Posts by Jaime Ortega-Simo:
- Trump has potential to become a great reformist. He connects with rural America better than Clinton, who stated on one of her emails that she adopts “a private and public agenda”. Clinton’s downfall was her biggest addiction — Wall Street. Trump’s reign will either end in a disastrous presidency, or he will become the next great president after Ronald Reagan to never earn recognition. Given his unique character and lack of political discourse, he could start a new era in politics where traditional politicians no longer control government. Obama’s administration left behind a deeply divided nation. Extreme reformists like Trump are needed to revert the national chaos. People forget that Trump is a bright individual, and when he commits a mistake he is likely to apologize and keep fighting. The key to understand his presidency is really understand his achievement as a business man – and he was a successful man despite his bankruptcy. I believe he will also be a successful politician. The only concern I have, is that leftist propaganda will fuel hate among the heathen in a desperate attack to encircle him into a despaired presidency.
- The giant who no one ever saw. The left will unite and bash Trump no matter what he does. For the left it is payback time as republicans constantly bashed Obama’s presidency without much tolerance. Trump’s first year will be tough, expect amateurish mistakes – by amateurish mistakes I don’t mean nuking Saudi Arabia — but getting the grasp of government. Trump will rapidly excel. However, what people will observe, is a good president who will be portrayed as a ‘dictator’ for his entire presidential term. If the leftist media did not pardon his past mistakes – if Clinton despite her Wall Street sell out and FBI controversy still gained the popular vote – it shows that Trump will be criticized no matter what he does and how bad the left has become.
- Trump has a high probability of assassination. He is under a lot of scrutiny and pressure from the left and Wall Street. I mentioned in one of my past stories, where I predicted his presidency that Trump might end up assassinated like John F. Kennedy. In fact, he is probably hated more than any other US president in history. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t finish his presidential bid without a bullet.
- Trump won’t have it any easier than Clinton dealing with republican legislators. If Clinton would have won the elections, her laws would have been rejected by the republican legislation. Trump is no different than Clinton, he is another threat to the establishment and possibly more than her democratic counterpart. In fact, probably much more of a threat than Clinton because Trump’s radical fiscal policy reforms might severely play a de-facto paradigm among republicans, who did not vote for his canons; it should be hard for Trump to pass executive orders in congress without veto, as a significant part of republicans in the house and the senate are in bed with Wall-Street and support an economy free of Keynesian regulations. Expect a hostile environment between Trump’s administration and the republican legislation. It would be the first time where the republican legislation won’t see eye to eye with the president who represents their party. Remember that many republicans endorsed Clinton because she championed free market laws, foreign partnerships and outsourcing – Trump presents the contrary viewpoint.
- Clinton might flee the country. The Clinton Foundation is still under investigation and Trump could assign Rudy Giuliani as the next Attorney General to prosecute the Clintons, if Obama doesn’t pardon her now. I suspect that the Clintons are aware of Trump’s menace – especially during the debate when Trump publically promised to appoint an independent investigation to prosecute Hillary – so don’t be surprised if the Clintons gather all their wealth and leave the country to seek political asylum elsewhere. If Trump prosecutes Clinton, it would evoke Hillary supporters to revolt and chastise Trump’s government which could play out against his plan to unify the country and the liberals that doubt him.
- Trump might return Wikileaks the favor. Without a cast of a doubt Julian Assange saved Trumps campaign. Without exposing Clintons leaked emails Trump would have not defeated her political machine. If Clinton would have won the elections – renown in DC for her revengeful behavior — Assange would probably be a dead duck. Trump might grant Assange liberty or political asylum after what he indirectly contributed to his campaign to save his election.
- Texas and Arizona will push for constructing the wall more than Trump. Mexico needs the United States partnership, more than the United States needs Mexico. In my opinion, Pena Nieto’s government will publically badmouth Trump and the republicans, but secretly negotiate a deal to help pay for the wall – it’s the art of politics and Mexican politicians are masters of drama like the telenovelas they show on regular television; showing public discontent, but private acceptance. Arizona and Texas are infested with sanctuary cities and they experience migration at a level that other states don’t experience, they will be vocal against Trump if he doesn’t build the wall.
- Liberal cities become new sanctuary safe-havens for undocumented workers. As I mentioned above, republican states will force illegal immigration to scatter to cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, New York City, DC, and San Francisco on large numbers to avoid deportation. This will backfire on liberal states and really hurt jobs and labor. US citizens living on larger cosmopolitan cities will start to lose jobs in inner cities and suffer. Stiff competition among illegal immigrants for low paid jobs will not make the minimum wage decline. Even if the minimum wage is raised in major cities like Los Angeles or Chicago, many companies to save cost will continue to hire undocumented workers under the table with less compensation, instead of hiring US citizens. It would only exacerbate unemployment inside large liberal inner cities if they adopt sanctuary laws.
- Trump is going to stifle the economy with his massive deportation plan. As I explained above liberal inner-cities will suffer from unemployment for adopting immigration, but republican states will suffer large production cost if they lose immigrant labor. Many US Small-Medium Enterprises depend on illegal workers to supply business efficiency. American labor cannot replace the worship of Latinos and Asians in under-skilled jobs; the dishwashers, maids, crop pickers, farm workers, cooks and other services in general depend largely on immigration to operate. Replacing Latinos and Asians with US citizens without proper training will severely ravish Mains Street – It will be a mistake. In contrast, many immigrants that come to US to study with visas – if Trumps laws are indeed imposed on all immigration – will end with a shortage on science jobs like engineering, hard to replace because fewer American’s graduate under science based majors. That will tumult the economy on a scientific level. The US is dependent on foreign students to cover the quota of science related jobs.
- The relationship between China and the US is going to significantly deteriorate. China devaluated their currency not long ago to suffix dependency on foreign markets. Nonetheless, China is deeply rooted with the US market — and under Trumps foreign policy to increase tariffs and end outsourcing – expect a highly problematic relationship between Beijing and Washington DC. The US dependency on China will also increase lobbyist activity on Capitol Hill to stop Trump’s executive reforms at all cost from hurting trade. A trade war would hurt American exports and hurt imports, but it would mostly hurt Wall Street and elites.
- Soon, the ‘environment protection’ treaty signed in Paris by Barack Obama won’t be worth anything. The Trump administration will bury the treaty and allow coal miners to replace the disastrous hybrid technologies meant to replace fossil fuels — that according to environmentalist produce carbons that result in global warming. The environmentalist won’t be happy, but the miners will happily cheer on states like West Virginia and Ohio where they are banned from using carbon emission gasses. It is still disputed whether global warming is produced by the Green House Effect, or by Sun spots. Such policy chance will no doubt infuriate many Bernie Sanders supporters and those who support the Green Party, but it might revive the economy on many small towns across the US.
- The relationship between the European Union and the US could be based on political affiliations rather than on Trump’s pragmatism. Western Europe has shifted to the right, and only Andrea Merkel, Germany’s chancellor remains the only progressive leader in the union. Leftist idealism has created subdivisions in the EU, thanks to the refugee crisis and Greek bankruptcy – the idea of a united Europe has started to aggravate regionalist and nationalist pride. Brexit is the culmination of such division and it is only going to worsen before it gets any better. A lot of Euro-skeptics endorse Trump’s policy and champion his radical reforms. I expect some European progressive countries to reject his policy, but I expect more countries to endorse it as the pendulum shifts right. If Trump destroys ISIS with a nuclear bomb or sends ground troops — din clear violation of the UN resolution of human rights — he win the hearts and minds of many Europeans who will vote for right wing parties.
- Russia and Trump’s relation will foster a double edge sword between Russia and the US. Trump will initially get along with Putin on the basis of foreign diplomacy, but that could be a tricky card. Trump is just as likely to initiate world-war III as Clinton; the volatile attitude of Trump in contended places like Syria where Russia, Ben Assad, Turkey, the Arab League, Iran, the Kurds and America could easily turn into war for control of the Middle East. Russia’s military incursion on Syria, is a serious warning that it intends to extend its influence in the Middle East. Trump and Putin’s relationship depends on Syria and Iran. Putin won’t be as cocky under Trump’s presidency like he masked with Obama’s weak foreign policy – if anything Putin will have to torpedo his own foreign policy and possibly deescalate in aggression and stop his provocative military intrusion on airspaces all around the world. The best solution for Putin and Trump to get along, would be to display a joint operation campaign between Russia and the United States to defeat ISIS and Al-Nusra – it would at least secure a short and peaceful environment between the two nations; yet, Iran might play a negative role in their slippery friendship.
- Iran versus the US will likely start a next war. Trump has repeatedly condemned the Obama administration for allowing John Kerry to negotiate a resolution with Iran that would legally permit the usage of uranium enrichment under the strict supervision of UN inspectors. Trump plans to abort the resolution and throw away the agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – the republican legislation rejected the bill. Israel and Saudi Arabia abhor the Obama administration for its ‘nuclear gift’ to Iran –both countries have abandoned the compromise set by US foreign policy in the Middle East and labelled as disastrous. Trump will likely engage on a war with Iran, if indeed cancels the resolution to end the agreement. Iran is less fearful of facing the US, than Russia or China at this particular point in time. A war with China and Russia would no doubts take a direct toll on US foreign trade and its geo-strategical dominance. Russia at one point depended heavily on Iranian oil, but now it is busy trying to sell petroleum drilled on the Baltic Sea; over the past decade Russia has become an oil independent nation – at this point Iran has become a secondary market for Russia. Also it is key to understand how Vladimir Putin reacted to Erdogan’s Turkey, when they shot down two Russian fighter jets and no escalation ensued — which speaks miles about Russia’s military response after it suffered a humiliating blow. If Russia didn’t militarily retaliate with Turkey – which is one third the military size of Russia – it’s a clear sign that they won’t interfere with US interventionism in Iran. China relies primarily on Sudanese and Iraqi oil refineries to run its nations infrastructure. China is oil dependent and their military is crippled without access to oil reserves. China is desperately trying to encompass a foreign strategy that will eventually grant it greater access to the Middle East market — and just recently rented space on Djibouti to control its oil exports. China also heavily depends on eastern African countries to run their agricultural demands, so it is key that they remain a strong presence on the region to protect its interest. Also China is still financially intrinsic to the US economy — more than any other country in the world given its assembly power. If war was declared, I am not convinced that Russia or China would join Iran to fight against the United States. Also China, Russia and the US have nuclear capability which would make them avoid confrontation at all cost. Trump’s highly volatile foreign policy would not put up with Iranian demands, in the case it rebelled or threatened the US. Saudi Arabia would join the US, as it currently fights a war against the rebel Houthis, who control northern Yemen. Israel would also co-sponsor an assault on Iranian soil and provide aerial and ground logistics. Despite Iran’s military threat, it lacks nuclear capability making its military susceptible to invade. If the US decide to declare war on Iran, this is the best time. Once Iran manufactures nuclear technology it would no longer be categorized as a feeble military power. Iran versus the US, could very well develop into a war soon.
