Posts by Jaime Ortega-Simo:

    Clinton Campaign Manager On Foreign Donors, “Take The Money, We Will Deal With It”

    October 18th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.



    Wikileaks most recent email release shows Hillary Clinton staff accepted campaign contributions from foreign donors knowing the decision might end in controversy. The email was sent before the democratic nomination between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Clinton, who took a moral impact on Clinton’s “lobbyist” practices as she claimed to help defend “the middle class” against institutional forces, denying Sander’s allegations that she horned powerful and foreign institutions.  Clinton in the past claimed she found lobbying “deeply disturbing”.

    However, emails from Dennis Cheng, national finance director for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign show a starch contrast to Hillary’s public message, and demonstrate that she received campaign contributions from foreign lobbyist.

    “We really need to make a policy decision on this soon – whether we are allowing those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise $ for the campaign. Or case by case.” Cheng wrote to his staff.

    Karuna Seshasai, whose official role in the campaign is unclear replied to Cheng, that lobbyist for her campaign were also the donors for Clinton’s role as State Secretary.

    “I want to add that these folks can also be divided into two categories – those who lobbied while HRC was at State and those who are currently registered,” Seshasai replied to her staff.

    Marc. Elias the man in charge of Clinton’s campaign general counsel replied to Cheng and to Seshasai, that lobbying was valid under the conditions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and implied that it they could case funds from a country like North Korea.

    “This is really a straight up political call. One middle option is to take case by case. If, for example, they are FARA registered for Canada, we may not case. If for N. Korea we would,“ Elias replied.

    After asking Seshashi to send the full list of email donors, Senshashi used the word “Bundlers” multiple times on her replies.

    “Bundlers, who are often corporate CEOs, lobbyists, hedge fund managers or independently wealthy people, are able to funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws,” according to the definition of Public Citizen, which is a consumer protection non-profit organization based in Washington DC, that targets lobbyist malpractices.

    “This is only 23 names of the first 350 prospective bundlers we looked at pre-launch. I anticipate more coming down the pipeline,” Senshahi wrote on her reply.

    After a quick lunch break, Senshani immediate follow-up email wrote,” We’re consistently flagging more FARA registrants daily. In terms of # – we’re at 27 out of 370 prospective bundlers – but to Jesse’s question – that does not represent the costs of how much these folks would likely raise. If we were looking at these folks below on a case by case basis, I’d want to specifically raise: Tony Podesta (Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt), Ben Barnes (Libya), John Merrigan (UAE), Wyeth Weidman (Libya), and Mike Driver (UAE connections)”

    After a 10 minute phone call with the Clinton campaign staff management, Seshasai suggested a loophole for bundlers to evade FARA and be allowed to lobby.

    Seshasai proposed the following plan, “The policy would be to not allow any currently registered foreign agents (those who register with FARA) to contribute or raise for the campaign. If someone terminates their registration, they would be allowed to contribute or raise for the campaign.”

    After the loophole suggestion, Cheng adopted a moral stance in the whole foreign lobbyist ordeal and reflects the impact it could have on individual democratic donors that trust in them and Clinton –specially, after Clinton publicly denied lobbying to attract Sander supporters. He also implies that the Clinton Foundation took money from foreign donors when Hillary was in-charge of the State Department.

    “I do want to push back a bit (it’s my job!): I feel like we are leaving a good amount of money on the table (both for primary and general, and then DNC and state parties)… and how do we explain to people that we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign governments, but we now won’t?” Cheng replied to Seshasai, Elias and the rest of the staff.

    Elias replied to Cheng and made a case to why it shouldn’t be an issue to receive money from foreign bundlers, when it is okay to take from national corporations; making FARA an illogical process.

    “Responding to all on this. I was not on the call this morning, but I lean away from a bright line rule here. It seems odd to say that someone who represents Alberta, Canada can’t give, but a lobbyist for Phillip Morris can,” Elias replied.

    After trying to make a final decision in whether or not they should bundle foreign donors, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager replied to the staff and said “It is okay”, incriminates Obama, and doesn’t care about the repercussions of accepting money would have for Clinton’s campaign as the message ends.

    “Marc made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don’t really get you anything…that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So…in a complete U-turn, I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?”

    Leave your comment bellow

    “Clinton Campaign Manager On Foreign Donors, “Take The Money, We Will Deal With It”

    Comments Off on Clinton Campaign Manager On Foreign Donors, “Take The Money, We Will Deal With It”

    Emails show Hillary Clinton deeply rooted with corporations and outsourcing jobs

    October 14th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega. 


    Democratic Nominee for President Hillary Clinton, harshly campaigned against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and promised her supporters that she advocated against outsourcing jobs. Sanders ratcheted up her jobs record, and said that she helped companies move jobs overseas –something Clinton denied.   

    Emails released by wikileaks have shown that Clinton is a versatile politician who seems to cater two different agendas. 

    “Politics is like sausage being made,” she said. “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

    In 2004, Clinton was slamming outsourcing as she led the Democrats’ criticism of the Bush administration. She even said that outsourcing was “a strategy for decline. This is a strategy for the destruction of the American job market.”

    She pledged to present a Senate resolution, her goal was “to stand against this philosophy in the White House that turns a blind eye to the damage that is being done to the American economy: The loss of jobs, the loss of income, the loss of self-confidence and prestige that is now sweeping our land.”

    Thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton’s schedules from her time as secretary of state shed light on the access corporate executives and foundation donors enjoyed at her State Department, but missing portions leave questions about how Clinton spent her days in the administration.

    From the private meetings she held with donors at her Foggy Bottom office to a “conference call with CEOs” to raise money for a State Department project, Clinton mixed her exhaustive diplomatic engagements with appointments that favored her political and philanthropic networks.

    Clinton met frequently with Kris Balderston, who has remained a shadowy figure that once served in the Office of The Secretary of State, and managed the Global Partnership Initiative, which is an entry point for collaboration between the US Department of State, the public and private sectors, and civil society.

    Balderston and Clinton showed determination to court corporate donors in the run-up to the 2010 World’s Fair in Shanghai.

    A U.S. presence at the expo became a diplomatic priority for Clinton shortly upon her arrival at the agency, but because she was barred from using taxpayer money to fund the $60 million project, Clinton tapped Balderston to raise the cash.

    Wikileaks emails reveal how much Clinton had turned a blind eye on outsourcing. Clinton emailed Bladerston trying to obtain “a call sheet for Bloomberg LLC” to set negotiations that would benefit her foundation through the State Department which gave her political access.   

    Balderston replied, “It’s not like a traditional trade/Expo with specific booths.” And added, “It is more subtle and the pavilion folks would negotiate creatively on what they want depending on the amount they get on the big wall of contributors.” This email shows that donors would receive favors for their contributions, which should worry those who think Clinton works in favor of the middle class and not elites — something she accuses Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of supporting.   

    In the email, Hillary responded to Balderston, and asked, “If a city gives $ do they put up display/exhibits?”   

    Balderston replied, “This will be an important two weeks to nail down these big companies. We are negotiating with them now about possible options. I’ll keep you posted. May be good to mention this to Mayor Bloomberg if you run into him or see him. Doctor off gave us from B4 Bloomberg, LLC but he thought the Mayor may be interested for the city.”

    Clinton replied, “What else can I do to help?”

    The email also shows that other companies might have had suspicions and raised eyebrows regarding the intentions of the deal coming from the Clinton foundation, the Secretary of state and the Global Partnership Initiative — but it was important to insist— Google one of them.  

    “Google has been weird about this whole deal but this whole Expo experience has been fascinating. Some companies will say absolutely no for months (Qualcomm, Bloomberg, J&J) and then pop out of nowhere and say yes. Others like are all in for and then decide not to give us a penny. Therefore we have to keep bugging these guysm,” Balderston replied. 

    Balderston also rants that they raised $54M, and Bloomberg gave them $500k, but they still needed $7M.

    According to the email, Monsanto, Disney and Oracle spoke with Balderston, on behalf of Hillary. He also said that companies like Hormel, Mattel, Invitrogen and Major League baseball “were in range” to negotiate deals with Hillary.  

    One surprising aspect of the email, is that Balderston and Hillary had the ability to force large companies to push and influence smaller business to raise money for their initiative.  

    “We have approached groups like Pharma and the fashion industry thru Diane von Furstenburg to get them to bundle smaller companies and both have agreed to do it. I met with DVF and she wants you to know that she is very excited about helping (they are in the range), Balderston said.

    In fact the email shows that the Chamber of Commerce was contemplating to push Small Medium-Sized Enterprises to raise $2-3 Million in smaller increments for Clinton.

    A few days later, Clinton replied, that “she had made no progress” in raising $7 Million.

    The email also shows Clinton courted commercial diplomatic deals with China, and wanted a bridge between Small and medium-sized enterprises in the US to get access to Chinese growing market. As Bernie mentioned, she was all pro-outsourcing jobs. 

    Balderston replied, “Google should be an obvious co-sponsor of the USA Pavilion and they have consistently pushed us off. Although they bring up IP issues as a reason not to participate, the Chinese frequently note that they do a lot of business in China. We are now at $54 million. If the opportunity arises, it would be helpful to note the importance of a USA standing in Shanghai.”  

    Balderston’s update Friday, March 5, 2010 6:26 AM:

    “Just a quick note to tell you that we are moving forward on the Expo funding. ATT came in at $500k, McGraw Hill at $200k, Intel at $250k more, Delos Living (a Mantz client) $250k, and CITI at a minimum of $2M brings us down to $3.7M. The following are on deck and likely to come in soon – Boeing (more), Carlyle, Blackstone, Alcoa, and AECOM. EB and I chatting with many others.”

    Clinton replied, “Good work. Let me know if I need to do anything else.”

    However, the letter that seems to confirm that Clinton is pro-outsourcing and might have questionable financial ties with foreign donors came from an email sent by Balderston that recalls a meeting with a high CEO of PNB Indonesia.

    “Madame Secretary.

    Thank you for meeting with Asep Sulaeman, the Chairman of the local PNB Committee in Indonesia and the Sr VP for Exxon Mobil in Jakarta and Robin McClellan, a newly retired FSO who was the CG in Perth, Australia and is now employed by Exxon.

    You briefly met Asep during the PNB dinner earlier this year and I spent time with them both in Jakarta last month. Indonesia promises to be a successful PNB country because like Turkey, a number of US companies are interested in participating.

    “Your “hello” and statement that PNB is an important item on your agenda will allow the funding will help them hire a full time Exec Director to run the project. We are helping them develop a mechanism to accept the funds and move forward. She and I have talked about how to move forward.”

    The Daily Journalist also released information thanks to Guciffer about how The Clinton Foundation  gave banks and corporations TARP in exchange of funding. 

    New Documents Show Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Amid TARP Controversy

    Comments Off on Emails show Hillary Clinton deeply rooted with corporations and outsourcing jobs

    The US Media Armada Versus The Online Battleships

    October 8th, 2016



    By Jaime Ortega.



    A Little History

    The Spanish in the 16th century decided to go to war with England, after Queen Elizabeth the first endorsed Protestantism to take over Roman Catholicism in England. The Spanish had the greatest galleons and the best fleet in the world. 22 galleons left Spain to Flanders, to invade the English coastline. The English united, and small fire-ships sailed in great numbers to combat the great Spanish Galleons. After an intense battle the English won and drove off the Spanish in retreat. Suffering a catastrophic defeat that would eventually rewrite history, the Spanish retreated only to encounter several storms in the North Atlantic that also ravished their fleet.  One of the worst military humiliations in history, shows also an interesting paradox — size and wealth doesn’t guarantee victory.

    The Biased Bias

    There is little doubt that most US mainstream media networks support Hillary Clinton’s presidential nomination. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic and other publications have publicly endorsed her candidacy to become the next president of the United States. CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS despite not publicly endorsing any nominee, are trying to stop Donald Trump at all cost.

    The networks trying to cover-up Hillary’s multiple scandals knew all along that it would take a toll on their reputation as trustworthy mediums in the eyes of viewers across the nation — and still ran with the agenda.  As a result, credibility in the media is on an all-time low, and skepticism is on all-time high. The media has become the enemy of the same people it claims to represent. The US media is like whorehouse, the highest bidder gets to sleep with the network it chooses to seduce.

    Most mainstream media networks today, are totalitarian news networks. If a republican janitor doesn’t endorse a republican candidate, Fox News wont hire him; the same is true with liberal media, if MSNBC workers don’t pledge allegiance to the democratic party, they might was well exit the building escorted by police. Liberal media not long ago, was capable of deciding elections and court audiences to elect presidents without much challenge, but a monster emerged, a rip inside the communications field that not only impeded mainstream media networks from deciding elections but also balanced media bias itself.

    Two Baby’s Were Conceived; And Yet Another…

    The internet gave birth to social media, and social media gave birth to citizen journalism. The internet conceived another progenitor, his name was ‘independent news’ —and since the inception of the web— thousands of independent news networks have emerged from the ashes of mainstream media populace including The Daily Journalist.

    Both social media platforms and online independent news networks are so innumerably large, that they have not only taken viewers by storm, but have taken away millions of loyal viewers away from popular mainstream media networks.  It took years for social media platforms and online independent news networks to develop a cavalry capable of hurting mainstream media – not even during Barack Obama versus John McCain or Mitt Romney was it so palpable – but now both are stronger than ever and numerously large.

    The internet offered the possibility for the average Joe to produce his own online news network, without need to invest money in print publications. Print publication were costly and did not allow for the average person to invest in such big project, the same is true with radio and television. Also print publication, broadcast and radio required physical buildings to maneuver the work and logistics of the company, whereas most online publications don’t require a physical building to run online.  The internet was the perfect storm to counter media bias, and mobile tablets only made the obvious more evident, the end of print supremacy and the beginning of alternative news networks.

    Yet, the real nail in the coffin is hacking. The insurrection of WikiLeaks, DC Leaks, Cryptome, Guciffer, and Anonymous among other organizations, has really damaged the reputation of mainstream media networks and given bullets to social media, and independent networks to strategically target the weak credibility left among popular media giants.

    This presidential duet is much more than a battle between Trump and Clinton or a battle between Main-street and Wall Street; it’s a battle between mainstream media supremacy and the emergence of social media and independent news networks.  Mainstream media networks know they will eventually lose the race against the rise of citizen and private journalism; the days are counted before a physical insurrection takes place, so the goal of popular mainstream media is to freeze the process and gather as much wealth as possible from the same politicians they endorse, before the power is transferred to the little guys. Buying time is essential to keep mainstream media alive.

    Once Upon A Time

    Once upon a time, journalism was run by journalist. They were disliked by politicians, elites, and corporations; they were the watchdogs of ordinary citizens and defended the constitution and the rights of Americans. Media had trust issues, but it wasn’t the norm; it wasn’t morally accepted to take bribes as most reputable news networks took pride on their investigative reports. But as time passed, somewhere in the late 1970’s greed started to engulf the wallets of the families that owned media outlets. Business-journalism became the real scheme – investors, lenders, advertisers and sponsors all wanted a piece of the cake knowing full well they would profit serious wealth from the media effect.

    No platform could compete with television, print or radio; the money was there to stay. After many years, avid politicians realized that the once stubborn media run by Journalist, could now finally be approached and influenced; business was priority over news, and politicians took full advantage of the change. The relationship between news business moguls and corporations and politicians were enriched in exchange of favors. Lobbying was now morally permitted in news networks, and media networks slept with politicians who utilized political powers to grant media business immunity for their public support.

    The Paradigm Conflicts With Honest Journalist

    Today journalist who graduate from university are trapped inside a major paradigm. It’s hard to find a job where journalism won’t spew you. The spirit of journalism is trapped inside the body of business crooks that represent institutional growth only. Journalist want to report important stories, but fail because mainstream media networks impose their will on the stories published. Journalist no longer ‘go fishing’ for stories, they have to comply with the rudiments of corporations that careless about investigative news, and more about sensationalist tabloid stories that will increase financial revenue. Journalist are also restricted from reporting stories that could negatively affect certain politicians, organizations and affiliated sponsors. Journalist are sadly affected by the politicization of media, and it is too late to revert the problem.  If a journalist wants to keep his job, he must bend over and obey. I know many journalist that bite their tongues in despair for good news, and yet to make a living ‘kiss ass’ every day questioning the morality behind the networks they work under– its not even funny!

    Change Proliferated Under The Mainstream Radar

    People might be dumb, but they are not stupid; people might act in ignorance, but they’re aware of circumstances. For years, people saw how the media turned their backs on them at a national level. Even though they expressed anger, the anger was somewhat blotted out, and manipulated in news coverage to appear mild instead of controversial. People retorted media bias just by holding town-hall meetings at grass root levels, but the impact was limited to the locality and hardly became a national issue. Frustration ended the day the internet allowed for ordinary people to buy public domains on the web; for the first time people could express themselves in forums and chat-rooms across the US and counter media rhetoric without physical meetings and protests. For years, the mainstream media ignored the rise of a counter-communicative upheaval progressively emanating from the internet.

    It all really changed on the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011, it became clear that social media not only could help stir revolutions but also breakdown organized governments in a matter of days. Western media networks paid close attention to these events, suddenly afraid of the power of twitter, Facebook and Youtube as they witnessed rebellions unfold. Bias could now be countered in social media and media lies could be exposed with transparency and clarity.

    Hillary promoted the social revolution that ignited the Middle East; she promoted social media to weed-out the dictatorships that once ruled the Middle East with an iron fist –yet with all that said –the same social revolution she once promoted to expel dictators, has completely turned against her and ruined her trustworthiness as a leader revealing her true intentions as a politician. One thing Hillary dislikes is social media and independent news networks for exposing her scandals; and she knows its frustrating as an ‘old timer’ to not be able to manipulate the internet, like she influences traditional big news networks that support her cause. Like many millennials say “Karma is a b#tch!”.

    Today, the relationship between people and media is at ‘ground 0’. CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC to name a few are looked upon as ‘problem makers’ and not ‘problem solvers’; they are playing Russian roulette endorsing Hillary, and they know that if she doesn’t win its check-mate for a lot of them. Fox News isn’t any better than the networks I’ve discussed above, but despite its rightist propaganda, it looks like they’re the only broadcast channel willing to report Hillary’s scandals. If Fox News didn’t exist, all the other media outlets would cover up Hillary’s mess under a silk rug.

    Mainstream media were once the watchdogs of ordinary citizens; now it is social media and independent news the unofficial watchdogs of mainstream media. Communication has changed, and it is going to destroy the traditional pillars of media networks already ravished by the technological advancement of digitalization in the globalized world. Generation X, and Millennials have ruined the print industry and broadcast supremacy, and baby boomers have also changed their customs obtaining news online. The future doesn’t look promising for many mainstream media companies.

    The Final Deal

    The goal of politicians is now to lay hold on the internet and set nepotism to influence people’s behavior online. The frantic dream of government is to control resourceful information emanating from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Blogger – a few powerful online companies— but the greater goal is to control Google. Google is the hegemon of the internet! When users type the key words ‘Hillary Clinton’ a new Google App called AMP, shows all the latest news results related with Hillary. For now, it looks like there is no inherent bias, as Google shows negative and positive reports of each candidate when browsing their server —but for how long? When will money get on the way?

    Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google and current chairman of the board, had ties to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. That is not good news for the average citizen looking for balanced news online. Such affairs could also transpose the transparency behind Google Mail, and the US Government. If Hillary becomes the next Commander-ln-Chief, she will probably influence and sharpen her influence with Google. Julian Assange wrote a book in 2014 titled “When Google Met Wikileaks,” detailing the company’s close ties with US policy makers.

    History Is Cyclical

    Just as the all-powerful Spanish Armada jointed its biggest galleons to fight the rise of Queen Elizabeth, mainstream media has also bonded to destroy Trump. Just as the small English battleships united in large numbers to try to take down the big powerful Spanish galleons, so is the amalgamation of small independent news networks, social media and hacking organizations trying to defeat mainstream media networks in the field of public communication. The battle of communication supremacy is ever clearer this election, and it’s a battle that comprises favoritism in polls, surveys and stats to eliminate credibility and audience support. This election has shown conflicting evidence that polls show biased results when compared to other major publications online.

    One interesting factor is that Russia Today — another biased totalitarian news network in Russia —and Middle Eastern based news Al-Jazeera have temporally truce with the US anti-media establishment to help take down the powerful American Networks. Donald Trump could be that perfect storm that after the English defeat, ravished the Spanish galleons and changed history. The media has played people for stupid and its about to pay the price sooner or later — with or without Trump in office; CNN is really no different than RT, one is totalitarian under a kleptocracy and the other totalitarian under the free market; same crap, different toilet. As Scarface once said, “What difference does it make?”. Time calls for change in the media, and the days of mainstream media supremacy are over.

    Comments Off on The US Media Armada Versus The Online Battleships

    New Documents Show Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Amid TARP Controversy

    October 5th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.


    The website Guciffer, uploaded crucial information related with the Clinton Foundation, exposing democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her affiliation with controversial donors.


    The document shows how banks like Goldman, UBS, ABA, JP Chase, Morgan Stanley. Merrill Lynch, and corporation like Boeing, General Electric, Met life, Prudential and other institutions donated to the Clinton Foundation.


    According to the documents big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated Trouble Asset Relieve Program funds. TARP,  was government money “loaned” to private corporations to prevent those private corporations from becoming insolvent.

    Hillary blamed Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump for catering to financial elites and not paying taxes, but documents seem to show that Hillary herself has bonded with powerful banks and corporations in exchange for contributions on her campaign.

    The documents show that top democrats including Nancy Pelosi, were injecting TARP funds to their Pac’s. The news could severely ravish the little credibility Hillary has left to become the next president of the United States.



    The Clinton Foundation is already under a lot of scrutiny. Reports show that Bill Clinton solemnly promised after the 2001 earthquake that killed thousands of people in India, Thailand and Sumatra, that his new nonprofit — called the American India Foundation (AIF) — would rebuild 100 villages. Rajat Gupta, his millionaire co-chairman, pledged $1 billion for the victims.

    It never happened. Years later, AIF’s annual reports were reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation and show only seven villages were partially rebuilt by Clinton’s group, and a mere $2.7 million of $53 million raised over a decade went to the earthquake victims.

    Comments Off on New Documents Show Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Amid TARP Controversy

    A new ethnic war is coming: Everyone vs black America

    August 23rd, 2016

    By Jaime Ortega.



    Minorities in America dislike blacks

    In the start of 2015 I did a survey interested in what other minorities thought of black Americans compared to other newly integrated ethnic groups, and bellow the results gathered after an extensive 3 month research project. The idea was to understand which minority was most disliked out of all minorities in the US.  (American Caucasians were not included on the study)

    Rank of minorities disliked by other ethnic groups:

    Black Americans ranked number one, Muslims ranked number two, and Jews and Asians number three.

    Percentage of minorities that dislike black American compared with other minorities:

    Bellow the percentage of ethnic groups that dislike Black Americans compared to other ethnic groups. The remnant of the percentages bellow, are split between disliking Arabs, Jews, and Asians.

    89% Mexican & central-Americans (Includes Guatemalans, Salvadorians and Hondurans)

    85% Asian-Americans (Mostly includes Chinese, Turkish, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Thai’s)

    81% Native-Americans

    63% Arab Americans/ Middle Easterners (Mostly Jordanians, Palestinians and Lebanese)

    70% Persians-Americans

    81% Paki-Indian (Includes Afghans and Kazakhs)

    74% Africans (Includes Ethiopians, Somalians, Eritreans, Ghana, Nigerians, Libyans, Moroccans and Algerians)

    87% Eastern European (includes Russians and Ukrainians)

    91% Latino (mostly South Americans)

    79% Caribbean Americans (Includes Cubans, Puerto Rican’s and Jamaicans)

    70% others (includes Oceania and other smaller countries)


    Understanding the results

    The results show the startling reality of a problematic stereotype that seems to have damaged the reputation of blacks America across the nation. The main reasons why minorities disliked black Americans involved labels like, “problematical, social agitators, thieves, lazy people, perpetrators, violence instigators, racist…etc.”

    Based on several interviews, restaurant and business owners agreed that blacks are “their worst costumers” always trying to “get a free meal” or “come up with new ways to not pay for their food.” Others implied other derogatory terms, and were angry at the fact that democracy allows black culture to flourish unpunished. Most people declared that “they weren’t racist” but believed that “they didn’t like the attitude of blacks in America.” It was clear that new American-minorities dislike black Americans and are vocal about it. They also welcomed, “more police patrols in their area to stiffen security” — especially those living side by side with blacks.

    The problem with these results, is that eventually minorities will replace the traditionally-white US middle-class, and by 2050 according to some statistics, Latinos and Asians will probably have greater power and larger population numbers to demand change. How will they treat American blacks? Will they be harsher? It doesn’t look promising — black communities need to wake up.


