this is the inevitable tide of history Obama would not want to offend the voting public. How about this whole open border business? He risked angering the American People, and yet he did it anyway.
What about the IRS intimidation scandal? Why use the power of government to stop a foe who has already been beaten by history?
In foreign affairs too Mr. Obama has not been static; consider his aggressive approach in Libya, in Egypt, in Syria. Obama offered military aid in the "Arab Spring" to the rebels. This does not bespeak a man mired in inaction because of a belief in the inevitability of historical trends.
Mr. Obama has been VERY active, just in a peculiar way.
Dr. Krauthammer continues:
"Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin "an off-ramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run.
If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukraine with the weapons it has been begging for."
Here we see the unwillingness of the inside-the-beltway crowd to point out imperial nudity; Krauthammer cannot ascribe malice to Mr. Obama, since that would be ungentlemanly to do to a fellow insider. Instead of reaching the obvious conclusion - that Obama, like most good leftists, was angry at the fall of the Soviet Union and would like to see Putin reconstitute it - Dr. Krauthammer wades in a mire of excuses, saying Obama believes that Putin will lose in the end. He has it exactly backwards; Obama believes WE will lose in the end, and his tepid response to Putin is an effort to see to it that Ukraine is brought back into the neo-Soviet orb. He is trying to illustrate to the world that WE are the toothless ones, powerless before other nations.
Obama's "weakness" is the classic weakness of Leftists. The Left always sought to appease the Soviets, the Maoists, the thugs and tyrants while fighting the "real" battles against the reactionary right wing. WE are the true enemies. That Krauthammer failst o see this is shocking.
That people like Charles Krauthammer are our intellectual leaders is illustrative of the huge problem we face; our leaders do not understand the nature of the political/philosophical war we have been forced to fight. They think it is a disagreement between well-meaning individuals, when it is a war of extermination, a battle to the intellectual and political death (and if the hard Left - of whom Mr. Obama is a member - get their way they may well employ William Ayers' liquidation strategy for the 25 million Americans who won't be "re-educated" www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3175524/posts?page=36 ) Krauthammer cannot, will not, believe this of an attractive fellow like Obama, with his perfect pants crease and whatnot.
The goal of fundamentally transforming America means weakening our power abroad and strangling dissent at home. It really is that simple. Too few Republicans seem to understand this simple fact.
The story title refers to him as an ex-Marine. There is really no such thing as an ex-Marine. And this is great news.
MIAMI (AP) — A Marine veteran jailed for months in Mexico after trying to carry a family heirloom shotgun across the border has been freed, U.S. officials and his lawyer said late Friday.
The attorney for 27-year-old Jon Hammar tweeted Friday night that his client had been released from a detention center in Matamoros, Mexico.
"Jon is out, going home!” Eddie Varon Levy tweeted.
Patrick Ventrell, the acting deputy spokesman for the State Department, confirmed Hammer’s release and return to the U.S. in a statement Friday night.
July 25, 2014
Spring, the time when a young man's fancy turns to - global warming! In this instance the young men at NOAA and the Japan Meteorological Agency have, smitten with l'amore for the computer game known as global warming/climate change/climate disruption have boldly pronounced their love to be the fairest in the land, claiming we witnessed the warmest June anyone has ever seen. Apparently June was busting out all over with heat.
Writing at American Thinker, Sierra Rayne rains on their Easter parade.
Here are a few snippets:
"NOAA's global temperature anomaly history for June is available here. June 2010 was 0.69°C, and June 2014 was 0.72°C, for a difference of only 0.03°C (or 0.05°F – i.e., "one-twentieth of a degree”). Here is the problem: NOAA fails toinclude error bars on its estimates of global temperature. And make no mistake: there should be error bars on any and all discussions of local, regional, national, and/or global temperatures. Not to include error bars is simply bad science.
The U.K. Met Office includes error bars on its global average temperature anomalies, and they are quite large. The 95-percent confidence range on the standard HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 datasets are plus-or-minus 0.09 to 0.10°C. For example, the HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly for 2012 was 0.45°C, with a 95-percent confidence range from 0.35 to 0.55°C. In other words, there is a 95-percent probability that the global temperature anomaly for 2012 is somewhere between 0.35 and 0.55°C.