- Iraq will be reconstructed and prosper after ISIS is out. The Iraqi National Army has started their campaign to drive out ISIS from Mosul. Iraq is currently under the leadership of a Shia Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi and its dumping sectarianism to embrace nationalism — the last time nationalism exited on Iraq was under Saddam Hussein’s regime. If the US intervenes on Iraq under president Trump, it would drive off ISIS back to Syria. Unlike Syria, Iraq currently is the 5th largest oil reserves in the world and will end as a major oil exporter to resurrect its economy. I strongly believe that Iraq will be reconstructed with the financial influence of China, the US, South Korea and other European countries to avoid future sectarian divisions. The world needs the Middle East to stabilize. Don’t be surprised if ancient cities like ancient Nineveh and Babylon are reconstructed to create a new capital for all Iraqis under a new nationalist agenda – in fact as of today the University of Babylon shows signs of reconstruction. Higher education would be great for the country if it manages to build itself from its ashes after fourteen years of constant turmoil.
- Arab countries will have a better relation with Trump, than Obama. Trump won’t necessarily suffer a backlash from Arab countries for not accepting Muslim refugees. Many countries in the Middle East have extensive tough migratory laws that mainstream liberal media fails to expose — a phenomena observed during the refugee crisis and the rise of terrorist organizations – consequently, Middle Eastern countries have not accepted Libyan, Yemeni or Syrian immigrants, but instead constructed fenced refugee camps to feed, clothe and bathe the needy. Muslim activism in America is deeply entrenched with CAIR, MAS, NAIT, MSA, etc. — the US version of the Muslim Brotherhood – and they don’t represent its affiliate versions in the Middle East which are completely banned in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Egypt to name a few. What Arab leaders mostly care about is how the US will deal with the Middle East crisis, ISIL and the rise of Iran as a Shia regional hegemon. Trump has a interventionist policy that attracts the Arab league.
- Al-Qaeda might target Las Vegas. A lot of people sleep on Al-Qaeda as ISIL takes the spotlight. Al-Qaeda is much more organized than ISIS, and unlike ISIS it knows how to operate without having territorial advantage; it has experience, and the border with Mexico offers a ‘prime-entrance’ to conduct a terrorist plot in South Western United Sates. If Trump defeats ISIL, ISIL members will join Al-Qaeda as many foreign fighters will be banned from travelling back to Europe. I expect an Afghani truck bomb attack on US soil.
- Egypt, Libya and Syria will likely get along with Trump. Many Middle Eastern leaders utterly despise Obama’s administration and Clinton’s foreign intervention policy which led to a power vacuum that engulfed and destabilized many nations. Libya’s House of Representatives and general Kalifa Haftha; Egypt’s dictator Al-Sisi and the Assad regime are going to get along better with Trump than with Hillary by a long shot –mark my words.
- Members of NATO and the UN won’t like Trump’s America, but will have to forcibly embrace his policy. Trump’s universe revolves on renegotiations and agreements; on the other hand, NATO –and particularly the UN – revolve on foreign diplomatic resolutions to ban or set financial restrictions to any country that violates international law. Unlike Barack Obama, Trump doesn’t care about NATO and the UN, he cares more about the US – at least that is what he publically states. NATO heavily depends on the US military to function, more than China financially depends on the US to thrive. If NATO wants to continue to adopt a protectionist policy, they will vow to the demands and renegotiations agreements that Trump wants to settle. The military rise of China, India, Pakistan and Russia are concerns that scares members of NATO; without the US, NATO is simply a worthless paper organization – no different than the UN.
- The liberal mainstream media will inflame more flames. The mainstream media establishment could either help propagate hate or stop their leftist propaganda. Networks like CNN, NYT, MSNBC, NBC, the Huffington Post and CBS helped fuel an ethnic and ideological divide with their biased coverage of cop versus black crime during Obama’s administration. They’re so biased that they only cover cops killing blacks, but not cops killing Latinos or Caucasians– which both triple black deaths by 12 percent compared to 4 percent according to the Washington Post, McDonald report. With all the protest and riots currently taking place, the media has fueled hate and unnecessary propaganda against Trump. The media are not for freedom of information, and no longer behave as journalist, but rather as opportunist organizations to self-indulge and push leftist dogmas to contradict the right at any cost. The leftist media is the one medium which could ignite the draw-lines between the right and the left with dangerous rhetoric that could inflame a civil war.
- The rise of proto-soviet ideologies will rise in the US under Trump’s presidency. Many extreme leftist groups mistakenly label Trump as an American ‘fascist’ — such notion couldn’t be more flawed. Trump is a nationalist, and it could be argued whether or not he is a true conservative – I highly doubt growing up in New York City, Trump ever adopted a true-purist conservative stance as his republican acolytes in the south – who don’t necessarily support his moral ideals and question his republican roots. Trump is no fascist, and he opposed the Neo-conservative movement to globalize the Middle East and its transnational corporatist model, when George W. Bush administration decided to invade Iraq. Others view Trump as a dictator who opposes the will of the constitution and the values of American traditionalism — which is a progressive strategy to demonize Trump’s radical reforms. So on one side, liberals view Trump as a fascist, and on the other side progressives view Trump as a dictator; such false narrative will induce and convert ignorant people to join the utopias of the far left — and as ignorance increases in America —- so will proto-soviet ideals continue to multiply in dangerous numbers. Anarchism has also taken off in the last eight years and the number of converts has increased over the decade to worrisome numbers – and continues to worsen. The Anarchist symbol is proudly worn in many protest. Since its inception and independence from England, the US has thrived on nationalism and military values to unify the country. Today millennials living inside liberal oriented states no longer adopt a patriotic model and wrongly label it as fascist. When anarchism, communism and Marxism thrive on western countries, it is a clear indicator of disunity and contingency that could potentially spill into a new civil war. Expect the rise of far left ideologies to increase during Trumps presidency. Once such leftist dogmas start to creep, it’s a cancer which remedy relies uniquely on force to extirpate from society.
- Trump will try to unify the US, but might create separatism instead. Trump spoke as a solitary voice in the wilderness to represent the industrial sector and farmlands of America. His enemies are Wall-Street, the Media and the rise of far left ideological faction—-which happen mostly to live on states like California and New York. The left and the establishment feel threatened by rural states and it will create dissension and separatism. Proud states like Alabama, Kentucky and Texas won’t swallow the demands of hallmark states like California or New York; they will also not adopt progressive values or surrender state laws. The US relies on unification, but it is no longer unified ideologically and secession is now a real possibility as I predicted on my past posts.
- 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.
By Jaime Ortega.
As a journalist who predicted Donald Trump’s presidential bid, I find it inconceivable and outright stupid that Hillary Clinton would make the outrageous claim, “fake news is a growing problem which we know now can affect elections and it needs to be stopped in the name of democracy.”
In this piece, I won’t hide my anger toward a women who publicly acts like Mary Poppins but slithers her tongue in private like a snake. Hillary and the word democracy should never be put on the same sentence. Hillary is more fake than any fake news that circulated during the 2016 elections. Hillary, John Podesta and comrade George Soros bribed and bagged CNN, The New York Times, Fortune, Politico, ABC, CBS, NBC, Times, Washington Post and MSNbc among other networks to help aid her political crusade as Wilkileaks emails showed. Hillary uses democracy as a Guinea-Pig to achieve her own political interest, withholding public demand in exchange of courting Wall Street’s favoritism.
Fake news circulating on the web are no different than editorial censorship and fake information biasedly reported by mainstream media outlets to influence public opinion. The Clinton News Network is the epithet of ‘fake news’ and ‘bias liberal media coverage’. As a defender of public integrity – taking out the ‘basked of deplorables and basement dwellers’ comments – shouldn’t Hillary also publicly state the obvious? That liberal mainstream media networks kissed her behind, and made up fake polls to deceive millions of voters who thought Hillary was comfortably ahead of Trump? That wasn’t fake right? Mainstream media manipulation on public opinion is disgusting because unlike Independent News Networks owned by small fries, larger networks spend their unlimited resources trying to endorse Hillary at any cost possible – even at the expense of journalism itself.
It is comical how Hillary’s subordinates continue to deceitfully accuse Russia for election tampering, but fail to mention how her foundation received big money from foreign donors as US Secretary of State. It is also funny how they accuse the Kremlin for hacking her foundation and the DNC, but fail to accuse other countries like China, Iran, Egypt or North Korea which also dislike US foreign policy. The Director of National Intelligence is fully aware that Russia is only one of many countries which regularly breach US Government servers – the fact that other countries are not mentioned by Hillary pundits should automatically raise questions. The fact China or Iran are not suspects of hacking the DNC or Clinton’s Foundation, might be a clear indicator that Hillary secretly dispatches negotiations with both countries and doesn’t want to alter the friendship by accusing them —- despite clear evidence from the CIA of their constant cybersecurity attacks. I find it odd, Russia is mentioned by the mainstream media as the only hacking source.
When Project Veritas uncovered how Democracy Partners instigated and provoked riots inside Trump’s rally in Chicago to stir controversy and media attention against his campaign, the Clinton News Network questioned more the journalist credentials of filmmaker James O’Kefee, than the undeniable fact which proved how the DNC backed and serviced such crooked organization to create hysteria and blame Trump supporters. The DNC, should be investigated for co-sponsoring fake riots in the streets to drive off Trump supporters to vote for Hillary. Hillary is such master of peace and harmony that she was responsible for continuing the Neo-Conservative occupation policy firstly introduced by Ronald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney during the Bush Administration, which ultimately destroyed the balance of power in the Middle East — Syria and Libya surely thank Ms. Clinton.
Hillary is so fake that her close colleagues played the DNC against Bernie Sanders to oppose his socialist revolution. Not only was it done behind his back – backstabbers are a special breed of people – but it took Wikileaks to uncover the whole truth. Then after the underserved preliminary victory, Hillary had the guts to use his reforms – which surely presented anti-capitalist and anti-globalist agendas– to win the confidence of millennials, sick and tired of Wall-Street; the same rich powerful and gluttonous big fat bankers and corporate institutions that Hillary recently invited to a “thank you” party. She partied with her Wall Street donors, and not with the poor unemployed millennials who sent her money — typical hypocrite politician.