    Let’s get real

    Black Lives Matter, is the most stupid movement I have ever seen and probably one of the dumbest causes I have ever read. Mainstream western media has maliciously used this black movement to stir controversy where it doesn’t exist. Black Lives Matter is the offspring of Occupy Wall Street; it’s the same mask with different paint. Unlike their minions, the leaders of BLM and OWS are highly educated college people, who use the ignorance of others to expand their political crusade. They’re a mixture of Anarcho-Syndicalist, Communist, Trotsky’s, Marxist, Bolivarian, Miniarchist and extreme socialist that envy individual success in a free market driven economy where hard work and sacrifice contribute to a better lifestyle. BLM and OWS are totalitarian-progressive reformist that have joined the Democratic Party –even though they oppose its values— because they have no other party to run too, that will grant support for their revolutionary ideals. Unlike liberals, these new forms of progressives don’t believe in a free market economy driven by competition; instead they believe in a barter-trade economy, the rise of the proletariat, social globalism, anti-elitism and disregard as unfair the individual accomplishment of lawyers, neuro-surgeons, basketball superstars, engineers etc.; their Bolshevik like revolutionary dogma implies social justice without constitutional rights and courts of law. They believe it’s the responsibility of the wealthy to share their goods with the bottom end of the scale, not according to work, but privilege. They highly oppose the constitution and unlike their predecessors in the late 60’s, these incumbents are totally against nationalism which they refer as ‘fascism’ — something categorially absurd and erroneous — blaming military interventionism as treason against global peace and humanity, and not as a necessary evil to protect national and international interest against unstable and constant fluctuating forces that violate international law. They not only oppose the government, but wrongly target the military with provocative language and threats. They believe in a Walt Disney like planet, where lions sip tea and dance with gazelles while they all sing holding hands – a childish fairy tale.

    In their view, ISIS is the creation of secret American cults run by Zionist, instead of inexperienced geo-political mistakes committed by clumsy leadership –nothing new in military history — as errors will continue as humanity exist.  In their view, elites and sovereign leaders never commit mistakes. Their world runs along plans and plots schemed by powerful men destined to dominate the status-quo. If accidentally the banana peel drops from the trash bag, it’s not because one was unconsciously careless, it is because a mastermind was consciously planning a secret move— so goes the logic of conspiracy theorist. Many American blacks have joined these anti-constitutional ideologist, without adequate political comprehension.  Ignorant people follow anarchism, and the wealthy who back such political deviant movements, don’t really understand the side effects of such groups until they live under a nation run by these counterculture revolutionary dogmas that tend to adopt a totalitarian state run government.

    Groups like BLM and OWS seem to forget or brush off, that during the American Civil War, men died in order to help and support black freedom. They also forget that only 14% of whites had slaves — is that mean 86% were guilty of racism? They also forget black freemen despite having a smaller population number compared to whites also owned slaves. They also forget that slavery itself was not racist, racism bloomed in 1961 thanks to Charles Darwin’s book: The Origin of Species which gave a powerful minority of southern slave owners a scientific reason to continue with slavery, as blacks according to Darwin himself were a subspecies of human. Yet many southerners fought against the Union, not based on racism and slavery, but because they were about to lose entire swaths of land to the demands of Abraham Lincoln — the consequences of ending slavery was the southern cotton crop fiasco that destabilized their economy. Mainstream Historians also forget to include black revolutionaries and heroes that fought along the Confederacy and the Union; historians make all black victims, but they never consider the blacks who fought in the name of the south and northern states, who were highly influential in the American Civil war.  They also forget that United States, unlike other European powers, allowed for black freemen to travel back to Africa — which is why Liberia exist today –and thanks to the US it was the second fastest growing country in the world in 1950. Liberia suffered from ethnic compulsion, local African tribes fought against the newly integrated Americo-Liberians, who decided not to mix with the local population and instead retain their American customs. Liberia suffered two civil wars and military coups. And if one reads history carefully, it is crystal clear that the US has helped American blacks more than any other nation in history. No nation is perfect, to say the opposite is absurd and unhistorical. Every nation has blood on their hands! Now that we revisited the past, let’s get back inside the DeLorean — McFly will takes us to the present!


    Blacks need to wake up from slumber

    The American black communities need to wake up and start taking responsibility for their actions before it starts an unnecessary ethnic war that they won’t win.  A significant percentage of black youths have become victims of passive behavior and failed to acknowledge their significant advantage compared to third world countries — which unlike them— have absolutely no resources and funding to move forward. It is inconceivable that immigrants migrating to America from Somalia, Kosovo, Brazil, Guatemala and Mexico —starting from scratch– can pull their life back together and black youths, who are fully integrated US citizens cannot move forward. Blacks have failed to adapt to a wide range of opportunities granted over the years by political transitional reforms destined to help minorities obtain a free education in the US. The attitude of black communities across the nation toward white privilege today is completely wrong, false and mislead.

    It is a total slap on the face to the millions of US taxpayers that work and struggle –verily providing for their own – supporting welfare through fiscal policy helping inject capital inside low income areas across the nation that benefit black communities. No matter the ethnic background, the average American struggles to compete with the never ending and demanding pace of global markets, being easily replaced on almost every sector by highly skillful immigrants who are hungry to succeed and work hard. It is impossible for black America as an ethnic group to compete and succeed with their current attitude because they set their standards with low expectations.

    Why buy a two dollar educational book in a thrift store and invest in the future, when it is cooler to purchase a brand new pair of Jordan’s? Most blacks buy themselves back to poverty and don’t want to save their money. Why spend time in the free local library? When it is easier to loot stores and join the local gang. Why earn a modest living the legal way, when it is easier to steal and pimp? Makes sense! So let’s blame the government, the white man, the police officer, the dog and the cat for losing common sense.


    Black youths hi-jacked the civil rights movement

    The majority of black youths today, have absolutely no excuse to fail the academic system and live under perpetual poverty. The black youths today have somewhat hi-jacked the Civil Right movement of the 60’s to accommodate their absurd racial rhetoric, blaming whites for their own personal mistakes. A significant percentage of black youths are fake and racist toward whites and other minorities, they have no high moral regard toward life and are the culprit of their own victimization. They constantly pull race baits, pointing how whites owe blacks and apology for slavery — which occurred well over 150 years ago –something they never experienced.

    Martin Luther King Jr. fought courageously to help black America reach equal opportunities during the 60’s, an epoch where civil unrest and riots broke out based on social discrimination against minorities. The Civil Rights movement brought the support of millions of Americans who united to help blacks achieve equal rights and abolish Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Segregation continued for a few more decades, but in the early 80’s, integration thrived rapidly and spread across larger metropolitan and suburban areas allowing interracial marriages to become a normal part of society. We no longer live in that epoch of ethnic discrimination.  Unlike the past where segregation was caused by ethnic divisions, today integration is the result of financial prosperity, and segregation is geographically based on classicism and income inequality. Anyone can achieve financial prosperity if he/she works hard, saves money and is success driven. The US is a capitalist society that over the century has become classicist akin South Korea and Japan – China has become the newest form of neo-capitalism and classicism —Europe is also slowly adapting social-globalization.

    But in contrast with the generation of Muhammad Ali, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., the black youths today glorify slavery and revive the past even though they never lived in that epoch or struggled like their ancestors. They pull their pants down and call it sagging; they call each other ‘niggah’ and call women ‘b#tches’ and ‘Hoes’. Unlike the 60’s where blacks worked extremely hard to make a modest living, this new generation seeks the fruits of welfare, adamant for change that involves personal responsibility and accountability. Unlike the 50’s where blacks had a remarkable and efficient working class, this new generation of blacks lacks ethics and proper education having significantly more opportunities than their predecessors. They would rather not work at all, than to work in construction and get dirty; they feel entitled to get the best jobs, having no skills. This generation wants anarchy and despises capitalism, they blame the government but don’t bare responsibility for their actions. Today is all about privilege without hard work.  White youths also experience the same problem, but thus far they haven’t showed the per-capita violence level experienced in black communities across the nation.

    The introduction of illegal narcotics severely ravaged black communities in the early 70’s, which instead of launching an aggressive parental campaign to stop youngsters from consuming drugs, they directly or indirectly embraced the hippy culture and their social revolutionary stance. Illegal narcotic usage also took a huge hit in white middle class communities, and it has only gotten worst ever since it was first introduced, to the point we might legalize cocaine one day. The Civil Rights movement never foresaw the imminent drug epidemic that ended up engulfing black communities.  Black traditionalism died and has been replaced by a highly depraved contra-culture — that despite their denial — only focuses on material gain without work ethic, and reform without accountability.

    It’s hard to picture Martin Luther King Jr. or even Malcolm X dancing to the Wu-Tang-Clan or Lil Wayne; the lyrics and violence that embrace rap culture is only a reflection of the moral decadence that black America has experienced over the end of the century. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X would have spit on the customs that represent black culture today, a generation who not only take opportunities for granted, but have created an auto destructive environment which only the mentally strong can escape.

    My heart goes out to all the American blacks who work hard and make a modest living to survive. Hard workers who fight to get a college degree or look for ways to escape the quagmire that seems to worsen over the years. As I will explain in my point bellow, such hard working renegades of the predominantly black progressive contra-culture, experience seclusion within their own community –such division has started to grow.


    Martin Luther King Jr. an Uncle Tom!

    Furthermore, social discrimination exist inside black communities which view successful black men and black woman with envy. In fact, black men and woman who speak proper English without a ghetto accent are categorized as ‘whites’ and not blacks. The evident discrimination against black men who follow the system to achieve success, only testifies of the hypocrisy of the black community. Blacks who ridicule the idea that whites and Mexicans are the cause of black poverty are labelled by their own community as ‘Uncle Toms’ and ‘Uncle Rawkus’ among other hurtful derogatory terms.  When black men decide to stand up and not join gangs or engage in criminal activity, they’re mentally abused and basically left behind as weak and feeble by other members of their community, who continue an auto-destructive path that keeps blemishing their reputation among other ethnic groups. Black communities also discriminate against homosexual, transsexual’s and lesbian couples. Beating and abusing homosexuals and transsexuals is common practice in black communities. But where is the liberal media? The liberal media has completely abandoned and betrayed blacks who are desperately trying to change their culture and earn a modest living, who are not afraid to speak-out in public against their own communities. The media instead focuses on cop versus black criminal cases, and avoid to stand up against black crime. Like I said above, going by present black progressive standards, Martin Luther King Jr. would be considered an ‘Uncle Tom’.


    Progressivism is the drug of black choice

    It is the liberal mindset that has completely disintegrated the strong moral values of black America. From excusing violence to accusing police enforcement, to denying high crime statistics; leftist propaganda has exacerbated the decline of ignorant black Americans who imagine a world where slavery and lynches still exist — an imaginary world where whites plot against blacks, just alike the imaginary world of the extreme progressives, where the government secretly schemes a New World Order to destroy the world. These extreme progressives claim to be against Christianity, and yet ironically, a majority believe in a one world leader or government which originated in Bible prophecy.

    Former president Lyndon Johnson, once stated “I’ll have those n#ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” as Allen West once quoted on his blog. Most blacks in America have been subordinates of the democratic wing, spoon fed by the left to believe that they can’t achieve financial prosperity without government support and political orders. Most black liberals don’t fully comprehend the extent in which the left has used their historical struggle to hi-jack their cause in favor of minority votes. The civil rights movement during Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy’s administration became the sledge hammer and signature stamp to drive-in support from blacks in America – and it worked perfectly.

    With that said, even though the left is partly responsible for adopting an irresponsible policy in black communities, the ultimate blame falls on blacks who vote democratic. No one forces any voter to vote for any party. I don’t believe that my leftist colleagues have bad intentions; in fact, I believe they fight a just and loyal cause that at times has indeed helped the black-community prosper, but black communities are so addicted to the concessions of the left, that they have become lost junkies without liberal support. Liberals gave birth to progressives, progressives gave birth to extreme leftist and counter revolutionary dogmas; two different mindsets inside the same democratic cocoon that will eventually annihilate each other, like recently observed with Hillary vs Sanders.


    Everyone vs blacks

    Relations between blacks and other ethnic groups have gone increasingly sour over the decade. Social media has become the real unfiltered gateway to show ethnic frustration against blacks. Blacks accuse whites of racism, and whites and minorities accuse blacks of violence and crime. Racism has reached a new frontier that has propagated rapidly in social media, and it will spill in the form of physical violence sooner or later. I am not talking about law enforcement vs blacks, I am taking about everyone vs blacks. As stated above, minorities will participate in this racial war and they will fight against blacks.

    Mark my words, minorities in the future will grow rapidly and influence the political spectrum. Democrats will eventually abandon black support and cater to new ethnic groups, that don’t suffer from victimization and crime waves. For now, blacks can play the race game with Caucasians and get away with it, but it won’t work well against other minorities in the future —particularly Asians and Mexicans –they have no tolerance for black attitude and they will be harsh.

    The extreme and moderate progressives will also abandon American blacks. Every time a black thug beats up a white hipster based on street toughness and disrespect, he is losing a powerful ally. Hipsters might be political quacks, but they are harmless. Many social media videos show how racially motivated black thugs beat up white kids over stupid arguments that didn’t need to revolve in physical violence. Youtube is loaded with such incidents that involve black thugs attacking white kids, who’re scared to fight and defend themselves. These white educated pampered hipsters support black activism, but don’t understand street justice and ghetto culture, so when they’re assaulted, robbed or beat up — everything changes and they no longer support blacks. Many OWS protesters, have not shown up to protest alongside BLM protesters. They are both from the extreme left, but don’t have each others back. Many white progressives have started to abandon blacks because the black community has failed to control thug culture and denied its influence, which is significantly larger and more influential than black activist progressive movements like BLM.

    I highly suspect, that uneducated blacks feel cornered in a narrative that doesn’t exist; in other words, black youths have been brainwashed entitled to continue to excuse crime and violence behavior. They believe that white people are the cause of all their troubles, and it plays into a larger conspiracy to enslave their community. We have recently witness how black-lone-wolves have started to murder police officers based on self-justice, but soon enough, it will translate into killing white civilians to revenge the deaths of blacks. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Jonathan Ferrell, etc, are martyrs inside the black community, whereas most ethnic groups considered them lowlife criminals. Many black activist have threaten to start using violence if the government fails to acknowledge their demands. After the death of Sylville Smith, his sister Sherelle, spoke up and toll rioters to go to “the white suburbs and burn that shit down”, in response thousands of business owners in Milwaukee, grabbed their guns and posted signs that read “You loot, we shoot.” Sooner or later, a black rioter will target a white family, and people will witness a racial war that will end up bad for blacks.

    In the end of the day, as opposed to the 60s, the new racial divide is not based on skin color but stereotype. It is the responsibility of the black community to live in harmony with other ethnic groups and eliminate or at least diminish the stereotype. Most blacks are labelled as criminals and trouble makers, and unless they don’t seriously reform their communities, everyone is going to turn against them at once—even the liberals—no exceptions. Doesn’t matter the ethnicity, we all hate crime and will unify against chaos. In the end, blacks will change either by self-determination or force. Hopefully, the latter is not necessary, but I am afraid it will happen and blacks will have it harder than ever before. It is time for blacks to wake-up and take responsibility! Eliminate the thug culture which is destroying your communities and take advantage of every small opportunity because there is no excuse to fail.

    Comments Off on A new ethnic war is coming: Everyone vs black America

    US Geo-political relation with China and Russia?

    August 17th, 2016


    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Ron Aledo

    He is a retired U.S Army officer, former senior analyst for the CIA (ctr), former senior analyst for the DIA (ctr), operations and intelligence officer for the Joint Staff- The Pentagon, adviser to the Chief of Analysis of the Afghan National Police in Kabul and former International Business Developer for L-3 Communications.


    1) In dealing with China or Russia, who would be a better candidate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? And why?

    Trump. His worldview is more similar to Putin’s one. Trump with his America First view will avoid confrontation with Russia just like Neocons and left-wing interventionist do now.  Neocons see Russia as evil and the enemy because of their 80’s Cold War mentality and don’t realize Russia is no longer Communist nor expansionist like the Soviet Union. Asserting historical or ethnic rights in his backyard is in no way global expansionism like the old Soviet Union but Neocons cannot see nor understand that.

    Also left wing interventionist see Russia as evil because they can see Russia’s defense of traditional values, something a radical “centrist” or left wing interventionist cannot tolerate. As per China Trump policies will also be better as he will try to reverse some of the policies that gave China the trade advantage by sacrificing US manufacturing jobs and industry. Clinton moves by ideology, Trump by pragmatism and that is the difference.

    2) In your opinion does the United States have a better relationship with China, than China’s relationship with Russia? Is the relationship between Russia and China one that threatens western countries and NATO?  Does China trust Russia despite Russia’s alliance with India (another Geo-strategic player) trying to influence their presence in south central Asia?

    Russia and China compete for leadership, for terrain and influence among their borders, for customers for their weapons, etc. Still they are strategic partners in the global sense and they know that is more important than their local or internal conflicts. An over aggressive policy of the US and NATO have moved Russia and China closer than ever and to cooperate more than ever before. They know that if they remain united and supporting each other, the US and NATO will not be able to corner them.

    If they separate, then they are easy targets. As per open sources, that is why Russia moved to China  to expand its energy industry once the sanctions came. That is why they look for each other interests at the UN security Council where both have veto power. This does not means that Russia and China are not engaging with other partners to expand their opportunities: Russia looks into India, Brazil, the Central Asia countries, etc., and China looks very aggressively into Africa. Still the over-aggressive (and somewhat naive) policies of the Western countries have placed Russia and China together as never before.

    3) The United States seems to be on a collision course with China and Russia. China has an Active Frontline Personnel 2,335,000 and Active Reserve Personnel of 2,330,00 soldiers; Russia has an Active Frontline Personnel of 766,055 and an Active Reserve Personnel of 2,485,000 soldiers. Hypothetically, if United States declared war to Russia and China, could it realistically cope with personnel based on military numbers? Who would win?

    Most likely no war will come. That would be suicide for all players. What can happen are proxy wars and a cold war environment. That is possible and very realistic. But there is extremely low probability of a real war between the US and Russia/China. That would be a catastrophic scenario because the US conventional power might move the others to use their nuclear options and that would very likely destroy the planet or very close to it. As per open sources, the superiority of the US military can push less powerful opponents to nuclear option and then US nuclear retaliations, which means the destruction of the world as we know.

    4) United States military budget amounts to about 5x that of Russia and about 3x the amount of China. There is a considerable gap between military budgets. What parts or sectors of the military budget does China and Russia mostly invest on?  

    The US military is far more powerful than the Russian or China one. The US is defending its status as global superpower with military presence in all continents. Russia and China, as global powers are regional powers of the first order but still regional. Russia focuses in Europe (and recently in the Middle East) and China in east Asia and its China Sea.  As per open sources, their military are powerful as they are really design to fight in their regions and project at the regional level while the US must project its military power everywhere in the world.

    Russia and China will place their priorities in modernization of their forces, technology and keep their nuclear arsenal operational. At the end their nuclear arsenals are their insurance of independence and ultimate survival as no one will dare declare war to them for fear to their nuclear weapons (for the same reason India does not destroys Pakistan conventional forces even when it can…for fear to a total destruction nuclear war)

    5) How well trained are Russian and Chinese soldiers compared to American soldiers?

    As per open sources the US has the advantage of real fighting and real missions which is the best training a military can have. Plus the US has the most powerful and modern weapons and most resources. The US is fresh from Afghanistan, Iraq, special forces advising missions in Syria, etc., exercises in South Korea, etc. Now Russia is increasing its training tempo in Europe to send a message to several European countries, mostly the pragmatic big countries there like Germany and France, and now also Russia has the benefit of real combat missions in Syria. China follows with patrolling and low intensity mission in the China sea.

    6) Do you fear a war with China and Russia is imminent? Is the US government afraid of Russia and China’s military threat?

    No, it is not imminent. Very low probabilities. At most we can see a proxy war, animosity and cold war but no real military conflict among those powers.  Despite the US extraordinary power, a pragmatic, non ideological US President must avoid at all cost a conflict that might escalate into a nuclear one.

    7) Does China and Russia have destructive weapons with long range capability? Do they have any new generation weapons that could poses a problem?

    Yes, it is open sources and public information that China and Russia have nuclear weapons and long range intercontinental missiles.

    8) It was said in 1999, that China and Russia were lagging 20 years behind United States based on military technology and hardware. Where they really that far behind in military advancement? How far are they now compared to the US?

    As per open sources,  they were behind on budget and capabilities. They keep themselves pretty good into the “technology” field as technology is a priority and their space programs always demand the latest one.

    9) Vladimir Putin has recently created a Praetorian Guard to protect him. It is said the reason behind the creation of his new private military is because Putin fears Sergey Shoygu the minister of Russian defense could exert control of the government. Is this rumor true? And why should he be afraid of Shoygu?

    The National Guard is not private but a military internal security force very similar to the Italian Carabinieri, French Gendarmerie, Spanish Guardia Civil, etc. It is a militarized internal force similar to the one that many countries have. Their main mission is defend the country from internal instability. From open sources,  Putin has nothing to fear fear from his Defense Minister. The timing of the creation of the National Guard suggest two purposes: make stronger the foundation of the state by actually increasing the capabilities that until now the FSB and some Interior Ministry departments had by adding a force who can actually control the terrain in a military way and fight hypothetical insurgents and terrorists in the open and secondly send a message to any country that might try to promote or pay for a coup or color revolution in Russia as telling them “don’t even think about it”. Looking as scenarios in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia in 2011 and Ukraine 2014 it is logical that Russia wants to completely seal the state against internal instability and prevent any foreign finance “revolution” in its soil.

    10) A similar report states that all the sea and airspace violations conducted in several different waters around the world by Russian ships and aircraft were provoked by Shoygu, and not Putin. What is your view? And if so, why is he violating airspace and international waters around the world?

    As per open sources, any aggressive border maneuver most likely sends a message to the pragmatic countries: keep your distance, don’t make things worst by following the Hawks and Russo phobic. That is a message that has 0% chance with the Russo phobic border countries but resonates well in the cooler heads of the German and French. Any policy has to be most likely approved by the Head of State.

    11) China recently set their first military base in Djibouti, for $20 million dollars and will stay for 10 years. They will share the location with Japan and the United States. With China in the mix, what does it mean for Japan and United States? Will it have a volatile effect on the region?

    As per open sources China is looking to expand its influence in Africa and that is pushing its presence in Djibouti and other countries. It is most likely looking for cheap resources. Japan and the US will have to compete for the favor of the African countries.

    12) China controls the Gwadar port in Baluchistan, and now has Djibouti. Is their goal to control the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea? And if so with what porpoise? 

    As per open sources, China has a very strong relationship with Pakistan. China contingency plans for a war with India includes binding Pakistan to open a second front. That translates in a strong economical and political cooperation other than the military one. China wants to develop its border with Pakistan and expand its potential there to include a corridor to the sea. That is the main purpose of its activities in Pakistan. As per Africa, China looks for expansion like any other great power and is looking for cheap resources.

    In the long run how will United States cope with Russian and China’s expansion throughout different regions around the world? Most likely no unless there are political changes in both the US to look for more pragmatic approaches.

    13) The Pentagon suspects Russia and China have hacked the Pentagon on numeral occasions. What is the goal of China and Russia hacking the Pentagon? What are they trying to find? Have they been successful?

    As per open sources the US Government has been under cyber attack several times. In military and international doctrine great powers do peace time cyber attacks on others to test capabilities, disturb operation and send political messages.

    14) Former Pentagon Defense Secretary Robert Gate believes countries like Russia, China and Iran may have hacked Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server. If indeed the story is true, should Hillary Clinton be indicted? Is there any resemblance between Clinton and Eric Snowden or Bradley Manning?

    As per open sources the FBI said Clinton was negligent but was not criminal in her use of private server. Snowden and Manning committed criminal offenses while Clinton was only negligent and showed poor judgment.

    15) Do you see global shift in powers anytime soon?

    No, I see the future as in a multi-polar world as I predicted in Pravda back in 2003. China is now a great power, and Russia has come back from the ashes of the 90s to become a great power again. The world now is set as multi-polar as I explained back in 2003.

    Comments Off on US Geo-political relation with China and Russia?

    Despite the odds, Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton in November

    August 8th, 2016

    By Jaime Ortega.


    CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNbc have Hillary comfortably winning in November – but Trump will win 

    I am certainly not a Trump fan and don’t support his eccentric views of America, but a year ago I predicted against all odds that Donald Trump would face Hillary Clinton in the final phase of the elections. A year ago mainstream media networks thought Jeb Bush was the most qualified and diplomatic candidate out the bunch to snatch the republican primary, and while his character is presidential, they were evident signs that Fox News and other guru analyst wrote off. One evident sign to predict a candidates run, is by measuring the incredible amount of anti-government rhetoric surrounding popular social media sites.

    One reason why my colleagues were wrong and I was right was based upon analyzing the social medial populist outcry shown in comment sections, blogs and boards all around the web — and not the elitist view held by mainstream media networks to determine the next GOP representative. As it turned out, Jeb Bush not only failed, but failed miserably shocking the entire GOP and even the DNC. I also stated a year ago that Bernie Sanders and his social-democratic outline would replace the liberal economic view of the DNC, because the American-youth view Hillary as a crooked non-trustworthy candidate serving interest-groups, and secret organizations. The progressive youth has become anarchic and demand economic reforms that oppose those of the Democratic Party.

    CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC view Hillary as the clear victor, giving Trump a slight chance of winning the elections in November. The specialist and political pundits claim a landslide victory in favor of Hillary based on questionable surveys mostly conducted in larger suburban areas and college liberal towns.  Leftist mainstream media networks and the elderly liberal loyalist are scared to death of Trump’s reform because he is viewed as a politically incorrect social agitator who will destroy the values of the American left around the world. While Trump is viewed as an opportunist by many, he has all the favorable circumstances and tools to beat Hillary in November. And while I am certain Trump will win, he won’t change America’s short term problem and future decline.

    Bellow a few indicators why Hillary won’t win.


    • The liberal open border policy aimed at helping refugees has caused major unrest in Europe and has spilled inside America thanks to social media. Anti-liberal and anti-progressive groups have criticized the left for allowing immigrants to settle and change cultural norms in Europe at the expense of betraying national sovereignty. The latest terror attacks in America and Europe have inflamed anti-liberal resentment against immigrants– especially Muslims. Hillary is viewed as another Angela Merkel, whereas Donald Trump is viewed as the champion of immigration policy. To defeat Trump, Hillary needs to adopt an immigration policy that satisfies the average US citizen, which seems to not have worked under the Obama administration — in other words, Hillary needs to implement a more aggressive strategy than Obama to satisfy the undecided voters who are against illegal immigration and view it as a cultural and economic cancer.
    • Hillary’s public support of Black Lives Matter will bruise her campaign. There is an invisible war raging mainstream media and social media networks that seeks further attention. The liberal mainstream networks have taken sides and shown support toward BLM, and reluctance toward law enforcement and crime related issues. Mainstream broadcast networks have made local law enforcement cases into national headlines without waiting for a proper trial to take place, allowing for controversy to stir public uproar. The case of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Philando Castille etc. should have remained local news. The black community and liberal activist have used those killings to become the victims of a law enforcement plot targeted against blacks on the basis of racial prejudice and not crime. But while the left advocates for institutional reforms, many people are fed up with the liberal propaganda of painting black thugs as innocent little lambs who’re the product of marginalization. Unlike mainstream media, social media publishes crime videos, murders, burglaries, gang violence and other issues that people consider to be more important in their communities as it relates to safety. Mainstream liberal media networks have done a superb job in reporting law enforcement against blacks, but failed to show the same effort to report violent crime at a national level —- such actions have created a race war on all major social media sites. Blacks insult whites, whites insult blacks and the hate will leak on Election Day. Hillary publically stated her support for BLM, which is making democrat supporters leave the liberal party in support of an anti-progressive candidate that won’t victimize crime. Trump is viewed as the man who will eliminate crime, while Hillary is viewed as the woman who will continue to support criminal victimization — Trump will take advantage of Hillary’s weakness.
    • Does Hillary have the backup of law enforcement and the armed forces? War was declared against law enforcement after the recent killings of police officers in New York, Dallas, and Baton Rouge. Obama vowed public support for the deaths of the black-Americans killed by police offers, but has had a harder time criticizing black-on-black crime. This has caused the Department of Justice along with law enforcement to criticize the president’s resilience to expose the problems that affect black communities nationwide. The political divide between the DOJ and the Democratic Party has increasingly grown sour. The Obama administration has also been accused of shrinking the Air Force and The Navy since 1916; cut military numbers by 40,000 closing bases in Alaska and sizing military spending to 15.9 percent. The problem is that Hillary was part of the Obama Administration when she was Secretary of State and it won’t help her cause in November. Even worse, Bill Clinton’s former Administration had a more profound effect in the Military. Clinton’s “peace dividend” cut the military by 20-30 percent, from 1.8 million in 1993 to 1.4 million in 2000. Unlike Hillary, Trump has a clean reputation among law enforcement agencies and among military personnel. The democratic establishment has hurt its reputation by picking sides and it will affect Hillary as the world shifts to the right side.
    • Facebook is the mecca of collecting valuable personal opinion. Every mainstream media network claims Hillary is ahead of Trump by at least ten points. One would expect based on the mainstream media results that Hillary’s official Facebook page would be nothing but positive comments and likes. In fact, it’s the complete opposite, the amount of negative comments is a clear indicator that she will likely lose the elections — the popular resentment toward her political view is sky high. The negativity shown on her official FB page is not a good indicator of the latest Fox News survey that claims Hillary will dominate the elections.
    • She doesn’t have the endorsement of Bernie Sander supporters. Bernie did extremely well because he posed a strong narrative by projecting a bright future to the progressive youth, which Hillary copy-pasted and adapted to her liberal narrative to bring Sander supporters to join her cause – Hillary’s liberal reform was not originally intended to fit a true socialistic progressive reform – she avidly restructured her agenda to defeat Bernie. The progressive youth does not trust Hillary, which brings me to my next point.
    • The rise of conspiracy theories will hurt her election. As I stated above, the rise of Trump is based upon popular hate targeted against a non-functional government that caters only to elites, bureaucrats and politicians. Hillary is the sculpted image of such conspiracy movement, she represents the Bilderberg’s, the Trilateral Commission and CFR. She is the epitome of secret organizations and the puppet of the illuminati agenda to carry on a mission to control the world and form a one world government. This might seem far-fetched and ridiculous to election analyst representing prestige think tanks and schools of thought, but everything I wrote is true — the youth views Hillary as a the devil incarnated, which brings me to the next point.
    • Her donors and sponsors will hurt her crusade. Despite verily topping Bernie Sanders in the primary race, it’s worth noticing the results were closer than political pundits expected. Hillary’s former campaign manager Debbie Wasserman quit because she failed to entice Bernie supporters to join her cause using aggressive advertisements, false accusations, amp political resources and anti-socialist propaganda. Trump relies on fundraisers, personal funds and collective donations to prevent influence groups from leeching his campaign; on the other hand, Hillary is sponsored by Sab Capital Group, Renaissance Technologies, News-web Corp, Laborers Union, Center for Middle East Peace, Bohemian Foundation, Dream Works and the list goes on. If that wasn’t enough individual billionaires like Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban and Michael Bloomberg among others have shown support for her campaign. The problem with that many sponsors and donors is that the undecided voter and the anti-establishment reformist will now believe she is deeply in bed with interest groups and elitist, which ultimately dooms her message of change. The Koch Brothers decided to not help Trump, which brings me to my next point.
    • Republicans not endorsing Trump are actually helping his crusade and hurting Hillary. Rep. Scott Rigell, Rep. Richard Hanna, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, and other high influential republicans like Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz have shown zero tolerance to Trump’s campaign. While CNN and Fox News analyst believe that not endorsing Trump will hurt his campaign, they don’t realize it helps his campaign, in that undecided voters now believe Trump is not part of the corrupt bureaucrats running Washington. It is actually a good sign for many people that a wing of the Republican establishment has vowed to stop Trump, for they now believe he represents the people and not the corrupt government. Hillary is viewed the complete opposite, she is the servant of the political establishment and serves interest groups that lobby against public demands. The psychology of ignoring Trump, plays perfectly into Trump’s hands and against Hillary.
    • Her scandals will catch up with her on election date. Her latest email scandal, and her involvement in Benghazi as Secretary of State; Filegate to Whitewater; Clinton Foundation to The Speeches and other issues have severely tarnished her reputation as a trustworthy politician. Trustworthiness is the basis of election. Trump despite filling bankruptcy a few times and cutting personnel on his Casinos in Atlantic City, has the political reliance Hillary lacks. Hillary’s mistrust will pay a toll on November that will ultimately benefit Trump despite his agressive campaign.
    • Donald Trump will beat Hillary to a pulp on every debate. In order for Trump to beat Hillary, all he needs is to face her on national television. Hillary is diplomatic, Trump is a business man. Trump will ruthlessly macerate Hillary by openly calling out every scandal she has been involved, opening her wounds on public television, which will damage her already tainted public image. Trump is not politically correct, and he will be the first politician to not play by the rules of the book during a debate –that will be his biggest political asset.


    The question is not if Trump can snatch the presidency, the question is if Trump will get assassinated by someone who is pro-establishment and anti-change. We understood the CIA involvement in the Watergate scandal, the assassination of former presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy and reformist like Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and the men who almost killed Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald Ford and Ronald Raegan. The US has a rich history of Presidential Assassinations — Trump perfectly fits that model and he should watch out.


    Comments Off on Despite the odds, Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton in November

    Back to basics: Neo-Tribalism, Neo-Monarchism, and Neo-Militarism will overtake democracy in western countries sooner or later

    May 17th, 2016

    By Jaime Ortega.


    Back to basics: Neo-Tribalism, Neo-Monarchism, and Neo-Militarism will overtake democracy in western countries sooner or later

    Sumerian states developed a democratic system before the Greeks applied the notion of elections in philosophy. We didn’t invent democracy, we copy pasted and innovated its integration to western culture to satisfy our freedom of choice. Democracy has recently reemerged in the past 200 years — mainly guided by socialism and capitalism, but monarchies, theocracies and other forms of rule have also dominated the world.

    The biggest achievement in modern history has been the submission of military power to governments using constitutional law to smelt western nations under the umbrella of democracy without use of force. The concept of individual freedom was unthinkable for a vast majority of ancient cultures because it meant granting power to peasantry and the under privileged.

    I can’t say I like dictatorships, but within the frame of history, military might has overwhelm the culture of many nations – if not all.

    The current crisis in Europe and America is less correlated with financial turmoil than with ideological social struggles. The battle of attrition that divides government and military policy is one problem that could end democracy as it exist today – it’s getting worst—and the Youth is anti-war, anti-military and anti-government.

    The suppression of military values inside the western world will not pass overlooked by top military officials who watch how foreign and national policy unfold under political control without military advice amid rising nations like China, Russia or India which they consider a threat for national and international security.

    The military core has witnessed the destruction of pride and national sovereignty to the demands of citizens willing to cancel the unification of America and Europe in favor for individual goals that cater division, including lack of personal sacrifice for the greater good of the country and the world. The average westerner not only despises foreign military intervention but has no intention to enroll in case war broke out with another country.

    The youth that resides under the wing of democratic nations has become disconnected from the reality of world affairs. They no longer believe freedom is achieved with self-sacrifice, but by riots, protest, civil unrest, social revolutions and financial reforms. Throughout the years the spoils of society –including materialism–have ushered the youth to believe war is not a necessary evil to achieve national and financial stability, but instead a primitive solution ignited by blood thirsty ignorant people eager to control the world at all cost. In that regard democracy has revived the youth into an anarchic, communist and Marxist mindset where egalitarianism can only work under a progressive reform.

    The original role of western government was to fairly distribute resources without intermission from elitists, monarchs and religious leaders. But with much power came great responsibility and the rise of political party affiliations in democratic nations slowly infiltrated the system with modest forms of corruption, passing bills contrary to public opinion and national interest at the expense of fairness – of course not all lobbyist practices secretly planned are faulty – just 80% to be sarcastically honest.

    Political reforms today are based exclusively on moral issues rather than financial or structural change. They create the illusion of change based upon issues that take on moral ordinary problems. Issues like climate change, Transgender bathroom usage and police brutality are moral issues used to foster controversy among voters who have a myopic view of the system or simply interpret everything according to the American liberal media model designed to incite controversy to rack up attention –ultimately to generate network growth.

    The day newcomers like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders publically state ‘let’s talk about how young unskilled Americans lack hard work ethic and discipline, and not blame illegal immigration and crime as a cause of high unemployment,’ it will be an honest political spectrum. But the disconnection between people and government is also partly fault of the typical voter who has the ability under a democratic system to point the finger, but not be blamed.

    Western governments have become the conduits to blame for everyone’s problem. Politicians have become impractical puppets acting on behalf of ignorant people with stupid demands — which make absolutely no sense. People don’t want to be blamed for their actions and would rather accuse politicians for their own personal self-indulgence. The government now acts like the ‘genie in the bottle’. A few examples:

    1) John smokes one pack of cigarettes every day and he doesn’t want to quit. He is overweight. He also drinks sugar pop and drinks beer at the local bar alongside his work buds. He eats unhealthy. Instead of getting in shape, soon after he returns from work he watches television for 4 hours. John blames the government for his lack of health coverage, his diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol — he had a pneumonia a few months ago. He feels the government is not helping Americans get better health benefits and feels angry.

    The Truth: John should not smoke cigarettes. He should spend his money on health bars or save it. He should quit sugar pop and beer, and drink water instead, which is cheaper and better for his health. He says he doesn’t have time to cook healthy meals or exercise, but he is willing to spend four hours watching Television, and loves spending money at his local bar. John should blame himself, not the government. He is the result of his own victimization.

    2) Before the 2008 market crash, many low income Americans signed very risky mortgage loans. (True story) Margaret barely making any money, was somehow able to apply for an expensive home mortgage. She doesn’t really care about the terms and conditions of the contract provided by the bank, she is happy and just wants a new expensive house at all cost that comes with a swimming pool and nice front porch. She feels for the first time that she is beating the system by taking on the loan. The financial collapse suddenly happens, she loses her home and she gets mad with the government. She says it is all their fault.

    The Truth:  The banks never forced Margaret to sign any contract. She came inside the bank at her own free risk.  It’s totally her fault. Instead of questioning her action, given the preconditions, she took the risk without conducting additional research. She should of read the terms and conditions. If she didn’t understand the contract, she should have done additional research like many Americans who after further analysis rejected the suspicious loans. If she didn’t have time to research, then obviously, common sense dictates she shouldn’t have signed anything to begin with. She thought she outsmarted the market and she was wrong, and paid the price.

    3) Tyrone dropped high school and lives in a low income neighborhood in Dallas. He argues the lack of education and opportunities provided by the local state government in the projects as insufficient and minuscule. Tyrone likes to dress up well, and just recently purchased the newest pair of Jordan’s – he holds a nice collection of shoes and owns a nice watch. They opened a restaurant just down the street where dishwashers are needed. Tyrone thinks that dishwashing position is too low of a job, so he is looking for footlocker or a company that fits more his style and will pay him more money – he just recently rejected a job as an assistant mechanic because he didn’t want to get dirty.

    The truth: Just down the street from where he lives there is a high-school that provides high school drop-outs the opportunity to obtain a free GED diploma to encompass a better future. Just two blocks down the street they have a Goodwill which has a nice collection of math, history and English books, which cost $3 USD dollars each. Tyrone can spend $150 USD on a new pair of Jordan’s but he can’t spend $3 USD in investing in his future? – there is also a free public library not far away from the park he frequents, that he never attends, and is mostly empty for people his age (23). Tyrone like many Americans, is a low skilled individual without a high school diploma. He feels entitled to the best jobs because he is an American citizen, but when low skilled jobs open up, Tyrone would rather leave the Mexican immigrant take the dirty job. Tyrone is to blame for his own problems, not the government. He has the ability to change, but would rather keep his gluttonous lifestyle and blame the government not having any education or expertise.

    4) Donald Trump blames immigration for the drug epidemic hunting families and individuals across America. He thinks that people will vote for him if he cracks down on illegal immigrants because it would significantly lower drug abuse intake among American people.

    The truth: Americans who take drugs are responsible for their own actions. Illegal immigrants don’t force them to take drugs. If Americans didn’t consume drugs, Mexican cartels would become bankrupt and cease to exist. The American people are to blame.

    As the few examples above indicate, individual greediness has halted the expectations of people and government into a state of perpetual victimization.

    The political class is also broken. Politicians have dirty hands. Real change, includes big spending; big money is contrary to the collective commonwealth of the average Joe who cannot afford to lobby against financial institutions that have the funds to adjust and set new laws at their mercy against ordinary people without power.

    However, even if big spending was more accessible to public demand, it wouldn’t stop the decline of western society. Western countries are under their last phase because people themselves are the backbone of governments and have become entitled to change without self sacrifice and self blame. The rise of conspiracy theories and theorist in the past few decades shows the misstrust and contention between people and government, despite the fact, that we live on a relative peaceful world compare to other ancient epochs. The ideological cancer of individualism will be the determinant force behind a new world without democratic means, infested with individual agendas.

    With democracy, ideological reforms have swarmed governments and transformed them into an ideological battle of good and evil, fairness and unfairness, justice and injustice – the wealthy will blame the poor for jealousy and the un-wealthy will blame the wealthy for greediness. Meanwhile, military power has diminished its role in society for individual freedoms that cater disunity. Governments no longer control resources, but control moral behavior and transfer their resentment to the armed forces for social experimentation – the perfect guinea pig.

    The poisonous mixture between congressmen and bureaucrats, has fueled the rise of corruption and rise of moral asymmetry in western governments to diminish the power of nationalist and military officials into a state of ethical justice pushed by politicians to capture people’s emotions. With bureaucrats partly in control; military operations are based on protecting trade and transnationalism, as oppose to defending national sovereignty in the name of force. The soldier has been subjugated to fight battles for corporations, rather than battles based on honor and national pride – that will change soon.

    The political class has accepted the fact that military values oppose what true global democracy stands for, in order to obtain unity without the use of violence. The cut of military expenditure, low national values, and Military enrolment are all clear precursors of the problems facing western democracy as a whole in the near future.

    If that wasn’t enough the US government has cut military funding to soldiers, and has created an environment where soldiers are looked upon as villains and not heroes among civilians. The propaganda and rise of the progressive left has damaged the image of the military’s sovereignty worldwide. The Neo-cons also damaged the image of the military by cheating military missions into globalized programs to westernize the world. The military despises Democrats and Republicans, but hates democrats more because disorder and individual freedoms are direct threats to the core belief of the military.

    The military willingly summited all its powers to democracy thanks to the constitution, where honor and loyalty meant the ultimate sacrifice to achieve financial and social freedom – it meant something— a belief in decadence thanks to all the ideological perspicacity allowed to permeate and divide western countries. There was fear about what role the armed forces would play in government and judicial courts during the rise of democracies all around the world – politicians have done a great job breaking the military apparatus worldwide and silencing its growth even in highly nationalistic countries like Japan. Yet militaristic power nations like China, Russia, Pakistan and India have grown financially and stretched their military muscle as a warning sign of the near future.

    The common misconception of democracy is simple. People think that technological advancement and financial growth are direct results of democracy; the same can be said about social freedoms and civil rights movements — when in-fact they’re not.

    The Church of England allowed the industrial revolution to prosper when England was not a democracy. Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, ended an economy based on austerity to develop a socialist country with economic privatization injecting capital into the system that later gave birth to a democratic system. Augusto Pinochet, after cracking down the Marxist party, successfully reformed the country and funded its technological development to compete financially with other western countries. If we go further in history, the same could be said about the Mayas, Egypt, the Islamic Caliphate, the Roman Empire, Mesopotamia and many other empires. Democracy and advancement are friends, not brothers.

    Wealth and democracy are friends, not sisters.  In the ancient past many cultures provided a certain degree of personal privilege and security to their citizens.

    We tend to believe that democracy, advancement and military will bond to the ages – but history shows to be a false assumption. Democracy is at the dawn of its own collapse and hedging into a new system I call Neo-Militarism, Neo-tribalism and Neo-monarchy. Western politicians are acting akin totalitarian states already, basing reforms on moral behavior not exclusively on actual change while citizens don’t take any responsibility on their faults.

    Four possible scenarios could lead to such conversion. Eventually a financial collapse so vast that will erode the base of trade worldwide and impoverish nations to the point governments are replaced by neo-Military forces who will outlaw politicians as corrupted and bureaucrats as accomplices. They would also deal with renegades and prosecute and destroy individuals opting to rebel or divide people with self prescribed agendas.

    The second option is that people will want to take self-control of resources and the military will be disbanded losing its unity in many western countries. It is not hard to imagine, many young people today have started to hate government and politicians — the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is no coincidence (I predicted it) – in the future it is going to get much worse and anarchy might rule again fracturing many nations into separate states with independent rulers — Neo-Tribalism.

    The third option is that certain countries will rise up in civil war akin the Middle East after the Arab spring. A revolt against local and national governments. In Europe, sooner or later, we will observe a war against native Muslims born in the old continent versus those who claim the land as exclusively theirs. Muslims will triple their population numbers sooner than later and alarm the non-religious and cultural religious establishment. The nature of Islam is to conquer not to be submissive. Neo-monarchies are possible because great military leaders instead of calling themselves dictators, could crown themselves kings without the consent of people who at that point in time will stop believing in democracy anyway.

    Fourth option comprises all the options above. That means we will observe the above options in all western countries in a sort of chaotic system without clear rulers — or winner takes all.

    Now of course, this sounds unreal, paradoxical and highly hypothetical because technology and science veils the idea of suddenly stopping progress to go back to a primitive world; but I am not of the opinion that history is progressive, but cyclical. Technology is a tool, not an ideology. Highly advanced civilizations are highly unstable forces, and not a historical guarantee.

    Some argue that it’s highly unlikely to go back to basics because we are highly civilized. Sophistication creates an atmosphere of security among nations. But hold on. true security comes from our military? And we are destroying it! Western governments and people live a moral utopia with fingers pointed at each-other without lack of self-blame. Military and governments are disconnected in most western democracies. People are spoiled and believe in the survival of the fittest. A financial collapse is what would take us back to basics.

    That is exactly the problem. It’s not supposed to be this way, it’s not the historical norm, and I bet my words that it will all go back to normal sooner or later. Wealth without the military means easy prey and division among people. Democracy has an expiration date and will be replaced by Neo-forms of ancient ruleships.

    Comments Off on Back to basics: Neo-Tribalism, Neo-Monarchism, and Neo-Militarism will overtake democracy in western countries sooner or later

    Interview one: Inter-dimensional, extra-terrestrial or government projects?

    April 21st, 2016

    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    UFO Researcher : Thomas Eddie Bullard

    Thomas Eddie Bullard. PhD.

    He contributed several articles for the Abduction Study Conference held at MIT in 1992. One such article, treating a comparison of abduction investigators’ findings, he later expanded into “The Sympathetic Ear”, published by the Fund for UFO Research in 1995. He contributed to other research.

    1)How many credible scientist are investigating the UFO phenomena?

           I am not aware of any scientist active in researching UFOs within a university or other “official” context today.  David Jacobs (a historian) did teach at Temple University before his retirement; Leo Sprinkle (psychologist) retired from U of Wyoming; John Mack (psychiatrist, deceased) at Harvard.  These three were involved with abduction research.  David Pritchard, an MIT physicist, did some UFO research on his own time during the 1990’s but has not continued so far as I know.  Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist working for the Navy, has done extensive UFO research but again on his own time and dime, and posts important studies on the Internet.  Richard F. Haines, a retired NASA research scientist, and other associates with scientific/ engineering backgrounds operate the National Aviation Reporting Center on Aerial Phenomena (NARCAP), which carries out technically sophisticated analyses of unusual aerial phenomena reported by pilots (available on website).  Robert Bigelow financed the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) that employed scientists to investigate anomalous phenomena, but he closed the organization in 2004 and the Internet articles seem to have disappeared.

    2) A lot of people have observed lights floating in the sky, some shaped like lines and dots; others proclaim to have observed unknown aircraft flying around visible sight – the government calls them black projects. Are such sightings real?

    People have reported UFOs in just about every imaginable configuration, from formless blobs to complex machines.  The classic disk or saucer shape has been common since 1947 and continues to be; triangular or V-shaped objects have grown more common over the past 30 years or so.  MUFON posts a monthly breakdown of the various shapes reported and shows that these two classes dominate, but other simple geometries are present as well.  Some descriptions of structured craft could reflect observations of military aircraft, some secret, others not secret but not recognized for what they were.  The human imagination is also notorious for structuring ambiguous stimuli into seemingly otherworldly craft–for instance the Phoenix Lights of 1997 were very probably the lights on a V-formation of military aircraft, but while some witnesses saw the lights as just a flight of lights, other witnesses saw the lights attached to a giant V-shaped dark body.  The short answer is most sightings consist of a visual stimulus.  They are real in this sense.  Whether those sightings add imaginative structure or report structure that was also a part of the stimulus, this is the important question, and a much more difficult one to answer.

    3) In 2012 Kelton Research conducted a survey commissioned by National Geographic that showed that one out of ten Americans had personally witnesses a UFO. Many cases are observed all over the world. Do people that observe these crafts, are they delusional? Do they suffer from any mental condition?

    UFO witnesses seem to be a cross-section of society and as far as psychological testing of them, such as the MMPI, they appear to be perfectly normal people.  That is, they are a normal group, with as many eccentric, fantasy-prone, or other uncommon traits as any other random sample would have.  There’s no reason to think anything is unusual about UFO witnesses in general, but no reason to think they are any better as observers or reporters on the whole than anyone else.

    4) Area 51 in Nevada, nicknamed Dreamland is it really an installation run by government. How many are they?

    To my knowledge Area 51 is a secretive military test facility.  I do not know if there are others of its kind.