Back to the NOAA-NCDC data that Arndt is using. One reasonably presumes that NOAA's global temperature anomaly has about the same error range as the U.K. Met Office. Thus, the June 2014 global temperature from NOAA likely has a 95-percent confidence interval of about plus-or-minus 0.10°C. The difference between the June 2010 and June 2014 global temperatures was, according to NOAA, just 0.03°C. This hardly seems like "winning a horse race by several lengths.” Actually, it appears that the global temperatures for these two months are a statistical tie – otherwise known as no significant "
".have also previously discussed the significant differences between among global temperature anomaly datasets, which I termed anomalies in the global temperature anomaly. In some cases, the differences among various climate science organization datasets are massive. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has 1998 as the warmest year on record for the planet, and by a mile, whereas other datasets such as NASA-GISS have 2010 as much, much warmer than 1998."
Love is blind, the old saying goes. Where Global Warming is concerned it is also deaf, dumb, and neuropathetic.
We hear this every year at least once "hottest (fill in the blank) on record" and it really is wearing thin, because we HAVE HAD NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE 1995!!! Yet the science media breathlessly reports claims of hottest x on record as though it is some sort of ironclad proof that Man is rushing to doomsday, all the while ignoring that there is nothing actually happening. Of course, these same wizards of smart ignore the fact that nature may play a role in any sort of record breaking.
It's rather like asking someone how much they weigh; you aren't going to get an ironclad response "143.467 lbs.) but rather "around 145". Nobody says they are gaining too much weight if they put on .012 lbs. Except we seem to want to do that in climate science.
And our smitten young men are thrilled with this weight gain, apparently being enamoured of large girls and unhappy that their loves just aren't fattening up appropriately. So they make her weigh herself every day and thrill at any deviation of the scale.
But sometimes it's just water weight, and climate change certainly bears little resemblence to permanent obesity.
I wonder how long before NOAA quietly updates this claim, as they had to downgrade July 2012?
July 24, 2014
|Dr. Jay Lehr|
July 23, 2014
A.J. Cameron forwards this:
Interesting; the author - a radio talk show host - claims the United Nations is in charge at the detention centers and is strategically placing "refugees" - especially MS-13 paramilitary types - around the country. It also brings up another point:
""Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the Sinaloa cartel’s "logistics coordinator” and son of a principal Sinaloa leader, asserted in court documents that Guzman is a U.S. informant and Sinaloa was "given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago.”
"Niebla also alleged that Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the cartel in exchange for information used to take down its rivals”. The details of the unholy agreement between the DEA and the Sinaloa cartel was that the DEA would allow 80% of all drug shipments into the United States in exchange for intelligence information on the other drug cartels. Why would the DEA want intelligence on the other cartels, yet, they would allow the Sinaloa cartel to continue with their drug operations right under the noses of the DEA. "The agents stated that this arrangement had been approved by high-ranking officials and federal prosecutors,” the Zambada-Niebla lawyer wrote”.
After being extradited to Chicago in February 2010, Zambada-Niebla argued that he was also "immune from arrest or prosecution” because he actively provided information to U.S. federal agents.
Niebla also alleged that Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the cartel in exchange for information used to take down its rivals. This resurfaces the issue that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the gun-running arrangements in Fast and Furious as we all knew he did.
The preceding paragraphs and the revelations by the two Border Patrol Agents clearly indicate that criminal elements, which resemble the forming of an military unit, are being strategically placed inside of the country. When I asked what was their best guess as to why MS-13 members are being processed as unaccompanied minors, one of the agents responded "to protect the drug shipments and provide enough muscle in doing so as to threaten local law enforcement who might interfere with an interdiction operation. Both agents also said that some of the operations on the American side of the border are so massive, and supported by the Mexican military, that the Border Patrol routinely avoids confrontations because they are outgunned and they are often miles away from backup."