Hillary, used women rights to self-satisfy her vindictive agenda to win the hearts and souls of feminist who have no clue about politics, finance or global affairs – and view the world one-dimensionally focused primarily on women issues. Then if that wasn’t enough, Hillary silenced all the women who slept with Bill Clinton to ensure it wouldn’t damage her political campaign among the watchful eyes of other progressive feminist. Hillary supports women rights? So why does she support Muslim countries that brutally beat and spay women? Or why does she support Chinese corporate donations? When these exploit women and children in factories? – Women who work ten times harder than Hillary, and verily make a penny to survive! Meanwhile, Hillary probably has ‘house maids’ and ‘house servants’ who degrade themselves as women to satisfy her lust for luxury? She has enough courage to ask for women votes? If she was truly for women rights, she wouldn’t have women maids and servants working under her — either as First Lady in the White House, or her majestic mansion. You cannot publicly support women rights, and have maids and servants washing your dishes and cleaning up your dirt!
Hillary says, she woefully supports LGBT rights. But how can one support countries that publicly execute Lesbians, Homosexuals and burn transgender men and women without remorse and openly claim to defend LGBT communities? Every time, Hillary shakes the hand of Muslim Salafist leaders or hugs a sheik, she admits to her hypocrisy; in the Middle East those rulers and religious authorities have no pity when they behead women, lesbians, homosexuals and transgender men and women. Those handshakes aren’t fake either right? So political agendas can be fake – as her “private discourse is different than public discourse” according to one of her leaked emails – but she plans to only persecute fake news instead of fake politicians? This woman is an absolute mogul and any derogatory word used against her is fair game.
She is so fake, that instead of fully accepting the results and embracing the new president, Hillary decided to initiate a vote recount started by Jill Stein to challenge the elections – wishing for controversy to go her way, she miserably failed. She then accused Trump in one of the presidential debates for questioning the election results in case she became president of the United States. Now, she has created an unnecessary vacuum where elections will be contested by future losing candidates.
To end my rant, I would like to conclude that before we prosecute and regulate fake news on the internet, I expect the government to prosecute and also regulate fake politicians. Hillary has shown to be the biggest crybaby I’ve ever witnessed in US politics, and an evil one also!
Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Is Faker Than Online News
By Jaime Ortega.
Green Party leader Jill Stein recently decided to recount the votes in Wisconsin suspicious of voter fraud. I strongly suspect, George Soros the backbone of the DNC, is directly responsible of Steins decision to recount votes. Why would Stein suddenly care about the election results when she never had a chance on earth of winning the presidency? Why just contest Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin —states Trump won? Why not contest all the states Hillary Clinton won? Double standards! I have little doubts, Wall Street subordinates have triangle a strategy alongside with Soros to rig the official election results fearing Trump might damage and possibly regulate the market with authoritarian demands counter to their private interest.
It wasn’t Trump who laid in bed with ‘too big to fail banks’. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Clinton’s top contributors JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup Inc. were involved with her campaign. Even the own US Government contributed $764,569 USD to the Clinton bid – possibly courtesy of Barack Obama himself. Above were some of the institutions that openly contributed to her campaign — but as the Clinton Foundation leaks show, she also received funds from foreign governments – which proves that the presidential stakes were high this year.
The stock market shows symptoms of insecurity and panic amid national and foreign traders. Lenders who regularly trade with China invested future projects opting for Clinton’s TPP agreement to fructify– not ensured what specific financial reforms Trump might adopt when he steps on office, lenders and traders view outsourcing under siege and trade affected.
Progressive demagogues fail to understand that 90 percent of contributions Clinton received to plump her campaign came from Super-Pac’s, and only 10 percent came from middle class donors. She received a lot of money, and there’s a lot of outside pressure from financial institutions to crown Clinton the next US president at any cost possible – the desperados want to desperately make one last final attempt to achieve their mischievous goal. On the flipside, contesting late election results against the demands of the working class creates a perfect storm for the conservative movement to think in terms of civil rebellion — if Clinton suddenly became the first lady and Trump’s presidency was overturned – the change would spark terrifying cultural consequences felt across the nation. When the agrarian and industrial sectors revolt, it resonates a chilling social effect that shakes the pillars of the banking system. Once the conservative movement protest and views the liberals and the progressive establishment as traitors and violence instigators, social order draws into open conflict.
A few Republicans before the election also worried Trump would win the presidency. What would it mean for right wing congressmen deeply rooted with bundlers and lobbyist inside Capitol Hill to have Trump as the next president? Surely, many Rep. Congressmen akin Liberal Democrats don’t want The Executive branch to interfere with foreign economic policy or diminish its globalist role. The irony is that Trump champion’s free market mobility, but plans international trade reforms help boost national employment –he is not interested in solving the problems of other nations — unless of course they pay their fair share.
The Soros-Wall Street-Clinton ‘triangle’ wants to use Russia as a ‘guinea pig’ to contest the official result of the election. The Russian government know it’s the ‘triangle’s’ strategy to delegitimize Trump’s presidency at all cost, using Cold War propaganda to incite paranoia among Democrat loyalist. It is also curious to note China and Iran – renown for hacking Pentagon servers for the past few years — are not mentioned by the ‘triangle’, which should automatically raise alarms of distrust in their quest to easily influenced public opinion. Russia’s impact as a foreign actor to affect the US election wouldn’t make much sense anyhow because Trump might end as a bad diplomatic option for the Kremlin’s interest abroad –risking and unknown unknown in Trump, might be worse than trusting a known unknown in Clinton.
The excuse to recount votes came with the over 2 Million votes that summed after the election — the popular vote. As I mentioned on my previous editorial post, what liberal and progressive news networks fail to inform people is that the state of California and the state of New York have mega-populace compared to other smaller populated states, so the popular votes predominantly come from those two states which are traditionally democratic states.
Hillary Clinton complained on her last debate that “Trump should accept the election results and not contest the votes for the sake of democracy.” Like a sudden storm out the blue sky—- a team of progressive professors has decided to question the electoral result and give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. The DNC jumped right away on the recommendation and decided to follow the steps of Stein – which without a doubt should be vetted in case she received money from Soros and Wall Street top players to initiate a last minute recount.
One ought to remember that Bernie Sanders – a supposedly pioneer of socialism and anti-capitalist — received money from the DNC to support her party rival Ms. Clinton. Sanders sold his soul to the Clinton machine and changed his revolutionary reformist rhetoric to support her campaign against the outcry of the “Basement Dwellers” whom endorsed him for his anti-globalist stance. Many anti-capitalist millennials obviously felt betrayed by Sanders the moment he decided to endorse Clinton in exchange of money. If Sanders was influenced, why wouldn’t Stein? The funny anecdote is that when Sanders lost to Clinton in the primary election, Clinton asked him to cede and not contest the results for the sake of democracy— Sanders had the decency to not contest the results and conceded his loss – the DNC is truly disgusting from the inside-out.
The recount is a complete mockery of the US Electoral College historical process. Even President Barack Obama has showed “concerns” with the DNC’s attempt to whitewash the election. Obama wants a peaceful transition to take place without last minute controversy, but knows that the recount will stir distrust from the conservative movement hard to fathom. Obama is not happy about the recount and the consequences involved — prompting cynicism from the right that will start to contest every election won by the Democratic Party in the future. Once a particular group disputes the results of an election, it should be branded with suspicion and mistrust and likewise contested – not good folks!
The progressives and liberal movement are playing a dangerous head-game which might trigger a series of future events that could lead to an open civil war – such events could create a perfect storm for secession to take place within the US — like the split during the Confederacy and the Union, that resentment still exist today. The democratic establishment has created two evils that will dissolve national unity in the future and inflict an incurable wound without political remedy. The wealthy liberal’s support the Wall-Street economic model and elitist agenda caters to the bourgeois class; the progressive support proto-soviet individualist dogmas that act as anti-national propaganda to oppose conservatism. The hypocrisy of the democratic left is that liberals and progressives today — as opposed to the past — are actually ideologically at odds with each-other because one supports constitutional civil rights and financial freedom and the other believes in social justice without a capitalist cap. The left will do anything in their power to stop Trump without looking closer at the DNC – having both progressives and liberal serious discrepancies with one another and the economic model they plan to adopt. Liberals are not proclaimed socialist nor do they endorse proto-soviet or proto-French dogmas.
The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, Vox, The Huffington post and other liberal and progressive networks are fully responsible for inflaming anti-Trump rhetoric and helping fume the drums of an unnecessary ideological war that perhaps one day will bite them back in the ass.
Comments Off on Elections Will Never Be The Same Again: The Hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton Leads to Civil War
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
Dr. Carol M. Swain
Professor of political science and professor of law at Vanderbilt University. She is passionate about empowering others to raise their voices in the public square. She has authored award-winning books.
1) Has Obama helped black communities like he promised to do? Has he divided Americans?
President Obama has used the politics of race and class to divide Americans. He has done this by politicizing interactions with the police and by ignoring the crime rates in many African-American communities. His policies have not improved the economic well-being of low-income, low-wage Americans.
2) What is your opinion of the BLM movement?
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a loose collection of organizations with no central leadership. It has proven itself to be a destructive force in some cities because of the inflammatory messages and actions of some of its leaders and followers attracted to the slogan. Its initial website and demands read like a page from a Marxist handbook with its condemnation of the State for all manner of atrocity. In the last few months, BLM has improved its website and image by toning down the rhetoric.
I don’t see BLM as a logical outgrowth of the black civil rights movement of the 1960s. It is more anti-American and pro-violence. It is a Marxist movement that depends on financial support from leftist organizations such as Democracy Alliance and Freedom Road Socialist Organization.
By ignoring the excessively high black abortion rates in black communities and the shocking levels of black-on-black crime, BLM has missed an opportunity to give meaning to its name. Surely, BLM should be concerned about crime rates, the murder of the unborn, and the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in black communities. Engaging in anarchy, blocking traffic, advocating violence against law enforcement officers creates a destructive force in society and it drives away potential allies.
While politicians and university administrators publicly court the group, I suspect this is being done out of fear rather than respect for what the organization purports to represent. For the organization to become a positive society force, it would have to put forth policy alternatives that don’t involve advancing Marxist goals. It would also have distance itself from the agendas or organizations such as Occupy Wall Street and factions that attack American values as it relates to law and order, capitalism, free markets, and traditional values, morals, and family structures.
3) Is its correct to categorize blacks in America as ‘African-American’, since they were not born in Africa?