    5) Is there a difference between UFOs and military aircraft? (floating light vs physical powered object) 

    Efforts to explain UFOs as high-flying military spy aircraft or experimental vehicles have circulated from time to time.  Some specific UFO cases have been explained as due to military aircraft, maneuvers, etc.  Both are probably true sometimes but not in others.  Things reported as UFOs encompass a variety of causes–astronomical, meteorological, man-made, and maybe even some anomalous phenomena.  Ufologists have admitted that most reports–80%, 90%, 95%, 97%–have conventional explanations, whereas only the quality remainder holds genuine interest.

    6) We know the universe is not infinite because it continues to expand at a greater speed than light. Astronomers have plotted the dimensions of the universe composed of 4% matter, and the remaining hypothetical dark energy and dark matter. The theory of evolution holds grown in the mainstream scientific community, but mathematically wise, what are the chances of evolution occurring in other galaxies?

    Evolution is a process.  It happens wherever life emerges.  The known elements number a little over 100 and they are the same throughout the known universe.  Only a few of these elements are really common–hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen–and they are also key building-blocks for life.  Carbon is the basic element of life; it can form complex structures, link with other elements and form DNA, a molecule capable of carrying the biological “information” and duplicating to build more molecules like itself.  Evolution is the changes that takes place in these molecules as they organize into organisms and adapt to their environment.  Wherever the right elements and conditions exist, in this galaxy or any other, we should expect to find life and evolution in progress.

    7) SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has never received radio signals from outer-space that support the idea that life exist outside of planet earth. Do we have any hard evidence to back the existence of UFOs or is it based on highly speculative assumptions? 

    Listening for radio signals may be the equivalent of listening for talking drums in a universe where most civilizations have left drums far behind.  The hard science to back UFOs as visitors from other worlds or anything anomalous does not exist, not in the sense of evidence that a consensus of scientists accepts.  Little short of undeniable alien technology or biology would provide that level of acceptance.  On the other hand there is some evidence from quality witnesses, radar, traces, and the like that would be more than enough to get you hanged in a court of law, but still not enough for scientific approval.

    8)  There are a few problems with the ETH (extraterrestrial theory). Physics shows it is impossible for any mass composed by atoms to reach the speed of light (186.000 miles per second).  Even if they reached SL travel, coming from another galaxy would take them at least two million years to get to planet earth —- the closest star system Alpha Centaury is 4.5 LY from earth and there is no evidence of life there– strangely most UFO’s observed are small and not massive showing different forms and shapes. Some estimates indicate that a space ship carrying ten people travelling five LY’s from a nearby star at almost the speed of light would use up 500.000 times the total amount of energy consumed in the US in one year; also, an equal amount of energy would be consumed just in slowing down the spacecraft from the incredible speed at which it was travelling – for larger craft like the massive spacecraft shown in the movie Independence Day, it would use an staggering amount of energy. But physicist contend that to accelerate to the actual SL it is impossible because it would require infinite energy. Also changing direction in speed at such high speeds could obliterate any spacecraft given the amount of energy required to change direction while moving. Another problem is that reaching great travel speed in space would be very dangerous. It has been estimated that there are 100.000 dust particles per-cubic meter in space. Travelling at SL, an impact with even one of these tiny dust particles would destroy a spaceship – at one-tenth the speed of light, the impact would be equal to an explosion of almost ten tons of TNT. The last problem encountered, is that if these aliens have biological bodies, in space they would be exposed by extreme heat and freezing conditions – not to mention exposure to Gamma Rays, and Cosmic Rays constantly travelling through space which could instantly kill any biological organism. So with all the examples given above, what is the likelihood of UFO’s to be of extraterrestrial origin? 

    The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis does indeed pose some daunting challenges.  Travel by means of accelerating mass by an expenditure of energy seems to have a nature-enforced speed limit that cannot be broken and becomes counterproductive as the need for energy increases exponentially.  Perhaps there are ways to get from here to there without needing to “travel” in the brute sense.  Bending space, quantum entanglement–we hear these ideas mentioned these days.  I do not claim to understand how feasible they may be, but I mention them as reminders that we have not learned every possibility in the universe and some day other possibilities may befall us, and may already be available to other more advanced species.  Another fallback is the slow-boat way of interstellar travel–a colony traveling at relatively slow speed with generations living within a hollowed-out asteroid, or in suspended animation, or half-robotic, half -organic beings  able to endure thousands of years in space.  It’s no way to visit another galaxy, but a possible way to reach neighboring stars and there are a number of them within a hundred light years.  At least visitors from another star are not entirely out of the question.

    9) Some ufologist claim that many objects observed travelling in the sky violate the laws of known physics.  Objects that reach speeds of 50,000 MPH. Some objects suddenly make 90 degree turns in mid-air travelling nearly at 25,000 MPH. These object make no physical noise, and unlike aircraft or known space craft, make no sonic booms. Most of the objects cannot be picked up by radar, but some have. Sometimes show up on photographs, but other times do not. Many change colors many times only when accelerating, with virtually every color of the spectrum reported. Many times UFO’s instantly appear and disappear in front of people and they will pass through physical objects; people have also observed multiple UFO’s merged with other UFO’s, and into one UFO, and one UFO turn into many UFOs. What is your take on this?

    A lot of very strange properties are associated with UFOs.  Many of these oddities can be dismissed as mistakes and faults of observation, but there remains a body of seemingly “paraphysical” characteristics among UFO reports.  Some ufologists have embraced the strangeness and interpreted it as evidence that UFOs are not machines, at least not all the time.  Others have appealed to the UFO as a manifestation of technology so advanced that it “seems like magic,” as Arthur C. Clarke famously said.  Sometimes UFOs are described as being gigantic, a mile wide and voluminous.  If so, where does the air go that it displaces?  In such a case I have to suspect human error is responsible for the strangeness, but in others, perhaps disappearance or right-angle turns, I can at least imagine super-technology at work.  Such matters are outside my expertise and I have no idea how it’s done, but I’ll give it a maybe.

    10)  Gordon Creighton editor of the Flying Saucer Review, and recognized as the UFO leading publication said in 1996, before he died that. “There seems to be no evidence yet that any of these crafts or beings originate from outer space” – a position later adopted by Dr. Jacques Vallee a computer scientist and astrophysics a leading expert on the subject . Do you agree?

    Creighton emphasized the para-physical accounts and paid less attention to the physical evidence.  Ufologists who have acknowledged both aspects of the phenomenon have found themselves running back and forth for decades trying to reconcile the two.  One aspect seems to offer answers only to lead the researcher to confusion, dead ends, and despair; the other aspect then seems the way to go, only to lead to the same muddle.  I’ve felt the same pull and the same disappointments.  My personal choice is to emphasize the physical aspects as, so to speak, the devil I know, and I can say the same for the ETH.  In the end I’m more concerned with distinguishing the anomalous cases from the conventional ones, and separating the strongly evident anomalies from the “gray area” anomalies.   In other words, I want to establish a basis of solid cases rather than decide on some final explanation.  In the meantime I’ll take the ETH as the most plausible answer but I won’t cling to it as a fixed and final solution.

    11)   There is growing speculation that UFO’s are not extraterrestrial in origin, but more likely inter-dimensional entities. Many have abandoned the ETH for the IDH hypothesis — do you agree?

    Anyone who focuses on the para-physical side of UFOs might well go for the IDH, but as I see it expressed, it’s more a case of substituting one unknown for another.  That is, we don’t know what UFOs are, but how much does it help to explain them in terms that are themselves nebulous and undefined?  I need to see a clearer theoretical structure before I’ll buy in–and in the meantime I want to see a well-structured presentation of the evidence that suggests an IDH.

    12)   According to the “Roper poll” nearly 4 million American’s have suffered an alien abduction. Is the number of alien cited abductions growing in America and worldwide?

    The numbers of abductions or supposed abductions are not very clear-cut.  The Roper Poll had holes in it–some answers could just as well reflect sleep paralysis events as abduction.  Since that poll in the early 1990s there has been no follow-up, no way of knowing if abductions are increasing or decreasing.  Anecdotal evidence suggests many people still have abduction experiences, but we really have no good basis to know which way the numbers tend.

    13)   Is it true that those who been abducted claim to have had sexual experimentation, face to face contact, translucent apparitions, predictions of catastrophic events including performing tasks? Is this true or imaginary?

    These features are all recurrent characteristics in abduction accounts.  They are “true” insofar as people report them.  Their reality depends on the nature of the experience–is it objective or subjective?  The very fact that so many people describe a similar course of events and the same kinds of events over and over calls into question any explanation that treats these encounters as imaginary or invented.  They are not really “creative” acts; they appear like descriptions of experienced events.  There is still room for doubt here, much doubt about abductions as physical realities; but the conventional alternatives have problems as well.

    14)  Is it true that alien abductees are given speeches of new age philosophy by their captors? What is there message?

    Messages reported by abductees are sometimes confusing or even apparently deceptive, but some common threads run through many of these communications:  The aliens come from a dead or dying planet; earth is facing a crisis​; mankind may destroy itself and the planet; the aliens promise to help save us; we must give up materialism, war, and greed; a new age is coming and earth will become a paradise.  These are simplified versions but they cover the most common themes.  John Mack, Leo Sprinkle, and Kenneth Ring interpreted these messages to indicate that the alien (for want of a more certain identity) presence was benign, their intent to help mankind through a perilous time.  Another take on these messages, drawing on Jungian psychology, was that the human collective unconscious was breaking through into consciousness in a process of healing the human psyche, re-balancing the primal parts of the mind with the rational parts that now had become dominant.  David Jacobs takes a more literal interpretation.  He sees the abductors creating a race of hybrids (part human, part alien in body, predominantly alien in mind) for the purpose of taking over the earth.  The paradise the aliens promise is really the world once they possess it.

    15)   Many people claim that aliens ask abductees to enter a state of trance to communicate with them?

    I’m not certain about the aliens “asking” for cooperation.  In most cases I have seen in the literature, the aliens pretty much take what they want.  Any request is really a form of coercive mind control.  They will have the communication and anything else they want without the subject’s permission, though they may try to make it look voluntary.

    16)  The following quotes brought by experts on the subject explain there is a strong relationship between alien abduction and poltergeist and demonic possessions in the past.  

    -Gordon Creighton, Official 1992  Flying Saucer Review Policy Statement “A
    large part of the available UFO  literature is closely linked with mysticism
    and the metaphysical. It deals with  subjects like mental telepathy,
    automatic writing and invisible entities as well  as phenomena like poltergeist
    [ghost] manifestation and ‘possession.’ Many of  the UFO reports now being
    published in the popular press recount alleged  incidents that are strikingly
    similar to demonic possession and psychic  phenomena.”

    – Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects: USGPO, 1969;  prepared under
    AFOSR Project Order 67-0002 and 68-0003 “UFO behaviour is more  akin to magic
    than to physics as we know it… the modern UFOnauts and the  demons of past
    days are probably identical.”

    -Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol.  25, No. 1, p. 13-14 “The UFO manifestations
    seem to be, by and large, merely  minor variations of the age-old
    demonological phenomenon…”

    – John A.  Keel, UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, p. 299 “A working knowledge
    of occult  science…is indispensable to UFO investigation.”

    -Trevor James, FSR Vol.  8, No. 1, p.10 “Studies of flying saucer cults
    repeatedly show that they are  part of a larger occult social world.”

    -Stupple & McNeece, 1979 MUFON  UFO Symposium Proceedings, p. 49 “The
    ‘medical examination’ to which abductees  are said to be subjected, often
    accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is  reminiscent of the medieval tales
    of encounters with demons. It makes no sense  in a sophisticated or
    technical framework: any intelligent being equipped with  the scientific marvels
    that UFOs possess would be in a position to achieve any  of these alleged
    scientific objectives in a shorter time and with fewer  risks.”

    – Dr. Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13 “The symbolic display  seen by
    the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral 
    voyage that is embedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture…the 
    structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation 
    rituals…the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as  the
    [occult] entities that were described in centuries past.”

    -Dr.  Jacques Vallee citing the extensive research of Bertrand Meheust [ 
    Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et 
    Folklore (Paris, 1985)], in Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161 “[The occultist]
    is  brought into intelligent communication with the spirits of the air, and
    can  receive any knowledge which they possess, or any false impression they
    choose to  impart…the demons seem permitted to do various wonders at their

    – G.H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and Their Connection with  Modern
    Spiritualism and Theosophy (1876), p. 254 “These entities are clever  enough to
    make Streiber think they care about him. Yet his torment by them never 
    ceases. Whatever his relationship to the entities, and he increasingly concludes
     that their involvement with him is something ‘good,’ he also remains
    terrified  of them and uncertain as to what they are.”

    – John Ankerberg, The Facts  on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena, p.
    21 “I became entirely given over to  extreme dread. The fear was so powerful
    that it seemed to make my personality  completely evaporate… ‘Whitley’
    ceased to exist. What was left was a body and  a state of raw fear so great
    that it swept about me like a thick, suffocating  curtain, turning paralysis
    into a condition that seemed close to death…I died  and a wild animal
    appeared in my place.”

    – Whitley Streiber, Communion,  p. 25-26 “Increasingly I felt as if I were
    entering a struggle that might even  be more than life and death. It might
    be a struggle for my soul, my essence, or  whatever part of me might have
    reference to the eternal. There are worse things  than death, I suspected… so
    far the word demon had never been spoken among the  scientists and doctors
    who were working with me…Alone at night I worried about  the legendary
    cunning of demons …At the very least I was going stark, raving  mad.”

    – Whitley Streiber, Transformation, p. 44-45 “I wondered if I might  not be
    in the grip of demons, if they were not making me suffer for their own 
    purposes, or simply for their enjoyment.”

    Others claim a smell of sulfur is present within their abduction also identical with demonic possessions and poltergeist. What is your opinion of such controversy?

    These quotes reflect on the previous question about the nature of alien contact in abduction situations.  They are abductions–involuntary capture and invasive treatment without permission.  This intelligence is manipulative, deceitful, and concerned primarily with self-interest.  These characteristics compare in general with traditional demons.  Many fairy encounters in folklore are of the same order.  Shamanic initiations include encounters with benevolent as well as harmful spirits, and the outcome may give the subject powers and knowledge, but may also make him a social outcast.  The similarity of UFO encounters and anomalies associated with religion, mythology, and folklore have caused some ufologists to look at UFOs as simply one part of a larger phenomenon, and some have attempted to formulate a “unified field” theory to encompass all these anomalous encounters.  Again there are theories of external origin–a cosmic control or thermostat (Vallee) or Ultra-terrestrials (Keel), and internal (again a Jungian notion or some human power creating entities or imposing itself on physical reality).  These theories have been strong on speculation and weak on evidence.  My personal take on this unity of all things anomalous is that whatever we encounter, we understand it in terms of established categories and knowledge.  Strange things call especially loudly for meaningful solutions, so we draw on what we already “know” about the anomalous.  That is, we invoke religion, mythology, folklore, or anything else that fits or seems to fit the situation in question.  We build a new mythology that gives meaning to the mystery, but at the same time may lose the integrity of the event.  For example, we may explain the facts of a UFO case that conveniently fit our desired explanation (the ETH, for example), and throw away the facts that do not fit.  We have an explanation, but not for the actual event.

    17)  Any final thoughts?

    Ufology is a human enterprise, subject to the shortcomings of human understanding and human willingness to accept anything new or different.  We force-fit a lot of data to suit our beliefs and celebrate success, but we have largely confused and misled ourselves.  Maybe we are the fairies, insofar as like the traditional fairies who led travelers off the road and into the swamp, we lead ourselves astray dazzled by our own mistaken brilliance.

    Comments Off on Interview one: Inter-dimensional, extra-terrestrial or government projects?

    A dangerous game: A new America, one without democracy?

    March 17th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.


    In the game of democracy they’re four major players: Voters, politicians, entrepreneurs and military personnel.  Policy, egalitarianism and currency mold the lopsidedness parsed in the constitution of democratic nations; however, what most people don’t realize is that throughout history, the military has never depended on democracy to operate a nation; democracy in western countries is a modern day phenomenon. The military is bonded with the US constitution by pledge not by necessity — politicians and people need to understand this essential principle.

    Sooner than later democracy will fail either government, people or the military — if not all — as it failed other countries since its philosophical inception in ancient Greece. The gravity of power and civil insurrection has shifted left, and its implosion may result in the dissolution of US Armed Forces – noticeable with Obama’s arbitrary decision to fire 157 senior military commanders in five years including a total of 9 military generals and flag officers—a dangerous control game.

    Former president Bill Clinton and Obama, made similar policy adjustments, they both gutted the military and still represent the progressive obsession to weaken it – but is it a smart idea?  Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent. Obama’s last military budget cut came last summer to cut the U.S. Army to 40,000 active-duty soldiers, shrinking to 450,000 by 2017.

    Obama’s lackluster attitude toward the military is resembled in an article published in Politico. “I recall asking one general, recently back from Afghanistan, if he’d shared his experiences and insights with the president. Rolling his eyes, he told me grimly that the White House preferred the military to be seen but not heard.” He asked if Obama was close to any military official when another retired senior officer said, “That is a great question,’ and added after a lengthy pause, “I don’t think he is close to anyone. He just doesn’t seem to have any interest in getting to know the military,” the retired general concluded.

    But it’s not just Obama or his acolytes who despise military culture; the left has steadily shifted from mild-liberal to extreme progressive in less than a decade beating the revolutionary drums of activism. The movie American Sniper released in 2015, caused a typhoon of criticism in the progressive community. Progressives like Michael Moore and Bill Maher hastened attacks against the movie and the military core to degrade its national cause – that was the tip of the iceberg– the progressive media went ballistic on its negative coverage and reviews, causing ideological havoc with provocative headlines. Such united resentment targeted to condemn the military lifestyle is worrisome.

    The 60’s started the Anti-War crusade to hollow the Vietnam War. Personally, I am against the Vietnam War. Ho Chi Minh tried to get his voice heard in France but was ignored by the United Nations before John F. Kennedy sent advisors and troops to Vietnam. Minh’s cause was genuine fighting against French colonization and exploitation of Vietnam. Yet, that is not a permissible reason to cut the US military budget. Sure, Iraq and Libya were huge fiascos, but no military has a perfect score in history, especially when ‘know it all’ politicians ignore advice from battlefield generals.

    Politicians in the past had military background — that has changed. While the U.S. waged a war in Vietnam 50 years ago with 2.7 million men conscripted from every segment of society, less than one-half of 1% of the U.S. population is in the armed services today — the lowest rate since World War II. America’s recent wars are authorized by a U.S. Congress whose members have the lowest rate of military service in history, led by three successive commanders in chief who never served on active duty.

    Such worrisome decline in military enrollment also occurs with civilians. According to the Harvard Institute of Politics when asked about sending troops to stop ISIS, 60 percent of the 18-to 29-year-olds polled said they support committing U.S. combat troops to fight ISIS. But an equal number (62 percent) say they wouldn’t want to personally join the fight, even if the US needed additional troops. Other recruiting issues make young men unqualifiable to join the US corps.

    Readiness, and advocacy group of retired service members, says that 71% of 17-24- old Americans are ineligible for the military. The reasons behind, one in three adults nationwide weigh more than the military’s acceptance standard; one in six hasn’t graduated high school; one in ten has a criminal record that would prevent them from qualifying. The barriers are even higher for people of color, the report says: African-Americans are 18% less likely to graduate from high school on average, 41% more likely to be obese, and 29% more likely to have an arrest record than youth who are white the report says.

    Such dangerous number could prove fatal with the rise of China, Iran and Russia already making geo-political statements in the Philippines, Ukraine, Yemen and Syria. Russia and China have more reserves and active soldiers combined than the US. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China and Russia trail significantly behind the US in military expenditure, nevertheless Russia has focused on effective combat rather than on technology to counter US technology, and China’s Pentagon cyberattacks have allowed the Asian giant to manufacture similar combat hardware. The Nation reports that the rise of nationalism in Russia has been a potent force since the Russia-Ukraine conflict to help stir up patriotism. The same can be said of China, the Communist Party of China through Xi Jinping and Hu Jintao ended local corruption in 2008, reversed the communist central control, and gave rise to nationalism allowing financial growth and trade without collectivization at the expense of forced military drafts.

    Interestingly according to an LA Times Special report 49% of the 1.3 million active-duty service members in the U.S. are concentrated in just five states — California, Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia. The disproportionate statistics show that southern states have a higher level of patriotism compared with the other 50 states. The NYT and the Atlantic reported the evident decline of American patriotism and nationalism. With the decline in nationalism, individual cynicism will split the nation ideologically like Spain before 1936.

    The LA Times story also says the U.S. military today is gradually becoming a separate warrior class. Many analysts say that is becoming increasingly distinct from the public it is charged with protecting. “The last decade of war has affected the relationship between our society and the military,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a commentary in 2013. “As a nation, we’ve learned to separate the warrior from the war. But we still have much to learn about how to connect the warrior to the citizen…. We can’t allow a sense of separation to grow between us.” Against the odds, such sense of separation could ultimately reconfigure America into a dictatorship, and abandon democracy to embark into a military state.

    My conclusion of a military insurrection has started to slowly shed light in the past two years with increased public support. YouGov survey showed 29% of Americans could imagine supporting a military coup. The poll showed that one-third of Americans would support a coup against their own government. They found that 43% of Republicans would support a military coup in certain instances, while only 20% of Democrats and 29% of independents would. Such troublesome numbers continue to increase as the government, military and civilian population continue ideologically divided. As the number of people who support a military coup increases, so will the chances of a military government seizure be authorized by civilians.

    Many outspoken millennials have torch a crusade to ignite rebellion against government and the military core not discerning between the decision maker and the loyal disciple – big mistake from a historical perspective. Ideological ghost have started to echo; anarchy, Marxism and communism dangerously toy along the inevitable collapse of the left, where ideological divisions in America will drive the nation into a new civil war under the next financial collapse.  Just last year, the Eric Sheppard Challenge in social media to step on the US flag caused division among American patriots, veterans and soldiers. Thousands of American teens rushed to the streets and stomped on the American flag, some even burned flags in front of soldiers broadcasting their videos online. Such events to degrade military values have never occurred in the lifespan of US history. The pro-military groups fiercely challenged these groups with threats and reprisals.

    The paradoxical question encompasses civil and political levels. What actions will military officials adopt to stop unwanted congressional acts and executive policy from targeting military values? How will the military and those who support it react at a civil level to stop anarchy driven by individuals that riot and burn military flags? This question could not only determine the nation’s future but the possibility that martial law might be the produce of a military up-rise to stop American progressives from taking control rather than one directed by huge financial corporations as most conspiracy theorist believe will happen — the latter something I don’t believe!

    Comments Off on A dangerous game: A new America, one without democracy?

    Donald Trump, not America’s best choice

    March 14th, 2016

    By Jaime Ortega.


    As I predicted in 2014, the visible rise of conspiracy theories in social media has become a reliable indicator to the present untrustworthiness linking media, people and the political class. Everyone, including the avid political experts thought Jeb Bush conclusively bestowed the crown of choice amid republican loyalist before the race for the primaries started – not long after, he quit the race to the astonishment of Republican traditionalist.

    The rise of Donald Trump comes as a desperate attempt by the middle class to feel represented in government against the evil forces of greed and corruption said to be responsible for unemployment and poverty in the US. The question remains whether the Republican Party will uphold a broker convention to hand Marco Rubio or speaker of the House Paul Ryan a bypass to defeat Trump given the nervous breakdown of the RNC.

    Long gone the days when politicians and bureaucrats sold hope to voters to guarantee reelection. The consensus among the average US citizen is that the political class is crooked, dishonestly directed by financial elites. According to a recent poll conducted by The Daily Journalist up to 89% of US citizens distrust the government and up to 75% mistrust the media. The polls also shows that 81% view Republicans and Democrats equally untrustworthy.

    According to Fox News, the reason why voters feel identified with Trump is because he taunts issues that resemble voter opinion and public concern, whereas the rest of republican candidates epitomize the current problem of the present-day establishment. The RNC has become so Anti-Trump and Anti-Cruz, that they have endorsed Marco Rubio the ideal Republican frontrunner, which has inevitably backfired with more public support leaning to Trump and Cruz.

    Not withholding perspective, Donald Trump successfully swindled the political establishment focused in the weakness of the Obama administration, equally maximizing his attacks on political pundits that oppose his campaign. The GOP resentment toward Trump only holds testimony of his communicative prowess to resonate with voters to counter party critics – it is working.