I have previously stated that the explosive growth of drug cartels may well be fueled by American policy, purposefully. This only buttresses my case. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/bare_bones_of_the_planning_of_revolution
Fast and Furious has been largely forgotten, but it should not be. Running large numbers of weapons to drug cartels just doesn't happen by accident, and I for one refuse to believe our government was unaware of what it was doing. It seems that someone wanted drug violence to escalate in the last few years.
It appears to be a pre-planned thing.
Now, I know nothing about the author of this piece, and he may be just a crank, but it is most definitely food for thought. At the very least, the information I have found on what is happening dovetails nicely with this.
We live in interesting times.
(Hat tip: A.J. Cameron)
July 22, 2014
Federal appeals court deals blow to Obamacare
A US appeals court has invalidated Obamacare subsidies for health insurance obtained through the federally-run Healthcare.gov in a decision likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (FoxNews)
Wow – D.C. Court of Appeals strikes
Obamacare federal insurance
exchange subsidy regulation
Legal Insurrection, by William A. Jacobson Original Article
Posted By: mitzi- 7/22/2014 10:45:01 AM Post Reply
Decision just released in Halbig case. Here’s the punchline: Appellants are a group of individuals and employers residing in states that did not establish Exchanges. For reasons we explain more fully below, the IRS’s interpretation of section 36B makes them subject to certain penalties under the ACA that they would rather not face. Believing that the IRS’s interpretation is inconsistent with section 36B, appellants challenge the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that it is not "in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). ...Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin ...
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!
Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms,
and NO ONE WAS KILLED.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
It's millions more.
________ The point? _______________________________________
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens???
For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.
On June 28 in 2009 José Manuel Zelaya Rosales was prevented from staging a coup d'etat in Honduras by the Honduran military. Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez wannabee, dreamed of extending his term of office beyond the constitutionally allowable two terms, and he was proceeding with a "referendum" to grant him a third
term. The constitution of Honduras did not allow for this, and in fact any president so proposing another
term immediately forfeited his office. The Honduran supreme court, at the behest of the national
congress, asked the military to forcibly remove the renegade, and the military (quite properly) acted to
remove a would-be dictator. American liberals called it a coup and demanded Zelaya's reinstatement.
As did the Obama Administration.
According to a press report in The Indian:
"Barack Obama Washington, June 30 (EFE) US President Barack Obama has said the expulsion of the Honduran president by the country’s armed forces was illegal and reminiscent of Central America’s "dark past”. Speaking to reporters alongside visiting Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Obama repeated his
condemnation of Sunday’s events in Honduras, where the army ousted President Mel Zelaya and forced him into exile in Costa Rica.
"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing
military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections,” Obama said in the
Oval Office Monday.
The situation in Honduras has "evolved into a coup”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier
Monday, , adding that the US does not plan to suspend aid to the Central American nation.
"Our immediate priority is to restore full democratic and constitutional order in that country,” Clinton
Said at a press conference."
The Administration tried very hard to force Honduras to restore Zelaya, but eventually had to buckle to a
fait-accompli and accept a non communist government.
Barack Obama undoubtedly hated losing a fellow traveler, but was there perhaps not more to the matter
than meets the eye? Another thing to keep in mind about President Obama is that he is the first President
to admit to being not just a drug user but a fairly heavy one.
Columbia and Venezuela have been using Central America for years as a staging ground for importation of drugs into the United States. Interestingly enough, Manuel Zaleya was a champion of ending the "drug war" and opening the narcotics flood gates.
According to a July 2, 2009 post in Investor's Business Daily:
"The Hemisphere: A Honduran official has warned that deposed President Mel Zelaya was in league with
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to ship drugs to the U.S. If true, can this really be the man the U.S. wants back
Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez dropped a bombshell last week when he said Zelaya, the president who was thrown out by a constitutional process June 28 after defying the law, had a little side business with the
Caracas caudillo allowing cocaine to roll into Honduras from Venezuela before heading to the U.S.
"Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate
authorities and bring thousands of pounds ... and packages of money that are the fruit of drug
trafficking," Ortez told CNN En Espanol. "We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it.