I usually refer to myself as black. African American should apply to individuals, white or black, who were born in Africa and emigrated to the United States.
4) Do blacks suffer discrimination from their own community?
Blacks suffer from intragroup and well as intergroup discrimination. Discrimination within the group can be based on skin color (light skin v. dark skin), social class (middle class v. underclass), and partisanship (democrat v. Republican).
– Are blacks afraid to report crime inside black communities fearing to be identified’ as a “snitch” or a “traitor” for complying with law enforcement?
I have no independent means of knowing if blacks are more fearful than other inner-city groups to report crimes.
– Blacks who don’t follow the democratic narrative are called Uncle Toms and coons by their own ethnicity. Do you think that is bad?
Of course, it is bad for a group to use intimidation and epithets to silence others.
5) Spike Lee once said that racism is an institution, therefore assessing that blacks could never be racist, but only elites could. Do you agree with his point of view? Or do you believe racism depends on the individual?
I totally disagree. Any racial or ethnic group can practice racism. America has had a black president, two black attorney generals, numerous state and federal office holders who exert power over millions of Americans. Individuals and organizations can be racist to the core.
6) Rap music has several genres, but the most popular one is gangster rap. The lyrics of some of the songs offer a very violent approach to society. When people dance to music that calls women “hoes and bitches” glorify “drugs”, “criminal activity” and “violence” has society not shifted to its own moral deprivation? Has rap helped black communities thrive, or has it harm the moral standard of a once family oriented and morally integrated group? Is rap a gateway to violence for black communities?
These songs degrade and demean black men and women. Plus, it has a corrupting influence on society that extends beyond the black community.
7) A lot of blacks believe Caucasians owe them something in return for the slavery days. Are blacks today morally entitled to put themselves in the shoes of black men and women who passed through slavery? Do Caucasians today owe blacks anything?
I can’t speak for all black Americans. When I look at the history of America, I see a nation that has spent billions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to eradicate the past and present effects of discrimination.
8) Is it fair to compare the generation of the Civil Rights movement guided by Martin Luther King Jr. with what some call today the ‘Thug generation’? Would Martin Luther King Jr. advocate in favor of black gangs, criminal behavior, drug exchange, degradation of women values, broken parenthood, dependency on government programs and violent rap lyrics that seem to exist today in most black neighborhoods across America but did not exist during the civil rights movement?
I have no way of knowing what Dr. King would do or say if he were alive today. I would imagine he would be deeply disappointed with the people who purport to represent blacks and some of the nonsense emerging from America’s colleges and universities.
10) There is no doubt that Americans are among the highest drug users in the world. Have drugs crippled black communities and Americans in general? Are drugs responsible for all the troubles in the African American community?
The crippling effects of drugs are not confined to any one community.
11) The Harvest of Shame was a powerful documentary filmed in the 1960’s that showed how hard working blacks, Caucasians and Mexicans struggled to survive in the agricultural farmlands of America to earn a modest living. It showed a strong black working class prevalent before in blue collar sectors raging from construction and fishing, to mining jobs. Unlike in the past, today the black working class has been replaced by Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorians and Hondurans who have no problems finding jobs. Does the present generation of uneducated blacks work as hard as the generation of the 60’s and bellow? Are Americans in general lax about acquiring new opportunities, and feel entitled to high paid jobs without earning the skills or rights to move forward? Simply put, are many Americans today lazy people who want the whole world at their feet without working hard for it?
I think this question conflates too many things. There are plenty of hard working, low-skilled blacks who work several jobs. If America would address illegal immigration and the surplus of cheap labor, it might result in higher wages for blacks and low-skilled Hispanics.
-The Harvest of Shame documentary also shows how black children were eager to get an education to escape poverty, but had a hard time doing so. It is clear in the documentary that it was tough for black children to settle in school because families traveled from state to state trying to find work in the agricultural fields of America. In contrast, the generation of blacks today, having significantly greater opportunities than blacks in the past, show the complete opposite behavior while claiming that the government is not supportive. Do you think that the newer generation of blacks is akin the generation of the 60’s who seem to have worked much harder having less access to educational programs?
Do black kids of this generation really have an excuse to fail having it easier to succeed as compared to the past?
I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment on its depiction of blacks.
12) Africans that come to the United States start in low income areas and work hard to get an education. Many Africans become lawyers and doctors among other college degrees and end up moving to higher income areas; the same is true with other ethnic groups from Vietnam, Laos, and China among others countries. In contrast, black Americans per-capita are significantly less successful overall than their African counterparts. Are blacks taking real advantage of the educational system? And are they more likely to buy a brand new pair of Jordan’s instead of purchasing a $3 dollar math or history book in Goodwill? Are they more likely to dropout from school and engage in crime, than attend a free local public library and spend time lifting a solid education? What is the difference between the African migrant mindset as opposed to the black American mindset?
Immigrants who come to America tend to have higher education and more resources. They start from a higher vantage point than many black descendants of slaves.
13) Many teachers across the nation complain that they find it almost impossible to teach elementary schools in many black communities. They are many recorded cases and documentaries that support those claims, including students who abuse their teachers and record it. On the contrary, many activist like BLM, and other community activist like Rev Al-Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson campaign against the government for lack of funding. Do you detect any hypocrisy?
This is too complicated to address in a few sentences. What you are describing are two different things. The teachers are complaining about disciplinary problems and the activists are focusing on the achievement gap and attributing this to a lack of resources. Resources will not fix the disciplinary problems that often stem from broken homes and absent fathers.
14) The terminology behind the word ‘racism’ is disputed among academic theologians. But the overwhelming majority believe it means “the belief to be superior” to another ethnic group. Do you believe America is racist or xenophobic? When whites or other minorities have a negative stereotype against black Americans, is that ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’ in origin? Is the word racism being used correctly now days?
The word racism is overused by liberals. Nowadays, it is used to silence people who hold opposing views on any number of topics.
-There is only one race, and that is the human race, so the terminology of ‘racism’ makes little sense. When we talk about ‘racism’ are we really taking about ‘ethnic intolerance’? In your opinion is ethnic intolerance the same as racism?
I don’t think it matters what you call it. Cultural differences often result in situations where one group or the other see themselves as victims of racism or unfair discrimination.
15) In the Daily Journalist we conducted a survey a few years ago on different shops and restaurants in Las Vegas owned by foreigners and new American ethnic groups. To our surprise we discovered that Asian, Middle Eastern, Mexican, Indian, Easter European, Pakistani, Latinos and surprisingly Africans distrusted black-Americans out of every other ethnic group. In almost all instances criminal behavior was the ‘main concern’ and they encouraged police to inflict harsher surveillance laws to protect their business. In the study, we excluded surveying Caucasians just to understand what other ethnicities felt about other minority groups in America. In your opinion, is racism among other minorities towards blacks caused not by skin color but by crime? Or are these minorities inherently racist?
I didn’t conduct the survey so I have no independent means of assessing what was going on in the heads of the respondents. It strikes me as a typical case of stereotyping.
–The media covers a lot of cop vs black related issues to portray white racism against blacks and create public outrage, but fails to cover the racial war taking place in many cities like Los Angeles, where Mexicans overthrow —- and sometimes kill blacks in many neighborhoods — the opposite is also true in heavily black populated neighborhoods. Such wars have taken the lives of many innocent people from both sides and its growing –especially in gang related communities. Why do you think the media focuses on whites killing blacks, but it doesn’t focus on blacks killing Mexicans, or Mexicans killing blacks?
The media has been conditioned to focus on whites killing blacks because these cases tend to be sensationalized more by vocal black activists who are quite adept at holding press conferences and creating a frenzy among bystanders. While this is happening stories of minorities killing each other gets short shrift. These include Mexican gangs singling out and killing blacks in communities that were once historically black and the crimes that take place within and across minority groups. Blacks and Hispanics compete for jobs, housing, and educational opportunities. This creates a measure of resentment because blacks believe other groups are favored. Of course, this deserves more media attention than it gets.
-In another study (which still needs revision) minorities and American Caucasians were asked several questions regarding racism targeted against blacks. For our surprise, the minorities were more vocal about blacks than Caucasians, who seemed less vocal and passive on their response. The minorities surveyed above described how they view a large percentage of blacks as “lazy thugs”, “gang affiliated” “criminals”, “thieves”, “violence instigators”, “problematic” and “dangerous”. Others minorities complained that they “should have laws where blacks wearing a certain dress code should not be allowed to shop or dine inn” especially the shops closest to black communities. It seems akin Jim Crow laws. Minorities are growing rapidly and the Latino and Asian population is expected to boom by 2025. What is your opinion? Do you have any concerns? Are the black stereotypes an issue?
Of course, I have concerns about actual and perceived racism, as well as the impact of stereotyping on blacks and other dark-skinned people. It is a reality that needs to be monitored and addressed whenever it creeps into a situation.
16) Gang violence has proliferated in cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Chicago, Detroit, Newark, Houston, Atlantic City, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and Albuquerque among many other cities. Criminal activity is very high among inner-city districts and things are getting worse especially in black neighborhoods. Most of crime violence per-capita is topped by African Americans and Latinos, but Latinos are involved in organized crime especially in the southwest and west coast; whereas, blacks are mostly active on individual crime and smaller gang violence related cases. Are minorities who stereotype blacks as violent instigators exemplifying a problem that is seems to be getting worse over time? Why are gangs and violence proliferating? Gangs might be proliferating because we have tied the hands of many police officers and created a disincentive for them to engage with individuals displaying suspicious behavior.
– Do black communities have a real problem with criminal activity in their neighborhoods compared to other ethnicities? True or false and why?
Crime rates are higher in predominantly black inner-city neighborhoods.
17) Are people in general confusing racism with stereotyping criminal behavior? Are blacks aware that the stereotype might be why racism might be growing in America? If criminality significantly went down in black communities will the black stereotype finally vanish?
I don’t know if the average black American is aware of how the crime rates in their communities compare with crime rates in non-black communities.
– Many people stereotype blonde women as non intelligent, loudly and easy; others stereotype Mexicans as dish washers, illegals and alcoholics. Many people stereotype blacks in America as chicken eaters, criminals and thugs; others stereotype Asians as bad drivers, midgets with a small male reproduction organ; the list goes on and on… Are stereotypes racist? Or do people who give stereotypes not be categorized as racist or ethnic intolerant?
Stereotypes exist because they often contain a kernel of truth. Stereotyping is harmful when people make snap decisions based on someone’s outward experience. Non-discrimination laws offer a modicum of protection against certain forms of harmful stereotypes. Stereotypes can work to the advantage of some groups when they are positive. For example, stereotypes of Asians being smart, blacks being talented and gifted in sports, and women being better caretakers and cooks than men.