    Mystery Trump

    Trump’s political affiliation should concern his most vocal advocates. He’s been a Democrat, an Independent, and even briefly according to CNN, Trump toyed with being a Reform Party candidate in 1999. Insofar Trump looks like an opportunist, who unexpectedly and against the odds, decided to join the Republican caucus to avert the nations financial and moral decline. According to Nick Glass from Politico, Trump spent years courting Hillary and other Democrats before joining the GOP. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator received donations from both Trump and Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.  Trump brags about the fact that he is self-funding his campaign, but according to Politi Fact, Trump’s campaign isn’t 100 percent self-funded. Out of the $19.4 million he brought by the end of 2015, $13 million came out of pocket at 66 percent. 25.3 percent came out from small individual contributions, and 8.4 percent came from large individual contributions. It’s worth noting a couple of more caveats. First, Trump’s self-financing only picked up in the last three months of 2015. From the start of his campaign in April through October last year, individual contributions made up about 67 percent of total money raised for his campaign. But in the last quarter, Trump gave his campaign a $10.8 million loan, turning that balance around. The second caveat shows that the vast majority of Trump’s contributions to his own campaign about $12.6 million are loans rather than donations. Are interest groups now involved in Trump’s campaign considering his loans? Is Donald Trump an actor who is playing the republican side? What is his true political affiliation? Who is Donald Trump? It’s a mystery.

    An economic wizard or the wizard of Oz?

    Another mystery of the Trump campaign relates not to the sudden popularity avertedly linked with his uprising, but in how he plans to change the politburo on issues related with the economy. Trump is one of the few Republicans in the 2016 field who isn’t skeptical of the usefulness of a federal minimum wage, but he doesn’t think it should be increased from the current rate of $7.25 an hour, which could halt Obama’s recent plan to raise it to $9 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan research body of Congress, has said that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would likely cost half a million jobs, but it would also lift nearly a million Americans out of poverty. The Washington Post reported, that Trump plans to dramatically cut federal income taxes for all Americans — the question remains how?  In 1999, Trump wanted to enact a 14.25% one-time tax on the wealthy. He hasn’t since spoken too much about it. In his 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough,” he outlined changes including the elimination of state taxes, corporate income taxes and lowering taxes on capital gains.  In principle the idea sounds good, but experts say it would add heavily to the federal debt.  His plan looks lucrative on paper, but considering the current US debt, and the living standards of many hard working Americans it seems like Trump’s faith in the economy is not short of fairy tales.

    Trump and his spicy trade ordeal

    Little if anything is known of his financial plan and how he plans to execute his reforms, a problem that ultimately should raise flags to his cohorts. If you want more details on how he’ll create millions of jobs, the only place to find them on his website is under “US China Trade Reform,” because “Jobs” is not on his list of six major policy areas. One way he wants to stop American companies from moving jobs overseas is to smack a 35 percent tax on goods moving into the US produced by Americans who have moved offshore. However, what Trump doesn’t say is that raising tariffs on goods coming into America will raise not only the prices of those goods, but many other prices as well.  Mitt Romney said recently, that “If Donald Trump’s plan were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.” As CNN reported, such massive Tariff’s to China, Japan and Mexico could start a trade war. His plan to negotiate better deals and slapping tariffs by suggesting 25% tax tariffs on goods coming from China to the US will not only disgruntle the economy but slow down its growth. India also doubts Trump’s tariff strategy. Trump recently said “If you look at the way China and India and almost everyone takes advantage of the US, is something disgraceful – China in particular because they’re so good.” According to the First Post, some Indians are worried that the same policy Trump intends to introduce to China, might likewise include India, which could directly hit US interest with another trade war. The worrisome part is that Trumps myopic plan hides other social cultural problems that affect individual Americans, as I reported with the problems of integrating socialism in America.

    Russian roulette policy?

    The most worrisome side of Trump, is that he openly states on his state rallies that he doesn’t want to broadcast his intentions to remain unpredictable. But should his foreign policy remain undisclosed? Bellow a few examples of what Americans could expect from Trump if he won the presidency. Trump said in Fox News during President Xi Jinping’s most recent visit to the US, that it was a disgrace how kindly Obama treated his Chinese counterpart. Trump also suggested that if he was president, in the next Chinese premier visit to the US, he would skip the filet mignon and buy him a two dollar cheeseburger. Mexico also ranks high on Trumps list of dubious foreign relations. Trump stressed the idea that Mexico pay for his new protective wall to secure the US border against illegal immigrants and drug dealers. Mexican president Pena Nieto adamant to respond to Trumps silly idea compared him to Benito Mussolini, “That’s how Mussolini came to power and that’s how Hitler came to power,” adding “they took advantage of public discontent and eventually started a world war.” Nieto believes common sense will prevail in Washington DC, by the end of November when the next American president is elected. Albeit Obama’s relation with Russia pend suspended and in state of animosity thanks to the recent events involving Syria, Ukraine, Crimea and most recently Turkey’s Russian aircraft incident; Russian Premier Vladimir Putin has endorsed Trump for president saying that, “Donald Trump is a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubts. He says he wants to move on to a new, more substantial relationship, a deeper relationship with Russia, who cannot welcome that?” he said. “Of course we welcome that.” To finalize, Trump is more concerned with Pakistan than North Korea, and Iran.  Trump’s remarks of Pakistan could set India in a dangerous power vacuum on South East Asia. Trump said on Fox News, that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world and in order to remain in check, “India should get involved in case war broke out.” In all, it seems as if foreign leaders except Putin (known for his diplomatic ends) view Trump like a problem maker, rather than a problem solver.

    Comments Off on Donald Trump, not America’s best choice

    Democratic socialism won’t solve America’s problem

    March 10th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.


    I am not a socialist and I am not pro-capitalist. I grew up inside a democratic socialist country and saw the ups and downs of the system. Socialism in itself is not a bad concept, and some programs should be adapted into the system, but oscilating in all fairness and without bias, socialism is not the cure of America’s troubles. Socialism if nothing, is the excuse, of America’s own guilt.

    There is little to no doubt that the unrestrained boom-bust cycles of capitalism echoed in the 2007 stock market crisis have dented the US economy. The headache partly started for the lack thereof to avoid regulating the risky fiscal-asymmetry credit default swaps in the mortgage and hedge fun markets carried since former president Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall when he signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. The FDIC since, failed to constrain the modus-operanti scheme banks abused by jerking proprietary trade — tax evasion and loopholes are part of such peril as even billionaire Warren Buffet claims to pay less in income taxes than his secretary which include capital gains. The Internal Revenue Service contends that the top 10 percent of earners paid 68 percent of all federal taxes in 2011 (latest stat available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. So technically the 1 percent of the 10 percent have increasingly done better and the rest have not — but are wealthy individuals at fault for the current state of the economy? One could accuse quants, others could accuse diligence-under writers; others could blame rating agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s or contend the fact that synthetic CDO’s were permissible legal forms of trade during the Bush and Clinton administration, but they are other factors at bay the political class frightens to discuss. Despite the great recession, the following GDP growth in states like North Dakota 6.3%, Texas 5.2%, West Virginia 5.1%, Wyoming 5.1%, Colorado 4.7%, Oregon 3.6%, Utah 3.1%, Washington 3.0% and many other states show optimistic levels of recovery in the economy — even as late as 2013, New York City was one of top ten booming cities. However, they are other cities like Detroit and Chicago that have declared bankruptcy, but overall the nation has surprisingly recovered.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a socialist

    Socialism is an economic system that comprises social ownership and controls the means of production and cooperative management of the economy. Democratic Socialism only differs with conventional socialism in that there is greater participation in the ballot box. FDR was no socialist, he was a pragmatist. With the ‘New Deal’ he applied the Keynesian model of economics to endow the government with enhanced ability to regulate the means of production than about actually transferring ownership of means of production to social organizations such as unions. Having the burden to cope with years that followed the Great Depression, when FDR headed to office he tried anything that he thought would help. A socialist would have adopted policies that would have allowed government to take on critical industries, whereas FDR spent a lot of tax payer money on temporary public work projects like building dams and roads. By doing so he brought capitalism back to life in the US giving leeway to the Great 50’s. In the end what took America out of the Great Depression was not FDR’s charisma, but the incredible American workforce that worked up to 21 hours per day seeking any available job to survive only to indirectly rebuilt the economy under the patronage of nationalism to resurge from its ashes. Such unity, work ethic and mentality no longer exist.

    First problem

    For socialism to effectively work, it has to comprise a strong working class. Millions of Americans don’t want to take on lower income jobs. Unlike the days of the Great Depression where Americans worked any job to survive even at the cost of travelling across the country to meet the next opportunity, today Americans with no skills would rather take a job in Footlocker and avoid working as a dishwasher. The Law known as HB56 intended to scare off undocumented workers, has affected many farm owners that are struggling to find replacements in places like Alabama, Wisconsin, New York and almost every state that contract illegal workers. Even paying American citizens wages up to $17-$20 that include health benefits to work the fields to replace the undocumented, these quit given the labors hardship. Many farm owners not only are witnessing the destruction of their crops, but pressuring state laws to allow illegal immigrants to come back and work. Just in the strawberry industry, 1/3 of crops were lost in Alabama because Americans workers were not capable of keeping with deadlines thus hurting the economy. But it doesn’t end with the farming sector, this situation is palpable in construction, textiles, services, agriculture and most lower income sectors. If increasing the minimum wage was not enough to seduce American citizens to take on lower income jobs, will socialism really work? The same can be said with higher education. As the Population Reference Bureau showed in 2009, more US scientist and engineers are foreign born. 60 percent of foreign born scientist and engineers in the US where from Asia. Whereas Americans are taking on easier college majors like psychology, arts, public affairs and philosophy to name a few, new immigrants are taking careers that help the economy grow during times of recession. No one needs philosophers or movie critics during a financial recovery. To issue further, 90 percent of students that attend Harvard are Asians not to mention other Ivy League schools, so the whole dynamic of education contradicts the popular conception of reality. Ultimately, economic growth has attacked native born workers and the shift has increased to triple digits since 2009. The middle class is shifting to new ethnic Americans who take advantage of the system where many Americans slack. During the Cold War, American citizens were heavily involved in science majors and took on much harder college courses. Those who had no skills worked low income jobs without feeling presumptuous to pick certain jobs based on citizen entitlement. No politician has addressed such issue, and Bernie Sanders is no different. The new generation of Americans overall have slacked to compete with new American ethnic groups hungry to succeed in lower and upper sectors of the economy.

    Comparative advantage

    It is impossible for socialism to work in America mainly because the culture itself throughout its recent history has spoiled citizens to forbid financial sacrifices to adopt a lavish consuming lifestyle. Unlike in Europe where individuals in most Mediterranean and Northern countries on average per capita save their money, Americans prefer to waste it only to buy themselves back to poverty without properly investing in their future. The African American community resembles more than any other integrated ethnic group the problem with many Americans. When first generation immigrants from countries like China, India and Africa to name a few restart their lives in America, they settle in low income areas. After many years of struggle, hard work, determination and sacrifice they eventually leave the projects and move to higher income areas. So how is it that Chinese people are capable of moving up the scale and start their own business coming from the bottom-end; whereas, many African Americans stay stuck in the system? Most projects have public libraries, but these are almost empty. The same issue resembles high income areas, where public libraries show low signs of inactivity. Most young millennials are not taking advantage of the system and are not interested in doing so, but they have all the resources available to progress. It is common to see low income African American teens spend $150 in a brand new pair of Jordan’s, but across the street the Goodwill thrift store books sell for $2.50, that range from math to history subjects and rarily get purchased. Every day alone according to the US Department of Education 7,000 student’s drop out of high school, and every year this results in 1.2 million. The fact that these new immigrants are taking advantage of the system and Americans are not, shows the decadence and failure to address the real issues taking place in the US. How will socialism change the problem, when the resources are already available and native born American’s don’t take advantage of the free system? I am all for free college (go Bernie!), but if people are already dropping free education at a basic entry level, would free college suddenly break the deadlock? Don’t bet on it!

    Greed starts at the grassroots

    During the 2008 bailout people blamed the government for all their problems, but is government responsible for people’s greedy decisions? Let’s face it, even though banks legally played the system, they never forced anyone to sign mortgage loans. Common sense indicates that when anyone signs an agreement (especially with banks), one ought to check with a microscope the terms and conditions regardless of how tempting the loan might present itself. Many Americans rejected such loans, but a significant percentage paid no attention or raised an eyebrow of suspicion. Just like the Hansel and Gretel story, greed took the children to follow the witch who showed them a house made of chocolate, and ate without thinking the risk or consequences involved in their actions. The people responsible for signing these mortgage agreements, knowing their precarious financial condition were ultimately responsible for the risks they took and should be held accountable for their decision considering no bank pointed a gun at their head and said ‘sign the damn contract’; quite contrary people rushed to the banks to finance their new luxurious house without questioning the consequences of their decision. The outlook also applies with healthcare. Millions of Americans live an unhealthy lifestyle unwilling to sacrifice their addictive behavior to better their condition. Why should tax payers pay more taxes to support individuals who won’t quit smoking, but complain they want more health benefits after developing lung cancer? Why should tax payers pay universal health coverage to alcoholics and drug users who care not to develop health diseases? Or the lady or the gentlemen who could easily help himself by eating a vegetarian diet and drink water instead of drinking sugar pop, eat unhealthy meals, plus smoking, plus drinking? They are 119,487 libraries in the US scattered throughout 50 states, why are native people not taking advantage of education, but foreigners and new born immigrants? Would a significant percentage of America’s lower income youth start going to libraries, purchase free books online, buy $2.50 books in thrift stores and save their money instead of buying a brand new pair of new Jordan’s, the latest IPhone 6 or the newest Play station, if Sanders sat in office? Will socialism end instant gratification and individual greed? No politician has spoken such truth, people are just as greedy as government but won’t acknowledge it and instead point the finger to avoid responsibility. Bottom line is that no one wants to commit sacrifices but expect the world in return.

    What about efficiency?

    Make no doubts technology has crippled employment, ‘capital hypermobility’ continues to worsen. Companies like Smiths, Kroger’s, Giant Eagle, Savons, Target, Safeway, and Walmart among thousands of other companies have invested in “self-check-out” machines to avoid employing people, in order to maximize efficacy without relying on human resources. From Redbox to New York’s MTA MetroCard vending machines, technology has subtly replaced workers, especially at the industrial-manufacturing level. According to the CATO institute in 1983 the Upjohn Institute of Employment Research Forecast confirmed the existence of 50,000 to 100,000 robots in the US by 1990, resulting in a net loss of some 100,000 jobs. Larry summers latest interview with The Washington Post estimates that in the 1960’s about 1 in 20 men between the age of 25 and 54 was not working. Today, the number is more like 1 in 6. According to Erik Brynjolfsson a professor at the MIT Sloan School of management, rapid technological change has destroyed jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. To aggravate the problem, many companies in the agricultural sector are relying on technology to cope with demand and supply to produce goods at a higher ratio. During the recovery of the Great Depression, the industrial bonanza did not have the sophistication of today’s age. Would socialism really fix such problem? Surely Bernie Sanders alike the rest of candidates have not addressed this issue. If you really care, its simple! Boycott technology, and demand human labor instead, but don’t complain if prices soar during the transition.

    Why encourage the local economy, when I have the whole world….

    Globalization has not only hurt the local economy, but has incrementally tarnish the competiveness of local retail shops to the point of riling the US market. Why buy a product in my home state at a higher price, when I can shop online in E-Bay, Ali-Baba or Amazon and purchase that same product for a cheaper deal? The bankruptcy of companies like Circuit City, Marvel and Blockbuster Videos show the menace that online shopping possesses to disfigure the local economy. According to MSNBC, the brick-and-mortar firms are struggling to keep pace with online service. Tim Worstall a Forbes economist stated on one of his recent articles that online shopping is “killing” malls, adding “there’s 1,200 vacant malls in the US, of those perhaps 15% are 30-50% vacant.” Not to mention that illegal downloading has had a tremendous toll in world markets, especially in the US. SOPA and PIPA argue that online piracy is a huge problem, one which cost the U.S. economy between $200 and $250 billion per year, and it’s responsible for the loss of 750,000 American jobs that according to the Diplomatic Courier have affected a sector that comprises a total of 2.4 million technicians, editors, producers, hair stylist, and camera operators. Once again, is the solution towards uplifting the US economy a socialist system? Will socialism tax e-commerce to help local markets? Will socialism stop illegal downloading? The answers is no, unless of course, the government that is supposed to work for the people plans to revolutionize online usage which would violate the bill of rights of many Americans  – in other words, the perfect way to not get reelected.

    It’s easier said than done

    America like the rest of the world is financially bonded with China. The World Trade Organization latest 2013 report that Chinese exports equate to $2.209 trillion. 16.7% of these exports went to the US. The WTO also reports 94% of the $2.209 trillion were manufacturing goods. In 2013 US reported imports of goods from China of $440.447 billion. The problem with such statistic is that the US resource-manufacture bond between the two countries is so tight, that it would destroy and further increase the US debt to China and destroy the US economy under a resilient socialist takeover. According to the New York Times foreign companies are a key part of US employment and contract 5.3 million Americans. If indeed socialism starts to own industry will it not conflict with foreign companies who wont accept a takeover? How will that affect US workers working for these companies? The issue also includes US debt to Japan and India alongside with other countries widening concerns, but if that wasn’t enough, the US owes more money to itself than to any other country, and the numbers point close to 16 Trillion. If the US pulls into a socialist backyard, even more manufacturers and businesses will flee the country threatened by a takeover. Will a socialist government set an embargo and boycott China without significant side effects in the US economy? Will Americans who vote for Sanders or even Donald Trump, stop purchasing Chinese made products to help local employment grow? It’s a complete fiasco and no socialist government in Europe has ceased their addiction to China and neither will the US. It’s easier said than done.

    What type of socialism clone the US?

    If the US models itself after the fingerprints of Denmark, what guarantees can the new social democratic government promise that the experiment won’t turn into a Mediterranean socialist economy like Italy, Spain, Ireland, France and Portugal renowned for corruption? Since the US economy has already shown steady signs of recovery at state level, should risking a new federal socialist system ponder a greater risk at this point? Cross your fingers because the chances point to greater economic backlash. Socialism works under certain circumstances — none which pertain to America!

    Comments Off on Democratic socialism won’t solve America’s problem

    Boris Johnson wants EU exit

    February 21st, 2016


    By The Daily Journalist.


    London Mayor Boris Johnson has challenged Prime Minister David Cameron and decided to campaign for the departure of the country to the European Union, according to the BBC.

    The decision of Johnson, considered the most aspiring succession

    Cameron, opens a veritable “civil war” within the Conservative Party and seriously complicates the strategy of the British ‘premier’, who on Sunday launched a final appeal to his fellow television.

    In brief remarks at the gates of his home in London, Johnson said his decision was “maddeningly difficult” and had caused “headaches”. “The last thing I want is to go against David Cameron or against the government,” he said. “But I want a better deal for the people of this country, to save money and to take control.  A new relationship with Europe based more on trade and cooperation, and less on the supranational element.”

    “I would tell Boris the same thing I tell anyone, “Cameron confessed before the cameras of the BBC. “We will be safer, will be stronger and we will do better economically in the EU (…) The possibility of joining politicians like Ukip leader Nigel Farage or former Labour George Galloway would be like taking a leap in the dark wrong for our country “.

    But Johnson already had a vote decided step. In full countdown negotiations, Johnson met secretly with Justice Minister Michael Gove, who on Saturday broke ranks with Cameron (along with five other members of the cabinet) and added to the “Vote Leave” campaign.

    In his statement to the media, the mayor of London, which claims to have invented the word “Eurosceptic”, said that “there is a supreme judicial body, the European court of justice, which projects its decisions on an area with 500 million people. It is a single judicial body against which there is no appeal possible. In my opinion, this is out of control.

    ” Days earlier, Johnson had already noted that “we must not be afraid of leaving the EU” and left a meeting “in extremis” in Downing Street saying that the agreement negotiated the ‘premier’ was not ‘enough’.

    “this will not be a debate about whether or not you love Europe. In fact, I love Brussels I lived there, and I love European culture, I consider it the greatest civilization that produced this planet, but not to be confused with the wonders of Europe, European holidays, fantastic food and friendships with a political project, “said the mayor.

    Your decision was explained in his weekly column in the Daily Telegraph, which has started a countdown on its website to the expectations. Analysts believe that the “Johnson factor” may amount to 15 points in the polls and eliminate the difference which had supporters remaining in the final of the 23-J.El referédum bass beat Johnson conceded Cameron within hours of the first poll after its agreement with Brussels, published by the Mail on Sunday, “which gave a temporary 15-point lead over the Eurosceptics (48% to 33%).

    Comments Off on Boris Johnson wants EU exit

    Imam Nidal Alsayyed explains why he got fired from his organization

    December 12th, 2015

    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Nidal Alsayyed

    He used to be the Religious Director and Imam of the Islamic Society of Triplex (Beaumont, TX) till he appeared on Hannity Show on Fox on December 9th, 2015  . He has over 15 years of combined experience in Islamic capital markets, Shari’ah Fiqh rulings, and Islamic Financial Transactions (Islamic Law). He was a senior contract research officer at Central Bank Malaysia (ISRA), the Director of educational and technology services at Effat University, Saudi Arabia, senior financial advisor at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (Chicago, IL).

    1. You spoke in support of Donald Trump regarding his strategy to bill a temporary ban on Muslims from overseas coming to US soil. What exactly made you support Trump? Do you think the media blew Trumps remarks out of proportion?

    Simply because we are dealing with the unknown and safety is a priority. Safety comes before Islam. I totally believe the media tried under value his statement, while they know it being unprecedented and courageous to express the issue at this level of his prudential campaign!

    2. Most Syrian refuges come to America to escape the civil war. How can the US Immigration and Costumes clearly identify Syrian refugees who are not part of a terrorist cell?

    It is not possible. Mistakes can still happen and the cost is lives. Intelligence can minimize the possibility of getting like those suspicious radicalized individuals, but terrorists sleeping cells are almost impossible to detect…

    3. Do you believe or know other Imams in America that also support your stance and agree with Trump?

    I do for sure know some; but the problem they cannot speak publically! Not everyone can easily afford losing his job!

    4.Do you believe they are mosques in America that teach against western values and call for violence?

    I believe they are not teaching any American values…and that will result in something similar to violence and more in extreme cases.

    5. They are many branches of Islam in America, some even American born like Nation of Islam (NOI), which branches of Islam could possibly present a contradictory view against the US constitution? Would people that support Wahabism and Salafi doctrines be more likely to have a radical view of American politics?

    Mostly the isolated branches and subgroups that are not part of major known group (like Wahabi or Salafi…etc.)…basically they branch out and create their own version of believe, that is why I am saying it is complicated …

    6. Have a lot of people threaten you? Are they mostly Muslims or from other religious backgrounds?  

    At least 6 anonymous number till now! 100% Muslims.

    7. Before you were forced to leave the Islamic Center of Triplex in Beaumont Texas, how was your relationship with your superiors? Why did they get so upset with you? Do you think it’s constitutionally fair under the right of freedom of speech to discharge from your job based on your opinion?

    Relationship was perfect. The only reason they were upset (especially the most influential member of them) is due to the fact that my view point about insuring safety of our people happened to agree with Trump and they are supporting the Hilary Clinton campaign.

    8. Does the Islamic Center of Triplex believe in the American constitution based upon your experience?

    They agree to it in form; but not necessarily in substance!

    9. What message does it send to Americans the fact that you got threaten by an American-Muslims association for not violating the first amendment? Are Americans going to be more suspicious about Muslim radical dogmas after you got fired from your job?

    Simply that they have no tolerance to differences of opinions and the inherent violent characteristics. They better be careful too.

    10. The Muslim Brotherhood owns MSA, CAIR, MAS, NAIT, ISNA and other Islamic organizations inside America. Does the Muslim Brotherhood also have links with ICT?

    Not necessarily owned by the Muslim Brotherhood as far as I know. The problem it is hard to tell who is moderate and who is not!

    11. What is the best way to stop the radical indoctrination of Islam to young Muslims living in America?

    To intensify education and knowledge and create a government organization (entity) that can regulate their affairs and programs.

    Comments Off on Imam Nidal Alsayyed explains why he got fired from his organization

    Expert answers questions about ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s expansion

    December 9th, 2015


    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Dalia Ghanem-Yazbeck.

    She is a research analyst at the Carnegie Middle East Center. She is a political scientist with expertise in jihadism, political violence, extremist violence, and terrorism, with a focus on Algeria.


    1. ISIL has successfully expanded in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria and as far as Afghanistan. Has ISIL expanded to other lesser known Muslims countries like Oman, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan or any other?  Is that a possibility?  

    Well what is interesting in your question is the countries or location in which IS expended to. Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Nigeria are all examples of “failed states”. IS took advantage of the chaos in these countries to have a foothold and expend. Libya is a good example. The fall of Gaddafi in 2011 and the political chaos lead to the creation of a plethora of militias and terrorist groups that took advantage of the porousness of the borders to smuggle drugs, weapons, humans and so on.

    This allowed them to gain money in order to support themselves and to expand their network in the Sahel region. The post-Gaddafi situation helped IS to mushroom and gain foothold in Libya. In countries like Algeria where there is a “strong state” and a merciless security mechanism, IS could not survive. The proof is that its Algerian offshoot, called “jund El Khilafa” that kidnapped French national Hervé Gourdel in the mountains of Kabilya, was eliminated less than three months after the killing. The group that replaced the first one was also eliminated in a few days. That shows that IS cannot survive in such an environment.