The DEA has it."
If Ortiz is right, the U.S. effort to restore Zelaya to power would be suicidal for U.S. efforts to
destroy drug organizations south of our border. It would undercut Mexico's and Colombia's savage drug
wars and give drug lords such as the Sinaloa cartel's Shorty Guzman, who has bases in Honduras, reason to strengthen operations.
It also means the U.S. must start asking questions about Chavez's role in the drug trade now that U.S.-
Venezuelan diplomatic ties are being restored. Right now, it's such a hot potato that nobody in either
the State Department or the Drug Enforcement Administration wants to comment on it."
Zelaya had called for drug legalization.
One must wonder if there is some link to the Obama Administration's characterization of the removal of
Zelaya as a coup and the fact that comrade Manuel wanted to end the drug war.
A better question is, is there a benefit to the leftist of the Obama Administration from the violence
that has since erupted in the drug trade in Central America?
Bear in mind, it is this violence which is driving the explosive invasion of illegal aliens along the
southern border of the United States.
The Administration recently introduced a softer, gentler anti-drug program
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugpolicyreform that promotes treatment rather than legal sanction, and
this mirrors their approach all along. Of course, several states have legalized marijuana in the last few
years, and the general attitude towards narcotics is shifting toward legalization. One must ask; if pot
is legal why isn't cocaine? Heroin? The minds of newly legalized dope smokers in Colorado or Washington State will not see the difference, and there certainly has been an explosive growth of the drug market since Mr. Obama took office.
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,:
"The rate of current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older increased from 8.1 percent
in 2008 to 9.2 percent in 2012. The rate in 2012 was similar to the rates in 2009 to 2011
(ranging from 8.7 to 8.9 percent), but it was higher than the rates in the years from 2002 to
2008 (ranging from 7.9 to 8.3 percent)."
So drug use in the era of Obama is up, and that means there is a more robust market for the drug lords of
Central America. Again, the question must be asked; why?
Yes, hard times often see greater use of distractions like alcohol or drugs, but one must ask if the
change in U.S. policy under Mr. Obama is perhaps also fueling this increase. Which came first, the
chicken or the egg?
The L.A. times points out that U.S. military involvement in Honduras was way up as of 2012:
"The United States is expanding its military presence in Honduras on a spectacular scale. The Associated
Press reported this month in an investigative article that Washington in 2011 authorized $1.3 billion for
U.S. military electronics in Honduras. This is happening while the post-coup regime of Honduran President Porfirio Lobo is more out of control than ever, especially since the Honduran Congress staged a
"technical coup" in December."
"In the last few years, the U.S. has been ramping up its military operations throughout Latin America in
what the Associated Press called "the most expensive initiative in Latin America since the Cold War." The buildup has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $20 billion since 2002, for troops, ships, clandestine bases,
radar, military and police training and other expenses.
U.S. military expenditures for Honduras in particular have gone up every year since 2009, when a military
coup deposed democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. At $67.4 million, 2012 Defense Department contracts for Honduras are triple those of 10 years ago. The U.S. spent $25 million last year to make the U.S. barracks at the Soto Cano air base permanent, and $89 million to keep 600 U.S. troops based there.
U.S. direct aid to the Honduran military and police continues to climb as well."
So, the U.S. was down in Honduras fighting the drug war and yet the situation continued to degrade, to
the point where tens of thousands of people are fleeing north to El Norte Americano. Is there perhaps a
Indeed, the more that is unveiled about this "humanitarian crisis" the more we must suspect it was a
planned play, a scam, a grift, something pre-planned for political and social purposes.
Please note that the post-Zelaya era in Honduras has seen a strong rise in narcotics trafficking,
despite assistance from the U.S. military. I wonder; Mr. Obama was bitter about the removal of Zelaya,
the staunch advocate of legalization, and yet under the anti-drug policies of his replacements (with
American tutelage) the situation has spiraled out of control, until we now are being invaded by Central
At the same time, Mr. Obama has labored through Executive fiat to make easy access to the United States a universal human right. Mr. Obama issued an Executive Order to make the "DREAM ACT" a reality, for
instance. For that matter, the Administration's "Family Interest Directive" has allowed any sort of
miscreant to use children as human shields. According to Tara Servatius at American Thinker:
"A pernicious, little-known Obama administration policy – one that that incentivizes adult illegal
immigrants to use children as human shields to escape arrest and deportation at the border – largely has
escaped the media’s notice.