18) Law enforcement has been under a lot of criticism by black communities after the few incidents that involved the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. They point out that “blacks are not treated like whites on judicial cases and indictments” do you believe this to be true?
It depends on the circumstances. Blacks will have a higher rate of violent encounters with police if they are more likely to resist arrest or fail to comply with officer commands.
-Many of the police killings that targeted Blacks were caused by Latino law enforcement officers. Is this concept of white cops versus black suspects handled properly by the media or are white cops responsible for how law enforcement is conducted?
It does not matter when the offending officer is black, white, or Latino. People who are concerned about police brutality and aggression paint with a brush that tarnishes all officers.
– Cops killed nearly twice as many whites in 2015. More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks according to the McDonald report conducted by The Washington Post. According to McDonald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers. Why has the mainstream media concentrated most of its powers in reporting black homicide from police officers instead of Latinos and whites? Why is the media so focused on blacks when Hispanics triple the cop death statistics? Do you think it’s wrong that the media reports black- death by the hands of cops and not Latinos or whites?
-They are about 317 million Americans, over 1 million police officers, and over one thousand killings committed by Police officers per year. They are about 9,225,197 crimes committed in 2015. Is one thousand cop kills compared to the overall population and the crimes committed per year a small number? What you think is the percentage of the 1 thousand police killings that involve the death of innocent people?
I don’t have this information. Given your statistics, you seem well positioned to answer your own question here.
19) Is the liberal media racist against Latinos (predominantly Mexicans) and against Caucasians for only biasing cops killing blacks?
The media clearly operates with a double standard when it comes to police shootings and hate crimes. Hate crimes involving minority attacks on whites, Hispanics, and Asians are rarely covered.
20) With the rise of the internet, crime is reported and uploaded by citizen journalist on a daily basis outside the radar of mainstream media networks and their selective filter of news. Youtube, Liveleak, reddit among other online sites have become the visual and viral hall-mark of cases were criminal incidents are likely to be published for their visual impact. These range from burglary, stabbing, death, gang shootouts, theft and violence; these also includes cops killing blacks, whites and Latinos for resisting officers. The mainstream media on the other hand focuses more on bashing law enforcement, than on crime itself. Many claim that mainstream media networks have started a race war between Americans. The idea is to focus less on crime itself, and more on cop versus black incidents to stirrup greater controversy and gain greater television ratings that help sponsors set more TV ads. What is your thought on this? Why are mainstream media networks likely focused on reporting cop-on-black cases, than reporting the hundreds violent criminal incidents published daily on social media networks? Are mainstream media networks purposely making local news, national headlines —– if it comes down to police related cases — but avoid virulent crime to not make national headlines? Is mainstream media fair on their coverage?
Mainstream media operates as if it doesn’t have a clue about what fair coverage would look like. It really makes one wonder what is being taught in schools of journalism and about the messages that come from the heads of media organization. There is no pretense of being fair.
21) New Orleans is now the murder capital of America, with Detroit not far behind and Chicago well on its way. Should the black issues that affect New Orleans be the issues of black communities in New York City, or Seattle? Is it fair that people in Boston protest the problems of people in St Louis? Should local issues stay local? And if not, should all local crime be reported in national news and not just cops vs black issues?
It is important for all Americans to know which cities and towns have the highest murder rates. Local crimes and gang violence can have national consequences, especially if they are related to drugs and gang warfare.
22) In your opinion is the problem going to get worse before it gets any better? What is your biggest hope and biggest fear regarding the black community in America?
I think America is headed for unprecedented levels of racial and ethnic conflict. I wrote about this in a 2002 book titled, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press). The conditions I outlined more than a decade ago are converging to create a devil’s brew for heightened racial and ethnic conflict.
Comments Off on Black Lives Matter And The Black American Incognito
By Jaime Ortega.
Before I start, I want to point out that mainstream liberal media networks keep shoving the idea that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by large margins to raise public debate. What they don’t mention, is that states like New York and California naturally lure more votes than any other state given their mega population. The popular vote that grants Clinton the lead comes from these mega populated states that are extremely liberal and progressive and do not represent the rest of the continental United Sates. It is almost comical how that important factor goes unreported.
The Obama administration underestimated the Trump campaign. The leftist model of politics has started to crumble all over the world like dominos. The Obama’s administration privately fears that the conservative movement might vanish all policy that western liberal democracy has fought to maintain. The left is hopeless and it might try to pull a last minute stun – don’t be surprised if something happens – it has the popular vote and the anti-trump momentum to propel a social revolution. George Soros is behind a lot of the protest and riots taking place.
The destabilized left now relies on progressive factions to revolutionize the party. The liberal model failed the party and the progressive model has different subdivisions that split from socialist views of economics, to far left extreme dogmas. Kanye West wants to make a 2020 presidential bid. Such moves shows the danger of the left and rest assure many ignorant people will vote for him – it is not a joke.
Donald Trump has won the hearts and minds of The South and The Midwest, but has broken the spirit of liberal states that are progressive and liberal minded. If Hillary Clinton would had won it would have the opposite effect, it would have energized the conservative base to protest and riot in the streets, enraged as a result of political and media bias — which would be far more serious than the manifestations reported on cities like LA, NY, Portland and Seattle –mostly immigrants that might be directly affected by Trump’s illegal deportation policy.
The main issue that has disconnected many US citizens from adopting immigration positively is the lack of integration and lack of acceptance of cultural American values from foreign newcomers — that live in the US and exploits opportunities— but secretly or openly despise its customs never to fully embrace Americanism. Many immigrants show anti-military conduct and defile veterans for their service; they have don’t support nationalism and only support US freedom when it benefits them. Many immigrants also don’t want to learn English even though they lived in the US for decades. It is true that US history is limited, but the lack of integration has surely not helped many US citizens welcome immigration. On top of that, US citizens have lost their jobs to many new immigrants who simply work harder.
The difference behind ‘Syrian and Libyan refugees’ and ‘illegal Guatemalan, Salvadorian, Honduran and Mexican immigrants’ presents a paradox to a lot of US citizens, who clearly can’t distinguish the cultural difference between the two groups. The Syrian and Libyan refugees present a long term danger because they cannot be screened — and a few but dangerous individuals import Salafist fundamentalism —-which is even banned in other Islamic countries. Islamic radicalization cannot coexist alongside constitutional values which promote progressive dogmas that clearly oppose Quranic tenants.
The stupidity behind some of the present riots showing Muslim women with Hijabs marching alongside LGBT members is completely ridiculous and phony. In Muslims countries LGBT members would be burned alive or simply beheaded – and somehow the lies of the progressive left show Muslims who highly condemn same-sex marriage with criminal punishment walking peacefully alongside homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders. Then of course, the riots also show Communist marching alongside Marxist and Anarchist, which couldn’t be any less stupid, since the Spanish Civil War shows that Communist tried to prosecute and kill Marxist and Anarchist under the direct command of Stalin while they were warring General Francisco Franco.
In my past articles I predicted that secession would eventually end as a real possibility in the US given that the problems of ‘Texas’ have little to nothing to do with the problems ‘California’ or ‘New York’ experience. The government permeates federal policies that boost liberal laws on states like New York and California, but it has little effect on states that promote the sovereignty of state laws like Texas which adopt a traditionalist conservative market model.
Barack Obama was not responsible for the financial recovery experienced after the recession. As Commander And Chief, he allowed Timothy Geither and Ben Bernanke to continue financial deregulation at the cost of tax payer money — and on top of that he helped too big to fail banks and CEO’s not face federal prosecution. The reason why the US escaped the turmoil caused by the financial recession of 2008, was mostly because of the financial growth of fixed republican states – not swing states — and how they helped boost the economy without federal liberal influence. States like Texas, Arizona, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and others made financial progress –which is why many implants from Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Detroit, and Cleveland among other traditionally democratic cities have migrated to the south and the south west in large numbers to settle and look for opportunities.
It is true that Colorado isn’t a Republican state; however, it is not a liberal state, it is a progressive state that is not influenced with top-down federal laws. Remember that Colorado adopted the Bernie Sanders reform, and voted for him. Clinton’s reforms would only benefit Wall-Street having little effect on financially progressive states like Washington and Colorado.
The takes couldn’t be higher
Donald Trump has taken a deeply divided country which opposes his reforms. So here go a bunch of predictions and situations that I think will take place during his reign as president.
Comments Off on Rants, Outcomes And Donald Trump Predictions
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
Dr. Nikolay Kozhanov.
He is an academy associate at the Russia and Eurasia Programme of Chatham House and a visiting lecturer in the Political Economy of the Middle East at the European University at St.Petersburg.
1) Since 2014, Russia has officially committed 67 military violations on international airspace and waters all over the world. Why has Russia started to aggressively violate international law? And will they also commit airspace violations in different sovereign countries across the Middle East to challenge US influence, if they grow stronger in Syria? Do you fear Russia?
There is no a simple answer to this question. First of all, Moscow’s evolution in a serious troublemaker on the international arena started not in 2014 but two years earlier – in 2012 when Putin was re-elected for the third presidential term. That time most of the experts on Russian foreign policy made a serious mistake: they assumed that Putin’s return into the presidential office will bring little changes in Moscow’s behavior. The main argument in favor of this theory was that the Russian leader had been in the continuous control of the Russian foreign policy since 2000 and most of his habits were well-know to the international society. Yet, the Putin of 2012 was different from the Putin of 2000 and 2004: more authoritarian, more decisive and more anti-Western. He was seriously disappointed by the failure of the reset in Russian-US relations and existing tensions with the West. This could not but affect Moscow’s stance on its relations with the US, EU and the Middle East. Thus, to a large extent, the active support provided to the Assad regime was the Kremlin’s revenge to the West for what Moscow saw as its political and economic losses in Libya and Iraq. The Russian leadership was apparently offended that its silent support for the Western military operation did not receive any acknowledgement in the US and EU. This, in turn, impelled the Russian authorities to prove that they could cause serious trouble if their position on regional affairs was not taken into consideration by Western players.