    What we might witness is the creation of small cells that will declare allegiances to IS and will try to perform low scale/high impact attacks. However, an expansion of IS in countries such as Algeria is very hard to see. In addition, the makeup of the population can play a role, in Algeria for instance IS cannot play on the binary polarization Sunni/Shia because 99% of the population is Sunni. In short, I do believe that IS real power is not in its military capacities but in its capacities in the virtual sphere.

    To discuss its capacities in Eurasia, it is the same situation, IS will try to take advantage of “weak states” and will capitalize on the local frustrations. For instance, in Afghanistan there is a group that called itself IS that is essentially composed of former disaffected Taliban that rebranded themselves to “galvanize” the youth and recruit more. In Tajikistan, a cell was discovered lately that was planning to attack the  internal affairs ministry.

    What worries me more is the foreign fighter who went to Syria and will eventually come back in their motherland. To keep with the Tadjik example, there is today around 700 Tadjik fighters in Syria who are more likely to “import” “jihadism” to their country. This applies also to the Uzbeks who has participated in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and have an extensive warfare knowledge. Therefore, there is a risk for this region for sure. The returnees can affect heavily the security of this region.

    IS organization will try constantly with these cells to destabilize the central Asia because in its ideology it is its “duty” to target these communist “impious” states and to target Baku, Moscow and Tbilisi. What constitutes also a danger is the porousness of the borders especially for the countries that shares borders with Afghanistan.

    In addition, one should note that the IS organization is not the only one that is attracting foreign fighter from this part of the world. Jabhat el nusra is also recruiting especially among the Chechen. It is possible that two organizations that are enemies in Syria and Iraq, decide – for the sake of the “cause” – to cooperate in the Caucasus region.

    2. Not long after the ISIS massacre in Paris, Al-Qaeda attacked Mali. Are both groups competing for supremacy in the world? 

    There is a competition between the two for the monopoly of jihadism. The biggest competition relies in their capacity to mobilize and galvanize, so recruiting and in their prestige. Al Qaida is not attracting as much people as it used to do and in this regard IS beats it. IS knows that its biggest arsenal is not the military one but the media and it made a very smart use of it. This is the first time in history that we see an organization mastering the media to that extent and that built such a powerful communication strategy. The latest attack in Bamako right after the Beirut and Paris attack shows this logic of rivalry.

    However, the targets are very important in these attacks because by contrast to IS that attacked civilians and massacred them in both Beirut and Paris; the attack in Bamako was more “targeted” in a way. This is for Al Qaida the only way to show that they disapprove IS and its “takfiri” approach and they are different because they do not practice indiscriminate violence (at least not anymore). Al Qaida even in the Maghreb is trying to focus the fight against non-Muslims and they’ve been criticizing the IS as being “deviant organization and takfiri”.

    IS is for the moment winning: we can see it only in its ability to mobilize even in territories as far as Europe and the US. IS has territories, army and a very sophisticated communication strategy that made Al Qaida a total “has been” in that regard. IS is a brand that is so well-known and “prestigious” that even groups as far as Boko Haram in Nigeria pledged allegiance to it. Now it is more “fashion” and “appealing” to fight under the banner of IS. However, Al Qaida has still a certain “aura”: it is after all the “mother” of IS and the organization that made the biggest terrorist attack against the West that is 9/11. Therefore, what we might see is the outburst of a deadly competition between the two in specific regions of the world for the monopoly of jihadism, hence more attacks and more victims.

    3. Have Al-Shabab and Boko Haram pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda or ISIL? Why have they made that choice?

    Yes as I said it above, Boko Haram pledged allegiance to IS and a faction of al Shabab declared allegiance to IS also in November 2015. Why? Because IS is a “fashionable  brand”, because IS organization is like any other brand (coca cola or MacDonald). Groups that nobody hear of or that are in need of a good publicity, use the IS franchise in order to boost their prestige, reputation, hence recruits and source of funding.  It is a stylish brand and organization that has terrorized the West and the Arab world but also has a territory, a flag, an anthem and currency (the golden Dinar), this is appealing for jihadist groups in need of recognition and prestige.

     4. Chechen, Bosnian and Kosovo fighters have been recruited to fight with different jihadist groups.  Why have Al-Qaeda and ISIS successfully drafted some many eastern European radicals? 

    The recruits are not only from Eastern Europe, they are from central Europe, the Caucasus region, the US and so on. The drivers are multidimensional and entangled. Every life story is unique. However, the main drivers can be: religious motivation, fighters claim to want to “glorify the word of God on earth” or to demonstrate “their love for God and the desire of raising the banner of Islam.” However, it is very hard to understand and authenticate their degree of faith. In my opinion, religion has less to do with their engagement. It more of ideological motivation: IS ideology that is based on binary polarization and a very Manichean vision but also absolutism, threat and hate is very powerful.

    The different conflicts in the world are presented by IS as an ultimate evidence of the oppression of the Muslim Community. These people want to “make a difference” and to contribute to the glory of the Muslims by performing the “Hidjra” and fighting in the “name of Allah”. There is also philosophical motivations such as self-seeking:  many these men and even women (there is approximately 550 Western women in IS-held territories) joined Islamic State-held territories because they were in need of an identity or because their desire for status within their society was hindered or could not be achieved in Western societies. Joining IS, a jihadist group that is feared and respected by many is the means by which they intend to acquire “status”. Joining IS transformed what they perceived as a “purposeless life” to a life of devotion to the establishment of the Caliphate.

    The jihadist organization gives them a “positive image” of themselves that their families and societies failed to give. Another motives is the desire to live in a “perfect community”: thanks to its powerful communication strategy, IS succeeded in depicting IS-held territories as “pure societies” in which social justice and equity are a reality. Once in IS-held territories, the individual forget about himself, he is a “born-again” and all what matters is the “brothers and sisters of the Caliphate”, it is the birth of the “we-feeling”. Finally, a driver that many researchers has forgotten about is the social connections. Families, friends and mentors as “sponsors’ integrator”.

    Being related in one way or another to a person engaged in IS or convinced by IS ideology can indeed boost “predispositions” for joining the group. In other words, social connections are key to transforming one’s “predispositions” into action (such as in the cases of the Halane twins or the friends: Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Khadiza Sultana). The family ties also play an important role once in IS-held territories because they are an “antidote” to defections. Indeed, it is harder to leave an organization in which your brother, cousin or friend is.

    5. Is there any other terrorist group outside of ISIS and Al-Qaeda that poses a high security threat for the West? Is there a group called Khorasan?

    Well the name does not really matters because at the end of the day, it is an Al Qaida affiliate. This Khorasan group was created by Al Qaida and composed from top leaders of the group in Syria. The objective of the group is to attack the West and concentrate efforts on the West only. What is their strike force? No one can tell. However, what matters is the fact that it is an al Qaida affiliate and that they are going to focus their attacks on the West, so the security services should pay attention to them and not underestimate them as they did with IS since 2003.

    6. After the assassination of Osama Bin laden led by US forces, the shift turned to eliminate Al-Baghdadi making Ayman Al-Zawahiri Al-Qaeda leader get less spotlight. Any recent news on Al-Zawahiri ?

    Not that I know. However, I think it is a mistake not to pay enough attention to him because he was and remain the ideologue of Al Qaida. The US should focus on him and on the military commander of Al Qaida Khaled El Habib (who was declared dead but is not). Al Qaida is still present and capable to strike at any time.  

    7. Some US Intelligence sources affirm Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain are secretly supporting ISIS. Is this true? Are they supporting Al-Qaeda?

    It is very hard to check these claims.

    8. Unlike the past, Al-Qaeda and ISIS now control swaths of territory; whereas, before they remained in the shadows fighting in secrecy.  They also control petroleum and sell it in the black market, not relying exclusively on foreign fundraisers to build their military infrastructure. Has that changed the outcome of the war against terror? Does Al-Qaeda also have their own way of supporting themselves without fundraisers? 

    Al Qaida has its own way of financing itself. Al Qaida in the Maghreb for instance support itself by the kidnapping, smuggling and trafficking drogue, cigarettes, weapon and people (human traffic). The drogues for instance comes from Latin America to Niger and Mali and then it goes to Europe through Morocco. It is hard to give numbers but it is a very lucrative activity. The fall of Gaddafi in 2011 exacerbate the situation on the borders that are very poorly controlled.

    9. Despite Russia’s military strength, can Russia really stop jihadist in Syria considering the Soviet Union lost the war in Afghanistan?

    I do not think that fighting IS from 30,000 feet is the solution anyway. I believe that as long as the international community (that is only 10 countries) is not capable of finding a realistic political solution to the Syrian problem, IS will remain. In addition, we need to work on the ground, not by sending ground troops but by helping the local population fight IS and by providing an alternative: an alternative for IS idea but also an alternative for IS “governance”.

    10. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are currently drafting tens of thousands of children to fight a future jihad against the west. It looks as if the west after decades trying to contain radical Islam, has not just failed, but helped to create a larger menace that will not stop at anything. What holds the future?


    Again, to contain radical Islamism and salafi-jihadism we need to give people an alternative; we need to have a counter-narrative to convince them because it is a war of ideas. It is a war of propaganda and IS is a 2.0 jihadist group that is mastering and winning this war. IS capacities lies more on the virtual sphere than on the ground. Military solutions are not enough; they can help but are not going to solve the problem. The Arab world is experiencing major changes and military answer will only bring back the country of the Arab spring to the previous situation of dictatorship.

    Each country has its own complex political landscape and we need to consider that when drafting recommendations and solution. We need to work with the civil society and not against it. Reform the educational system in both the MENA but also in the West in order to offer youth a real perspective so they will not chose a “jihadist career”. The west and countries like France for instance need to review their system of integration toward the emigrant population and include these second and third generation (especially those coming from North African countries) into the political and social life of their countries so they will have a sense of belonging and a “positive identity” thanks to which they will feel like genuine citizens and not second zone ones.  

    Today there is two lost generations: the children who are going to evolve in IS held territories and whose mothers and fathers are IS followers and the entire generation of Syrian who is now in camps around Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on and who is a lost generation cause they have no future and are the targets of extremist groups that want to recruit them into jihadist organizations.

    Comments Off on Expert answers questions about ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s expansion

    Points to pounder: Islam in the western world

    November 27th, 2015


    By Jaime Ortega.


    Muslim prayer in the middle of Parisian street.

    Muslims are accountable for not containing radical Islam in the Middle East and Europe. The notion in western countries is that even though moderate Muslims condemn terrorist attacks conducted by radical jihadist like the recent massacre in Paris and Mali, they don’t necessarily go out their way to tackle the problem.

    Little by little with each terrorist act Islam has started to mount defiance in Europe crumbling in popularity and sprouting hate among fellow European progressives who once advocated for Muslim tolerance in western lands.

    Paradoxically, the few Muslims that openly denounce terrorist attacks in small scale street demonstrations holding peace banners in the name of Islam are not the ones protesting against foreign occupation, leaving behind visible gaps of political infirmity and division that peril Islam in Europe and the US.

    It’s no mystery that over the past two decades western foreign intervention in the Middle East has stirred up negativity between secular Muslims, Arab nationalist and religious Muslims residing in European lands and abroad; in the Muslim world, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel lead the stage of controversial occupations; on the other hand, Arabs who are non religious or might represent a different creed tend to have different views that don’t represent the global outlook of most Muslims toward democracy and western interventionism.

    All together Yarizis, Alowites, Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Sabadeans, Orthodox Christians, Coptics, Catholics and other Middle Eastern religious minorities have historically adopted a defensive stance against an overwhelming Muslim majority to secure their cultural survival; therefore, they’re more forthcoming when other western cultures directly intervene on Arab affairs.

    Muslims wholeheartedly believe Palestinian occupation by Israel is the direct result of western imperialism, in particular US oppression on Muslim lands; whereas, the Palestinian Christians that precede Islamism in history, who mostly migrated to the US during the Arab-Israeli war, view Israel not the problem in Palestine but the root cause for westernization, democracy and progress on Arab lands.

    Hence, how Muslims denote the Middle East as “Muslim lands”, while other religious Arabs that precede Islam by many centuries prefer to name it “Arab lands.” This problem and never ending conflict is unlikely to change anytime soon between radical Hamas and Israel for the reason that it’s a religious struggle rather than a political discrepancy.

    But in contrast what is Muslim extremism as a whole trying to achieve in Europe and all over the world? To impose Sharia-Law in western governments and use democracy as the precursor to gateway ideological radicalism into the system and further political advantage that favors the implementation of Islamic dogmas. For most radical Muslims the ultimate dream would be to Islamisize Europe and the world to obtain a caliphate.

    This advantageous usage of democracy became apparent during the democratic elections in Egypt and Libya after the turbulent Arab Spring that general Kalifa Hafta and Al-Sisi successfully thwarted by overseen the smoldering of the Islamic Brotherhood over seculars in both countries.

    Even close ties with radical Islamic groups can present challenges. In Pakistan, the government once allied with Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban through ISI (Pakistani intelligence) to defend its interest in Afghanistan from India’s territorial expansion, is now using the police to fight the TTP after the school bombings in Peshawar that killed 128 infants.

    Turkey under Erdogan, once supporting ISIL and Al-Nusra to fight Iraqi and Syrian Kurds has also fallen prey to fray between radical jihadists after the bombing of a peaceful political demonstration in the border with Iraq that caused 30 fatalities.

    First it is apparent that the intentions of tolerant Muslims in the Middle East to reform government via political diplomacy are in disguise with reality. Secondly, moderate Muslims cannot domestically curtail the advancement of Islamic extremism within the framework of their national struggle to peacefully coexist without sectarian violence.

    In other words, secular and moderate Muslims are completely apprehensive to radical Islamism; they have proven to have no firm grasp in containing religious groups that sponsor Jihad which constantly menace national security in Europe.

    The Muslim Student Association even though it does not openly sponsor radical extremism is notoriously known for not condemning and cutting ties with radical fundamentalist groups that fund its initiative. These Muslim secular-moderates ultimately fare off as incompetent, weak and bias toward the permeation of radical Islam worldwide. Only hardcore liberals believe these groups don’t present a challenge for national security.

    Secular Muslim emancipation in the Arab Spring led to Islamic radicalism which ramified into dictatorships and sectarian divisions. Moderate Muslims that reside in European countries have to rise against Muslim extremism before events worsen and lead to the expulsion and even persecution of Muslims in Europe observed during the 15th century Inquisition.

    While Islam is losing popularity among Europeans, persecution in the long run can be avoided only if secular and moderate Muslims start to cut ties with religious extremist groups alongside individuals that fund jihadist propaganda. It is Muslims, not Europeans who have to fight back against religious lunatics because ultimately it is their religion that has caused widespread of hate amid western civilization.

    Should liberal activist defend Islam?

    Many liberal progressives in the western world try to protect the religious rights of Muslims in Europe and the US by pushing laws that prevent discrimination. They advocate for laws which determine tolerance under the banner of political correctness, thus why, most retail stores inside of Malls instead of saying “Merry Christmas” put signs that read “Happy Holliday’s” not to hurt other religious groups.

    Given the status of Middle Eastern sectarian politics and the bigotry reflected in opposing basic western freedoms which include mistreatment of secular activist; it is astounding how liberal progressives could simply ignore the role Islamic religion plays in the Middle East, neglecting, persecuting and even beheading people opposed to their religious view.

    Liberals project social liberties supported by organizations that protect basic individual freedoms. These freedoms include protecting the rights of homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, atheist, animals, the environment and many other civil liberties. Islam would not only eradicate western civil rights under Sharia-law, but would put to death those that advocate or practice such laws because in Islam it is forbidden.

    The irony is that Muslim activist, like Mohammed Morsi’s 2012 ‘Freedom and Justice Party’ used secular Egyptian liberals to access power democratically. Once he won the elections, Morsi and FJP started to abuse constitutional reforms and started to win seats in congress in order to create a state based upon Islamic laws that undermined all liberal reforms sponsored by seculars who trusted in his party.

    Liberals who back Muslim rights must understand that under Islamic Law, the same Muslim activist that seem to project justice and liberties, would condemn homosexuals, transgender, atheist and lesbians to death. The hypocrisy couldn’t be any more apparent.

    Terrorism and the Bible excuse

    Browsing through the internet I came across videos of Muslim clerics condemning ISIL by pointing that the bible sponsors the same behavior as the Quran, trying to reciprocate blame on Europeans for the intervention of western troops in Arab lands.

    Who is the terrorist?

    Before I get into the Bible, I want to denote the real significance of the term ‘terrorism’ that for most Muslims has a different connotation than what the typical liberal progressive generally accepts as an act of solidarity for condemning attacks in the western world.

    The term ‘terrorism’ for many religious Muslims means western occupation on Arab lands and the killing of Muslims thereof. Generally, religious Muslims mostly condemn the killing of other innocent Muslims when jihadist extremist launch attacks that target Muslims and non-Muslims; In other words, dead Muslims are the true innocent people during a terrorist attack, but what about non-Muslims?

    If Jews, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindus, Christians, agnostics, Zoroastrians, Shinto’s, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics die inside a terrorist attack, will the moderate Muslim openly defend their cause against extremist?  Will they unify to protest the innocent death of non-Muslims? Will moderate Muslims go to their neighborhoods and help eradicate extremism?

    They also believe the US, the EU alongside Israel are terrorist states oppressing innocent Muslims worldwide; whereas, Hamas, ISIL and Al-Qaeda are the opposing forces battling the anti-Islamic invaders in the name of jihad. Even though, Muslims might not openly express these views in public, they share these beliefs with other Muslims.

    The Islamic Brotherhood represents the ‘moderate’ side of Islamism openly sponsoring peace, education, tolerance and unity among Muslims; however, it secretly funds Jihadist cells like Ansar Al-Sharia in Tunisia and Libya with AQ affiliation in Yemen. For the IB, western occupation, democracy and authoritarian governments represent the devil himself. It is important for Islam to overcome the apostate world that fights against Islamic tenets.

    The Islamic Brotherhood, the General National Council and Hamas are three political parties that show the Middle East to always revolve in the same ultra-Islamic scheme restricting fully fledged secular amalgamation in Politics. Considering this happens in Arab lands and these political groups represent moderate Muslims; it is only rational to assume an Islamic state would be created in Europe if Muslim moderates were given authority to wield political rights.

    The Bible myth

    Time and time again Imams and sheiks all over the Muslim world defend jihadist propaganda pointing to past events in the Bible to excuse the behavior of radical extremist in Europe. But the real question is what century are these religious fanatics currently living on?

    Ironically, the time of the crusades evanesced hundreds of centuries ago forgotten in the dusty shelves of European libraries and cathedrals that only few old devoted people attend. European baby boomers are almost entirely now atheist, agnostics or believe there is a god but don’t convict or claim any faith. The typical millennial is even more anti-church than his parents.

    Very few Europeans are actually Lutheran “Christians” that follow the bible; professed Catholics are also a dying breed and proselyte to different dogmas that include conversion to Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism and mostly atheism. No European country fights wars in the name of the Pope of Rome since the 17th century.

    The last religious war between faiths in Europe comprised of the Church of England battling the Holly Roman Catholic church in a cultural event that divided Europe and killed millions of people during the transition of power. The war left a significant scar in European history and weakened the Church of Rome in its ultimate quest to wield more political power.

    After the French Revolution, the 18th century European Enlightenment challenged the view of catholic Rome and religious practices started to dramatically decline from what was once Europe’s main cultural lifestyle. Romanticism, conservatism, nationalism and liberalism emerged from the ashes of the social revolution with philosophy and arts leading the movement.

    The European social revolution after the Industrial Revolution only resumed the downfall of religious creeds with new political movements that portrayed a world free of faith without god like that promoted by anarchism, communism, Marxism, minarchism, capitalism and socialism.

    The goal was for social organizations (government) to control and organize the balance of natural resources to help create a world free of oppression and injustice without the presence of religious involvement; it was successful.

    For centuries peasants in Europe suffered oppression from monarchs, elitist and land owners co-sponsored by catholic support. These finally dampened all religious tolerance before War World I, which lead to social revolts in Europe including civil-wars that transformed the working class and elites into liberal progressives, partly thanks to the nascent rise of Darwinian theology (modern day evolution).

    They were a few exceptions, Spain’s Franco reminiscent of Catholic tradition was one of them; although, after his death, Spain’s democratic transition changed the post-religious structure to be in equilibrium with the rest of 20th century constitutional Europe.

    This liberal transformation is presently rising in the US that unlike the 50’s no longer tolerates religion in government affairs, education, military and social integration; thus why, thanks to technocrats evolutionary theory has successfully thrived and taken control of political affairs in America and Europe excluding religious tolerance in many universities nationwide. Most of the US media is anti-conservative and does not advocate in favor of religion; Fox news the errant exception.

    Veneration of saints continues to be part of Mediterranean festivities, but those fallowing these rituals represent the older generations born in 1940’s, which are mostly casual traditionalist unlike the new generation of Europeans who won’t heed to any religious practices.

    Even the most devout catholic priests have never publically expressed consternation for Rome’s expansion or decline to a growing number of conversions; unlike the Imams in London and Paris who want to impose Sharia-law on all of Western Europe openly conveying the propagation of Islamic tenants to non-Muslims worldwide.

    Bible belt states mostly from the South have survived the demise of Christianity in the US. That number will continue to steadily decline as liberal dogmas continue to infiltrate religious groups in both house and senate.

    The ebbing of Christianity and Catholicism in most European governments occurred in the 18th century. Wars are no longer conducted on the premise of religion, but only based on the violation of international law among national interests, which explains the creation of The UN and NATO. If Europe was Catholic or Protestant it would bow to the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, and not to outside organizations to make international resolutions.

    Christian conversions are currently the highest in Asia including China, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Laos and Taiwan. Muslim radicals should be declaring war on Asian countries if Christianity is really the core problem of Arab interventionism.

    So all Muslim clerics who deliberately mention bible verses to excuse jihadist terrorism trying to verse Europeans in Christianity are either naively stupid or have absolutely no idea what they are talking about — still living in the memories of the crusades, assuming Europeans care about what the bible teaches — If anything, now days people believe religion is ‘primitive thinking’ and an imaginary god is part of the larger quandary destroying civilization. God is more or less an imaginary figure in the modern western world.

    Do Muslim clerics read history?

    Another problem in the Islamic world is the staggering historical misconception of Muslim clerics to not differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Crusaders where Catholics; Catholics are not Christian; Christians separated from Rome approximately in the second ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787 AC, because of iconoclasm which is the veneration of idols.

    Iconoclasm is prohibited in Christianity because it’s regarded as idol worshiping. The Coptic Church, the Ethiopian, the Assyrian, the Arab and other Middle Eastern Churches separated in accordance to this doctrine and Christians dwelled independently in North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe where the Eastern Orthodox Church remained the epicenter of Christianity. The west was Catholic, whereas the east was Christian.

    Initially Popes did not condone iconoclasm, especially during the first ecumenical councils. But after the 7th century the pope was viewed as the successor of Christ among the Catholic world to wield the same power as god himself, even as to overwrite scripture which was blasphemous to Christian doctrine. The Catholic movement became independent from Christianity.  Some emperors in Constantinople were also following this practice which stirred rage among Christians in Byzantium.

    The crusades were initiated in 1095 AC, sanctioned by the Catholic Church, after the Turks threatened to attack Constantinople the center of Orthodox Christianity which had already separated from Rome. Byzantine emperor Alexios I, urged pope Urban II to aid him with military assistance. Ironically it was the Seljuk Empire a Muslim based Sultanate that started the war against Byzantium, something modern day Muslims don’t talk about.

    According to history, Muslims started the war against the Eastern Orthodox Church; the Roman Catholic Church assisted with help, the goal of the Pope was to reunite the east with the west again. Prior to Islam the Sassanid Empire in 602 AC under emperor Chosroes II invaded the Eastern Orthodox Empire capturing Egypt, Palestine and Syria threatening Constantinople itself.

    So not only Muslims, but prior to their existence, the Arabs were already trying to aggressively conquer Constantinople. Emperor Heraclius turned back the tide and crushed the Sassanid’s, but at that point it was too late. Islam emerged in Arabia, and absorbed the Sassanid’s and much of the eastern Roman Empire.

    Rome had become independent and Catholicism, not Christianity was now enforced in Europe. A weak Eastern Orthodox Church succumbed to the powerful Ottoman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church was the last foothold and epicenter of Christianity.

    The Muslims had already conquered the Christian centers of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria by the sword and with Constantinople out of the picture, Christianity no longer had a central city. It was an easy defeat, but Rome wasn’t easy; the Crusades started when the Roman Catholic Church and Islam clashed in the name of their gods waging fierce campaigns.

    The Catholic Church after centuries of hegemony indisputably dominated Western Europe administrating orders from the pope himself to all nations in Europe with monarchical consent. The new ‘crusades’ targeted not only Muslims, but also Jews and Christian evangelic movements in southern France. Crusaders killed thousands of Christians who like the Eastern Orthodox Church did not agree with Catholicism; the only difference was that during Byzantium, the Roman Catholic Church did not dominate all Europe because Barbarians (Visigoths and Vandals) controlled most of it.