This same policy is driving the historic surge of children at the border, as everyone from coyotes to
illegal immigrant adults already in America seeks to use children to guarantee their safe passage into
the country, or to protect them from deportation if they are illegally living here.
The flood of illegal immigrant children, piling up like human debris on the US border, won’t stop until
conservatives learn about the obscure Obama administration policy that’s deliberately driving it and
Issued in August of 2013, the policy is called the "Family Interest Directive,” and it essentially
forbids Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from deporting, arresting or even detaining any illegal immigrant who is the caretaker of a child. That includes parents, legal guardians and even
unrelated adults who merely claim they care for the child in question. The theory behind the directive is
that it would be morally wrong to separate children from their "caretakers.”
Couple this with threats by Obama to amnetize illegals through Executive Order, it is little wonder that
this flood of illegals are pouring into our country. And this President knew this was coming.
Here is an interesting policy paper by the National Center for Border Security at the University of Texas
El Paso. What is interesting is this was commissioned by the U.S. government, and shows foreknowledge of the coming "humanitarian crisis".
"D Both Border Patrol and ICE ERO officers agreed that the lack of
deterrence for crossing the US-Mexican border has impacted the rate at
which they apprehend UACs. Officers are certain that UACs are aware of
the relative lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at
the U.S. border. UTEP was informed that smugglers of family members of
UACs understand that once a UAC is apprehended for illegal entry into
the United States, the individual will be re-united with a U.S. based family
member pending the disposition of the immigration hearing. This process
appears to be exploited by illegal alien smugglers and family members in
the United States who wish to reunite with separated children. It was
observed by the researchers that the current policy is very similar to the
‘catch & release’1 (UAC - Unaccompanied Alien Child)
UTEP was informed that the number of UAC arrests have more than
doubled in the Rio Grande Valley since 2011. Both Border Patrol and ICE
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officials believe that the
numbers will continue to increase, stating that the best-case scenario is
a leveling out of UAC numbers. They also believe that the new ‘baseline’
for UAC flow in the region is now at the elevated level of at least fiscal
year 2013. Officials from ICE ERO informed UTEP that in October of
2013, the average intake of UACs received per day was 662
. Given these"
So this has actually been happening since 2011. Interesting; the year after the Democrats took a beating
in the off-year elections, with the rise of the Tea Party. And we had a strong presence in Honduras,
Judi McLeod, writing at Canada Free Press http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64536, points us
to a Liberty News article that shows that the government was prepping for this children's crusade from
Central America for several years, and was paying Catholic and Baptist churches large sums of money to
assist in this plot to overrun the United States with Central American children.
Once inside the U.S. these "children" are being scattered to the four winds, sent all over the interior
of the United States. And, thanks to a law designed to stop human trafficking that allows children from
non-contiguous nations to stay, Mr. Obama is creating an new nation inside of our country. He is
breeding the old Americans into a minority.
But that's not all; the Department of Housing and Urban Development are asserting the right to control
zoning in private communities, and are using money to promote
According to Ray Ramano of Net Right Daily:
"In 2012, HUD dispersed about $3.8 billion of these grants to almost 1,200 municipalities.
According to La Raza’s comment in favor of the regulation, "Hispanic families often do not know their
housing rights and have cited fear of deportation as reason for not reporting rights violations.”
This is telling. By La Raza’s own analysis, then, HUD implementation of the racial rezoning rule will
benefit those who "have cited fear of deportation” — that is, low-skilled, low-income illegal immigrants,
either those who were outright illegal the moment they set foot in the U.S. or who have simply overstayed
their visas. After all, who else would fear deportation?
Therefore, one of the sure effects of HUD’s regime will be to flood unwilling communities with a
significant percentage of illegal immigrants.