By 2012, the general domestic situation in Russia also favored changes in Moscow’s foreign policy towards more provocative actions in the West and Middle East. Quite a substantial share of the Russian society were still trying to get along with the fact that after the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991 Russia seized to play the role of a super-power. This part of the population was experiencing – what I call – “the post-Imperial syndrome”: the situation when people forgot or even do not know (if we take into account those who were born after 1991) about the ugly side of the Communist regime which, at the end of the day, was the reason for its fall but start to miss about what they saw as “the symbols of the past imperial glory” often associated with the ability of the USSR to confront the West. Consequently, in 2012, the Kremlin decided to shore up the social base of its support by active appealing to the nationalistic sentiments of the Russian population. Their appeals received a positive response. A large proportion of the mid- and lower layers of the Russian population wished to see the Putin of 2012 more actively protecting their national interests and cementing relations with the non-Western world. Putin gave them what they wanted. Russian support for Damascus, close relations with Tehran and rapprochement with Egypt were supposed to symbolize a return to the old traditions of the Soviet Empire for those missing the “imperial” glory of the USSR. Prior to its fall in 1991, the USSR had good political and economic relations with these countries. The same could be said about those 67 military violations on international airspace and waters that happened all over the world since 2014. Moscow exploits it both for domestic and external interests: it tries to reestablish its image as the leading world power on both tracks.
2) Not long ago Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov vowed to attack and use “nuclear ballistic missiles” against Denmark and Finland if they joined the NATO scud missile defense system. Is Russia’s threat serious, or are they playing “new bully in the school?”.
This question is directly connected to the previous one: should we fear Russia? I believe that while Russia is definitely a serious troublemaker it still does not deserve the “evil empire” label used by Reagan to characterize the USSR. On the one hand, given the Kremlin’s intention to reestablish the image of Russia as a great power that is ready to use force to defend its interests, we should not have expected Lavrov saying something different. He reacted to the rumors about the possible alignment of Denmark and Finland with the NATO exactly in the way to support the image of Russia “rising form the political and military weakness of the 90es”. On the other hand, Putin’s Russia is not the new version of the USSR. Its elite is extremely pragmatic and free from ideological motivations. “Bulling” allows Moscow to gain political dividends both externally and domestically whereas it will try to do its best to avoid the real full-scale conflict with the West as this will inevitably hurt the political and, what’s more important, economic interests of the Russian ruling clans.
3) Has the Arab League, seriously considered the adoption of an strategical partnership with Russia, considering Americas default foreign policy for the last eight years on the ME?
Russia is awkwardly trying to reclaim its Cold War role as a counterweight to the US in the region. From this point of view, the strong memory of Soviet presence in the region still exists among Middle Eastern policymakers and local population. However, as opposed to the USSR the Kremlin does not directly oppose Washington, but rather exploits the region’s pre-existing disappointment with the US through practical moves which contrast American and European behavior. In other words, Moscow exploits the shortcomings of Western policies in the Middle East. Thus, the reluctance of Washington to protect Mubarak compared with the Russian support provided to Assad encourages regional powers to consider Moscow a more reliable partner. The fast dispatch of Russian weapons to the Iraqi authorities in 2014 when Bagdad badly needed new equipment to defend itself from the rising Islamic State while the US-led Western states were only thinking about whether and how they should help the Iraqi army was also to demonstrate that Moscow is a much more responsible friend. All these examples naturally push the Arab League and the Middle Eastern countries of the region towards Russia even in spite of those atrocities done by the Assad forces in Aleppo under the cover of Russia. Yet, there is also an understanding in the region that Russian political and economic capacities will never be enough to match or replace that of the US. Under these circumstances, the real partnership between Russia and the countries f the region will always be limited. Some countries of the region might use this rapprochement with Moscow as a way to diversify their foreign policy and hedge the risks of being solely dependent on the US support. The others may use these closer contacts with Moscow as leverage to shape their own relations with the US: they intensify dialogue with Russia in order to make Washington more flexible on sensitive bilateral issues.
4) United States under the direction and influence of Obama, was not capable to defend Ukraine and Crimea from Russia– even though the annexation of Crimea was constitutionally adopted. in retrospect, the same principle could be applied with ISIS in Iraq, and US ineptitude not to defeat ISIS. Has the United States betrayed its geo-strategical alliance with key nations and partnerships that depend on US military intervention and logistical support under enemy threat? Would the US intervene, if Iran declared war with Saudi Arabia –looking at Yemen — and Russia backed Iran?
I am not in the position to make judgments on the US foreign policy. Definitely, Moscow’s road to Damascus started in Georgia and Ukraine. The absence of a proper international reaction on the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for the separatists in Eastern Ukraine made Putin confident enough to challenge the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East. However, as I have said, Moscow success in the region is often determined by the policy mistakes made by the West. This suggests that “corrections” in Western approaches to regional issues would limit Russia’s capacity to maneuver.
5) Will Donald Trump get along with Putin?
The election of Trump as a new president of the US can bring both opportunities and challenges for Moscow and its foreign policy. While the Russian elite – de-facto – wanted him to win the presidential race, I believe that, in reality, Hillary Clinton’s victory would be a better outcome for Moscow. In case of Mrs. Clinton, Russia would deal with the “devil” it knows. Her decisiveness to confront Moscow if necessary as well as her views on the US presence in the Middle East were more-or-less well-known. If she won the Kremlin would be well-aware about what to do. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s views on Russia and its presence in the region are very unclear. During his presidential campaign, he made several bold statements regarding the possibility of Russian-US cooperation in Syria and beyond. Yet, it is still early to make judgments on whether he is ready to implement them. Like Putin, Trump is a populist and pragmatic. This can be a base for mutual sympathy. Nevertheless, the example of Turkish president Recep Erdogan and British MFA Boris Johnson also show that pragmatism and populism are not enough to build long-lasting positive relations: initial mutual sympathies did not prevent either Erdogan or Johnson form making bold moves against Putin’s interests.
6) Russia has backed Assad’s forces against the overwhelming consensus of the Arab League to support democracy– discarding Iran. Why is Russia strategically in favor of backing Assad against the will of most Sunni countries? Is that helping Russia earn support in the ME?
There is a set of factors that brought Moscow in Syria on the side of Assad. It includes Russian interests in opposing the Western attempts to support the revolution against the ruling regime, Moscow’s plans to create additional leverage of influence on the US and EU through its involvement in the Syrian civil war and, finally, pursuing its own military interest. However, the key role is played by the Kremlin’s concerns regarding the possible overspill of the Syrian instability to the post-Soviet space. My experience shows that the Russian government sincerely believes that Assad’s removal from power would trigger the expansion of jihadism and instability in the Caucasus and southern Russia. Moscow is deeply concerned about the efforts of some forces in Qatar and Saudi Arabia to support the most radical factions in Syria. Officials believe that the current situation in the region directly influences domestic stability by provoking Russian religious extremists to undertake more aggressive anti-government actions. Unsurprisingly, then, Moscow does not want the Islamist influence in the Middle East to grow. And that’s where Putin’s experience may play crucial role. The rise of his career and popularity began with the Second Chechen war (1999-2001/2009). Putin probably remembers how hard it was to return the rebel province to control and how expensive it is to keep Chechnya under it. Presumably, he does not want the story to be repeated.
7) Russia recently threatened the US, by deploying anti-aircraft missiles in Syria. Clinton has repeatedly said that even though she plans not to set “boots on the ground” she plans to use “Syrian Airspace”. If The United States decided to use Syrian Airspace would Russia use the defense aircraft missiles to stop the US?
I doubt that Moscow decide to get involved in the open conflict with the US. However, when playing in a “chicken game”, there is always a danger that your opponent can finally use the real force. In case of Syria, this can work both in case of the US and Russia.
8) Not long ago, Russia and Turkey suffered a serious dispute after two Russian jet fighters were flag down and shot close to Turkey’s/Syria border. A showdown between Turkish president Recep Erdogan and Putin looked imminent, but escalation never resumed to war. If Russia did not carry out war with Turkey after the incident, would it really take a bigger risk facing the US?
As I said, Moscow is extremely pragmatic. It knows its chances and the real war is not in Moscow’s interest. Yet, while avoiding the open confrontation with the West, Moscow can use the measures of the asymmetric response to react on any Western actions it considers as aggressive. I should remind about Russian sanctions imposed on Turkey after the incident with the Russian fighter jet as well as about Moscow’s increased support to the Kurdish movements. Both of these steps were very painful for Ankara and, definitely, not in its interests. That’s why complete ignoring of the Russian opinion may be dangerous.
9) Clinton’s foreign policy as Secretary of State, was responsible for the Arab Spring and the dissolution of dictatorships across the Muslim world. How do military generals like general Khalifa Hafta (Libya). Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (Egypt) – including Iraqi General Othman Al-Ghanimi feel about Clinton’s policy? Does Russia offer a better solution than the US in the Middle East?
Again, I would like to avoid making judgments about the US foreign policy as I am not an expert on it. Both Russian and Western analysts are arguing about Putin’s sympathies to strong and authoritarian leaders that bring him closer to figures such as Sisi, Haftar and, previously, Erdogan. Thus, some members of Putin’s administration are even saying about certain “chemistry” existing between the Russian and Egyptian presidents that helps them to find common language.
10) General Al-Sisi supports, General Khalifa Haftar; the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, but it does retain some ground in Libya under the General National Congress. Clinton’s relationship with Muslim Brotherhood is more open, as even in the US, they represent several political organizations under a different synonym. Does the Egyptian and Libyan general view the Clinton administration as a threat to their power-structure, bearing in mind she hasn’t ban the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Obama disliked their undemocratic rise to power? Could that bring Russia –and even China—closer to Egypt and Libya and their relationship further away from the US?
For the regimes existing in the Middle East cooperation with Moscow has one tangible advantage. As opposed to the US, Russia demonstrates little care about the domestic affairs of the Middle Eastern countries. In most cases, the Kremlin also remains extremely pragmatic. Thus, Moscow was equally interested in dealing with Morsi as the president of Egypt and, later on, with General Sisi as his “successor”. Moreover, Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned in Russia as terroristic. Yet, one of the first signals that Morsi received from Moscow was saying: “we ready to deal with you irrelatively to your background as long as you are ready to deal with us.” Under these circumstances, Russia does not raise the question of political freedoms in Iran, and tries not to be critical of Israel’s policies in Palestine and Gaza in spite of its support for a two-state solution.
11) The head of the Russian armed forces Sergei Shoigu, is said to be “more influential” than Putin, when it comes to military strategies and decision making. Shoigu is supposed to replace Putin as president soon; how will he fair with Clinton, in the case she wins the US election?
I am afraid that it is too early to tell about Putin’s successor and the time of the transfer of powers from Putin to a new leader of Russia. However, I would suggest that under Shoigu we would see the continuation of the current semi-confrontational policies of Russia in its relations with the West.