    Eventually Christianity reemerged in the 16th century when Martin Luther, condemned the Catholic Church which had banned the bible for centuries during the Dark Ages of Europe sanctioning literacy and writing. The protestant reformation gave Christianity a new voice against the despotic Catholic Church, and not without struggle Europe was finally reformed and the new Church of England finally won the battle against Roman Catholicism but the death toll was very high.

    Something Muslims don’t understand is that Erasmus, Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Calvin and many others who set the counter-reformation, condemned the Crusades because it also targeted Christians who didn’t vow to the Church of Rome. Muslims are also responsible for the forced conversions and atrocities committed against Christians in the Middle East.

    Muslims in general are not well learned in western history. For a Muslim to say Catholics and Christians are the same religion would be equal to state that Muslims and Jews are the same religion with different names. If this were to be true, then surely Muslims shouldn’t get mad when someone calls them a Jew considering some of the similarities they share with Old Testament laws which are not practiced in Islam.

    On the same token, just because Muslims believe in Jesus and the prophets it does not make them Christian. So just because the Roman Catholic Church believes in Jesus, and even the trinity it doesn’t make them Christian either, considering they follow their own rituals, cannons and tradition of saints. Sadly many Radical Muslims ignore history to fit their hate of Christianity.

    Muslim rioters caused the Syrian crisis

    The Syrian refugee crisis has spilled over into Europe, and no one wants to accommodate waves of Muslim immigrants who can’t proof background checks because there is no intelligence to recollect information from Syria. If you picked up a homeless man from the street, you might consider checking his criminal record before inviting him to stay; never mind 2 million Muslim immigrants.

    EU and the US are not responsible for the problems of Syria. The Arab Spring was equally sponsored by Muslim and non-Muslim countries that advocated for democracy. Historically, dictatorships have proven to stabilize Arab sectarian violence with more efficacy than democracy.

    Yet Muslims rebelled against Assad’s regime seeking western support; whereas, the west did not force Syrians to start revolts but indeed approved a social revolution. Syrians willingly felt entangled with Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia’s revolution and tried to retake control of the country under the umbrella of a unified civil war.

    It was a risk initiated by the people of Syria, but sponsored by Muslim and non-Muslim actors. The experiment utterly came as disastrous and resulted in sectarian violence, not only giving Ben-Assad’s regime support from Russia, China, Egypt and Iran, but ultimately helped jihadist groups expand territory in Syria proving once again that liberal democracy is nothing but wishful thinking in the Middle East.

    The EU and the US don’t have any obligation or entitlement to accept Syrian refugees, especially after the Paris and Mali bombing attacks set by ISIL and Al-Qaeda. Assad has said in multiple occasions that he is “willingly happy to grant concessions to unite the nation again and end the nonsensical civil-war in Syria.”

    The FSA and SAA have lost control of the country and splinter territory to Al-Nusra and ISIL that have another more sinister agenda that would further hamper Syria’s future into an Islamic sinkhole. At least half of the Syrian refugees that helped start the civil war are responsible for unifying the country and should resolve what they initiated instead of simply fleeing into neighboring nations.

    Assad offered coalescence in Syria, and the FSA are now deserting to Al-Nusra and ISIL? What a contradiction — if indeed these are peaceful Muslims defending Arab nationalism without religious dogmas in mind.

    Jihadist will obtain nuclear bombs

    Eventually Al-Qaeda, or ISIL will obtain a dirty nuclear devise and detonate it somewhere in the US or Europe. It’s not just about obtaining uranium or plutonium, it is about finding the right scientist who will accept a generous bribe and help guideline the fission of atoms to manufacture a bomb.

    Former KGB, ISI, MSS or RAW intelligence scientist could be easily tracked down by terrorist networks and generously paid to collaborate in the making of a nuclear arsenal. The other possibility would be to hack a government nuclear server and steal instructional information on how to develop a bomb.

    Once the resources are found to develop a nuclear bomb, manufacturing would be simple; transportation and access to target cities in the EU and US present even an easier task.

    The US-Mexican border offers plenty of hidden tunnels used by Cartels to smuggle trucks that camouflage drugs crossing the fence. There is not enough security in the world or human resources to stop the infiltration of weapons from coming inside the US border.

    ISIL and Al-Qaeda could easily buyoff Mexican drug lords from Cartels like El Golfo, lease swaths to train Islamic foreign militants and smuggle weapons free of US surveillance on a country run by a weak and corrupt central government.

    In fact, the manufacturing of a nuclear device inside Mexico would be the perfect scenario to conduct a successful plot on American soil without worrying about intercepts from US counter-intelligence operatives.

    Unlike what some counter intelligence experts believe, NYC would not be the target of choice and cities on the East Coast constantly remain in high alert making them a difficult objective; However, Las Vegas, Beverly Hills, Phoenix and San Francisco are tantalizing targets for Muslim extremist given the lack of security and vastness of land separating these states.

    Las Vegas offers America’s favorite fortune playground and represents a major headstone for capitalism. Beverly Hills is America’s theater of choice attracting great influence worldwide. Phoenix is America’s western conservative model and San Francisco represent America’s pillar for equal rights, where homosexuality is forbidden under Islamic Law. Not a farfetched scenario considering the proximity with the Mexican border.

    The consequences

    If a nuclear bomb detonates inside the US or Europe, foreign diplomacy would automatically go out the window replaced by extermination strategies that would control most situation rooms in western countries without any possibility of turning back.

    There is no reason why to head into that direction, genocide is always the last resort, but nonetheless the most effective measure to control unwanted pests. This can be prevented only if moderate Muslims in Europe and the Middle East start to fight against extremist who use their religion as an excuse for igniting terror.

    One billion Muslims can surely contain a small growing percentage of radical jihadists from misrepresenting their religion, if indeed they are against extremism. But if peaceful Muslims (if they exist) cannot contain their own religious extremism from flourishing, I am afraid no one can control Islamic terrorism and other strategies must be adopted that will eventually guarantee security in western lands –extermination the most effective measure thereof.

    Don’t provoke an old ghost

    It is not wise for Islamic militants to undermine Europe’s military might. As history ineffably shows, the worst conflicts in human history have evolved in Europe along with the Middle East. Luckily after War World II, Europe has not suffered any significant turmoil outside of Serbia trying to seize Bosnia and Kosovo which ended with UN intervention.

    Spain, Rome, France, Portugal, Holland, England and Germany became world powers at one point in history and flashed the grandeur of great empires nullifying the past glory of any Middle Eastern pre or post-Islamic empire. The Muslim extremist should churn not the military capability and the history of these countries to react in times of conflict.

    Despite the present lax nature of most European countries, the lack of military enrolment and the decline of religious values since the 18th century, Europe still remains a powerful force to reckon with.

    A revengeful joint attack from Europeans and the US would be no match for Muslim countries to absorb; bacteriological, chemical and nuclear radiation would finally find a porpoise, alongside extermination squads desecrating life.

    Moderate Muslims worldwide, in the western world and especially in the Middle East must be more proactive to help exterminate, dissolve and not fund terrorist organizations. The other side of the spectrum ends with extermination from the west. The Mongols in 1258 raided Bagdad in an act of revenge after Muslims tortured Tartars, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazaks and Mongols in central Asia that ended with extermination and gave peace to the region for 200 years; Europe won’t hesitate either under the right circumstances.

    Comments Off on Points to pounder: Islam in the western world

    Professor answers questions regarding The US political race

    November 10th, 2015


    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Michael Smith

    Michael Smith Ph.D.

    He is a professor of political science at Emporia State Univeristy.  Teaches local politics, campaigns and elections, political philosophy, legislative politics, and nonprofit management.

    1) Today’s generation seems a lot less conservative than other past generations. It looks like liberal dogmas over the years have replaced several conservative values sacred to the pillar of true republicanism.  Has the Republican Party significantly weakened over these past 8 years? Are republicans today closer to the left than they are to the right?

    The two parties are more polarized.  Conservative Democrats—who mostly came from the South—have been replaced by Republicans.  Liberal Republicans—who mostly came from the Northeast—have been replaced by Democrats.  It appears that the Millennials are generally pretty liberal, particularly on social issues.  Most notably, there has been an absolute sea change in support for LGBT rights since the 1990s.  Young people, in particular, are strongly in support.  The Republican Party is becoming the party of older, white people.  Most younger people self-identify as nonpartisan but those who vote are trending heavily Democratic.  Of course, voter turnout among the young remains low.

    2) Homosexuals, minorities and immigrants loath the Republican Party viewing it as religiously intolerant comprised of elites that sponsor foreign wars to spread capitalism globally.  Many inside these groups would vote for Republicans if they were more accepting in terms of civil rights and immigration. Has the Republican Party done a good job trying to become more accepting to homosexuals, minorities and immigrants? If not, would it be a good idea that the Republican candidates win the hearts and minds of these groups without giving away conservative values? Is that even remotely possible?

    The GOP is a mess right now.  Party insiders know that the Donald Trump candidacy is a disaster for the party, for many reasons, not the least of which is that he is alienating Latino and younger voters.  Ben Carson may not be much better.  However, the party base wants an outsider candidate and has no interest in the kind of party-building that the insiders seek.  The base also wants strong anti-illegal-immigration legislation.  Some GOP insiders want Marco Rubio to be the nominee and he may emerge as the “mainstream” alternative to Carson and Trump, but it isn’t clear if symbolism alone (Rubio is Cuban-American) would overcome the party’s negative image.

    3) Traditionally Latinos are conservative. Why do they swing to Democrats?

    The GOP base is strongly anti-illegal immigration and culturally, that can spill over easily into being anti-all-immigration and anti-Latino, despite party leaders’ continuing insistence that they are only against illegal, as opposed to legal immigration.  I don’t think the illegal/legal distinction plays well among Latino voters.  First of all, among the base, it can often play out as discrimination, not adherence to the law.  Second, many Latino families are mixed:  they include U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants all in the same family, so the legal/illegal distinction just doesn’t wash with them.  Also for those who are working-class, the Democrats still remain the party of choice—there is still a strong socioeconomic dimension to voting, despite the heavy emphasis on social issues these days.

    4) Considering Donald Trump’s past… Is Donald Trump a true Republican or an opportunist?

    I’d say opportunist.  Trump’s agenda appears to be himself.  His political views are completely incoherent.  He advocates national health insurance—very expensive—but also wants voters to return their tax forms with the words “I win” handwritten across them.  Where would he get the revenue for his national health insurance?  He also wants to deport American citizens—those whose parents are immigrants but the children were born here.  This is wildly unconstitutional.  There’s just no coherent political agenda there to label.

    5) Donald Trump thus far has had a large impact in the GOP primaries beating almost all of his fellow competitors. But despite his sudden rise, skeptics, analyst and politicians hold deep concerns worried about his candidacy.  Looking at his foreign and national policy, it is not clear how exactly he plans to implement most of his reforms. He said that “Mexico will pay for the wall he plans to construct in the border”. He also said “Putin would get along with him to solve the Syrian crisis.”  Is Donald Trump the man for the job in DC?  Would he really outsmart Mexico, China, and Putin?

    Because of the incoherence of Trump’s agenda, it’s hard to predict how he’d perform as President.  Mathematically, it seems impossible for him to win the presidency because he would get so few Latino voters—and so many would turn out to vote against him.  If he did somehow become President, my best guess as that we should look at who he’d be likely to appoint to key policymaking and advising positions, such as his cabinet, because he would likely rubber-stamp a lot of their decisions since he seems to have little knowledge of or interest in policymaking himself.

    6) Dr. Ben Carson has also done fairly well in the GOP, now leading key states like Iowa and Arkansas. Could he beat Donald Trump? Could he take on Hillary and win?

    Carson’s policy views aren’t much more in-depth than those of Trump, though they are a bit more coherent.  African-American voters have shown little interest in supporting a candidate unless that candidate shares their views, not just their race.  In fact, if Carson begins lecturing African-Americans about conservative values there could even be a backlash, with more African-American voters turning out to oppose him.

    Overall, the electoral map these days seems to favor Democrats for President and Republicans for Congress, so I’d give the Democratic nominee the edge.  However, it’s too soon to make specific predictions about a Carson-Clinton race.  Carson hasn’t “branded” anti-illegal immigration stands as part of his campaign, so he doesn’t have the automatic negatives that Trump does.  On the other hand, Carson is politically untested so a Hillary Clinton campaign, in particular, could really challenge Carson by putting him up against a political pro.

    7) If Ben Carson, Sen. Marco Rubio or Sen. Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump, will Trump focus on continuing his race but on independent grounds? What would be the consequences for the Republican Party if so?  

    There is no way for the Republicans to win if Trump runs an independent candidacy and gets anything more than a few percent of the votes.  Mathematically, it just won’t work.  If Trump does make good on his threat, look for GOP insiders to make overtures to Trump privately and offer him something in exchange for his withdrawing from the race.

    8) Before the primaries everyone thought Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were going to be the present frontrunners of the GOP. What has happened to the political class in the GOP and DC?  Why the sudden demise? Are people tire of politicians?

    I think it’s the Tea Party movement.  It a movement against pluralism itself, not just a push for more conservative values.  The GOP base is ready to shut down the government instead of compromise.  Our system of government requires compromise to function.  GOP insiders know this but they don’t know how to handle their own base.  It cost Speaker Boehner his job.

    9) They are concerns with new strands of liberalism creeping inside the Democratic Party coming from nonreligious groups.  Many young radical reformers view Capitol Hill as corrupted, and not only have started to adopt principles of anarchy, but also of communism, Marxism and minarchism into the system to end capitalism. Christianity is under fire more than ever before under the scientific based state influenced by these groups.  Are many new liberals not really democrats, but instead Neo-Liberal that adopt far- more radical leftist dogmas leeching moderate liberal progressives to establish a scientific state free of religion, military, capitalism and conservatism?

    That’s quote a loaded question!  I don’t agree with the premise.  I assume you’re referring to the Bernie Sanders candidacy.  Sanders does self-identify as a socialist, but he also clarifies that socialism as he defines it is, essentially, to the left side of the modern-day Democratic Party.  What he advocates wouldn’t even be considered particularly controversial in Europe or Canada—not everyone would vote for him but he would fit into the mainstream there.

    As far as faith issues, young people in general are turning away from churchgoing.  I think that churches have a similar “branding” problem to the Republican Party—older and intolerant.  Liberal and mainline churches are trying to fill the breech but it remains a struggle.  The whole idea of going to church—and also being active in secular, community-based organizations like the Optimists club, League of Women Voters, etc., just seems foreign to this generation.  Some charities have been more effective at getting the young involved, partly by extensive use of social media.

    10) A lot of people, especially in social media believe that the high rise of ignorance and crime in the African-American community is the failed social experiment of liberals. They believe liberal activist support groups like “Black Lives Matter” that instigate violence victimizing race over crime, but ignore incidents of African Americans murdering other African-Americans, Caucasians and police enforcement. Is this view farfetched?  Are the struggles of the African American community the byproduct of the social experiments from the left?

    Not quite sure how to handle this question—Black Lives Matter is a grassroots leadership movement that has up-ended the traditional African-American establishment with their organizing skills, which rely heavily on social media, particularly Twitter.  As far as the media publicizing crime, all one needs to do is watch the local television news in any city in America to see that instances of violent crime are frequently and heavily publicized, often featuring photos of alleged assailants.  All of the cases publicized by BLM involve the police killing unarmed assailants.

    11) Does the liberal establishment control most of the Media compared to Conservatives? Would you name a few television networks they control?  

    I don’t think there is any such thing as “the liberal establishment.”  I do think that much of the “mainstream” news media has a certain pro-establishment bias—for example, they don’t give equal time to opponents of trade deals like the bipartisan Trans Pacific Partnership: they publicize protests but not the actual views of the protestors.  The news media is, with just a few exceptions, for-profit in this country and their coverage is ultimately driven by what will sell airtime, website hits, newspapers, and so forth.  This often means favoring sensationalism over substance.

    12) The Benghazi scandal temporarily hit Hillary’s campaign with ardor from the right, ravaged by republican interest groups trying to demonize her image to discourage her nomination, but despite all the negativity Hillary seems to have survived the storm. Should she be blamed for Benghazi? Why hasn’t the scandal hurt her campaign?

    I honestly don’t know what the “scandal” regarding Benghazi is supposed to be.  The GOP’s attacks are so multifaceted that it isn’t clear to me an observer what it is, exactly, that Hillary supposedly did wrong.  It seems to have something to do with her not sending more troops to Libya prior to the tragic deaths of the Ambassador and others in his convoy, but this would appear to me to be a policy decision, not a scandal.  I suspect that many voters are just as confused as I am.

    At any rate, polling is showing that the Benghazi hearings actually boosted Clinton’s popularity and hurt the Republicans.

    13) On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has revolutionized the DOP.  He promised to bring down the elites, and transform the US with socialism. Does Bernie appeal to people more than Hillary? Is Bernie better equipped to run the nation than Hillary? Would socialism work?

    As I mentioned above, Sanders’ “socialism” is really just the left side of the Democratic Party.  He has announced no plans to nationalize industries, except for health insurance.  One of his biggest issues is breaking up large banks, another is a $15/hour minimum wage.

    The big question with a Sanders presidency is how he would get anything passed.  The Republicans look set to retain the House and probably both houses of Congress through 2020.

    14) A lot of people claim that the nation is greatly divided thanks to liberals. It seems like the notion of Nationalism presented during the Reagan Administration hardly remains the same today. With decline in nationalism, many youths no longer believe in patriotism and demonize the military. Could it be said that many of the youths have lost the sense of national pride? If so, Is that good for the country?

    I don’t agree with the premise of the question.

    We are experiencing both the advantages and the disadvantages of an all-volunteer military.  The strongest opponents of returning to a draft are the military leaders themselves, who never want a return of the low morale of the Vietnam era.

    The USA has soldiers fighting overseas but many families do not have any close relatives in the military.  Many younger Americans do not so much disrespect the military as simply remain unaware of it—the wars in the Middle East are out of sight, out of mind for many Americans these days.

    15) Would the rise of a third political party eventually save nation from greater schisms or should we always rely on bipartisanship? 

    Third parties are enormously difficult to field in a winner-take-all electoral system.  They tend to fare much better under proportional representation.  Here in the USA, 3rd parties sometimes play the role of spoilers—most recently, the Ralph Nader Green Party candidacy appears to have cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

    16) Will Donald Trump take the GOP? Which out of the Republicans has a real chance against Hillary and why?

    I don’t know what kind of advisors and campaign staff Trump has.  I don’t know if he’s equipped to take over the GOP with “his people.”  Right now he’s mostly giving them fits.

    Among the more mainstream GOP candidates, I would guess Rubio would be their most competitive.

    17) Who wins the 2016 elections?  Are any of the candidates good for the US?

    As per the above, right now the U.S. map favors Democrats in Presidential elections and Republicans in Congressional ones.  As to which candidates are best, that’s largely a matter of one’s political ideology and party preference, but I would opine that I can’t fathom how a Trump or Carson Presidency could be good for the country.

    Comments Off on Professor answers questions regarding The US political race

    Has liberal democracy damaged the US Military?

    November 6th, 2015

    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Robert R. Reilly

    He is a writer and senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He has published on topics of US foreign policy and “war of ideas”.


    1) When we look at history, one of the first signs concerning the collapse of any civilization is the weakening of its military core. Has the United States started to show this decline?

    The weakening of the military is a symptom, not a cause of collapse. Civilizations decline when the core of their inner beliefs is eroded. Moral collapse precedes civilizational collapse. There is little question that the United States is suffering a moral decline.

    2) Under the Obama administration, military enrollment has declined to dangerous low levels similar to what was observed during the Clinton Administration. It seems that the American youth, instead of admiring the military core, now demonize it. Has the faith once unifying nation and military come to an abrupt end thanks to American liberalism?

    I think that is too extreme. I see no such demonization of the military by American youth. In fact, one of my sons is joining the Marines. The low levels of enrollment are the result of a deliberate policy of the Obama administration which thinks that a large part of the world’s woes are attributable to, and therefore can be solved by, US withdrawal. If you are withdrawing from the world, you shrink your military. Unfortunately, the way in which Obama has withdrawn US forces has exacerbated the very problems that he thought the withdrawal would solve. Also, under Pres. Obama, there has been a clear loss of a sense of mission. People are moved to join the military out of a sense of mission. If that is not there, they are less inclined to join. The problem is not with the military or the youth; it is with the political leadership.

    3) Long ago a veteran told me that wars are won with man to man combat. Considering the imminent befall of militaristic values in the American youth, if a war erupted, would they be more motivated to fight than the youths in Russia and China that show great levels of nationalism? Would that motivation play a key element for America’s continuance as the leading superpower? Do you see the necessary motivation in today’s youth to fight for the country?

    I think the answer to your question depends on how a war begins. If the United States is attacked, I have no doubt that American youth will fight. You would see how quickly militaristic their values became. However, misconceived overseas military excursions do not invite a comparable willingness to fight.

    It remains to be seen what Russia can sustain in terms of military effort. The United States has its problems, but Russia is more clearly a declining power than is America.

    Both Russia and China have lost the core of their communist ideologies, so they are seeking alternatives that can sustain their authoritarian regimes. Clearly, nationalism is one of those alternatives, and it is no surprise to see them both playing it up. I think Machiavelli would admire the political utility of Putin’s military adventures.

    4) China and Russia have resurfaced from their ebbed communist past into a new future jointly embarked to become binary superpowers. Do China and Russia currently have any respect for the United States?

    Russia has little chance of restoring itself as a superpower. Its demographics and the shape of its economy militate against this. However, Putin has played his hand brilliantly. It costs little to move into areas that the United States has vacated. These vacuums are easy targets of opportunity. Also, Putin’s willingness to use military force, both covertly and overtly, make Russia seem stronger than it is. A weak military power that is used is stronger than a strong military power that is not used – for example, Russia versus Europe. By any measure, it should be Europe telling Russia what to do, not the other way around. However, Europe’s populations seem to have lost any cause for which they might be willing to fight. Thus, their military power is relatively meaningless.

    I think that both Russia and China see the United States as a declining power. Declining powers do not elicit respect. However, they know that Obama is likely to be replaced by a president with a stronger vision of the American role in the world and might not wish to push too hard against the United States in case the sleeping giant shakes off its lethargy and decides to reverse its decline.

    5) China and Russia under the Obama administration seem to have spontaneously shown signs of global expansionism. How has the US and NATO responded to such motives? Have NATO and the US done a good job in dealing with both countries?

    I think it was a mistake for Europe to attempt to entice Ukraine out of the Russian orbit. No Russian leader – whether a Communist Party secretary-general, a czar, or an authoritarian leader like Putin – could afford such a loss of influence in an area so vital to its national security. For instance, if Ukraine became a member of NATO, the distance from NATO’s borders to Moscow would be half of what they are today. Why would we wish to put a Russian leader in this situation when Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest of the West?

    China’s push into the South China Sea with its construction of islands and claims of sovereignty seems to be a decisive provocation and will invite a test of strength with the United States and its allies. This is a very dangerous situation. If Obama actually had the naval and other military strength to make his pivot to the Pacific credible, I don’t think China would have embarked on such a provocative endeavor.

    6) China has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement summoned to end dependency from Chinese exports; will this agreement boil further tension between China and the US?

    China is such an economic powerhouse in the area that I don’t see it getting overly exercised by this agreement.

    7) China’s presence on the South East Sea to build artificial islands has raised red flags in Vietnam and the Philippines, could it spill into a larger conflict if the situation is not solved soon?  

    See number five above. China has a lot to lose in such a conflict, so it will be interesting to see how much farther it’s willing to push. Also, its aggressive behavior is solidifying an alliance against it by alarming its neighbors.

    8 ) Russia has a similar problem. Poland, Finland, Denmark and Norway are very concerned with Russian expansionism and have started to increase their military capabilities. Do you see this spilling into a larger conflict?

    I seriously doubt this. The more the nations you mentioned strengthen their defensive capabilities, the less likely it is to happen.

    9) Are China and Russia jointly plotting schemes to substitute US global hegemony?

    They are clearly aiming to be the regional hegemons in their areas. How far their ambitions reach will depend, in part, on the length of the US retreat from those areas. In general, both China and Russia have an interest in complicating the world situation for the United States.

    10) Russian jet fighters have been caught illegally flying in different airspace around the world hasting concerns of Putin’s real intentions. From 2014-15 the amount of airspace violated by Russia has exponentially grown. What is Putin trying to prove to the world?  And do Russians support his actions in Ukraine and Syria?

    Putin is trying to demonstrate that if Russia’s strategic interests are challenged, Russia is in a position to challenge the strategic interests of others. Therefore, he demonstrates that he can fly strategic bombers off the Gulf of Mexico and deploy troops to Syria. He also likes the element of surprise, which keeps everyone off-balance and gives him a stronger hand. Putin’s basic message is: if you play in my backyard, I’ll play in your backyard. I am not trying to excuse Putin’s behavior, but to understand it.