While the current relocation of thousands, including children, from detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico
border has garnered national headlines and the ire of elected Republicans including Sen. Mark Kirk (R-
Ill.) and Gov. Dave Heineman (R-Neb.), the HUD regulation has largely flown under the radar.
But it’s every bit as important. It’s not enough to arbitrarily implement amnesty — whether through
refusal to enforce existing law or Congressional action — the federal government wants to draw the maps
of where the new residents will live, forcing local communities to make room whether they like it or not.
And there may be nothing more to it than a cynical partisan motive.
It is no secret that Republicans with their low tax message tend to do better among the middle and upper
middle classes, while Democrats with their social welfare regime tend to do better among the poor. The
political effect of the HUD rule will invariably be to gerrymander Republican districts at the local
More and more this invasion by illegals appears to be an overarching plan, something designed to "do the
work of remaking America". I cannot help but believe this whole thing has been planned.
I have made the argument that many on the Left, and especially the "citizens of the World" types like
Barack Obama, William Ayers, George Soros, and those who have supported Obama's rise to power see America as filled with racist bigots and greedy white capitalists who want to oppress minorities and steal all the wealth they can while despoiling the natural world. They want to breed out the more disagreeable
characteristics of the American public, the stiff-necked, willful advocacy of liberty, the religious
superstition, the desire to live better than others. So they will breed these traits out of us by
bringing in another people. That is a large part of the motivation of those who want open borders, as I
argue at American Thinker here
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/genetic_determinism_or_free_will.html and here
This will also benefit them politically, creating nations inside of the U.S. that will not be digested
and thus diluting the power of the American People. Multiculturalism exists to promote this very thing;
it is not about blending good traits of immigrants into the American melting pot so much as to create
nations within nations. We know how well that has worked out in the Balkans, or in the Caucasus, or in
Rwanda, or Israel, or India. Nations generally cannot coexist in the same space.
There is as yet no smoking gun, but the circumstantial evidence is growing quite large, and I suspect a
good investigative reporter, one who speaks fluent Spanish, would find evidence down in Central America
of steps taken to pave the way for this invasion. We know that Central American governments have been
promoting illegal colonization of the United States. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/go_north_young_man
This nation will collapse if we continue on this trajectory, and I suspect that William Ayers and the
other communists in Obama's circle know this full well. I've made that very case here.
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/the-revolution-is-here I think this was planned all along,
long before Mr. Obama was elected President. I think that eventually the truth will come out.
Let us pray it is not too late.
July 21, 2014
I came across this in a Google search and thought it worth passing along. The author republished an old Canada Free Press article I had written about mind control, which is how I stumbled upon it. She has a long post dedicated to the history of human mind control experimentation, and I think it is worth a look.
Mind control sounds like science fiction, but it must be understood that the Unabomber had participated in an undergratuate program experimenting with mind control for the CIA (to help pay his Harvard tuition) and we see where THAT led. This is public record, not conjecture. And there ARE ways of beaming sound into someone's head using microwaves. I experienced something similar once - actually twice - with an old fashioned metal filling I had in my mouth. Once, for a second or so, I had a commercial come on, and the second time a station identification (Y-98 ef eeeemmmm) sang out from my choppers, vibrating my jaw and skull in the process. I had never believed claims that radio could be picked up by fillings until it happened to me. If a metal filling can pick up a radio broadcast by acccident, is it not possible to design a device capable of intentionally doing this to someone?
If nothing else, a person could have an implant installed without their knowlege.
Also, bear in mind that brain wave patterns can be influenced by both sound and electromagnetic effects. Gentle music can be used to establish an alpha brainwave pattern, and other types of music can change the wave patterns. Humanity has understood this for millenia, and music is a tool to facilitate social interactions, because people listening to the same music fall into similar states of mind.