12) Does Israel play a central role in Russia’s and even China’s success to captivate the attention of the Arab League, considering the Israeli-US historical partnership? If Russia vowed to defend Arab countries from Israel, would it win the appeal of Middle Eastern leaders who oppose US interventionism?
The situation when Russia vow to defend Arab countries from Israel seems hardly possible for me. Currently, Russian-Israeli relations experience positive trend. The bilateral dialogue is based on a high level of mutual pragmatism that boasted an impressive improvement in the depth of their military, political and business cooperation. Russian engagement in Syria only strengthened this cooperation. Moscow openly promised Israel that it moves in the Middle East will not undermine Israeli security. It is believed that Russian-Israeli dialogue achieved a “special relations “status”. Thus, Israel refused to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea and criticized the Western sanctions imposed on Russia. Russia, in its turn, has also consistently avoided direct criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories. Relatively recently, according to Israeli sources, Putin also promised “not to push” the idea of the WMD free zone in the Middle East. Russia and Israel also reached a high level of information sharing and coordination of their activities in Syria enhanced by a special secure telephone line that will allow a direct and encrypted connection between Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
13) If Russia were to declare war to the United States, who is more prepared? Who would win?
I am afraid that I do not have enough information to make such judgments. Moreover, I do not believe in the possibility of the open US-Russian conflict in spite of Moscow’s behavior.
14) Will the Middle East in the next 10 years, be a split between Russia, the US, and China?
I think that neither of these countries is interested in dividing the Middle East in “the zones of influence” as it was during the cold war. At least, Russia does not have enough capacities to do this. The others might not have enough will. On the other hand, why should we limit the range of players by Russia, the US and China? I could name more countries that can play an important role in the region’s destiny in the next decade such as India and Japan, for instance. What we can say for sure is that, in the next ten years, Russia and China will be more active in the region whereas the US will also maintain its important role. Currently, the Kremlin believes in its Middle Eastern strategy. Success in Syria, rapprochement with Iran, the strengthening of ties with Egypt and the development of dialogue with Israel and the GCC add to the Kremlin’s confidence. Consequently, any attempts to change Russian approaches towards the Middle East will be challenged. While the Russian government will remain interested in dialogue with international players on key Middle Eastern issues, it will try to impose its own vision of the region’s future with little inclination to make concessions.
Comments Off on What About Russian Expansionism?
By Jaime Ortega.
A lot of people criticized my prediction when I stated that Donald Trump was going to win the US presidential election against the hyped Hillary Clinton. I also predicted about a year and half ago, that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were going to make noise because they represent true change whereas the present establishment represents backwardness and institutional corruption. A few analyst mocked my prediction – but then soon enough the unthinkable happened — and my critics froze in amusement the day the that Trump started to create a movement.
I predicted Trump would win the republican nomination, and I almost predicted that Sander’s would pull an upset against the almighty Clinton campaign – that prediction I lost with a caveat — the DNC as Wikileaks has shown shoved Sanders out the race to give Hillary the Democratic nomination. Had it remained an even playing field, my prediction would have come about correctly. I am not a socialist, but had Sanders won the democratic nomination, he would of beat Trump in the general election. Very stupid move from the DNC!
Tons and tons of political experts from private elite schools like Harvard, Yale, Brown, Berkley and other blah…blah professors; political analyst from the Brooking’s Institution, Gartner, CATO, and almost all other organizations overwhelmingly stipulated a comfortable victory for Clinton. Yet, I was unconvinced about their strange and unrealistic breakdown that Hillary would “cremate Trump”, even when the poll numbers indicated that Clinton was ahead 10-12 points on late July. As I will show on my articles bellow, I even said that he might probably win via landslide – guess what just happened today?
What this election has showed people is that analyst that participate on prestigious shows with news networks like CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post and other mainstream media networks are not too knowledgeable about political predictions and should not be qualified to feed into the propaganda of liberal media pundits —not all of course – but a majority of experts lack common sense. It also shows that polls conducted by liberal mainstream media networks are quite a joke and unreliable.
People were willingly misled by the liberal mainstream media ‘trustworthy’ propaganda polls to believe Trump had absolutely no chance to obtain victory — which showed poll results that simply staggered the imagination and were completely out of touch with reality. They absolutely ignored other factors that play into voter psychology which I predicted would create paranoia among constituents. They absolutely ignored the fact that social media was a battle field against Clinton and ‘the true’ indicator that showed who would be elected as president — they ignored it.
The arrogance and despotism of liberal mainstream media to manipulate the election started a war with Independent News Networks like The Daily Journalist; organizations like Wikileaks, DC Leaks, Guccifer and social media that fought a hot-contested media battle to defend the values of integrity of what is left in journalism against the establishment. They were powerful, but we always had the numbers to counter their false rhetoric and expose their lies. Here is my related media war article.
Here are a few of my predictions of why Trump would win:
Two months ago (He is going to win) El Cafe community question: http://thedailyjournalist.com/elcafe/donald-trump-versus-hillary-clinton-who-wins-who-is-better/
Early August (Why Trump will win) My article: http://thedailyjournalist.com/the-editors-point/despite-the-odds-donald-trump-will-beat-hillary-clinton-in-november/
Over a year ago (Trump and Sanders are coming) El Cafe community question: http://thedailyjournalist.com/elcafe/does-the-us-need-a-third-party-to-end-the-bipartisanship/
Comments Off on Against All Odds, All My Predictions Came True: Donald Trump New US President
By Jaime Ortega.
“Force is not friendly, but it is effectively friendly,” Jaime Ortega.
Watching the 2016 US presidential election reveals evident signs of growing antipathy against the Government. The reason is clear and self-evident; the motives are non-negotiable and the path leads to the evident control of the establishment over voter psychology. All the moves are set in place to bring about the collapse of democracy in the US — Europe’s revolutionary bells also have started to make noise.
The cover-up and buried sins reflected in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, show the moral decadence of political interest groups and the rise of regulatory forces behind mainstream media networks that supposedly ‘defend’ journalism against editorial bias; categorically hypocritical networks in favor of permeating political propaganda in exchange of favors. The media has decided to lean in favor of political interest groups, covetous bureaucrats and political actors – far removed from the constitution and the principles that the US founding fathers introduced after rebelling against England and its authoritarian system. Such elitist groups represent themselves and not the status-quo, and the media has in-avertedly ceded to their demands posing a serious threat to public awareness.
During the generation of the US founding fathers outside forces like bi-partisanship, the Fed Reserve, lobbying, media manipulation and corporate hegemony did not exist. Wall Street’s stock exchange and proprietary trade did not exist; neither existed a free market economy based on privatization. The constitution and the Bill of Rights were not originally scripted to withhold or challenge policy reforms that could run loopholes around the law under judicial scrutiny. The forces that have dragged members of congress to introduce modern policy alongside bribery and new predatory laws, would had presented a serious threat to the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers introduced the constitution to defend the nation from military insurrection, bipolarization of state and foreign powers. The idea was to create a trilateral structure of checks and balances to not allow monopolization in government. But with Wall Street and the manipulation of information executed by the rise of corporate media, everything changed. The constitution now, is just a playbook to pass bills that defend the financial sector and not the average citizen. The whole system is heckled, top to bottom; the constitution means absolutely nothing today, the amendments only serve to protect powerful political interest institutions –too big to fail banks and corporations from federal prosecution. At a civil level criminal prosecution exist as a reminder that law and order prevail, but only at the bottom end of the financial structure where income inequality subsist in low income areas.
The US Supreme Court, and the Department of Justice failed to trial and indict politicians and bureaucrats at a rate never observed before in US history; politicians and bureaucrats are too big to fail. The FBI’s inability to polarize institutional malpractice, clearly indicates the dishonesty of the bureau. US Government Agencies influence corporate policy and corporate voracity vivifies government interest nationally and globally. Large corporations unwilling to participate in political affairs come under siege if they don’t comply with protocol, while corrupted congressmen create new bills that benefit their wallets and the investors they represent in exchange of favors at the expense of civil demands. What good is the constitution, if a senator or a governor can be influenced with money?
The media is no longer friendly or trustworthy, it no longer defends the ‘average Joe’. The media is not a watchdog and overseer of justice. The media no longer practices investigative journalism at government levels — it practices corporate business –as Wall Street is the core-foundation that sets fiscal standards during elections and pushes regulators offshore if threatened; It works marvels for CEO’s who have vested investment interest in political affairs. Real change applies mostly to big companies and major financial players, but small concessions are given to what is left of the middle class –which hardly ever existed —since the working class no longer have real acquisitive power to moderate unions or influence government. Capitol Hill is the brothel of US policy, and lobbyist and bundlers are the true policy makers in Washington; in fact, lobbyist and bundlers have greater policy control than the US Supreme Court because they can buy politicians and even judges with money to bypass bills against public interest. Everything about government is founded on legal corruption; a caste and a bureaucratic class system where major power brokers have political immunity over the law to break all the rules. The market is controlled by private regulators that have similar — if not greater influence – than most government regulating agencies.
Voting today doesn’t mean anything. The Daily Journalist interviewed 100 register voters, and asked questions regarding why constituents elected a certain candidate over another. When asked the reasons behind picking a candidate, 89 people answered that they really didn’t follow the policy behind their nominee, but looked instead at the candidates in accordance to their “moral behavior”. Only 11 people out of 100, were successfully able to explain the policies behind their pick. Such problem, shows the ideological decadence of political affairs in the US. Most people have absolutely no idea about the political reforms Trump or Hillary support — yet somehow — they’re allowed to vote in ignorance. If democracy is run by ignorance, then choosing a candidate to become a president should not be legally permitted. For those who vote out of ignorance, elect leaders in ignorance. Election should be based on policy — not on emotions and opinions – but on facts and comprehension. Our current model of voting is completely flawed and it prevents those who vote out of comprehension to separate themselves, from those who vote out of ignorance; if the ignorant and the knowledgeable are set on the same bracket, then voting is no different than communism — in that, the doctor should get paid the same as the janitor — making a mockery of Darwinian socio-economics and the idea that the better prepared should make more money; similarly, those who don’t study policy should not be allowed to cast votes alongside those who study hard to understand policy. The system is a complete fiasco and failure; leaders are mostly elected in ignorance and not discernment.
The neo-conservative movement and the progressive left have transformed the military into a social project and a global enterprise. The military itself has been replaced by private military contractors, and private security companies; quasi-government dependence in contractors on Afghanistan and Iraq show the conflict of interest, and shift that challenges US military sovereignty around the world. The left and the right, have betrayed the military in exchange for PMC’s and PSC’s – otherwise known as ‘mercenary companies’. Mercenaries get paid generously and perform similar tasks to military operations in foreign countries. PMC’s and PSC’s don’t respect military values, they conduct assignments based on privatized authority where they are invulnerable to military respect.