    11) There is sufficient evidence that China is already in the process of sending troops into Syria to protect oil fields in Iraq from ISIS expansionism. They have already send ships, tanks and jet fighters. Beijing is backed with Assad’s blessings, and Russian approval. What reaction would we expect from the US if China enters the Syrian picture?

    I have seen no evidence of any of this.

    12) Judging by their present actions, it doesn’t seem as if China and Russia care about violating diplomatic agreements.  Does China and Russia really believe in diplomatic means? Or do they use diplomacy to flake their real expansionist scheme?

    Frederick the Great said that, “diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.” Russia and China understand this and have developed sufficient arms to advance their diplomatic aims. The West seems to think that all diplomacy requires is playing music. Russia and China want changes in the international order. They know they cannot achieve this by diplomacy alone or by observing prior diplomatic agreements. Therefore, when the opportunity presents itself, they will set aside diplomatic agreements to form an international order more to their liking.

    13) Has a new cold war started? United States gets in future war with China and Russia. Who wins? Would that war decide the faith of the new superpower? What happens if the US lost that war?

    It does not appear that there is a global ideological struggle comparable to the Cold War. However, there are aggrieved powers, like China, Russia, and the new so-called caliphate of the Islamic State, that are anti-status quo powers. The United States and the NATO countries are status quo powers. Therefore, there is bound to be major friction here, and it could lead to wars.

    Losing wars is a very bad idea. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    Comments Off on Has liberal democracy damaged the US Military?

    Is liberal democracy damaging the US Military?

    November 1st, 2015


    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Lee Congdon

    He is professor emeritus of history at James Madison University

    1) When we look at history, one of the first signs concerning the collapse of any civilization is the weakening of its military core. Has the United States started to show this decline?

    Congdon: The U.S. military is in decline for a number of reasons–none of them having to do with sophistication of weaponry.  The military is being used for social “experiments”–that is, it now enlists women and homosexuals, which will only destroy morale.  It is over-extended, fighting too many wars in too many places without a clear national interest at stake.

    2) Under the Obama administration, military enrollment has declined to dangerous low levels similar to what was observed during the Clinton Administration. It seems that the American youth, instead of admiring the military core, now demonize it. Has the faith once unifying nation and military come to an abrupt end thanks to American liberalism?

    Congdon: The Obama administration is filled with people hostile to the military and young people in the U.S. are not inclined to join up, in some cases with good reason.  It was a mistake, long ago now, to end the draft.

    3) Long ago a veteran told me that what wars are won with ‘man to man combat.’ Considering the imminent befall of militaristic values in the American youth, if a war erupted, would they be more motivated to fight than the youths in Russia and China that show great levels of nationalism? Would that motivation play a key element for America’s continuance as the leading superpower? Do you see the necessary motivation in today’s youth to fight for the country?

    Congdon: Young people who attend university are fed a steady diet of anti-military propaganda, not all of it deserved.

    4) China and Russia have resurfaced from their ebbed communist past into a new future jointly embarked to become binary superpowers. Do China and Russia currently have any respect for the United States?

    Congdon: Respect must be earned–the U.S., acting in the international arena, has not earned it.

    5) China and Russia under the Obama administration seem to have spontaneously shown signs of global expansionism. How has the US and NATO responded to such motives? Have NATO and the US done a good job in dealing with both countries?

    Congdon: It is NATO that has expanded in the direction of Russia, despite post-Cold War promises that the organization, which should have been disbanded after the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, would NOT expand.  Both Russia and China have spheres of influence, as does the U.S.

    6) China has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement summoned to end dependency from Chinese exports; will this agreement boil further tension between China and the US?

    Congdon:  Most of the China-U.S. tension is the result of the U.S.’s peculiar idea that it alone may act in the world.  China wishes to dominate ITS area of the world, not the entire world.

    7) China’s presence on the South East Sea to build artificial islands has raised red flags in Vietnam and the Philippines, could it spill into a larger conflict if the situation is not solved soon?

    Congdon: Whatever conflict occurs in South East Asia would have nothing whatever to do with U.S.’s legitimate national interest.

    8) Russia has a similar problem. Poland, Finland, Denmark and Norway are very concerned with Russian expansionism and have started to increase their military capabilities. Do you see this spilling into a larger conflict?

    Congdom: The countries mentioned have nothing to fear from Russia–Russia is not an expansionist power; it does have national interests in areas close to home, as does any other power.

    9) Are China and Russia jointly plotting schemes to substitute US global hegemony?

    Congdom: The answer is no.  Why should the U.S. exercise “global hegemony?”

    10) Russian jet fighters have been caught illegally flying in different airspace around the world hasting concerns of Putin’s real intentions. From 2014-15 the amount of airspace violated by Russia has exponentially grown. What is Putin trying to prove to the world?  And do Russians support his actions in Ukraine and Syria?

    Congdom: The Russians do support President Putin’s actions in eastern Ukraine and Syria.  Putin is not trying to “prove” anything, other than that Russia will protect ITS national interests.  The anti-Putin hysteria in the West has much to do with Putin’s internal policies, including laws against recruiting young people into homosexuality and in defense of Christian civilization.

    11) There is sufficient evidence that China is already in the process of sending troops into Syria to protect oil fields in Iraq from ISIS expansionism. They have already sent ships, tanks and jet fighters. Beijing is backed with Assad’s blessings, and Russian approval. What reaction would we expect from the US if China enters the Syrian picture?

    Congdon: It should be gratitude for aid in destroying the monstrous ISIS.

    12) Judging by their present actions, it doesn’t seem as if China and Russia care about violating diplomatic agreements.  Does China and Russia really believe in diplomatic means? Or do they use diplomacy to flake their real expansionist scheme?

    Congdon: What evidence is there for this claim?  It is the U.S. that is expansionist and determined to spread “liberal democracy”–feminism, homosexuality, “same-sex marriage,” egalitarianism around the globe.

    13) Has a new cold war started? United States gets in future war with China and Russia. Who wins? Would that war decide the faith of the new superpower? What happens if the US lost that war?

    Congdon: It would be absolute lunacy to start a war against China or Russia.  To what end?  The U.S. cannot win a war in Afghanistan, but against China or Russia?

    Comments Off on Is liberal democracy damaging the US Military?

    Nationalism will firmly unite the nation

    October 26th, 2015

    By Jaime Ortega.


    In my past arguments, I stated that Neo-Liberalism demonizes nationalist values pushing in favor of radical social democratic reforms to weaken the military muscle that sustains the pillars of American hegemony. Neo-liberalism consist of political organisms like anarchism, minarchism, Marxism, communism, hipsterism and syndicalism that influence the political sphere financed by progressive leftist interest groups that push for larger social scientist scrutiny to prevent the menace of religion.

    We see the symptoms of Neo-liberalism with the destruction of family values, the rise of ignorance, political correctness, religious intolerance, scientific scrutiny, the social collapse of African-American communities; work lax, faded working class and decrease on employment in low income jobs; decline of American graduates in social sciences; social disunity, low military enrolment, increased political dogmas, radicalization of feminism, materialism, lack of creativity and suppressed alternative scientific theorems.

    Individualism is inculcated with Darwin’s subsistence model of ‘survival of the fittest’ besides many other socio-cultural pernicious ideals that peril American unity. The goal is to establish a society based on extreme forms of civil liberty, scientific materialism and individualism above all other unifying ideologies.

    At this present point, the phase of US demoralization and ideological divisiveness has corrupted the interpretation of the American constitution with congressional approval. The ultimate goal of Neo-liberalism is the complete evanescence of religious theology from public education, viewed as ultra repressive and undemocratic.

    This is the ultimate goal of Neo-liberalist, to difficult political power to religious institutions via manipulating mainstream media to consolidate humanism above all other theology.

    So what is the goal of nationalism?

    Nationalism in its simplest form helps unify national interest as one collective organism. It doesn’t allow social lines to be drawn between individuals, party and state. It restructures individualism to linger not on personal freedom only, but on collective interest to protect those entity’s rights by means of effective military, hard work, and effective national and international policy.

    Party politics divide the country into two ideological spheres; Democrats and Republicans into liberal and conservative values. Bipartisanship doesn’t allow for centrist parties to involve on state affairs creating a polarized outcome in government.

    Certain national affairs should be handled with vigor and others with leniency. Extreme rigor to be applied for criminals and acceptance with equal right issues; nationalism is not a political agent, but a unification entity that solidifies national interest above attempts that divide society as a whole.

    If one doesn’t believe in the country he lives on, he no longer partakes in the unity of the country and has admittedly lost faith in the culture he participates. Millions of Neo-Liberals label the US an elitist regime without fear for their provocative nihilist words or respect to those that paid the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect national interest from outside threats; all viewed part of the same demagogy. Ironically Neo-liberals views democrats as part of the problem, even though paradoxically, they support their agenda.

    The notion that true conservatives sponsor capitalism is flawed. If one analyzes capitalism and the core principle it sponsors; capitalism unequivocally links to Liberal dogmas because it exalts individual freedom above government intervention — exactly what the Liberal progressive movement lauded after the French revolution. The conclusion is that true democrats are strict capitalist considering the values they, themselves, claim to ideologically support.

    One key element of liberal ideology is individualism; however, individual Interest is divisive to unity. When people are allowed to impose new ideological reforms these work in favor for individual freedoms, but not necessarily for the nation’s best interest. Of course this is not true in every case, but it is true when nationalism falls prey to social dichotomy.

    One example of this phenomena are prejudiced Caucasian and African ethnic oriented interest groups that rally their cause as separate to the nation’s wellbeing by creating disunity among citizens to provoke national racial dissension amid disunity. Radical activism only steepens the problem with massive protests, causing greater disunity among non-ideological citizens to take a stance on the issue.

    On the other hand

    With strong nationalism people focus not on racial issues or individualism, but on patriotism, nation state, military power and unity above all other intrusive agents. Nationalism allows for common amalgamation to arise above all other interest and political groups. Without strong national unity, the US will not ethnically and socially thrive as a nation much longer, destined to lose its status as the leading world power.

    Nationalism really works. Historically strong nationalism has bond different religious creeds to stand for a common cause which is to protect national sovereignty against foreign invaders and domestic allotment. If strong nationalism can contain religious schism, it can surely restrain racial interest groups sponsored by Neo-liberalism forged to divide the nation with impractical social reforms.

    Racial dissension is just one of the many problems nationalism can solve without the use of a revolution. Homophobia is another case pursued by conservative moral indoctrination animated by their disputed religious theology to be of the private interpretation they bias. Liberal gays obviously want no part with republicans, based on the moral outlook of what conservative principles represent chastising bible Christians as part of the problem. Gays are conservative also, who represents them?

    This is where political morality goes astray, and nationalism thrives. They are many straight men, who curse the nation, step on the flag and spit on the American constitution. Meanwhile brave homosexual soldiers, who are patriots at heart, risk their lives for the country to protect those Americans who burn the flag to preserve their constitutional rights at the high price of death.

    So is the straight man, which burns the flag greater than the homosexual who is willing to give his life for that individual to protect his anti-American interest? Would conservative Republicans take the straight man over the homosexual soldier in this case because he is ‘straight’?  That is hypocrisy, as it is clear the homosexual patriot is a man of honor regardless of his sexual orientation. The other man is a traitor, an instigator and according to strict Nationalism he should relinquish his citizen status and leave the country for creating disunity among people.

    Nationalism reveres the soldier, the patriot and the nationalist regardless of his ideological background; whereas, democrats and conservatives bias individuals according to their moral stand-view without understanding that behind the simplicity of each individual lays ethical complexity. Life is not bipolar, it’s not I am a “republican you, you are a democrat”. It’s not scientific based. Life is more complex than the highest forms of physics for science itself cannot replicate a human being inside a lab.

    Everyone has discrepancies. If discrepancies didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be human; moreover, it would be impossible to live in any urban environment for coexistence would be based on constant unpalatable behavior. Conservatives jack homosexuals against the wall because of their beliefs, but then it is evident that Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, 7 day Adventist, Catholics, Southern Baptist, Protestants, Calvinist and other groups completely disagree with one another in terms of religious doctrine thus the persecution of Protestants during the Roman Catholic Church.

    There is greater hate among sectarian creeds, so why do republicans find consent with religious intolerance to achieve unity within their party? — Stupid nonsense! They should be killing each other according to how they apply that exact moral judgment with homosexuals because greater schism exist in how they view one another, and yet most vote for the same party with their lips shut.

    The Republican and Democratic Party self-represent their own moral outlook, but do not represent the nation’s best interest. The founding fathers were constitutional-nationalist that pushed for commonwealth, but never advocated for private political representation, especially on a binary system that both parties developed in government after their deaths. Government no longer runs on common sense, but on common political interest.

    Elimination of lobbying, greater civil rights, outstanding military, strong nationalism, iron foreign policy based on military strength; eradication of criminals, enforcing strong work ethic, discipline, higher scrutiny on public and private education; allowing low income families to thrive based on hard work and not welfare; enforce people who abuse welfare for years to work low sector jobs; implement companies to pay higher wages to lower sector jobs are problems that can be resolved under nationalism, not under bipartisanship.

    Educational reforms will include adding subjects into the curriculum like Fine Tuning, Forbidden History and Intelligent design in schools alongside Darwinian evolution. All optional for any student to learn at their own will, and not that of the system! That is true democracy, not that flaked democracy sponsored by Neo-liberals apathetic to other than evolutionary theory.

    Women will have rights as well under Nationalism. Women opting to practice prostitution will be handled rights to do accordingly. Once again this is true democracy. All unborn citizens have value to the nation. Abortions will be limited. Planned Parenthood will be shut and replaced with organizations willing to take babies and infants into a new home for adoption. Gay couples and transgender woman will be offered to adopt children alongside straight families. Those infants remaining not eligible for adoption, will become part of the military core for 20 years, and get a free education while helping the nation’s defense.

    Given the high rise of domestic animal abuse and the cruelty of those practicing such malice will be sentenced to harsh punishment. Fear will roam again, overseeing criminals and perpetrators trying to break the law by outsmarting authorities – Execution.

    War veterans that fought for their country will receive 30-35% off when purchasing any item as gratitude for their service. Those opposing to comply with this rule should be labeled as traitors, and their sons will be sent to Armed Forces as a learning lesson for their ineptitude and ingratitude.

    The doctor, the entrepreneur, the wealth man, the CEO, and other accomplished people owe their subsistence to the military core that protects their interest at the cost of sacrifice in wars. Without an efficient military there is no such thing as a prosperous country, never mind the leading world power.

    Drinking age will be set to +18 again. If a man can join the Armed forces at age +18, any young adult holds the right to drink without irrational restrictions.

    Child molesters will be spot executed. Woman beaters will be sentence to work prison indefinitely.

    All these different issues and many more will be resolved without Neo-Liberals that advocate for perversion of government affairs. And if Republicans do not consent this view, then they are also part of the problem not the solution, only looking out for their own self-interest and not of the nation.

    Neo-Liberalism is a cancer

    In history outside of the Church of England, and other Northern European countries that adopted the protestant reformation, most theological forms of government have ended in repression. Case and point, the Roman Catholic Church during the Dark Ages; as well as, present forms of Sharia law governance in the Middle East and South Central Asia.

    Those religious threats no longer exist in most western countries, only in the Middle East and South Central Asia. The shift has gone to the extreme left, merit of Neo-liberalist propaganda to hijack government institutions with the goal of spreading an atheist state free of religion. The manipulation of media and education is evidence of this agenda.

    Neo-liberalism is a cancer in society; it psychologically divides people by encouraging individual freedom on collective environments, in favor of egoistic personal gain. In the typical Neo-liberalist mindset nationalism represents unity amid military power that threatens world liberty. Liberal cowardice shows in times of armed conflict selfishly opposing to sacrifice their own for the nation’s overall best interest.

    Most Neo-liberals would egoistically desert the military to survive leaving behind the less educated to fight wars in times of armed conflict. When the war ends; like viruses, they would flee back to the country they forsook to try to hatch ideological progressive seeds back into the system.

    Neo-liberalism is a selfish movement that follows Darwin’s doctrine of ‘survival of the fittest”. It believes in instant gratification; egocentric to all common causes that inflict pain, laws and judgment. It tries to evade personal sacrifice that help’s national stability for personal ethical pleasure using intelligent rhetoric to hide cowardice. Mind over physical power; diplomacy over conflict; talk over action –Something currently observed in Washington D.C. politics.

    The sickening aspect of this ideology is that after the valiant heroes courageously sacrifice their lives for the nation’s sake; these neo-liberal incumbents instead of paying homage to the brave troops have the nerve to remain in the country to defame the armed forces, nationalism and patriotism for the sake of global humanism. They claim freedom of speech, but then they pursuit a world of political correctness? Are they dumb?

    Neo-liberal reforms sow ignominious bigotry in the political spectrum. They would rather rally to protect dying penguins in the South Pole than allow educational reforms that promote alternative scientific based ideologies that explain human development other than evolution to be taught in schools; full knowing, it’s contrary to their egalitarian prejudiced view of the system clung on unproven scientific assumptions.

    They want to promote humanism and equality; yet, they ban and censor alternative ideologies that bias their own moral outlook of the world– hypocrites!

    African-American communities: Neo-Liberal testing labs

    Neo-liberalism has hampered the African-American community decaying the core principles of work, religion, unity, strength and tolerance for other progressive viewpoints like passiveness, individualism and lethargy. African-American communities’ akin lab rats, have served as experimental grounds for liberal interest groups so as to impose their social dogmas without much lure in return to one day implement those same progressive ideals on the rest of the population.

    Violent rap, unemployment, materialism, lack of values, drug tolerance, lethargy, loss of religious faith, high pregnancy levels, family divisions are the results of this social experiment that historically ignorant people sadly suffer — Complete failure.

    But even though it is mostly evident in African American communities, it is now palpable in other ethnic communities. With time it will create chaos and division among the nation, so it must stop now. We must prosecute the liberal instigators and expose their radical agenda for the survival of the nation’s future.

    Does Nationalism advocate for self-rights?

    Radical Liberals stand for self-freedom from government oppression in a world where collectivism naturally bonds people together with common laws. But even though individual rights are essential to our existence, they should not conflict with the priorities of any nation’s subsistence for protecting our home allows progress to filtrate our freedoms.

    This issue can be clearly observed with the disparate criminal levels in African American communities. Liberals view criminals as good people that evolved around violence influenced by crime and poverty, so instead of blaming the individual, they blame the political establishment for his actions. With flexed laws, the criminal is institutionalized in prison and then released back into society to join the rest of people.

    Unfortunately, the experiment is disastrous because once reestablished into the system, most ex-convicts in prison exposed to greater evils in prison become even more violent; so when released, they indoctrinate further malice to others who glorify crime in a never ending cycle of crime, arrest and institutional custody. In the end, without fear of reprisal, criminals are encouraged by feeble volatile laws to successfully thrive infecting the next generation.

    The typical liberal believes Caucasians owe African Americans an apology for a situation that happened 300 years ago; started by West African tribal chief’s who captured villagers in exchange for goods to be sold for slavery to Europeans; thus victimizing crime with apologetic action, in exchange for past African-American slavery.

    On the other hand, conservative nationalism dictates that the individual is solely responsible for his actions. If he committed a significant violent crime, he should be immediately executed without possibility of infecting the system. Fear is vital to control crime, not words. If people fear committing criminal acts, crime can no longer thrive because fear precludes wrongdoers without possibility of amnesty. So it’s not a question of morality, it’s a question of effectiveness; here is where true nationalism and Neo-liberalism morally split.

    Nationalism is not apologetic. Nations are built with different social experiences. No nation has an unblemished record. The only fixation is to learn from the past to improve the imperfect future. In the case of the African American community, they must flee Neo-liberalism apologetics; fight hard, work hard and isolate those dividing their communities for situations that no longer hold ground. Nationalism will protect and serve the hard working African-American, but it will eradicate the criminals and the ideological instigators without amnesty.

    What I stated about African-Americans, Is also true for all people that violently break the law. No amnesty for the criminal, just brute force in return. Execution should be viable for all violent criminals without any tolerance or political correctness.

    The same can be said with foreign enemies. Neo-liberalism blames US intervention on the Middle East for the rise of ISIS, not understanding that historically regional turmoil spates the region regardless of the superpower in charge. Bill Clinton once blamed the crusades, the reason Muslims despise the west; victimizing Muslims as innocent little lambs that hold no global ambition; therefore, blaming Europe the core problem for today’s quandary in Muslim lands. In the liberal mindset just as with African-Americans, westerners owe Muslims an apology for something that happened over 700 years ago.

    Constantinople was forcefully conquered by Muslim troops and became known as Istanbul. Muslims mass murdered Egyptian Coptic’s, Syrian orthodox Christians and Ethiopian Christians who opposed paying the Muslim Yizra tax during the Umayyad Islamic conquests in Syria and Egypt among other nations. They raped Jewish, Christian and Gnostic woman and enslaved them. Muslim troops invaded Serbia, parts of the Balkans and controlled the largest African women slave trade trafficking recorded in human history for 1,000 years.

    What do Muslims owe the west? This is the problem with liberal democracy; it is based on self moral-intuition, not historical facts. Visceral approach based on stupidity, not brains.

    I urge others to laugh at Neo-liberals hugging Muslim activist who promote peace, when the whole notion of Islam is to “submit to God” without much room for political correctness. The Quran condemns atheism, the same atheism sponsored by Neo-liberals in schools. Those who abandon Islam for other believes are condemned to death and disowned by their families. With all, under an Islamic Caliphate these Neo-liberals would all be put to death for their belief system. Equal rights for women under Islamic Law: Gay rights under Islamic law? Why hug your enemy to find his approval? They claim to be rational people, but do Neo-liberals act accordingly?

    A nationalist run government would allow the US military to perform their duty against the enemy without room for political diplomacy. The Roman Empire would have not lasted 500 years if it hadn’t quenched other emerging rival threats. The Mongols raided Baghdad in 1258 AC, after years of repression from Muslims in Tartar lands; whom gruesomely tortured Mongol captives displaying their bodies for public entertainment. The Mongols tired of Muslim Jihad, exterminated and decimated the population installing fear that lasted over 200 years ultimately to bring peace into the region. The US should learn from history, deploy troops in Syria and exterminate ISIS to convey peace into the region.

    Liberals during the Arab Spring advocated the removal of dictators for modest democratic reforms sparked by secular Arab progressives (liberals). Liberal policy backed with US funding showed foolish ineptitude that ended in brutal civil wars, tribal, regional and sectarian division.

    The Middle East is much worse now, that it was before the revolutions started. These dictators had an iron fist in the region that posed strong nationalist behavior that controlled all forms of sectarian risings in the name of national unity. Ironically, it was the secular liberal integration in the progressive Arab youth that sparked a civil war ending any possibility for democracy in the Middle East.

    Nationalism is not a political scheme, it stands for greater unity in the name of the country.

    It advocates for individual freedoms, but not at the expense to divide people against their own countrymen. Nationalism is not fascism; it is not esoteric to one ideological group, it promotes strong national unity without divisiveness. Nationalism does not promote imperialist dogmas, nor does it police global affairs according to financial interest alone.

    Nationalism gives credence to alternative thinking to allow other progressive thinkers that don’t agree in terms of evolutionary dogmas to express their point of view. Nationalism will allow subjects like Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning and Forbidden History to become educational alternative choices in classrooms all around the country, fostering new interest among young children tired of evolutionary propaganda.

    Nationalism will help eradicate criminals in dangerous neighborhoods and install unity while strengthening the workforce to encourage national prosperity among all communities countrywide. Nationalism will allow youth labor to start early in order to inculcate at an early age how to be financially stable with hard work and discipline while attending school. This is badly needed; our youth needs to work harder to compete in the already contended world market. Neo liberalism has created dependency on young adults that bestow opportunities to illegal immigrants lacking effort to work any lower skilled jobs.

    Military education will be taught in many low income areas; study, discipline, acceptance and values will be restored back into the system alongside new basic civil freedoms with popular acceptance. Nationalism will grant equal sex marriages in the name of public recognition; ending the schism between radical fanatic religious creeds, and extreme forms of Neo-liberalist. Homosexuals, lesbians and transgender that fight for the country’s interest will be recognized for their invaluable sacrifice, and not forgotten. For real courage comes from people that pay the ultimate sacrifice at the cost of their own life.

    No longer will radical groups prevail and Neo-liberalist propaganda will be suppressed. Religious extremist groups sponsoring hate will follow the same faith. No longer will divisions spur national disunity as nationalism will end all tumult.  Conservatives and liberals will live under the umbrella of national unity.

    If we don’t act now to revert the situation with Nationalism, in the next few years we won’t have a nation to stand.  If another great depression strikes it will create the perfect ideological storm and lead the nation toward a gruesome civil war. History irrefutably shows ideological revolutions are not nice.


    Comments Off on Nationalism will firmly unite the nation