As for electromagnetism, I once read that the human brain oscillates in synch with the Earth's magnetic field. (These are called Schumann Resonances.) I have not seen any solid research on the subject, but it stands to reason that the brain - which operates via electromagnetic nerve impulses - would be subject to the same physical properties as other electronic devices, and magnetic resonance is certainly one such property. (This would suggest that long-term space missions outside of the Earth's magnetic field would be impossible unless we create an artificial field.) Research has shown changes in brain-wave patterns of people using cell phones. Some research suggests cell phone usage may induce alpha wave patterns, and thus cause "cell phone insomnia".
No doubt the government's research programs on this sort of thing are way ahead of what anyone will find on the internet.
At any rate, the science of neurobiology is growing explosively, and we WILL have the ability to do these things in the future. Mind control is coming; what we do with it is our decision, perhaps the most important decision the human race will ever make. I tremble when I think of how poorly Mankind has made decisions in the past.
The Sun has pooped out. http://thesiweather.com/2014/07/16/1045-am-the-sun-has-gone-quiet-solar-cycle-24-continues-to-rank-as-one-of-the-weakest-cycles-more-than-a-century/
According to the SI Weatherblog:
"Ten days ago, the sun was quite active and peppered with several large spots. Now the sun has gone quiet and it is nearly completely blank. It appears that the solar maximum phase for solar cycle 24 may have been reached and it is not very impressive. It looks as if this solar cycle is "double-peaked” (see below) which is not all that uncommon; however, it is somewhat rare that the second peak in sunspot number during the solar max phase is larger than the first. In fact, this solar cycle continues to rank among the weakest on record which continues the recent trend for increasingly weaker cycles. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906. Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase. For this reason, many solar researchers are calling this current solar maximum a "mini-max”. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009. In fact, in 2008 and 2009, there were almost no sunspots, a very unusual situation during a solar minimum phase that had not happened for almost a century."
"The increasingly likely outcome for an historically weak solar cycle continues the recent downward trend in sunspot cycle strength that began over twenty years ago during solar cycle 22. If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be more talk of another "grand minimum” for the sun. Some solar scientists are already predicting that the next solar cycle, #25, will be even weaker than this current one. However, it is just too early for high confidence in these predictions since some solar scientists believe that the best predictor of future solar cycle strength involves activity at the sun’s poles during a solar minimum and the next solar minimum is still likely several years away."
And, as is pointed out in the post, the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder and Dalton minimums, thus the Earth could be in for a chilly, chilly spell.
I don't know about everywhere, but it was the coldest winter we have had in perhaps my half century of life here in St. Louis, and it has been an unseasonably cool summer, with weeks of temperatures in the mid to upper seventies and low to mid eighties, akin to October weather. Global Warming seems to have taken the year off.
Actually, it's taken the last 19 years off and is in peril of falling below the statistical average, essentially killing the theory. Despite desperate attempts to massage the historical record, AGW is in dire peril and those who have made a good living off of it are in full panic. A theory that fails at making predictions is usually discarded.
But there is so much money invested in Global Warming, from the explosive growth of climatology to the "green" tech people, to the government regulatory class, that letting this hypothesis go (it is not a theory at this point in my opinion) will be hard, and much chicanery will occur to keep it alive. Who wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Certainly not the people working in that field.
But if the emperor is naked eventually someone is going to point and laugh. We are reaching that point now.
Folks, this is a good thing only in that it will illustrate imperial nudity. Without Nature on their side the Gang Green will fail in their quest for fundamentally rebuilding the world. BUT cold temperatures are bad; less food grows, more energy must be expended to produce warmth, and this means greater poverty, especially for the poor in the Third World who live on the margin as it is. Cool periods have traditionally coincided with poverty, and the poorest will suffer the greatest as the world economy sinks . Of course, efforts to control carbon emissions have and will also sink the world economy, and what we currently see - a refusal to admit the cooling leading to ever-growing government restrictions on economic activity while the world cools - is a double whammy, the equivalent of driving a wooden crucifix through Dracula's heart while injecting him with garlic and putting him in a chaise lounge on a beach near the north pole in summer.
At least we get to prove those lying sob's wrong. Small consolation.
Hat tip; The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Where Anthony Weiner would live if he'd married Lorena Bobbitt:
29 queries taking 0.0137 seconds, 89 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.