The function of the military itself has recently played the ‘good Robocop’ role in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to the social manipulation of civil activist groups to politicize the armed forces into a model that is completely degrading and retroactive to its historical destructive nature. The influence of forced victimization shoved by activism in times of war, has psychologically affected military personnel and hurt the morale of soldiers who love their country and don’t believe in politics. The real issue behind military experimentation doesn’t encompass the introduction of homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders in the armed forces –death and honor are not indicators of sexual variance—but the fact that in times of combat and battle, the military is subject to preach political correctness with the enemy so heads of state maintain a good relation with the US in exchange of political nepotisms that gifts transnational corporations more control. The elitist — and the progressive activist unknowingly— act as one unit in this case to neutralize military force into a perpetual state of political correctness.
The progressive movement in general has not only ostracized military involvement on foreign affairs, but gradually propagandized the idea that ‘war is not a necessary evil’ and that ‘holding hands’ and ‘singing songs’ will bring about a better world. Millennials and generation-x, do not feel patriotism and nationalism because baby boomers rebelled against the silent generation and transformed the military apparatus into a diplomatic catechesis based on globalized trade, financial coexistence, human rights and foreign diplomacy that ultimately paralyzed the true destructive and constructive nature of military power and its historical influence of transformation around the world. The left has propagandized military affairs into a state of paranoia, where military power is the real enemy of civility, progress and public justice. Since the late 60’s the left has propagandized the idea that death is evil under all circumstances making every culture the same culture, when history itself contradicts such stupid idea. The Roman Empire would have completely destroyed the threat of ISIS on a heartbeat, and ended its reign. The Roman Empire would of also expulsed millions of Syrian refugees, and executed those who dare tried to reform the Roman aristocracy into a sharia law state. But when the US fights ISIS, media pressure, civil right activists, vacillating politicians, financial interest groups, foreign unknowns and idealist get on the way of the military and unjustly demonize its cause. The military does not need to heed to the demands of politicians, leftist media pressure, idealist, activist, foreign actors and financial interest groups; In fact, the military at this point should only listen to itself because as I pointed above the government has forsaken the constitution already. The political and bureaucratic class is not above the military class; it’s the military class who is above the political class — for in the end of the road —no member of congress can replace the life of a serviceman who died in combat to defend the constitution that government, progressive activists and foreign agents seek to destroy with their devise ideological reforms. The military is a unifying force, politics a devise force.
The millennial and x-generation not only hate and rubbish baby boomer control over policy and government, but also despise the very foundation and pillars of capitalism. As pointed on my previous post, the rise of past Bolshevik and proto-anarchist ideologies have risen in the past decade to staggering numbers all across the US; with the emergence of progressivism, the radicalization of soviet utopias in education has stimulated a counterrevolution to defeat corporatism and globalization inside many university classrooms. The baby boomer generation embraces the libertarian economic model, and degrades the economic progressive model that young Americans try to adopt. The millennial and x-generation have also shown alarming signs of inherit comfort to compete in the globalized economy; citizenship means entitlement, and entitlement means lack of efficiency on financial sectors when preference doesn’t present a realistic alternative of financial survival.
Millennials and Generation X, have chosen to benefit from a flawed system originally introduced by the baby boomer generation. An ‘American dream’ not standardized upon the hard work ethic of the silent generation, but a credit generation —aka baby boomers — where borrowed money means financial freedom, profit debt and dependency! Consumerism is the model that baby boomers promote and credit is the force behind lavish expenditure that has ultimately hurt the nation. The government acts like a medium for financial institutions, like diviner uses demons to speak on its behalf; consequently, the government encourages consumers to spend and not save, withholding the growth of the middle class. The middle class never truly existed in America, because most people buy themselves back to poverty with the encouragement of government mediums that represent powerful banks on Wall Street. Such dependency on credit and loans has tampered the culture of new Americans, who were taught to spend money without saving and sacrificing to attain concessions. In contrast, whereas the silent generation was able to liftoff from the Great Depression — with hard work and determination to succeed — they worked any job available to socially flourish. In addition, many millennials under the Great Recession depend on credit to subsist, never capable of saving money and moving forward. Such dependency on credit, has also resulted in low productivity and the end of the working class in America. Black America —once over employed – is now under employed, losing terrain in the job market against new ethnic groups that take full advantage of the system. The new immigrants are akin the silent generation, they save money and take any job available to succeed regardless of status to abandon poverty. Therefore the Jobs available in the crop fields of America are considered underprivileged and neglected — prestigiously inadequate for the uneducated US youth without skills — seeking the need to work only under comfortable conditions that fit an unqualified resume. The immigrant will take those jobs — and not only is she/he willing to get paid less —- but work with greater efficiency and longer hours to eliminate the competition making them difficult to replace. How can the US youth, even stand a chance competing against these newcomers?
The unskillful US youth wants the fruits of entitlement, but lag well behind in work ethic compared to the millions of immigrants that come to America and compete in the free market. The immigrants never served under the ideological influence of baby boomers and depend on their hard work to thrive and compete. Latino, Asian and Mexican workers simply master the low unskilled market with greater work efficiency without unions and regulators interceding for their rights. Its easy employment with greater efficacy; immigrants take farm, textile and service jobs — work harder — get paid less. Small-medium enterprises hire immigrants and illegals over the spoiled American youth that seek the fruits of financial freedom without struggle and hard work — mainly thanks to the destructive policies of baby boomers like former president Bill Clinton, who allowed trade deals like NAFTA, without better preparing the American youth to compete with outside players. The left buried the fundamental principles of work discipline and work efficiency. Abandoned the youth under predatory laws and credit abuse, at the cost of making ‘real money’ from outsourcing cheaper labor overseas; the consumerism of a brainwashed youth of millennials and X’ers, who’re stuck inside a psychological quagmire that Hillary Clinton ironically labelled as the ‘basement dweller’ generation. The left completely betrayed its recipients, and liberal voters know it. The youth is indebted to loans and is unable to compete with foreign players that show relentless determination to succeed deprived of government aid, relying only on themselves to survive. The average immigrant is highly more competitive than the average US citizen, especially those who’re blinded by the spoils of capitalism and privilege — seeking for support and assistance – rather than sacrifice and hard work.
While the average millennial despises the idea of working in the crop fields of America, the average millennial is also incapable of competing on scientific university related programs. The average educated millennial overwhelmingly select Bachelor of Arts majors, but find it hard to enroll on Bachelor of Science majors. Thanks again to the baby boomer generation that progressively ruined with false narratives the philanthropic expectations of America’s youth, painting a world of class entitlement deprived of hard work ethic — otherwise known as the ‘American Dream’ which has created a consciousness of frustration among millennials in the US to seek a better life. Sometimes, the best way to enter Rome is not a straight path; you have to take a giant loop to achieve the same goal. The baby boomers taught you not to rely on yourself, but many learned from the silent generation how hard it is to achieve financial success. During a recession few companies need painters, music artist, public relations, designers, photographers, philosophers, botanist, etc. Companies require engineers, doctors, chemist, geophysicist among other harder majors – and immigrants are taking all the harder courses and finding jobs. The Latino (mainly Mexicans) and Asian population will replace the middle class, or whatever is left of it.
With the rise of anarchist, Marxist and communist ideals swarming higher education; the bacchanalia between elitist, technocrats, bureaucrats and politicians; the corporate and political control of radio, print and telecommunications and bias of the media; the imminent rise of social media, Independent News Networks and anti-government organizations; the new ethnic phenomena and social replacement of traditional American working values; the US will suffer a political implosion that won’t end with democracy. The key element is the military and its relation with the political and civil class. If the civil and political class despise each other, the military is the only force capable of retaking the country and evanesce the constitution; the military should sort-out to eliminate all ideologies that oppose nationalism, patriotism — and ideologies that comprise chauvinism and jingoism sponsored by the progressive mainstream media –which they wrongly label as fascism; therefore, controlling all resources with regulations and ideological bans to stop Wall Street and the counterrevolutionary rise of proto-soviet and anarchist factions from asserting control of the country. If the military doesn’t harshly intervene, a civil war will spark with the up-rise of the proletarian class that will demand to control resources against government and corporate interest; the constitution is doomed either way. The new insurrectionists coming out of college will be on the hedge-front of the counterrevolution that will likely divide US states into separate independent nations. Also if a second civil war ignites, power houses like China and Russia will take over the world by controlling trade. The civil war would kill millions of people, and PMC’s and PSC’s would fight against an ideologically divided military –which would eventually collapse; nothing good. Foreign interventionism in America would likely be likely scenario during a civil war. Therefore, the military has the option to take over government, and stop the ideological drift that has pushed constitutional freefall since Wall Street and the corrupted media took control of the country. The military should limit political and bureaucratic actors and act as regulators.
The political class has cheated the military and brainwashed people to believe that democracy is the ultimate social good; when democracy itself with the help of neo-conservatives, liberals and the progressive left have absolutely betrayed the constitution and the principles that protect all people under national law against leftist dogmas. The military knows its role and how it can change the country. The military also knows that the country is only going to self-destruct itself if it continues to be ideologically divided. The military will reformat the social brainwash imposed on millennials by baby boomers, and share its military discipline with youngsters to compete and outwork against foreign competitors, giving US citizens the edge in skills and work ethic. The military should also crackdown on the mainstream media networks, and regulate their influence over the ignorant men and women who believe everything they hear — trusting national news — thinking they don’t impose a biased agenda not having time to research and fact check lies. If the US continues to stay divided the country will burst into chaos, and a dictatorship will eventually sprout sooner than later. Democracies leaning left end with dictatorships. It’s time for the military to not bow to politicians and citizens who oppose their cause and sacrifice, and stand up for themselves because they’re the ultimate force that sustains the US and protects its interest worldwide against foreign intruders. It’s not a question of if, but a question of when; only a dictatorship can change America: Democracy is under siege.
Comments Off on Only A Dictatorship Can Change America: Democracy Under Siege
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”
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.
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.
Comments Off on Emails show Hillary Clinton deeply rooted with corporations and outsourcing jobs
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
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
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)
63% Arab Americans/ Middle Easterners (Mostly Jordanians, Palestinians and Lebanese)
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
Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.
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?
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 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 laterMay 17th, 2016
By Jaime Ortega.
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 conducted by Jaime Ortega.
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
– 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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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